10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Axil wrote:This quote from Edmund Storms has always intrigued me. I always test and compare any new prospective Rossi reaction theory that comes up against it.
Edmund Storms: Rossi hit upon this somewhat by accident. He was using a nickel catalyst to explore ways of making a fuel by combining hydrogen and carbon monoxide and apparently, observed quite by accident, that his [?????] was making extra energy. So then he explored it from that point of view and, apparently, over a year or two, amplified the effect.

He’s exploring the gas loading area of the field. This is also a region, a method used in the heavy water, or the heavy hydrogen, system. But in this case, it was light hydrogen, ordinary hydrogen and nickel and what happens is quite amazing.

You create the right conditions in the nickel, and he has a secret method for doing that, and all you do is add hydrogen to it and it makes huge amounts of energy based upon a nuclear reaction.”

The excess heat formed in nickel catalyst tests of CH4 production may be instrumental in the production of High-Rydburg(HR) states of hydrogen when excited CH4 decomposes and interacts with lattice faults in nickel. Let me explain as follows:
A muon with a unit negative charge can substitute for the single electron of a hydrogen atom. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic resistance between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. The effective radius of the modified hydrogen is 207 times smaller than a normal hydrogen atom. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together.
A muon is something that is massive and has a negative charge. A High-Rydburg(HR) state of hydrogen can build a compound virtual particle that is very heavy and has a large negative charge. Because the group of negative hydrogen ions is coherent, they behave as a single quantum mechanical particle. I think a coherent cluster of hydrogen ions can build a compound virtual particle that can catalyze fusion reactions just like a muon can but only better.

The High-Rydburg negitive hydrogen ion theory of the Rossi reaction.

When hot high pressure hydrogen is bombarded with thermal electrons, long lived clumps of negative hydrogen ions form. High-Rydburg (HR) states produced by electron impact have been observed with lifetimes of about 100 microseconds to seconds based on their quantum excitation states.

High-Rydberg states of H2 produced via electron impact have been observed with long lifetimes. Such long-lived HR states are thought to be high orbital angular momentum (high-C) states populated via electron impact near ion threshold energies.

Preliminary measurements 'using a new experimental technique’ (Pinnaduwage, L. A., and Datskos,) show that the effective lifetimes may be Lengthened at high ambient pressures; this could be due to the collisional stabilization of vibrationally-excited core of the HR state.

In more detail, the HR clump is coherent with orbital electrons moving in circular orbits far from the ion cores. These clumps are effectively super-atoms that don’t readily react with ordinary H2 chemically. There are many ion cores enclosed within the huge orbits of HR atoms with very large quantum excitation states.

These quantum excitation states get really large as kinetic energy is added by continued atomic and further electron impacts on these clumps of negative hydrogen ions. As the quantum level of ionization grows larger, the lifetime of the ion clump increases.

These ion cores are comprised of hundreds of hydrogen nuclei with their electrons orbiting at extreme distances. When these ion core complexes find their way into the lattice defects of nickel, a catalyzed fusion process occurs.

I think that the this High-Rydberg state process is the fusion mechanism that is universal to all cold fusion processes observed in many years of countless cold fusion experiments. It operates in a way similar to muon catalyzed fusion.

On the practical side, this coherent ion state of hydrogen can be produced by dissociation of CH4 by glow discharge electron emissions. In turn this CH4 can be produced when carbon is heated and evaporates in a hydrogen atmosphere. Graphite heated in a high pressure hydrogen atmosphere will generate CH4.

The secret element in the Rossi reactor could well be carbon.
I can't resist commenting on this speculation, because it shows I think why some people do not understand how hard the Coulomb barrier is.

There is no comparison between muons and high Rydberg states.

Why? Muons, like electrons, screen nuclei. the advantage of muons is that being much heavier they have higher momentum and hence smaller size when doing this (you remember heisenberg?). So a muon/proton atom is very small and can get up close to another nucleus without Coulomb problems.

Rydberg states are simply atoms with electrons in high energy but bound orbitals very far from atom. These occur typically in plasmas and have exotic properties. Cooling systems down you can get solids, molecules, etc with similar exotic properties (the intra-atomic binding from these loosely coupled electrons is much weaker than normal, so you need low temperatures).

This material consists of atomic nuclei spaced much further apart than usual bound by a cloud of Rydberg electrons.

It is exactly the opposite of a muonic atom. Muonic matter has very high density due to small size of atoms. Rydberg matter has very low density due to large size of atoms. So Rydberg "shielding" does not work close up.

Which is true, from Heisenberg, of anything using electrons to shield nuclei. Equals all normal matter.

Best wishes, Tom

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

MSimon wrote:
93143 wrote:The reported power level was 15-20 kW over most of the test.
Thanks!

That says a 4 deg C rise. Which says calibration to better than 1/2 deg C. Only modestly difficult. Was it done?
No one knows.
What makes me wonder is why they didn't simply reduce the flow of water to 0.1l/sec (or less) with a 20$ flow regulator so to get a delta T of 40-60 C.
With such a value you are well outside any potential calibration error.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Giorgio wrote:
MSimon wrote:
93143 wrote:The reported power level was 15-20 kW over most of the test.
Thanks!

That says a 4 deg C rise. Which says calibration to better than 1/2 deg C. Only modestly difficult. Was it done?
No one knows.
What makes me wonder is why they didn't simply reduce the flow of water to 0.1l/sec (or less) with a 20$ flow regulator so to get a delta T of 40-60 C.
With such a value you are well outside any potential calibration error.
It is not just calibration error. Nearly all the tests have thermometer to measure output temp poked through hole in wrapped reactor. So it is not clear what thermometer is in contact with.

In this case, where water in temp is well below room temp, +4C rise could be seen if thermometer made only partial thermal contact with water stream.

The experiments are all riddled with holes. You can imagine Rossi, knowing his e-cats can be a bit "temperamental", setting experiments that he knows produce positive results...

Best wishes, Tom

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Post by Giorgio »

raphael wrote:Giorgio, your responses are trending distinctly towards demagoguery.
You have confused ideas about what demagoguery is.
Please check it up in the dictionary and after do explain to me what parts of my post should be considered so.

raphael wrote:Please identify any/all of the "blind believers" that you continue to rail against. Are you referring to anyone posting on this thread? Or, are said "believers" some straw men that you've concocted?
From your words it looks like you feel to be a part of that group.
I will not object to it.

raphael wrote:Please also tell us where Warthog said he had "no issues" with the setup.
Warthog wrote: I'm a damned good experimentalist, and the setups and methods given aren't nearly as full of holes as you seem to think.
A method requires the use of experiment where only one variable is manipulated at a time in order to verify the existence of a cause-effect relationship.

A setup requires the use of a control setup and an experimental setup.
The control setup is where no variables are tested and it provides a baseline to compare the results.
The experimental setup is where you modify one independent variable at a time (cause) to determines the dependent variable (effect).

Until now in Rossi experiments there has been no setups nor methods.
Please prove me wrong.


raphael wrote:Are you saying that Rossi and Levi are part of a cabal?

Are you implying that the means via which the water flow (in the 18-hour test) was calculated was completely bogus?
No I am implying it was done in a silly way that I can expect from a 6th grade kid but not from people who consider themselves scientists and claim to have discovered one of the holy grails of science.

raphael wrote:Demonstrations using methodology that doesn't conform to the highest of standards can still be extremely valuable. Failure to recognize this is not good reasoning and it isn't good science either. Duh.
Again, what methodology did they use?

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

tomclarke wrote:It is not just calibration error. Nearly all the tests have thermometer to measure output temp poked through hole in wrapped reactor. So it is not clear what thermometer is in contact with.
Of course. There are plenty of issues that can give rise to errors in those experiments.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

rcain wrote: i take wathogs point about 'reasonable' evidence, though sadly i must also agree with much of Gieorgio's and Chrismb's retort above: these are extrordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence. they have not yet provided that 'level' of proof, nor, more importantly, 'scrutiny'.
And this, I think, is where the worlds diverge. The "naysayer" have said "nay" to several decades of what the "yeasayer" have provided as "evidence". So for the NS crowd these are extrodinary claims requiring extrodinary eveidence. The YS crowd has seen the several decades of "evidence" and don't consider these claims all that extra-ordinary.

Either the NS needs to go back and SPECIFICALLY debunk all the decades of "evidence" of the YS to demonstrate that this IS extra-ordinary or realize that you are talking about two different universes and yoiu are in the wrong one on this discussion.

The rest of us would like to discuss the possible science and information behind this without the two groups SHOUTING at each other.

Please?

IF this is indeed happening and is not either foolishness or a scam... how might it be happening?

Does anyone have a layman's explanation to the (LW?) ultra-low momentum neutron, which is one hypothesized process for getting there.

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

KitemanSA wrote:Does anyone have a layman's explanation to the (LW?) ultra-low momentum neutron, which is one hypothesized process for getting there.
Here you go:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

MSimon,
You asked: "What meter are you referring to in #1? Are you saying that a sufficiently accurate measurement can't be done?"

The referred meter was the one I suggested in a sarcastic response to Giorgio who wrote:
"Remember that until now it (excess heat) has not yet been measured. All what they did has been to calculated it."

I wrote: "Sure. Measuring water flow, temperature and steam produced doesn't count. It is their DUTY to buy and install a special meter, vetted by chrismb, that measures kW directly."

rcain thought this was the correct thing to do(!)

I don't know of any meter that takes water flow and temperatures, subtracts the input electrical power, to give the net output in kW. This to avoid any "calculations" that Giorgio thinks void the results.
I've now given up responding to Giorgio since he never admits when he is wrong but simply changes the subject and does a rinse and repeat routine.

You asked: "Re: #4 - water flow and temperature are the whole deal. Bucket collection? "
Apparently so for the 18 hour test. (Other witnesses were apparently present too.)
"Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

Peter Gluck
Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:48:38 -0800

This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test
:
Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed.
ref
http://pesn.com/2011/02/22/9501770_Ross ... _18_hours/

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 42852.html

Seems to me that if Dr.Levi measured the flow "many times" he would know if the flow was fairly constant and as a scientist do something about it if it wasn't. 15kW excess heat for 18 hours seems to me well above experimental error. I can't see how Dr. Levi has anything to gain but much to lose by falsifying the results of the test.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Ivy Matt wrote:Thanks for the heads up, rcain. If CERN agrees that Rossi's device produces heat through non-chemical means, heads will turn for sure. Not just because they have name recognition, but because they've been on the skeptical side before. For the same reasons, if they claim it doesn't work, I don't think anyone's opinion will change, believer or skeptic. I think the last time I checked Jed Rothwell's site was in February. Scott Chubbs' paper is from March, and I'm not certain how willing Rossi still is to let CERN get their hands on one of his E-Cats. He's changed his mind on that sort of thing before, but I'd like to see him give CERN a chance to try to prove him wrong.

From LENR-CANR.org I also found a link to this interview with Christos Stremmenos, a University of Bologna professor and early backer of Rossi. He is also on the Defkalion Green Technologies board. I think it's interesting to hear from all the different players in this drama. I don't have much to add to Stremmenos' interview except this: the development of science probably can't be stopped permanently, but it can be held up for a little while. Models do follow experimental evidence, but if the theorists have to guess at what the experimental evidence actually consists of...well, you get Axil and his 1001 hypotheses.

Also, something I found of interest that Akira Shirakawa posted on vortex-l: Marco Celestino, Piantelli's patent consultant (interviewed in "The Magic of Mr. Rossi"), has challenged Rossi's patent application. Of particular interest to me (and, I would suppose, most of us), from "Observations by third parties", filed April 29:
Amended claim 2 is not patentable under art 83 EPC.

Claim 2 recites

2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said method comprises the further step of providing catalyzer materials in said tube.

The description refers only generically to a catalyzer (catalytic action of optional elements, WO 2009125444, page 5, lines 11-12, without any further description of the optional elements).

A person skilled in the art has no possibility to understand which catalyzer materials are used, and which property or function the catalyzer has with respect to the nickel core.
thanks for that IvyMatt - very useful information.

i see many other similar objections to the patent application referring to 'lack of clarity' in description of method. in particular inadaquate details on how to perform 'pulsing pressure', 'varying temperataure' and other critical factors.

many more objections raised, too numerous to mention here - you jst have to read through. as chismb and others have said already, their patent app is shot full of holes.

the most significant being being:
'It is apparent that the present application aims to present an embodiment of the same invention as disclosed by in 1995 by Piantelli, Focadi and Habel, without adding special features.'
.

( source: https://register.epo.org/espacenet/appl ... &npl=false - off the same site you cite: https://register.epo.org/espacenet/appl ... ab=doclist
)

therefore to Kiteman -
KitemanSA wrote:The rest of us would like to discuss the possible science and information behind this without the two groups SHOUTING at each other.

Please?

If this is indeed happening and is not either foolishness or a scam... how might it be happening?
i quite take your point old chap. i shall try and remain more 'constructive' in my critisicm.

since Focadi and Rossi leave us no option but to widly speculate in the dark, about something they are trying very hard to keep secret, given the 'prior art' mentioned above, would it not make better sense to base those speculations on Piantelli, Focadi and Habel's earlier work - which has at least measured up to the patentability test, and might therefore provide us with more 'reliable' detail?

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Post by Kahuna »

raphael wrote:Are you saying that Rossi and Levi are part of a cabal?
I would suggest that that if it exists, the conspiracy would probably have to be larger than these two alone. I compiled a quick and dirty list of those who would be likely co-conspirators in a fraud/scam or have been duped by Rossi.
Possible Rossi Conspirators? wrote: Segio Focardi (A)
Giuseppe Levi (A)
David Bianchini (A)
Carlo Leonardi (A)
Angelo Saso (A)
Maurizio Torrealta (A)
Carlo Leonardi (A)
Daniele Passerini (A)
Sven Kullander (A)
Hanno Essén (A)
Matts Lewen (J/A)
Sortikos George (D)
Alexandros Xanthoulis (D)
Christos Stremmenos (A/D)
George Xanthoulis (D)
David Christian Aurel (D)
John Chadjichristos (D)
Andreas Meidanis (D)
Muafak Sauachni (D)
Andreas Drugas (D)
Symeon Tsalikoglou (D)


A = Academic
D = Defkalion
J = Journalist
This list contains those who have participated in the demonstrations (as opposed to experiments) or are principles in Defkalion Green Technologies. I have annotated the list although I don't guarantee the accuracy of the tags.

Whereas it is certainly possible all these folks "are in on it", I think that all would agree that as the list grows the probabiliy of a conspiratorial fraud/scam shrinks. I have not done much research on these people, but I assume most have decent reputations or we would have heard about their character flaws by now. If true, it is hard to imagine that all these folks would put their reputations on the line by not at least voicing that they suspected something underhanded was being presented by Rossi.

That being said, as Giorgio has stated, there is a lot of room in between scam and acceptance of Rossi's claims as fact. Like Kiteman, I hope we can avoid the presumption of scam going forward and focus on the "in-between."

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

parallel wrote:MSimon,
You asked: "What meter are you referring to in #1? Are you saying that a sufficiently accurate measurement can't be done?"

The referred meter was the one I suggested in a sarcastic response to Giorgio who wrote:
"Remember that until now it (excess heat) has not yet been measured. All what they did has been to calculated it."

I wrote: "Sure. Measuring water flow, temperature and steam produced doesn't count. It is their DUTY to buy and install a special meter, vetted by chrismb, that measures kW directly."

rcain thought this was the correct thing to do(!)

I don't know of any meter that takes water flow and temperatures, subtracts the input electrical power, to give the net output in kW. This to avoid any "calculations" that Giorgio thinks void the results.
I've now given up responding to Giorgio since he never admits when he is wrong but simply changes the subject and does a rinse and repeat routine.

You asked: "Re: #4 - water flow and temperature are the whole deal. Bucket collection? "
Apparently so for the 18 hour test. (Other witnesses were apparently present too.)
"Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

Peter Gluck
Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:48:38 -0800

This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test
:
Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed.
ref
http://pesn.com/2011/02/22/9501770_Ross ... _18_hours/

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 42852.html

Seems to me that if Dr.Levi measured the flow "many times" he would know if the flow was fairly constant and as a scientist do something about it if it wasn't. 15kW excess heat for 18 hours seems to me well above experimental error. I can't see how Dr. Levi has anything to gain but much to lose by falsifying the results of the test.
Is this debate is about whether the 18 hour unofficial test, assuming good faith from Levi, provides any support for CF?

If so it is necessary to remember my point above - +4C on 7C input temp is only 11C, well below room temp. Hence all it needs is a thermal contact error in output thermometer for the apparent 15kW power output to be erroneous.

On the other hand, you may wish to ignore the possibility of this error, or some other error, and speculate on how could 15kW for 15 hours come from this system. You will also want to assume that any exothermic reactions are contained in an estimated 50cc reactor vessel, giving 270kW-h energy from this volume.

But in that case why worry about the details of the experiment. You are saying that you want to assume the results come from some CF mechanism regardless of facts.

By my book, given the very large number of CF results so far that have proved to be experimental error this is unwise.

It is also unwise because the theory for CF is just not there - but I appreciate there are some on this thread who want to speculate regardless.

If I was speculating, I would look to Piantelli's stuff, and W-L theory, and try to reconcile the two. I would ignore all the Rossi results because they do not hold water. That BTW is what the NASA guy is doing. He could start by checking high energy gamma shiedling anomalies.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

parallel wrote:...rcain thought this was the correct thing to do(!)
...
parallel, as to measurement of energy output/throughput - i cant really better the reply MSimon has already given.

my point was that this example, was but one of MANY shortcomings in precision, method and above all 'disclosure' made by Rossi thus far.

i agree there seems a growing consensus (of trustworthy individuals and scientists), who agree something significant is going on here. ( see esp: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 111124.ece - Profs. Sven Kullander & Hanno Essén discussing the issue here, back in Feb ). but part of my argument is that this is potentially 'so significant' that Rossi has a duty to ensure that his methods, measurements, and results are the best he can possibly obtain, before making such astonishing claims.

he hasn't done that, whilst has has had ample time and resource.

now, you can if you want argue the opposite, that its fine to shout 'EUREKA', on the basis of 'rough', uncorroborated results, and run to the bank. but history shows us the risks in doing that.

anyway, back to Kitemans suggestion: '"supposing" it is working, what is it doing?' and what evidence exists for 'that'?

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: A "prior" for cold (room temperature) fusion

Post by tomclarke »

Kahuna wrote:
raphael wrote:Are you saying that Rossi and Levi are part of a cabal?
I would suggest that that if it exists, the conspiracy would probably have to be larger than these two alone. I compiled a quick and dirty list of those who would be likely co-conspirators in a fraud/scam or have been duped by Rossi.
Possible Rossi Conspirators? wrote: Segio Focardi (A)
Giuseppe Levi (A)
David Bianchini (A)
Carlo Leonardi (A)
Angelo Saso (A)
Maurizio Torrealta (A)
Carlo Leonardi (A)
Daniele Passerini (A)
Sven Kullander (A)
Hanno Essén (A)
Matts Lewen (J/A)
Sortikos George (D)
Alexandros Xanthoulis (D)
Christos Stremmenos (A/D)
George Xanthoulis (D)
David Christian Aurel (D)
John Chadjichristos (D)
Andreas Meidanis (D)
Muafak Sauachni (D)
Andreas Drugas (D)
Symeon Tsalikoglou (D)


A = Academic
D = Defkalion
J = Journalist
This list contains those who have participated in the demonstrations (as opposed to experiments) or are principles in Defkalion Green Technologies. I have annotated the list although I don't guarantee the accuracy of the tags.

Whereas it is certainly possible all these folks "are in on it", I think that all would agree that as the list grows the probabiliy of a conspiratorial fraud/scam shrinks. I have not done much research on these people, but I assume most have decent reputations or we would have heard about their character flaws by now. If true, it is hard to imagine that all these folks would put their reputations on the line by not at least voicing that they suspected something underhanded was being presented by Rossi.

That being said, as Giorgio has stated, there is a lot of room in between scam and acceptance of Rossi's claims as fact. Like Kiteman, I hope we can avoid the presumption of scam going forward and focus on the "in-between."
This is common mistake #37. The idea that all those associated with a fraudster must be fraudulent.

Mixed with #3. The idea that errors are deliberate rather than being due to a combination of excessive hopefulness and mistake.

Mixed with #1. The idea that you can second guess what other people will do. People do weird things.

Of the people involved with the demos, Essen, surely with credentials to look skeptically, did not properly consider all possible errors in the experiment he observed. The Rossi claims are very exciting, and every reason for lots of other genuine people to be involved.

The fact that the demos remain so full of holes, and that the more carefully measured ones have lower energy output, says something. If E-cats are as Rossi says why cannot he just demo one like the one purportedly heating his office for 12 months, and let clear heat output over long time prove his point?

Best wishes, Tom

Ivy Matt
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

KitemanSA wrote:Either the NS needs to go back and SPECIFICALLY debunk all the decades of "evidence" of the YS to demonstrate that this IS extra-ordinary or realize that you are talking about two different universes and yoiu are in the wrong one on this discussion.
Some of the naysayers may be skeptical that Rossi has made a significant advancement in this field—well beyond what anyone else has done, at least in the claimed magnitude, controllability, and repeatability of results—without knowing quite what the advancement consists of, beyond what has been done (and published) by Piantelli & Focardi, Arata & Zhang, etc. Perhaps the recent challenge by Piantelli's patent attorney will help clear that up.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

tomclarke,

The reactor used for the 18 hour demonstration was about 1 liter capacity not 50cc. The latter is the new smaller, "more stable" version used in the later tests and supposed to be used in the 1 MW plant. I can imagine a bunch of these mounted on one water pipe.

I'm not crying eureka. As I've said several times we have to wait for the 1 MW plant before anything is definitely proved. I still bet there will be some who won't believe that either, if it happens.

All I'm saying is that there is no reason to doubt the experimental capabilities of people like Dr. Levi. I know I would take due care on the placement of the thermocouples. Why should I think he is so much less capable and start crying fraud?

With a water flow of ~ 1 liter/sec I doubt the small difference between water and room temperature would have much effect.

Edit added. It also occurred to me that Dr. Levi would see the water temperature before the E-Cat was fired up, so what he would see is a change in temperature after it started. I think that rules out your suggestion of misplacement of the thermocouples.
Last edited by parallel on Sat May 14, 2011 6:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply