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

Quote from Tom Paulsen

I disagree. Payment condition for the 89m$ is 350 days of operation with "Guaranteed Performance" (aside of some exclusions about other products entering the market with E-Cat IP or if the plant would infringe IP of an third party).

The ERV report respectively the ERV's written statement that for 350 days the "Guaranteed Performance" has been achieved is the "payment condition". (3.2(c) and 5.)

I disagree with your disagreement.
"Guaranteed Performance" is described and defined in Section 5 of the agreement. Pursuant to said section the EV shall "confirm " the performance. In other words, the ERV-report is not the ultimate condition for payment, it is a means by which evidence of perfomance is provided.

Quote from sifferkoll

Quote from "renzzzzzie": “ if you were smart enough to put a (R) behind your name”

Wow renzzie! You really DO have serious psychological issues with that R ... <img src="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/biggrin.png" alt=":D" />

Psychological issues? That makes no sense. I am still not sure if you just have a horrible sense of humor and sarcasm or if you have a communication barrier you are battling. I think anyone who puts an (R) behind their name is actually the one who needs psychological help....I mean who on earth does that??? You are an odd individual...

Quote from sifferkoll

My name? I thought you paid at least one visit to http://sifferkoll.se and bothered to do some research! It is actually a real trademark. And it is a word, not a name. It was not intended for this "lenr show" to start with (since the show did not exist at the time), but for other businesses. It has taken on a life of it's own since then though. I admit that.

Thank you for this information, I will review it and take note.

quizzical wrote: "Eric,
You've assumed here that the ERV's report does not clearly show excess heat, even though you haven't seen the report. Why is that? Do you have inside information you're not telling us about?"

Eric wrote: "quizzical, could you please point out in which comment I've made this assumption? I assume to the contrary, that the ERV report will mention a COP of ~ 50 (within caveats that will no doubt be provided)."

Eric,
I refer to the following comment of yours:
"Your legal conclusions seem to be based on an assumption that the court will rule according to the letter of the license agreement rather than the intent. Let's set aside for the moment any difficulties one might have with the possibility that the court will rule in favor of Leonardo rather than IH on that narrow basis. If we assume instead that the court will take into consideration the intent of the agreement as well, we need only observe that intent of at least one of the parties (IH) was that what it was paying for a 1MW LENR device and enabling IP related to it. We can assume that their intent was not something along the lines of, `Well, we'll give you 100 million for whatever it is you have, even if it is in the final analysis unverifiable because of incompetence or interference, or verifiably not a LENR device and related IP.' "

I'm not sure if it's really worth following up on this, but am I wrong in assuming that the portion in bold above is an indication that you think that the 1 MW test resulted in a negative or inconclusive result, e.g. "does not clearly show excess heat", even though you haven't seen the ERV report? Or do you still have an open mind on the question of whether or not the 1-year test successfully demonstrated significant excess power?

Quote from quizzical

I'm not sure if it's really worth following up on this, but am I wrong in assuming that the portion in bold above is an indication that you think that the 1 MW test resulted in a negative or inconclusive result, e.g. "does not clearly show excess heat", even though you haven't seen the ERV report? Or do you still have an open mind on the question of whether or not the 1-year test successfully demonstrated significant excess power?

What you have highlighted in bold is a hypothetical statement I made about what IH were agreeing to, together with a suggestion as to what they might be thinking about the ERV's report. I have not seen the ERV's report myself. Perhaps I'll find it rigorous and compelling, although I am pessimistic. But my assessment of the quality of the ERV's report when it becomes available will have no bearing on the argument I was making, which was that the court will not necessarily adopt a narrow reading of the terms of the license agreement in adjudicating the matter. It may decide that since IH felt that the ERV's assessment was fundamentally deficient in one way or another it is necessary to step back and look at the bigger picture, i.e., the intent of the agreement, as well as whether IH's complaints have merit. Or perhaps it won't, if Tom Paulsen is correct, and it will seek out IH's intent and the manner of meeting it through the judgment of the ERV solely by consulting the wording of the agreement itself. This is also a possibility.

Thomas Clarke wrote: ". . . but I do remember that Jed was *very adamant* that the water would remain boiling in the pot far less time than what was demonstrated during the Oct. 6, 2011 test."

Pretty adamant, I suppose. I do not recall.

I believe I based that assertion on the specific heat of iron, which is one-tenth that of water. Even if the inside of the Rossi device were heated to incandescence, it could not hold much heat compared to the water surrounding it. When a blacksmith takes a heavy piece of iron, heats it to incandescence, and then quenches it in water, very little water boils away. The metal instantly cools.

Jed Rothwell said "When a blacksmith takes a heavy piece of iron, heats it to incandescence, and then quenches it in water, very little water boils away. The metal instantly cools. "

not instantly... but within 1-2 seconds.

However.. the E-cat may not be like solid iron.. but may be more rocklike or with vapour spaces leading to poor conductivity, at least for some parts, which will lengthen the cooling process. cf lava

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu…ng-does-it-take-lava-cool

Quote from robert bryant

Jed Rothwell said "When a blacksmith takes a heavy piece of iron, heats it to incandescence, and then quenches it in water, very little water boils away. The metal instantly cools. "

not instantly... but within 1-2 seconds.

However.. the E-cat may not be like solid iron.. but may be more rocklike or with vapour spaces leading to poor conductivity, at least for some parts, which will lengthen the cooling process. cf lava

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu…ng-does-it-take-lava-cool

Display More

I would think it would have to be incredibly porous for this to make much of a difference plus I would think it would cause it to be much less structurally stable.

Porous fire bricks are structurally stable... is it worthwhile to do some math calculation to
test these porous versus adamantine assertions?? .
I'd rather that math calculations on the zitterbewegung magnetic attraction of a proton and an electron be done.

Quote from robert bryant

Porous fire bricks are structurally stable... is it worthwhile to do some math calculation to
test these porous versus adamantine assertions?? .
I'd rather that math calculations on the zitterbewegung magnetic attraction of a proton and an electron be done.

I think comparing the structural integrity of thin walls of the E-Cat at stated temperatures with the claimed reactions is a bit of a stretch when comparing the structural integrity of a porous fire brick with heat applied. Im not sure math calculations would get you very far, possibly a simulation might yield some rough results.

Radiation is far less effective than conduction. If you folks are thinking of modelling these loose couplings, small air gaps are where I suggest some progress could be made, with a dense core of high heat capacity.

stephenrenz said "yield rough results"

True,simulation might decide which "I think" is more valid
Sorry , I don't have a readily available E-cat simulator .. do you?

Without that any adamant assertion will remain porous.
In the meantime Equation 12 in Lush's paper is bothering me.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.8271
Know of anyone with a zitter simulator or anyone who can solve it when the electron approaches the proton?

I am new to this great forum, but have been an ardent observer of LENR/ ne cold fusion for many years. Periodic sampling of all sources of LENR "action" by an objective individual, taken over a period of even five years, would in most cases, yield progress deltas in the noise levels, and I say that as someone who believes that certain observed phenomenon prove LENR. One has to be skeptical if he is honest about the known facts.

Two things some people should keep in mind. Everything seems simple when you don't know what you're talking about, and why does there always have to be the not-quite-intellectual equivalent of a drunken brawl in some of these threads ? Needless wear and tear on my rods and cones,,

Quote from robert bryant

stephenrenz said "yield rough results"

True,simulation might decide which "I think" is more valid
Sorry , I don't have a readily available E-cat simulator .. do you?

Without that any adamant assertion will remain porous.
In the meantime Equation 12 in Lush's paper is bothering me.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.8271
Know of anyone with a zitter simulator or anyone who can solve it when the electron approaches the proton?

Display More

If you are asserting that a simulation is not possible (comparing the structural integrity of a fire brick to what we would assume is the thickness of the E-Cat walls), then math will get you no further either. I am not quite understanding your angle with this response......

Quote from JedRothwell

I believe I based that assertion on the specific heat of iron, which is one-tenth that of water. Even if the inside of the Rossi device were heated to incandescence, it could not hold much heat compared to the water surrounding it. When a blacksmith takes a heavy piece of iron, heats it to incandescence, and then quenches it in water, very little water boils away. The metal instantly cools.

Well, your model seemed rooted in real-world experience that anyone can identify with, which is why it stuck with me after all these years.

Ascoli65 has built (I'm assuming Ascoli65 is male, forgive me Ascoli65 if not) his own numeric model and has alleged that you mis-applied Newton's law of cooling.

Ascoli65: Rothwell rightly cited the Newton's law of cooling, but he applied it to the wrong element: the cooling water, the only element of the fat-cat, of which the values of the measured temperature were disclosed. In reality, he should have applied this law to the inner "hot core" . . .
Mats Lewan's Test Report

I have questioned Ascoli65 as to the assumptions inherently necessary in his model:
Mats Lewan's Test Report

Do you still stand by your analysis?

stephenrenzz said "if you are asserting"

The only thing that I am asserting that without simulation or calculation assertions remain assertions.
If you want to simulate ... you are welcome.

stephenrenzz said "if you are asserting"

The only thing that I am asserting that without simulation or calculation assertions remain assertions.
If you want to simulate ... you are welcome.

Quote from robert bryant

stephenrenzz said "if you are asserting"

The only thing that I am asserting that without simulation or calculation assertions remain assertions.
If you want to simulate ... you are welcome.

I must have misunderstood your point then....I thought you were saying running math formulas would give us some answers while a simulation was not possible. Understood.