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

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

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.

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.

Quote

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.

Display More

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.

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.

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.)

Hi all

In reply to hendersonmj

Krivit has asked for my comment on a story he is going to write that says Rossi has split with his glasses case, after they were involved with some sunglasses!

Kind Regards walk

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.