Wow, you have worked at CERN.
And now it's your job to defend messy tests in an internet forum ...
... I'm so sorry for you.
P.S.
If you really would had been there, would you ever have seen a paper at CERN utilizing such low scientific standards like the "Lugano test report"?
If yes, then it was surely the menu card for the canteen.
The patent attorney has corrected a few mistakes which he had made when he had filed the original application in 2014.
No big deal.
And that says nothing about IH's current valuation of E-Cat IP.
No one believes in the future of the E-Cat, not even Rossi himself, who is focusing totally on his new design, the QuarkX.
This doesn't mean, that the E-Cat never had produced excess heat or that the NiH process is a failure, but it shows that Rossi's claims of COP 50 are not more than calculation mambo jambo.
The same magical calculation tricks as have been utilized before, in 2011. (Ignoring real measured values and claiming that all water had been vaporized to superheated dry steam, when in reality it was only a kind of wet steam.)
The only way to prove otherwise would be if the ERV report contains among other details explicit and continuous measured data of steam quality (temperature, pressure, specific volume).
But that's not to expect, because Rossi has already proclaimed that the steam quality had been verified by the "customer". And we all know, what that means.
If that will be true and the data is missing in the report, this would be a clear indication of fraud, because the allegations made in 2011 were primarily based on steam quality and no one who got these allegations in the past would publish a test report without proper measurements of steam quality, especially without parameters like the specific volume of the steam.
I just wanted to clarify that other reasons exist why an Al2O3 reaction chamber is perhaps not such a good idea.
P.S.
For me, the claims of me356 are not substantiated. He mentioned in his thread, that his reactors were made of stainless steel.
Thomas,
I think, you're absolutely right for cases where the fuel/reaction is in direct contact with an Al2O3 reaction chamber.
But, because of general problems with Li and Al2O3 reactions, I would anyways not recommend an Al2O3 fuel/reaction chamber for future designs.
The IH patent (based on the Lugano test) also shows in Fig. 6 an alternative reactor configuration, where the reaction chamber could be made of stainless steel, enclosed in a separate (alumina) housing between reaction chamber and heater wires (and another maybe alumina layer on top of the heater wires).
Replicators, who claim to be successful (me356, Zhang Hang), have been used stainless steel reaction chambers.
Thinking of steam produced by the E-Cat Reactor back in 2011,
like Krivit mentioned:
"There's more steam coming from an average coffee-maker" or something like that.
Now, in 2016, we have more superheated, dry steam coming from an E-Cat reactor?
I would definitely like to see it!
I love this video and in part 2 of the sequel you can see real transmutation.
P.S.
Parallels to the 1 MW plant are not intentional and would of course be purely coincidental.
Your troll tactics do not work here because everyone can read what I had written.
I never claimed that nothing had been measured.
You will certainly understand that my time is too valuable to waste it with your misrepresentations and not wonder that I will not respond to your
comments in the future.
Dewey,
I'm eagerly waiting for the "ERV" entertainment.
But there will certainly be no easy task to lead them to the right path.
You seem certain that this wasn't done ...
On this basis of the real measured values, the calculations are made.
I'm very certain that this wasn't done.
That doesn't sound as if the calculations have been made on the basis of real measured values:
QuoteDisplay MoreAndrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Sebastian:
Good question. Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It's truly amazing that some Rossi cult members fans can not even accept the facts that have been proclaimed confirmed by their master AR and rather fall into the wildest speculations. 
First, you make the assumption that Penon ignored his measurements.
I think our conversation is going to be circular, espacially if you are trying to declare Rossi's own statements as my assumptions.
QuoteDisplay MoreAndrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Sebastian:
Good question. Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It is not/no longer an assumption, that the ERV ignored something, but has to be regarded as a fact confirmed by Rossi himself.
I think discussing what else might be possible doesn't make sense.
Rossi's statement shows clearly that the test is/was not what I would expect from a reliable test. I already explained my point of view in detail.
@LENR Calendar
A calculation based on the assumption that all water had been evaporated to dry steam would give a higher COP, as if real measured values were taken into account and the water was in reality only a kind of wet steam.
I hope that you may comprehend this.
But the real question is:
Why should someone ignore his measured values and do calculations based on assumptions?
No real scientist or professional test engineer would ever do something like that.
In a proper test all relevant parameters are measured and continuously recorded.
On this basis of the real measured values, the calculations are made.
If you'd like to be conservative, then you can subtract a margin from the real and correct calculated results.
But that someone is ignoring his measurements to substitute these with assumptions and then tries to sell this as "conservative", I had never heard this before.
Doing this is absolutely unprofessional and every professional test engineer would be fired for those practices.
And it is very stupid, because most people can recognize the intentions.
Only someone, who is manipulating the test results, regards this as clever or practical.
I never said that they do not have temperatures measured.
Of course, I noticed that you always mix your comments with insinuations.
Display More
Rossi stated that they ignored the energy, not the actual temperature values
Again you are jumping to conclusions.
Edit to add: if they hadn't ignored that extra energy, COP would have been higher. Which is why it is conservative. I don't see how there is any argument against that.
As long as Rossi by himself will confirm my "conclusions", like it happened before, I can't see any problems with that.
P.S.
Maybe you have been deceived by the term "... to be conservative".
If they hadn't ignored the energy above the boiling point (the energy which was needed to produce the real quality of steam) then the COP would have been LOWER.
@lenr Calendar
My comments are referring to clear statements made by AR himself.
Quote... Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point ...
There is no "possibly", "maybe" or "most likely" in these statements.
What you explain is irrelevant, because Rossi clearly stated, that all that was ignored.
QuoteYes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point
That can only be considered as "conservative" by someone who is a cult member, others would see a clear indication for cheating.
The statement of AR explains clearly that for Rossi and the ERV it doesn't matter what was measured really, because the real temperature measurement was ignored in the COP calculation.
So, nobody needs to have "a position what was measured" to recognize the indication for cheating.
AR implicitly confirmed the 100.1°C (that the COP calculation is based on the boiling point of water and NOT on measured values).
QuoteDisplay MoreAndrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Sebastian:
Good question. Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The ERV ignored the energy to raise the temperature to the boiling point and he also ignored the energy to heat above the boiling point.
What remains?
The boiling point (100,1 °C).
From the ECW article / JONP:
QuoteDisplay More
Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Sebastian:
Good question. Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The ERV ignored the energy to raise the temperature to the boiling point and he also ignored the energy to heat above the boiling point.
What remains?
The boiling point (100,1 °C).
