Comment by AR today :
QuoteAndrea Rossi
February 4, 2019 at 9:33 AMThe Ecat SSM mode is always on: the consume you saw in the presentation is constant and stable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
In the bottom right corner of his COP calculation he has the COP of the ecat itself as E2 = 21942 / 0.0008 = SSM
[ = 27,427,500 ]
It is also significant that Jed says it's weird that Rossi would work so hard, if he's a fake. Rossi came down hard on Celani during a demo when he brought in a Geiger Counter and there was enough Gamma Rays being emitted to start getting worried. An insider such as yourself would know how to use that detector to narrow down exactly what kinds of radiation is being emitted and also perhaps even what elements are being used in the reactor. Rossi was reacting more like someone who doesn't want others to know what is being used in a nuclear reactor than someone who's simply a fraudster.
Quote
https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg42665.html
[ Jed reporting on Celani ]CodeDisplay More1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to "delete overrange," which was >7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. .... Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property. Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.)
The SGS certification (ISTR) was just that when in operation it produced no harmful radiation.
It did NOT certify that the power was as claimed.
The SK seems to be an entirely different system than the original E-Cats, so I don't see how the old certificate is still valid.
I don't think his black-body calculation is valid. There's some discussion of this on ecat world : https://e-catworld.com/2019/02…in-spectometer-signature/
Still a null test for me (neither proven nor disproven).
It really DOES end with E-Cat-believing SOCK PUPPETS!!!!
(EDIT: typo)
0.25 V is across the series resistor I think.
I'm not sure about his HVAC calculation either ... 16C inside 0C outside ..... is he continually heating air, or do we need to know the R-value of the room?
*IF* real, COP= 57 is probably an under-estimate -- actual power to the ecat would be less, and controller power could be shared between up to 10 ecats
Output power is from a single spectral line, could be integrated over the whole spectrum.
Pretty much a null event. Neither proven nor disproven, again.
One pre-recorded dancing ballerina.
EDIT2: and a pre-recorded spectrograph
No explanation (that heard, tho I did take a couple of short breaks) of what we saw on the blue box.
A shiny brass object on top, without even being able to see the top (or the top of Rossi except when he bent down to pick up something).
I presume that's the big red 'kill' button.
Did say right at the beginning that Argon is the (presumably emergency) coolant if the primary heat exchanger fails.
Can we maybe start a Deneum TECHNICAL thread ... and leave the blockchain stuff here (since that applies to investors, who are suitably caveated.)
Display MoreThe qumbu page (1) contains links to your document "Proving the Rossi eCat is Real -- Version 4.30" (2) where you analyze many possible fakes of the Ecat tests carried out in 2011. The last version is dated March 2013.
I would ask you:
- Do you think that that document is still important in order to evaluate the Ecat story and reality?
- Do you still endorse the conclusions drawn in the last version?
- Do you think that the set of the possible fakes taken into account is complete?
- Are you going to issue a new updated version of that document?
I would ask you:
- Do you think that that document is still important in order to evaluate the Ecat story and reality?
Yes, but the main 'proof' document only covers the 'steam' versions
- Do you still endorse the conclusions drawn in the last version
Neither proven nor disproven : yes
- Do you think that the set of the possible fakes taken into account is complete?
Yes / probably
- Are you going to issue a new updated version of that document?
No -- Though I should wrap up the front page with comments similar to these
Note also the separate documents on a)steam quality b) thermal analysis of the heat exchanger c) emissivity by wavelength
40 MW system : wait and see
It's been a while but if I recall, Alan Fletcher was very aggressive with Rossi skeptics in the past, supporting insults and eventual bans on the Vortex mailing list. This is IIRC. If I am confusing you with a colleague of yours from that time, please correct me and I regret the error. It may have been Jones Been or others.
I think you are confusing me with someone else . I restricted myself to analyses of the various ecats. See lenr.qumbu.com, vortex and here. I have challenged (or endorsed) other peoples opinions, but I have never attacked them personally.
Don't you think after all this time and all the lies it would make sense to admit that the Rossi skeptics were correct all the time?
For me, there are still enough "indications" not to write him off entirely.
A 20% discount doesn't seem to me worth the technical risk. Unless Rossi is underwriting the switch to Utility power if his system doesn't perform.
An 80% discount (COP = 6) would be if there were no downside.
(Yeah, yeah .. RossiSez ...)
My summary :
a) Work on the SunCell has been abandoned (suspended? Neither the silver pumps or PV's work)
b) They now plan to go with thermal and/or MHD generator (patents filed ...? Unknown territory.)
c) They are trying to 'bottle' hydrinos (metal hydrino-hydride compounds) which could be examined in outside labs
d) They are investigating explosive reactions (10*TNT)
e) They are liquidating some of their assets (lab) and cutting their burn rate
I want to remind everyone about my tests with the Prominent Gamma L Diaphram pump
Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test (final results)
a) The specification is the MINIMUM flow at 2 bar -- NOT the maximum. (Sorry, Jed)
b) Prominent's low-outlet-pressure tables at 0.5 bar gives a factor of 1.2 greater flow than at the specified/faceplate 2 bar
c) My tests between 0.5 bar and 0.03 bar give a factor of 1.8
d) Combining b and c gives a multiplier of 2.2 over the specification
The earlier "yellow" diaphragm pump (I forget the make) ALSO has a disclaimer that it over-delivers at low outlet pressure
Levi et all measured the ACTUAL output. And, yes ... it IS greater than the specification.
But calibration beats specification every time.
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:
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.
I found McKubre's retrospective somewhat sad :
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sp7…cKubre-Michael-1.pdf?dl=0
Nearly 30 year old anomalies should have grown to adult maturity and self-sustainability [pun!?] or been buried and forgotten.
QuoteAR: but in physics nothing is impossible, everything is more or less probable
