Rossi: "Steam Was Superheated" in 1MW Plant Test

The discussion about wet and dry steam is one that goes back a long way in the E-Cat story, and there has been discussion here about the quality of the steam used in the 1-year 1MW E-Cat plant test. The question has come up on the Journal of Nuclear Physics recently with people trying to get more information for Andrea Rossi about some details of the ERV test which as not yet been published.

Rossi has not given much information away, but has given a few clues away. Interestingly, he has said that Fabio Penon (the “ERV”) has discounted some energy in his COP calculation to be conservative. Here are some Q&As from the JONP.

“You told Mats Lewan that to be conservative, the ERV ignored the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature.

“Did the ERV also ignore the energy corresponding to heating the vaporized water to temperatures above boiling point?”

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Sebastian:
Good question. Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

“About your answer to Sebastian:

“Does this imply that heating was done in stages?
I mean one core was boiling water and the next was superheating the steam from boiler section?”

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 4:31 PM
Oystein Lande:
It’s ok, thanks for your comprehension.
The circuit was complex, but yes, the steam was superheated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

If the steam was superheated, as far as I understand things it would be dry, and the temperature would be likely be some degrees higher than the boiling point. I will, however defer to readers here with more knowledge on the subject for more analysis.

  • Engineer48

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_steam

    “To produce superheated steam in a power plant or for processes (such as drying paper) the saturated steam drawn from a boiler is passed through a separate heating device (a superheater) which transfers additional heat to the steam by contact or by radiation.”

    “… superheated steam is dry…”

    “Other potential uses of superheated steam include: drying, cleaning, layering, reaction engineering, epoxy drying and film use where saturated to highly superheated steam is required at one atmospheric pressure or at high pressure. Ideal for steam drying, steam oxidation and chemical processing. Uses are in surface technologies, cleaning technologies, steam drying, catalysis, chemical reaction processing, surface drying technologies, curing technologies, energy systems and nanotechnologies. Superheated steam is not usually used in a heat exchanger due to low heat transfer co-efficient.[6] In refining and hydrocarbon industries superheated steam is mainly used for stripping and cleaning purposes.”

    • psi2u2

      “catalysis, chemical reaction processing…”

      Does that include metal sponges?

      • wpj

        No, the temp is usually 90C max, but it is anywhere from 50C depending on the type you want to make.

        By chemical processes they probably mean where water is one of the reactants.

        • Ged

          Hydrolysis, yo! Could also be useful for pre-treatment in cellulose breakdown for making biofuels.

          • Or Marmite!

            (Hydrolysed yeast extract – you may know it by some other name).

    • TomH

      Seems likely IH would know if there was a steam drum and reheater section.

      • Engineer48

        I would suspect the ECat would have it’s own superheater built it as the final output stage.

  • Engineer48

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_steam

    “To produce superheated steam in a power plant or for processes (such as drying paper) the saturated steam drawn from a boiler is passed through a separate heating device (a superheater) which transfers additional heat to the steam by contact or by radiation.”

    “… superheated steam is dry…”

    “Other potential uses of superheated steam include: drying, cleaning, layering, reaction engineering, epoxy drying and film use where saturated to highly superheated steam is required at one atmospheric pressure or at high pressure. Ideal for steam drying, steam oxidation and chemical processing. Uses are in surface technologies, cleaning technologies, steam drying, catalysis, chemical reaction processing, surface drying technologies, curing technologies, energy systems and nanotechnologies. Superheated steam is not usually used in a heat exchanger due to low heat transfer co-efficient.[6] In refining and hydrocarbon industries superheated steam is mainly used for stripping and cleaning purposes.”

    • psi2u2

      “catalysis, chemical reaction processing…”

      Does that include metal sponges?

      • wpj

        No, the temp is usually 90C max, but it is anywhere from 50C depending on the type you want to make.

        By chemical processes they probably mean where water is one of the reactants.

        • Ged

          Hydrolysis, yo! Could also be useful for pre-treatment in cellulose breakdown for making biofuels.

          • Or Marmite!

            (Hydrolysed yeast extract – you may know it by some other name).

    • TomH

      Seems likely IH would know if there was a steam drum and reheater section.

      • Engineer48

        I would suspect the ECat would have it’s own superheater built it as the final output stage.

  • Engineer48

    More information to understand what superheated steam is:
    http://www.systhermique.com/steam-condensate/services/troubleshooting/superheated-steam/

    “In a boiler, energy from the fuel is transfered to liquid water in order to create steam. At first, cold water gets warmer and receives energy in the form of “sensible heat”, right until the boiling point.

    Once the boiling point is reached, the water’s temperature ceases to rise and stays the same until all the water is vaporized. The water goes from a liquid state to a vapour state et receives energy in the form of “latent heat of vaporization”. As long as there’s some liquid water left, the steam’s temperature is the same as the liquid water’s. Steam is then called saturated steam.

    When all the water is vaporized, any subsequent addition of heat raises the steam’s temperature. Steam heated beyond the saturated steam level is called superheated steam.”

    • BillH

      In the contract it just mentions thermal energy in the form of hot water or steam, it doesn’t say anything about the quality. I don’t think flow rate or pressure are mentioned either. From this we might conclude that the customer may have processed the thermal energy further to meet it’s own requirements. This would be an added complication.

      • DrD

        According to Mats the customer didn’t use the steam itself. It went to a heat exchanger.

        • BillH

          And it was exchanged into? I’m very tempted to say hot air, so I shall, hehe.

          • Ged

            Industrial driers would certainly love that ;).

    • So how does this relate to the terms “wet steam” and “dry steam?”

      Is superheated steam by definition “dry steam?”

      If so, if the ERV reports a steam temperature above 100 deg C then that means dry steam, right? Or is there a fudge factor? What temperature and pressure combos can we be certain still contain no significant percentage of liquid water?

      • Engineer48

        Superheated steam by definition is dry as the steam temperature is above boiling temp and it contains no liquid water drops. Well not a lot.

        • So then we can be sure the entire volume of water is (approximately) fully vaporized and the heat calculations unambiguous.

          Would normal flow meters, temperature sensors and pressure sensors be able to prove superheated steam?

          What I’m trying to get at is where the potential errors are that IH may poke at.

          • Engineer48

            I’m not a steam measuring type of engineer but as I understand it, doing the output steam energy content measurenent is not difficult.

            There are instruments that can do this as one device.

          • DrD

            What Engineer48 says is correct because AR said the steam is nominally at atmpospheric pressure. Had the pressure increased subsantialy then steam may become wet (equivalent to the boiling point of water being raised). It’s well known how water boils at reduced temperature high in the mountains, same effect reversed. Unfortunately, I can’t find where AR said it was at 1 bar.
            However, I doubt IH will have made such a mistake, it’s far too subtle and too small.
            Actually, we haven’t heard from IH so we don’t know for a fact that they have said that other than their reply to the law suit which only says they failed to replicate. I mean it’s no small error if you can’t tell the difference between 1 and 50. In fact if you allow for the sensible heat that the ERV ignored (into the water AND the steam) PLUS the 10% safety margin then the COP was likely averaging >60 for the period of the test.

          • Engineer48

            120C at 1 bar is superheated dry steam.

            Volume will then give the energy content of the superheater steam.

          • Engineer48

            Yup you need all three.

            There are single instruments that combine all 3 in one unit.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          We can have all the water as a gas, but if we increased pressure then water droplets would form. If the gas is supercritical, then increasing pressure will NOT cause water droplets to form.
          We assume that superheated steam means supercritical? In this case, no matter what pressure – you not have any water droplets form.

          So one can have dry steam and scrub out any water droplets (or simply have a tempature and pressue in which all water is a gas). However additional pressure will cause water droplets to form. (and with droplets able to form, then nasty cavitation on the working turbine blades can occur).

          if the gas (water vapor) super critical, then no such water droplets can exist EVEN if we increase pressure.

          With supercritical steam, additional pressure will not cause water to form – the working fluid remains a gas. So one can squish the daylights
          out of that gas – it does not return to a liquid.

          Of course for a modern steam turbine, temperatures that can keep the working fluid in a gas state is desired. (that temp is 374C). (but the pressure is whopping 3200 PSI)

          If supercritical steam can be produced, then larger scale generation of electricity with ecat technology is possible. And even retro-fit of existing plants could occur

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Yup on the retro-fit of existing fossil thermal power plants.

            BTW with many thermal plants subcritical 550C steam, at the turbine inlet, is all that is needed.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Sure – that’s fair. I often stated here for “smaller” commercial/residential electric generation from LENR, then sterling engines are ideal (due to low maintains and such devices run like refrigerators for years on end). Sterling’s get a bad rap since they don’t produce a lot of power for a given size, but that don’t mean they have good efficiency. So we don’t see weed eaters or lawnmowers powered by sterling’s, but that’s due to their power density (size/weight) as opposed to such heat engines not having good efficiently (they do).

            However, if details pan out for direct electric generation from LENR, then we may well not need any kind of heat (carnot) engines except for large scale LENR generation of electricity.

            Dean Kamen (of Segway fame) has a really nice sterling engine that would be a marriage made in heaven for smaller LENR heat systems.

            https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/stories-of-innovation/visionaries/dean-kamen/#gallery-video=twd3NzMTrwdCBrpaXgZlc4Gu-EKAeS4r

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Trillions of dollars of existing fossil thermal power plants go begging to stop paying for their fossil fuel.

            Feed them 600C sub or supercritical QuarkX steam & the plant owners will love you, plus they will make more money than buying fossil fuels & enjoy lower maint costs.

      • Alan Smith

        The ‘superheated steam’ comment reminds me of arguments you can read about in the development of steam-powered railway locomotives. In order to improve efficiency and remove erosive and damaging water droplets from the steam before admission to the cylinders it (the steam) was passed through a network of tubes placed directly in the hot gases exhausted from the firebox. This raised its temperature slightly and re-evaporated any remaining water drops. These pipe networks were initially called ‘steam dryers’ – but when superheating (real superheating) became a fashionable addition to locomotives the term was changed to ”low-level superheating’.

        Skepticism about the loose use of this term is justified. Dry(ish) steam is not superheated steam.

        • Engineer48

          Rossi claimed superheated steam, which as the temp is above boiling, is dry. Well maybe a few holdout water droplets here & there.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Saturated 100 °C

      Superheated 374 °C

      Keep it simple

      • DrD

        550 deg C is possible from the Quark.

      • Engineer48

        Sure 374C at 219.63 bar.

        At 1 bar more like 120C.

        http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

        • Ophelia Rump

          People are interested in the difference in energy required to heat it. When you get exotic, you cease to communicate the reality of the difference in a way which people can relate to.

          • Engineer48

            Quoting a steam temp of 374C, that needs 219 bar pressure is about as far from reality as you can go.

            As I showed, 120C at 1 bar (14.5 PSI) pressure will give superheated dry steam.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Note that you have been using gauge pressure (barG), not absolute pressure (bar abs).

          • Engineer48

            Oops.

            OK make that 120C at 2 bar abs or 29 PSI

          • Engineer48

            Why not try this on for size?

            Assuming superheated steam at 120C at 29 PSI or 2 bar abs (specific entropy of 2,706 kJ/kg), recirculate at 60C at 14.5 PSI or 1 bar abs (specific entropy of 251 kJ/kg) and 36m^3/day of water as per Rossi statement.

            Using kW = (kJ/kg of steam – kJ/kg of recirculate) x 0.417kg/s we get 1,023.7 kW or 1.027MW.

            Amazing that it all fits together.

      • Slad

        eh? talk about ceasing to communicate the reality

      • Bruce Williams

        I think E48’s comment was very helpful & your reply is unnecessary.

        • timycelyn

          Indeed he did deny it. To quote. “…a clownesque invention…”

          Seems to be par for the course with IH these days, and underlines the unreliability of anything from that quarter, I’m sad to say.

          If they spin it any faster they could start having real problems with g forces…

      • Albert D. Kallal

        No, actually not so simple.
        That 374 refers to supercritical steam, not super-heated steam.

        a) We have Saturated steam (some water, some
        steam)

        b) We have superheated steam (as soon as all
        water is boiled into steam).
        At this point adding energy will raise the temperature of the gas, and NOT boil more water away since there is no liquid water left to boil. So just like a pot of water on the your stove, as long as there is water left, then temperature of that water will not increase. So that pot of boiling water will not see increased temperatures if you turn the stovetop on high, or low – it remains at boiling point of water. However once all the liquid water is boiled, then you have Superheated steam. And the pot (or boiler) will now see increasing
        temperatures beyond the boiling point of water since no water is left. This is superheated
        steam. Such steam can revert BACK into a liquid (water drops) by increasing pressure. You of course don’t want this in a typical boiler as that when things start to warp, or melt!

        So superheated steam does not require high temperatures. And it don’t require really much pressure beyond room pressure either. So this is just a simple term to denote when all the LIQUID water has turned into gas (all water been boiled from liquid into water vapor gas). Of course once all the water is boiled, then temperature NOW starts rising. This kind of dry steam can be used on a on a steam turbine – but if pressure increased or the temperature drops, then water droplets (liquid) water can form. And such vapor hitting the turbine blades will experience a drop in temperature (and usually pressure as
        work is done)– hopefully the drop in temperature (and pressure) keep the water
        above the superheated steam point.


        c) We then have supercritical steam. This
        stuff stays as gas, no matter how much you increase the pressure.

        You can try as hard as you want, but increasing pressure will NOT result in the water reverting to liquid! High performance turbine for electric generation plants use supercritical steam – this is the 374C temperature and keep in mind that the water pressure is whopping 3200 pounds. In this case, increasing pressure will NOT cause liquid water to form. (So you can crunch to 4000 or more lbs., and no water will form
        as liquid!).

        And in such turbines, the water is usually NOT returned to liquid form for the cycle. Of course JET engines turbines work rather well with air as a gas – no liquid air is used in your typical JET turbine either!

        So saturated steam, and dry steam (aka superheated steam) are BOTH significantly different then supercritical steam.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Engineer48

          Going over my email corro with Rossi, he did advise my potential client’s engineers to design the test load for the 10 x 1MW plants to use 105C superheated steam.

          Outlet pressure needs to be at or below 1.21 bar abs (17.55 PSI).

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I wonder why one would need 10 plants just for a test?

          • wpj

            Read his interesting posts and you will see why!

            Easier to read above!

          • Engineer48

            To run 750MWe of subcritical steam turbines needs around 2,200 x 1MWt 600C QuarkX reactors.

            10 x 1 MWt 105C reactors was to do testing on how they react together, handle load changes & determine reliability & maintenance issues.

            But now they hold until the court case dirt fight is over & settled down.

          • DrD

            What is your take on the possible impact of the court ruling? I assume you and your client believe there’s a possibility that it could block the contract so how likely do you that it is.

          • Engineer48

            The companies that own and operate large thermal power plants are run (operationally) by very conservative older engineers.

            Thus they will not guess the court outcome nor post effects on Leonardo & Rossi, will play a conservative hand and wait it out.

          • Engineer48

            Multiply the coal & gas generation figure by 3 for the required amount QuarkX reactor heat generation.

            The mind boggles.

          • DrD

            I can imagine Quarks becoming a currency, Just joking, but who knows. I hope he can ramp up faster than his current suggestions.

          • Engineer48

            I imagine GE would love to be a world wide Leonardo QuarkX licensee. Really doubt they would do a sub license with a Leonardo licensee (IH) when they can go to Leonardo direct and bypass IH.

            Sorry IH, no hard feelings, it is just business.

          • DrD

            AR needs something like that but I can imagine him being cautious (suspicious even) after what’s happened with IH.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi has already stated he is working with Siemens on high temp steam electricity generation.

          • Apparently the Chinese translation do not include the “believe” word … It says: “The nickel reaction has the following advantages: …”

            It is of course NOT a non-issue, since it is sales material used by Darden/IH that shows clearly what they were selling to the Chinese.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            BTW, does this company still hold the E-Cat licence for Australia (in this case one might guess you are connected to them)?

            https://www.ecat.tech/

          • wpj

            No.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi told me Leonardo holds the license for Australia and so I’m talking to him directly, well directly via email.

          • psi2u2

            It is unwise in my estimation, in our present circumstance, to reject any piece of evidence as inconsequential by this sort of classification. This is an element in the circumstantial evidence for the reality of LENR, of its being taken seriously by big players in industry and government.

          • DFarwell

            Point taken Psi, I suppose I summed this up a bit too simplistically and hastily out of frustration as my actual post was ‘removed’.

          • psi2u2

            Sorry. I often find your posts to be educational even when I don’t agree with them.

          • Niaga Dennab

            I have to agree with you here Psi, I try take knowledge from both sides of the fence whether it be this situation or even something as outlandish as UFOs or the mysterious carvings of Pumapunku! This whole saga is getting really interesting!!!!

          • Roland

            Exactly.

            The list of very serious players ready to ignore the invalidated contractual rights IH still purports to ‘control’ and just get on with it (by directly contacting Leonardo after the Quark demo) will shift the field of battle very rapidly in Rossi’s favour; make friends and allies and money now, then crush yesterday’s enemies later from a position of unassailable strength based on fuelling a lasting future for humanity.

            What would Norman do?

          • Engineer48

            YES!

            Once Rossi demonstrates commercial 600C QuarkX steam it is ALL OVER!

            The big power plant manufacturing boys and the very large NRG’s (thermal power plant owners and operators) of the world will pay whatever Leonardo demands for a license.

            None will go to IH or any licensee, as the big boys will only sign direct with Leonardo.

            In this way, just maybe Rossi used Darden to get worldwide exposure for the 1MW ECat 1 year trial.

          • DrD

            You say it will be “all over” if he gives us 600C steam but what about the exclusive license ? Your client is waiting for the outcome of the court and if IH manage to retain the license rights that might throw a spanner in the works.

          • Engineer48

            My client is Australian and not in IH territory.

            I really doubt the licensed territory structure will survive as many way to get around it, as it is only binding on the licensee or sub licensee and not binding on those they sell the plant too.

            Simple for someone to buy plants from Leonardo in Europe and offer them for sale to whoever, wherever as whole plant or in broken down components and locally assembled.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            See my above response. Until the legal issue is resolved, that does NOT prevent Rossi from selling machines into say the USA. However, it would mean that when the court case is resolved, then IH will be able to make a claim against every ecat sold in the USA since they own that territory.
            So the selling of the ecats is not the issue, but Rossi have to potentially pay out money back to IH for every sale would be most certainly an issue. I doubt Rossi wants to build up a sales network or start delivering machines into the US marketplace only to find out down the road that such sales belong to IH and they are to be compensated for such sales. And such court cases usually take about 10 years.
            Certainly IH would have to come good on their 90 million (but not during the court case). However, in the meantime, sales of ecats and the profits of such could still well be awarded to IH.
            So selling machines is not the issue – the risk of those sales belonging to someone else such as IH is the problem.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Roland

            IH is in breach of contract so their claim to rights under the licensing provisions are suspect at best; this weakness may cause some entities (other than crusty steam engineers) to proceed as though the contract doesn’t exist in the knowledge that the present benefits of participation vastly outweigh any potential legal consequences raised by a lessor entity like IH down the road.

            Am I advocating Bill Gates style hardball tactics?

            Yup.

            APCO’s entry into game has clarified the moral dimensions of the current conflict, in a way few other companies could, and the gloves are definitely off.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Right but if AR sells a bunch of units, and then HI comes up with money, or
            accepts the terms of their contracts, then any LENR unit sold under the
            agreement terms will mean that Rossi will have to pay HI for lost damages due
            to Rossi selling devices into a licensed territory by HI.

            In other words, Rossi can risk sellingmachines in to the US marketplace, but those sales belong to HI (assuming HI and AR resolve their disagreements).

            So HI can sit back, let Rosso do all the work, and sell units into the US market. Then when the court case is resolved or they pay the 90 million, then all machines that Rossi sold means are machines that HI rightly would have received compensation for.

            So I doubt Rossi going to sell units into the US market until the legal issues are resolved, since if an agreement occurs (or settlement) is forced by the courts, then HI could wind up paying the 90 million, but then be owned compensation for any machine Rossi sells into that jurisdiction.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            From what I know of Italians in business, and I know quite a few, IH will never get a dollar from Rossi.

          • I also guess it’s more attractive to go to the inventor who has all the necessary knowhow, also on future R&D, than going to an entity with a disputed license, furthermore without enough knowledge to ‘substantiate the claims’ by the inventor whose technology it licensed.

          • Funny there’s no LENR in the projection part 😉

          • Things is even 50% dry steam produces an impressive COP at the described flow rate.

            The steam would have to be mostly wet for COP to fall below 6. That’s the opposite of 105 deg C superheated steam at anything close to atmospheric pressure. So far this is all Rossi says but if what Rossi says corresponds to what is in the ERV report then I would expect IH to challenge the flow rate or just say the whole report is a fabrication as were the measurements.

          • Engineer48

            Designing for 105C superheater steam was his advice to thermal power plant steam engineers who eat this stuff for breakfast.

            BTW when you put superheated steam into the primary (ECat side) inlet of a heat exchanger and what comes out the primary outlet (ECat side) of the heat exchanges is not superheater steam, all the thermal energy difference (which is heaps), heats the primary side of the heat exchanger to basically just a bit below the dry steam temperature.

    • Gerard McEk

      So if we assume say 20 or 40 meters to the location where the steam is used and we want to transport it without pumps, what would be a reasonable pressure/temperature to transport 1 MW of heat energy?

    • LuFong

      “Because it conducts heat badly, superheated steam has a poor heat transfer capacity.”

      The difference is significant, on the order of a factor of 10, so I’m wondering why superheated steam is being used. From what I’ve read superheated steam makes sense for turbines because there are no water droplets affecting the fan blades but other than that saturated steam is what you want. Some engineer who has some actual experience with these kinds of things (Slad?) might want to comment. Perhaps it’s no longer superheated when it gets to the “customer” side.

      “Superheated steam is mainly used in propulsion/drive applications such as turbines, and is not typically used for heat transfer applications.”

      http://www.tlv.com/global/US/steam-theory/types-of-steam.html

      • timycelyn

        Probably not massively superheated, just enough to avoid any spurious condensation problems before the ‘reactor’ or whatever the steam went to. This would ensure smooth running of the process, no water locks, etc.

        120C or thereabouts, I would guess.

        • Engineer48

          Yup at 2 bar abs or 29 PSI, which at 36m^3 per day generates 1MW of steam.

        • LuFong

          That’s what I suggested.

      • Mats stated on his blog that he
        have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH).”

        Weaver claims:
        My guess is that he is a self-employed contractor who needed some work. No self-respecting nuclear certification agency would have taken on this assignment. I think that Rossi has made a mistake by not engaging a straight forward boiler expert.

        Rossi is going to have to wait and find out what Penon sent to others prior to the “final report” in court.

        Rossi is terrified of the day that the “ERV” becomes public.

        This doeas not exactly add up. I covered some of the Weaver deceptions by browsing through his Disqus logs: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/digging-deep-into-the-dunghill-of-dewey-weaver-deceptions-and-lies/

        • cashmemorz

          “engaging a straight forward boiler expert” . Do such experts have familiarity with nuclear theory such as Penon did, just in case? Easy to criticize after the fact but Rossi knew best what kind of background(s) the EVR should have.

          • SG

            It isn’t even clear that Penon is a Rossi selection. Penon comes onto the scene right around the time IH did–and both Ross and IH agreed to have Penon be the ERV.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            The more information we get the more I get convinced that the effect is real.

            And we dont have the ashes analysis wich AR and IH should have. And if there is transmutation of the elements, then…

          • Engineer48

            That is what Rossi said he instructed the ERV to do, as well as to remove the energy necessary to get to wet steam condition and then to remove the energy necessary to heat the dry steam above the min dry steam temperature.

            So the ERV was instructed to measure only the vaporization energy required and then to subtract 10%. Or a very conservative thermal energy gain that only measured the energy involved in going from boiling water (wet steam) to dry steam at as of yet unknown pressure.

        • Engineer48

          Weaver also claimed the reactor was in an adjacent warehouse unit to that of the customer, which it turns out is not correct as both apparently occupied the same warehouse unit.

          • Oystein Lande

            “If I where Rossi”

            If I where to develop a boiler producing steam, I would interested to avoid a boiler which produced partly steam and hot water, i.e which coughed and sputtered two phase steam and water.

            If I wanted to make modularized Compact boilers of say 250 KW, I needed to engineer the internals intelligently to secure pure steam from each module.

            To secure pure steam I would be interested to engineer a Solution of internals which results in Gradually heating, Boiling and final superheating to secure evaporate any remaining droplet in steam phase before it left the module.

            Solution: A 250 KW module where heating where done in stages: heating section(s), boiler section(s) and a following superheating section(s). This may be engineered in a number of ways.

            And If Rossi has it, this is likely part of the Solution.

          • Yes, for the calculations of the ERV, per the agreement. So the temperature and pressure readings of the steam output will be critical.

            The input temps remain of interest though, because even though the ERV is ignoring heating of the water (~70 kW), just that alone gets you over COP 3 (assuming 20 kW input power as we’ve been told). So that would be a nice backup, if controversy arises over the steam quality, to fall back on to as another proof of LENR+.

          • Rossi Fan

            DARPA is doing an RFI (request for information) about LENR except it’s time to change the name from LENR to: Modular Nuclear Energy System

            http://www.grants.gov

            DE-FOA-0001598

            Request for Information – Enabling Technologies for Ultra-Safe and Secure Modular Nuclear Energy Systems

            Department of Energy
            Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy

          • Ged

            Fascinating, thanks for the post!

          • SG

            Interesting. Can we just go with Modular Energy System though? LOL.

          • Robert Dorr

            They are requesting proposals that deal with standard fission reactors just very small ones. This has nothing to do with LENR.

          • SG

            Yeah, upon closer inspection, I tend to agree.

          • Frank Acland

            May 23, 2016 at 5:41 PM

            Dear Andrea,

            I presume the ERV measured pressure of the vapor that exited the 1MW e-cat?

            Thanks

            Andrea Rossi
            May 23, 2016 at 7:10 PM
            Sebastian:
            I presume you keep your eyes open while you drive your car ?

            Thanks,

            A.R.

            P.S.

            Please do not make other questions related to the measurements made by the ERV: I cannot disclose further information about this issue before the report is disclosed in Court.

          • psi2u2

            Lol. You have to admit Rossi has a wit on him.

          • SMR (Small Modular Reactors) is the new buzzword in nuclear fission, as the giant dinosaur ‘base load’ power stations are in their death throes. None are yet available, other than the tiny units fitted in some military ships and subs, but that hasn’t slowed down the nuclear lobbyists whispering in the ears of technically illiterate and often downright stupid politicians.

          • Roland

            Once the math of phase changing water to steam is clarified the rational for ignoring the caloric requirements of raising the inlet water from 60C. to 100C. and the steam from 100C. to 120C. become starkly clear:

            Raise 1g. water from 60C. to 100C. 40 calories
            Raise 1g. steam from 100C. to 120C. 9.6 calories
            Phase change 1g. 100C. water to 100C. steam 539 calories

            Dry steam simply means that all of the water has phase changed and the reason that one needs to know the % of water still carried by the steam to arrive at an accurate energy calculation becomes self evident; however it also becomes self evident that being plus or minus a couple of percentage points doesn’t move the ‘this is a valid counter argument to LERN’ needle very far.

            Water has quite a number of fascinating properties. In it’s solid phase it is the only known substance that occupies a larger volume as a solid than as a liquid. Were ice to sink, like everything else, the oceans would be frozen solid, right along with just about every other H2O molecule on the planet.

            The nearest competing element or molecule, weight for weight, to water heats up 5C. for every input calorie; and nothing else come remotely close, proportionately, to the energies required to make the liquid to gas phase change in water.

            The pool of liquid H2O ‘is’ literally the planetary thermostat; hence it is cause for alarm when this immense heat reservoir exhibits temperature rates of change outside its geologic norms.

            No known substance dissolves, or suspends, as many elements and molecules as water, and steam, can; this is relevant to everything from biology to geological depositions.

            Collectively, the precise properties water exhibits are essential to any envisionable form of life that current physics allows.

            In order that water have its exact current properties a dozen ‘universal constants’ have to have precise values, the ones that we see, as even the most minor shifts in these values lead, theoretically and mathematically, to large shifts in properties.

            In an interesting exercise, intended to buttress a certain body of claims regarding the emergence of self reflective consciousness (humanity presumably) in the universe, a clever group of fellows thought that a quantum mechanical analysis of the probability of the ‘big bang’ yielding the current values (for the aforementioned dozen universal constants) would be instructive.

            Their predisposition was that water having it’s current properties would be revealed, by their analysis, to have a very high probability (they were thinking on the order of 50% or so) and that that would demonstrate that no overarching organizational imperative was needed to guide the process of the creation of the universe.

            Turns out that their opinion going in, that each sequential ‘crystallization’ of a concrete Eigen value for a specific emergent constant would be down the high probability pathway, was a little misguided.

            The first round of calculations caused them to tighten their assumptions in favour of a further conservatism as the results were a bit alarming.

            Under these more stringent metrics the probability of water having its current properties was reduced to a mere 2 trillion to 1.

            It did get them thinking a wee bit, as honest mathematicians, thought experimentalists and, dare I say, philosophers, about their initial assumptions.

            P.S. The final odds of getting us as we are; an insignificant 6 trillion to 1. Hey, no big deal; everybody knows accidents happen all the time…

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Your simple table shows clearly why the amount of water in the output of the boiler is a significant question. Though even if the amount of liquid water that did not get turned into steam approaches 50% of the inlet flow, the plant drops from an amazing COP of over 50 to a “significant commercial” COP of around 25. It will be hard to prove IH’s “COP of 1” based on wet verses dry steam arguments.

          • Engineer48

            Fairly clear IH is playing a standard “DENY everything” game with Rossi, trying to get him to agree to a lower payout, in exchange for calling off “Weaver Says” potentially damaging his sales potential.

            Problem is Rossi is a very tough and battle scarred Italian fighter that told them to tear up their license and he will pay them back their $11.5m, which they refused to do.

            So he, in effect, called their bluff.

            BTW if Leonardo signed a QuarkX license with say GE and or Siemens in Europe, who really thinks the IH license will top them selling new QuarkX thermal power plants or offering upgrades to all other thermal plant owners worldwide?

          • BillH

            AR offering to pay back the $11.5M, if true, would also appear to have been a bluff, since much of the money would have gone into the E-Cat X developments, AR having made the claim that this was done outside of any agreements he had with IH.

          • Engineer48

            Your really think HydroFusion and other potential worldwide licensees would not support getting rid of the IH license? $11.5m is very cheap to get rid of them and reclaim the rights.

            Unlike Weaver who can’t face legal action over his “Weaver Says” claims, except maybe defamation action by Rossi, everything Rossi says as the claimant is part of his ongoing offering.

          • BillH

            HydroFusion had a year start to produce plants in there own locale, I haven’t seen any, or is that a secret too?

          • SG

            It’s his money. He can legitimately do whatever he wants with it. And prior to the fallout, Mr. Rossi had even admitted the e-Cat X fell within the improvement clause contemplated in the agreement. But if your partner refused to pay you $89 million, would you then withhold the improvements you might have made? I think I might do just as Mr. Rossi did if I were in his shoes.

          • I got the impression from Rossi, when I talked to him, that all the money still sits in his bank account.

          • Roland

            Precisely. The other significant variable is steam pressure; as the pressure rises so do the calories required to induce, or maintain, phase change. The 539cal./g. figure is predicated on 1 bar dry steam.

          • DrD

            AR said the customer also monitored the steam “qualiity” (dryness) and the other parameters needed to confirm that he was receiving the 1MW.

          • Engineer48

            As the customer’s MWt was delivered via an isolating heat exchanger, the 1MWt ECat plant would need to output more than 1MWt, to make up for heat exchanger losses as they are not 100% efficient in transferring heat energy.

            Note the heat energy applied in the primary / ECat side of the heat exchanger would consist of very high entropic energy superheated dry steam as inlet and very low entropic energy wet steam as outlet and the entropic energy difference would be the real heat energy delivered to the primary side of the heat exchanger.

            As Rossi stated, the system was complex. Which means the engineers needed to know their craft to get the best energy delivery to the customer’s side of the isolating heat exchanger, while still delivering 1MWt of secondary side heat exchanger energy to the customer’s load, whatever that was.

            Which means it doesn’t really matter what the customer’s load was. Only need to know the ECat outlet steam temperature, steam pressure and ECat inlet water volume to determine the output energy content.

            Overall energy gain is given by:

            kW = (kJ/kg out – kJ/kg in) x kg/sec inlet flow.

            Not rocket science, yet some use it to confuse what is really very simple math and physics.

            Gotta love engineering!

          • It would probably be more skeptic-proof if flow and return in the secondary (output) circuit were used as the reference criteria. That way, phase change complications would be avoided, while ignoring HE and pipe losses would make the figures about as robust as they could be.

          • Engineer48

            If we ever learn the ERV temp & pressure of input & output plus flow data, the rest is not rocket science to calc the reactor energy gain in kWt versus input kWe.

          • I forgotten about this slide made for the IH-China sales tour of October 2015 (before Nov 6 White House meeting and when still believing they had Rossi in a tight IP NDA leash). They seemed pretty sure to have COP 3-20 without mentioning Rossi … Strange isn’t it? As commenter “Willem” wrote; in chinese the “believing” was taken out of the equation as well.

            http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/ih-darden-seemed-pretty-fing-sure-of-cop-3-20-when-selling-ecats-in-china/

          • Engineer48

            What you have never seen a salesman in hot pursuit of closing a big deal that would win him a fat back pocket bonus?

          • Well, yes. They are usually very transparent… I recall Rossi stating that Darden et al were dancing ballet infront of them singing “stellar stellar” or something.

            Of course it could be IH involved in a huge deliberate scam (not having what they put on the slides). That would be interesting as well.

          • Engineer48

            The world is a small place for Darden to hide.

            Likewise it is a small place for Rossi to hide.

          • BillH

            No one found Rossi for a year, he’s good at hiding.

          • Engineer48

            He was also very confident about COP = 11:1 when swearing to and filing the EU patent application for the HotCat DogBone.

            Seems it all changed when Rossi $89m account hit accounts payable.

          • BillH

            Actually all these things can be true, if they can be proved to be unrelated. A patent on a DogBone device may have no relation to a 1MW plant. Since there were several periods of downtime on individual reactors the COP of 50 is an average for the duration of the test. Therefore daily COP figures may have varied greatly. There may even have been days where the output was 0. This goes to the issue of reliability, I think IH may try to claim that there was so much downtime that the plant was not ready for sale to customers. AR will have to explain every outage in detail.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            All the discussion about bad calorimetry is void. When we talk about the e-cat we talk about SSM, at that moment calorimetry is a non- issue. It works or it doesn’t. Even a high school student with limited knowledge can check if SSM is enabled.
            The 1 year test of the 1MW e-cat was a test of performance, not to prove that the reaction works or not. IH knows that it works.

          • Engineer48

            Stanny,

            Here is the clear issue.

            IH files a EU patent application (totally outside their territory and without Rossi’s knowledge) that claims a COP for their HotCat DogBone reactor of COP = 11.

            Then when Rossi’s invoice for $89m arrives in their “To Pay” basket, IH claims they have never been able to substantiate Rossi’s claims.

            So is it their claim that they have never been able to substantiate Rossi that is correct or is their sworn under oath EU patent application of a COP = 11 correct?

            Sorry but can’t be both.

          • BillH

            Or, the patent application was made in error, patents are often not approved.

          • Engineer48

            So if the COP claim is incorrect, why has IH not rescinded the COP claim in the patent application?

            Seems only when the $89m Rossi invoice hit Accounts Payable did IH say they can’t substantiate.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I think the money could be raised quite easy. And IH could have offered partial payment now.

            I think part of this centers around that IH was eager, and the idea of a yearlong test in an industrial setting seemed far off – so why not offer such a deal to keep Rossi happy, and in the meantime raise money, and solidify IP rights.

            The problem is Rossi went and found a customer (or made one) and started a yearlong test. This move perhaps was not anticipated by IH. However, they both were paying for the ERV – so perhaps again IH thought that Rossi might have a difficult time achieving the required performance. However, it is noted that ERV reports came out monthly, or at least every 3 months. The first reports with COP of 50+ must have been a shocker.

            And the pictures of the 1MW plant are simply beautiful – especially when you compare it to the original 1MW plant. A think the plant and setup is a real work of art.

            As for the COP of 50? Gee, that’s just outright amazing – I still have “guarded” reservations about the performance. Time will tell and sort this issue out.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • SG

            Being made in error and being not approved are two separate things. If the application was made in error, then IH should inform the various patent offices of the mistake and request the application to be abandoned, to meet with their duty of candor, and to avoid wasting the resources of the various patent offices when they come to examining the patent applications. Until IH does this, I will remain skeptical of their statements that they were unable to substantiate the claims.

          • Engineer48

            100% spot on.

            IH can’t have it both ways. Well more than that as the patent application was outside their territory and filed without Rossi’s knowledge nor signature as the inventor.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            A crazy story

            Hey D. We dont have the money to pay to R. what should we do?
            D. Answers: Yes, we have a problem, we couldnt sustantiate the money funds. mmm. what if we dont sustantiate the technology after the test ends? We should fill a patent at Europe so we would have an IP even if we broke the agreement with R.
            Oh. That sounds nice. So we would have all the world to get money from even without the LA.
            So, we should delay it at court until the patent gets approved and when R finds about it it would be too late.
            D. Yes, thats a good move. And he has bad credibility, we could start the fog machine so we would get billions of dollars before the case ends. And if at late we have to pay it would be a little amount considering the billions we can get licensing all over the world.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Actually, IH is stating Rossi ecat don’t work.. Their own patents and technology they have is what they claim does work according to their patients. Remember, IH can’t file patients on behalf of Rossi. So the fact of some patent filed by IH has nothing to do with the ecat and Rossi. Thus saying Rossi stuff does not work and filing and claiming that they have their own technology is a different matter. And if you have your own technology and patents, then why pay Rossi? So IH filing a patent has nothing to do with validating Rossi technology – they simply are claiming they have their own patents and technology.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • SG

            I get your point, but then why did they name Mr. Rossi as an inventor?

          • Engineer48

            Even more why did IH file a patent application OUTSIDE their territory, claim Rossi was the inventor and never notify him of their action nor ask him to sign the patent application and claim a COP > 1, yet when the Rossi invoice for $89m arrives, claim it never worked.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            That’s a easy answer!

            Why would IH file a patent and false miss-represent their right to do so, and in fact outright miss-represent Rossi in the Europe market?

            This is about leverage.

            You have to always work backwards.

            What is the “end” result of and reason to file a patent in Europe in which you have no business and have NOT EVEN purchase or signed rights to that area?

            It is rather simple:

            Just look at the IH dispute. The RESULT of this dispute is Rossi can’t sell ecats into the USA. So anyone knowing that if a disagreement occurs, then Rossi not going to sell into the USA market, right?

            Well, now anyone with a brain knows Rossi has to eat and feed the legal machine. The OBVIOUS result of above is Rossi to move forward, make money will have to sell outside of the USA and into places like Europe.

            Oh, wait! – IH has a patent in for the Europe market!

            Get it?

            I mean, if I going to lock you out of a house with full knowledge you have another house – I going to try to lock that other house also.

            What good is it to lock you out of one house with full knowledge you have another house somewhere else?

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            It is called TRYING to force Rossi back to the table to accept a much lower offer while IH retains their license or the Weaver Says machine will beaver away to try to destroy Rossi’s credibility in the client’s (cast a little question of doubt) mind who may buy a 1MW ECat market as he did with my potential clients.

          • Alan Smith

            Because it puts him in a bind. Hard for him to say ‘I didn’t file that, take my name off it’ because that leaves a clear field for the other guy. It in fact has the makings of another court-case. ‘Tie ’em up in legal issues until they die or fade away’ is a well known big business tactic.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi claims the other guy on the IH patent did not invent anything but was the guy at IH that he taught everything too.

          • Stephen

            I wonder if it would create problems if Andrea Rossi wanted to issue a similar patent himself. Or if it would have some legal basis if IH and LC split.

            It seems to me apart from everything else regarding payment, territory conflicts etc Rossi was forced into a corner regarding this and had little option than to make a claim to keep control of his IP.

          • Bachcole, then you will not like what is heading your way.

          • Psychology

          • bachcole

            Are you always this obtuse?

          • Engineer48

            Rossi was the inventor in the IH EU patent. So it was his technology. Yet he claims he never knew of the patent application filing until it was published and claims to have never signed it.

            The patent was for the HotCat DogBone reactor that they claim in the patent has a COP of 11 and once Rossi’s $89m invoice arrived, claimed it didn’t work.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Was Rossi name on that patent app?

          • Engineer48

            Yup.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Yes, it was.

            And this feels like IH doesnt have the 89 million but wants to retain the ip and also expand to countries wich they dont have the LA so thats why they filled the patent.

            And now we have to trust them? I would say not.

          • Ged

            Yes he is, and if one reads the patent it is for the Dogbone Hotcat, not something else. It even uses some supporting Lugano data along with some new stuff on the Dogbone.

          • Engineer48
          • Omega Z

            Yes, Rossi’s name was on the app along with a supposed IH co-inventor. This is a loophole in the Patent system that should be closed super fast.

            If that patent were approved even without Rossi’s approval, he would have to go along or forfeit any rights too it.

          • Engineer48

            What I learned was before the patent was issued, Rossi would have had to sign it and if he refused, the IH patent could not be issued.

          • No, that is not what I said.

          • SD

            Actually calorimetry does matter even in SSM. Imagine if the calorimetry was bad and the COP was actually 0.5. You could possibly just be storing energy during non-SSM mode and then produce heat during SSM.

            Not that I think it’s going to be the case. But power out vs power in does matter.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            I mean in the context of the hot cat that was tested in Lugano, which had a SSM but didn’t get used there. That’s also a reason why I take the amateur critics of the Lugano report not that serious. I also love the fact that people believe that IH wouldn’t internally test their reactor before they release it for testing. If the results of the internal testing didn’t match the Lugano report they would have stepped in because it would invalidate their patents.

          • Engineer48

            Correct.

            Yet Weaver Says claims they never tested the DogBone HotCat reactors before shipping them to Lugano.

            So professional. NOT!!!!

          • Obvious

            How could IH not test that type of device before shipping it?
            Just powering it is a nightmare. You can’t just hook it up to any old power supply.

            Just knowing it could be run at all, never mind with some possible excess heat, should have been a prerequisite before shipping it anywhere, IMO.

            They might have known what it acts like without excess heat if it had been tested before it left the U.S.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, actually the SSM mode is important. You do realize that SSM mode is not that input power is ALWAYS off for hours on end.

            If the above was the case then COP becomes a “silly” measure and in fact a COP does not exist. If no input power is required, then you attempting to divide by zero – (I assume you done some math, right?)

            In other words, the ERV report claims a COP of 50, but if the plant was running in SSM mode most of the time (as Rossi stated so), then why not a COP of 500, or 5000?

            So keep in mind that SSM does not mean no input power is required for hours on end.

            SSM mode means that you put power in say for 2 seconds and then turn off the power say for 6 seconds. When you do this, then a basic COP of 3 would then become 9. (assuming that the LENR “heat” after death is occurring).

            So SSM mode does not mean drive power stays off for hours on end, but when the plant is in SSM mode, you are cycling drive power off and on. (and this drive power is a mix of the “EM” stimulation power and heater core power).

            And while the Lugano report was hugely awaited the existence of SSM mode, and it be used or not does not affect some of the shortcomings of that report.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • In SSM, “the current is consumed by the control panels, triacs, transformers, safety systems”, as AR says. See http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=885&cpage=4#comment-1105980

          • sam

            From Lenr forum.

            This morning received a netizen Zhang Hang messages sent cold fusion world, he said at the teacher and Xing Jiang Songsheng teacher’s guidance, his experiments made initial progress, and the results can be repeated with a certain regularity in the message. The experiment COP over one or more of his next experiment will focus mainly on improving COP, the following is a report of this experiment.

          • SD

            Slide was actually made in October 2013. We discussed that on ECW back when it was found.

          • Thanks! Made an update. It actually makes more sense looking at the COP 3-20, which was probably the performance of the validation test in May ’13.

            This was also around the time when the MW reactor had been shipped to Raleigh, and IH “fails” to find a place to put it for the 1year test… Instead they are making sales trips to China selling it, but without mentioning Rossi … Hints that they were planning to steal the tech. al along. (note also that this seems to be before the competitors were involved)

          • Bob

            Amazing how much “stuff” gets totally taken out of context or blown out of reasoning based upon no facts.
            Where does this say eCat? Where does this say anything about Rossi?
            We know IH is also working with other researchers. How do you KNOW that this may not be referring to any of them? Because IH does not post daily on the “IH Journal of Miracles” therefore they have no advancement from any other professional researcher? Possibly their silence is golden.
            If someone posts a critique about Rossi, many here start claiming “paid shill” or “APCO PR Troll”! I wonder how much Rossi is paying Sifferkoll to be his paid shill on this site! :0 The volume of evangelical posts he makes is quite astounding!
            Of course this is silly, just as others being accused of being the minions of the conspiracy to stop LENR and destroy Rossi. He does fine on his own.
            Three months ago people were laughing when Krivits was posting that IH and Rossi had split. Guess he was right was he not! (I am not a fan of Krivits, but he was right in this case, no one can deny it) Go back and read some of the very harsh words about him. I see not apologies about being so wrong!
            Why cannot people stick to facts and calmly discuss scientific data. This should not be the Maury Povich show!
            IH / Darden is innocent until proven guilty!
            Rossi is not a fraud until proven otherwise!
            We have NO real facts other than “Rossi says”, so we should keep that well in mind! Hopefully, some of this may come true in some form.
            Just remember:
            The ERV turned out NOT to be UL, Veritas or SGS or any certifying agency at all as so many posted here with absolute certainty just months ago.
            The customer turned out NOT to be independent and most certainly not in an existing facility where production could be compared side by side. as led to believe. “The accountants” are not going to tell the story here as many posted just months ago.
            Mass production has not started as posted it would be by many in September.
            The QuarkX, due to be at a customer in April, evidently is not. But it is another secret customer, so who knows?
            and so on.
            My forecast is that the lawsuit that so many are stating will “Show” IH to be the devil, will not ever come to court. It will be settled out of court with NDA’s in place as with everything Rossi. We will not know any more in 2 months than today.
            Perhaps Frank should put a new poll up and keep it for 3 months:
            1) Rossi publicly shows reactor, a customer is named and Leo Corp. goes into commercial sales.
            2) Customers stay secret, no proven sales and we are in limbo just as today with nothing really known, no facts, only “Rossi says”.
            3) IH wins lawsuit, Rossi discredited
            4) Rossi wins lawsuit, IH discredited
            5) Lawsuit fades into oblivion and nothing is revealed.
            I place my wager on #3 and #5.

          • Go on. Bet on what you like. I’m merely writing about what could be called circumstantial evidence. These I find much more important than the random floods of second hand, so called, “scientific” speculations that are spinned.

            BTW! As I wrote, the fact that ECat/Rossi is not mentioned only some months after IH made their largest investment in LENR definitely points to IH trying to sell the “reactors” as if the IP was all theirs. This confirms what Rossi says in his complaint.

          • BillH

            …and then AR goes into a 1 years test knowing it’s a sham, for what possible reason? He wants to give the competition a year to catch up?

          • Well, it was in the contract and I suppose AR believed IH was going to honor it up until ~Oct last year when he started to get suspisious. Maybe he thought it not being possible for IH to prove their own stupidity on the magnitude they seem to attempt right now; the Jed/Weaver “huge-Sauna” theory being an example …

          • Roland

            1. Leonardo completes all their commitments under the contract.

            2. IH fails to keep all their commitments under the contract.

            3. A court of competent jurisdiction finds that the licensing agreement is invalid.

            4. Leonardo finds much stronger business partners that won’t stab Rossi in the back the first moment they think they can get away with it.

            5. It turned out that the year wasn’t wasted at all because the advances achieved over that time rendered the IP IH got with their first $11.5 million obsolete; Rossi wins the chess match while racking up overwhelming data in support of his technology.

            6. If you can’t see the next 6-8 moves ahead on the chess board you’ll fail to understand events properly; just as IH has.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, you are right. Now you know how Rossi feels, with all the libelous comments directed towards him. But I don’t see you standing up for him. I don’t care how long your post is. Rossi is the victim of libel, more than anyone I have seen on these pages. And IH has already discredited themselves in any fair persons mind. Yes Krivitz was right about that one. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

          • Omega Z

            Bob,

            As to the slides and whether it relates to E-cat. There was much more revealed in the Chinese news. It gave nearly all the details of the original 1MW container as to size, the reactors and individual output, the input of the 1MW along with claims of COP>6 and all the components(pumps etc..). It was pretty much a cut/paste from what was viewable at the time on Hydro Fusions web site. This was Absolutely unquestionably about Rossi’s E-cat technology.

            Darden used this information to entice the Chinese business people to invest $200M into an R&D Industrial park. These are facts. That said, I have no knowledge as to if any of that $200M made it into Dardens hands, But, one can be certain that at some point, there is a payday coming to Darden. Else, he wouldn’t bother.

          • BillH

            And IH has no money to pay AR? Ca’t have it both ways.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            No, not quite! SSM mode is not no drive power for hours on end. SSM mode is a like 2 seconds drive power, and then 6 seconds no drive power. It is this ratio of off and then on that gives the higher COP. If the static COP is say 6 (without SSM) and then you can go for 2 seconds drive and 4 seconds no driving, the you will double the COP from 6 to 12. So NO NO NO we not talking about pumps and other control power.
            SSM is not a mode in which the device runs for hours on end without drive power. It is a cycling of ON then OFF. The greater the ratio of the off time, the greater the COP . As noted, if the drive power was off for hours on end, the COP would be MANY MANY MANY TIMES that of 50.

            This is grade school math.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Please consider this. If the COP is 6 (without SSM) and then you go for 2 hours drive (input ~1/6 MW) and 4 hours no drive (input of 8 kW for controls etc.), then you will increase the COP of 6 to 16. And YES, A.R. is talking about 8 kW power for “control panels, triacs, transformers, safety systems” during SSM which can last hours according to him. Math for the 6 hours: Output average = 1 MW (100 % of the 6 hours time). Input average = (2 x 1/6 MW + 4 x 0.008 MW)/6 = 0,0609 MW. Then, COP = 16, not so many, many times 6, just less than 3 times. Note above, the drive power was off for hours. – An SSM of 93% would give COP = ~ 52 (e.g. 1.5 hours no drive & 7 minutes drive).

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, that possible from a math point of view, but not practical nor what we been told about SSM mode. I never heard anything that suggests that SSM mode means 2+ hours of drive time.

            And regardless, if SSM mode was 2 hours, or 2 seconds off, and then 4 hours or 4 seconds self-sustain, the math and ratio does not change.

            If SSM was for hours on end, the COP would be fantastic unless one cooks up the idea that SSM mode suggests that drive “on” times are hours at end. I don’t have the reference handy, but one of the reports or tests spoke of SSM mode – the ratios of off/on were expressed in seconds – not hours.

            I am most happy to be corrected on the above, and as I stated, such an drive ratio of 2/4 may well be seconds, hours or minutes, and as such different units of time will not change the basic multiplier concept and math I outlined. It is this math ratio that gives the high COP.

            If anyone has info on the ratio times of SSM, do chime in – I can’t find that reference that spoke of seconds.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • I already gave you the JoNP link explaining that during SSM there is no drive. Now, please also check e.g. JoNP 2nd March 2013 to find that “SSM mode can last up to 2 hours”. And, please reveal us the math that gives the fantastic very, very, very high COP. Beats me. My math above ends up with the ‘reasonable’ COP of ~52, as an example though.

          • psi2u2

            I don’t think this would be true in actual practice in this instance. I see what you are seeing, but it is a matter of IH credibility. They claimed a cop of 11 in the patent, which is in direct and unforgiving conflict with their claim now that they “cannot substantiate” Rossi’s IP.

          • CWatters

            This report is very confusing. It says..

            1) “the ERV ignored the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature”.

            and

            2) “the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative”.

            So it appears the ERV ignored ALL of the energy required to heat the cold return feed (at 60C) to make the hot flow (at some unspecified temperature “above the boiling point”).

            Exactly what energy was included in the calculation?

          • SD

            “Exactly what energy was included in the calculation?”: the energy necessary to vaporize water, which accounts for approx. 90% of the total.

          • Engineer48

            Producing dry sream from wet steam is a phase change in which the steam temp is not increased, just all the moisture droplets (joined water molecules) are turned into vapor (single water molecules)

            Once that has happened, the temp of the steam will increase.

            So 3 effects.

            1) energy needed to change non boiling water to wet steam while temp increases. (Not a lot)

            2) energy needed to phase change wet steam to dry steam with no temp change. (Massive amount of energy)

            3) energy needed to increase temp of dry steam. (Not a lot)

            On the flip side, when dry steam reverts (phase changes) back to wet steam / water, it releases all the massive energy stored doing the earlier wet to dry phase change, which makes dry steam a very good carrier of heat.

          • Thinking about it; the only way IH have a chance to win in the trial in front of a jury is to go all in on acting totally defrauded about LENR as a whole … So, they will probably play the safe card, and go all in on the 1989 F&P strategy again? Brillouin etc will be collateral damage and Darden will be sacrificed as defrauded fool, but still a good “save-the-world” business man. Stakeholders in energy/politics/AGW will be happy. Bill Gates 10y prophecy will come true.

            http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/underestimating-the-evilness-of-ih-apco-are-they-planning-to-do-the-fp-89-again/

          • Engineer48

            Rossi needs the QuarkX demo to convince GE and or Siemens to take up a license and he needs a really good QuarkX patent. Then GE and or Siemens will take care of IH in the only way that VCs understand.

            IH, even Cherokee are really very small fish in a multi trillion dollar NEW QuarkX market, which to control means you are 1) 1st, 2) Best, 3) Cheapest. GE and or Siemens want 1 & 2 and both know how to play the game and very quickly ramp up massive production.

            You do realise this will totally destroy the hot fission / fusion nuclear, renewable and all fossil steam boiler markets sector as QuarkX powered thermal power plant will generate electricity 24/7/365 and without any CO2 or other stack pollutants. Plus QuarkX replacement boilers will enable all existing nuclear and fossil thermal plant boilers to be powered by QuarkX steam. I also believe the idea of individual homes powered by QuarkX reactors will never happen as the grid load needs to stay there so investment in QuarkX replacement boilers can be amortised over many years.

            Have a look at the attachment, which I believe are bolt compatible small boiler replacement elements that were powered by DogBone reactors but could just as easily be powered by QuarkX reactors. Which means the QuarkX boilerisation process can extend from the biggest thermal power plant boilers to those in every home and office building.

            Rossi needs to very quickly show GE and or Siemens that the QuarkX can do the above job. Then he can retire and let the thermal power system pros take it from there. There is NO WAY Rossi can manufacture what is needed.

            If this QuarkX boiler hybridisation process takes 15 – 20 years, that is more than enough time for those with fission nuclear and fossil assets to wind back their positions, besides people who own those assets have known for some time what is going to happen. I do feel for the renewable guys, but that is what happens when you invest in fast changing technology, especially when it is not reliable and available 24/7/365.
            .

          • kdk

            GE is a notoriously entrenched company. It won’t be through them, unless it’s okay’d by the honchos.

          • Engineer48

            Every company involved with steam boiler / turbine thermal generation of electrical power is VERY, VERY conservative. However if they see that the QuarkX can deliver 600C sub and supercritical dry (superheated) steam, well they will be in it like a shot and after a few years of their own R&D to make sure it is 100% right, the rollout will begin.

            BTW they will not be interested in dealing with any licensee of Leonardo. Even less if the licensee is a VC. They will go with Leonardo and deal with any objections IH and other licensees may have.

          • kdk

            I mean their leadership in the past has been involved with unsavory characters, who have lots of money invested in things like oil. As a part of that network or club that watches out for each others interests, they wouldn’t get involved if it got in the way of those interests. This also ties in with media blackout on other issues, as they are mostly all owned by a few people and corporations (the infamous 60 people who own as much as the bottom half of humanity).

          • Albert D. Kallal

            GE will be dead set against the ecat and LENR. They have the LARGEST contingency of global warming lobbyist in Washington. (larger than any other corporation or political group).

            With global warming, then GE can sell billions of dollars of CO2 scrubbing equipment to general industry. They are 100% on the CO2 band wagon and will lose billions of dollars of sales of such equipment, and they lose 10+ years of lobbying Washington. So GE has a long term vested interest in CO2 and global warming.

            And given that Obama appointed Goldman Sachs as the official government carbon trading entity, then you fighting not only GE but the financial industry that eager to fleece your pockets by trading CO2 as a commodity.

            Clean non-polluting energy is the last thing GE wants, and their army of lobbyists in Washington have no interest in giving away the CO2 farm they been building.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            With QuarkX replacement boilers, GE can sell trillions of dollars of upgrade equipment to every thermal powee plant owner on the planet. As the QuarkX boilers are a one time capital item, with almost no future fuel costs, they can easily be paid for from fuel savings, putting downward pressure on wholesale electricity generation costs.

            So which thermal power plant owner will say no to switching to zero CO2 emission QuarkX boilers & very significantly dropping their fuel costs so much it can easily pay for the QuarkX boilers?

            But you are right as QuarkX boilers would destroy the CO2 trading market and in say 15 years or so, there would only be thermal heat losses being emitred by all the worlds thermal power plants, with atmospheric CO2 levels dropping back to pre industrial levels and ocean acidification likewise dropping.

            Gotta say all vehicles on the planet, in 20 years, being QuarkX electric is a no brainer as well.

            .

          • NT

            The horses are out of the barn and running free. The big boys have missed their golden opportunity to control their grid for much longer. They should have jumped on the P & F bandwagon years ago and developed their IP and patents. Instead they believed the hogwash we all are aware of regarding cold fusion. The Internet will allow for LENR to proliferate eventually to the average Joe. Big energies window of opportunity in that regard is and will be short, IMHO…

          • DrD

            Yes, appreciate that and it can’t come soon enough.
            One thing that surpises me is that AR keeps saying LENR will NOT replace fossil fuel, even long term, and that it will co-exist alongside existing. I think that’s be more of a “political” than technically motivated response. It’s probably true that there will always be a some fossil fuel used, just like we still have steam trains and horses but I think AR implied more than just a little.
            I also hope your wrong about the domestic use. It is a concern that it might be prohibited but I hope soon to replace my gas and electric heating source with Quarks and produce my own electric, almost as a byproduct.
            I currently have Solar but it’s contribution is negligible. It will likely not pay for itself at current prices.

          • Engineer48

            To convert all sream boilers on the planet over to QuarkX is a very massive job. Will take say 15-20 years. So slowly over time LENR generated steam in thermal power plants will be integrated with other steam boiler heat sources.

            Even 20% of grid load going off grid would cause massive increase in energy bills for on gridders as maintaining the grid is an increasing cost. That would be worn by less and less numbers of on grinders, who are probably the less well off that can’t afford to buy the gear to take them off grid.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            The conversion process will be faster than you think. The HVAC industry originally fought the whole conversion from ozone-depleting refrigerants until they realized that they could make a lot of money replacing perfectly good equipment with new equipment. The non-ozone-depleting refrigerants could not be substituted in existing equipment. Once they realized this, conversion was sped up.

            I suspect that the traditional fossil-fueled boiler manufacturers will get the hint and rush to capture market share, speeding up the conversion process.

          • LuFong

            Why must it be this extreme (‘LENR as a whole’)? IF what DW is saying today is anywhere near true then Rossi will withdraw his civil suit because he will never win a jury case with that as evidence. And if IH counters with a suit of their own and this will be purely about Rossi. DW is really sticking his neck out here on this one, making himself subject to libel if wrong, so I have to take it somewhat seriously. Time to lay the cards on the table I think for someone.

          • Ged

            Never a dull moment.

          • LuFong

            I can’t wait for the movie!

          • psi2u2

            What D.W. says in the linked article is not, in my opinion, libelous. It may be bullshit and it is certainly not edifying, but it is not libel. On the other hand, granting that Rossi is a public figure, which is certainly the case, a libel case against Weaver would require proving not merely negligence in his presentation of the facts, but also malice. Any number of his past comments could be taken to prove his malice, in my opinion, at least if Rossi’s account of the facts is valid.

          • LuFong

            I’m actually referring to something else DW said.

          • psi2u2

            ok.

          • Some more thoughts here on this, as it seems, for Weaver et al. very disturbing hypothesis.
            http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/more-information-on-the-new-ih-apco-agenda-to-ditch-lenr-completely/

          • wpj

            Hmmm, depends how patriotic the jury is. Having had a declaration from the US Navy on LENR, that would also implicate them as idiots as well.

          • Of course it’s not a done deal. But it is by far their best shot and they might actually succeed. It’s much easier to deny LENR completely than to deal in the vague uncertainties of the official statements that do exist. Better go all in on “has not been proven” (by any prefered institition/media anyway)

          • wpj

            The elephant in the room, though, remains the client.

          • They are planning to not even get that far. That is why they are going to ditch LENR at the top, so that no one would never even need to consider what happened in the plant, regardless ERV and customer. That is why Weaver is so sloppy commenting on Penon, etc. They will stop the trial on the impossibility of LENR. That is the plan.

          • psi2u2

            That seems pretty desperate given all their past public statements and the acknowledged fact that they also purchased IP from other LENR researchers, huh?

          • They have made very few public statements. As I say, Darden has to be sacrificed as a somewhat naive fool being defrauded but still being a “good save-the-world” kind of business man. And they paid for the IP mostly by stocks, not cash (except for Rossi). And they will still have the IP …

          • wpj

            And Woodford does what?

          • Well, they will never invest in Darden again of cours. But by claiming his own stupidity he might get out of it without getting sued. Probably the best way, since it puts all blame on Rossi as the millenium fraudster they plan to make out of him, with all MSM coverage Apco can mobilize. They are planning a spectacle and they do have those muscles. Everyone will fell like winners, except LENR of course.

          • Roland

            The LENR is a complete fraud and Darden is a credulous idiot hypothesis could conceivably fly in the court room, though I have my doubts, which would get IH off the hook for the $89 million payment due under contract.

            This would constitute a clear win for Rossi & Leonardo as it would achieve the main goal of the court action; the invalidation of the licensing portion of the agreement.

            I would strongly suggest that the least desirable outcome of the trial would be a finding that IH be directed to pay the $89 million (granting that they can come up with that kind of money when directed to do so) and that Leonardo be directed to transfer all the current E-cat IP to IH. Leonardo should immediately appeal any verdict that directs them to transfer further IP to IH based on IH’s previous behaviour.

            Regardless of the outcome of the trial the real world result will be a decade of appeals unless the licensing provisions are struck down and IH fails to appeal that outcome. The next phase would then begin with the extraction of damages from IH, and partners, for the misappropriation of the IP transferred to them in violation of the contract provisions.

            I find it difficult to envision any outcome of the trial that will materially improve the position of Industrial Heat as all their early moves were predicated on Rossi’s failure to make significant advances on the IP initially transferred to IH.

            Having lost that bet they are screwed any way you parse the potential outcomes as long as Leonardo proceeds as though the contract with IH is already null and void.

            IH has obsolete IP and can’t compete in the marketplace.

            Every effort to deploy that IP by IH will be under the cloud of eventual forfeiture which means that all their potential partners going forward will, of necessity, be untrustworthy sleasebags who’ll turn on them in a heart beat.

            The only upside for IH in the LENR is a fraud and Darden is an idiot strategy is if they succeed in court with this they may dodge the bullet when Woodford comes looking for their $50 million; heads up Woodford…

          • Chapman

            A perfectly logical argument.

            But you failed to mention the fact that during the time when all this is being hashed out in the American courts Rossi and his European partners will be manufacturing, selling, and refining designs. Via brokers and international retailers, even the American market will be fully serviced.

            Even if IH is able to force a settlement agreement that allows them to proceed at that time – some years hence – they will be trying to break into a saturated marketplace with an obsolete product line.

            They have effectively removed themselves from the future picture. And compromised Brillouin in the process.

            Darden can only hope to minimize the backlash against himself personally from Woodford, as you so rightly point out, and from the Chinese (but not to worry, I hear they are a forgiving bunch…).

          • Engineer48

            Roland wrote:

            1) Raise 1g. water from 60C. to 100C. 40 calories
            2) Raise 1g. steam from 100C. to 120C. 9.6 calories
            3) Phase change 1g. 100C. water to 100C. steam 539 calories

            Excellent example. Make the point why Rossi asked the ERV to only measure 3)

          • Ged

            IH built the Lugano, patent, and 1MW reactors. They tested it, and made a parent outside of Rossi’s knowledge with data from their own work. So, whose claims are you referring to now?

          • DFarwell

            Ged, where are these IH test results that you speak of that substantiate the Rossi Effect….while I await those results from you, my answer would still be Rossi of course.

          • Ged

            Nope. Read the IH patent documents (engineer48 linked the one earlier, but there are a couple; there was a whole thread here dedicated to them and the analysis), read the Lugano report (confirmed by IH as their device) and read the 24 hour tests. You are Way behind the times, or willfully ignoring fact.

          • psi2u2

            Very interesting idea.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          While one can point out some conflicts of interest, that alone does not and will not invalidate the
          ERV results.

          For IH to claim the results are wrong or cannot be trusted due to conflicts is NOT enough reason to withhold payment as per the contract. They also have to provide evidence that
          shows the results cannot be trusted.

          As for accusations of fraud? We don’t know what IH’s position is, but as I pointed out previous, usually such fraud charges must be brought forward within one year of such knowledge.

          And such charges do not necessary have to be laid, as that position can be used as a bargaining position between the lawyers. In other words, often a party will forego or not press
          changes during negotiations in Lou of receiving something in return for not
          laying charges (so such charges are often used as a position for negotiation
          and to get something in return for not laying charges). I also point out this
          approach removes the 1 year requirement for laying charges in court.

          The end result of above means that charges do not need to be laid as the two parties negotiate. I
          should also point out that such negotiations (litigation) between the two parties are not subject to public filings nor are they public court documents.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Richard Hill

          Surely this has been asked before but…
          The ERV (Mr Penon) is a person who could be interviewed by a reporter. Has this been done?

          • realm13

            Where’s Mr. Penon at the moment? He hasn’t disappeared has he?

          • psi2u2

            He’s not saying anything that has gotten into the LENR grapevine. I am sure many people wish him luck and thank him for stepping up.

          • sam

            Mats lewan was in contact with Penon but he said
            he could not discuss due to NDA.

      • Engineer48

        “To produce superheated steam in a power plant or for processes (such as drying paper) the saturated steam drawn from a boiler is passed through a separate heating device (a superheater) which transfers additional heat to the steam by contact or by radiation.”

        “… superheated steam is dry…”

        “Other potential uses of superheated steam include: drying, cleaning, layering, reaction engineering, epoxy drying and film use where saturated to highly superheated steam is required at one atmospheric pressure or at high pressure. Ideal for steam drying, steam oxidation and chemical processing. Uses are in surface technologies, cleaning technologies, steam drying, catalysis, chemical reaction processing, surface drying technologies, curing technologies, energy systems and nanotechnologies. Superheated steam is not usually used in a heat exchanger due to low heat transfer co-efficient.[6] In refining and hydrocarbon industries superheated steam is mainly used for stripping and cleaning purposes.”

        • LuFong

          “The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers” Andrea Rossi, Mats Lewan Blog Interview

          Drying , for example, uses superheated steam directly. I’m not sure about the others but from the literature it’s clear that superheated steam is not a good match for heat exchangers.

          This is why we need someone who is unbiased and knowledgeable to weigh in instead of a desk jockey engineer.

          • LuFong

            Rossi says that the customer used heat exchangers (“The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof.”). My impression is that superheated steam is not appropriate for heat exchangers. Perhaps with only 5°C of superheat by the time it gets to the customer it is near saturated steam and heat exchangers would work well? Otherwise they wouldn’t (or maybe the customer takes it from there)?

      • Chris Marshalk

        Where is the report??? Any word if it will be released?? 🙁

        • Ged

          Apparently in court :(. So when will that be? Well, your tax payer funded judicial system will decide that.

  • Engineer48

    More information to understand what superheated steam is:
    http://www.systhermique.com/steam-condensate/services/troubleshooting/superheated-steam/

    “In a boiler, energy from the fuel is transfered to liquid water in order to create steam. At first, cold water gets warmer and receives energy in the form of “sensible heat”, right until the boiling point.

    Once the boiling point is reached, the water’s temperature ceases to rise and stays the same until all the water is vaporized. The water goes from a liquid state to a vapour state et receives energy in the form of “latent heat of vaporization”. As long as there’s some liquid water left, the steam’s temperature is the same as the liquid water’s. Steam is then called saturated steam.

    When all the water is vaporized, any subsequent addition of heat raises the steam’s temperature. Steam heated beyond the saturated steam level is called superheated steam.”

    • BillH

      In the contract it just mentions thermal energy in the form of hot water or steam, it doesn’t say anything about the quality. I don’t think flow rate or pressure are mentioned either. From this we might conclude that the customer may have processed the thermal energy further to meet it’s own requirements. This would be an added complication.

      • DrD

        According to Mats the customer didn’t use the steam itself. It went to a heat exchanger.

        • BillH

          And it was exchanged into? I’m very tempted to say hot air, so I shall, hehe.

          • Ged

            Industrial driers would certainly love that ;).

    • So how does this relate to the terms “wet steam” and “dry steam?”

      Is superheated steam by definition “dry steam?”

      If so, if the ERV reports a steam temperature above 100 deg C then that means dry steam, right? Or is there a fudge factor? What temperature and pressure combos can we be certain still contain no significant percentage of liquid water?

      • Engineer48

        Superheated steam by definition is dry as the steam temperature is above boiling temp and it contains no liquid water drops. Well not a lot.

        • So then we can be sure the entire volume of water is (approximately) fully vaporized and the heat calculations unambiguous.

          Would normal flow meters, temperature sensors and pressure sensors be able to prove superheated steam?

          What I’m trying to get at is where the potential errors are that IH may poke at.

          • Engineer48

            I’m not a steam measuring type of engineer but as I understand it, doing the output steam energy content measurenent is not difficult.

            There are instruments that can do the energy content measurement in passing fluid or steam as one device.

          • DrD

            What Engineer48 says is correct because AR said the steam is nominally at atmpospheric pressure. Had the pressure increased subsantialy then steam may become wet (equivalent to the boiling point of water being raised). It’s well known how water boils at reduced temperature high in the mountains, same effect reversed. Unfortunately, I can’t find where AR said it was at 1 bar.
            However, I doubt IH will have made such a mistake, it’s far too subtle and too small.
            Actually, we haven’t heard from IH so we don’t know for a fact that they have said that other than their reply to the law suit which only says they failed to replicate. I mean it’s no small error if you can’t tell the difference between 1 and 50. In fact if you allow for the sensible heat that the ERV ignored (into the water AND the steam) PLUS the 10% safety margin then the COP was likely averaging >60 for the period of the test.

          • Engineer48

            120C at 2 bar abs (29 PSI) is superheated dry steam.

            Volume will then give the energy content of the superheater steam.

          • Engineer48

            Yup you need all three.

            There are single instruments that combine all 3 in one unit.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          We can have all the water as a gas, but if we increased pressure then water droplets would form. If the gas is supercritical, then increasing pressure will NOT cause water droplets to form.
          We assume that superheated steam means supercritical? In this case, no matter what pressure – you not have any water droplets form.

          So one can have dry steam and scrub out any water droplets (or simply have a tempature and pressue in which all water is a gas). However additional pressure will cause water droplets to form. (and with droplets able to form, then nasty cavitation on the working turbine blades can occur).

          if the gas (water vapor) super critical, then no such water droplets can exist EVEN if we increase pressure.

          With supercritical steam, additional pressure will not cause water to form – the working fluid remains a gas. So one can squish the daylights
          out of that gas – it does not return to a liquid.

          Of course for a modern steam turbine, temperatures that can keep the working fluid in a gas state is desired. (that temp is 374C). (but the pressure is whopping 3200 PSI)

          If supercritical steam can be produced, then larger scale generation of electricity with ecat technology is possible. And even retro-fit of existing plants could occur

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Yup on the retro-fit of existing fossil thermal power plants.

            BTW with many thermal plants subcritical 550C steam, at the turbine inlet, is all that is needed.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Sure – that’s fair. I often stated here for “smaller” commercial/residential electric generation from LENR, then sterling engines are ideal (due to low maintains and such devices run like refrigerators for years on end). Sterling’s get a bad rap since they don’t produce a lot of power for a given size, but that don’t mean they have good efficiency. So we don’t see weed eaters or lawnmowers powered by sterling’s, but that’s due to their power density (size/weight) as opposed to such heat engines not having good efficiently (they do).

            However, if details pan out for direct electric generation from LENR, then we may well not need any kind of heat (carnot) engines except for large scale LENR generation of electricity.

            Dean Kamen (of Segway fame) has a really nice sterling engine that would be a marriage made in heaven for smaller LENR heat systems.

            https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/stories-of-innovation/visionaries/dean-kamen/#gallery-video=twd3NzMTrwdCBrpaXgZlc4Gu-EKAeS4r

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Trillions of dollars of existing fossil thermal power plants go begging to stop paying for their fossil fuel.

            Feed them 600C sub or supercritical QuarkX steam & the plant owners will love you, plus they will make more money than buying fossil fuels & enjoy lower maint costs.

          • roseland67

            Also suggested that, got “booed”, probably because it makes to much sense And it gets an Ecat out in the open where it could be thoroughly tested.

      • Alan Smith

        The ‘superheated steam’ comment reminds me of arguments you can read about in the development of steam-powered railway locomotives. In order to improve efficiency and remove erosive and damaging water droplets from the steam before admission to the cylinders it (the steam) was passed through a network of tubes placed directly in the hot gases exhausted from the firebox. This raised its temperature slightly and re-evaporated any remaining water drops. These pipe networks were initially called ‘steam dryers’ – but when superheating (real superheating) became a fashionable addition to locomotives the term was changed to ”low-level superheating’.

        Skepticism about the loose use of this term is justified. Dry(ish) steam is not superheated steam.

        • Engineer48

          Rossi claimed superheated steam, which as the temp is above boiling, is dry. Well maybe a few holdout water droplets here & there.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Saturated 100 °C

      Superheated 374 °C

      Keep it simple

      • DrD

        550 deg C is possible from the Quark.

      • Engineer48

        Sure 374C at 219.63 bar.

        At 2 bar abs (29 PSI) more like 120C.

        http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

        • Ophelia Rump

          People are interested in the difference in energy required to heat it. When you get exotic, you cease to communicate the reality of the difference in a way which people can relate to.

          • Engineer48

            Quoting a steam temp of 374C, that needs 219 bar pressure is about as far from reality as you can go.

            As I showed, 120C at 2 bar abs (29 PSI) pressure will give superheated dry steam.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Note that you have been using gauge pressure (barG), not absolute pressure (bar abs).

          • Engineer48

            Oops.

            OK make that 120C at 2 bar abs or 29 PSI

          • bachcole

            14.7 PSI.

            It’s not often I can comment on these kinds of subjects. (:->)

          • Engineer48

            14.7 PSI???? I get 29 PSI.

          • Engineer48

            Ms Rump,

            Why not try this on for size?

            Assuming superheated steam at 120C at 29 PSI or 2 bar abs (specific entropy of 2,706 kJ/kg), recirculate at 60C at 14.5 PSI or 1 bar abs (specific entropy of 251 kJ/kg) and 36m^3/day of water as per Rossi statement.

            Using kW = (kJ/kg of steam – kJ/kg of recirculate) x 0.417kg/s we get 1,023.7 kW or 1.027MW.

            Amazing that it all fits together.

      • Bruce Williams

        I think E48’s comment was very helpful & your reply is unnecessary.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        No, actually not so simple.
        That 374 refers to supercritical steam, not super-heated steam.

        a) We have Saturated steam (some water, some
        steam)

        b) We have superheated steam (as soon as all
        water is boiled into steam).
        At this point adding energy will raise the temperature of the gas, and NOT boil more water away since there is no liquid water left to boil. So just like a pot of water on the your stove, as long as there is water left, then temperature of that water will not increase. So that pot of boiling water will not see increased temperatures if you turn the stovetop on high, or low – it remains at boiling point of water. However once all the liquid water is boiled, then you have Superheated steam. And the pot (or boiler) will now see increasing
        temperatures beyond the boiling point of water since no water is left. This is superheated
        steam. Such steam can revert BACK into a liquid (water drops) by increasing pressure. You of course don’t want this in a typical boiler as that when things start to warp, or melt!

        So superheated steam does not require high temperatures. And it don’t require really much pressure beyond room pressure either. So this is just a simple term to denote when all the LIQUID water has turned into gas (all water been boiled from liquid into water vapor gas). Of course once all the water is boiled, then temperature NOW starts rising. This kind of dry steam can be used on a on a steam turbine – but if pressure increased or the temperature drops, then water droplets (liquid) water can form. And such vapor hitting the turbine blades will experience a drop in temperature (and usually pressure as
        work is done)– hopefully the drop in temperature (and pressure) keep the water
        above the superheated steam point.


        c) We then have supercritical steam. This
        stuff stays as gas, no matter how much you increase the pressure.

        You can try as hard as you want, but increasing pressure will NOT result in the water reverting to liquid! High performance turbine for electric generation plants use supercritical steam – this is the 374C temperature and keep in mind that the water pressure is whopping 3200 pounds. In this case, increasing pressure will NOT cause liquid water to form. (So you can crunch to 4000 or more lbs., and no water will form
        as liquid!).

        And in such turbines, the water is usually NOT returned to liquid form for the cycle. Of course JET engines turbines work rather well with air as a gas – no liquid air is used in your typical JET turbine either!

        So saturated steam, and dry steam (aka superheated steam) are BOTH significantly different then supercritical steam.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Gerard McEk

      So if we assume say 20 or 40 meters to the location where the steam is used and we want to transport it without pumps, what would be a reasonable pressure/temperature to transport 1 MW of heat energy?

  • SD

    To provide some context, both an IH insider and Jed Rothwell previously said that the measured output temperature was 100.1 degrees C. This would cause some issues with COP measurement because it is so close to the boiling point and depending on pressure it could be even below.

    Rossi is firmly denying that 100.1 degrees C.

    • timycelyn

      Indeed he did deny it. To quote. “…a clownesque invention…”

      Seems to be par for the course with IH these days, and underlines the unreliability of anything from that quarter, I’m sad to say.

      If they spin it any faster they could start having real problems with g forces…

    • Andreas Moraitis

      As far as I understood it, this number appeared in a section of data that corresponds to a period of time during which the plant was under maintenance. Obviously, some people have interpreted this as a sign of manipulation. But that would have been a quite stupid one. A technical glitch would seem much more likely in such a case. Maybe they simply forgot to tell their software to stop recording whenever the plant is down.

  • Engineer48

    ..

  • Billy Jackson

    Think i am gonna sit in the corner and just color and let the adults talk this one out 🙂

    • bachcole

      I do that a lot around here. I am usually the smartest person in the room. But here I just delete emails when there is anything technical being talked about. (:->)

    • sam

      Somebody has to go get the coffee and donuts.

  • Gerrit

    So the ERV disregarded the energy to heat the water below 60, between 60 and 100 and above 100 ?

    We had a long discussion about dry/wet steam 5 years ago. There has been no progress at all and we’ll be having the same discussion in 5 years.

    • Billy Jackson

      That seemed odd to me.. but i put it down to me not knowing anything about how that operates. Others seem to think that’s a good thing so.. i will accept they know what they are talking about. until then.. feel free to join me in the corner.. i got more than enough crayons 🙂

    • Ged

      Yeah, that seems to be the case, such that only the generated steam actually counts. At 36 cubic meters per day, the heating from 60 to 100 C is ~70 kW, turning the water into steam is ~940 kW, and anything after that is gravy (but we don’t know how high it got so we can’t calculate). The 20 kW max input of power the reactor had available from the mains would not be able to generate steam (or only ~2% steam if the water was alread near 100 C when entering the reactor).

      We really just need the actual data (flow, power in, temp/pressure in, temp/pressure out, steam quality direct or usable indirect data), but it should be quite easy to tell what the COP is once we do.

      • Gerrit

        We needed actual data in form of tangible proof 5 years ago. I am not going to discuss the wetness of steam again.

        • SD

          What output temperature at 1 atmosphere would you need to not even consider wetness of steam? Suppose we only consider the energy for vaporisation and remove 10%.

          • Engineer48

            That is what Rossi said he instructed the ERV to do, as well as to remove the energy necessary to get to wet steam condition and then to remove the energy necessary to heat the dry steam above the min dry steam temperature.

            So the ERV was instructed to measure only the vaporization energy required and then to subtract 10%. Or a very conservative thermal energy gain that only measured the energy involved in going from boiling water (wet steam) to dry steam at as of yet unknown pressure.

        • Ged

          Even if it is just heating water to 100 C from 60 C, that is a COP of 3.5, so there is no reason for you to worry in that regard. The ERV report has all the data.

          Lugano gave us plenty of data, we even got some from the 24 hour tests, and people who saw the 2011 tests reported on some of the data there. So your first statement is disingenuous.

        • Engineer48

          Rossi has stated it was superheated. So it was dry steam.

          We now know it was superheated and we now the volume as 36m^3/day or 0.417kg/s. Only missing data is the pressure.

          See http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/23/rossi-steam-was-superheated-in-1mw-plant-test/#comment-2691149199 for my 2 bar abs (29 PSI stab in the dark) calcs.

    • SD

      If output temperature is 110 at 1 atm and input temperature is 60 then power is ~940kW if we just consider vaporisation. Are there arguments against that?

  • Engineer48

    Assuming superheated steam at 120C at 29 PSI or 2 bar abs (specific entropy of 2,706 kJ/kg), recirculate at 60C at 14.5 PSI or 1 bar abs (specific entropy of 251 kJ/kg) and 36m^3/day of water as per Rossi statement.

    Using kW = (kJ/kg of steam – kJ/kg of recirculate) x 0.417kg/s we get 1,023.7 kW or 1.027MW.

    Amazing that it all fits together.

    • Ged

      Easy enough to prove too, just by looking at the temperature of the output.

  • Engineer48

    Assuming superheated steam at 120C at 29 PSI or 2 bar abs (specific entropy of 2,706 kJ/kg), recirculate at 60C at 14.5 PSI or 1 bar abs (specific entropy of 251 kJ/kg) and 36m^3/day of water as per Rossi statement.

    Using kW = (kJ/kg of steam – kJ/kg of recirculate) x 0.417kg/s we get 1,023.7 kW or 1.027MW.

    Amazing that it all fits together.

    • Ged

      Easy enough to prove too, just by looking at the temperature of the output.

  • Mats stated on his blog that he
    have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH).”

    Weaver claims:
    My guess is that he is a self-employed contractor who needed some work. No self-respecting nuclear certification agency would have taken on this assignment. I think that Rossi has made a mistake by not engaging a straight forward boiler expert.

    Rossi is going to have to wait and find out what Penon sent to others prior to the “final report” in court.

    Rossi is terrified of the day that the “ERV” becomes public.

    This does not exactly add up. I covered some of the Weaver deceptions by browsing through his Disqus logs: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/digging-deep-into-the-dunghill-of-dewey-weaver-deceptions-and-lies/

    • cashmemorz

      “engaging a straight forward boiler expert” . Do such experts have familiarity with nuclear theory such as Penon did, just in case? Easy to criticize after the fact but Rossi knew best what kind of background(s) the EVR should have.

      • SG

        It isn’t even clear that Penon is a Rossi selection. Penon comes onto the scene right around the time IH did–and both Ross and IH agreed to have Penon be the ERV.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          The more information we get the more I get convinced that the effect is real.

          And we dont have the ashes analysis wich AR and IH should have. And if there is transmutation of the elements, then…

    • I can’t believe Darren is dumb enough to think Weaver is helping Darden’s cause. Weaver must crazy, uncontrollable and/or opposing Darden’s request to STFU. just a guess on my part. or maybe Weaver and Darden are just that completely SOL they are trying to get anything to stick against Rossi. Colossal FAIL in the opinion of anyone paying attention methinks.

    • Engineer48

      Weaver also claimed the reactor was in an adjacent warehouse unit to that of the customer, which it turns out is not correct as both apparently occupied the same warehouse unit.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      While one can point out some conflicts of interest, that alone does not and will not invalidate the
      ERV results.

      For IH to claim the results are wrong or cannot be trusted due to conflicts is NOT enough reason to withhold payment as per the contract. They also have to provide evidence that
      shows the results cannot be trusted.

      As for accusations of fraud? We don’t know what IH’s position is, but as I pointed out previous, usually such fraud charges must be brought forward within one year of such knowledge.

      And such charges do not necessary have to be laid, as that position can be used as a bargaining position between the lawyers. In other words, often a party will forego or not press
      changes during negotiations in Lou of receiving something in return for not
      laying charges (so such charges are often used as a position for negotiation
      and to get something in return for not laying charges). I also point out this
      approach removes the 1 year requirement for laying charges in court.

      The end result of above means that charges do not need to be laid as the two parties negotiate. I
      should also point out that such negotiations (litigation) between the two parties are not subject to public filings nor are they public court documents.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Richard Hill

      Surely this has been asked before but…
      The ERV (Mr Penon) is a person who could be interviewed by a reporter. Has this been done?

      • realm13

        Where’s Mr. Penon at the moment? He hasn’t disappeared has he?

        • psi2u2

          He’s not saying anything that has gotten into the LENR grapevine. I am sure many people wish him luck and thank him for stepping up.

        • sam

          Mats lewan was in contact with Penon but he said
          he could not discuss due to NDA.

  • Rossi Fan

    1000000/2000 = 500
    One million watts = 1MW divided by 2000 watts = quantity 500 (2KW) heaters set to high
    I am referring to the kind of heater you can buy at Target for $40.
    The kind that warms up a single room in the winter cold.
    You mean to tell me that this guy had 500 heaters on full blast in this space he was in???
    You would need 500 air conditioners to cool the place down.
    This is an office type of building. Maybe they allow some light industrial assembly. Surely not a 1MW power plant.

    If I tried to pull a stunt like that I would be in trouble with the property owner and the local county building and safety.

    • SG

      Nah. Research the Bitcoin mining industry. They fill buildings with equipment that consumes MWs of power.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Your typical house furnace is about 80,000 watts. The idea that the furnace room heats up makes no sense at all.

      Commercial heaters/boilers easy hit a million watts and I been in apartment furnace rooms many a time. They are Luke warm, but apparently you never been in a furnace room for a house
      with 80,000 watts? And often a home furnace system is air driven, when you use water heating, then that water moves the heat away from such heaters with great ease.

      So you never seen or been in a furnace room, but are rendering a opinion about how a common
      furnace room works. Did you grow up in a cave?

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Bob Greenyer

        When I had the pleasure of going to Russia to present the MFMP work at the Friendship University in the winter, I was shown a LARGE house boiler that was operating at over 1/4 MW – I could put my hand on it. The small room it was in was a pleasant temperature.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          In fact, I think much of this COP issue will center on what the customer did with the heat afterwards.

          It is clear that a box the size of a shipping container can easily have 1 million watts of energy moved out to another room.

          And by logic, that target room can again easily achieve the moving act out of such heat after it been used.

          I think the dispute will center on what occurred with that heat and how it was returned. Maintaining water at a given temperature is significantly different than using 1 million watts of power to heat such water.

          So how the customer used the heat, but more important how the leftover heat was returned to the ecat likely will be a point of dispute.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Bob Greenyer

            Can’t return super heated steam at 60ºC easily!

            Other than line losses, one of two things occurred in the room the claimed temperature drop happened.

            1. Heat was dumped
            2. Partially used in an endothermic process, balance dumped

            In my opinion, it does not matter which is true. In an MFC you have a cryo unit that cools the output water – the heat is dumped. As far as I can see this is a big MFC.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Yes, the flight over “flow” and return rates etc. may be an issue. But the numbers Rossi have based on info certainly seem conservative.

            This is interesting, since Rossi is thus stating that some parts of the reactor heated water to boiling (or near) and then some parts created steam.

            It is that steam that (likely) sent to the heat exchanger to heat the water to 120C (for final output). So clearly several stages exist here.

            However, I assume that the water passed over ecat modules in all cases was in liquid form as it is then boiled.

            I wonder if oil or liquid salts have been considered for the exchange fluid to pull heat from the ecat ?

            In fact, I not given much thought as to how a modem steam turbine or even a coal plant heats the water. A supercritical system suggests that the water remains as a gas at all times. LENR should be applicable to such systems in that the working fluid is a gas at all times.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • INVENTOR INVENTED

            Where are all the pipes and heat exchangers you would expect in the reactor room Rossi showed in pictures and videos? Something seems to be missing- which makes it look like fraud.

          • Bob Greenyer

            So we have less than 3 weeks before IH have to present their evidence. It may be interesting to play the judge before the claims / evidence is available for scrutiny – but we are all likely to jump to the wrong conclusion.

    • psi2u2

      This question has been extensively discussed on multiple forums. You might want to consult the previous discussion before being overconfident in your own analysis.

    • Ged

      That’s not how that works… Power and temperature do not scale linearly (power is proportional to T^4).

      Also, stand next to any forced air furnace unit while it is running and tell me how hot you feel compared to standing next to an output vent. I can tell you my old home’s basement was quite cold even with the gas fired furnace running full steam.

      • Rossi Fan

        OK, that’s fair. I’m not a scientist or lab rat. So let me get this straight. 2000W = 1 heater 1MW = 500 heaters/4 = 125. That’s still plenty of heat.

        All I know is I wanted to replace a propane water heater with a hybrid electric water heater for my project and I had to pay $250 to redo all the energy calculations over again. Along comes Rossi and he does not need to follow the rules. The regulations nota bene which are a result of the fossil fuel environmental nightmare we are in. If anybody else tried to do what he did, emit lots of heat into the atmosphere, they would be toast.

        • Steve Swatman

          But wasn’t he working along with IH and all their lawyers and legal teams and money, one might expect that they chose this particular place for particular reasons, like correct ventilation, codes and planning acceptance.

        • SG

          ‘Common. Show me a regulation that prohibits emitting heat into the atmosphere. Into streams and rivers? Yes. But blowing hot air into the sky? Ummm, no.

        • Ged

          Wait, waaaaait, what? I think you just have a few misunderstandings, nothing major; just some common science to refresh on and some sense of scale to be shown.

          Ok, so, heat is Not the issue. There are no rules about heat from burning or any thing. No one anywhere has a scientific problem with the heat from fossil fuels that enter the atmosphere, because it is so insignificant it isn’t meaningful to calculate. Even the constant heat of the planet itself from the core, about 0.08 W per square meter which comes to 47+-2 TW, completely dwarfs all the heat we produce. The ENTIRTY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION as of 2013 produces an average of 18 TW according to the IEA, so we are nothing next to the planet itself. And the planet itself is nothing next to the sun.

          Right now, due almost entirely from the Sun’s heating, the Earth is emitting around 260 petawatts (1 PW = 1000 TW). Rossi’s 1 MW reactor is infinitesimally small next to that.

          The issue some bring up with fossil fuels these days is not the heat, but the CO2. The reason for that, is it is argued that CO2 emitted by human fossil fuels is on a large enough scale ( while being a single percentage of natural source CO2) to impede the release of energy to space by the planet and thereby lower that 260 petawatts the Earth is dumping and consequently increasing temperature. It isn’t the heat we make, but the possibility of slowing Earth’s ungodly enonormous energy release via CO2 that is the issue du jour of the day.

          The scale of humanity is simply nonexistant next to the sun warmed planet, and the scale of Rossi’s plant is nonexistant next to humanity.

          • Rossi Fan

            Good point. I stand corrected.

    • As others have said, this has been discussed recently, here and elsewhere. Offices are at the front of the building, the rear is a fairly large warehouse with two loading bays. Follow the link below for a photo of the interior:
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/20/rossi-on-restricted-access-to-the-e-cat-customers-production-facility/#comment-2688201385

    • Stephen

      Here is an interesting calculator:

      http://www.crosshire.ie/calculators/

      This assumes all the heat is used for heating and not endothermic industrial purposes and does not take into account ventilation or thermal statification in spaces with high roofs, as far as I can see.

      I haven’t done the calculation yet as I don’t know the height of the warehouse.

      The containorised boilers on that site are interesting for comparison to the e-cat container too.

      For more technical thermal usage analysis the following link may be interesting I think but most of it is over my head.

      http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/commercial_initiative/hvac_volume2_final_report.pdf

    • DrD

      No, as said so many times, it doesn’t mean that.

  • Engineer48

    HydroFusion web site lists 120C as max 1MW ECat superheated steam output temperature:

    http://hydrofusion.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw-plant/ecat-1-mw-technical-data

    Which aligns with my 120C, 2 bar abs stab in the dark.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I would prefer 120C at 1 bar abs. That would give enough headroom with regard to power fluctuations and possible measurement uncertainties.

      • Engineer48

        Note Rossi instructed the ERV to ignore the energy required to increase the dry superheated steam to above the min temp required for superheat at operational pressure and to avoid the energy required to get the water to a wet steam state.

        So the ERV was instructed to only report the thermal energy gain to transform the just boiled very wet steam into dry steam at the outlet pressure. The vaporisation energy and nothing more.

        Plus then deduct 10%. So a VERY conservative measurement.

        Real world COP was probably around 85:1 or higher!

        • Andreas Moraitis

          My point was that at 120C/2 bar a slight decrease of temperature or increase of pressure would suffice to prevent vaporization. So it might be safer to operate at somewhat lower pressures or higher temperatures than required, especially in a test setup.

          • Engineer48

            Sure, as that is what happens so the engineers can sleep at night.

        • So the temperature was so high out, and so low in, that you don’t need to report it.

          or is it the opposite ?

          we need the data, not conservative assumption, that are maybe too optimistic in fact.

          assumption and conservative asumptions, are to be made after you analyse data.

          I remember the conservative assumptions of Defkalion with vaporisation heat they ignored…

        • SD

          What are you implying? He is just asking a question.

    • DrD

      That’s the temperature i remember but I couldn’t recal where I read it but at 1 bar.

  • Engineer48

    HydroFusion web site lists 120C as max 1MW ECat superheated steam output temperature:

    http://hydrofusion.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw-plant/ecat-1-mw-technical-data

    Which aligns with my 120C, 2 bar abs stab in the dark.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I would prefer 120C at 1 bar abs. That would give enough headroom with regard to power fluctuations and possible measurement uncertainties.

      • Engineer48

        Note Rossi instructed the ERV to ignore the energy required to increase the dry superheated steam to above the min temp required for superheat at operational pressure and to avoid the energy required to get the water to a wet steam state.

        So the ERV was instructed to only report the thermal energy gain to transform the just boiled very wet steam into dry steam at the outlet pressure. The vaporisation energy and nothing more.

        Plus then deduct 10%. So a VERY conservative measurement.

        Real world COP was probably around 85:1 or higher!

        • Andreas Moraitis

          My point was that at 120C/2 bar a slight decrease of temperature or increase of pressure would suffice to prevent vaporization. So it might be safer to operate at somewhat lower pressures or higher temperatures than required, especially in a test setup.

          • Engineer48

            Sure, as that is what happens so the engineers can sleep at night.

        • So the temperature was so high out, and so low in, that you don’t need to report it.

          or is it the opposite ?

          we need the data, not conservative assumption, that are maybe too optimistic in fact.

          assumption and conservative asumptions, are to be made after you analyse data.

          I remember the conservative assumptions of Defkalion with vaporisation heat they ignored…

    • DrD

      That’s the temperature i remember but I couldn’t recal where I read it but at 1 bar.

  • Oystein Lande

    “If I where Rossi”

    If I where to develop a boiler producing steam, I would interested to avoid a boiler which produced partly steam and hot water, i.e which coughed and sputtered two phase steam and water.

    If I wanted to make modularized Compact boilers of say 250 KW, I needed to engineer the internals intelligently to secure pure steam from each module.

    To secure pure steam I would be interested to engineer a Solution of internals which results in Gradually heating, Boiling and final superheating to secure evaporate any remaining droplet in steam phase before it left the module.

    Solution: A 250 KW module where heating where done in stages: heating section(s), boiler section(s) and a following superheating section(s). This may be engineered in a number of ways.

    And If Rossi has it, this is likely part of the Solution.

    • psi2u2

      Very interesting idea.

  • GiveADogABone

    http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-c
    … Throughout the test the pressure of the steam has always been equal to atmospheric pressure. …
    … Throughout the test the temperature of the outlet steam has always been significantly higher than 100C.

    If the steam pressure is 1bar and the temperature 105C, then the steam has 5C of superheat and is DRY. It is the ‘DRY’ that really matters.

    If the steam is dry and at 1bar pressure, then the latent heat of vaporisation is 2257kJ/kg because the steam is fully evaporated as guaranteed by the superheat margin.
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fluids-evaporation-latent-heat-d_147.html

    The heat supplied by the E-cat (in kJ/s or kW (1J/s is 1W)) for contract purposes is 2257kJ/kg times the mass flow rate in kg/s, as measure by the flowmeter.

    Temperatures of inlet and outlet fluids are NOT needed for the calculation. The inlet temperature is not needed at all and the outlet temperature is only needed to ensure the steam is dry and to provide a correction for the flowmeter. According to the contract, anything else is superfluous.

    • Yes, for the calculations of the ERV, per the agreement. So the temperature and pressure readings of the steam output will be critical.

      The input temps remain of interest though, because even though the ERV is ignoring heating of the water (~70 kW), just that alone gets you over COP 3 (assuming 20 kW input power as we’ve been told). So that would be a nice backup, if controversy arises over the steam quality, to fall back on to as another proof of LENR+.

    • Albert Nilsson

      It is not enough to know the outlet temperature to be certain that the steam is 100% dry. You have to perform a steam quality measurement.
      And even if you are only calculating the energy needed for vaporisation, you have to know the inlet temperature and pressure to be sure that it is in the liquid phase.

  • bachcole

    Oh dang!!! I just said I wasn’t going to participate in this technical discussion, but . . . .

    Are we sure that all of these labels (super-heated steam, dry steam, wet steam, or whatever) describe mutually exclusive categories? Do they blend into each other. Wet steam would be steam that still had tiny droplets of H2O in it. The size of the droplets could vary. What is the science with that? Dry steam would be molecular “droplets”, or non-droplets of H2O? Has anyone suggested this while I was deleting emails?

    • Albert Nilsson

      That is exactly the problem – you don’t know that everything is steam just because the temperature is over the boiling point at the relevant pressure. Tiny droplets of water can be carried along with the steam. Which leads to steam quality measurements, which is not rocket science as it has been known since the 19th century. But it is not trivial to perform either. The equipment is available from multiple vendors, so it is quite feasible to perform and definitely should have been performed for this test.

      • psi2u2

        Read below.

      • Ged

        Not if the steam is superheated–steam can’t get superheated unless it’s dry (or, put another way, superheating dries steam which is the whole point). You’re thinking of a standard boiler that has no superheating. The dryer the steam, the more efficient at transfering heat (maximal latent heat available), but one of the other important aspects for superheating steam is to protect the pipes and pumps. If the steam didn’t have a high dryness factor, the reactor would likely not survive nearly as long as a year.

    • psi2u2

      No, but as far as I can tell from informed comments below in this discussion, “superheated” has a pretty clear technical definition that might sometimes be the same as “dry” but can be more precisely defined. The implication is in Rossi’s favor if Rossi is using the term according to the common definition.

  • bachcole

    Oh dang!!! I just said I wasn’t going to participate in this technical discussion, but . . . .

    Are we sure that all of these labels (super-heated steam, dry steam, wet steam, or whatever) describe mutually exclusive categories? Do they blend into each other. Wet steam would be steam that still had tiny droplets of H2O in it. The size of the droplets could vary. What is the science with that? Dry steam would be molecular “droplets”, or non-droplets of H2O? Has anyone suggested this while I was deleting emails?

    • Albert Nilsson

      That is exactly the problem – you don’t know that everything is steam just because the temperature is over the boiling point at the relevant pressure. Tiny droplets of water can be carried along with the steam. Which leads to steam quality measurements, which is not rocket science as it has been known since the 19th century. But it is not trivial to perform either. The equipment is available from multiple vendors, so it is quite feasible to perform and definitely should have been performed for this test.

      • psi2u2

        Read below.

        • Albert Nilsson

          Anything special, or you just want me to read the comments in general for my entertainment?

          • Ged

            Read Engineer48. He is a very educational individual and will help you understand these matters even more.

      • Ged

        Not if the steam is superheated–steam can’t get superheated unless it’s dry (or, put another way, superheating dries steam which is the whole point). You’re thinking of a standard boiler that has no superheating. The dryer the steam, the more efficient at transfering heat (maximal latent heat available), but one of the other important aspects for superheating steam is to protect the pipes and pumps. If the steam didn’t have a high dryness factor, the reactor would likely not survive nearly as long as a year.

        • Albert Nilsson

          My point is that you can’t know, in general, if you steam is superheated by just measuring the temperature. Just have a look at the phase-diagram of water.

          • Ged

            Really? You mean this phase diagram? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/700px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png

            Notice all you need is pressure and tempurature and you know.

          • Engineer48

            YUP. Just need pressure and temperature and a computerised superheated steam table / calculator.

            http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

          • Albert Nilsson

            If it were not for two phase flows and other effects, it would be that simple. But there is a reason that the separating and throttling calorimeter was invented.

    • psi2u2

      No, but as far as I can tell from informed comments below in this discussion, “superheated” has a pretty clear technical definition that might sometimes be the same as “dry” but can be more precisely defined. The implication is in Rossi’s favor if Rossi is using the term according to the common definition.

    • Andy Kumar

      Bachcole,
      The amusing part in this whole saga is that non-technical people have been discussing highly technical things when they have no clue about the subject matter. I am sure that most of these people won’t presume to question their gardener or plumber about gardening or plumbing matters.

      • C’mon Andy – do you actually accept what the first plumber you call for an estimate tells you what your CH system needs to make it work right (after the industry-standard sharp intake of breath, of course). Plumbers and motor mechanics have brought blagging to a fine art – gardeners maybe less so, but what expertise is needed to dig up weeds and prune some shrubs?

  • Chris Marshalk

    Where is the report??? Any word if it will be released?? 🙁

    • Ged

      Apparently in court :(. So when will that be? Well, your tax payer funded judicial system will decide that.

  • Rossi Fan

    DARPA is doing an RFI (request for information) about LENR except it’s time to change the name from LENR to: Modular Nuclear Energy System

    http://www.grants.gov

    DE-FOA-0001598

    Request for Information – Enabling Technologies for Ultra-Safe and Secure Modular Nuclear Energy Systems

    Department of Energy
    Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy

    • Ged

      Fascinating, thanks for the post!

    • SG

      Interesting. Can we just go with Modular Energy System though? LOL.

    • Robert Dorr

      They are requesting proposals that deal with standard fission reactors just very small ones. This has nothing to do with LENR.

      • SG

        Yeah, upon closer inspection, I tend to agree.

        • SMR (Small Modular Reactors) is the new buzzword in nuclear fission, as the giant dinosaur ‘base load’ power stations are in their death throes. None are yet available, other than the tiny units fitted in some military ships and subs, but that hasn’t slowed down the nuclear lobbyists whispering in the ears of technically illiterate and often downright stupid politicians.

      • Roger Roger

        “Consistent with the agency’s mission, ARPA-E is seeking information on
        disruptive, novel technologies, relatively early in the R&D cycle,
        and not integration strategies for existing technologies”

  • Roger Roger

    “ARPA-E is
    particularly interested in innovations that enable reactor designs to
    be: 1) inherently safe (beyond passive safety) with multiple safety
    mechanisms to prevent core melting in case of a loss of coolant accident
    (LOCA); 2) extremely secure without exposure of radioactive nuclides in
    case of LOCA or an enclosure breach with a zero or near zero emergency
    planning zone (EPZ); 3) quickly responsive to external load variations
    with control mechanisms that can also add safety beyond passive cool
    down; 4) long-lasting with operational durations of 10 to 20 years
    without refueling; 5) substantially autonomous in operations with
    minimal operator intervention; and 6) proliferation resistant.
    Consistent with the agency’s mission, ARPA-E is seeking information on
    disruptive, novel technologies, relatively early in the R&D cycle,
    and not integration strategies for existing technologies.”

  • Frank Acland

    May 23, 2016 at 5:41 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    I presume the ERV measured pressure of the vapor that exited the 1MW e-cat?

    Thanks

    Andrea Rossi
    May 23, 2016 at 7:10 PM
    Sebastian:
    I presume you keep your eyes open while you drive your car ?

    Thanks,

    A.R.

    P.S.

    Please do not make other questions related to the measurements made by the ERV: I cannot disclose further information about this issue before the report is disclosed in Court.

    • DFarwell

      I suggest taking the words of “Sebastian” with a grain of salt. Hint: take a peek at Sebastians previous posts on JoNP……

      • SD

        What are you implying? He is just asking a question.

        • DFarwell

          Sebastian is yet another fake Rossi user.

    • psi2u2

      Lol. You have to admit Rossi has a wit on him.

    • help_lenr

      It seams that the essential details regarding the calorimetry are now clear and convincing. The claim about wet steam versus dry steam as source of error in the calorimetric results are not serious. Leave some fine details to the trial process, practically AR revealed most details by now.

      • nothing is clearer.
        Rossi says superheated. Jed and Deways say no.

        What talk clearly is IH who say : we don’t pay .

        If there was a working E-cat technology transfered to IH, they would care of Rossi like on their goose with golden eggs.

        Now the fact that the pretended client refused access to his plant, even under NDA signed by IH, restricted just to see pipes and ventilation, raid a thousands of redflags for me.
        One sign of stage magic is when the magician control what the spectators are allowed to look at.

        I was very positive on claimed E-cat test, like Lugano and the 1MW/350days
        – the client would do real job, best calorimetry
        – access to the client factory to confirm heat was real, and usage confirm calorimetry
        – experts really independent from rossi

        now compare with what we have?

        we cannot even say E-cat don’t work. protocol is so loose we have nothing to say.

        • Engineer48

          Alain,

          Customer knew when the trial was to be finished and made plans to close down their trial site.

          IH pre agreed to the lack of their access to the customer’s production area, so why complain now? Besides it is only “Weaver speak” as IH have not said anything on the subject.

          IH also refused Rossi’s stated offer to buy back the license for the $11.5m paid.

          So if there is nothing of interest why did IH refuse the buy back and go forward with a EU patent application (outside their licensed territories and unknown by Rossi until publishing, who also did not sign the application) claiming a COP of 11:1 for the HotCat Dog Bone reactor, if the COP was really 1:1 or less. Not nice to lie on a sworn statement to the patent folks. Naughty that.

          Should add that as far as I know, IH have not modified the COP 11:1 claim in their patent application. Until they do so, their claim that never have they substantiated Rossi seems to be very convenient to their refusing or delaying payment.

          BTW how can you say the protocol is so loose we have nothing to say as it has never been published?

        • I find your new-found pessimism disturbing, but you are basing it entirely on assumed motivations, which are murky as hell on all sides. Best to remain open-minded and not presume to understand what is happening in all their heads.

          Here are some possibilities for you to consider:

          Industrial Heat has decided to slow Rossi’s advance intentionally either because they were forced to or because they have an alternative horse in their stable they consider the eventual winner and they want to buy it time.

          Industrial Heat decided not to pay the $89 M because mainstream experts threw water on the ERV results (as mainstream scientists are wont to do) and Rossi’s protection of the customer’s privacy (despite being in the agreement signed by IH) increased their suspicion. They lost confidence and want proof.

          Industrial Heat perceived that Rossi was preparing to strike out on his own with QX technology, which they did not yet have. They withheld payment and prepared for a legal battle which they could see coming. IH is all about collecting IP. Rossi has been withholding some of the very important new IP. This is their way to get it.

          Industrial Heat have determined that going to court is in their best financial interest. They might escape payment altogether or reach a settlement for much less and still retain rights to even the new technology.

        • Bruce__H

          “One sign of stage magic is when the magician control what the spectators are allowed to look at.”

          Precisely! This is a possibility that many people are ignoring. They are trying to reason their way through Rossi’s claims as though what are involved are engineering and physical principles. I believe, though, that people need to think about how this all could be a brand of stage magic.

          The EVR could be perfectly sincere but basing his calculations on what he has been shown rather than what is actually happening. He doesn’t need to be in on any fraud.

    • Bruce__H

      Despite what Rossi says, he will indeed keep making disclosures about the test measurements and about all his ecat menagerie. Just watch.

      He has no justification for being snippy in his replies. He created this insane question and answer format.

  • wonderboy

    June will be an interesting month. No matter what IH says, it will cause a flurry of conversation. I predict the following:

    IH: Will claim it doesn’t work and Rossi skeptics will gloat and be out in full strength
    Rossi: Will counter and say new amazing claims

    Rossi should get some public relations advice/help to counter the June release though. We all know he will respond, especially how it will raise questions on his character. I don’t know him but he doesn’t seem like the person to just take a punch and not respond.

    • Engineer48

      If Rossi has everything he has revealed, in signed documents, in the 18 volumes of evidence not yet publicly released, IH may have a very difficult defense, despite what Weaver claims.

    • I expect IH to push the can down the road many more times before they ever really respond to the lawsuit.

      I’m guessing but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit If stall, stall, stall is their plan A, B and C.

      I hope I’m wrong. Would love to see the lawsuit progress this summer.

      • I’m also afraid the delay game will be IH’s choice of strategy. IH could hope to maintain its claim of having a valid license, meanwhile trying to ‘substantiate’ Rossi’s claims and then re-selling the IP, while also hoping to slow down Rossi’s progress in the marketplace.

        I’m not impressed.

  • Engineer48

    Going over my email corro with Rossi, he did advise my potential client’s engineers to design the test load for the 10 x 1MW plants to use 105C superheated steam.

    Outlet pressure needs to be at or below 1.21 bar abs (17.55 PSI) or it starts to turn wet and make stuff very hot.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I wonder why one would need 10 plants just for a test?

      • wpj

        Read his interesting posts and you will see why!

        Easier to read above!

      • Engineer48

        To run 750MWe of subcritical steam turbines needs around 2,200 x 1MWt 600C QuarkX reactors.

        10 x 1 MWt 105C reactors was to do testing on how they react together, handle load changes, determine reliability & maintenance issues.

        But now they hold until the court case dirt fight is over & settled down.

        • DrD

          What is your take on the possible impact of the court ruling? I assume you and your client believe there’s a possibility that it could block the contract so how likely do you think that it is.

          • Engineer48

            The companies that own and operate large thermal power plants are run (operationally) by very conservative older engineers.

            Thus they will not guess the court outcome nor post effects on Leonardo & Rossi, will play a conservative hand and wait it out.

            BTW 2.2GWt of QuarkX reactors is just for 1 750MWe thermal plant. Imagine the size of the world market as in next post.

          • Engineer48

            Multiply the nuclear, coal, natural gas & liquids (oil) generation figure by 3 for the required amount QuarkX reactor heat generation.

            Replacing all the existing nuclear & fossil boilers with QuarkX reactors will probably be the biggest engineering and finance job the planet has ever seen!!!!!

            The mind boggles. Time to roll up a few 100,000s sleeves and get to work.

          • DrD

            I can imagine Quarks becoming a currency, Just joking, but who knows. I hope he can ramp up faster than his current suggestions.

          • Engineer48

            I imagine GE & Siemens would love to be world wide Leonardo QuarkX licensees. Really doubt either would do a sub license with a Leonardo licensee (IH) when they can go to Leonardo direct and bypass IH.

            Sorry IH, no hard feelings, it is just business.

          • DrD

            AR needs something like that but I can imagine him being cautious (suspicious even) after what’s happened with IH.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi has already stated he is working with Siemens on high temp steam electricity generation.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            BTW, does this company still hold the E-Cat licence for Australia (in this case one might guess you are connected to them)?

            https://www.ecat.tech/

          • wpj

            No.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi told me Leonardo holds the license for Australia and so I’m talking to him directly, well directly via email.

          • Craig

            Isnt there a rodger Green that has the licence for australia?

          • Roland

            Exactly.

            The list of very serious players ready to ignore the invalidated contractual rights IH still purports to ‘control’ and just get on with it (by directly contacting Leonardo after the Quark demo) will shift the field of battle very rapidly in Rossi’s favour; make friends and allies and money now, then crush yesterday’s enemies later from a position of unassailable strength based on fuelling a lasting future for humanity.

            What would Norman do?

          • Engineer48

            YES!

            Once Rossi demonstrates commercial 600C QuarkX steam it is ALL OVER!

            The big power plant manufacturing boys and the very large NRG’s (thermal power plant owners and operators) of the world will pay whatever Leonardo demands for a license.

            None will go to IH or any licensee, as the big boys will only sign direct with the patent holder, Leonardo.

            In this way, just maybe Rossi used Darden to get worldwide exposure for the 1MW ECat 1 year trial.

          • DrD

            You say it will be “all over” if he gives us 600C steam but what about the exclusive license ? Your client is waiting for the outcome of the court and if IH manage to retain the license rights that might throw a spanner in the works.

          • Engineer48

            My client is Australian, very conservative and not in IH territory.

            I really doubt the licensed territory structure will survive as many way to get around it, as it is only binding on the licensee or sub licensee and not binding on those they sell the plant, if they choose to resale to another client in another licensee’s territory.

            IE, simple for someone to buy plants from Leonardo in Europe and offer them for sale to whoever, wherever as whole plant or in broken down components and locally assembled.

            I’m 100% sure IH knew this from the start and was one of the reasons they filed an EU HotCat Dog Bone patent application claiming 11:1 COP.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            See my above response. Until the legal issue is resolved, that does NOT prevent Rossi from selling machines into say the USA. However, it would mean that when the court case is resolved, then IH will be able to make a claim against every ecat sold in the USA since they own that territory.
            So the selling of the ecats is not the issue, but Rossi have to potentially pay out money back to IH for every sale would be most certainly an issue. I doubt Rossi wants to build up a sales network or start delivering machines into the US marketplace only to find out down the road that such sales belong to IH and they are to be compensated for such sales. And such court cases usually take about 10 years.
            Certainly IH would have to come good on their 90 million (but not during the court case). However, in the meantime, sales of ecats and the profits of such could still well be awarded to IH.
            So selling machines is not the issue – the risk of those sales belonging to someone else such as IH is the problem.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Roland

            IH is in breach of contract so their claim to rights under the licensing provisions are suspect at best; this weakness may cause some entities (other than crusty steam engineers) to proceed as though the contract doesn’t exist in the knowledge that the present benefits of participation vastly outweigh any potential legal consequences raised by a lessor entity like IH down the road.

            Am I advocating Bill Gates style hardball tactics?

            Yup.

            APCO’s entry into game has clarified the moral dimensions of the current conflict, in a way few other companies could, and the gloves are definitely off.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Right but if AR sells a bunch of units, and then HI comes up with money, or
            accepts the terms of their contracts, then any LENR unit sold under the
            agreement terms will mean that Rossi will have to pay HI for lost damages due
            to Rossi selling devices into a licensed territory by HI.

            In other words, Rossi can risk sellingmachines in to the US marketplace, but those sales belong to HI (assuming HI and AR resolve their disagreements).

            So HI can sit back, let Rosso do all the work, and sell units into the US market. Then when the court case is resolved or they pay the 90 million, then all machines that Rossi sold means are machines that HI rightly would have received compensation for.

            So I doubt Rossi going to sell units into the US market until the legal issues are resolved, since if an agreement occurs (or settlement) is forced by the courts, then HI could wind up paying the 90 million, but then be owned compensation for any machine Rossi sells into that jurisdiction.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            From what I know of Italians in business, and I know quite a few, IH will never get a dollar from Rossi.

          • I also guess it’s more attractive to go to the inventor who has all the necessary knowhow, also on future R&D, than going to an entity with a disputed license, furthermore without enough knowledge to ‘substantiate the claims’ by the inventor whose technology it licensed.

          • CWatters

            A “demonstration” simply won’t cut it. We’ve had demos. Nothing will happen until Rossi publishes enough information for a fully independent replication. That shows no signs of happening.

          • Funny there’s no LENR in the projection part 😉

    • Thing is even 50% dry steam produces an impressive COP at the described flow rate.

      The steam would have to be mostly wet for COP to fall below 6. That’s the opposite of 105 deg C superheated steam at anything close to atmospheric pressure. So far this is all Rossi says but if what Rossi says corresponds to what is in the ERV report then I would expect IH to challenge the flow rate or just say the whole report is a fabrication as were the measurements.

      • Engineer48

        Designing for 105C superheater steam was his advice to thermal power plant steam engineers who eat this stuff for breakfast.

        BTW when you put superheated steam into the primary (ECat side) inlet of a heat exchanger and what comes out the primary outlet (ECat side) of the heat exchanges is not superheater steam, all the thermal energy difference (which is heaps), heats the primary side of the heat exchanger to basically just a bit below the dry steam temperature.

  • Engineer48

    If Rossi has everything he has revealed, in signed documents, in the 18 volumes of evidence not yet publicly released, IH may have a very difficult defense, despite what Weaver claims.

  • C’mon Andy – do you actually accept what the first plumber you call for an estimate tells you what your CH system needs to make it work right (after the industry-standard sharp intake of breath, of course). Plumbers and motor mechanics have brought blagging to a fine art – gardeners maybe less so, but what expertise is needed to dig up weeds and prune some shrubs?

  • Ged

    Really? You mean this phase diagram? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/700px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png

    Notice all you need is pressure and tempurature and you know.

  • Roland

    Once the math of phase changing water to steam is clarified the rational for ignoring the caloric requirements of raising the inlet water from 60C. to 100C. and the steam from 100C. to 120C. become starkly clear:

    Raise 1g. water from 60C. to 100C. 40 calories
    Raise 1g. steam from 100C. to 120C. 9.6 calories
    Phase change 1g. 100C. water to 100C. steam 539 calories

    Dry steam simply means that all of the water has phase changed and the reason that one needs to know the % of water still carried by the steam to arrive at an accurate energy calculation becomes self evident; however it also becomes self evident that being plus or minus a couple of percentage points doesn’t move the ‘this is a valid counter argument to LERN’ needle very far.

    Water has quite a number of fascinating properties. In it’s solid phase it is the only known substance that occupies a larger volume as a solid than as a liquid. Were ice to sink, like everything else, the oceans would be frozen solid, right along with just about every other H2O molecule on the planet.

    The nearest competing element or molecule, weight for weight, to water heats up 5C. for every input calorie; and nothing else come remotely close, proportionately, to the energies required to make the liquid to gas phase change in water.

    The pool of liquid H2O ‘is’ literally the planetary thermostat; hence it is cause for alarm when this immense heat reservoir exhibits temperature rates of change outside its geologic norms.

    No known substance dissolves, or suspends, as many elements and molecules as water, and steam, can; this is relevant to everything from biology to geological depositions.

    Collectively, the precise properties water exhibits are essential to any envisionable form of life that current physics allows.

    In order that water have its exact current properties a dozen ‘universal constants’ have to have precise values, the ones that we see, as even the most minor shifts in these values lead, theoretically and mathematically, to large shifts in properties.

    In an interesting exercise, intended to buttress a certain body of claims regarding the emergence of self reflective consciousness (humanity presumably) in the universe, a clever group of fellows thought that a quantum mechanical analysis of the probability of the ‘big bang’ yielding the current values (for the aforementioned dozen universal constants) would be instructive.

    Their predisposition was that water having it’s current properties would be revealed, by their analysis, to have a very high probability (they were thinking on the order of 50% or so) and that that would demonstrate that no overarching organizational imperative was needed to guide the process of the creation of the universe.

    Turns out that their opinion going in, that each sequential ‘crystallization’ of a concrete Eigen value for a specific emergent constant would be down the high probability pathway, was a little misguided.

    The first round of calculations caused them to tighten their assumptions in favour of a further conservatism as the results were a bit alarming.

    Under these more stringent metrics the probability of water having its current properties was reduced to a mere 2 trillion to 1.

    It did get them thinking a wee bit, as honest mathematicians, thought experimentalists and, dare I say, philosophers, about their initial assumptions.

    P.S. The final odds of getting us as we are; an insignificant 6 trillion to 1. Hey, no big deal; everybody knows accidents happen all the time…

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Your simple table shows clearly why the amount of water in the output of the boiler is a significant question. Though even if the amount of liquid water that did not get turned into steam approaches 50% of the inlet flow, the plant drops from an amazing COP of over 50 to a “significant commercial” COP of around 25. It will be hard to prove IH’s “COP of 1” based on wet verses dry steam arguments.

      • Engineer48

        Fairly clear IH is playing a standard “DENY everything” game with Rossi, trying to get him to agree to a lower payout, in exchange for calling off “Weaver Says” potentially damaging his sales potential.

        Problem is Rossi is a very tough and battle scarred Italian fighter that told them to tear up their license and he will pay them back their $11.5m, which they refused to do.

        So he, in effect, called their bluff.

        BTW if Leonardo signed a QuarkX license with say GE and or Siemens in Europe, who really thinks the IH license will top them selling new QuarkX thermal power plants or offering upgrades to all other thermal plant owners worldwide?

        • BillH

          AR offering to pay back the $11.5M, if true, would also appear to have been a bluff, since much of the money would have gone into the E-Cat X developments, AR having made the claim that this was done outside of any agreements he had with IH.

          • Engineer48

            Your really think HydroFusion and other potential worldwide licensees would not support getting rid of the IH license? $11.5m is very cheap to get rid of them and reclaim the rights.

            Unlike Weaver who can’t face legal action over his “Weaver Says” claims, except maybe defamation action by Rossi, everything Rossi says as the claimant is part of his ongoing offering.

          • BillH

            HydroFusion had a year start to produce plants in there own locale, I haven’t seen any, or is that a secret too?

          • SG

            It’s his money. He can legitimately do whatever he wants with it. And prior to the fallout, Mr. Rossi had even admitted the e-Cat X fell within the improvement clause contemplated in the agreement. But if your partner refused to pay you $89 million, would you then withhold the improvements you might have made? I think I might do just as Mr. Rossi did if I were in his shoes.

          • I got the impression from Rossi, when I talked to him, that all the money still sits in his bank account.

        • bachcole

          Given the new replication of LENR in China reported just today, I am 80% sure that Darden/I.H. is playing the “scumbag” game.

      • Roland

        Precisely. The other significant variable is steam pressure; as the pressure rises so do the calories required to induce, or maintain, phase change. The 539cal./g. figure is predicated on 1 bar dry steam.

      • DrD

        AR said the customer also monitored the steam “qualiity” (dryness) and the other parameters needed to confirm that he was receiving the 1MW.

        • Engineer48

          As the customer’s MWt was delivered via an isolating heat exchanger, the 1MWt ECat plant would need to output more than 1MWt, to make up for heat exchanger losses as they are not 100% efficient in transferring heat energy.

          Note the heat energy applied in the primary / ECat side of the heat exchanger would consist of very high entropic energy superheated dry steam as inlet and very low entropic energy wet steam as outlet and the entropic energy difference would be the real heat energy delivered to the primary side of the heat exchanger.

          As Rossi stated, the system was complex. Which means the engineers needed to know their craft to get the best energy delivery to the customer’s side of the isolating heat exchanger, while still delivering 1MWt of secondary side heat exchanger energy to the customer’s load, whatever that was.

          Which means it doesn’t really matter what the customer’s load was. Only need to know the ECat outlet steam temperature, steam pressure and ECat inlet water volume to determine the output energy content.

          Overall energy gain is given by:

          kW = (kJ/kg out – kJ/kg in) x kg/sec inlet flow.

          Not rocket science, yet some use it to confuse what is really very simple math and physics.

          Gotta love engineering!

          • It would probably be more skeptic-proof if flow and return in the secondary (output) circuit were used as the reference criteria. That way, phase change complications would be avoided, while ignoring HE and input-side pipe losses would make the figures about as robust as they could be.

          • Engineer48

            If we ever learn the ERV temp & pressure of input & output plus flow data, the rest is not rocket science to calc the reactor energy gain in kWt versus input kWe.

    • Engineer48

      Roland wrote:

      1) Raise 1g. water from 60C. to 100C. 40 calories
      2) Raise 1g. steam from 100C. to 120C. 9.6 calories
      3) Phase change 1g. 100C. water to 100C. steam 539 calories

      Excellent example. Make the point why Rossi asked the ERV to only measure 3) and then reduce that thermal energy gain by 10%!!!

      Which means the real world COP is much higher than 50:1. As ERV thermal gain 539 * 0.9 = 485 calories. Real world gain 40 + 9.6 + 539 = 588.6 calories versus ERV reported 485 calories or 103.6 calories or 21.4% higher COP.

  • I forgotten about this slide made for the IH-China sales tour of October 2015 (before Nov 6 White House meeting and when still believing they had Rossi in a tight IP NDA leash). They seemed pretty sure to have COP 3-20 without mentioning Rossi … Strange isn’t it? As commenter “Willem” wrote; in chinese the “believing” was taken out of the equation as well.

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/ih-darden-seemed-pretty-fing-sure-of-cop-3-20-when-selling-ecats-in-china/

    • Engineer48

      What you have never seen a salesman in hot pursuit of closing a big deal that would win him a fat back pocket bonus?

      • Well, yes. They are usually very transparent… I recall Rossi stating that Darden et al were dancing ballet infront of them singing “stellar stellar” or something.

        Of course it could be IH involved in a huge deliberate scam (not having what they put on the slides). That would be interesting as well.

        • Engineer48

          The world is a small place for Darden to hide.

          Likewise it is a small place for Rossi to hide.

          • BillH

            No one found Rossi for a year, he’s good at hiding.

        • DFarwell

          And you believe the “Rossi says” stellar ballet huh?

          • Ged

            We’ve seen pictures of Darden and investors, and know how sales go, so… highly believable. Just go to any car dealership and report back.

          • Rossi could be exaggerating I guess. Have no idea about Dardens abilities in the ballet discipline … But a little dance and some sort of tune … yes of course. That goes for any VC sales dude …

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yep, no one has proven Rossi a liar. IH on the other hand has been feeding their investors nothing but lies. Sure they may be legal lies, but still, lies. Unless of course they didn’t lie to their investors, which means they are deceiving and hampering this tech from reaching starving people.

    • Engineer48

      IH was also very confident about COP = 11:1 when swearing to and filing the EU patent application for the HotCat DogBone reactor, which BTW they have never retracted nor modified.

      Seems it all changed when Rossi $89m account hit accounts payable.

      So what is it, IH lied when swearing under oath to the patent application COP or they lied when making their PR statement they could never substantiate Rossi’s COP claims? Both can’t be true.

      BTW I 100% discount “Weaver Says” as it is not binding on IH in court.

      • DFarwell

        IH believed in Rossi and his words when they made all of their claims which they also hoped were legitimate. Unfortunately it appears that IH has now found that Rossi’s claims are not honest or can be substantiated. I can’t imagine being more disappointed when you find out your inventor does not have the goods after giving him millions….

        • Ged

          IH built the Lugano, patent, and 1MW reactors. They tested it, and made a parent outside of Rossi’s knowledge with data from their own work. So, whose claims are you referring to now?

          • DFarwell

            Ged, where are these IH test results that you speak of that substantiate the Rossi Effect….while I await those results from you, my answer would still be Rossi of course.

          • Ged

            Nope. Read the IH patent documents (engineer48 linked the one earlier, but there are a couple; there was a whole thread here dedicated to them and the analysis), read the Lugano report (confirmed by IH as their device) and read the 24 hour tests. You are Way behind the times, or willfully ignoring fact.

          • DFarwell

            You are claiming Lugano as proof of Rossi effect? Enough said….

          • Michael W Wolf

            As far as I know, Lugano results show anomalous heat. The only counter I’ve heard is that there could be measurement errors, not there is. And with the potentially greatest discovery in history, we should be positive before we chuck it in the trash can. Don’t you think? We had positive results at Lugano until proven otherwise, not assumed. Now if Darden and company want to say there was no anomalous heat, Good, then get out of the way and let professionals figure it out. Because in the very least IH is completely incompetent and is doing more harm than good in bringing this tech to market.

          • DFarwell

            I have seen no substantiation of the Lugano test and while it MAY have shown anomalous heat, it does not prove the “Rossi Effect” in the context of any significant COP number. I definitely believe there were errors and possibly fraud with the Lugano test. Any significant COP numbers are yet completely elusive to any scientist or reseacher on this planet..

          • Ged

            IH made the Lugano reactor and fuel, so take it up with them. It is their obligation to verify their work.

            You intentionally dodge and miss the point and ignore common knowledge and fact. Willful ignorance. There’s no more point in talking to you until you actually use fact instead of whatever you pull out from your head.

        • Michael W Wolf

          That is all assumption on your part. You admit you are using your imagination. And if what you say is true, they would have sued Rossi for criminal fraud. Or do they normally let thieves take their investors’ money without them even attempting to recover it? And what of Fabiani? he works for IH. Is he lying for Rossi? Or is he a moron that Rossi tricked into building control systems for a fake reactor? If you were really concerned about facts, the few that there are, impeach IH not Rossi. IH believed? Oh you know that?. IH says is all you have. And IH is a walking contradiction of the few facts we have. The only thing IH said under federal oath is that they built a reactor with a COP of 11. Let’s go by that until they make other statements under oath.

          • DFarwell

            Of course it is assumption as we don’t have the facts yet…I was posing my assumption in rebuttal to Engineers. While he discounts “Weaver says”….I discount “Rossi says”. FYI…If you ask 6 questions in one post, you will probably find most people unwilling to answer…

          • Michael W Wolf

            They were rhetorical.

      • BillH

        Actually all these things can be true, if they can be proved to be unrelated. A patent on a DogBone device may have no relation to a 1MW plant. Since there were several periods of downtime on individual reactors the COP of 50 is an average for the duration of the test. Therefore daily COP figures may have varied greatly. There may even have been days where the output was 0. This goes to the issue of reliability, I think IH may try to claim that there was so much downtime that the plant was not ready for sale to customers. AR will have to explain every outage in detail.

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      All the discussion about bad calorimetry is void. When we talk about the e-cat we talk about SSM, at that moment calorimetry is a non- issue. It works or it doesn’t. Even a high school student with limited knowledge can check if SSM is enabled.
      The 1 year test of the 1MW e-cat was a test of performance, not to prove that the reaction works or not. IH knows that it works.

      • Engineer48

        Stanny,

        Here is the clear issue.

        IH files a EU patent application (totally outside their territory and without Rossi’s knowledge) that claims a COP for their HotCat DogBone reactor of COP = 11.

        Then when Rossi’s invoice for $89m arrives in their “To Pay” basket, IH claims they have never been able to substantiate Rossi’s claims.

        So is it their claim that they have never been able to substantiate Rossi that is correct or is their sworn under oath EU patent application of a COP = 11 correct?

        Sorry but can’t be both.

        • BillH

          Or, the patent application was made in error, patents are often not approved.

          • Engineer48

            So if the COP claim is incorrect, why has IH not rescinded the COP claim in the patent application?

            Seems only when the $89m Rossi invoice hit Accounts Payable did IH say they can’t substantiate.

          • DFarwell

            “why has IH not rescinded the COP claim” This will probably happen after the court case is over. There is no real reason to be concerned with it at this point from anyone’s standpoint nor a legal obligation for haste.

          • Ged

            It should happen -before- the court case, as it is strong evidence against them. It is also their duty regardless of any court cases.

          • DFarwell

            Wrong Ged. While you may personally feel it “should happen before”, there is no legal press or requirement at this point for it to happen prior to the court case nor is it any evidence against them outside of conspiracy theories because we do not know the details beyond “Rossi says”. The timing of when they actually deal with the logistics of the patent filing is completely irrelevant at this point to the case.

          • Ged

            Wow, that is really going to be your claim? They cannot legally use a defense of “not substantiated” while having a patent for a COP of 11 from their own (not Rossi says) device. Go read the actual patent before you proceed further on this as you clearly have no knowledge at the moment of that which you speak.

            No court will accept such a logical contradiction, and the fact IH is stalling for time should wave a red flag to you. There needs be no conspiracies here, just plain use your head.

          • DFarwell

            I don’t know how many different ways this can be explained to you or others here who do not understand patent law and scope. The COP number is irrelevant in reference to patents. Patent process does NOT have a mechanism for analysis or verification of performance of devices patented nor is it the scope of what a patent is for. I am not quite sure why this is so misunderstood.

          • Michael W Wolf

            IH filed a patent outside their license agreement area. Breach of contract. IH did not find a test facility in the specified time frame. Breach of contract. IH did not pay with the final positive ERV report, who they agreed to use. breach of contract. IH’s own engineer says ecat works more than claimed. IH make public statements contradicting claims they made in a patent filed. Where has IH been honest brokers? At all, in any of this?

          • DFarwell

            Everything you just said is heresay and “Rossi says” until we see evidence…as well as off course from the point of the COP in conjunction with the patent as we have been discussing.

          • Michael W Wolf

            What? Not one thing there is hearsay. And I don’t count the interview with Fabiani hearsay.

          • Ged

            It seems you don’t understand patent law (albeet, it is rather convoluted in places, particularly after the AIA)? You keep claiming others don’t know things, yet it seems the joke is that it is you who doesn’t actually understand the argument? I guess perhaps it is just because you are conflating and mangling your arguments so as not to present them and yourself correctly?

            In a court of law, if you claim you can’t substantiate something, yet file a patent–which requires data–that shows it is substantiated (all patents require accurate substance, contrary to your claims, or they are null and a waste of thousands of dollars), your argument is immediately invalidated by your own behavior. They would be thrown out of court on their butts.

            But there is worst trouble they could get into. Let’s look at actual law, shall we?

            http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302875912

            Contrary to what you said to another poster, when one files a patent one has to make an oath and declaration about the accuracy of the filing, and breaking of that oath is punishable by imprisonment or fining (or both). If IH claims COP 11, and then claims in court that is not so (not simply a slightly different number, but that it doesn’t work at all and all claims they themselves made to the patent office are bogus) without withdrawing or amending their patent application (or if it is shown they knew all this before filing), they violate section 18 U.S.C. 1001, particularly part (a)(2).

            It is (mostly) irrelevant for the patent office to try to validate data itself, because presenting false data is a criminal offense. Perhaps that is all you have missed?

          • psi2u2

            I don’t think this would be true in actual practice in this instance. I see what you are seeing, but it is a matter of IH credibility. They claimed a cop of 11 in the patent, which is in direct and unforgiving conflict with their claim now that they “cannot substantiate” Rossi’s IP.

          • Chapman

            Ged, I enjoy every thoughtful comment you post, and you have a wonderful grasp of the science, as well as a clear understanding of the legal issues. But WHY do you even bother engaging with Farwell? Any review of previous discussions show you are wasting your breath. He is leading you on. No one could be as dense and obstinate as he portrays. He has something else going on – don’t buy into it.

            The sign at Jellystone Park reads, “Don’t feed the bears…”

          • Ged

            Ah, yeah, you are right. Too bad I didn’t see your post till after dumping some more energy into this farce. Thanks for helping me stay away from the bears :).

          • Chapman

            Do not misunderstand me. I am a big fan that looks forward to reading, and learning, from your input. It is just such a shame watching you earnestly trying to explain simple facts, then seeing your growing frustration when your perfect logic seems to be unable to crack the wall of ignorance and denial he has built up around himself. His replies amount to “I know you are, but what am I”.

            Do not get frustrated. Your communication skills are spot on. Everyone here can see and understand the points you make, and appreciate them. While I get a guilty pleasure watching your intellectual jousting, it stops being fun when I can see you are starting to bleed from the ears!

            Don’t stop engaging, but if you have to repeat the same fact five times and STILL the point is ignored or obfuscated, then you kinda have to suspect you are not engaged with a particularly respectable intellect or even a healthy mind. At some point you have to realize that Dragon before you is just a broken down old windmill… and move on to nobler battles.

          • Engineer48

            Plus “Don’t feed the Trolls…”

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I think the money could be raised quite easy. And IH could have offered partial payment now.

            I think part of this centers around that IH was eager, and the idea of a yearlong test in an industrial setting seemed far off – so why not offer such a deal to keep Rossi happy, and in the meantime raise money, and solidify IP rights.

            The problem is Rossi went and found a customer (or made one) and started a yearlong test. This move perhaps was not anticipated by IH. However, they both were paying for the ERV – so perhaps again IH thought that Rossi might have a difficult time achieving the required performance. However, it is noted that ERV reports came out monthly, or at least every 3 months. The first reports with COP of 50+ must have been a shocker.

            And the pictures of the 1MW plant are simply beautiful – especially when you compare it to the original 1MW plant. A think the plant and setup is a real work of art.

            As for the COP of 50? Gee, that’s just outright amazing – I still have “guarded” reservations about the performance. Time will tell and sort this issue out.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • SG

            Being made in error and being not approved are two separate things. If the application was made in error, then IH should inform the various patent offices of the mistake and request the application to be abandoned, to meet with their duty of candor, and to avoid wasting the resources of the various patent offices when they come to examining the patent applications. Until IH does this, I will remain skeptical of their statements that they were unable to substantiate the claims.

          • Engineer48

            100% spot on.

            IH can’t have it both ways. Well more than that as the patent application was outside their territory and filed without Rossi’s knowledge nor signature as the inventor.

            Ask yourself why they did that? Maybe they believe the licence territory conditions are not binding on them?

            Weaver Says claims they owe Rossi nothing more as the $11.5m payment was all the contract required. I do suggest Weaver reads the contract as that is not how the contract reads.

            Well to be correct the $11.5m payment gave them the IP and maybe for IH that is all they need and maybe they believe they can void the rest of the contract conditions as Weaver Says seems to suggests is the case?

            I suspect the judge may just have a different understanding of the contract conditions imposed on IH versus Weaver Says., which has zero legal authority.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            A crazy story

            Hey D. We dont have the money to pay to R. what should we do?
            D. Answers: Yes, we have a problem, we couldnt sustantiate the money funds. mmm. what if we dont sustantiate the technology after the test ends? We should fill a patent at Europe so we would have an IP even if we broke the agreement with R.
            Oh. That sounds nice. So we would have all the world to get money from even without the LA.
            So, we should delay it at court until the patent gets approved and when R finds about it it would be too late.
            D. Yes, thats a good move. And he has bad credibility, we could start the fog machine so we would get billions of dollars before the case ends. And if at late we have to pay it would be a little amount considering the billions we can get licensing all over the world.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Actually, IH is stating Rossi ecat don’t work.. Their own patents and technology they have is what they claim does work according to their patients. Remember, IH can’t file patients on behalf of Rossi. So the fact of some patent filed by IH has nothing to do with the ecat and Rossi. Thus saying Rossi stuff does not work and filing and claiming that they have their own technology is a different matter. And if you have your own technology and patents, then why pay Rossi? So IH filing a patent has nothing to do with validating Rossi technology – they simply are claiming they have their own patents and technology.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • SG

            I get your point, but then why did they name Mr. Rossi as an inventor?

          • Engineer48

            Even more why did IH file a patent application OUTSIDE their territory, claim Rossi was the inventor and never notify him of their action nor ask him to sign the patent application and claim a COP > 1, yet when the Rossi invoice for $89m arrives, claim it never worked.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            That’s a easy answer!

            Why would IH file a patent and false miss-represent their right to do so, and in fact outright miss-represent Rossi in the Europe market?

            This is about leverage.

            You have to always work backwards.

            What is the “end” result of and reason to file a patent in Europe in which you have no business and have NOT EVEN purchase or signed rights to that area?

            It is rather simple:

            Just look at the IH dispute. The RESULT of this dispute is Rossi can’t sell ecats into the USA. So anyone knowing that if a disagreement occurs, then Rossi not going to sell into the USA market, right?

            Well, now anyone with a brain knows Rossi has to eat and feed the legal machine. The OBVIOUS result of above is Rossi to move forward, make money will have to sell outside of the USA and into places like Europe.

            Oh, wait! – IH has a patent in for the Europe market!

            Get it?

            I mean, if I going to lock you out of a house with full knowledge you have another house – I going to try to lock that other house also.

            What good is it to lock you out of one house with full knowledge you have another house somewhere else?

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            It is called TRYING to force Rossi back to the table to accept a much lower offer while IH retains their license or the Weaver Says machine will beaver away to try to destroy Rossi’s credibility in the client’s (cast a little question of doubt) mind who may decide to hold off buying a 1MW ECat reactor as he did with my potential clients and cause him potential cash flow issues.

            Dirty business for sure but how some may decide to play the game.

          • Alan Smith

            Because it puts him in a bind. Hard for him to say ‘I didn’t file that, take my name off it’ because that leaves a clear field for the other guy. It in fact has the makings of another court-case. ‘Tie ’em up in legal issues until they die or fade away’ is a well known big business tactic.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi claims the other guy on the IH patent did not invent anything but was the guy at IH that he taught everything too.

            Patent can’t be issued to IH without Rossi’s signature.

          • Stephen

            I wonder if it would create problems if Andrea Rossi wanted to issue a similar patent himself. Or if it would have some legal basis if IH and LC split.

            It seems to me apart from everything else regarding payment, territory conflicts etc Rossi was forced into a corner regarding this and had little option than to make a claim to keep control of his IP.

            Imagine you go to them hoping for payment after the positive ERV report despite everything (F9), but instead at about the same time find another patent has been published in IH name. Even after something similar in the previous year was attempted and should have made it clear it should have been withdrawn.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi was the inventor in the IH EU patent. So it was his technology. Yet he claims he never knew of the patent application filing until it was published and claims to have never signed it.

            The patent was for the HotCat DogBone reactor that they claim in the patent has a COP of 11 and once Rossi’s $89m invoice arrived, claimed it didn’t work.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Was Rossi name on that patent app?

          • Engineer48
          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Yes, it was.

            And this feels like IH doesnt have the 89 million but wants to retain the ip and also expand to countries wich they dont have the LA so thats why they filled the patent.

            And now we have to trust them? I would say not.

          • Ged

            Yes he is, and if one reads the patent it is for the Dogbone Hotcat, not something else. It even uses some supporting Lugano data along with some new stuff on the Dogbone.

          • Engineer48
          • Omega Z

            Yes, Rossi’s name was on the app along with a supposed IH co-inventor. This is a loophole in the Patent system that should be closed super fast.

            If that patent were approved even without Rossi’s approval, he would have to go along or forfeit any rights too it.

          • Engineer48

            What I learned was before the patent was issued, Rossi would have had to sign it and if he refused, the IH patent could not be issued.

          • DFarwell

            Yet another case of “Rossi says” being applied to documentation…..

        • DFarwell

          Engineer, what are you talking about with the “sworn under oath” statement? I believe you completely misunderstand how the patent process works. There is absolutely no mechanism in US or EU patent framework, rules and guidelines that require, measure or challenge stated performance values of a patented (or pending) item. An estimated or suggested value is typically stated when describing operation. You are completely off on this.

          • doug marker

            I believe that there are circumstances where sworn testimony is accepted by USPTO.
            .
            I have in my possession copies of a ‘sworn affidavit” that was requested by the USPTO of an inventor who had a device he wished to patent. The USPTO told the inventor they would not approve his patent application unless he came to Washington and demonstrated his invention to the satisfaction of the USPTO.
            .
            He did not want to do that (for several reasons) so asked the USPTO what would be required to have his invention evaluated in-situ at his workshop. The USPTO told the inventor they would accept a sworn affidavit from acknowledged experts in the field. Two experts were found (One a PhD professor of chemistry and the other an accredited power output tester).
            .
            The two experts conducted their test at the inventor’s workshop, had the testing equipment assessed after the test, filed their sworn affidavit in their home state, the inventor sent in the details of the filed affidavit, then the USPTO granted that patent.

            I think this covers the situation being discussed.

            Cheers – Doug Marker

        • INVENTOR INVENTED

          They are claiming to have devised a slightly different reactor than Rossi.They are ripping him off. Introduction of the Ecat in the marketplace is being delayed by the suit. Its also delaying sales income for IH.

      • SD

        Actually calorimetry does matter even in SSM. Imagine if the calorimetry was bad and the COP was actually 0.5. You could possibly just be storing energy during non-SSM mode and then produce heat during SSM.

        Not that I think it’s going to be the case. But power out vs power in does matter.

        • Stanny Demesmaker

          I mean in the context of the hot cat that was tested in Lugano, which had a SSM but didn’t get used there. That’s also a reason why I take the amateur critics of the Lugano report not that serious. I also love the fact that people believe that IH wouldn’t internally test their reactor before they release it for testing. If the results of the internal testing didn’t match the Lugano report they would have stepped in because it would invalidate their patents.

          • Engineer48

            Correct.

            Yet Weaver Says claims they never tested the DogBone HotCat reactors before shipping them to Lugano.

            So professional. NOT!!!!

          • Obvious

            How could IH not test that type of device before shipping it?
            Just powering it is a nightmare. You can’t just hook it up to any old power supply.

            Just knowing it could be run at all, never mind with some possible excess heat, should have been a prerequisite before shipping it anywhere, IMO.

            They might have known what it acts like without excess heat if it had been tested before it left the U.S.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, actually the SSM mode is important. You do realize that SSM mode is not that input power is ALWAYS off for hours on end.

            If the above was the case then COP becomes a “silly” measure and in fact a COP does not exist. If no input power is required, then you attempting to divide by zero – (I assume you done some math, right?)

            In other words, the ERV report claims a COP of 50, but if the plant was running in SSM mode most of the time (as Rossi stated so), then why not a COP of 500, or 5000?

            So keep in mind that SSM does not mean no input power is required for hours on end.

            SSM mode means that you put power in say for 2 seconds and then turn off the power say for 6 seconds. When you do this, then a basic COP of 3 would then become 9. (assuming that the LENR “heat” after death is occurring).

            So SSM mode does not mean drive power stays off for hours on end, but when the plant is in SSM mode, you are cycling drive power off and on. (and this drive power is a mix of the “EM” stimulation power and heater core power).

            And while the Lugano report was hugely awaited the existence of SSM mode, and it be used or not does not affect some of the shortcomings of that report.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • help_lenr

            In SSM the is a tiny amount of electric consumption used to keep alive the CONTROL SYSTEM.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            No, not quite! SSM mode is not no drive power for hours on end. SSM mode is a like 2 seconds drive power, and then 6 seconds no drive power. It is this ratio of off and then on that gives the higher COP. If the static COP is say 6 (without SSM) and then you can go for 2 seconds drive and 4 seconds no driving, the you will double the COP from 6 to 12. So NO NO NO we not talking about pumps and other control power.
            SSM is not a mode in which the device runs for hours on end without drive power. It is a cycling of ON then OFF. The greater the ratio of the off time, the greater the COP . As noted, if the drive power was off for hours on end, the COP would be MANY MANY MANY TIMES that of 50.

            This is grade school math.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Please consider this. If the COP is 6 (without SSM) and then you go for 2 hours drive (input ~1/6 MW) and 4 hours no drive (input of 8 kW for controls etc.), then you will increase the COP of 6 to 16. And YES, A.R. is talking about 8 kW power for “control panels, triacs, transformers, safety systems” during SSM which can last hours according to him. Math for the 6 hours: Output average = 1 MW (100 % of the 6 hours time). Input average = (2 x 1/6 MW + 4 x 0.008 MW)/6 = 0,0609 MW. Then, COP = 16, not so many, many times 6, just less than 3 times. Note above, the drive power was off for hours. – An SSM of 93% would give COP = ~ 52 (e.g. 1.5 hours no drive & 7 minutes drive).

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, that possible from a math point of view, but not practical nor what we been told about SSM mode. I never heard anything that suggests that SSM mode means 2+ hours of drive time.

            And regardless, if SSM mode was 2 hours, or 2 seconds off, and then 4 hours or 4 seconds self-sustain, the math and ratio does not change.

            If SSM was for hours on end, the COP would be fantastic unless one cooks up the idea that SSM mode suggests that drive “on” times are hours at end. I don’t have the reference handy, but one of the reports or tests spoke of SSM mode – the ratios of off/on were expressed in seconds – not hours.

            I am most happy to be corrected on the above, and as I stated, such an drive ratio of 2/4 may well be seconds, hours or minutes, and as such different units of time will not change the basic multiplier concept and math I outlined. It is this math ratio that gives the high COP.

            If anyone has info on the ratio times of SSM, do chime in – I can’t find that reference that spoke of seconds.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • I already gave you the JoNP link explaining that during SSM there is no drive. Now, please also check e.g. JoNP 2nd March 2013 to find that “SSM mode can last up to 2 hours”. And, please reveal us the math that gives the fantastic very, very, very high COP. Beats me. My math above ends up with the ‘reasonable’ COP of ~52, as an example though.

          • In SSM, “the current is consumed by the control panels, triacs, transformers, safety systems”, as AR says. See http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=885&cpage=4#comment-1105980

    • sam

      From Lenr forum.

      This morning received a netizen Zhang Hang messages sent cold fusion world, he said at the teacher and Xing Jiang Songsheng teacher’s guidance, his experiments made initial progress, and the results can be repeated with a certain regularity in the message. The experiment COP over one or more of his next experiment will focus mainly on improving COP, the following is a report of this experiment.

    • SD

      Slide was actually made in October 2013. We discussed that on ECW back when it was found.

      • Thanks! Made an update. It actually makes more sense looking at the COP 3-20, which was probably the performance of the validation test in May ’13.

        This was also around the time when the MW reactor had been shipped to Raleigh, and IH “fails” to find a place to put it for the 1year test… Instead they are making sales trips to China selling it, but without mentioning Rossi … Hints that they were planning to steal the tech. al along. (note also that this seems to be before the competitors were involved)

        • Bob

          Amazing how much “stuff” gets totally taken out of context or blown out of reasoning based upon no facts.
          Where does this say eCat? Where does this say anything about Rossi?
          We know IH is also working with other researchers. How do you KNOW that this may not be referring to any of them? Because IH does not post daily on the “IH Journal of Miracles” therefore they have no advancement from any other professional researcher? Possibly their silence is golden.
          If someone posts a critique about Rossi, many here start claiming “paid shill” or “APCO PR Troll”! I wonder how much Rossi is paying Sifferkoll to be his paid shill on this site! :0 The volume of evangelical posts he makes is quite astounding!
          Of course this is silly, just as others being accused of being the minions of the conspiracy to stop LENR and destroy Rossi. He does fine on his own.
          Three months ago people were laughing when Krivits was posting that IH and Rossi had split. Guess he was right was he not! (I am not a fan of Krivits, but he was right in this case, no one can deny it) Go back and read some of the very harsh words about him. I see not apologies about being so wrong!
          Why cannot people stick to facts and calmly discuss scientific data. This should not be the Maury Povich show!
          IH / Darden is innocent until proven guilty!
          Rossi is not a fraud until proven otherwise!
          We have NO real facts other than “Rossi says”, so we should keep that well in mind! Hopefully, some of this may come true in some form.
          Just remember:
          The ERV turned out NOT to be UL, Veritas or SGS or any certifying agency at all as so many posted here with absolute certainty just months ago.
          The customer turned out NOT to be independent and most certainly not in an existing facility where production could be compared side by side. as led to believe. “The accountants” are not going to tell the story here as many posted just months ago.
          Mass production has not started as posted it would be by many in September.
          The QuarkX, due to be at a customer in April, evidently is not. But it is another secret customer, so who knows?
          and so on.
          My forecast is that the lawsuit that so many are stating will “Show” IH to be the devil, will not ever come to court. It will be settled out of court with NDA’s in place as with everything Rossi. We will not know any more in 2 months than today.
          Perhaps Frank should put a new poll up and keep it for 3 months:
          1) Rossi publicly shows reactor, a customer is named and Leo Corp. goes into commercial sales.
          2) Customers stay secret, no proven sales and we are in limbo just as today with nothing really known, no facts, only “Rossi says”.
          3) IH wins lawsuit, Rossi discredited
          4) Rossi wins lawsuit, IH discredited
          5) Lawsuit fades into oblivion and nothing is revealed.
          I place my wager on #3 and #5.

          • Go on. Bet on what you like. I’m merely writing about what could be called circumstantial evidence. These I find much more important than the random floods of second hand, so called, “scientific” speculations that are spinned.

            BTW! As I wrote, the fact that ECat/Rossi is not mentioned only some months after IH made their largest investment in LENR definitely points to IH trying to sell the “reactors” as if the IP was all theirs. This confirms what Rossi says in his complaint.

          • BillH

            …and then AR goes into a 1 years test knowing it’s a sham, for what possible reason? He wants to give the competition a year to catch up?

          • Well, it was in the contract and I suppose AR believed IH was going to honor it up until ~Oct last year when he started to get suspisious. Maybe he thought it not being possible for IH to prove their own stupidity on the magnitude they seem to attempt right now; the Jed/Weaver “huge-Sauna” theory being an example …

          • Roland

            1. Leonardo completes all their commitments under the contract.

            2. IH fails to keep all their commitments under the contract.

            3. A court of competent jurisdiction finds that the licensing agreement is invalid.

            4. Leonardo finds much stronger business partners that won’t stab Rossi in the back the first moment they think they can get away with it.

            5. It turned out that the year wasn’t wasted at all because the advances achieved over that time rendered the IP IH got with their first $11.5 million obsolete; Rossi wins the chess match while racking up overwhelming data in support of his technology.

            6. If you can’t see the next 6-8 moves ahead on the chess board you’ll fail to understand events properly; just as IH has.

          • bachcole

            4a. Rossi starts selling units and making money hand over fist. The rest is future history.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, you are right. Now you know how Rossi feels, with all the libelous comments directed towards him. But I don’t see you standing up for him. I don’t care how long your post is. Rossi is the victim of libel, more than anyone I have seen on these pages. And IH has already discredited themselves in any fair persons mind. Yes Krivitz was right about that one. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

          • help_lenr

            I suspect that krivit is paid by IH for telling his nonsense against rossi last year. His internet agazine is dying, no important articles published there last years, probably no income; so he needs desperately some funding for his magazine and IH giving him money for telling lies about Rossi. They know that he hates Rossi for some reason (I guess why but it does not matter).

            My hypothesis is: IH asked Krivit to send his query to IH to give them an excuse to publish their famouse “press release” which said “believe only to IH don’t believe Rossi”. Also they asked him to say “there is a strong dispute between IH and Rossi”.

            Why I think this hypothesis ? because Garry wright used the same trick against Rossi in Februay 2015 or so. He sent a letter to some authority inspector to spy a building were suspect radio-activity may exist, this was an excuse for Mr. Vought to hint that “Rossi is a non credible person”. I don’t believe in co-incidence, I believe that IH use the same technique to tell lies about rossi.

            Moreover, IH used similar technique of lies against Rossi by contacting Jed Rothwell and giving him wrong data about “cooking men in the 1MW container”. No co-incidence again.

          • Omega Z

            Bob,

            As to the slides and whether it relates to E-cat. There was much more revealed in the Chinese news. It gave nearly all the details of the original 1MW container as to size, the reactors and individual output, the input of the 1MW along with claims of COP>6 and all the components(pumps etc..). It was pretty much a cut/paste from what was viewable at the time on Hydro Fusions web site. This was Absolutely unquestionably about Rossi’s E-cat technology.

            Darden used this information to entice the Chinese business people to invest $200M into an R&D Industrial park. These are facts. That said, I have no knowledge as to if any of that $200M made it into Dardens hands, But, one can be certain that at some point, there is a payday coming to Darden. Else, he wouldn’t bother.

          • BillH

            And IH has no money to pay AR? Ca’t have it both ways.

    • DFarwell

      Just a sales slide…nothing to see here.

      • Ged

        Selling lies for money is fraud. So you claim IH committed fraud?

        • DFarwell

          Ged, you must have no experience in sales. Read the first sentence slowly, “we believe our initial technology…” Then also notice they speak of “between 3 and 20 times”. This is sales jargon based on promises and being too trusting of certain individuals. There are no actual statistics or references to analysis…sales babble. This really is a non-issue that you are blowing up.

          • Apparently the Chinese translation do not include the “believe” word … It says: “The nickel reaction has the following advantages: …”

            It is of course NOT a non-issue, since it is sales material used by Darden/IH that shows clearly what they were selling to the Chinese.

          • Ged

            3 to 20 is not 0 to 20; they are making a straight up product claim for money. This isn’t speculative language. Your position is untenable.

          • DFarwell

            It could be 0 to 1000….it doesn’t matter. You are putting importance in a sales slide presented by someone who very well may have been fooled by one certain inventor. Your logic is heavily flawed.

          • Ged

            It is the job of the sale’s person to verify the claims before presenting it for investment/sale, or provide the appropriate caveats and make it speculative funding; otherwise it is fraud. That’s the law. I don’t advise trying it to find out. I think you have missed that most important fact of real life.

          • DFarwell

            If this were an actual investment portfolio statistic chart or briefing, I would agree with you completely, but what we are looking at is merely a sales slide….two completely different animals…I have no misunderstandings of the point in case.

          • If Darden “failed to substantiate” the technology he was peddling before he made this presentation, then imo, Darden clearly committed fraud with that slide.

          • DrD

            So it’s fine for salesmen to be fraudulent.

          • Rene

            It is fine though embarrassing for a marketing rep to be ignorant. They make presos from baked data. at best what can be inferred is that a marketing rep made or was given slides to present to some internal investor. That the rep is an IH associate can be inferred and that he/she made claim about LENR and LENR products/tech. Beyond that, not much else.

      • psi2u2

        It is unwise in my estimation, in our present circumstance, to reject any piece of evidence as inconsequential by this sort of classification. This is an element in the circumstantial evidence for the reality of LENR, of its being taken seriously by big players in industry and government.

        • DFarwell

          Point taken Psi, I suppose I summed this up a bit too simplistically and hastily out of frustration as my actual post was ‘removed’.

          • psi2u2

            Sorry. I often find your posts to be educational even when I don’t agree with them.

          • Niaga Dennab

            I have to agree with you here Psi, I try take knowledge from both sides of the fence whether it be this situation or even something as outlandish as UFOs or the mysterious carvings of Pumapunku! This whole saga is getting really interesting!!!!

  • I expect IH to push the can down the road many more times before they ever really respond to the lawsuit.

    I’m guessing but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit If stall, stall, stall is their plan A, B and C.

    I hope I’m wrong. Would love to see the lawsuit progress this summer.

    • I’m also afraid the delay game will be IH’s choice of strategy. IH could hope to maintain its claim of having a valid license, meanwhile trying to ‘substantiate’ Rossi’s claims and then re-selling the IP, while also hoping to slow down Rossi’s progress in the marketplace.

      I’m not impressed.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest Chinese report translation from Zhang Hang concludes excess heat output 123X more than possible chemical yield

    Average COP 1.23

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/

    • Ged

      Exciting times Bob. More and more success beginning to be seen all over the place, in no small part due to MFMP’s work.

    • Rene

      Interesting report thus far. Are you getting any means and methods information, Bob?

      • Bob Greenyer

        not really – just that with all the insulation, they may need less power to reach a target temp if the reaction output can act on itself (back radiate) to increase the COP. Parkhomov saw this when embedding his reactors in a bed of Alumina powder.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Latest Chinese report translation from Zhang Hang concludes excess heat output 123X more than possible chemical yield

    Average COP 1.23

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/

    • Ged

      Exciting times Bob. More and more success beginning to be seen all over the place, in no small part due to MFMP’s work.

    • Rene

      Interesting report thus far. Are you getting any means and methods information, Bob?

      • Bob Greenyer

        not really – just that with all the insulation, they may need less power to reach a target temp if the reaction output can act on itself (back radiate) to increase the COP. Parkhomov saw this when embedding his reactors in a bed of Alumina powder.

  • Ged

    We’ve seen pictures of Darden and investors, and know how sales go, so… highly believable. Just go to any car dealership and report back.

  • Ged

    Selling lies for money is fraud. So you claim IH committed fraud?

  • clovis ray

    HI, Guys.
    Ok, if his rig, can pass muster, here at E-CATWORLD, it will get a good send off, no better recommendation.can be had, simply because this group knows more about lenr than anyone else, and it is hard and next to impossible to slip something in, that is not copacetic. we love to analyze experiments, that claim excess heat, and other devices as well, anything concerning, innovative design of energy production, ,,, ooops i forgot, can’t create energy, even when it says cop of 50,— smile.

  • doug marker

    I believe that there are circumstances where sworn testimony is accepted by USPTO.
    .
    I have in my possession copies of a ‘sworn affidavit” that was requested by the USPTO of an inventor who had a device he wished to patent. The USPTO told the inventor they would not approve his patent application unless he came to Washington and demonstrated his invention to the satisfaction of the USPTO.
    .
    He did not want to do that (for several reasons) so asked the USPTO what would be required to have his invention evaluated in-situ at his workshop. The USPTO told the inventor they would accept a sworn affidavit from acknowledged experts in the field. Two experts were found (One a PhD professor of chemistry and the other an accredited power output tester).
    .
    The two experts conducted their test at the inventor’s workshop, had the testing equipment assessed after the test, filed their sworn affidavit in their home state, the inventor sent in the details of the filed affidavit, then the USPTO granted that patent.

    I think this covers the situation being discussed.

    Cheers – Doug Marker

  • Rossi could be exaggerating I guess. Have no idea about Dardens abilities in the ballet discipline … But a little dance and some sort of tune … yes of course. That goes for any VC sales dude …

  • Ged

    3 to 20 is not 0 to 20; they are making a straight up product claim for money. This isn’t speculative language. Your position is untenable.

  • Bob Greenyer

    So we have less than 3 weeks before IH have to present their evidence. It may be interesting to play the judge before the claims / evidence is available for scrutiny – but we are all likely to jump to the wrong conclusion.

  • Ged

    Wow, that is really going to be your claim? They cannot legally use a defense of “not substantiated” while having a patent for a COP of 11 from their own (not Rossi says) device. Go read the actual patent before you proceed further on this as you clearly have no knowledge at the moment of that which you speak.

    No court will accept such a logical contradiction, and the fact IH is stalling for time should wave a red flag to you. There needs be no conspiracies here, just plain use your head.

    • Chapman

      Ged, I enjoy every thoughtful comment you post, and you have a wonderful grasp of the science, as well as a clear understanding of the legal issues. But WHY do you even bother engaging with Farwell? Any review of previous discussions show you are wasting your breath. He is leading you on. No one could be as dense and obstinate as he portrays. He has something else going on – don’t buy into it.

      The sign at Jellystone Park reads, “Don’t feed the bears…”

      • Ged

        Ah, yeah, you are right. Too bad I didn’t see your post till after dumping some more energy into this farce. Thanks for helping me stay away from the bears :).

        • Engineer48

          The only steam that can be heated above 100C is dry steam. Heating wet 100C steam doesn’t increase the steam temperature, it just breaks water molecule to water molecule bonds and “dries” up the steam. When all the water molecule to water molecule bonds are broken the steam is 100% dry and with more thermal energy applied, the dry steam temperature will increase.

      • Engineer48

        Plus “Don’t feed the Trolls…”

  • Michael W Wolf

    IH filed a patent outside their license agreement area. Breach of contract. IH did not find a test facility in the specified time frame. Breach of contract. IH did not pay with the final positive ERV report, who they agreed to use. breach of contract. IH’s own engineer says ecat works more than claimed. IH make public statements contradicting claims they made in a patent filed. Where has IH been honest brokers? At all, in any of this?

    • DFarwell

      Everything you just said is heresay and “Rossi says” until we see evidence…as well as off course from the point of the COP in conjunction with the patent as we have been discussing.

      • Michael W Wolf

        What? Not one thing there is hearsay. And I don’t count the interview with Fabiani hearsay.

  • Michael W Wolf

    That is all assumption on your part. You admit you are using your imagination. And if what you say is true, they would have sued Rossi for criminal fraud. Or do they normally let thieves take their investors’ money without them even attempting to recover it? And what of Fabiani? he works for IH. Is he lying for Rossi? Or is he a moron that Rossi tricked into building control systems for a fake reactor? If you were really concerned about facts, the few that there are, impeach IH not Rossi. IH believed? Oh you know that?. IH says is all you have. And IH is a walking contradiction of the few facts we have. The only thing IH said under federal oath is that they built a reactor with a COP of 11. Let’s go by that until they make other statements under oath.

    • DFarwell

      Of course it is assumption as we don’t have the facts yet…I was posing my assumption in rebuttal to Engineers. While he discounts “Weaver says”….I discount “Rossi says”. FYI…If you ask 6 questions in one post, you will probably find most people unwilling to answer…

      • Michael W Wolf

        They were rhetorical.

  • Michael W Wolf

    As far as I know, Lugano results show anomalous heat. The only counter I’ve heard is that there could be measurement errors, not there is. And with the potentially greatest discovery in history, we should be positive before we chuck it in the trash can. Don’t you think? We had positive results at Lugano until proven otherwise, not assumed. Now if Darden and company want to say there was no anomalous heat, Good, then get out of the way and let professionals figure it out. Because in the very least IH is completely incompetent and is doing more harm than good in bringing this tech to market.

    • DFarwell

      I have seen no substantiation of the Lugano test and while it MAY have shown anomalous heat, it does not prove the “Rossi Effect” in the context of any significant COP number. I definitely believe there were errors and possibly fraud with the Lugano test. Any significant COP numbers are yet completely elusive to any scientist or reseacher on this planet..

      • Ged

        IH made the Lugano reactor and fuel, so take it up with them. It is their obligation to verify their work.

        You intentionally dodge and miss the point and ignore common knowledge and fact. Willful ignorance. There’s no more point in talking to you until you actually use fact instead of whatever you pull out from your head.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Yep, no one has proven Rossi a liar. IH on the other hand has been feeding their investors nothing but lies. Sure they may be legal lies, but still, lies. Unless of course they didn’t lie to their investors, which means they are deceiving and hampering this tech from reaching starving people.

    • billH

      pay day, not per day, but you already knew that…

  • DFarwell

    Wow another day of my respectful posts being removed. Why do you moderators have to do this? You let the Rossi-supporters rail on saying anything they want in any tone, yet censor critical thinking skeptics.

    • DFarwell

      I completely understand curbing the rhetoric, but removing 6 posts of mine in one day is a bit extreme. I seriously am just trying to have a legitimate conversation here, I really am not trolling. I would think the context of my interactions would show that versus those who just come in here to argue nonsense.

      • wonderboy

      • DFarwell –
        Lets analyse the context of your interactions then:

        The definition of a troll is someone who posts confusing or negative comments on the internet, anonymously. If we take into account only your username DFarwell, twenty negative posts a day amounts to +7000 over a year.

        By definition, you are definitely a troll. ^ ^ JWOW!

        Why don’t you write one large post, that contains information, and then wait and see if people answer to that post.
        When you spam every comment and article on a forum with negative comments, often contradictionary to itself – you are by definition prohibiting others of having legitimate conversations.

        The last thing you could consider is that maybe this is not the forum for you.
        People here does not seem to like you a lot.

        • Ciaranjay

          I cannot speak for people here, but personally I want to read a range of views.
          If this forum turns into a one sided discussion then debate ends and we just end up with lots of back slapping.
          I have learned a lot over the last couple of months and my views are evolving. Something important is going on and I want to find out more.

          • bachcole

            I also want to hear a range of views. I don’t want to hear putdowns, castigations, denigrations, and etc.

          • Bachcole, then you will not like what is heading your way.

          • bachcole

            And what would that be?

          • Psychology

          • bachcole

            Are you always this obtuse?

          • Ciaranjay, please read up on “post manipulation self justification”.

            It is the syndrome of for example:

            – Dunning Kruger strategy
            – Illusion of external agency
            – Passive manipulation
            – Marginalisation
            – Kaffe och kaka
            – Defensive attribution hypothesis avoidance
            – Mundane manipulation
            – Mood congruent memory bias
            – Induced fear (Existential / Social)
            – Induce / inject doubt
            – Persistence / repetition
            – Agree, agree, disagree
            – Para-truth
            and the list goes on…..

        • bachcole

          Your definition of a troll means that most of us are all either goody-two-shoes or trolls since most of us are all anonymous.

          • No, that is not what I said.

          • bachcole

            “The definition of a troll is someone who posts confusing or negative comments on the internet, anonymously.” That is exactly what you said. I posted a negative comment recently here because I said that I was depressed about Rossi’s chances of winning because I thought (think) that Darden is going to crush him with lawyers, motions, money, innuendo, and other legal BS. That makes me a troll by your definition. And I am anonymous: bachcole. You won’t find that name in any phone book.

          • There is a distinct difference between an avatar, troll and alias. In the context of this forum and these topics, as per my definition, you are not a troll.

            It is not a persons beliefs or the right to free speech and expression that makes him or her a troll, instead it is the behavior of intentional provocation and manipulations.

          • bachcole

            I guess you should have said so.

    • Andrew

      I read many posts by you in this thread. Unless your commenting on many more than I see I don’t see any serious censorship going on.

      One major part of critical thinking is; lack of evidence for doesn’t constitute for evidence against. Yes all the so called evidence that has been put forth so far has its errors but so does the LHC however when single events in LENR take days and weeks to obtain the LHC can do 600 million collisions a second.

      I know your probably not discounting LENR in general just the Rossi effect of supercharged LENR.

      For me I’m just enjoying the show and maybe, just maybe get to see future history unfold.

      • psi2u2

        Sometimes posts get lost by discus.

    • Robert Dorr

      I count 19 replies from you in the last 12 hours. How many are missing?

    • Michael W Wolf

      That is not true. Frank rejects my posts on a regular basis. But I tend to be off subject when he does this. I also let my emotions get the best of me sometimes, and he absolutely keeps me in check. Not that I like it. But there is no bigger Rossi fan than I. So keep your emotions in check and stay on topic is your best bet.

  • Ged

    It is the job of the sale’s person to verify the claims before presenting it for investment/sale, or provide the appropriate caveats and make it speculative funding; otherwise it is fraud. That’s the law. I don’t advise trying it to find out. I think you have missed that most important fact of real life.

  • Ged

    It seems you don’t understand patent law (albeet, it is rather convoluted in places, particularly after the AIA)? You keep claiming others don’t know things, yet it seems the joke is that it is you who doesn’t actually understand the argument? I guess perhaps it is just because you are conflating and mangling your arguments so as not to present them and yourself correctly?

    In a court of law, if you claim you can’t substantiate something, yet file a patent–which requires data–that shows it is substantiated (all patents require accurate substance, contrary to your claims, or they are null and a waste of thousands of dollars), your argument is immediately invalidated by your own behavior. They would be thrown out of court on their butts.

    But there is worst trouble they could get into. Let’s look at actual law, shall we?

    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302875912

    Contrary to what you said to another poster, when one files a patent one has to make an oath and declaration about the accuracy of the filing, and breaking of that oath is punishable by imprisonment or fining (or both). If IH claims COP 11, and then claims that is not so without withdrawing or amending their patent (or if it is shown they knew before filing), they violate section 18 U.S.C. 1001, particularly part (a)(2).

    It is irrelevant for the patent office to try to validate data itself, because presenting false data is a criminal offense. Perhaps that is all you have missed?

  • DrD

    So it’s fine for salesmen to be fraudulent.

  • psi2u2

    And you know this because?

  • Thinking about it; the only way IH have a chance to win in the trial in front of a jury is to go all in on acting totally defrauded about LENR as a whole … So, they will probably play the safe card, and go all in on the 1989 F&P strategy again? Brillouin etc will be collateral damage and Darden will be sacrificed as defrauded fool, but still a good “save-the-world” business man. Stakeholders in energy/politics/AGW will be happy. Bill Gates 10y prophecy will come true.

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/underestimating-the-evilness-of-ih-apco-are-they-planning-to-do-the-fp-89-again/

    • Engineer48

      Rossi needs the QuarkX demo to convince GE and or Siemens to take up a license and he needs a really good QuarkX patent. Then GE and or Siemens will take care of IH in the only way that VCs understand.

      IH, even Cherokee are really very small fish in a multi trillion dollar NEW QuarkX market, which to control means you are 1) 1st, 2) Best, 3) Cheapest. GE and or Siemens want 1 & 2 and both know how to play the game and very quickly ramp up massive production.

      You do realise this will totally destroy the hot fission / fusion nuclear, renewable and all fossil steam boiler markets sector as QuarkX powered thermal power plant will generate electricity 24/7/365 and without any CO2 or other stack pollutants. Plus QuarkX replacement boilers will enable all existing nuclear and fossil thermal plant boilers to be powered by QuarkX steam. I also believe the idea of individual homes powered by QuarkX reactors will never happen as the grid load needs to stay there so investment in QuarkX replacement boilers can be amortised over many years.

      Have a look at the attachment, which I believe are bolt compatible small boiler replacement elements that were powered by DogBone reactors but could just as easily be powered by QuarkX reactors. Which means the QuarkX boilerisation process can extend from the biggest thermal power plant boilers to those in every home and office building.

      Rossi needs to very quickly show GE and or Siemens that the QuarkX can do the above job. Then he can retire and let the thermal power system pros take it from there. There is NO WAY Rossi can manufacture what is needed.

      If this planet wide QuarkX boiler hybridisation process takes 15 – 20 years, that is more than enough time for those with fission nuclear and fossil assets to wind back their positions, besides people who own those assets have known for some time what is going to happen. I do feel for the renewable guys, but that is what happens when you invest in fast changing technology, especially when it is not reliable and available 24/7/365.
      .

      • kdk

        GE is a notoriously entrenched company. It won’t be through them, unless it’s okay’d by the honchos.

        • Engineer48

          Every company involved with steam boiler / turbine thermal generation of electrical power is VERY, VERY conservative. However if they see that the QuarkX can deliver 600C sub and supercritical dry (superheated) steam, well they will be in it like a shot and after a few years of their own R&D to make sure it is 100% right, the rollout will begin.

          BTW they will not be interested in dealing with any licensee of Leonardo. Even less if the licensee is a VC. They will go with Leonardo and deal with any objections IH and other licensees may have.

          • kdk

            I mean their leadership in the past has been involved with unsavory characters, who have lots of money invested in things like oil. As a part of that network or club that watches out for each others interests, they wouldn’t get involved if it got in the way of those interests. This also ties in with media blackout on other issues, as they are mostly all owned by a few people and corporations (the infamous 60 people who own as much as the bottom half of humanity). The current state of LENR ceases to be surprising at all if you take these things into account, as well as getting ready to throw the Saudis to the masses with 9/11.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            GE will be dead set against the ecat and LENR. They have the LARGEST contingency of global warming lobbyist in Washington. (larger than any other corporation or political group).

            With global warming, then GE can sell billions of dollars of CO2 scrubbing equipment to general industry. They are 100% on the CO2 band wagon and will lose billions of dollars of sales of such equipment, and they lose 10+ years of lobbying Washington. So GE has a long term vested interest in CO2 and global warming.

            And given that Obama appointed Goldman Sachs as the official government carbon trading entity, then you fighting not only GE but the financial industry that eager to fleece your pockets by trading CO2 as a commodity.

            Clean non-polluting energy is the last thing GE wants, and their army of lobbyists in Washington have no interest in giving away the CO2 farm they been building.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            With QuarkX replacement boilers, GE can sell trillions of dollars of upgrade equipment to every thermal power plant owner on the planet.

            As the QuarkX boilers are a one time capital item, with almost no future fuel costs, they can easily be paid for from fuel savings, putting downward pressure on wholesale electricity generation costs, while reducing CO2 & other combustion nasties emission to zero.

            So which thermal power plant owner will say no to switching to zero CO2 emission QuarkX boilers & very significantly dropping their fuel costs so much it can easily pay for the QuarkX boilers?

            But you are right as QuarkX boilers would destroy the CO2 trading market and in say 15 years or so, there would only be thermal heat losses being emitred by all the worlds thermal power plants, with atmospheric CO2 levels dropping back to pre industrial levels and ocean acidification likewise dropping.

            Gotta say all vehicles on the planet, in 20 years, being QuarkX electric is a no brainer as well.

            Who willl lose or move in a undesired direction?

            GE? No.
            Thermal power plant owner? No.
            Electricity prices? No.
            Consumer? No.
            Public health? No.
            Governments? No.
            Atmospheric CO2 increase? No.
            Ocean acidifucation increase? No.
            Global averaged temperature increase? No.
            Fossil fuel suppliers? Yup, big time.

            .

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Ah, but your failing to explain their steadfast support of global warming and their huge lobby group on Capitol Hill.

            GE supports global warming which not only lets them fill their pockets with CO2 capture, but chases industry out of North America into lower cost labor markets (they outsource everything they can). Those lower cost markets don’t have CO2 credits and trading.

            And with CO2 capture, you THEN are able to trade carbon credits! (get it???)

            Unless you explain away the behaviours of GE and their lobby group on Capitol Hill, you dreaming that GE will support LENR – it is the last thing they want and WE CAN ONLY GO BY THEIR actions.

            Those actions are steadfast support of the global warming lobby and their outsourcing policies. And with strong ties to the financial industry – that’s an industry that does not want to give up CO2 trading and the billions that will bring them.

            The above is an unfortunate reality based on their GE actions.

            It will be a cold day in hell before GE would even consider LENR based on their current business practices. It goes against everything they are doing now!

            You no more see GE give up on hot fusion research then the science community accepting LENR – it may happen eventually, but they will be kicking and screaming all the way.
            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • NT

        The horses are out of the barn and running free. The big boys have missed their golden opportunity to control their grid for much longer. They should have jumped on the P & F bandwagon years ago and developed their IP and patents. Instead they believed the hogwash we all are aware of regarding cold fusion. The Internet will allow for LENR to proliferate eventually to the average Joe. Big energies window of opportunity in that regard is and will be short, IMHO…

      • DrD

        Yes, appreciate that and it can’t come soon enough.
        One thing that surpises me is that AR keeps saying LENR will NOT replace fossil fuel, even long term, and that it will co-exist alongside existing. I think that’s more of a “political” than technically motivated response. It’s probably true that there will always be a some fossil fuel used, just like we still have steam trains and horses but I think AR’s answer implied more than just a little.
        I also hope your wrong about the domestic use. It is a concern that it might be prohibited but I hope soon to replace my gas and electric heating source with Quarks and produce my own electric, almost as a byproduct.
        I currently have Solar but it’s contribution is negligible. It will likely not pay for itself at current prices.

        • Engineer48

          To convert all sream boilers on the planet over to QuarkX is a very massive job. Will take say 15-20 years. So slowly over time LENR generated steam in thermal power plants will be integrated with other steam boiler heat sources.

          Even 20% of grid load going off grid would cause massive increase in energy bills for on gridders as maintaining the grid is an increasing cost. That would be worn by less and less numbers of on grinders, who are probably the less well off that can’t afford to buy the gear to take them off grid.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            The conversion process will be faster than you think. The HVAC industry originally fought the whole conversion from ozone-depleting refrigerants until they realized that they could make a lot of money replacing perfectly good equipment with new equipment. The non-ozone-depleting refrigerants could not be substituted in existing equipment. Once they realized this, conversion was sped up.

            I suspect that the traditional fossil-fueled boiler manufacturers will get the hint and rush to capture market share, speeding up the conversion process.

        • bachcole

          I still walk despite the advancement of the domestication of horses.

    • Some more thoughts here on this, as it seems, for Weaver et al. very disturbing hypothesis.
      http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/more-information-on-the-new-ih-apco-agenda-to-ditch-lenr-completely/

      • wpj

        Hmmm, depends how patriotic the jury is. Having had a declaration from the US Navy on LENR, that would also implicate them as idiots as well.

        • Of course it’s not a done deal. But it is by far their best shot and they might actually succeed. It’s much easier to deny LENR completely than to deal in the vague uncertainties of the official statements that do exist. Better go all in on “has not been proven” (by any prefered institition/media anyway)

          • wpj

            The elephant in the room, though, remains the client.

          • They are planning to not even get that far. That is why they are going to ditch LENR at the top, so that no one would never even need to consider what happened in the plant, regardless ERV and customer. That is why Weaver is so sloppy commenting on Penon, etc. They will stop the trial on the impossibility of LENR. That is the plan.

          • psi2u2

            That seems pretty desperate given all their past public statements and the acknowledged fact that they also purchased IP from other LENR researchers, huh?

          • They have made very few public statements. As I say, Darden has to be sacrificed as a somewhat naive fool being defrauded but still being a “good save-the-world” kind of business man. And they paid for the IP mostly by stocks, not cash (except for Rossi). And they will still have the IP …

          • wpj

            And Woodford does what?

          • Well, they will never invest in Darden again of course. But by claiming his own stupidity he might get out of it without getting sued. Probably the best way, since it puts all blame on Rossi as the millenium fraudster they plan to make out of him, with all MSM coverage Apco can mobilize. They are planning a spectacle and they do have those muscles. Everyone will feel like winners, except LENR of course.

          • bachcole

            Yeah, this is kind of depressing. Unless Rossi has more financial resources than I think that he has, I can’t see him or the E-Cat coming out of this up-coming litigation looking good. Rossi is facing a judge and jury who more or less already think that cold fusion is unreal. Look to I.H. using the phrase “cold fusion” or “so-called LENR” a whole bunch of times rather than just “LENR”. Never underestimate the power of well-funded lies.

      • Roland

        The LENR is a complete fraud and Darden is a credulous idiot hypothesis could conceivably fly in the court room, though I have my doubts, which would get IH off the hook for the $89 million payment due under contract.

        This would constitute a clear win for Rossi & Leonardo as it would achieve the main goal of the court action; the invalidation of the licensing portion of the agreement.

        I would strongly suggest that the least desirable outcome of the trial would be a finding that IH be directed to pay the $89 million (granting that they can come up with that kind of money when directed to do so) and that Leonardo be directed to transfer all the current E-cat IP to IH. Leonardo should immediately appeal any verdict that directs them to transfer further IP to IH based on IH’s previous behaviour.

        Regardless of the outcome of the trial the real world result will be a decade of appeals unless the licensing provisions are struck down and IH fails to appeal that outcome. The next phase would then begin with the extraction of damages from IH, and partners, for the misappropriation of the IP transferred to them in violation of the contract provisions.

        I find it difficult to envision any outcome of the trial that will materially improve the position of Industrial Heat as all their early moves were predicated on Rossi’s failure to make significant advances on the IP initially transferred to IH.

        Having lost that bet they are screwed any way you parse the potential outcomes as long as Leonardo proceeds as though the contract with IH is already null and void.

        IH has obsolete IP and can’t compete in the marketplace.

        Every effort to deploy that IP by IH will be under the cloud of eventual forfeiture which means that all their potential partners going forward will, of necessity, be untrustworthy sleasebags who’ll turn on them in a heart beat.

        The only upside for IH in the LENR is a fraud and Darden is an idiot strategy is if they succeed in court with this they may dodge the bullet when Woodford comes looking for their $50 million; heads up Woodford…

        • Chapman

          A perfectly logical argument.

          But you failed to mention the fact that during the time when all this is being hashed out in the American courts Rossi and his European partners will be manufacturing, selling, and refining designs. Via brokers and international retailers, even the American market will be fully serviced.

          Even if IH is able to force a settlement agreement that allows them to proceed at that time – some years hence – they will be trying to break into a saturated marketplace with an obsolete product line.

          They have effectively removed themselves from the future picture. And compromised Brillouin in the process.

          Darden can only hope to minimize the backlash against himself personally from Woodford, as you so rightly point out, and from the Chinese (but not to worry, I hear they are a forgiving bunch…).

  • CWatters

    This report is very confusing. It says..

    1) “the ERV ignored the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature”.

    and

    2) “the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative”.

    So it appears the ERV ignored ALL of the energy required to heat the cold return feed (at 60C) to make the hot flow (at some unspecified temperature “above the boiling point”).

    Exactly what energy was included in the calculation?

    • SD

      “Exactly what energy was included in the calculation?”: the energy necessary to vaporize water, which accounts for approx. 90% of the total.

      • CWatters

        Ah ok. I assumed that had also been discounted when he said “also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point”.

        • Engineer48

          The only steam that can be heated above 100C is dry steam. Heating wet 100C steam doesn’t increase the steam temperature, it just breaks water molecule to water molecule bonds and “dries” up the steam. When all the water molecule to water molecule bonds are broken the steam is 100% dry and with more thermal energy applied, the dry steam temperature will increase.

    • Engineer48

      Producing dry sream from wet steam is a phase change in which the steam temp is not increased, just all the moisture droplets (joined water molecules) are turned into vapor (single water molecules)

      Once that has happened, the temp of the steam will increase.

      So 3 effects.

      1) energy needed to change non boiling water to wet steam while temp increases. (Not a lot)

      2) energy needed to phase change wet steam to dry steam with no temp change. (Massive amount of energy)

      3) energy needed to increase temp of dry steam. (Not a lot)

      On the flip side, when dry steam reverts (phase changes) back to wet steam / water, it releases all the massive energy stored doing the earlier wet to dry phase change, which makes dry steam a very good carrier of heat.

    • CWatters

      Ok it seems that “the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point” doesn’t include the latent heat so presumably only that was included in the power calculation.
      I suspect it’s quite difficult to measure the mas of steam delivered so they probably measured the flow of water before it was turned into steam. I hope they didn’t just measure the return flow rate.

  • Engineer48

    Just to make a point, it is possible to create superheated dry steam at 100.1 C at atmospheric pressure as attached.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That would be only a few tenths of degrees above the boiling point (about 99.6C at 1 bar abs). Although one might call this stem “superheated” by definition, there is no guarantee that it will be dry. I guess it would be dry if the temperature was at 101.1C across the entire volume. But that cannot be easily controlled with an inserted thermocouple. In the extreme case there could be a 101.1C gas phase in the upper part of the tube, while there is still liquid water in the lower part.

      • Engineer48

        Suoerheated steam is dry. Can’t be above boiling point at what ever pressure and be wet.

        In your example, the liquid water will be at or below boiling point but not above as it then becomes dry.

        Is like watching ice melt, do a solid to liquid phase change. Needs a massive input of thermal energy to break the ice bonds but at no time does the ice get warmer than freezing until all the ice has phase changed (melted).

        OK sure in a real situation there can be a mix, at the phase change temp, of “dry” single H2O molecules & “wet” joined H2O molecules.

        My point was it is possible to create superheated dry steam at 100.1C at 14.7615 abs PSI. Of course it may require good steam enginerring to achieve close to 100% of the H2O molecules are “dry” single molecules. But it can be done.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          It can certainly be done, but not by simple means. Especially since steam at 1 bar abs is about 170 times less dense than liquid water. That is, if you had 170 cm^3 steam that contains 1 cm^3 of liquid water you would have reached only 50% vaporization – which gives a huge difference in the energy balance.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Correction: The factor comes to 1700. Even worse…

  • Engineer48

    Just to make a point, it is possible to create superheated dry steam at 100.1 C at atmospheric pressure as attached.
    .

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That would be only a few tenths of degrees above the boiling point (about 99.6C at 1 bar abs). Although one might call this stem “superheated” by definition, there is no guarantee that it will be dry. I guess it would be dry if the temperature was at 101.1C across the entire volume. But that cannot be easily controlled with an inserted thermocouple. In the extreme case there could be a 101.1C gas phase in the upper part of the tube, while there is still liquid water in the lower part.

      • Engineer48

        Superheated steam is dry. Can’t be above boiling point at what ever pressure and be wet.

        In your example, the liquid water will be at or below boiling point but not above as it then becomes dry.

        Is like watching ice melt, do a solid to liquid phase change. Needs a massive input of thermal energy to break the ice bonds but at no time does the ice get warmer than freezing until all the ice has phase changed (melted).

        OK sure in a real situation there can be a mix, at the phase change temp, of “dry” single H2O molecules & “wet” joined H2O molecules.

        My point was it is possible to create superheated dry steam at 100.1C at 14.7615 abs PSI. Of course it may require good steam enginerring to achieve close to 100% of the H2O molecules are “dry” single molecules. But it can be done.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          It can certainly be done, but not by simple means. Especially since steam at 1 bar abs is about 170 times less dense than liquid water. That is, if you had 170 cm^3 steam that contains 1 cm^3 of liquid water you would have reached only 50% vaporization – which gives a huge difference in the energy balance.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Correction: The factor comes to 1700. Even worse…

        • Albert Nilsson

          You are assuming that the system is at equilibrium. In reality we could have dynamic effects such as two-phase flows. And that´s why you should use a separating and throttling calorimeter to measure the dryness of the steam, and not only rely on the temperature and the pressure measurements.

  • billH

    Having pondered this for a few days I’ve come to the conclusion that AR has made a big tactical mistake. What he should have done was made strong demands for payment based on the successful completion of the test. I think the claims of copyright infringement will eventually become a side show with nothing proved either way, as the patents submitted so far are too vague. AR should just allow IH to launch any product into the market they like at which point they can either pay AR his due royalty or claim it is their own patent, in which case if AR can prove that this isn’t so he can sue them for at least $1Bn as stipulated in the LA. In the meantime, if he truly believes that the E-Cat X is a far superior device he can go full speed ahead on that, knowing that it will be able to sweep the 1MW plant type devices out of the market, and probably ruin IH/Cherokee in the process. Since this hasn’t happened we can only ponder on…

    • Thomas Kaminski

      No one is stopping IH from launching any products. What makes you think they actually want to launch a product? Darden claimed he is in no rush.

      • billH

        Even better then, if E-Cat X is a viable product then the 1MW plant will be dead in the water. I’m not sure Darden has actually said very much, it might be that what he means is that he is willing to wait for a reliable product before going into mass production, that’s a different thing.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          From Macy’s article after his ICCF 17 keynote: “Darden: A valid criticism is around the whole question of urgency. The question of urgency in settings like this is interesting. I know people feel urgent. I know I can be at the patient extreme. You don’t want to have patience cause you to move slowly as opposed to having patience make you be willing to pursue something longer. One form of patience is not good. The other form of patience I would argue is good. I’d accept criticism around any of those things or I’d spend too much time trying to get things set or get things ready.”

          There are other places where he essentially says he is “In it for the long haul”, though not in those specific words. It seems like he ignored his own idea in not wanting to have a one-year 1-MW test.

          • Engineer48

            I have seen nothing to indicate IH has an intention to be a large scale manufacturer of ECat reactors. To do this is a massive undertaking and to compete with the likes of GE and Siemens is almost totally folly.

            What I suspect would have happened is they would flip the IP to someone like GE or Siemens and gain a nice flip profit and ride the sheep’s back on commission of sales.

            Now ask yourself why would GE or Siemens sign with IH, being a Rossi licensee, and pay more money as against signing directly with Leonardo for less money and direct access to the inventor?

            Sorry but no matter what happens in the court case, long term IH will not be involved as they have nothing to add in the supply chain and will be linked around.

          • billH

            IH have built 2 plants, at least, that’s 2 more than anyone else.

          • Chapman

            It is SO nice having you here!

            You cut through crap like a chainsaw on styrofoam.

            Also, I would like to thank you for the detailed information you have been providing regarding the steam questions. I am well versed in the general sciences, but the fine details of latent heat are a speciality that requires more than a general understanding of the concept. It is nice to have someone with us who IS well acquainted with those details. It is a shame that some have a hard time following you and end up arguing endlessly.

          • billH

            But why would AR agree to a 1 year test, and why would he sign a binding contract to that effect, knowing that IH didn’t even have a customer to run the test with. IH inability to find a suitable customer was reason enough to invalidate the contract? The only reasonable answer is that AR was willing to go along with the charade because of the $89M pay day at the end of it. AR can be naive or cunning, he can’t be both.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Another possibility is that he needed a commercial product and IH was footing part of the bill. I think the commercialization was far more important than the payout, though the payout was a means to ramp up production.

          • bachcole

            “$89M pay day” Wow!!!! That is a lot of money. That comes to $31,150,000,000 over the 350 days of the test. (:->)

          • billH

            pay day, not per day, but you already knew that…

          • bachcole

            To tell you the truth, I was having so much fun with it that I didn’t realize that “pay” made perfect sense. (:->)

  • LogicGate

    Forgive me if this has already been answered else-where, but could it be that the I.H. representatives were measuring the power used by the process as a whole rather than just the steam vaporisation?

    If that were the case then their COP calculations might include not only the power needed to heat the water/steam, but the power needed to manufacture and prepare the fuel itself. I don’t recall seeing anywhere how often the fuel cells were replaced/topped up or how much energy was used in their preparation.

    If the fuel cell preparation process were very energy intensive, might that be the reason why they don’t accept the high ERV COP as a true value? The cells were essentially just exotic batteries? If the cells were manufactured off-site, then they wouldn’t contribute to the customers electricity bill.

    • GiveADogABone

      The CoP calculation procedure was specified in the contract. For the purposes of the contracted determination of the CoP, the CoP = (Enthalpy of evaporation of water at 100C * Mass flow rate of steam) / (Electrical energy into the 1MW plant).

      Your suggestion seems to transfer the electrical measuring point(s) to cover the whole plant, including production, and that is not what was specified in the contract. It is also illogical to compare the electrical input to the whole plant against the enthalpy output of just the 1Mw E-cat.

    • BillH

      Initially, back in 2011 AR said his fuel cells would run for 180 day without replacement, and that they would be very cheap to produce, of the order of tens of dollars, so it’s unlikely that there manufacture would be an issue. I think one of the reasons for a one year test was to verify exactly how long a fuel cell could run without replacement. As far as I have read no cells were replaced during the duration of the test but near the end of the test they were showing signs of decreased efficiency. To me this wouldn’t be an issue if the plant ran reliably for say six month, if an engineer or one of the customers trained staff was able to replace a fuel cell quite easily.

    • Engineer48

      The fuel was not replaced during the 1 year test.

      They energy delivered over the 1 year test was very much more than can be extracted from any chemical / battery.

      Nuclear energy density is approx 1,000,000 times greater than the best chemical energy density. So VERY little ECat fuel = a LOT more energy than can be extracted from any chemical reaction.

  • There is a distinct difference between an avatar, troll and alias. In the context of this forum and these topics, as per my definition, you are not a troll.

    It is not a persons beliefs or the right to free speech and expression that makes him or her a troll, instead it is the behavior of intentional provocation and manipulations.

  • BillH

    Initially, back in 2011 AR said his fuel cells would run for 180 day without replacement, and that they would be very cheap to produce, of the order of tens of dollars, so it’s unlikely that there manufacture would be an issue. I think one of the reasons for a one year test was to verify exactly how long a fuel cell could run without replacement. As far as I have read no cells were replaced during the duration of the test but near the end of the test they were showing signs of decreased efficiency. To me this wouldn’t be an issue if the plant ran reliably for say six month, if an engineer or one of the customers trained staff was able to replace a fuel cell quite easily.

  • Engineer48

    The fuel was not replaced during the 1 year test.

    They energy delivered over the 1 year test was very much more than can be extracted from any chemical / battery.

    Nuclear energy density is approx 1,000,000 times greater than the best chemical energy density. So VERY little ECat fuel = a LOT more energy than can be extracted from any chemical reaction.

  • Engineer48

    The Leonardo/Rossi & IH contract stated the max cost, in high volume, to manufacture the 1MW ECat plant would be $100/kW or $0.10/W and the fuel cost for 1 year would be $10/kW which means $10 worth of fuel per year to make 1kW x 24 x 365 = 8,760kWh = 0.114 cents per kWh!!!!!!!!!!

    So a 1MW ECat reactor should cost $100K to make and the thermal power should cost 0.114 cents per kWh. Assuming 33.3 conversion efficiency to electricity, that is a fuel cost per kWh of electricity generated of approx 0.34 cents per kWh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That is less than 5% of the existing wholesale cost to generate electricity. Of course added to that fuel cost per kWe needs to be added the cost to amortise the plant capital cost and maintenance.

    What this production costs means is any fossil thermal power plant on the planet can easily afford to convert their fossil fuel fired boilers over to QuarkX boilers and pay for them from saved fuel costs.

  • Engineer48

    The Leonardo/Rossi & IH contract stated the max cost, in high volume, to manufacture the 1MW ECat plant would be $100/kW or $0.10/W and the fuel cost for 1 year would be $10/kW which means $10 worth of fuel per year to make 1kW x 24 x 365 = 8,760kWh = 0.114 cents per kWh!

    So a 1MW ECat reactor should cost $100K to make and the thermal power should cost 0.114 cents per kWh. Assuming 33.3 conversion efficiency to electricity, that is a fuel cost per kWh of electricity generated of approx 0.34 cents per kWh!

    That is less than 5% of the existing wholesale cost to generate electricity. Of course added to that fuel cost per kWe needs to be added the cost to amortise the plant capital cost and maintenance.

    What this production costs means is any fossil thermal power plant on the planet can easily afford to convert their fossil fuel fired boilers over to QuarkX boilers and pay for them from saved fuel costs.

  • Engineer48

    Been following Dewey Weaver’s comments on LENR Forum:
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1580-Dewey-Weaver/

    It should be fairly clear that the guy appears to know very little about superheater steam engineering and makes statements that to non engineering folks may make sense but to engineering types are simply not correct.

    Superheated / dry steam is invisible as the water molecules are just single isolated H2O molecules and as such are not visible.

    Superheated steam gives up very little heat to the walls of the pipe it is travelling down and is why it is preferred to transfer heat a distance from the superheated steam generator to the thermal load. That means if superheated steam is travelling down black rubber heat tubing it will not overly heat the tubing and when exiting the tubing, will rapidly lose heat to the atmosphere and cause the single dry and invisible water molecules to clump together, forming wet and visible steam.

    Superheated 100% dry steam can be created at standard atmosphere as per the attached and at less than 100.1C, being 99.9743C which gives a superheat temperature margin of 0.1257C at standard pressure.

    http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

    • Andreas Moraitis

      “Superheating” the steam by increasing the temperature by a fraction of a degree does not help much, since the temperature that you can measure with an inserted thermocouple is not representative for the entire volume. This has already been said. It has also been said that a tiny volume of remaining liquid water would reduce the vaporization rate drastically. For example, 1 cm^3 of liquid water per 1700 cm^3 steam at 1 bar would reduce it by 50%. Therefore, we should better wait for more detailed information before we try to draw any conclusions.

  • Engineer48

    Been following Dewey Weaver’s comments on LENR Forum:
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1580-Dewey-Weaver/

    It should be fairly clear that the guy appears to know very little about superheated steam engineering and makes statements that to non engineering folks may make sense but to engineering types are simply not correct.

    Superheated / dry steam is invisible as the water molecules are just single isolated H2O molecules and as such are not visible.

    Superheated steam gives up very little heat to the walls of the pipe it is travelling down and is why it is preferred to transfer heat a distance from the superheated steam generator to the thermal load. That means if superheated steam is travelling down black rubber heat tubing it will not overly heat the tubing and when exiting the tubing, will rapidly lose heat to the atmosphere and cause the single dry and invisible water molecules to clump together, forming wet and visible steam.

    Nothing I have seen in the 1st Rossi stove pipe reactor demo is in conflict to someone who understands how superheated steam behaves. However to those who do not understand, well wide open to a lot of incorrect statements.

    Superheated 100% dry steam can be created at standard atmosphere as per the attached and at less than 100.1C, being 99.9743C which gives a superheat temperature margin of 0.1257C at standard pressure.

    http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

    • Albert Nilsson

      The problem is that you have so small margin for the superheating that the errors of the temperature measurement makes it impossible to know if the steam is superheated or not. To show that you need to use more advanced measurement procedures than only just pressure and temperature.

      • we know nothing,but all the 1MW claim is only in the dryness of the steam.
        it is unprofessional, not to neglect liquid heat, but to hide it.

        once you accept that dryness is unknown, then minimum heat is zero.
        moreover you don’t even know if water back in the reactor was 60C, with a fair COP much below 50, or 90C with COP=1.

        moreover there is claim that like in Defkalion demo the water measurement was carefully badly made. yet to confirm.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      “Superheating” the steam by increasing the temperature by a fraction of a degree does not help much, since the temperature that you can measure with an inserted thermocouple is not representative for the entire volume. This has already been said. It has also been said that a tiny volume of remaining liquid water would reduce the vaporization rate drastically. For example, 1 cm^3 of liquid water per 1700 cm^3 steam at 1 bar would reduce it by 50%. Therefore, we should better wait for more detailed information before we try to draw any conclusions.

  • GiveADogABone

    The E-cat Superheater Exposed

    https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/test-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf
    Page 7: The E-cat casing opened, showing the heat exchanger supposedly containing a shielded flat reactor body consisting of three reactor chambers.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/10/11/new-video-of-october-6-test-in-bologna-posted-on-ecat-com/
    The same E-cat on test day. The steam outlet pipe from the top plate is clearly visible. What makes this arrangement a steam superheater is control of the water level well below the fin tips. Also note that the thin, flat top plate is no pressure vessel.

  • John

    I reviewed the description on the Brillouin website http://brillouinenergy.com . The description sounds similar to the E-Cat. Since IH is also working Brillouin, once they understood what the E-Cat is and saw it function, they may have concluded the E-cat technology had already been developed. Brillouin says they had already proven their technology at Berkeley in 2010. Since the technology had already been developed by Brillouin, IH may feel the contract was void since the intellectual property was not Rossi’s to sell.

    • Chapman

      Nice try, but Brillouin abandoned it’s previous research thread and design roadmap conveniently following Rossi’s release of his research notes and IP to IH. They changed to what you have yourself witnessed and observed is a virtual clone of Rossi’s design.

      Godes was at a dead end. They had technical ability but their science kung-fu was weak. They were happy to take Rossi’s tech and run with it. IH believed Godes could copy, and then improve on Rossi’s tech and produce uniquely patentable designs. This would position IH to move on a global market without territorial restrictions or royalty considerations.

      It will be all too easy to prove via the timeline, and demonstrate that they are now merely copying Rossi’s original and unique designs.

      Unfortunately, should IH lose it’s battle with Rossi it will place Brilluion in an impossible position. With no inherited “sub-licensee” right to the Rossi IP from IH they will be officially pirating his tech and in violation of Patent law.

      Any attempt to publish research or Patent designs will be automatically subject to objection and legal action based upon their exposure to the Rossi IP. In short, their research division has now been poisoned by their exposing themselves to Rossi’s tech and it would be impossible to claim coincidence or parallel research overlap. Anything they do that even remotely resembles the E-Cat will be ruled de facto derived FROM Rossi IP.

      Furthermore, there is a binding “non-competition following default” clause in the contract that prohibits IH and all it’s partners and sub-licensees from engaging in any LENR related activity that would be in competition with Rossi, or his agents. Brillioun is bound to this contractual obligation as their agreement to receive the Rossi IP was also agreeing to all limitations and contractual obligations outlined in the source contract.

      For Brillion the Rossi tech may well turn out to be a poison apple that they choke on. But they made their choice, and agreed to involve themselves in some unsavory activity, so they will fully deserve what comes of it.

      • I disagree with you claim? where is data that let yous ay that ?

        WET reactor is electrolytic with Qwave electric excitation.
        HHT is pressurized dry cell with qwave electric excitation.

        like rossi, like miley, like piantelli, HHT is a pressurized dry cell.

        If someone have stolen something, it is Rossi to Piantelli, Celani and Miley, with heat excited pressurized cell and nanostructured material. I don’t say he di, but technology is much more similar than with Brillouin HHT.

        if real e-cat is better for some application because it is less complex than qwave based cells. qwave based cells have however the advantage to be fully controllable.

        • I forgot elements of comparison.
          One key element in rossi is lithium, which is the equivalent of potassium used by thermacore, and piantelli (not sure)

  • John

    I reviewed the description on the Brillouin website http://brillouinenergy.com . The description sounds similar to the E-Cat. Since IH is also working Brillouin, once they understood what the E-Cat is and saw it function, they may have concluded the E-cat technology had already been developed. Brillouin says they had already proven their technology at Berkeley in 2010. Since the technology had already been developed by Brillouin, IH may feel the contract was void since the intellectual property was not Rossi’s to sell.

    • Chapman

      Nice try, but Brillouin abandoned it’s previous research thread and design roadmap conveniently following Rossi’s release of his research notes and IP to IH. They changed to what you have yourself witnessed and observed is a virtual clone of Rossi’s design.

      Godes was at a dead end. They had technical ability but their science kung-fu was weak. They were happy to take Rossi’s tech and run with it. IH believed Godes could copy, and then improve on Rossi’s tech and produce uniquely patentable designs. This would position IH to move on a global market without territorial restrictions or royalty considerations.

      It will be all too easy to prove via the timeline, and demonstrate that they are now merely copying Rossi’s original and unique designs.

      Unfortunately, should IH lose it’s battle with Rossi it will place Brilluion in an impossible position. With no inherited “sub-licensee” right to the Rossi IP from IH they will be officially pirating his tech and in violation of Patent law.

      Any attempt to publish research or Patent designs will be automatically subject to objection and legal action based upon their exposure to the Rossi IP. In short, their research division has now been poisoned by their exposing themselves to Rossi’s tech and it would be impossible to claim coincidence or parallel research overlap. Anything they do that even remotely resembles the E-Cat will be ruled de facto derived FROM Rossi IP.

      Furthermore, there is a binding “non-competition following default” clause in the contract that prohibits IH and all it’s partners and sub-licensees from engaging in any LENR related activity that would be in competition with Rossi, or his agents. Brillioun is bound to this contractual obligation as their agreement to receive the Rossi IP was also agreeing to all limitations and contractual obligations outlined in the source contract.

      For Brillion the Rossi tech may well turn out to be a poison apple that they choke on. But they made their choice, and agreed to involve themselves in some unsavory activity, so they will fully deserve what comes of it.

      • John

        You provided good insight, I know very little about Brillouin. I like your poison apple analogy. We don’t know what else Brillouin may have developed in the lab. If it is documented that they discovered the workings of LENR first, or at least with the materials used, there may be a tough battle ahead. Rossi may have developed the E-Cat earlier than 2010, but if the material details are undocumented, the courts may rule against him.

        • Chapman

          The key difference is that Rossi holds a patent.

          It does not matter what they may have discovered or observed previously, they did not publish the discovery and secure the patent.

          Rossi did.

          Their new design was perfectly fine as an allowed attempt to improve upon tech which they had every legal right to incorporate under the contract. But with IH defaulting and voiding said contract, they no longer have the right to that IP. And, by that contract, they no longer even have the right to pursue the marketing of any competitive tech.

          Just face it – They are screwed. Darden ruined them.

      • I disagree with you claim? where is data that let yous ay that ?

        WET reactor is electrolytic with Qwave electric excitation.
        HHT is pressurized dry cell with qwave electric excitation.

        like rossi, like miley, like piantelli, HHT is a pressurized dry cell.

        If someone have stolen something, it is Rossi to Piantelli, Celani and Miley, with heat excited pressurized cell and nanostructured material. I don’t say he di, but technology is much more similar than with Brillouin HHT.

        if real e-cat is better for some application because it is less complex than qwave based cells. qwave based cells have however the advantage to be fully controllable.

        • I forgot elements of comparison.
          One key element in rossi is lithium, which is the equivalent of potassium used by thermacore, and piantelli (not sure)

        • Chapman

          They can argue till they are blue in the face, it will not matter.

          They made the outrageous mistake of publicly changing their designs and approach immediately following their receipt of Rossi’s IP.

          I am sorry. I have no personal grudge against Godes. But his research was strictly “monkey see-monkey do” with just a dash of hype, like the “Q-Wave”. When you need to stoop to giving a spicy marketing name to a simple bell-ringing em pulse then you are spending more time on image than function. In the end they were just replicators, like Parkhomov, but with a better lab.

          It does not matter if they can fabricate lab notes showing that they had been researching along a similar line as Rossi prior to the IP exposure, or if they have earlier prototypes that could support the claim of mere coincidental parallel evolution in design. NONE of it matters! They received Rossi IP and immediately abandoned their previous designs and adopted a Rossi Clone. This shows that Rossi tech was the seed upon which their new tech is based, and that the Rossi IP was the KNOWLEDGE that compelled them to make said changes. As a consequence, any advancement they make from this point on is irrevocably tied to Rossi IP.

          This is what happens when you play with someone else’s toys…

  • we know nothing,but all the 1MW claim is only in the dryness of the steam.
    it is unprofessional, not to neglect liquid heat, but to hide it.

    once you accept that dryness is unknown, then minimum heat is zero.
    moreover you don’t even know if water back in the reactor was 60C, with a fair COP much below 50, or 90C with COP=1.

    moreover there is claim that like in Defkalion demo the water measurement was carefully badly made. yet to confirm.

  • Engineer48

    This simple image may help to further understand how superheated steam is created.

    1st the water is heated in a boiler to produce wet stream or steam that has water molecules clumped together.

    As far as I know, heating water to a boil can’t create dry steam where all the water molecules exist as individual water molecules.

    Next the wet steam is passed through another seperate heater, the superheater, that adds enough additional heat to break apart all the wet & clumped together water molecules and produce superheated dry steam.

    From Rossi’s description on his blog, the long and flat 250kW ECat modules are comprised of several sections, the last being the superheater.

  • Engineer48

    This simple image may help to further understand how superheated steam is created.

    1st the water is heated in a boiler to produce wet stream or steam that has water molecules clumped together.

    As far as I know, heating water to a boil can’t create dry steam where all the water molecules exist as individual water molecules.

    Next the wet steam is passed through another seperate heater, the superheater, that adds enough additional heat to break apart all the wet & clumped together water molecules and produce superheated dry steam.

    From Rossi’s description on his blog, the long and flat 250kW ECat modules are comprised of several sections, the last being the superheater.

    • Albert Nilsson

      But you must still evaluate if you have succeeded. For example, if you pump water into the boiler of your diagram, you might pump more water into it than evaporates, and then you will have a mix of water and steam entering the superheater and possible also the steam turbine. Or you might just end up with wet steam. This is an old problem, and that’s why the separating and throttling calorimeter was developed.
      (For reference, here is an example of an explanation of how such a device looks and works: http://www.slideshare.net/kaushal_kush/ppt-of-properties-of-steam )