AG, look at the date. The Gallentini pages you refer to were produced in July, for the December and January tests, as a direct answer to Krivit's concerns; that is why BY MASS was all in caps. Steven Krivit, of New Energy Times, had traveled to Italy for an interview with Rossi. An E-Cat was demonstrated for him, and it is obvious to all but the most ardent fanbois, that the demonstration failed. Unfortunately, he went on to dismiss the earlier tests based on "steam quality" that didn't quite describe the real heart of the possible error. I believe that he overreached too quickly and proceeded to insult many people without the necessary tact. There are also cultural differences that were not heeded. Nevertheless, I would recommend reading Krivit's Report #3, if you've never read it: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml It's quite comprehensive, and can provide much-needed context. That said, MY is incorrect. In the December and January test it IS plain as day that there is not complete vaporization, BUT... Even if it is 100% water, the energy in is not sufficient to bring the water to boiling; at least, that's what we all believed at the time. You see, they measured the pump output prior to the test, and we all assumed that it was a fixed output paristaltic pump. After research, people watching closely investigated and found it is a variable rate and variable displacement pump. Observers noted that in multiple videos where Rossi claims the same flow rate, you can hear different rates of pump operation in the background (it makes a distinct clicking sound). Why all this attention to the pump? In the September demo, the observers were very careful to measure input water flow regularly. It was discovered that the pump releases significantly more water when open to the air than it does when connected to the E-Cat. This brings the December and January tests into question. Previously, it appeared that, even absent any evaporation, the E-Cats did not have enough power to reach 100C. If the flow rate is lower than believed, though, that could close the "excess power" gap.
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:53:51 +1030 > From: aussieguy.e...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work > without LENR? > > So you did not read the last 2 pages? Where an expert in steam quality, > measured and made adjustments in the order of -2% to the energy output. > There was no invalidation, no matter how much you wish there was. > > > On 12/11/2011 5:38 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com > > <mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com > > <mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > I can't access that paper at the moment -- the site > > > returns an "account suspended" error. > > > > He just needs to buy bytes. But Jed posted the Levi report here: > > > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf > > > > > > Thanks. That's one of the many experiments which assumes the water > > was completely evaporated. There's no evidence whatever that it was. > > A small portion of liquid water would totally invalidate the result. > > It's typical of a run which has been widely and properly criticized. >
