Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/16/mat-lewan-meets-rossi-in-sweden-rossi-bidding-on-factory-for-quarkx-production/']Mats Lewan has posted a new article in his An Impossible Invention blog where he reports on meeting Andrea Rossi last week in Sweden where he was visiting to look at a building for use as a factory. The article is here: [url]https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/[/url] Mats has provided many interesting details in this article including the following […][/feedquote] [url]https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/[/url]
  • IH wanted to cancel the disaster of a test and pay Rossi a significant sum for 100 watts of excess heat at a reasonable COP. Rossi would have nothing to do with this. He was given his chance. Poor Mats - that hook is sunken so deep that it is going to have to rust out.

  • Well, the plot thickens. Excerpts from Lewan's article I post below, shed a little more light on the test parameters, the facility, the customer, provides some background on Penon that may give those critical of him some pause, and Lewan has arranged to have Tom Clarke's Lugano analysis peer reviewed:



    ---"During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept."



    ---"The unidentified customer (‘JM Products’) using the thermal energy from the MW plant, had its equipment at the official address—7861, 46th Street, Doral, Fl. The total surface of the premises was 1,000 square meters, of which the MW plant used 400 and the customer 600.
    The equipment of the customer measured 20 x 3 x 3 meters, and the process was running 24/7.
    The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof."



    ---"The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted."




    ---"He also insisted that an arbitrary chosen 10 percent should be subtracted in the power calculation, with no other reason than to be conservative. The ERV accepted."




    ---"IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance.
    The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day."



    ---"After the test, IH wanted to remove the MW plant from the premises in Florida, but Rossi would not accept until the remaining $89M were paid according to the license agreement. Rossi’s and IH’s attorneys then agreed that both parties should lock the plant with their own padlocks (as opposed to the claim by Dewey Weaver that ‘IH decided to padlock the 1MW container after observing and documenting many disappointing actions and facts’)."



    ---"I should also add that I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi."



    ---"The HotCat report from August 2012, signed by Penon, containing a few notable errors, was notwritten by Penon. Penon assisted at a test on August 7, 2012, repeating an experiment made on July 16, 2012. The report was written on the July test, and Penon was only confirming that similar results were obtained on the August test. Penon told me this in an interview in September, 2012. You could of course accuse Penon of not having studied the original report sufficiently before signing it, but the errors were not a result of Penon’s work."



    ---"I have contacted several experts to get a third party evaluation of the Lugano test report and the contesting papers by Thomas Clarke and Bob Higgins. Until I receive these evaluations I only note that the original result is contested, but that no conclusive result is agreed upon. The isotopic shifts remain unexplained, unless you assume fraud."

  • IH wanted to cancel the disaster of a test and pay Rossi a significant sum for 100 watts of excess heat at a reasonable COP. Rossi would have nothing to do with this. He was given his chance. Poor Mats - that hook is sunken so deep that it is going to…


    Ok, so you offered him $5M to back off did you? But you didnt want to cancel the license agreement ... Hmmm. How could that be?

  • ---"The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted."


    The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day."


    To heat one m3 of water by one degree You need somewhat more than 1 kWh. To evapporate Water you can roughly double the result. Thus Your figures are a poor invention...

  • Wyttenbach,


    Keep in mind those are not my numbers. I just copied them here from Lewan's blog article. In reference to your comment, consider this one excerpt:


    "I should also add that I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi."

  • Quote

    the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi.


    Well, this strategy has been somewhat obvious when reading the intense ad-homs on Penon from IH entities like Weaver and Jed ...

  • ---"The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted."


    "The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day."


    Rossi's prints all over this.
    C = water spec hat cap = 4kJ/kgK
    D = density liquid water = 1000kg/m^3
    So: we have around 36 * 40C * 4 * 1000 kJ/day = 5760MJ/day added to customer heat but not counted (70kW).


    But, that assumes the return water is 60C. Since it is not counted we will not know what that is. We also do not know whether this heating is included in the input power budget. There are two ways this could go:
    (Heating not included in input budget) customer gets 70kW on top of what Rossi's device produces, enough to do something.
    (heating included in input budget) return water is neat to 100C. The 70kW could be as low as 1kW!


    I can't say which way Rossi plays this from info so far.


    The liquid phase equation is roughly 2kW/K of temperature increase.
    If Rossi assumes dry steam output (as he has done in the past) he would have an extra 2257kJ/kg - the equivalent of 550C liquid phase temperature rise or about 1MW power, from the heat of vaporisation.


    So he has scaled this plant so that the nominal output is the same as the steam heat of vaporisation.


    My guess? He will have measured steam output at about 101C. He will claim this is dry. Actually (due to pressure) it will be very wet.


    The COP spoofing from this method would depend on the output temperature. For 101C he has 2kW needed to raise water from 100C to 101C, and up to 1MW output, or COP=500. Depending on steam wetness that can obviously go down to any value.


    What we can be sure from this is that he is including the latent heat of vaporisation in this analysis. It will be fascinating to see what evidence he has of dry steam...


    As always, Mats accepts technical half-truths without question, putting a positive spin on something that is still half-baked.

  • Thomas - the outlet temp was 100.1C for every day the test was running. Rossi forgot to adjust his cut and paste data for the days that he claims his system was down for maintenance or inspection. I'm telling you this is some kind of special machine.

  • Not sure if he is able answer...I was quite close to accept that DW is an IH insider, but how he could miss such important stuff? Either he has/had an agenda and/or is not an insider or Mats / AR are lying...which would be hardly to believe (for me)..

  • Dewey wrote:

    Thomas - the outlet temp was 100.1C for every day the test was running. Rossi forgot to adjust his cut and paste data for the days that he claims his system was down for maintenance or inspection. I'm telling you this is some kind of special machine.


    Given this outlet temperature we have no steam, and an output (for 36m^3/day) of at most 70kW - if the input temperature is at 60C.


    Rossi saying he will not count the heating from 60C (variable, could be 99C!) to 100C does not make sense because then, without enthalpy of vaporisation he would have a calculated output of at most 200W! With entahlpy of vaporisation, assuming dry steam, he would have 1MW output! Of course 100.1C at any vaguely plausible pressure to allow 36m^3/day is fully liquid.


    There is another direct contradiction between the Rossi story and fact. Even without the Dewey info we still have a contradiction, because 500C water-phase steam is not feasible. Of course supplying steam to a customer is the right thing to do - the temperature stays close to 100C and the heat is transferred by allowing the steam to become wetter. However this makes evern vaguely accurate calorimetry impossible.


    The license contract requires COP to be calculated using mass flow calorimetry. It states that thermocouples before and after the e-cat must be used together with flow measured by flowmeter. This is of course unambiguous given proper thermocouple siting and correct use of flowmeter (with non-return valve to prevent spoofing).


    But this setup CANNOT provide anything like 1MW. You can only get 1MW by outputting steam. unless all the heat measurements are made in the secondary "customer" circuit? That is not what the agreement states. In fact the provided heat is 70kW for 60C input.


    So Mats statements directly contradict Rossi's statement (roughly 1MW load) and the license agreement (COP to be determined by what is effectively water flow calorimetry).


    Mats wrote:

    I would like to apologise if I have hinted at Thomas Clarke’s having an agenda with his impressive number of comments. I want to assume that Clarke is perfectly honest in the significant work he has laid down on analysing the Lugano report and on commenting what, according to him, is probable or not. But I would also like to note that producing for some periods up to 34 posts per day hints at a position which I’m not sure if it should be called balanced. This, combined with obvious spin from a few people, apparently having an agenda in criticising some individuals, adds to my decision to keep the comments closed.


    Mats is keeping his comments closed because he knows I and other tech people would do analysis like the above and destroy his "I think Rossi has it" picture. I personally find the level of bias in Mats analysis most unpalatable - so I guess it is no surprise he finds me biassed! the difference between us is that I can point to why Mats's analysis is biassed. He cannot point to why I am biassed.

  • ---"The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water…



    Ouch! Since the Weaver has already stated that they are going all in on the complete copy/paste fraud hypothesis, maybe you could save time for your family (or something) instead of going down this ancient road again... ;)

  • Zorud - sorry if I botched your name. The folks from Planet Rossi are in need of new issues to distract from their unfolding shipwreck. There are several blatant new lies that Rossi has invented for Mats. A lot to work with, and over time, we should be able to have some fun with the more egregious creations.

  • Sifferkoll wrote:

    Ouch! Since the Weaver has already stated that they are going all in on the complete copy/paste fraud hypothesis, maybe you could save time for your family (or something) instead of going down this ancient road again...


    (1) I treat info from Dewey as interesting but at best without context, and therefore am cautious.


    (2) You are saying that 'cos Rossi's tests have proven technically deficient in the past, no-one should check them for technical sanity now? It is "boring"?

  • Thomas Clarke, care to elaborate on that? :


    "Andreas Moraitis


    The reported 36 m^3 of water per day (according to Mats’ article the
    flowmeter was positioned correctly...) matches quite well the reported
    COP of 50 (20 kW electric input assumed). And even if the water had not
    been vaporized but only heated from 60C to 100C, the COP would come to
    about 3.5. The contract required a minimum of > 2.6, as far as I
    remember.


    My first calculation included the energy for heating up the water (1.674 MWh). Vaporizing requires 22.57 MWh. So together we get (22.57+1.674)MWh/(24h*20kW) = 50.5, without the 1.674 MWh the result is 47. A COP of 50 would then indicate 18.8 kW of input power. (But as always, there is no guarantee for my numbers…)"

  • "Clarke" wrote:

    (2) You are saying that 'cos Rossi's tests have proven technically deficient in the past, no-one should check them for technical sanity now? It is "boring"?


    I suppose you're really really passionate about it, so if it makes you happy - please go ahead ...

  • Quote


    The reported 36 m^3 of water per day (according to Mats’ article the flowmeter was positioned correctly...) matches quite well the reported COP of 50 (20 kW electric input assumed). And even if the water had not been vaporized but only heated from 60C to 100C, the COP would come to about 3.5. The contract required a minimum of > 2.6, as far as I remember.


    I don't have an opinion about this so far, except that 20kW input and an assumption of dry steam would give roughly COP=50. My point is orthogonal to this, based on Mats "Rossisays":


    Rossisays: The 60->100C temp rise is discounted
    Rossisays: The output is roughly 1MW


    Tech fact: you cannot accurately know how dry is the steam without more complex measurement


    Fact: the license contract specifies water flow calorimetry hence 100% wet steam (for that purpose) must be assumed.


    Tech Fact: If you believe Dewey's 100.1C we have 100% wet steam almost certainly.


    This does not make sense. If, instead, the output is roughly 70kW yes that does make sense, although not with 20kW input. But Rossi has not said that the measured input temperature is 60C. And has said he has a much higher COP than 3.6. And assuming dry steam output is always unsafe witout much more information that would have to contradict Dewey's 100.1C.


    There are too many gaps in this story to make precise sense of it. We do not know how COP is calculated, whether steam is assumed 100% wet. Dewey's comments about inconsistencies don't make sense without context - they could be nothing or a big deal.


    So all I can do is point out that this 1MW plant appears to have been producing between 70kW max and a few kW - depending on the input temperature. That is if we believe the electrical and flowrate measurements of course.


    Mats takes what Rossi says about this test as somehow validating it. I can't for the life work out how that is. Equally, with such partial information we can't yet say much about it.

  • http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=95#comment-1172432


    --------------------------------
    Andrea Rossi April 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM
    Patrick Ellul: The Report will be published after it will have been disclosed in the Court.Everything you are reading now is just toilet paper, diffused by professionals of the same and the ones they have paid for.I can only repeat what my Attorney wrote in our press release, it is that we are pleased by the results. The results are coherent with what I have repeatedly written on this blog during the 352 days of test: the plant has worked mostly in SSM mode. As all the visitors have seen.Warm Regards,A.R."
    --------------------------------


    Andrea Rossi's statement "during the 352 days of test: the plant has worked mostly in SSM mode" indicates that there is no power input during self sustain mode periods and that changes all calculations.

  • Simple answer:


    The contract between Rossi and IH prescribed that IH had to let Rossi carry out the test and in case of a positive result they would have had to pay the 89 Million $.


    IH however realized during the test that Rossi had become crazy and was (still is) deceiving himself thinking his device works, while it does not.


    They wanted to ransom themselves out of the contract and avoid an exhausting legal fight (the one that is now going on) , thinking that If they offer Rossi a certain amount he would accept.

  • Well, given that Mats reports accurately what Rossi said (whether or not what was said was true) it would be intriguing indeed if Rossi HAD offered to give back the initial payment and IH refused


    Because if indeed that happened, AND if Rossi's megaWidget didn't work, acceptance would have got IH some money back AND freedom from a lawsuit.


    In other words, they could be deemed to have failed in their fiscal duty to their investors of making the best of what they say is a bad situation, and recouping some money.


    Oh well - at least we know the source of Mats' information.


    I wonder where Dewey Weaver gets HIS information.

  • Nigel - I've just confirmed that Rossi made no such buy-back offer to IH. It's a yet another lie.


    If anybody knows Mats - ask him to request the 1MW flowmeter make and model number information from Rossi. You folks can then match-up those specs against the newly disclosed information from Rossi. Penon supplied that information to IH during the interim reporting cycle then somehow forgot to include that minor detail in the final "ERV" report. After you find that out, then we can get around to the serial number and calibration matters.

  • "theWeaver" wrote:

    I've just confirmed that Rossi made no such buy-back offer to IH. It's a yet another lie.


    Sure. You're track record is brilliant ...


    BTW. Are you saying that you would have sold it ... ? Or are you saying you are willing to even give it back to get rid of this mess you put yourself in. Who knows, that might actually save you tons of money.