Lettera di risposta di Giuseppe Levi, e commenti di Rossi.

Pubblicato: giugno 17, 2011 in Energy Catalyzer RossiFocardi

Levi risponde alle critiche sollevate da Krivit nel suo rapporto preliminare(Link), e rossi risponde sul JOP :

(Sotto la traduzione in italiano by tizzie della lettera di Levi, e ancora sotto i commenti di Rossi dal jop (in inglese), e nei commenti la risposta di Krivit):

Lettera di levi:

Dear Mr. Krivit,

I have carefully read your preliminary report on your trip to Bologna. Your report clearly demonstrates that you have not understood anything of what you have seen and what we have explained you.

First of all, the story about the steam. As the signature in my email states, I got a PhD in Physics several years ago. This implies I have totally understood the difference between residual water in steam as a fraction of mass or volume.

As I have unsuccessfully tried to explain:

1) The plots you were showing are well known and can be found in any textbook of physical chemistry. They show measurements of the steam fraction in VOLUME percentage.

2) As I have told you many times, Dr. Galantini, the expert chemist that was in charge, performed measurements in MASS percentage.

As Professor Zanchini told you the same day we met, one of the crucial bits of information you omitted from your preliminary report is that a fraction of water in the steam, measured by MASS as we have done, would reduce the amount of measured energy in a linear way.

Therefore, our calculations and our analysis are correct.

Given that you omitted portions of information you had, insulted me (and my University) trying to say that I’m not knowledgeable enough in my area, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data, I will not send you further information.

Regards,
Dr. G.Levi

Italiano:

Caro sig. Krivit,

Ho letto attentamente il Suo report preliminare sul Suo viaggio a Bologna. Il Suo report dimostra chiaramente che non ha compreso nulla di quanto ha visto e quanto Le abbiamo spiegato.

Prima di tutto la faccenda del vapore. Come la firma nella mia email riporta, ho conseguito un dottorato in Fisica anni fa. Ciò significa che ho compreso totalmente la differenza fra l’acqua residua nel vapore come frazione di massa o volume. Esattamente come ho tentato di spiegarLe, senza successo:

1) I grafici che stava mostrando sono ben conosciuti e può trovarli in qualsiasi manuale di chimica fisica.
Gli autori applicano durante le misurazioni la quantità di vapore presente come % di VOLUME.

2) Come Le ho detto diverse volte, il dott. Galantini, il chimico esperto responsabile, ha effettuato misurazioni come percentuali di MASSA.

Come professor Zanchini le ha riferito lo stesso giorno in cui ci siamo conosciuti, una delle informazioni cruciali che ha omesso dal suo report preliminare, una frazione di acqua nel vapore, misurata come MASSA come abbiamo effettuato, ridurrebbe la quantità di energia misurata in maniera lineare.

Pertanto, i nostri calcoli e le nostre analisi sono corrette.

Dato che Lei ha: omesso parte delle informazioni che aveva a dispozione, insultato me (e la mia Università) tentando di dire che non sono preparato nel mio campo, provato (solo provato) ad intimidirmi e mettermi sotto pressione psicologica per ottenere dati ad oggi non divulgati, non Le invierò altre informazioni.

Distinti saluti,
Dott. G.Levi

Commenti di Rossi lasciato sul Journal of Nuclear Physics:

June 17th, 2011 at 4:38 AM
Dear Craig:
Mr Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report… This guy has seen for half an hour an E-Cat in the factory where we make many tests, made some questions to Prof. Levi, Prof. Focardi and me. Evidently has understood nothing, perhaps for the short time we gave him, also because we have to work: maybe he is angry because we had to send him away from the closed boxes and because we had to say him good bye shortly because we have to make our work. Prof. Levi has explained very well to him how the measures have been made and the importance of the issue. He has explained very well that the percentage of uncondensed water in the steam has been measured in weight (in volume is impossible, for various reasons), and he also got confirmation of this from a specialist from whom he has taken indipendent counsel. Nevertheless, he has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows. Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors.
In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work. He also tried to blackmail prof. Levi, and Levi already has given to his attorney due information .
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dear Roger Barker:
Please read the answer I gave to Craig:
AGAIN : WE MADE THE MEASUREMENT OF THE WATER IN WEIGHT !!
AND WE EXPLAINED THIS TO KRIVIT VERY WELL!!!!!
AND HE GOT CONFIRMATION OF THIS FROM AN INDIPENDENT PROFESSOR HE CONTACTED !!
NOBODY MAKES THIS KIND OF MEASUREMENT IN VOLUME, BECAUSE IT IS A NONSENSE !!
KRIVIT SAID ” I HAVE UNDERSTOOD” WHEN I TOLD THIS DURING THE INTERVIEW.
I HAVE MANY WITNESSES OF WHAT ABOVE ENCLOSED THE PROF. HE CONTACTED TO GET INDIPENDENT COUNSEL !!
BUT HE REPORTED THAT WE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM: WE. PHYSICS PROFESSORS OF CERN, UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, UNIVERSITY OF UPPSALA, UNIVARSITY OF STOCKOLM, WHO MADE THE TESTS!! AND HE COMES HERE TO TESCH TO US PHYSICS!!
HE CAME TO US SMILING, VERY FRIENDLY, ACCEPTED TO BE INVITED TO GET LUNCH, ACCEPTED TAXI REMBOURSEMENT, MADE FAIR QUESTIONS, GOT PRECISE ANSWERS, AND NOW HE WRITES TOTALLY FALSE THINGS:
THIS IS A SNAKE, NOT A JOURNALIST, AND I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO KNOW WHO SENT HIM (I HAVE A PRETTY IDEA, THOUGH, SINCE HE UNADVERTEDLY GAVE US A CLUE).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dear Maryyugo:
We have already made enough public tests, either heating the water ( please go to read all our reports and papers on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, or making steam. In this last case we always made the measurement of unvaporized water residue giving the result in mass. Our tests have been made with Professors of Physics working with the Universities of Bologna, Uppsala, Stockolm, with CERN, with INFN, and I think that only an imbecile can think that such Persons are not able to weight water in steam. We are receiving suggestions how to measure the water in steam, and this is like teach to a cat how to miew. By the way: the steam from the reactors which we are testing now, and that will compound the 1 MW plant, is dry. The steam during the interview of the clown of yesterday was totally dry. Of course, should be this not true, our Customers will be very angry: in that case, that will be an opinion which will be very important for us, while the opinion of our competitors and of their friends, for obvious reasons, have not much importance for us, if any. Now I have to make my 1 MW plant, then we will make other 1 MW plants for our Customers. That’s all we will do. Our Customers tests are the sole tests that count, for us. Therefore, I have absolutely not time for competitors anxious to test my Cat to make their “validation”.
About the work that we will make with the University of Bologna and Uppsala, this will not be a public demo, but a work of Research and Development, made closed doors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dear Roger Barker:
I am not angry, I just was disappointed that, after we published repeatedly that we made the measure of steam indicating the percentage of water residue in the steam IN MASS, Mr Steve Krivit wrote that we measured it in volume, which not only is a stupidity, but is the contrary of what we explained to him. Also he, who lacks of elementary bases in Physics, has not to offend (and blackmail) a Prof. of Physics of the University of Bologna. Like the rat who teaches to the cat how to miew.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

“Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims”:
The content of water in steam is always measured in mass, not in volume, because psychrometers work is based on the heat necessary to the evaporation ow residual water, and the heat is given in Joule/g, wherein g means grams. Krivit is not convinced only because has not the elementary knowledge of the physics involved. He had all the necessary explications from us, just did not (or wanted not) to understand. By the way: in a statement he released further, he said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. This is a translation problem: with the term “report” I mean an extensive paper, while Prof. Levi referred to the simple communication that we received from the specialist who made the measurement, in which there were just the results. This is a misunderstanding, not a contradiction.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Advertisements
commenti
  1. Steven B. Krivit ha detto:

    [Message posted on 22 Passi]

    Steven Krivit ha detto…

    Caro Daniele,

    I was very nice to meet you this week and I enjoyed your company. I do not understand why you have posted a message from Levi that contains a direct falsehood.

    Levi stated in his letter that I had omitted a crucial fact, that if his measurements had been done by mass, that the enthalpy would have been reduced in a linear way. In my post:
    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/
    I specifically mentioned that fact: “because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy…”

    My full report, to be published in a few weeks from now, will shed much light on many of the matters discussed on this page.

    Cordiali saluti,
    Steven B. Krivit
    18 giugno 2011 05:23

  2. Daniele ha detto:

    Dear Steven,

    I was pleased to meet you in Bologna too. However, I was very surprised when I read your so called preliminary report. I’m just a blogger, while you are instead a journalist. But your preliminary report appears to be written by a blogger just like me. I’m sorry, but this is my opinion.

    You drew the attention on insignificant details like the tire shop and a coffee machine!

    You’ve fabricated an “E-Cat trio” that doesn’t exist! There is an inventor, his consultant (who is a famous retired professor) and a PhD; each have their own individual role: to mix them together is a mistake.

    You’ve omitted a crucial fact: the answer to your question by the professor at the university who is an expert on steam (Zanchini). Why?

    I really hope that your full report will unwrap the truth on many of the matters discussed on this page.

    Carissimi saluti
    Daniele Passerini

Rispondi

Inserisci i tuoi dati qui sotto o clicca su un'icona per effettuare l'accesso:

Logo WordPress.com

Stai commentando usando il tuo account WordPress.com. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto Twitter

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Twitter. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto di Facebook

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Facebook. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Google+ photo

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Google+. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Connessione a %s...