Rossi: We received ERV’s Report - Very pleased with results!

  • Axil, you seem to be forgetting that Rossi claimed COP 6 long before the cat ate the mouse.


    This COP is what you get when you heat water to the boiling point and believe or pretend that all the water has turned into steam. The less you pretend the less the COP will be. When you stop pretending altogether the COP will be less than 1 just as it is in my electric water heater.

  • Just wait for me to return to my negative COP experiments.
    I was putting almost 50% more power into dual heater coils, and not generating any extra temperature. (Needs more testing)


    Perhaps the final product will be in demand by electrical utilities everywhere. Build it right into the electrical meter and maybe no one will notice...

  • {Just wait for me to return to my negative COP experiments.I was putting almost 50% more power into dual heater coils, and not generating any extra temperature.}


    If you borrow money to work on your project at the current negative interest rates, you will still make money. :)


    d

  • I don't know where this open letter from Brian Ahern was originally posted, but I saw it on Vortex. Brian has been very vocal against Rossi for a while now. He has been a bit strong for my tastes, but due his important role in LENR, he deserves to have his opinions heard, especially so as Rossi speaks well of him:


    Constantly performing a bad behavior and expecting a different outcome is
    the definition of insanity.
    The LENR community must recall that Andrea Rossi is a well-practiced convict
    plying his trade. He has been claiming outputs one million-fold higher than
    all other LENR efforts. Yet, after six years of such claims there has never
    been an independent test. A big lie is easier to promote than a small one.
    The Lugano test in 2014 was perhaps the best magic show of the 21st century.
    Rossi convinced the Swedish scientists that thermocouples and water flow
    calorimetry were unnecessary to verify his claims. Those scientists are
    rightfully ashamed of themselves and have remained silent of the report.
    They should confess to temporary insanity. Or as a minimum they should
    offer an explanation for why the wasted the funds provided by ELFORSK.
    I predicted that the ERV would be a problem. Rossi admitted paying for this
    INDEPENDENT TEST. Yet he will not divulge:
    A. the ERV person
    B. His location
    C. His report
    D. The customer
    E. The E-Cat location
    F. Operational data
    Hoping that he has not fooled us again is a pathetic emotional response to
    the great impresario. The hopeful LENR folks are enabling the bad behavior.
    His suggestion of delaying the release until Stockholm is just another delay
    tactic that he has employed artfully for the past six years




  • Rossi and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] paid for the experiment and the ERV report. Therefore they are the ones getting the report. What they release is dependent on what they agreed and what they think benefits them.


    Not sure why we have to bring all sorts of complicated analysis to this simple situation.

  • Mr. Ahern, with all due respect, makes several points that are not appropriate.
    IR is effective, and probably much more precise than the use of thermocouples on a large object with a non-isothermal surface temperature. That is if IR thermometry is done correctly, which requires a bit of calibration and testing. It is not as accurate as proper calorimetery, but neither is it as complex.
    Certainly this proper calibration was not done, but the Professors are mostly to blame for this.
    One can throw a tantrum at the Lugano report if it makes one feel better. But it does nothing to further the field or fix the problems in the report.


    As far as the 1 MW test goes, [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] was a partner in this, and also has a say in the distribution timing of the report. They have shareholders to report to, etc.
    The location of the test, the customer, the operational data may be released at some point. There are probably contractual details between Rossi and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], as well as the ERV that must be respected. If after 6 months goes by without some more details, then maybe complaining might be justified, but will not likely lead to any sort of resolution.
    Complaining about the ERV, without even knowing who the ERV is, is a bit premature.
    Regarding his comment "Hoping that he has not fooled us again is a pathetic emotional response to the great impresario.", most of the comment seems like an emotional response, about half of which is directed at a report that isn't even available to evaluate yet, as if we in the peanut gallery are somehow obliged the results at all.
    It took about 6 months for the Lugano report to be completed once the test was done, with delays due to assays partially, and that report has huge problems. I would rather whoever is responsible for the report takes their time and does a good job on it, than get a rushed POS. If another year goes by, then so be it.
    There is more to life than worrying about Rossi et al., although it can be entertaining.

  • We will soon have the test result and then we know the exact COP and we know the energy density of the LENR Fuel and we can easily compare the prices (for example)


    1 cubic metre of methane contains about 38 MJ LHV of energy or about 10.5 kWh
    1 litre of gasoline/petrol contains 33 megajoules or about 9,2 kWh
    1 US gallon of gasoline contains 120 megajoules or about 33,3 kWh
    70 standard alkaline AA batteries contain 1 megajoule or about 280 Wh


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…_pricing#Price_comparison
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromgestehungskosten#Europa


    Beside all the scientific aspects and the personal involvement of many people, at the end someone has to pay a bill, that's the key point, nothing else matters!

  • The ERV report is no longer applicable to Rossi’s technology. He has moved on to the Quark which is more capable and will be the basis for all future product release. The function of this report is to provide the believer community with validation and hope for future LENR product development.

  • This "open letter" by Brian Ahern is sad.
    I thought better of Mister Ahern. Opening it with a personal attack on Rossi shows the intention of this letter quite clearly and I didn't think a respected scientist would need to throw this kind of dirt to make his point. But we'll, thats the way Mister Ahern has decided to go and I wish him all the best...


  • With all respect, I think this criticism of Brian Ahern is not warranted.

    • Were I Brian, caring greatly about the future of LENR, I too would be upset about the likelihood that a charismatic person with no working technology but an extraordinary ability to construct erroneous demos was so much talked about in the area of LENR research.
    • Rossi's known ability to put together demos that have known error mechanisms, and not correct these errors when told about them, is very high. This is a real fact that is difficult to overlook, and also difficult to explain if he does have the technology he claims.
    • The Lugano test measurement (IR thermometry) and surface (alumina - which gives false results) was determined by Rossi. He was present for days at the start and end of the test. There are three possibilities:


    (1) He knew the Profs were getting it wrong and said nothing
    (2) He had used the same wrong methods himself, never realising it, and therefore his idea that this device actually generates excess energy was based on erroneous experiment.
    (3) He could not tell from the colour of the reactor what temperature is really was, and in addition although he proposed thermometry as a measurement method, and knew that with alumina you had to be extra careful, he did not discuss this with the Profs.


    (3) is not credible. (1) and (2) both mean that confidence in this forthcoming report is misplaced.


    The issue is not whether thermometry could be a reasonable way of measuring power output - it is why Rossi stopped painting his reactor black, and thereby activated an entirely new error mechanism for the followup test. Why make any change to the equipment when all that was needed was a repeat of the previous test which showed high COP?


    This question has not gone away and while most here think Rossi should (again) be given benefit of the doubt maybe they do not see the damage that his high profile and unproven claims could make for the whole field of LENR unless it turns out that he has what he claims.


    One additional point:


    Even given correct calculations, alumina is not appropriate for this test method under any circumstances because it goes translucent and in that case its emissivity depends on the internal temperatures and therefore cannot be relied upon even when there is a control, unless the control has an identical internal temperature distribution.

  • I think we should clarify that it is not obligatory to believe Rossi's statements because generally secretive. Therefore Thomas is an honorable position also. However, here they are those who hope to say truth and thus save the world from the misery and environmental degradation.

  • http://de.statista.com/statist…n-ausgewaehlten-laendern/


    Again, to simulate/fake a 1MW Plant for nearly one year you have to buy electricity and this would cost you 876.000 $US in the USA and up to 2 million $US in Europe for example in Germany, or Italy. Of course it could be possible that someone invest so much money in a fake, but in this case it is not plausible, because the investors of [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] are not that stupid and are able to count!

  • Quote

    Again, to simulate/fake a 1MW Plant for nearly one year you have to buy electricity and this would cost you 876.000 $US in the USA and up to 2 million $US in Europe for example in Germany, or Italy. Of course it could be possible that someone invest so much money in a fake, but in this case it is not plausible, because the investors of [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] are not that stupid and are able to count!


    That would be true if the 1MW output was measured accurately and reliable. Of course, if there is a measurement error in the calculations of Rossi's plant it could be either input, output, or both.

  • And where should this electric energy come from? Hiding the extra current lines for this amount of energy is not possible as far as I can tell.
    @thomas: Also you will need to get this energy from somewhere as the 1 MW reactor was installed in a running plant and therefore the energy was neccessary for the operation.
    I bet the owner of this plant would have realized if the energy wasnt there anymore and his plant wasnt producing whatever it is they do. ;)


    But it could be that the owner was working together with Rossi! Maybe he is a master hypnotist this Andrea Rossi!!!

  • Thomas, IR can get you close, but not perfect. If the device was truly producing 3X the output in heat, then properly calibrated IR will not miss it. The most that can sneak by the IR camera using the long wave IR band is twice as much in total as measured in the long wave, at least in the range of 450 to 1400 C. (100% more heat than measured)
    Complaining about the device being made of ceramic is silly. It is made of what it is made of.
    Rossi is not, obviously, carrying out public science experiments. Complaints of lack of scientific rigour are therefore misplaced. These are demos, and you can take or leave what he says and shows.
    Etc.
    .

  • Hi all


    MY just sent me a secret message via the message function of this forum to say that Rossi has been secretly smuggling petrol inside his glasses case to feed a 1MW electric generator hidden iside one of the E-Cat Modules.


    Kind Regards a shocked walker

  • @Thomas Clarke
    I am recalling Dr. Parkhomov's initial runs in which he devised a simple calorimeter by measuring the amount of water that had boiled off. His tests were limited, in part, by his ability to replenish water at odd hours. Let's hope there isn't a whole lot of difference between that simple measurement and input / output data collected for Mr. Rossi's test. It would be best if power input, water input, steam output, and conductive / convective losses all add up. I suppose the downside is that sort of bulk flow calorimetry cannot reveal short bursts of thermal activity, since it inherently averages things out over time. However that sort of simple metric would be ideal for corroborating evidence during a long-term test.

  • @'Walker
    Wow, Rossi must wear extremely large glasses!


    1 MW x 24 hrs/day = 24 MWh each day.
    24 MWh = 656 gallons of gasoline
    Using 40% fuel-to-steam conversion efficiency, he needs about 1640 gallons of fuel a day. (Reduce that by 10% for a reported COP of 10.)

  • Quote

    And where should this electric energy come from? Hiding the extra current lines for this amount of energy is not possible as far as I can tell.@thomas: Also you will need to get this energy from somewhere as the 1 MW reactor was installed in a running plant and therefore the energy was neccessary for the operation.I bet the owner of this plant would have realized if the energy wasnt there anymore and his plant wasnt producing whatever it is they do.But it could be that the owner was working together with Rossi! Maybe he is a master hypnotist this Andrea Rossi!!!


    Let us just say that I make fewer assumptions than you and am more open to the possibilities of measurements being completely wrong for some reason that is not obvious. As they were in the Lugano experiment.


    No doubt when we see the report, if we see it, we will have more information. Till then I can only rest my comments on the history of Rossi's measurements so far which has not inspired confidence even when they are done by independent parties. The range of possible outcomes for this new report is quite large: so why try to prejudge it?


    Quote

    Thomas, IR can get you close, but not perfect. If the device was truly producing 3X the output in heat, then properly calibrated IR will not miss it. The most that can sneak by the IR camera using the long wave IR band is twice as much in total as measured in the long wave, at least in the range of 450 to 1400 C. (100% more heat than measured)Complaining about the device being made of ceramic is silly. It is made of what it is made of.Rossi is not, obviously, carrying out public science experiments. Complaints of lack of scientific rigour are therefore misplaced. These are demos, and you can take or leave what he says and shows.Etc.


    I fail to see this is relevant? 1.5X even if accurately measured could prove LENR, certainly 2X.


    "Complaining about the device being made of ceramic is silly"
    Who said I was complaining? I'm pointing out that by changing reactors Rossi is running true to form and introducing a new 3X positive error into the measurements that his 6 Profs did not detect.


    Saying "Rossi does not owe us a fair (not crooked) demo" is obviously true. I've never thought Rossi owed us anything. But equally, given a long run of demos that show nothing except an ability to find new experimental errors it is very fair for skeptics to point out rossi's consistent flakiness whenever believers get excited about some new test that is, they hope hoping to settle things beyond doubt. I remember Lugano was going to do that...


    Specifically, if Rossi owes us nothing, then we owe him nothing, and fair and accurate "best guess" comment on his stuff if appropriate, not giving him benefit of the doubt. He has had that for 5+ years so far.

  • Quote

    I am recalling Dr. Parkhomov's initial runs in which he devised a simple calorimeter by measuring the amount of water that had boiled off. His tests were limited, in part, by his ability to replenish water at odd hours. Let's hope there isn't a whole lot of difference between that simple measurement and input / output data collected for Mr. Rossi's test. It would be best if power input, water input, steam output, and conductive / convective losses all add up.


    Phase change calorimetry is simple and robust, but liable to abuse unless done sensibly. If the steam is not vapour, with the heat of condensation definitely absorbed out of the reaction vessel, it will over-read energy by a very large amount. there are setups that make this easily checkable, and others like many of Rossi's early tests that don't.

  • I'm pointing out that by changing reactors Rossi is running true to form and introducing a new 3X positive error into the measurements that his 6 Profs did not detect.


    Rossi did not introduce a 3X positive error. The Professors did. The Professors were not taught IR thermometry by Rossi. The error they made is entirely their own. Rossi could have brought them an entirely liquid reactor, or one encased in a cubic meter of cement for all it matters. The job of the Professors was to test a device. They could do anything but open it. They could have tested some alumina with thermocouples embedded in it. They had a thermocouple with them. They had emissivity stickers. They had the Internet, the IR camera manufacturer, and the libraries of Italy and Switzerland and Sweden to look things up in. They had 6 months to think about it after the test before rushing the report out "because it is so important".

  • Rossi on a comment regarding emissivity:


    "............... I prefer not to participate to this discussion, because the measurements of the Lugano Test have been designed and made by the Independent Third Party. I was away for most of the time and I never participated to the measurements. I did not participate at all to the work of analysis, evaluations, discussions about the measurements that the Professors of the ITP made after the test in Lugano and before the publication. As a consequence of these facts, I do not think it is proper for me to participate to this discussion."


    -JoNP March 6, 2015

  • There really is no proof that Rossi somehow influenced the Lugano professors in how they conducted their testing. None. They alone decided on thermography, neglect the "on/off switch" (we don't know what that switch did although Eric has his idea), and run the calibration test at a much lower temp than the live run.


    By all appearances, Rossi gave them the Hotcat, and the rest was up to them. His role after that was very, very limited, and understandable in the context of the complexity of starting the reaction, and fuel ash retraction. He (Rossi) was well monitored according to the report, and in particular as reported on in a following interview.


    Maybe one can question why the Hotcat in TPR1 was a black body, and then became a grey body for TPR2, as Rossi clearly had something to do with that? I wonder myself why he would change the reaction chamber casing for thermodynamic, or any, reason?


    No, overall, this was all the professors to screw up. And apparently they did. I would be sympathetic had they come forward to confess. But that was not to be. Bad way to end their otherwise stellar careers this way. Sad.

  • paradigmnoia wrote:

    Rossi did not introduce a 3X positive error. The Professors did. The Professors were not taught IR thermometry by Rossi. The error they made is entirely their own. Rossi could have brought them an entirely liquid reactor, or one encased in a cubic meter of cement for all it matters. The job of the Professors was to test a device. They could do anything but open it. They could have tested some alumina with thermocouples embedded in it. They had a thermocouple with them. They had emissivity stickers. They had the Internet, the IR camera manufacturer, and the libraries of Italy and Switzerland and Sweden to look things up in. They had 6 months to think about it after the test before rushing the report out "because it is so important".


    So, by your reading, Rossi would be both phenomenally unlucky (he gives the profs a setup which does not work when others do) and phenomenally lucky (they just happen to mis-measure it and think it works!).


    Does them seem likely to you?


    My reading was given above, and you have not replied to it yet.


    Rossi quoted by Pardigmnoia wrote:


    I prefer not to participate to this discussion, because the measurements of the Lugano Test have been designed and made by the Independent Third Party. I was away for most of the time and I never participated to the measurements. I did not participate at all to the work of analysis, evaluations, discussions about the measurements that the Professors of the ITP made after the test in Lugano and before the publication.


    Rossi is very good at this. At the time he made this comment he probably knew the profs had made a mistake. This stance is perfect from his POV. He has no liability for this mistake - on which lots of money rests.


    What he omits is that he was present during the test for about 1 weeks, at start and end. He must have seen the reactor. He therefore would know from color what temperature it was at (750C) and surely would point out this was below operating temperature had that been an issue. He does not say how much he discussed the experiment and its conduct while it was happening, but it would be very strange if he did not.


    What he also omits is how he determined the temperature of this setup - which presumably he must have done because you don't give for third party testing some completely new untested setup. Or do you?

  • Shane wrote:

    There really is no proof that Rossi somehow influenced the Lugano professors in how they conducted their testing. None.


    No, but there is circumstantial evidence. He knew they were using thermography and gave them a different (X3 error producing) surface to use. The Profs were expecting to get the same reactor that had worked so well last time.


    Quote

    They alone decided on thermography, neglect the "on/off switch" (we don't know what that switch did although Eric has his idea), and run the calibration test at a much lower temp than the live run. By all appearances, Rossi gave them the Hotcat, and the rest was up to them. His role after that was very, very limited, and understandable in the context of the complexity of starting the reaction, and fuel ash retraction. He (Rossi) was well monitored according to the report, and in particular as reported on in a following interview.


    Rossi was with them for a total of about 7 days during the test, mostly at start and end. It would be surprising if they did not have discussions about the measurement method, since that would depend on the exact device the profs were given. I'm sure the Profs made all the decisions. But influence? That is another matter.


    I sort of agree that Rossi seems very lucky in that the people who do these independent tests for him seem spontaneously to make errors that change COP from 1X to 3X as claimed by Rossi.


    Why do you think that is?

  • @Thomas Clarke
    How is the test to be considered to be independent at all, if Rossi was guiding it all the way?


    The Professors were given the simplest E-Cat of all the other versions, perhaps with the complication of three phase. The professors probably even could have wired the thing in series to make it a single phase. The thermal mass was very low compared to earlier versions, so they probably could have eliminated that as the cause of SSM if they had run it that way. They had the choice of using SSM, which in theory would have made way more power, but they chose not to, for simplicity. For all the simplicity they gained, they tossed the savings out the window by simplifying total hemispherical emissivity for normal emissivity.
    Rossi is not lucky when the Professors screw up the test. Obviously this has made a headache for all involved.
    Of course Rossi would know how hot it should have been at X power in. The device was not likely a one-off, even if it was probably new to the Professors. Rossi did give the Professors a hint. He told them it could use more power than they were giving it.

  • The story "The Emperor's New Clothes" pales in comparison to the story that Rossi is selling.


    In the beginning there was the E-Cat. Then came the Fat-Cat, the House-Cat, the Hot-Cat, the Mouse-Cat, the Mega-Cat, the Hot-Cat, the X-Cat, the Quark-Cat, the Nonsense-Cat, the What-Not-Cat.


    Robotic factories are prepared to manufacture them by the millions. All this while we are still waiting for the first credible demonstration that any of these models can warm a single cup of tea.


    If only one person in a million believes that Rossi's menagerie is for real, it would still make over 7000 heads. Some of them probably visit this site. I would like to say to them: Hello there! Time to wake up!


    ... and the Tiger-Cat