Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
My new version is up at : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v302.php Unfortunately, my conclusion is : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Since the December/January experiments only recorded the inputs and outputs for a short time (30 minutes), almost ANY of the fakes could have produced the result. For the February experiment Levi was allowed to inspect everything, including the 1-liter reaction chamber. However, he did NOT record the volume of the reactor as a whole -- so we have to assume that the entire horizontal arm contained fake material. There is at least ONE fake configuration (Boron burned in Air) which is NOT eliminated in the 18-hour February trial. This could have run for 53 Hours. The Rossi/Focardi eCat device has NOT been proven to be real in these experiments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Comments and corrections are appreciated.
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
From: Alan J Fletcher There is at least ONE fake configuration (Boron burned in Air) which is NOT eliminated in the 18-hour February trial. Alan - No way. Boron is way too toxic. The body count would have been extreme. Further - problem is that boron combustion is not easy - and boron CANNOT be started in air. Is there an oxygen tank anywhere? I don't think so, so how are you going to start it? Not to mention the extreme toxicity. Boron is completely out of consideration. IOW - boron will burn if air with lots of heat, once it has been started in pure oxygen, but not before. and is extremely toxic to boot. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
At 05:08 PM 3/11/2011, Jones Beene wrote: From: Alan J Fletcher There is at least ONE fake configuration (Boron burned in Air) which is NOT eliminated in the 18-hour February trial. Alan Reminder : This a theoretical study. It puts upper limits on EVERYTHING. No way. Boron is way too toxic. The body count would have been extreme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron Health issuesElemental boron and borates are non-toxic to humans and animals (approximately similar to table salt). The LD 50 (dose at which there is 50% mortality) for animals is about 6 g per kg of body weight. Substances with LD50 above 2 g are considered non-toxic. The minimum lethal dose for humans has not been established, but an intake of 4 g/day was reported without incidents, and medical dosages of 20 g of boric acid for neutron capture therapy caused no problems. Fish have survived for 30 min in a saturated boric acid solution and can survive longer in strong borax solutions. [96] Borates are more toxic to insects than to mammals. The boranes and similar gaseous compounds are quite poisonous. As usual, it is not an element that is intrinsically poisonous, but toxicity depends on structure. [8] [9] Further problem is that boron combustion is not easy and boron CANNOT be started in air. Is there an oxygen tank anywhere? I dont think so, so how are you going to start it? Not to mention the extreme toxicity. Boron is completely out of consideration. I'm still working on the energy density calculations for compressed and liquid oxygen. I SUSPECT that a Boron/LOX fake would pass the February test. IOW - boron will burn if air with lots of heat, once it has been started in pure oxygen, but not before Well, we run a 1KW electric heater for half an hour before the reactor 'ignites' and is extremely toxic to boot. See above Alan ps This discussion is EXACTLY why I adopted my extreme position.
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: However, he did NOT record the volume of the reactor as a whole -- so we have to assume that the entire horizontal arm contained fake material. Levi looked inside the machine and saw nothing out of the ordinary. There is no need for him to record the volume; all he has to do is confirm that it contains only plumbing. The only part he has not examined is the 1 L cell. So, your hypothetical chemical fuel and all of the equipment needed to ignite and control it has to fit in 1 L. Stop moving the goal posts and making up arbitrary requirements such as recording the volume. If Levi looks inside the volume, however large it is, and sees it has no chemical fuel or chemical or electrical equipment, that's all you need to know. It could be 20 cubic meters -- that still would not make the slightest difference. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Alan- Well, yes. Borates may be non-toxic, but how cleanly do you think a boron fill in this kind of configuration could burn in air? Think about it! It's completely out of the question ! BTW, the answer to the operative question is: Poorly. Boron is toxic unless it is fully oxidized. Fully oxidized. Period. Incomplete combustion is *extremely toxic*. The perfect oxides could be passable for human, but one would have to have criminal intent to try to burn boron in air in a small space. As I said before and will repeat - the body count would be extreme ! Jones From: Alan J Fletcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron Health issues Elemental boron and borates are non-toxic to humans and animals (approximately similar to table salt). The LD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose 50 (dose at which there is 50% mortality) for animals is about 6 g per kg of body weight. Substances with LD50 above 2 g are considered non-toxic. The minimum lethal dose for humans has not been established, but an intake of 4 g/day was reported without incidents, and medical dosages of 20 g of boric acid for neutron capture therapy caused no problems.
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
At 05:39 PM 3/11/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: However, he did NOT record the volume of the reactor as a whole -- so we have to assume that the entire horizontal arm contained fake material. Levi looked inside the machine and saw nothing out of the ordinary. There is no need for him to record the volume; all he has to do is confirm that it contains only plumbing. He didn't look inside the (my diagram) heat exchanger and radiation shields. The only part he has not examined is the 1 L cell. So, your hypothetical chemical fuel and all of the equipment needed to ignite and control it has to fit in 1 L. No, for the reactor, the only part he DID examine was the 1 liter CELL Stop moving the goal posts and making up arbitrary requirements such as recording the volume. If Levi looks inside the volume, however large it is, and sees it has no chemical fuel or chemical or electrical equipment, that's all you need to know. It could be 20 cubic meters -- that still would not make the slightest difference. If I were making a fake, I'd make a small cavity -- the reactor cavity, put in a bit of Nickel powder and SHOW that to investigators. The REST of the Reactor Main Unit (which might occupy the entire horizontal branch) could be solid FAKIUM. Since Levi didn't say how much of the Horizontal arm was the Reactor, I CONTINUE (NOT moving the goalposts) to use Villa's numbers. If you'd prefer it, I'll REMOVE the 1 Liter as NOT containing FAKE material !!
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
At 05:54 PM 3/11/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Alan- Well, yes. Borates may be non-toxic, but how cleanly do you think a boron fill in this kind of configuration could burn in air? Think about it! Its completely out of the question ! BTW, the answer to the operative question is: Poorly. Boron is toxic unless it is fully oxidized. Fully oxidized. Period. Incomplete combustion is *extremely toxic*. The perfect oxides could be passable for human, but one would have to have criminal intent to try to burn boron in air in a small space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron Health issuesElemental boron and borates are non-toxic to humans and animals (approximately similar to table salt). As I said before and will repeat the body count would be extreme ! CRC handbook of chemistry and physics: a ready-reference book of ... - Google Books Result http://books.google.com/books?id=WDll8hA006ACpg=SA4-PA6lpg=SA4-PA6dq=elemental+boron+toxicitysource=blots=UYqK2RNZNusig=4VxTWxXIYDb6kB_Um5fjhDfmwoUhl=enei=o816TYfKCYmCsQOVkMT7Agsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=5sqi=2ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA Elemental boron and the borates are not considered to be toxic, and they do not require special care in ... Google: elemental boron toxicity 7 pages in and I can't find anyone saying it's toxic. - - - - - - In any case, I insist that my methodology -- there is NO chemical which could UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be used to make a fake -- is correct.
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
At 05:54 PM 3/11/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Well, yes. Borates may be non-toxic, but how cleanly do you think a boron fill in this kind of configuration could burn in air? Think about it! Its completely out of the question ! BTW, the answer to the operative question is: Poorly. Contrariwise. http://mineralsciences.si.edu/staff/pages/vicenzi/Dreizin%20et%20al%20CombustionFlame1999.pdf explains EXACTLY how to make a Boron-burning fake ... INCLUDING air .. and INCLUDING a heating resistor. Alan
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
At 06:26 PM 3/11/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Contrariwise. http://mineralsciences.si.edu/staff/pages/vicenzi/Dreizin%20et%20al%20CombustionFlame1999.pdf explains EXACTLY how to make a Boron-burning fake ... INCLUDING air .. and INCLUDING a heating resistor. Correction ... by heating a resistor MADE from a boron filament. Alan
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: He didn't look inside the (my diagram) heat exchanger and radiation shields. Well, he said he did. Maybe you know better. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
At 05:54 PM 3/11/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Well, yes. Borates may be non-toxic, but how cleanly do you think a boron fill in this kind of configuration could burn in air? Think about it! Its completely out of the question ! http://www.islandone.org/Launch/boron-sharp-article.htm Boron combustion (including air) is a very rich research field, particularly in rocketry. They don't seem to think it's a problem leaving boron combustion products in the atmosphere.
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
At 06:46 PM 3/11/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://www.islandone.org/Launch/boron-sharp-article.htm Boron combustion (including air) is a very rich research field, particularly in rocketry. They don't seem to think it's a problem leaving boron combustion products in the atmosphere. This diagram, in particular : http://www.islandone.org/Launch/boron-sharp-article_files/slurry-lfrj.gif
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Read up on the history of zip fuel. Given the potential advantages, and there are definite advantages in performance, no way is the Air Force abandoning the millions spent, when they have carte blanche for fuel cost in any critical mission - except for the in-house death toll (largely hidden), and the potential liability. How can anyone have a problem with understanding the risk of boron monoxide poisoning, when it is almost identical to carbon monoxide poisoning - except thousands of times more likely to happen during incomplete combustion ? Jones From: Alan J Fletcher Jones Beene wrote: Well, yes. Borates may be non-toxic, but how cleanly do you think a boron fill in this kind of configuration could burn in air? Think about it! It's completely out of the question ! BTW, the answer to the operative question is: Poorly. Contrariwise. http://mineralsciences.si.edu/staff/pages/vicenzi/Dreizin%20et%20al%20Combus tion http://mineralsciences.si.edu/staff/pages/vicenzi/Dreizin%20et%20al%20Combu stion%26Flame1999.pdf Flame1999.pdf explains EXACTLY how to make a Boron-burning fake ... INCLUDING air .. and INCLUDING a heating resistor. Alan
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
This link describes the difficulties of burning boron (forms molten layer that shields the remaining boron from oxygen) and says that by adding some percentage of magnesium the burning issues are better. http://www.afsbirsttr.com/Library/Documents/Innovation-050610-MACHI-OSD05-T001.pdf Also the same link lists the kJ/g for solid boron, 59 kJ/g. Solid Boron is 2.35 g/cm^3 and this works out to about 138 MJ/liter which is the same value found on wikipedia But I can't find the kJ/g or MJ/liter for powdered Boron. Note that powdered Aluminum is 3.8 times less dense than solid aluminum. So is Boron 3 to 4 times less dense than solid Boron? If so, Alan's number of 53 hours of run time should be reduced by a factor of 3 down to 17.6 hours.There is no way to ignite solid Boron - it has to be powder. On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 05:54 PM 3/11/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Well, yes. Borates may be non-toxic, but how cleanly do you think a boron fill in this kind of configuration could burn in air? Think about it! It’s completely out of the question ! http://www.islandone.org/Launch/boron-sharp-article.htm Boron combustion (including air) is a very rich research field, particularly in rocketry. They don't seem to think it's a problem leaving boron combustion products in the atmosphere.
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Progress report : I've written the code (in PHP) to do the calculations inside the document. I define the SECTIONS and the MATERIALS, and then combine them in EXPERIMENTS. First test sample is at : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_calctest_v3.php I highlight the FAKE's run time in GREEN if it passes, and RED if it fails.
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
I forgot to mention: Levi looked in the control unit and found no battery or fuel, just electronics. This was described in NyTeknik. So you can delete the sections about the Control Unit such as: Fuel Cell using Compressed Hydrogen in the Control Unit Actually, in real life, the entire concept of chemistry or electricity causing this effect is impossible. It is completely out of the question. A 1 L device would not even be big enough to hold the burners and igniters for combustion or any other chemical reaction capable of producing 15 kW, never mind 130 kW. There is no place to put any fuel at all, and if you did put any fuel in there, it would explode. The internal temperature must be quite high. Things like fuel cells are also ruled out. I doubt they have any that are only 1 L, and if they did, it would produce a few watts, not kilowatts. For any kind of combustion using outside air, you would need ventilation holes much bigger than the entire 1 L space. To hold the heat exchangers and other components, the secret compartment would have to be at least the size of this water heater: http://www.geappliances.com/products/introductions/tankless_gas_water_heater/ http://products.geappliances.com/ApplProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=SpecPageSku=GN94DNSRSA#WEIGHTS; DIMENSIONS This is 199,000 Btu/h = 58 kW Dimensions are 10 * 23 * 14 = 3220 cu. in. = 53 L You can't just generate the heat inside the secret compartment; you also have to transfer it to the flowing water, and you have to keep the fuel tank from exploding. So a calculation based on the volume of fuel alone is totally unrealistic. This is interesting to think about, but there is not the slightest chance the effect is actually chemical. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
I wrote: For any kind of combustion using outside air, you would need ventilation holes much bigger than the entire 1 L space. By that I mean it would only work if the burner and flames were fully exposed to the open air, like a radiant kerosene heater. Or unless you had a fan or pump driving air into it, like a Mr Heater F270270 MH75KT 75,000 BTU Kerosene Forced Air (see). That's 22 kW. (You gotta love the name Mr Heater.) My guess is that a 15 kW flame placed in the middle of the Rossi device would gutter out or smoke like the dickens, even if both sides of the secret compartment were fully open to the air with the flames visible to anyone who glanced inside the tube (visible like the glow from the radiant heater). I am sure that is true at 130 kW. As I said before, with a 15 kW flame, using outside air, you could not fail to notice the light from the flame through the vents. Look at a gas furnace or water heater to see what I mean. By the way, here is a handy on line power-unit converter: http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/units-converter/power/calculator/ The one sanity test that I wish someone had reported would be to hold your hand some distance above the Rossi device while it is operating. Even though most of the heat was removed by the steam, and even more by the flowing water in the second test, heat transfer is never perfect, and the device must have been radiating quite a bit into the surroundings. As I reported here, in the first test, Dufour held his above the outlet hose and determined that it was much to hot to touch. That's almost as good as holding your hand over the unit itself. The pipe overall could not be too hot to touch with only 400 W input. People have speculated about various ways to fool a temperature sensor by dividing the flow into an inner chamber and an outer chamber of a specially made hose. That might work, but the overall temperature of the hose from the outside would not change. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Alan's website seems to have mistakes - http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as described by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical that could heat the water. Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on average for 18 hours. (16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1 MJ/100 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter. This means there needs to be a chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter Diesel equals 32 MJ/liter For example at the end of his website Alan incorrectly writes that 1 liter of diesel would run 7.25 hours if it were producing 16 kW and using external air. The correct number is that 1 liter of diesel could run only 0.55 hours at 16 kW. This is 17.45 hours short of the actual run of 18 hours. So diesel has an energy density (MJ/liter) that is off by a factor of 33 (because 18 hours divided by 0.55 hours equals 33). In other words, burning diesel would not explain Rossi's test. Beryllium at 125 MJ/l would last 2.2 hours so it is too low by a factor of 8 (because 18 hours divided by 2.2 hours equals 8.6) Aluminum at 83.8 MJ/l would last 1.45 hours so it is too low by a factor of 12 (because 18 hours divided by 1.45 hours equals 12). But this is for solid aluminum and solid aluminum is almost 4 times more dense than powdered aluminum. So if Rossi had used 1 liter of powdered aluminum he would only get 0.38 hours (or 23 minutes) of 16 kW of heat output. It would be impossible to ignite solid aluminum - but I assume easy to ignite powdered aluminum. I assume powdered aluminum would make a lot of Al2O3 smoke - which is white (like steam). Did anyone smell the steam output? Did they smell steam or anything else? I assume the same would apply for extremely toxic Beryllium which would have to be in powdered form for it to ignite with air. The product is Beryllium Oxide which is not toxic in solid form from what I read. But I don't know if this produces Beryllium Oxide smoke which may or may not be toxic. 16 kW using the following would be: Boron at 138 MJ/l would last 2.4 hours (but would have to be in powdered form and this lessens the energy density) Graphite at 72.9 MJ/l would last 1.3 hours (about same as anthracite coal) Nitroglycerine at 65 MJ/l would last 1.1 hours TNT at 32 MJ/l would last .55 hours (33 minutes) Liquid H2 at 10.1 MJ/l would last .17 hours (10 minutes) Note that the different numbers for MJ/l for diesel, gasoline, H2 etc. used by wikipedia and Alan can be attributed to Higher Heating Value versus Lower Heating Value (I assume). Higher Heating Value assumes the products of combustion are cooled to 25 C (room temp) while the Lower Heating Value assumes the resulting water vapor is not condensed (so I assume that means the gasses stay above 100 C - but I see references to 150 C also - and I assume that is to make sure nothing condenses) If Rossi's reactor were 2 liters rather than 1 liter then all the calculations of run time hours can be multiplied by two (such as diesel could run for 1.1 hours instead of .55 hours). But still, how do you burn diesel without a combustion chamber and various air and fluid pumps? this is from Alan's website: If the ENTIRE *1 liter* volume is composed of the fake material : Lithium ion battery : 0.81 hours Diesel, external oxygen : 7.25 hours Compressed Hydrogen, external oxygen : 0.81 hours Beryllium, external oxygen : 28.1 hours (I haven't set up the calculations for Beryllium with Compressed Oxygen). On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Thanks for your comments. I think it's worth finishing this up. I've taken the liberty of renaming the subject line to separate it from the 1MW discussion and to add keywords Previous discussion started at : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43298.html The index remains as : http://lenr.qumbu.com/ (which will pick up the latest version). I've posted a new version V2 : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php Main changes : a) On re-reading the Feb report, I see that Levi was allowed to look INSIDE the reactor chamber The bad news is that he doesn't provide a volume for the reactor as a whole! b) I've summarized some of the discussions (mainly with Jed Rothwell)
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
to do the calculations in my previous email I used 16 kW = 57.6 MJ/hour because: (16,000 W) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 MJ/100 J) x (1 J/sec per Watt) = 57.6 MJ/hour Boron (137.8 MJ/liter) and Berylium (125.1 MJ/liter) have the highest energy densities that I listed.But note that this is for the solid form only. Powdered form would be 3 or 4 times less dense (assuming the same change in density as aluminum to aluminum powder) in terms of energy per volume. That puts them in the 30 to 50 MJ/liter range and means they would not last more than 1 hour at 16 kW. Note that thermite (powdered aluminum and iron oxide) at 18.4 MJ/liter would last 19 minutes when producing 16 kW from 1 liter of material. On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Alan's website seems to have mistakes - http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as described by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical that could heat the water. Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on average for 18 hours. (16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1 MJ/100 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter. This means there needs to be a chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter Diesel equals 32 MJ/liter
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 10:03:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device Alan's website seems to have mistakes - I don't doubt it ! I put it up here for review. http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as described by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical that could heat the water. Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on average for 18 hours. (16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1 MJ/100 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter. This means there needs to be a chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter No ... I'm NOT saying that 1 liter of X will run it at 16KW for 18 hours. I'm calculating how long it COULD theoretically run at that power level. If the candidate runs out of steam BEFORE the recorded end of the trial, then it fails, and is a FAKE. If the candidate can run longer than the trial then it is NOT eliminated. Either the experiment has to be more constrained, or it has to be run longer. For example at the end of his website Alan incorrectly writes that 1 liter of diesel would run 7.25 hours if it were producing 16 kW and using external air. The correct number is that 1 liter of diesel could run only 0.55 hours at 16 kW. This is 17.45 hours short of the actual run of 18 hours. I'll triple-check my numbers. I'll upload the Excell spreadsheet. So diesel has an energy density (MJ/liter) that is off by a factor of ... etc ... I'll hold off on reviewing the rest of your numerical comments for now until I'm sure my numbers are right or (more likely) I've corrected the spreadsheet. Thinks ... maybe I'll redo the calculations in Javascript, so my calculations can be checked directly. (In most web browsers you can view source.) Some of your other comments also apply to Jed's : From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:56:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device I forgot to mention: Levi looked in the control unit and found no battery or fuel, just electronics. This was described in NyTeknik. So you can delete the sections about the Control Unit such as: Fuel Cell using Compressed Hydrogen in the Control Unit I'm reporting on both the January and February trials. The document is a bit of a mess in that respect, as I visit the same material three different times. I think I'll separate out the various methods (eg Hydrogen+Fuel Cell, Hydrogen + Air ) and then refer to these for the two experiments. The January trial MUST include the control box. The February trial is at the moment anecdotal --- particularly as it has only ONE observer, and we don't have a report yet. Also, it misses a key element for me -- the TOTAL volume of the reactor, not just the chamber. I'll leave the January trial IN, as a historical record. Actually, in real life, the entire concept of chemistry or electricity causing this effect is impossible ... You can't just generate the heat inside the secret compartment; you also have to transfer it to the flowing water, and you have to keep the fuel tank from exploding. So a calculation based on the volume of fuel alone is totally unrealistic. . This is interesting to think about, but there is not the slightest chance the effect is actually chemical. I agree with you entirely. As soon as you start talking about how could the fake be implemented then you open up whole new avenues of denying the experiment. Gee .. maybe you could implement THAT in a more efficient way and pass the test. (Picking a random thought out of my head : if I used gasoline and air, I could just spray water into the flame and avoid the need for a heat exchanger.) That's not to say that discussing the details of fakes isn't interesting ... I'll incorporate some of the comments into the document. (I tend to over-write stuff and then prune it back if needed.) I thought that my Devil's Advocate line and Methodology section were clear -- I'll rewrite them with a 2x4 .. I'm reducing all adjectives (unlikely, implausible ... ) to impossible and all probabilities to ZERO. Alan ps I'm out of town part of this week ... so it may be a while before I do all that.
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The January trial MUST include the control box. Why? It is the same box. I don't get it. It seems to me you trivialize the exercise here by playing what if the box were different. If you are going to unrealistic extremes you might as well compute how much heat the 1 L mystery box would produce if it were filled with plutonium-238 oxide. (Ans: 19 kg which produces ~11 kW, I think. So if Rossi has stolen millions of dollars worth of Pu-238 from Uncle Sam -- that explains it!) The February trial is at the moment anecdotal --- particularly as it has only ONE observer, and we don't have a report yet. It is all anecdotal. If you don't trust Levi then none of it means anything. I thought the NyTeknik report was as authoritative and technically complete as anything you will ever find in the mass media. It may be a year before we have any reports. Also, it misses a key element for me -- the TOTAL volume of the reactor, not just the chamber. The total volume is irrelevant. Levi poked around inside it and found nothing unusual and nothing that can generate energy. No hidden wires, no hidden fuel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 10:03:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device Alan's website seems to have mistakes - You're right I reversed the conversion factor. and used KWH to MJ instead of MJ to KWH. What's a factor of 12 (in Rossi's favor) ... For the moment, I've just added a note at the top of V2 --- I'll change the figures for Version 3. (ps -- the spreadsheets are corrected and uploaded -- see http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_spread_v1.php ) Where's the smiley for (blush)
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Aluminum at 83.8 MJ/l would last 1.45 hours so it is too low by a factor of 12 (because 18 hours divided by 1.45 hours equals 12). But this is for solid aluminum and solid aluminum is almost 4 times more dense than powdered aluminum. So if Rossi had used 1 liter of powdered aluminum he would only get 0.38 hours (or 23 minutes) of 16 kW of heat output. Powdered aluminum is an explosive. I believe it was used in WWII air-dropped bombs. In the 1950s it was developed into a slurry explosive. See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-82.htm Daisy Cutter This is a 15,000 lb bomb that has 12,600 lbs of aluminum powder. Several of the proposed chemical reactions could not be controlled except with elaborate delivery systems, which could not fit into the 1 L mystery box. Even non-elaborate delivery systems such as 12 kW gas burners would not fit. The burners in a 12 kW gas water heater take up far more space than 1 L. Also, as I mentioned, canisters of H2 and O2 placed inside the box at these high temperature would explode. I think this is not intended to be an analysis of what might have actually happened, since it is obvious that none of the proposed reactions could actually occur in only 1 L at such high temperatures. I think this is a look at the extreme limits of chemical reactions, ignoring practical considerations such as the fact that the fuel would explode, or it would emit toxic smoke and kill the observers. It is interesting as such. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
I still think it is a mistake to approach the demo from its purpose was to prove mode and it could be fake. However, what if the Hydrogen gas measure was wrong (say gauge jammed) and the 1 L vessel only held a hot Pt wire and an air leak. How much heat could you get from burning H2 to H20? There would be no smoke, nothing but steam as a product. The control would need to be nothing more than something to heat a Pt wire ( s ). How can you rule it out? What if you assume the counter positive. that it was not a Fake and Rossi new that? What information can we glean? The part I don't understand is why did Rossi have any demo at all? What was his motive if he already had funding and people working on multiple devices to cascade together. Why not just wait for the 1MW? Dennis From: Jed Rothwell Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: .. Also, as I mentioned, canisters of H2 and O2 placed inside the box at these high temperature would explode. I think this is not intended to be an analysis of what might have actually happened, since it is obvious that none of the proposed reactions could actually occur in only 1 L at such high temperatures. I think this is a look at the extreme limits of chemical reactions, ignoring practical considerations such as the fact that the fuel would explode, or it would emit toxic smoke and kill the observers. It is interesting as such. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote: However, what if the Hydrogen gas measure was wrong (say gauge jammed) and the 1 L vessel only held a hot Pt wire and an air leak. How much heat could you get from burning H2 to H20? This is ruled out. They weighed the hydrogen canister before and after. It would have weighted a lot less if hydrogen had been burning. What was his motive if he already had funding and people working on multiple devices to cascade together. I have heard he did the test as a favor to Focardi, who is old and may not live much longer. He wanted to see the results made public. It was a kind thing to do. - Jed
