Media eCat Story Evolves

ECat News ^ | Nov 6 2011 | Admin

[Kevmo]

Media eCat Story Evolves

admin on November 6, 2011 — 27 Comments

The number of media organisations dipping toes into the eCat story continues to grow. From Fox to MSNBC and the UK’s Daily Mail to Wired UK, Forbes and more.

Wired was there before most and now they’ve updated their view, mirroring many of the questions informed skeptics have been asking for some time.

Reserving judgement, they nevertheless note that much of the coverage appears to be softening and wonder if AP is holding back for the bigger story to come. They note the dearth of substantial coverage in the mainstream but voice that and their views on Rossi in positive tones.

A shift is on the horizon. It would not take much for that shift to become a slide – a solid link identifying a credible customer or a qualified and independent observer breaking cover. There is a profusion of potential breakpoints and it is only a matter of time before something breaks. One thing seems likely – as journalists begin to see through the superficial certainty of those screaming Fraud, they are probably the canaries signaling a hidden change among potential investors, genuinely open scientists and cautious sceptics who recognise that there is more to this tale than the artificial noise suggests.

We all know that we do not have the proof required but the complex contortions required to construct a cohesive narrative that does not involve the possibility that Rossi is telling the truth are becoming as incredulous as that simple possibility. An interested person new to the subject and curious enough to peek through the preconception of junk science might be fooled by the contention stirred by a handful of commenters but more are sneaking through and thinking for themselves. Despite the lie that sites such as eCatNews.com are dominated by believers, the ranks of those taking a hopeful stance while waiting for real proof is growing.

The true voice of reason is becoming stronger.

[dinodino]

Apparently you are the one living in fantasy land, if you think that independent duplication of results is not part of scientific inquiry.

What is your profession and area of training? It’s clearly not science...

[Johnny B.]

Rossi has never allowed full inspection of his “secret box”.
***Yeah, but a few hundred pounds of concrete per ECat would have stood out.

I'm sure this is a futile attempt, but for any observers who want to hear all the facts, here is a link to Heffner's reply:

Heffner's Reply

Since Kevmo is proud of the fact that he won't actually read the links I provide, here is the contents of the link:

Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread. I am very disappointed. The confusion here is incredible. It also appears no one has read my paper at all:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

especially the sections "T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION" and "VOLUME CALCULATIONS", wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the inside of the "30x30x30 cm inside box" that supposedly houses one to three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please, Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when I said no one saw inside it at the demo. I was *not* referring to the roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box. The posters on this for some reason seem to confuse the two boxes. Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm inside box the "reactor", though it clearly is much more than "the reactor". It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the "frequency generator" power from the outside to the stuff inside the box.

The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when water levels and temperatures are simulated.

It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time.

Here are the important facts:

1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It was not opened.

2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what was shown in the various photos. He did not see any exterior structures that might be important, such as holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs.

3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the exterior box. It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top are present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box.

4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles, fire brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring, hidden water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not opened.

5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside box, together weigh 98 kg. Clearly the inside and outside boxes, pipes and bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98 kg. The boxes are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of the 30x30x30 cm box and its interior contents is very high.

I am attempting to construct my simulation within these constraints.

I think Bob Higgen's diagram at:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php

is inaccurate. The reactor is enclosed inside the 30x30x30 cm interior box. The fins are not as big as shown. There is only one set of fins, on top. The thermocouple is much longer than shown and likely rests against the edge of the inside box, and probably on the flanges of the inside box, which are not shown. The gaps between the inside box and the edges of the outside box are too large in proportion. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box dimensions include the flanges to which the top panel is bolted. This only leaves a few centimeters gap (5 cm on the ends, 3 cm on the sides, excluding the flanges) between the inside box and the outside box. See the sections of my paper referenced above. I should note here that I am working on an update of those sections based on an improved photo analysis.

Here are my best numbers so far:

Width of E-cat inside box: 30.3 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, flange to flange: 49.6 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, side to side : 40.6 cm
Interior length of E-cat outside box: = 46.3 cm

Best regards,

Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Kevmo]

Your dude’s theory doesn’t even pass muster with a power systems engineer, let alone the physicists on Vortex-L.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Aussie Guy E-Cat
Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:35:49 -0800

Mate I’m not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical old power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory of scam that requires you to prove it. If I say I doubt your theory, that is my right and you have no right to say “Nonsense” cause you have absolutely no proof of what you suggest is even remotely true.

As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells? If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi?

AG

On 11/9/2011 5:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E-Cat photos.

What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate water and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest.

Nonsense!

That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been in doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the possibility ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed and limited water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the resulting steam emissions. The source and destination of the water/steam is of course the outside box, and then the top vent. You assertion that you can determine whether or not this occurs from the photos is the nonsense.

The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and not from the reactor core as you suggest.

You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did you not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo analysis?

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer box through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of which I determined by photo analysis?

This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet fitting on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the Higgins drawings suggests)

Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the left front.

and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core.

This you have no way of knowing.

See attached photo.

From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the reactor core to supply H, heater power and RF energy.

There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for “frequency generator” input.

Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of the reactor core as Higgins suggests.

Of course there is room. The problem is the fins were not observed there by Mats Lewan who had extensive access at the demo being discussed

[Kevmo]

It is independent. It is duplication.

And the Pons-Fleishmann effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times.

So this is just one more, among many.

[dinodino]

Please post link showing Ahern’s testing methodology and equipment are identical to Rossi’s. TIA.

[Lx]

Kevmo, I have a question.

For the reactor, let's use the one that looks like:

1) The Large, black, insulated boxes.

2) Heat exchanger with two in ports and two out ports.

3) From what I've read, the actual steam that is used to do work is from the outside loop of the heat exchanger meaning this water is never inside the reactor.

4) There is water in the reactor and this is where my question comes in.

Is the reactor-heat exchanger a closed loop? In other words, all of the water inside the actual reactor is simply recirculated between the heat exchanger and the reactor. I'm sure he was instrumentation that monitors water level and temp and he most certainly has a way to add water to the reactor should it need it. The reactor itself leaks (no big deal, it's a prototype, I'm amazed it is sealed so well), so he has to have a way to add water.

Oh yeah, is the water being added acting counter intuitive like in a fission reactor? In other words, if you add water to cool down a fission reactor, the water slows neutrons so it actually speeds up the reaction from what I recall! Does Rossi's device work like that?

In case you missed the question in all the verbiage, it is: Is the reactor-heat exchanger a closed loop? I'd like to see the pressure inside the reactor. Again, let me go on record that I think this thing doesn't work. While it could be a fraud, I think it's more that he's seeing what he wants to see. However, I pray I'm wrong, this thing would change the world. I doubt you'd have E-Cat powered cars but using the Ecat in buildings and generators, that frees up petroleum for gas, diesel and for all the ways oil is used in the chemical industries.

[Kevmo]

Please post link
***I aint yer errand boy. You go fetch.

[dinodino]

You quote, you cite. It’s sort of a rule in academia. Try again.

[Kevmo]

I quoted. It backs up my point, not yours.

You no likee, you go fetchee for facts that back up your point. Run along now, short pants.

[Kevmo]

I do not think it is a closed loop.

As far as “water being added acting counter intuitive like in a fission reactor”, I have no idea at this point.

[dinodino]

No worries. Let the record show that Kevmo won’t provide citations for his claims—what a shock.

[Kevmo]

Let the record show — one of your seagull compadres, Moonboy, always says that when I mention others that they’re my imaginary friends. I doubt he’ll say the same thing about you right now. Obviously, it only applies to those whom he argues against.

[dinodino]

Is that some sort of retarded attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you didn’t cite your sources? Um, yeah. Citations please.

[Lx]

Have you seen anything like a schematic but for water flow? That is something I’d like to see.

If it’s not a closed loop, I wonder how much water it uses in self sustain mode?

Has it been determined with a high degree of accuracy that the water out of the reactor (not the heat exchangers) isn’t carrying any radioactive materials? If so, what is the level, is it Hiroshima or a dental X-ray?

Finally, has it been run in the dark? Is there any Cherenkov radiation? That would be cool and if it’s high, that thing is kicking out some serious radiation. I wouldn’t want one in my backyard but it could be made safe.

[Kevmo]

I quoted from the article. If you want more information than what is posted in the article, go fetch it yourself. Browbeat all you want, I’m still not your errand boy.

[Kevmo]

I have not seen any schematic.

Mats Lewan posted a bunch of data including water flow after the October 6 demo.

There is some radiation generated, which is why the reactor has lead shielding. But it’s short-lived and probably more on the order of dental x-rays than anything else.

[Kevmo]

You quote, you cite. It’s sort of a rule in academia.
***Please cite that rule. TIA.

[dinodino]

Avec grand plaisir, Monsieur. From Duke:

Whenever you quote, paraphrase, summarize, or otherwise refer to the work of another, you are required to cite its source, either by way of parenthetical citation or by means of a footnote, as well as a complete reference in a bibliography.

http://library.duke.edu/research/citing/

What was your alma mater again?

[Kevmo]

Whenever you quote, paraphrase, summarize, or otherwise refer to the work of another, you are required to cite its source,
***I did cite the source, the link to the article.

Here are some euphemisms that substitute for what you are peddling.

alphabet soup
applesauce
argle-bargle
bafflegab
balderdash
baloney
bilge
blague
blah
blarney
blatherskite
bollocks
bosh
BS
bull
bulldust
bullshit
bunk
bunkum
bushwa
cack
claptrap
cod
codology
codswallop
corn
crap
crapola
crock
crud
doggerel
double-talk
dreck
drivel
dub-dub-dub
eyewash
farrago
fiddle-de-dee
fiddle-faddle
flapdoodle
flimflam
froth
fudge
gabble
gammon
garble
gibberish
gobbledygook
guff
haver
hocus-pocus
hogwash
hokum
hokum
hooey
horseshit
jabberwocky
jive
junk
keech
kidstakes
malarkey
meshugaas
moonshine
mullock
mumbo jumbo
nonsense
pants
phooey
piffle
poppycock
raving
ribaldry
rot
rubbish
Shinola
Silliness
sob stuff
stuff
stupidness
taradiddle
tommyrot
tosh
tripe
trumpery
twaddle
wack
wish-wash
word salad
yadda yadda yadda

[dinodino]

Let the record show that twice now,Kevmo refused to cite. Best of luck to Kevmo, should he continue to interact with the rational.