Dec 072014
 

 

 

Mats Lewan – the Update to the ‘Elforsk-Levi Lugano E-cat Report’ of Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat LLC is Delayed Because of More Experimental Work

 

Documenting many more LIES from the testing team, this time about the wiring, and other things.
Mats Lewan tells us the team told him the update to the report is delayed because of ongoing experimental work.
This article is about the report with download link:
“Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel”
The report can be downloaded by clicking —
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

On the e-cat FARCE: Definitions
A farce is used to describe something that is supposed to be serious but has turned ridiculous.
A comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.
A farce is a comedy that aims at entertaining the audience through situations that are highly exaggerated, extravagant, and thus improbable.
A light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character
synonyms: mockery, travesty, absurdity, sham, pretense, masquerade, charade, joke, waste of time, slapstick comedy, slapstick, burlesque, vaudeville, buffoonery, an absurd event.

The sad thing about the e-cat farce is that the stage is the world, and real people are losing real money into the pockets of the fraudsters and scammers: Andrea Rossi, along with all of his partners, licensees and sub-licensees, including JT Vaughn and Tom Darden with Industrial Heat LLC and Cherokee, Roger Green in Australia, etc.

On the PETLENR

We believe Rossi is going to abandon the e-cat in favor of the PETLENR. Think of the marvelous invention Rossi would have if he would only combine all of his fabulous miracles together into one device. From garbage to free electricity. Rossi could call it the – Petroldragon Thermoelectric LENR Reactor or PETLENR. This is how it will work.

There will be a hopper where you will throw all of your garbage, from banana peels and old newspapers, to your old tires, from this part of the device there will be a constant flow of fuel oil and natural gas. You could sell the coal to your local power company to make a little extra spending money. This fuel oil and gas will be the source of heat to trigger your e-cat nuclear reactor. The first layer around your e-cat nuclear reactor would be Rossi’s 20% efficient thermoelectric panels, these will provide all of the electricity needed to run the operation and to regulate and control the e-cat nuclear reactor. All leftover electricity could be used to charge your new Tesla roadster, which you can now afford since you won’t have any utility bills. Layered next over the thermoelectric panels will be Rossi’s magic lead shielding that doesn’t melt even though it is between the 1500 degree reactor and the working fluid. And then will come the final layer containing the working fluid providing unlimited heat at 125 C using hot water or steam.

On Mats Lewan.

We would like to take a little time to speak about Mats Lewan, because we have been following Mats Lewan’s writings on the e-cat since 2011. We have also had many communications with Lewan over the years. We believe Mats Lewan honestly writes what people tell him, and sincerely writes about things he has witnessed.

Where we split company with Mats Lewan is in the interpretation of the facts and observations, and therefore in the conclusions reached.

We clearly disagree with Mats Lewan on what is required as proof before you can call someone’s device or operation a fraud and a scam. Mats Lewan seems to think, from writings on his blog, that until you have the same evidence that is required to lock someone up in jail, you cannot say they are a fraud and/or are running a scam.
Mats Lewan says on his blog:

@Robbinz
I’m reporting all this in my book. But I believe in the principle of not judging without proof, so my statement in the blog post is simply an expression of what is applied in all fair societies: You have to leave people the benefit of the doubt until the contrary is proven. Yet you can report on what happened and let people judge for themselves, and I did. I agree with your assessment, and I believe most of my readers do. There are plenty of indications in the book that Defkalion played a false game. I believe you should accept this view.

Also

“It doesn’t necessary have to be a technical proof. An inside non-anonymous testimony from those involved, testifying about the plans for fraud etc would be good, if it can be confirmed. That would be a proof valid in court.”

——-
We wish Mats Lewan’s boss would put him on a series of articles about fraud and scams for a couple of years. Mats Lewan would then learn firsthand just what is required for a fraud to take place. He would also learn what evidence is required, and the consequences to the players. Or Lewan could just take the time to study a few cases relating to fraud and learn the same things. Here is a good place to start if you want to learn something about fraud:
Retraction Watch at http://retractionwatch.com
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

 UNLV English professor fired for plagiarizing Updike, Said, Zizek, and more
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/04/unlv-english-professor-fired-plagiarizing-updike-said-zizek/
The professor was paid handsomely for his busy schedule of stealing; according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, his 2013 base salary was $125,835. The gravy train has stopped for now, though. Marrouchi’s faculty page at the UNLV website now simply states: Dr. Mustapha Marrouchi is no longer a member of the faculty at UNLV’s Department of English.

Shigeaki Kato up to 33 retractions, with five papers cited a total of 450 times
Former University of Tokyo researcher Shigeaki Kato continues to put big numbers on the board.
Last month, we reported on his 26th, 27th, and 28th retractions, all in Nature Cell Biology and cited close to 700 times. Yesterday, EMBO Journal and EMBO Reports published a total of five more retractions for the endocrinology researcher, who resigned from the university in 2012 following investigations found he had faked images.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/02/shigeaki-kato-up-to-33-retractions-with-five-papers-cited-a-total-of-450-times/

Weekend reads: Former vice chancellor sent to jail for plagiarism; peer reviewers getting tired
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/29/weekend-reads-former-vice-chancellor-sent-to-jail-for-plagiarism-peer-reviewers-getting-tired/
This week, we published a feature in Nature on how some researchers are gaming peer review systems to review their own papers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

  • Former Delhi University vice-chancellor Deepak Pental was jailed briefly Tuesday following accusations that he plagiarized a paper and stole genetically modified seeds from another lab.
  • “Editorial Manager, trusted by millions of academic authors and reviewers, fails to implement some of the most basic rules for the secure and responsible handling of passwords and user accounts,” says Mark Dingemanse, offering some background to our Nature piece “The Peer Review Scam.”
  • “I’m one of those humanistic researchers who likes to imagine that I do something resembling science.” Ray Carey describes his “adventures in correcting the (semi)-scientific record.”
  • The growing number of journals is tiring out peer reviewers, argues Martijn Arns.
  • The “strange tale of the University of Vigo’s physics programme” involves “closures, court orders,” and “political intrigue,” reports Paul Jump in Times Higher Education.
  • “…I think that, as scientists, we’d be better off reporting what we actually see rather than trying to cram everything into a single catchy storyline,” says Andrew Gelman, writing about yet another hype cycle.
  • The Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences’ Research Transparency Forum, being held on December 11 and 12, looks very promising.
  • “It’s hard to imagine anyone even reviewed this paper,” a beekeeper told Jon Entine of a study of whether neonicotinoids are dangerous for bees.
  • “I think, for humanities manuscripts, for the time being, pre-publication anonymous peer review remains the way to go,” argues journal editor Udo Schuklenk.
  • PLOS’s “open-data mandate has prompted scientists to share more data online, but not everyone is complying with the regulations,” writes Richard van Noorden in Nature.
  • I had confessed to plagiarism and other academic fraud,” writes Ottawa Citizen reporter Tom Spears. “The editor’s response? ‘OK, no problem.’”
  • Speaking of “OK, no problem:” Progress in Physics is perfectly happy to publish authors who have been banned from arXiv, says Jeffrey Beall.
  • Alan Price and Robert Daroff examine one of the Office of Research Integrity’s “most contentious investigations that involved falsification of research on Parkinson’s disease patients by James Abbs, Professor of Neurology, University of Wisconsin,” and call it a model for how editors and the ORI should work together.
  • What’s the value does peer review add? asks Kent Anderson.
  • “[M]any younger researchers felt they faced problems due to the misconduct of their senior colleagues and the existing institutional culture,” according to a survey.
  • Why are prostate cancer screening researchers refusing to share data?
  • A researcher found by the ORI to have faked data in his PhD thesis is no longer working at Bristol Myers-Squibb (see update at end).
  • Science is broken,” writes Lorraine Chuen. “Being open could fix it.”
  • Nature has more details on the investigation into “super-surgeon” Paolo Macchiarini that we covered earlier this week.

——-
Speaking of science being open, especially where claims of free energy and violations of scientific laws are concerned, see our article here: We asked for all data, photos and videos to be put online, from the latest e-cat test.
Answer to Bo Höistad – Who are you? Are you an alias for Steven Krivit?

We could give thousands of cases, from many different sources, where professionals, including PhDs and MDs, have been put on probation, lost their jobs, taken to civil and criminal court, with many ending up in jail. All this based on fraud and scams.

This type of false belief, written out as demonstrated by Mats Lewan, especially coming from a reporter, is one of the most devastating things a person can do that allows the fraudsters and scammers to flourish. If everyone waited until these fraudsters and scam artists were in jail before everyone calls them out for what they are, many more people would lose their hard earned money, because very few end up in jail. It is only the people such as ourselves who are willing to call these people out, to expose them and to label them with the correct words, that helps to prevent more fraud and scams by educating the public. The academic institutions and the governments do not need to wait until these people are in jail to put the correct labels on them and neither do we.

The reader must understand, we are discussing on this website claims of free energy, claims that violate the known laws of science. There have been hundreds of fraudsters and scammers that work in this field, many went to jail, but more did not, though some were taken to civil court. And to this day there is not one single public invention, device or experiment that has proven that free energy is possible and the inventor has truly violated the know laws of science.

So yes, we have a right to say, after looking at the evidence presented, that if the person does not prove their claims, and if they are taking money based on false statements and lies, that they are running a fraud and a scam.

Professors can, and do, lose their academic positions and funding because of fraud, the US SEC can, and does, shut down and/or heavily fines, many businesses every year for fraud, all of the above based on nothing more than a level of evidence that comes nowhere near that required to lock someone up in jail. Please see our article:
LIES, Tests, Ethics & Research Misconduct

Originally Mats Lewan started writing about Andrea Rossi and the e-cat as a neutral reporter for Ny Teknik, where he covers new technology. But the instant Mats Lewan started becoming an active participant in the testing of the e-cats, and of Defkalion’s devices, Lewan became a part of the story itself, and lost his neutrality.

Mats Lewan further complicated things when he published his book about Andrea Rossi and the e-cat. Mats Lewan now has a clear monetary interest in this unfolding farce. It is well understood worldwide that it is a conflict of interest and a person’s judgment can very easily become clouded when someone has a monetary interest in a story.

For this reason, in our opinion, all conclusions, interpretations of facts, and actions of Mats Lewan should be looked at very critically, and a person should always be aware that is in Mats Lewan’s self interest to make statements and derive conclusions to create interest (i.e. sales) in his writings and books.

We hope that Mats Lewan will not take our comments above as a personal attack because it is not. Lewan has provided much valuable information about Rossi’s fraud and scam.

That said —-

On the latest E-CAT REPORT

Mats Lewan’s statements on his blog clearly show he staying in touch with the Elforsk-Levi Lugano E-cat testing team, who wrote the report on the e-cat: “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel.”
Mats Lewan made the following comment on his blog:

“@Deleo77 — I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening.”

Knowing this we asked Mats Lewan on October 15, 2014, in relation to the quote above:
Would you please answer 3 questions?
1) Who told you this?
2) Who was the team member that went into the room?
3) Who was the “technician”?”

Mats Lewan replied:

“The team members told me this. I don’t know who went into the room or if more than one person went into the room, or if the others looked into the room but were outside for safety reasons (not contaminating with dust) or who the technician was.
You should ask them.”

We can compare what the report said with what Lewan is telling us.
In the report it says:

“A thermocouple probe, inserted into one of the caps, allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by measuring the internal temperature of the reactor. The hole for the thermocouple probe is also the only access point for the fuel charge. The thermocouple probe cable is inserted in an alumina cement cylinder, which acts as a bushing and perfectly fits the hole, about 4 mm in diameter. When charging the reactor, the bushing is pulled out, and the charge is inserted. After the thermocouple probe has been lodged back in place, the bushing is sealed and secured with alumina cement. To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal.”

“After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy reactor was switched off and disconnected from the power cables, to allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted. The powder had been previously placed in a small envelope, weighed (about 1 g), and then transferred to a test tube so that Bianchini could perform radioactivity measurements on it, after placing it in a low background lead well. Lastly, the contents of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team. The leads were reconnected and the cap sealed with a mixture of water and alumina powder cement. The E-Cat was placed once again on its metal frame, and power was fed to it, the voltage being increased in progressive steps.”

“After cooling, the E-Cat was again opened by breaking one of the caps, and the powder was collected and put in a test tube. After Bianchini’s readings, performed in a matter similar to those in the first phase, the test tube was handed back to us for further analysis, the results of which will presented in paragraph 8.”

And now we have what the testing team told Mats Lewan:

“A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed.”

There are now three different stories from the same testing team all relating to how the “ash” was removed from the device after the test was completed. If you look at all three statements in the most favorable light towards the testing team, taken together, all three stories cannot be the truth. Someone on the testing team is lying about the device and how the “ash” was removed.

We would now like to talk a little bit about the loading and unloading of the “fuel” and “ash.” These are thoughts we had immediately after reading the report, but are only now putting them in print.

Everyone should stop and think for a minute about what actually and physically happened during the test concerning the loading and unloading of the “fuel and ash.” Let’s take this one step at a time.

Step 1 – The design of the device.

We believe the testers did take many more photos than they put into the report. Why won’t the testers and authors put all of the original high resolution pictures taken during the testing online for all to see? We think it is because they have something to hide. We think it is because someone is lying and they refuse to put these pictures online because it will prove this test was all a sham and fraud. It is unconscionable that with the claims being made that the testing team did not take complete detailed pictures of all aspects of the devices, equipment and testing, putting them in the report and online.

The report describes the device like this:

“A thermocouple probe, inserted into one of the caps, allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by measuring the internal temperature of the reactor. The hole for the thermocouple probe is also the only access point for the fuel charge. The thermocouple probe cable is inserted in an alumina cement cylinder, which acts as a bushing and perfectly fits the hole, about 4 mm in diameter. When charging the reactor, the bushing is pulled out, and the charge is inserted. After the thermocouple probe has been lodged back in place, the bushing is sealed and secured with alumina cement. To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal.”

To put the size of the hole into perspective for everyone we will convert the dimension.
4mm is about 0.1574798 inch in diameter. This is just a little over 1/8 of an inch in diameter. This is a very small hole. So somewhere on one of the ends we have a very small hole that is used for two purposes. One, to insert a thermocouple probe used to measure the internal temperature and to CONTROL the amount of electricity going to the resistors. Two, a hole going into the center of the device, where the “fuel” is poured.

What we don’t know. Were the three resistors wound around a mandrel, coated with alumina and then was the mandrel removed? Or were the three resistors wound around a hollow ceramic tube, which then became part of the device?

We also know that the three “tubes” or “rods” attached to each end of the device were used both during the “dummy” run and the actual “test.”

We also know that the wiring was supposed to be the same during both runs.

The report says:
“After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy reactor was switched off and disconnected from the power cables, to allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted.

“Note that the copper cables, 12.45 mm2 in cross section, run through most of the six alumina rods, inside of which they are joined by a connecting terminal to the Inconel cables coming from the reactor. The length of Inconel cable inside the rods is but a few centimeters long.”

The total length of the device, the e-cat plus the tubes on each end was about 51 inches, a little over four feet.

They do not say how the “fuel” was inserted into the device, but remember the hole was only a little over 1/8 of an inch in diameter. We do not see how they could have put 1 gram of powder into the device with it being on its side as shown in all of the pictures.

Since they do not tell us the specifics we are going to assume that they must have removed all 6 tubes from the device, to get to the connections. Then they disconnected all 6 copper cables at the connections to the Inconel cables, a few centimeters from the ends of the device.

Now they will have only the device itself about 12 inches long. This is something they can handle and turn on end to pour the powder down into that very small hole. It would look like the device in the picture on the scale. But it would still have the 6 Inconel resistors coming out the ends.

Step 2 – What happened after the “dummy” run, when they loaded the “fuel”?

To understand this we need to look at the pictures supplied in the report.

 0003 R_123570155_2 Part II-5
What they do not say in the report is where the fuel was loaded. Was the powder inserted in a different room from where the test took place? Mats Lewan says they told him that after the final test the device was opened in a different room. What about when the “fuel” was added? Where were they then? Mats Lewan made the following comment on his blog:

“@Deleo77 — I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening.”

If the device was opened in a closed room where it was tested for radiation, it is reasonable to think that it was “charged” or the “fuel” was loaded in the same room.

In the report in Appendix 1, it does not say where the “fuel” and “ash” were tested by D. Bianchini.

This is what the report does say happened:

  • “The test started with a run with no fuel in the reactor in order to make sure that our experimental set-up gave a perfect balance between the measured input and output power.”
  • “A careful analysis of the fuel isotope composition has therefore been performed on samples taken by us before and after the experimental run using the standard methods of SIMS, XPS, EDS and the chemical element analysis ICP-MS and ICP-AES.”
  • “When charging the reactor, the bushing is pulled out, and the charge is inserted. After the thermocouple probe has been lodged back in place, the bushing is sealed and secured with alumina cement. To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal.”
  • “Subsequently, Bianchini evaluated the possible presence of alpha, beta and gamma radiation by applying his instruments directly to the powder that was subsequently inserted into the reactor. The same operation was repeated after the end of the test on the powder extracted from the reactor. In both cases, no signs of activity were found.”
  • “After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy reactor was switched off and disconnected from the power cables, to allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted. The powder had been previously placed in a small envelope, weighed (about 1 g), and then transferred to a test tube so that Bianchini could perform radioactivity measurements on it, after placing it in a low background lead well. Lastly, the contents of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team. The leads were reconnected and the cap sealed with a mixture of water and alumina powder cement. The E-Cat was placed once again on its metal frame, and power was fed to it, the voltage being increased in progressive steps.”
  • “After cooling, the E-Cat was again opened by breaking one of the caps, and the powder was collected and put in a test tube. After Bianchini’s readings, performed in a matter similar to those in the first phase, the test tube was handed back to us for further analysis, the results of which will presented in paragraph 8.”
  • “Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us, we may repeat the above calculations taking the weight of the entire reactor (452 ± 1 g) into consideration:”
  • “The element analyses were performed by three different external groups, each specialized in the different techniques employed.”
  • “It should also be noted that our total sample was about 10 mg, i.e. only a small part of the total fuel weight of 1 g used in the reactor. The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash, observing utmost care to avoid any contamination.”
  • “Furthermore, the spent fuel was found inactive right after the E-Cat run was stopped.”

As best as we can determine from the report and from Mats Lewan’s statements here is what happened when the “dummy” test was shut down.

  1. “The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi…”
  2. Sometime, they don’t say when, about 1 g of the powder (fuel) was placed in a small envelope, by Rossi.
  3. After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy device was switched off by Andrea Rossi.
  4. The “dummy” device was disconnected from the power cables.
  5. The “dummy” device was taken into a closed room. In the closed room were Rossi, a member of the testing team, but we do not know who, and David Bianchini.
  6. Rossi brought the 1 g powder “fuel” into the closed room.
  7. In the closed room the powder or “fuel” was weighed, by a member of the testing team, and put into a test tube.
  8. David Bianchini put the test tube containing the “fuel” in a low background lead well, and performed radioactivity measurements on it.
  9. Andrea Rossi poured the contents of the test tube into the “dummy” device, in the presence of a member of the experimental team, and again they don’t give the name of this person.
  10. The K-type thermocouple was inserted into the device in the hole where the “fuel” was poured, and its cable was put into the bushing. The bushing around the cable was then inserted into the hole and sealed with alumina cement.
  11. This device is ready now for the real test.
  12. The device is taken back into the testing area and placed on the rack.
  13. The six power cables are reconnected.
  14. The six rods or tubes are moved back into contact with the test device.
  15. The power was turned on for the formal test by Andrea Rossi who slowly increased the juice in “progressive” steps.

Of course this operation as they have described it can only lead to some interesting questions.

  1. Why was Andrea Rossi allowed in the same building where the test took place? He was not needed there. Rossi says on his blog:
    “Andrea Rossi
    October 9th, 2014 at 5:36 PM
    Arnie:
    • two E-Cats were spare parts, in case of breakage of the first and, eventually, of the second
    • I have been there to check that everything was OK and to intervene in case of breakages, not to participate to the measurements. In the Report is described what I did.
    • six months were including all the phases of the test: the operation started on the 13th of February ( when the professors started to arrive) and finished in half September, with the last analysis.

    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.“

  2. The device was about 12 inches long, the “fuel” was poured into a 4 mm hole, how was the “fuel” evenly distributed along this 12 inch, 4 mm (or larger) cavity? This is not a trivial question. They had to hold the device upright to pour the powder into that very small 4 mm (1/8+ in) hole. Then they carried it into the testing room and placed it horizontally as we see in all of the pictures. Remember the device is opaque so they could not see the “fuel” inside the device. And also consider that 1 gram of powder is a very small amount. But yet they want us to believe that bright glow which is along the full length of the device is caused by the “fuel” glowing from some kind of nuclear process.
    They say in the report:
    “The resistors appear to glow intensely in the parts lying outside the caps, whereas inside the reactor body they seem to shade an underlying emission of light. This may be explained if we consider that the main source of energy inside the reactor body is actually the charge, and that it is emitting more light than the resistors.”
  3. When there are two or more conflicting statements in the same report we can say they are clearly lying with one or both of the statements. So then let us look at this statement:
    “Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us,…”

    Here the authors are saying in the report they are the ones who “inserted” the “charge” or “fuel” into the device for the real test. But the authors also say in the report:
    Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction.”

    Everyone claims over and over that Andrea Rossi was not part of the testing team, so one or both of the above statements in the report is a flat out lie and falsehood.

  4. Forgetting for a moment the conflicts in the amount of “fuel,” what we want to know is when was the “fuel” sample taken?
    If the “fuel” sample was taken before they went into the room, how do they know that the same material Rossi put into the device was the same “fuel” like they collected?
    If the “fuel” sample was taken in the room just before the “fuel” was poured into the device, then why doesn’t the report clearly state this?
    The report does not say when the “fuel” sample was taken. Bad form guys, and you call yourselves scientists?

Step 3 – Test shutdown and “charge” extraction

What do we know about the “charge” extraction? Let us go over it step by step.

  • “About 32 days from startup, on the 29 March 2014, at 11:40, the E-Cat was shut down, after gradually reducing its input power.” This action was performed by Andrea Rossi.
  • Mats Lewan made the following comment on his blog:

“@Deleo77 — I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening.”

  • The 6 “rods” or tubes were removed from the device.
  • The 6 power cables were disconnected from the 6 Inconel resistors.
  • The device was then taken into a closed room. In the room was Andrea Rossi, a team member, a technician and David Bianchini.
  • The 6 Inconel resistors were cut off close to the two end “caps.” The report does not tell us how this was done. Under the picture of the device on the scale we read:

“Figure 1. Weighing the E-Cat after the test (452 g). The ridges along the body of the reactor increase the dissipation surface for natural heat convection. The power supply cables run through the two cylindrical extremities (termed “caps”), and were cut prior to weighing.”

  • It is not clear what had to be cut on the diamond saw, was it the resistors, or the alumina cement used to seal the hole where the K-type thermocouple was inserted into the device?
  • After the photo was taken of the device on the scale, one of the caps we are not told which end, was broken to get to the power now “ash” inside.
  • The powder was collected and put in a test tube. We are not told how this was done. But we are told Andrea Rossi was the one who did the “extraction” of the powder.
  • Andrea Rossi then handed the test tube with the 1 gram of powder now “ash” to David Bianchini who took his readings, who then handed the test tube to the team member.
  • The team member removed some of the powder that was now the “ash,” and gave the rest back to Andrea Rossi.
  • They all left the closed room.
  • The new sample of the “ash” was divided up by the team to give to the three testing labs.
  • The sample of the “fuel” at some point was divided up into three parts.
  • The 6 samples, 3 “fuel” and 3 “ash” were given to the testing labs for analysis.

And of course this operation also, we mean collecting the samples as they have described it, can only lead to more interesting questions. Such as:
When there are two or more conflicting statements in the same report we can say they are clearly lying with one or both of the statements. So then let us look at these statements:

  • Why are there three different descriptions of how the charge was removed? Here they are again:
    “To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal”
    “the E-Cat was again opened by breaking one of the caps”
    “A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed”
    It is impossible for all three statements to be true. One or more of the three statements are clearly a lie and falsehood.
  • Why are there different statements in the report and with Mats Lewan about how much powder was in the samples taken? Lets us look at these statements more closely.

“The powder had been previously placed in a small envelope, weighed (about 1 g), and then transferred to a test tube so that Bianchini could perform radioactivity measurements on it, after placing it in a low background lead well. Lastly, the contents of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team.”

“After cooling, the E-Cat was again opened by breaking one of the caps, and the powder was collected and put in a test tube. After Bianchini’s readings, performed in a matter similar to those in the first phase, the test tube was handed back to us for further analysis, the results of which will presented in paragraph 8.”
[This statement would seem to imply that the test tube containing the full 1 g of powder “ash” was given to the team for analysis.]

“It should also be noted that our total sample was about 10 mg, i.e. only a small part of the total fuel weight of 1 g used in the reactor. The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash, observing utmost care to avoid any contamination.”

[It is not clear how much of the 10 mg is “fuel” and how much is “ash.” The major purpose of this 32 day test was to see the difference between the ‘fuel” and the “ash,” as tested in professional labs. It is absolutely amazing, and totally unbelievable, that the testing team would go to the trouble and expense of this 32 day long test and walk away with a total of only 10 mg containing both “fuel” and “ash” while Andrea Rossi walked away with 990 mg of the same material.]

“The grains differ in element composition, and we would certainly have liked to analyze several more grains with SIMS, but the limited amount of ash being available to us didn’t make that possible.”

“The material that compound the prototype, include the material inside, are controlled before and after the test in order to avoid the presence of radioisotope contamination.”

And one more time we have from Mats Lewan the following comment on his blog:

“@Deleo77 — I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening.”
[This statement told to Lewan by one of the team members, clarifies that 10 mg of the “ash” was taken by the team. Which implies that the total amount (“fuel” + “ash”) available to the team would have been larger than 10 mg. Which of course contradicts the statement in the report.]

So we are again left with the unmistakable fact that some or all of the statements about the amount of material given to the team clearly are lies and falsehoods.

More questions:

  • For point of reference, the “fuel” was 1 gram, for comparison one US nickel weighs 5 grams.
  • Why was only 10 out of 1000 mg of the “fuel” given to the team for testing?
  • Who made this decision and when? Mats Lewan says it came from Industrial Heat LLC. We find it hard to believe that the team would have performed a 32 day test knowing in advance they would only have available 10 mg for study.
  • And this 10 mg had to be split up to be sent to three different laboratories? Since Rossi kept the other 990 mg from the “ash” any future claims of analysis of the “ash” from this test must be disregarded and thrown out as untrustworthy.
  • Since it was the stated goal of the testing team to provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that the e-cat was a nuclear reactor, why were they so sloppy in every aspect of this test and the report?
  • Why wasn’t a clear chain of custody established for all of the material?
  • Why didn’t they take the material was to be used in the device from Rossi, and never let Rossi or Levi anywhere near the material after that?
  • Why do they call themselves scientists, because clearly they are not acting like scientists.
  • Why can’t the team write a report that is not full of lies and conflicting facts?

On the LIES from the testing team and authors about the wiring.

Let us look at this part of the farce item by item.

ITEM 1 – The components of Andrea Rossi’s latest e-cat

Here is a picture of three of the components on one table:
This picture is from “E-Cat ‘The New Fire’” by Vessela Nikolova.

RossiTest1 

Andrea Rossi’s e-cat as shown in the report of the latest test was NOT just a simple tube. Just like your car does not consist of only the engine, Rossi’s e-cat does not consist of only the tube. The tube by itself can do nothing. The e-cat is the complete package. The package consists of four components. They are, starting from the 3-phase wall outlet:

  • The switch.
  • The three-phase TRIAC power regulator, which is a Compact Fusion, made by:
    CONTROL CONCEPTS, INC
    18760 LAKE DRIVE EAST
    CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
    PHONE: (952) 474-6200|
    TOLL FREE: (800) 765-2799
    FAX: (952) 474-6070
    www.ccipower.com
  • The connection box.
  • And the last item is the tube or as they call it, the nuclear reactor.

The authors show all four components in their wiring diagram:LuganoReportSubmit_Page_05_Image_0001What do the authors claim about how each part of the setup was used?

  • The switch. No reason was given in the report for why the switch was needed. In the report they do say this:

“The three-phase current line supplying all the energy used for the test came from an electrical panel belonging to the establishment hosting our laboratory, to which further unrelated three-phase current equipment was connected.” This panel was NOT the switch supplied by Rossi.

  • The three-phase TRIAC power regulator was used for:

“The regulator is driven by a potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e. the current through the resistor coils, normally 40-50 Amps), and by the temperature read by the reactor’s thermocouple.”

  • The connection box, they say, was used to make the delta configuration. In the report they say:

“The resistors are connected in delta configuration (SW = Switch, C = Connection Box). Note that, in the text, the three cables running from the control system to C are termed C1, whereas the six cables running from C to the reactor are termed C2.”

  • The nuclear reactor, in the report, is the part of the e-cat that takes the electricity from the connection box, which triggers a nuclear reaction that produces more heat than is possible by using electricity alone.

ITEM 2 – Information from the Fusion manuals

You can download the Compact Fusion Datasheet, Operator Manual, and Instruction Manual from the company website at: www.ccipower.com

  1. One thing that is important to this article is where the line connections and load connections are in relation to the top and bottom of the Compact Fusion power regulator.
  2. Another thing that is important is the wiring diagram in the manuals.
  3. Directly below we provide this material from the manuals.
  4. As you can see the line connections are at the top of the Compact Fusion.

 Compact Fusion Manual_Page_28 Compact Fusion Manual_Page_26 Compact Fusion Manual_Page_25 Compact Fusion Manual_Page_06

  1. So to clarify, the lines in to the controller are facing Rossi in the Vessela photo, and are facing the device in the photo in the report.
  2. Another thing to notice is that the grey box called the connection box only has holes for wires in one side of the box. In the Vessela photo, that side is towards Rossi, in the report photo, that side is toward the camera.
  3. Here is a copy of that picture from the report:

 e-cat-testing

 

ITEM 3 – The wiring as given in the report

Now we are ready to look at what the report says about the wiring.

  • Here is another copy of the wiring diagram as shown in the report:
    LuganoReportSubmit_Page_05_Image_0001“Figure 4. Wiring diagram. The two PCEs are located one upstream and one downstream from the control instruments, a TRIAC three-phase power regulator driven by a potentiometer and by the temperature read by the K-probe. The resistors are connected in delta configuration (SW = Switch, C = Connection Box). Note that, in the text, the three cables running from the control system to C are termed C1, whereas the six cables running from C to the reactor are termed C2.”
  • “The cables supplying power to the reactor are made of copper and are several meters long. In the present run of the E-Cat the current flow may actually be higher than 40 A. For this reason, it is expedient to evaluate what portion of the current, fed to the system by the power mains, is dissipated by the cables as Joule heat. Figure 4 shows the cable layout from mains to load: three copper cables exit the power regulator, [editor – red box] one for each phase, three meters [editor – about 10 feet] in length each, with a cross-profile of 12.00 mm2. In order to allow the delta configuration connection of the resistors, each of these cables is connected to another two cables, 2 m [editor – about 6.5 feet] in length each, having a cross-section of 45 mm2.” [Editor — See the next quote below our comments here.]

    [Boy, if this isn’t a full load of horse manure. Oh, we mean, another LIE in the report. Even though they quote Figure 4, in this statement they leave out the grey connection box completely. Wonder why the testing team did not document the set up, the equipment and the wiring in great detail in the report with photographs? We know, and if you follow all of our articles you will too. This brings into question, what was the grey connection box really for anyway? If you want to see how the wiring was really done look very closely at all of the wires in all of the photographs available to us. Look real close at the wiring connections in the very low quality photograph in David Bianchini’s report in Appendix 1.]
    LuganoReportSubmit_Page_33_Image_0001

  • [First of all the diagram in the report is misleading and a LIE because any person accustomed to reading wiring diagrams would think that there were three different boxes labeled C. The control system, the big red box, is shown on the diagram as only one box with three line wires going in and three load wires coming out. There is in reality only one box called C, i.e. the connection box, the big grey box on the table. In the diagram the connection box should have been shown as one big rectangle like the control system box.]

    [The reason this is misleading and a LIE is because if the wiring diagram is correct you should see three load wires coming from the red control system, into the one and only grey connection box, with six load wires coming out of the connection box, with three load wires going to each end of the device on the rack. Now go back and look at the two pictures again a little more closely.]

     [More comments on the grey connection box.

  • Since the delta wiring connections were made in the wires hanging below the device, not in the control box as the report wants you to believe, we ask what was the grey connection box really used for in this model of the e-cat?
    Look very carefully at the two pictures showing all of the equipment. In both photos there are two “sticks” or “switches” coming out of the top of the grey connection box. In the Vessela photo the two “sticks” are of equal height. On the team photo one of the “sticks” is lowered. The question is what do these two “sticks” do when they are moved in and out?]

    [Of course it is possible these are just two plastic “things” attached to the top of the box that serve no purpose, and on the team photo it has broken off. Maybe they are to hold something?]
    [It matters not anyway. There is no reason for the connection box in this setup. And the photos and the conflicting statements in the report clearly show they are hiding something.]

We have cut out these two sections from the photos, here they are:

RossiTest1-CUTFrom the Vessela photo

e-cat-testing-CUTFrom the report.

  • “Figure 1. Weighing the E-Cat after the test (452 g). The ridges along the body of the reactor increase the dissipation surface for natural heat convection. The power supply cables run through the two cylindrical extremities (termed “caps”), and were cut prior to weighing.”

    [Another LIE in the report. The power cables terminate at the connection to the Inconel resistors, and never go into the “caps.” See below two more quotes from the report.]

  • “Figure 4 details the electrical connections of all elements of the experimental setup. The two PCEs were inserted one upstream and one downstream of the control unit: the first allowed us to measure the current, voltage and power supplied to the system by the power mains; the second measured these same quantities as input to the reactor. Readings were consistent, showing the same current waveform; furthermore, they enabled us to measure the power consumption of the control system, which, at full capacity, was seen to be the same as the nominal value declared by the manufacturer.”

    [Another LIE in the report. The first PCE was installed between the switch box supplied by Rossi and the control system, the big red box, also supplied by Rossi. If they had wanted to measure “the current, voltage and power supplied to the system by the power mains” the first PCE should have been between the switch box supplied by Rossi and the connection to the electrical system in the building. Look very closely at the Vessela photo again. What the testing team say they measured was exactly like what Rossi was measuring in that photo.]

  • “Measurements performed during the dummy run with the PCE and ammeter clamps allowed us to measure an average current, for each of the three C1 cables, of I1 = 19.7A, and, for each C2 cable, a current of I1 / 2 = I2 = 9.85 A.”
  • “Given that the resistivity of copper is = 0.0175 Ω / m mm2, one may easily deduce that the electrical resistance of the three cables exiting the regulator (Circuit 1, C1) is = R1 = 4.375∙10–3 Ω, whereas that of the cables splitting off from these (Circuit 2, C2) is = R2 = 2.811 ∙ 10–3Ω.”
  • “Note that the copper cables, 45 mm2 in cross section, run through most of the six alumina rods, inside of which they are joined by a connecting terminal to the Inconel cables coming from the reactor. The length of Inconel cable inside the rods is but a few centimeters long. Therefore, if one considers that the copper cables run through almost the whole length of the rods (50 cm), it is possible to calculate what fraction of the 7 W given by (11) is emitted within the six rods themselves. For each of the six 50 cm lengths of copper cable, the relevant resistance is 7.028∙10–4Ω.”
  • “Special attention was given to measuring the current and voltage input to the system: the absence of any DC component in the power supply was verified in various occasions in the course of the test, by means of digital multimeters and supplementary clamp ammeters. We also verified that all the harmonics of the waveforms input to the system were amply included in the range measurable by the PCEs (Figure 5). The three-phase current line supplying all the energy used for the test came from an electrical panel belonging to the establishment hosting our laboratory, to which further unrelated three-phase current equipment was connected.”

    [Another LIE in the report. We already established they were measuring the wires from the Rossi supplied switch box to the Rossi supplied control box. There is no evidence whatsoever that the team measured anything between the switch box and mains. In case you missed it, the Rossi supplied switch box is on the floor in the corner.]

  • “Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor.”
  • The resistors and the copper cables of the three-phase power supply are connected outside the caps, in the classic delta configuration. For 50 cm from the reactor, the power cables are contained in hollow alumina rods (three per side), 3 cm in diameter (Figure 2). The purpose of the rods is to insulate the cables and protect the connections.”
  • “The E-Cat’s control apparatus consists of a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmable microcontroller; its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W. The regulator is driven by a potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e. the current through the resistor coils, normally 40-50 Amps), and by the temperature read by the reactor’s thermocouple.”
  • “Moreover, at the start of the measurements, there was no way of knowing what input power the loaded reactor would have absorbed. In fact, it is well known that some Inconel cables have a crystalline structure that is modified by temperature, and are capable of withstanding high currents only if they are operated at the appropriate temperature. If these conditions are not met, microscopic melt spots are liable to occur in the cables. So, there was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generators with respect to the loaded reactor. For these reasons, power to the dummy reactor was held at below 500 W, in order to avoid any possible damage to the apparatus.”
  • “It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods.”

ITEM 4 – And again one more time, this analysis of the wiring only leads to many more interesting questions. Such as:

  • We are done asking questions for now. It’s your turn.

 

On Mats Lewan’s latest private communication.

On his blog Mats Lewan keeps making statements that the testing team is going to write an update to their report. Everyone has been hoping that the testing team will respond to the many skeptical articles written about their very unprofessional report.

In this context we asked Mats Lewan on December 3, 2014:
“Have you heard from the authors about when they will publish a revision to their 2014 test report on the latest e-cat?”

Mats Lewan responded:

“I know the experimenters are working on an update, but it seems it will take some time. Not only theoretical but also experimental work has to be done.”

Also

“I don’t know exactly what experiments they intend to do, but I quite sure it doesn’t involve further measurements on the E-Cat. So it’s not that strange. It might be as easy as testing the measurement equipment in some way. Anyway, they seem to need some time.”

 We know that it has been reported that Professor Bo Höistad, one of the authors, is endorsing the theoretical musings of Carl-Oscar Gullström. What we do not understand is why the update will include any discussion of theory when the e-cat still has not been proven to work as claimed. The testing team should, if they are going to follow scientific methods, respond with an update based on the same facts collected during the original test itself.

They said in the report:

“Although we have good knowledge of the composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the reaction is primed. Since we are presently not in possession of this information, we think that any attempt to explain the E-Cat heating process would be too much hampered by the lack of this information, and thus we refrain from such discussions.”

As a matter of fact their real and only concern at this time should be to try and prove that the e-cat works as claimed, something they failed miserably at in the first copy of the report.

We repeat our request that we made only days after the report came out –
Please put all of the data, photos and videos collected during the test on the internet for all to see. There are many thousands of people well qualified to analyze the data and to see if the testing team actually did what they set out to do.

They said in the report:

“The quantity of heat emitted constantly by the reactor and the length of time during which the reactor was operating rule out, beyond any reasonable doubt, a chemical reaction as underlying its operation.”

OK, it may be true that they ruled out, “beyond any reasonable doubt, a chemical reaction,” but unfortunately for them, they failed to rule out fraud and scamming by Andrea Rossi and his team. Therefore they still have one more thing to rule out “beyond any reasonable doubt,” and that is fraud and scamming. Something they are clearly not qualified to take on, because they have been trying since 2011, without success. It’s time to call in the real professionals.

Since nobody, has proven the e-cat works as claimed, and after many failed attempts starting in 2010, maybe the testers should go to the same level of this farce as Rossi and his team – maybe it’s time to call in the “Ghost Busters”!

Oh, by-the-way, here is a part of our email exchange where Mats Lewan gives his permission to quote him.

 re

Published on December 7, 2014