Abd wrote (in part)
Quote...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.
What do you regard as your most significant contribution(s)?
I'm no scientist. Just a humble code-jockey. But if the output from the "reactor" went to a radiator submerged in a water bath and the temperature of that water was constantly measured. Wouldn't that solve all speculation on the validity of the experiment? And it doesn't "reveal any secrets". So why won't Rossi allow this? My only theory is: he has nothing.
Hi Mark.
There are many ways in which the heat output of the Rossi plant could be measured. You suggestion is one of them. But just because he never did it that way doesn't mean he has nothing. It means we don't know for sure what he really has.
Granted that it doesn't PROVE that he has nothing. Which is why I said that was my *theory*. I didn't say that he definitely has nothing because I can't know. But why wouldn't he want a true verification? And REALLY? I'm down voted? Was my post offensive to somebody in some way?
Granted that it doesn't PROVE that he has nothing. Which is why I said that was my *theory*. I didn't say that he definitely has nothing because I can't know. But why wouldn't he want a true verification? And REALLY? I'm down voted? Was my post offensive to somebody in some way?
1. No-one knows for sure why Rossi is so resistant to proper verification, but many think the worst.
2. Your post was in no way offensive. Except to True Believers. It is impossible to post on this subject without one person or another taking offence
3. Look at it this way. If you have been down-voted, at least someone has read your post.
Thomas,
While I agree with some of your post, these are two matters that I take issue with:
Otherwise he gives an enigmatic answer that can be interpreted as agreement without saying this, or some reason why the questioner is wrong.
That may be so, but the fact of the matter is, the unofficial IH spokespersons have been doing precisely the same. Even worse, they allow implications to ripple through the community knowing full well that an underlying misunderstanding is present. But hey, if it suits their objective, then truth be damned.
(1) The power is delivered as phase change which is difficult to quantify
Phase change of water to steam is one of the most well-understood phenomena in science. I wouldn't say that it is all that difficult to quantify.
I'm no scientist. Just a humble code-jockey. But if the output from the "reactor" went to a radiator submerged in a water bath and the temperature of that water was constantly measured. Wouldn't that solve all speculation on the validity of the experiment? And it doesn't "reveal any secrets". So why won't Rossi allow this? My only theory is: he has nothing.
A dual-circuit test was done with the e-Cat years ago, again with positive results (as they all have had). Once circuit had steam, which led to a heat exchanger, which warmed a second circuit of liquid water. The temperature of the liquid water was measured over time.
We can all hope that "THE" definitive test will prove to the world that the e-Cat works and show that Rossi has what he claims. But the reality is that every test will be attacked, every result will be attacked, and there will never be any kind of resolution using this approach. After numerous tests, all with positive results, all sharply disputed, Rossi knows very very well that the only way to move LENR+ forward is to get products into the marketplace. That is why you see his energy focused heavily on this aspect now.
Quote from IHFBPhase change of water to steam is one of the most well-understood phenomena in science. I wouldn't say that it is all that difficult to quantify.
It is necessary to follow through these thoughts. Phase change inside a pipe is difficult to quantify because you do not know how much is vapour and how much liquid. Spot temperature does not necessarily help because of inhomogeneity in the flow and non-equilibrium conditions.
That is pretty obvious and Rossi has used it before in a demo assuming that output is vapour when actually it was liquid.
QuoteA dual-circuit test was done with the e-Cat years ago, again with positive results (as they all have had).
the tests have all (to my knowledge) been designed with errors of setup or measurement that allow these positive results - so many such and what you say becomes negative information.
But I don't remember the one you reference. Give a link to the report?
There are many ways in which the heat output of the Rossi plant could be measured. You suggestion is one of them. But just because he never did it that way doesn't mean he has nothing. It means we don't know for sure what he really has.
Since sparging the steam into a large barrel of water and then measuring the delta T, or using a heat exchanger, is an obvious improvement over attempting the kind of phase change calorimetry seen in many of the E-Cat tests, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Rossi has specially wanted to avoid a more rigorous approach. One can draw what conclusions one wishes from that.
And REALLY? I'm down voted? Was my post offensive to somebody in some way?
Downvotes here are mostly noise. Think of this place as a loud bar, with people arguing past one another and often missing one another's points.
I don't remember the one you reference. Give a link to the report?
http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…ces-proof-of-heat-6419717
the tests have all (to my knowledge) been designed with errors of setup or measurement that allow these positive results
No experiment or test is perfect, and every experiment and test can be attacked. So you are basically reinforcing what I said. That is why the only way to resolve this will be working products in the marketplace. This, Rossi understands.
Thank you for pointing out that detail about the October 6, 2011, Bologna test. That there was a heat exchanger there makes things more rather than less interesting.
No experiment or test is perfect, and every experiment and test can be attacked. So you are basically reinforcing what I said. That is why the only way to resolve this will be working products in the marketplace. This, Rossi understands.
It is in no wise obvious that a series of experiments could not be gradually improved upon until the heat signal from the E-Cat is basically indisputable. I would guess to the contrary — getting to that point should be straightforward, given enough iterations. That Rossi has not gone in this direction is presumably because he hasn't seen it to be in his interests.
A wrinkle here is that IH, which, at least up till recently, was the funder that would have enabled Rossi to get a product to market, seems to have insisted on rigorous testing. Assuming Rossi makes it through the legal difficulties that will be coming up, perhaps he will find other investors that do not have such a preoccupation.
IHFB - do you have links to the test report and temp data? The nyteknik links are broken and were likely taken down.
Eric - the body of the report mentions the blocked shipment of what I think was the original 1MW unit to a customer in the US.
Does anyone know if this is the same unit that Rossi later claimed was shipped but then ended up spotted and photographed in his possession after the stated ship date?
A wrinkle here is that IH, which, at least up till recently, was the funder that would have enabled Rossi to get a product to market, seems to have insisted on rigorous testing.
And rigorous testing they got, by way of a year-long test observed closely by all parties having a stake in the matter, and by an expert referee.
Assuming Rossi makes it through the legal difficulties that will be coming up, perhaps he will find other investors that do not have such a preoccupation.
Persuading high net-worth investors to part with money is not simple. My guess is that all would be preoccupied with rigorous testing and test results. I'm not sure IH ever had it in them to manufacture anything. It appears like it was more of a speculative play on the IP, probably in the hopes of someday arranging a sublicense and taking a royalty. In fact, I think this is one of the primary friction points with Rossi. Rossi seems to have expected a large production effort from IH. Darden has apparently said "there is no production." Given that Rossi is an inventor/industrialist type, that probably rubs him the wrong way.
And rigorous testing they got, by way of a year-long test observed closely by all parties having a stake in the matter, and by an expert referee.
Try arguing this simple assertion before a panel of experts at measuring industrial-level heat balances.
Technically speaking, we in the peanut gallery don't have enough information to conclude whether the 1MW test was rigorous or not, except to note that Rossi would not allow IH's expert access to the customer installation, which does not bode well for anyone who might be hoping that the testing was rigorous. Perhaps you are being contrarian here and see the need to speak up for the underdog in this instance.
Despite the lack of information that would help us to definitively conclude whether or not the testing was rigorous, there are some contraindications:
Hopefully the 1MW test, as Rossi has set it up, is not his idea of a foolproof test.
A 1MW unit was far from necessary, and a 1kW or 100 W unit, running over a much shorter period of time, would have been easier to characterize.
You make some decent points, and while I could counter on each one, I'll just say this: The 1MW unit test was contractually required, and agreed to by IH from the get-go. That people complain about why Rossi insisted on following through on the 1MW plant test really boggles my mind.
QuoteNo experiment or test is perfect, and every experiment and test can be attacked. So you are basically reinforcing what I said. That is why the only way to resolve this will be working products in the marketplace. This, Rossi understands.
That is like saying that because no string player is perfect you should hire random string players for your orchestra.
Some tests are obviously flawed, some tests are pretty bomb-proof and difficult to criticise. Proving a long-term COP of 3 or so does not require elaborate calorimetry or complex tests. Rossi chooses obviously flawed tests and repeats the same flaws after they have been pointed out time and again. It is not as though better tests are more complex or difficult.
So I'd suggest that at a minimum you must agree that Rossi does not understand, or else wants his tests all to be inconclusive, for whatever reason.
Thomas - one of several terminal problems with the "ERV" is that the flowmeter mention is just that - a one word mention "flowmeter". No manf. make, model number, specification or anything that would be useful in determining some needed facts. Even more interesting, the previous "ERV" reports to IH did contain flowmeter information and a specification problem was noted and questioned without a response before the final "ERV" was issued. Needless to say, a "flowmeter" controversy is in the forecast.
