Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • @THH,


    I'm skeptical of the status quo. I'm skeptical of pathological skeptics. Now with results from Alan F. showing that the same model pump used by Rossi is capable of a pump rate nearly reaching what is necessary for a 1MW heat output, you've lost one more ill-supported accusation. The sand is beginning to shift beneath your feet. What are you going to do?

  • That is a straw man. For Rossi's device not to work, all you need is Rossi being Rossi, plus Fabiani totally supportive. Then Levi, Kullander, etc need to be academics very out of their depth assessing Rossi's demos (as we know from Lugano, where the multiple mistakes are certain) and blinded by a charismatic inventor with an story that would have life and world transforming qualities if true. Stories like that have staying power, and academics are no more immune to it than others.


    Rossi does not need a typical academic to fall for his fluff. Remember, the friends of Rossi here are self-selected as people willing to believe. Those more skeptical (the vast majority, I suggest, or else Rossi would find getting big funding a doddle) will go no where near this story. Skeptical voices who do go near get called snakes by Rossi and kept away.


    Well, I'm extremely sceptical about people spending a lot of time inventing fraud scenarios involving people they do not know and have never met and analyzing everything from a distance, even using attending an experiment - doing an actual analysis on site, as an argument against the conclusions from those that have... I have no problem calling these kind of despicable people "snakes" as Rossi do. Actually I know of other words as well.
     

    It's even worse that some of these people claim to have some kind of altruistic motivation for their actions when it is obvious they either have skin in the game themselves or are merely lobbyists for organizations that have. The idea that this forum is arguing between "Rossi fans" and science/scientists/sceptical rationalists/etc, and that there are no entities with other objectives involved is idiotic. Of course they are., It is in their interest. (hot fusionistas being a prime example)


    Eric arguing that discussions about the members objectives should not be tolerated is proof enough of this... At the same time THH and MY have no problem using people being "Rossi fans" as an argument in every other post (Levi,Lewan, Kullander,Fabiani, etc). Hmm.

  • Found this quote by Ed Storms from an earlier thread: Self-Interest and LENR (Edmund Storms)


    Ed Storms wrote:

    I watched how the attitude toward LENR changed at LANL. I watched as tolerance changed to hostility. The change was not based on lack of reproducibility. I and many other people were able to cause the effect. Besides, many phenomenon are initially difficult to control and are not rejected for this reason. The rejectors only used this claim as a fig leaf to hide another reason. I believe the rejection had a more sinter reason. The real reason was simply protection of self interest, initially by people funded by the hot fusion program.


    In 1989, hot fusion was in trouble because Congress was getting increasingly impatient with the slow progress. I believe certain very powerful people realized that LENR would siphon funds away from hot fusion and eventually kill it. They could not make this fear public so they set about convincing the public that LENR was bad science, which was easy to do. This was power politics at its worst. This worked because Fleischmann and the rest of us were playing the honest game of understanding nature for everyone’s benefit. In contrast, a few powerful people were only protecting themselves using any dishonest tool they could find. We and they were not playing by the same rules and we still aren’t.


    We see this process unfolding every day in Congress and being applied to a range of issues. Facts and what is real do not count in government these days. Self-interest rules. We in LENR have not created a self-interest for anyone of importance outside of a few groups having special needs, such as NASA. Even these groups have to hide their work to avoid being tarred by the bad science claim. In short, no one of importance needs LENR. Once the need is demonstrated, the attitude will change instantly. Perhaps Rossi will show that need or perhaps another country will create the need for the US to take an interest. We have to wait and see where the need is revealed before we can expect acceptance.


    And even here THH was arguing (in length/flooding mode, ad nauseum, as always) against the obvious first hand observations made by Ed Storms... even using the troll-conspiracy-meme against Storms ... and using the argument that the successful suppression made by the hot fusionistas (using the word scientists here) is and evidence against LENR per se... Hmmm.


    THH wrote:

    It is not credible that science that is openly described could be suppressed for so long, if it worked. This conspiracy theory is Storms making excuses for the fact that LENR evidence is weak and therefore not taken seriously by scientists.

  • I followed your disqus link and it seems to only show a picture of the mezzanine with a giant rectangular marking on the floor. I don't see a suggested layout of the heat exchanger or your red lines. You mentioned that you used Google Maps to do some proportional measurements. Put together a cogent story and perhaps you will persuade me. Right now all I see is evidence that something large once sat upon the floor of the mezzanine.


    Below is the material that I originally posted on Ecat World in August. It was posted in response to one of Engineer48's posts. In it, the bottom image is Engineer48's. The thin yellow lines show his approximate position of inner walls. The red marks are ones I put there.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________


    Here is Wong's picture of the 2nd storey at the Doral site.


    Thumbnail


    Of interest are the square-shaped marks on the floor. I have done my best to indicate the position (in red) of the dark linear marks on your proposed heat-exchanger layout. You may disagree with my exact positioning for the linear marks but I think I have got the position and proportion generally correct.


    Thumbnail


    I don't see how the marks left in that approximately 11m x 11m room can in any way correspond to a 10m x 6 .5 m heat exhanger. There is no way I can position or orient the exchanger to fit the marks. Can you do it?

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________


    That ends the material I previously posted on Ecat World. Engineer48 never responded. That was par for the course for him in that he often selectively refused to answer when he realized that the answer would reveal he had been wrong about something.


    Now, for your benefit, here is a screen grab from Google Earth of the same roof. The horizontal yellow line is 10.85 metres according to the dialog box you see. The vertical yellow line is one I drew of the same length.

  • Please provide your calculations.


    This is in respect to Krivit's video.


    At about 11:30 in the video Rossi holds up a hose that is attached to the output from a single Ecat. You can see steam coming out. I generously estimate the velocity of that current of steam as 1 m/s (I think it is actually about a third of that but I want to err on the side of giving Mr Rossi the benefit of the doubt).


    The hose itself is marked "Parker ITR" as you can see in the video (at 10:15). And Rossi comments that it is a special type of hose for carrying steam. This makes it 1 of 3 types of hose made by the Italian subsidiary of Parker Hannifin: the Vapore 164, the Vigore 1, or the Vigore 2. On consulting the catalogue (http://www.parker.com/parkerimages/euro_hpd/CAT_4401UK.pdf) I see that it is possible to estimate the inner diameter of these hoses by their bend radii. I will do so. Krivit's video at many points (e.g., near 3:05) shows the hose as it comes horizontally out of the Ecat and then curves and drops to the floor. I generously estimate the bend radius of this curve at something like 250mm (again I am trying to err in favour of Rossi, I think that the actual minimum bend radius would be smaller if you really torqued the hose around). In the Parker catalogue all the steam-carrying hoses list 25mm as the corresponding inner diameter. As a common sense chack on this I note that in the video it looks as though Mr Rossi would be able to stick his thumb in the end of the hose and the fit would be about right. A 25mm i.d. is about right for this.


    So now we have a 25mm hose carrying gas at 1 m/s. The cross sectional area of the hose is therefore [pi*0.00025m^2]/4 = 0.000196 m^2 which i shall round up (generously) to 0.0002 m^2 (i.e. 2 cm^2). A 1 m/s current in the hose means it is emitting 0.0002 m^3 of gas per second or 0.72 m^3 per hour.


    Rossi claims in the video (at about 12:20) that his Ecat is vapourizing 7 Kg of water per hour. This is the same as 7 L/h of water and using an expansion factor of 1700 yields 11,900 L/h of steam. Converting to m^3 (1 L = 0.001 m^3) gives 11.9 m^3 of gas that should be escaping from the hose per hour.


    So here is the contrast. According to Rossi's claims the hose he holds up should be spurting out 11.9 m^3/hr whereas according to conservative calculations it is visibly emitting about 0.72 m^3/hr. That is a disparity of about 16x and I don't see how this can be explained away by minor adjustments such as condensation in the line. The steam really should be rocketing out of the hose at a speed of at least 16 m/s, not 1 m/s. And recall that my 1 m/s estimate of gas velocity was intentionally on the high side. I really think that the true gas velocity seen coming out of the hose is about 1/3 of 1 m/s so the disparity is really about a factor of about 45.

  • It boggles the mind that after a year of this nonsense during which it was firmly established that the Doral test comprised a fictitious customer performing a fictitious industrial process at a phony company site and the reported data makes no sense whatsoever, people are still debating whether there were missing window panes. Talk about grasping at straws!

  • Quote

    So here is the contrast. According to Rossi's claims the hose he holds up should be spurting out 11.9 m^3/hr whereas according to conservative calculations it is visibly emitting about 0.72 m^3/hr. That is a disparity of about 16x and I don't see how this can be explained away by minor adjustments such as condensation in the line. The steam really should be rocketing out of the hose at a speed of at least 16 m/s, not 1 m/s. And recall that my 1 m/s estimate of gas velocity was intentionally on the high side. I really think that the true gas velocity seen coming out of the hose is about 1/3 of 1 m/s so the disparity is really about a factor of about 45.

    Good call. As I recall, Grabowski et. al. recalculated enthalpy in one Rossi run with the steam ecat, assuming steam was wet rather than dry as Rossi claimed. That alone would account for a COP up to 6, as per that report. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf -- next to last slide, IIRC.


    Also, there is a theory that Rossi located the thermocouple right on the internal heater, especially in the ecat which gave Levi's NyTeknik-reported spectacular result. Who could know either way about that since Rossi and Levi did not do or permit calibrations? A simple calibration with the two large Joule heaters in the ecat would have settled that issue but of course, in SIX YEARS, none of the geniuses working with Rossi nor the redoubtable Rossi himself has thought to do that! It is known that the so-called Ottoman ecat (derisively named that by NASA people) did, in fact, have a misplaced thermocouple, a misplacement which seemed to be calculated and deliberate. Again, this would have been easily corrected had a simple calibration been done and again, nobody did one. Not ONE flippin' calibration.


  • That was much better. You still left out a citation/link to Dr. Wong's claim about the container. For the benefit of the readers, here is a link to Dr. Wong's expert disclosure, where he provides the materials and dimensions of the heat exchanger box: "Encasement: wood panel insulated with rock wool shaped for thermal and acoustic insulation; Dimensions: Aprox. I m (length) X 6.5 m (width) X I m (height)"


    You contend that "There is no way I can position or orient the exchanger to fit the marks." Consider, however, that the container has small enough dimensions such that it fits in either length-wise or width-wise fashion within the mezzanine. It is about the size of a heat exchanger encasement that one would expect to be built within that space. Also take note that there ARE large right-angled markings on the floor of the mezzanine. It seems that your underlying assumption is that the corners of the markings must correspond directly to the corners of the encasement. It would be normal, however, to set the encasement on support beams so that air could flow beneath the heat exchanger encasement. The support beams could quite easily correspond to the markings on the floor.


    Here is the problem. You and your like take a set of circumstances and twist it like a wax nose to fit your preconceived notions. You may accuse me of doing that (in fact you and others have, essentially). But that is just another version of the story about the glass buildings, pot/kettle, etc.


  • You seem to have made out a good case here. Will have to check your calculations later, because Thanksgiving.

  • Here is the problem. You and your like take a set of circumstances and twist it like a wax nose to fit your preconceived notions.


    No. I reject this as regards the present issue. Here is how you started off ...


    IH Fanboy wrote:

    "But upon closer inspection of the extant photographs, there were markings that seem to correspond to a large box being previously present on the floor, and clean areas along near the bottom of the door and bottom of the wall that seem to correlate to a previous presence of pipes, again casting doubt. "


    Subsequent to that all I have done is direct you to the actual dimensions in the problem and ask you how you think that the marks correspond to the structure that was actually there. That is it. How can you possibly construe that as me twisting circumstances?

  • Bruce H.


    My memory is fading, but I thought there were 108 of the little units in the other 1MW shipping container? Fabiani said they were fired up the first day, shut down, and never used again. Also, it's always been a little confusing as to what IH built. They did put together the Lugano HT for sure though.


    You have some quotes maybe? Hate for newcomers to the Rossi story, to walk away from LF thinking something that may not be correct. Especially so now, with heightened awareness due to that Press Release.


    I have figured out where I saw the information that the smaller ecat units (the non-Big Frankie units) at Doral were not fueled by Rossi. It is on Rossi's blog. Here is the exchange ...

    1. Steve swatman July 23, 2017 at 12:52 PM

      Dear Mr Rossi,

      You are now analysing the small 20 kW reactors that failed immediately after the beginning of the 1 year test of the 1 MW E-Cat, so that you had to make the test with the 4 big reactors of 250 kW each of power.


      I know the 4 259 kW reactors had been made and charged by you.

      Were the 20 kW reactors made and charged by IH?

      Do you suspect intentional sabotage? incorrect methods of manufacture? plain stupidity?

    2. Andrea Rossi July 23, 2017 at 1:40 PM

      Steve Swatman:


      Yes, the 20 kW E-Cats LT had been charged by IH while I was in Doral to prepare the factory. We have to investigate the reactors to understand.


      Warm Regards,

      A.R.


    It is my supposition that Rossi arranged for the small reactors to fail because he was suspicious that IH had place dummy charges in some of them and he was afraid of being revealed as a fraud.

  • Bruce__H ,

    You may want to have a look at 238-25 Exhibit 67. It has the water flow for the 108 reactors, big and small. Note that the flow for 60 reactors (total number in the 4 Big Cats) was 794.41 L/h, a little over half of the total 1429.94 L/h

    (Not sure what "Flow In = 50, Out = 120 +> 23.65 L/h" means)


    Wow. I've never seen this. It appears to refer to testing at Doral in November 1 2014 which I think is before any IH personnel (except Fabiani) had arrived on scene. It appears to say that the plant is leaking water at the rate of 2 gallons per minute. That is 120 gallons per hour. What a mess!


    This document lists 108 heater units -- I think there would be 72 associated pumps (24 on the "Big Cats" and 48 on the smaller ecat units). With that number of pumps on hand, circulating 36,000 L/day is easy because each pump only has to push through 21 L/h of water. This is well within their spec and makes a lot of sense in terms of design, i.e., it leaves some extra capacity for emergencies.


    Now I enter the realm of speculation. I think that the emergency happened sooner than expected when Rossi became suspicious that IH had put some dummy fuel charges in some of the small ecat units. He thought they were trying to catch him out and would later ask why those units were producing excess heat when they did not have active fuel. I think that he faked the failure of the smaller units and shut them down. However that immediately put about 2/3 of the pumps out of commission and forced only 24 pumps to carry on pumping the entire load -- necessitating that they each pump 62.5 L/h. This is now far beyond the pump's rating but may be possible as Alan Fletcher has now shown. Finally, however, one of the large units had to be decommissioned and now there were only 18 pump units left. That requires a pump rate of 83 L/h and although Alan Fletcher is working hard on it I don't think that such a high rate will turn out to be possible.

  • Bruce__H ,

    The funny thing is that Rossi supplied that Plant document (above) as proof that IH replicated his work. But in November 2014, I think the Plant was in Doral. It seems to me that it got there sometime in September 2014.


    Edit: I just went over BW's deposition. The Plant arrived in Doral in December, and didn't run until February. So the Plant document must have been made in Raleigh.

  • @THH,


    I'm skeptical of the status quo. I'm skeptical of pathological skeptics. Now with results from Alan F. showing that the same model pump used by Rossi is capable of a pump rate nearly reaching what is necessary for a 1MW heat output, you've lost one more ill-supported accusation. The sand is beginning to shift beneath your feet. What are you going to do?



    IHFB


    Rossi's Doral test had no oversight, Rossi controlling what happened and what results were sent, Rossi changing the system from that in the test plan, a Rossi claimed heat exchanger which could not work (I know you do not accept that, but it is technical fact), and Rossi + friends destroying evidence, Penon collecting results in a manner clearly unprofessional.


    Given that, there are no shifting sands. There is a real question of how certainly the specific real operation of this setup can be decoded. My default position having looked at all the evidence would be that it cannot with certainty because of too many unknowns, but that it smells to high heaven. However specific statements made by Rossi (like the fact of a 1MW heat exchanger) can be shown false, and that then proves the Penon data false. Does it prove his device did not work to some extent? Of course not, that must, given the problematic nature of the test, be impossible.


    Rossi has a genius for setting up situations where tests that provide null evidence (due to his lack of transparency), are clearly highly suspicious, are interpreted as proving that his stuff works!


    You are at liberty to interpret a test like this, about which for good reasons nothing can be proven beyond doubt, as proof Rossi has what he claims. You would be wrong. You, I guess, for other reasons, believe Rossi has what he claims so you need no such proof. I understand that, but I don't have the same disadvantage, and need to fit all evidence into a "Rossi's stuff works" pattern.


    Proving a negative is essentially impossible. For example, it is fact that Rossi turned up to the Hydrofusion test with a non-working device, which he claimed worked because he measured it using average voltmeter and ammeter. Measured correctly, as it was by the professional test engineers hired by Hydrofusion, it did not work.


    That fact will not stop you, or guys on ECW, for finding reasons why that may be true but Rossi's stuff still works. Rossi's excuse (to IH) was that he deliberately made it not work to get out of a commitment to Hydrofusion. That was admittedly at odds with Mats's evidence of Rossi actions at the time. Another excuse is simply that this one device did not work, but nevertheless Rossi has working devices.


    These excuses do not cohere, and you need a certain suspension of judgement to follow them. In your case, I guess you would point to what you see as contrary evidence, relating to why IH chose to fund Rossi, or why the Swedes (perhaps) continue to support Rossi, and ignore such negatives.


    I believe non-working tests more than hype and whispers from Alan's friends, and Swedish and Bologna physicists proven incompetent at analysing Rossi tests. People are fallible, and the dream of extraordinary success can do strange things to people's judgement. For some scientists, Rossi's LENR working is I believe a similar dream. Given a charismatic Rossi they will go on believing, and their confidence will inform others, like Alan.


    Looked at dispassionately Rossi's actions make complete sense if he has never had anything except a great capacity to convince others. I understand that his combination of self-belief and deception is not easy for everyone to make sense of. Some people reckon he must be fully honest about his work, in which case he must have something, or fully a scammer, in which case some of his actions, and his ability to convince others, don't make sense. I have no such idea.


    People are not cut of a single cloth. And people are not always simple for others to understand. Rossi is an unusual and fascinating case, viewing purely his published statements and actions. The mixture of bravado, scientific illiteracy, and ability to inspire scientists fascinates me. You can see that whether you think his stuff works or not. So arguing from his unusual character to evidence for him having an LENR breakthrough seems to me wrong.


    As for pathological skeptics. That is an insult showing a dearth of objective analysis. What matters is the arguments, not who argues them.


    As for my interest here. I get bored when there is no new evidence. I find tantalising glimpses of something possibly unusual fascinating (thanks to Bocjin for introducing me to the whole electron shielding saga). I follow them up, and continue watching, but initial hopes so far have been disappointed. For me, I get great satisfaction in learning new stuff, whether it is IR thermography or the characteristics of strongly coupled plasmas. That personal exploration of physics stays with me, providing wonder and excitement, whether LENR exists or no.


    The Rossi saga continues to give because Rossi's demos are so inventive. Extraordinary there should so often be enough evidence to work out how the false positive is generated. And Rossi is a fascinating figure.

  • Bruce__H ,

    The funny thing is that Rossi supplied that Plant document (above) as proof that IH replicated his work. But in November 2014, I think the Plant was in Doral. It seems to me that it got there sometime in September 2014.


    Edit: I just went over BW's deposition. The Plant arrived in Doral in December, and didn't run until February. So the Plant document must have been made in Raleigh.


    Could this be a planning document? Someone (T Barker Dameron?) is trying to figure out the parameters of plant operation at COP = 6.

  • Also take note that there ARE large right-angled markings on the floor of the mezzanine. It seems that your underlying assumption is that the corners of the markings must correspond directly to the corners of the encasement. It would be normal, however, to set the encasement on support beams so that air could flow beneath the heat exchanger encasement. The support beams could quite easily correspond to the markings on the floor


    Please outline a set of marks on the floor that you consider would not be compatible with the presence of a heat exchanger. What if there were no marks on the floor? Would you then argue that this is also compatible with a heat exchanger in place?


    I think you need to consider what sort of evidence this is that you are bringing forth. If any mark that appears or doesn't appear is evidence, in your mind, for the existence of a heat exchanger on the mezzanine then I would argue it is no evidence at all.

  • Dott. Rossi is back online on the JONP and continuously, he is "twisting reality".



    • Andrea Rossi November 24, 2017 at 6:38 PM

      Ecat Fan:

      The official streaming of the event of November 24th, made at the Swedish Royal Academy of Engineering Sciences of Stockolm, will be put in the internet witin hours.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

      P.S. It has been already put on youtube by other sources, albeit in incomplete versions


    Mats Lewan  greggoble3 hours ago on (http://ecatworld.org) 

    [...]

    The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) had no connection with this demo, apart from owning the conference center, but it's a normal commercially based conference center where Rossi basically rented a conference room on normal conditions. Very nice and professionally managed place.


  • Seems more like YOU are twisting reality. The demo was "made at the Swedish Royal Academy of Engineering Sciences of Stockolm".


    Is there something that you do not understand with that statement ? Or are you only trying to induce some FUD?

  • See what Mr. M. Levan wrote:

    Mats Lewan  greggoble3 hours ago on (http://ecatworld.org)


    [...]

    The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) had no connection with this demo, apart from owning the conference center, but it's a normal commercially based conference center where Rossi basically rented a conference room on normal conditions. Very nice and professionally managed place.


    It's Dott. Rossi inducing some noble stuff to his demo ...


    Some as back in time with Unv. Bologna. But Unv. Bologna was NOT involved, as they stated. No, I'll not provide a link.
    Search for your own.


    If the CERN-Institution in Switzerland has a conference room, open for everybody to rent for some hours, in Rossi speak:

    "The demo was held at CERN".


    He is adding "glamour".


    Was this demo hosted by the IAV?

    Was this demo announced on the IAV web site?


    Do you understand now what I mean?

  • Rossi always seeks false associations with major universities and companies. He did it and was repudiated by U of Bologna, Upsalla, National Instruments, Philips, NASA maybe, and others I forget. It's a classical hallmark of free energy scams-- yet another that Rossi adopts. Along with meaningless certifications from agencies that allow self-certification. I am sorry nobody asked Rossi how the "certificators" he has had working with him since 2012 are doing with his original ecats and megawatt plant. Seems like the species of certificators we have these days suffers a lot of inertia. Come to think of it, nobody asked Rossi hard questions or if they did, the microphones were not in use so nobody heard them. Typical.

  • Rossi always seeks false associations with major universities and companies. He did it and was repudiated by U of Bologna, Upsalla, National Instruments, Philips, NASA maybe, and others I forget. It's a classical hallmark of free energy scams-- yet another that Rossi adopts. Along with meaningless certifications from agencies that allow self-certification. I am sorry nobody asked Rossi how the "certificators" he has had working with him since 2012 are doing with his original ecats and megawatt plant. Seems like the species of certificators we have these days suffers a lot of inertia. Come to think of it, nobody asked Rossi hard questions or if they did, the microphones were not in use so nobody heard them. Typical.

    Well Mary,


    Allen indicates that he would NOT

    be a Rossi stooge, let’s wait to see what he returns with and if he in fact asked difficult questions and Rossi, plainly,

    (not in Rossi Speak), answered them


    My guess is no, I might be wrong

    but I don’t think so, (“Charles Barkley”).