Bologna, Italia — Here is a quick status report of my visit to Andrea Rossi’s showroom on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday to look at his invention which he calls the Energy Catalyzer.
In addition to Rossi, I also came to speak with Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna, and Giuseppe Levi, a current member of the University of Bologna department of physics. All three have been actively involved in the experiments and promotion of the E-Cat.
I arrived at the address Dell’Elettricista 6-C, Zona Industriale Roveri on Tuesday at noon. 6-C is one of the suites in a single story building that houses a variety of light industrial companies. The name shown for suite 6-C is Filli Rossi Pneumatica, which translates to Rossi Brothers Tires.
In March, Swedish professors Hanno Essen and Sven Kullander, who came to see the E-Cat, wrote in their travel report that this was a “Leonardo Corporation” building, but there was nothing visible to indicate that.
The large bay door of suite 6-C was open and I saw lots of equipment and a few men inside working. I asked a man for Andrea Rossi and he brought me back outside and around to the back of the building.
I entered a large room, approximately 7,500 square feet in size. Nothing was installed in it and electrical power came into the room from an extension cable. Except for a few dozen folding chairs, a few tables, and a small portable coffee machine (essential in Italy,) the room was barren.
Adjacent to this large room were two smaller rooms. One was a bathroom and next to that, in a room about 80 square feet in size, Rossi’s E-Cat sat on a small table. Two large tanks of hydrogen stood next to it.
I observed and filmed the E-Cat in operation though there was not that much to see. I also recorded several hours of videotaped interviews of Rossi, Focardi and Levi. Details of my investigation, travel report and production of my videos will take a few weeks to complete.
The primary validity of the E-Cat trio’s dramatic energy claim is highly contingent on and derived from the heat output which they calculate indirectly from a claimed full or near-full vaporization of 100-degree water to steam. Complete vaporization of 100-degree water into steam requires the complete absence of suspended water droplets in steam.
The water droplets suspended in the steam may be measured on a volumetric, or possibly, on a mass basis. The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy, and a measurement by volume has more of an exponential effect.
Volumetrically, a mere five percent of water in steam reduces the vaporization enthalpy to a trivial level. Even one percent of water in the steam will make a major reduction in the Rossi-Focardi-Levi claims.
My full report will include a detailed assessment of their methodology, and, as much as they will provide, their data.
The steam and/or water that comes immediately out of the E-Cat is hidden from sight because the outlet from the E-Cat goes directly to a three-meter black rubber hose, which then feeds into a drain in the plumbing system.
On my request Tuesday, Rossi removed the hose from the drain. Before doing so, he carefully lifted the last meter of the hose above the height of the drain, allowed any water in it to flow down the drain for a few seconds, and then removed the hose from the drain, keeping the open end pointed up. I could see some white steam slowly exiting from the hose. He said he had to put it back in the drain quickly, after a few seconds, otherwise it could be dangerous.
Thus far, the scientific details provided by the E-Cat trio have been highly deficient and have not enabled the public to make an objective evaluation. The Essen-Kullander report, while written with confident-sounding language, has significant weakness in its presentation of data and calculations and is highly constrained by the methodology dictated and instrumentation provided by the E-Cat trio.
I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.
By the end of our conversation, after I showed him my calculations which displayed one to two orders of magnitude less enthalpy if the measurements had been made volumetrically, he assured me that the measurements had been measured by mass.
I requested and strongly encouraged him to be absolutely sure, and if necessary, get back to me in a week with a correction to his Jan. 21 report. I also asked him if he would be willing to provide me with a copy of Galantini’s steam humidity report from the Jan. 14 experiment by next Wednesday. Levi agreed to my request.
On Wednesday afternoon, I also spoke with Simona Storchi, an officer in the University of Bologna press office and informed her of the general nature of my question about the group’s claim. Storchi also helped arrange a meeting for me Wednesday afternoon with a professor at the university who is an expert on steam.
Levi’s Jan. 21 report stated that Galantini used a device to check that the steam was “completely dry,” however, Levi did not say if, in fact, that Galantini measured completely dry steam. Levi also did not provide clear details about Galantini’s method.
The Essen/Kullander April 3 report of the March 29 E-Cat experiment does provide some details about how the steam was measured for its liquid content. I am in the process of evaluating this information to assess if it reflects a mass or volumetric basis for the measurements. If any readers believe that the given information provides clarity on the method used during the Essen/Kullander experiment, please send me an e-mail right away.
The entire uncertainty about vaporization enthalpy would be moot if the experiments were run with a higher flow rate to keep the output temperature below boiling. Levi apparently did this on Feb. 10-11 and he provided information about his final results to reporter Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik.
Levi has not however, provided Lewan, or anybody for that matter, any information about his data. On Wednesday, I asked Levi for this data, for the second time. This time, he agreed. Levi promised to send me either raw or formatted data from the Feb. 10-11 experiment by next Wednesday.
After I completed my interviews, Rossi left and I packed up my gear and waited outside for my ride. Before I left, two men came over from suite 6-C and took the coffee machine away.
Thank you, Steven, for your careful, honest reporting. It’s not the news I hoped to hear but that is, alas, the way of the world.
Well Dr. Levi is not happy with you Steve. Perhaps you should apologize since you did sort of assume they didn’t know what they were doing. You can’t just write something like that without first looking at all the evidence. That’s irresponsible. There was bound to be a language barrier to begin with.
Oh well there goes that possible connection.
Luke,
Thanks for writing.
I looked at every piece of published evidence that was available. I asked Rossi months ago for all documents that he had available. In the weeks preceding my visit, I asked Rossi and Levi even more questions.
Neither Levi or Rossi have ever, to my knowledge, explained that they had calculated the enthalpy based on mass. The first I heard of this was at the very end of my interview with Rossi on Wednesday.
There was no language barrier when I met with Levi at the lunch table on Wednesday to discuss the steam. Levi is fluent in English and speaks very clearly. So does Alex Passi, a professor of linguistics who was also sitting with us.
Maybe there is another reason why Levi is not happy with me. You would be again grossly mistaken to think that I avoid seeking the truth out of fear of someone getting upset.
SBK
Steam is not white. Water in the pure gaseous phase is transparent.
Terry
Soon after the pure vapor interacts with lower temperature environment, it starts condensing, so it would not be transparent for long. The heat lost in the long hose is considerable. The single phase method of determination is essential to eliminate the wet steam question.
So would it be possible to measure any liquid water in the vapor with some optical instrument?
Steve;
Are you saying that you cannot determine if all the people involved in this demonstration are truthful,are lying or just incompetent? If the demonstration showed you anything more than you knew before?
There was no “demonstration.” I did not go there for a “demonstration.” I went there to conduct interviews. I was also given access to observe and make video and still images of the E-Cat.
Readers wanted a quick report. I gave a quick report. I will give a comprehensive report with video. As I have mentioned, this will take me a few weeks. I will provide readers with an abundance of direct facts so they can evaluate and judge the device, the people involved and the information for themselves.
SBK
Steve;
If it looks like a demonstration, acts like a demonstration and smells like a demonstration, it is a demonstration even if you did not ask for a demonstration.
[Let me rephrase. In Rossi's and my planning for the visit, we did not discuss anything explicit about him setting up a demonstration for me. From memory, I think I asked him, in advance, to see if he could run it without catalyst to show me a baseline Joule curve. He said no, he couldn't show it to me because the E-Cat was under a stress test. This was my understanding when I arrived. In my mind, I did not think of it as a "demonstration." In retrospect, and after doing a quick review on the video today, I see that the run that was on the screen was started shortly before I arrived. So all in all, you are correct, it was a "demonstration." This sort of contradicts a statement Rossi made a few weeks ago that there would be "no more demonstrations until October," doesn't it?
Let me come back to your main question. You ask a very serious question and I cannot properly answer it in this informal forum. I ask for your patience and thank you for your interest. SBK]
Thanks Steven. Can I be frank and ask you what your gut feel was on the device? I guess it is one of three things. 1) real 2) fake 3) misunderstood. Rossi and co may well think they’ve discovered something but are doing a Pons and Fleischman on this and measuring the output heat incorrectly.
There is a difference to P&F – this appears to be reproducible. We think it’s LENR but just how efficient?
Oh my, it appears Rossi bust a nut when I asked him about your meeting with him! Check out what he wrote here!
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=21#comments
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 4:38 AM
Dear Craig:
Mr Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report… This guy has seen for half an hour an E-Cat in the factory where we make many tests, made some questions to Prof. Levi, Prof. Focardi and me. Evidently has understood nothing, perhaps for the short time we gave him, also because we have to work: maybe he is angry because we had to send him away from the closed boxes and because we had to say him good bye shortly because we have to make our work. Prof. Levi has explained very well to him how the measures have been made and the importance of the issue. He has explained very well that the percentage of uncondensed water in the steam has been measured in weight (in volume is impossible, for various reasons), and he also got confirmation of this from a specialist from whom he has taken indipendent counsel. Nevertheless, he has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows. Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors.
In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work. He also tried to blackmail prof. Levi, and Levi already has given to his attorney due information .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Reminds me of Russ George’s reaction when I ask him to show me scientific evidence to support the claims he was making.
[Added: Levi could not, in fact, explain to me in any sort of detail, aside from drawing a picture for me showing where Galantini inserted the probe, how the humidity measurements were made. And Rossi could not have known about our conversation, he was not at the restaurant where I met with Levi. Certainly if Rossi thinks he himself understands how the measurements were taken, he can relieve me and the public of all doubt and explain it himself. Or if Rossi doesn't know, he can ask Levi to explain. And once sufficiently, completely and clearly explained, I will thank them both. But before I apologize to Levi - if I have introduced needless speculation - I will need to learn from Levi why he couldn't explain it to me on Wednesday when I asked him in the first place.]
Roger,
Yes, you can ask.
SBK
>Levi could not, in fact, explain to me in any sort of detail,
>aside from drawing a picture for me showing where
>Galantini inserted the probe,
Well, it is just your words against Levi’s. After reading your report I got an impression that you basically claim that Levi is not competent (otherwise he is fraudulent) means you consider yourself a competent to make such claims. Even it is totally possible that “journalist” is more technically savvy then “Italian scientist” but you probably agree that by any means it does not sound creditable for third party. I’m most curious to learn what can be perceived by Rossi/Levi as a “blackmail” in your opinion(?) Anyway, thanks for your preliminary report.
[Thank you for your comment. SBK]
So I’ve asked! What is your response?
[Roger, Sorry. Missed that. Real but exaggerated. SBK]
I’m looking forward to your full report. The Feb 10-11 demonstration was most impressive to me because it removed any ambiguity over how steamy the steam might be. I’m cautiously optimistic that the E-cat is the real deal, but I have to admit that I’m spooked that Leonardo Technologies, Defkalion, and Ampenergo all seem to be closely related and none seems to have any manufacturing capability. I’ve read about the demonstrations. Now I’d like to see the factory.
Do you suspect they utilize the coffe mashine to make steam for E-cat?
Any way, your road notes are fresh and excellent.
Thank you for your journalism, for observing, interviewing – seeking facts and reporting them as you find them. It is a great service to the world.
Steam quality seems to be an important issue, can please provide a numerical example in difference on energy content between 100%, 50% and 90% dry steam?
Ok, I do it.
Specific heat: H2O is 4,186 kJ/kg K
Heat of vaporization of H2O is 2.260 kJ/kg
Assume that H2O in e-cat transforms at atmospheric pressure, as it seems to be.
So, for 1 kg of H2O
delta T of 85K (15°C to 100°C) of the liquid requires 355 kJ
100% steam is 2.260 kJ + 355kJ = 2615 kJ
50% steam is 1.130 + 355 = 1485 kJ
In Bologna input energy was 0,40 kwh/h and output was 15kwh/h, 37,5 times.
Suppose the steam was 50% wet, the efficiency goes down to 18.
Well, 18 seems to be greater than 1. No?
“You were standing on your toilet, and you were hanging a clock, and you fell, and you hit your head on the sink. And that’s when you came up with the idea for the Flux Capacitor…
… is what makes time travel (cheap energy) possible.”
Read
Flux Capacitor as E-Cat
Time travel as cheap and clean energy.
I like it!
Mr. Krivit, have you read Rossi’s comment on your preliminary report? I’m copy/pasting it here just in case (messages written on his blog have been reported to disappear from time to time for unknown reasons):
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=12#comment-46691
“Mr Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report… This guy has seen for half an hour an E-Cat in the factory where we make many tests, made some questions to Prof. Levi, Prof. Focardi and me. Evidently has understood nothing, perhaps for the short time we gave him, also because we have to work. Prof. Levi has explained very well to him how the measures have been made and the importance of the issue. He has explained very well that the percentage of uncondensed water in the steam has been measured in weight (in volume is impossible, for various reasons), and he also got confirmation of this from a specialist from whom he has taken indipendent counsel. Nevertheless, he has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows. Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors.
In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work. He also tried to blackmail prof. Levi, and Levi already has given to his attorney due. information .
Warm Regards,
A.R.”
Thanks…lots of folks have brought this to my attention. As I mentioned in the first one:
This reminds me of Russ George’s reaction when I ask him to show me scientific evidence to support the claims he was making.
Levi could not, in fact, explain to me in any sort of detail, aside from drawing a picture for me showing where Galantini inserted the probe, how the humidity measurements were made. And Rossi could not have known about our conversation, he was not at the restaurant where I met with Levi. Certainly if Rossi thinks he himself understands how the measurements were taken, he can relieve me and the public of all doubt and explain it himself. Or if Rossi doesn’t know, he can ask Levi to explain. And once sufficiently, completely and clearly explained, I will thank them both. But before I apologize to Levi – if I have introduced needless speculation – I will need to learn from Levi why he couldn’t explain it to me on Wednesday when I asked him in the first place.
I must say. This is soo important to figure out if its real or not. For 100 years the world has had an enormous development because of cheap energy (oil). IF this new energy source is real it could take this world trough another 100 years of prosperity.
I will follow your blogg for any further development.
Nisse
Sweden
Below is a quote from Macy’s report on the Levi test (see lenr-canr.org):
“To determine if the steam was coming out dry and at atmospheric pressure, Professor
Gallatini, a specialist in Thermochemics and a former head of the Chemical Society of
Italy, verified that all the water came out as steam. “There was no water in the steam,”
Levi certified. “The outer temperature measured was 101° centigrade at atmospheric
pressure.” The instrument he used was a Delta OHM # HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality
Monitor. Gallantini inserted the probe inside the exit pipe with the steam.”
Below is a link to the NyTeknik website which summarizes the tests carried out by Essen and Kullander, and which also provides a link to the full report. In this report they claim that only 1.2 – 1.4 % of the water was not vaporized and based on this calculate a total output of 4.69 kW with only 330 W input (300 W heating and 30 W control electronics). However, as suggested by Steve it is not clear how the percent of vaporization was obtained. Apparently, they were using a humidity meter (Testo System, Testo 650). Nevertheless, they calculate based on the input water flow (6.47 kg/hour) that the input power is only sufficient to raise the water temperature from 18 C to 60 C. This means that at least 285 W of excess power must have been produced just to raise the temperature to 100 C. Since steam was produced, clearly more excess power was produced but the exact amount depends strongly on the percentage of water converted to steam, since the heat of vaporization (630 Wh/kg) is much higher than the heat required to raise water from 18 C to 100 C (95 Wh/kg).
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
Anybody should be able to learn quite a lot about the capabilities of the Delta Ohm and Testo System. I will seek this myself. If someone beats me to it, kudos to you. It still is only a fraction of the story. For example, one of the other parts is the missing data from the sub-vapor experiment.
Well, Delta Ohm device ( http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347) used in this test is suitable strictly for measuring air humidity (vapor in air) and not quality (dryness) of steam, which is defined as portion of droplets in vapor. Those are totally different concepts in thermodynamics. I called Delta Ohm and they confirmed my suspicions. When asked, what would device show in case of measuring steam quality, the answer was: “nothing, it is not suited for steam quality measurement”.
Beside, boiling temperature can easily be offset by higher temperature. The “chimney on E-cat”, if filled with water, can rise pressure enough, to offset the boiling temperature above measured temp. in test. You can check this here: http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/ It is interesting, that measured temperature and height of the “chimney” actually actually correspond quite well.
sorry, there was a typo. I wanted to write:
Besides, boiling temperature can easily be offset by higher pressure.
Both steam AND water can exist at 100C. They measured 101C, which is too close to 100C to be confident that there is absolutely no water. If the temp measurement is mistaken by 1C, then they cannot be confident that water is not present.
Steve,
We greatly appreciate your visit and insights, however it appear from Rossi’s response to this posting that you have most likely burned your bridges with him. That is too bad. Perhaps it would have been best to keep the open issues private unless/until it was clear that they could not be resolved. I fear you may have dealt yourself out of what could be one of the hottest stories of the century. I hope I’m wrong, but you certainly appear to have pissed him off.
Yours is a good point. However, when my interview with Rossi was over, it was clear to me that I had gone as far as I was ever going to be able to go – for yours and the rest of the public’s benefit – to obtain any more facts and data from Rossi.
I find it very interesting that my news report, which lacks a lustrous glow and endorsement for Rossi, which presents a possible critical fault, should cause Rossi to become unglued and hostile.
My point was that you had an agreement from Levi to obtain test result data that could (perhaps) have helped to resolve the steam issue. But instead of waiting for it (or at least waiting until its promised delivery date) you publish this prelim report and kill any possibility of ever getting it and piss off Rossi in the process.
IMO, you made a big miscalculation and should try to recover if you can. If the E-Cat is bogus, no harm; if it is real, you will forever be the LENR guy who blew his chance at an inside place at the table in order to satisfy some near-term need to look tough-minded.
BTW, I have a pretty thick skin and would have responded more professionly, but I would have taken offense at your story. Perhaps you should have counted to 10 and had someone read it before posting.
Thanks Steven. I appreciate your honest and frank reporting and look forward to your final trip documentation. We should take into consideration the fact that Mr. Rossi is quite busy at the moment testing his devices for the customer job and probably did not want to spend much effort in perfecting the setup. Take off your reporters hat for a moment and give me your personal opinion concerning what you reviewed. Do you feel better about the ECAT now or are you having reservations? I must remain skeptical to a degree until the devices are tested thouroughly. Thank you for representing us.
Dave
I did not go there with the express purpose of looking at a machine, though I did want to see it and I am happy I did. My primary purpose was to interview and to see (hopefully) data and reports. I am less optimistic, particularly after seeing what Levi did today.
I have followed the discussion here after reading of the indignation of Mr. Rossi. I can’t understand the loudness of his replies. Having a working reactor with zero input energy should clearly show that, no matter how much water is in the vapor, there actually is an energy gain in the process.
Best Regards,
Barnabas
I know exactly who Rossi is talking about and you will have to wait for my full report – full details, full context, full facts. Thank you. It is time for me to write. SBK
[Ed: Enough already. Wait till my full report please.]
Your approach to the E-Cat seems to me too negatively biased from the beginning of your “travel report”. I hardly can imagine the Rossi team has done the basic measurement in such a wrong way after being busy with the device 2-3 years. It’s to much in the steak here and your mission seems to loosely negatively focused. I must say I question my self why? Personally I would like to give the E-Cat a real chance to prove it self in October.
Adrian,
It is true, my optimism and hope for the Rossi-Focardi-Levi claim, however, has declined since my visit there this week.
I would like to imagine the same as you. But I have seen that the roadway of new science and possibly technology is littered with examples of mistakes of protocol or analysis, or an oversight or an assumption, or a blinding desire for a specific, perhaps altruistic outcome. The better energy technology that we all seek, and through it, a better world, has not yet shown itself to be an easily achievable goal. But I am with you, in general, with my hope and optimism.
Here are a few examples:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/companies/RussGeorge/RussGeorgeMarch2008Summary.shtml
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/companies/IESI/IESI.shtml
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/commerce/genesisworldenergy/
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/commerce/energeticstech/
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35903tangledtale.shtml
Hope is a wonderful and essential thing. It is unkind to unnecessarily deflate a person’s hope. It is equally unkind to unnecessarily inflate a person’s hope.
Rossi has inspired in you hope and I am advising you to be cautious with your hope.
SBK
Steve, I 100% agree with you. A clear tubing, no more than 90 C (or whatever is the best value to not lose volume due to evaporation), clear drum to clear drum water “path” (measured, make it as big/numerous as it needs to be for a long running demo). It’s that simple. No more “in the drain”, no more “it is steam”, is it dry, it is not, we ain’t sure. They need to make it clear, make it KISS, super easily measurable. It’s either that, or they are playing with what little good faith anybody has. You are on the right track, push it. If their ego cannot tolerate to be questionned and present themselves and their experiement in an unambiguous fashion, it’s their loss. For my part I think they are on to something, but history must not repeat itself with another Pons&Fleischman,
they kind of need help on the PR/communication side of things.
This isn’t looking as positive as I thought it was before. The accuracy of the measurements are still in question. The location of the visit is making me suspicious. It’s no wonder the mainstream news aren’t reporting on this yet there’s no evidence it works and lots to make them suspicous it is either a mistake in calculation of energy gain or a scam.
Rossi, if he is geniune, appears to have a talent for making every statement sound dubious: “He said he had to put it back in the drain quickly, after a few seconds, otherwise it could be dangerous.” I’d ask him “why?”
Either he is a compulsive liar or a genius who is deliberately escaping the unwelcome attention of vested interests by appearing to be a complete fraud, until he gets to market with a product and it is too late for them to stop him.
levi answers…
Dear, Mr. Krivit
I have carefully read your preliminary report on your travel in Bologna.
Your report clearly demonstrates that you have not understood anything of what you have seen and what we have explained you.
First of all the story about the steam.
As the signature in my email says I got a PhD in Physics years ago. This means that I have totally understood the difference between residual water in steam as fraction of mass or volume.
As I have unsuccessfully tried to explain you :
1) The plots you were showing are well known and you can find them in any manual of physical chemistry.
They apply when you measure the quantity of steam present as % of VOLUME.
2) As I have told you many times, Dr. Galantini, the expert chemist that was in charge, has done a measure as percent of MASS.
As Professor Zanchini has told you the same day we met, one of the crucial informations you have omitted from your preliminary report, a fraction of water in the steam, measured by MASS as we have done, would reduce the amount of measured energy in a linear way.
So our calculation and our analysis is correct.
Because you:
Omitted part of information you had, insulted me (and my University) trying to say that I’m not prepared in my field, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data,
I will not send you any other information.
Regards,
Dr. G.Levi
Federico,
You may wish to point out this paragraph in my brief report to Levi:
“The water droplets suspended in the steam may be measured on a volumetric, or possibly, on a mass basis. The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy, and a measurement by volume has more of an exponential effect.”
SBK
Hi Steven,
I read in the italian blog 22passi.blogspot.com that Levi will give the data of the test without vapour to Passerini. So you can still have them.
Regarding the location of the visit… it’s not so relevant: it is not the factory of the e-cats.
There’s a problem. Rossi says it differently:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=21#comment-46697
Looks like Rossi has a lot to say about me but very little about how Galantini made his measurement. Oh, and no, Rossi explained no details to me about mass-based measurements. That’s the beauty of videotape.
And no, I accepted no taxi reimbursement, that is untrue. Rossi had initially arranged for Focardi to give me a ride back to my hotel. When he realized that Focardi did not have a permit to go into that restricted area, I told him I could walk the remaining blocks. But then Rossi’s wife hears what’s going on, realizes I am carrying luggage and 30 pounds of equipment and decides that would not be very gracious of them. She insists on ordering and paying for a taxi for me, which they did. And I thank Rossi and his wife for their kindness. And I am a critical journalist, regardless.
Dear Steven,
First I was positively exited about your trip to Bologna but now after I have read your preliminary report I sadly must conclude your approach looks highly questionable.
It makes me conclude that you went to Bologna with a double agenda.
I conclude this out of your remarks made in relation to Essen and Kullander. It is only one line but it looks like very much an attempt to discredit the visit of these 2 highly skilled scientists. This by mentioning they were not correct in their conclusion that the building was owned by “Leonardo Corporation”, besides it is of no relevance at all it is very much indicating towards that if they were not right on who owns the building everything else they have reported may be questioned!
And as all people know Essen and Kullander were positive about the E-Cat, so for you it would be of great importance to hinting that they could have been incompetent in their entire report. I sincerely hope I am wrong but for now it is my conclusion.
What is your goal Steven? This preliminary looks very subjective.
I must stress that the all developments regarding the E-Cat and that we are now even able to discuss this invention is only because of the close friendship between Focardi and Rossi.
After all it was Focardi who asked Rossi to kick-start his invention into the public domain as Rossi preferable would have waited till October!
You met with Focardi, do you truly believe he is setting something up with Rossi to scam the World? Who would benefit from that?
From my point of view Focardi asked this from Rossi only so he could fully enjoy the realization of his dream!
I am now lost in my trust to you honest opinion about the E-Cat, and honestly that was the last thing I have hoped for………. this report makes me wonder how you gonna edit your video-tape.
[My first goal was to meet the key players face-to-face to more fully understand them and their work. My second goal was to do my best to obtain scientific data. My third goal was to ask them the most appropriate skeptical questions that I though were relevent. Essen and Kullander as well as Lewan dismissed the effect of wet steam.
As you might have learned today, three days after I asked crucial questions to Rossi and Levi, Rossi has now written on his blog, (June 18, 3:13pm) "but we made a very important step forward in this week, because our reactors now produce a totally dry steam (no more traces of water in the steam)" And if you want to see how poorly written their travel report is, look at how clearly written Lewan's report is. The difference between dry and wet steam enthalpy is one or two orders of magnitude. Rossi knew the importance of dry or wet steam all the way back in January, as you see:
"Il 25/01/11 20:22, Andrea Rossi - Leonardo Corp. ha scritto: DEAR SIRS, WE ALWAYS WORKED WITH WATER, NOT STEAM, IN THE FORMER TESTS WE MADE ALL THE WORLD AROUND. WE ALSO USED AIR. ALL THE DATA COINCIDE. I BELIEVE IN THE WORK OF DR GALANTINI, WHO SAID THAT THE STEAM WAS DRY, BECAUSE I AM PRETTY CONVINCED THAT HE IS ABLE TO ESTABILISH IF A FLOW OF STEAM IS DRY OR NOT."
Thank you for your comment.
SBK]
This is marginal obviously, anyway, reimbursement or not, they payed you the taxi, so Rossi is angry three times (your heavily negative report, the time Rossi lost with you and the money he gave you), and you was sly accepting money with already in mind a negative report (and maybe you also took a coffee with that machine that takes three lines of your preliminary report), not exactly a snake, though.
For what I understood you could wait until Levi gave you the data before writing something, then you could criticize.
I think your next interview to anyone in the world of LENR is going to be a bit more difficult, not because you are a critical journalist, but because of your general attitude.
By the way, you know, “Rossi” is the most common surname in Italy, so the Rossi Brothers, those of “Rossi Brothers Tires”, want to thank you for advertising, maybe you could add the exact company name and the internet site, so your preliminary report is more complete:
F.lli Rossi di Angelo e Lucio Rossi snc (fllirossi-tyre.com).
Best regards.
[Thank you for your comment. SBK]
Once again, this could be solved simply by Rossi giving just one example of the E-cat device to ANY credible and reliable university or testing agency as a black box with no permission to access the innards. He’d provide a power connection and a coolant connection, a controller device and instructions. Or he could supervise the tests.
The tests should be done with a sufficient coolant flow rate to allow the water to remain liquid. Then the energy transferred to the water can be easily measured simply from the temperature difference and either mass or volume flow measurements. That’s hardly rocket science but Rossi has not seen fit to do it which is highly suspicious. In every demo so far, Rossi controlled the source of power and coolant. And none of those was done with liquid water instead of steam except one supposedly by Levi and which, far as I know, has never been published.
I’d love for this to be real but it’s starting to smell. Rossi’s defensiveness on his blog about your writeup of your visit is also highly suspicious. Sad story but good work.
Yes, that’s the easy way – if you use some commercial certified and well calibrated heat calculator, like MULTICAL, you can measure added energy with 0.2% precision. There are two calibrated or paired platinum temperature sensors and precise flowmeter, easy to set up and use. Data can be logged and compared with used power, case closed.
I suspect, from all the hearsay we’ve all been privy to, that there is excessive intermittentcy and variability in the Rossi methods to pin down these reactions, hence they will not allow 3rd party black box testing.
There is enough positive results, I suspect, to allow wishful thinking to run heavily amok, and after 3 years of research, such wishful thinking can heavily effect experimental and scientific methods.
I look forward to see what happens in September this year when Federal research money is again available to Rusi Taleyarkhan, whom I uphold as an example how bad it can get when wishful thinking runs amok.
Steven,
Rossi’s furious over-reaction to your preliminary report reveals this is about much more than measurement interpretations.
OK, you did not get a satisfactory answer whether mass or volume was measured, but why do you question the competence and knowledge of all the people that did tests or witnessed tests?
And why do you need to discredit Levi, by first doubting whether he understood the issue at all and then, after he assured you that he did measured mass, requesting him to be absolutely sure and, if necessary, get back to you within a week with a correction to his Jan 21 report.
That is a 101 of “I do not trust you !”
I assume this may be unintentional, but I can understand that Levi and Rossi feel more than a bit pissed-of by your attitude.
By the way, did you agree upfront with Rossi on the purpose and intentions of your travel to Italy, because if not, expectations on both sides may have been completely different.
And if you feel that the question about mass or volume is so important why did you not mail it to them so they could prepare for it ? That might have clarified things upfront and prevented the present thick air. And it probably would have made your final report more solid.
Now all of this does not answer the question whether the E-Cat is for real, partly real, an illusion, or a plain scam. Frankly I do not know, might still go both ways.
But we will know in a couple of months. Rossi stated somewhere that the E-Cat will not be validated by scientists, but by his customers. He is an engineer, not a scientist. As such, theoretical knowledge or scientifically correct measurements are not his primary motivators, his focus is the market.
Sofar it looks that his investors, (who also have tested the E-Cat) are betting on a positive result.
PS: Is there a specific reason why you do not mention/critize the tests done by Matts Lewan ?
best regards
Henk,
Your question “Why do you question the competence and knowledge of all the people that did tests or witnessed tests?” is too general. If you can be more specific I can try to answer.
It is and was not my attempt to discredit Levi as you incorrectly imply. At the moment, it is my intention to publish an explicit account of my meeting with Levi when we discussed the steam enthalpy. So long as this gets published, you will get more insight and answers about this specific incident.
In terms of trust, when it comes to science, the public deserves to know several things: Data measurements, experimental configuration, experimental procedure, analytical process and conclusions. In the E-Cat case, we are missing a whole lot of this. So, no, I do not blindly trust these people. Nor should anybody who reads New Energy Times.
No legitimate scientist will encourage you to take his or her word on their claim largely on faith. This is a fundamental concept of science; you report your data, not just your conclusions. Levi knows this. That’s why he agreed to send me some data.
Mats Lewan is the only person so far who has written a clear and easily comprehensible report on the E-Cat.
Yes, of course I established an agreement with Rossi ahead of time. I was a guest in his facility and had to conduct myself accordingly. I was coming to interview him and his colleagues, make still and video photos of whatever he would allow. I told him way ahead of time I would ask tough questions and he said to bring them on. He said I could ask him anything I wanted and if it pertained to anything proprietary, he would tell me. We had no disagreements about any questions about any proprietary matters. What else could you imagine the purpose of the trip would be for? If you think I was going there to “test” the E-Cat, or to “validate” it, you are mistaken. That is not the role of a journalist and Mats Lewan crossed a line when he “tested” the E-Cat and so did BBC when they “tested” Rusi Taleyarkhan’s bubble fusion.
If, as you say, “Rossi stated somewhere that the E-Cat will not be validated by scientists, but by his customers,” you may want to ask yourself why has he bent over backwards to get scientists to validate it.
I have a question for you: If the E-Cat is not as advertised/promoted, if it is not as scientifically valid as it has been claimed, is this something you would want to know before you buy it? And if so, would you like New Energy Times to help you learn these facts?
Thank you for writing.
SBK
Hello Steven,
thank you for your work. I appreciate it very much.
I appreciate your style to communicate with us (“the world”), an open and open-minded discussion and a feeling of appreciation under the discutants.
Thank you.
I do not know from where Hank has the information, that you uttered, that someone of the team of e-cat has no competence.
But even when the person has really no competence, I would recommend never to say this directly or indirectly.
What only counts is the fact, in that case the measurement settings. That must be fixed and communicated.
We are living in a world, where everybody knows, that we all make mistakes. But to my knowledge, in the existing societies mistakes are not appreciated as something good. But as we all know, mistakes and errors are the common way of going into new lands.
People that make mistakes are stigmatised as loosers. And that is a very great fault. We should appreciate the women and men, that take risk and fun of discovering something new (and failure in one or more points…).
The rubicon is only crossed, when fraud takes place. That must be named clearly and personally.
And again, the facts must be dicussed and supervised hard and unambigous. The facts must speak for themselves.
thank you
greetings
Michael
Steven,
Thanks for the reply and sorry for the late reaction.
First of all I would like to say that Rossi’s reactions and personal attacks on you are way out of bound and very unprofessional. But the same holds for you with your term “E-Cat trio” and the mail to Daniele about his longtime friendship with Levi. How egos can flare !
I am still puzzled with which intentions you went to Bologna. You say you went as a journalist to interview Rossi, but your report focusses on the correct measurement method and so trying to validate or falsify the output power claims. To me that is essentially the same as testing the device yourself.
Based on the discussions, you now question the scientific level of Levi, you do not trust the answers given to you and you express doubts about the whole feasibility of the E-Cat.
A journalists would quickly solve this issue by simply contacting Calantini and check Levi’s story.
But you did not do that, instead you lectured and put pressure on Levi, asked him to show Calantini’s report and to correct, if necessary, his own Jan 21 report and send it to you.
Now that may be the correct scientific way to validate or falsify the work and level of other scientist, but the result is an lively scene of mud slinging and name calling, while the basic issue is still on the table.
The irony of this all is that Rossi refuses to work along these self imposed rules of science and stubbornly goes ahead and have the market validate his E-Cat, while the scientific community stands by and cries wolf.
Now there is still a fair chance that the E-Cat is one big fake, and more than a good chance it will fail on delivering the promised performance.
But even if only partially succesfull, the scientific community should ask itself why it squandered decades after F&P and let one engineer in a fast track run away with the roses.
It will be some interesting months…
Yes, I would buy an E-Cat, even if it was not scientifically valided, as long as it performs according to spec and brings me money. By the way, there are many products on the market that lack the stamp “Scientifically Validated” and people still seem happy with it.
And yes, I do read New Energy Times and do not trust every thing that’s written there, like I do read Newenergytimes and do not trust every thing thats written there either.
regards, Henk
PS: What are those specific weaknesses in the measurement results of the Essen/Kullander report, and why do you not comment on the measurements/tests performed by your collegue reporter Mats Lewan?
[Hi Henk, I do appreciate your thoughts, comments and questions. Now it is time for me to write. I will do my best, no guarantees, to see that my report answers your questions. Thank you. SBK]
I agree with Steven Krivit, steam tests are not affordable: the easiest test is to mantain a flow rate in order to keep output water temperature at about 70°C (with 20°C as input), so doubts on steam can be ruled out.
I do not agree with you. For a test with liquid water you need much more time and liquid.
Regards.
raul
Steven what happened??
It seems Focardi and Rossi fans are furious about your preliminary report.
Best regards
L
I’m a bit surprised myself too. Maybe they thought I was a BJ journalist and I’d do a puff piece. Rossi was very happy with me when I left. He complimented me on my professionalism and the way I conducted the interviews. He even reached out and hugged me before he left.
Or maybe I touched a nerve when I met with Levi later that day and talked with him about the steam enthalpy.
SBK
Steven,
As a Steam Power Plant engineer for over 40 years, I think a good way to tell the quality of the steam is with a thermometor. Just stick a good quality thermometer in the steam exiting the hose. If it reads 213 deg F or 101 Deg C it has a slight amount of superheat and is completely dry. If is is just at 212 F it is still saturated with water. It is impossible to rise above 212 F with even a hint of water in it. Just take a look at a standard steam table chart for enthalpy.
The report on the Test on the 29th March at Bologna states output temperature consistently between 100.1 and 100.2 celsius. Is that dry or wet?
That is dry.
I agree with you, Chuck, in principle.
Was the steam temperature measured with thermocouple or thermistor? Precision of a thermocouple measuring 1K may leave room for doubt. Precision of a thermistor would not, but proper reference and calibration are critical. Redundant and calibrated measurement would be usual for scientific work, but at this stage, the work is primarily engineering, as the reality of the vast excess heat is apparently beyond question in the minds of Rossi, Focardi, Levi, Trementina, etc.
I find it hard to be in doubt about what Trementina wrote:
******************
Ok, I do it.
Specific heat: H2O is 4,186 kJ/kg K
Heat of vaporization of H2O is 2.260 kJ/kg
Assume that H2O in e-cat transforms at atmospheric pressure, as it seems to be.
So, for 1 kg of H2O
delta T of 85K (15°C to 100°C) of the liquid requires 355 kJ
100% steam is 2.260 kJ + 355kJ = 2615 kJ
50% steam is 1.130 + 355 = 1485 kJ
[he neglected some decimal points.]
In Bologna input energy was 0,40 kwh/h and output was 15kwh/h, 37,5 times.
Suppose the steam was 50% wet, the efficiency goes down to 18.
******************
I do not understand how orders of magnitude in energy output can be attributed to some liquid entrainment in the steam. If it were 20% steam, the efficiency is still huge (> 10 times input) by my calculation.
The phase change is at a pressure at least as great as atmospheric, so the assumption that it is at atmospheric appears to be conservative. If pressure was somehow greater than atmospheric, then it would take greater energy to boil and the efficiency would have measured even higher.
Also, Lewan used his probe to measure the temperature of boiling water and found it to be 99.6C (April 28 lab report), then found the output steam temperature to be 100.6C (same probe implied), which would appear to eliminate the wet/dry steam question.
It is frustrating that this whole matter is not handled as scientifically rigorously as we might like to see, but understandable to some extent (trade secrets, competitive edge, etc.). Just look at how the University of Utah handled the information about Fleischmann Pons protocols and details initially. It was all treated as business proprietary and not scientific by an institution of learning! This caused it to blow up in their faces. F&P should not be blamed. Fleischmann stated that they didn’t even want the press conference.
My doubts are kindled by statements that output energy cannot be converted to electrical power to be used as a driving energy to control the unit, that this would make the unit unstable. Well, of course, if one were to directly provide positive feedback, with no control circuitry, this is true, but such control circuitry is obvious and could easily be redundant, with fail-safe, etc., with excess energy used to drive some measured load. This would provide a free-standing demo unit producing heat and electrical energy. Perhaps the situation is that they will eventually design such controlling energy from the output energy, and know that it must be approached very carefully and they are concerned with grabbing market share now. Who could blame them?
Those of us viewing this from our armchairs cannot fully appreciate the human experience.
I like to give them benefit of the doubt, but I know I don’t know. We who are not directly conducting experiments are not in a position to gain absolute certainty.
Steve: Am I getting this right? Your only concern is how the steam quality was measured. Does this mean you have eliminated in your mind the possibility of high test hydrogen peroxide,water diversion,methods of sneaking in unmeasured power and batteries hidden in the blue box? If so we have taken a step forward in solving the question of authenticity. Keep up the good work.
Simple enough to answer now. Yes, I am content that chemistry cannot account for the claims they have made of excess heat. I’ve seen inside the blue box and Rossi allowed me to video the innards as well. You will see the innards once I do post-production.
Dear Steven,
It is quite curious that your posted a preliminary report without wait for few days to ask again to Dr. Rossi and Dr. Levi for the unanswered questions. I suppose that to post such an incomplete and negative preliminary report could affect the LENR as a research field.
I wish that within few days it will be possibile for you to examinate the test results in a more calm way and maybe ask again for the questions you believe unsolved to Dr. Levi and Prof. Zanchini.
Caro Luigi,
Many of my readers were asking me for a report. My quick report is based on the facts that I have been able to obtain as of this point in time. There is nothing conclusive about my quick report and people would have been in gross error to assume any kind of conclusion based on that quick report alone.
As you know, I have identified a crucial factor which could, repeat, could have an immense bearing on the validity and viability of the E-Cat. I certainly hope for the best for the E-Cat but Levi and Rossi’s responses today seem to be more along the lines of attacking me personally rather than clearly explaining and providing support for this crucial factor.
On Wednesday, Levi had assured me that the steam measurements were made by mass, not by volume. At that time, I asked Levi to help me understand how this measurement was done by mass so I could put the issue to rest and dismiss it as an invalid critique, as I told Levi.
But Levi could not explain the measurement process to me in any detail, though he did draw me a rough sketch of where Galantini placed the probe. Instead, Levi told me that Galantini was the expert in the subject. He told me that Galantini had prepared a report with the details. I asked Levi to send me the report so I had something to give to readers that would support Levi’s claim. With such confirmation, the news might have been very positive. On Wednesday, Levi agreed to send me the report.
Earlier on Wednesday morning however, Rossi, unbeknownst to Levi, told me in my interview with him, that Galantini never wrote a report. So we have some serious contradictions here on a very serious factor.
Levi also agreed on Wednesday to send me data or a report to support the sub-vapor experiment from Feb. 10-11. This data or report, as well, would have brought us all great news. Now, sadly, Levi says he will not send me anything I have asked for.
Why? He says it is because I failed to mention the linear effect of a mass-based steam enthalpy in my quick report. But my mention of the linear effect of a mass-based steam enthalpy is right there in my post, clear as day.
My report stated that Levi had agreed to provide me with the facts I was requesting by next Wednesday. Nobody should have made any conclusions until then. But Levi has decided today that he will not provide you and the rest of the public – my audience – with anything more.
Perhaps now you can begin to make your own conclusion.
SBK
Italian/english:
Pneumatica = Pneumatics
Pneumatico =Pneumatic and also tire
From Dr. G.Levi , published in: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html
Dear Mr. Krivit,
I have carefully read your preliminary report on your trip to Bologna. Your report clearly demonstrates that you have not understood anything of what you have seen and what we have explained you.
First of all, the story about the steam. As the signature in my email states, I got a PhD in Physics several years ago. This implies I have totally understood the difference between residual water in steam as a fraction of mass or volume.
As I have unsuccessfully tried to explain:
1) The plots you were showing are well known and can be found in any textbook of physical chemistry. They show measurements of the steam fraction in VOLUME percentage.
2) As I have told you many times, Dr. Galantini, the expert chemist that was in charge, performed measurements in MASS percentage.
As Professor Zanchini told you the same day we met, one of the crucial bits of information you omitted from your preliminary report is that a fraction of water in the steam, measured by MASS as we have done, would reduce the amount of measured energy in a linear way.
Therefore, our calculations and our analysis are correct.
Given that you omitted portions of information you had, insulted me (and my University) trying to say that I’m not knowledgeable enough in my area, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data, I will not send you further information.
Regards,
Dr. G.Levi
[Message posted on 22 Passi]
Steven Krivit ha detto…
Caro Danielle,
I was very nice to meet you this week and I enjoyed your company. I do not understand why you have posted a message from Levi that contains a direct falsehood.
Levi stated in his letter that I had omitted a crucial fact, that if his measurements had been done by mass, that the enthalpy would have been reduced in a linear way. In my post:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/
I specifically mentioned that fact: “because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy…”
My full report, to be published in a few weeks from now, will shed much light on many of the matters discussed on this page.
Cordiali saluti,
Steven B. Krivit
18 giugno 2011 05:23
Here is Passerini’s answer to your message:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/risposta-steven-krivit.html
[Dan,
Please add my response that I sent to you earlier:
Zanchini has no idea what was measured by Galantini or how it was measured. Zanchini confirmed that steam enthalpy by mass has a linear effect. We all know this. And I mentioned that in my post: “The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy.”
My question to the scientist Levi was to obtain a scientific report with scientific data and an explanation of the scientific procedure used by Galantini on which Levi based his scientific report.
Grazie,
Steve
It all sounds a great shame. A 5 or 10 kW heater should either produce a huge plume of steam at very low water flow (think of several electric kettles boiling at once) or quite a substantial flow of hot water (think of an electric shower).Sadly this sounds like neither. It sounds like the few hundred watts of heat provided by that external resistor, and presumably an internal one as well, heating a very small flow.
I suspect a better word for option 2 above may be fraud rather than fake. I wonder how many credulous investors have been suckered in so far?
Again, the report of the March test in Bologna reports that the output temperature 100.1-100.2 Celsius when the external heater could only raise the input flow to 60 Degrees.
If the flow rate was substantially reduced after the calibration, we might explain the higher temperature and the low flow rate of output steam Steve observed. I have to agree that 3 litres/second of steam would be impossible to mistake!
By now scores of people, professors and laymen alike, have attended close to half a dozen E-Cat shows. What beats me is that so far nobody has had the good sense to make a simple offer to Rossi, an offer that he could not say not to. What would that offer be? It would go like this:
“Thank you very much Mr. Rossi for inviting me to this E-Cat demo. It will be very interesting. If you do not mind I took the liberty to bring some simple objects of my own, namely a 5 litre plastic bottle almost full of cold water, a simple thermometer and a household balance.
If it would not be too much trouble I would like for you, when the power is nice and stable, to stick the end of your steam hose into my water bottle and let it remain there for five minutes.
Then, if you please could disclose the temperature of the input water I will use my thermometer and balance and this nifty little formula
Pnet = ((m1*(T0 – T1) + m2*(T2 – T0) )*c)/t – Pctrl
to calculate the net power. No need to argue about steam quality or mass flow, very simple indeed.”
How could Rossi say no to this humble proposition? Well, he could try “This is too dangerous.” or “We are already doing just as you say. A report will be issued within a few days.” or “We will do that in November.
Any one of these answers has a familiar ring to it but it is not be very convincing.
Hi Steven,
I am reading with interest your blog and the comments. I think the mass appraoch is a very strong default for the measurements in Rossis and Levis minds.
Input watermass minus output watermass equals mass of water being heated into steam. This measuremt is very straight forward. The problem is that some of the steam will condense back into water on the walls of the outlet hose, and also in contact with air.
To measure steam volume (volume flow) is very difficult. Then you must have a gasflowmeter (preheated and with isolation to prevent condensation) a temperature and a pressure gauge and calculate back to steam mass flow with formuala. (pV= nRT).
As far as I know it has never been documented in any tests by Rossi and others that any gasflowmeter has been involved. I don´t think Rossi and Levi ever have considered any volume measurements, thats why Levi was confused by your questions.
If the steam temperature is high enough 101 C with atmospheric pressure there is no water content and the water coming out of the hose is from condensation. I think this is the default method.
But the easiest way is just to heat a waterflow and measure the water temperature before and after the reactor as H-G Branzell suggests. It is a pity Levi won´t send you the testdata.
Regards,
Karl-Henrik
Greetings Karl-Henrik, Maybe my question about mass versus volume was irrelevant. I’m not 100% decided yet. What I find interesting is the dramatic response that has occurred as a result of my speculation, which is in fact, a speculation made by researchers at INFN and NRL many months ago.
Anyway, I have been trying to understand how the E-Cat team and their consultants allegedly measured the humidity by mass. I still don’t get that. They have written that the humidity measurements were performed by Galantini with two different instruments ( You can look this up in the Levi and E/K reports.)
There is no evidence, to my knowledge that they did mass balance on the output. Celani explicitly discussed this critique in February. You’ll note in other comments here today that Rossi has (just today) admitted that the steam (up until this week ) was wet.
As to yours and Branzell’s suggestion, this is an important point. A scientist who is honest with himself would always seek the simplest, most direct and reliable way to confirm any claim, let alone a highly controversial one.
Dear Karl-Henrik,
Quoting from your posting:
“But the easiest way is just to heat a waterflow and measure the water temperature before and after the reactor as H-G Branzell suggests.”
What I actually suggested was a way to measure the net power production in a steam E-Cat show by using condensing calorimetry. The end of the steam hose is submersed in cold water and the exiting steam is immediately transformed into liquid water.
I did not explain the meaning of the parameters in my formula:
Pnet = (m1*(T0 – T1) + m2*(T2 – T0) )*c/t – Pctrl where
Pnet = net produced heat power
T0 = input water temperature
m1 = initial water mass in bottle
T1 = initial water temperature in bottle
m2 = final water mass in bottle
T2 = final water temperature in bottle
c = specific heat of water
t = duration of steam collection
Pctrl = electric power fed to external and internal resistors
If somebody is worried about the heat loss from the hose he can shove that into the bottle too. If somebody is worried about heat loss from the bottle, he can put his sweater around it. But we may need to add a time machine to the proposed test equipment …
Thanks Steve for this insightful preliminary report. The unwillingness of Rossi and Levi to share important data is a big red flag that this device might not work as they state it works. They have everything to gain by releasing the steam measurement data and nothing to lose (except credibility if the data was obtained by volume measurements). No trade secrets would be revealed by the release of this data, so they can’t hide behind that excuse, At least we won’t have to wait long (4 months) to see the E-Cat devices either working or to hear the typical excuses for delays and technical problems that seem to go hand in hand with these sort of extrodinary energy device claims. I’m starting to feel like I’ve seen this movie before, and I don’t like how it ends.
Apart from the demonstrations hasn’t an E-Cat device been used to heat a building in Bologna for a year ? Given the amount of power required to heat a building, for a year, if anyone checked at all for external power input, that would be very difficult to fake or be mistaken about.
So what about the building in Bologna that has been heated for a year, presumably using very little external electrical power, and very small quantities of hydrogen and nickel ?
Dear Mr Branzell,
your request is formulated in such short and clear way that should be really addressed to Mr Rossi,
I mean not only in this forum but possibly also in his or other blogs. It would be interesting to see if He will chose to be silent or provide one of the “answers” you mention….
Dear Cesare,
After one of the first E-Cat shows in a private email communication I sent a similar proposition (use of condensing calorimetry) to Rossi. And I got the answer that I quoted in my previous posting on this forum: “We are already doing just as you say. A report will be issued within a few days.” He also promised to send me a copy of the report, but he never did.
And as we all know, no condensing calorimetry was introduced in any of the following steam demos. Since this method to establish the output energy is the first that comes to your mind and it is extremely simple and reliable it is difficult to draw any other conclusion than that the energy measurements that we have witnessed are set up mainly to confuse the picture and the audience.
You suggest that I post my proposition on Rossi’s blog. But bygones are bygones and Rossi has said several times that there will be no more public demos because he has to take care of his menagerie. Of course he made an exception for Steven the other day, but if anything that probably made him even more determined to sustain from such adventures, and now he has 330 kittens and one snake to take care of …
Steve,
first of all all I would thank you for the preliminary report, might be you have been a little harsh, Nevertheless if someone claims to have a toy that would let humankind jump off from oil age I think He should be ready to show extraordinary evidence and fully open to criticism….
in previous issue(s) of your journal it seemed you had access to F. PIantelli lab and if I remember well you did also interview him. Are you aware if He is going ahead with his LENR experiment as it seems from his recent patent ? it would be really interesting to have an update on the status of his “low profile” research as well as some his comments on this story.
The last time I discussed his plans with him, Piantelli seemed more excited about his LENR theory and his cancer research than anything else.
Steve, are you able to distinguish the holy grail from the coffee machine?
I cannot tell if you are being sincere or insincere. Perhaps you can clarify your question please.
Dear Steven,
I was pleased to meet you in Bologna too. However, I was very surprised when I read your so called preliminary report. I’m just a blogger, while you are instead a journalist. But your preliminary report appears to be written by a blogger just like me. I’m sorry, but this is my opinion.
You drew the attention on insignificant details like the tire shop and a coffee machine!
You’ve fabricated an “E-Cat trio” that doesn’t exist! There is an inventor, his consultant (who is a famous retired professor) and a PhD; each have their own individual role: to mix them together is a mistake.
You’ve omitted a crucial fact: the answer to your question by the professor at the university who is an expert on steam (Zanchini). Why?
I really hope that your full report will unwrap the truth on many of the matters discussed on this page.
Carissimi saluti
Daniele Passerini
Dan,
Zanchini has no idea what was measured by Galantini or how it was measured. Zanchini confirmed that steam enthalpy by mass has a linear effect. We all know this. And I mentioned that in my post: “The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy.”
My question to the scientist Levi was to obtain a scientific report with scientific data and an explanation of the scientific procedure used by Galantini on which Levi based his scientific report.
SBK
Steven,
I think you have stirred a hornets nest this time! We all have great hope for Mr. Rossi’s invention and I feel that his demonstration at the end of October will answer many of the questions that have arisen. It is quite easy to have a misunderstanding when technical issues are discussed. I suspect that your probing questions seemed like an insult to Professor Levi and if so, you should offer an apology.
We need for you to keep your ears to the ground for your readers, and I appreciate your efforts in my behalf. Be honest in your reporting as you always have, but be careful not to burn the bridges that we all need to gather the important data. I do not think anyone feels that you are too soft on your subjects.
Keep us informed,
Dave
Thank you for your kind message.
Not only is the calorimerty and measurements used unprofessional and should trigger all the warning bells – it’s beyond stupid to let the steam go down the drain! What kind of demo is that, when you have no idea of the power output?!.
Also – we must not forget that the analysis of the powder by Essén and Kullander showed NOTHING BUT NATURAL ISOTOPIC DISTIBUTIONS of all elements! There is absolutely no way any type of LENR theory (or any concievable theory) can result in such distributions. It is simply not possible to convert natural distribution of nickel to natural distribution of copper while MAINTAINING natural distribution of nickel!. If the inventor added the copper himself, then that would however obviously explain it all!
There is no way this story is for real, for technical reasons only. However, I also strongly suggest you look up the inventors past. It is full of failed inventions, such as thermoelectric elements (which was possibly a very similar scam), gas from waste (resulted in major environmental damage in Italy) and gold smuggling (for which the inventor was sent to jail).
All things added up, we have no reason to believe anything else but fraud unless we get to see some real data from an experiment with real calorimetry.
I am looking forward to your full article. Give them hell
Realist:
Can you cite some source, such as a credible news organization, for the gold smuggling story? I have the ARMY Corps of Engineer’s report on the TE device already. Read it once through. Seems to have the picture clearly. Please let me know if you are aware of any other related, credible sources. Please contact via contact page.
SBK
There are some italian links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article on “Petroldragon”. This one mentions gold smuggling and money laundring and how Rossi was sent to jail. Beware – it is in italian – but you can use google translate, or better – send it to an italian friend for a better translation.
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1995/aprile/06/Manette_bis_per_Andrea_Rossi_co_0_9504062501.shtml
The name of the article can be translated to “Handcuffs on Andrea Rossi”. Please let me know if you have some more questions.
The “travel report” obviously attracted a number of fairly well known notorious sceptics to the E-Cat and in particular to Rossi as an individual. Mr Realist is very well-known in this regard. My suggestion is that we give Rossi a fair chance to prove the E-Cat and himself during this year.
Spit it out!!!!
Steve, you are not clear nor are you concise and you lack clarity.
a) the internal heater creates the steam??
b) the device creates heat above the the internal heat resistors??
Which is it?? Don’t be so vague.
John, I appreciate your interest but you are going to have to wait. I will be responding to this, second round of messages today. After that, probably no more until I publish my full report and videos.
[Post rejected. http://blog.newenergytimes.com/posting-guidelines/ #3, #4, #5]
The E-Cat by F&R is a fraud. They havent provided convincing data, and their calorimetry sucks. Its much too inaccurate to justify the remarkable claims made.
Also, their patent is garbage. Its very poorly written, in a way that betrays an obvious lack of expertise of how to write patents. It completely lacks disclosure of experimental results. It reveals no “secret sauce” or essential process or apparatus. The patent claims that merely contacting hydrogen to nickel creates energy. This claim is preposterous, because nickel has been used as a hydrogenation catalyst for decades. Anomalous energy production would have been observed long ago.
Also, they have created their own scientific” journal” blog thing, the “Journal of Nuclear Physics”. This is their personal blog and PR/marketing outlet. its not a scientific journal of any reputation. The name of the blog is designed to be misleading.
Rossis response to Krivits report is also very revealing. Rossis behavior is that of a crackpot fraudster, not a serious investigator. Rossi is now threatening anyone who this ridiculous scam with legal action? Really?
Goatguy at nextbigfuture has written a number of persuasive debunking arguments.
The story just isnt credible.
its clear to me that this is another sad episode of irresponsibility and/or fraud. It has the potential to cause great damage to the field of LENR. The sooner that Focardi and Rossi are ignored and proven wrong, the better the field of LENR will be.
“This claim is preposterous, because nickel has been used as a hydrogenation catalyst for decades. Anomalous energy production would have been observed long ago. ”
It was, that’s how the Ni-H research started up in 1989, by observation of anomalous heat by Piantelli.
See this: http://www.sede.enea.it/produzione_scientifica/pdf_volumi/V2008_16Cold_Fusion_Italy.pdf
“The research in the field of nickel – hydrogen systems started from an
experimental observation by F. Piantelli at the end of 1989 concerning a
strange thermal effect at low temperature in a sample of nickel with
hydrogen. Piantelli spoke of this effect to his friends S. Focardi and R.
Habel during the SIF congress in Trento (October 1990). They decided to
experimentally verify the observed phenomenon, which had been
obtained in a context completely different from the electrochemical one of
Fleischmann, Hawkins and Pons (J. Electroanal. Chem. 261, 301 (1989))
and with completely different working hypothesis which cannot be taken
back to be CF or electroweak interactions (EWI); at present this
hypothesis is going to be supported by some experimental results while
concerning the CF there are not sufficient specific experimental proofs as
well as concerning EWI there are not the required energy amounts besides
some violations conservation laws.”
Steven,
I like your style. Both as a writer and as an investigator you have, in my opinion, the right approach. However, i can also imagine that your in-your-face tactics piss-off some of the people involved. Namely the people that have earned a certain respect (clearly not Rossi himself) and are seen as experts in the field. Would a more gentle strategy not have worked better?
The other thing thing that still baffles me is the fact, and i think there is another reply devoted to the same thing, that you are still not sure if this thing is a complete fraud or not.
Are the questionable measurements the only things you doubt or are they the beginning of the unravelment of the whole thing (or de we have to wait for your complete story)?
Keep it up,
JB
John, please make your judgements and ask further excellent questions, if needed, after my report. Thanks.
Perhaps the reaction by Levi to the question about how steam output was measured that Steve interpreted as not being sure if Levi had previously understood the potential impact was actually a reaction of aprehension that the questioner had hit upon a key point that would unravel the whole illusion being created? Perhaps it was a nervous response to a question he would have rather avoided? Although we’ll have to wait to see the entire report from Steve’s visit and interviews, the comment that Steve made about Rossi stating that the report Levi said he would provide did not exist is yet another red flag that cannot be ignored. That is the power of doing multiple interviews. Looking forward to seeing Steve’s full report on this matter.
[Ed: Thanks for the link. I've already posted that message in this collection: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/19/rossis-responses-to-preliminary-report/ ]
NOTE: other news that came during your stay there on a replication attempt of Rossi by MIT
[Ed: Link removed. The story at that link does not appear to based on direct reporting or cite its sources.]
edit: brian ahern is not from MIT, only got his PhD there. He is from Ames National Laboratory. The Colloqium where he reported his replication attempt was at MIT:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue47/mit.html
Your IE link is not correct.
Regardless, I will check directly with Brian. I believe he was reporting a replication attempt along the lines of Arata, not Rossi. But if it was directly related to Rossi, I will include it in my report. Thank you.
SBK
Hi Steve,
I watched the video you released and noticed the ecat was running without the hydrogen gas line connected. Is this possible ? Rossi tried to claim it only needed a brief connection and could be then removed for 24 hours, but I did not see this explained in earlier videos. Since hydrogen can escape most seals very quickly, I was surprised.
Here’s a crazy thought. Why not hook the output of the E-Cat to an electric generator. Then, take the output of the electrical generator and hook it to the input of the E-Cat. If the closed system keeps running let’s all just admit there’s something to it. If not, well Rossi et. al. are either perpetuating a hoax or are horribly delusional in their beliefs.
In all of these free energy claims it always bemuses me that the claimant doesn’t just demonstrate a closed system to begin with. Perhaps the reason they don’t is because none of these devices actually work!
John
Your preliminary report reeks of negativity and disrespect for a slew of distinguished professionals. After these men were gracious enough to afford you their time, you make “journalistic” comments before gathering the evidence. It seems to me that you completely rule out observations by prominent Swedish physicists, Hanno Essen, Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and Former Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and Sven Kullander, Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University and also Chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee. I also feel it is a disgrace that you played upon their kindness & took “taxi money” from them. I am a highway construction business owner & know very little about LENR; but do know that Brian Ahern is replicating with success Rossi’s invention. I am attaching the link. You should be ashamed of yourself for not getting your facts straight. I a layperson, seem to know more with regards to what is going on with LENR.
I spoke with Kullander yesterday on the phone and sent him a follow-up email today. I informed the distinguished professor of his potential oversight. I presume he will be grateful to learn of it. I spoke with Ahern yesterday. He is not replicating Rossi, but Arata. The Web site you cited does not list its author, sources or appear to do any original reporting.
Thanks for asking some competent and good questions. And thanks for *not* agreeing to “wait” with publishing critical information. Optimists like to point out the harm done if the device is real – well, then let us also consider the harm if this is a fraud and ‘investors’ are being scammed right now. The responsible attitude is to publish all findings – good and bad – and let people judge for themselves.
I note that there has been some talk about measuring the steam content by temperature. In the video posted by Mats Lewan, we are shown a temperature sensor and the impression is that the 100+ degree reading ‘proves’ that there is only dry vapour. However, the sensor is placed inside the machine – so if some of the water condensates before leaving the machine, it is useless to know that it was dry vapour at some earlier point.
I also have two other observations from the Lewan video: first, if there is really only dry vapour, the flow should be about 5 to 10 m/s according to my rough calculations. That is not really what it looks like when the end of the hose is shown. Second, given that water is clearly flowing out of the hose, if this has condensed from steam, leaving a significant portion of the energy to the hose.. why does not the hose melt? We are talking about thousands of watts here.
Near the end of Steven’s E-Cat movie there is a short sequence where Levi shows a black T-shirt with some white symbols on it. Freezing the movie and taking a closer look at the decorations you find that some formulae are arranged in a star pattern slightly similar to an exited copper atom sending out gamma rays. It is not possible to read the formulae in full because they cross each other but you see enough of them to realize that they are Maxwell’s famous equations.
Levi’s message, if any, could be that the explanation of the Enigma-Cat is not new physics but old physics like the one you use to describe electrical phenomena like those that appear when you put a plug in the AC wall outlet.