10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[rcain]

Giorgio,

You forgot to quote their most important statement:

Quote:
At this point precise measurement is crucial if credibility in the process under study is to be established.

So, what is wrong with Ni Teknik's trials?
That they didn't check for unobtainium in the insulation?
It couldn't be that the E-Cat actually works.

they didnt build it themselves, from scratch, they couldnt even look inside it - not allowed to, you understand!

Ni Teknik's test, adds a little more weight to the likelyhood that it works, whatever it does, without 'obvious' fraud or error. We suspected that already.

However, whilst 'secrets' remain in place, it can NEVER be called true science and will NEVER be good enough.

[Giorgio]

So, what is wrong with Ni Teknik's trials?

The point is exactly that. They didn't have the possibility to make any trial until now, they have only been allowed to witness to the trials made from Ing.Rossi.

It couldn't be that the E-Cat actually works.

Independently from the E-cat working or not, we have been pointing out obvious flaws in experimental set up and measurements that need to be addressed, otherwise they will bring nothing new to the discussion.

I'll ask you again.
Did you notice that the first time that they attempt to make some mass flow measurements in the experiment the COP drops from 15/20 to 8? This rings a thousand bells in my brain.

With 300/400 Euro worth of material they can make a proper experiment.
Flowmeter at inlet, flowmeter at outlet, keep outlet temperature lower than 80 degree. A calorimetry done in this way will have an extremely low error and give a clear indication of the working potential (if any) of the E-cat.

[rcain]

I'll ask you again.
Did you notice that the first time that they attempt to make some mass flow measurements in the experiment the COP drops from 15/20 to 8? This rings a thousand bells in my brain.

I know you are not asking me, but i will respond anyway. I too had noticed this and similar dicrepancies. But I also note that
a) different sized machines exist - this maybe a case where different sized machines were used.
b) it has been admitted that great variablity exists in performance, and indeed that such 'variability' can be critical to machine operation at all. (this has been used at least once to explain failed replication of results).
c) the photographs show that they are still pretty 'lashed-up' devices, albeit of supposedly 'production friendly' design.

seems to me a single result, whether good or bad, is nothing much to get excited about.

[parallel]

Giorgio,
The heat produced has always been variable. The last trials were with the new smaller E-Cat that has a reaction chamber of only 50cc(!) In one of Prof. Levi's runs with the 1 liter version it shot up to 130 kW(?) for a short time.

What matters is that the heat produced is way above experimental measurement error. My inclination was to give the technical people that ran and witnessed the trials the benefit of the doubt - until proved otherwise. After Ni Teknik's trials it seems likely that the measurements in the previous trials were approximately correct, as it looks like fraud has pretty much been ruled out.

Why do you go on about how it must be a scientific, reproducible event when you know that was never to be? Do you really expect Rossi to give it away?

Anyone can come up with criticisms from the blog reports of the trials. What good does that achieve? You and everyone else will just have to lump it until the end of the year unless Rossi changes his mind.

[raphael]

The conventional wisdom among the world's top scientific minds, in 1903, was that heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

http://0.tqn.com/d/inventors/1/0/W/7/1/WB1903Flyer.jpg

[Giorgio]

Giorgio,
The heat produced has always been variable. The last trials were with the new smaller E-Cat that has a reaction chamber of only 50cc(!)

Actually is not like that. The test conducted on the 29th of March and the one conducted on April 19/28 was done with the same E-Cat.
The test of 29th of March, with "estimated" flow of water gave COP 15.
The tests of 19/28 April with a partial flow verification gave a COP 8.
Same machine gave 2 highly different results just by a check (more or less) of the water flow.

What matters is that the heat produced is way above experimental measurement error. My inclination was to give the technical people that ran and witnessed the trials the benefit of the doubt - until proved otherwise. After Ni Teknik's trials it seems likely that the measurements in the previous trials were approximately correct, as it looks like fraud has pretty much been ruled out.

You still do not get the point. Ni Teknik did not make any trial!

Why do you go on about how it must be a scientific, reproducible event when you know that was never to be? Do you really expect Rossi to give it away?

This passage is really meaningless, please clarify your point.

Anyone can come up with criticisms from the blog reports of the trials. What good does that achieve? You and everyone else will just have to lump it until the end of the year unless Rossi changes his mind.

This is exactly what I stated that I will do about 30 pages ago

[Skipjack]

The test of 29th of March, with "estimated" flow of water gave COP 15.
The tests of 19/28 April with a partial flow verification gave a COP 8.
Same machine gave 2 highly different results just by a check (more or less) of the water flow.

Yes, I noticed that as well. IMHO this does not look good at all.

[Giorgio]

The conventional wisdom among the world's top scientific minds, in 1903, was that heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

http://0.tqn.com/d/inventors/1/0/W/7/1/WB1903Flyer.jpg

Yes, we all know about the wright brothers and we also know about Goddard and Von Brown and many others.
The difference is that these people actually choose to go public and brought their ideas in the open allowing people to verify and replicate their experiments and ideas.

Why don't you bring me some data from an independent validation of the E-Cat instead? It will be much more appreciated than flawed paragons.

[Giorgio]

I'll ask you again.
Did you notice that the first time that they attempt to make some mass flow measurements in the experiment the COP drops from 15/20 to 8? This rings a thousand bells in my brain.

I know you are not asking me, but i will respond anyway. I too had noticed this and similar dicrepancies. But I also note that
a) different sized machines exist - this maybe a case where different sized machines were used.
b) it has been admitted that great variablity exists in performance, and indeed that such 'variability' can be critical to machine operation at all. (this has been used at least once to explain failed replication of results).
c) the photographs show that they are still pretty 'lashed-up' devices, albeit of supposedly 'production friendly' design.

seems to me a single result, whether good or bad, is nothing much to get excited about.

Yes, I heard those points before, but in the case of these 3 tests the machine was the same and the "power in" was the same.
The only reported difference between the tests was the implementation of a rough water flow check in the April tests and we immediately have a large drop in estimated COP.

If in the same machine we have such a huge swings in COP than this tech is far from being ready for commercialization, or there is something not accounted for in the energy balance. And this, IMHO, cannot be clarified without a proper calorimetry test.

[Axil]

FYI

This article has a 4.5 minute video of the Rossi reactor in operation linked at the top of the page:



http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 166552.ece

[D Tibbets]

So, what is wrong with Ni Teknik's trials?

Well, an amp meter is useful for measuring current, but it tells you nothing about the power (Watts) unless you also include the Volts.
A step up transformer could be in the control box. If the step up was 10X, the same power through the wire to the 'reactor' wold have 10X less current, but 10X greater voltage. In the reactor a small step down transformer could provide more heating amps to a resister, and the small transformer inefficiency wouldn't hurt as that also would produce heat. Again the thermometer can be calibrated to within 1 millionth of a degree, but it means little if you don't know how heat is flowing inside the machine. Apparently these machines output some steam and a little water, with presumably a modest water inflow. They assumed this output liquid water was condensed, but without looking inside they couldn't know whether this was bypassed water. And if the water flow was modest, it wouldn't take much bypass to suggest much larger heating power output.
Some water dripping out and some steam escaping into the air that is not measured for temperature and mass means there is no real measurement of total heat output.

Even my cursory consideration reveals 2-3 different aspects that could allow for large manipulation of the claimed results.


[EDIT] Actually, with the stepped up voltage, no subsequent step down transformer would be needed, just an adjustment in the Ohmic resistance of the resister- either the obvious one outside the pipe or one inside.

My argument about the Amp measurements and the absent Volt measurements is based on the assumption that they claim the input volts equals line voltage,. That needs to be confirmed before anything else, and does not require $300 of calorimetry equipment, but only an under $10 Voltmeter.

Dan Tibbets

[Giorgio]

My argument about the Amp measurements and the absent Volt measurements is based on the assumption that they claim the input volts equals line voltage,. That needs to be confirmed before anything else, and does not require $300 of calorimetry equipment, but only an under $10 Voltmeter.

Double the amount to 20 US$D and you can get this:
http://www.tequipment.net/P3P4400.html

[Axil]

The Cat-E is a versatile scam machine. It can use hydrogen combustion or electric power input to fool the witness.

In this case, there is no hydrogen feed. So the input electric power from the wall socket must be the source of the heat.

At 1.6 amps input current, how much voltage is necessary to produce the required power stated as 2.5 kw?

Convince me it is a scam if you please.

Here is some help. The tests of the Rossi reactor show that at the least, it is a versatile scam machine. The Rossi reactor can be easily reconfigured to fool the witness based on the type of test/demo that is to be run.

Reference:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v331.php

Conclusion

Since the December/January experiments only recorded the inputs and outputs for a short time (30 minutes), almost ANY of the fakes could have produced the result.

For the February experiment Levi was allowed to inspect everything, EXCLUDING only the 1-liter reactor chamber. If you accept all of Levi's February report, then all chemical fakes are conclusively ruled out. Neither the January or February reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake.

The March report DOES rule out a Tarallo fake -- but since the Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes.

None of the experiments can rule out a Heat Pump which exceeds known efficiencies by a factor of 100 (or even higher, if the 130kW peak output could be sustained). An eCat doing this would be as important an engineering breakthrough as an LENR device. Similarly, a previously-unknown chemical reaction which can produce 10kW for 6 months from a 1 liter source would be an equally important discovery in chemistry.

As Sherlock Holmes said in Silver Blaze:

... and improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still.

Therefore, at present, we cannot conclusively rule out ALL possible fakes, so it is not yet PROVED that the Rossi device is real. However, a few simple improvements to the experimental setup will almost certainly do that.

[raphael]

Giorgio, perhaps you should research the epithet "Fliers or Liars?" wrt the Wright brothers and their attempts to assert the essential facts of their accomplishment. The reality is that they were initially mocked and derided to a shameful extent; both by those who should have known better and by the unwashed rabble of the day.

Bottom line, sleazy scammers (e.g., BLP?) cause harm but the far greater harm comes from sleazy deniers and the fellow travelers of same...

[rcain]

"Nullius in Verba"