Steven Krivit Report #3 on the Rossi E-Cat Published (my title)

New Energy Times ^ | July 3, 2011 | Steven Krivit

[Liberty1970]

A lot of good stuff here from what I've seen so far.

[Liberty1970]

So far, what I’ve been seeing runs uncomfortably close to my prognostications in my (unpublished) ‘How the E-Cat Could Be a Scam’ essay that I wrote for personal reflection. Here’s my conclusion, which seems to dovetail with Krivit’s report (at least to some degree - some of Krivits video suggests the ‘hidden power source’ could be in plain sight):

CONCLUSION

The E-cat could be a fraud, but this conclusion is tenuous. It involves the power output being greatly exaggerated, based on a hidden power source within the device, with all knowledgeable personnel involved with the production, operation and monitoring of the E-cat being part of the scam. Anyone at Defkalion ostensibly involved in R&D development and testing of the E-cat would also have to know it is a scam.

Many of the public claims regarding the E-cat (such as the 2 years operation of one at Rossi’s plant in Italy, the claim of 94 E-cats operating already, and the claim of E-cats being provided to the Greek authorities and Universities of Uppsala and Bologna) must all be quite false, despite no one claiming publicly to know anything to the contrary.

The scammers have not only developed a very clever and robust E-cat scam device and made multiple copies of it, they have also fooled a number of close associates who in some cases have worked on LENR or associated with Rossi for years. Rossi, if he is a scammer, is scamming his friends and associates first and foremost. Each one of these friends and associates - including Drs. Piantelli, Focardi,

Stremmenos, the rest of the Defkalion board, the Ampenergo board, and the employees of AmpEnergo and Defkalion generally, must ALL have failed to sufficiently investigate the E-cat not just before getting involved, but since then as well. Not one of them have voiced anything less than full support for the E-cat.

Moreover, Piantelli’s announcement of a competing company would require that he is leading a sort of piggy-back fraud of his own, to capitalize on Rossi before the primary scheme collapses. But with Rossi and company doggedly sticking to their scheduled 1 mW reactor operation in the last week of October, time is running out.

[Liberty1970]

*Ping* for your list. I’d ping Mr. Krivit too, if I could recall his exact FReepername...

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Seems like “alchemy” and the search for the “philosopher's stone”.

One thing I have learned is that if something looks "too good to be true" it very often is...

Regards,
GtG

[muawiyah]

Then there's the case of Bernie Madoff. NASDAQ introduced him to the world although he made his first fortune as a penny stock trader, and moved on from there to working for friends, family and members of whatever synagogue he happened to attend that week.

Eventually he gravitated into scamming Jewish burial societies, Leftwing nonprofit organizations ~ usually those that had benefited greatly from Jewish bequests, and on and on. He ripped off all his friends except those few he benefited.

There were billions of dollars in the Madoff scam.

So far the E-Cat operation ain't no thang ~ if it's a scam ~ and if it's not it will make the world quite rich.

[cartan]

Ping!

[theBuckwheat]

“Last year, Rossi and Focardi claimed an energy gain of 213 times. This year, Rossi downgraded that to six. Our analysis shows a possible energy gain of one to two times. In other words, Rossi’s device probably produces Watts, not kilowatts, of power. It may, in fact, produce zero excess heat. We cannot know with confidence because of the poor data collection and reporting.”

This indicates that the fundamentals of the effect this device is based on is not understood sufficiently to optimize it. Rossi is still operating in the region of chance and accident, much like early developers of internal combustion engines or batteries did.

[Moltke]

Rossi and company doggedly sticking to their scheduled 1 mW reactor operation

Yeah, a 1 milliwatt reactor sounds about right. That's 12 orders of magnitude less than the 1 megawatt claims I've seen elsewhere. (People who don't know the difference between m and M, in this case mW and MW, pi$$ me off, so I make fun of them.)

[Liberty1970]

My apologies, yes, I did screw that up. Let’s hope he manages the MW output, not mW. ;-)

[Kevmo]

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

[citizen]

Thanks....bttt

[B4Ranch]

>>Stremmenos, the rest of the Defkalion board, the Ampenergo board, and the employees of AmpEnergo and Defkalion generally, must ALL have failed to sufficiently investigate the E-cat not just before getting involved, but since then as well.<<

You have forgotten to mention that the fools at NASA are wanting to partner with Rossi to build rockets.

[Free Vulcan]

Here’s the bottom line: if he can continuously generate enough heat for steam to generate electricity at the cost of coal or cheaper without harmful emissions or radiation, he’s golden. That’s all he has to do.

[Kevmo]

Here's what Jed Rothwell has to say.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49725.html


Re: [Vo]:Fw: New Energy Times #37 and Rossi Report #3
Jed Rothwell
Sun, 31 Jul 2011 09:54:10 -0700

Robert Leguillon wrote:

I must ask, Jed... What is your take on this?
>
> Specifically, the NASA calculations:
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3714appendixelectriconly.shtml
>

This begins with the statement "Assume that the heat exchanger resistance
heater is 100% efficient." That is reasonable. What is not reasonable is to
assume that the entire 770 W will transfer to the water and nowhere else.
The eCat metal and body will get hot. The hose will get hot. With the well
insulated electric teapot I have tested (Krups), you transfer about half or
2/3rds of the heat to the water. I doubt that even 500 W reach the water.

That's ~500 J/s. The flow rate is 2 g/s which takes 180 J to bring to boil,
leaving 320 J, which is enough to boil about half the water. The other half
would have to overflow unboiled. For the reasons given by Storms and me I
think this is unlikely.

However, as I have said repeatedly, the demonstration observed by Krivit
proved nothing. That is why I turned down an invitation from Rossi to see a
similar demonstration. I knew what he was planning to show, and I knew that
seeing it would not convince me of anything, so I did not go. I think it is
a waste of time to devote so much attention to a demonstration of this
nature. You cannot draw a valid conclusion no matter how much detailed
mathematics you apply.

It would not be difficult to arrange a more convincing steam tests, but when
I suggested to Rossi that we do this, he turned me down. As I have reported
here, he said he did not have time for that. Make of that what you will. I
will not speculate about that, nor will I speculate about why Krivit
accepted his invitation, or whether Krivit knew in advance what the
demonstration would consist of. I will say that anyone who knows what was
planned should have realized that it would be unconvincing. Why bother
making such a fuss about it?

The demonstration Krivit observed was NOT a test, as I have said repeatedly.
Rossi told me in advance explicitly that it would not be a test. Those were
his very words! He says "no more tests until October." (I have no idea what
he told Krivit.) Anyone watching it can see it is not a test. They did not
even show whether the water reservoir is placed on the weight scale! It was
a trade-show style demo to show the general principles -- to give you an
idea of how the thing works -- without any real quantitative data or
instrumentation.

The Krivit demonstration resembles the charts and projections and "future
generator" graphics shown by the plasma fusion researchers at Congressional
budget sessions. People who understand the technical issues can see they
have no means of overcoming technical difficulties such as neutrons
destroying the reactor walls. They are saying "give us another $100 billion
and we may find a way to solve these problems." That is classic Dog and Pony
show vaporware. Taken as such, these presentation are okay. They are not
intended to be scientific presentations. Neither was the demonstration
Krivit saw. It was a lot more convincing than the plasma fusion
Congressional presentations, but neither qualifies as a scientific
presentation, and treating them as such, and subjecting them to a serious
analysis, is a waste of time.


The demonstration gave at best a qualitative sense of what may be going on.
Not quantitative. As it happens, yesterday I had occasion to borrow a 1.3 kW
steam cleaner to try and clean the mildew damage in the grouting in my
bathroom. (It did not work.) Anyway, I can report that the flow of steam
from 1.3 kW with a short hose is less dramatic, and the plume is shorter,
than the plume shown in the Lewan and Krivit videos. This was
small orifice but anyway, you can hardly see the condensing steam, even
against a black background. If the power of that machine had been reduced to
750 W and hose made as long as the one Rossi uses I doubt any steam would
have reached the end. That does not prove anything, but there it is.
....
--- Jed

[Kevmo]

Jed also said this in the next post.

Re: [Vo]:Fw: New Energy Times #37 and Rossi Report #3
Jed Rothwell Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:06:53 -0700
I wrote:


> The demonstration Krivit observed was NOT a test, as I have said
> repeatedly. Rossi told me in advance explicitly that it would not be a test.
> Those were his very words! He says "no more tests until October."
>

In some of the of the earlier tests they did make sure the reservoir was on
the weight scale, and they did measure the steam quality and do more careful
temperature measurements, so these were valid tests. The 18-hour test with
flowing water was completely valid, and the results were compelling, unless
you think Levi et al. are lying. I think that is highly unlikely, and I also
think it is unlikely that Rossi fooled them.

The distinction between a test and a demonstration is somewhat
indeterminate. It is matter of opinion. In my opinion, the January events
were closer to the "test" end of the scale. What Krivit saw was far to the
"demonstration" side. Much too far for my taste.

- Jed

[Kevmo]

http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/krivits-third-report-e-cat-not-demonstrated-to-work-as-claimed/

July 30, 2011
tags: andrea rossi, e-cat, new energy times
by Ivy Matt
Steven Krivit, editor of New Energy Times, has released his third report on Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, and the report is every bit as long as he had claimed. The report is largely critical of the claims made for the energy catalyzer, and of the way Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi, and Giuseppe Levi have attempted to establish those claims. Although most of the criticisms have been made elsewhere, Krivit has helpfully (for those critical of Rossi’s claims, at least) provided a clearinghouse for them.
Krivit’s report includes 37 appendices, but the essence of his criticism is contained in his main report:
The first concern is a question of the quantity of the steam. That is, how much steam has been visually observed coming out of the experiments? How does this amount and rate compare with the predicted amount and rate of steam from a 5 kilowatt power source?
The second concern is the method the Rossi group used to measure (or fail to measure) the output of the experiment. How did the group perform the measurement of the heat outflow, or steam, in the experiments?
The third concern is the quality of the steam. A higher-quality (or drier) steam output contains far more heat than a lower-quality (or wetter) steam. How did the Rossi group measure (or fail to measure) the quality of the steam coming out of the experiments?
None of these concerns is likely to be resolved before the demonstration in the last week of October (according to Rossi’s current timeline), and it is questionable if Rossi’s demonstration will directly answer those concerns, or if it will leave them for buyers of E-Cat technology to answer to their satisfaction. In an answer to a question by Prof. Brian Josephson concerning that matter on his website, Rossi emphasized that many important scientists and journalists would attend the test, and insisted that the E-Cat is producing perfectly dry steam in recent tests, but did not answer Prof. Josephson’s point about measuring the water and/or steam output of the reactor.
There seems to be a general agreement among both optimists and skeptics of a technical bent that this is an important weakness of Rossi’s demonstrations so far. One section of Krivit’s report concerns a presentation Francesco Celani delivered at the 16th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-16) in Chennai, India, in February of this year. A diagram in this presentation pointed out the importance, when testing a black box (i.e. a device the internals of which are unknown), of measuring all inputs and outputs. In Rossi’s demonstrations, on the other hand, he measured the inputs (water and electrical power) and presumed to measure the temperature inside the black box itself (unnecessary when one is attempting to demonstrate simply that the black box functions), but failed to measure the output (steam and/or water).
The arguments supporting Krivit’s claim that the E-Cat achieves an energy gain of only one or two times input power are contained in the appendices to the main report. Krivit does not deny the possibility of achieving excess heat from nickel-hydrogen reactions and emphasizes that he has covered the field on various occasions before. His criticism here is of Andrea Rossi and his collaborators. He does not directly accuse Rossi of devising a hoax or a scam, but he mentions several ways (private investment, purchase of franchises from Defkalion) in which money has presumably already changed hands, and therefore a scam is possible, whether or not it is probable. Regarding the charge, made more or less openly by both Andrea Rossi and Daniele Passerini (link is in Italian), that Krivit is in cahoots with Francesco Piantelli, Krivit does not address it directly, but says in his report: “I have not seen Piantelli for a few years, but I have been in touch with him recently to confirm the history of his research.”
Perhaps most interesting, because it’s news, is the last section of Krivit’s report, which confirms Rossi’s meeting with members of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and identifies Michael A. Nelson as the man who arranged the meeting. According to Nelson, as reported by Krivit, Rossi made no demonstration and no agreement had yet been made between Rossi and NASA, but NASA is interested in testing Rossi’s device as long as the government doesn’t have to foot the bill. Nelson is eager to find out the truth about Rossi’s device, whatever it may be. These words from him are worth quoting here:
Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this.
Whatever else he may be, it appears Andrea Rossi is a catalyst of sorts.
************************************************************ Related posts:

[cartan]

[…]and if it’s not it will make the world quite rich.

I strongly doubt that politicians would ever allow electricity prices to go down. They would claim a pressing need to save the planet and raise electricity taxes just enough to eat up all savings we would otherwise make. And then some.

[muawiyah]

Still, politicians did step aside and let coal replace firewood ~ and talk about a price drop ~ WOW.

[cartan]

But that was before Western governments have been taken over by socialists who are determined to destroy all wealth until we have achieved equality with Somalia, and global social justice will be a reality, at last.

[muawiyah]

Not to worry. The socialists will be led off their primrose path with the promise of the taxes some slick Tax Dude is figuring out probably can be applied to E-Cat. Those taxes will be applicable even before Rossi can fire up his device in October.