Steven Krivit's 2012 video of Rossi demonstrating the E-Cat

    Quote from Tony

    Reading the report, the Rossi story in Darden trying to steal the IP and not paying according to contract makes a lot of sense. This is the way Darden has always done business. Don't you agree you should look at these real facts?


    I am looking at the report. Is there a particular region of interest you can direct me to?


    But now that we are looking at past events to judge more recent ones, I would like you to take a look at the video recorded by Steven Krivit in 2011 in Mr. Rossi's facilities in Bologna. The nice thing about this video is that factual evidence is all there and one doesn't need to consult news reports or court proceedings etc. In this video you will see Mr Rossi demonstrating his Ecat invention and at one point (about 11:20 in the video) he holds up a hose out of which is emerging visible steam. He also makes the claim that the input to the hose is 7 kg of steam per hour. I would like you to try and calculate how fast the steam should be emerging if the 7 kg/hour claim is true. According to my calculations the velocity of the steam should be many many times what we actually see. It think that this huge discrepancy bears heavily on the events at Doral (if history is to be a guide, as you say it should be). Let me know if your calculations concur with mine. I can outline my calculations for you if you like. It is nice that in this video all the evidence is open and that we can discuss things on a factual basis.


    Here is a link to the video ...

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    I would like you to try and calculate how fast the steam should be emerging if the the amount is really as much as Mr Rossi says. According to my calculations the velocity of the steam should be many many times what we actually see.


    Wow. That sounds like an exercise for the imbeciles. There are an almost infinite amount of unknowns and assumptions involved in such a thing not being on site there first hand to do the measurements. Or are you stating that you have been there?

    Quote from Tony

    Wow. That sounds like an exercise for the imbeciles. There are an almost infinite amount of unknowns and assumptions involved in such a thing not being on site there first hand to do the measurements. Or are you stating that you have been there?


    Please take a shot at it. I think you will find that everything needed for the calculations is there. If not, then please suggest what is missing.


    Oh , and .... I wasn't there.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    In this video you will see Mr Rossi demonstrating his Ecat invention and at one point (about 11:20 in the video) he holds up a hose out of which is emerging visible steam. He also makes the claim that the input to the hose is 7 kg of steam per hour.

    ... and for comparison here a video of how 6 kg/h steam from a hose (which even appears to have a blarger diameter than the one Rossi used) looks like:

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Please take a shot at it. I think you will find that everything needed for the calculations is there. If not, then please suggest what is missing.


    Oh , and .... I wasn't there.


    Sure, but maybe there are things present in reality that does not show in the video? Or not? We don't know do we? It's just a waste of time and I have better things to do.

    Quote from Tony

    Sure, but maybe there are things present in reality that does not show in the video? Or not? We don't know do we? It's just a waste of time and I have better things to do.


    I disagree with your point of view if for no other reason that Mr. Rossi feels that it is possible to make calculations based on his claims and the evidence in the video (

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    ).


    Would it help if I show you my own calculations? That way you can suggest how they might be wrong based on things what would be present in reality but do not show in the video.

    Bruce__H

    Quote

    Please take a shot at it. I think you will find that everything needed for the calculations is there. If not, then please suggest what is missing

    ROTFWL! Thanks Bruce. I admit my physics is rusty enough that I would have to look up how to calculate the linear velocity of the steam from the mass flow rate and the tube diameter. But the information is readily available. And then, of course, there is Forty-Two 's excellent illustrative video. Rossi's look in Lewan's video edited and annotated by Krivit, also tells volumes. I call it the Deer in the Headlights video. Rossi looks irritated and mortified that he has been caught red handed making moronic claims about his idiotic estimate of steam mass flow. That video, as annotated, is an absolute classic.


    Elsewhere, Rossi claims that the steam output from his original ecats is dry when it is very clear from various observations and measurements that it is not. Lying about the dryness of the steam accounts exactly for the supposed 6:1 COP in Rossi's early experiments and demos. ANOTHER item Lewan completely overlooked. But the experts at NASA didn't miss it:


    (next to last slide) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf with thanks to Jed Rothwell who posted the document.

    Quote from Tony

    My message however was obviously not intended for you, since your bias is already set in stone and you are pushing it best you can, as good as anyone of those other anonymous Internet commentators with unclear agendas and financing.


    I have found that a very good way to avoid having presumptions and bias dominate a conversation is to look at facts and data and see how far they take you. That is why I invited you previously to look at the video, taken by Steven Krivit, of one of Mr Rossi's demonstrations from 2012. I think it is relevant because one can just look at the events going on, make some calculations, and then see if what Rossi says make sense.


    I urge you again to at least take a look at the video to see whether you think the amount of steam that should be emerging from the hose can be adequately estimated and compared with the steam actually seen emerging.


    Here is my original request to you to look at the video. It contains a link to the video itself.

    Clearance Items


    Thanks for the link again. You might be correct, or you might not. There is simply no conclusions that can be made from a couple of seconds in a Krivit video. Many explanations are possible. If you were there, like Mats Lewan has been several times, then maybe I would care what you have to say. Now you are simply another anonymous Internet commenter (like me ;) ) with unclear agenda and financing.

    Quote from Tony

    Thanks for the link again. You might be correct, or you might not. There is simply no conclusions that can be made from a couple of seconds in a Krivit video. Many explanations are possible.


    I challenge your conclusion here. I think that the situation is well defined enough that we can reach some order-of-magnitude conclusions. It is certain that Mr Rossi thinks that he has given enough information to make calculations. He says so in the video.


    According to my calculations, the exit velocity of the steam actually emanating from the hose Mr. Rossi is holding is more than an order of magnitude smaller than it should be based on Mr Rossi's claims. Please point out why you think there is not enough information in the video to reach this sort of conclusion. Where do you think the uncertainty exists.


    By the way, my agenda is to figure out if Mr Rossi has something real or not.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    I challenge your conclusion here. I think that the situation is well defined enough that we can reach some order-of-magnitude conclusions. It is certain that Mr Rossi thinks that he has given enough information to make calculations. He says so in the video.


    According to my calculations, the exit velocity of the steam actually emanating from the hose Mr. Rossi is holding is more than an order of magnitude smaller than it should be based on Mr Rossi's claims. Please point out why you think there is not enough information in the video to reach this sort of conclusion. Where do you think the uncertainty exists.


    By the way, my agenda is to figure out if Mr Rossi has something real or not.


    I'll give you one example. I can see there is a cut in the video at about 11:50. Maybe the two incidents are not connected. And what's behind the wall? If there was an explanation there I bet Krivit would not tell us (he went all in on the sell side, which at least makes him transparent... ) I dont know, do you? This is the reason I say I trust Mats Lewan orders of magnitude above you. First hand experience is all it is about.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    If there's a subthread that was moved here because it was off-topic in a different thread, just ask and it can probably be moved to a dedicated thread of its own.


    I think there is some juice still left in the 2012 Krivit video of Rossi demonstrating his ecat. I have attempted to ask Tony about it on the Clearance thread and IH_Fanboy about it on the Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion thread.

    Quote from Tony

    I'll give you one example. I can see there is a cut in the video at about 11:50. Maybe the two incidents are not connected. And what's behind the wall? If there was an explanation there I bet Krivit would not tell us (he went all in on the sell side, which at least makes him transparent... ) I dont know, do you? This is the reason I say I trust Mats Lewan orders of magnitude above you. First hand experience is all it is about.

    "Maybe the two incidents are not connected."

    Not connected? Where is your problem at 11:50? Did the scenery change so much. It's not an Ed Wood movie :)

    "And what's behind the wall?"

    It's hole in a wall!

    It doesn't matter at all, what's maybe behind the wall!

    (Maybe some of Rossi's invisible add-on-devices, heat exchangers or rare/costly material manipulation/generation?)

    Or more simple and certain: the outside world!


    What matters is what is coming out of the hose:

    Dry steam? NOT!

    A steam flow from 7kg/hrs water vaporisation? NOT!

    So, you can ask, what's inside the "E-CAT" producing this tiny amount of WET steam.

    A simple some several 100 watts electric heater, COP<1.

    And simply even on the Matt's video: DRY steam? Really?

    Steam quality / Krivit


    http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ec…410H.php#krivitexperiment


    The one thing we didn't see in the Krivit video was the measurement of the flow rate (volume or mass vs time). I don't know why Krivit didn't ask to see the inlet tank weighed or measured by volume. (Easy : select a mark on the tank, fill it to that level. Watch it for N seconds, refill and see how much water it took).


    Rossi refers to the pump as a "peristaltic" pump, but it's actually a diaphragm pump similar to the prominent. (Discussed elsewhere ... I don't have time to look it up). There were criticisms in earlier tests that although Levi et al measured the output by volume, this number was higher than the spec. But the pump has the same characteristic as the prominent : it over-delivers at low outlet pressure.


    Although "NASA" pointed out that steam quality at 100.1C COULD have been between 0% and 100% the fact of the matter is that NO fluid water was coming out of the hose (any liquid water would be in the form of water drops)


    Either:


    a) This ecat is a Tube boiler, with a dry-out point of 80% quality

    b) This ecat is a kettle boiler, with about 95% quality.

    De-rate Rossi's calculation by 50% steam quality and you still have COP = 2.6

    Once again, the REAL elephant in the room is 1) Rossi's failure to show calibration of the output energy measuring system and 2) Lewan's total negligence in not demanding that it be done BY HIM. Same with tracing and measurement of the input power.


    If anyone had properly calibrated, this would all be moot. Of course, the ecat would have been revealed as COP<1. Absent proper calibration of input and output and isolation of input power so one can see there is no cheating, the entire exercise is pretty much futile.


    The highlight of the video by Lewan edited by Krivit is when Lewan catches Rossi screwing around with the controls and then the ecat starts making boiling noises and steam increases. Rossi was obviously goosing the heater. And when caught, he had a classical "deer in the headlights" expression easily seen in the video. When asked how it was going, his lame answer to Lewan was the now classic, "Stable... stable." Yes, electric heaters are stable, Mr. Rossi.


    I'm not sure the version of video you are all talking about. This is the one I refer to as clear illustration of Rossi cheating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?…er_embedded&v=uviXoafHWrU

    And we expect a stable "true-believer-and-you-are-nothing-else-as-simply-another-anonymous-Internet-commenter-with-unclear-agenda-and-financing" from Tony, aren't we?


    Or, do you have something substantial to comment, Tony?

    Better than, what's behind the wall...

    The water meter also over-reports when it is installed without ensuring that air cannot be in the water line, like pumping water uphill towards the meter, or having the water drain to lower than the meter, without using a U-bend to submerge the impeller fully. A water meter located at the top of the water circuit is the worst position of all.

    Quote from bang99

    And we expect a stable "true-believer-and-you-are-nothing-else-as-simply-another-anonymous-Internet-commenter-with-unclear-agenda-and-financing" from Tony, aren't we?


    Or, do you have something substantial to comment, Tony?

    Better than, what's behind the wall...


    No need to go ballistic. Bruce argued I should watch the video, so I did. I noticed that there was a cut exactly where I was supposed to watch ... and that Krivit did not film the whole process, so information is lacking ... Thats all. And I believe it to be common knowledge that the Krivit agenda and financing is not even very unclear ...


    To analyze to video anymore than that is the work of either imbeciles or it is done with the aim to confuse.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.