Posts by Alan Fletcher

    In all fairness, Rossi generally would not be able to use statements made by him on his blog as they would almost certainly be hearsay. Hearsay is, generally, an out of court statement being introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If Rossi said something on his blog or in JONP and wanted to introduce that at trial to prove something, that would probably be hearsay and not admissible.

    I am not a lawyer, but (in part due to fogbow, plus a lot of corporate contract stuff) I think that a blog COULD serve a useful legal purpose.

    My understanding is that if you have contemporaneous notes on some subject, when you are being questioned, that you can refer to and read from these notes during a trial ... and that having them gives greater credibility than just recalling from memory.

    So information in the blog, as a set of contemporaneous notes, could be used in a trial. They themselves would not become part of the record, but what the witness said about or read from, would.

    His experiment in Doral, Florida was fake. It could not have produced heat. See the Penon report:…/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

    The Penon report (to the best of my recollection) is self-consistent and feasible.

    It was partly refuted by information disclosed in the expert reports and depositions. But we haven't seen them ALL. IMHO there are a number of unresolved issues which indicate that Rossi MIGHT have something.

    The big issues was the heat dissipation. But neither side chose to depose the window installers, who could have testified about the presence/absence of the windows the heat exchanger would have required. On the flow meter level and fouling : Murray's report/questions for Rossi never made it into the court case.

    "It could not have produced heat". By the same criterion, the "acceptance" test system couldn't either. But that was NOT challenged by IH (except that it it didn't run at full rated power, and was inexplicably stopped half an hour before the 24 hours was up.). Dewey was hired to review the test protocol, and made no major objections.

    Note that they are NOT using "COP" in the traditional sense of "total power out/power in" ... they are using GAIN defined as "power out / maximum possible chemical power out".

    The wimpiness mayhaps comes from the fact they currently only exploring the loading (pressurization) / unloading (depressurizations) phases, with no attempt to generate or sustain power between the two.

    The Gamow theory of alpha decay can be used to estimate the spontaneous fission cross section, as the process is very similar to alpha decay. The Gamow theory of alpha decay has as one of its variables the Coulomb barrier width. The Coulomb barrier width is a function of electron screening from the bound electrons. The shape of the electron cloud surrounding an atom and nucleus depends in part upon the external electric field, so your conclusion does not (necessarily) follow.

    I was thinking of responding to H-G's comment about the miniscule field across a nucleus .... but you [ and others] beat me to the changes of the electron orbitals.

    A coupla/few years back (maybe in response to Widom-Larsen), I looked into close approaches by electrons in non-spherical (lobed) orbits .. eg figure-8's -- where electrons nominally pass through the nucleus, at relativistic speeds.

    There's also a possibility that strong electric fields restrict the permissible orbits. So an electron which would like to be in a spherical/elliptical shell might have to accept a lobed-shell ... with VERY different results.

    All of this being WAY beyond my competence, of course.

    The facts from discovery a recorded into perpetuity - he'll never be able to rewrite or buy his way out of that historical record.

    We (LF/Vortex et al) haven't seen ALL the facts from discovery. For example, we've only seen parts of some of the depositions.

    How about you (Dewey/IH) release all the key depositions in their entirety?

    IBM's view :…bits/pc25/pc25_birth.html


    The manufacturing strategy was to simplify everything, devise a sound plan and not deviate. There was not time to develop and test all components. So they shopped for completely functioning and pretested subassemblies, put them together and tested the final product. Zero defects was part of the plan.

    In sum, the development team broke all the rules. They went outside the traditional boundaries of product development within IBM. They went to outside vendors for most of the parts, went to outside software developers for the operating system and application software, and acted as an independent business unit. Those tactics enabled them to develop and announce the IBM PC in 12 months -- at that time faster than any other hardware product in IBM's history.

    Moving from the "Letters" topic.

    I suggested that rats (or any mammal) can remove more water from the hot bucket by absorbing it into their fur, and then shaking it off, than by either drinking it (Jed's calculations), or splashing.

    Here is the paper relating the amount of water a critter can hold in its fur, and how efficiently it can shed that water.

    Wet mammals shake at tuned frequencies to dry : Dickerson et al

    I have always understood the "rat" situation to be a case of reducto absurdum, and a joke.

    However, the amount of water a rat can drink in a day is limited -- but the amount of water that an animal can hold in its fur is a (monotonic) function of its body mass. A much smaller number of rats can remove the water in the same amount of time, and have more fun, by jumping and and out of the heated swimming pool.

    (I have the reference/calculation in a spreadsheet somewhere).

    This makes the "rat" argument MUCH more plausible. If someone wants to fund me I'll get a few lab rats and give you the actual liters/rat/day number for drinking, splashing and shaking.

    Edit : discussion, with the referenced paper (more complicated than I remembered), has been moved to the original "bucket list" topic.

    Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results


    Andrea Rossi
    January 17, 2018 at 2:33 AM

    Mats Lewan:

    Thank you for the information,

    Warm Regards,


    The center-line is 4 inches above the base. The inlet/outlet tubes are 5 inches below/above that. My pressure guage doesn't work at these pressures, so the 1/2 inch tubes can connect directly without T's or L's

    I'm working with a 6 foot (72 inch) wire-frame shelf (with 1" shelf-height increments). I'd like to set the middle-shelf for the pump, and then adjust the buckets around that (One sits on the scale -- which reads +- so doesn't matter whether it's inlet or outlet).

    Steam quality / Krivit…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)


    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

    I wont have any time for a couple of weeks. (I've left my pole up, but I'll move back to the covered porch).

    I have max 10 feet (floor to ceiling) .

    Plan A : try and replicate the heights of the tank, pumps and Frankies (A to D, top-to-bottom) . Not sure I can replicate the top big frankie A in the space available. Do we have the dimensions : top-of-tank to pump-center, pump-center to BF inlet for each BF?

    Plan B : explore positive inlet pressure.

    I don't think a 7-foot head is enough positive pressure .. maybe 0.2 bar with the pump near the floor and the inlet tank

    I can get a garden hose there (as long as it's not a hard freeze), but I think that's too uncontrollable as a pressure source. To explore significant positive-pressure I think I'd need a pump. Specifications? 125 l/hr? We could reduce the stroke-frequency from 180 to ... 90?

    Great work on the manual/stop!

    Right now the flow/pressure chart is way below Prominent's data at 0.5 bar -- but they are most likely creating the back pressure with a regulator valve.

    In the present setup the back pressure across the pump is made up of:

    a) suction height

    b) outlet height

    c) fluid resistance in the pipe (about 25 feet ... I'll measure it exactly).

    I think we can get some information on c) by progressively shortening the output pipe and running the curves as before. (say height 20,15,10,5 feet pipe length 25,20,15,10) and then a final measurement with 1 foot of pipe. (I could do all this with the pipe horizontal, but I think the curve will show the quality of the readings).

    I'll scout for a better clock (going to San Francisco over Christmas).

    Here are my results for the Dec 13 run.


    Spreadsheet at : lenr-pgl-40-results

    The weakest link in my setup is the tiny little count-down timer I'm using : in the dark it's very easy to misread the numbers, so I recommend looking at the "Flow-from-N" using the time calculated from the Pump counter * 1/180 minutes.

    H+/B+ are the outlet heights/bars Htot/Btot add the suction height to get the total pressure across the pump.

    Some data from the front panel

    I ran a video and read the frame-times for led-changes.

    "60/180" is the expected period for 180 cycles per minute.

    Then I took 5 photos at each speed setting, and recorded how many were "ON".

    Off On Period 60/180
    Secs 0.1003 0.2298 0.3347 0.3333
    On/off ratio 0.2996 0.6865
    Shutter 1/Secs Shutter T # ON/5 shots
    50 0.020 4
    80 0.013 5
    100 0.010 3
    200 0.005 3
    400 0.003 5

    Even at the lowest expected speed (1/50 = 0.02 sec) the shutter time is a short fraction of the "off" time 0.10 secs, so it should have caught some pumps (about 30%) with the LED off.

    Tentative conclusion : EITHER

    The pumps were in Manual/Stop

    OR : EDIT

    The pumps were not free-running, but pulsed from a common control signal.

    All the control inputs are on the front panel. Nothing is connected.

    You've not been following. I'm testing from -0.1 to 0.5 bar, with a 20-foot pole which I swing from vertical to horizontal. (this forum software doesn't seem to read the exif orientation from my android cell phone). Edit: click on the link below the pic to see it on my site.