Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Eric Walker]

It's hard to believe we've patiently waited for a year for this. Time
really flies by.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> 3)  The company in Georgia (Rome?) still makes the cavitation pump
> but do not advertise it as gainful. That is word of mouth.
>
Well, it is word of me.

http://hydrodynamics.com/


> 4)  If the cavitation pump has COP of 2, then that could reduce the
> electrical input needed by the ecat by half, in principle.
>
As I recall, the excess was at most 17% (1.17 times input). It was
sporadic. Most of the time there was no excess. Note, however, that when
there was no excess the ratio was around 0.9 at best because there are
massive losses from any large steel tank full of boiling water. I mean the
surface is very hot, and it radiates a lot of heat into the room.

The Boiler Efficiency Guide discusses this. Absolute efficiency is not what
matters. What matters is how much heat actually transfers to the fluid.
That is why I said flow calorimetry is the measurement you want to look at
in a commercial evaluation, rather than the heat loss method. The
fuel-to-steam efficiency is what matters.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jones Beene]

Interesting possibilities come from this, none of which are on the map yet . 

 

1)  No matter what level of gain comes from Ni-H, the ecat would need to 
use a pump of some kind to move the water.

2)  The ecat needs external heat input to operate. Normally this comes from 
resistive heating

3)  The company in Georgia (Rome?) still makes the cavitation pump but do 
not advertise it as gainful. That is word of mouth.

4)  If the cavitation pump has COP of 2, then that could reduce the 
electrical input needed by the ecat by half, in principle.

5)  If the ecat has a normal COP of 2 then with half the power needed for 
heat, the net result goes up to COP of 4.

 

Na….

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

The year was 1992-93 or thereabouts. The claim was excess heat and proof of a 
thermal anomaly based on heating water using less electricity than expected. 
The device itself did survive and is still in production. Jed Rothwell was in 
the thick of it.

I have thought a lot about that lately.

 

Was the Griggs Hydrosonic pump an omen of things to come?

I hope not. Because nothing happened with that. When I last heard from those 
people, the company no longer wish to talk about the excess heat. The 
facilities managers who measured the heat remained confident of their 
measurements, but they were incurious. I have great respect for all of those 
people, and I understand why they do not wish to talk about this. Still, it is 
difficult for me to grasp why anyone would see a thing like this and not make a 
big deal about it.

 

I guess I understand. Knowing about cold fusion has brought nothing but trouble 
to me. I wish I could be blissfully ignorant of it. Life is a one-way vector. 
You cannot un-see that which you have seen, or forget that which you know.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> The year was 1992-93 or thereabouts. The claim was excess heat and proof
> of a thermal anomaly based on heating water using less electricity than
> expected. The device itself did survive and is still in production. Jed
> Rothwell was in the thick of it.
>
I have thought a lot about that lately.

Was the Griggs Hydrosonic pump an omen of things to come?
>
I hope not. Because nothing happened with that. When I last heard from
those people, the company no longer wish to talk about the excess heat. The
facilities managers who measured the heat remained confident of their
measurements, but they were incurious. I have great respect for all of
those people, and I understand why they do not wish to talk about this.
Still, it is difficult for me to grasp why anyone would see a thing like
this and not make a big deal about it.

I guess I understand. Knowing about cold fusion has brought nothing but
trouble to me. I wish I could be blissfully ignorant of it. Life is a
one-way vector. You cannot un-see that which you have seen, or forget that
which you know.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Here is a well-written guide to how this is done with a combustion boiler,
> with sample worksheets and lookup tables:
>
>
> http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/reference-center/insights/boiler-efficiency-guide.aspx
>

On p. 9 this manual describes two methods of measuring efficiency:

Input-Output Method. In cold fusion jargon we call this flow calorimetry.

Heat Loss Method. Isoperibolic or static calorimetry.

Both methods are used with large boilers. Both should be used in a
long-term study. Flow calorimetry would determine whether excess heat is
large enough to be commercially valuable. Assuming there is excess heat.
Detecting excess heat with the Heat Loss Method would be interesting but if
the effect were so small you could not measure it with the Input-Output
method no one would care in a commercial installation.

Generally speaking, in a factory scale installation, they could not even
detect excess heat of less than ~10%. The instruments are insensitive. You
can see that in the divisions and the number of decimal places in the
look-up tables. Facility managers would would not bother with a device that
saves less than ~30%. They can achieve savings on that scale by
conventional methods such as installing more efficient equipment, and by
various steps described in industry publications.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jones Beene]

> All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will convince 
> many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day hour-by-hour with 
> thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to test any summaries 
> which are provided by the "expert". How hard is that?


** Flash back alert ** 
The year was 1992-93 or thereabouts. The claim was excess heat and proof of a 
thermal anomaly based on heating water using less electricity than expected. 
The device itself did survive and is still in production. Jed Rothwell was in 
the thick of it. The thermal gain issue was never resolved to everyone's 
satisfaction, but there are satisfied customers to this day who think they are 
getting hot water for less cost than the electricity being used. 

Was the Griggs Hydrosonic pump an omen of things to come?

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find
> some reason why it might be wrong.
>
>
> Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such tripe.
> The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how inadequate the
> report, Rossi's flock of gullible idealists will say it is proof-positive
> of his inflated claims.
>
> Forget those extremes. Both are tripe.
>

I strongly agree! Jones Beene and I have had our disagreements, but on this
we see eye-to-eye. Many intelligent people stand ready to believe a good
test from an independent observer of Rossi's device. That is true even if
Rossi pays for the test. Someone has to pay for it, as I pointed out
yesterday.


All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will convince
> many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day hour-by-hour with
> thermal power delivered.


Note that you are not allowed to operate a heater of this size without
instruments showing the performance. There are specific rules about the
placement of things like a dial thermometer, a flowmeter, filters, and
one-way valves to prevent false readings. These traditional analog
instruments ensure an accurate reading of instantaneous power. They are not
very precise. HVAC engineers have told me they are only good to within 5%
or 10%. But they are highly reliable. If they were not, there would be more
explosions and catastrophic failures.

I do not know whether large boilers must also have electronic recording
types. I do know that all large heaters have to be periodically tested. The
test procedures are spelled out in detail. They involve filling in
worksheets with meter readings and then looking up the answers in lookup
tables.

Here is a well-written guide to how this is done with a combustion boiler,
with sample worksheets and lookup tables:

http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/reference-center/insights/boiler-efficiency-guide.aspx

(Electrically fired large boilers are less common but there are similar
procedures.)

Of course for test of this nature you would use recording instruments. I
have seen large boilers equipped with both recording instruments and the
conventional analog instantaneous instruments mandated by law.



> Raw data must be available to test any summaries which are provided by the
> "expert". How hard is that?
>

Any HVAC engineer licensed to work with a large boiler can do it. Without
fail. If he failed, his license would be revoked. It would be like what
happens with a Toyota mechanic makes a drastic mistake and your brakes
fail, causing an accident. That seldom happens nowadays.


Ask yourself this: How hard is it to compare heat delivered against the
> corresponding power bill from Florida Power and Light? Rossi should have
> had his own power meter installed.


It does not have to be a billing meter. A conventional heavy-duty recording
wattmeter would be fine.



> That is step one. Step two is to verify the official data has not been
> altered.


That might be a tricky. Data can always be altered in a digital image.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Peter Gluck]

tak
peter

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Yes of course.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>> dear Lennart
>>
>> your POV too (as Jack's) deserves to be known by The Readers. May I offer
>> it in Ego Out  now?
>> peter
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I really do not see the reason to decide if Rossi's Ecat is working. He
>>> is not a fraud if he does not show that it works but still claims it does.
>>> I assume that a positive outcome will be used by Rossi & IH to finance
>>> the market roll out. Therefore I think we will receive some information
>>> from the 'plant'.
>>>
>>> Rossi &IH do not need any particular tests to be performed. Not in there
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> No, it is not science. Not even close. It is business.
>>>
>>> Be patient as there is only days until we will receive some information.
>>> I do not think that information will contain scientific evidence and third
>>> party testimony.
>>> The real thing to look for is if IH will reveal a plan to do further
>>> investments in Ecat and other felines of this type. Maybe announce a
>>> factory, maybe another investment in Xcat. I would say that is going to
>>> tell more than the data coming out.
>>>
>>> The ongoing evaluation of Rossi is not required.
>>> I read that he does not have enough scientific knowledge to handle the
>>> development.
>>> I hear he has made mistakes - live long enough and you too will. Admit
>>> them ? That is another story.
>>> I hear he has been overly optimistic. Yes, otherwise he would have given
>>> up longtime ago - like many others did.
>>> I think he is an entrepreneur with a vision and a passion to solve this
>>> LENR puzzle.
>>> Maybe he has and then I am happy for him.
>>> Maybe he is not there yet. I will applaud if he goes further and can
>>> make someone to invest so he can. If he decide it is over I know (without
>>> ever talked to him) that he will be disappointed and that would hurt more
>>> than others name calling.
>>>
>>> I do believe that the Stockholm meeting will be a good indicator of if
>>> LENR is for real. I am not saying anything about science. I am purely
>>> looking for if LENR can be commercialized within a decade or not.
>>>
>>> I do understand that several of the other players Mills for example are
>>> more qualified scientists. However, the science side is certainly
>>> interesting but not critical in the way the business side is.
>>>
>>> Best Regards ,
>>> Lennart Thornros
>>>
>>>
>>> lenn...@thornros.com
>>> +1 916 436 1899
>>>
>>> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
>>> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>>
 -Original Message-
 From: a.ashfield

 > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will
 find some reason why it might be wrong.


 Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such
 tripe. The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how inadequate
 the report, Rossi's flock of gullible idealists will say it is
 proof-positive of his inflated claims.

 Forget those extremes. Both are tripe.

 Let's assume that we are all intelligent people who cherish the
 scientific method and who can discern the truth when it is openly 
 presented.

 All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will
 convince many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day
 hour-by-hour with thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to
 test any summaries which are provided by the "expert". How hard is that?

 The "customer" assuming that there was a bona fide customer, since even
 that point is in doubt - supposedly received hot water as their heat
 source, and there should be data of that usage hourly - over the ~8000
 hours of operation (if it was 24/7) or at least over 2000 hours. If there
 is less than 2000 hours of raw data, then it will probably mean that some
 data has been purged to make the results look better.

 This would be flow-rate of water and temperature. If they are an
 independent customer - then of course they kept records of thermal usage.
 How else would they know if they could afford to buy the thing without it?

 Ask yourself this: How hard is it to compare heat delivered against the
 corresponding power bill from Florida Power and Light? Rossi should have
 had his own power meter installed. That is step one. Step two is to verify
 the official data has not been altered. The power bill is based on kW-hrs
 of usag

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Peter Gluck]

dear Lennart

your POV too (as Jack's) deserves to be known by The Readers. May I offer
it in Ego Out  now?
peter

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> I really do not see the reason to decide if Rossi's Ecat is working. He is
> not a fraud if he does not show that it works but still claims it does.
> I assume that a positive outcome will be used by Rossi & IH to finance the
> market roll out. Therefore I think we will receive some information from
> the 'plant'.
>
> Rossi &IH do not need any particular tests to be performed. Not in there
> interest.
>
> No, it is not science. Not even close. It is business.
>
> Be patient as there is only days until we will receive some information. I
> do not think that information will contain scientific evidence and third
> party testimony.
> The real thing to look for is if IH will reveal a plan to do further
> investments in Ecat and other felines of this type. Maybe announce a
> factory, maybe another investment in Xcat. I would say that is going to
> tell more than the data coming out.
>
> The ongoing evaluation of Rossi is not required.
> I read that he does not have enough scientific knowledge to handle the
> development.
> I hear he has made mistakes - live long enough and you too will. Admit
> them ? That is another story.
> I hear he has been overly optimistic. Yes, otherwise he would have given
> up longtime ago - like many others did.
> I think he is an entrepreneur with a vision and a passion to solve this
> LENR puzzle.
> Maybe he has and then I am happy for him.
> Maybe he is not there yet. I will applaud if he goes further and can make
> someone to invest so he can. If he decide it is over I know (without ever
> talked to him) that he will be disappointed and that would hurt more than
> others name calling.
>
> I do believe that the Stockholm meeting will be a good indicator of if
> LENR is for real. I am not saying anything about science. I am purely
> looking for if LENR can be commercialized within a decade or not.
>
> I do understand that several of the other players Mills for example are
> more qualified scientists. However, the science side is certainly
> interesting but not critical in the way the business side is.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: a.ashfield
>>
>> > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find
>> some reason why it might be wrong.
>>
>>
>> Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such tripe.
>> The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how inadequate the
>> report, Rossi's flock of gullible idealists will say it is proof-positive
>> of his inflated claims.
>>
>> Forget those extremes. Both are tripe.
>>
>> Let's assume that we are all intelligent people who cherish the
>> scientific method and who can discern the truth when it is openly presented.
>>
>> All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will
>> convince many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day
>> hour-by-hour with thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to
>> test any summaries which are provided by the "expert". How hard is that?
>>
>> The "customer" assuming that there was a bona fide customer, since even
>> that point is in doubt - supposedly received hot water as their heat
>> source, and there should be data of that usage hourly - over the ~8000
>> hours of operation (if it was 24/7) or at least over 2000 hours. If there
>> is less than 2000 hours of raw data, then it will probably mean that some
>> data has been purged to make the results look better.
>>
>> This would be flow-rate of water and temperature. If they are an
>> independent customer - then of course they kept records of thermal usage.
>> How else would they know if they could afford to buy the thing without it?
>>
>> Ask yourself this: How hard is it to compare heat delivered against the
>> corresponding power bill from Florida Power and Light? Rossi should have
>> had his own power meter installed. That is step one. Step two is to verify
>> the official data has not been altered. The power bill is based on kW-hrs
>> of usage and the customer knows how much hot water they used, anything less
>> is suspicious.
>>
>> If Rossi claims not to have had a power meter from Florida Power
>> installed then YES the stink is starting to rise. Of course, having real
>> raw data to share is painfully obvious, and if Rossi should have some
>> flimsy excuse why this cannot be done - to justify why there is no real raw
>> data, then Yes - that is where the problem will center. This is what IH
>> already knows and it would explain why they are distancing themselves from
>> Rossi (if they are).
>>
>> If the expert 

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes of course.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> dear Lennart
>
> your POV too (as Jack's) deserves to be known by The Readers. May I offer
> it in Ego Out  now?
> peter
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> I really do not see the reason to decide if Rossi's Ecat is working. He
>> is not a fraud if he does not show that it works but still claims it does.
>> I assume that a positive outcome will be used by Rossi & IH to finance
>> the market roll out. Therefore I think we will receive some information
>> from the 'plant'.
>>
>> Rossi &IH do not need any particular tests to be performed. Not in there
>> interest.
>>
>> No, it is not science. Not even close. It is business.
>>
>> Be patient as there is only days until we will receive some information.
>> I do not think that information will contain scientific evidence and third
>> party testimony.
>> The real thing to look for is if IH will reveal a plan to do further
>> investments in Ecat and other felines of this type. Maybe announce a
>> factory, maybe another investment in Xcat. I would say that is going to
>> tell more than the data coming out.
>>
>> The ongoing evaluation of Rossi is not required.
>> I read that he does not have enough scientific knowledge to handle the
>> development.
>> I hear he has made mistakes - live long enough and you too will. Admit
>> them ? That is another story.
>> I hear he has been overly optimistic. Yes, otherwise he would have given
>> up longtime ago - like many others did.
>> I think he is an entrepreneur with a vision and a passion to solve this
>> LENR puzzle.
>> Maybe he has and then I am happy for him.
>> Maybe he is not there yet. I will applaud if he goes further and can make
>> someone to invest so he can. If he decide it is over I know (without ever
>> talked to him) that he will be disappointed and that would hurt more than
>> others name calling.
>>
>> I do believe that the Stockholm meeting will be a good indicator of if
>> LENR is for real. I am not saying anything about science. I am purely
>> looking for if LENR can be commercialized within a decade or not.
>>
>> I do understand that several of the other players Mills for example are
>> more qualified scientists. However, the science side is certainly
>> interesting but not critical in the way the business side is.
>>
>> Best Regards ,
>> Lennart Thornros
>>
>>
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +1 916 436 1899
>>
>> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
>> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: a.ashfield
>>>
>>> > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will
>>> find some reason why it might be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such tripe.
>>> The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how inadequate the
>>> report, Rossi's flock of gullible idealists will say it is proof-positive
>>> of his inflated claims.
>>>
>>> Forget those extremes. Both are tripe.
>>>
>>> Let's assume that we are all intelligent people who cherish the
>>> scientific method and who can discern the truth when it is openly presented.
>>>
>>> All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will
>>> convince many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day
>>> hour-by-hour with thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to
>>> test any summaries which are provided by the "expert". How hard is that?
>>>
>>> The "customer" assuming that there was a bona fide customer, since even
>>> that point is in doubt - supposedly received hot water as their heat
>>> source, and there should be data of that usage hourly - over the ~8000
>>> hours of operation (if it was 24/7) or at least over 2000 hours. If there
>>> is less than 2000 hours of raw data, then it will probably mean that some
>>> data has been purged to make the results look better.
>>>
>>> This would be flow-rate of water and temperature. If they are an
>>> independent customer - then of course they kept records of thermal usage.
>>> How else would they know if they could afford to buy the thing without it?
>>>
>>> Ask yourself this: How hard is it to compare heat delivered against the
>>> corresponding power bill from Florida Power and Light? Rossi should have
>>> had his own power meter installed. That is step one. Step two is to verify
>>> the official data has not been altered. The power bill is based on kW-hrs
>>> of usage and the customer knows how much hot water they used, anything less
>>> is suspicious.
>>>
>>> If Rossi claims not to have had a power meter from Florida Power
>>> installed then YES the stink is sta

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Lennart Thornros]

I really do not see the reason to decide if Rossi's Ecat is working. He is
not a fraud if he does not show that it works but still claims it does.
I assume that a positive outcome will be used by Rossi & IH to finance the
market roll out. Therefore I think we will receive some information from
the 'plant'.

Rossi &IH do not need any particular tests to be performed. Not in there
interest.

No, it is not science. Not even close. It is business.

Be patient as there is only days until we will receive some information. I
do not think that information will contain scientific evidence and third
party testimony.
The real thing to look for is if IH will reveal a plan to do further
investments in Ecat and other felines of this type. Maybe announce a
factory, maybe another investment in Xcat. I would say that is going to
tell more than the data coming out.

The ongoing evaluation of Rossi is not required.
I read that he does not have enough scientific knowledge to handle the
development.
I hear he has made mistakes - live long enough and you too will. Admit them
? That is another story.
I hear he has been overly optimistic. Yes, otherwise he would have given up
longtime ago - like many others did.
I think he is an entrepreneur with a vision and a passion to solve this
LENR puzzle.
Maybe he has and then I am happy for him.
Maybe he is not there yet. I will applaud if he goes further and can make
someone to invest so he can. If he decide it is over I know (without ever
talked to him) that he will be disappointed and that would hurt more than
others name calling.

I do believe that the Stockholm meeting will be a good indicator of if LENR
is for real. I am not saying anything about science. I am purely looking
for if LENR can be commercialized within a decade or not.

I do understand that several of the other players Mills for example are
more qualified scientists. However, the science side is certainly
interesting but not critical in the way the business side is.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield
>
> > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find
> some reason why it might be wrong.
>
>
> Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such tripe.
> The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how inadequate the
> report, Rossi's flock of gullible idealists will say it is proof-positive
> of his inflated claims.
>
> Forget those extremes. Both are tripe.
>
> Let's assume that we are all intelligent people who cherish the scientific
> method and who can discern the truth when it is openly presented.
>
> All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will
> convince many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day
> hour-by-hour with thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to
> test any summaries which are provided by the "expert". How hard is that?
>
> The "customer" assuming that there was a bona fide customer, since even
> that point is in doubt - supposedly received hot water as their heat
> source, and there should be data of that usage hourly - over the ~8000
> hours of operation (if it was 24/7) or at least over 2000 hours. If there
> is less than 2000 hours of raw data, then it will probably mean that some
> data has been purged to make the results look better.
>
> This would be flow-rate of water and temperature. If they are an
> independent customer - then of course they kept records of thermal usage.
> How else would they know if they could afford to buy the thing without it?
>
> Ask yourself this: How hard is it to compare heat delivered against the
> corresponding power bill from Florida Power and Light? Rossi should have
> had his own power meter installed. That is step one. Step two is to verify
> the official data has not been altered. The power bill is based on kW-hrs
> of usage and the customer knows how much hot water they used, anything less
> is suspicious.
>
> If Rossi claims not to have had a power meter from Florida Power installed
> then YES the stink is starting to rise. Of course, having real raw data to
> share is painfully obvious, and if Rossi should have some flimsy excuse why
> this cannot be done - to justify why there is no real raw data, then Yes -
> that is where the problem will center. This is what IH already knows and it
> would explain why they are distancing themselves from Rossi (if they are).
>
> If the expert - and it does not matter who paid him - cannot provide
> testable data for heat delivered, to compare against a bona-fide power bill
> form the power company, knowing that that obvious and simple step presents
> the prima facie case, then yes all the skeptics and even some of the flock
> that drank the Kool-Aid, will be

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Bob Higgins]

We should forget about the patho-skeptics (Cude, Yugo), as their tripe is
not worth the time spent reading.  I don't know why such people exist in
the forums unless they are getting paid to help slow development of LENR.
I can't imaging that they get much enjoyment from the time they spend
writing.

On the other hand, there are reputable Vorts and scientists among us who,
while being healthy skeptics, are skeptics of Rossi or at least Rossi's 1MW
reactor array and testing.  Ask yourself, why do these folks, whose
opinions we value, have a skeptical vision of the 1MW test?  One answer
that keeps getting ignored is *that these people may be in possession of
additional insider information that the collective, in general, does not
have*.

I suggest we temper our expectations for the 1MW test until the actual
announcements are made by Rossi and IH.

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:39 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find
> some reason why it might be wrong.  Why trust Fulvio Fabiani and not Rossi?
>
> So many people who have actually seen and worked on the E-Cat that if it
> didn't work someone would said that.  Yet no one has except Krivit whom I
> read was hurt when he was caught trying to take a sample of the fuel.  The
> negativity comes from those that have no direct, first hand information but
> just speculate how the tests might have been fixed.
>
> As Rossi said, only the sale of working reactors will quiet the skeptics.
> Let's wait for the ERV's report.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 

> It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find some 
> reason why it might be wrong. 


Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such tripe. The 
reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how inadequate the report, 
Rossi's flock of gullible idealists will say it is proof-positive of his 
inflated claims.

Forget those extremes. Both are tripe.

Let's assume that we are all intelligent people who cherish the scientific 
method and who can discern the truth when it is openly presented. 

All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will convince 
many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day hour-by-hour with 
thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to test any summaries which 
are provided by the "expert". How hard is that?

The "customer" assuming that there was a bona fide customer, since even that 
point is in doubt - supposedly received hot water as their heat source, and 
there should be data of that usage hourly - over the ~8000 hours of operation 
(if it was 24/7) or at least over 2000 hours. If there is less than 2000 hours 
of raw data, then it will probably mean that some data has been purged to make 
the results look better.

This would be flow-rate of water and temperature. If they are an independent 
customer - then of course they kept records of thermal usage. How else would 
they know if they could afford to buy the thing without it?

Ask yourself this: How hard is it to compare heat delivered against the 
corresponding power bill from Florida Power and Light? Rossi should have had 
his own power meter installed. That is step one. Step two is to verify the 
official data has not been altered. The power bill is based on kW-hrs of usage 
and the customer knows how much hot water they used, anything less is 
suspicious.

If Rossi claims not to have had a power meter from Florida Power installed then 
YES the stink is starting to rise. Of course, having real raw data to share is 
painfully obvious, and if Rossi should have some flimsy excuse why this cannot 
be done - to justify why there is no real raw data, then Yes - that is where 
the problem will center. This is what IH already knows and it would explain why 
they are distancing themselves from Rossi (if they are).

If the expert - and it does not matter who paid him - cannot provide testable 
data for heat delivered, to compare against a bona-fide power bill form the 
power company, knowing that that obvious and simple step presents the prima 
facie case, then yes all the skeptics and even some of the flock that drank the 
Kool-Aid, will be put on alert that the con game is afoot. 

Bottom line, if there is good raw data to compare, then the truth will out. IH 
already knows this - so we will look to them for guidance. But let's be clear 
from the start - this is science - not politics. If believable real raw data is 
not available initially - then certainly everyone including IH will know that 
the report is a sham. No one gives away a trade secret by sharing that kind of 
raw data.

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jack Cole]

Fabiani would be needed to keep the plant running while other scientists
and engineers examine it.  Why trust one just one ERV?  I wouldn't trust
Fabiani over Rossi, but I would trust IH or other scientists to do some
additional testing to give a valid calibration. Fabiani is needed to keep
the plant running while others examine it.  We don't need another silly
year-long test to determine if it works, but we do need an objective
examination.

AFAIK, there has never been a valid calibration of any E-Cat in a test that
I have read about.

Even if IH has the plant without fuel, they could run a calibration at the
various flow rates, input powers, and temperature ranges used in the test.
This is not to convince the super-skeps, but rather to convince those who
want a valid test.



On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:39 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find
> some reason why it might be wrong.  Why trust Fulvio Fabiani and not Rossi?
>
> So many people who have actually seen and worked on the E-Cat that if it
> didn't work someone would said that.  Yet no one has except Krivit whom
> I read was hurt when he was caught trying to take a sample of the fuel.
> The negativity comes from those that have no direct, first hand
> information but just speculate how the tests might have been fixed.
>
> As Rossi said, only the sale of working reactors will quiet the
> skeptics.  Let's wait for the ERV's report.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[a.ashfield]

It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find 
some reason why it might be wrong.  Why trust Fulvio Fabiani and not Rossi?


So many people who have actually seen and worked on the E-Cat that if it 
didn't work someone would said that.  Yet no one has except Krivit whom 
I read was hurt when he was caught trying to take a sample of the fuel.  
The negativity comes from those that have no direct, first hand 
information but just speculate how the tests might have been fixed.


As Rossi said, only the sale of working reactors will quiet the 
skeptics.  Let's wait for the ERV's report.

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Peter Gluck]

thanks, now let's wait for the ERV or its essence (performances)
I am sure many people in Andrea's near circles are already informed.

peter

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> I should clarify that where I say Fulvio, I mean Fulvio Fabiani
> 
> .
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:40 AM Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Dear Peter,
>> Thanks. Yes, you can use it as is.
>> Jack
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:30 AM Peter Gluck  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jack,
>>>
>>> do you allow me to publish this in my blog EGO OUT?
>>> as it is or add what you wish.
>>> It well thought and clearly written, why should we limit the readers?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>>
 What would convince people one way or another about whether the 1 MW
 plant works?

 The following is purely speculative, but if true could lead to a full
 resolution of the mystery of the E-Cat.  Imagine that not long after Rossi
 changes the charges in the 1MW plant and tells IH that it is back to full
 efficiency, they say, "Great! Now move along Rossi to do your own
 research."   ERV comes and picks up his instruments. Rossi leaves. In the
 meantime, Fulvio and others stay behind (who know how to operate the plant)
 and other scientists and engineers come in.  At their leisure, and without
 the presence of Rossi, IH's scientists and engineers conduct their own
 tests of energy balance.

 At the end of these tests, they pull the fuel charges, and turn the
 plant back on.  Without the fuel, their measurements show a COP of
 approximately 1.  Of course, if they hooked up their instruments and got a
 COP of 1 with the fuel still installed, then testing ends quickly.  Either
 they verify the effect or that the test was wrong.  Either way it goes is a
 victory.

 If this did not happen, people may claim that Rossi tweaked operating
 variables until he could fool the instruments.  Or they may claim that the
 ERV was chosen by Rossi or was unable to perform the test competently.

 In addition to the above (imagined) scenario, let's imagine one further
 thing.  As Rossi claimed at the beginning of the relationship between IH
 and himself, IH is in full possession of the formula for making an E-Cat
 work.  Their scientists/engineers have also been experimenting and
 conducting their own completely independent tests.  If that is also true,
 then we would have even greater evidence that either the E-Cat works or
 never has.

 Jack

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jack Cole]

I should clarify that where I say Fulvio, I mean Fulvio Fabiani

.

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:40 AM Jack Cole  wrote:

> Dear Peter,
> Thanks. Yes, you can use it as is.
> Jack
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:30 AM Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>> Dear Jack,
>>
>> do you allow me to publish this in my blog EGO OUT?
>> as it is or add what you wish.
>> It well thought and clearly written, why should we limit the readers?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> What would convince people one way or another about whether the 1 MW
>>> plant works?
>>>
>>> The following is purely speculative, but if true could lead to a full
>>> resolution of the mystery of the E-Cat.  Imagine that not long after Rossi
>>> changes the charges in the 1MW plant and tells IH that it is back to full
>>> efficiency, they say, "Great! Now move along Rossi to do your own
>>> research."   ERV comes and picks up his instruments. Rossi leaves. In the
>>> meantime, Fulvio and others stay behind (who know how to operate the plant)
>>> and other scientists and engineers come in.  At their leisure, and without
>>> the presence of Rossi, IH's scientists and engineers conduct their own
>>> tests of energy balance.
>>>
>>> At the end of these tests, they pull the fuel charges, and turn the
>>> plant back on.  Without the fuel, their measurements show a COP of
>>> approximately 1.  Of course, if they hooked up their instruments and got a
>>> COP of 1 with the fuel still installed, then testing ends quickly.  Either
>>> they verify the effect or that the test was wrong.  Either way it goes is a
>>> victory.
>>>
>>> If this did not happen, people may claim that Rossi tweaked operating
>>> variables until he could fool the instruments.  Or they may claim that the
>>> ERV was chosen by Rossi or was unable to perform the test competently.
>>>
>>> In addition to the above (imagined) scenario, let's imagine one further
>>> thing.  As Rossi claimed at the beginning of the relationship between IH
>>> and himself, IH is in full possession of the formula for making an E-Cat
>>> work.  Their scientists/engineers have also been experimenting and
>>> conducting their own completely independent tests.  If that is also true,
>>> then we would have even greater evidence that either the E-Cat works or
>>> never has.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Jack Cole]

Dear Peter,
Thanks. Yes, you can use it as is.
Jack

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:30 AM Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Dear Jack,
>
> do you allow me to publish this in my blog EGO OUT?
> as it is or add what you wish.
> It well thought and clearly written, why should we limit the readers?
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> What would convince people one way or another about whether the 1 MW
>> plant works?
>>
>> The following is purely speculative, but if true could lead to a full
>> resolution of the mystery of the E-Cat.  Imagine that not long after Rossi
>> changes the charges in the 1MW plant and tells IH that it is back to full
>> efficiency, they say, "Great! Now move along Rossi to do your own
>> research."   ERV comes and picks up his instruments. Rossi leaves. In the
>> meantime, Fulvio and others stay behind (who know how to operate the plant)
>> and other scientists and engineers come in.  At their leisure, and without
>> the presence of Rossi, IH's scientists and engineers conduct their own
>> tests of energy balance.
>>
>> At the end of these tests, they pull the fuel charges, and turn the plant
>> back on.  Without the fuel, their measurements show a COP of approximately
>> 1.  Of course, if they hooked up their instruments and got a COP of 1 with
>> the fuel still installed, then testing ends quickly.  Either they verify
>> the effect or that the test was wrong.  Either way it goes is a victory.
>>
>> If this did not happen, people may claim that Rossi tweaked operating
>> variables until he could fool the instruments.  Or they may claim that the
>> ERV was chosen by Rossi or was unable to perform the test competently.
>>
>> In addition to the above (imagined) scenario, let's imagine one further
>> thing.  As Rossi claimed at the beginning of the relationship between IH
>> and himself, IH is in full possession of the formula for making an E-Cat
>> work.  Their scientists/engineers have also been experimenting and
>> conducting their own completely independent tests.  If that is also true,
>> then we would have even greater evidence that either the E-Cat works or
>> never has.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jack,

do you allow me to publish this in my blog EGO OUT?
as it is or add what you wish.
It well thought and clearly written, why should we limit the readers?

Best,

Peter

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> What would convince people one way or another about whether the 1 MW plant
> works?
>
> The following is purely speculative, but if true could lead to a full
> resolution of the mystery of the E-Cat.  Imagine that not long after Rossi
> changes the charges in the 1MW plant and tells IH that it is back to full
> efficiency, they say, "Great! Now move along Rossi to do your own
> research."   ERV comes and picks up his instruments. Rossi leaves. In the
> meantime, Fulvio and others stay behind (who know how to operate the plant)
> and other scientists and engineers come in.  At their leisure, and without
> the presence of Rossi, IH's scientists and engineers conduct their own
> tests of energy balance.
>
> At the end of these tests, they pull the fuel charges, and turn the plant
> back on.  Without the fuel, their measurements show a COP of approximately
> 1.  Of course, if they hooked up their instruments and got a COP of 1 with
> the fuel still installed, then testing ends quickly.  Either they verify
> the effect or that the test was wrong.  Either way it goes is a victory.
>
> If this did not happen, people may claim that Rossi tweaked operating
> variables until he could fool the instruments.  Or they may claim that the
> ERV was chosen by Rossi or was unable to perform the test competently.
>
> In addition to the above (imagined) scenario, let's imagine one further
> thing.  As Rossi claimed at the beginning of the relationship between IH
> and himself, IH is in full possession of the formula for making an E-Cat
> work.  Their scientists/engineers have also been experimenting and
> conducting their own completely independent tests.  If that is also true,
> then we would have even greater evidence that either the E-Cat works or
> never has.
>
> Jack
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com