Experimental Evidence on Rossi Devices

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Regarding the orientation of the coils, watch for clues in the photos. Some of them are from behind.


    This shouldn't matter. I just tried replicating this in a 3D program. Result: same orientation whether the camera is located at the front or the back of the tube.
    For the wire to appear wound in the opposite direction, it has to be wound in the opposite direction. That is, unless I'm slowly becoming crazy and reality works differently than I previously thought.



    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    2vkg3h5.jpg


    Coil crossing heat bands. (Squint and you can see it easier). The tube is hotter where the wires do not glow (movable internal TC measurement).


    Very interesting, I've never seen this phenomenon before. Do you have larger photos form different angles? I'm curious to see how that works out in practice.

    Re the meta-info & Stremmenos.


    I was under the impression that Stremmenos was in charge of Defkalion who did that awful ICCF conf public demo which showed positive results for a reason (bad flowmeter accuracy at low flow rates) that they had been told about. Further, during the test, they engineered these low flow rates.


    So that means Defkalion are in my book not honest.


    But I think now I'm wrong about Stremmenos being associated with Defkalion: it seems he is Prometeon? About which I know nothing so I'll apologise for my earlier comment about Stremmenos, which is completely unwarranted.

    Stremmenos, if you read what he wrote, has no particular skill or knowledge in heat transfer, nuclear physics, experimental methods, science in general or much of anything else except flowery and useless oratory. He's a pompous blowhard. I have no idea about his honesty and really, what does it matter?


    I hope participants in discussion of the failings of the various hot cat tests are having fun but it isn't all that useful. If the objective of Rossi's testing was to prove that Rossi has a reaction and reactors capable of yielding large (nuclear level) yields of excess energy, these experiments are and always have been entirely and completely the wrong method to use. Any of the lower temperature experiments would have been easier, better and more certain, if only someone had bothered to demand proper calibration. Anyway, who designs a supposedly highly energetic and questionable stable heat source without an adjustable, forced cooling system?


    And yes, Defkalion were arrogant, unpleasant, total liars and crooks. At one time, they baited me with an offer to test their kludge. When I assembled a very qualified group of people to do just that, suddenly Hadjichristos could not be found. One of the group even tried to drop in unannounced to the Canadian office and it was shuttered up with nobody in evidence. They were nothing but thieves who hoped to rip off Rossi and were left stranded when Rossi would give them nothing because, of course, Rossi had nothing he could give to a third party who would test it. He would need to find an ineffectual partner like [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] who could be counted on to flub their due diligence and to defer to the Swedish blind mice.


    Rossi's great talent is in finding really dumb marks to milk and cheat.

    Quote

    The tube is hotter where the wires do not glow (movable internal TC measurement).

    Of course it is. Where the wires don't glow, heat transfer from the heater to the tube is higher than where the wires have no contact, in effect insulating them from the tube.


    Thermographs of the various hot cat experiments strongly suggest that all the heat comes from the heater. There is nothing to suggest an internal heat source with three times the power of the heater wires, as claimed by the Swedish professors and Levi and attributed to fusion.

    • Official Post

    Thomas,


    Since you were wrong about Stremmenos, you must be wrong about Lugano...


    Just kidding. Stremmenos started out I think on Defkalions (DGTs) board after he arranged the private demo for Xanthoulis...after which DGT formed. After finding DGT was breaking with Rossi and going it alone, Stremmenos published a scorching letter accusing them of dishonorable activities and resigned.


    You may be thinking of Luca Gamberale, of DGT Europe, whom claimed a rigged flow rate after the Hyperions public demo debut at his European lab, and immediately stopped all related DGT related business. Still though, he stayed an LENR believer, as he started, or continued? (Mose), his own LENR consulting business. I believe he is part of the newly formed LENR-Cities.


    Since you keep bringing up this soft science meta-data stuff, I would add that it seems significant that Gamberale stayed true to LENR after that setback. Consider also that Proia of Prometeon, whom accepted Rossi's buyout, only to quickly start his own LENR R/D company with Stremmenos and his son. One must wonder why they would keep punishing themselves so, had they not seen something that impressed them?


    However promising, this behavior in support of LENR+ doesn't change the fact that Rossi, nor anyone else either (BE could be an exception soon), has yet to show unassailable proof his Ecat/Hotcat works. Yes, the Ferrara results were tantalizing and appear to have weathered the intense scrutiny -with skeps left with a cheese video, or collusion by Levi, as their only viable theories, but it takes more than Ferrara. So too were the Penon findings for the Hotcat, although one could argue it not being independent as it was with the help of Fabiani (Rossi employee).


    Keep in mind too, that for the Lugano test, the professors opted not to run the Hotcat in SSM...even though Rossi told them it was available with a simple flip of the switch. Amazing they refused, as had they done so, maybe we could be celebrating now instead of this.

    Ecco:

    Quote

    Very interesting, I've never seen this phenomenon before. Do you have larger photos form different angles? I'm curious to see how that works out in practice.


    This occurred in all coils that I made that were originally wrapped around a slightly smaller diameter rod (wood dowel), then transferred to the ceramic. Obviously if the coil is loose on the tube then it won't occur. The more regular the spacing and consistent the diameter of the wraps are, the better this occurs. If the outer ends of the coil are not secured then it might not occur.


    Mary

    Quote

    Of course it is. Where the wires don't glow, heat transfer from the heater to the tube is higher than where the wires have no contact, in effect insulating them from the tube.


    I think I effectively said that earlier. But thanks for summarizing.
    What is interesting to consider is what the IR camera sees exactly when this happens. The area of the heated, touching ceramic is much greater than the hot "floating" wire, but the floating wire is hotter than the ceramic below it. Then consider this is being viewed through an alumina filter (the outer tube).

    Ecco:

    Quote

    This shouldn't matter. I just tried replicating this in a 3D program. Result: same orientation whether the camera is located at the front or the back of the tube.
    For the wire to appear wound in the opposite direction, it has to be wound in the opposite direction. That is, unless I'm slowly becoming crazy and reality works differently than I previously thought.


    Aha, yes. Of course you are correct.

    Ecco:

    Quote

    Do you have larger photos form different angles? I'm curious to see how that works out in practice.


    Here is another picture. (The angles are all about the same). You can see the loose wraps a bit better. The internal temperature was 866°C for this picture.

    Quote

    Yes, the Ferrara results were tantalizing and appear to have weathered the intense scrutiny -with skeps left with a cheese video, or collusion by Levi, as their only viable theories...

    Yikes, Shane, where have you been? There is doubt on the so-called Ferrara results because the system was never properly calibrated or, IIRC, calibrated AT ALL. And of course, there is nothing to show whether or not the thermal camera calculations were right or wrong there as well. Wake me up when Rossi allows a single properly blanked and calibrated experiment whatsoever or when one of the blind mice or blind elephants (Darden/[lexicon]IH[/lexicon] and Woodford) do one. Oh... almosst forgot-- the input power supply was not properly examined and characterised and it was very weird that Rossi insisted on 3 phase power for no reason and then, again IIRC, one phase was said to have been "dead".

    • Official Post

    MY,


    The Ferraro tests Hotcat was a blackbody. As was the one Penon tested about that time. In both, the Hotcat provided and tested was a simple, textbook 1.0 emissivity. For Lugano, things changed, as did the materials, and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] constructed the Hotcat casing using alumina. That is where the controversy started.


    I don't recall any real issue involving thermography with TPR1 (Ferraro)?


    For the rest, I leave it to others. As I recall, those were your blanket accusations. You always throw in the kitchen sink. Always. I don't remember much support from your colleagues as to those assertions, but I could be wrong.

    You mean I remind you of all the ways Rossi could have and probably did cheat? Because with a proper calibration, cheating would have been much more difficult? yeah. I do.

    Quote

    Rossi, nor anyone else either (BE could be an exception soon), has yet to show unassailable proof his Ecat/Hotcat works. Yes, the Ferrara results were tantalizing and appear to have weathered the intense scrutiny -with skeps left with a cheese video, or collusion by Levi, as their only viable theories, but it takes more than Ferrara.


    You imply that the Ferrara results, in Rossi's own premisses, with no data on how input power was measured, using complex 3 phase input, represent any sort of proof?


    Even had this been done by authors with no other history, it would represent no proof of anything. Output, without input, does not give you COP.


    As it is, we know it was done by authors so incompetent (or perhaps biassed?) that they manage to overestimate COP by X3 in the next test.


    Why do you think the authors themselves felt it was necessary to do another test? And why do you think they had that careful double measurement of electrical input?

    Quote

    For Lugano, things changed, as did the materials, and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] constructed the Hotcat casing using alumina. That is where the controversy started.I don't recall any real issue involving thermography with TPR1 (Ferraro)?


    Rossi's tests have all had different issues. The history of the tests and demos is that usually each one addresses the issue from the previous one but introduces a new issue.


    You argue that because the issue with TPR2 was not present in TPR1 therefore TPR1 has no issue. In fact, the only difference is that in an attempt to deal with valid criticism the authors documented TPR2 completely, so completely that we can identify the precise error leading to the invalid result.


    And although they claimed COP=3 we discover from the documentation that COP=1.


    Do you argue that a test badly documented - so we can't be sure exactly what is the error - represents proof of any kind?


    This type of "well we have 20 tests, each one has some things well documented and OK, so we can put them all and say it works" shows a technical illiteracy. Invalid results can come from any part of the test having errors. We know that in the past different parts of Rossi's tests have had errors.


    Also the idea that when a second test (Lugano) designed to check loopholes in the first test (Ferrara) fails, we should therefore take the first test as any sort of proof is ridiculous. Surely we should agree with the second more careful test that in fact the first test had problems.


    Don't you agree?


    Let me turn this around. Suppose the Ferrara test device worked as claimed. What is your reason for the Lugano test device behaving as an electric heater? Rossi certainly needed a positive result, and he could not have known the Profs would make their mistake with thermography?


    It is interesting to note that the operating temperature of the reactor in the first test was 710C then 780C just as in the second test (710C). The black paint used in the first test worked up to 1200C (so the first test report says).


    So why does Rossi not stick with the black paint in the second test? Food for though perhaps, given that the second test error comes exactly from this change.

    • Official Post

    Thomas,


    Yes, it is odd, suspicious even, how Rossi has over the years changed the testing methods for his demos of the Ecat. Or why he didn't always use one, lone Ecat, instead of multiples. Strange too how he never offered up an Ecat to the Ferrara/Lugano professors to test, opting instead to loan them the new Hotcat. Then providing them a differently constructed Hotcat for the second test (Lugano).


    One could conclude from his behavior that he purposely tried to prevent easy comparisons between tests, or to allow any refinement of testing methodology to mask something.


    Nothing new to these charges, as they have been a mainstay of critiques since late 2011. Rightfully so. Not surprisingly, believers look at the many public demos, private DDs, no matter their ever changing nature, as evidence Rossi has confidence in his products. It takes a brave/stupid scammer to expose himself so many times, with so many different people, and entities.


    Braver still to turn over his fake product to a team of scientists, as Rossi did at Ferraro/Lugano. Not to say bravado should substitute for good scientific reasoning, or results. That is why I say the Ferrara results were "tantalizing", because they weren't satisfactory scientific proof of anything, as you say, and the professors admitted. As weak an argument as it may be, you skeps haven't effectively proven it wrong...yet.


    With Lugano, you, Thomas Clark, have shown it wrongly calculated with the data made available from the report itself. Shameful how the profs didn't honor their publicly made commitment to answer questions, but I still await further information we may not be privy to, that may change your calculations. As you know, the profs, according to Lewan, sent a sample of the alumina for a full analysis...which I assume was for the translucence at high temps? Maybe Mats Lewan could give an update?


    Rounded up (hey I'm a believer) your Lugano estimate is a COP1.1. That is overunity. It even could be as high as 1.4 by your measure. Yes, it could be as low as a normal heater, but your analysis does not kill Lugano. Axil speculates that the Hotcat is Rossi's "mouse", which Rossi has always claimed to be a COP1.1. Maybe that is the case...who knows?

    Just for completeness of this thread, does anyone know if there is a good summary somewhere about the problems with the Ferrara test? It was just metioned briefly in the initial post, and it would be nice to get a bettter understanding of what exactly it was that was criticized.

    Quote

    The history of the tests and demos is that usually each one addresses the issue from the previous one but introduces a new issue.

    Not even that, to be precise. What Rossi does is to ignore the deficiencies of each of his tests as he continues to different tests with different methods and new deficiencies. He doesn't "address" the issues. He glosses over them or ignores them altogether. Or maybe you can find me some evidence that he did not misplace thermocouples in the early 2011 tests, that he did not consider wet steam to be dry, did not misplace thermocouples on his heat exchanger ecat, and so on. Those things, Rossi NEVER addressed in ANY way.


    But the consistent *always present* deficiency and the huge elephant in every Rossi "room" is that Rossi *never* allows a proper calibration run. Up to the so-called Ferrara experiment, he refused any calibration whatever and for the two hot cat experiments, calibration was done incorrectly. And this is despite the obvious and large, powerful heater he places in each device -- perfect for calibration and capable of accounting for all the heat output.


    Quote

    It takes a brave/stupid scammer to expose himself so many times, with so many different people, and entities.

    Most perpetrators of scams and Ponzi schemes are both brave (more like reckless) and stupid in the sense that being a criminal is inherently dumb. But many are also lucky and don't get caught for varying rather long periods of time. Look at how long Madoff's scam ran. And Rossi's talent is in finding schlubs like the Swedish professors and Levi and Lewan, who are so credulous and wishful that they ignore the scam, even when it is right in front of their eyes. As I said many times, Rossi has two talents -- creating semi-plausible gadgets that can fool the gullible provided that bad testing is used, and choosing the most gullible people to test them. If you doubt that, try to get any of these people, Levi, Lewan, and the professors, to respond to the simplest of questions about their testing methods.

    Quote

    Just for completeness of this thread, does anyone know if there is a good summary somewhere about the problems with the Ferrara test? It was just metioned briefly in the initial post, and it would be nice to get a bettter understanding of what exactly it was that was criticized.


    A reply from a Swedish academic deeply disturbed at his colleagues taking part in this test and generating such an unprofessional report. It is highlighting gaps rather than explaining specific errors, and you might view it as biassed. That does however not mean the points it raises should mostly be discounted (I agree with about 80%).
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6364


    My view.


    The faults noted above are all correct and the experiment would need to be much tightened up to be viewed as evidence.


    However, I also like to get a "best guess" as to what is right and wrong. I guess that in this case the output power measurements, while flakey +/- 30% or so, are OK. The input power measurements however are much less certain.


    It is not clear from the text of the report how they found input energy from the PCE-830 (they should use kWh, but maybe they did not). The setup was Rossi's in his factory and it is not clear what is the connection. There are easy circuits that show much lower power measured than actually goes to the reactor.


    There are those who think the benefit of doubt should be given to inventors in this situation - where a measurement is unclear we assume it is OK. You will realise I am not in that group so the lack of clarity, and possibility of large error, makes the Ferrara results of no use.


    I take a view not as extreme as Mary's but still in that direction. It would be folly to give someone who has (it is known) so many experiments with different positive error mechanisms the benefit of the doubt - even for claims that are not extraordinary. For whatever reason, and fraud is not required here, Rossi seems inclined to build false positives into his apparatus and therefore it cannot be trusted without very extensive and independent testing.


    The Ferrara test with equipment under Rossi's control and setup not documented is thus not independent evidence as billed.


    PS - one other source of issues not investigated in the second (higher COP) set of tests is the accuracy of the thermography. The authors claim that emissivity of 1 is a safe upper estimate and you might think that, except that the bandwidth of the camera is fairly narrow. A paint that flouresced in that band would happily show band emissivity greater than 1, with the amplification noted in the Lugano test, and highly nonlinear behaviour. But due to the relative lack of data all we are doing is speculating. My guess is still more on input side problems.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.