Defkalion demo proven not to be reliable

Alexandros Xanthoulis at Defkalion's demo in Milan July 23, 2013.

Alexander Xanthoulis at Defkalion’s demo in Milan July 23, 2014. Photo: Mats Lewan

The measurement setup that was used by Defkalion Green Technologies (DGT) on July 23, 2013, in order to show in live streaming that the Hyperion reactor was producing excess heat, does not measure the heat output correctly, and the error is so large that the reactor might not have worked at all.

This is the conclusion of a report (download here) by Luca Gamberale, former CTO of the Italian company Mose srl that at that time was part of the joint venture Defkalion Europe, owned together with DGT.

The report is based on experiments, performed mainly after the live streaming, using the same setup but without the reactor being active. Yet, the experiments showed that it was possible to obtain a measured thermal power of up to about 17 kW, while the input electric power was about 2.5 kW.

I asked Gamberale if this erroneous result could have been present without DGT realizing it.

“To obtain this effect it’s necessary to operate two valves in a certain way, so you need to have the intention to do it,” Gamberale told me.

Those of you who have read my book ‘An Impossible Invention’ know that Defkalion was an early partner to Rossi, supposed to build applications using Rossi’s reactor as a heat source. When Rossi ended the agreement with Defkalion in August 2011, Defkalion stated that operations continued, and later Defkalion claimed to have developed its own similar technology, producing heat from a reaction involving nickel and hydrogen.

Test results and measurement data were never disclosed, but in July 2013 Defkalion finally decided to make a public demo, live streamed during the cold fusion conference ICCF 18. I was present at the demo on July 23 in Milan, Italy, and referred my impressions in two blog posts here and here, trying to be as objective and neutral as possible, since I believe that my readers should draw their own conclusions.

“If you believe the values presented…”, I wrote, and that was also the main problem. It was not easy in a short time frame to verify possible errors or hidden mechanisms, specifically since Defkalion didn’t accept changes in the setup, and therefore it was not evident that you should believe the values. I reported them as presented though. 

Gamberale describes in the report that before the demo, Mose had proposed a series of improvements to the measurement setup in order to make it more reliable but that DGT did not allow these changes. He notes that the lack of cooperation made it necessary to carry out independent verification tests.

The tests focused on a possible malfunction of the digital flow meter used to measure water flow in the setup. It was shown that by decreasing the input water flow to almost zero, the flow meter started to make fast movements back and forth, and since the direction of the flow was not registered by the flow meter, these fast movements resulted in a reading corresponding to a relatively high flow, although the flow was almost zero.

Since the calculation of thermal heat was based on how much water was heated by the reactor, this measurement error resulted in a large calculated thermal heat output, while the actual thermal heat was much lower.

The explanation is thoroughly discussed in the report. Most important, however, is the fact that Gamberale with the experiment has proved that the setup could produce readings of large amounts of excess heat, without the reactor running, and that any result from the setup showing excess heat therefore is unreliable.

Gamberale explained to me that he presented these findings to Defkalion’s president Alexander Xanthoulis, and to Defkalion’s engineer Stavros Amaxas who was operating the setup at the public demo.

According to Gamberale, Xanthoulis said “Ok, we don’t know, this could be possible, but in any case we are sure that the reaction exists”.

Gamberale described Amaxas’ reaction to be much stronger. Defkalion’s CTO John Hadjichristos was not present at that meeting.

In his report, Gamberale also notes that Mose srl has given DGT some time to provide evidence that its technology is real, despite the findings presented, but that after several months, no answer has been given.

As I write in my book, Gamberale and the president of Mose srl, Franco Cappiello, who told me that he had invested €1 million in the joint venture, decided to put all commercial activity on hold until Defkalion could carry out a measurement that dispelled their doubts. They later closed Defkalion Europe altogether.

I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked for a comment. He didn’t dispute the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by Defkalion personel without discussions.

Xanthoulis also said that he didn’t understand why Gamberale hadn’t asked these questions earlier during months of contacts and visits by Mose at Defkalion’s offices in Canada, and by Defkalion in Milan. Gamberale explained that he had tried to get the information he needed but that he was never allowed to make the measurements he asked for. Instead he described his role as one of an observer.

Finally Xanthoulis pointed out that the flow calorimetry measurements (measurement of thermal energy output by heating flowing water) were not important, but that the most important measurements were on the bare reactor, calculating the output thermal energy by measuring temperatures on various points of the reactor without heating any water (you then use a law called Stefan–Boltzmann law). He told me that these measurements had been sent to Gamberale twice.

“He sent an Excel spreadsheet with no explanation including a couple of incomprehensible graphs in which it was not even written what it was about. I felt almost offended. I’m asking a justification of an abnormal result regarding a claim of a nuclear reaction that would change the history of the world, and I get an Excel sheet without any specification of what it is,” Gamberale commented.

I got the spreadsheets from Gamberale. They contain temperature measurements in degrees Celsius on various points of the reactor and can be downloaded here (sheet 1 and sheet 2). I know they are accurate since Xanthoulis sent me one identical document, asking me not to publish it.

I have studied Gamberale’s report and I find it both detailed and convincing. It should make Defkalion’s case difficult.

Gamberale doesn’t accuse Defkalion openly for fraud, but he makes it clear that the Milan demo presented no evidence that the technology is working.

The doubts I have had towards Defkalion, described in my book, are obviously increased through the report. Some wondered about the uncertainty regarding Defkalion’s technology that I expressed recently in an interview by John Maguire at Q-niverse. One important reason was Gamberale’s report, which I had already received by then.

And while I write in the last chapter of the book that it’s hard to assess Defkalion, but that if its claims can be trusted, Defkalion might have made ​​the most progress among those working with LENR technology based on nickel and hydrogen, I now find it less likely.

Alexander Xanthoulis still claims, however,  that the development of the new reactor is on track and that according to the plans it will be certified with regard to safety and security by a Canadian certifying body corresponding to US Underwriters’ Laboratory within the next months. After that, Defkalion could start licensing the technology to partners. National licenses were previously offered at EUR 40.5 million, and though Xanthoulis told me that five contracts have been signed he also said that no money had yet been transferred.

But Defkalion will now have to present solid evidence to convince anyone that its technology is valid, and also let those people make changes to the test protocol and to the measurement set-up, if it’s necessary in order to eliminate uncertainties.

Gamberale told me that the findings he describes in the report could bring damage to serious research activities within LENR, but he also told me that he personally still believes that LENR is an important scientific and technological area and that he is getting involved in two other projects in this domain.

– – – –

New reviews and interviews:

The magazine Infinite Energy has released an issue featuring comments on the book ‘An Impossible Invention’ by researchers, experts and Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson. Plus an interview with me. Read more.

John Maguire at the blog Q-niverse has published a streaming audio interview with me regarding the book. Listen here.

Advertisements

46 comments

  1. Ok Giancarlo, good. Let’s see what we can find out about this. I also find the DC hypothesis unlikely.

  2. @Mats
    The first experiment lasted 96 hours (from Dec. 13th 2012, to Dec. 17th 2012); the photo was taken on December 14th at 17:45, see the stopwatch. It has been taken by a Rossi’s licensee and put inside a brochure that was available on their website (maybe still it is).

    How do we know that fig 3C is taken during the test?
    They say: As far as voltage is concerned, the figures, considering that peak values are shown, clearly show that the waveform was sinusoidal and symmetrical, and that there were no levels of DC voltage – having it been already established that there were no other electrical connections.

    So, they say they took the photo while the experiment was running. As a proof that no hidden DC level was present. They didn’t know that the PCE-830 is unsuitable to detect DC-level. By the way I do not believe in the DC hypotesis. Too risky, it cannot be said to be simply an error.

    I hope you will get some more documentation from the Professors. Actually, it would have been better to make them aware of doubts about power measurement before the conclusion of the second third party test.
    Maybe it was a mistake on my side.

  3. @Giancarlo
    How do we know that fig 3C is taken during the test?
    By the photo from December you mean http://i.imgur.com/2bwiwzx.jpg ? How do we know that this photo is from the December test?

    I will try to get video/images of the watt meter during the March test.
    I suppose measuring power both before and after the control box would help, or do you have any hypothesis on how a similar error could occur in that case? Hopefully it has been addressed during the much-talked-about third-party test.

  4. @Mats

    which is the figure you refer to as 3C?

    TPR Page 31, rightmost picture. Zero current flow.

    where is the information on how the watt meter was connected in the December test?

    in the photo just posted below

    It would be important to have a look at COP vs time. If there’s an error in the power measurement, resulting in a COP of 2, then we should see this COP from the start (provided that the system is in thermal equilibrium). On the other hand, if the COP rises at a certain point in time, you would expect this to be a result of an exothermal reaction starting at that point (unless someone changes the electrical measurement in the way you describe at this point).

    I agree completely. Could you ask Hanno if they can provide us with the video of the PC-830 during the March test? We can see from there if someone messes with the instrument during the measurement.
    I don’t think they have COP versus time. Actually they don’t have a static COP we can trust neither.

  5. @AlainCo

    You are really thick as a brick

    as I said anyway, whether the phase shift is 120degrees of 180degrees, anyone looking at the phase balance (a classic measurement) will notice one phase is producing power and one consuming. Since they played with the wattmeter as far as possible (waveform, spectrum, phase) they would have spotted it quickly.

    Arccos (-0.5) = 120° Clamps swapped ==> Active power is reduced, reactive power increases in magnitude
    Arccos (-1.0) = 180° Clamps inverted ==> Active power is inverted in sign, reactive power stays at very low values

    And now: What do you read in the display (1) for PF? Is not it what you said?

    anyone looking at the phase balance (a classic measurement) will notice one phase is producing power and one consuming.
    Sorry again, both phases! They are both shifted by 120°C. (2)

    moreover since it could be spotted easily no rational fraudster would have used that trick and allowed an independent test where one of the 7 testers can bring his instrument, or simply click on the wattmeter menu.
    Actually, when SP brought their instrument the power was three times larger.
    Defkalion had a trick in their demo; we found it. Let’s try with the ecat as well.

    Conspiracy involving a dozen of people is the only option.
    Simply they are not skilled in electrical measurements. I would propose the man from SP or my friends Mario Massa and Franco Morici

    (1) http://i.imgur.com/2bwiwzx.jpg
    (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power

  6. Conspiracy involving a dozen of people is the only option
    There is something better: “They” (the one or even two neeed to be malicious) may believe in Hanlon’s razor effect. And you strongly support this hypothesis
    Oh boy! What time is it? Time to learn a new dance, AlainCo…

  7. since they played with the wattmeter as far as possible (waveform, spectrum, phase) they would have spotted it quickly
    “They” (the one or might be even two who care to look in that direction) did not have to spot it. “They” had to hide it. Can you show us the film of measurements from PCE-830 while cop was magic? Seems as if there should be one, but no one put it on youtube this time. It could be enough a picture where you could clearly see values of the running. Anyone? For example, go to TPR, third revision and look at the picture at page 19. Can you tell me values in the upper monitor? Do you see anything strange?

  8. @giancarlo

    you really refuse to understand what I told you.
    IF YOU REVERSE POLARITY OF ALL CLAMPS THEN APPARENT ACTIVE POWER IS REVERSED.

    it seems what you say is not reversing one clamp as I imagined, but swapping two clamps.
    This stupid visible error is really hard to swallow. you put the phase 1 voltage with phase 1 clamp, not phase 2… One of the tester have taken photographs of the wiring every day, so we should see if they made that error.

    even reversing one clamp as I say, and not the other is hard to swallow, since you will have one clamp in a visibly inverted position from the two others. Anyway less evident than swapping phase
    inverting all clamps is possible and will just cause a 180 degrees phase shift on all current, thus a sign change in all power.

    as I said anyway, whether the phase shift is 120degrees of 180degrees, anyone looking at the phase balance (a classic measurement) will notice one phase is producing power and one consuming. Since they played with the wattmeter as far as possible (waveform, spectrum, phase) they would have spotted it quickly.

    moreover since it could be spotted easily no rational fraudster would have used that trick and allowed an independent test where one of the 7 testers can bring his instrument, or simply click on the wattmeter menu.

    Conspiracy involving a dozen of people is the only option.

  9. Giancarlo
    – which is the figure you refer to as 3C?
    – where is the information on how the watt meter was connected in the December test?

    Re the connection to the PT100, it could be a cable with two wires, I suppose.

    It would be important to have a look at COP vs time. If there’s an error in the power measurement, resulting in a COP of 2, then we should see this COP from the start (provided that the system is in thermal equilibrium). On the other hand, if the COP rises at a certain point in time, you would expect this to be a result of an exothermal reaction starting at that point (unless someone changes the electrical measurement in the way you describe at this point).

  10. Inventzilla, the Hotcat and Defkalion’s reactor have nothing in common. Rossi never transferred his know-how to Defkalion before ending the agreement in Sept 2011. At least this is what those involved say. Defkalion claims to have developed its reactor on its own.

  11. “the problem is that if someone look at the current, and the power by phase (one positive, one negative), he will instantly see the trick”
    Amusing. Once someone show you, the trick become trivial and you would have been able to spot it in few seconds….if only you have dared to look in the right direction
    Might be next time you will look, AlainCo?

    Your favorite clock

  12. @Mats
    What I say is that in the December test the testers connected the wattmeter in a wrong configuration (Y instead of delta) and with swapped current probes so that all the measurement taken are wrong at least by a factor of two for the power (negative active power, negative cos phi= -0,5, wrong concatenated voltages [one of them is 6V]). We can not trust such testers, at least for power measurement

    In March the wattmeter is connected between mains and control box. We know only the wiring and the photos in appendix. Fig. 3 C clearly shows that T phase is floating, with no load (zero current). According to the authors the load is connected by three wires; two for the phases, while one of them is reported as the feeder of the PT100. We miss the return wire for the PT100.
    The only picture with meaningful data is in Fig. 13 where the PC-830 display is in the backgroung. Unfortunately the numbers can not be read so we can not check the display data to see whether they succeded in connecting the equipment. Of course, if you swap the active current probes the situation occurs. In my lab just reversing one phase I was able to reduce the read value for active power from 7,55 kW down to 0,49 kW (at costant load, of course).

  13. @giancarlo. The hotcat has only two wires. I think there are lots of those photos. But in this case we’re looking at the connections before the control box. The only drawing in the report shows three phases and zero. What you say is that if you have a load on only two if the phases and switch clamps for current measurement, this situation occurs? Third phase must be essentially without load?

  14. @AlainCo
    Talking to you is not difficult, is completely useless

    When you bash my explanation that if you reverse ALL the clamps (which is more logical since people set them in the same way usually, all right, all wrong) the power get negative and coherent… you are just WRONG and dishonest, and visibly trying to FOOL readers to pretend I was incompetent.
    They did not reverse all the currents, otherwise the cos-phi should read -1. Instead it reads -0,5

    You nearly convinced me that you were incompetent, until I realized you were simply dishonest. (not opinion, observation as everybody can read).
    I’m not dishonest, I’m paid by Sorgenia a lot of money indeed to show that ecat doesn’t work; it is not against the law.

    minor details: For your trick, you will have to account to the observation that one of the current is null.
    Swap only the other two current probes

    you have to explain that with the same setup (one tester even took daily photo of the setup to check it was not tweaked), the power of the blank was normal, and the one of the active was “magic”.
    there are no such photos. I would like very much to get the original video that we could analyze together

    The report talk of a Y mode with 4 wires, but from discussion it seems the first test, which match the illustration, was made in triangle mode, where if one current is null, and the other inverted the apparent power is exactly zero. It cannot work, because zero power is not measured, and would raise alarms, especially with huge current.
    they didn’t simply swap the current probes but also chose the wrong operational settings; if the load is unbalanced the power will be (very) low but not null

    In Y mode, with a big neutral return current, and a dead phase, your tricks can work perfectly.
    In fact on one phase you get power, and on the second, inverting the clamp, by consuming some you can pretend to produce energy compensating part of the other while you consume. It will no be easy as the e-cat have only 2 wires,

    Can you show me an original photo in which the ecat load has only two wires?

    the problem is that if someone look at the current, and the power by phase (one positive, one negative), he will instantly see the trick.
    the photo (1) I posted clearly shows that nobody detected the trick, neither during nor after the experiment. Just a few people including me

    So, not detecting that huge error is incredible.
    I agree with you; now how can we trust the testers? I will mail Hanno to ask him about his impressions regarding the power measurement. Or, instead, could you do it Mats on my behalf?

    note also that seeing the negative power as you spotted would have pushed them to check twice you hypothesis.
    They didn’t check, as it appears from the photo (1) taken on December 14 2012 at 17:59

    anyway as usual we don’t have all the data and you conclude, basing your opinion on assumed stupidity of all actors, of the testers who inverted one of the clamp, and then inverted it again when the rewired all as they claim…
    I’m only saying that the TPR has no validity at all: bullshit and the testers, at least Levi and Foschi, incompetent in electrical measurements. The Sweden, I think, being professors of nuclear physics have no idea of three phase systems. But Mats can ask them.

    (1) http://i.imgur.com/2bwiwzx.jpg

    PS: The game is almost over or, as we say since a couple of thousand years: Simul stabant, simul cadent.
    Have a good evening.

  15. “You nearly convinced me that you were incompetent, until I realized you were simply dishonest”.
    Is not that what Peter is saying of Gamberale?
    How fun!

  16. @giancarlo
    ok better,

    Ok, if you inverse one clamp I agree you can put the power meter in trouble. as i explained before, reverting the camps make all energy consumed looks as produced.

    When you bash my explanation that if you reverse ALL the clamps (which is more logical since people set them in the same way usually, all right, all wrong) the power get negative and coherent… you are just WRONG and dishonest, and visibly trying to FOOL readers to pretend I was incompetent.

    You nearly convinced me that you were incompetent, until I realized you were simply dishonest. (not opinion, observation as everybody can read).

    minor details: For your trick, you will have to account to the observation that one of the current is null.

    you have to explain that with the same setup (one tester even took dayly photo of the setup to check it was not tweaked), the power of the blank was normal, and the one of the active was “magic”.

    The report talk of a Y mode with 4 wires, but from discussion it seems the first test, which match the illustration, was made in triangle mode, where if one current is null, and the other inverted the apparent power is exactly zero. It cannot work, because zero power is not measured, and would raise alarms, especially with huge current.

    In Y mode, with a big neutral return current, and a dead phase, your tricks can work perfectly.
    In fact on one phase you get power, and on the second, inverting the clamp, by consuming some you can pretend to produce energy compensating part of the other while you consume.

    It will no be easy as the e-cat have only 2 wires,and the box cannot dissipate kW of heat without being detected. the solution is to use smart electronics to send energy from one phase, then from the other at controlled ratio. but the current would be looking much more complex… Could be noticed as it does not looks like classic dimmer… I concede anyway that with good electronic engineers maybe a controlled can hide those details. at worst a controlled rectifier would do the job, just showing subharmonics.

    the problem is that if someone look at the current, and the power by phase (one positive, one negative), he will instantly see the trick. It is clearly stupid for a fraudsters to let the testers alone with the wattmeter…
    and indeed they had checked many things, including harmonics, playing will all functions. So, not detecting that huge error is incredible.

    note also that seeing the negative power as you spotted would have pushed them to check twice you hypothesis.

    anyway as usual we don’t have all the data and you conclude, basing your opinion on assumed stupidity of all actors, of the testers who inverted one of the clamp, and then inverted it again when the rewired all as they claim, and testers who checked all harmonics, waveforms, but not balance (not noticing that one phase was apparently producing energy, with a crazy phase shift), who seen negative power but did not imagine they inverted clamps
    and on the other side of rossi who let the testers free to detect the trick , and imagine they are not intelligent enough to check that…

    assuming my mum had balls, I would call her dad.

    the only solution to your problem is general conspiracy including rossi, Cherokee testers, the 7 testers, and a good high power electronician. it might be a spinoff of 9/11 conspiracy for sure.
    And they are not afraid to be sent to jail, because they work for a government… 😉
    Sure they have their kids taken as hostage by Italian Mafia..

  17. Addition: Rossi’s instruments were connected after the control box. So were SP’s.

  18. @Giancarlo As far as I remember Rossi didn’t use a watt meter but measured current and voltage with separate instruments. The maximum voltage was well above 230 volts. — I don’t remember if I saw it arrive at maximum before it broke — so I concluded it was a two phase system. And I cannot remember if Rossi’s instruments were connected before or after the control box.
    The SP values indicated a COP of about 1 all the time, as I describe in my book also.

  19. @AlainCo
    please learn electricity.
    Or write a conspiracy books like Morisson.

    When I do not write in the blogs, I design power converter that are installed on rolling stocks all over Europe. I have good quality wattmeters to verify my theories and I do not think I have to learn much about three-phase system.
    So I’ve a hint for you.
    Take a three-phase system and load only two phases with balanced resistive loads, let’s say 10 kW each. Connect properly your wattmeter so that you can read 20kW of active power with a cos phi equal to nearly 1.
    Now, just swap the two current probes: you are introducing a 120° artificial phase shift between voltages and currents: the cos phi will be -0,5 that is impossible in ordinary loads (just like it appears in the december test photo) and the power will be 10 kW, so the magic COP=2 🙂
    Not too bad, is it true? I think that I’ve more clear ideas than you abou power measurement, it would be better if you save the huge amount of time you spend in the blogs all over the world and go back to school.
    I don’t think I need to write some other book. The ones I wrote still sell good after 20 years.

    While I’m am here, I’ve a question for Mats as weel.
    During the SP measurement with the Swedish investors, did they check if Rossi’s wattmeter was well connected? Is it true that taking the Swedish values for power the COP was around 1?
    Many thanks

  20. Chemonuclear Fusion is a type of low energy nuclear fusion that has been tested in two experiments.
    Aneutronic nuclear fusion can provide unlimited electric power without polluting the environment with radioactive waste and greenhouse emissions. It might be useful to transmute already generated fission waste too.

    The mission of the Chemonuclear Fusion Project is to raise awareness of this new and vitally important clean energy source and to promote research & development.

    The Chemonuclear Fusion Project is soliciting volunteers to help our crowdfunding and educational campaigns. Our crowdfunding webpages will soon be up and running. We want people to post to discussion groups and help us get the word out that aneutronic chemonuclear fusion might be the radiation free way to power the world if we can get the funding to build and test reactors.

    Artists can help us design T-shirts, mugs, and promotional items to sell and give away to our contributors. Writers to write promotional materials and post to web forums are also wanted. Video producers and professional and amateur scientists who can help the public understand the concepts of chemonuclear fusion are encouraged to contact us also.

    https://www.facebook.com/chemonuclearfusionproject

  21. @giancarlo
    since you show that you don’t understand what is the sign of power and how a wattmeter integrate it even monophase (in triphase triangle without neutral line you integrate i1*u13+i2*u23, in triphase Y with neutral you integrate i1*u1+i2*u2+i3*u3 ) i don’t know it it is worth continuing.

    earth was cut, but I checked not neutral, so they used a 4 wire, 3 clamps. Torbjorn explained it.
    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2528

    it is explained in the appendix of the report too.

    To be honest I know enough of electrotechnic not to try to debunk from remote as some try.
    First of all, Rossi let his reactor in a room with scientist, whom except one he know none. each one could install a new instruments and insist if any other opposed, making a deadly scandal. The risk to detect a fraud was impossible to accept for a fraudster. Fraud without controlling the room, the knobs and the instruments is not possible.

    For the rest debunking as you do remind me the 9/11 methods of abusing of photographies to make crazy conclusion.

    As mats says we should know what was measured.
    can you explain what you manipulate to change active power ?

    what is your load, your parameter, your setup ?
    If you have a trick to reduce or increase the power measured by a powermetter, tell it to the electric companies…

    Note for readers : for electrotechnician we have 4 different power :
    the apparent power which is useful to dimension the installation, product of RMS current with apparent RMS voltage…

    the active power which is the real one. (the sign say if it consume of produce energy, where energy flows). integral of instant voltage by instal current, which only account energy transported by current at same frequency and phase as the voltage.

    the reactive power is linked to phase shift and is power that flow synchronously in and out of the installation without doing any job… the sign says if it is inductive or capacitive phase shift. It is classic for inductive components, neon, capacitive components, but also some active powersupply, dimmers who can shift the phase of fundamental component of current. There is also some active device that can correct phase shift with semiconductors. it is mandatory today in computer powersupplies..

    Deforming power is more subtle (some mix it with reactive power, and watmetter may) as it is energy that flow at harmonic rhythm, doing no useful work like reactive. It is typical in installation with switching components, or non-linear loads… computers, neons, dimmers, rectifiers. It is impossible to give a sign to that power as it is the power of many harmonics added…

    of course all that assume that the voltage is sinusoidal and the frequency stable. this does not prevent a good wattmetter to measure active power even if voltage is triangle or square with parasits… it may only miss HF if voltage and current contain important HF component which are in-phase. If current or voltage is filtered, have low HF component, like when wires dampen HF currents, or mains transformers/filters/meter dampen HF voltage no power can be transported.

    the appendix shows that E-cat produce harmonics, thus deforming power, is working between two phase… nothing unusual for a powermetter…

    finally as always, you conclude without evidence, and Mats is right asking you to wait for details, on what was measured.

    People here should read interview of B Hoistad that wikipravda refused to add to the critics, yet allowing the pathetic article of Pomp&Ericsson
    http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/52396/20130708/fusione-fredda-gravi-critiche-test-indipendenti-intervista-bo-hoistad.htm
    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620
    and also
    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2528
    see too some comments gathered by Sterling allan about Essen
    http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/05/26/1232/8502322_qa-with-hanno-essen-regarding-recent-e-cat-test/

    For readers, this answer of Bo Hoistad should match not only Pomp&Ericsson but most critics.

    “: First, let me point out that the article of Pomp and Ericsson is written with a provision very negative towards Rossi and tried to find all the possible arguments to support their idea that Rossi there is cheating. As a result they are very critical about our results tentatively positive. Their paper, instead of directly discuss our findings in a scientific manner, focuses on a number circumstantial issues that have no relevance to the primary outcome ie if our results are correct within the errors estimated. For most of us give different statements that are false. Also there are many deliberate omissions, unwarranted opinions and false claims. Finally, their article is written in a polemical style tended to insult and ridicule rather than bring clarity to a complex scientific controversy.”

    a good summary…

  22. Ok good. Though I don’t know what I should defend. Possibly I might have something to report.

  23. Someone else will do, probably this week.
    Stay tuned.

    And prepare your defence, it might be usefull.
    Might

  24. Cimpy, I understand you have found something interesting, but in stead of giving various links to various comments, can you please reassume findings and claims here.

  25. I’m sorry, please explain. Someone refers to a photo of a power instrument. From where is the photo? From what experiment? Who took the photo?

  26. Do you want details? Phone to Levi, I am sure he knows everything.

    Might be, in any case, he is not ready to tell you (for next 30 years he hopes, I guess).

    What a pity!

    (Does this remind something to anyone?)

  27. Please can someone give me a detailed and comprehensive description of this experiment?
    What is measured? With what instruments? What is the circuit? What is the load? When the measured absorbed active power is lowered, how is the real absorbed active power measured (at the same time)? Thanks.

  28. @AlainCo
    P=sum(i(t).u(t).dt) (in fact in triphase the 3 current and voltage are used)

    imagine that i(t)=u(t)/r … you have P= sum ( u(t)^2/r.dt )… classic…
    now imagine that you integrate not u(t) and i(t) but u(t) and -i(t) because the clamp is inverted
    it is same but negative…sum ( -u(t)^2/r.dt )

    Sorry, this is completely wrong.

  29. @AlainCo
    The photos taken in the morning I posted just show that I can decrease at my will the absorbed active power from 7,77 kW down to 0,49 kW (of course the measured value not the real one that was 7,55 kW). Is it not enough for you? You could ask Mats’s opinion regarding the measurement made by SP people on september 2012. Please ask him.

    note that as you say, as there is no earth return, nor the return, and since the e-cat is a monophase 380V load, the measure is very simple.
    would you like to provide me with an official reference to this statement, please? You say monophase while having different currents in the wires? My compliments: and the difference is disappearing in the nuclear fusion (so we have the long seeked theory for the Rossi effect)? please consider to study the three-phase system before commenting in such a naive way.

  30. Negative power mean simply that from the wattmeter point of view it is a power source, not a load.
    It happen if you reverse current prove, or voltage probe (not both).

    This is true for old fashioned wattmeter, where it was a problem since they often have no negative scale.

    P=sum(i(t).u(t).dt) (in fact in triphase the 3 current and voltage are used)

    imagine that i(t)=u(t)/r … you have P= sum ( u(t)^2/r.dt )… classic…
    now imagine that you integrate not u(t) and i(t) but u(t) and -i(t) because the clamp is inverted
    it is same but negative…sum ( -u(t)^2/r.dt )

    modern wattmeter are just computer, so either they show a negative power (exact but negative) or they show a pacman game, or they correct the inversion.

    what is strange is that in the italian article it seems that they could not replicate that ?
    maybe their luxury wattmeter correct the sign to avoid this kind of mistake, to correct inverted clamps…

    if you are right in you conspiracy, E-cat is an electric energy source… fun!

    note that as you say, as there is no earth return, nor the return, and since the e-cat is a monophase 380V load, the measure is very simple.

    you should talk with Morrison, because he is incompetent in electricity, He will appreciate your finding.

  31. “Defkalion’s engineer Stavros Amaxas dedicated much effort to adjust the valves during the active run”
    As one of the GSVIT once stated, you should have made the run first, making all needed adjustments. Once done, should have run the blank test, without touching anything on contol panle or valves, less the “on off” button. But I told him that would not have stopped a scammer: there vould have been a stop for some non working device and then another way to control valves next time, few days after. This was obviously a scam and a fraud, notr only as there must have been an active operation on bith valves, but also because the true power of machine (of flow, of temperature, of magnetic field) announced was not even near to what was announced, and anyone there must have realized it in short time. Less those accustomed to sauna, quite deaf, might be also a bit blind and totally having no metal objects with them.
    Ah yes, and less those mesmerized, of course – thus AlainCo would have be excused,if he had been  there…
    😉 

  32. Brian, the setup was the same but while the valves where not operated much during the control run, Defkalion’s engineer Stavros Amaxas dedicated much effort to adjust the valves during the active run, seemingly to adjust the flow for optimal conditions for the process. You can see this in the video of the demo, linked to in my blog post here.

  33. There’s one problem with this. Didn’t the Vancouver demo start with a control run using argon instead of hydrogen, in the course of which the measured heat output agreed with the energy in. Then this was repeated after outgassing the argon and replacing it with hydrogen. The identical(?) process was done but the results were very different after some critical point was reached where it was asserted that the reaction had started. Does this square with Gamberale’s conclusions?

  34. Looks like the Rossi effect is alive and well in more places than just those Rossi is involved in. It is a shame because there is also some serious and scientific experiments going on as well. These Rossi type situations only seem to discredit the whole field of research.

  35. “Gamberale and the president of Mose srl, Franco Capiello, who told me that he had invested €1 million in the joint venture,”

    One million euro? Hope they could get at least something back – but you know how scams work, it is unlikely.
    At least one could hope this teached something, but the two heroes are again after LENR and Magic. Ah, this time it will be different. This time. Or was it “next time”?…

  36. “Like a dead clock you are sometimes right.”
    Of course. I want to reveal you a couple of these occasions:
    Piantelli cell does not work
    Celani tube does not work
    Carpinteri piezonuclear does not work
    Rossi E Cat does not work

    oh yes: and Levi is as reliable as Xanthoulis’s technicians.
    Bye

  37. Don’t feel to happy, it seems that it will be harder to challenge Levi&al report.

    moreover as you will never dare to read in Beaudette book, the Fleischman & Pons calorimetry of cold fusion was never challenged, except by 4 refuted papers.
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

    Thanks to have pushed me to call Luca Gamberale , and sorry to have taken time.
    It was hard to me to trust your words giver the mass of bias, conspiracy theories and errors you spread all the time, .
    Like a dead clock you are sometimes right.

    If there was more critical commentators and less deniers, it would be easier to find the truth.
    Good critics is useful, but dead clock don’t help.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s