Disinterested state inspector: there was steam.
207-52, page 169:
4 Q. Now, stepping back for a moment back to
5 you had mentioned, again, seeing steam coming out of
6 one of the pipes --
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. -- near the red shipping containers.
9 A. Correct.
[The "red shipping containers" refer to the e-Cat, see bottom of page 169.]
207-52, page 169:
"17 ... and that was not high pressure steam but it
18 was a steam leak
This is probably one of the most important depositions that we have on the record. Because we have been hearing the no phase-change FUD for a long time now. There was steam. And that is very important to know in untangling this mystery. It in fact makes it very difficult to claim that there was no excess energy, and in fact points to massive amounts of it.
This post is why I find IHFB's comments here duplicitous.
It is just 100% false in its conclusion. I'd hope that IHFB you will read the analysis below and take it back.
Let us suppose that Rossi has his average 20kW of electrical heating power, and he is controlling the system (both its plumbing and the heater control) with aim of of getting:
measured ~100C on output-side TC
measured flowrate of 1800m^3/h.
measured 60C (or so) in tank.
Let us also suppose that his device produces no excess power, and see how difficult is Rossi's job, given all the facts we now have. IHFB claims that these readings (and other facts, see below) would together be highly unlikely.
Quite the reverse.
Let us deal first with this issue of phase change. Were I Rossi, wanting to obtain these measurements, I would absolutely require some phase change. You can stabilise temperature at just above 100C (how much above depends on pressure, which depends on flow rate and plumbing) by ensuring there is some phase change around the position of the TC. 3kW of boiling (a UK kettle) is more than enough or this delivering plenty of steam and vapour liquid in equilibrium at the desired temperature. Of course equilibrium is NOT required, and in general not exist. But this constant temperature tells me that local to the TC we have vapour/liquid in equilibrium (think of a kettle spout output being contained and measured). We get this from a few kW of our 20kW.
IHFB sees vapour as evidence for massive excess heat because he assumes that some large proportion (even 10% would do) of the claimed flowrate is vapourised and stays vapour going to the customer area. there is no evidence for that, and were I Rossi with his remit, I would happily get steam and the claimed temperatures with 99% of the flow liquid at 100C (because in equilibrium with vapour).
It is true that I (with my non-working device) cannot get true measurements of both flowrate, and 100C and 60C. But I am creative with the plumbing and I notice at least two different ways in which I get my required measurements.
(a) the flowmeter is 1/4-full with water and massively over-reads. Known charactersitic of this flowmeter, and enough to provide the factor of 4 bogus increase in flowrate. Arranging this is pretty easy - all it needs is meter in the return pipe and reverse pressure from gravity or pump preventing tank water from filling up the meter. Is there any credible evidence here saying this does not happen? RossiSays on any technical matter are clearly not credible.
(b) the condensate in the return pipe does not feed into the main tank which has temperature measured. Instead it feeds into a smaller, inner, tank separated from the reservoir and held at a much higher temperature. I personally would not choose this method - it is too obviously bogus. I'd worry somone competent noticed. But then I am not Rossi, and he seems capable of preventing competent people from seeing the system. Also I'd need to remove the plumbing before it could be independently checked. Tick. And I'd need to change the plumbing from any system provided by IH and competently designed. Tick.
Maybe after I have read all the evidence now available i could distinguish between these two? Maybe somone else here cam do that. But likely the evidence we do have of spoliation means we just cannot - and both remain possible.
Coming back to the point about steam. There is a lot of indirect evidence that 1MW was not produced. But there can be no indirect evidence that say COP=6 (which would pass the GPT test, were this the GPT) was not produced. A bit more vapour pushed to the customer area and condensed there would do that. Equally there is no evidence that happened. IHFB's polemic cleverness here is in continually taking this "no evidence" scenario and spinning it against IH. I'm writing this post because he has made a mistake. He is claiming above (incorrectly) that the existence of steam makes strong positive evidence for excess heat.
No evidence of COP excess, and no evidence against COP=6, cannot be averaged out to mean a good probability of COP >> 1. There is massive amounts of indirect evidence that Rossi does not have usable COP of even 2, because if he had this it would be very big news, highly commercial (anyone know how to change COP=2 into COP=infinity? It is not that hard!), and Rossi would get his 89.5m from IH, if he wanted it, even with no GPT. IH would have a goldmine.
I sort of agree that a persistent pattern of Rossi being an inveterate liar who prevents anyone competent and independent from checking his demos, and misleads others as naturally as he breathes, does not prove they don't work. Count it as weak negative evidence. But it does nullify any apparent positive evidence from past demos. Rossi with an unusual chance of getting big money from IH, which he clearly wants, and refusing to help them get working equipment, is strong negative evidence.