Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

    Abd, I believe you have a slight problem getting you thoughts together.


    You're saying on one hand "patents are serious", but also "It could be total deception". Ok, that's fine - "a serious deception about claims". But why say anything at all?


    Then you say "Rossi went to an attorney and ranted" and it was "crafted to lose" and then you use this weird logic of yours to diagnose Rossi as "insane" ... This arguing actually gives me the creeps ... Abd - a DIY psychiatrist? Your analysis has a peculiar (and foul) smell to it.


    Did it ever occur to you that the the timing of the complaint could be an essential part of the strategy, since Rossi mainly wants to get out of the shitty IP transfer wording in the license agreement and already knew IH did not plan to pay anything since several months.

    Quote from Alan

    In short : the information given by Rossi is consistent with 1MW output, but doesn't prove it.


    I agree. But there is another issue here. The information given by Rossi shows already that it will be almost impossible to prove that his device is not a straight electric heater, because wetness of steam is tricky to be sure about from single temperature point measurements, and Rossi discounts all evidence except the heat of vaporisation. That is very unsatisfactory for a 1 year long test on which $89M rests: and there comes a point at which a guaranteed inconclusive test is negative evidence.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    IH can hope for Rossi's IP to be worth something - even for it to be worth a lot. There seems to be an idea that either IH are sure Rossi's stuff works, or sure that he is fraudulent and it does not work.

    It's the black-and-white thinking that is all too common around here.

    This is extremely obvious and should not be in the least controversial. These are logical possibilities. However, Sifferkoll responds with


    Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test


    Quote

    Wow! Amazing IH defense logic (send them an invoice promptly - you deserve it)... You really needed to push to get that one out!!! In Sweden we would call it "slå knut på sig själv". I dont know but maybe - tie oneself in knots - is a close translation, but I dont think if it says it all really ...

    What Thomas wrote was completely obvious and IH did not need him to point this out. Sifferkoll's blog is full of misinformation and misinterpretation. For example,
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…to-ditch-lenr-completely/ completely misunderstands U.S. law and court procedures, all to come up with a paranoid fantasy, and all that completely neglects that IH is heavily invested in LENR, quite possibly more invested than with Rossi. Those other research efforts are not exactly secret, but neither are they public with investment amounts disclosed, and some of them are far more solidly science-based.


    No, we don't know what IH strategy will be at trial, because we don't know what they will claim, and their public announcements have been vague, and I assume deliberately so. They can reasonably be interpreted as supporting possibility (1), i.e., that Rossi claims could not be verified, but as to specifics, we only have rumors from some who may have inside information and some who may have misunderstood such information.


    However, one thing is quite clear, here: Sifferkoll is generating a lot of noise, much heat with little light. It has become obvious and predictable. This is not about Rossi, nor about IH. It's about Sifferkoll. He is responsible for what he writes, as am I, as are all of us.


    Anyone who contradicts or exposes Sifferkoll's rants, apparently, becomes an IH "operative." Jed Rothwell is accused of being an "IH stakeholder." Okay, perhaps Jed has invested. He could, perhaps. Maybe I'll ask him. So could anyone with the means, but I rather doubt that he has. But then, why? Jed railed against Penon, and against IH for being so stupid as to accept Penon reports. That doesn't much sound like a "stakeholder" to me.


    Sifferkoll has Thomas Clarke as the "most experienced operative."


    I have mentioned Rossi as paranoid. Rossi has never expressed the level of paranoia that Sifferkoll is expressing. He talks about "snakes and clowns," and "snake" was clearly about Krivit, who is basically a snake, not to put too fine a point on it. Krivit has lied about me (yes, lied with intention to harm), I'm about to blow that one open. It's not relevant here, though. Sifferkoll is going after supporters of the field, and then someone who appears to be a genuine critic, Thomas Clarke, and this field badly needs genuine criticism.


    Or fraud and error may take over. We don't need more of that!

    Quote from "Abd"

    level of paranoia that Sifferkoll is expressing


    Ooops! Here we go again. Abd - DIY psychiatry 101.



    BTW! I'm not going after the supporters of the field. I'm merely analysing what I percieve as circumstantial evidence and building a scenario that makes sense to me (and some others also it seems) and present it. I really really want to bring LENR products to the world and I sincerely work on the path I percieve as the by far best and fastest to achieve this goal.

    Trolling.


    Patents show that an inventor is willing to spend some money, perhaps to protect IP. But they may have other purposes, and anyone who understands patent law would know all this. In post after post, Sifferkoll is showing a lack of understanding of the issues.


    DIY psychiatrist? No. I have high experience, though, with people, in situations where deeper psychology is revealed.


    As to the smell, be aware that if you smell something, there is a person who is closest to you, by far, and if you have your head in a dark place, maybe that place is what smells.


    1. Yes, Rossi probably knew that IH did not intend to pay the $89 million, before the end of the term (a responsible company would provide a warning.) However, he sold the IP already, for $11.5 million, giving IH full rights, so, as an attorney pointed out, Rossi has a possible collection issue, not a patent or IP issue. Tossing in a pile of useless fraud allegations would tend to poison a jury against him, unless he can prove fraud, which is extremely difficult. Hence this was not a rational move, it was what I might call an emotional outburst, on the level of "snakes and clowns," but in court, which is very different from blogging and casual talk with friends. A good attorney would talk him out of it, if he listened to the attorney. A not-so-good attorney would just take his money and file whatever he wants.


    2. I am generally amused by those who imagine I can't think, I run into one from time to time. It says far more about them than about me. I make mistakes, for sure, but these people rarely get to the point where they can see and point them out, as to anything of weight. The people I care about, scientists in general, and other experts, recognize what I do, and that's quite enough for me. And then there are ordinary people, many of whom are inspired and who are following me. And very smart people who are following me, and then people who think like Sifferkoll, whose personality is obviously dominated by an obsession, I would have no interest in meeting. Waste of time. Nor will I continue discussion with them.


    I was an outsider, paid my dues with intense study and writing, and was welcomed into the LENR research community, where I have made significant contributions as a writer and editor, and that is accelerating. People like Sifferkoll give LENR a bad name.


    Rossi is not responsible for Sifferkoll's flatulence, though it's possible he has encouraged it. What Sifferkoll has speculated here, about Rossi's motives, if true, would lend support to IH's likely defense, that Rossi did not make a full IP transfer, on the one hand, or that the whole thing was fraudulent, on the other.


    This has nothing to do with an alleged impossibility of LENR. If Rossi faked any tests or willfully allowed error in them, and if investment resulted from those appearances, Rossi is in deep trouble. He might have had real heat, and that won't be enough. It's one thing to pretend to the world, that's actually common. Deceiving investors, failing to disclose relevant fact, is very dangerous. Did anyone warn Rossi? Would he have listened?


    One more comment about the U.S. legal system. The naive will think that a party in court must establish some particular vision of "truth," with "proof." Actually, a party may assert multiple interpretations. A reductio ad absurdem of that would be a defense of


    "I didn't do what was claimed, and I was justified in doing it." That is an alternate defense, and it's perfectly legal. The second part is along the lines of "should the court decide that I did it, I should still not be sanctioned, because I would have had a justification."


    Small minds then will claim "Aha! They are contradicting themselves! Liars!" The court will not think like that.


    The Lugano temperature measurements were badly flawed. Rossi had access to the internal thermocouple, used for his control. He must have known the true temperature. But he allowed the testers to make a huge error. Why? And then investment was made partly hinging on that error.


    Sifferkoll, if you consider yourself Rossi's friend, better late than never. If he realizes what mistakes he made, he might recover. If he was a total fraud, well, he is screwed, probably. But if there was some core of positive intention there, he might repair it. But he's got to recognize what he did, both in commission and omission. Or he's screwed even if he had good intentions. Remember Petroldragon.

    I am not so sure that the Lugano controller that was connected to the thermocouple had any recording or temperature reporting capability. It might just be a dumb set point matching PID design.
    It does seem a bit strange that there were no pre-set temperature settings if a PID was used.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Thomas - Thank you for the questions and thoughts. Rossi doesn't realize that the paid-up license agreement is enforceable no matter what the outcome of his poorly written and filed litigation may be.
    Rossi has a limited amount of time to make good on his license agreement and terms of proof of IP transfer will not be determined by him. His problems will soon increase by at least an order of magnitude if he does not figure this out in the very near future.


    This is a reasonable legal analysis. Socially, what would be important would be for Rossi's friends to advise him well. Does he have any friends he trusts, who could get through his obviously massive defenses?


    In his situation, there will be people who will agree with him. In my training, this was called "conspiracy," and one of the worst thing you could do with a friend was to conspire with them over their complaints about life.


    We need sympathetic honesty from friends. Friends who just agree with us can be our worst enemies.


    There was a man who made certain discoveries about the Qur'an. He was following the work of another man, whom I knew personally, who had made similar discoveries. That other man was assassinated because of his claims. So this was serious business!


    The man asked me to look at his work. I told him what I could see, showing why I thought it was unlikely that he had found something real, but without detailed study, I couldn't tell for sure. As part of that discussion, I wrote something that is not common knowledge, though it's known to scholars, the truly knowledgeable. Who are not many.


    He wrote "I do not suffer fools." He thought what I wrote was preposterous.


    I replied, "If there is any difference between you and I, this is it."


    He laughed. He got it. And he paid my way to attend conferences on his work, generously, because finding someone who understood what he was doing enough to criticize it, instead of what he normally encountered (adulation), was very important to him.


    Smart guy. Many smart guys are not that smart.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I am not so sure that the Lugano controller that was connected to the thermocouple had any recording or temperature reporting capability. It might just be a dumb set point matching PID design.
    It does seem a bit strange that there were no pre-set temperature settings if a PID was used.

    This could be correct, that is, the temperature might not be recorded. But the device has one control input (input power) and one measurement output (internal temperature). There isn't anything else to look at. How does Rossi set the thing up (which he did in Lugano)? He has to be looking at temperature, there is no other feedback.


    Then the device was operated without manual control, except that later the reseachers upped the power. How the Lugano reseachers would have not asked for access to the internal temperature data, if they didn't, I have to chalk up to reluctance to offend Rossi. If they did ask, then I'd have thought it their responsibility to report the denial. Instead, as to the calibration problem, they made bogus excuses for Rossi.


    Rossi would know that if the device was generating heat, and if the external temperature were as Lugano supposedly measured, the internal temperature would be higher, and the temperature of the heating coils higher as well. The idea that an electrical heater in a hot environment will be cooler than the environment is, ah, weird. Remember, they didn't want to calibrate with full input power and no fuel because supposedly this could burn out the heater wires. That would only be true if the wires suddenly were given full current, not if they were allowed to heat.


    Look, the whole thing sucked. It's obvious and its been obvious for a long time. Rossi knew his devices, I assume, and knew that they would not be reaching that temperature without burning out.


    There could be more written on this, but I'm tired of reading that report. I don't like to write purely from memory, because memory is easily flawed.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Sifferkoll - It is so thoughtful that you are concerned about how Thomas uses his time. From where do get your latest revelation? Are there new guidelines for today's PR war battle plan?


    You're on such thin ice that you've proven there is no gravity on…


    I find it so humorous that Siffer and the rest of those following the Wizard of Rozz constantly feel the need to bring up how often you post, yet they are responding to every comment you make. Amazing how so many grown adults never learned the old adage about the pot and kettle. I feel like we are dealing with children rather than engineers and critical thinkers...oh wait thats where my assumptions failed! lol

    Quote from AlainCo

    About the patent filed by IH, I propose the following interpretation.


    IH is competent, collaborating, and have understood that Rossi had no serious patent while he divulgue key information on his blog, in Lugano test.
    They file a provisional patent not…


    Excellent assessment! I find it hard to believe anything Mats Lewan says anymore for many reasons...especially the fact that he has a book he profits from that is riding on this whole situation. Mats Lewan is FAR from an objective observer and journalist at this point...he lost all credibility with me. I mean don't get me wrong, he is no Sifferkoll...but the credibility is lost.

    I agree that the test sucked.
    With a TC and extension wire hanging out one end of the device, I can see that the idea that it could be checked just by plugging the wire into a meter is appealing, or even info from it stored somewhere. I am just saying it might not be that easy to do in practice, with a controller using the lead. Perhaps it could have been done.


    It is clear from the report that an additional thermocouple was available, however.


    I did some rough heat capacity math, and determined that the heater is rather slow to heat the device. So getting a stable temperature would take some time, and the heat jump was very unlikely to be a surprising quick response to a setting change (without a reaction). Dialling up too much voltage might however be quite a current draw surprise. That is based on some debateable but mathematically consistent analysis of the resistance characteristics of the device.


    How one turns off the automatic temperature control, then dials up a new temperature, then switches back to automatic control is not explained in the report.


    Edit: I will note here that the internal type K thermocouple did not melt, so at least that area did not exceed 1380 C.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Alan wrote:


    I agree. But there is another issue here. The information given by Rossi shows already that it will be almost impossible to prove that his device is not a straight electric heater, because wetness of steam is tricky to be sure about from single temperature point measurements, and Rossi discounts all evidence except the heat of vaporisation. That is very unsatisfactory for a 1 year long test on which $89M rests: and there comes a point at which a guaranteed inconclusive test is negative evidence.

    To repeat what has been said before, Rossi always pointed to alleged quantity of evaporated water as the measure of heat output, and then, as well, as part of the measure of energy, the energy necessary to raise the water to boiling point. That the water was allegedly above the boiling point was then taken as proof of steam quality, but steam quality is only part of the issue. A humidity meter was used to "measure steam quality," a face-palm error, showing how those involved with these measurements were inexperienced. Any HVAC engineer would know that measuring steam quality is not nearly that easy, and it was not difficult for this newbie Abd to find that information of the web, back in 2011.


    The issue is not steam quality or the "wetness of steam" but is more general. how much of the water flow is actually evaporated, and how much remains as liquid water, albeit hot?


    As to a steam atmosphere, where liquid water will exist as droplets, requiring additional heat to evaporate them, it takes superheating. This is the meaning of what Rossi claimed, that the steam was "superheated." However, superheated steam can exist above liquid water, and will not rapidly transfer its heat to the water (only to floating droplets). That is, if the temperature is measured in the vapor above, it could be substantially hotter than liquid below. So one might measure the temperature in a well, a trap, where liquid water would clearly fill the bottom. I have seen no sign this was ever done. One also needs a pressure measurement, because the boiling point of water increases with pressure.


    Without additional measures, the energy generation figures could be wildly off. Yes, possibly enough off to indicate no XP at all, above the input heat. As I've mentioned, it would even be possible to show short periods of "SSM," with no input heating power, yet the same "steam" flow continues, water continues to be boiled. The flow and the inlet and outlet temperatures remain the same.


    Testing the megawatt reactor in a configuration where the heat was being sold to a customer, with no access to that usage, then, meant that it was much more difficult to confirm the heat. One of the rumors floating about is that the "customer facility" was just a big radiator. Such a radiator, ironically, if monitored and tested, could be a very convincing demonstration of heat output. But this was all concealed.

    This is remarkable. What Iv'e been commenting on is the level of naivete Sifferkoll has been showing about U.S. law. I'm suspecting that he is equally naive about legal realities in Sweden. I am not a lawyer and especially not a Swedish lawyer. But I did study common law, carefully, many years ago. It's amazing how clueless many are. They don't teach this stuff in school, unless you study law, generally.


    So some common sense. Don't poke bears.


    The story that Sifferkoll is repeated and showing with his "evidence" is that there is a huge big-money conspiracy to suppress LENR. He thinks Dewey and others he names are part of that conspiracy. So, let's imagine he is right. What would happen?


    Basically, he'd be screwed. If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss. He'd be screwed if he's right!


    Okay, but suppose he is wrong. Dewey still may have enough money that if he's pissed off enough, he could hire a Swedish lawyer. Or he and IH and others together. He's been libelling them (in English, slander is verbal, libel is written). Pointing to evidence is not libel (unless one knows the evidence is false). However, attempting to injure the reputation of someone is. It can be illegal even if true, under some circumstances. What Sifferkoll has been claiming is what I called "evil inference," taking fact and then drawing conclusions from it that are not established by the facts, but which represent fact plus imagination, and the imagination is not rooted in reasonableness. Expressing it may be libel.

    And then if the blog is taken down, because there is a complaint to the service provider -- happens all the time! -- Sifferkoll may scream that he's being censored, and that's proof of the conspiracy! However, it might only be proof of his willingness to poke a bear, often enough to anger the bear.



    I'm going to explain why I'm taking a strong line against Sifferkoll. He has been accusing many people of corruption and lies. That makes him, in my book, fair game, with even some level of obligation to report what I see, because he is causing harm. He claims to be wanting to support LENR but is not paying any attention to a whole community who have been working for LENR for many years, people like Jed Rothwell, who has more or less invested his life in LENR. Instead, he's attacking them.


    The LENR community is very concerned about the Rossi affair. Opinions in the community vary. Many do think that Rossi might have some real effect, many others have essentially burned out. Almost nobody in the community was initially negative. That changed. What created that change? LENR skeptics?


    No. Rossi behavior.


    The community understood that Rossi was not a scientist, and forgave much. But damage accumulated. Rossi never allowed actual experts to examine his devices. He chose naive scientists with no significant experience with calorimetry, no awareness of the many easy artifacts, not to mention difficult ones. He never allowed true independent testing, always with his excuse that he needed to protect his secrets.


    And his claque, including people like Sifferkoll, encouraged him to think this was acceptable, was, perhaps, a winning strategy.


    The cost? I estimate the lost opportunity cost to humanity of delay in developing practical applications for LENR at roughly a trillion dollars per year. Whatever delays LENR application a year, that's the cost. At this point, lack of scientific rigor in public claims damages LENR and delays acceptance, which delays the full and open funding that will be necessary. Whatever looks like fraud damages LENR -- even if it's actually real!


    Mostly, I'd say, I am in denial about just how important all this is. I don't take it seriously enough.


    If the "Rossi effect" is real, it needs real support. It actually needs sober criticism, that can then be addressed and tested. It needs the process of science. But Rossi has resisted this and we can see how hostile some of his supposed "supporters" are. They are his worst enemies.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    This is remarkable. What Iv'e been commenting on is the level of naivete Sifferkoll has been showing about U.S. law. I'm suspecting that he is equally naive about legal realities in Sweden. I am not a lawyer and especially not a Swedish lawyer. But I did…


    Another absolutely excellent and intelligent assessment. I really wonder what Sifferkoll's REAL motive is shown by his constant angry violent attacks on anything anti-Rossi. I have stated my motives for being here...Dewey as well Tom and friends have articulated this clearly as well.....but then we have the Sifferkoll (whatever a Sifferkoll rights reserved is). He points the finger at time spent by Dewey in his quest to combat the ridiculous unfounded attacks on IH, yet somehow has just as much time to respond on an hourly basis. He uses his blog to bash Dewey personally with the same vitriol that randombit0 Rossi uses all for what? From the way I see it, Dewey has a vested interest, which to me, completely explains his actions. Sifferkoll on the other hand still seems to have quite the mysterious motive...or maybe he just believes in fairy tales...interesting either way....

    [ Forum-beginner -- 'quote' doesn't open a response ]


    Everything I'm analyzing is ' Rossi said' ... but I'm concentrating on whether 'Rossi-said' is consistent with his being truthful. So far, yes it is.


    Thomas Clarke wrote:Alan wrote:
    In short : the information given by Rossi is consistent with 1MW output, but doesn't prove it.


    I agree. But there is another issue here. The information given by Rossi shows already that it will be almost impossible to prove that his device is not a straight electric heater, because wetness of steam is tricky to be sure about from single temperature point measurements, and Rossi discounts all evidence except the heat of vaporisation.


    ----


    Remember that Rossi said (this thread title) that the output steam is superheated. Omitting the energy to raise the inlet water to boiling point, and to super-heat it is conservative.


    For the 1 bar case, 68KWh raises the water from 60C to boiling, 7KWh raises it from dry to superheated.


    - - - -


    Abd> A humidity meter was used to "measure steam quality," a face-palm error, showing how those involved with these measurements were inexperienced.


    That wasn't Rossi ... that was an invited expert at the very first eCat demo, from the Bolgna team led by Levi. Rossi said they could bring ANY instrument : only a spectrographic radiometer was disallowed. (Actually, the radiation burst at the start of that test is the best independent evidence we have that the eCat is real).


    Abd> This is the meaning of what Rossi claimed, that the steam was "superheated." However, superheated steam can exist above liquid water, and will not rapidly transfer its heat to the water (only to floating droplets). That is, if the temperature is measured in the vapor above, it could be substantially hotter than liquid below. So one might measure the temperature in a well, a trap, where liquid water would clearly fill the bottom. I have seen no sign this was ever done. One also needs a pressure measurement, because the boiling point of water increases with pressure.


    "Saturated" steam is 100% dry. No water droplets. Likewise for Super-heated. The transfer from the steam components to water drops is quite efficient (controlled by surface tension, but they won't last long). Also, Rossi has said that the superheater stage is separate from the boiler.


    As before : until we have the ERV report on the instrumentation and measurements (signed off by Rossi and IH) we can only evaluate direct Rossi (inlet temp,flow,saturated) and IH (none) specific statements.


    At THAT point we can consider :


    a) ERV report of COP 50 is correct (and conservative)
    b) ERV report is invalid (eg pressure not recorded -- if superheated, steam quality is not an issue)
    c) ERV report is fraudulent


    [ edit : typo only ]

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    b) ERV report is invalid (eg pressure not recorded -- if superheated, steam quality is not an issue)

    This is commonly said. Alan, this is key: steam could be superheated, running over liquid water. The steam above and the water below could be at different temperatures, and heat does not transfer efficiently under those conditions. I have never seen this issue faced, straight-on. If I'm wrong, what is the evidence?


    But I doubt I'm wrong about this and it should be relatively easy to prove the matter experimentally. I suggested a way: have a u-joint in the outlet pipe, such that water will collect at the bottom of the u, with a straight-through bypass above, the pipe designed so that steam flow will not blow modest levels of water out of the bottom, but will run overhead. Then measure the water temperature in the well that is created. If liquid water is insignificant, side-steam flow will blow any water that might accumulate out of the way, and the temperature below will be the same as temperature above. But if there is significant water with superheated steam above, that temperature difference will show. I'd want a qualified engineer to look at this!


    Basically, the idea that liquid water cannot exist in steam above some temperature is based on the water being small droplets, "wet steam." It's true. Water below the steam is not "in the steam." It is adjacent to it, with heating taking place at the relatively small surface of the water, but that it takes time to evaporate that water. So where is the measurement made? It takes far more careful study than has been done to analyze the situation.


    Sparging the steam avoids the entire issue. Measuring heat with a calibrated radiator dissipating it would also avoid the issue. Running the cooling water below boiling is also a solution. Levi wanted that and there was one test showing XP, but only Levi and a friend witnessed that .... and if Rossi is a fraud, any test could be faked, and a single-measure test may easily have some artifact. There is no such thing as a "demonstration" where fraud is impossible if the inventor or promoter controls the arrangements. Under some conditions, one might get close. This is not particular about Rossi, and is not an accusation.


    We thought that a 1 MW reactor test couldn't possibly be faked, but if the power application is concealed, it becomes not difficult at all!


    Yes, if pressure is not measured and recorded, "superheated steam" might still be true, but is based on what evidence?

    Abd said "Yes, if pressure is not measured and recorded, "superheated steam" might still be true, but is based on what evidence? '


    Without the ERV report there is no evidence either way.



    This thread has some utility / it enables us to look quickly through the ERV report to see whether the heat calculations are valid or not.


    Without the ERV report this thread will only continue as lukewarm speculation


    God Bless us with the earlier revelation of the ERV report.!

    Quote from "Abd"

    I am generally amused by those who imagine I can't think


    Didn't say that. Only pinpointed a logical inconsistency in your flood of words.


    Quote

    Sifferkoll, whose personality is obviously dominated by an obsession,


    Another diagnosis... OCD? I'll leave it to the readers so decide themselves who is the most obsessed. ;)


    Quote

    and the imagination is not rooted in reasonableness. Expressing it may be libel.
    ...
    And then if the blog is taken down, because there is a complaint to the service provider -- happens all the time! -- Sifferkoll may scream that he's being censored, and that's proof of the conspiracy! However, it might only be proof of his willingness to poke a bear, often enough to anger the bear.


    Are you making threats also? ... This is why I always show the reasoning backing up my analysis. Do I understand you correctly that you argue I should back off because either I'm telling the truth and then it would be REALLY bad for me to do that, or simply because you do not like my conclusions? Or both? And then, on top of that, you're trying to justify the censorship of my blog on this screwed up reasoning.... Wow!



    Quote

    I'm going to explain why I'm taking a strong line against Sifferkoll. He has been accusing many people of corruption and lies. That makes him, in my book, fair game,


    Fair game for what Abd? Fair game for what? ... this is an interesting piece of double standard by someone who would not even consider entertaining the thought that Rossi might have what he says, and see absolutely no problem accusing him of any number of diagnoses or malicious actions, with a lot less (or nothing) to back it up.


    Below I'll quote what I believe to be your main psychological issue Abd. It's about being new in the game; ie being an outsider in the LENR community - which also applies to Rossi - we are simply not welcome here, as you feel, you were not (until you paid your dues) when you entered. So we should stick to the "rules", eh? And respect the so called authorities?


    Quote

    He claims to be wanting to support LENR but is not paying any attention to a whole community who have been working for LENR for many years, people like Jed Rothwell, who has more or less invested his life in LENR. Instead, he's attacking them.
    ...
    No. Rossi behavior.The community understood that Rossi was not a scientist, and forgave much. But damage accumulated. Rossi never allowed actual experts to examine his devices. He chose naive scientists with no significant experience with calorimetry, no awareness of the many easy artifacts, not to mention difficult ones. He never allowed true independent testing, always with his excuse that he needed to protect his secrets.
    ...
    I was an outsider, paid my dues with intense study and writing, and was welcomed into the LENR research community, where I have made significant contributions as a writer and editor, and that is accelerating. People like Sifferkoll give LENR a bad name.


    Meditate on these last sentences of yours. It'll help you. I promise.

    Quote

    "Saturated" steam is 100% dry. No water droplets. Likewise for Super-heated. The transfer from the steam components to water drops is quite efficient (controlled by surface tension, but they won't last long). Also, Rossi has said that the superheater stage is separate from the boiler.


    The difference between dry (and superheated is equivalent for this purpose) and wet steam is up to 1000kW. The power needed to heat from 60C is 70kW. And of course the 60C return temperature is a Rossisays "typical" value. There is no reason to suppose that during this test the return temperature is typical and Rossi has for reasons of his own asked for this not to be taken into account: it is therefore unlikely that it will be in the ERV report.


    Rossi has never (to my knowledge) said that his device has a separate superheating stage. He was asked a question about that which implied "a superheater would be good". He did not give a direct reply, saying that his equipment was complicated, in such a way as to appear to be agreeing with the questioner.


    This is typical Rossi behaviour. He answers positive questions "yes" if he can. Otherwise he gives an enigmatic answer that can be interpreted as agreement without saying this, or some reason why the questioner is wrong.


    Alan is quite right that with the correct setup and the correct measurements we could be sure that the output from Rossi's plant was 100% dry vapour with no liquid water. In that case the power delivered would be 1MW as long as the return fluid was liquid - and i don't think the flowmeter would register return gas so that is probably not an issue. Alan is also right that we will not know whether we have that until after seeing the ERV report - and likely not then if it is incomplete.


    However, this test is supremely easy to spoof, and difficult to be sure about, because:
    (1) The power is delivered as phase change which is difficult to quantify
    (2) The measurements of liquid temperature before and after the ecat, which together with flowrate would give a lower bound on output power of around 70kW - enough to be sure commercial levels of LENR magic were actually happening - are specifically not considered.


    Rossi is responsible for both of these existing facts, and that is negative. It would be over-ruled at any time by secure independent measurement of a working device - and could be so from the ERV report if that was complete, accurate, and positive. That has always been true, and will always continue to be true.

    @ Hi all,
    first comment here.


    Referring to the first Ecat tests of 2011, Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    - "A humidity meter was used to "measure steam quality," a face-palm error, showing how those involved with these measurements were inexperienced."


    Alan Fletcher added:
    - "That wasn't Rossi ... that was an invited expert at the very first eCat demo, from the Bolgna team led by Levi."


    The reality is quite different.


    The "humidity meter", Levi said to have been used in order to verify the steam dryness, appears only in his report, but it was not at all used in the demo of January 14, 2011. So, not only it was an inadequate instrument for the purpose, but it wasn't there! Its presence has been invented in order to support the idea that the water exited the Ecat as dry steam.


    Photos taken during the test show clearly that the probe inserted on top of the Ecat is not the Delta Ohm probe cited in the Levi's report (1). There is no way to think that the author of the calorimetric report was not aware of that discrepancy. It's not a matter of inexperience, he was a member of a Physics Department, and had a plenty of knowledge to assess the importance of that measurement and how to properly do it. And moreover, just typing HP474AC on Google, he could have immediately got many pictures of an object (the real Delta Ohm probe) which is completely different from the probe that was in front of him during the test.


    Considering that the missing probe wasn't the only flaw in the January 14 calorimetric report (2), it makes no sense wondering about the soundness of the results reported by him, including those in the reports of the HotCat tests held in Ferrara and Lugano of which Levi is the lead author. IMO, the credibility of all the data he reported can be taken into consideration only after he will have explained the rationale of the flaws contained ìn his January 2011 report.


    (1) http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg
    (2) http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3219628&postcount=83

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.