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

Thomas Clarke wrote: "I've read your comments on the major USNCL players conspiring here but think you neglect the evidence of SPECT activity. The world cannot be safe when major moneyed interests are in bed with REAPOL, WONC, and SPERNIK. Why do you think all those engaged in SNAPPERNOT activity have hidden identities?"

USNCL? SPECT? REAPOL???? You had me going there until I found that WONC is a radio station at North Central College, in Naperville, IL. You just made that up!

Spernik was "a member of the Cult of the Dragon in Phlan during the Tyranny of Dragons." So, okay, that may be true. And relevant!

I get the part about SNAPPERNOT. I really do.

Jed "They all do. Industrial instrumentation and methods are about 5% to 10% accurate. ......... That is the best accuracy you can achieve with a megawatt scale reactor, using conventional instruments and techniques. Probably NASA could do better with a billion dollar facility."

Please, your statement above is, excuse my expression, but pure BS. Any chemical processing plants needs better accuracy of measurements than your figures above, and including MW reactors.

And that is easily achievable from any commercial instrument manufacturer.

We want to calculate heat content produced by the e-cat plant.

What needs to be measured?

- Steam quality using a separating and throttling steam calorimeter. Which means pressure, level and temperature measurements.
- Pressure of water in and steam out of plant
- Temperature of water in and steam out of plant
- Flowmeter

- What's the accuracy a commercial pressure transmitter?
Answer, Accuracy: 0,04% of range.
http://www2.emersonprocess.com…smitters/Pages/index.aspx

- Temperature. Temperature transmitter accuracy: 0,08 degC.
http://emersonprocess.pl/en-us…ed/3144p/pages/index.aspx

- flow meters: typical accuracy of 0,5% of reading is easily achievable from any commercial supplier.

So what does this mean for power formula calculation:

Let's calculate for just heating single phase water using normal commercial accuracy of instrumentation:

Q= M * cp dT where

cp= 4,18 KJ/kgC
M= massrate of water: 1500 kg/hr +/- 7,5 kg/hr = 0,417 kg/s +/- 0,0021 kg/s
dT = heated water from 60 degC to 100 degC= 100degC +/- 0,08degC - 60 degC +/- 0,08 degC= 40 degC +/- 0,16 degC

This means accuracy of power of heating will be:

Q= 69,7 KW +/- 0,65 KW or accuracy within 0,94% of real true Value.

And If steam where produced you would Expect only marginal higher uncertainty using normal available commercial equipment.

And If this kind of instrumentation was not used by the ERV, I feel sorry for Penon , sorry for Rossi and sorry for IH that did a disastrous poor job of securing a commercial agreement with proper measurments done.

To add some more fun to this thread::

We, at least the well informed ones, know that the US-naval command made a big mistake in commenting that the "next carrier generation reactor" would need no harbor maintenance. (source NZZ) And even worse, they said they ordered 12 such devices which need no maintenance.
If anybody of the furious crowd would have made serious investigations, then they could easily detect, that there was never any test running in Florida. Further on: The Florida connection lay out is made that dilettantish (the floorspace discussed was written out for rent some months prior to test start) that this story reminds me of the fake movie (made to disprove 9/11 conspiracies..) produced by the same people...

Conclusion: Nobody really knows where the true test happened and what was the true outcome.

Would make a great twist in the movie.

oystla wrote: "Please, your statement above is, excuse my expression, but pure BS. Any chemical processing plants needs better accuracy of measurements than your figures above, and including MW reactors."

Chemical plants may need better accuracy. I wouldn't know about that. If they need better accuracy, they must pay a lot more for the instruments than an HVAC engineer does, or than Rossi did. I was talking about boiler efficiency measured with conventional instruments during inspections and during operation. Ask any HVAC engineer, or see:

http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/…ler-efficiency-guide.aspx

Rossi's instruments and methods are extremely imprecise and inaccurate. He did not measure most of the parameters you listed, as far as I can tell, and the ones he did measure are wrong.

Keieueue wrote: "Way to contradict yourself and obfuscate stuff"

What do you mean? My statements were quite clear.

"Has IH personnel seen the customer's fan, or not?"

Do you speak language? I said, "I.H. people and others have now seen the customer facility."

"And still waiting for the source of info stating that the customer had no equipment there"

I expect you will have to wait for the trial. Or you can look at the calorimetry numbers Rossi gave in the Lewan interview, and figure it out for yourself. You will see that if there is equipment it cannot be using more than ~10 kW.

Monty wrote: "I have the feeling this thread is just for throwing dirt. No useful infomation is presented here. What about sticking more to the facts and not insulting each other so much?"

I have better idea. Why don't you look at what Rossi said, take the numbers he gave, and do the math yourself? You will see that he couldn't possibly have 1 MW, and he probably has no excess heat at all. You don't need to debate or ask questions of us. Rossi himself has given you proof that he is wrong.

He has also given you proof that he is a fraud. There is no other plausible reason why he would refuse to let I.H. see the customer facility. If the claim were real, he would want to show the facility. His calorimetry showed no excess heat, as I am sure the I.H. expert told him. The only way to convince the expert would be to show him the 1 MW equipment and ventilation.

Monty wrote: "Please tell me where Rossi buys his imprecise and inacurate instruments. I wonder who is producing and marketing these"

I suppose he got them the same places he got the instruments in all of his previous tests, especially the public demonstration described by Lewan and others. In those tests he had the wrong kinds of instruments, installed incorrectly, without calibration or testing. Most of those instruments did not even record data, and with one that did, he refused to install an SD card. In the test he did for the people from NASA, the outlet was plugged up and the reactor nearly exploded. His instruments were so bad he could not even see that was happening! Jim Dunn had to point out to him that there was steam coming out of the welded seams. He did not even have an emergency pressure relief valve in that reactor. This is not just unprofessional and irresponsible. It is suicidal.

Given that track record, it is no surprise he screwed up this test. His previous tests were garbage on the kilowatt scale. This was too, only the mistakes were so bad, he overestimated the heat by a factor of 50, mainly by confusing hot water for steam, as you yourself can see from his numbers.

The instruments themselves are not to blame. They are industrial grade. But -- as you saw in all of his previous tests -- when you install the wrong instruments in the wrong configuration and you do no calibration or testing, you get the wrong answer. I was hoping that for once he would do things right, but alas he did not.

Keieueue wrote: "Still waiting on that source about IH people seeing the facility which had no equipment"

Okay, I guess you do not speak language after all. I said, "I expect you will have to wait for the trial. Or you can look at the calorimetry numbers Rossi gave in the Lewan interview, and figure it out for yourself." You even quoted me, but apparently you do not understand what a trial is, or how to compute the answers for yourself.

Maybe it is English you don't understand. Let me repeat that in Japanese:

裁判まで待たなければわからないでしょうね、坊や。でもインタビューの数字とデーターを分析したら、自分で分かると思いますよ。人に頼らず、少し自分で考えたらどうでしょうか？

Monty asks: "But IH agreed to all of this."

Did they? Where did you hear this? I wouldn't know anything about what they agreed to. The only thing I know is they disagreed with Rossi and Penon's calorimetry.

"Why?"

You tell me! You know more about the agreements than I do. Either that, or you are making up stuff.

"And how did you become the advocate of IH lately?"

I told you. I made that quite clear. I have a sample of Rossi's calorimetry. The same sample he quoted in the Lewan interview, only I have somewhat more detail. I analyzed the data. I am not an expert by any means, but I am capable of doing this. I agree with I.H.'s analysis that there could not be 1 MW and there is probably no heat at all. It is a difficult for me to evaluate this because the data and methods are terrible, the mistakes enormous, and error margin is huge.

I gather I.H. has better data than I do, so I expect they are right there is no heat.

In short, I am not an advocate of I.H. so much as I am quite sure Rossi is wrong, based on his data, his words, and his analysis. However, based on this alone, I cannot tell whether he is stupid or a fraud. To judge that, I looked at the other thing he said during the interview, which was that the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer facility, but Rossi did not let him. The only conceivable reason he did that was to cover up a fraud.

I know that any sane expert would demand access to the facility. In a conventional boiler efficiency test, you must test the ventilation system, and measure its performance. An HVAC engineer who fails to do that would lose his license. If there were an accident, he would be criminally negligent. Rossi and Penon's assertion that this is "not necessary" is a lie. A ridiculous lie anyone with knowledge of HVAC can see through.

There are now reports that I.H. and others have seen the facility, and found no equipment or ventilation capable of removing 1 MW. This is additional proof, but it was already obvious there could not be. This, you might say, is mere icing on the cake, or the final nail in the coffin (to mix metaphors), but I am sure it will be helpful in a trial.