Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

Thanks to Alan Smith for posting this quote from Jed Rothwell on the LENR Forum, which suggests that there has been an E-Cat test, presumably by Industrial Heat, or on their behalf (Jed Rothwell has just stated the test was not for Industrial Heat), when Rossi was not present. On the LENR Forum, Abd Lomax makes this statement: “What there has been, over and over, is “demonstration,” where Rossi manages. Not independent, ever. Rossi has never trusted anyone to do that.”

Jed Rothwell responded:

That is incorrect. As I said, there was a test conducted in the U.S. when he was in Italy. The instruments belonged to the people who did the test. Unfortunately they do not want me to publish any details. I cannot explain what happened or whether it actually worked. I have only a little information. It looks like it worked, but I can’t be sure.

In a later comment here he stated:

Yes, they installed all the instruments in their own location. Rossi had nothing to do with it . . . I don’t have much on this. Just a summary, some graphs and 6 photos of equipment. It looks like a standard HVAC boiler test to me.

It seems then that Rothwell is referring to an internal test, not meant for public distribution, but which he has been permitted to see. The interesting point to me is that he says “it looked like it worked” — although he doesn’t definitively say that it did.

Once again, however, we are not hearing first-hand from Industrial Heat; it’s through someone they have spoken to. (According to Jed Rothwell, this test was not done for IH)A question that I keep returning to is whether IH believes the E-Cat might work. The fact that they say they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims is not the same as denying that it works. Maybe they just feel like they haven’t seen enough evidence to 100 per cent convince them yet, and it does seem so far that they don’t want to give up on the license agreement with Leonardo. Perhaps the test mentioned here is something that gives them reason to not want lose the license.

  • Bruce__H

    Agreed. Using water to put heat down the drain is actually twice as expensive as I stated. Something like $2600 a day. It would also push the plumbing to its physical limits. A 4-inch drain connected to the usual sort of sanitary sewer you find in these buildings would only just be able to handle it.

  • GiveADogABone

    Staying on topic, produce the evidence or withdraw the statements.
    ‘When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you can say every stupidity’ Rossi

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “Staying on topic, produce the evidence or withdraw the statements.”

      Rossi should either produce the evidence for his claims or withdraw his statements.

      Rossi claims he saw 50 times input. He claims he is producing 1 MW in a building that would require a large, easily visible ventilation system if that were true, yet which does not have any such system. He is making extraordinary claims, and the burden of proof is on him. You should demand evidence from him.

      You can go to the building to confirm what I say, that there is no ventilation system. You do not need to take my word for it.

      Rossi provided me with calorimetric proof of what I say. You will not believe me even if I give it to you, so you must demand the ERV (or a summary of it) from him — not from me.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Using tubing is a poor way to do the heat transfer. It is much more efficient to use a brazed plate counterflow heat exchanger.

    • Bruce__H

      Brilliant. This is just what I want. Thanks!

      Do you know the physical dimensions of the 700 kW unit? I guess it can’t be all that large if it is for domestic purposes.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I uses a similar heat exchanger with about 30 plates and it was roughly 5″x5″x12″. It was about 150,000 BTU/hr or somewhere around 45kW. Picture attached. about twenty similar units in size would do the trick.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Here is another source of the plate heat exchangers:

        I used the L31-30 exchanger (you can calculate the size from the literature). It is hard to estimate the actual thermal performance for the heat exchanger without the exact flows and temperatures. The attached image is from the datasheet shipped with the heat exchanger for “snow melting” applications using boiler water on the primary and 50% ethylene-glycol on the secondary side. It looks like It will support 250,000 BTU/hr or just under 75 kW.

        I used this heat exchanger to chill ethylene glycol from an evacuated tube solar thermal array with R502 on the primary side. The result could freeze water in the heat exchanger at 10GPM. In testing, we only had to deal with about 6kW of hot water.

        The second picture below shows the test rig on the left.

  • GiveADogABone

    Cloud Physics seems to be the scientific subject and in particular The Bergeron Process looks relevant when looking at cloud formation well below 0C :-
    ‘In short summary, the ice crystal grows through sublimation at the expense of the supercooled water droplet.’

    ‘The following chart illustrates the differences in saturation vapor pressures of water.
    Temperature RH wrt* H2O(liq) RH wrt H2O(ice)
    0°C 100% 100%
    -05°C 100% 105%
    -10°C 100% 110%
    -15°C 100% 115%
    -20°C 100% 121%
    *wrt = with respect to’

    My interpretation of this is that the Bergeron process makes larger water droplets faster and these, of course, have a greater free fall velocity.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Neat data. I had not seen this before.

  • GiveADogABone

    Fair comment. Too many variables to get an analysis of which ones really matter, at least in a day. Maybe something will come to mind.

  • GiveADogABone

    Evidence content zero.
    ‘When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you can say every stupidity’ Rossi

  • Steve Swatman

    Dont these two statements contradict each other,

    Based on that, I suppose he realizes the report makes him look back. (i assume you mean bad)

    No, I think he filed suit to get 3 times damages for $89 million. ($267 million.)

    If the report look bad, Rossi loses and cannot get 3x damages, because
    you know, the court are going to look at the ERV report, Rossi’s data
    and IH’s data.

    He could not legally give Mr Lewan a copy of the report as he had already decided to go court and was already prepared, because he was sure IH would renege.

    whish makes me wonder how IH have given you copies of Mr Rossi’s data and their own data, as that would endanger their court case, wouldnt it.

  • GiveADogABone
    There are many problems and complaints with modern condensing boilers regarding their flue systems, especially the nuisance factor regarding the dispersal of condensate plumes; even when they have been installed in a manner better than the regulations and manufacturers state. They can, and do linger around the owners’ property as well as being blown into neighbours gardens and patio areas.

    But why do [some of] the water droplets rise with the column of hot warm air ?
    In the first instance, because the free fall velocity of some of the water droplets is less than the velocity of the rising warm air/combustion products.

    In the second instance, I reckon it all gets a lot more complicated. There are physical processes of buoyancy, free falling droplets, evaporation, freezing and mixing.

    The rising column can have a velocity profile across it.

    The free fall velocity of water droplets depends on their size. Mist can linger, drizzle falls slowly and real rain faster. Droplets could coalesce.

    The evaporation rate of small droplets is faster than that of bigger ones (more surface area per unit mass).

    The warmer and moister the air, the faster (droplet content slows it) the air/combustion product rises.

    The moister the air in the rising column, the more buoyant it is. Really cold weather would reduce this effect.

    There is a race going on to evaporate the water droplets (which act a drag on the rising column) to vapour (which buoys up the column).

    Warm air can hold a lot more vapour.

    The evaporation of the droplets requires thermal energy from the surrounding air.

    Stick it all in a computer and see what comes out. I do not see it as a sudden transition, more a process of gradual change.

  • GiveADogABone

    The same thing happens with modern domestic condensing gas-fired boilers fitted with short counter-flow exhaust pipes (all in the name of combustion efficiency) and it can cause disputes between neighbours. The boilers have lower combustion product outlet temperatures than the older boilers and require an internal drain to remove condensate.

    Perhaps the best way to explain it is :-
    increased moisture content reduces the density of the moist air – dry air is more dense than moist air.

    There are three things to consider: the cold dry air, the saturated warm combustion products and the water droplets. Which of those three can you see?

    The saturated warm combustion products are less dense than the dry air and try to rise. The water droplets are much more dense than the air or combustion products and try to fall. The plume separates and on colder days the water droplets do not evaporate as fast or even freeze.

    Once the water droplets are out of a rising exhaust plume, then the direction of travel is downwards (wind effects excluded). That is why the horizontal exhaust pipes on the domestic boilers are such a problem.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Seems like a good answer. I really do not know what the cause is. Perhaps it is related to night-time radiational cooling, making the ground cooler, and thus, condensing more of the moisture out nearer the ground. Winter days just below freezing often cause hoarfrost to form on bushes and trees near the ground.

      If you look at the moisture content of cold air verses hot air, you immediately see that cold air is very dry. Each 10C change in temperature halves (or doubles going hotter) the moisture in saturated air.

      I remember one very cold, windless day in Madison (-35F) when the exhaust from a coal-fired plant seemed to just hang in the air. I do not ever remember it heading down to the ground.

  • Steve Swatman

    I think the lawsuit is getting in the way of revealing things like this.
    “If Rossi had not filed it, I expect the ERV and many other details
    would have been made public.

    Are you suggesting that Mr Rossi filed purely to keep the incriminating IH investigation papers secret for the time being?


    To keep the ERV report from been made public? Because the ERV report is claimed to prove the E-cat.

    Mr Rossi’s data is claimed to prove the e-cat. but you say it does not, the ERV report and Mr Rossi’s data are claimed to be very similar in results, but you say this wrong from both side.

    And all IH have said is that “they cannot substantiate the ERV report”.

    One would suspect that Mr Rossi would have liked the ERV report to be published asap.

    One would suspect that (as IH are under no legal obligation to keep their investigation of heat dissipation secret) they would leak it, as they have, to yourself, ah wait you said that it was Rossi’s own data that you have right? or both?

    But you must also have details of the IH investigation, as you say,

    “Sorry, but I have agreed not to describe the details until I.H. makes them public”

    So you are in possession of both Mr Rossi’s private data and IH’s investigation details?

    And you are been allowed to discuss all of this on the internet by IH and their legal team, Even though it is possibly creating pre-concieved bias in the minds of the public.

    Was the equipment used to check for heat dissipation:

    checked that it was fully working by trained professionals?
    was the equipment calibrated before and after the investigation by the factories and manufactuers?
    Was the equipment used viable for the job in hand?
    Why do IH claim that they cannot substantiate, instead of claiming that the ecat did not work at all?
    Do IH claim that the e-cat works?
    Do IH claim that the e-cat works to a COP of 2-3-6-11?

    Because if you have Mr Rossi’s papers and claim that the e-cat does not work as you have done, how can IH file patents for a excess heat up to a cop of 11?

  • GiveADogABone

    1: There are no hoods, vents or fans in Rossi’s customer site.

    2: Nothing like that has been found on the roof, …

    3: … and there is no significant heat escaping from the facility.

    4: Therefore, there is no 1 MW heat release.

    5: Not even 100 kW.

    6: Every indication is there is no more than the input electric power.

    ‘When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you can say every stupidity’ Rossi

  • Steve Swatman

    Violation of code is just not really relevant

  • Steve Swatman

    Hi Jed Can you tell us what methods IH used to search for the waste/dissipated heat.

    How long they actually searched, because you know, its difficult to prove this after the fact

    Also it would be good to know what instructments were used by IH and where they were placed.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Another thing to consider, a typical storefront restaurant kitchen uses about 500,000 BTUs/hr of heat equivalent to about 146,000 Watts. I have seen comments that the JM people would “cook” in the heat. Apparently restaurant workers do cook in a similar heat. Where is OSHA when you need them! There must be a whoooollllleeee lot of “cooked” chefs in this country.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    The Madison Gas and Electric West Campus Co-generation facility at the University of Wisconsin generates 160 MW of electrical power traded off with steam and chilled water. In the summer, most of the facility is producing electricity and some of that electricity is used to chill water. Assuming that the plant is all-out electrical (and some is used for chillers), the two GE turbine generators produce 50MW each and the steam generators drive a steam turbine/generator to produce another 6- MW electrical. The chillers produce 30,000 tons (refrigeration capacity) of chilled water and must reject about 105MW of heat to the hot side. Assume the GE turbines are “free” of waste heat going up the stacks, the exhaust gas is used to drive the steam generators which then drive the steam turbine/generator. At least another 60MW of heat must be rejected from the low-temperature side of the steam turbine. That is a total of 165 MW of heat rejected. The facility uses 16 draft-induced Marley cooling towers to reject the heat.

    I have SELDOM seen any condensate vapors over the cooling towers, and almost never under SUMMER (eg — like Florida!) conditions. You see plenty of stack white vapor in the WINTER due to condensing exhaust vapors and cooling towers.

    Use Google earth to visit the plant. Here is a captured image. There are relatively few cooling towers to reject 165 MW of heat…. AND SELDOM any “Smoke”.

    Elsewhere in this thread I have seen the figure 750 liters/sec of steam. Gosh that sounds like a lot. However, this $122 attic fan moves 1500 CFM, darn close to 750 liters/sec.

    What’s the problem????

  • Bruce__H

    This thread has been active for just over 2 weeks now. Jed Rothwell has disclosed a number of things here but one thing particularly caught my attention. That is that IH were worried early on about where 1 MW of heat was going after it left Rossi’s ECAT devices and entered the customer side of the 1-year test facility. What happens to it after that? Shouldn’t it be coming out somewhere?

    So the hunt has been on looking for possible routes for energy to leave the customer’s side. The beauty of this approach is that it is fairly straightforward to work out how big these routes need to be, physically, to dissipate 1 million joules of energy per second (i.e. 1 MW) at steady state. I thought it was time now for a summary of where things stand.

    There are a number of possible routes for dissipation:

    1) Down the drain in the form of hot water. Dumping water over 60 C is against municipal codes (according to Jed Rothwell) and more to the point the plastic fittings used in plumbing begin to soften over 60 C. If the water starts out around 20 C and is heated to 60 C before being put down the drain you would need more than 500 cubic meters per day. So this is physically doable, but it’s a large amount and at the Maimi-Dade commercial water rate of $7.39 per 100 cubic ft would cost $1300 per day.

    2) Used to melt ice then put down the drain: Two people have calculated that 1 MW would melt 7 toms of ice per day. So this is physically doable but requires delivery of substantial amounts of ice and so would require trucks going in and out of the facility .

    3) Radiated away out the ceiling, walls, and floor. You would need a substantial heat flux across any surface to radiate away 1 MW. But heat flux is driven by a heat gradient so if you want to radiate to the outside with an ambient temperature of say 20 C, then the interior of the building needs to be hot. Using conservative assumptions I calculate that the room must be somewhere above 70 C. Ged did the same calculation under probably more realistic assumptions and found that the room needs to be over 200 C ! This, seems unlikely. Particularly since the waer return from the customer side is at 60 C.

    4) Hot air vented out the roof or sides. If you want to avoid a hot room you can always push all the hot air out through a vent. I calculate that to remove air at a fast enough pace to avoid having the room haet up above 60 C you would need a vent 10 square metres in size pushing a column of air moving at 10 m/s (36 kilometers an hour). No such vent is visible on the roof. Was the loading bay door opened and a 36 kph wind emerging? Doubt it. And if so then there must be an equal inrushing wind?

    5) Steam vented out the roof. By steam I mean water vapour which is invisible. Under some circumstances some of the water in the steam can condense as droplets and turn the steam white. Cool air mixing with the stem would promotes droplet formation and render the steam visible whereas dry air mixing with the steam would inhibit dropolets and make the steam invisible. Whether or not the steam would actually be visible when vented would depend on the local air conditions outside the facility. Since steam is a more concentrated way of carrying heat than hot air a 2m x 2m vent on the roof with a column of stem moving at 0.2 m/s (0.7 kph) day and night would be sufficient. There is 2m x 2m structure visible on the roof so maybe this is it.

    6) An endothermic reaction is used to trap heat as chemical bond: The problem here is that even highly endothermic reactions have energy densities of only about 1000 Wh/kg (see Aydin et al in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015, 41:356-367). To store 1 MW of heat would require formation of 24,000 kg of product per day which would either have to be stored or trucked away. A corresponding amount of reactants would have to be trucked into the facility at some point. So this is physically possible but would require a lot of activity around the customer facility.

    These are the obvious methods. Most are unlikely but physically possible. There is a final consideration, though … Jed Rothwell says that IH engineers were aware of the problem of heat dissipation and looking for possibilities like these. They didn’t find them. I think it would have been tough to miss all the possibilities except for number 1. So it could be that the customer was pushing huge amounts of heat down the drains. Seems expensive though (almost half a million dollars over 340 days) and complicated.

    If I were an IH engineer I would sneak up on the roof and lower a camera down one of the vents. Just saying!

    • Steve Swatman

      “Jed Rothwell says that IH engineers were aware of the problem of heat
      dissipation and looking for possibilities like these”

      Jed says a lot of things, but its all hearsay and he offers no details, just vague, unsubstantiated possibilities.

      “So it could be that the customer was pushing huge
      amounts of heat down the drains. Seems expensive though (almost half a
      million dollars over 340 days) and complicated”

      Most of that expense would be just R&D, so not really expensive and of course there is the payments from IH and leonardo to cover costs, Personally I do not see it as complicated to drop a pipe into the sewers to dump waste heat. just saying.

    • Observer

      How about a closed loop boiler and condenser with the condenser air cooled (only hot air vented). Kind of like what you would use to recycle water used to wash the sponge metal reaction products.

    • Engineer48
  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    And when was the agreement between IH and JMCP, for IH to supply JMCP with a max 24MWh of heat per day in exchange for a payment of $1,000 per day signed?

    Why do you suggest JMCP had to be in existence before the License Agreement was signed?

    BTW the date of formation of JMCP is before the 1 year trial started, which seems to be what would be expected.

  • Steve Swatman

    I am pretty sure that was covered by a number of people when this argument first came into the blogosphere, in fact, if I remember correctly there were a number of people pointing out that ventilation at the facility was capable of venting upto 1 MW of heat without too much difficulty, and of course there is the sewer.

    I am not an engineer or scientist, but I assume (knowing that assumption is mother of all f#@%ups) if the return water is at 65c then the waste heat and consumed heat is not anything near the full 1MW you are claiming should have dissipated.

    Of course I am just an ignorant layman, with no idea about such things.

    I do like to believe that the E-cat worked, and do not readily accept people only looking for the negatives when the positives (and there appear to a few of those) should be investigated first.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Please do not put words in my mouth.


    Your argument makes no sense.

  • Steve Swatman

    I understand your argument, I also understand that it is your only argument to augment your bias against Mr Rossi and the e-cat, if it turns out the steam was vented or cooled and poured in the sewer what then?

    And of course, you see how easy it is to do either, But now all your claims are un-provable “after the fact” once the e-cat was shut down there is no way to prove where the heat went, and unless YOU have specific information from IH on exactly how, where and when they checked for dissipated heat then the argument is moot, because there is no way to prove your theory.

    Hence an irrelevant argument.

  • GiveADogABone

    1: The “byproduct liquor evaporator” came from here :-
    ‘The project also helped reduce the use of natural gas to run the boiler. Steam from the boiler is used to concentrate the byproduct liquors …’

    2: why you or Engineer48 think it is important
    JM are on an economy drive. They can get the natural gas burn down to zero with an E-cat. JM want cheap heat to evaporate a lot of water, so getting involved with the 1MW test makes a lot of sense for them. The E-cat needs a steady load, at least in its current state of development, so a continuous boiling operation is ideal as a test load.

    The test load transfers the E-cat heat into latent heat at 100C (that is why you cannot find it – its latent) that can be confined to a pipe and piped out of the production building. People have been looking for this 1MW of heat in the ventilation system, in the drains or endothermic reactions and have not found it. When you know this heat is used for boiling and is carried away as a flow of steam, that cracks the problem. If you have an alternative suggestion that will withstand scrutiny, then could I ask you to post it?

    As far as I, and I believe Engineer48, are concerned that gets rid of the argument that because you cannot remove 1MW of heat from the production building, the E-cat cannot be making 1MW. You clearly can remove 1MW from the production building as steam, with or without a steam plume.

    Now it gets more serious. There is a suspicion in my mind that IH have reverse engineered the ‘cannot rid rid of 1MW in the production building’ argument to the ‘E-cat cannot be producing 1MW argument because …’ and then looked for a method by which this could be achieved. They seem to be trying to blame the test instrumentation (because they cannot think of anything else?). It is far from impossible that something as dumb as that is the underlying cause of this dispute. Important? Correct? You judge.

  • Steve Swatman

    I didn’t miss your argument, i simply do not find it as relevant as you seem to think it is.

    However I do notice that dodge every other aspect of the conversation, its strange how that happens with internet arguments/conversations, people get totally caught up in 1 irrelevant aspect, 1 single facet and they lose sight of what the situation is all about, I combat this sort of thing all the time on reddit, sometimes I just tickle the thread to see what comes out of the woodwork, But generally I try to steer the lost souls back to what really matters, in this case, Was the E-cat making excess heat?

    There is no way that anyone can accept IH versions of what happened, simply because they failed in so many ways, who can accept someone arguing IH’s point of view when they obviously made so many glaring errors, so many unscrupulous decisions, and e-cats that they claimed worked and claim did not work. in the end what we think is all nonsense, but to argue for something that cannot be proved one way or the other “after the fact” is seriously a waste of your time. So I thank you for not wasting your time trying to expand on a useless argument. cheers.

  • Steve Swatman

    I have no questions, you on the other hand keep asking the same question, and proposing a negative reply.

    Mr Rossi is a fraud and all the staff are conmen by silent association, and you make this claim all because IH could not/did not verify heat dissipation.

    You do not ask yourself, if IH actually really tried verify the heat dissipation? if they used good process’s? if they have documented that process?

    You make claims of fraud, because you know that the claim cannot be proven after the fact.

    You continue the same claim of unprovenfraud after the fact.y

    You continually offer libelous innuendo and unproven facts as if they are relevant, which they are not.

    The case to be proven is whether or not the E-cat worked, whether or not it produced heat and whether or not that heat was +/- Cop 6.

    Where the heat went is something that the local authority can take up with IH, because it was IH’s premises, IH’s equipment, etc etc it was all done in IH’s name, if they did not check where the heat was going, if they did allow a factory process on their premises and did allow the heat to illegally vented or illegally run off into the sewer, well that is the IH’s problem for doing their job properly.However it not relevant to situation, the situation is all about:


    IF it did, then, and only then, does your question becomes relevant, and only to the local authorities, Where did the heat go, and are IH are responsible for answering that question and are IH responsible for not knowing where that heat was going, was it illegally vented or illegally dumped in the sewer, IH will have to answer that question, as the whole facility is in their name, I would guess.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    Pictures please or it didn’t happen.

  • GiveADogABone

    And turned it into a statement that the E-cat produced no anomalous heat at all because the production plant released no heat, so the test instruments must be faulty?

    If that were true, IH’s engineering logic is hopelessly conflicted and they should expect no mercy in court. It does raise the question about exactly what calibre of engineering staff they have hired. I can suppress that steam plume and release that heat so I am confident that Rossi can. Whether he actually bothered to do it I leave open.

    • Engineer48

      Hi GiveADogABone,

      Maybe like this?

      • Bruce__H

        This isn’t a terribly important point but I think you have your dimensions wrong. If the scale showing on Google maps is correct then the unit you are depicting is 50 m long and 10 m wide for a total of 500 m^2. But the customer facility is reputedly 600 m^2 and the Rossi side is supposed to be 400 m^2.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bruce,

          It is an approximation, a visual schematic, not an engineered floor plan.

          The point is it is possible to eliminate a steam plume from the rear vent and exhaugst all the waste heat.

          Which suggests the claimed IH experts”

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bruce,

          My drawing is a side view.

      • GiveADogABone

        Steam plumes can have a top. Why? The water droplets have evaporated.

        Warm air can hold a lot more moisture than cooler air and the steam warms the air. Add enough cool air flow and mix air and steam quickly in a tube and push/pull the resulting warm, moist, clear air outside. The ‘warm’ dumps the heat and the ‘moist’ dumps the water mass.

        It is the mixing of steam and cool air that makes it work, just like the cooling tower.

    • Bruce__H

      No. Jed’s information about the readings being conflicting/sloppy/changed is completely separate from the information about IH being unable to find adequate heat being vented from the facility.

      It doesn’t matter what the readings say. If you can’t find 1 MW of heat being somehow transported out of the building then you must conclude it was never generated in the first place.

      • GiveADogABone

        You could also conclude that you have not looked hard enough. This attempt to demonstrate that the E-cat produced no heat has failed.

        The heat goes up the vent pipe of the byproduct liquor evaporator. Did anyone look there? Of course not. Nobody knew there was an evaporator. I have to admit that I did not know the answer myself until I read the JM website that provided it.

        Then we move on to the steam plume. That can be suppressed, much as Engineer48 has drawn below. I have no doubt that Jed will be deploying his execrable engineering skills to try and come with yet another piece of nonsense to keep the evaporator not boiling.

        ‘When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you can say every stupidity.’ Rossi. Very apt in Jed’s case.

  • Steve Swatman

    My question is central and supersedes all arguments about gauges and
    readings and so on. That is why, reportedly, IH was so concerned about

    Nah, its really not even important, what is important is, DID the E0cat produce excess heat?

    The question is, Did the e-cat work????

    But you keep asking your question.

    I will keep waiting for the answers. to the real question.

  • GiveADogABone
    Photo: Steam vapor being vented through a typical Con Edison orange and white stack on Seventh Avenue at West 20th Street.
    C g/m^3
    20 17.3
    30 30.4
    40 51.1
    50 83.0
    60 130
    With relative humidity of 50% at 30C, air at 60C can carry another 115g/m^3 of moisture.
    The mass flow rate of the steam up the production plant vent pipe is about 410g/s (0.75m^3/s).

    So, 410/115=3.57m^3/s of air at 60C can absorb 0.75m^3/s steam
    So, 410/83=4.94m^3/s of air at 50C can absorb 0.75m^3/s steam

    Complete absorption implies no steam plume. Now all that has to be done is engineer it. Engineer48 is on the right track but a few details could be improved. You need the moisture content data above to see the trick.

  • GiveADogABone

    This post was really aimed at the counterflow heat exchanger and its temperatures, so other bits were neglected.

    The 1MW goes up the vent pipe as the latent heat of steam at 100C. It is the same 1MW enthalpy flow as the steam leaving the E-cat at 100C+a bit. It is released when the steam evaporated from the byproduct liquor condenses outside the building, possibly as a steam plume.

  • GiveADogABone

    I like the caveat ‘ If there is only a single process …’
    and the backup caveat ‘it would be possible to have several processes …’.

    Jed has not quite grasped those caveats yet. Please see above.

  • GiveADogABone

    I had a feeling that you would fail to sketch the design or understand the engineering essentials. The evaporator plant comes in TWO sections.

    The hot one is the boiler, heated by 100C steam and continued to be heated by 100C steam until all the steam has condensed. The full condensation enthalpy is transferred to the boiling process.

    The E-cat condensate at 100C leaving the boiler, then passes through a counterflow heat exchanger that has inlet byproduct liquor running in the opposite direction. The inlet byproduct liquor is then heated to about 90C before entering the boiling section. The E-cat condensate leaves the counterflow heat exchanger at a temperature about 10C hotter than the entry temperature of the byproduct liquor. Problem solved.

    You state :-
    ‘The data shows [the inlet steam] is probably hot water under a little pressure.’
    That implies the E-cats run with the gauge glasses flooded, the high water level trips disabled, the water level control system disabled and a conspiracy by all the plant engineers to produce a fake report. It did not happen.

  • GiveADogABone

    1: ‘There is no steam pipe coming from the customer site in Florida.’
    Prove it.

    2: websearch ‘counterflow heat exchanger’

    ‘The figure below depicts heat exchanger schematics and the temperature profiles for both cocurrent (or parallel) and countercurrent designs:’

    Looking at the counterflow diagram Thout is lower than Tcout

    Your statement :-
    ‘Any higher temperature would violate the Second Law, allowing a perpetual motion machine.’
    is, to put it bluntly, totally wrong. The diagrams will explain why. Please let me know if you need any help understanding them.

    When thinking through the operation, bear in mind that the E-cat steam enters as superheat steam at about 105C and the steam water mixture that forms is continuously drained to a reservoir where it collects as water at 100C.

    The byproduct liquor can enter the evaporator system at any temperature down to freezing. It needs preheating to as close to 100C as possible before entering the main evaporator. Try sketching out the counterflow heater circuit. When you get it right, we will have made progress.

    If the inlet byproduct liquor is at 0C, I could get the condensate return to the E-cat down to about 10C and the main evaporator vessel would still be boiling at 100C.

  • Steve Swatman

    Deflection Bruce, that’s really a “reddit” kind of play, deflection is in the (chapter 4 i think) of How to win any internet argument, it a well known tactic, it serves little purpose unless you talking to people who not know “tactical social media manipulation” (12yr olds and really old people maybe).

    Do you not agree that the questions are, did the ecat work, was heat generated, was it a COP over 6?

    You are justified in asking a question, but to keep repeating the same question as if it is the “be all and end all” of the situation is, well, you know, just a waste of your time, your effort and the time and effort of those who do not have you ignored on disqus.. eventually of course that is what will happen.

  • GiveADogABone

    Thanks for the calc. It is the swapping from litres to kilograms or vice versa that fooled me. My mistake. 750 litres/second of saturated STEAM at 0bar gauge it is.

    1000kJ/s / 2265kJ/kg = 0.4415kg/s
    Specific volume of steam at 0.0bar gauge 1.694 m^3/kg
    Steam flow by volume = 1.694 * 0.4415 m^3/s = 0.748 m^3/s

  • Steve Swatman

    But how many times are going to post the same arguments, I don’t care where the heat is going, I don’t care about the customer.

    I care about the equipment used for monitoring, position of the equipment, the heat out and the heat in, the water flow and the pressure.

    Getting stuck on where the heat goes, what its used for, who looked for it, who didn’t look for it, its all irrelevant.

    Does the e-cat take in an amount of water at a certain temperature? does it heat that water to a certain temp at a certain pressure? and did it do this for a year or so? That is all that matters.

    Repeating an argument that has little, if anything to do with these points is a waste of time, a bore, and to be quite honest it makes you a little like a troll attempting to cast dispersions while ignoring the real matter.

    Did the E-cat heat water into steam for 340days?

    Did the E-cat heat that water at a COP +/-6?

    Did this test create proof of concept?

    Has Mr Rossi proven LENR?

    The only things that may prove this, is the data from the ERV, IH and Mr Rossi.

    Surely a man of your intellect understands this. and surely a man of your intellect understands the useless concept of arguing “where was the heat dissipated”.

    One should not get locked onto an irrelevant argument and lose track of the real questions.

    If it turns out Mr Rossi or the customer was illegally venting the hot water or steam, So what?

    If it turns out the customer was just a large bucket of cold water flowing into the sewer, So what?

    Did the E-cat work?????

    That is the only question you need to ask, and we (including you and Jed) will not know until it comes to court, comes to market or Mr Rossi dies.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    Sorry wrong. The steam exits from the top of JM’s reaction chamber and will dissipate as stated.

    BTW are you saying Rossi’s lawyer has purgered himself to the court as below?

    If not please stop making statements that there is no UK patent for the IH thermal heat customer.