parallel wrote:As I have been able to confirm that NASA is to test E-Cats I wonder how the pathological skeptics will explain why Rossi would give such an organization the opportunity to demonstrate he is a fraud and liar. (as per Giorgio, et al.)
I gave my explanation several times before.
Rossi and Co. are firmly convinced that they have discovered the holy grail of heath generation. On this I have nothing to say. It's their business what they are convinced of.
Unfortunately Rossi and Co. are also firmly convinced that everyone should accept their words for this discovery without for them bothering to make a proper test. On this I have a lot to say. If you ask me to believe something bring proofs that I can accept or don't complain if I do not believe you.
That said, I couldn't be more happy to hear that Nasa is going to test the e-Cat. Their test will nail this issue once and for all.
Sorry, couldn't stay away for this one. Parallel, please clarify the following statements. Is it or is it not being tested by Nasa?
parallel wrote:Edit added.
I hear from an inside government source that NASA will be testing the E-Cat including the 1 MW unit. I have no confirmation of the date.
followed by:
parallel wrote:Private conversation with someone I know in the government. He has a lot more information but it is not for publication.
and finally:
Parallel wrote:1. Rossi has made no statement about the E-Cat being tested by NASA,
I might add that we are taking Parallel at his word for this Nasa test, so I won't be counting this rumor against Rossi if it ends up untrue.
ScottL
You want me to confirm my confirmation? Next I suppose you will want confirmation of the confirmation of my confirmation.
Pity you can't keep your word and leave this thread.
It doesn't matter who does it, the result will not be believed unless it fits the preconceived result of the skeptics.
Prof. Levi did a perfectly adequate 18 hour test, without resorting to a phase change. Who believes him? OK he wasn't an American, or a junior engineer.
Rossi is dead right. Belief will only come following sales of E-Cats that work, to the public.
parallel wrote:
Prof. Levi did a perfectly adequate 18 hour test, without resorting to a phase change. Who believes him? OK he wasn't an American, or a junior engineer.
Rossi is dead right. Belief will only come following sales of E-Cats that work, to the public.
Levi also said they recorded the experiment with flowing water (and I believe him), so why not present it or repeat it properly. The experiment was done not to any standards and not presentable, I can understand that, it was just a test. But if you are willing to quote such astonishing results then also be willing to present it properly if requested, otherwise its just hot air, regardless of who said it.
It doesn't matter who does it, the result will not be believed unless it fits the preconceived result of the skeptics.
This is untrue, a simple independently supervised flowing water test with no phase change would end the debate if the cat really does produce 5kw.
Why do you think everyone is so interested in the Levi test.
You think what Prof. Levi stated was "just hot air." That is a very insulting thing to write. That tells us more about you than him.
Apparently things have to be repeated to you many times before they sink in. Rossi has stated that he is NOT interested (edit added. Actually he said he had better things to do) in persuading skeptical people like you that the E-Cat works. He believes the sale of working units is the best proof. Whether you like it or not, it is his call.
You think what Prof. Levi stated was "just hot air." That is a very insulting thing to write. That tells us more about you than him.
Apparently things have to be repeated to you many times before they sink in. Rossi has stated that he is NOT interested (edit added. Actually he said he had better things to do) in persuading skeptical people like you that the E-Cat works. He believes the sale of working units is the best proof. Whether you like it or not, it is his call.
Let me get this straight, in your little world, if Levi says it and I don't blindly follow along, that says something negative about me, interesting analysis.
I have no reason to doubt Levi but without knowing the particulars of the test (which in his own words) was lacking in precision and method, how can anyone draw a conclusion.
You think what Prof. Levi stated was "just hot air." That is a very insulting thing to write. That tells us more about you than him.
You're right, bad choice of words and no insult to Levi was intended but
real data is needed to believe such an incredible claim, and I am not talking about looking inside, just a simple black box experiment with real measurements and an energy balance.
parallel wrote:It doesn't matter who does it, the result will not be believed unless it fits the preconceived result of the skeptics.
Prof. Levi did a perfectly adequate 18 hour test, without resorting to a phase change. Who believes him? OK he wasn't an American, or a junior engineer.
Rossi is dead right. Belief will only come following sales of E-Cats that work, to the public.
Parallel, PLEASE, we can't go over and over these issues every time.
Prof. Levi SAYS that he did the test, but refused to release any data whatsoever about this test. As far as I am concerned there is nothing to discuss until he shows some data.
Really, you cannot (and you should not) believe someone claiming to be the holder of the truth just because he is stating so. This is the first rule of good sense and self preservation that every human being should posses.
sparkyy0007
Nothing wrong in disagreeing. Just don't be so bloody rude when you have no facts to back it up.
Giorgio,
I wouldn't have to repeat it if some of the skeptics here got it the first time.
Prof. Levi SAYS that he did the test, but refused to release any data whatsoever about this test. As far as I am concerned there is nothing to discuss until he shows some data.
A short time ago, Dr. Joseph Levi authorized me to publish the following account of an experiment.
In recent days, a technical test of the Rossi-Focardi Ni-H reactor (energy catalyzer) was performed to assess some experimental problems. The test was conducted externally, that is, not at Bologna university.
It was a test without vapor production (with Delta T deliberately held well below those achieved on 14 January).
A minimum of 15 kW was produced continually for 18 hours, coming to a total of 270 kWh or 972 MJ.
Water flow was 1 liter per second, H2 injected into the reactor: 0.4 grams.
The experiment was observed by Dr. Levi himself and other witnesses.
No official reports will be issued about this experiment. But we will report on upcoming experiments soon to be performed in cooperation with the University of Bologna's physics department.
++++
[Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
Jed Rothwell
Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:10:12 -0800
A source close to the recent 18-hour test of the Rossi device gave me the
following figures. These are approximations.
Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = 833 ml/s.
Input temperature: 15°C
Output temperature ~20°C
Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W
for 6 hours
Notes from Jed
5°C temperature difference * 833 ml = 4,165 cal/s = 17,493 W
3,000 L/h seems like a lot but it is 793 gallons/h, which is how much a
medium-sized $120 ornamental pond pump produces. Peter & I think it would
have been better to throttle back the flow rate somewhat.
15°C is probably tap water temperature.
A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence.
The control electronics input of ~80 W is in line with what was reported for
tests before Jan. 14. Input was high on that day because something went
wrong with the controls, with "cracked welding" as described in the Levi
report.
Room temperature? This one tells you almost nothing since the delta T is so small. With a decent COP you could heat pump that kind of thermal energy. I calculated it and poosted the calc a while back.
Give me a test where the output is WATER at ~95 degrees C. Then show me the same energy output applies. PLEASE!!
KitemanSa,
A 5C temperature difference is sufficient to measure the heat accurately enough for this test. It being relatively easy to measure to 0.1C. Possibly Levi or Rossi were concerned about the max heat output that reportedly peaked at over 300KW in the test.
Good news...
Jason Le Leivre
September 8th, 2011 at 6:17 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In the past you have indicated that your Ni fuel charge is prepared by a single elderly gentleman in his 90′s. Has he been responsible for the fuel for all 300 reactors in your 1MW device or do you have a new preparation system better suited to mass production?
Best Wishes
Andrea Rossi
September 8th, 2011 at 6:37 AM
Dear Jason Le Leivre:
We have industrialized the system.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Last edited by parallel on Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
parallel wrote:sparkyy0007
Nothing wrong in disagreeing. Just don't be so bloody rude when you have no facts to back it up.
Giorgio,
I wouldn't have to repeat it if some of the skeptics here got it the first time.
Prof. Levi SAYS that he did the test, but refused to release any data whatsoever about this test. As far as I am concerned there is nothing to discuss until he shows some data.
A short time ago, Dr. Joseph Levi authorized me to publish the following account of an experiment.
In recent days, a technical test of the Rossi-Focardi Ni-H reactor (energy catalyzer) was performed to assess some experimental problems. The test was conducted externally, that is, not at Bologna university.
It was a test without vapor production (with Delta T deliberately held well below those achieved on 14 January).
A minimum of 15 kW was produced continually for 18 hours, coming to a total of 270 kWh or 972 MJ.
Water flow was 1 liter per second, H2 injected into the reactor: 0.4 grams.
The experiment was observed by Dr. Levi himself and other witnesses.
No official reports will be issued about this experiment. But we will report on upcoming experiments soon to be performed in cooperation with the University of Bologna's physics department.
++++
[Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
Jed Rothwell
Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:10:12 -0800
A source close to the recent 18-hour test of the Rossi device gave me the
following figures. These are approximations.
Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = 833 ml/s.
Input temperature: 15°C
Output temperature ~20°C
Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W
for 6 hours
Notes from Jed
5°C temperature difference * 833 ml = 4,165 cal/s = 17,493 W
3,000 L/h seems like a lot but it is 793 gallons/h, which is how much a
medium-sized $120 ornamental pond pump produces. Peter & I think it would
have been better to throttle back the flow rate somewhat.
15°C is probably tap water temperature.
A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence.
The control electronics input of ~80 W is in line with what was reported for
tests before Jan. 14. Input was high on that day because something went
wrong with the controls, with "cracked welding" as described in the Levi
report.
Skeptics don't think this adds credibility because:
(1) Rossi/Levi/etc have proven scientifically incompetent in tests observed by others. Why should we expect more competence when left to their own devices? hence can't trust these figures.
(2) As pointed out above the problem here is opposite. The output temperature is close to ambient with input temp below ambient.
The scientifically literate (ie not Rossi!) will see that any number of experimental errors could lead to this mismeasurement with no heat output. For example an output thermometer in better thermal contact with surroundings than water. Since we don't know the experimental setup we can't tell whether this is the case.
Rossi seems unable to adjust water flow for anything between steam production (known unreliable & difficult) or output < Tambient (known unreliable and difficult for entirely different reasons).
