Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Peter Heckert]

Am 19.11.2011 07:48, schrieb David Roberson:



On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson > wrote:


On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Rossi has given out _far_ more proof than any previous cold
fusion researcher.


The COP of  any domestic or industrial gas boiler prototype is measured 
with better precision and evidency than Rossis e-cat was measured.
Not to forget, a gas boiler is more difficult to measure, because it 
produces  hot combustion products, that must be released into the air.


Rossi & friends have not reached the lowest industrial prototype testing 
standards with their demonstrations and measurements.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson  wrote:



On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:




Rossi has given out far more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher.



>That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi 
>fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold 
>fusion.
 

Rossi is not the only horse in the race.  It is not fair to use a broad sweep.




>The broad sweep came from Rothwell. Rossi may not be the only horse, but 
>according to Rothwell, he is the best and fastest horse. So if he goes down, 
>that won't say much for the rest of the field.

I must admit, a lot is riding on him and the ECAT.  How do you feel about the 
subject?  Do you think that it is possible to have a LENR device or are you 
totally convinced the concept is non sense?
 








 There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by 
first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite 
the poor instrumentation.



>Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low...
 

Why rush to judgement.




>Because, even if he's right, the demo has not convinced the world. And with 
>the claims he's made, he should be able to do it easily. So the judgement is 
>on the quality of the demo, which is pitiful, even if he is right

We certainly agree on this.  The demos have been totally atrocious.  I am not 
sure why Rossi does not make an attempt to clean these up.


. 




 you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter than 
100°C. 



>Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you want at 1 
>atmosphere. 


>Don't you know anything?
 

This is not the proper way to address fellow vortex mates.






>You're probably right, but have you seen the way he addressed me, that is, 
>when he still read my posts?

It is unfortunate that things may have gotten out of hand on this.  Perhaps it 
works better if fewer points are discussed at a time.  This way no one will get 
too weary of the long postings.  I prefer to get directly to the point and go 
into details. 


>I'll do my best to keep my comments respectful. 

Thank you.  We can reach some form of understanding if we carefully consider 
all sides of the argument.  I will do my best to study your points, but I can 
not say I will always agree.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
>>  Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion
>> researcher.
>>
>
>  >That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi
> fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold
> fusion.
>
> Rossi is not the only horse in the race.  It is not fair to use a broad
> sweep.
>

The broad sweep came from Rothwell. Rossi may not be the only horse, but
according to Rothwell, he is the best and fastest horse. So if he goes
down, that won't say much for the rest of the field.


>
>
>There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is
>> irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also
>> excellent despite the poor instrumentation.
>>
>
>  >Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low...
>
> Why rush to judgement.
>

Because, even if he's right, the demo has not convinced the world. And with
the claims he's made, he should be able to do it easily. So the judgement
is on the quality of the demo, which is pitiful, even if he is right

.

>  you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter
>> than 100°C.
>>
>
>  >Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you
> want at 1 atmosphere.
>
>  >Don't you know anything?
>
> This is not the proper way to address fellow vortex mates.
>


You're probably right, but have you seen the way he addressed me, that is,
when he still read my posts?

I'll do my best to keep my comments respectful.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I wrote:
 



There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by 
first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite 
the poor instrumentation.




Let me add that if you are not convinced by the Oct. 6 test I do not think the 
earlier tests with the factory heater and the others I have seen would convince 
you. 




>Well, if the ecat in his factory was plugged in drawing 5 kW of power, then 
>you may be right. But if it was isolated and producing 5 kW of heat 
>continuously for weeks, or months, anyone would be convinced.


>The Oct 6 test on the other hand did not produce more heat than it consumed, 
>so it proved nothing,

The power calculated for the October test was a bit high due to poor 
thermocouple location.  Even then, extra power is generated by the LENR 
process.  Rossi did a good job of confusing the issue.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

Lets approach this from a logical point of view.  We should be able to agree 
about something.



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:




Rossi has given out far more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher.



>That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi 
>fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold 
>fusion.

Rossi is not the only horse in the race.  It is not fair to use a broad sweep.





 There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by 
first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite 
the poor instrumentation.



>Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low...

Why rush to judgement.
 



You and the other skeptics have not raised a single objection to the proof 
shown in the October 6 test, which is the fact that the water remained at 
boiling temperature for four hours with no input power.



>Wrong. You just ignore them, and then claim they don't exist. The thing weighs 
>100 kg, and it gets heated for several hours beforehand. If it's losing heat 
>at 1 kW, 30 kg of fire brick heated to 500 or 1000C would have  no problem 
>holding the >temperature at boiling for 3.25 hours.


>And 1 kg of alcohol could do it too.


>Live with it.

Why should we be so combative?  Point by point discussions should allow some 
agreement.



You yourself have not even addressed this issue. You talk about the position of 
the thermocouples -- which is irrelevant 



>It means you can ignore the power calculation based on that, meaning the best 
>guess is (once again) from the primary fluid, which can be as low as 1 kW.

Is this attitude going to convince anyone of anything?



 you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter than 
100°C. 



>Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you want at 1 
>atmosphere. 


>Don't you know anything?

This is not the proper way to address fellow vortex mates.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was vaporized.  



>Right. But the assumption was not based on any evidence. The temperature is 
>consistent with 1% steam. 

Lets wait on this discussion.  It will become clear later.
 

He did not actually measure whether or not the level of the water within the 
ECATs is becoming lower. 



>Right. He only measured the temperature, which only proves 70 kW.

Give it a little time to consider the facts.



 
So, please use your own words to state your point 



I have used only my own words..
 

and I will be able to test it.  



I no longer believe you are able to do that, if you can't understand that there 
is no evidence for dry steam presented.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable
>> by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent
>> despite the poor instrumentation.
>>
>
> Let me add that if you are not convinced by the Oct. 6 test I do not think
> the earlier tests with the factory heater and the others I have seen would
> convince you.
>

Well, if the ecat in his factory was plugged in drawing 5 kW of power, then
you may be right. But if it was isolated and producing 5 kW of heat
continuously for weeks, or months, anyone would be convinced.

The Oct 6 test on the other hand did not produce more heat than it
consumed, so it proved nothing,

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>
> Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion
> researcher.
>

That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi
fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold
fusion.


 There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable
> by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent
> despite the poor instrumentation.
>

Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low...


>
> You and the other skeptics have not raised a single objection to the proof
> shown in the October 6 test, which is the fact that the water remained at
> boiling temperature for four hours with no input power.
>

Wrong. You just ignore them, and then claim they don't exist. The thing
weighs 100 kg, and it gets heated for several hours beforehand. If it's
losing heat at 1 kW, 30 kg of fire brick heated to 500 or 1000C would have
 no problem holding the temperature at boiling for 3.25 hours.

And 1 kg of alcohol could do it too.

Live with it.

You yourself have not even addressed this issue. You talk about the
> position of the thermocouples -- which is irrelevant
>

It means you can ignore the power calculation based on that, meaning the
best guess is (once again) from the primary fluid, which can be as low as 1
kW.

 you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter
> than 100°C.
>

Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you want
at 1 atmosphere.

Don't you know anything?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was
> vaporized.
>

Right. But the assumption was not based on any evidence. The temperature is
consistent with 1% steam.


> He did not actually measure whether or not the level of the water within
> the ECATs is becoming lower.
>

Right. He only measured the temperature, which only proves 70 kW.


> So, please use your own words to state your point
>

I have used only my own words..


> and I will be able to test it.
>

I no longer believe you are able to do that, if you can't understand that
there is no evidence for dry steam presented.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

I am sorry, but I can not actually tell what is your response as compared to 
the others.  You need to make your own statements so I can straighten them out 
if they are coherent.

I want to mention that you make a great case for the fact that the ECAT system 
actually puts out more power than the original estimate.  The upper limit is 
not too well defined by the test that was conducted.

All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was vaporized.  
He did not actually measure whether or not the level of the water within the 
ECATs is becoming lower.  More power output would make that level
drop.  The fact that the steam is dry suggests bias toward extra power.

So, please use your own words to state your point and I will be able to test 
it.  Thanks.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Mary Yugo  wrote: 
















(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%





The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in the 
cooling loop data.




The fluctuation is clearly less than +/- 5C. If that is dry steam, and the flow 
rate is constant, then the power is proportional to (620 + 0.5 deltaT). Which 
means that +/- 5C corresponds to +/- .5 %, or stable within a 1% range. If the 
output is a mixture of phases, then it would be at the boiling point, and then 
the small fluctuation would correspond to fluctuations in pressure, which is 
not too hard to believe.
 


People who believe in the stable do not understand that water at one atmosphere 
does not get any hotter than ~100°C. 




Everyone understands that. We're talking about dry steam. Rossi claims the 
output is dry steam, and dry steam can get hotter than 100C at atmospheric 
pressure.




When you increase power, more water boils but the temperature does not go up.




That's only true if the heating elements are submerged. But what would happen 
if more water boils, is the water level would drop, exposing the heating 
elements, and causing the steam to increase in temperature.


But if you're claiming that the reason for the stable temperature is that the 
heaters are submerged, and that the water is at the boiling point, then we 
agree. Yay.


If the output is at the boiling point, then how does Rossi know that it is dry 
steam? If it's at the boiling point, it could be anywhere from 0% to 100% 
steam. You need some other measurement to determine the fraction of the water 
that gets vaporized.
 


 



(2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if 
the first-fold power increase took 2 hours.






This question is nonsense. The reaction took a long time to initiate, but once 
it got going it increased rapidly. 







..revealing that you don't even understand the question. I have no problem with 
the power from the ecat core jumping instantly from zero to 470 kW. But to 
transfer that heat to the water requires the heating system to get much hotter. 
There's a lot of thermal mass there that has to get hot, as is observed in the 
pre-heating stage. How does the heat from the ecat heat up that thermal mass so 
much faster than the electric heater does. It has about 3 times higher power, 
but the claim is it heats it up the thermal mass 8 times as much in 40 times 
less time. How does that work? And it's worse than that, because as more of the 
water is vaporized, it takes more of the power out, leaving less power to heat 
the element, so as total vaporization is approached, the heating up slows down.




It would almost certainly take hours to reach dry steam if the ecat really did 
produce 470 kW, which means that until that point is reached, the temperature 
is at the boiling point. Then the chance that the temperature would not 
increase when dry steam was reached is astronomically remote. In any case, the 
fact the temperature *doesn't* increase above boiling, means there is simply no 
evidence that the steam is dry.







Excellent questions.  Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them? 








No point in asking him. He's been over this dozens of times, and not just with 
me, but with Lawrence and others. He will never understand these points. In the 
spring, Rothwell insisted until he was blue in the face that steam cannot be 
heated above 100C at atmospheric pressure, even though it was pointed out to 
him that the air he breathes is ~200C above its boiling point at atmospheric 
pressure. It wasn't until a "scientist friend" (presumably Storms) took him 
aside, that he relented. But he still has problems with the concept as 
illustrated in his response above.


It was after this that I realized that one can't put much confidence in his 
technical analyses, and that he can be supremely confide

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>

>>>
(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
>>>
>>
> The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in
> the cooling loop data.
>

The fluctuation is clearly less than +/- 5C. If that is dry steam, and the
flow rate is constant, then the power is proportional to (620 + 0.5
deltaT). Which means that +/- 5C corresponds to +/- .5 %, or stable within
a 1% range. If the output is a mixture of phases, then it would be at the
boiling point, and then the small fluctuation would correspond to
fluctuations in pressure, which is not too hard to believe.


> People who believe in the stable do not understand that water at one
> atmosphere does not get any hotter than ~100°C.
>

Everyone understands that. We're talking about dry steam. Rossi claims the
output is dry steam, and dry steam can get hotter than 100C at atmospheric
pressure.

When you increase power, more water boils but the temperature does not go
> up.
>

That's only true if the heating elements are submerged. But what would
happen if more water boils, is the water level would drop, exposing the
heating elements, and causing the steam to increase in temperature.

But if you're claiming that the reason for the stable temperature is that
the heaters are submerged, and that the water is at the boiling point, then
we agree. Yay.

If the output is at the boiling point, then how does Rossi know that it is
dry steam? If it's at the boiling point, it could be anywhere from 0% to
100% steam. You need some other measurement to determine the fraction of
the water that gets vaporized.


>
>
>>  (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few
>>> minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours.
>>>
>>
> This question is nonsense. The reaction took a long time to initiate, but
> once it got going it increased rapidly.
>


..revealing that you don't even understand the question. I have no problem
with the power from the ecat core jumping instantly from zero to 470 kW.
But to transfer that heat to the water requires the heating system to get
much hotter. There's a lot of thermal mass there that has to get hot, as is
observed in the pre-heating stage. How does the heat from the ecat heat up
that thermal mass so much faster than the electric heater does. It has
about 3 times higher power, but the claim is it heats it up the thermal
mass 8 times as much in 40 times less time. How does that work? And it's
worse than that, because as more of the water is vaporized, it takes more
of the power out, leaving less power to heat the element, so as total
vaporization is approached, the heating up slows down.



It would almost certainly take hours to reach dry steam if the ecat really
did produce 470 kW, which means that until that point is reached, the
temperature is at the boiling point. Then the chance that the temperature
would not increase when dry steam was reached is astronomically remote. In
any case, the fact the temperature *doesn't* increase above boiling, means
there is simply no evidence that the steam is dry.


Excellent questions.  Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
>>>
>>

No point in asking him. He's been over this dozens of times, and not just
with me, but with Lawrence and others. He will never understand these
points. In the spring, Rothwell insisted until he was blue in the face that
steam cannot be heated above 100C at atmospheric pressure, even though it
was pointed out to him that the air he breathes is ~200C above its boiling
point at atmospheric pressure. It wasn't until a "scientist friend"
(presumably Storms) took him aside, that he relented. But he still has
problems with the concept as illustrated in his response above.

It was after this that I realized that one can't put much confidence in his
technical analyses, and that he can be supremely confident, even when he is
wrong about something taught in grade school.

Of course he'll never learn from my posts, because he doesn't read them
unless they're quoted. I guess it's the ostrich mentality.


> Anyone can address them.
>

Not you, evidently.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>   And who confirmed it's operation?
>
>
> All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I
> cannot upload.
>

So, for all we know, you just made it up.

>
>   And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this appear?
>
>
> These results have not been published.
>

So, for all we know, you made it up.


> Stremmenos and Focardi discussed them briefly in the press.
>
>
What press was that? Doesn't press mean published? Where was it published?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> >Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on
> Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support
> Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions.
>
>  >His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of
> dry steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally,
> that it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence
> excludes the possibility.
>
> No water is trapped within the little water trap. Why do you think he has
> a shut off valve after of the trap location?  Do you think it is to stop
> the high speed vapor from forcing it past the take out when he is measuring
> water?
>

>From Lewan's video that valve to the trap was closed at 3:00, but it's not
clear that any water would be trapped from a mist of 99% liquid water by
mass (>90% steam by volume). I don't know what the valve after the trap is
for. What do you think it is for, and what is it's relevance? It was open
in any case.


>There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a
>> large quantity of data.
>>
> >A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is
> careful not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus
> operandi.
>
> Prove it.
>

So, you can make statements without proof, but I can't? I think my claim is
self-evident. For example, an isolated 1-kg device that could heat an
olympic pool to boiling in an hour would resolve the impasse, and that's a
small quantity of good data. Far less than that would be required, but it
justifies the statement. On the other hand, your suggestion that a several
kW device can't be unequivocally demonstrated (with ease) is insupportable.


>  Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system.
>>
> >I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a
> following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have
> merit. In that, he succeeded.
>
> Just your opinion.
>

...expressed to counter yours. Big deal.


>
>>  Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power
>> level to the 470 kW output region.
>>
> >The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat
> demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in,
> that was the problem.
>
> Not true.  Prove this is the reason.
>

Not sure if you understood my statement. I meant, the throttling back was
not the objection I had to the demonstration, so your justification of it
is wasted on me. The objection to the demo is that it failed to demonstrate
more energy out than in. I don't have to prove what my objection was. But I
don't think other skeptics had a problem with the throttling either. Do you
have some complaints about that? Most of the complaints centered around
unverifiable measurements, connected generators, and the like.


> He used good engineering practices to prove to himself that the test was
> valid.  Do you question his knowledge?  Do you know better?
>

I question his report and his competence. The information on the report
does not prove the test was valid, and a competent engineer would have made
sure the report contained the necessary information to prove the test was
valid.



> [...]
> >If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power
> transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work?
>
> Does the data support the claim?  You always insist on data.  Why do you
> now say it is irrelevant?
>

What claim are you referring to? Rossi is claiming an 8-fold increase in
power transfer in a matter of minutes, not me. And no, the data doesn't
support that. That's why I don't believe it. Where do I say data is
irrelevant?



>
> I guess we are to assume that you know all the facts.  Were you there?
> Did you discuss anything with the gentleman to determine that he might know
> far more than yourself?
>

I know what they reported. The report was supposed to justify their claim.
If you accept their *measurements*, it doesn't. The assumption they make on
the report is not justified. To that extent, he has not done his job.

>
>  After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the
>> test was begun and the data that we see was obtained.
>>
> >It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. (And that proof
> is not in the report either.) That says nothing about whether or not water
> was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving > 90% steam by volume. And
> especially if the valve was closed.
>
> The valve following the trap can be closed.  Please think about the system.
>

What's your point? If you close that valve, everything goes into the trap.
What does that prove?


>
>  You are kidding I guess about the 1 % figure.  Ha Ha.  Please explain how
> that is required if the water level within the ECAT is dropping or rising
> with power.  This is not required to be a constant i

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

I proposed a scenario of how the 1 MW system was operated and it seemed obvious 
that it would be quite simple to allow the water level within the ECAT to 
slowly drop throughout the test.  This process would eliminate the demand for 
super accurate power output that is a sticking point for the skeptical among 
us.  They insist that the output flow must always be exactly equal to the input 
flow, which is most likely in error.  This also allows the ECAT water level to 
be below full which has several advantages.  With this condition, there is a 
relatively large space above the water for vapor to exist which can then exit 
at 100 % quality.  Also, the internal temperature of the individual ECATs 
depends upon the pressure at the output port.

If I were Rossi, this is the way I would have wanted to run the big test.  And, 
if too much water was evaporating from the ECATs, the pump flow could be 
increased slightly.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle


David Roberson wrote:


So,  if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level 
output be required to hold within 1%?  It is your turn now.

Oh right. Power level. I was talking about the T2 temperature remaining stable. 
I confused the issue.

Naturally, the water level might have fluctuated. It must have, given the very 
low flow rate recorded by Lewan when the power was at at the lowest point 
during the self sustaining event. It could not have been overflowing at that 
time.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

I do not think Krivit is someone to be believed.  He intentionally sets
> traps with questions that most people would not give consideration to.
> Nowhere within Dr. Levi's answers is anything but honest discussion.
>

Right. The parts that Krivit described as suspicious were  caused by the
fact that Levi was speaking a second language. I could not have done as
well if I had been interviewed in Japanese. I doubt that Krivit speaks a
second language fluently. He seems to have no idea how difficult it is.

Rossi also speaks English quite well. Krivit made fun of his accent and his
Italian-influenced "hesitation noises." A hesitation noise is the
linguistic term for interjections such as "ah, umm." We do not hear these
noises in our own language, and we do not include them in a transcript, the
way Krivit did. That was outrageous.



> Dr. Levi is an honest, decent man and you have no right to dishonor him.
>

Yup.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson wrote:

So,  if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the 
power level output be required to hold within 1%?  It is your turn now.


Oh right. Power level. I was talking about the T2 temperature remaining 
stable. I confused the issue.


Naturally, the water level might have fluctuated. It must have, given 
the very low flow rate recorded by Lewan when the power was at at the 
lowest point during the self sustaining event. It could not have been 
overflowing at that time.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

I do not think Krivit is someone to be believed.  He intentionally sets traps 
with questions that most people would not give consideration to.  Nowhere 
within Dr. Levi's answers is anything but honest discussion.  Dr. Levi is an 
honest, decent man and you have no right to dishonor him.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ron Wormus  wrote:

Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems 
good to me.


It's not a bit good.  Did you see the Youtube interview Krivit did with Levi 
about this issue?  Levi has had since last February to repeat the test but with 
proper records and calibrations that the original test lacked ... and he has 
failed to do it.  Why do you think that is?
 
I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua & Rich) to go away and leave 
us poor believers to our delusions.


Sort of like an ostrich hides their head in the sand when confronted with a 
threat (admittedly apocryphal)?  What sort of interesting discussion can you 
have when only one side is represented?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

OK Mary, you have heard my position on this manner, now explain why it is not 
possible?  I refer to the (1) item you list.  I expect for you to cry that no 
one has proved that this is what is happening, etc.  Instead, for once let me 
know why it is not possible.

So,  if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level 
output be required to hold within 1%?  It is your turn now.

The first one about the fast action is left for the student.  I probably could 
explain it if I took the time, but why should I ruin your fun?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle


"This one is for you to explain.  You always complain about the lack of data.  
If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will understand 
why."

That's an answer?  Yes, please, by all means clarify.


">(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
 Easy.  The water level is adjusting.  No requirement of 1% exists.  Lets argue 
this point in a separate posting if you wish."

I wish you two would.  That would be educational.

M. Y.





*---



On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

I already did.  Do you need clarification?
 
Dave




-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle







On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:


Right, because no one can explain:


(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
(2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if 
the first-fold power increase took 2 hours.


Excellent questions.  Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them? 

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable
> by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent
> despite the poor instrumentation.
>

Let me add that if you are not convinced by the Oct. 6 test I do not think
the earlier tests with the factory heater and the others I have seen would
convince you. Calorimetry is calorimetry. On this scale it is always done
the same way. There were no blank tests as far as I know -- no one ever
does them with kilowatt scale reactions. The instrumentation was all
standard off-the-shelf industrial HVAC type. You have already said that is
not good enough for you.

If these results are published, I am sure you will invent a bunch of
malarkey such as: the temperatures measured at 100°C were really 80°C;
steam does not stay at 100°C at 1 atm; it is possible to input 10 kW with a
wire that would burn up above 3 kW.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert  wrote:


> Assuming, that this was a top secret years ago, how did they know what it
> is, when they have seen it?
>

I do not understand the question.

It was not top secret to these people. They went into the factory, examined
the reactor, and measured the input and output power.



> Has Rossi demonstrated and explained it in detail?
>

He did not have to explain anything. Focardi et al. know what cold fusion
reactor is.



> If not, how can they know, it worked?
>

By calorimetry. How else?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I
>> cannot upload.  
>>
>
> Yet another lovely story which can not be confirmed.   That's a pity!  We
> only need *one* that can be and we never seem to get it.
>

You have got it. Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous
cold fusion researcher. There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test.
That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this
year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation.

You and the other skeptics have not raised a single objection to the proof
shown in the October 6 test, which is the fact that the water remained at
boiling temperature for four hours with no input power. You yourself have
not even addressed this issue. You talk about the position of the
thermocouples -- which is irrelevant -- or you yell about fraud or Steorn,
fraud, Steorn, fraud. You refuse to address the issues; you refuse to look
at the facts; you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets
much hotter than 100°C. You refuse to learn anything about cold fusion.
Really, you have no business discussing this matter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ron Wormus  wrote:

> Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February.
> Seems good to me.
>

It's not a bit good.  Did you see the Youtube interview Krivit did with
Levi about this issue?  Levi has had since last February to repeat the test
but with proper records and calibrations that the original test lacked ...
and he has failed to do it.  Why do you think that is?


> I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua & Rich) to go away and
> leave us poor believers to our delusions.
>

Sort of like an ostrich hides their head in the sand when confronted with a
threat (admittedly apocryphal)?  What sort of interesting discussion can
you have when only one side is represented?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Peter Heckert]

Am 18.11.2011 19:23, schrieb Mary Yugo:



On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


Mary Yugo wrote:


That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported
seeing it, including several people I know.



Anyone independent of Rossi?


They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him,
and none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi
is a close friend, of course.

Assuming, that this was a top secret years ago, how did they know what 
it is, when they have seen it?

Has Rossi demonstrated and explained it in detail?
If not, how can they know, it worked?

Peter

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:



> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> Right, because no one can explain:
>>
>> (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
>>
>
The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in
the cooling loop data. People who believe in the stable do not understand
that water at one atmosphere does not get any hotter than ~100°C. When you
increase power, more water boils but the temperature does not go up. You
will see this in any grade school level science textbook. It is surprising
that adults do not know this.



> (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes,
>> if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours.
>>
>
This question is nonsense. The reaction took a long time to initiate, but
once it got going it increased rapidly. With Fleischmann and Pons' original
experiments it took a week for the metal to load and reaction to begin, but
after that it sometimes increased very rapidly in a matter of minutes.



> Excellent questions.  Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
>

Anyone can address them. The answers are obvious.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Mary Yugo]

"This one is for you to explain.  You always complain about the lack of
data.  If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will
understand why."

That's an answer?  Yes, please, by all means clarify.

">(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
 Easy.  The water level is adjusting.  No requirement of 1% exists.  Lets
argue this point in a separate posting if you wish."

I wish you two would.  That would be educational.

M. Y.



*---

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I already did.  Do you need clarification?
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Mary Yugo 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>  Right, because no one can explain:
>>
>>  (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
>> (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few
>> minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours.
>>
>
> Excellent questions.  Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>  Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>  That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it,
>> including several people I know.
>>
>
>
> Anyone independent of Rossi?
>
>
> They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and
> none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is a close
> friend, of course.
>
>
>   And who confirmed it's operation?
>
>
> All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I
> cannot upload.  
>

Yet another lovely story which can not be confirmed.   That's a pity!  We
only need *one* that can be and we never seem to get it.  Why is that, Jed?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Ron Wormus]

Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems 
good to me.

I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua & Rich) to go away and leave us poor believers 
to our delusions.

Ron

--On Friday, November 18, 2011 11:41 AM -0500 David Roberson 
 wrote:



I guess that I am easy to dazzle.  Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, 
and I believe him.
And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle


Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any 
credible and known
independent observers?  Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests 
there who could
have done so?  And could you explain why a test of a large machine is necessary 
or helpful when
it's composed of 50+ subunits, none of which have been properly and 
independently shown to
actually work as advertised?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo wrote:


That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing
it, including several people I know.



Anyone independent of Rossi?


They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and 
none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is a close 
friend, of course.




  And who confirmed it's operation?


All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I 
cannot upload.




  And that the energy source was nuclear?


We know it is nuclear for the same reason we know any cold fusion 
reaction is: there is no chemical fuel in the cell, there are no 
chemical transformations, and the cell produces thousands of times more 
energy than any chemical cell of equivalent mass could. They may have 
done other nuclear tests but I did not hear about that.



  And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this appear?


These results have not been published. Stremmenos and Focardi discussed 
them briefly in the press.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

I already did.  Do you need clarification?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:


Right, because no one can explain:


(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
(2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if 
the first-fold power increase took 2 hours.


Excellent questions.  Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them? 

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

I do not know where to begin.  There is at least as much speculation in the 
response as I used to explain what was a likely scenario.




On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson  wrote:



The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or 
a failure depending upon your point of view.  The skeptics have decided to 
totally disregard the test results without allowing the ECAT any reasonable 
chance of success. 



>Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's 
>3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim of 
>heat from nuclear reactions.


>His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry steam 
>at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that it is in 
>fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes the 
>possibility.
 
No water is trapped within the little water trap.  Why do you think he has a 
shut off valve after of the trap location?  Do you think it is to stop the high 
speed vapor from forcing it past the take out when he is measuring water?


 

What would you expect for them to do?  They see the glass as half empty while 
the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full.  There is no possibility for a 
resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of data.

>A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful not 
>to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi.
 
Prove it.





Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system.

>I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a 
>following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have 
>merit. In that, he succeeded.
 
Just your opinion.
 

Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, [...]



>You're just trying to make excuses for why Rossi can't give a convincing demo 
>of gigajoules of energy from a few grams of nickel.
 
I guess you know how to make a 1 MW system.  Please explain how you would do it.




 

 Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power level to 
the 470 kW output region.

>The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat 
>demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, that 
>was the problem.
 
Not true.  Prove this is the reason.



 
All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized the 
water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level.  This was 
apparently what the customer engineer saw.

>He didn't even claim to see that. The fluid was inside a closed system. 
>According to his interview with Lewan, he based his claim of dry steam on the 
>temperature, and the claim the liquid was captured. But without pressure the 
>temperature does not >prove dry steam, and capturing liquid with a tee in the 
>conduit doesn't work if the water is entrained in fast moving steam, and it 
>works even less well, if the valve is closed, as appears to have been the 
>case. Oops.
 
He used good engineering practices to prove to himself that the test was valid. 
 Do you question his knowledge?  Do you know better?


>If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power 
>transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work?
 
Does the data support the claim?  You always insist on data.  Why do you now 
say it is irrelevant?


 

  Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the water trap 
before the ECATs came up to power?  The engineer would have a serious case of 
ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being trapped under the 
cold ECAT condition.  Give the guy a little slack here.

>But that says nothing about whether the water will be trapped when 1% of the 
>water is vaporized. In that case, the vapor occupies more than 90% of the 
>volume in the conduit, increasing the pressure and boiling point, and 
>producing a mist of >entrained droplets in the pipe. The mist will not be 
>trapped, especially if the valve is closed.
 
Close the lower valve after the collection point to stop steam flow in that 
path.  This is the lowest point so the water will flow freely into it.  Do you 
doubt that this will occur?  Why?


>And why should we cut him slack? He clearly failed to demonstrate any 
>expertise in this event.
 
I guess we are to assume that you know all the facts.  Were you there?  Did you 
discuss anything with the gentleman to determine that he might know far more 
than yourself?





After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was 
begun and the data that we see was obtained. 

>It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. That says nothing 
>about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving > 
>90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed.
 
The valve following the trap can be closed.  Please think about

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>  Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that
>> he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy
>> for more than a year.  Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported
>> seeing it . . .
>>
>
> That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it,
> including several people I know.
>


Anyone independent of Rossi?  And who confirmed it's operation?  And that
the energy source was nuclear?  And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this
appear?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Peter Heckert]

Am 18.11.2011 18:58, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Mary Yugo wrote:

Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application 
that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in 
N. Italy for more than a year.  Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has 
ever reported seeing it . . .


That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, 
including several people I know.
So we may assume it is as real as an UFO, which was seen and reported by 
many people.

Now, this is the scientific proof that was missing.
There are even unsharp images in Focardis TEDx event video, so it must 
be true!


Peter

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>  Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that
>> he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy
>> for more than a year.  Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported
>> seeing it . . .
>>
>
> That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it,
> including several people I know.


Please indicate where. I have not seen such reports.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo wrote:

Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application 
that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in 
N. Italy for more than a year.  Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has 
ever reported seeing it . . .


That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, 
including several people I know.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> Right, because no one can explain:
>
> (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
> (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes,
> if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours.
>

Excellent questions.  Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:

>  Am 18.11.2011 17:41, schrieb David Roberson:
>
> My domestic 10kW gasboiler is in any case better proven than the e-cat.
>

Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he
had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for
more than a year.  Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing
it and nobody at all has ever reported testing and verifying it.  Somehow
it was lost.  (sarcasm omitted with considerable difficulty)

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

>
> The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a
> success or a failure depending upon your point of view.  The skeptics
> have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the
> ECAT any reasonable chance of success.
>

Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's
3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim
of heat from nuclear reactions.

His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry
steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that
it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes
the possibility.



>  What would you expect for them to do?  They see the glass as half empty
> while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full.  There is no
> possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of
> data.
>
A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful
not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi.


 Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system.
>
I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a
following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have
merit. In that, he succeeded.


>  Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, [...]
>

You're just trying to make excuses for why Rossi can't give a convincing
demo of gigajoules of energy from a few grams of nickel.




>  Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power
> level to the 470 kW output region.
>
The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat
demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in,
that was the problem.


> All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized
> the water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level.  This
> was apparently what the customer engineer saw.
>
He didn't even *claim* to see that. The fluid was inside a closed system.
According to his interview with Lewan, he based his claim of dry steam on
the temperature, and the claim the liquid was captured. But without
pressure the temperature does not prove dry steam, and capturing liquid
with a tee in the conduit doesn't work if the water is entrained in fast
moving steam, and it works even less well, if the valve is closed, as
appears to have been the case. Oops.

If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power
transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work?



>   Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the
> water trap before the ECATs came up to power?  The engineer would have a
> serious case of ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being
> trapped under the cold ECAT condition.  Give the guy a little slack here.
>
But that says nothing about whether the water will be trapped when 1% of
the water is vaporized. In that case, the vapor occupies more than 90% of
the volume in the conduit, increasing the pressure and boiling point, and
producing a mist of entrained droplets in the pipe. The mist will not be
trapped, especially if the valve is closed.

And why should we cut him slack? He clearly failed to demonstrate any
expertise in this event.


After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test
> was begun and the data that we see was obtained.
>
It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. That says nothing
about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving >
90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed.



> Rossi knows perfectly well how much water is required in order to produce
> 500 kW of output power in self sustaining mode.
>
Why is water required to produce heat? I goes you mean how much water is
required to get 100% vaporization to within one per cent or less.


>   Do you question this?  He also knows that his ECAT 1 MW system puts out
> approximately 500 kW without drive.
>
I have no reason to believe he knows that. And approximately isn't good
enough. If he's claiming dry steam,  then he'd have to know it to a per
cent or so, which seems unlikely. And the power would have to be stable to
a per cent or so, which is also unlikely.


With this arrangement, all Rossi and the engineer have to do is watch the
> water collected within the liquid trap and keep emptying it until no more
> water appears.
>
But with the trap they were using, water would stop appearing at the onset
of boiling, because it would immediately produce a high speed gas
containing entrained mist. Of course, closing the valve would also cause
water to stop being trapped.


> Everyone is happy except for our skeptic members.
>

Right, because no one can explain:

(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1%
(2) how does he get an 

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Peter Heckert]

Am 18.11.2011 17:41, schrieb David Roberson:
I guess that I am easy to dazzle.  Rossi explained the reason for the 
secrecy, and I believe him.  And finally, I did see proof that the 
small units work as advertised.

My domestic 10kW gasboiler is in any case better proven than the e-cat.
It works as advertised.
When it is -20° outside then I have +21° inside. This is impossible with 
a 2kW heater.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

I guess that I am easy to dazzle.  Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, 
and I believe him.  And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as 
advertised.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle


Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any 
credible and known independent observers?  Even though there was more than a 
dozen invited guests there who could have done so?  And could you explain why a 
test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed of 50+ 
subunits, none of which have been properly and independently shown to actually 
work as advertised?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[Mary Yugo]

Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any
credible and known independent observers?  Even though there was more than
a dozen invited guests there who could have done so?  And could you explain
why a test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed of
50+ subunits, none of which have been properly and independently shown to
actually work as advertised?

[Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

[David Roberson]

The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or 
a failure depending upon your point of view.  The skeptics have decided to 
totally disregard the test results without allowing the ECAT any reasonable 
chance of success.  What would you expect for them to do?  They see the glass 
as half empty while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full.  There is 
no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of 
data.
Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system.  I am 
afraid that Murphy of Murphy’s Law located his equipment and went to work.  
Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, but Rossi was 
able to accomplish it well.  He probably tested a “zillion” of his ECATs into 
the heat exchanger that we are all familiar with and got the results that he 
desired.   The back pressure applied to the ECAT under test was controlled by 
the plumbing to the degree that he needed to keep the unit under test from 
blowing a gasket.  The operating temperature within Rossi’s device must not be 
allowed to exceed the point of damage.
Then along comes the combination of 107 ECAT’s into 1 enormous, complicated 
system.  Rossi most likely underestimated the difficulty of combining this many 
units.  Even worse yet, he did not have control upon the output system demanded 
by the customer.  The new output plumbing appears to have a large amount of 
additional frictional loss for the vapor and condensed liquid as it travels to 
the holding bins.  The elevated pressure facing Rossi’s individual ECATs could 
have spelled doom for them at the expected 1 MW power level and he knew of this 
problem.
It would be logical for Rossi to make an arrangement with the customer that did 
not result in a dangerous operational condition.  Both of them would understand 
the reason to throttle back the power level to the 470 kW output region.  Any 
sensible customer would accept this arrangement since they are witness to a 
historical demonstration.  The customer knows that he can adjust his loading 
system later to keep the pressure head to a reasonable level once the system is 
installed and verified.  It would be a no brainer to add an output pump that 
directs the liquid water toward the storage bin while keeping the pressure near 
atmospheric at the output to Rossi’s ECATs.
All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized the 
water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level.  This was 
apparently what the customer engineer saw.  Who would doubt that water would 
initially be collected within the water trap before the ECATs came up to power? 
 The engineer would have a serious case of ignorance disease if he did not 
verify that water was being trapped under the cold ECAT condition.  Give the 
guy a little slack here.
After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was 
begun and the data that we see was obtained.  Rossi knows perfectly well how 
much water is required in order to produce 500 kW of output power in self 
sustaining mode.  Do you question this?  He also knows that his ECAT 1 MW 
system puts out approximately 500 kW without drive.
If you put two and two together at this point, you would see that it makes a 
lot of sense to lower the input water flow rate to a level below the 500 kW 
need so that the level of the water residing within the ECATs is slowly 
dropping with time and only vapor exits the check valves.  How simple.  With 
this arrangement, all Rossi and the engineer have to do is watch the water 
collected within the liquid trap and keep emptying it until no more water 
appears.  Everyone is happy except for our skeptic members.  All of the water 
is vaporized so the power can be determined to be 470 kW.  There is not liquid 
water being ejected by the ECATs.  The ECATs are capable of self sustaining 
mode for hours due to the operation of a 3 core device with positive heat 
feedback beyond what we saw in the 1 core test of October 6.
The only element that might be an issue is that the liquid level within the 
ECATs could become too low at some lengthy point in time.  If this were to 
become a problem, the water input flow rate could be raised to compensate.  
There is no indication that this occurred during the test.
 So, I am dazzled by the demonstration of a 1 MW cold fusion heat device which 
is an historic event.  The fizzle is only in the mind of those that will not 
see through the fog of reality.  Do you honestly think that 470 kW is too low 
of a power to witness for a cold fusion device?  What does it take to get your 
attention?  Maybe we need to invite aliens to the show.