The report on energy measurements on the E-Cat by a Swedish-Italian group of scientists has been updated with an appendix explaining more in detail the measurements of input electric power. The new version of the report can be found here.
It has been discussed whether a DC current could have been drawn through the power supply to the control box of the E-Cat, without being detected by the instruments, and thus feeding undetected power into the E-Cat.
The new appendix gives a clearer picture of how the electric measurements were done. Both voltage and current were monitored. Since a DC current through a load would have resulted in a DC voltage, this would have been detected by the measurement instrument as an offset of the AC voltage sine curve.
However, it’s not clear from the specifications of the instrument — the PCE-830 Power Analyser — if it can detect DC Voltage. I will investigate this issue further.
UPDATE: I have been in contact with a representative of PCE Instruments UK Ltd who has confirmed that the PCE-830 cannot detect DC tension. When connected to an AC source with an offset DC tension it will display the graph of the AC tension correctly but it will not detect the offset DC tension.
Pilot Customer Wanted
Today the Swedish-British company Hydrofusion, which has a commercial licensing agreement with Andrea Rossi regarding the E-Cat, stated that it is looking for a pilot customer in Sweden for a 1 MW E-Cat plant.
According to Hydrofusion the intent is to make the 1 MW plant available for the customer who will only pay for the (thermal) energy consumed. Installation is scheduled to late fall 2013.
Rossi’s 1 MW plant which consists of about 100 E-Cat modules, was originally tested in October 2011, though no independent observers could confirm the measured energy output.
Rossi claims that he has designed a new 1 MW plant for an unknown U.S. customer and business partner, and that it will be shipped to this customer within short. It should be made available to a customer of this customer who will only pay for the consumed energy, as planned in Sweden.
Hi Mats. In June 2013, Hydrofusion offered free power from a Rossi megawatt plant to a volunteer customer in Sweden. Can you please follow up on this story with Hydrofusion? Was a customer found? If so, who? Where is the power? Can they be sure it comes from Rossi’s machine?
If not, why not? Rossi can’t find anyone to take free power from his magical machine? In Winter? In Sweden? Does that not defy the imagination?
I’m keeping an eye on that. As far as I know no plant has yet been delivered. Discussions with customer/s might be going on but I have no proof.
The comments below are of interest because, other than the insights on many details of the e-cat setup, they are sort of text-book examples of probably reasonable people talking past each other for sociological reasons and perhaps an unsound lack of acknowledgement of basic assumptions. The skeptic camp seem to be assuming that the discussion is about science, measurement, and the prudent practice thereof. They are confused by the responses of people who engage on questions of necessary access to equipment, etc., and who don’t seem to get that a lot of details make for a complete and sound story.
The skeptics keep sounding alarm bells and making harsh judgements because, unfortunately, there is only a passing resemblance between validation of a commercial claim and ordinary laboratory science as practiced in university labs. The aims the former, in this case, are evidently much more narrow, because any sensible owner of a technology that lacks IP protection must indeed be paranoid that many others are seeking to replicate their recipe. Rossi et al are between the proverbial rock and hard place due to an inability to satisfy skeptics without giving away the game, and (possibly) an inability to satisfy investors (who being risk tolerant, may well be sufficiently convinced by science lab incomplete work done by Levi et al, not needing or wanting full disclosure). In this context it seems silly for skeptics to cry fraud or really say anything at all besides “be on guard, because the full story is not being made available”. The annoyance factor is doubtless partially tribal (guessing that the skeptics earn their pay from conventional physics in some way), and partially an emotional reaction to the evident unfairness of any human withholding something of great, almost priceless, value from everyone else, combined with the tackiness of trying to get rich off it.
Point taken. The skeptics are right about the holes in the story, but have no grounds to draw any further conclusions with employing an illogical assumption (that science is being talked about here). Probably everyone following these developments gets this. Everyone writing in this spaces is almost by definition an outsider, and therefore not exactly in a good position to come to any conclusions on the real story, which seems to be a commercial one, shrouded by the impulse to make money by keeping secrets. Or, in a worst case, defraud investors.
For my part, I await the next revelations by those that learns more some facts and care to share for their own reasons. I would like to be indifferent to the e-cat, but unfortunately for my objectivity would very much like for it to be a giant success. I sincerely hope that the assumptions I have made (that Rossi et al have something going on and good reasons to move forward without more than minimal disclosure) correspond more closely to reality than the skeptic’s assumption set. On the other hand, if this story collapses with proven fraud, bankruptcy and finger pointing, oh well, it won’t be the first time in the history of technology, and these types of stories are always interesting to read when someone does a post-mortem.
Thanks to Mats for his efforts in this website. Any update on the Swedish E-cat customer?
“highly driven [by] subjective personal opinions/fears/hope/hate/emotions” – of course, many jobs/positions/industries will be replaced….hopefully for the better !
Looks like someone analyzed Levi’s paper, doesn’t like it, and is standing up for the integrity of Swedish scientists! Good for them:
Click to access 1306.6364.pdf
>Try to think to this: let’s assume the DC component hypothesis, and, imagine that one of the testers (e.g. Torbjörn Hartman or Bo Höistad) had taken a 10Euro multimeter, had switched it to “DC” and had connected ….
Piece of cake!
Bad to say but I’d see a picture with Rossi with a little remote in his pocket that let him turn on/off any device behind the wall placed between the grid meter and the wall socket. Ready to switch off when somebody get too close.
All debates about the possibility of cheating or the device being real is a waste of time here; I can see each side has their own motives driven by some subjective opinions/emotions. His device will be judged by his customers who will pay for them or the energy produced. When my company gets the 1MW unit and after using it for 1 year then I will tell you, it is real or not.
It’s been almost 2 years since his first “customers” allegedly had access to the 1MW E-Cat. It’s been 1.5 years since Rossi announced that the 1MW E-Cat was available for sale. It’s been more than 1 year since the 1MW E-Cat was supposedly shipping (according to Rossi’s ecat.com web site).
And yet, there is still no credible sighting of a 1MW E-Cat.
The October 28th 2011 demo showed nothing, not even that the 1MW E-Cat was getting warm. And, since then, the one and only 1MW prop sat in one of Rossi’s otherwise-empty garages.
Rossi has been lying throughout this process. Why would anyone still trust him?
One should not convict anyone of lying without having a hard look at the circumstances and oneself in the mirror. I think he has got this far in record time. To me the on going debate is highly driven my subjective personal opinions/fears/hope/hate/emotions (whatever that may be), which serves objective technical or scientific truth nothing. Soon or later, there will be emerging a bunch of happy or unhappy customers and the commercial world will know. The truth will inevitably lead to a commercial outcome. So going down the commercial path of proving or disproving this technology is not a bad choice.
You mean from doing inadequate demos for gullible professors in 2011, to doing inadequate demos for gullible professors in 2013. That doesn’t look like progress at all.
Here’s one question you should consider: Since the whole point of this exercise was to determine whether the E-Cat was generating “excess” heat, why did Rossi and/or Levi decide to hide it inside an oven and only allow temperature measurements of the outside of the oven?
This is as silly as a magician insisting that he can levitate his assistant, but only if he covers her with a shroud first. With a magician, we know that the he isn’t really levitating his assistant, and that the shroud is only a diversion to hide the mundane details faking the results. And so it is with this “test”.
They could have allowed for a direct measurement of the E-Cat, either through an opening in the oven, or by putting thermocouples on both the E-Cat and the inside of the oven. If the E-Cat got hotter than the oven, then it’s generating excess heat, otherwise no excess heat.
But they set up as elaborate a ruse as any magician to hide the ugly details from the audience. The only difference is that a magician is doing it for entertainment purposes, and Rossi is doing it to convince people that he has something he doesn’t.
Never bet any money against Rossi, you’re going to lose it.
The money, not the bet.
“John, I don’t know if it helps you, but when I did 4 tests of the old E-Cat in 2011, all published on NyTeknik.se, I brought my own cables, checked tension and current on both sides of the control box, both AC and DC. I never found anything strange.”
Nothing strange indeed. I wish the current crop of experimenters had taken the same precautions you did, Mats.
Unfortunately for you, in those tests, Rossi probably cheated with the OUTPUT end where you did not take adequate precautions. I know hindsight is 20/20 but you should have required Rossi to run the ELECTRICAL heater in an ecat WITHOUT HYDROGEN in it. Then, you should have shown that your output measurement method recovers the input heat. Also that without hydrogen, there is no excess heat. The system should have then been filled with hydrogen with NO OTHER CHANGES ALLOWED and in full view of experimenters. Rossi should not have been allowed to move it to another room or to be alone with it. And then the run repeated with all the same input power settings.
Now, Rossi’s tricks have probably shifted from output measurement errors to input power issues– either extra power which bypasses or is ignored by the measuring instruments, some manipulation of the (unnecessary) three phase power supply, manipulation of the complicated internal programs in the PCE-830 instrument, or some other undetermined wiring trick.
Of course, running for six months with the same setup will add absolutely nothing to the credibility of the experiment. The running time used was adequate. That is no issue. Running longer is wasteful and silly. Changing the experiment so that input power is properly controlled and output temperature is measured with thermocouples is better. But best of all is doing away with all the complexity of the high temperature device and repeating earlier experiments with the old ecat– experiments not involving phase changes just as Levi claims to have done but somehow didn’t calibrate, control or save the data from.
I am willing to bet you a lot of money that this will NEVER happen.
I would first require that the experiment NOT be done inside Rossi’s facilities. I would provide my own metered power supply. I would use a broad band power meter such as the Clark Hesse 2335A. ( http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335A.html ) On the output side, I would use thermocouples inside and outside the device.
I would propose that Essen and Levi not be involved. I’d like to see the ecat tested *officially* by a major US university department. U of Missouri would be fine– they’re friendly to LENR so enthusiasts should have no objection. Also OK would be CERN, ORNL or Sandia — all in their *official* capacity. It is not acceptable to have individual scientists from various institutions test the ecat on their own. Such tests seem to be done sloppily and never with sufficient attention to detail. I’d include an interested magician in setting up the test to avoid trickery and sleight of hand from Rossi. Banacek, as I noted before, is a good choice if available.
But better yet, I would demand that Rossi make an old ecat available outside his facility to reproduce the original simple and direct (but badly done) Levi test using liquid flow calorimetry. I would test that using the electrical heater to calibrate the output heat measuring system– to make sure it really measures the heat properly and accurately. I would also require a “blank” run in which the whole system is the same *except* that there is no hydrogen added to it. That, of course should show NO extra heat. ALL of that should have been done by Levi in 2011! It is inexcusable and inexplicable that he did not. It is SO OBVIOUS! And Levi and Rossi were told that many many times by many people, including friends of LENR.
I’d avoid going to a vastly more complicated hotter ecat when a much simpler, easier to test original model was available.
I am going to bet for the next test, if there is one, Rossi will have some new tricks. He tends not to use the same ones more than once or twice.
I am going to bet that there will be no megawatt plant shown and no *independent* customer. Maybe Rossi will scrape up another mystery anonymous customer. Or he will use one of his distributors. Like the German one which purportedly sells a magnetic motor that makes free energy.
Hope that answers your questions.
My primary concern about the latest measurements is that they have made a similar mistake, that they have assumed that the power meter is capable of measuring the power, event though it is intermittent. And that they did not do any measurements to confirm this. Which gives that the power consumed by the Ecat may be considerable larger than what they report.
An harmonic analyser samples the signal and does apply mathematics algorithms on the digital values to figure out the power (and energy with time). If he finds a null value inside a time interval, the samples will be null.
Why it shouldn’t work? Could you say the same for the digital energy meter of your energy provider?
It works fine, within the limits set by the sampling frequency and the bandwidth of the input filters and the current probes. If you are measuring on an unknown signal, which was what they did, it must first be confirmed that the signal are within these limits. This can be done with a high bandwidth oscilloscope, but it was evidently not done in the march test.
And yes, the same can be said for the energy meters from the power company. Thats why there are strict limits on what you allowed to connect to the power grid.
And note that I am not primarily suspecting that there is any power transferred during the “off” times. I am suspecting that a lot more power than the meter shows it transferred during the “on” times.
You are, as usual, guessing the scam hypothesis (DC component, high frequencies etc.)
Try to think to this: let’s assume the DC component hypothesis, and, imagine that one of the testers (e.g. Torbjörn Hartman or Bo Höistad) had taken a 10Euro multimeter, had switched it to “DC” and had connected the terminals to the wires that provide power to the control box or the E-Cat and had done all this just to kill time or just to control AC voltage but with a wrong position of the switch (has it never happened to you?), in your opinion, what would it be happen to Rossi’s business (or scam according to the point of view)?
What if your high frequencies had interfered with any instruments e.g. nonsense measurements, values that jump continuously etc.? Keep in count that we are speaking about kWs of power in high frequency i.e. hundreds of voltage or tens of current.
I’m not guessing. That the currents contain high frequency components is obvious from the figures in the appendix of the paper.
An honest error can be easily and quickly corrected.
But these testers (controlled by only Levi) went out of their way to avoid doing any credible measurements.
First, they still haven’t explained how they supposedly used an A/C-only meter to check for D/C current. They looked all over for an “extra” wire, while ignoring the extra wire right in the power cord. They just accepted the assumption that it “must” be normal, since a normal power cord would have that wire. But, of course, a normal power cord would be carrying current on all 3 phases, not just 2.
Meanwhile, instead of measuring the temperature of the E-Cat directly (which was the whole point of this silly exercise), they only measured the temperature on the outside of the furnace, using a very finicky equation to estimate the temperature of the E-Cat inside. Why not put a few thermocouples on the device itself? Not only would that be far more accurate, it would be easier as well. But instead, they used a truly bizarre method of indirectly inferring the temperature.
The simplest explanation is that whoever set up the test didn’t want the true results to be revealed. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to at least most of the testers, who just went along with whatever Rossi and Levi demanded.
“But these testers (controlled by only Levi) went out of their way to avoid doing any credible measurements.” That is an unproveable slander. That is the only sentence of your comment that I read. I will remember to not read any of your comments because you are slanderer, which is a lie aimed at harming innocent people. So I guess that makes it a double sin, lying and harming the innocent.
Please, people of the Mats Lewan forum, there is not much talk here about skeptopaths. Perhaps because this is a new forum. A skeptopath is different from a skeptic. All of us started off being skeptics. It is good to be a skeptic. But when people refuse to look at the evidence or tell lies and especially slander, then they are skeptopaths or patho-skeptics or pseudoskeptics. This is a mental illness which typing by you will not heal. No matter how clever or insightful or brilliant your ideas are, it is like talking to a wall. It is like trying to talk a hoarder out of being a boarder or trying to convince an anorexic that she is too skinny. It is a pointless discussion; you will never win such a discussion; you will never make a point that will stick; and you won’t ever come away from such a discussion feeling rewarded, ever.
Mats, I don’t care if a DC voltage could have snuck through the AC wire. I still believe Rossi, for reasons that maryyugo will never be able to understand, in the same way that I will never be able to see much difference between red and green.
Good! Ignore the facts and go with your “belief”. That’s how science is done! /sarc
The take-away from this is that none of the 7 testers understood how their test equipment worked, or what they were actually measuring.
Measuring the electrical power in was the easy part. Since they screwed that up, how can we believe anything else they claimed in the report?
John, you are perfectly free to believe like you do. I have been disbelieving Rossi for 1 year and 7 month, but the evidence for me has broken through the dam of my skepticism. If, however, I were going to put up any serious money, I would require a DC measurement like you are pointing out.
Did you notice that Rossi never allows two tests with the same machine and with the same measurement methods? That, after extensive critiques of the methods have appeared on the internet and in print, he never perfects the same experiment by meeting the objections?
For example, he never used calibration and blank (dummy) runs on any of his previous tests. But he does now on this test. Could that be because on previous tests, Rossi cheated with the output enthalpy measurement and now he cheats with the input power and its measurement?
Why in the world bother to test a so-called megawatt plant, like he did in October 2011, which requires a huge diesel generator in order to operate, instead of providing one of its 10kW modules for independent testing?
Don’t you ever ask yourself why nothing that Rossi ever does makes any sense scientifically or from a verification perspective?
This latest proposal to give someone the power also makes no sense. Why do it? What benefit does it provide other than six or more months of further delay before Rossi has to show anything?
Rossi claims he has sold 14 megawatt plants. Who has them?: Why can’t just one of them be interviewed or at least named? Rossy really can’t name a single customer for the most outstanding invention of the century? And he can’t just sell a fusion power plant, he has to sell the energy? Ridiculous, don’t you think? And when things don’t make sense, you need to be very suspicious that some trick is being pulled.
Why not have Essen’s team ask Levi to go back and retest the simple water cooled ecat he claims he did in February 2011? Except that this time, it would be done with independent experimenters (not involving Rossi or Levi) and it would include controls, blanks, and calibration runs and proper recording and analysis of the data– all in the open. It made more than 10kW for 18 hours and showed no signs of running out fuel. Test that! It’s easy and done properly, not in Rossi’s lab and truly independently, it would be impossible for Rossi to hide anything. Which, to my mind, is exactly why Rossi will never allow such a thing and instead, will make lame excuses for not doing the obvious just as he always does on his misnamed blog, JONP.
C’mon Mats. How difficult can this be? What is the explanation for all the weirdness if it isn’t that Rossi is simply cheating and Kullander, Essen and their team are not particularly effective at detecting it?
I suggest they get a technically capable magician to help them design a proper test, free of sleight of hand tricks and other typical Rossi manipulations. I suggest they ask Banacek. Maybe Elforsk can pay his modest fee or maybe he’d do it for free.
If you were you there, what would you do differently, really, given the circumstances?
Could you please specify not only the people that you would like to be present but, by part number and links, the devices that you think would be sufficient to satisfy your criticism?
Please give a list of equipment.
Please don’t deflect, again.
Their big problem on the input side is that they set up their test equipment “inside the black box”. Rossi provided the power cable that they used to measure the power. It’s been demonstrated that it’s easy to create a special power cable that will allow full current to pass without being detected by a clamp-on ammeter (see the “cheese videos” for an example).
Aside from that, there was an “extra” wire going between the electrical outlet and the control box, Why did Rossi have that “extra” wire that supposedly did nothing? They should remove it (or cut it in half) to prove that it isn’t secretly carrying extra power.
A terrific test would be to just unplug the device during the 4-minute “off” cycle, and see how that effects the temperature. If Rossi is being honest about his setup, it should have no effect.
FYI, if that “extra” wire was really carrying the 3-rd leg of the 3-phase power, then there is no “excess” power demonstrated in the test. I’ve done a quick & dirty version of “Plot 8” from the report, showing the full “Y” axis and showing the input power if the 3-rd wire was actually carrying power. It’s clear that the entire “excess” power claims disappear if the wiring gimmick was being used:
Here’s another simple test: Put thermocouples on the E-Cat core and on the tube furnace. If the E-Cat is really generating excess heat, it must get hotter than the tube furnace. If it’s a fraud, it will never get hotter than the tube furnace. Instead, the testers relied on indirect measurements of only the outside of the tube furnace, and tried to estimate the heat produced by the E-Cat using a formula that is very sensitive to measurement errors.
@ John Milstone
“FYI, if that “extra” wire was really carrying the 3-rd leg of the 3-phase power, then there is no “excess” power demonstrated in the test. I’ve done a quick & dirty version of “Plot 8″ from the report, showing the full “Y” axis and showing the input power if the 3-rd wire was actually carrying power. It’s clear that the entire “excess” power claims disappear if the wiring gimmick was being used:”
The 3-rd wire doesn’t carry any current as you can see in the picture added to the report, so it doesn’t contribute to the total power.
I suggest you to not be so confident in the “cheese video” because it’s a very poor trick already excluded since the testers checked the cables.
When it will be showed that it’s a BS (the same BS happened when someone said that Rossi carried power through the ground wire) you are going to be a perfect fool believing so much in silly like that without a minimum of critical sense.
Your plot demonstrates absolutely nothing because are only a few coloured lines with any sense, e.g. (one for all) you apply 1200W to a resistor and the output power is 800W.
The testers demonstrated that they don’t know what they’re doing when the claimed that the A/C only meter would rule out D/C.
A clamp-on ammeter can be easily fooled by a rigged wire. Rossi supplied the wire in question.
The fact that the wire supposedly carried no power makes it all the more suspicious that it was left in the circuit. Why not leave it out if it wasn’t doing anything?
The testers don’t explain how they checked the cables, nor do they describe what they actually “checked”. You’re just assuming that they performed the specific checks needed to eliminate this particular type of fraud. There is nothing in the report to support that assumption.
The plot simply shows that if Rossi was actually using all 3 phases of power (which the “extra” wire would allow), that the E-Cat no longer shows any excess power.
It also shows that when you alternate between 3 phases for 33% of the time and 1 phase for 66% of the time, the amount of power actually being fed into the E-Cat matches the observed output (COP of 2.5).
We’ll see whether the testers will specifically state that they excluded the possibility of multiple conductors in the wires, and we’ll see whether any future test is modified to exclude this possible fraud.
John, I don’t know if it helps you, but when I did 4 tests of the old E-Cat in 2011, all published on NyTeknik.se, I brought my own cables, checked tension and current on both sides of the control box, both AC and DC. I never found anything strange.
What was discussed at that time was the thermal energy measurement, specifically the steam quality.
Of course, taking in account the possibility that Rossi is cheating, he could introduce new ways of cheating over time. That is not my impression though.
What I believe we should look for are systematic errors that no one has yet discovered.
But changing up the trick is a very common tactic used by magicians as well as scam artists.
I find it very interesting that when Rossi was doing his “steam” demos that his apparent COP was 6, which just happens to be the difference in energy between just heating water to the boiling point and actually boiling the water. If I “assume” that my coffee maker is vaporizing all the water (rather than just using a tiny bit of steam to percolate the liquid water out of the reservoir) then I come up with an apparent COP of 6.
And now, the most likely fraud would be “sneaking” the 3rd phase power through an apparent “dead” wire (why have the wire there if it’s dead?). If we assume the simplest case, that the 3rd phase wire is on all the time, the average power input is 2.5 times what the meters showed (1.5 times as much as measured during the 1/3 “on” time, 0.5 times as much during the 2/3 “off” time).
I find it very suspicious that in both the publicly viewed tests and this latest “independent” test, that the claimed COP just happens to be exactly what the most likely method of fraud would produce.
If Rossi does allow more tests, I certainly hope they don’t have “extra” wires that are supposedly dead, and that the testers don’t rely on a power cord that Rossi supplied, and that they bother to learn what their test equipment can or cannot do.
Even better would be to bring in a credible skeptic or two, rather than relying primarily on Levi and Essen, who came in to this test with well-documented opinions already formed.
@ John Milstone
>”The testers don’t explain how they checked the cables, nor do they describe what they actually “checked””
Oh my God!!
Now I see, it’s pure paranoia.
It’s a cable for kWs power, not the Higgs’ boson. You don’t need the LHC, ATLAS and CMS to find out that there is a wire hidden inside another wire. You have to strip the insulation in order to connect a connector for voltage measurements, you have to take it in your hands, you have to connect to terminals, you have to screw/unscrew a terminal in order to connect it to the wire etc. etc.
They checked the cables, I don’t think they only take note of the color, do you?
@ Mats Lewan
” I brought my own cables, checked tension and current on both sides of the control box, both AC and DC. I never found anything strange.”
Exactly, but you remember that many skeptics complained that Rossi was carrying current through the ground wire, and when it was showed that there wasn’t any current in that wire (http://22passi.blogspot.it/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-2.html), they started to say that the wires were tricked i.e. a wire hidden inside another wire so the clamp meter measured 0 Ampere (the current would flow in both directions generating a null magnetic field for the clamp) despite the fact that the cable was a normal commercial cable with 2+1 normal wires inside as everyone can see in the pictures linked above.
Tony McConnell said:
I don’t see anything in the report about stripping insulation or connecting a connector for voltage or screwing/unscrewing a terminal, etc. etc.
Since Rossi provided the power cord, perhaps Rossi provided a convenient connection point for voltage measurements. The report doesn’t say, so your insistence that the testers did this is nothing more than speculation.
Just the fact that Rossi had an apparently “dead” wire running from the wall outlet to the controller box is suspicious, and should never have been accepted as part of the test setup.
And, it’s funny you should mention the Higgs Boson. Just last year, CERN falsely claimed to have detected faster-than-light neutrinos. It turned out that they had a bad cable.
@ John Milstone
>”I don’t see anything in the report about stripping insulation or connecting a connector for voltage or screwing/unscrewing a terminal, etc. etc.”
Wow! They had also to describe how they walked while the test was running: first the right foot, afterwards the left foot, then they had to specify that the buttons on the instruments were pressed with their fingers … oh, wait, they didn’t describe how they put the clamps on the wires and how they connected the PCs to the grid, I think this is enough to invalidate all the report, right?
>”Just the fact that Rossi had an apparently “dead” wire running from the wall outlet to the controller box is suspicious, and should never have been accepted as part of the test setup.”
There is nothing wrong in a wire with no current in a three-phase system. My father was a construction worker he was used to connect the angle grinder machine to one phases and the neutral wire, so in the others two phases there was no current at all. I can ensure you that every month the energy provider sent the bill because his energy meter worked without problems.
>”CERN falsely claimed to have detected faster-than-light neutrinos. It turned out that they had a bad cable.”
It wasn’t CERN, it was OPERA. They had a fibre optic cable not well connected to the measurement apparatus and not a tricky wire or stupidity like that. In fact they realized the problem by simply touching the connector (although a bit late 😉 ).
You’re sounding hysterical.
How they walked had no bearing on the test results. How the controller was wired to the power supply did.
No, but when the question is whether Rossi has a world-changing, once-in-a-century, or whether he is committing fraud, having a “dead” wire when there is no reason for it is hardly credible testing. Especially since a two-conductor wire forming a complete circuit is a well-established way to send power through a wire without it showing up on a clamp-on ammeter.
Nothing in the report, the appendix or the comments of the testers exclude the “extra wire” gimmick from being the basis for the results of the test.
You can frantically claim that the testers must not have made such a simple mistake, but this very article points out that the testers did make such a simple mistake, when they falsely assumed that their ammeter measured DC current when it does no such thing.
Tony, perhaps you are new dealing with skeptopaths. maryyugo will avoid the question somehow. They are like hoarders or anorexics. You can have a perfectly rational conversation with them about how their pathology is unreasonable or not true, but they will persist in their pathology, no matter how clever you present your case. Their pathology is an absolute refraining from looking at the evidence or thinking for themselves. I did not use the word “refusal” because it implies a lot of effort. They aren’t resisting the urge to look at the evidence. The evidence repulses them, scares them. They don’t have to work hard at not looking at it; they just ain’t goin’ do it.
@ John Milstone
>”he testers did make such a simple mistake, when they falsely assumed that their ammeter measured DC current when it does no such thing”
That is true, but it doesn’t mean that there was a DC component. It simply means that we need another test (which was already scheduled) to rule that out.
For all the other things you mentioned, I think it’s only your obsession. If you think that in a report a researcher or a technician has to write black on white that he has unscrewed a terminal to connect a wire or he has stripped the insulation to connect an instrument, well …, I repeat myself …, this is pure paranoia, and you are a paranoid.
You insist too much with the “wire hidden inside the wire” hypothesis, it’s typical attitude by people that have never taken a screwdriver, in their hands.
The apparent COP of your coffee maker would be about 7.2 from room temp but who cares about details when you are trying to bash somebody right.
“Tony, perhaps you are new dealing with skeptopaths. maryyugo will avoid the question somehow. They are like hoarders or anorexics. You can have a perfectly rational conversation with them about how their pathology is unreasonable or not true, but they will persist in their pathology, no matter how clever you present your case.”
Wrong again, Roger. See my two DETAILED replies below. Perhaps you could reply to the issues I raised? Or would you prefer to continue your silly and ineffective rant about “skeptopaths”? Does that make you feel better about Rossi’s and Defkalion’s consistent unfilled promises, unkept schedules, bad tests, and obvious lies?
Please folks, calm down. I don’t want any more talk on who is what, no personal comments on being pseudoskeptic or anything of the sort.
I’ll have to cancel such comments.
Everyone is free to express opinions on methods etc, without being attacked.
I could be that he isnt cheating at all because there is no proof of cheating just wild speculation. it’s funny how every second word is cheat, trickery and slight of hand. Have you ever considered that he may have what he claims? In the end Rossi will be in the history books as one of the worlds greatest inventors or one of the greatest fraudsters.
If Rossi has what he claims, he’s behaving like a total fool. Nobody intelligent enough to develop a practical LENR reactor would do that, in my opinion. It isn’t that great a fraud compared to a master like Madoff. It’s just average for high tech. Sort of like Steorn.
The appendix was very interesting to look at, and points at the probable error in the power measurements. The plots of the current shows that it is very intermittent, as it consists of current spikes at a frequency of 100 Hz. Thus it is very questionable if the measurement instrument can measure the power correctly, as the specification of the PCE-830 gives that the power has to continuos. It is also questionable if the amplitude itself of the current spikes is measured correctly as it depends on the bandwidth of the clamped sensors and on the input bandwidth of the instrument. The only way to verify this is to use a current shunt resistor and an oscilloscope, something that evidently was not done in the experiments documented in the report.
In total this gives that the input power was not measured with any confidence during these tests.
Inget verka tyda på att instrumentet PCE 830 kan mäta likström, i specifikationerna står det endast AC, AC och AC.. AC watt, AC A och AC volt.
Som du ser på sidan med olika Clampmeterar så står det med i specifikationerna på dem som klarar av att mäta DC, men på PCE 830 står det som sagt bara AC, AC och AC.
Dessutom har instrumentet en inställning av ett CT värde, som betyder Current Transformer(strömtransformator), vilket clampmetrarna som bara klarar växelström kallas
Jag har just fått svar från PCE Instruments UK Ltd som bekräftar att PCE-830 inte kan mäta DC spänning. Se uppdatering ovan.
Very good research, indeed.
On the other hand, how could we make an invisible AC-DC addition, that remains undetected when the load is switching ?
There were no restrictions on plugging something else in the wall socket, or to use an oscilloscope to check. Most adapters or devices that were plugged into such socket would never survive. Not even a lightbulb would.
But then, how could one hide the DC ?
If it were done with a very very fast switching frequency inverter, capable of detecting a (known) load instantaneously so it could hide the DC instantaneously when no power is drawn from the plug. And how do you put something like that in series with the grid ?
There must be a reason why the manufacturer of the PCE-830 did not take into account DC.