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

    Quote from Tony

    ...there was a cut exactly where I was supposed to watch ... and that Krivit did not film the whole process, so information is lacking ...

    Oh yeah - evil Krivit cut from the video the part where Rossi explained that the black hose is filled with prototypes of the same ‘steam eating’ platinium sponges, which he later during the Doral test cooked to perfection.

    This little heat suckers are the reason why we can only see a little steam puff exiting the hose, and not what one would expect from 7 kg/h steam.:P


    All explained now - case closed.

    Let us summarise the known public information about this demo


    (1) the steam viewed coming from the hose is nothing like the volume claimed by Rossi. It is not difficult to see steam emitted into the atmosphere, and not difficult to make the comparison. Many independent observers have noted this.

    (2) the water pump is situated in a bad position where it may not read accurately. This is irrelevant given more substantive errors but typical of Rossi experimental setup, and undisputable.

    (3) there is some evidence that Rossi deliberately changed the system input when observers went to look at the output, and looked guilty when caught doing so. This is "soft" evidence and unclear


    From which, combined with the IH/Rossi Court evidence, we get:

    • Rossi's experiment here was rubbish and not capable of showing that his device generates energy.
    • The experiment equally cannot prove that Rossi's device was not generating energy. No inaccurate experiment can prove that, and all Rossi's allowed public experiments have been inaccurate. Rossi's advocates here emphasise this fact and say that therefore we should reserve judgement. It seems highly unlikley that any of Rossi's private experiments have been more accurate and therefore presumably Rossi himself cannot prove that his stuff does not work.
    • Rossi lies, behaves appallingly to business partners, and actively prevents proper testing of his devices. The only time he entered into a business relationship that allowed this (with a $100M carrot for a working device) he argued with independent technicians about whether his devices were working and in the end had a major bust-up. His story for this is that his business partner deliberately pretended his device was not working. There seems no motive for this, and every motive for them to want to proceed, paying Rossi whatever was needed, for working proof of concept devices that they expected to sell for much more than $100M. It is notable that Rossi has now suspended work on these same devices, saying they are not commercial.


    For me, after 6 years of this, reserving judgement is ill-advised! But I suspect there will always be new watchers of this drama who have a different view. Also a very few old watchers, Sifferkol and Mats come to mind, whose views seem unaffected by the above.

    I think it is difficult to judge the amount of steam or the quality of steam just by looking a video of the steam. When Krivit made this video, I borrowed a 1.5 kW steam cleaner from a friend and tried looking at the steam with various methods, such as against a black background. It was difficult to compare it to the video or to reach a conclusion. The only thing I can report is that 1.5 kW of steam does not look like much.


    (1.5 kW is the most that a modern U.S. appliance is supposed to draw when plugged into a 120 VAC outlet. They used to allow 2 kW heaters and things like that.)

    1.5kW of steam may not be much but how about a megawatt? Hey, enthusiasts, when did Rossi manage to show that? Even with a giant Diesel generator running or giant cables connecting his various IH kluges to the main? No enthusiast remembers the HUGE sub-panel connecting Rossi's"megawatt plant" to the mains? If it was as efficient as he and Penon claim, why did he need such fat cables? Three phase power at 440V?

    Many people here are concentrating on steam quality (i.e., the extent to which the steam emerging from the hose that Mr Rossi holds up is wet or dry). But this is difficult to assess visually except to say that if you see white clouds emerging from the hose that there must be some degree of moisture in the steam. I think this is Jed's point.


    In my opinion a more profitable way to look at the events in the video is to concentrate on the velocity of the vapourous mixture emanating from the hose rather than its quality. This approach makes use of the entrained water droplets as indicators of velocity but otherwise ignores steam quality. Given the dimensions of the hose and the observed exit velocity from it, one should be able to put an upper bound on the volume of water that is being vapourized per unit time that is needed to produce that flow. To a first approximation this amount will be the volume of the emerging gasses per second divided by the expansion factor of water from the liquid to the gas states (about 1700x). This will place an upper limit on the COP (because you can figure out the energy flux needed to vapourize that much water and compare it to energy in). There will be adjustments needed to this, of course, such as considerations of condensation within the hose itself and the pressure within the ecat (which will change the expansion factor), but I think that they will be minor.


    I have done some of these calculations already but would be interested to see someone else try them too and to hear opinions on whether calculations based on velocity are sufficient for putting bounds on the COP. I am particularly interested in understanding whether, contrary to TTHuxleyNew's position, there is enough information in the video to show that Rossi's device is not generating any extra heat at all.

    I made a mistake in identifying the video that I think contains the most interesting material regarding the ecat's capabilities. Krivit has put together several videos on Rossi's demonstrations but the ones I am most interested in were taken by Krivit himself and portray a Rossi demonstration in 2011, not 2012.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    I am particularly interested in understanding whether, contrary to TTHuxleyNew's position, there is enough information in the video to show that Rossi's device is not generating any extra heat at all.


    I'm not against trying to bound the device energy generation (e.g. upper bound on COP). However by definition it is not possible, given any error bars, to rule out COP > 1. Rossi's error bars here must be pretty large.

    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.


    I am particularly interested in the steam emanating from the hose that Mr Rossi holds up at around 11:30 in the video. This is before the cut that worries you.


    Do you accept that the steam emanating from the hose at about 11:30 in the video is what Mr Rossi is saying comes out of his ecat?

    Quote from Bruce__H

    I am particularly interested in the steam emanating from the hose that Mr Rossi holds up at around 11:30 in the video. This is before the cut that worries you.


    Do you accept that the steam emanating from the hose at about 11:30 in the video is what Mr Rossi is saying comes out of his ecat?


    Well, keep on speculating... I'm simply saying it is useless because there is not enough information to tell. You should ask Mats Lewan or someone else with first hand information. Much better.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Not enough information to tell what? The velocity of the steam?


    Yes. As I said. You are simply speculating. You could be right, you could be wrong. We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.

    Hey, Tony, why did ALL of Rossi's original demos as well as Levi's experiment published in NyTeknik studiously avoid calibration?

    Quote from Tony

    Yes. As I said. You are simply speculating. You could be right, you could be wrong. We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.


    Perhaps you'd like to substantiate this claim? I'm sure something can be determined about steam velocity and (more importantly) flow rate from a video - though less sure it will be useful here. Still, the attempt to do this is virtuous and while negativity may be correct, I feel that negativity with not one tiny shred of rationale is unhelpful.


    In fact it is precisely you who are creating an environment of uncertainty by asserting without evidence that further information cannot be got from this video. In these posts you have consistently trumpeted the impossibility of concluding anything much from publicly available information. So it is pot calling kettle black for you to accuse Bruce_H of this.

    Quote from Tony

    Yes. As I said. You are simply speculating. You could be right, you could be wrong. We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.


    You don't think that one can use the video to estimate the velocity of the steam emanating from the hose? You surprise me. There are always errors associated with such estimates, of course, but I don't think that this particular estimate has to be all that accurate in order to lead to some insight about what is going on here.


    For instance, do you think that entrained water droplets that we see emerging from the hose are initially travelling at more than 10 m/s when they come out?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Perhaps you'd like to substantiate this claim? I'm sure something can be determined about steam velocity and (more importantly) flow rate from a video - though less sure it will be useful here. Still, the attempt to do this is virtuous and while negativity may be correct, I feel that negativity with not one tiny shred of rationale is unhelpful.


    In fact it is precisely you who are creating an environment of uncertainty by asserting without evidence that further information cannot be got from this video. In these posts you have consistently trumpeted the impossibility of concluding anything much from publicly available information. So it is pot calling kettle black for you to accuse Bruce_H of this.


    You are correct in that I don't reduce uncertainty since I do not have any real new information to add. So tell me, how could I? All I'm doing is to state the fact that it is uncertain and that the video to not include enough information to prove anything, which is hardly controversial and I don't really need any evidence for that. A proof of there being nothing to prove ... Your a funny guy... ;)

    Quote from Bruce__H

    There are always errors associated with such estimates, of course, but I don't think


    Exactly. But I don't really care what you "think". Your are the one supposed to bring the evidence, not estimates or speculations. Go there , and make the measurements. That is the only way.

    Quote from Tony

    You are correct in that I don't reduce uncertainty since I do not have any real new information to add. So tell me, how could I? All I'm doing is to state the fact that it is uncertain and that the video to not include enough information to prove anything, which is hardly controversial and I don't really need any evidence for that. A proof of there being nothing to prove ... Your a funny guy... ;)


    It seems to be happening a lot today but again I must point out that you are subtly but crucially changing the meaning of your own comment.


    You said, in response to Bruce-H's question:


    We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.


    That is not just a statement that you cannot work it out - fair enough. It is a more definite statement that no-one can ever work it out. And one that I'm sure on reflection you realise was unjustified. You of course need very solid evidence to be sure there is no evidence, as you claim. In fact since it is a technical question, where others are likely to have more expertise than you, your statement was foolhardy.


    Instead of putting your hand up and recanting you attempt here to redefine your previous comment into a personal statement of uncertainty: I do not have any real new information to add, whilst perpetuating the implication that it is more than that: [I] state the fact that it is uncertain and the video do not include enough information to prove anything.


    Either you are properly stating personal uncertainty, in which case it is open for someone else to make more progress, or you are unwisely stating that no-one can do this. Conflating the two will not get us anywhere helpful...

    Quote from Tony

    Exactly. But I don't really care what you "think". Your are the one supposed to bring the evidence, not estimates or speculations. Go there , and make the measurements. That is the only way.


    The only way? Simply not true. Would you tell astronomers to stop estimating the angular velocity of asteroids and other interesting things in the solar system because the only way to estimate such things is to go there?


    I contend that the video does contain evidence of velocity. For instance, the steam emanating from the hose is clearly emerging very slowly ... at about 1 cm/s.

    I think we also have bad news for postmortem teams such as the one that took a look at the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger; or, indeed, any police detectives investigating a crime. They will want to know that the modeling and reconstruction of events they regularly engage in is without basis.

    @ Bruce__H

    This short video could be helpful:

    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.

    It was made by Mario Massa, a member of the GSVIT, and shows a steam jet of 7 kg/h escaping from a hose.

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.