If I'm not mistaken, GoatGuy was the first to speculate about the transparency of alumina accounting for the apparent excess heat in Lugano. His analysis seems plausible, but would take some thought and analysis to fully evaluate.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 2:17 PM Brad Lowe <ecatbuil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Goat-guy made a great comment on next big future where he makes a very > good guess as to how Rossi is faking the results of the tests. > http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html > He also states the obvious--why Rossi doesn't heat a pool of water to > demonstrate heat output.. > > Copying his response in full: > > Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being > performed, and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from > the 'contract approved' one.) > > Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result. > FIRST, you need to open the ( > http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf > ) pdf file. > > Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box > labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets. > > Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line > Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers > Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1 > Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2 > > All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have > a BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 > system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam > from 50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, > most of the heat emitted could be combined back into the circulating > loop (of which there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → > (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to > water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half. > > In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, > if needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old > misdirection-device (the "condensers", which are huge, > non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which thru air-in-the-lines > becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done. It all seems great > because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from the patent > diagram. > > The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated > water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. > No attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small > swimming pool's worth) a finite amount. The whole thing runs at > whatever rate it runs (which is carefully excluded from the PDF). The > only measure left is the misdirected one. > > It is ingenious. > And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing. > Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big > air blower. > > To heat the small swimming pool. > Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast. > To at least 2 sig-figs. > More than enough to expose the rat. > Or to confirm the golden goose. > > Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing. > Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry. > Which of course he's never done. > Nor will he. > > Because it exposes rats. > GoatGuy > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> > wrote: > > Jones, both you and Ahern take on the issue with Ecat by accusing Rossi > of > > being a person with lower moral than for example you. > > That is an judgmental attitude that takes you nowhere and in addition has > > nothing to do with LENR. > > I have not any qualifications to judge about ECAT. (BTW English is my > second > > or third languish so we do not have to debate that). > > I do have experience of investment in high tech start ups ( VC industry > ), I > > have even more experience as an entrepreneur. > > In my opinion Rossi is a true entrepreneur. I appreciate that quality. It > > would amaze me if Rossi has been able to lie to IH and make them pay > $11M. > > That would indicate flaws in IH ways of invest. > > I can imagine that there is problem with replication of performance of > the > > Ecat. > > It can be a reluctance from Rossi to provide the info required by > agreement > > due to IH are involved with other LENR business without handling the > > communication between those entities over the board. > > Then there is the possibility of totally unknown reasons for the > conflict. > > Disturbing to me is that IH, which I consider being a professional > investor, > > let this be played out in court. > > Yes, one can have different opinions until we have all the fact and they > > will be here rather soon I understand. > > Rossi might have his flaws but to call him unethical with no proof is > worse > > and tells more about the one "who throws the first rock . . ." > > > > Best Regards , > > Lennart Thornros > > > > > > lenn...@thornros.com > > +1 916 436 1899 > > > > Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and > > enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:05 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> > >> Jones, > >> > >> You claimed I was childishly ignorant and naive. This seems typical of > >> your jumping to conclusions without the facts. What have you done to > >> justify making that judgement? > >> I don't give a damn what you think about me. > >> I do object to you libeling others who are not here to defend > themselves. > >> > >> > >> Jones wrote. ""... besides consulting for ... institutions like EPRI. > >> What great things have > >> > >> you done that makes you think you are so superior?" > >> > >> Did I say "superior"? This isn't a pissing contest between the two of > us - > >> instead we should be talking specifically about Rossi, LENR, the threat > >> posed > >> to the narrow field of LENR when his scam is discovered and dealt with > by > >> a > >> physics establishment which is looking for every opportunity to put the > >> final > >> nail in the coffin (for funding the work started by P&F). > >> > >> As to the field of LENR itself, you have demonstrated no insight, > >> understanding > >> or appreciation of the technology - and will no doubt write it off as > >> pathological and be long gone, shortly after Rossi is exposed. > >> > >> If you really consulted with EPRI - then you are probably aware of > Ahern's > >> work. If you think I am skeptical of Rossi, multiply that by 1000% for > >> Ahern. > >> He has superior credentials, experimental work and ought to be one of > >> Rossi's > >> main supporters... except he knowns this story so well - including New > >> Hampshire, together with the history of the master scammer decades ago. > >> > >> How can you blandly dismiss Rossi's past fraud as irrelevant? There is > no > >> evidence that he has changed. He has more practice now but it is the > same > >> old > >> scam. Even without Petro-dragon and the tax fraud and the sixty odd > >> appearances > >> in criminal court and 12 years of incarceration - please tell me how you > >> can > >> justify his conduct in the USA starting with UNH and the TEG scam - the > >> two Lab > >> fires that got him off the hook (such luck) and the millions of US > >> taxpayer > >> dollars he squandered and scammed then? How many free passes does this > guy > >> get? > >> > >> Just bad luck? Maybe you are not a US taxpayer and don't give a damn. Or > >> maybe > >> you haven't really thought about it? You simply cannot overlook this > >> dreadful > >> past conduct in a situation which is so similar. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> " > >> > > > >
