Posts by Ascoli65

Quote from andrea.s

Now this is going to piss off my friends quite a bit. It is a semi-quantitative analysis admittedly, and it doesn't address the October 6th 2011 test, but other anecdotical accounts of previous experiments (if I got it right).

No, sorry, you didn't get it right. The list of all the Ecat experiments held on 2011, for which some public info is available, is shown in the jpeg that I cited many times: http://i.imgur.com/rB93G1X.jpg.

The figure 1 of the GSVIT report clearly refers to the Ecat tests shown in the bottom line. The first edition of that report included also the same picture used in the jpeg for the October 6 test. I did notice that in the their present second edition (Revision 1) they removed any reference to any specific fat-cat test, but in the Abstract is still written "This article describes a system that is able to provide a possible conventional explanation (not necessarily the only one) about the “self-sustained” phenomenon observed in the E-Cat steam-generator. During a few tests performed on the above-mentioned E-Cat system an anomalous water steam production was reported and confirmed by a number of observers."

So, there is a double reference to the Ecat, and to the results reported by the observers. I deem not so much correct to propose a possible and imaginative way to provoke a false phenomenon without specifying the test you are referring to, and without using properly all the dimensions and data that have been reported for that specific test.

Moreover at the end of the report, it has been made an open reference to a specific test, the January 14 demo, whose behavior can in no way be compared to the fat-cat one.

In a few word, they made a lot of confusion.

Quote from andrea.s

To say it is completely wrong is a bit surprising, but I will leave the dispute to the authors, if they read here and wish to start an ecatfight.

For me has been a surprise that they did decide to publish anyway that study, with only some minor and insufficient modification, after I warned them in the most discreet possible way about the flaws of the first edition.

Anyway, they are free to publish what they deem more opportune. For my part, I would have expressed no public comment on that report, if it was not reported here on LENR-forum and assimilated in someway to my model. And I did it with sincere regret.

Quote from andrea.s

There have been leaks about that, and again a model similar to Ascoli65's hot core model will explain the continued evaporatIon after removal of the electrical input.
You may want to take a look here:
gsvit.wordpress.com/2016/06/20…sustained-system-or-cop1/

No, the model presented by GSVIT is not at all similar to mine.

My model is a numerical model, based on the simplest conceivable way of operation of the fat-cat and congruent with the constructive and measured data reported by Lewan.

The GSVIT model is a generous but totally wrong attempt to explain the behavior of the fat-cat units by means of analytical considerations, based on mostly fantasy data and supposing the alleged presence of complicate and unsuitable control systems, and absurd assumptions, the like as: "the water at the bottom of the generator chamber remains at a temperature not much higher than the input one."

Sorry to say that, I tried to avoid it, but from my point of view, this study is an unnecessary contribution to increase the already very high level of confusion about understanding the functioning of the fat-cat.

Hallo Wyttenbach. Sorry for the delay, but it takes a lot of time to me to write in English, and I want to check what I say, before posting.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You should not draw any conclusions from Rossi's fairy tales to the LENR field in general.

I never drew any conclusions from the Rossi's says. As I already said in this thread (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), I think that people are too focused on Rossi. Instead, most of us are here not because a controversial philosopher did claim to have succeeded where thousands of physicists did fail, but because many people belonging to some renowned and estimated scientific and technical institutions have continuously and publicly assessed, since the beginning of 2011, that the Ecat is capable to generate industrial quantity of excess heat.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The Ni-claims (Despite Jed who somehow tried to down it...) were substantiated by Mizuno, who is now running his own company.

I have no time to follow the dozens of CF/LENR initiatives around the world. I put most of my attention on the by far famous and celebrated one, the Ecat. This initiative got the attention and the support of nearly all the experts and commentators in the field, so that all the other initiatives are even less probable, and, just to answer your PS, I have no reason to believe that any of the Rossi's devices has produced any excess heat.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The answer of any (September) hearing about LENR will be clear. If You miss the opportunity, than you will lag behind. There will be public bucks in the field after September and hopefully they shut down all hot D/T fusion projects. The D/T approach is far more desperate than any Rossi trials... and they really suck to much research money!

I really hope that the September briefing will be clear, and, first of all, truthful.

The inquiry doesn't address the T/D, or any other hot fusion approach, but it represents anyway a good opportunity to assess the status of all the fusion technologies. It is an historical opportunity to draw a final balance of the heroic, but vain, endeavor to implement the energetic dreams outlined 85 years ago by Churchill: "There is no doubt that this evolution will continue at an increasing rate. We know enough to be sure that the scientific achievements of the next fifty years will be far greater, more rapid and more surprising, than those we have already experienced. [...] If the hydrogen atoms in a pound of water could be prevailed upon to combine together and form helium, they would suffice to drive a thousandhorsepower engine for a whole year."

We allowed 35 more years to this dream to become a reality. On that dream, we have pushed the growth of the individual consumptions and of the consumers (the World popolation has increased since then more than 3 times). It has been an unwise hazard. The US Secretary of Defense is the most suitable authority in the world that can assume the responsibility to publicly recognize that the bet is lost. In more than one respect, he can be considered a successor of Churchill, and for sure he knows that longer this illusion, sooner and deeper the next global crisis. The military know this sad truth much better than politics, because they will be called to rush in first line to cope with the consequenses of the crisis.

So, I really hope that Mr. Ashton B. Carter will take this occasion to warn the politics of all the world that there is no more time to indulge with the amazing Churchill's dream, and that the residual energy resources, and the margins on climate alteration, and environmental damages, should be spent to allow the humankind to reach in no more than 2-3 generations a new equilibrium with His own single and only possible Home.

Quote from Eric Walker

In cases of controversy, there's invariably a tug-of-war behind the scenes, and the group with the largest presence will prevail. Nonetheless I am sympathetic to its summary of the two DoE reports quoted above; if it gets anything wrong, it is through its unequivocal wording, painting the question in a light that makes the DoE position crystal clear, when maybe it's not so clear cut.

OK, I know there was a tug-of-war behind the present position of Wikipedia on CF (maybe there was a similar war behind the sphericity of the Hearth), anyway one position prevailed, and Wikipedia registered the clear DoE position which negates reality and usefulness of CF/LENR tech. Such negative position has also been denounced from many LENR supporters, and someone of them reported first hand information about it on Vortex (1): "THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the Dept of Energy. I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there is now [no?] way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature."

The above cited Vortex mail quotes also a letter sent to the Secretary of Energy on July 2015, in order to invoke some attention to the field. It's really interesting to see the used arguments: "The game changed after Andrea Rossi contacted Prof Focardi in 2007 and he demonstrated a reactor called the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) in 2011 that was capable of generating kW of heat."

So, less than one year ago, the game changer for some supporters in the field was still the January 2011 demo. Now, look, please, at the first of the 3 flaws of that demo described in a previous comment (2), search "HP474AC" on Google Image and see how long it would be taken to realize that the sole and most important instrument cited in the calorimetric report was not at its supposed place. Then, speaking about biased opinions, consider how much enthusiasm has been aroused by that only LENR test. I'd remember you that the Lewan's book begins with that episode, and it also introduces the long article on Popular Mechanics (3): "On January 14, 2011, a 61-years old ...".

At that time, the official reports signed by the UniBo professors were issued in the JoNP, after the approval by its Board of Advisers, a member of which was a DoD functionary, which also wrote one of the first preliminary report on the calorimetry of the January demo.

Quote from Eric Walker

Do the DoD leadership think that LENR is an impossibility?

For sure, as documented by the previous comments, some single units and some single persons from DoD have provided a big support to the CF/LENR field since its appearance, and have endorsed nearly all the Ecat claims, at least until last September.

Did this support reflects the official position of the (present) DoD leadership? I don't know. Maybe they will say us, the next September.

(1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg106241.html"
(2) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
(3) http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/960…-Box--by_Popular-Science/

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

The 1989 assessment was radically premature, [...] The 2004 review [...] was not "negative.

The present "Cold Fusion" article on Wikipedia says: "In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion."

This means that the DoE assessments were clearly negative with respect of the possibility of having a "useful source of energy".

On the same time, it is also undisputable that the DoD has been, since the 1989, the main promoter of the CF/LENR field in a way so wide, open and public, which is totally unexpected for a strategic technology capable of having "strong national security implications". There is an evident contrast between the positions of the two major US Departments, so, from a purely scientific point of view, one of them has been badly wrong for almost 30 years.

Moreover, considering that the civilian agency, whose mission is "to advance energy technology and promote related innovation", has very little room for maneuver to depart from the truth in his public assessments, the only way to reconcile this apparent contradiction is to recognize that the DoE is, and has always been, right about the scientific aspects and possibilities of CF/LENR, while the DoD has maybe acted outside the actual scientific scope.

If this is the case, and it seems to me that the opposite would be much more improbable, the CF/LENR initiative has been since the beginning an impossible dream, added to the other charming myths grew around the big hope, divulged by some visionary people (1) and instinctively welcomed by almost all of us, to be capable of harnessing the almost unlimited fusion energy.

At DoD, they know for sure which case is the right one, so the next appointment in September is a unique and historical opportunity for the Secretary of Defense, on behalf of the expiring US Administration, to spend a word of wisdom on the real possibilities for the humankind to reach that dream. Maybe we are still on time to schedule a not so painful exit strategy from the no-where lane that we took a few generations ago.

(1) http://rolandanderson.se/Winst…ill/Fifty_Years_Hence.php

Quote from Dan21

The US military may or may not be doing classified LENR research, but they certainly have been sponsoring organizations that report publicly.

Yes, this comes out from the examples you have cited, and from many others. Since F&P, they have provided a big support to sustain the research on CF/LENR, as also confirmed in these slides presented in 2013 at ICCF18 (1).

Another presentation, held on September 2015 (2), shows also that, among all the LENR initiatives worldwide, the Ecat one was the best known, including all the most recent developments. However, it doesn't cite any of the negative outcomes noticed by the DoD experts present at some initial Ecat tests, as previously reported in this thread. Maybe there is some difficulty in sharing the information among the various DoD units involved in this field.

So, the next September briefing to the US House Committee can also be a good occasion for the Secretary of Defense to recap and put together all the information available from the various DoD units that have worked or have closely followed these initiatives, in order to present to the US Representatives a clear and complete status of the CF/LENR field.

Quote from Dan21

I think I can safely say that the US Military has done good things toward advancing LENR research. Certainly more than the Department of Energy, the civilian agency that is *supposed* to be doing this research.

The different attitudes of the two major technical US Departments with respect to the CF/LENR is one of the biggest mysteries in the history of this field.

FWIK, this is the third time that a US Government Authority is asked to pronounce on the reality of the CF/LENR, the previous being the two negative DoE's assessments, in 1989 and 2004. IMO the correct view is the one of the civilian agency. Anyway, being these two Departments nearly equivalent about their technical knowledge and skill, and being both well aware of the crucial importance, for taking the right political decision, of the public being correctly informed about the reality of the various energy options on the table, I really hope that the next briefing will clarify the deep reasons of this divergence of opinions between the DoE and the DoD, and will provide the decision-makers with a common view on the most wise choices to be taken to handle the upcoming energy transition.

(1) https://mospace.umsystem.edu/x…eOverviewPresentation.pdf
(2) http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-co…brief-DeChiaro-9-2015.pdf

Quote from Keieueue

how clever do you think it is to ask the very same authorities involved in its dismissal (in order to keep it in the black military projects) for scientific help and confirmation ?

Apart the "dismissal" of an alleged LENR working tech, this is a good point! But you should submit it to the House Committee on Armed Services who asked the DoD to provide them with a briefing on the LENR.

This is how the democracy works. The Representatives of the US people are aware of the concerns of their voters about energy and of the popular hopes induced by some announcements relative to the LENR, so they ask the Department mostly involved in the field to inform them, and the voters, to this respect. Of course, the DoD, due to its special nature, can choose to disclose all, part, or nothing of what they know, and maybe (I don't know the specific rules) to forbid the divulging of the briefing. We will see. In any case, what we can say since now is that the DoD knows the truth on the whole CF/LENR story, Ecat included, and that this briefing is the only possibility for the common people to be properly informed about the backgrounds of this affair.

Quote from sifferkoll

Rossi did not say US military, but "military" (more likely Italian)

I too don't remember he ever said exactly "US military", but on this respect, there are many controversial information on the web, for instance:

A few days before the October 28, 2011 demo, Rossi said that the "Entity" came from USA (1).

After few months, on April 2012, he wrote (2): "The 1 MW plant is for military purpose, it cannot be seen".

The same month, Axil wrote on Vortex (3): "According to Rossi, uniformed US Naval officers witnessed Rossi’s early demos". I don't know where he got this info, maybe he can tell us.

On May 2012, Rossi wrote (4): "The 1 MW plant has been delivered and is working in a military concern. It has been made in the USA, after the October test of the prototype made in Italy".

In that period, some other web sites, very supportive of the Ecat, posted many articles talking about the US military as being the customer of one or more 1 MW plants. So this was, and still is today, the most common opinion in the public.

(1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=24#comment-101620
(2) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=614&cpage=1#comment-215365
(3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg65136.html"
(4) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=53#comment-231959

Quote from Dewey Weaver

I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back.

Sorry, I'm not sure to have well understood. Does it mean that the US Navy was officially, though secretly, involved with more than one researcher in the first years of the Ecat development?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work to the satisfaction of the most respected hard science scientist in the mix.

Are you also confirming, for what you know, that the "secret Entity" cited on the JoNP (1) was really the US Navy, but the sale didn't go through because they were unsatisfied with the test results?

Did "the mix" include also the "Customer's consultant" mentioned in the JoNP (2)?

If he was referring to the October 28, 2011 demo, was your source aware that a substantially different story was told to the world (3)?

Is it possible to know, when you got these infos?

Thank you.

(1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=23#comment-99764
(2) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=22#comment-97993
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/scitech…-fusion-plant/?test=faces

Quote from Keieueue

That's a neat idea,

Yes, indeed. The US Representatives have posed the right questions to the proper authority. Their scope was different from what I think it would have been the right one, but doesn't matter, as long as they will get a truly and complete briefing, and they will be authorized to make public its entire content.

Quote from Keieueue

especially since LENR has already been militarized for some time

If we stand on the words of Rothwell, who is well informed about the history of CF/LENR, the military involvement has been present since the beginning (1): "Government has also been nearly the only source of funding for cold fusion since 1989. Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre and nearly all others were funded by the British and U.S. governments, mainly from DARPA and other military sources."

Quote from Keieueue

(edit: and this has nothing to do with Rossi)!

For what we can read from the web, there have been many rumors about the involvement of military in the Ecat affair. Axil was among the firsts to report them (2): "There has been a rumor floated that the US Navy is Rossi’s customer in this week’s upcoming E-Cat trial. This rumor is entirely believable. [...] the US Navy would be the obvious US government point organization and primary customer for the E-Cat."

Quote from Keieueue

Let's ask the authorities what they think about it

In the case of the DoD, it's not only a matter of "thinking", but a matter of "knowing". They know for sure if the above rumors had some real basis. They can easily verify at which title one functionary of theirs was in the Board of Advisers of the JoNP since the March 2010 (3). They can immediately check if the same functionary registered the web domain which hosts since then the JoNP (4). And so on.

Quote from Keieueue

The only way this tech gets to the public is with the help of the market's invisible hand.

First of all, it should be real.

(1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg103252.html"
(2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg53540.html"
(3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38052.html"
(4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38061.html"

Quote from Mary Yugo

But I am afraid there may not be appropriate authorities. There might be but in the US, it is hard to get authorities involved when investors are simply deceived. Too hard to prove and to prosecute. [... F-stuff ...] maybe Rossi's luck will run out. One can only hope so.

MY, you are too focused on Rossi, as I told you many times (1).

This is not a matter of F-stuff. In the Ecat saga, I don't see any de-F-ed or deceived investor. Those who invested in it were well informed: they knew what they were doing, and they know what they are doing, or going to do. So, I don't see any reason for personal persecution, or sanction, versus anyone. We are not in front of a personal crime, but in front of a huge systemic problem, which extends well beyond the competences of whichever civil or penal court.

The Ecat story attained the highest levels of the cultural system developed by the humankind in his millenary history: the experimental science, and the nuclear physics in particular. Within few months from the 2011 tests cited in the previous comments, the Ecat got the endorsement from academicians and scientists belonging to 4 renowned European Universities (Bologna, Uppsala, Stockholm, and Cambridge), and from 2 of the major US government institutions (DoD and NASA), and their support lasted many years. I don't think there has ever been any other comparable case in the history of physics, based on similar evident flaws, so well documented, and universally accessible by everyone in the blogosphere. Therefore, apropos the "who deceives who" issue, we are in front of the "mankind who deceived himself", and who probably liked to be deceived. Rossi is just a small wheel in a much wider mechanism.

Is there an appropriate authority to assess what really happened? I hope so, but it doesn't belong to the judiciary ambit. It should instead involve the same academic and scientific ambit which has been so badly exploited in this affair. I also think that, due to the detrimental effects it provoked in the public perception of the suitable ways to cope with the energy problems, a clear and authoritative scientific pronouncement on this affair should be invoked and promoted at a political level.

The good occasion for doing so is the briefing on LENR which has been asked to the DoD by the House Committee on Armed Services, and to be provided by September. It's evident to everybody that the Ecat is on the front line in the popular imagination for what concerns the hope that any LENR device, as well as any other free (or easy) energy system, can solve the coming energy problems. So, IMO, the DoD is asked to give to the US Representatives, and, through them, to the world public opinion, a proper answer on this specific initiative. I hope it will be done by promoting a scientific committee, whose scope shouldn't be to assess for the third time the viability of the LENR technology (the DoE already did it twice), but to specifically shed light onto what happened in this field after the last pronouncement of the DoE, including the whole Ecat affair. On their behalf, the DoD could also explain to the House Committee how was it possible that they seemed to play a so big role in this affair, including the role of customer of the first 1 MW plant, the same shown by Popular Mechanics only a few months ago (2).

(1) http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686&cpage=9#comment-145893
(2) http://www.popularmechanics.co…874/us-house-cold-fusion/

Quote from Mary Yugo

You are probably right, Ascoli. You analyzed it much deeper than I did.

In this case, it's not matter of a much deeper analysis, it's just a matter of language. The most revealing information on the February test has been disclosed in a remote comment popped up in an Italian blog. I think that if you were aware of the actual I/O temperatures, you had easily come to the same conclusion.

This fact says a lot about how the information about the Ecat was publicly handled since the beginning, so that, as for the others tests, it is not sufficient catching the experimental inconsistencies, but you must follow how they grew up over time on the web. I'll try to do that. Sorry if it is boring.

The announcement of a third test had been given in advance by Levi on February 2 (1): "But what I want to do now is an experiment with continuous operation for at least one or more days. Since there are very specific limits on how much energy you can generate from a given amount of mass, Thus I can rule out a chemical reaction as the energy source".

The first results were released through 22passi on February 21 (2), ten days after the test. Levi authorized the issuing of very few data: among them, the generation of minimum 15 kW throughout 18 hours, and the flowrate of 1 L/s.

The day after, 22passi published a mail from Celani, informing the colleagues on his mailing list about the results of the test (3). He also emphasized the declaration of a very high water flow: "l'elevatissimo flusso di acqua "dichiarato" (un litro al secondo!!!)".

After one more day, on February 23, appears on NyTeknik the interview with Levi, the same you have cited before (4). This interview contains a little more information, such as the power range from 15 to 20 kW and the famous peak at 130 kW. This latter was associated with a water "flow rate of about one liter per second". For the rest of the test, he specified that: "the flow was not constant, but by regularly noting the time and reading the input volume on a counter, he [Levi] controlled the flow". Therefore, during the day time, Levi has personally carried out the readings and took note of the water flow, but at night "the counter information was recorded with a camera". This is the microcamera shown on the previous jpeg. In June 2011, these records were still in his possession, as he told Krivit (6, at 11:30): "I have the raw data".

So far, no one had talked about T or delta T. FWIK, the first to do so has been Rothwell on Vortex (5), who reported a Tin of 15°C and a Tout of about 20°C. He also added that "15°C is probably tap water temperature". But, a few hours later, Passerini on 22passi said instead that Tin has been only 7.5°C throughout all 10 hours in which he stood close to the Ecat (7).

I personally believe that the true value was the one inadvertently revealed by Passerini, but if so from where did it jump off the 15°C figure mentioned by Rothwell? In his mail to Vortex and in his subsequent small report dated March 1st (8) he said he obtained the data from a "source close to test".

So before talking about missed calibrations and replications of the tests, it's better to clarify from where and by whom these data came out.

(1) http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3083834.ece
(2) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…-ufficiale-delle-cat.html
(3) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…ficiale-delle-cat_23.html
(4) http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece
(5) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg42873.html"
(6)

Quote from Mary Yugo

I was not referring to either report Jed mentions nor to the one Ascoli cited. I was referring to this: http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…cludes-combustion-6421304

I know you meant the one held on February 10-11, 2011, the most incredible and daring test in the history of CF/LENR.

This test had already been anticipated in the conclusions of the calorimeter report of the January test: "The short duration of the tests suggests that is important to make more long and complete experiments."

Though it was presented as a "technical internal test", the February test was welcomed on the web as an extraordinary confirmation of the January results, so it had a very important role in increasing the fame of the Ecat. In fact, it was the test cited by Josephson in his resounding public support of the Ecat (1).

Quote from Mary Yugo

That ecat has a single thermocouple, placed entirely by Rossi, in the output stream, to measure output water temperature. Simply moving it close to the large heater ("gargantuan" because it is the largest feature in the device) would cause wild overestimation of the output power.

No, too complicated. You should keep it as simple as possible.

Rothwell (2-3) reported that the delta T was 5°C only, but he does not say what were the I/O values. These ones have been revealed by Passerini in a comment on 22passi (4): "Durante le quasi 10 ore in cui sono stato presente la temperatura dell'acqua in ingresso era attorno ai 7,5°C, quella dell'acqua in uscita sui 14°C." So, the inlet temperature (it: ingresso) was only 7.5°C, a value in line with the water supply temperature in winter. The alleged outlet temperature (it: uscita) was around 14°C, ie about that of the air in the lab room (5). Therefore, in order to obtain this last temperature it was not necessary moving the TC close to the heater, on the contrary, it was necessary to keep it sufficiently detached from the metal pipe, so that it was mostly affected by the ambient temperature.

This has been the simplest imaginable experimental setup: no need at all of any heater, just take the Delta T between the temperature of the water coming from the aqueduct and the air in the environment, and multiply the corresponding specific heat power to a sufficiently high flow rate.

Here comes the second brainware. The flowrate was simply assumed equal to the maximum value measurable by the flowmeter: a rounded up 1 L/s in the Levi's declarations, and an absolutely exact 0.833 L/s (= 3 m3/h) in the Rothwell reports. This high flow rate was needed to reach the fateful quota of 1 GJ of total produced energy, as reported in Rothwell report, and emphasized by Josephson. But ...

But, more likely, the real flowrate was at least one order of magnitude lower. The strong probability of this discrepancy arose a few months later, after the test held on October 6. In fact, in that test, the second in which liquid water was used to estimate the output heat, it was used a flowmeter identical to the one used in Febuary, as shown by the images in the following jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/bMaQaQq.jpg).

In the above jpeg, the image (A) shows the flowmeter model, which features a maximum limit of 3 m3/h (6). The images (B) refer to the February test, during which, if the flow rate had been the declared, the total amount of water flown would have been between 54 and 65 m3. The images (C), referring to the October test, show, however, that at the beginning of the day the total flow recorded on the dial was only 7.26 m3, an order of magnitude less of the previous figure.

Was the flowmeter used in October, the same used in Febuary? I guess it was.

Quote from Mary Yugo

In my opinion, none of these "errors" are accidental but each and every one was done by intent by Rossi with the purpose of deception. This of course is an opinion.

I substantially agree, but not on the "who deceives who" issue. The picture could be much more complex, therefore I would suggest to just stick to the facts, and to leave the conclusions to the appropriate authorities.

(1) https://www.physicsforums.com/…84427/page-2#post-3213610
(2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg42873.html"
(3) http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=640
(4) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…9326#c4452087894338263612
(5) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wZXv…3g/s1600/E-Cat110211c.jpg
(6) http://www.maddalena.it/prodotti_cert.php?cat=1&prod=8

Quote from Dewey Weaver

can you please provide the link to the Bologna University system where stipends and contract payments are publically reported?

Sorry, as already said these aspects are outside the scope of my presence here on this forum.

What I can suggest you, in case you deem that the name of the Bologna University has in some way influenced the decision to invest in the IP of the Ecat, is to ask them these information.

The contacts are available on the web.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Was it you that did the background work on Levi's paid research with Fulvio Fabiani for pinball software or firmware?

No, absolutely not. I must also add that I have never spoken of these payments. If there have been irregularities in this regard, it is the duty of his University of finding them. I will not go into this kind of controversy.

What interests me is that any professor or researcher of an Italian University makes his best in telling the scientific truth, because the people trust them and pay the taxes from which their regular salary comes.

Quote from andrea.s

Actually it fits the scheme of "multiple redundancies"

Not exactly "redundancies". All of these overestimations were necessary all toghether to get the target of the demo. In its calorimetric report, a COP of about 12 was claimed. Moreover, there was the needing of increasing the output energy in order to exclude the possibility that the claimed output heat could have been attributed to the combustion of the gas coming from the hydrogen bottle connected to the Ecat.

Quote from andrea.s

Even Lugano has two big measurement issues,

I know that there has been an intense activity around the two TPRs related to the hot-cat tests held in Ferrara and Lugano. But, sorry, I can't comment in detail these findings because I didn't examine the reports. I gave them just a look, but I suspended any further examination due to their lead author. Before spending my time in verifying those quite twisted and absolutely improbable results, I'd like to know how he justifies the blatantly wrong data reported in his first document about the January 2011 demo.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Very happy to see you posting on LF. I really appreciated your postings on Mat's blog

Thanks for your appreciation. Anyway, I'm here on L-F since almost a month, when I posted nearly the same infos: Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test .

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Can you please send me a contact email to [email protected]? Any conversation from there-on will be private.

Sorry, I can't. There is a lawsuit in course between two private parties. I'm not really interested in its outcome, nor I'd like to appear as a supporter of any part. Moreover, I'd prefer to avoid to become privy of any info that I cannot share on the web. I hope, you understand.

I'm here only because 5 years ago I, as many other millions people, heard the astounding energy claims proclaimed by some academicians of a prominent Italian University. Unfortunately, since the beginning, these claims were unfounded and badly wrong, but since then they have been not retracted by those who had spread them all around the world. I just would like to see the scientific truth restored by some academic or scientific authority of my Country, not by a US court.

Anyway, I'm willing, within the limit of my time and my English skill, to answer any question, provided they deal with material or procedural aspects of the tests held during 2011. But, all I can say could have been easily found by any expert or adviser in a normal technical due diligence. All the infos are available in the web since the beginning of this story.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is a different test, with a different reactor, and a different report.

I was replying to a MY's comment, which began with this sentence of you: "Have you discovered an error in the first set of tests by Levi?"

So, what did you mean with "the first set of tests by Levi"?

For me, and I think for MY, they are the 3 tests held in Bologna in the winter 2010/11, that is the tests you find in the first row of the attached jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/rB93G1X.jpg). I guess that these 3 tests are also those which triggered the interest of the vast majority of the people following this story, and which gave the maximum of scientific credentials to the Ecat, due to the numbers of the academic physicists which were involved, and the fame of their University.

If they were wrong already in the first public demo, which other test should we consider?

@ Mary Yugo, you wrote:
- "So no, I did not "find an error" as such."

Sorry, you didn't find an error just because you have not looked at the documents with the necessary attention. In the calorimeter report (1) of the demo held on January 14, 2011, there are 3 errors, each as big as an elephant!

1 - The most important instrument of all the experimental setup, the one with which the dryness of the outlet steam should have been assessed, it just was ... absent, as the first jpeg shows: http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg

So we can assume not only that the steam was not dry, but also that, as easily deductible from other considerations, that the outflow was almost completely in the liquid state. This leads to an overestimation of the heat produced by a factor of six, at least.

2 - The maximum deliverable flowrate of the dosimetric pump used to inject the coolant was only about 40% of that stated in the report, as shown in the second jpeg: http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg</a>

This results in an overestimate by a factor of 2.5 of the thermal power produced.

3 - The duration of the boiling period was doubled compared to the real one, as evidenced by this third and final jpeg: http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg

This last error leads to an overestimate by a factor of 2 of the total energy generated during the test.

In total, the heat output during the Bologna first demo was overestimated by a factor of 15 for the power and by a factor of 30 for energy!

Moreover, as shown by the above jpegs, these are not errors of which any PhD in physics may not be aware!

And, please, stop with the issue of the missing calibrations. This complaint holds only if you can trust the testers.

(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

Quote from Shane D.

I do take exception with your alluding that the profs somehow profited from their time with Rossi. I have heard nothing of that, and believe they did it all for the good.

For the good of what? Certainly not that of science or humanity. Levi knew that he had calculated enormous excess heat on the basis of incorrect data. His collegues knew it's impossible to verify the steam dryness with a phantom probe, measure a flow rate 2.5 times greater than the maximum deliverable by a dosimetric pump, overstate of 100% the duration of a phenomenon on a graph.

Quote from Shane D.

Feeling it was their scientific duty to step up to the plate, risk their reputations, to see if the Ecat really worked.

Assuming that it really was a duty of the Bologna physicists to verify a phenomenon already amply refuted in the 22 previous years by the scientific community, their department would have had the duty to apply for the maximum correctness towards the public, correcting asap these obvious mistakes, on which all the subsequent Ecat's credibility was based. But Levi did not corrected those data, and none of his colleagues and bosses objected anything, so that after more than 5 years someone can yet be said on the web: "Some of the previous tests, such as the first Levi tests, seem positive."

This is not the responsibility of Rossi, but of the scientific institutions that supported his claims.

Quote from Shane D.

Well, their reps are shot, so I guess they paid the ultimate price. Too bad. Rossi ruined a lot of careers, and I am sure he does not care in the least.

Which price? No one has paid any price. Indeed, some has done a good career.

I think we should stop judging all the aspects of the Ecat affair with respect to Rossi. He is not the savior of the world, but he is neither the responsible of its present difficult situation. The unfounded hopes spread by some interested scientific and academic lobbies have resulted in much worst troubles.