Changes

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 18.6 kgs or according to other sources  more than 13 kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme, not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf]  

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 18.6 kgs or according to other sources  more than 13 kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme, not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf]  

'''Inconsistencies:''' Several incomprehensible informations were given after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said informations. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20 minutes shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventor and operator of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made based on dry vapour without fractions of condensed water which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The throughput of water claimed at 29 mls/min. (= 17.5 liter/min) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI P1" or "LMI J5" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h (LMI P18) and 7.6 liter/h (LMI J56).<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> Other models (A/B/C) of LMI pumps can be ruled out, as they they look different. The pump strokes are audible in a Youtube video<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref>. The pump was switched to 60 strokes/minute, which corresponds to 60% of maximal flow rate (60% of 12.1 or 7,6 l/h). Rossi was asked in january 2011 which type of pump was used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model.<ref>Aus dem JONP-Blog, Frage an Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM<br>Excuse, Dr. Levi, my insistence, but on the lack of an answer to my previous question, let me temporarily assume that the model of the pump used in the January 14th test belongs actually to the Milton Roy LMI Series P1.<br>In such a case, the capacity per stroke could be at maximum 2 ml (model P18 in the Series P1). Now, considering that the pump has been operated at about 57 strokes per minute (hear sound at the beginning of movie 2/3), it makes a maximum water flow rate of 114 ml per minute, that would be 39% only of the value indicated in your preliminary report.<br>Probably, I have got a bad impression and the pump was another one. So I think it would be of great importance, if you could gather and kindly specify, here and/or on the final version of your report, the real specific model and the relevant operating data of the water pump used in your verification test.<br>Thank you and best regards'' (Name)<br><br>A. Rossi:<br>Andrea Rossi<br>January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM<br>Dear (Name):<br>I do not know which kind of pump it was, because it has been chosen by the testers, but what I can say, regarding your comment, is:<br>1- the amount of the flow of water has been tested many times during the test, filling a reservoir with a well known volume and taking the time to fill it up.<br>2- I thank you very much for validating our test by redundance: in fact, if only the 39% of the measured flow should have been passed, the reactor would have produced 4.8 kWh, consuming 400 Wh. I am sure that you, being an engineer of a great energy provider, know the first and also the second thermodynamic principle, therefore I am sure you made your comment to congratulate us.<br>For this reason I thank you infinitely.<br>Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>. The calculated heat output given by the team is more than twice as high as actually possible with the pump visible in the video. Assuming just a couple of percent condensated water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

'''Inconsistencies:''' Several incomprehensible informations were given after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said informations. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20 minutes shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventor and operator of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made based on dry vapour without fractions of condensed water which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The throughput of water claimed at 29 mls/min. (= 17.5 liter/min) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI P1" or "LMI J5" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h (LMI P18) and 7.6 liter/h (LMI J56).<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> Other models (A/B/C) of LMI pumps can be ruled out, as they they look different. The pump strokes are audible in a Youtube video<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref>. The pump was switched to 60 strokes/minute, which corresponds to 60% of maximal flow rate (60% of 12.1 or 7,6 l/h). Rossi was asked in January 2011 which type of pump was used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model.<ref>From JONP-Blog, Question to Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM<br>Excuse, Dr. Levi, my insistence, but on the lack of an answer to my previous question, let me temporarily assume that the model of the pump used in the January 14th test belongs actually to the Milton Roy LMI Series P1.<br>In such a case, the capacity per stroke could be at maximum 2 ml (model P18 in the Series P1). Now, considering that the pump has been operated at about 57 strokes per minute (hear sound at the beginning of movie 2/3), it makes a maximum water flow rate of 114 ml per minute, that would be 39% only of the value indicated in your preliminary report.<br>Probably, I have got a bad impression and the pump was another one. So I think it would be of great importance, if you could gather and kindly specify, here and/or on the final version of your report, the real specific model and the relevant operating data of the water pump used in your verification test.<br>Thank you and best regards'' (Name)<br><br>A. Rossi:<br>Andrea Rossi<br>January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM<br>Dear (Name):<br>I do not know which kind of pump it was, because it has been chosen by the testers, but what I can say, regarding your comment, is:<br>1- the amount of the flow of water has been tested many times during the test, filling a reservoir with a well known volume and taking the time to fill it up.<br>2- I thank you very much for validating our test by redundance: in fact, if only the 39% of the measured flow should have been passed, the reactor would have produced 4.8 kWh, consuming 400 Wh. I am sure that you, being an engineer of a great energy provider, know the first and also the second thermodynamic principle, therefore I am sure you made your comment to congratulate us.<br>For this reason I thank you infinitely.<br>Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>. The calculated heat output given by the team is far higher than actually possible with the pump visible in the video and therefore certainly wrong.. Assuming just a couple of percent condensed water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

 

==Undocumented experiment on February 10/11, 2011==

==Undocumented experiment on February 10/11, 2011==