Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • axil


    While we are waiting for experimentation on weak force, let me ask you: do you believe that actually cold fusion reactions exist, but they are all rejected by all databases?


    I provided the list of reactions to you, did you look at it? If you did, you can answer that question for yourself. Do you lead or are you a follower? A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader. Do you want to add to those databases or be imprisoned by them?

  • axil

    Quote

    I provided the list of reactions to you, did you look at it?


    You only provided me with this list of reactions made at Super-Kamiokande:
    http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.…publications/index-e.html
    I can't find anything else.
    I hope you do not consider weak reactions useful in this context, where people are looking for useful energy. At Super-Kamokande a nuclear event/day is a great success.
    In my opinion we should stay linked at the thread, which is cold fusion. Super-Kamiokande has nothing to do with us.
    Are you interested in a particular cold reaction? Write it down and I'll give you all the information I can get from BNL database. Are you American? BNL is American, I hope you rely on it.


  • The connection between Super-Kamiokande and LENR is the GUT theory of LENR where the nucleon decays as a result of EMF force screening. Super-Kamiokande is looking for nucleon decay.


    See for background


    A simplified theory of LENR

  • Progress, not baloney. I'll sign up for that.
    In a blind taste test, can the average person tell the difference between baloney and Spam?
    Well, what a watered down abyss is average these days.
    Spam is a treat, not a pejorative, to many.
    Do you want Cheeze Whiz with that?
    Bologna and baloney. The same thing to most. They can't spell either anyways, so WTF? Cheeze Whiz is a treat, so baloney is, like, a super treat.

  • Paradigmnoia

    Quote

    Bologna and baloney. The same thing to most.


    Joking is easy for you, not for an Italian. Piantelli, Focardi, Levi, Rossi, Celani, Violante are all Italians. Somebody said that cold fusion speaks Italian and Japanese. Not a relished compliment indeed. Italians can do better. The present general manager of CERN is an Italian woman, Fabiola Gianotti.

  • No, because this was a demonstration under the control of Rossi. This was not a group of experts testing; rather, they observed a demonstration.


    No, it wasn't. As written in the press release (1), the January 14, 2011 test was announced to be "held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna".


    It has been confirmed the same day of the demo by Focardi in his welcome speech to the invited public (2): "There are some colleagues of the Department of Physics which are providing the calibration of different instruments that are used for measurement".


    It have been fully confirmed after the demo in the Brief Technical Description (BTD) (3), where we can read: "The experiment was organized by Dr. Giuseppi Levi to establish the ECat’s performance as a “black box”. That is, Dr. Levi’s instruments measured the electrical power and hydrogen supplied to and consumed by the ECat and measured the amount and temperature of the water to be heated to steam by the ECat, which was operated by Dr. Rossi." And further: "There is another probe without its electronics that measures the dryness of the exiting steam. The instrument used was a Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor that was operated by a specialist on the faculty of the University of Bologna."


    You see? It was a "black box" test. Rossi was only operating the Ecat. All the calorimetric instruments were under the control of the physicists of UniBo, even those for checking the dryness of the steam.


    We can be sure of this, because the title of the BTD includes the name of "University of Bologna, and INFN" and, in announcing its loading in his library, JR said that he got all the okay's (4). So we should presume that JR sent the BTD draft to the proper representatives of those scientific Institutions, some people there thoroughly verified its content, and finally gave the okay to let the BTD be published. Unless someone (not Rossi) reported untrue information.


    Quote

    Rather, any physicist or anyone with certain science training may know enough to understand calorimetry, but not have the experience to know where it can go wrong or can be fooled. They would not be familiar with possible artifacts.


    Whom are you talking about? Levi? No, sorry, you are wrong.


    He teaches physics in the most prestigious Italian Department of Physics, this fact alone excludes that he could have been fooled by a philosopher with a controversial past. Moreover, he has patents on coffee machines, so he has some extra reasons to be informed about steam and heat balance, and, above all, he was a member of a Skeptic Society and also a passionate of magic (5).


    In conclusion, Levi had by far all the scientific knowledge to understand the simple flow calorimetry used in the demo and all the required suspiciousness and skills to detect any possible artifact or trick. It's absolutely impossible that Rossi could have fooled him.


    That the Delta Ohm instrument was not present at some point during the test is not shown. What is shown is that a different probe was plugged in to a different instrument (at 17:90). However, that other instrument had no means for measuring humidity, or what Galantini thought would tell him steam quality, water grams per cubic meter. So at some point, it's not clear, and assuming his statements are true and Levi's as well, he insterted Delta Ohn probe and used the meter to read off grams per cubic meter. He only had to do it once, there is no claim it was done more than once.


    Let me understand. You admit that at 17:09 (in the middle of the presumed maximum power period) a temperature probe (let's call it T), different from the Delta Ohm probe (let's call it RH) cited in the report, was present on the top of the Ecat and was used by Galantini. Fine, up to here we agree.


    But you say that, at some point, the T probe could have been substituted by the RH probe. Don't you?


    Well, look, please, at the following photo of Passerini which shows the image of the lab as appeared on a monitor in the main saloon crowded of people (6):

    There was at least six people in the lab. Four were around the Ecat, a device which, in that moment, was expected to generate 16 kW of heat from an unknown nuclear source, which was cooled by means of a flow of hot dry steam at about 100 °C. Have you an idea of the velocity of a jet of steam escaping from the hole of 14 mm of diameter at the top of the Ecat? It would have been around 70 m/s, assuming the hole was fully free from obstacles. You can imagine by yourself (or maybe not) what would happen during the removing and the introduction of a probe in that hole, placed at the same level of the people heads.


    Consider that in order to support your hypothesis, there should have been a double switching of probes (T-RH-T) in only a few minutes, before (13 minutes) or after (7 minutes) the photo. That's absurd. The photo shows that the man(Galantini?) holding the portable instrument doesn't seem to be in hurry. He is relaxed, one hand in the pocket. There is nothing that allows us to suppose that he just switched twice, or was going to switch, the probes inside a nuclear reactor producing 16 kW of hot steam: no gloves for touching the stem of the probes, no safety mask (or helmet) to protect his face and those of the other people from the unavoidable steam jets.


    Your hypothesis is not realistic, it’s a vain tentative to provide a consistency to the statements about the use of the Delta Ohm instruments cited in the Rothwell's BTD and in the Levi's report. Those instruments have not been used for checking the dryness of the steam in the January 14, 2011 demo, and, therefore, someone has invented their presence in the test.


    (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml
    (2) "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0ysNSN9Ng" Video 1/3
    (3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf 
    (4) "https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41484.html"
    (5) http://www.youtube.com/user/gbblevi
    (6) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_852S…0111rossifocardi1709b.jpg


  • Well said. Time someone spoke up for Bologna University and Professor Levi in particular.

  • Bologna and baloney. The same thing to most.


    Watch this video of top pathoskeptic, and wizened fool, James Randi:


    youtu.be/3BemTGkjl6U?t=336


    It's apparent that he's never heard of the world's oldest university (Bologna), describing it as "crap" not worth mentioning. Then he goes on to pronounce his views, as if he is some kind of physics professor, and not a former circus performer.

  • Cam:

    Quote

    You need reactors, not theories.

    Hear hear! You need powerful enough and long-running enough reactors tested completely independently of their inventor by highly capable renown organizations. You need replicable results, at least statistically. And it has never happened.


    Quote

    In conclusion, Levi had by far all the scientific knowledge to understand the simple flow calorimetry used in the demo and all the required suspiciousness and skills to detect any possible artifact or trick. It's absolutely impossible that Rossi could have fooled him.


    I do agree that nobody took proper precautions nor does the ecat seem to heat anything which has led to this old lampooning of Rossi photo page: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Rossicaptions For all the power the ecat is supposed to make and for the smallness of the room, it seems pretty icy in there.


    Levi is an undistinguished, obviously (from his appearance) very stressed out, assistant professor (since forever) who has written no significant paper on his own (or as leading author) in any area of physics, nuclear engineering or related fields. His main area of interest and accomplishment seems to be coffee brewing devices. I suspect Rossi pulled the wool over his eyes with the same ease Rossi bamboozled poor Focardi.
    https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/giuseppe.levi/ <-- Levi's CV and publication list (tabs) Google translate is your friend if you don't read Italian.


    BTW, James Randi is a hero who has saved countless lives by exposing dangerous scams and who has saved investors millions if not billions of dollars.


    Post edited to remove allegations of improper conduct by someone other than Rossi. Alan.

  • ascoli65


    Quote

    In conclusion, Levi had by far all the scientific knowledge to understand the simple flow calorimetry used in the demo and all the required suspiciousness and skills to detect any possible artifact or trick. It's absolutely impossible that Rossi could have fooled him.


    If Levi had had the scientific knowledge to evaluate the E-Cat he wouldn't have reported that the reactor works. He was fooled not by Rossi or Focardi, rather by his cultural inadequacy.

  • Mary Yugo

    Quote

    I don't know what "cultural inadequacy" means. Please explain.


    I mean that Levi wasn't competent in Technical Physics nor in Nuclear Science. If he had been, he would have immediately recognized that the E-Cat didn't work.

  • I mean that Levi wasn't competent in Technical Physics nor in Nuclear Science. If he had been, he would have immediately recognized that the E-Cat didn't work.


    @ Cam' That is total crap. Here is Levi's Nuclear Scince Bio. Much much better than yours, I am sure.




    Dr. Giuseppe Levi CURRICULUM VITAE 1990 Graduated in Physics at the University of Perugia December 6, 1990 with a score of 110/110 discussing the thesis "Project of a muon spectrometer and development of a new detector for the study of inter actions fundamental up to the TeV scale. " 1991 Winner of one of the 25 scholarships for graduates by the INFN (second nationally ranked.) collaborator for about 6 months at" BOREXINO "project for the construction of a detector of solar neutrinos at the Gran Sasso National laboratory. 1992-95 PhD student at the University of Bologna. Visiting Student at the DESY laboratory in Hamburg to carry out the doctoral thesis collaborating ZEUS experiment. 1995 PhD with a thesis on "Installing the detector 'Wall' and identification of J / psy in having ZEUS." 1996 Associate INFN, section of Bologna, with the AMS experiment group for the launch into orbit of a spectrometer in space. In addition to research and development and a systems functions for the AMS experiment, he holds laboratory lessons of the course Laboratory 2 of the 4 th year and is part of the examination. 1997-98 Winner of a scholarship postdoctoral two-year by the University of Bologna. 1999 Wins a place as a researcher in Nuclear Physics and Sub at the University of Bologna and take the 10/1/1999 service. 2000-06 He works as a researcher at the ' University of Bologna working experiment AMS2 and taking some lessons for Experimentations Physics Laboratory courses 1 and 4. 2001 are assigned exercises PHYSICS II as part of the course in computer science degree (Cesena). 2002-08 becomes Researcher confirmed and entrusted exercises LABORATORY III as part of the degree course in Physics (Bologna). It is part of the examination. He was entrusted with the course of Physics of Complex Systems (Degree in Computer Science (Cesena)) that holds for AA. 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005. For the School of Health Physics lectures of Nuclear Physics and Subnucleare (first year.) It is supervisor of numerous dissertations and supervisor of a thesis in Computer Science. He continues its activitiesin AMS and scientific at the same time he devoted himself to new areas of research in fundamental and applied physics. He is responsible for the Bologna Montecarlo AMS02 production. It is responsible for the Bologna section of DASIPM activities for the realization of silicon photomultipliers. in 2009-10 in addition to the activities already mentioned becomes technical manager for the Computer laboratory of the Physics Department at Via Irnerio. Unable to start direct cooperation between INFN and Microsoft Corporation. Use the Microsoft HPC cluster in Redmond to speed up the execution of the reconstruction of tomographic code XRay Imaging Group. His work is reported among the success stories of Microsoft. In 2011 using a cluster installed by him in Bologna deals with genetic classification together with Prof. Daniel Remondini. In AA2010 / 11 owns the courses Programming Parallel and Distributed Systems, and Electronic Devices for Information Technology at the Degree Course in Computer Science of Cesena. E 'confirmed as owner of the courses for the academic 2011/12. In 2011 also he deals with LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions).

  • I was a little disappointed in his report. I recall I asked him if he had photos of the flowmeter, power supply and other equipment. It would have been easy to take a photo or jot down the make and models. He did not. There were no such details in the report.


    Yes, you are right (*). Make and model of all the instruments are the first information, which should be provided in a technical report, especially if they have been used to measure an extraordinary (uhm, let's say incredible too) result. But …


    But in the Brief Technical Description (BTD) on the January 14, 2011 demo (1), that you edited/assembled/compiled/released (choose your verb) there were no such details. Well, there was just one, the "Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor", a portable instrument that needs to be connected to one of its special probes (2), but neither the portable instrument nor any of its probes did appear in any of the many photos (3) and in the videos (4) of the demo available on the web since the first hours from the demo.


    You asked "the researchers" whom you e-mailed your Brief Report (BR), a sort of predecessor of the subsequent BDC and BTD, to "add the name and models of some [I wonder why only some!] of the instruments" (5).


    Two days later you made public on Vortex the "Brief Description of Calorimetry" (BDC) which, FWIK, mentions for the first time in the open web the Delta Ohm instrument (6): "An HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor (Delta Ohm) to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is to confirm that it is “dry steam”; that is, steam only, with no water droplets." No other instrument was cited in your BDC.


    So, I wonder (don't worry, I just ask to myself) the reasons why the same person, who is now so severe with Krivit for not having mentioned any make and model of the instruments he saw, published in his turn, only 3 days after the January 14, 2011 demo, a report on the calorimetry, announcing the production of 12 kW of excess heat (!), without listing any info on the real instruments used, apart for an IAQ Monitor which was not there.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf 
    (2) http://www.otm.sg/blogs/post/F…ment-probes/#.V6CFYmOP9co
    (3) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html - versione 21gen10
    (4) "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw" - video 2/3
    (5) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html"
    (6) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41442.html"


    (*) Btw. I'm glad to see that, after more than 5 years, you still recall exactly what you asked to Krivit. Probably, Krivit is much more important for you than the "people in the project" that revealed to you all the calorimetric data of the January 2011 demo.

  • So, I wonder (don't worry, I just ask to myself) the reasons why the same person, who is now so severe with Krivit for not having mentioned any make and model of the instruments he saw, published in his turn, only 3 days after the January 14, 2011 demo, a report on the calorimetry, announcing the production of 12 kW of excess heat (!), without listing any info on the real instruments used, apart for an IAQ Monitor which was not there.


    It wasn't my report! I just edited it. I have edited over 100 papers for the ICCF proceedings. If you start holding me responsible for the content of everything I edit, I will be guilty, guilty, guilty of bad science for life.


    You saw I left a blank space in the report, hoping to get specific information on the instruments. It never came. Assuming their conclusions were wrong, and there was no heat, that kind of sloppiness is probably one of the reasons they were wrong.


    Probably, Krivit is much more important for you than the "people in the project" that revealed to you all the calorimetric data of the January 2011 demo.


    Neither is important to me, but I checked and the people asked me to keep their names off the record, so I will do that.

  • Well said. Time someone spoke up for Bologna University and Professor Levi in particular.


    I'm really convinced that Levi, as all his colleagues involved in the Ecat project, had all the required knowledges to perform a correct assessment of the calorimetry of the Ecat during the demo and the subsequent tests (it was not at all rocket science), and that he was also well aware (in this case more than his colleagues) of all the possible tricks usable to manipulate the final results. So, Rossi couldn't be able to fool anyone there at the Physics Department of UniBo, especially Levi.


    But I'm also convinced that the main 3 calorimetric data in his report (specific enthalpy, cooling flow rate, and boiling duration) were heavily and blatantly overestimated, in a way which couldn't have been ignored by any physicist which teaches in a University, especially by who was been involved in the setup and calibration of the calorimetric instruments.


    Therefore, what you quoted of my comment is not so "up for Bologna University and Professor Levi in particular."


    Unfortunately.

  • But I'm also convinced that the main 3 calorimetric data in his report (specific enthalpy, cooling flow rate, and boiling duration) were heavily and blatantly overestimated, in a way which couldn't have been ignored by any physicist which teaches in a University, especially by who was been involved in the setup and calibration of the calorimetric instruments.


    A long time ago .. I spent some business day's in the south. One of the so called "bad habits" (I liked..) was the extensive dinner, with a nice wine...


    I can imagine that even a very acustomed person, can lose his concentration during the happy digesting phase... (even after three coffee's)

  • If Levi had had the scientific knowledge to evaluate the E-Cat he wouldn't have reported that the reactor works. He was fooled not by Rossi or Focardi, rather by his cultural inadequacy.


    Caro cam-illo, you here have shown your great knowledge about the nuclear aspects which concern the CF/LENR claims, even if they are a little bit OT with respect the title of this thread, but anyway you well know that I consider your nuclear arguments very convincing and correct.


    But I was talking about calorimetry, something which you don’t appreciate (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), and that maybe you are not able to well evaluate. So, let me suggest you not to judge the other people on something on which you don't have a sufficient knowledge.


    Levi has never been able to consider crap the E-Cat. How can you consider him an accomplished professionist? He had to do a very easy job. Probably he will be Ricercatore forever.


    Due to the fact that I started this discussion on some aspects of the January 14, 2011 demo involving necessarily the role of Levi, I feel obliged to invite you (and all the others) to kindly avoid this type of gossip.


    I would like to quietly discuss, and only if strictly necessary to better understand the facts, even about the role of the various protagonists of this event, but without feeling me responsible of having triggered any unfair and embarassing personal attacks toward anybody.

  • Well said. Time someone spoke up for Bologna University and Professor Levi in particular.

    Of course, what he is actually saying is that Levi lied and also Galantini. And that everyone else is covering up for this. I've given up. I would not accuse anyone of lying, not Rossi, not anyone, on such thin evidence as there being no photo. We don't know *when* Galantini claims to have used the device.


    But you say that, at some point, the T probe could have been substituted by the RH probe. Don't you?


    Yes, I say that is possible.

    Quote

    Well, look, please, at the following photo of Passerini which shows the image of the lab as appeared on a monitor in the main saloon crowded of people (6):


    There was at least six people in the lab. Four were around the Ecat, a device which, in that moment, was expected to generate 16 kW of heat from an unknown nuclear source, which was cooled by means of a flow of hot dry steam at about 100 °C.


    They seem remarkably relaxed. It is odd that in the claim of lying about instruments used, it seems to be assumed that the reactor was actually generating 15 kW.


    Quote

    Have you an idea of the velocity of a jet of steam escaping from the hole of 14 mm of diameter at the top of the Ecat?


    Yes, if there is an unobstructed opening, there would be a high velocity of steam out of it. I studied all this five years ago. Notice "if."


    Quote

    It would have been around 70 m/s, assuming the hole was fully free from obstacles. You can imagine by yourself (or maybe not) what would happen during the removing and the introduction of a probe in that hole, placed at the same level of the people heads.


    Nasty! But there is an assumption here, unstated.


    Quote

    Consider that in order to support your hypothesis, there should have been a double switching of probes (T-RH-T) in only a few minutes, before (13 minutes) or after (7 minutes) the photo. That's absurd.[


    Only in a world limited by an impoverished imagination that readily accuses others of lying -- and both Levi and Galantini were explicit about the use of the meter, without making a serious effort to examine all the possibilities. Further, this takes place over a test that was seriously flawed -- and, in fact, steam quality was not measured, nor was steam velocity or outlet water flow. Those were glaring errors, made or allowed by "professors." And later there were other glaring errors made by other professors. Professors can make truly stupid mistakes, that is, stupid in hindsight. In fact, it is this simple: they are human and can be distracted, like everyone else. That is why "expertise" is not the only standard for assessing reports, and sometimes not even the primary one. What did they actually see? What did they actually do? What is the data -- as distinct from their conclusions? How was that data gathered? Etc.


    One of the oversights noticed back in 2011 is that Galantini did not report actual meter readings. He only reported a conclusion. And yet he is not an expert on steam. Obviously! Measuring steam quality is a difficult process, I wrote extensively about it in 2011. If you could do that with a cheap meter, there are consulting services which would go out of business.


    Quote

    The photo shows that the man (Galantini?) holding the portable instrument doesn't seem to be in hurry. He is relaxed, one hand in the pocket. There is nothing that allows us to suppose that he just switched twice, or was going to switch, the probes inside a nuclear reactor producing 16 kW of hot steam: no gloves for touching the stem of the probes, no safety mask (or helmet) to protect his face and those of the other people from the unavoidable steam jets.


    Right. Now, suppose the reactor really was generating all that steam. I don't think so, but suppose it was. Could Galantini have done that? More to the point, *how* could Galantini have done it? I think I wrote about this in 2011, actually, but I'm not looking back.


    Think, Ascoli. You can redeem your reputation by coming up with a way. Suppose you have this problem, you want to be able to quickly change probes into a steam chamber. How would you do it?


    (And is it necessary. How many probes are inserted into the E-Cat in the photos?


    Quote

    Your hypothesis is not realistic, it’s a vain tentative to provide a consistency to the statements about the use of the Delta Ohm instruments cited in the Rothwell's BTD and in the Levi's report. Those instruments have not been used for checking the dryness of the steam in the January 14, 2011 demo, and, therefore, someone has invented their presence in the test.


    First of all, Rothwell's report is secondary or tertiary. He was really just an editor. It is not a matter of "someone," Ascolli65, because we have the explict statments of Levi and Galantini, the man himself, that he used that meter.


    This is a very strong presumption in science: that a scientist will not lie. Yes, mistakes can be made, but here we have two scientists, both witnesses and both concerned with the issue, affirming the use of the meter. I have seen no statements from another witness denying it. So this is pure speculation based on an idea of impossibility.


    So is it impossible? I'll give you a chance to figure it out. I want to say that I don't know if what I have in mind was actually done. However, I have in mind a series of possibilities and I don't know enough to know which ones are actually possible.


    I see more than one probe into the E-Cat, in the photo, though.


    If It mattered, I would simply ask witnesses. It doesn't matter. We are not going to run a witch hunt to try to prove that somebody lied. If you want to do that, it's on you. It is bad enough that we find it necessary to point out the errors of scientists. As soon as you claim they are lying, it's the end of the conversation. As soon as Steve Krivit started claiming "data falsification," the scientists stopped talking to him. "Your're lying" is a conversation stopper. "You're mistaken," we may be able to talk.


    There is even better than that. "What happened" is not unfriendly. What did happen? When was the steam measurement made? What were the actual values recorded? But the reason why I have not pushed for that investigation is that it is moot. There was no procedure used there that would allow measurement of steam quality. The experiment cannot be repeated. It's scientifically meaningless, even though of some sort of interest for the history of the Rossi claims.


    Scientists are professionally obligated to be truthful. Data falsification is a career-ender. While it happens, it's relatively rare. Hence I will continue to assume that Levi and Galantini told the truth, and this is actually improved by the fact that what they said was so obviously incorrect as to the implications.


    Rossi does not get this presumption of truthfulness because he isn't a scientist, it is not his profession, he is an entrepreneur, and in business, and especially in dealing with competition, lack of candor is common and not outside of norms. There are professions where truthfulness is absolutely expected. Scientist is one, and journalist is another.

  • I want to tell you, what was the focus of a successful A.Rossi day experiment E-Cat.
    As is known A.Rossi first reactor were made of metal (steel) tube, which was also provided with a supply of hydrogen gas at a pressure of 40 atmospheres during reactor operation.
    Now look at the process from the perspective of ordinary chemistries.
    1. The adsorption of gas adsorbent is always accompanied by heat, chemical adsorption is accompanied by a very high heat.
    2. The absorption of hydrogen nickel powder prevents the chemical bond, how strong the case of Raney nickel. A strong chemical bond is formed with palladium, titanium. Therefore, by heating the nickel powder is easy to hydrogen desorption.
    3. As is known, hot hydrogen easily permeates through steel and other metals, other than gold and silver. Therefore, shut-off valves covered with a layer of silver or gold. Other metals other than iron ultrapure not found in nature, which can hold hot hydrogen gas. Only quartz glass also retains hydrogen.
    4. In the reactor A. Rossi with hydrogen gas under high pressure, heating the nickel powder occurs due to adsorption of hydrogen, the heater is turned on when the periodicity of the hydrogen is desorbed and leaves in the air atmosphere through the wall of the steel pipe, which is "transparent" for hydrogen.But an observer can not see it with my own eyes. When the left part of the hydrogen reactor pressure of hydrogen increases again over the nickel powder and the adsorption process is repeated. Therefore, a hydrogen balloon near the reactor for continuous replenishment of the gas inside of the reactor.
    5. Heat the nickel powder is needed for desorption of hydrogen gas to the saturation point has not come, when to stop the reaction. High pressure is needed to more hydrogen adsorbed nickel and allocate more heat from the chemical reaction.The reactor vessel (steel wall) must pass through the hydrogen, to avoid saturation occurred. If you make the body of quartz glass, the heat release process quickly stops.
    6. The process heat release is limited in time and capacity of the pressurized hydrogen gas cylinder. It can work from one day to a week. Then the process stops. We conducted a series of experiments and received confirmation. This focus in the circus when the observer sees no escaping hydrogen through the steel pipe wall and thinks that sealed system.


    Therefore, short-term demonstration of the installation of E-Cat has been successful, but it is cheating, and heat is generated by an additional chemical reaction of nickel with hydrogen and energy spent on compression of hydrogen to high pressure in the tank for storage.If you cover the inside of the steel casing of the reactor A. Rossi gold or silver, thereby eliminating the leakage of hydrogen through the pipe wall, then there is no heat generation, in addition to the initial absorption is not.Therefore A.Rossi easily deceived and prestaviteley industrial heat and journalists that they saw no leakage of hydrogen and a chemical reaction within the reactor.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    Assuming their conclusions were wrong, and there was no heat, that kind of sloppiness is probably one of the reasons they were wrong.


    It is only a matter of sloppiness, what else. Bologna-baloney.
    Sean P. Burns, expert of the USPTO:
    The Levi paper illustrates poor laboratory practice and, by the author's own admission, bald speculation.
    ...
    Levi's analysis indicates a total lack of understanding regarding nuclear fusion.