FUD on E-catworld

  • Rossi may be a bit crazy, but Penon is sane as far as I know. He was in on it. He signed off on these results. So it was fraud on his part.


    This is plausible enough that IH has sued Penon. I have no idea how sane Penon is. Rossi was his friend. That alone should have been a disqualification, but this was Planet Rossi, where his friends are the best people on the planet. He might simply have trusted Rossi way too much. I have no idea that he was competent, but, even more, that he actually put two and two together. People sometimes don't. There is no sign in the proposed test procedure that he was aware of the major possible artifacts. And then, to him, it seemed that what he proposed was acceptable. (Did they accept it? Maybe.) Maybe he is lazy. We can speculate all day.


    There were possibly certain critical points where deliberate falsification might stand out from naive gullibility. There are possible details that would let us know, and someone who knows those details might know. But, speaking for the rest of us, we don't know.


    Hah! One of the lovely recent claims on ecatworld was that I was admitting being part of IH by using "we" as in "what we know." It means us, all of us, but once people believe something, as in are attached to the idea, they may find anything that might look like "proof." It is a great way to make an idiot out of yourself, just convert personal conclusions to facts and interpret the world through the resulting colored glasses.


    So the FBI finds some emails to or from Hillary Clinton on Huma Abedin's estranged husband's computer. No indication as to what they contain, none. No claim by the FBI of wrong-doing, just that these were found and were not known before. So ... Donald Trump repeats over and over how she is a criminal, and now there is real proof! Say what? Nothing happened but that a wife's emails were found on her husband's computer, and because of the prior investigation into Clinton's emails, the FBI will want to check these out, to make sure nothing was missed.


    I think I remember, once, when my ex-wife and I were going to travel, copying her entire email system to my laptop, so she could access it while we were travelling. Would she remember that? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we were in a hurry and I never mentioned it. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

  • Quote from Rossi.: “Mr Andrea Rossi,
    1- did the circuit of the steam of the 1 MW plant have a “steam trap”?
    2- did the test protocol foresee the installation of a steam trap?
    3- has IH ever complained the lack of a steam trap during the test? . .…


    As far as I know the statement from Rossi that all water is evaporated in his demos has only been checked publically once in all those years with Rossi and the e-cat. It was Mats Lewan who in september 2011 made a T-connection on the steam outlet and showed us that there where a lot of water in what should have been only steam. It is shown in this video at 4:10 http://www.nyteknik.se/play/ny…t-i-italien-del-2-6352943.


    I can't understand how the e-cat could survive this. In my eyes Rossis fraud was revealed in this video. Mats tries to belittle it with a text in the video "this water might be condensed steam from inside the e-cat" but I find that statement very weird. If it was condensed inside the e-cat the energy from the condesation would also be released inside the e-cat.

  • As far as I know the statement from Rossi that all water is evaporated in his demos has only been checked publically once in all those years with Rossi and the e-cat. It was Mats Lewan who in september 2011 made a T-connection on the steam outlet and showed us that there where a lot of water in what should have been only steam. It is shown in this video at 4:10 nyteknik.se/play/ny-tekniks-ma…t-i-italien-del-2-6352943.


    I can't understand how the e-cat could survive this. In my eyes Rossis fraud was revealed in this video. Mats tries to belittle it with a text in the video "this water might be condensed steam from inside the e-cat" but I find that statement very weird. If it was condensed inside the e-cat the energy from the condesation would also be released inside the e-cat.


    That statement is indeed very weird. There was water pouring out of the outlet.


    This was my analysis back in 2011: Rossi was ostensibly controlling the reactor by keeping the temperature below runaway. There would be a balance between water flow, cooling the reactor (which is operating way above boiling, as I understood it, the reactor did not have tight thermal coupling between the fuel and the water), and the electrical input. At constant rate, if the rate was too low, the coolant compartment would run out of water, it would boil away, and there would be runaway, if too high, then there would be overflow. Running out of coolant would be a problem, and because it is would be impossible to get an exact match -- unless there is a water level sensor in the device, and there was no sign of that -- the flow rate would be set a bit high. This would lead to overflow. That analysis was quite speculative, but .... overflow was a distinct possibility, and hadn't been tested, I thought.


    Lewan was looking to answer issues that had been raised (by me and others) and that apparently led to his pulling the hose off the outlet, to look at the steam itself. First of all, the steam plume seems small compared to what I'd expect for the level of power, but I don't know what was being reported. From my point of view, videos are awful compared to written reports. Did Lewan ever write this up? And did he measure the outlet water flow rate?


    In any case, there was major water flow. However, Rossi could always claim that this reactor wasn't set properly and was overflowing.


    The reactor electrical heater power was shut down but it stayed pretty hot. Insulation and there could be substantial thermal inertia from the hotter-than-boiling parts inside. Lewan did not show what happened to the steam output. He just showed the hot water being drained, after that delay.


    The video does not prove that this was routine, but the lack of checking is telling. For Krivit's video, Rossi walked a bend in the hose to the drain, clearly emptying water from it. Then he pulled up the hose to display the steam. The flow was pitiful for the kind of power claimed. If what was coming out of the reactor was mostly water, the hose was pretty large and long and it would take time to fill. Rossi would know how long he could display the hose before water would start flowing out, he would merely keep the end up until he shoved it back into the wall drain.


    Again, that there was water in that hose is not proof of overflow water, because steam would condense in the hose. This is different from condensation in the reactor, the latter is not delivered steam. I was amazed to see, in the video, how much water was coming out. But ... again, maybe this was not a working reactor, the flow rate was set too high or something, or wasn't being monitored and the conditions were not set up properly.


    Measures to detect overflow water would not be complicated. This is a distinct issue from steam quality, which would generally create a smaller error. The error from overflow water could be huge.

  • However, Rossi could always claim that this reactor wasn't set properly and was overflowing.


    This is of course correct. But I find it quite telling that the only time this was checked in public there was a massive overflow.


    A little bit like when SP was the first to test the input power with true RMS and found COP=1. But then of course the e-cat wasn't running correctly.


    But I agree this is not proof that the e-cat is a fraud. It's just very strong indications.

  • Measures to detect overflow water would not be complicated. This is a distinct issue from steam quality, which would generally create a smaller error. The error from overflow water could be huge.


    Sparging in cold water will detect both errors. It captures all enthalpy. If you had both errors, poor steam quality and unboiled water overflowing, you could not separate them.

  • I find I quite interesting that after Mats Lewan revealed the massive overflow of water in september 2011 Rossi stopped using this method. Where he calculate output power by assuming all water has evaporated. To my knowledge he has not used it again before the one year test. Where this method seems to have been used again.


  • Sparging in cold water…


    Of course, sparging the steam in cold water and measuring the resulting temperature increase as done by this guy here...


    ...would have been a very simple check whether the power from the e-cat is in the same range as claimed by Rossi.


    Actually during one of the early e-cat tests the steam (or the hot water/steam mixture) from the e-cat was sparged in water:


    It would have been easy for Lewan to fill the bucket with 5 Liter fresh water (20°C), and then take the time it takes till the water starts boiling (should only take about 10 to 15 minutes when the e-cat operates at 2.5 to 3 kW). - And watch Rossi during this time, so that he can't tamper the power controller!


    It's a pitty that Lewan didn't do that simple exercise. - This could have ended the e-cat story already at that time.

  • Quote

    It would have been easy for Lewan to fill the bucket with 5 Liter fresh water (20°C), and then take the time it takes till the water starts boiling (should only take about 10 to 15 minutes when the e-cat operates at 2.5 to 3 kW). - And watch Rossi during this time, so that he can't tamper the power controller!


    And it could never have happened. Had Mats been so inclined, Rossi would have stopped him, Mats would have joined the snake list, as he has intervened many other times with people wanting more robust measurement!


    Rossi is a PR genious, to mobilise his coterie of hopefuls info full belief mode while through it all being so transparently manipulative and dishonest. No wonder he writes those revealing "magnificence" e-mails and (according to Jed's info which I think plausible) conducts this magnificence test in a way that is scientifically not just wrong but laughable.

  • @Alan,


    I'd like to thank you, and Alain etc, for preserving LENR forum as a place where rational debate can be held without censorship. Great example of this is randombit0, whose repetitions are tedious and manner troll-like, but it is right that she should post and those posts be countered. It is only so that truth can be established.


    @THH Thank you for your kind words. Incidentally, I am delighted to note that for the moment (it won't last long) scientific and technical discussions dominate the 'latest posts' , rather than the tedious and repetitive (to me at least) chewing over of legal matters which nobody here can influence or predict in any meaningful way. If this continues for more than the next hour or so we may yet see the return of 'serious' scientists like Peter Ekstrom (to name just two).

  • JedRothwell wrote:


    Jed,


    The list shows both steam temp and steam pressure instruments.
    With those instruments, steam quality / dryness can be calculated


    E48, I suspect you are not paying attention to the full discussion, and are focusing on an accidental.


    Saying that "nothing was done" was an exaggeration. Yes, temperature and pressure, properly measured, could show dry steam. However, it would not necessarily show full evaporation, because overflow water is a possibility, and there was no designed check for overflow. If flow rate is higher than evaporation rate, the e-cats will overflow, unless there are measures to prevent that. For example, a float valve in the internal boilers would do it. But this is not an external measure, and float valves can leak.


    There are then various ways in which both temperature and pressure can be mismeasured. In this case, we know the wrong pressure gauge was specified. We do not know, however, if that gauge was actually used. Suppose instead of the specified gauge, which would have shown absolute pressure -- this was proper and important, a meter reading gauge would not give an accurate measure of absolute pressure, which is what the boiling point of water depends on -- a gauge reading in gauge pressure were used. This would then explain the readings of "0.0". However, that pressure would still be unlikely, unless the whole system were sealed and other parts of the system were below atmospheric pressure.


    It's a mess, E48. That's obvious.

  • The list shows both steam temp and steam pressure instruments.
    With those instruments, steam quality / dryness can be calculated.


    These instruments alone are not sufficient. They are often wrong. In this case I am certain they are wrong. The pressure was recorded as 0.0 bar, which is impossible. Either the instrument was broken or someone wrote down the wrong values. I have heard there were plausible numbers originally but they were erased and replaced with 0.0 bar. The original, plausible numbers indicated there was no steam. The temperature is so low that a minor error in it would also mean there is no steam. Nothing was done to confirm this temperature reading.


    The pressure gauge was used at a temperature exceeding the specifications. Perhaps it broke.


    Even when the instruments are working they are not sufficient. They can go wrong for many different reasons. You are not calculating steam quality, you are estimating it. You must measure actual steam quality, directly, with instruments and procedures designed for that purpose. You have to actually see the steam, by venting it.


    Let me again point out that months ago, you said the same thing I just said. You said something to the effect that you would evaluate the professional grade instruments used to establish steam quality and you would go from there. Now that you know there were no professional instruments, and steam quality was not measured, I do not understand why you have any confidence in these results.

  • Saying that "nothing was done" was an exaggeration.


    I meant that steam quality was not directly measured, using instruments and techniques intended for that purpose. Plus you have to actually see the steam, by venting some of it with a valve. I do not think this was done.


    (If it had actually been 1 MW, you would not want to fully open the pipe and vent all of the steam. Even 100 kW produces a huge plume, dangerous enough to kill someone. But you can open a valve and vent a sample. I have seen this done in factories.)


    Measuring temperature and pressure are indirect ways to estimate steam quality. As you note, they can be wrong for various reasons. In this case, the temperature was right at the margin, where a slight error would cancel the result. The pressure was clearly wrong, and impossible.

  • Sparging in cold water…


    Of course, sparging the steam in cold water and measuring the resulting temperature increase as done by this guy here...


    Exactly! That video shows just how I have seen it done in factories, with that kind of scale, a rubber hose, and heavy gloves. I have also seen it done with a platform scale and a steel drum full of water, which was then dumped with a fork lift. Note that if there were actually 1 MW of steam, you could not divert the entire stream. That would kill you. But you could open a value to divert a small stream with a rubber hose, as shown here. You sparge it, weigh the increase in water in the bucket, stir the water (as shown) and measure the temperature increase. That tells you the total enthalpy in the sample you diverted into the bucket. If it is ~540 kcal/kg you have dry steam.


    This is a rough measure.


    If you can divert all of the stream of fluid into a bucket for 5 minutes, then you can compare total input energy during that time to the total output. The E-cat in this instance was actually only producing 20 kW, not 1 MW. So they could done this easily and safely. It would have shown the actual flow rate (the increase in weight over 5 minutes), and actual enthalpy (300 seconds * 20,000 joules = ~1429 kcal). This would prove beyond question that the flow meter was wrong and there was no excess heat. I am sure that would be the result, and I am sure Rossi would never allow the test for that reason. You do not need 1 year of testing to establish this. Five minutes would be enough.


    My guess is that if you had opened a valve to divert the fluid, you would have seen hot water come out, not steam. You can sparge hot water, or a mixture of water and steam. I have done that. If you want to try doing this at home, dump a pot of boiling water into a bucket of cold water. Seriously, give that a try. It will give you a sense of how accurate this method is. (Not very accurate.)


    As far as I know, there was no valve, and no way to do this. Perhaps there was one in the hidden customer site.


    Long before all this happened, when Lewan was doing tests, I suggested to Rossi and Lewan that they sparge the steam. I suggested this many times, and so did other people. Rossi ignored us. I concluded that he did not want to do a valid test, and I dismissed him.

  • sparging - It is a good method.
    Personally I use a copper coil in a large (tall) insulated tank and any gas in the water, and get the temperature increase.
    You do need to mix
    You also can check the water flow rate that way.

  • I should also say, it is crazy to try for 1MW when you can do 1kW well and with less costly instruments.


    To do 1MW correctly, they needed to use the correct equipment and methods. They were not close on
    the instrument ranges, quality, .... and a steam separator---- and do it with multiple redundancy.