Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Michele Comitini]

next time they can connect an espesso machine. Everyone will enjoy a
great coffee: the little metallic flawor from Cu should give a great
result ;-)

mic

2011/4/17 Jones Beene :
> Hey Alan,
>
> All this talk about ways to fake the Rossi experiment got me to thinking
> about a clever way which may not have been mentioned – or maybe I overlooked
> it if it was covered already.
>
> Was hydrogen peroxide mentioned? And/or did anyone actually *taste the
> water* in the first test ?
>
> BTW I do not think this demo was a scam, but this scheme could be worth
> mentioning.
>
> It was not generally known at the time in January, but has been mentioned
> since then - that the demonstration took place at a factory owned by
> Leonardo. If he wanted to scam, Rossi could have altered the plumbing to one
> faucet in that room only - to deliver a combustible clear liquid to fill the
> containers. He may have filled the containers in the presence of the
> assembled Professors, before the video started - so nobody would have given
> a second thought it could be anything but eau de municipal.
>
> As I recall no one in Italy willing drinks tap water, but in the interest of
> science – it could have happened. Hopefully we will hear that some brave
> soul had the foresight (courage) to try to drink a bit of it – so that we
> can eliminated this possibility too. If not, this opens up a way to get
> quite a bit of combustible volume into play – more than the one liter.
>
> As you may know, there has been a major effort in China to convert coal to
> liquid fuel – it is called CTL. Usually it is mixed alcohols. One company
> which has done this remarkably well is known as the “Shenzhen Group”. I have
> seen a video of a product that is colorless, odorless and water-based that
> burns completely as if was alcohol, but does not have the volatile odor like
> alcohol. In fact it was developed to be used indoors for heating and cooking
> in open kerosene type heaters which are common all over Asia. The biggest
> selling point is no smell and near zero monoxide - and this could be due to
> peroxide content.
>
> Of course, anything over 30% peroxide would be the perfect scam since it
> converts directly to steam. However, peroxide itself has a slightly
> different appearance, so it would need to be a new kind of blend.
>
> Rossi would know of this, as EON his other company - is in the alternative
> fuel business.
>
> Ever hear of the Swiss Rocket Man ?
>
> Sorry to bother you, if this has been covered.
>
> Jones

RE: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jones Beene]

Hey Alan,

All this talk about ways to fake the Rossi experiment got me to thinking
about a clever way which may not have been mentioned - or maybe I overlooked
it if it was covered already.

Was hydrogen peroxide mentioned? And/or did anyone actually *taste the
water* in the first test ? 

BTW I do not think this demo was a scam, but this scheme could be worth
mentioning.

It was not generally known at the time in January, but has been mentioned
since then - that the demonstration took place at a factory owned by
Leonardo. If he wanted to scam, Rossi could have altered the plumbing to one
faucet in that room only - to deliver a combustible clear liquid to fill the
containers. He may have filled the containers in the presence of the
assembled Professors, before the video started - so nobody would have given
a second thought it could be anything but eau de municipal. 

As I recall no one in Italy willing drinks tap water, but in the interest of
science - it could have happened. Hopefully we will hear that some brave
soul had the foresight (courage) to try to drink a bit of it - so that we
can eliminated this possibility too. If not, this opens up a way to get
quite a bit of combustible volume into play - more than the one liter.

As you may know, there has been a major effort in China to convert coal to
liquid fuel - it is called CTL. Usually it is mixed alcohols. One company
which has done this remarkably well is known as the "Shenzhen Group". I have
seen a video of a product that is colorless, odorless and water-based that
burns completely as if was alcohol, but does not have the volatile odor like
alcohol. In fact it was developed to be used indoors for heating and cooking
in open kerosene type heaters which are common all over Asia. The biggest
selling point is no smell and near zero monoxide - and this could be due to
peroxide content.

Of course, anything over 30% peroxide would be the perfect scam since it
converts directly to steam. However, peroxide itself has a slightly
different appearance, so it would need to be a new kind of blend.

Rossi would know of this, as EON his other company - is in the alternative
fuel business.

Ever hear of the Swiss Rocket Man ? 

Sorry to bother you, if this has been covered.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:


>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2010Levi-Report-RossiDemo.pdf
>  Power from the 220V line was monitor and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro Es
> power meter.
>

Plus a clamp-on ammeter.

So you think that a watt meter can be wrong by a factor of 200 (16 kw)? Or
by a factor of 1,600 (130 kW)? Because if cannot be anywhere near that
wrong, you are wasting your time considering it.

I understand that these are merely hypothetical examinations of what *could*
happen. However, when you consider how a trick might work, you should pay
some attention to how that trick might fail to work, and to the fact that if
the person testing the machine took even minimal common-sense precautions,
or looked closely at the machine, the trick would be immediately revealed.

The thing is, I could add dozens more impossible tricks, or a hundred more
variations. For example, maybe Rossi waited until the professors left the
room for a moment and then swapped instruments with fake one. Where would he
find ones that looked exactly alike? Well, he hired someone to brake into
their labs, photograph the equipment, and make an exact duplicate. The FBI
did this in a episode of the "Soprano's." Sure, it could happen.

Or, lets say, when they were not looking, he substituted a machine that
looked exactly the same except it had a fuel line going through one of the
legs.

Or, he hypnotized them, and by power of persuasion and post-hypnotic
suggestion, made them believe they saw 130 kW. That could happen too!
Hypnosis is remarkable.

I could go on like that all day, getting farther and farther removed from
reality. I have not addressed the fact that they are now testing the gadget
in Rossi's absence and they will soon open it up and find whatever trick he
is using. Forget about motive or the likelihood of anyone actually doing
this. If we fantasize and assume that anything can happen, we can come up
with an endless series of reasons why *any* experiment might be fake or
wrong. You can disprove the moon landings. The skeptics have been doing that
for years with Pd-D experiments by McKubre and others. I could a far better
job than they do, and not a single one of their hypotheses is worth
considering, but that does not stop them.

You need to draw the line, and exclude  tricks that any experienced person
would detect in a few minutes. You need to exclude tricks that only the FBI
would have the resources to do. The trick has to be plausible, or it is a
waste of time thinking about it.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

I picked up a conventional rotating eddy current rotor utility power meter
at a junk yard, and it's really quite accurate ( Public service laws require
a certain precision since you're being charged for the power).  ( The number
Kh stamped on the label is watt hours/revolution ).  I recently bought a
fully digital power meter from Newegg.com for US$17 :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=16521%205
0011445%204336&IsNodeId=1&Manufactory=11445&bop=And&SpeTabStoreType=10&C
ompareItemList=336|82-715-001^82-715-001-05%23%2C82-715-005^82-715-005-05%23

which has also proved quite accurate.  I haven't tried it with
pathologically shaped waveforms, though.  Yes -- a $20,000 scope would be
better :-) .


My guess is it's using the new ICs designed for the electronic versions of
smart utility meters.

Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US
http://HoytStearns.com



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 6:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake


On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings.

No, you lose because you did not read what I said:

<><><><>

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> Power meters can NOT be relied on.

Bull$hit!  The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results.

<><><><>

Plus, there are perfectly good power measuring instruments that are
not oscilloscopes.

T

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Terry Blanton]

Hey, let's agree that most experimenters measure power incorrectly.

T

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings.

No, you lose because you did not read what I said:

<><><><>

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> Power meters can NOT be relied on.

Bull$hit!  The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results.

<><><><>

Plus, there are perfectly good power measuring instruments that are
not oscilloscopes.

T

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 05:59 PM 4/15/2011, you wrote:

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> I'll raise you TWO bullshits :

You'll lose.  Give me a good digital oscilloscope with current and
voltage probes that outputs CSV data to an Excel spreadsheet and I'll
give you power measurements within the sampling error per one Mr.
Nyquist.


If you read my document you'll see that I recommend the use of 
oscilloscopes, both to get the accurate non-sinusoidal power AND to 
verify there's no HF or phase futz.


I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings.

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> I'll raise you TWO bullshits :

You'll lose.  Give me a good digital oscilloscope with current and
voltage probes that outputs CSV data to an Excel spreadsheet and I'll
give you power measurements within the sampling error per one Mr.
Nyquist.

T

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 05:50 PM 4/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 05:28 PM 4/15/2011, Terry
Blanton wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM,
Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
> Power meters can NOT be relied on.
Bull$hit!  The right instruments used correctly provide accurate
results.
I'll raise you TWO bull$hits :
Make that THREE : (on experimental procedures).
The temperatures recorded in [Test 2] are
shown in fig 4. Unfortunately the original data has been lost but the
different evolution is evident. 

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 05:28 PM 4/15/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM,
Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
> Power meters can NOT be relied on.
Bull$hit!  The right instruments used correctly provide accurate
results.
I'll raise you TWO bullshits :


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2010Levi-Report-RossiDemo.pdf

 Power from the 220V line was monitor
and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro Es power meter. 


https://www.wattsupmeters.com/secure/products.php?pn=0&wai=0&spec=3
 
Mains supply voltage fluctuations not to exceed +/- 10% of the nominal
voltage 
*Some inverters have extremely fast rise times and can damage the
electronics. The .Net is recommended if using with an inverter. 
* Some loads and environments cause excessive noise, which can corrupt
calibration data thus leading to erroneous data. This is typically not a
problem. But especially for industrial studies where the data is
critical, we highly recommend the .Net. This model has significant
hardware and software improvements to reduce the likelihood of errors.

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> Power meters can NOT be relied on.

Bull$hit!  The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results.

T

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 03:22 PM 4/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michele Comitini
<
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:
 


Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in  the following
simple

components could be used besides the E-cat,  H2 gas tank
and  control

box:

1) a (sealed) room without power outlet.

2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but

limited amount of energy


This is not necessary. Power meters can be relied upon. Normal scientific
instruments and procedures should be used to test this device.

Power meters can NOT be relied on.  
<
http://pesn.com/2011/02/27/9501773_Aviso_Ponders_Open_Sourcing_Self-Running_EV_Tech/
>
<
http://pesn.com/2011/02/24/9501772_Philippine_DOE_Verifies_Aviso_Self-Charging_EV/
>
is almost certainly due to high-frequency crud confusing "normal
scientific instruments and procedures"
Carl Sagan was wrong.
Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. They are best
supported with ordinary evidence 
I agree -- see "Rothwell's Razor" -- but the ordinary evidence
has to be complete.
from off-the-shelf instruments
and standard techniques. (M&R)
See above.
A test with batteries would be
"showboating" in my opinion. It would be giving the skeptics
and their unrealistic doubts more respect than they deserve.
It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct
more than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters
drew ~3 kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters
nowadays are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps.
To be specific, from the photos I take this to be: 18 AWG, 1.0 mm, 2.3
max amps transmission, 16 amps chassis wiring. ("Chassis
wiring" means a short stretch of uninsulated wiring inside a
machine.)
See: Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas

http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm

It is preposterous to suggest that you could use this wire to conduct 16
kW at any voltage. Furthermore, Levi looked inside the box at the control
electronics and found only "5 simple PLC" (programmable logic
control). Such devices are rated at one power level and will not work at
far higher levels. They would burn up, along with the
wire.
I agreed with you on this one. 

Fletcher's scenarios are
"Just So Stories" meaning that in real life we can dismiss
them. 
Except for extending the inner line of the Tarallo fake down the output
hose (and selecting some of the chemicals) every single fake I've
analyzed has been suggested by somebody else, including the original
observing team.  
Everyone else on the web/academia is demanding more stringent proof. They
are NOT dismissing them.
Even my methodology comes from an observer:
As Villa reported:
   In the present test, as a precautionary attitude, whatever
was not known, not disclosed or not understood has been considered as the
energy source. 
   
  The duration of the tests would be directly proportional to the
mass and volume of unknown origin. 
The devices he describes are
physically impossible. 
The methodology proof of the chemical/finite storage methods does exactly
that.  By setting the bar at 100% fuel and 100% efficiency all
quibbling about engineering efficiency goes away. Why settle for
"improbable" when you can have "impossible" or
"unlikely" or "would have noticed" with very little
extra work.
The people and instruments in
his stories would have to react precisely the way he imagines they might
-- the slightest variation in their actions or use of instruments would
instantly reveal the fake nature of the device. One glance in the wrong
direction, one touch of the wrong component, and all would be revealed.
The observers would have to be hypnotized to follow Rossi's every
instruction.
I include air-breathing and fume-emitting combustion as not eliminated,
because nobody checked it.  But I also include closed systems, where
nothing is output except heat, and where the weight of the apparatus
doesn't change. They are indistinguishable from a wrapped eCat except
that they eventually run out of fuel.
His scenario demands that 50 or
more highly experienced engineers and scientists suddenly forget how to
do experiments, ...
Gee : Essen  admits it :

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44803.html
Hello group,

In answer to a question from a concerned person regarding water flow 
measurements during the last Rossi E-cat test/demonstration, Hanno Essén
added, 
perhaps unconsciously, that there will be a follow-up experiment next
week. 
Here's the original email as posted by him on an italian discussion forum
(some 
personal info omitted):

* * *

Hello
I remember clearly that there was no adjusting of the pump during the
experiment. There was a tank of distilled water on the floor below the
pump. Unfortunately its refilling and weight etc were not checked.
These things will be better checked in a follow up experiment next
week.

Best regards
Hanno Essén

They also  forgot to weigh  the hydrogen bottle. They accepted
many of Rossi's statements as fa

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Michele Comitini]

> It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct more
> than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters drew ~3
> kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters nowadays
> are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps.
Jed I agree with you ... but then they can claim superconductors... ;-)
Batteries as all other instumentation besides the E-Cat should not be Rossi's.
Rossi's should not even be in the room.

The point is that a *closed* system takes away many possible arguments
such as  Tarallo's paradox.

BTW see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarallo they are good!

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jed Rothwell]

Michele Comitini  wrote:


> Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in  the following simple
> components could be used besides the E-cat,  H2 gas tank and  control
> box:
>
> 1) a (sealed) room without power outlet.
> 2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but
> limited amount of energy
>

This is not necessary. Power meters can be relied upon. Normal scientific
instruments and procedures should be used to test this device. Carl Sagan
was wrong. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. They are
best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and
standard techniques. (M&R)

A test with batteries would be "showboating" in my opinion. It would be
giving the skeptics and their unrealistic doubts more respect than they
deserve.

It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct more
than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters drew ~3
kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters nowadays
are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps.

To be specific, from the photos I take this to be: 18 AWG, 1.0 mm, 2.3 max
amps transmission, 16 amps chassis wiring. ("Chassis wiring" means a short
stretch of uninsulated wiring inside a machine.)

See: Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas

http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm

It is preposterous to suggest that you could use this wire to conduct 16 kW
at any voltage. Furthermore, Levi looked inside the box at the control
electronics and found only "5 simple PLC" (programmable logic control). Such
devices are rated at one power level and will not work at far higher levels.
They would burn up, along with the wire.

Fletcher's scenarios are "Just So Stories" meaning that in real life we can
dismiss them. The devices he describes are physically impossible. The people
and instruments in his stories would have to react precisely the way he
imagines they might -- the slightest variation in their actions or use of
instruments would instantly reveal the fake nature of the device. One glance
in the wrong direction, one touch of the wrong component, and all would be
revealed. The observers would have to be hypnotized to follow Rossi's every
instruction.

His scenario demands that 50 or more highly experienced engineers and
scientists suddenly forget how to do experiments, and how to take
rudimentary common sense steps such as holding their hand briefly over the
device to confirm it is radiating heat, and over the outlet tube to
determine that it is warm. Three of the observers in the January 14 test
assured me they did check the tube, and it was too hot to touch, therefore
the reactor was definitely producing the level of heat the instruments
indicated.

The outlet tube would be stone cold in the scenarios Fletcher imagines.

His scenarios also assumes that Rossi is a lunatic who has spent €1 million
to produce a fake that will be completely revealed soon when they open up
the cell and look inside.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Michele Comitini]

Two major claims about Rossi's must be verified (cause and effect):

1. It is nuclear (the cause)
2. It gives far more thermal energy than consumed electrical  energy
so there is a commercial viability (the effect)

An experiment should focus only on calorimetry since the claimed
effect would be lots of heat .  Let's forget the cause, at the moment.
The simple question: "Is the fire (really) hot?" still needs to be
answered.   All other questions come afterwards.  And since such
experiment
could be really simple, we should wonder why it was not done right away?


Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in  the following simple
components could be used besides the E-cat,  H2 gas tank and  control
box:

1) a (sealed) room without power outlet.
2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but
limited amount of energy
3) a tank full of water (how many cubic meters would be enough to
avoid a reaction out of control?) well insulated (quasi adiabatic)
4) a simple liquid mixer (using power from a dedicated pack of batteries)

Just connect the in and the out of the E-cat to the tank and measure
the temperature in different points of the tank at regular
intervals until batteries are exhausted.  Check the level of water
inside the tank stays the same. Weight everything before and
after.  At the end there should be a positive T increase and should be
much more than the one that could be possibly generated by
the batteries (even the mixer ones) and by burning the missing mass.

mic

2011/4/15 Alan J Fletcher :
> At 06:17 PM 4/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
> I'll say it, Rossi is probably real.
> I would say "almost certainly" real.
> But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally
> avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool
> ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss.
> Well said. I agree.
>
> I personally agree with both statements ... but at present I have to go with
> :
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v320.php The December/January
> experiments were too short to rule out ANY of these theoretical fakes. But
> if Levi's informal reports on the February trial are accepted, then ALL
> chemical fakes are eliminated. However, neither the January or February
> reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake.
> The March report probably rules out a Tarallo fake -- but since the
> Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes.
> At present the Rossi eCat has NOT been proven to be real. However, a few
> simple improvements to the experimental setup will almost certainly do that.
> Here's hoping that Kullander and Essén  close the remaining loopholes in
> their anticipated new test.

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 06:17 PM 4/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

wrote:


I'll say it, Rossi is probably real.

I would say "almost certainly" real.


But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to
totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then,
we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people.
A loss.

Well said. I agree.
I personally agree with both statements ... but at present I have to go
with :

http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v320.php

The December/January experiments were too short to rule out ANY of
these theoretical fakes. But if Levi's informal reports on the February
trial are accepted, then ALL chemical fakes are eliminated. However,
neither the January or February reports rule out a Tarallo Water
Diversion Fake. 

The March report probably rules out a Tarallo fake --
but since the Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all
chemical fakes.

At present the Rossi eCat has NOT been proven to be
real. However, a few simple improvements to the experimental setup will
almost certainly do that.
Here's hoping that Kullander and Essén  close the remaining
loopholes in their anticipated new test.

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

>

> I'll say it, Rossi is probably real.
>

I would say "almost certainly" real.


But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally
> avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool
> ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss.
>

Well said. I agree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:09 PM 4/12/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I've updated http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v317.php 
to include a fake which was actually proposed back in February :


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42228.html

Although "not likely" I rate it as "NOT ELIMINATED"  by ANY of the 
experiments or reports.


If people will recall, my position is that it's impossible to 
completely eliminate, at this point, all possible modes of fakery.


Because we are not at this point yet -- it will take wide, 
independent confirmation to be absolutely certain -- we shouldn't bet 
the farm on Rossi. I do know that serious research effort is now 
being diverted into work to investigate the nickel-hydrogen system, 
as a result of Rossi, but it's being done with eyes wide open, I 
hope. Anyone investing in this should carefully consider the risks.


But in the other direction, I see people, such as the administrator 
TenOfAllTrades, on Wikipedia, and I suspect he's a scientist, coming 
out confidently with assertions that this is bogus, and attempting to 
impeach the Swedish reporter, etc.


"Bogus" is unlikely at this point, the modes and mechanisms for 
fakery have become difficult enough that relying on them would be 
foolish, and these "scientists" are only betting on what we already 
know is an error, the supposed impossibility of LENR, which was never 
a scientific belief, it was politics and assumption and arrogance, 
from the beginning.


I'll say it, Rossi is probably real.

But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to 
totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, 
we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere 
people. A loss.

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Alan J Fletcher]

I've answered some of the arguments to the Torello fake in the latest
version :

http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v318.php
The Jan/Feb experiment reports say they did NOT check the end of the
outlet pipe.
The March experiment says they DID make a visual check.
I did the calculations on heat leakage from the outer HOT compartment to
the inner COLD tube -- for a thick rubber tube, it's at most 80W, out of
the 300W input.
This fake is plausible enough that it MUST be checked against --
specifically, by measuring the output temperature and steam dryness 
OUTSIDE of the eCAT.
Cut-and paste from 3.18  follows, but the format may be erratic
:
1.1. Arguments about the Torelli Fake



Rothwell Okay, what insulator would you use inside the pipe? You need
something thin enough to allow the water through and yet effective at 1
L/s with a 31°C temperature difference for the apparent 130 kW heat in
the Feb. 10 test. 

The duration of the 130kW was unspecified, so I'll stick with the
March experiment. If we use the above diagram, with a 3 cm diameter outer
section, and put a 1cm diameter bypass through the device, with a
diversion ratio of 1/16 to 15/16 (roughly equal to the given power
ratio). The bypass tube could be rubber (a reasonable
insulator).
 
Thermal
Conductivity : watts / m.K Rubber is 0.16 :

Area  A =  2 *  3.1415 * 0.500 * 100.000  =
314.1500 cm2  
Thickness Y : 0.500 cm
dT = 100 - 20 = 80.000 
k of rubber = 0.160
Watts = k * dT * A / Y 
  = 0.160 * 80.000  * 0.03141500 /
0.005
  =  80.4224  
  
Even this value could be handled in the fake, which had 300W of
electrical power available. : the amount of water diverted would have to
take this loss into account. Since the water would warm up as it passes
through the reactor the average dT would actually be less than that just
calculated. 
The bypass could be engineered to minimise this loss. It could be
arranged to be in contact with the outer wall, so the effective transfer
area would be reduced. Wrap it in a (waterproofed) Silica Aerogel (0.004
to 0.04) and the problem goes away. 
Why wouldn't Levi et al. notice that they cannot insert thermocouples
more than a faction of the way into the hose? (If they could insert it
and it did not penetrate the barrier, it would block the middle channel.)

They didn't insert it into the hose. They inserted it into the instrument
port. 
The above diagram shows the bypass tube in the center of the chimney. It
could be at the side (or even hidden by a false wall near the instrument
port).

Stephen A. Lawrence :

Vortex 
It's totally ruled out if the effluent is observed to be steam and
the output temperature is claimed to be roughly 100C. Whether wet steam
or dry steam, if it's coming out as steam, then the outlet temperature is
at least 100C, and the placement of the temperature probe is irrelevant.
During the first test, back in ... uh ... January?, the effluent was
observed to be steam during at least part of the run, and this effect
couldn't have been an issue.
The probe was always placed in the outer "Hot"
compartment. Nobody reported in January that they checked for steam
coming OUT of the hose. Nobody reported in February that they measured
the temperature of the water coming out of the hose.



Rothwell However, in this test, the outlet temperature is measured in
the "chimney." That is large enough to implement this trick
fairly easily, with steam passing the thermocouple, well insulated from
the stream of cold water. However, the outlet tube would be close to tap
water temperature, which would be a dead giveaway. I am assuming someone
had the sense to hold a hand near it or touch it for a moment. I would do
that the moment I saw the test. 

To make the black tube hot, you have to imagine there is barrier
within the hose that allows a thin layer of steam to pass on the outside
at a high temperature without being cooled by the water in the center. It
is moving at 1.7 ml/s. From the photo I suppose that hose is 1 cm OD and
0.8 cm ID, which is to say a volume of 0.5 cm^3 per centimeter of hose.
So if the water is liquid, it is moving about 4 cm per second. It would
cool down a short distance from the chimney. Real steam moving out of
that hose would reach a lot farther than 4 cm per second, and heat the
entire hose. There would still be a lot of steam coming out of the end of
the hose in the bathroom. 
The output tube used in March is considerably thicker than 1 cm.
Looks about 2 cm at least. The fake I'm proposing does have a coaxial
tube for some arbitrary distance in the output hose, so the outside of
the hose will indeed feel hot. The thermal conductivity analysis above
could be aplied here. 
Thinking aloud here ... first see how long it takes for the diverted
water to go through the tube. 
 
flow 6.470 L/Hr = 1.797 cc/sec  Hot: 0.112 cc/sec Cold: 1.685
cc/sec
inner tube radius : 0.500 cm  length : 100.000  cm  volume
: 78.538 cc
time in reactor : 46.613 secs

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Harry Veeder]

Rossi's device would have to be modified to make the concept of 
a tube-within-a-tube workable, but IMO a system based on this concept would be 
more 
likely to fool an investor than a system based on a hidden power source.

Harry


from: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, April 13, 2011 2:48:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

After seeing Harry's comment, I finally went and read the proposed mechanism.  
I 

have a couple comments on it.

* It's totally ruled out if the effluent is observed to be steam and the 
output 

temperature is claimed to be roughly 100C.  Whether wet steam or dry steam, if 
it's coming out as steam, then the outlet temperature is at least 100C, and the 
placement of the temperature probe is irrelevant.  During the first test, back 
in ... uh ... January?, the effluent was observed to be steam during at least 
part of the run, and this effect couldn't have been an issue.  Assuming all 
tests of the E-cat are operated basically the same way (and, if they're faked, 
they're all faked the same way), we should probably conclude that this effect 
is 

never an issue, and its possibility can be ignored.
>
>
>* With that said, the proposed mechanism is not that different from 
>Swarz's 

>ad-nauseum-repeated claims of stratification in vertical flow calorimetry, 
>and,if the water isn't being heated to boiling, it could conceivably happen by 
>mistake.  (If the probe were placed in the effluent pipe outside the reactor, 
>that possibility wouldn't exist.)
>
>
>* Finally, if the probe is actually in a backwash, dead zone, or side 
>channel, 
>
>isolated from the main flow, then that could explain an interesting feature of 
>the temperature plot from the recently uploaded paper on this:  From 20 to 40 
>C, 
>
>the temperature goes up linearly, with slope apparently unchanged at 40 C.  
>That 
>
>shouldn't happen -- the line should nose over, with the slope decreasing 
>smoothly as the water temperature increases, because maintaining the internal 
>temperature gradient as the water warms must siphon off energy needed to keep 
>warming up the device.  That should be the case, unless the reactor is 
>starting 

>up immediately, and its heat output is ramping up exactly in parallel with the 
>warming of the water.
>As noted in my "annotated" copy of the graph (previously posted), if the 
>heater's sourcing 300 watts at 20 C, and the slope of the warming curve 
>doesn't 

>change, then by the time it's at 40 C, it must be sourcing 450 watts.  There's 
>an extra 150 watts coming from someplace ... unless the flow rate at the probe 
>is nearly nil, in which case the temperature of the water at the probe doesn't 
>affect the heat needed to maintain the slope of the warming curve.
>
>On 04/13/2011 02:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: 
>I think it is a great way to fake it.
>>harry
>>
>>
>>>
>>>From: Jed Rothwell 
>>>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 9:22:17 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
>>>
>>>I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests to prove 
>>>that 
>
>>>it can be done in the first place? 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If you include every half-baked notion that "skeptics" come up with, you can 
>>>easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did not occur, and Newton's 
>>>Laws 
>>
>>>are wrong. You need to be a little more selective.
>>>
>>>
>>>- Jed
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Harry Veeder]

Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>>
>>I think it is a great way to fake it.
>Okay, what insulator would you use inside the pipe? You need something thin 
>enough to allow the water through and yet effective at 1 L/s with a 31°C 
>temperature difference for the apparent 130 kW heat in the Feb. 10 test.
>

I don't know. Probably with the given exhaust tube it would not be possible.
However, I find this tube-within-a-tube-scheme to be more devious than a 
concealed source of power.

Harry


>Why wouldn't Levi et al. notice that they cannot insert the thermocouples more 
>than a faction of the way into the hose? (If they could insert it and it did 
>not 
>
>penetrate the barrier, it would block the middle channel.)

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

  You clearly are not paying attention.  He cannot.  A candle
> needs a match.
>

A minor detail. They could jump start it with mains electricity and then
after the water boils and the steam engine begins turning, disconnect the
mains and go to generator only.

This is like starting a car from a manual crank or battery.

You could use a battery for the E-Cat, but it would have to be large, since
it takes a while for a steam engine to get up to speed.

Rossi has often claimed that he needs mains electricity to ensure safety. So
what happens if the power fails? I guess there is a way to scram the
reactor. Dump the hydrogen and fill it with nitrogen?

I should probably add to that list, "Needs electricity for stable operation.
Heat after death possible but not recommended."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> Hey, if he does that, he can close the loop, and get rid of the external
> power supply for the heater!

  You clearly are not paying attention.  He cannot.  A candle
needs a match.

T

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Stephen:

...

>> http://www.toysteam.net/wid15final.wmv
>>
>> Great stuff!
>>
>> Rossi should get a 4 kW steam engine for his next demo.
>
> Hey, if he does that, he can close the loop, and get rid of the external
> power supply for the heater!

...

Oh, the irony of it all!

Granted, to prove that OU exists we all want to see Rossi close the
loop on his gadget.

However, as has been tragically revealed at the Fukushima nuclear
plant, for safety reasons, completely closing the loop is not a good
idea. I seem to recall Rossi expressed similar safety issues in terms
of maintaining temperature stability within the e-cat reactor core.

Meanwhile, I must confess the fact that I'm still confused over the
matter of how the supplied external heater actually helps "stabilize"
Rossi's reactor core.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Andrea Selva]

I know where the excess heat comes from ! Are all those *warm *regards in
his blog ?

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

>
>
> On 04/13/2011 03:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> > Whoa! The D18 model has an electric generator and light, and they have
> > a movie of it running! See:
> >
> > http://www.toysteam.net/wid18final.wmv
> >
> > You can hear the sound change as the RPMs change. The thing runs much
> > smoother with fewer vibrations than the D6 model. The D2 will vibrate
> > itself off a table at full speed. You can see the D15 doing that and
> > making a wonderful racket:
> >
> > http://www.toysteam.net/wid15final.wmv
> >
> > Great stuff!
> >
> > Rossi should get a 4 kW steam engine for his next demo.
>
> Hey, if he does that, he can close the loop, and get rid of the external
> power supply for the heater!
>
>
> > I'll bet you can find one somewhere.
> >
> > Steam engines are nifty machines. These little ones make a lot of
> > noise, but the big ones are quieter per kilowatt than an internal
> > combustion engine.
> >
> > - Jed
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 04/13/2011 03:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Whoa! The D18 model has an electric generator and light, and they have
> a movie of it running! See:
>
> http://www.toysteam.net/wid18final.wmv
>
> You can hear the sound change as the RPMs change. The thing runs much
> smoother with fewer vibrations than the D6 model. The D2 will vibrate
> itself off a table at full speed. You can see the D15 doing that and
> making a wonderful racket:
>
> http://www.toysteam.net/wid15final.wmv
>
> Great stuff!
>
> Rossi should get a 4 kW steam engine for his next demo.

Hey, if he does that, he can close the loop, and get rid of the external
power supply for the heater!


> I'll bet you can find one somewhere.
>
> Steam engines are nifty machines. These little ones make a lot of
> noise, but the big ones are quieter per kilowatt than an internal
> combustion engine.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jed Rothwell]

Whoa! The D18 model has an electric generator and light, and they have a
movie of it running! See:

http://www.toysteam.net/wid18final.wmv

You can hear the sound change as the RPMs change. The thing runs much
smoother with fewer vibrations than the D6 model. The D2 will vibrate itself
off a table at full speed. You can see the D15 doing that and making a
wonderful racket:

http://www.toysteam.net/wid15final.wmv

Great stuff!

Rossi should get a 4 kW steam engine for his next demo. I'll bet you can
find one somewhere.

Steam engines are nifty machines. These little ones make a lot of noise, but
the big ones are quieter per kilowatt than an internal combustion engine.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


>
>- Finally, if the probe is actually in a backwash, dead zone, or side
>channel, isolated from the main flow . . .
>
>
In the Feb. 10 test, at 1 L/s there can be no such thing as a backwash or
dead zone. This test also had a Delta-T as much as 31°C, which I think is
impossible with any kind of barrier in the tube.

The March 29 test had the slowest flow rate thus far reported: 500 ml over
278 s. That's 1.7 ml/s or 108 ml/min. I have never heard of a problem with
dead spots or mixing at over 30 ml/min.

However, in this test, the outlet temperature is measured in the "chimney."
That is large enough to implement this trick fairly easily, with steam
passing the thermocouple, well insulated from the stream of cold water.
However, the outlet tube would be close to tap water temperature, which
would be a dead giveaway. I am assuming someone had the sense to hold a hand
near it or touch it for a moment. I would do that the moment I saw the test.

To make the black tube hot, you have to imagine there is barrier within the
hose that allows a thin layer of steam to pass on the outside at a high
temperature without being cooled by the water in the center. It is moving at
1.7 ml/s. From the photo I suppose that hose is 1 cm OD and 0.8 cm ID, which
is to say a volume of 0.5 cm^3 per centimeter of hose. So if the water
is liquid, it is moving about 4 cm per second. It would cool down a short
distance from the chimney. Real steam moving out of that hose would reach a
lot farther than 4 cm per second, and heat the entire hose. There would
still be a lot of steam coming out of the end of the hose in the bathroom.

I think that is science fiction.

By the way, regarding the hypothesis that wet steam has 20 times less
enthalpy than dry steam, I thought back to the steam engines I used to play
with as a child. I have one of them on the shelf here, a Wilesco D6 model:

http://www.ministeam.com/acatalog/Wilesco_Steam_.html

This steam is often quite wet when the machine first starts turning. A
mixture of steam and hot water spurt out of the cylinder for quite a while
before it finally comes out as clear (invisible) steam vapor. The total
enthalpy can be estimated roughly by the speed of the turning wheel. You
bank the fire a little and the wheel slows down immediately. I did not
measure the revolutions but from the sound and vibration it is obvious that
the RPMs are changing. I'm sure that if the enthalpy was only 1/20 of the
total when the steam was wet, the wheel would not turn at all. There is
quite a lot of friction from the cylinder and wheel bearings.

I cannot imagine where the 95% of the heat from the flame would hide while
the machine spits out a mixture of hot water and steam.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

After seeing Harry's comment, I finally went and read the proposed
mechanism.  I have a couple comments on it.

* It's totally ruled out if the effluent is observed to be steam and
  the output temperature is claimed to be roughly 100C.  Whether wet
  steam or dry steam, if it's coming out as steam, then the outlet
  temperature is at least 100C, and the placement of the temperature
  probe is irrelevant.  During the first test, back in ... uh ...
  January?, the effluent was observed to be steam during at least
  part of the run, and this effect couldn't have been an issue. 
  Assuming all tests of the E-cat are operated basically the same
  way (and, if they're faked, they're all faked the same way), we
  should probably conclude that this effect is never an issue, and
  its possibility can be ignored.

* With that said, the proposed mechanism is not that different from
  Swarz's ad-nauseum-repeated claims of stratification in vertical
  flow calorimetry, and,/ if the water isn't being heated to
  boiling,/ it could conceivably happen /by mistake/.  (If the probe
  were placed in the effluent pipe outside the reactor, that
  possibility wouldn't exist.)

* Finally, if the probe is actually in a backwash, dead zone, or
  side channel, isolated from the main flow, then that could explain
  an interesting feature of the temperature plot from the recently
  uploaded paper on this:  From 20 to 40 C, the temperature goes up
  /linearly/, with slope apparently unchanged at 40 C.  That
  shouldn't happen -- the line should nose over, with the slope
  decreasing smoothly as the water temperature increases, because
  maintaining the internal temperature gradient as the water warms
  must siphon off energy needed to keep warming up the device.  That
  should be the case, /unless/ the reactor is starting up
  immediately, and its heat output is ramping up exactly in parallel
  with the warming of the water.
  As noted in my "annotated" copy of the graph (previously posted),
  if the heater's sourcing 300 watts at 20 C, and the slope of the
  warming curve doesn't change, then by the time it's at 40 C, it
  must be sourcing 450 watts.  There's an extra 150 watts coming
  from someplace ... unless the flow rate /at the probe/ is nearly
  nil, in which case the temperature of the water /at the probe/
  doesn't affect the heat needed to maintain the slope of the
  warming curve.



On 04/13/2011 02:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> I think it is a great way to fake it.
> harry
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tue, April 12, 2011 9:22:17 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
>
> I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests
> to prove that it can be done in the first place?
>
> If you include every half-baked notion that "skeptics" come up
> with, you can easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did
> not occur, and Newton's Laws are wrong. You need to be a little
> more selective.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder wrote:


I think it is a great way to fake it.


Okay, what insulator would you use inside the pipe? You need something 
thin enough to allow the water through and yet effective at 1 L/s with a 
31°C temperature difference for the apparent 130 kW heat in the Feb. 10 
test.


Why wouldn't Levi et al. notice that they cannot insert the 
thermocouples more than a faction of the way into the hose? (If they 
could insert it and it did not penetrate the barrier, it would block the 
middle channel.)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Harry Veeder]

I think it is a great way to fake it.
harry


>
>From: Jed Rothwell 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 9:22:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
>
>I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests to prove that 
>it can be done in the first place? 
>
>
>
>If you include every half-baked notion that "skeptics" come up with, you can 
>easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did not occur, and Newton's 
>Laws 
>are wrong. You need to be a little more selective.
>
>
>- Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake

[Jed Rothwell]

I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests to prove
that it can be done in the first place?

If you include every half-baked notion that "skeptics" come up with, you can
easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did not occur, and Newton's
Laws are wrong. You need to be a little more selective.

- Jed