Posts by Ascoli65

Quote from can

It would also throw a big brick at your reasoning, which from this long discussion it's apparent that it doesn't accept significant changes from the initially forced assumptions/variables (not a good sign).

Sorry, I don't understand which forced assumptions/variables are you talking about. I provided you my interpretation of the curves on the screenshot of the December 2010 test. You correctly raised the issue of what happened to the water during the boiling period (1). I'm just trying to answer your question about how much water remains inside the Ecat.

I asked you to help me, because of your skill in dealing with numerical series and drawing nice and clean graphs. We are almost at the end of this effort. I am just waiting the final touch on the graphs you posted yesterday (2). If you don't want to use a smoothed curve for Tout, that's OK. Just remove, please, the violet curve from the first graph, modify the title, and substitute Ex with Px where necessary.

After I have answered your previous question on the basis of my interpretation of what happened during Test 1, I will be glad to follow your own reasoning about that test, and answer all the other questions you raised in your last comments. But, please, one thing at a time.

(1) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

(2) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

Quote from can

Have you tried checking out in practice exactly how much is a ~3.73 g/s water flux?

The Ecat system tested in December 2010 was presumably filled with water and used standard-sized water piping. I think water would be coming out at very low speed from it.

The water speed at the probe location depends on the local cross section and on how the tip of the probe was inserted inside the pipe. Furthermore, as reminded by THH, in that configuration we can expect the early formation of vapor bubbles, which rises much faster in the vertical pipe, inducing an additional turbulence.

But tell me, please. Do you really think that those oscillations measured by a probe placed half a meter downstream of the alleged "nuclear core" are indicative of "an important behavior characteristic of the system"? Do you think that a temporarily increase of Tout means that all the water inside the device is becoming hotter at the same extent and at the same time? How would you explain what happens in the periods during which the Tout decreases?

Anyway, as I told you, the smoothing of the Tout curve is not necessary for going forward with the estimation of Evap. You can keep the present curve of Tout, if you like, but be conscious of its real meaning.

Quote from can

Speaking of Tout, why would it be changing like that during the initial part of the experiment? This could be showing an important behavior characteristic of the system, it's not good to remove it by using artificially smoothed out data.

That's the normal behavior due to the turbulence in a water flux, when the tip of T probe is wetted by eddies at different temperatures that flows through it. You can see that the oscillation are small until t=11s because the water temperature is still quite uniform. Then, up to t=15s, the rising trend stretches the oscillations making them less visible, but they become more evident as the mean temperature approaches the equilibrium value. After the stopping of the flow, they almost disappear because of the stillness of the water.

So, don't worry, those oscillations don't show any special characteristic of the system. These are typical fantasies of the LENR world.

So, it is my opinion that a properly smoothed Tout curve better represents the average temperature of the water, and its derivative provides a good and intelligible trend of Pwat, the heat exchanged between the metal and the water.

In any case, as already said, this is not essential. Don't waste time in doing that. The graph with the curves of the cumulative energies, that you already provided, already allows a reasonable esteem of Evap. I'm just waiting its final version to suggest you how to do.

Quote from can

But more than this, personally I don't find reasonable that the mass of the metals and other solid parts (Emet) reach equilibrium in almost half as much time as the water, given the initial assumption of large thermal inertia.

I didn't say that the thermal inertia was large, I only said that it should be taken into account in evaluating the timing. It's not so strange that the metal reaches its equilibrium faster than water, because most of the electric heaters (4 on a total of 5) were band heaters placed at the external of the pipe.

As for the calculation of (Pmet+Pvap), a much more simple way to compute it is just doing the same as for energy, that is (Pmet+Pvap) = Pin-(Pout+Pwat+Pdisp).

Eta:

Even using the above formula to obtain (Pmet+Pvap), you need to compute Pwat by differentiating the numerical series Ewat. So, you will get the same wide oscillations as before. To avoid them, you should use in any case a much more smoothed numerical series of Ewat.

If there is any problem, the best thing to do is avoid to draw the Pwat and (Pmet+Pvap) curves in the Power graph. They are not necessary for estimating Evap.

Quote from can

Is this correct? Is this what you're looking for?

Yes. Very good and quick work. Thanks.

However, I suggest you to update this first set of graphs with the following modification:

- The title of the upper graph should be "Power (W)" and all the quantity labels should be modified from Ex to Px.

- You probably computed the thin violet curve (Pmet+Pvap) by differentiating the corresponding (Emet+Evap) curve of the second graph, obtaining in this way wide and disturbing oscillations. I would suggest you to first smoothing the energy curve, and then differentiate it.

I'll tell you later how to split Emet and Evap on the basis of the updated curves.

Quote from can

- What mass should I use for the metal and other solid parts in the Ecat? Heat capacity?

Oh, we don't need to know these data. For the moment we are only interested in computing the trend of the sum (Emet+Evap) by subtracting from Ein (already known) the sum of Eout (known as well) plus Ewat (1 L at Tout with the usual cp) plus Edisp (please, follows the hints I already gave to you).

Quote

- In general, how should temperature for those parts be expected to behave compared to the water?

We have very few experimental data. For the Ecat device, we have only the temperature of the outlet water Tout, measured by a probe inserted on the vertical arm. So, we are obliged to make very rough approximations, assuming that all the water inside the Ecat is at the temperature measured by the above probe, and referring all the other temperatures to this only value.

For the metal, we can think that the horizontal pipe - heated by the external band resistors - is hotter than Tout, and that the vertical pipe is at about Tout, apart during the rapid cool down after the starting of flooding. Anyway to perform the required calculations we don't need to know the specific temperature of the metals or other solid parts. We can use Tout to roughly estimate both Ewat and Edisp. In this last case, we know that the heat going to the ambient depends on the temperature of the external surface of the device, and that this temperature is far from being uniform. Anyway we can assume, in very first approximation, that this outer temperature is proportional to Tout so that the heat transfer coefficient I suggested before (1 W/°C) is referred to this value, more specifically to the difference Tout-Tamb.

Ask me again if needed.

Quote from can

Let's then revert it back to 100 g/s, ignore the floodings and focus more on what happened earlier.

OK. Thanks for having reposted the earlier graphs and data, and agreed on the next road map.

Quote

A few more questions on the December 2010 test.

- In the end what happens exactly to the water between minute 37 and 58? In other words, what mechanism allowed the assumed stationary water (amount unknown) in an unpressurized system to remain at exactly boiling temperature without it boiling away? Or did some water actually keep boiling in this phase?

- Roughly how much water do you think was still contained inside the device after the flow stopped?

Very appropriate questions at this point of our analysis. It is certain that some water boiled away. I guess that the maintaining of constant boiling temperature along the whole period you mentioned depends by the extra heat accumulated in the metal in the period between the stopping of the water flow and the complete switching off of the electric heaters.

In order to have a numeric confirmation of this hypothesis, we should try to compute all the main components of the energy balance:

Ein = Emet + Ewat + Eout + Evap + Edisp

Where:

- Ein is the energy provided by the electric heaters;

- Emet is the energy stored in the Ecat metal (and other solid parts) with respect to initial Tamb;

- Ewat is the energy stored in the water inside the Ecat;

- Eout is the energy of water exiting the Ecat as liquid;

- Evap is the energy of water exiting the Ecat as steam;

- Edisp is the energy dispersed to the ambient through the wall of the Ecat.

Not an easy task, but not impossible.

Ein and Eout are the same quantity that you already have calculated.

Ewat could be roughly calculated assuming that the internal volume of the Ecat is 1 liter, and that all the water is at the temperature measured by the outlet probe.

Edisp is quite difficult to compute, but when the temperature water is approaching 80 °C the system is at quasi stationary condition, so we have: Edisp (@80°C) = Ein – Eout. This value is comparable to the delta T between the Tout and Tamb. So, assuming in first approximation that the dispersed heat Pdisp is proportional to this delta T we get this very rough estimation: Pdisp(t) = Cdisp * (Tout-Tamb), where Cdisp = 1 W/°C. Finally, Edisp can be obtained by integrating Pdisp.

At this point the difference (Ein – (Eout + Ewat + Edisp) ) gives a rough estimate of (Emet + Evap).

Before trying to estimate Evap, and hence the mass of the evaporated water, it would be useful to have the graphs of the above quantities. Could you please compute and post them?

You are a smart guy, so I decided to challange you as much as possible.

Quote from can

I find it's plausible that it was used in just these two occasions, ...

OK. On my side, I find it more than plausible, but it makes little difference. In any case, it is legitimate and reasonable to assume that the same flowmeter (the same specimen) was used on those two occasion. And if it was used ONLY in those two occasion, it means that the lowest value of the total flow - among those shown on the photos taken on October 6 - provides the maximum possible total outflow of the February 18 hours test. This lowest value was 7.6 m3, which corresponds to 422 liters for each of the 18 hours of the test, that is 117 g/s. This value could be even substantially lower if the experimental setup used on October 6 was tested for a while before the public demo. Consider also that the flow rate depends on the pressure at the tap, and that this pressure is higher at night, when most of the 18 hour test was carried out.

So, in my opinion, the right value for the water flow during the final flooding phase of the December 2010 test should be the rounded up value of 100 g/s.

Quote

EDIT: by the way, the flooding flow will have to be revised upwards, since it was capable of at least 178 g/s as measured during the October test:

[a new set of graphs in substitution of the set posted earlier this morning]

So, despite everything, the energy output is still at least equal to the energy input.

The value of 178 g/s is not suitable, because it was measured for a different setup. In the October 6 test, the tap water went through a heat exchanger, not through the Ecat. If you deem plausible that the same flowmeter was used in both the February and October tests, you should maintain the 100 g/s, as you initially assumed, and repost the first set of 5 diagrams which was on this page this morning.

Using a higher value of 178 g/s - just to shift upward the last part of the EnergyOut curve in order to finally equalize the EnergyIn curve - does make no sense. If you really believe what has been told on the web about the water flow measured during the 18 hour test, you could have used 833 g/s (or even 1000 g/s), and you would have obtained at the end a wonderful COP. Nothing new under the Ecat sky, though.

Anyway, the last part of the December transient (after the starting of the flooding) is so much affected by possible errors on the assumptions (for instance the delay between the temperature dropping of the inlet and outlet temperatures) that any speculation on its trend has little or no value.

The important facts happened before the flooding, and your final set of graphs (even in the last badly updated version) leave very little doubt that the water flow have been stopped for about 20 minutes, as revealed by the contemporary increase of the temperature of the still water in the inlet pipe. Furthermore, the added 5th graph shows that, before the water stopping, the outlet power reached an asymptotic level very close to the input power, the balance being the heat dispersed to the ambient. This confirms that the flow rate of 3.73 g/s reported for the December 2010 test (Test 1) was correct, but it also means that with that flow and an input power of about 1220 W the Ecat is able to raise the water temperature from 12 to 80 °C only. This last outcome is very useful to understand the rationale of the successive January 2011 demo (Test 2).

For the moment, the long and the short of this first test is that the Ecat behavior observed after the stopping of water flow was presented in a report issued with the logo of UniBo as the effect of a nuclear reaction working in self-sustaining mode.

PS – As for the other observations raised by you about the February test, I would propose to examine them after the conclusion of the present discussion on the December 2010 test, and, if necessary, on the January 2011 test. I think that if we agree on what happened in these two first tests, it will be much easier to find an agreement on the third one.

Quote from can

I have to admit that you had me searching the web extensively (after checking out the sources you indicated) and I couldn't find any visual evidence that could prove or disprove your suggestion that the flow meter used in October 2011 was the exact same specimen used in February 2011 for the 18-hour test.

Oh, I know. I too did researches on the web, but find no evidence that the two flow meters were exactly the same specimen. Otherwise I wouldn't have put also a question mark at the end of the title of my jpeg.

It is however 100% sure that the flow meter(s) used on February 10 and on October 6 was(were) of the same make and model, but we cannot be 100% sure that the same specimen was used in both the occasion. Anyway, it is well known that in all the 2011 tests there was the habit to reuse the same stuff, from the yellow pump to the blue bucket. So, unless a contrary evidence is provided, I believe that the same specimen was used in all the Ecat tests carried out in 2011, where a photo shows a flow meter of the same make and model with a white ring and the cover removed.

May I ask you if you think it is reasonable that a new brand flow meter was used every time it was decided to measure the water flow?

Quote

This is a semi-artifact caused by the digitizing method, which wouldn't have been visible had I used a linear or higher order interpolation. The original photo does not have a high enough level of detail on that part of the graph to discern the horizontal position of the individual pixels, so I tried to match the overall shape of the curve instead.

That's fine. Thanks.

Quote

Not really but it's late and here's the data as used in the last screenshot.

Would you please post the entire set of 4 graphs you posted yesterday, updated by using these last data?

Quote from can

I have to point out that inlet water temperature, measured close to the device, starts decreasing roughly one minute earlier.

The horizontal distance (time delay) between the edge of the inlet water curve and the dropping yellow line of the outlet temperature is indeed almost one minute long, about 50 seconds, but the output temperature take a while to drop from 100 to 15 °C, the line is not vertical due to the thermal inertia of the surrounding metal, so the delay between the 2 edges is much less than 1 minute. If we assume that the flow rate was 100 g/s, considering that the internal volume of the Ecat was about 1 liter, it took less about 10 seconds for the cold water to go from the inlet to the outlet probe.

Quote

Also would a 100 g/s be reasonable as a large water flux given that in the same testing environment during the February 18-hour test a rate of almost 1000 g/s was reported?

On the basis of the available images (1), the reported flow rate of the February 2011 test was an order of magnitude greater than the real one. Therefore the flow rate of 100 g/s you chose is quite reasonable.

Quote

I will post the digitized and interpolated data after this will have been clarified.

I hope to have clarified the issue of the delay between the inlet and the outlet temperature.

One more hint for the ambient and inlet water curves. Those shown in your last diagram have too many horizontal levels. The pixel lines on the PC screens in their range was only a few, less than a dozen. The jumps between the pixel lines are indicated by the upwards and downwards arrows on second image of my comment above. It would be useful to exactly locate in time these jumps.

(1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25977#post25977

Quote from can

Does the graph below make sense to you?

Yeeees! Wonderful! Thanks.

Apart the cumulative energy out. It should remain below the cumulative energy in. But you can easily fix it by delaying the beginning of the flooding in order to be much closer to the sharp drop of the outlet temperature.

The curves of the inlet water and ambient temperature also make sense. But I would suggest you to add also the stepwise trends that appear on the photo. That photo is taken from a PC screen, so you see that the curves are made by horizontal straight lines due to resolution of the screen. In this way you get less realistic trends, but closer to the available information.

Could you also share the file with the data?

Thank you again very much.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

What you should mainly consider and what was published in early 2011, is that the external band heater can only heat the cooling water, which makes no sense whatsoever unless Rossi is spoofing the results.

The two models used in the Ecat tests carried on until June 2011 featured also an internal cartridge resistor (see ICCF21 Thread ). But this is not the point. Nor Rossi is. It was clear since the beginning that he was not a scientist, but only a PR man. Did you ever believe him?

Quote

In addition, if the steam Rossi measured in several experiments were wet instead of dry, it would account almost exactly for the 6:1 COP consistently claimed by Rossi --see Grabowski et al, See the table third from last at the end of the slide show from ICCF-16: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

Again, Rossi didn't perform any steam measurement, he only reported the results of measurements made by others: authoritative academicians, researchers, physicists, long time experts in CF/LENR, and so on.

As for the slide from ICCF-16, I already mentioned it many times in the past. But you forgot to remind that another author of that same presentation is a physicists and long time expert in CF/LENR, who, according to his wife and to Krivit, has been the main promoter of Rossi, since the beginning of his involvement in the field, and a strong supporter of the Ecat well beyond the 2011 tests.

Quote from can

There's ample to pick apart in that report without resorting to conjecture. For example, there almost seems to be a disconnect between what the photos show for Test 1 and what is being described in the text. I'm not sure of what is going on exactly.

Good point! The private test carried out on December 16, 2010, and labeled as "Test 1" in the calorimetric report issued after the January 14, 2011 public demo, has been ignored by almost everyone, but it is one of the most interesting.

If you like challenges, this test is for sure one of the best to understand. Let me give you some hints.

We can start with the description of the test, and how its results were interpreted in the Levi's report:

I hope you can read the original Italian text, because I am aware that the above English translation is impossible to understand. Anyway, the following image could help to explain what I mean:

The above picture also points out the possible cause of the seeming "self sustaining" operation: the flow of the coolant was stopped for about 20 minutes!

It happened when the temperature was reaching an asymptotic value of 80 °C. Evidently, this was the equilibrium temperature with a flow rate of 13,1 kg/h and an input power of ca. 1120 W. As the flow was stopped the temperature started to rise again. A while after the outlet temperature reached the boiling value, the electric power was switched off, simulating in this way the onset of the self-sustained mode. Finally, as soon as the water temperature began to decrease below the boiling point, the water tap was fully opened to cool the device as quickly as possible.

In synthesis:

- the straight lines in the first part are due to the lack of intermediate recorded data;

- at 17.20 the power was turned on at around 1120 W;

- at 17.46 the water flow was stopped;

- at 17.55 the electric power was reduced below 300 W, and completely switched off after a few more minutes;

- at 18:12 the water tap was suddenly opened and the coolant circuit was flooded.

--------------------------------------------------

Btw. Your last graph is really very nice. My best compliments. Could you please modify it on the basis of the above new timing, and then draw the new energy graph?

One more challenge for you. If you are able to accurately grab also the inlet temperature (the light-blue curve) you will get a confirmation about the interruption of the cooling flow.

Quote from can

From the graphs it's apparent that variations other than from joule heating were also contributing to the temperature changes observed, so what can be said is that it wasn't operating as a simple joule heater.

Are you talking about the "change in the water heating rate" you pointed out yesterday (1)?

It is not necessary to suppose any source of energy in addition to electric heaters to explain this behavior. You only need to consider the actual configuration of the device and the position of the probe for the output temperature. Here you have a schematic of the Ecat.

From: http://www.lamentiraestaahifue…dra-ser-slo-una-cafetera/ My note: this schematic corresponds to the small version of the LT Ecat, which was used since the test on March 29, 2011, when Essen and Kullander were also present. Anyway, the layout is similar to the larger version used in previous tests.

You can see that the two electrical heaters – 1 internal + 4 external in the January version – are positioned on the horizontal arm of the Ecat, while the T2 probe was inserted in the vertical arm. Therefore you should consider the delays due to the thermal inertia and transport. It is natural that the heating rate increases with time. It is more than plausible that within 8 minutes from power on, the temperature of the metal closer to the resistors was well above the water boiling point, so as to induce the liquid to boil locally, which in turn enhanced the heat transport by convection.

Opening, or closing, a valve connected to a bottle has nothing to do with the temperature trend. It was a choreography. We can be quite sure that there was no hydrogen in that bottle, it wouldn't have been safe with so many people around.

Quote

Whether these variations were from other heat sources or undocumented changes in the experimental parameters, that cannot be concluded from the data and information presented in the report.

Once you realize that the coolant flow was no more than 7.2 kg/s (i.e. 40% of the value written in the report), you need no other heat sources beyond the electric power to explain the temperature trend. Furthermore, the actual coolant flow could have been much less than 7.2 kg/h. Maybe, it was diminished after the output temperature dropped for a while below the boiling point.

Quote

Therefore you can't say that the picture you're painting is more realistic.

This is my opinion, of course.

Do you think the picture in your first energy graph (2) is more realistic?

(1) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

(2) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

Quote from THHuxleynew

Yes, The Lugano questions are complex and separate from all the others: it would make more sense to have an "All non-Lugano earlier tests" thread.

Yes, it would have been much better to have had a separate thread called "Ecat – January 14 demo and other 2011 tests", but it would not have been a good showcase for LENR. Btw, sorry for the intrusion.

Quote

Still, I'm not convinced the earlier tests are worth many more words, they have been thrashed out, and the "tricks" are understood by all except the likes of Adrian

In 2011, almost a dozen tests were carried out on different versions of the LT Ecat. Most of them would worth a deep analysis, and many words. But, as you said, most of the "tricks" are by now well known.

Anyway, at this point, the most important aspect is not the technical one, also cited in the present title of this thread. Many agree that the January 2011 demo has been a farce, a comedy played in front of the world audience. Hard to believe that there was only one actor on the stage. Recognizing the whole cast, could be very helpfull in solving many other Ecat issues, including the remaining techncal questions on Lugano's and other HotCat tests.

Quote from Shane D.

This is the old "Lugano revisited" thread, now renamed so as to accommodate *ALL* of Rossi's earlier demos. Ascoli/Can's related posts from the Rossi discussion have been moved here at authors request.

Shane, I appreciate your generous and friendly effort to remove our posts on the Bologna demo from the "Rossi blog" thread, however that's not the solution I had in mind. The "2011 tests" and the "Lugano test" deal with two different devices, the LT Ecat and the HotCat, which use completely different tricks ... ehm ... physical principles.

I realize that this solution is the best I can get, and I thank you, but I feel to apologize with the people who were quietly discussing about the HotCat technical arguments for the troubles of having their comments interspersed by others on different topics.

Quote from can

Besides, if it's just an ordinary water heater like you think it is, they could have simply unplugged it from the wall.

Yes, IMO it was a water heater. Not an ordinary one, because it was made in a very special factory: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlo-leonardi-aa67127b

May I ask, what was it in your opinion?

Quote

[04:07] [Levi] So, when you know that you are putting in about 1 and you are getting out about 10 or more,

Do you also believe that they were getting 10 or more kW, by putting in 1 kW?

Quote

Because I like challenges, although for that part of the graph the data would be rather inaccurate:

Thanks. Its accuracy is more than sufficient to distinguish an electric heater from a nuclear reactor.

Now, if you like, you can extend the blue, the orange and the brown curves (those w/o the vaporization) of your previous graph, getting a quite complete and realistic picture - from the point of view of physics - of what happened in Bologna on January 14, 2011.

Quote from can

Do you mean like this?

Yes, exactly. Thanks so much.

The two new curves are very interesting. They help us to evaluate which one of the corresponding hypotheses on the status of the outflow is more realistic. In fact, these curves represent the sum of 2 components: the current heat stored in the Ecat (metal + water) plus the cumulative heat lost through its outer walls. This second component always increases over time. The first component is roughly proportional to the increase of the device temperature (which could be represented in first approximation by the outlet temperature) with respect to the ambient temperature. Therefore, the expected trend should rise up to t=50 min, when the outlet temperature starts to decrease.

The expected trend is not followed at all by the violet curve, representing the in-out difference (with vaporization), and the possible reason is that the red curve overestimates the escaping energy because it includes some heat of vaporization.

On the contrary, the brown curve, which does not consider the vaporization, is much closer to the expected trend. Its maximum is in a plateau around t=50 minutes, then it begins to decrease when the electric power is completely switched off.

So we have a quite good indication that the fluid at the outlet was just liquid water at the boiling point, with a negligible steam content.

-----------------

An additional request for you. If you have the ability to capture data from a graph in an image, it might be interesting to complete the cooling phase of the temperature transient using the graph which appears in the upper right corner of last frame of the third video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSD-NP2Sogc

Quote from can

It almost sounds like they wanted to make sure that the pump could work consistently and reliably under their testing conditions

But my question was about why they chose the testing conditions so that the pump worked well outside its nominal range. Isn't it strange?

It has been said many times that the Ecat could have ran out of control, and explode. To cool such a dangerous device by using a dosimetric pump whose nominal max. capacity was 12 kg/h, they should have chosen to operate the pump at an intermediate flow rate, let's say 6-8 kg/h, in order to have a margin to increase the cooling flow rate in case of necessity. Why would they have chosen to operate the pump at almost 50% more than its capacity?

Quote

Levi's looks like a quick informal report, not really a proper paper.

Levi's report was not an informal document. It features the UniBo logo on the cover, and was published as "Official report" (1).

Quote

He's also the only author listed.

Levi is the only author listed, because he was the designated responsible of the calorimetric assessment. But many people helped to gather information, and review the calculations presented in his report.

The first was JR. The day after the demo, he wrote on Vortex (2): "Okay, I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry. Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400 words). I e-mailed the report to the researchers so they can confirm I got the numbers and other details correct, and also add the name and model numbers of some of the instruments." So, he could be considered the author of the first draft of the calorimetric report. He also asked the researchers to add the name and model number of some instruments.

After a couple of day, JR also published the "Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011" (3), where he wrote: "The experiment has been underway at U. Bologna since mid-December 2010. It has been done several times. Several professors with expertise in related subjects such as calorimetry are involved." But he didn't mention any name and model number of the instrumentation, apart the "HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor (Delta Ohm)", which turned out to be a fake instrument.

The last version of preliminary calorimetric report drafted in US is the "Brief Technical Description" (4), in which two more "prominent physical chemists" were mentioned as reviewers.

So, many ghost authors contributed to this calorimetric report.

Quote

I recall he initially planned to do a more complete and proper job later on with his colleagues as part of the UniBo research program that was supposed to be paid by EFA/Rossi and eventually never happened.

Yes, I know, but this future intention does not justify the issuing of a sloppy and erroneous calorimetric report on the test carried out on January 2011. On the contrary, that possibility should have been a good reason to be as careful as possible in evaluating the actual performances of the Ecat.

Quote

It could be he felt that only roughly assessing the order of magnitude of what he thought he was seeing would be sufficient for a preliminary report

No, it can't be. In the Levi's report you find experimental data expressed in a very precise way such as "12686 +/- 211 W" or "146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s". This hardly shows any intention to "roughly assessing the order of magnitude" of the experimental data. On the contrary, those numbers are clearly aimed at giving the impression of a very precise and accurate work.

Quote

he certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition to pick apart every single detail yet.

Apart the Spanish Inquisition (not a proper allusion), do you really think that they didn't expect that a document reporting those exceptional results under the logo of the oldest university of the Western world would have been scrutinized in every single detail?

Quote

I don't think they were particularly concerned with knowing the precise value in l/h and they probably were already aware it could deliver more than rated. During "Test 1" earlier in December 16th they measured 164g in 45 seconds, that's 3.64 g/s or about 13.1 l/h.

Beware! In the "Test 1" there was no pump! … and probably much less flow.

Quote

Without too much thought and perhaps some haste in having to give a quick answer, 4.87 g/s can easily become "4 something" which multiplied by "roughly 3 and a half" becomes "maybe about 12 l/h" which is also incidentally the manufacturer's rated flow.

Are you serious? Please, don't forget that we are talking about several professors of a prestigious University involved in an activity presented to the public as the most important invention in the human history.

(1) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…le-esperimento-della.html

(2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41364.html

(3) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41442.html

(4) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf

Quote from Shane D.

As an old friend, I owe you my explanation as to why Alan and I felt it better to keep you and Can's analysis of the old Rossi demos here. In addition to what Alan said, I ask you to take a look at all the various threads. Notice how many? LF is very active now, and adding another thread, especially a Rossi thread, would add to the clutter and probably get lost down the page in a few days anyways.

Thank you for your kind explanation.

Allow me to take the opportunity to better expose the reasons why I strongly suggest to move the discussion started with the *can* analysis into a dedicated thread. I just gave a look to the threads included in the "Rossi & Industrial Heat" section. Yes, there are many, but none of them is dedicated to the January 2011 demo and to the other Ecat tests carried out in 2011.

This is a big gap, because many the L-F members (including you) have declared to follow this forum since the beginning of 2011, due to that first Bologna demo and its echo in the world. Most of them are now aware that it was a farce, but if the calorimetric results reported in the Levi's report were real, there is no doubt that the date of January 14, 2011, would have been chosen by the UN to celebrate the World Day of the New Fire. So, I really don't understand why it was decided to deny the L-F members a thread were they could follow the discussion on the details of the January 2011 demo, as they can do for the Lugano report. I still think that the nice graphs posted by *can* would have been a good opportunity to fill this gap.

And, no, I really don't see how a continuous switching between so different topics in this only thread dedicated to the current posts on JoNP helps to reduce the clutter.

In any case, the final decision is up to you. I will conform.