Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
I believe, like many, that the transmutations seen are surface side-effects of the LENR; and as Rossi now says, are not substantial contributors to the excess heat effect. I don't believe that the Cu that Kullander measured was contamination. My understanding was that the early e-cat reaction chambers were stainless and there is no reasonable way to produce that much Cu contamination within the stainless cell (Kullander said there was no Cu or Fe in the starting Ni powder). The fact that Rossi was previously adamant that the Cu was a transmutation product, probably means that he didn't add it as an ingredient. A case could be made that the Fe was contamination, but personally I believe the Fe was an additive since Rossi conveniently left out any comment on the greater percentage [than Cu] of Fe that Kullander found in the ash. This leaves the Cu as a thin surface transmutation by-product of the LENR. 10% surface transmutation does not sound like too much for a Ni ash of 6 supposed months of high rate LENR. On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > In this presentation, Rossi stated that Ni transmutation is not > responsible for extra heat. This is a secondary negligible phenomena and > nearly most of what is detected is due contamination. > > 2012/9/9 Bob Higgins > >> The Kullander report of the 6 month used ash stated that it "contains" >> 10% Cu and 11% Fe. It is not clear by what analysis that assessment was >> made, but it was likely EDAX (Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectral analysis), >> normally made via SEM. Such analysis is a surface measurement. In the >> case of dense materials like Ni and Cu, the penetration depth for most of >> the X-ray spectra is only about 100 nanometers. So Kullander was probably >> reporting on the surface concentration. >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Teslaalset >> wrote: >> >>> So what about the ash that he allowed a Swedish university to check that >>> contained 30% Copper? >>> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > > -- Regards, Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
In this presentation, Rossi stated that Ni transmutation is not responsible for extra heat. This is a secondary negligible phenomena and nearly most of what is detected is due contamination. 2012/9/9 Bob Higgins > The Kullander report of the 6 month used ash stated that it "contains" 10% > Cu and 11% Fe. It is not clear by what analysis that assessment was made, > but it was likely EDAX (Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectral analysis), > normally made via SEM. Such analysis is a surface measurement. In the > case of dense materials like Ni and Cu, the penetration depth for most of > the X-ray spectra is only about 100 nanometers. So Kullander was probably > reporting on the surface concentration. > > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Teslaalset wrote: > >> So what about the ash that he allowed a Swedish university to check that >> contained 30% Copper? >> > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
The Kullander report of the 6 month used ash stated that it "contains" 10% Cu and 11% Fe. It is not clear by what analysis that assessment was made, but it was likely EDAX (Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectral analysis), normally made via SEM. Such analysis is a surface measurement. In the case of dense materials like Ni and Cu, the penetration depth for most of the X-ray spectra is only about 100 nanometers. So Kullander was probably reporting on the surface concentration. On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Teslaalset wrote: > So what about the ash that he allowed a Swedish university to check that > contained 30% Copper? >
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
The photo may have been taken part way through the test, rather than at the end. The temp is gradually ramped up during the test Nigel On 09/09/2012 21:20, Alan Fletcher wrote: Rossi report : the temperature of the outside cylinder is reported to be at 871C max, 820C average. Shouldn't it be glowing cherry red? http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Temperature_when_metal_glows_red/
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
On 2012-09-09 22:20, Alan Fletcher wrote: Rossi report : the temperature of the outside cylinder is reported to be at 871C max, 820C average. Shouldn't it be glowing cherry red? Most digital photo cameras have filters against infrared lighting. This might be the reason why it doesn't appear to glow. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
Rossi report : the temperature of the outside cylinder is reported to be at 871C max, 820C average. Shouldn't it be glowing cherry red? http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Temperature_when_metal_glows_red/ C F Color 400 752 Red heat, visible in the dark 474 885 Red heat, visible in the twilight 525 975 Red heat, visible in the daylight 581 1077 Red heat, visible in the sunlight 700 1292 Dark red 800 1472 Dull cherry-red 900 1652 Cherry-red 1000 1832 Bright cherry-red 1100 2012 Orange-red
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
On 2012-09-09 21:12, Teslaalset wrote: - prometeon, the Italian licensee/distributer, mentioned cooperation with Siemens in a public presentation Here (slide 2): http://www.22passi.it/Presentazione_Prometeon_Zurigo_8_settembre_2012.pdf Source: http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/09/e-cat-in-corso-di-sviluppo-con-siemens.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
I've followed most of the conference remotely as well. Mixed observations in addition to what Guenter already posted here: - rossi now says Ni conversion to Cu is a tiny side effect, when responding to a public question on Helium production. So what about the ash that he allowed a Swedish university to check that contained 30% Copper? A clear indication of a misleading action. - prometeon, the Italian licensee/distributer, mentioned cooperation with Siemens in a public presentation On Sunday, September 9, 2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: > Inline... > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell > > > wrote: > >> Jeff Berkowitz > 'pdx...@gmail.com');>> wrote: >> >> >>> Scientific publication approach or commercial enterprise approach: >>> choose one. >>> >> >> Why choose one? They are not mutually exclusive. Mainstream companies >> routinely publish information that meets scientific standards of >> reliability, although details are often missing to protect trade secrets. >> Companies such as IBM that do a lot of fundamental research often publish >> scientific papers. >> > > Scientific papers published along with breakthrough product innovations, > as you point out, are often missing key details to protect trade secrets. > But "experimental" (as opposed to "theoretical") scientific publications > are, in principle at least, supposed to contain sufficient detail about > protocols to allow replication of the results. So I tend to see this as an > example of the commercial side compromising the scientific side. To put it > differently, the ability to buy a working product that implements a > principle can legitimately replace publication of certain details about the > principle without loss of credibility. I wasn't making a value judgment, I > was just observing. > > More generally, companies like IBM that do this "for real" usually try to > establish some kind of clear organizational separation (e.g. Watson Lab) > between their scientific side and their industrial side. Despite that, > scientific research conducted in industry is a common subject of criticism > for bias. This is a hotly debated issue in the pharmaceutical industry > right now, for example. > > In any case, these are huge industrial corporations that can afford to > segment themselves, at least to some extent, in an effort to give their > scientific publications the required degree of impartiality. It hardly > applies to this situation (or for that matter to any start-up commercial > enterprise) because both the internal segmentation and the actual process > of scientific publication are very expensive. Start-ups can never have too > much working capital, and scientific publication usually doesn't play a big > role in directly returning the capital to the investors. > > So overall I stand by what I said: strong factors work against mixing > commercial enterprise with scientific endeavor. > > >> Rossi has chosen to ignore scientific standards, and to conduct what I >> consider a tawdry sales campaign. I think it makes him look bad. I do not >> think it will work. >> > > I have a relaxed attitude about this. He's free to conduct his enterprise > any way he sees fit. I don't intend this comment to be argumentative. > > >> I agree that believable testimony from a real customer would make his >> case better than anything else. I doubt he has any customers, but who knows. >> > > There are several threads around the net that suggest more than one person > has seriously tried to make a purchase and been unable to do so. I agree > the truth is hard to know. > > >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
Inline... On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jeff Berkowitz wrote: > > >> Scientific publication approach or commercial enterprise approach: choose >> one. >> > > Why choose one? They are not mutually exclusive. Mainstream companies > routinely publish information that meets scientific standards of > reliability, although details are often missing to protect trade secrets. > Companies such as IBM that do a lot of fundamental research often publish > scientific papers. > Scientific papers published along with breakthrough product innovations, as you point out, are often missing key details to protect trade secrets. But "experimental" (as opposed to "theoretical") scientific publications are, in principle at least, supposed to contain sufficient detail about protocols to allow replication of the results. So I tend to see this as an example of the commercial side compromising the scientific side. To put it differently, the ability to buy a working product that implements a principle can legitimately replace publication of certain details about the principle without loss of credibility. I wasn't making a value judgment, I was just observing. More generally, companies like IBM that do this "for real" usually try to establish some kind of clear organizational separation (e.g. Watson Lab) between their scientific side and their industrial side. Despite that, scientific research conducted in industry is a common subject of criticism for bias. This is a hotly debated issue in the pharmaceutical industry right now, for example. In any case, these are huge industrial corporations that can afford to segment themselves, at least to some extent, in an effort to give their scientific publications the required degree of impartiality. It hardly applies to this situation (or for that matter to any start-up commercial enterprise) because both the internal segmentation and the actual process of scientific publication are very expensive. Start-ups can never have too much working capital, and scientific publication usually doesn't play a big role in directly returning the capital to the investors. So overall I stand by what I said: strong factors work against mixing commercial enterprise with scientific endeavor. > Rossi has chosen to ignore scientific standards, and to conduct what I > consider a tawdry sales campaign. I think it makes him look bad. I do not > think it will work. > I have a relaxed attitude about this. He's free to conduct his enterprise any way he sees fit. I don't intend this comment to be argumentative. > I agree that believable testimony from a real customer would make his case > better than anything else. I doubt he has any customers, but who knows. > There are several threads around the net that suggest more than one person has seriously tried to make a purchase and been unable to do so. I agree the truth is hard to know. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
...Therefore, proof occurs when somebody can buy one,... after watching for 8hr+ wooly heads at the Zurich conference, who are ready to spend significant amounts of money on anything nonsensical, I seriously question the/Yourproposition, that money buys , or equals, 'reality'. This ist not so! And I am dead serious about that! Come out of our argumentative cave and I kill You in an instant, if You dare. Guenter Von: Jeff Berkowitz An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 18:13 Sonntag, 9.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1) I think it's fairly simple actually. Mr Rossi has chosen to organize his efforts as a commercial enterprise, rather than as a scientific enterprise. Therefore, proof occurs when somebody can buy one, and the customer reports that it "works", even if just to some limited extent and with extensive customer support, if required. These are the same standards that are routinely applied to any technological enterprise that tries to advance the state of their own art, whatever it may be. If Mr Rossi wished to influence or participate in the scientific debate, his entire approach would have to be different. So in my view the stuff he is releasing is fine; he can obviously do whatever he likes. It's just not very important. Scientific publication approach or commercial enterprise approach: choose one. Jeff On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Thanks for the report! The situation is confusing. > >- Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
“This report comes from two separated tests made on the 16th of July and the 7th of August, made by the Certificator and professors from 2 Universities. We are under NDA with both, but I want to make very clear that this is not a final report, because all the measurements have to be repeated many times before reaching the reliability necessary to a product. Therefore all the measurements have to be repeated many times more. We are on the right way to make a very important product, but much R&D work has still to be done.” What does this Rossi quote say to us? I rise in support of Rossi on this one. Rossi had no control or responsibility over this series of tests. Rossi was strictly hands off, and had no inputs into or participation in this evaluation exercise. The intent of this test series was to begin a certification of a product by a testing organization as safe and in conformance to a set of European regulatory standards for a commercial product. This LENR product certification process is just beginning and the results presented are preliminary. The intent of this customer conference is strictly commercial in nature. Its purpose is limited and may well be to inform and assure Rossi’s customer base that sufficient progress is being made in product development and safety assurance as witnessed by an internationally known and well respected third party product certification organization and is not intended in any way to meet any scientific standards or peer review expectations. Any faults in the testing process must be laid exclusively at the feet of the testing agent. It might be possible that this type of certification process is not appropriate for a nuclear reactor. Rossi is breaking new ground in this area so some testing and certification problems are to be expected. As with any new class of energy production process, this is an all new experience and the new LENR industry must go through this process sooner or later. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jeff Berkowitz wrote: > > >> Scientific publication approach or commercial enterprise approach: choose >> one. >> > > Why choose one? They are not mutually exclusive. Mainstream companies > routinely publish information that meets scientific standards of > reliability, although details are often missing to protect trade secrets. > Companies such as IBM that do a lot of fundamental research often publish > scientific papers. > > Rossi has chosen to ignore scientific standards, and to conduct what I > consider a tawdry sales campaign. I think it makes him look bad. I do not > think it will work. > > I agree that believable testimony from a real customer would make his case > better than anything else. I doubt he has any customers, but who knows. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
Jeff Berkowitz wrote: > Scientific publication approach or commercial enterprise approach: choose > one. > Why choose one? They are not mutually exclusive. Mainstream companies routinely publish information that meets scientific standards of reliability, although details are often missing to protect trade secrets. Companies such as IBM that do a lot of fundamental research often publish scientific papers. Rossi has chosen to ignore scientific standards, and to conduct what I consider a tawdry sales campaign. I think it makes him look bad. I do not think it will work. I agree that believable testimony from a real customer would make his case better than anything else. I doubt he has any customers, but who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
I think it's fairly simple actually. Mr Rossi has chosen to organize his efforts as a commercial enterprise, rather than as a scientific enterprise. Therefore, proof occurs when somebody can buy one, and the customer reports that it "works", even if just to some limited extent and with extensive customer support, if required. These are the same standards that are routinely applied to any technological enterprise that tries to advance the state of their own art, whatever it may be. If Mr Rossi wished to influence or participate in the scientific debate, his entire approach would have to be different. So in my view the stuff he is releasing is fine; he can obviously do whatever he likes. It's just not very important. Scientific publication approach or commercial enterprise approach: choose one. Jeff On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Thanks for the report! The situation is confusing. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
Thanks for the report! The situation is confusing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
Hello Haiko, I watched-intermittently, the videocast of the Zurich conference sunday 10:00 up to 17:xx (now). I have very mixed feelings on that. 1st) Adolf and Inge Schneider, TransAltec Inc., Zurich/CH, the organizers, are a quite dubious couple 2nd) Rossi's presentation did not show anything new, neither in the positive nor in the negative 3rd) Other presenters are obviuosly scammers of the lowest grade: His presentation: ...Novel Concept for the Conversion of Heat into Electric Energy, with Demo Highly efficient method for generating electricity from low temperature heat Dr. sc.nat. Hans Weber, London/GB and Zug/CH... some catchwords I noted while watching: ARCMIRA group no mechanics shop 7 shell(my words) companies, mainly located in GB piezoelectric/pyroelectric devices wilhelm reichs orgon pyrocapacitor supercap not yet ready to convert substantial amounts of energy I am not a mechanical person an investor wanted to buy our whole research for a quarter million, but we are not yet ready I prefer drehspulinstrumente (moving-coil-meters) -- the beauty is, you need no battery the Higgs boson this is elementary electronics I am a radioamateur Das ist ein UKW/MW/LW-Drehkondensator (variable capacitor)... 150 500kHz (explaining his setup) I had not sufficient time in the hotel the effect ( of pyro-piezo) is in between the mechanical-electrical-thermal the whole thing is in development, as you see; you see that it is important to use moving coil measuring instruments, not digital ones I wanted to show how we work unfortunately it is not yet independent of the power supply. This was absolutely hilarious and makes any person with minimal technical sophistication tear out his hair and run away screaming. Cool Dr Rossi did not. Understandable. (The honest person he is, he refused the title 'professor') Sidenote: If You are core presenter on a 'conference' like this, and ran away screaming, this would translate to a mental health issue of your own. Probably Rossi does not have such a filter anymore, because he has been pushed to the fringe so often. Rossi made no error in extrapolating the possibility of a 1GW ecat, as asked from the audience: answer: It is 1000 1MW ecats. I have to agree. I made a couple of screen-snaps, so maybe I upload one or the other, just for all to get an impression. Guenter Von: "h...@haikolietz.de" An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 10:34 Sonntag, 9.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1) The name is Fulvio Fabiani, not Flavio Fabiani Am 09.09.2012 10:02, schrieb h...@haikolietz.de: Report from day 1 of the ECat Convention in Zürich > >Andrea Rossi presented a report by „independent parties“ („professors of >universities“ and „engineers from military environments“), signed by nuclear >engineer Fabio Penon. All parties that participated in the report are still >operating to complete their analyses and operations. The document will soon be >online. Here's a few things I noted: > >- The classic ecat is stable at low temperature. „it has been safety certified >from SGS for all Europe“. But applications require hot temperatures: the „hot >cat“ >- hot cat: analysts were allowed to dismantle the whole reactor system before >and after operation. Rossi said he was only a observer and did not operate the >system. But Fulvio Fabiani operated the security and control systems, as the >report states. >- It's problematic to store hydrogen in such a system (especially if you want >to receive a safety certificate). Therefore, they had to develop a storage >device that takes up hydrogen and releases it at a certain temperature. >- Calorimetry: infrared camera (military devp for missiles). Therefore, the >reactor must be ablack body. Paint had to be developed that stays black at >1200°C and was developed with the help of a company that produces paint for >fighter engines. >- Convection energy was measured (with border pixels) and corrected for. >- All in all, Rossi was flowing, didn't have to think what to say, told an >anecdote. „the hot cat is a war ship, not a cruise ship“. „I'm investing in it >and I believe in this product“ > >By now the report is online: >http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high-temperature-e-cat-report-published/ > >LEONARDO engineer Flavio Fabiani spoke about security and controls, (made many >jokes,) and left all questions to be answered by Rossi. Also Rossi's entourage >from PROMETEON srl (Italian branch) didn't answer questions. It's up to the >boss and will happen today: > >- One Central Control Single Unit per ecat in a fat cat controls: (a) water >inflow, (b) temp in exchanger (reactor), (c ) security valves, (d) pressure >inside the reactor, (e) dryness of steam, (f) inpu
RE: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
Thanks Haiko… we much appreciate the time you took to post this report! -Mark Iverson From: h...@haikolietz.de [mailto:h...@haikolietz.de] Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 1:02 AM To: c...@googlegroups.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1) Report from day 1 of the ECat Convention in Zürich Andrea Rossi presented a report by „independent parties“ („professors of universities“ and „engineers from military environments“), signed by nuclear engineer Fabio Penon. All parties that participated in the report are still operating to complete their analyses and operations. The document will soon be online. Here's a few things I noted: - The classic ecat is stable at low temperature. „it has been safety certified from SGS for all Europe“. But applications require hot temperatures: the „hot cat“ - hot cat: analysts were allowed to dismantle the whole reactor system before and after operation. Rossi said he was only a observer and did not operate the system. But Fulvio Fabiani operated the security and control systems, as the report states. - It's problematic to store hydrogen in such a system (especially if you want to receive a safety certificate). Therefore, they had to develop a storage device that takes up hydrogen and releases it at a certain temperature. - Calorimetry: infrared camera (military devp for missiles). Therefore, the reactor must be ablack body. Paint had to be developed that stays black at 1200°C and was developed with the help of a company that produces paint for fighter engines. - Convection energy was measured (with border pixels) and corrected for. - All in all, Rossi was flowing, didn't have to think what to say, told an anecdote. „the hot cat is a war ship, not a cruise ship“. „I'm investing in it and I believe in this product“ By now the report is online: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high-temperature-e-cat-report-published/ LEONARDO engineer Flavio Fabiani spoke about security and controls, (made many jokes,) and left all questions to be answered by Rossi. Also Rossi's entourage from PROMETEON srl (Italian branch) didn't answer questions. It's up to the boss and will happen today: - One Central Control Single Unit per ecat in a fat cat controls: (a) water inflow, (b) temp in exchanger (reactor), (c ) security valves, (d) pressure inside the reactor, (e) dryness of steam, (f) input voltage and amperage. The CCSUs supervise single modules and bring them down if they malfunction - All CCSUs ae LAN connected and can be internet remote controlled - A fat cat (MW1) has 90 modules, 3 of them sleeping. „sleeping modules“ will automatically turn on when another module turns off (eg when fault), stabilizing output There may be flaws in my report. Haiko
Re: [Vo]:ECat convention (Report day 1)
The name is Fulvio Fabiani, not Flavio Fabiani Am 09.09.2012 10:02, schrieb h...@haikolietz.de: > Report from day 1 of the ECat Convention in Zürich > > Andrea Rossi presented a report by „independent parties" („professors of universities" and „engineers from military environments"), signed by nuclear engineer Fabio Penon. All parties that participated in the report are still operating to complete their analyses and operations. The document will soon be online. Here's a few things I noted: > > - The classic ecat is stable at low temperature. „it has been safety certified from SGS for all Europe". But applications require hot temperatures: the „hot cat" > - hot cat: analysts were allowed to dismantle the whole reactor system before and after operation. Rossi said he was only a observer and did not operate the system. But Fulvio Fabiani operated the security and control systems, as the report states. > - It's problematic to store hydrogen in such a system (especially if you want to receive a safety certificate). Therefore, they had to develop a storage device that takes up hydrogen and releases it at a certain temperature. > - Calorimetry: infrared camera (military devp for missiles). Therefore, the reactor must be ablack body. Paint had to be developed that stays black at 1200°C and was developed with the help of a company that produces paint for fighter engines. > - Convection energy was measured (with border pixels) and corrected for. > - All in all, Rossi was flowing, didn't have to think what to say, told an anecdote. „the hot cat is a war ship, not a cruise ship". „I'm investing in it and I believe in this product" > > By now the report is online: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high-temperature-e-cat-report-published/ > > LEONARDO engineer Flavio Fabiani spoke about security and controls, (made many jokes,) and left all questions to be answered by Rossi. Also Rossi's entourage from PROMETEON srl (Italian branch) didn't answer questions. It's up to the boss and will happen today: > > - One Central Control Single Unit per ecat in a fat cat controls: (a) water inflow, (b) temp in exchanger (reactor), (c ) security valves, (d) pressure inside the reactor, (e) dryness of steam, (f) input voltage and amperage. The CCSUs supervise single modules and bring them down if they malfunction > - All CCSUs ae LAN connected and can be internet remote controlled > - A fat cat (MW1) has 90 modules, 3 of them sleeping. „sleeping modules" will automatically turn on when another module turns off (eg when fault), stabilizing output > > There may be flaws in my report. > > Haiko
