[Vo]:0.9 g/s primary flow was probably not the incoming flow rate

[Jed Rothwell]

Colin Hercus  wrote:


> I know Rossi said this but I also know Mats measured a lower rate (0.9g/m)
> for a period of 6 minutes . . .


Here is a note I wrote about that in another forum:

As far as I know the flow rate was 15 L per hour. That is what Rossi said,
and it seems to be the case. It took about two hours to fill the 30 L tank
when the test began.

Lewan only measured the primary look flow rate once during the
self-sustaining event, at 18:57. He found it was 0.9 g/s, which works out to
be 3.2 L per hour. However, I believe that at this time, the tank was not
full. The water was filling up. The water in the outlet hose came from
condensed steam that escaped from the vessel. A flow of steam at 0.9 g/s
corresponds to 2.5 kW, and this is in agreement with the power measured with
the secondary loop at that time: 3.5 kW. Somewhat in agreement.

Prior to this power was much higher and I assume more steam was escaping,
lowering the water level below the top of the vessel. That is why I think
the vessel was probably filling up at this time, and not overflowing.

The pump was working at the same speed the whole time, so the incoming flow
rate must been stable.

In a discussion on Vortex, someone suggested that there may have been no
water entering the vessel, and nothing to cool it down. I pointed out that
this is impossible. People could see water leaving the vessel. The flow rate
had to be high enough to transfer heat the secondary loop. It had to be high
enough that people could actually see the water moving through the tube, not
just puddled up inside it. If the flow rate was 0.9 g/s the whole time, this
would be just enough to empty out the vessel in the nine hours of the test.
However, I think it must have been higher most of the time, for the
following reason:

As I said, 0.9 g/s was recorded when the power was at a low ebb. The nominal
power was higher at all other times during the heat after death event.
Whether the power was actually 2.5 kW to 3.5 kW at 18:57, it was higher at
other times. Therefore more water must have been flowing out of the vessel.
The temperature in the vessel did not change. The only way the heat
exchanger could remove more heat from the system would be if the flow rate
increased. When you turn up the flame under boiling pot, the water does not
get hotter, it boils away faster.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi says he has a European "CE mark"

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrea Rossi said to reporters:


> We do not use radioactive materials, do not leave radioactive material and
> the highes temperature we can reach is the melting point of nickel : once
> the nickel melts, the E-Cat stops and this fact makes it intrinsecally safe.
>

In two follow-up questions, reporters asked:

What he meant by "leaving" radioactive material. Earlier he claimed that
radioactivity is detected during the event. It was pointed out that
radioactive materials cannot simply vanish once they have been created.

Also it was pointed out that the melting point of nickel is
1453°C, and that if the device reaches this temperature before the reaction
stops this could easily cause a serious explosion. This temperature seems
too high to be considered "intrinsically safe."

Rossi responded: " and ran away at high speed, vanishing in
cloud of dust.

- Jed

[Vo]:World population graphs

[Jed Rothwell]

Somewhat off-topic, but this is handy:

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population

Select individual nations on the left. In the box marked "Population" select
growth rate, fertility, and things like GDP.

Hold the cursor on the graph line to reveal the underlying statistic.

The bad news is that the population is now approaching 7 billion. The good
news is that the growth rate and fertility rate are falling, and
contraceptive prevalence is above 60%, although not increasing. so future
trend look good. Even after fertility falls sharply, the absolute population
will increase for a while. the fertility rate in China is 1.77, below
replacement rate which is around 2.2, but the absolute population continues
to increase and it will continue for a while. the growth rate in China is
now 0.5%. For the world it is 1.2%. It peaked at 2.1% in 1971.

Other stats here:

http://www.google.com/publicdata/home

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

There has been a rumor floated that the US Navy is Rossi’s customer in this
> week’s upcoming E-Cat trial. This rumor is entirely believable.
>

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but I note that Rossi is firmly
opposed to selling his devices to any military organization anywhere in the
world. He has said this several times. Even Defkalion says they will abide
by this policy.

Actually, this policy is illegal. It violates fair trade laws and probably
other laws too. You cannot refuse to sell goods to a legitimate customer. As
long as the customer is conducting a legal business, you have to sell to
them on a first-come first-served basis at the same unit price as any other
customer. You cannot refuse to sell because you dislike their ideology or
their line of work. You also cannot refuse to sell to customers because of
their race, religion or national origin.

You cannot refuse to sell to a customer who happens to be competitors, and
whom you suspect intends to reverse engineer the product. This part of the
law was not enforced much until the 1970s. When they start enforcing it many
high-tech companies groused and try to evade the law. They found all kinds
of reasons to delay shipping to know competitors. They probably still do.

Any businessman knows this. Rossi knows this because I told him several
times. I expect he knew it before I told him.

I expect the EU has similar fair trade laws so I do not think Defkalion will
be able to enforce this policy. I think it makes them look stupid even
mentioning it. Who are they kidding? I suppose they are trying to kid Rossi,
or at least humoring him.

In short, this policy is damn nonsense, but you will not pin down Rossi on
that. He will say  

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer

[Jed Rothwell]

Jay Caplan > wrote:


   Right, between the military interst and NRC regulators, it will be
   10-15 years before any of this tech is available for commercial use.


Why do you say that military use of technology slows down civilian 
access to it? In my experience going back to the 1970s it is just the 
opposite. NASA and the military spurred progress in computers and other 
high-technology by spending huge sums of money on it. This brought it to 
civilian markets much sooner than it would have reached them otherwise.


For example, the microscopic motion sensors used to deploy airbags in 
automobile collisions were first developed by the military and some 
fantastic cost. I believe they may even have been developed for use in 
Star Wars. Star Wars has been a $90 billion blackhole of money and 
waste, but it has produced several useful spinoffs.


Military technology that has alternative useful civilian uses has never 
been embargoed by the military, except in the middle of WWI and WWII. 
Immediately after World War II radar, cavity magnetron microwave 
generators, computers and many other technologies were made fully public 
by the U.S. and the UK governments, which had developed them. A few 
things were kept secret, such as some details about how to make nuclear 
weapons, and the existence of Bombes used to break the German enigma 
machines. The British kept the Bombes secret for a long time because 
they assured other governments around the world that German enigma 
machines (and the more modern variants) were unbreakable. They wanted 
other governments to continue using the machines so that MI5 could read 
their mail, which they did.


Surprisingly detailed information on the nuclear bomb was released in 
the Smyth report, "Atomic Energy for Military Purposes," 1945. See:


http://www.archive.org/details/atomicenergyform00smytrich

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:0.9 g/s primary flow was probably not the incoming flow rate

[Jed Rothwell]

Okay, Lewan told me that after the run there was at least 20 L of hot water
left in the vessel. He did not measure it the way he did after the September
test, but the vessel was pretty full.

If there was any water let in the vessel that proves there must have been
some cooling water flowing into it during the test. If the water was going
out at the rate of 0.9 g/s (3.2 L/h), and there was no input, the vessel
would have been nearly empty after nine hours. There would have been less
than 1 L left.

I think it is much more likely the average flow rate out was close to the
incoming rate, and both were ~4 g/s.

Lewan mentioned there was also a leak, which has been discussed here. Some
amount of water left the cell via the leak. The important thing is, the
replacement water coming in was at tap water temperature. It was coming in
from the large plastic trashcan.

The flow rate also had to be high enough so that people  could see water
moving to the pipe. I expect it was closer to 4 g/s than 0.9 g/s, most of
the time.

This proves the water was cooled down with incoming tap water. Obviously it
also radiated a lot of heat. These two facts together prove that it could
not have remained at the same temperature for four hours without a source of
power inside the cell.

It would be much better if we had a detailed record of the amount of water
that was pumped into the cell, with a precision flowmeter between the pump
and the cell.

It would be difficult to determine how much of the water left via the of the
leak and how much was vaporized or overflowed and ended up going through the
heat exchanger. I suppose you could put another precision flowmeter below
the heat exchanger, but even a high precision meter would have difficulty
measuring this.

To determine how much cooling water displaced the original water in the
cell, you do not need to know whether the outflow left via the leak or via
the heat exchanger.

By the way, if there was no water flowing into the cell, that would mean
there must have been intense anomalous heat. Otherwise, the cell would have
radiated enough to cool down, and it would soon stop boiling. After that,
the water would not have gone from the cell into the heat exchanger. Without
a flow of incoming water to displace the existing water, boiling is the only
thing that can force it into the heat exchanger.

If there had been no flow, and no boiling to push the water into the
exchanger, the exchanger would have dropped to room temperature very
quickly. It would have done this in the time it takes that much metal to
cool down, maybe 10 minutes, It would have registered no Delta T. Even if
the reactor vessel had remained hot, cooling only by radiation and not by
displaced hot water, none of that heat would have reached the exchanger.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer

[Jed Rothwell]

Jay Caplan  wrote:

**
> Military might want an exclusive interest in a cheap small heat source for
> a number of strategic interests including ships . .
>

They might want exclusive use, but they cannot get it. Too much information
about this has already circulated. It is in the hands of people in Italy and
Greece, which are outside the jurisdiction of the US military. once it
becomes generally known that it is possible to make a Rossi reactor with
nickel powder and two other elements, many organizations will frantically
pursue this technology and figure out how he did it. When I say "many
organizations" I mean every major industrial corporation and every national
laboratory on Earth will devote hundreds of top experts to work on it 7 days
a week.

People who think the NRC might ban this, that it might be kept secret fail
to grasp how important this is, and how much of an impact it will have --
how much it must have, by the nature of the discovery.

This is the most important technological breakthrough in all of recorded
history. The only thing comparable is the discovery of language, or fire, or
the domestication of horses -- which occurred before recorded
history. Probably, nothing as important will ever be discovered again in the
future. Even antigravity or a reaction-less space drive would have less
impact. (Human immortality might have as large an impact, but I hope that is
impossible.)

This is also probably the most lucrative breakthrough in history. Anyone
with knowledge of military technology will see that it is by far the most
important advance in weapons technology. It will make all weapon system
obsolete practically overnight. Such things cannot be kept secret, and they
cannot be stymied by the NRC. The NRC could no more stop this -- or even
slow it down -- than the Surgeon General could enforce a 1-year ban on
adults having sex in the U.S. The notion that you can stop corporations,
banks and venture capitalists from developing something that will soon earn
them a trillion dollars a year is preposterous. Such organizations have a
great deal of influence on government policy, to say the least.

The only reason we do not see hundreds of thousands of experts frantically
trying to replicate now is because most people do not believe it exists.

As far as I know, the US military has never try to keep secret any major
technology with civilian applications. I do not think it would be possible
for them to do that even if they wanted to. The Chinese military and other
rivals would soon find out about it, and they would be building it too.

As Arthur C. Clarke said, no secret is more fleeting than military
technology. He knew about that since he worked on radar during WWII.

Of course there are countless minor secrets and highly specialized
technologies such as encryption and exploding tank armor that remain either
secret or confidential. The details of how US aircraft carrier nuclear
reactors work is kept confidential. But the fact that US aircraft carriers
use fission reactors is not secret, and never has been. Fission reactors are
widely used around the world. The U.S. Navy developed them first but this
did not slow down civilian development.

- Jed

[Vo]:Last "big dog" B-53 bomb is scrapped

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://amarillo.com/opinion/editorial/2011-10-25/big-dog-gone-arsenal-still-bites#.TqdaLpsUqso

A 9 Mt bomb. Wikipedia says they built 340 of the darn things. Thank
goodness we are rid of them!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:World population graphs

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:

I just read "The Coming Population Crash" by Fred Pearce.  It is quite
> a surprise that all developed countries are ( China and India following
> soon) loosing population.


They are not losing population yet. Look at the stats carefully. China is
still gaining at 0.5% per year. In absolute numbers that is a lot of people.
After you reduce the fertility rate it takes a while before that begins to
actually reduce annual growth, especially when overall health is improving
and lifespans are increasing. However, if the population that is increasing
is mainly over 40, this group will not have many more children, so when they
die in 20 to 40 years, population will fall.

In a generation, China and Japan may face a tremendous increase in old
people without enough young, working age to support them. Following this
they may have a sudden drop in population. That is a problem but I think
improved robots can help take care of the elderly, and those places are too
crowded now, so a drop in population would make life easier in the long
term.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:World population graphs

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> I do not see why this is good or bad news. With eCat we can have
> vertical agriculture, because we can remove the only obstacle why we
> do not have yet vertical farming, that is the obstacle of producing
> cheap light.


Actually there are some schemes to do vertical farming without much
artificial light. See:

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

I am in favor of this, and I discussed in my book. This sort of thing would
allow a higher population density was less damage to the ecosystem. However
population pressure will cause problems no matter what. I think a stable or
declining population would be a good idea even with cold fusion.

Some parts of the world are more overpopulated than others.

The truth is, I think people should have lots of space. Especially children.
They should have lots of woods and fields with no fences or boundaries to
run around in, unsupervised, away from adults.

Japan has high population density but actually there is a great deal of
space and many beautiful places in the countryside where no one lives
anymore. It is a shame they cannot spread out their population with
telecommuting. It is also a shame that kids spend all afternoon in cram
schools instead of outdoors causing mischief.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Observers at the October 6th demo.

[Jed Rothwell]

On 10/26/2011 2:14 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:

And nobody clarifys this and all false rumours resulting from this are 
welcome and happily blown up and propagated for true as always in the 
"free energy" and  LENR scene.


I agree this is a circus, but such things are rare in LENR research. It 
is usually sedate. It takes place at boring universities or 
corporations. Look at the ICCF web sites and the Papers at LENR-CANR.org 
and you see no grandstanding or false rumors.


In the "free energy" business you do see a lot of false rumors and 
flamboyant behavior.


I think we all agree that Rossi is flamboyant.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and Government Taxation

[Jed Rothwell]

Ron Kita  wrote:

>
> Governments  cannot resist. Will almost free energy be killed by taxation.
>

I do not think the voters would allow that.

As I have often pointed out, cold fusion will save the average US citizen
roughly $2000 per year, $8000 for a family of four. That's just the start;
later it will save even more, as goods and services everywhere become
cheaper because of zero cost energy.

$2000 per person is far larger than the biggest tax break in history. If
special interests attempt to strangle cold fusion, or impose unreasonable
taxes on it, I do not think the voters will stand by doing nothing in
response. A political leader who would deny ordinary people $2000 per year
would face unprecedented voter anger.

That much money will sweep aside the most powerful special interests like
cobwebs. The fossil fuel companies or Wall Street Titans may think they can
stop this, but their opposition will not last more than a few months in the
face of public anger.

As long as it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, that it is
safe, and that it will save everyone huge sums of money, cold fusion will be
unstoppable.


I think it would be prudent to impose some taxes on cold fusion in some
applications. For example, we need something to replace the gasoline tax, to
pay for road construction. I think it would be prudent to charge automobile
owners a tax based the odometer for total mileage per year. Another plan
would be to install automatic electronic tolls on many roads. These were
recently installed in Atlanta on I-85. So far they are extremely unpopular,
but I believe they are the wave of the future, as I explained in my book.

- Jed

[Vo]:Video of Miley answering questions at recent conference

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay

Re: [Vo]:Making Sense of ECAT Water Pump Flow Rate

[Jed Rothwell]

Colin Hercus wrote:

The manufacturers data sheet indicates it has variable rate and 
*variable stroke* pump and doesn't indicate that a tube can be 
replaced or even that it's a peristaltic pump.


I believe it is a constant displacement pump, not peristaltic. 
Peristaltic pumps do not have variable strokes. The rotor goes full 
circle every time and pushes more fluid up the tube.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?

[Jed Rothwell]

peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


If the power was not continuously monitored, then Rossi could have a remote 
switch in his pocket or elsewhere.
The italian grid and the plug can supply 16 Amps @230V. This are 3.68 kW.

If he activates the switch always when nobody is looking to the powermeter and 
if this makes 50% of time . . .


This is highly unlikely for several reasons:

The anomalous power greatly exceeded the total power that you can input 
with the joule heaters.


There was anomalous heat when the heaters were turned on, which produced 
considerably more heat than the heaters alone delivered.


In previous tests the power has been monitored consistently and these 
tests also produced excess heat.


This method would produce easily detected waves of heat.

Rossi would have to watch the power meters the whole time to make sure 
no one approached them. Someone would notice that he is doing that.


- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi's customer

[Jed Rothwell]

I have no idea who this customer might be. I do not like to guess, speculate
or read the tea leaves when I have no information, but I believe it is
unlikely that a major corporation is involved. I say this for the following
reasons:

Several large corporations and institutions such as Georgia Tech have
contacted me about this test. They say it would be unwise to test such a
large reactor without first doing a series of small-scale tests at lower
power levels. Jumping up to high level without first doing these tests would
be dangerous. They are baffled by this plan. I have echoed their remarks
here. So I do not think they would countenance such a large increase.

I asked Rossi whether he has a permit to do this test. He did not respond. I
do not know whether he has one or not, but it seems unlikely to me. I simply
cannot imagine that any sane government official would issue one. I hate to
speculate about these things but that seems impossible. Large corporations
are sticklers for the rules. They *write* the rules, in cooperation with
government regulators. I doubt they would get involved in a test of a large
nuclear reactor that is probably an egregious criminal violation of health
and safety standards. I do not know about Europe but in the US or Japan this
would cause a major scandal, with people being arrested and perp-walked in
front of reporters. This is not something GE or Mitsubishi would let
themselves get involved in, ever, under any circumstances.

If a subordinate at GE were to suggest getting involved, I suppose
management would demand a copy of the permits and certifications for the
reactor as the first step. They would demand technical documents showing
that the reactor was designed by a professional engineering firm that
specializes in pressure vessels. They would want to see computer simulations
of pressure and heat conditions, and certificates showing that the welding
was done by certified experts. I sure as heck would. Testing a laboratory
scale device is one thing; industrial equipment is quite another. A machine
of this size and power is dangerous, even when it is designed with the best
modern computers and simulations, and when it is fabricated by experts and
then carefully examined by an inspector. A conventional combustion reactor
of this size is dangerous. If a hose connection fails, the hose may fly off
with enough force to crush someone's skull, and the steam may scald them to
death. This is not a damned toy, or something you casually turn on after a
few weeks of partial testing.

The test on October 6 clearly did not involve any professional engineering
or instrumentation such as a corporation would bring. Terry Blanton remarked
that a corporation would use large, professional grade instruments with
recent NIST certification stickers. You can recognize this kind of thing. I
did not see any. They did not even have a computer or flow meters for some
of the critical data. To be blunt, the October 6 test was so half-assed, the
students at my local high school could have done a better job. (Granted
several of those kids got into MIT and Georgia Tech.) I find it hard to
believe that a major corporation would jump into this project and be
prepared for a 1 MW test three weeks after the test that produced somewhere
between six and 10 kW but you can't tell because the instruments were so
bad.

Videos and photographs of the equipment outdoors to not show any sign of
professional instrumentation being deployed around it. Again, I do not think
that a professional organization would jump in and be prepared to do a major
test with the outside equipment in three weeks.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

The anomalous power greatly exceeded the total power that you can 
input with the joule heaters.

There can be a secret heater.


No, there could not be. The wire going into the reactor is not heavy 
enough to support the anomalous power that was produced. It would have 
burned up. There was no other wire. People lifted the reactor off the 
table and put it on a weight scale. They would have noticed a wire.


Also, previous devices have been completely disassembled by experts. 
They saw no sign of heaters batteries or chemical fuel.


I think you should put aside this fantasy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer

[Jed Rothwell]

A couple of people have written to me to say that this is a test reactor so
you would not need a permit for it. I doubt that.

In the US you are not allowed to install a 1 MW conventional boiler without
a license, and you are not allowed to operate it without a permit. I do not
think they would make an exception for a nuclear reactor that works by
unknown principles. On the contrary, this would probably invite more
scrutiny than usual.

Peter Gluck  wrote:

At such a great scale "The Oct. 28 Test" is a contradiction
> in terms- it has to be at least "the 3 days test starting on Oct. 28"
> No company having elementary idea of engineering would accept a short test
> for such a Behemoth, there are necessary hours to make all the 52 Fat-Cats
> functional . . .
>

I agree. Plus you would need a week or two setting up and calibrating the
instruments beforehand, and some days to take apart the machine and look
inside it, either before the run or after.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions

[Jed Rothwell]

ecat builder  wrote:


> The 1MW plant will create 1.2MW+ power with less than 2MW sustained
> input for over 8 hours.
>

Do you mean less than 2 kW input?

It is not difficult to produce 1.2 MW with 2 MW of input power.



I would not dare make such detailed predictions for Rossi. It could be
anything from a last-minute cancellation to a great success to an explosion.
The only thing I predict is that the instrumentation will not be adequate.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

No, it would not burn up. This cable lies free on the floor and in 
ambient air.


In your dreams.

But okay suppose that is true. How do you explain the fact that when 
there was power going in and when people were looking at the meter, 
after anomalous power began, more power was coming out than was going 
in. It was hotter than it had been with electric power only before that. 
There was only 1 wire, and it was metered.


Never mind. I am sure you will wave your hands and come up with some 
contrived explanation. A pathological skeptic is someone who will 
believe any number of impossible things rather than the obvious, 
indisputable truth.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha wrote:

The test has already began, if you count inspecting the machine as 
part of the test:


http://ecatnews.com/?p=1095


That's good. It should have begun weeks ago, but that's good.

When I predicted that the instrumentation would be inadequate, I meant 
that would be the case if Rossi is in charge. If he really does have a 
customer who is setting up instrumentation I make no predictions. 
However, I think a prudent, professional customer would take a lot 
longer than one day set up instrumentation for a 1 MW test.


Instruments adequate to do a test of 1 to 10 kW can be set up in a day 
or two if all goes well. Ideally, you should use something like this:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

I have no idea how you would go about measuring 1 MW. It seems like a 
nightmare assignment to me. I doubt the signal-to-noise ratio would be 
as good as you get from a 10 kW measurement.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Leguillon  wrote:

I tried early on to reconcile the heat exchanger readings with what could be
> occurring in the E-Cat. The placement of the thermocouple makes any power
> calculation based on the the delta T highly suspect.
>

I hope you realize that Houkes disagrees with this:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx

You should review his analysis. Many people here seem to take it as settled
that the thermocouple placement was hopelessly flawed. They should examine
this and see if they find an error in it.

- Jed

[Vo]:Vertical farming, urban farming

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

Despommier interview.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/is-the-world-re/

Hydroponic farm. Read the captions under the photos:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/gotham-greens-hydroponic-farm

- Jed

[Vo]:Forbes brings us back to stage 3

[Jed Rothwell]

As noted, Forbes has published an attack on cold fusion:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markpmills/2011/10/28/the-relentless-pursuit-of-magical-energy/?partner=technology_newsletter

This is by someone named Mark Mills. I believe he's a shill for the coal
industry. It is a common name I suppose but someone by that name has
published several articles in favor of fossil fuel.

This article is filled with ignorant nonsense. The comparison of cold fusion
two helicopters is particularly risible. A more apt comparison would be
vacuum tubes to transistors.

Anyway, this is a sign of progress. There is an aphorism often
mis-attributed to Gandhi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you
win.

Forbes brings us back to stage 2 or 3, laughing at you or fighting you.

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi: self-sustaining limit is around six hours

[Jed Rothwell]

Earlier I said that I do not know the limits of self-sustaining operation
and it might go on in that mode indefinitely. Recently, Rossi said that the
limit for this particular machine is around six hours. I do not recall where
he said that but I am sure he did.

Some people have said he should have left the October 6 test run in
self-sustaining mode for longer than four hours. That would have been nice,
but apparently it was close to limit, and it would need to go back to a
controlled mode. It is unclear how long the controlled phase is needed
before input power can be turned off again.

Rossi often makes dubious statements about business or nuclear theory, but
as far as I know his assertions about the engineering aspects of his devices
have all been accurate. I have no reason to doubt this.

This is no indication that the technology is fundamentally limited to a
six-hour duty cycle. Arata's cells have stayed warm much longer than this.
Granted they are Pd-D which might be very different from Ni-H.

There is absolutely no indication that the current ratio of 1 W input to 6 W
output for most cells is caused by fundamental performance limitations or
physics. As I said, this is a lot like saying that railroad locomotives will
never go faster than 18 km/h because that's how fast the first one went in
1808.

If the 1 MW reactor is run in self-sustaining mode for several hours that
would certainly be a good test.

>From a technological point of view, there is no advantage to having cells go
into fully self-sustaining mode. Having a small amount of power to control
the cell is just as good as having no power at all. The overhead equipment
cost of generating control current with thermoelectric devices will be
trivial, and the dollar cost for the energy will be zero. I am sure the
control current will ultimately be much smaller than the overall output.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Live Twitter feed by Passerini

[Jed Rothwell]

Twitter screens do not auto-translate with Chrome. It seems you have to run
the text through Google translate manually, here:

http://translate.google.com/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi writes on the blog

[Jed Rothwell]

Rossi wrote:


> FIRST INFORMATION REGARDING THE 1 MW PLANT TEST:
> WE SARTED REGULARLY THE TEST THIS MORNING . EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL
> SO FAR. THE 1 MW E-CAT IS WORKING IN SELF SUSTAINING.
>

That is SPLENDID! Congratulations to Andrea Rossi.

Say what you like about him, he has guts, and he has the courage of his
convictions.

I do not doubt this report, for two reasons:

1. As I said before, I have never seen Rossi lie about engineering technical
claims. He says strange things about theory and business, but never about
engineering. That's what you expect from engineers and programmers. They may
cheat on their wives and their taxes but when it comes to machines, they
tell the truth.

2. Several reliable people are there. They will tell us later if this is not
true. He knows they will.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: self-sustaining limit is around six hours

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> I am hoping that the test today will be well documented and we have access
> to the data.  Am I dreaming?
>

If, as Rossi claims, a third-party engineer is collecting the data we
probably will have access to it.

In lieu of that, Lewan is there and he will do his best to collect data.
Without him there would have been no data at all from the past two tests. He
said so himself, in an acid comment:

"The shortcomings of the test measurement methods were clear, though
significant improvements had been made compared to previous ones. Data were
retrieved only because Ny Teknik, without being prepared, took
responsibility for gathering and recording the readings."

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3295411.ece

He has worked under trying circumstances and done as well as can be
expected.

I think there is good hope that we will have better data this time.

If the thing runs in self-sustaining mode for a long time, that will sure
simplify the calorimetry, won't it? It makes for a very convincing demo. I
do not think it has any technological significance but the main thing now is
to convince people it is real.

Of course the skeptics will say there was a hidden 1 MW wire or 343 kg of
hidden gasoline (enough for 4 MWh), but many other people will be convinced
by ~1 MW of steam continuing for many hours with no input. I will grant, it
would not be hard to hide 343 kg of gasoline in that monster.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Live Twitter feed by Passerini

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Twitter screens do not auto-translate with Chrome.
>

Ah ha. Left click and select "translate."

Thanks Jouni Valkonen for telling me that.

- Jed

[Vo]:Dismaying rumors about October 28 test

[Jed Rothwell]

I have heard that observers of today's tests are only being allowed to look
at the equipment for a few minutes at a time, and they are not being
introduced to the engineers who are taking the data. They are not being
given a chance to establish the bona fides of these engineers, or to confirm
that they are fully independent from Rossi.

If this is true then it goes without saying these results will have zero
credibility.

If this is true then Rossi has once again taken a golden opportunity to
convince the world his claims are true, and used it to make himself look
like a crook.

I hope this is not true.

Whatever happens, I am sure we will get the full story. The reporters there
can be relied upon to tell us the truth. If they are not allowed to
interview the engineers and they cannot independently confirm the data, they
will say so. I am sure Rossi knows they will tell the truth, so it seems
unlikely he would impose such outrageous conditions. Unfortunately, he has
often done outrageous things, such as telling people they are not allowed to
measure the temperature with their own instruments.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ideal client

[Jed Rothwell]

Stirling Allan reported:

*Q&A just finished; reading of results; 470 kW maintained continuously
> during . . .*
>

I believe Terry Blanton's prediction was the closest to this. He wins the
prize here, if these results are confirmed.

The difference between 470 kW and 1 MW is unimportant.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ideal client

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:


> And the client was promised 1 to 6 amplification! Wow, happened?


The amplification was reportedly infinite, but anyway, how do you know what
the customer was promised? Were you there during the negotiations?


There certainly was input, as it always happen to achieve
> a threshold temperature to begin the reaction.


If that is true, then probably all of the input power all came out
immediately, before the machine began to self sustain. That is what happened
on October 6. As long as there is a balance of input and output before the
machine begins to self-sustaining it does not matter how much you input.



> But, anyway, this was not the promised test...


Promised to who? You? Rossi did not promise anything to anyone I know. He
made vague claims that shifted often. He said he would produce a megawatt of
hot water, then he said steam, he said he would use 20 individual units than
50 than 300 then back to 50. His plans have changed again and again. He
never made clear to anyone what he would do.

There's nothing wrong with this. People who are inventing with cutting-edge
technology have to change plans constantly, or they will fail. Rossi had no
obligation to tell you or us anything about his plans or his test.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ideal client

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

If they only have heated water by about 50° then he would not need any 
permission.


In the U.S. you are not allowed to operate a boiler as large as this 
without a permit. It makes no difference whether it produces steam or 
hot water. You must have a permit; the machine has to be installed by a 
licensed HVAC person; and it has to be periodically inspected for safety.


I have no idea what the rules are in Italy.

I am talking about conventional electric and combustion boilers. I do 
not think the authorities would make an exception for a nuclear reactor 
that works by unknown principles. I do not think they would say, "we 
have no rule that applies to that so go ahead and do whatever you want."


On the other hand, as someone suggested here, perhaps if you apply for a 
permit they may say: "cold fusion does not exist. Your reactor must be 
fake, so we will not issue a permit. This is not our department. Perhaps 
the police should be brought in to investigate fraud, but we do not 
issue permits for imaginary reactors. Do as you please."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ideal client

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


> Another 22passi user who was there mentions there were six large (1.5x1.5
> meters) heat exchangers with approximately 1 meter wide cooling fans.
>

Ah! Finally some technical details. That sounds good. Six large heat
exchangers sounds like what you would need.

Where did you read that? URL please!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:First video from the October 28th, 1 MW E-Cat test event

[Jed Rothwell]

That is wonderful! Splendid!

You have to love a gigantic noisy machine.

I can't wait to hear the details.


Rossi is right about one thing: people will be impressed by the sheer scale
of this thing. Some will believe it just because it is so big and so
wonderfully loud. In the short video he said people are not as impressed by
kilowatt scale reactors. He is right about that.

If this is working the way Rossi claims, this is indeed one of the most
important days in the history of technology. I still say he could have
persuaded the important people with a much smaller reactor. But hey, it's
Rossi's decision, his invention, and he gets to call the shots. I can't
argue with that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Dismaying rumors about October 28 test

[Jed Rothwell]

Yikes. This kind of confirms what I heard. I fear this may mean we will not
find out who did this test or whether they are independent. I don't want to
jump to conclusions but this sounds bad:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:October_28%2C_2011_Test_of_the_One_Megawatt_E-Cat

QUOTE

I just got back from my turn. I was able to shoot a few pictures and take
some video. The reason for the embargo on taking photos was personnel
reasons. They don't want the engineers and testers to be shown, to keep them
confidential. The company doing the testing does not wish to be known at
this time.

A quick comment from the AP writer who is here. The lack of coverage from
the mainstream media is not due to lack of interest but from the lack of
cooperation from Andrea Rossi. He has turned a lot of media away who have
wanted to come in. The AP writer has gained Rossi's trust over time, and
hence was invited to be here today.

Rossi will be sending us all the data this evening.

Wish I could say more, but it will have to wait. Great day so far.

-- SilverThunder 05:42, 28 October 2011 (PDT)

END QUOTE

It says "Rossi will be sending us the data." From where? Whose data? Whose
instruments? Has anyone confirmed it independently? I hope this is not what
it sounds like.

I hope that the results are definitive in a way that be confirmed without
instrumentation, just by observation. That was true of the October 6 test.
Of course it would be *far better* to have proper independent instruments.

- Jed

[Vo]:Voice input draft of Rossi Oct. 28 test documents

[Jed Rothwell]

Documents downloaded here:


http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk


This includes the spreadsheet and three photographs of a document. I just
read the document aloud to voice input. This is practically uncorrected. I
left out some parts.


I apologize for uploading uncorrected text. I would appreciate if someone
would make corrections. After some other things for the next few hours.


- Jed



TESTS TO PROOF THE LEONARDO 1 MW REACTOR WORKING BY MEANS OF LOW-ENERGY
NUCLEAR REACTIONS – PROTOCOL PREPARED BY THE PARTIES

the test has been performed by the parties:



For the customer (omitted – confidential): engineer



Expert scientists for the measurement of radiations outside the reactors:
Dr. David Bianchini (University of Bologna)



Date of the test: October 28, 2011

time of the test from 9.00 through 23. 00



Test protocol



The test has the goal of comparing the energy output of the reactor made as
in the description of the patent number against the energy consumption of
the same.



To reach this goal we have measured the energy inputs the reactor by means
of the following instrumentation:



[Blank]



Such instrumentation has been certified as follows:


[Blank]



The energy output, or production has been measured by means of the integral
of the delta T of the water coolant of the reactor in function of the water
flow plus the vaporize nation heat of the water turned into steam. To be
conservative, all the water which arrived liquid at the output of the
reactor has been collected and its weight has been subtracted from the
amount of water that has been considered vaporized.


The water flow rate has been measured by a scaled reservoir and a
chronograph all the times that the customers consultant has deemed
opportune. This system has been chosen by the customer.

The temperatures of the water before and after the reactor have been
measured by means of the following instrumentation, previously tested by the
customer:

test of data logger #177 – T3

test of thermocouples #

the positioning of the thermocouples has been chosen by the customer

as for the radiations we have measured:

the radiations emitted into the environment from the reactor

the results are reported in attachment one: no radiation above the
background have been registered

the hydrogen tank is been waived by means of the scale before and after the
loading of the hydrogen in the reactor.



Before the loading the weight measured is: 13,604.5 kg

after the loading the weight measured is: 13,602.8 kg

the hydrogen tank pressure has been measured before and after the load:





Average temperature of the water at the input 18.3°C



Average temperature of the steam: 104.5°C



(The diagrams of the temperatures is in the attachment to)



Energy consumed from 12.30 (when the reactor has been turned on) and 18.00
(when the reactor has been turned off: one hour 66 kWh (sixty six)



Total energy production from 12.30 through 18.00 2635.033 kWh.



Water flow rate: liter per hour 675.6



Water not vaporize total: five

water vaporize: total 3716



Total energy produced: (steam kilograms times 625.5) plus (100 minus input
water T) times kilograms of water heated times 1.16 equals 2635
kilowatt-hours



Ratio between energy producing energy consumed (COP): 2006 and 35:0



Description of test installation



The 1 MW energy catalyzer (he) is an assembly of 170 modules of 10 kW each,
connected in parallel. Each module is made by three submodules of 3.3 kW
each, put in parallel.



All modules are set in a container made by steel. The assemblies commanded
by a control panel supplied with the necessary software and all the
necessary electronic components, whose description has been detailed in the
sale agreement. All the components result to be set as guaranteed from a
pulmonary check.



The dimensions of the container are:

length 5 m

with 2.6 m

height 2.6 m

weight declared from the manufacturer 10 times

noise emissions below 50 dB at 5 m from the plant

waste emissions: none

Gasser smoke emissions: none

liquid emissions: none

the water is supplied by the reactors by means of to pumps with a flow rate
capacity of 3000 m/h regulated by valve at the do flow rate of ~350 L per
hour



Type of pumps:



The reactors have been served by a RSG, whose data are reported in the sale
agreement description. The energy consumed by the RFP system has been Could
in the calculation of the COP.



The heat made by the reactor has been dissipated in a steam condenser and
the water came from the condensation of the heat has been recycled to the
reactor. Additional water has been added from the grid to compensate the
water evaporated from the reservoir, by means of floating files, to maintain
constant the water level of the reservoir.



The modules have been divided into rows each with an independent pump, so
that each pump has a flow rate of 750 kg per hour, for a total of 1500 kg
per hour.



The dissipated us have been designed by Leonardo Corporation, and are

[Vo]:Spreadsheet author is Manutencoop Facility Management

[Jed Rothwell]

An Observant Person points out that the excel spreadsheet found here:
http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk

. . . has Properties is set to:

"Manutencoop Facility Management"

Could this be a hint?

Here is what Google finds:

http://www.manutencoopfm.it/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pesn report

[Jed Rothwell]

English version:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Spreadsheet author is Manutencoop Facility Management

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


> This likely means that the Excel copy they have is pirated or that it is
> property of Manutencoop worker cooperative.


This company does large facility HVAC as Alan Fletcher pointed out. They are
a prime customer for this machine.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Spreadsheet author is Manutencoop Facility Management

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


> It does not appear to be a "large, well-known worldwide industrial group",
> however.
>

It is big enough to buy this machine, and develop it. See:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=9156703

- Jed

[Vo]:Lewan and other observers unable to confirm claims

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote to Mats Lewan:

It is disappointing that you were not allowed to make measurements and that
we do not know if these engineers were truly from another company. They
might be Rossi's employees. However, you may have been able to make
first-principle observations that confirm the claim even without
instruments. You were able to do that during the Oct. 6 test.

It depends on how much you could see, and how long you had. I have heard you
had only a few minutes . . .

If you can confirm that the input power was off, and that a great deal of
heat was being blow out by those large fans at the radiators, I expect that
would be proof of anomalous heat. Did you get a chance to see a power meter
showing no input? Was the power line unplugged? (I doubt that it was.) Were
you able to feel a blast of hot air from the fans?

. . .

His response:

"I’m sorry, I couldn’t confirm any of this. I wanted to, but I didn’t
manage."


My comments:

That is a shame. Once again, Rossi has been given a golden opportunity to
make his case, and once again, he has only managed to make himself look like
a crook.

I predict that no one outside our circle will take this report seriously. I
also predict this will upset Rossi.

Most of the public will continue to believe this is a gigantic scam. That is
a shame. Some people speculate that Rossi want things this way. He wants the
public to remain doubtful. I do not think he does. I think he simply does
not understand how to convince people, or he does not care what anyone
thinks.

I expect this test was legitimate, and those engineers were actually
independent. I expect they were from Manutencoop Facility Management.
However, there is no proof of that. It would not be difficult to leave the
generator going and make this entire test a fake. As Terry Blanton points
out, this would be the most expensive and elaborate fake in the history of
energy. If you are going to put on a fake show, why not make it 10 kW?

The polite skeptics will say the Rossi presented no irrefutable proof of
this claims. I have to agree. He might have easily done this, but he choose
not too. The Oct. 6 demonstration was more convincing strictly from the fact
that it produced first-principle proof that can be confirmed by observations
alone, without instruments.

(The impolite skeptics have already said this is an obvious scam.)

I predicted that the instrumentation in this test would be inadequate if
Rossi is in charge. I do not know who was in charge, but as it turned out,
we have no clear idea what instruments were used, which is even worse. I
take those documents seriously, but I cannot fully trust them without
knowing who those people are and what company they are affiliated with.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Lewan and other observers unable to confirm claims

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I take those documents seriously, but I cannot fully trust them without
> knowing who those people are and what company they are affiliated with.
>

Needless to say, if you believe those documents, it is an open and shut
case. There is no chance of a measurement error.

I do, actually, believe them but I admit this test could be construed as a
gigantic and expensive fraud. I will grant there is a slight chance of that.
There is no independent proof the documents are real.

If you are expecting the world to wake up tomorrow believing this, you will
be disappointed. However, large numbers of serious people with serious money
will believe it, as much as I do (with only minor reservations). I have
heard from a number of them. That's good news. At this stage we need people
with barrels of money more than we need public support. We will need support
later on. So, all in all, this was a positive event, and it will help cold
fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Lewan and other observers unable to confirm claims

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Leguillon  wrote:

This test has been a colossal disappointment.
>

I know Rossi pretty well by now, so I was expecting something like this.
Given who Rossi is and how he thinks, this wasn't a colossal disappointment.
You have to remember, he was under no obligation to let anyone in, or tell
anyone about it. He did us a favor by letting us see it at a distance. By
his lights, he did.

Some good things may come of this, fairly soon. I think it will have a
positive impact. Be of good cheer.



> Instead, we in the Peanut Gallery must do exactly what Rossi has always
> said. We must wait for the only real evidence that he wants to give us: his
> satisfied customers.
>

Maybe not.

- Jed

[Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

This test has been a colossal disappointment.
>>
>
> I know Rossi pretty well by now, so I was expecting something like this.
> Given who Rossi is and how he thinks, this wasn't a colossal disappointment.
>

Also, this was not a colossal disappointment to me because, hey, it did not
blow up. As readers here know, I was seriously worried the damn thing might
explode or irradiate the audience. I am relieved that nothing like that
happened. It seemed to work at 1/2 of nameplate power. For a reactor they
just finished building, that's fantastic. That is as good as 1 MW.

Rossi is much braver than I am, or much more foolhardy, or both.

As you hear in this video, I am not the only one who is worried about
radiation and other dangers. So are the Italian authorities, as well they
should be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLAdGduQ50A

Rossi says here that they issued some sort of conditional permit, with
restrictions. That is the sort of thing you would expect for an experimental
device. That sounds plausible. It is what I would expect a responsible
government official to issue.

I still think it was much too big a reactor, and I still think the test
schedule was too fast. But evidently Rossi and the Italian officials share
some of my concerns about safety and that's good.

I predicted that a major company such as GE or Mitsubishi would want to get
involved in such risky tests. Perhaps I was wrong and this was a big
company. But if it was an up-and-coming profitable, risk-taking place such
as Manutencoop, that may be the kind of thing they would get into. Back in
the go-go late 1960s, companies such as Data General used to get involved in
risky start-up technology. According to "Soul of a New Machine" there were
rumors that Data General was involved in some actual physical risk and
possibly criminal behavior such as burning down the buildings of rival
companies.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

I mean that I predicted GE would NOT want to get involved.

Look at the Manutencoop profile:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=9156703

Recently founded, growing rapidly, still hungry. Privately owned, leaving
them free to make big decisions and take risks. Just the kind of go-go place
you would expect to run with this.

People think the microcomputer biz began exclusively with garage start ups
such as Apple and Microsoft. It did to a large extent, but the money came
from established venture capitalists and many of the players were mid-sized
companies such as Radio Shack, with its Trash-80. It could'a been a
contenda. It was, for several years.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

Charles Hope  wrote:

Jed, in your opinion, why does Rossi bother with these demoes, if they don't
> impress fence sitters, and he doesn't need new investors?
>

It seems to clear to me why he did these demos. Different reasons:

Oct. 6 was a demonstration. It proved beyond any question the device is
real. Anyone who doubts that is a scientific illiterate, in my opinion. The
proof is in the physical shape, configuration and the temperatures you can
feel even without instruments. People who do not understand basic physics,
and who look only at instrument readings instead of the experiment itself
may convince themselves it proved nothing. That is because Rossi is sloppy
with instruments. If he had included another K-type thermocouple and an SD
card, he would have convinced most of these people as well.

Oct. 28 was a customer acceptance trial. It sure looked like that to me. An
engineer came and measured everything, and then noted it was fine except
there are some leaking gaskets. Rossi allowed some of his friends to attend.
He wined them and dined them, just for the fun of it. He said beforehand
that the test would be "closed" and he meant it. By the way, he blamed
*me*for that. Me personally, in a e-mail. That was after I told him he
is sloppy
and rude to his audience. He took offence and said 'just for that I will
make the Oct. 28 test closed. No more demonstrations!' (Something like
that.) I think he was looking around for an excuse to close the test, and he
decided to blame me.

I copied my message to him here, and it is pretty much what I wrote here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295498.ece/BINARY/Conclusion+Ecat+Oct+6+by+Jed+Rothwell+%28pdf%29

What it boils down to is that Rossi hates to reveal information. He likes to
micromanage things. He wants you look over his shoulder at a computer and
trust whatever he says. He really, really hates it when
people criticize him. He pretends to be oh-so-tough I don't care what anyone
thinks, but in fact he is a thin-skinned as a teenage kid. Also he is sloppy
and he does not understand how to do a proper, convincing
demonstration. Those attitudes are not productive for a scientist or
engineer. We all have our limitations.

What he is trying to do now is to make money selling individual reactors,
and getting a contract with what I suspect is a mid-level, go-go Italian
company, Manutencoop. That is actually a pretty good choice. But he could do
a lot better. Some people I know have offered him huge sums of money. He
ignores them or blows them away because they insist that he must allow real
testing, he must hand over all of his secrets, and he must let them make the
business decisions. Rossi resembles Patterson and many others in that he
would take this technology to the grave with him, so that no one gets it,
rather than lose control or do what other people want him to do.

Regarding Manutencoop, someone should check the earlier spreadsheets to see
where they came from. I don't think I have that software on this computer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi  wrote:

How can rossi had a permit if inside the nuclear site there isn’t even a
> SINGLE “Nuclear Warning” panel?
>

I don't know. I have not seen his application or permit. You have a good
point. It might be prudent to set up some signs. I am not sure where you
would put them, or how far away people should stay. Bianchini set up
detectors and found nothing, so they did pay some attention to this issue.

Still, as far as anyone knows, cold fusion never generates dangerous
radiation. So it is a little silly to apply the safety standards of fission
or plasma fusion to it. This is like saying that hydrogen airships can
explode, so we should take extreme precautions when working with helium
balloons.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Some calculations, discussion and accurate temperature graph

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> However, this test was by no means made by independed scientists.
>

Well, supposedly it was. Rossi claims that was an independent engineer. We
have only his word for that.



> I take some words back. Rossi's calorimetry was not calibrated. Therefore
> we do not have any proper evidence for the performance. I guess that there
> was some excess heat, but nothing more accurate can be said.


In a test on this scale, with this kind of equipment, HVAC engineers never
calibrate. That is not part of their standard operating procedure. Do you
expect them to bring in another 1 MW reactor? This is a little like
expecting a bridge inspector to build another bridge next to the one being
certified.

HVAC engineers use industrial equipment that has been certified accurate by
a testing agency. They have to, or they will lose their licenses. They
assume the equipment gives the right answer, and it does.

Assuming the report "TESTS TO PROOF THE LEONARDO 1 MW REACTOR . . ." is not
a fraudulent, and it was written by a genuine, licensed HVAC engineer, there
is not the slightest doubt the machine produce massive amounts of anomalous
energy. It is not even one tiny bit debatable. And you can rule out a hidden
wire that was not monitored, or gasoline. This was an enclosed area. They
would have been asphyxiated with carbon monoxide.

If that is a licensed engineer, perhaps we can look up the name in some
on-line registry. If he wrote a fraudulent report he can easily lose his
license and his livelihood. I really doubt it is fraudulent.

By the way, that title is ungrammatical. So are many other parts of the
document. I preserved them in the voice input transcription. The document
was not written by a native speaker of English. The mistakes make me think
it is a genuine document, written by an Italian HVAC engineer. Many American
HVAC engineers I have met are not good at writing documents either.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi  wrote:

If you declare to run a 1MW reactor and if you declare that generate heat
> with gamma radiation, then it's nuclear.
>

Is that what Rossi declared in his application for a permit? Did you read
the application or the permit? If you did not, you do not know what he told
the government, or what they told him.

We have only his word for this. I have never caught him lying about
technical engineering claims. I cannot evaluate his statements about gamma
radiation and theory, but experts tell me they make no sense. His statements
about his business are full of holes. So I am not confident that he really
does have a permit. I doubt there is gamma radiation, but you never know.

If he does have a permit, I suppose it would be the kind he described, for
an experimental device. It sounds plausible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi  wrote:

>
> No matter of what his going on inside the reactor.
> Rossi made spectacular claims. He said that he generate heat by gamma
> emission.
>

Yes, he did. Experts think that is unlikely, but he did say that. But did he
tell that to the government when he applied for a permit? Does he still
believe that? I do not know. If you have read the application or the permit
please tell us. Perhaps you can find it on-line in an Italian government web
site.

I would love to see that permit -- assuming it exists.


If you go to the NRC asking for an autohrization for a test with potential
> gamma emission, nobody release you authorization without installing some
> precautions, and "Nuclear Warning" panels.
>

That does seem likely. Perhaps that means he did not tell them there is
potential gamma emissions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi  wrote:

  >That does seem likely. Perhaps that means he did not tell them there is
> potential gamma emissions.
>
>
> And what you think Rossi said? “Well, we want an authorization for running
> a 1MW electric heater?”
>

I have no idea what he said. You are Italian. Why don't you try to find out?
They have FOI laws in Italy, although the laws do not sound strong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation#Italy

- Jed

[Vo]:Forget John Galt, who is Domenico Fioravanti?

[Jed Rothwell]

As noted, there is a photo of Fioravanti and some comments about him by
Lewan here:

http://theeestory.com/posts/215391

I asked Lewan:

"Do you know anything about this person? Do you think it is possible he is a
fake who actually works for Rossi? He looks a little old for that.

I do not seriously think this is fake. But if we had some proof that he
really is an independent licensed engineer, that pretty much proves it is
real. A licensed engineer would never take part in a fraud. He would lose
his license and his livelihood. This is a widely publicized event and the
authorities would find out about it. . . ."


Is there an on-line registry of licensed engineers in Italy? Can someone
look this guy up? Someone who speaks Italian, please?

Here is a registry in California, "License Lookup (Verification) for
California-Licensed Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, Geologists, and
Geophysicists:"

http://www.pels.ca.gov/consumers/lic_lookup.shtml

Here is one for Georgia:

http://sos.georgia.gov/plb/

I found a registry in Georgia for people who are *not* registered HVAC
engineers, that is, people convicted of practicing without a license, or who
had their licenses revoked.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi  wrote:

  You need to get a lawsuit against Rossi before asking it.
>

That's a shame. Okay, maybe you can find out if the people who signed the
report are registered as licensed engineers. See the thread I just posted
about Domenico Fioravanti. The U.S. now has on-line registries of licensed
engineers. Maybe Italy also has them?

If these people are licensed it is unlikely they would take part in a fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Forget John Galt, who is Domenico Fioravanti?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

>
> I will make a people search for the US.
>

He appears to be Italian. Why would he be registered in the U.S? I can look
in a Japanese registry but he probably isn't there either.



> But very probably not the real name.
>

What on earth makes you think that is not his real name?!? This is not a
James Bond movie. Why would he use a fake name?

I am sure that signing a technical document with a fake name, or claiming
you are a registered engineer with a fake name, would also be serious
violations of the laws.

People do not seem to appreciate this, but as Samuel Florman points out,
professional engineers are very careful not to violate laws and regulations.
Not because they are highly moral people. Because they will lose their
license if they are caught, and then they will have no way to make a living.
They would throw away all that training and years of experience. I expect
they would have difficulty finding any kind of job. A middle aged guy like
Fioravanti would spend the rest of his working life sweeping floors or
flipping burgers. Rossi would have to pay a huge bribe to get him to do
that.

A university scientist could fake a report more easily. He would just say he
made a mistake. People don't read scientific papers anyway. I read 'em, and
I find many real mistakes.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert  wrote:


> The truth behind might be this: Focardi /thinks/ there could be dangerous
> gamma radiation under circumstances, but they never measured this and dont
> know.
>
> If so, then he has lied all time to us.
> If not so, then he has lied to the authorities to get the permissions.
>

Or they changed their minds and no longer believe there is gamma radiation.

Or they have confirmed (somehow) that the gamma radiation is never
dangerous.

Or the Italian authorities decided for some reason not to worry about gamma
rays, and did not order them to put up signs.

Or there might be some other explanation that has not occurred to me.

There are many possibilities here. Unless you have some inside information
from Rossi and the Italian government, you have no reason to think anyone
lied about anything. The truth might be this, or that, or an onion. Unless
you have hard information I think you should not accuse people of lying.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ideal client -- sekrit

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> > The Customer is of a category that usually maintains secret all they do.
> . . .
>



> A skeptic forum member elsewhere predicted those words almost verbatim.
>

Not hard to predict. Rossi said that before the test. It may not be true,
but that is what he claimed all along.

- Jed

[Vo]:Document: Tests to proof the Leonardo 1 MW reactor

[Jed Rothwell]

Document downloaded from here:



http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk


Corrected version. A few confusing spelling errors have been corrected from
the original.





TESTS TO PROOF THE LEONARDO 1 MW REACTOR WORKING BY MEANS OF LOW-ENERGY
NUCLEAR REACTIONS – PROTOCOL PREPARED BY THE PARTIES



The test has been performed by the parties:



For the customer (omitted – confidential): colonel Engineer Domenico
Fioravanti



For the Seller: Leonardo Corporation: Dr. Andrea Rossi



Expert Scientist for the measurement of radiations outside the reactors: Dr.
David Bianchini (University of Bologna)



Date of the test: October 28, 2011



Time of the test from 9.00 through 23.00



TEST PROTOCOL



The test has the goal of comparing the Energy output of the reactor made as
in the description of the patent n. WO 2009/ 125444 A1 against the energy
consumption of the same.



To reach this goal we have measured the energy inputs the reactor by means
of the following instrumentation:



[Blank]



Such instrumentation has been certified as follows:



[Blank]



The energy output, or production has been measured by means of the integral
of the delta T of the water coolant of the reactor in function of the water
flow plus the vaporization heat of the water turned into steam. To be
conservative, all the water which arrived liquid at the output of the
reactor has been collected and its weight has been subtracted from the
amount of water that has been considered vaporized.



The water flow rate has been measured by a scaled reservoir and a
chronograph all the times that the Customer’s consultant has deemed
opportune. This system has been chosen by the Customer.



The temperatures of the water before and after the reactor have been
measured by means of the following instrumentation, previously tested by the
Customer:



Testo data logger #177 – T3

Testo thermocouples # Testo Alta Temperatura 0613 1212 – AG 1st



The positioning of the thermocouples has been chosen by the customer



As for the radiations we have measured:



THE RADIATIONS EMITTED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE REACTOR



The results are reported in attachment 1: no radiation above the background
have been registered



The hydrogen tank is been weighed by means of the scale before and after the
loading of the hydrogen in the reactor.



Before the loading the weight measured is: 13,604.5 kg

After the loading the weight measured is: 13,602.8 kg



The hydrogen tank pressure has been measured before and after the load:



Hydrogen pressure before the load: 55 bar

Hydrogen pressure after the load: 55 bar



Average temperature of the water at the input 18.3°C



Average temperature of the steam: 104.5°C



(The diagrams of the temperatures is in the attachment 2)



Energy consumed from 12.30 (when the reactor has been turned on) and 18.00
(when the reactor has been turned off: wh 66 kWh (sixty six)



Total energy production from 12.30 through 18.00: 2,635.033 kWh.



Water flow rate: l/h 675.6



Water not vaporize total: 5

Water vaporized: total 3716



Total energy produced: (steam kg × 625.5) plus (100 - input water T) × kg of
water heated × 1.16 = kWh 2635



Ratio between energy producing energy consumed (COP): 2635:0



Description of test installation:



The 1 MW energy catalyzer (E-Cat) is an assembly of 170 modules of 10 kW
each, connected in parallel. Each module is made by three submodules of 3.3
kW each, put in parallel.



All modules are set in a container made by steel. The assemblies commanded
by a control panel supplied with the necessary software and all the
necessary electronic components, whose description has been detailed in the
sale agreement. All the components result to be set as guaranteed from a
pulmonary check.



The dimensions of the container are:



Length 5 m

Width 2.6 m

Height 2.6 m

Weight declared from the manufacturer 10 tonns

Noise emissions below 50 dB(A) at 5 m from the plant

Waste emissions: none

Gas or smoke emissions: none

Liquid emissions: none



The water is supplied by the reactors by means of 2 pumps with a flow rate
capacity of 3,000 l/h regulated by valve at the do flow rate of ~350 L per
hour



Type of pumps: DAB jet 82 M



The reactors have been served by a RFG, whose data are reported in the sale
agreement description. The energy consumed by the RFG system has been
calculated in the calculation of the COP.



The heat made by the reactor has been dissipated in a steam condenser and
the water came from the condensation of the heat has been recycled to the
reactor. Additional water has been added from the grid to compensate the
water evaporated from the reservoir, by means of floating valves, to
maintain constant the water level of the reservoir.



The modules have been divided into rows each with an independent pump, so
that each pump has a flow rate of 750 kg per hour, for a total of 1,500 kg
per hour.



The dissipators have been designed by Leonardo Corporation, and are made by
2 air-water heat exc

Re: [Vo]:Some calculations, discussion and accurate temperature graph

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> Jed, I meant with calibration, that there was not measured the amount of
> steam. Amount of steam correlates with temperature, but this correlation was
> not established. Therefore we do not have any means to know, how much steam
> is 104.5°C. However I take back that I took back my words.
>
> I was considered that because we have very high velocity steam, liquid
> water may not enter to the water trap. . . .


I see what you mean. However, even if there were only hot pressurized water
at 104.5°C, input energy was only 66 kWh so there must have been massive
anomalous heat.

I wish we had much more technical information, and I wish we had proof this
was steam and not steam and hot water, but honestly, these issues are not
important. The only thing we must establish to be sure this is real are bona
fides of Ing. Fioravanti. As long as he is not some friend of Rossi's
pretending to be an engineer, then I am sure the test was legitimate. I
doubt that he is.

Michele Comitini pointed out that Fioravanti does not have to be registered:

"Also if the customer does not need a certification of the plant with legal
value, for instance because Fioravanti works for the customer, there is no
need for him to be on the register to do an internal report."

I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you mean that Fioravanti would not need
a license as long as he is not working to install or certify a boiler for a
customer. I assume he is licensed because he is referred to in the document
as "Engineer" and "Ing." I assume that is similar to the English "P.E."
(professional engineer) which people append to the name. That means you have
a license. It is like "MD" (medical doctor). You would get into legal
trouble if you say you are "PE" or "MD" but you are not.

Assuming he is a PE then he would get into trouble for signing a fraudulent
report under any circumstances, for any purpose, whether it is internal for
his own company or for a customer. In the U.S. he would get in trouble.

Just because you are a PE, I do not know if that means you are registered
anywhere, in Italy. I do not know how that works. I believe all U.S. PE and
MDs are registered, and probably they are all on line these days. Retired
MDs are not. Their license to practice is lapsed.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Document: Tests to proof the Leonardo 1 MW reactor

[Jed Rothwell]

What is an "RFG"? As in: "The reactors have been served by a RFG . . ."

There are some minor corrections to this report coming from Rossi. I will
upload a new version later. They are:

1. The weight of the hydrogen bottle is in grams, not kilograms.

2. The indicated flow rate of the pumps at the end of the report should be
350 kg/h, not 750 kg/h, giving a total of 700 kg/h, not 1,500 kg/h, for the
two pumps.

(The flow rate of 675.6 l/h in the first part of the report is correct.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Some calculations, discussion and accurate temperature graph

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

I'm sure that registration requirements are quite different in other
> countries since there is such a variance between states here.
>

To summarize, even if we find no trace of Fioravanti on line, he may well be
a P.E.

If we can track him down, that proves it is a legit test. If we cannot track
him down, it is still probably legit.

He sure looks like an engineer. Lewan says he talks like one. This is just
my gut feeling, but here is why I think he must be an engineer:

The report ends with a remark that there are "some leaks" in gaskets. Here
we have one of the most momentous tests in the history of technology, right
up there with Volta's first test of an electric battery or the first flight
at Kitty Hawk, and this guy is talking about leaking gaskets. Only an
engineer would write that!

In case you are wondering, the first recorded words of the Wright brothers
after the momentous flights of Dec. 17, 1903 were:

1. Telling a local 16-year-old kid that a bucket of eggs in their shack were
all laid by one scrawny chicken. He went off to see the chicken. The boys
loved a practical joke.

2. Debating whether to burn the airplane in a bonfire, or go to the trouble
and expense of packing it up and shipping it back to Dayton. (It had been
smashed to pieces and could not be used for more tests, and they often
burned aircraft at the end of the season.)

Hey, they were engineers. What did you expect?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:"- no blank run without hydrogen to test the instruments and heat losses": Mary Yugo: Rich Murray 2011.10.29

[Jed Rothwell]

Regarding the title of this thread, it is ridiculous. HVAC engineers do not
do "blank runs" when they certify 1 MW boiler performance. That's not how
they work. As I said, that is like expecting a bridge inspector to construct
another bridge next to the one he is inspecting, in order to compare the
two.

Do you think an aircraft inspector drags in a blank Boeing 747 to compare
it? When they inspect an airplane and find a problem, do you think they
deliberately crash it to confirm it really is a problem?

Scientists do blanks. Industrial engineers do not. The do not need to prove
the thing does not work under some circumstances, but only that it is
working now.

This is not skeptical thinking. It is ignorant. Learn something about how
people do things in industry.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Energy Catalzyer: Extraordinary Scams Require Extraordinary Claims

[Jed Rothwell]

You have to hand it to Krivit: he does not back down or mince his words. If
I were him, I would leave myself some wiggle room in case it turns out
Rossi is not a fraud.

There is no question that Rossi makes it easy for people to attack him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Forget John Galt, who is Domenico Fioravanti?

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

I would suggest that someone over at Rossi's blog ask Rossi for information
> on Domenico Fiorvanati. State the request simply and politely.


He has already said he does not want to reveal this. Fiorvanati met with
Lewan and others, and they talked for a long time. Fiorvanati himself said
that he and the company do not want to reveal themselves. I know Rossi well
enough to predict that he will not change his mind on this. Even though
this hurts his credibility, but he does not care about that as much as he
cares about controlling and micromanaging the flow of information.

Of course it is possible they are hiding the guy's identity because he
works for Rossi, or it is a fake name, or for some other nefarious reason.
I suppose the reason is what they claim, that the company wants to keep a
low profile. That too is plausible. But who knows?

Lewan said that whoever Fiorvanati is, he is every inch an engineer. He
knows a terrific amount about boilers, steam quality, thermodynamics and so
on. He freely talked about the technical issues. It is good to hear that
Rossi is working with professionals like him. Even if it is a giant scam,
at least it is a well-engineered, safe, giant scam.



> It probably wouldn't hurt to mention to Rossi the fact that by allowing the
> pubic to at least verify the professional credentials of Fiorvanati, it
> ought to go a long way in vindicating Rossi's CF claims.


Rossi knows that. We have sent the message to him. It would not hurt to
send it again.


But then, perhaps Rossi could care less what the general public thinks of
> his credentials.
>

I see three possibilities here:

1. He could care less.
2. He cares, but he is bound by a secrecy agreement (which is what he
claims).
3. He is covering up a scam.

#3 seems far-fetched but there is no hard evidence for any of these three.
You can pick one and say your intuition favors it, but anyone who says they
know for sure which it is should be asked to supply an independently
verifiable reason for saying that. The default answer is not "fraud" or
"legitimate." It is, "I don't know."



> Actually, I wouldn't stop with Rossi. I'd widen the circle. Ask ANYONE who
> has had close ties to Rossi if they know who Fiorvanati is. And if they
> don't know ask them if they might know the name of someone who might know.
> It might be worth it to contact Manutencoop's personnel department . . .


That sounds like the kind of sleuthing Krivit loves to do. He is good at
it, too.

I myself would not do this because this is none of my business. If these
people want to keep a low profile, and if Rossi wants to making himself
look like a crook, so be it. Of course I am curious, and if Fiorvanati's
credentials can be found in plain view, from a credible source, I would
love to see them. But I do not want to poke around trying to learn things
that people want to keep secret. I think we should simply report that they
are hiding their identities, we should give their reasons for doing this,
and we should state the obvious which is that this policy makes them look
like a gang of crooks and scheming frauds. It does! With the best will in
the world, anyone can see that it does. Krivit thinks he is the only one
who sees this, but it was obvious to me during the test, which is why I
posted the message "Dismaying rumors . . ." even before it ended.

I use words like "dismaying" where Krivit would scream "blatant fraud!!!"
It is a matter of emphasis. The content of what I reported is exactly the
same as what Krivit reported, but I left it up to the reader to decide how
serious this is. At the time I was not sure this was happening. The rumor
was confirmed a few hours later. As I predicted, Lewan and others described
what happened. Lewan's account is not at all gullible and it does not
soft-pedal Rossi's secrecy. Krivit says it does but I think anyone can see
that Lewan has not covered up anything.



> Eventually, I suspect we will ascertain Fiovanati's professional status.
>

Maybe. Maybe not. I can report that he is a
skilled, knowledgeable engineer. That does not preclude the possibility
that he is a fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Associated Press- Three Days of the Condor- Rossi Cold Fusion Coverage

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

His name is Martin Fleischmann and I seriously doubt this conversation
> took place.


Something like that took place. I do not know what Teller talked about, but
he did call out of the blue when Fleischmann was mysteriously delayed in
San Francisco. Fleischmann and Mallove both described the event. Teller
attended the NSF/EPRI meeting soon after that. His comments are in the
transcripts:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf


 My main reason for this is that no one knows for sure
> whether CF can be weaponized.


Nobody I know is sure. It seems somewhat unlikely because it is not a chain
reaction; i.e. one nuclear event does not directly and rapidly trigger the
next.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:iReport

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

The test was for a customer - his first name was "Colonel" - who
> immediately hooked up the 20-ft container it was placed in and drove
> it away."
>
> So, he just wrote AR a check and hooked the container up to his F250
> and drove away?  So, there wasn't a single investigative reporter who
> hopped on their Vespa and followed him?  Are we to believe that it now
> resides in that vast warehouse next to the Lost Ark of the Covenant?
>

True or not, it is hilarious. Ah, I wish I had the movie rights for the
history of cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:iReport

[Jed Rothwell]

The i-reporter i-reported:


> The test was for a customer - his first name was "Colonel" . . .


I doubt that was his name. Unless he is like Major Major Major Major in
"Catch 22."

During WWII there was some discussion of promoting Gen. Marshall to a Field
Marshall which would have made him Marshall Marshall. I recall someone said
that would sound silly so they shelved the idea. Might have been Marshall
himself.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Forbes article by Gibbs

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs wrote:

"Allow me to digress for a moment to ask all of you who sent me messages in
tones ranging from polite through to downright rudeasserting that cold
fusion has actually been successfully duplicated: If an experiment that
demonstrates cold fusion has really been replicated in the real world by
real scientists then why would the scientific community ignore something so
profound? Everyone agrees that cold fusion would be a game changer and in
itself would be a hugely important scientific discovery so why would anyone
in the scientific community ignore an important,  successful, and
replicable experiment?"

Allow me to quote the Scientific American, January 1906, saying almost the
same thing in close to the same words, regarding heavier than air flying
machines in Dayton, Ohio:

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being
conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which
everyone feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that
the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the
chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even when he has to scale a
fifteen-story skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about
them and published them broadcast long ago?"

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Some calculations, discussion and accurate temperature graph

[Jed Rothwell]

Michele Comitini  wrote:


> But are called "Ingegnere" even if the correct term would be "Dottore
> in Ingegneria" so reading Ing. in front of a name does not imply being
> registered
> to the "Ordine degli Ingegneri" unless the document is a public contract.
>

I think what you are saying is that the "Ing." in front of his name is not
a formal, legal designation. In the U.S., adding "PE" (Professional
Engineer) is a criminal offense if you are not actually a Professional
Engineer. As I said, it is like going around claiming you are an MD
(Medical Doctor).

If you have a degree in engineering, it is perfectly okay to call yourself
"Engineer" but not "PE."

Any fool can call himself a "Programmer" even if he has no degree at all
relating to programming. Me, for example.

As far as I know it is not a criminal offense to add "PhD" to your name
even if you do not have a doctorate. There may be some laws against it, but
they are not enforced. Rossi calls himself "Dr. Rossi" in this document. He
has a fake PhD from a diploma mill in California, according to his own web
page.

On several occasions Rossi said he does not have a PhD, he is only an
engineer.


. . . There is a big dispute in the U.S. at present about whether it is
okay to pretend you are a retired military officer and you have medals for
valor in war. This is the so-called "stolen valor" issue. The Supreme Court
will rule on this. People who do this say they have the right of free
speech to do this. It is a complicated question. In my opinion, they should
be allowed as long as they do not use this to defraud people for money,
free hotel rooms, food or other goods and services. It is a nutty thing to
do, and reprehensible, but people have the right to be nutty.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Some calculations, discussion and accurate temperature graph

[Jed Rothwell]

Man on Bridges  wrote:


> However the title Professor is to my knowledge not a protected title, so
> anyone could use it.
>

Here in Atlanta, anyone can call himself a Bishop. See Bishop Eddie Long.

- Jed

[Vo]:Video added to NyTeknik report

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece

The quality of that video is better than the other ones. Lewan held the
camera steady and explained what the viewer is seeing. There is less
background noise.

By the way, Lewan says he believes input power was measured using the
genset internal meter. This is a highly reliable method.

The thermocouples used in this test can be seen in Lewan's video. They are
professional quality, and they are properly placed.

I will add a short note about the Oct. 28 test to the LENR-CANR.org news
section. I guess I will say:


Rossi conducted a test of the megawatt reactor on October 28, 2011, as
planned. Several scientists and reporters were present, but they were not
allowed to make independent observations or look closely at the
instruments, so the results cannot be confirmed. Rossi announced that the
test was conducted by independent engineers, but the name of the company
they work for was not released.

Rossi uploaded a spreadsheet of data and a report claiming that the reactor
ran for five and a half hours in self-sustaining mode, with no input power,
producing an average of 470 kW of heat. If this is correct, it proves that
the reactor is produce massive amounts of anomalous energy.

NyTeknik published a short report and video of the test here.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert  wrote:


> This amount of heat cannot been unnoticed, it must have bee rather hot
> near the heatradiators.
>

Yes, it was. I believe that is why they were surrounded by barriers. You
can see this more clearly in Lewan's video, that was just uploaded. You can
also see that the radiators were placed outside. If they had been in the
warehouse it would have been intolerably hot.

The video shows that the outlet pipe valve handle from the reactor was hot
to the touch. If Rossi have allowed observers to look carefully at the
genset power meters, they might have confirmed that there was no power
going into the reactor, but only to the pumps and radiator fans. With such
a large, sophisticated genset I expect each circuit was monitored
individually. If you could confirm there is no power going into the
reactors, and you know the outlet pipe is hot, and the air around the
radiators is hot, this would be proof of an anomalous reaction. The power
from the pumps alone could not heat the water enough to make the valve
handle palpably hot.

It is a shame that Rossi did not allow the observers to confirm the claim.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Video added to NyTeknik report

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

When Lewan looked over the fence to the heat dissipators then he 
should have feeled A LOT of hot air. He did not mention anything.


I asked him about that. He said he did not have a chance to reach over 
the barrier and check. I believe others have said it was hot.


As I mentioned, the pumps could not have made the outlet pipe valve 
handle palpably warm. Assuming there was no input power to the reactor, 
as claimed, this is proof of anomalous heat. However we have no 
independent verification that the power going to the reactor was turned 
off. It is not easy to tell with such large equipment.


As I said before the test, it is much easier to confirm a kilowatt level 
reaction.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Video added to NyTeknik report

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

They test the temperature at the output pipe, but this does not say 
much about the energy when the mass flow is not known.


The mass flow is known. It is in the report. It was 675 L/h.

Of course you have to trust that Fioravanti reported it correctly.

It would be difficult to independently check such a high flow rate. That 
is one of the reasons I say it is easier to confirm heat at the kilowatt 
level.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Video added to NyTeknik report

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha wrote:

In that case, there was a ceiling, so, even though the windows were 
opened,  the hot air was trapped.


The fans were placed outside the building. The barriers around the fans 
will prevent much of warm air from getting into the building.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Video added to NyTeknik report

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha wrote:


I was not referring to Rossi's building...


Oh. I guess you were talking about the aluminum casting factory 
described by Heckert.


These e-mail conversations can be hard to follow.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Forget John Galt, who is Domenico Fioravanti?

[Jed Rothwell]

So he is a colonel. Or was. Interesting. There are not too many of them 
in NATO. Perhaps there is a list somewhere. It is a shame he is not a 
general.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

I cannot imagine this heating energy being compressed on some m^3 
small space without becoming very hot.
There must be an air flow of 4 m^3 / s if 20° air is heated to 100° 
(without thermal expansion of air being considered)


I cannot imagine that either, but what is your point? The heat is not 
being confined or compressed in a small space. It is outdoors. It is 
being blown into the air. The amount of heat and fans and radiators are 
roughly the same size as those on the diesel locomotive parked in a 
railroad station. When you walk by a locomotive you feel a blast of hot 
air but the air is not confined and the platform does not get hot.


Modern diesel electric locomotives range from 3 to 5 MW. They produce a 
lot more waste heat than that when they are underway. When they are 
sitting at the platform after a trip, cooling down, I suppose they emit 
roughly 1 MW of heat.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:NASA: LENR powered aircraft so large that other aircraft can land on them in future.

[Jed Rothwell]

Quoting this article:

". . . Once near their destination the conventional aircraft could take
back off from the back of the giant LENR machine and then land on the
ground. The thought is that an air transport scheme like this could save
40% of the fuel required for a conventional flight on a 1000km route and on
a longer 10,000km route; the savings could be as high as 85-90%."

That is one of the dumbest projections of the future with cold fusion that
I have ever seen. If you have cold fusion, why the heck would anyone bother
to save 40% of the fuel?!? That's a few grams of heavy water. Worth a few
pennies with cold fusion extraction techniques. Or it is a cup of ordinary
water if Rossi is right. Why on earth would you launch these gigantic
machines just to save a little water?

There might be other uses for gigantic airborne machines but this is
definitely not one of them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

When you walk by a locomotive you feel a blast of hot air but the air 
is not confined and the platform does not get hot.
The use some splywood boards like Rossi and build these airtight 
around the locomotive, this way that the flow of cold input air is 
inhibited, set the locomotive to 470 kW power  and see what happens.


What do you mean airtight? Those are not even a little airtight. The top 
is open to the sky!


The space is roughly as confined as the underground platforms at Grand 
Central Station in New York City, or Back Bay station in Boston. The 
plywood boards are about as confining the posters, dividers or glass 
waiting area walls in those stations. The stations are not intolerably 
hot, even when you stand next to the locomotive. It is my favorite place 
to stand.


As I said, I do love enormous noisy dangerous machinery.

I am sure the fan boxes are quite hot, which is why they erected the 
plywood. So are the blowers in a diesel locomotive. You do not want to 
get too close to those things. But oh they are lovely and I even like 
the smell.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

What do you mean airtight? Those are not even a little airtight. The 
top is open to the sky!


What I have meant is an airtight fence made out of plywood boards, 
going down to ground and going above the hight of the fans.
It is very obvious that it was open to the sky I didnot think it would 
need special explanation but obviously not all people are bright 
enough to see the obvious.


Yes, well, since it is open to the sky, it is not confined. Do you 
agree? So what are you talking about? The hot air blows away instantly, 
just as it does from a locomotive sitting in a station.


I seem to be missing your point here. Are you talking about a 
hypothetical test in an enclosed space? This test was nothing like that. 
There is no expectation that anything will get hot.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

What I have meant is an airtight fence made out of plywood boards, 
going down to ground and going above the hight of the fans.
This arrangement /must/ become hot, because the airflow is hindered, 
especially the inflow of cold air is hindered, and the air is 
enturbulated. This arrangemen must become hot like a locomotive under 
open sky, it cannot cool the condensate down to 18°C.


Ah, you finally got to your point. How do you know the condensate went 
back to 18°C? The feedwater temperature rose throughout the test, from 
15°C to 18°C. The test lasted 8 hours. 5,400 L of water was pumped 
through the reactor and (presumably) vaporized during that time. I think 
there was more than 5,400 L in the holding tanks. The condensate could 
have been coming back at a higher temperature than the tanks. Plus, the 
open reservoir tanks would cool down on their own.


Anyway, there is no problem cooling down equipment in this situation. I 
have seen large power company transformers behind shopping malls placed 
in small confined areas, sometimes bricked in to keep people away from 
them. They produce a great deal of waste heat. It goes straight up. Not 
a problem.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I think there was more than 5,400 L in the holding tanks. The condensate
> could have been coming back at a higher temperature than the tanks.


I should have said the condensate *must* have been coming back at a higher
temperature than the water in the tanks. It must have been well above 18°C
or the tank temperature would not have risen.

It would be hard to estimate how much higher it would be because the tanks
also lose heat, and we do not know the ambient temperature.

The feedwater temperature is recorded in the spreadsheet, and it gradually
rises.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

A 10 MW transformer, if it has an efficiency of 99% produces 10 kW 
waste heat.


Good point.

In any case, I do not think you can show the temperature of the 
condensate must have been at some temperature or another.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert  wrote:


> The feedwater temperature is recorded in the spreadsheet, and it gradually
> rises.
>
>   Yes this can be.  Unfortunately the usage of the second watertank is
> not known.
> It is also not known if the second heatdissipator and the second stem tube
> where in use. Possibly these where connected to the idle side of the plant.
>

I believe the feedwater tanks were linked together with a pipe. I think
someone said that in a video. The water level seemed to be falling to the
same level in both tanks.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Large ECAT System Test Convincing But Not Pretty

[Jed Rothwell]

Danny Ross Lunsford  wrote:

No, I meant that to be a top-level post. I'm not very adept yet at this
> format for discussions.


Just assign a new thread title in the "Subject"  line and you will create a
new top level item.

This software sometimes goes bonkers like the sorcerer's apprentice and
starts adding Re: Re: Re: . . . to messages creating lots of threads.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

Had he documented the airflow and temperatures in a credible way or 
had he used an industrial cooler that has known calibration data, then 
the energy would have been proven almost irrefutable.


He documented the water flow. The water was vaporized. The temperature 
was well over 100 deg C. Fioravanti and all other experts in steam say 
this proves it was dry steam, fully vaporized. For that matter, even if 
it was wet steam or magically hot water in liquid state, there was 
massive anomalous energy. If you believe that Fioravanti honestly 
reported input power, the flow rate and the temperatures you do not need 
any other proof. If he was honest, this is not "almost" irrefutable; it 
is utterly irrefutable. It is ridiculous to raise any questions.


On the other hand, if you do not believe he is honest, then you cannot 
believe these results. There is no middle ground and nothing to quibble 
with. The fact that you cannot see the steam is irrelevant.


Stop making up silly reasons to doubt this. You need only say that you 
do not trust a person you have never heard of from an unnamed company. 
That is reasonable. That is a perfectly valid objection. Demanding to 
see the steam and complaining about the quality of the pressboard is not 
reasonable. You have a valid reason to doubt this, so stop inventing 
silly, childish reasons.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:


No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW.
If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less 
than 50 kW.

If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero.

Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if 
he is an expert.


Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a 
heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the other 
pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in an instant.


Look, stop telling us that Fioravanti and Rossi might have faked this. 
That is perfectly obvious. No one disputes it. That is not news. If they 
wanted to present fake results they would not bother to put a heater 
near the thermocouple; they would simply present fake numbers. No one 
saw the power input measurements or temperature measurements. For all we 
know, the genset was powering the reactor the whole time.


This situation is very, very simple. It is binary. If you think 
Fioravanti is telling the truth, this must be a real result with real 
anomalous heat. If you think that he and Rossi got together to put fake 
heaters near the thermocouples or pretend flow rates or any of a dozen 
other ways to make a fake demonstration, then you do not believe it. 
There is no point to listing all the ways they might have cheated. We 
know these ways. Listing them proves nothing. Okay, it illustrates how 
easy it is to fake a demonstration and why we must have independent 
verification and replication. I am sure that all readers here agree with 
that, so there is no need to keep repeating it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a 
heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the 
other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this 
in an instant.

So you have X ray eyes?


When you insert a large thermocouple, you look at the thermowell and 
make sure it is properly placed. In a test of this nature you would 
remove it and make sure the pipe is clear.



He did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately 
closed his eyes and goto somewhere else.


You are saying that he is taking part in the scam. Yes, we know you 
think that. Yes, we agree it is possible. Tell us something new. Don't 
keep repeating something that everyone here agrees may be true.



Possibly he was an "independent" consultant and got monetary provision 
for the sale.

Nothing new. Stuff like this has happened before.


Yes, indeed. It has happened. That is why everyone agrees this could be 
a scam. Do you have some other point? Do you think no one noticed this? 
Do you think we are all gullible fools and you are the only person on 
Vortex who realizes this might be a scam?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

[Jed Rothwell]

vorl bek wrote:


There is no point to listing all the ways
they might have cheated.

I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not
enough heat from the radiator corral.


That was a different discussion. I think that is debatable. In this 
case, Heckert was listing various other ways to cheat:


1. Using magical hot water that is liquid at 100 deg C and 1 atm; i.e. 
"if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW." 
That seems impossible to me, but okay.


2. Blatant cheating: "If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, 
then it was less than 50 kW. If there was a heater near the 
thermoelement, then it was almost zero." Well, okay. But I say why 
bother? Just tell people the wrong flow rate, or make up fake 
temperatures, or leave the genset powering the reactor. No one was 
allowed to check so they might have easily done that.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

[Jed Rothwell]

The title of this thread, asserting that there may be press suppression,
seems llike nonsense to me. No major mass media this paper will report this
kind of event. What are they going to say? "An engineer from an unknown
company made a claim that no scientist or engineer would believe, without
providing any proof and without letting any independent observers verify
the facts." The mass media is doing us a big favor by not reporting this.
It is an embarrassment.

Unless you know a great deal about cold fusion and Rossi you will not
believe a word of this. Our resident skeptics are perfectly justified in
not believing any of this. I only object to their messages because they are
making up frivolous reasons to disbelieve, instead of simply pointing out
the undeniable weaknesses. And because they seem to think the rest of us do
not realize this could easily be a scam. That is annoying.

I personally do not think it is a scam, but of course I see why other
people legitimately think it is.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

You are in error. There was a time when I believed. (After analyzing 
the Essen Kullander demo)


I do not see how anyone can believe that and disbelieve the Oct. 6. I 
thought the latter was much more convincing.



When I see it output 470 kW energy and heat at the dissipators then I 
still dont believe, then I know ;-)


If you think the E&K demonstration is real then it stands to reason the 
big machine must be real. The individual reactors in the large 
demonstration are not putting out more power than they did during 
desktop tests. Why assume this is fake when the smaller tests were 
clearly real?


It is not as if Rossi has become more controversial since E&K. His 
credibility is no worse than it was back then.


I was a little surprised it worked so well. I feared it might be 
difficult to coordinate so many units, or there might be a problem with 
a steam pipe getting plugged up or one of the machines overheating. I 
feared there might be an accident. I was relieved to hear that they ran 
at moderate temperatures and low pressure.


I never thought it could not work in principle. If one reactor can 
produce 4 or 8 kW, it stands to reason that 100 can produce 470 kW. Why 
would anyone here who believes the smaller tests suddenly think the big 
one is fake? That makes no sense.


For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake? I do 
not understand why people think Rossi would go to the trouble to make a 
real system and a fake one too. If he has one that works he will use it 
every time. The big reactor was clearly made up of an array of the 
smaller ones. Anyone can see those were not fake boxes. If one works, 
why shouldn't they all???


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

[Jed Rothwell]

Man on Bridges  wrote:


> In hindsight I'm glad Rossi pursued his approach of building a big system
> to be shown to the World, which can produce up to 1 MW i.s.o. of showing
> only a couple of small e-cats with only a couple of kW.
>

I still disagree, vehemently. I think this is a terrible approach, from the
business point of view. I think he wasted 10 months on this reactor. This
reactor is entirely too big and it serves no useful purpose. It is a crude
prototype which the customer will not be able to use for any real world
application.

Rossi should have done a proper test of a kilowatt scale device back in
January. Many venture capitalists and business people have approached me
since then, and said they would give him large sums of money and all the
support he needs if he will only do a properly instrumented engineering
test.



> In fact I think Rossi did us all a tremendous favor as it just proves that
> this technology is absolutely mature and through it's basic simplicity and
> modularity. . .


It does not "prove" a damn thing, because he did not allow independent
verification of the claims, and we do not even know who the customer is. It
suggests the technology is real. It is further evidence of that, which fits
in with previous evidence. It is not proof in the engineering or scientific
sense.

It does not look mature to me. Obviously you can use modules in this method
but I think that is a wacky way to build a megawatt scale reactor. It has
way too many individual modules and pipes, and way too many things that can
go wrong and will go wrong. Many small cells integrated into a larger
device would be better.

Also, square reactors are a really, really bad idea.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

With the October 6 test there was so much false selfcontradicting 
information about Defkalion, Steam, Pressure and so on, and the claims 
where not coincident with the observations, for example hot water 
shooting out with obviously high pressure while Rossi claimed it is 
almost air pressure inside.


Are you talking about the Oct. 6 test? It sounds like the Sept. 14 one. 
I mean the one with the heat exchanger, no hot water shooting out.


The instrument readings on that are questionable, but I think the fact 
that it remained hot for 4 hours is first-principle proof of tremendous 
anomalous heat, as I wrote here:


http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

I do not see how you can quibble with that.

In this analysis I am assuming there are no hidden wires or chemical fuel.


So I decided to ignore this. To much misinformation. If you dig into 
dirt you get dirty so better stop.
There can be no misinformation at the most basic level. 30 L of water in 
a poorly insulated container, that was quite hot to the touch (80 deg C 
surface temperature) remained very hot for 4 hours. That cannot be 
caused by anything other than heat generation. You can ignore all other 
aspects of the test, and you can be certain of that. I do not think 
there was any misinformation but only confusion. However, if you think 
it was misinformation then you should ignore it  and look only at the 
temperature of that vessel.


- Jed

[Vo]:Did anyone hear about Miley's Pd-Zr results?

[Jed Rothwell]

Did someone here attend the recent conference shown on YouTube? Apparently
George Miley gave an informal extra presentation about recent results with
the Arata technique, gas loaded Pd-Zr. He is out of touch. When I can reach
him I will ask for any PowerPoint slides on this. The slides I saw in the
YouTube lecture were about electrochemical cells.

Brian Ahern told me Miley reported a couple hundred watts stable heat from
a small sample of powder. Power density works out to be in the same
ballpark as Rossi's reaction, and probably a lot more than Arata himself
has reported. Ni-H is a lot cheaper material, but it would be good to see
an independent replication of high power density with gas loading.

Ever since Arata introduced this technique I have felt it is probably more
practical and better than electrochemical loading. It is a little
surprising that it works at all, because most people say that loading
cannot be as high as it is with electrochemistry, and high loading seems to
be necessary for heat.

I hope to learn more about this soon, and get something to upload.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant
> with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent.   (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.)  This,
> in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control.


Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely to me.
When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it falls too far,
you throttle it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> > Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?
>
> No he left it in Rossi's care.  Andrea plans to sell it again to another
> buyer.
>

A variation on the gift that keeps on giving.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


Mongo want's to know who's currently in possession of the eCat. Cuz...
maybe that's where Mongo left left his box of candy.

Rossi, or the alleged anonymous customer?

Inquiring Minds Wanna Know.


No idea.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Did anyone hear about Miley's Pd-Zr results?

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn  wrote:

If you haven't already seen it, skip to about 5:30 in for George Mileys
> talk on what his group is up to (or 14:00 to get to gas loading stuff):
>


> http://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay#p/u/2/N1m2wQevFAY


*There* it is. Thanks.



> getting about 350W/kg out of Pd-Zr nanopowder, 4bar D2 gas loading, room
> temp.


This is confusing. During the presentation he refers to a couple hundred
watts. I do not think he has a kilogram of material, because that would
cost a bunch of money. Perhaps he is getting a few watts and extrapolating
how much he would get with a kilogram.

I will ask him.

- Jed

[Vo]:Fox News report on Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Kinda stupid. See:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/