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

  • 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

  • Well, I should have written that the tea must be heated with excess power, sorry.


    Apart from that, it appears the frequency of appearance of new Cat models seems to increase exponentially with time. Are we approaching a Cat Singularity? Is this when all sources of energy will unite to form one big happy family? Or will it turn out to be one big Cat-Aclysm that signifies End of Story?


  • Do not forget also another "never seen and desaparecido": the famous Gas-Cat...

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • Thanks Henry!


    We can probably dismiss the Gas-Cat as vaporhardware. We must remember that to bring about the Rossi effect is necessary modulating the heating current with very secret industrial wave forms that through hexagonal amplification generate intense polarized magnetic monopole rays that are projected onto the fuel.


    How the hell do you do that with a gas flame? Maybe axil can give us the answer? :D

  • Paradigmnoia wrote:

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


    Good question which only Rossi can answer. Shall we consider it non-independent? My argument stands...


    Quote

    Rossi is not lucky when the Professors screw up the test. Obviously this has made a headache for all involved.


    Not however for Rossi, since the positive report has been quoted by him in patent applications and seems likely to have been instrumental in getting him new funding.


    Whereas this independent test correctly calculated would have shown no excess heat and be a much greater headache for Rossi.



    Quote

    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.


    OK, so you are going for: Rossi knew the test was giving wrong temperatures, but did not disclose this information to the independent testers, further he used this (known by him bogus) information in his subsequent patent applications. Rossi has referred to the positive test result many times as validation that his device works. True, he has always been careful to say that this is the opinion of the testers. You however think that he has known all along this independent test does not in fact show that his device works?


    That is lying by omission, don't you think? And why on earth would he not disclose to the testers that they had got their temperatures all wrong, if he knew it? Are you saying he wanted a spurious positive test? :)


    From my POV things are much simpler. This test is in line with Rossi's other demonstrations and has a similarly spurious positive result. That is not surprising.

  • The silence of the test group after the Lugano test may well be required by an NDA.


    As for their freedom to do the test entirely along their own ideas, as is mentioned by one commentator above, I know from private communication with one of the participants in the test that there were severe restrictions on how the test was to be performed. I don't know any details, though.

  • Eric,


    It was about the "on/off" switch on the Hotcat's controller the professors said in the report they decided not to use. I thought it was to allow the controller to enter SSM when the conditions were right, and you felt it was for something else. I forget what. Not a big deal.


    The Hotcat was reportedly capable of SSM as Penon used it in his calculations to obtain a COP11. At both Ferrara, and Lugano however, SSM was not used.


    Edit: Looking at the Penon report briefly to check myself, and now I'm not sure SSM was achieved.

  • @Thomas Clarke
    How is it that a maverick with a philosophy degree knows how to test for heat better than 7 distinguished Professors? Clearly one should defer to the lettered experts.


    Perhaps Rossi is the expert, then we should defer to his pronouncements about his products, and
    ignore the words of lettered persons who think they know better how it works.