(This update comes a little bit late, I apologize for that).
Defkalion’s reactor demo in Milan in July has been discussed extensively. A series of concerns have been raised, among them for the flow measurement not being accurate and for the flow of steam output into the sink being weaker than what could be expected.
Regarding the steam flow I already said that I regret not having opened the valve leading straight down towards the floor (the one we used when calibrating the water flow) to get a visual observation of the steam flow. I have later understood that others have asked to do the same thing but that Defkalion declined, arguing that opening that valve would disturb the equilibrium in the system.
After the demo I sent a couple of follow up questions to Defkalion’s chief scientist, John Hadjichristos, and I would like to share his answers here.
Mats: A Faraday cage only shields from electric fields, not magnetic fields. Can you discuss further how the strong magnetic fields you mentioned, reaching 1.6 Tesla, were shielded?
Hadjichristos: First of all we wish to clarify that the reported magnetic anomalies values relate to peak measurements. Shielding of such “noise” is done using mu metal materials and solenoids during tests having the declared objectives as in the protocol submitted to ICCF18. I apologize for the technically not correct use of the terms “cage” or “Faraday cage” as used in our internal lab jargon.
From a reader: At the time from 21:10 till 21:33 the output temp raised from 143°C to 166°C. But inner reactor temp was all the time constant at 355°C-358°C and coolant flow was 0,57 – 0.59 liter/min also constant. Is there any explanation for this phenomenon?
Hadjichristos: When coolant is in dry steam condition, flow is not constant. A pressure barrier within the coil surrounding the reactor creates flow flactuations that result to such ‘strange’ thermal behavior of coolant during the aforsaid period, srongly related also with stored energy in reactor’s metals. This can be easily explained noting also:
As I explained live during the demo, the flow measurement algorithm in our Labview software uses the slope (first derivative) of the plot of the reported fn pulses from the flow meter and not the n/(1/f1+1/f2+…+1/fn) or the more common in use (f1+f2+…+fn)/n methods, as the later are very sensitive leeding to huge systematic errors and wrong calorimetry results due to such fluctuations when occurred. The consequence “cost” of the method we use is the delay on the reported values on screen, which obviously does not influence the total energy output calculations with any “noise” as all fn values are used, whilst all thermometry measurements are “quicker” reporting “on screen”. All such 3 flow calculation methods from the flow meter’s signals give indentical instant flow measurement results only when f1=f2=…=fn aka when no steam pressure blocks water to flow from the grid smoothly.
Thanks to your reader bringing up this, not very much commented/analyzed in blogs, issue on flow wrong algorithms in use in similar calorimetry configurations.
Mats: Could you tell me which other external persons/validators were supposed to come and why they didn’t come?
Hadjichristos: No.
Mats: The sink where the steam was output, was it a normal sink with an open hole in the bottom leading to the ordinary drainage network, or was there any active venting, e.g. a fan, drawing gas down the sink? Could you also tell me the inner diameter of the steam outlet tube?
Hadjichristos: There was not any active venting to or in the drainage. The output pipe driving the steam to the drainage network was a 1/2″ diameter cooper pipe (not thermal insulated after the Tout thermocouple) whilst the PVC drainage pipe diameter was 2″. Cold water was flowing into the drainage hole from a water supply to protect the PVC drainage pipe from melting.
– – – –
Finally I would like to share some photos from the demo (click on the images for larger view).
Mats Lewan: The Biggest Shift Ever. 
@ maarius
JCM, you speak with big confidence in your hands. Every one likes a saga to follow like gladiators, but you raise the level of discourse to accusation instead of voicing your opinions.
Not opinions my friend, is the stark truth.
You continue to shout but remain hide behind curtain of online anonymity.
Don’t you think that I am forced to stay anonymus?
My friend, just act (prove) or change your song. LENR is not only DGT.
So what? What are You doing to ascertain the truth and to keep LENR research protected from cheaters? chattering on a Blog?
JCM, you speak with big confidence in your hands. Every one likes a saga to follow like gladiators, but you raise the level of discourse to accusation instead of voicing your opinions. Ok, DGT has stayed quiet, it is their prerogative. You continue to shout but remain hide behind curtain of online anonymity. My friend, just act (prove) or change your song. LENR is not only DGT.
Blog posts are a duality.
1. They openly show free words of all. Good
2. They are conversations not full pieces of useful information. Bad
Not just free words. I spoke of real facts.
What is missing is the continuation of this history to highlight the cheating and this should be the real update to be publish here.
Blog posts are a duality.
1. They openly show free words of all. Good
2. They are conversations not full pieces of useful information. Bad
This site administration here should be obligiated to make collection analysis of its postings. Especially situations when criticism against author for possible mistake lies open. If someone openly accused my restaurant of fraudulent food to customers I would speak truth and open doors to world chefs to verify and prove their categorisations against my business and I know this would give me positivity at the end because I know my work. Here we have technology that will change the world in all areas and business sectors. Even my ovens! And only on blog posts it is to be defined if works or not works? This silence is to me clear indication of a game. Maybe a game for everyone here writing and watching and reading. Maybe a game because no real clear understanding of magnitude in this technology. Business, political, society, wars and diplomatics will change. IF this is real. Now before everyone gives reports. Everyone discuss NASA. Why now silence? Why now no comments from company, from scientific, from customers, from journalists???? So that is why big media is not persuading enough to give coverage and lose their job. I want to invest for my business because of philosophy and economy. But dreams I will not invest. The exciting to me activity from now is not who will provide technology. It is who will fall first. I expecting a domino collapse. Nuclear will win. Solar will win. Not because they are better, cheaper, cleaner. But because there is anything else in practical horizon of electrical power to business. At end all these blog posts show me again that I cannot shoot duck for food because l am not in lake. I am in bath tub with rubber duck. To play maybe fun for children and adults that still want to dreaming of innocent baby years.
He’s like a jester.
You can see here wearing a T-shirt of NASA trying to impress naive people.
He shows a test set-up which makes use of a tank, set-up not adopted to check the real mass of water heated because their device failed any calorimetric test.
Defkalion CTO Hadjichristos has blogged since 2010, published papers, colaborated with professors, and has travelled the world to thousands of companies. Everyone supported him and nobody criticised him. Not even NASA!?! He has certainly impressed many important technologists. Now he is silent, so is their website, and so is their CEO. Why? Is something being prepared? Is something being avoided? Is something wrong?
@ Mats Lewan
I repeat: I never declared that Defkalion’s reactor worked. Only that it seemed so, “if you believe the values presented.”
Personally I understand what you mean but I think we have to consider some other aspects.
A large part of people (readers) are not able to build their own opinion analyzing technically the facts.
They trust completely of what you reported. They can’t have clear the difference between “it seems so” and “it is”.
This implies (mainly from a journalistic point of view) a big responsibility in the disclosure of scientific information and requires more work, checking continously the situation, activating the investigation even beyond the single episode you witnessed, expecially in LENR field.
My invitation to deepen directly with Dekalion EU refers precisely to your meritorious role as popularizer of scientific news and I believe is crucial to safeguard your professionality and credibility toward readers.
Thank you for having allowed the publication of my experience on field, not just words and unqualified opinions (as some fans that wrote here and everywhere on web even if not aware of real facts).
I hope you will not wait “passively” the events, but rather be protagonist working strongly to bring out the truth, building conditions for.
My question “From a reader: At the time from 21:10 till 21:33 the output temp raised from 143°C to 166°C. But inner reactor temp was all the time constant at 355°C-358°C and coolant flow was 0,57 – 0.59 liter/min also constant. Is there any explanation for this phenomenon?”
is from Peter Gluck blog http://egooutpeters.blogspot.cz/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html?showComment=1374690383933#c8598954755555233901 .
Many thanks to Mr.Hadjichristos for his answer which is: “As I explained live during the demo, the flow measurement algorithm in our Labview software uses the slope (first derivative) of the plot of the reported fn pulses from the flow meter and not the n/(1/f1+1/f2+…+1/fn) or the more common in use (f1+f2+…+fn)/n methods, as the later are very sensitive leeding to huge systematic errors and wrong calorimetry results due to such fluctuations when occurred. The consequence ”cost” of the method we use is the delay on the reported values on screen, which obviously does not influence the total energy output calculations with any “noise” as all fn values are used, whilst all thermometry measurements are “quicker” reporting “on screen”. All such 3 flow calculation methods from the flow meter’s signals give indentical instant flow measurement results only when f1=f2=…=fn aka when no steam pressure blocks water to flow from the grid smoothly.”
I do not understand this explanation much but I believe, that for displeyed flow in litre/min, was not used flowmeter with 1 puls per liter.
Also I do not understand chass with argon, vakuum and other similar information for this type show. I expected this show prove anomalous energy under all doubts!
For this purpose is necessary input wattmeter, kitchen thermometer, an barel for instance 1000litr covered with obvious polyurethan foam. At beginning we will put to barel 200-300 litr water at normal temperature. Than all coolant ken flow through cupper pipe- all immers in barel water to barel.
We measure temperature at beginnen and at the end of show. From volume, temperature diference and input power we can say under all doubts, if we haw anomalous energy or not.
It is absolutely not important, if in this type of show is COP=2.0 or COP=4.25. It is irrelevant, how many energy we lost during this setting.
After proven energy at least with COP=2, we are ready to gou for nobel price.
Einar Tennfors wrote:
The exa(c)t value of the flow is, of course, not important here, the measured T_ch and T_coil give together a very clear result, there is no anomalous power source in the “reactor” chamber!
I would thank Einar for the technical evaluation.
His conclusion are in line with what I referred here and said many times.
If I may, again I’d like suggest to Mats (a victim in this story that should protect himself from any “bad history”), as soon as possible, to make a deep investigation by means of Defkalion EU in the name and to respect science and truth.
@JCM
No problem — I don’t need protection 😉
I repeat: I never declared that Defkalion’s reactor worked. Only that it seemed so, “if you believe the values presented.”
As far as I have understood, follow-up measurements with better accuracy will be made. Sooner or later we will know more.
Mats, I do agree that you do not need protections. But if you could push a bit for the truth to come out, it would be really nice.
And please, less sauna…. 😉
Mats, you said:”As far as I have understood, follow-up measurements with better accuracy will be made. Sooner or later we will know more.”
Better accuracy of the measurements will not change anything, the temperatures in chamber and in coil demonstrates very clearly that no extra power is released from the Ni lattice! Small amounts of released power donot require nuclear reactions and what we see is rather a reduction in power through the cooling system, the small increase in T_ch due to the decreased water cooling directs a larger fraction through other paths.
The test has succeeded in demonstrating that this approach to a magic energy source does not work! This is not surprising, since it agrees what we know about physics.
I would moreover suggest Mats to investigate on Mu Metal : I am quite sure it cannot stop a 1,6 Tesla magnetic field, expecially if it is not stable (do you remember? A peak of 1.6 Tesla, whixh story is even worse!). And to try to remember if he had a watch, or coins, or a pen, or glasses or any object with metal (even little pieces) as, for example, a non complete plastic microphone…
Mats, from the video, I found also temperatures for the July 23 test. Again, the internal chamber temperature T_ch = 360 ̊C is not increased significantly, the coil temperature is T_coil = 280 ̊C and the heat transport from chamber to coil obviously reduced. This clearly shows that the difference between the rgon case and the hydrogen case is a reduction in cooling efficiency, caused by a lower flow of water and thermal insulation due to a wider sheath of steam. This leads to the problem with the flow measurement.
In the May test, it is obvious that the flow fluctuates and makes the diagram difficult to evaluate. Hadjichristos describes how this is treated with an algorithm based on the slope of the curve given by the flow meter pulses. He also notes that it gives the sam result as the mean value mean value and the harmonic mean value only when the flow is constant.
Since the T_out varies rather smoothly, using the T_out together with a sliding mean of neighbouring flow values would be a reasonable way of finding the output power. In the argon case, P_out seems to vary smoothly also, all the mean values are rather equal, and the calibration of the flow meter works well. In the argon case, however, steam pressure blocks the water from flowing smoothly, the time derivative is significantly different from zero, and the calibration from the previous day is no longer valid.
The exat value of the flow is, of course, not important here, the measured T_ch and T_coil give together a very clear result, there is no anomalous power source in the “reactor” chamber! This heat transport is completely due to heat conduction, no convection is involved!
To say something positive, it is good to find a test good enough to give a clear answer, often these tests lead only to uncertainty.
sorry, this one is in between.
http://shutdownrossi.com/gary-reply-to-peter-gluck/
I must have missed one more from this and the first. But if you search for terms like “lie”, “fraud” of “scam”, around there, you can get an idea that here no one get closer to 1/1000 ratio…
by the way, the story went on a bit on the web. You can find an answer to Gary here
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.it/2012_12_01_archive.html
struck 2
>With such extensive ‘sure’ and ‘confident’ allegations of fraud
>one would expect Defkalion to strike an online defense or
>to demand immediate cancelation of all negativity.
>Why has neither happened?
I answered but seems as if three links are too much and I am in moderation. I am now trying putting only one.
I do belive answer is the same as for the story of Rossi and Gary Wright
have a look here. Does it sound somehow familiar?
With such extensive ‘sure’ and ‘confident’ allegations of fraud one would expect Defkalion to strike an online defense or to demand immediate cancelation of all negativity. Why has neither happened?
>With such extensive ‘sure’ and ‘confident’ allegations of fraud one would expect Defkalion to strike an online defense or to demand immediate cancelation of all negativity. Why has neither happened?
AHAHAHAHA!
That would be really funny!
You know? It has been a lot since around Rossi someone (Rossi himself?) said that if someone had to write it was a fraud, his legal department would have collect data to pursuit the writer in (any?) court. Guess what happened… (and you can read the whole invite to be legally pursued here written 18 december 2012 and online since then)
You know what the matter is? To go to a court would end up with a true “thirdy part” test, without any limit to testers and without any NDA. No more deaf-sauna-accustomed-mu-metal-dressed people around the E-Cat or the Hyperion. Do you think Rossi or some greek fellow would enter that fight?
😀
8 October 2013
Reading a webpage http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/programma/moebius/2013-08-04/danze-cretesi-fusione-fredda-124603.php [translated in English]
Cold Fusion, after our live stream and the many comments received by technicians from different countries, the company Defkalion decides to more precise measurements.
What means more precise measurements?
Are they preparing to admit that true COP was less than 1?
What do you think Mats? Have you news from Defkalion EU or recently you spoke with them?
Have a look at the article “Cold Fusion Catalyst” on the e-Cat Site now Cold fusion now.
@cimpy
please don’t play the manipulator.
LENr have been replicated… other story.
Defkalion was tested by Nelson, with enough access to make him happy… he forced defkalion to change the setup, but it was a test not a demo… His report is more revealing that Milan demo.
your claim that the water IS not what was told, is simply an unproven claim…
there is missing date so it MAY be different from what we know, assuming that the flowmeter few meters away from the reactor make a x2 error…
you raise interesting doubt on the output, but the claim that the flowmeter get fooled by a factor 2 is even more extraordinary…
as I explain you are using the hyperskeptical method, which is finding lack of data, because asking extraordinary evidences, that you transform in claimed data, then build improbable hypothesis that you carefully don’t check with reality, because for you a critic don’t need any evidence.
that is the hypercritical method.
fact is provided you don’t trust the flowmeter, we miss data.
fact is that the reason not to trust the flowmeter are weaker, more extraordinary than the reason to doubt on the output.
on one side you have an instruments which is calibrated at cold condition, and which is few meter away from the reactor… give me a proof that 2kW of heat in copper coil can fool a water meter at 0.9 l/min
fact is alos that you don’t explain why the COP is 0.5 with argon, and 1 with H2 ? which is impossible (even 0.9 should be hard). You just prove a COP of 2 in your hypothesis…
The error needed to support your hypotheis is factor 4 over estimation of flow.
on the other side you have just claims that flow is not what you claim, that steam is not evacuated
note that if steam is not evacuated at 0.9l/min, how can it be evacuated without sauna effect at half the volume only ? maybe because you can safely evacuate steam as Defkalion claim ?
did you estimate the effect of the 5 meter of copper pipe ?
or you claim there is no water at all ?
your claims are not coherent… even less coherent than what you criticize.
find a better idea.
for now you find slight doubt on defkalion theory, I found huge one on yours.
You have not followed the story enough seriously, or you should have a better knowledge
“the claim that the flowmeter get fooled”
No, it did not get fooled. It was part of the fraud. Bring your own, next time.
“note that if steam is not evacuated at 0.9l/min, how can it be evacuated without sauna effect at half the volume only ?”
What? Steam?? You must be deaf.
Why you ask me to call, I already investigated and I showed the truth.
Now, further contacts should be homework of mass media, not mine.
“due to real water flow was much lower than the Argon case”
That’s exactly the point: flow was clearly not what declared. Flow inside, to start with. Flow outside, to end with. Of course, you could not really misure what is coming in, but for dure you could have seen what would have come outside. Unless they buried the ending pipe…Whait! That’s exactly what they did…
😀
But AlainCo has a piece of paper stating Hyperion has been replicated, and tested and that says we are all liers..
😉
In the argon case, with 2.5 kW in, COP = 0.524 and 1.4 kW out the temperatures at the peak were: T_ch = 372 ̊C, T_coil = 130 ̊C, T_out = 100 ̊C, and T_in = 25 ̊C.
In the active case, with 2.5 kW in, COP = 3.08 and 7.7 kW out the temperatures at the peak were:
T_ch = 380 ̊C, T_coil = 310 ̊C, T_out = 100 ̊C, and T_in = 25 ̊C.
I believe that conditions are always as usual:
“T_ch” almost the same in both cases (few degrees less) because no extra energy exists for “active case” (just heating from resistances).
“T_coil” depends mainly from real flow of coolant (obviously also from Power In, however 2.5kW both cases), therefore it’s very likely that T_coil greater for the “active case” due to real water flow was much lower than the Argon case
(forget Power Out claim of 7.7 kW that is a just a calculation based on an hypothetic water flux).
I would like to have more data from the July test to see how the temperatures there compare with those from May.
If you need, some test data available looking the video http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US
Yes, I think we agree completely, tthere is no room for anomalous releasee of power! Thank you for the link!
Thanks for the update and for the links to the earlier (May 15 ) experiments! This certainly clarifies what is going on, by providing temperature measurements at different points and Hadjichristos comments on the coolant flow. I still miss a link to more details aboput the July 23 measurements, so I use the May 15 data to illustrate my point:
Thermocoupåles were located in the “reactor” chamber, T_ch , at the cooling coil, T_coil, at the cooling Water inlet, T_in, and at the outlet, T_out.
In the argon case, with 2.5 kW in, COP = 0.524 and 1.4 kW out the temperatures at the peak were:
T_ch = 372 ̊C, T_coil = 130 ̊C, T_out = 100 ̊C, and T_in = 25 ̊C.
In the active case, with 2.5 kW in, COP = 3.08 and 7.7 kW out the temperatures at the peak were:
T_ch = 380 ̊C, T_coil = 310 ̊C, T_out = 100 ̊C, and T_in = 25 ̊C.
An extra source of power in the “reaction” chamber would have increased T_ch more than the increase of T_coil. Obviously, this cannot be the case!
Instead, we have to look what happens between the coil and the cooling water! With the high coil temperatures, steam forms a thermal insulating layer, reducing the efficiency of cooling and increasing the coil temperature in order to restore the cooling power. As Hadjichristos points out, the flow is not constant, the steam reduces the flow in an irregular fashion. How this affects the flow measurement is difficult to tell. Hadjichristos suggests that the algorithm they use is better than various mean values.
There is still a difference between the two cases that we would like to understand. There may be two possible solutions to transfer the same power, one with a thin steam layer and low T_coil and one with a thick steam layer and high T_coil. Which one is chosen depends on some delicate balance. We know that they objected to calibrate the flow meter in the “active” case because that would disturb the balance. This could be what switches between the two modes!
How do we then explain the obtained P_out? If we calculate the water flow using P_out = (T_out – T_in)*4.18*F (in g/s), we arrive at F = 0.84 l/min in the argon case and F = 1.5 l/min in the hydrogen case.
According to the protocol, calibration should be made for 0.2 and 0.8 l/s flow. For the July test, F = 0.6 l/min have been mentioned and agrees with the reported P_out and T_out.
If we use the same flow value for the May test, the P_out = 1.4 kW for argon would require T_out = 130 ̊C and the P_out = 7.7 kW for hydrogen would require T_out = 310 ̊C, i.e. the values measured at the coil! Is this a coincidence or has the algorithm been fed with the wrong temperature reading? If F = 0.6 l/min, the active COP is down to COP = 1! If the flow is further reduced, it is lower.
I would like to have more data from the July test to see how the temperatures there compare with those from May.
@ JCM
it was a “third party flowmeter” not under their control.
The way you say that suggests that you think Defkalion deliberately tampered the flowmeter in order to cheat who was attending the demo.
Since the flowmeter provided correct reading during the calibrations, I would see two ways for doing that:
– by installing some kind of “remote control” in the flowmeter that someone should activate or control during the demo;
– by acting via software i.e. changing the value provided by the flowmeter before displaying in video and before (or inside) the LabView elaboration.
Both require a deliberate action because there is no way that the flow meter works exactly fine during the calibrations and gives wrong values, but exact for the declared power, during the (supposed) reaction. In other words are you suggesting that the demo that we saw and the demos for the customers, at least that one which you attended, were a complete hoax?
The only problem I see is during the 23 of July’s demo. Why did they have so many problems in having a good value of power output and a value so different compared to the 22 July’s demo? If it’s only the matter of pushing a button to get the wanted reading of flow, the demo should had gone easy like the day before. Are you suggesting it was all fiction?
“Both require a deliberate action”
Was not it necessary, between the white run and the true run to make some adjustments? Was not a Greek technician supposed to flip a couple of flop? Or someone for him, in case…
“Or are you saying that Defkalion sent the machine to the thrdy part to add a flowmeter?”
Absolutely not, this independent flowmeter system was an old standard mechanical water meter (commonly installed by water grid company and looked with lead seals) located away from test setup and used in conjunction with a stopwatch.
You should really phone to Gamberale.
In case you miss it:
European R&D Center:
5 via Bastia, Milano 20139,
Italy
Phone : +39 0253 92829
Ask him about how serious was the “thirdy part” flowmeter you were speaking of.
Say exactly: “how precise was the thirdy part flowmeter?” and register the sounds you will be able to hear: those sounds will tell you Gamberale will have lost consciusness…
Add a own flowmeter it was no easy and time consuming.
To check the real water flux, it has been used the main flowmeter istalled by the company that supplied water to the flat. This instrument was less accurate but enough for the purpose, moreover it was a “third party flowmeter” not under their control.
To get an update and to give further information to all readers, I believe that anyone has interest to the truth, now should talk clearly with DGT Europe about events.
“it was a “third party flowmeter” not under their control
Are you joking? Or do you really believe that the fuelmeter on your car was not under the control of those who assembled your vheicle if it came from another Country? Or are you saying that Defkalion sent the machine to the thrdy part to add a flowmeter?
Please, come to your senses!
JCM, did you bring your own flowmeter? Any picture of it in the run phase?
Their technology and special parts…
The Spark Plug is a Champion model RE14MCC5
and the “High Voltage Generator” is composed by a Tecnolux “Neon Transformer” 230V/5000V half kW, powered by means of a Variac directly from the 230Vac power grid
http://www.tecnolux.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=47
Alainco,
your idea of “let the independent tester build all as designed, with his tools, his workers, his instruments” is not affordable by Defkalion: their Hyperion does NOT work. The point is exactly this: how could you show your magic engine producing more energy than what is coming in? You have two ways: let enter more power than what is declare and/or show more output than what is really obtained. Guess what? You can not really check at least one of the two, or the magic would not work…Is not this what Greek told to Lewan? Do you really expect them let you test it as you like? Have you seen what happened last time a group of skeptik saw that stuff , pretending to run, in a web streaming? They even argue upon Mats sweating! No, Defkalion can not afford this. You MUST believe their instruments.
I do repeat: to show how much good it is working, a non-greek flowmeter is enough. But Greek are right: this would make all magic disappear.
You ar right that independent test mean some independence.
One good way to avoid tricks, it to negotiate of a protocol with Defkalion, and let the independent tester build all as designed, with his tools, his workers, his instruments.
Thus you can rule out fraud…
another solution, more like what nelson did, is to go privately with defkalion, test with your instruments, discussing privately with defkalion, … thus they will be less afraid of “demo effect” and more open to change.
If it fails in private, the idea is just to understand the problem, correct it, and retest…
this is why the few opinion letter of Nelson, and the opinion of Lucan Gamberale have more value that our visual remote inspection.
anyway this is not the same as convincing brainlocked skeptics… they trust nothing and nobody if that helps their theory… for them nobody is independent if he accept LENR. no instruments works well, but their own eye.
for them the best is an open test with crosschecking all they say until their surrender… it can be long. one week at least, maybe one month. maybe never.
Hi Mats. I have a question (sorry if it was asked before).
When they performed the control run for you (with argon instead of hydrogen and Joule heat as the only power source), was the high voltage supply running? Were the spark plugs sparking?
And I have another question for Mr Lewan:
Do you believe in Milan Gamberale went on streaming BEFORE testing the machine privately? That is to say: do you really think he did not check anything before and really realized “some measurements matters” only during the ten hour test you attended?
I have read of more than one (ie: Cures and Nevanlinna and GoKatto, to nane the first three I remember) speaking of secret tests that must have take place, and on “22 Passi” Daniele gave credit to voices about a private team of expert that should have been around it in those days. Any info on this?
Look straight in my eyes, while you answer…
@Cimpy (looking straight into your eyes…)
I’m quite sure Gamberale has participated in other tests before, having formed a joint venture between his company Mose Srl and Defkalion.
We know Defkalion has performed several tests earlier, even though we don’t know the results. The signature JCM, who makes comments in this blog, claims to have participated in another test, being “an expert tester on behalf of a potential client”.
I have some indications that Defkalion has been reluctant to change the predefined test protocol in any way to any tester, e.g. in order to resolve uncertainties.
Themost consistent rumor says you do nit need to change the “predefined test protocol”: you need only YOUR own flowmeter. Might be JCM brought one. How about your?
@Cimpy
I didn’t bring a flow meter (I was not supposed to do any measurements at all — I was asked inadvertently to appear as independent controller). To insert another flow meter in the set-up would not be easy on the fly. I suppose that would be considered changing the protocol. Defkalion has even declined to open a valve for the steam to flow out in the room for visual observation.
So, point is: “independent=one who read the values on Defkalion instruments”.
Very clever indeed. From Defkalion point of view, of course.
The other element which seems implausible is that such a small reaction chamber -34mm in diameter, 75mm in length- can transmit enough heat to vaporize all the water. Imagine inserting the resistance from your kitchen stove in that small hole -you can imagine it would be really, really hot in there even with the cooling loop.
That stove resistance generates about 2 Kw. If the flow measurements are accurate, the chamber was generating 20 Kw. No way the temperature was kept under 200C.
It is possible to build a simple thermal model of the chamber cylinder: 23 mm thickness, 0.013 square meters of surface, thermal conductivity of steel 17 W/(m*K). With a delta T of 100 degrees between the inside and the outside the heat flow is about 1000 Watts -or 5% of the expected value. Thermal modeling is not my field, but this estimate is reasonable.
Matts, thanks for following up. Now it is up to them to carry out a demonstration using a more reliable process. I guess they want to convince potential investors, rather than the public.
Note that Hadjichristos acknowledges steam in the pipe has enough pressure to affect the flow. That is very important because there is a possibility the steam reaches the flow meter. If that happens the flow meter will indicate a flow higher than real -that is a fundamental limitation of the device.
When they try to improve the process the results are negative. If the output pipe is open the steam pressure in the pipe decreases, so steam interferes less with the flow meter.
I can only make guesses, but the more details I learn the more convinced I’m DGT are fooling themselves by using a flawed test setup. It would only take a few hours for a skilled engineer to find out what is going on.
I guess they want to convince potential investors
That’s why they carefully avoid a skeptic team to do measurements with skeptic instruments on their machine. Or is that what we are waiting Luca Gamberale for?
Too bad they let see the stuff for 10 hours on web tv: even that was enough to point out small matters…
So to know, dr. Mats, are you able to read italian language?
@JCM
I take it. bad memory.. all was on the wall. I mismatcher with the pressure stabilizer, in an open “closet”.
about the video it seem that during the second session of explanation of the setup , when beginning scaling the bucket, there was some showing of the exit setup.
there is a view of the sinkhole in the first intro video about 8:36 (over 16:04)
The pipe is getting vertically nude after the thermocouple and the water tap with the bucket… then horizontally and down to the sinkhole. Why such a setup ? to allow working around? for cooling ? or pressure stabilisation ?
>> a question for Matt.
the sink hole is like a washing machine sewer connection, open with two coppen pipes, one from the reactor after about 4m of nude copper, and the fresh water.
>>another question to ask DGT is how long is the copper tube in the sewer? just at theentry, or deep in the pipe, causing a kind of ventury effect preventing exit of steam, thus sauna effect ?
the PVC sewer pipe after half a meter vertical, get horizontally to the wall.
there should thus leak some steam, but if the steam condensate in the sewer as expected, the sewer should swallow most of the steam. Question is how much is not swallowed.
like what you say, that is an hypothesis, and it should be checked too.
nb: when I say 30l/min it is 1.7m3/min and 30l/sec
that makes very fast steam in the pile, I agree, and much slower in the sewer
@Matt Lewans
What was the noise ambiance during the working time… We just hear a small hush from the microphone…
There should be some hush from the sinkhole
@DGT to be relayed by Matt if possible…
how was installed the copper pipe from the reactor in the sewer ? just in the sewer pipe, or deep inside ? or even further in the horizontal part ?
how to explain the moderate noise, the absence of visible steam in the room ?
Why the pipe is getting vertical up, horizontal then down to the sink hole ?
How was designed the evacuation ? what are the constraints and problems encountered ?
What is DGT opinion (they said it was present to the skeptic, but now this present is poisoned) whether the steam was dry or not ? about the pressure in the reactor and at the exhaust ?
Is there a model they propose about what is happening ?
@JCM
where I disagree the most with you is the usual sophism of hyperskeptical method users :
– there is missing data (OK)
– a fraud cannot be ruled out from the evidence we have (OK)
– thus (!!!) there is evidence of a fraud
– thus it is a fraud and (!!!) nothing is real
I agree that without more data, some scenario that you propose cannot be ruled out.
I also add that the big picture is very different and general fraud is not coherent with the rest of the story.
Your reason to be open-skeptic about the experiment are good… just don’t conclude before evidence. We need more data.
I am more concerned about Luca gamberale prudent position, than from our 9/11 deconstruction method.
I am more concerned about Luca gamberale prudent position, than from our 9/11 deconstruction method
As you mention him, I state I would really like to read a note here from Luca Gamberale himself on what he now must know of this story, from the 1.6 Tesla, the mu shield (do you really believe it?), the heat and the steam, to the changes in the green tech site (is not it the Europe Defkalion site?) someone pointed out. I would also ask to Gamberale if he has been contacted by Maurizio Melis who said something about a new appointment for an interview or the like at Moebius in september.
By the way, I would like to remember october is already started, and no Cold Fusion has been reported on Moebius after this one (since min 9:11) or directly this one
You are right, AlainCo, to be concerned: seems as if Gamberale is not really happy to be considered a partner of Greek Defkalion. Do you wonder why? I would really like to hear his voice again on this story but I think answer is he is not a squirrel-sitter
Quote from Peters blog:
>> http://www.onlineconversion.com/mixing_water.htm
>>
>> make a calculation of mixing 12 units of water at 15 C with 0.5 units pf steam at 160 C and you >> will obtain 12.5 units of water
>> at 43 C.
>> Where is the problem?
So the constantly flowing cold water is taking away all the heat. That cold water becomes about 43 C warm water and goes down the sewer. Like when you are emptying your bathtub.
I think this was just a clever way of getting rid of that huge amount of heat, specially during hot summer in Italy.
Have you noticed any changes in Europe Defkalion site?
Have a look by yourself
http://defkalion-energy.com/
Any piece of news on commercial relationship between Europe and Greek Defkalion?
Looks pretty sparse to me. They are probably in the middle of a re-do and just put that page up temporarily.
Are you joking, Hadjichristos? Do you really want us to believe you got 1,6 Tesla, there? Even measured as a peek? At 20 cm from source? And do you really want us to believe you got 500 km/h steam flow in that tube? Were all deaf at the time of the demo? Do you really believe we could even think it could works? Do you really think we are all stupid?
All Swedes are peaceful and placid and reasonable. Mats Lewan is a Swede. Therefore Mats Lewan is not going to ban you Cimpy for being obnoxious. You are new around here. Perhaps you need to do some research before you start spouting off with such anger.
Hi, Roger Bird.
You are right: Mats Lewan is a Swede, while I am Italian.
You can appreciate the difference: I do not trust unless it can be proved, that is, I do not want to believe, I want to see, and I did not see something working, there. I saw the same difference between reading a signal about a river (not seen anywhere) and feeling the river all around (even without a signal).
Of course, it must be a “Country difference”. I am waiting for someone to say Mats Lewan, being a Swede, would not sweat at all – you know: finnish sauna and the like…
By the way, not all people here around have closed eyes and ears.
See you around
😀
@ AlainCo
If I remember well the sinkhole was in a wall closet…
the closet should be like a sauna, but since most of the steam would have flown, and the closet was closed, it would not drammatically hurt the people present…
Sink in a wall closet?
Look carefully the video of streming at link:
http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US/videos/25225397
in particular starting from time 1h:13m
All the Sink was absolutely out any wall closet. Sink PVC pipes were fully visible.
Are you inventing new excuses now?
@JCM
you said it without data.
As you say the heat is not dissipated in the room.
about the flow of steam you are right that if not condensed straight in the sinkhole, the flow of steam would be important, about 1.7 m3/minute, or 30l/minute of steam…
the steam should warm the pipes, merge with others sewer water and finally condensate in the building sewers, thus making an aspiration, but much farther than my initial idea.
If I remember well the sinkhole was in a wall closet…
the closet should be like a sauna, but since most of the steam would have flown, and the closet was closed, it would not drammatically hurt the people present…
Where you are right, and I never deny it, is that there is missing data to be sure.
But your theory is not validated either.
It is uncertain, assuming you don’t trust the flowmeter.
If you trust the flowmeter not to have divided the flow by >4, because of some magic artifact, or some tricks, it is another story, and there is no incoherence, because all about the sink is not being sure of how 1kg/minute of steam behave in their setup.
anyway, to be sure there is a need of a better setup, so that question is closed.
I have no doubt that another question will be raised instantly…
This is why my advice since long is to make a long test along many days, hearing all hyper skeptical moving targets arguments, and closing them everyday until nothing serious stays.
The power of feedback.
So the steam was not condensed by the flow, as your estimation of the flow was suggesting.
I’ve said it several times but you have a very hard head …
If the flow is the one estimated, the steam have been cooled in the uninsulated copper pipe, then simply in the sewer. This mean the sewers were hot afterward…
a) If a minimum part of heat was dissipated into the copper pipe and then large heat were conducted everything in the sewers, as you said, what is the function of this PVC sink? Aesthetics?
I said that I checked: copper pipe ended into the PVC sink far and not in contact with the few mm of water present on its bottom and top of the sink was completely open therefore, if 35kW of thermal power were really produced, a huge steam and flux heat should come out from it.
Where were the huge steam and heat?
It should be a very hot ambient, but why Mats not sweat with all windows closed?
b) If instead tens of kW of thermal power has been dissipated into surrounding ambient directly in atmosphere by the copper pipe (not physically feasible for me), again it should be a very hot ambient, but why Mats not sweat with all windows closed?
Mats did you take photos of the sink (in particular inner)?
If yes, could you publish? Thanks.
@JCM Unfortunately I didn’t take any pictures of the sink.
Thank you, Mats.
Thanks for the data.
So the steam was not condensed by the flow, as your estimation of the flow was suggesting.
If the flow is the one estimated, the steam have been cooled in the uninsulated copper pipe, then simply in the sewer. This mean the sewers were hot afterward…
No hypothesis can be ruled out.
too bad.
Thanks Mats, much appreciated…. Does this satisfy anybody out there even a little bit? It’s all Greek to me.