Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    ***Bullsh***, er, I mean nonsense. He had an independent 3rd party report in hand that said the devices work, as per the agreement.

    IH needed to settle because the judge would have treated that independent third party report as a... wait for it.... third party report.


    IH's contention, backed up by sworn evidence from Darden and others, is that the IH devices never worked, but for some time they were deceived by Rossi's measurement method which showed X3 or more false positive. We know now BTW from many independent analyses both empirical and analytical that the Lugano power measurement method advocated by Levi and Rossi can do this.


    THHuxleynew is describing the Levi tests with the small cylindrical devices. As noted, an empty one produced apparent excess heat, and Rossi got upset.


    However, perhaps kevmol has in mind the Doral test, and by "third party report" he means the Penon report. I and many others concluded that report was invalid. For details, see the report itself and the reviews by Murray and Smith:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.65_Exhibit_65.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.01_Exhibit-1.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/252-05-Exhibit-E.pdf


    I am pretty sure he meant the Penon report, from what he wrote here:


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    a yearlong demo and a 3rd party report saying it worked, which is what their contract stipulated.


    The contract did stipulate this, but the report was invalid, having fake data and physically impossible claims. Such a report cannot fulfil a contract.

    Quote from interested observer

    While kevmolenr continues with his crusade, it seems appropriate to make a side comment. As far as I am concerned, as soon as an individual here uses the term “skeptopath”, I confidently place them in the intellectual spam folder and confidently disregard any opinions they share going forward. This is not unique. On more general websites, I do the same for anyone who uses the term “libtard”.

    Only a true skeptopath would say such a thing. You might as well face it IO, the Ecatard may be right. :)

    I'm convinced the skeptopaths will always win because every time someone comes up with a powerful LENR technology that could convince the world they go the same path as me356, Rossi, Russ George, and others so the technology ends up going nowhere. Inventor's syndrome is what continually stops LENR and cold fusion from emerging into the mainstream.

    It's my new conviction to consider any inventor of a revolutionary, paradigm shattering technology (not simply a better light bulb) that starts off open and then goes secretive (especially when he or she admits to a financial motivation) is most likely never going to accomplish anything that benefits the world. Simply put, if someone invents a better light bulb today, they file a patent application and if the idea is even marginally significant a half dozen news articles will be written explaining the concept. I've seen several examples of this in the past year or two. With conventional technologies, the inventor follows the same route as every other technology. He or she files a patent, writes papers, and shares the know how openly. However, when it comes to people with a cold fusion or LENR technology that they feel is a breakthrough, they almost always feel that they need to work differently than someone with a conventional technology. But the truth is that they should follow the exact same path as if they had invented something much more mundane. Inventor's syndrome gets in the way. They start thinking their technology is so special they have to start playing games to protect it.


    Patterson, Russ, Rossi, and a long list of inventor's needed or need to go about bringing their technology to the market exactly as if it were a better light bulb - perhaps with a new kind of filament or LED. Sadly, that's not happening with Russ or Rossi.

    Quote from Director

    Inventor's syndrome is what continually stops LENR and cold fusion from emerging into the mainstream.


    Most researchers are academic scientists working for government institutions, such as national labs or universities. These researchers do not have any financial stake in the discovery. They will never own the IP, any more than the government researchers who invented the internet did. They cannot earn more than their regular salaries, even if cold fusion earns trillions of dollars. So they cannot be affected by the inventor's syndrome.


    A few of the researchers who invented internet protocols such as Vincent Cerf and Robert Kahn became famous among programmers. Those two finally did get a financial reward for their work. They won the Turing Award, which is the Nobel Prize of programming. It used to be just a prize as I recall, but starting in 2007 it included $250,000, and lately it has been boosted to $1 million. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Award) Some other pioneering experts who developed the internet were hired by Google and other big companies as Fellows (people who can work on whatever they want) at high salaries. However, none of them got any royalties.



    I know who most of the Turing Award winners are, and what they did, but you probably don't. Do you know who Niklaus Wirth is? Frederick Brooks? There would be no internet security or credit card transactions without public-key cryptography, invented by Hellman and Diffie. Their contributions to the economy probably amounts to trillions of dollars, but they did not make those profits. Academic researchers such as Joseph Henry, Michael Faraday and von Neumann invented just about every important technology since 1600, but they seldom get any benefit from it, and most people have no idea who they are. The industrialists who take advantage of their discoveries get the credit. Hellman and Diffie made it possible to do banking over the internet, but bank presidents are the ones who earn hundreds of millions a year from that invention.

    Quote from Director

    I'm convinced the skeptopaths will always win because every time someone comes up with a powerful LENR technology that could convince the world they go the same path as me356, Rossi, Russ George, and others so the technology ends up going nowhere. Inventor's syndrome is what continually stops LENR and cold fusion from emerging into the mainstream.

    That’s it Director, you got it for sure,

    Inventors syndrome, that’s the reason that they all fail.

    Couldn’t possibly be that it doesn’t work?


    Thank you for the "Rick Smith" trip down memory lane.

    Of all the players. I rate him as least competent compared to expectations. (And the most irritating).

    He's the one who mis-read the pump specification as "Maximum" where it's actually "Minimum'.
    "Max Flow 32 l/hr".

    Maybe he can be forgiven for not realizing that that specification is significantly exceeded at low head.


    Quote

    In the vast majority of the cases, this cell content was 36000, not 35837, or

    36714, but 36000 exactly. 27000 and 29000 were well represented also. This is undoubtedly the
    most uniform data collection which this author has seen in his forty plus years of engineering.
    There is no reason or need to round data to the nearest 1000 in a report like this. In fact, one
    needs to use the “Round” function in a spreadsheet to get numbers to display like this. This
    author has more comments on the water meter later in the report.


    That's because the main dial only reads out thousands. 36, 27 and 29.
    (The other digits were available on hard-to-get-to internal dials)


    [ Quote isn't working right ... START ]


    On 2. Dec 2015, Mr. Fabiani notes this, “power decrease to 700kw upon client's request”. However, Mr.
    Penon’s data indicates a produced energy value of 1,41E+07, which is engineering notation for
    14,100,000 watts per day. Dividing this by 24 hours yields 587,500 watts or 587.5KW. There is a
    112.5KW discrepancy between Mr. Fabiani’s data and Mr. Penon’s reported output. One could logically
    ask who is correct, and why the discrepancy.


    On 22. Dec 2015, Mr. Fabiani notes this, “reactor 2 reboot and power generated taken back to 1MWh/h
    upon client's request”. Similarly, Mr. Penon reports a produced energy value of 2,03E+07, or 20,300,000
    watts per day. Dividing by 24 yields 845,833 watts, or 845.3 KW. There is a 154.2KW discrepancy here.


    Because of these incidents, and likely many others, all of the data in the Penon report must be viewed
    with extreme skepticism.

    [ END ]

    The "Penon" readings were taken at a set time of day. If the “power decrease to 700kw upon client's request” took place at EXACTLY the same time as the meter was read, then the two figures might agree.

    But they were most likely done at a different time ... lets say 6 hours. (I didn't do the revers-average math)

    Penon = 18 hours at 1 MW + 6 hours at 700kw

    Of course it will differ.

    [QUOTE]
    To use “COP” as a measure of the efficiency of a heat producing device (the E-Cat), as opposed to a work absorbing device (an air conditioner), is a misapplication of the term.
    [END]

    It's a perfectly fine term, is well defined, and is widely used in the LENR community.

    On the irritating side ... why introduce a picture of a 1GW high-pressure COAL-fired power plant and compare it with a 1 MW low-pressure plant?

    and "The astute reader will notice" .....

    "To illustrate, if one boils water (212° F) to make sweet tea and leaves the hot tea sitting

    on the counter, what happens to it? Does it naturally get hotter or does it eventually cool down
    to room temperature? We all know ...... "

    Why Sweet tea? Does it matter if it's not sweet?

    Because is is silly to think that the pumps would be used in a way that is far outside of their calibration range, while controlling the working fluid of a nuclear reactor in a way that metering itself is as much luck as a measurement.

    And totally silly that heat would be measured in 1000's of liters and recorded manually when the gauge is designed to send pulses every 100 L electronically, a part of a package literally designed to measure heat delivery. If that 100 L pulse generator cover were removed, then the dials are very easy to see and read: dials like that are read all over the world for water use and until recently (and still in many places) for reading electrical consumption meters.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    And totally silly that heat would be measured in 1000's of liters and recorded manually when the gauge is designed to send pulses every 100 L electronically, a part of a package literally designed to measure heat delivery. If that 100 L pulse generator cover were removed, then the dials are very easy to see and read: dials like that are read all over the world for water use and until recently (and still in many places) for reading electrical consumption meters.


    So why didn't Smith say something along those lines?

    Instead of "This is undoubtedly the most uniform data collection which this author has seen in his forty plus years of engineering."

    • Official Post

    Camillo, the poster on Cobraf who claims to have been at one of the early independent Ecat tests, had this interesting perspective:


    I summarize:

    Since 1989, a strange phenomenon of unexplained heat increase has been reported. In an attempt to frame it in the known, it was sought to "propose" as an explanation the fact that hydrogen penetrated Nickel (and many other materials), accumulating in the crystalline and at some point inexplicably able to pass the Coulombian barrier.

    Now it seems that unlike what we thought, I first, is not to be framed in a phenomenon of confinement of the hydrogen proton in the lattices of various minerals.

    The first to notice were Fleischmann and Pons , then a big contribution was given by Piantelli, finally Rossi.

    It is likely that both Fleischmann and Piantelli would adsorb (adsorb = gas within solid) with IMPULSED current. Rossi then certainly did it.

    Without that impulse the phenomenon does not happen, in the presence of the impulse the phenomenon remains uncertain depending on intensity and quality of the impulse (it must be as intense and unidirectional as possible)

    Rossi did not have the repetition feared, but he understood that the secret was in the trigger mode rather than the triggered mixture.

    Rossi knew he was holding a real phenomenon, but his attempts to make it repeatable and controllable were in vain.

    Time passed and his promises left the suspicion of ....

    Rossi realized that the key point was that if he could get the reaction to trigger then it was very easy to maintain it and often achieved self-support.

    He therefore tried to find a minimum repeatable trigger condition. He sought repeatability and no more quantity. Eventually he came to the ignition match. He compared the "match" to a mouse. He said that the mouse's presence made the cat move, which in turn made the rat run.

    He worked hard to perfect the "mouse".

    And here was the turning point! The Qx presented in Stockholm showed that the key point was the impulse followed by an electromagnetic wave that "oriented" the phenomenon. The speech of adsorption completely skipped because at 600 ° the crystalline degrades.

    In the last year Rossi continued his research, varying the parameters, radiofrequency, addition of magnetic fields..etc. At a certain point from what it transpires is as if it had arrived very close to a self-stopping of the plasma that comes on (the dancer).

    Andrea Rossi now states - without any verification or proof from third parties - that the tiny reactor tube of an SK (only a few cubic centimeters in volume) can produce up to 27 kilowatts of thermal power with a minimum input. Indeed, in a statement issued to Mats Lewan, (a respected engineer and journalist who reported on the evolution of the E-Cat technology for several years), the output can be increased up to 60 kW for a short time. In some operating modes, it is argued that direct electrical output can also be produced, albeit with less efficiency.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    IH's contention,

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    read the detailed statements from IH,

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    fact that IH statements are made under oath

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    IH also had documents showing

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    IH had a plan


    Yeah yeah, IH says ...


    Remember. These IH guys are simply business laywer money people. As untrustworthy as they are made. It's their business to manufacture narratives, half truths and lies. This is not news to anyone.

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.