Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Traktion

3Rd Party Report Shows Anomalous Heat Production – The Rossi Effect

Recommended Posts

I've not read the report in full yet, just skimmed the introduction and some forum posts (here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80317.html)

Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 (also here: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf)

Press release: http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect

...

Conclusions

The two test measurements described in this text were conducted with the same methodology on two different devices: a first prototype, termed E-Cat HT, and a second one, resulting from technological improvements on the first, termed E-Cat HT2. Both have indicated heat production from an unknown reaction primed by heat from resistor coils. The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source. In the March test, about 62 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of about 33 kWh, a power density of about 5.3 · 105, and a density of thermal energy of about 6.1 · 107 Wh/kg. In the December test, about 160 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of 35 kWh, a power density of about 7 · 103 W/kg and a thermal energy density of about 6.8 · 105 Wh/kg. The difference in results between the two tests may be seen in the overestimation of the weight of the charge in the first test (which was comprehensive of the weight of the two metal caps sealing the cylinder), and in the manufacturer’s choice of keeping temperatures under control in the second experiment to enhance the stability of the operating cycle. In any event, the results obtained place both devices several orders of magnitude outside the bounds of the Ragone plot region for chemical sources.

Even from the standpoint of a “blind” evaluation of volumetric energy density, if we consider the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production, we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0.8) 102 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any conventional source.

Lastly, it must be remarked that both tests were terminated by a deliberate shutdown of the reactor, not by fuel exhaustion; thus, the energy densities that were measured should be considered as lower limits of real values.

...

More at the links.

Ofc, the paper needs to be dissected and analysed, but on the face of it, these tests put the conclusions beyond doubt: LENR is a viable and cheap energy source.

These weren't internal tests, but external tests, carried out by university professors experienced in the field. Three separate ECATs were tested, all confirming the affect (the first one being destroyed by the intensity of it - design changes were subsequently made). Another long (6 month) test is due to be conducted too, to investigate the effect further.

Mods, please don't move this OT straight away. The introduction of such technology with have a massive impact on the global economy. Derivatives could take us beyond oil, fission and (still not ready) hot fusion. This technology is small, safe and cheap.

I know some will not believe it until it is in production, but this paper is the closest we're going to get to conclusive evidence until the ECAT HTs enter production.

EDIT: P.S. The Ragone chart can be seen here and it compares various energy storing devices - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragone_chart

A post from the forum mentioned also mentions this image with the ECAT on said chart: http://www.well.com/~af/ecat_dec_chart_130520A.png

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which University was the inventor of this from again ?

I've not read the report in full yet, just skimmed the introduction and some forum posts (here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80317.html)

Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 (also here: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf)

Press release: http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect

More at the links.

Ofc, the paper needs to be dissected and analysed, but on the face of it, these tests put the conclusions beyond doubt: LENR is a viable and cheap energy source.

These weren't internal tests, but external tests, carried out by university professors experienced in the field. Three separate ECATs were tested, all confirming the affect (the first one being destroyed by the intensity of it - design changes were subsequently made). Another long (6 month) test is due to be conducted too, to investigate the effect further.

Mods, please don't move this OT straight away. The introduction of such technology with have a massive impact on the global economy. Derivatives could take us beyond oil, fission and (still not ready) hot fusion. This technology is small, safe and cheap.

I know some will not believe it until it is in production, but this paper is the closest we're going to get to conclusive evidence until the ECAT HTs enter production.

EDIT: P.S. The Ragone chart can be seen here and it compares various energy storing devices - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragone_chart

A post from the forum mentioned also mentions this image with the ECAT on said chart: http://www.well.com/~af/ecat_dec_chart_130520A.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives.

sort of, like a, I dunno, a battery?

A nickel–metal hydride battery, abbreviated NiMH or Ni-MH, is a type of rechargeable battery. It is very similar to the nickel–cadmium cell (NiCd). NiMH use positive electrodes of nickel oxyhydroxide (NiOOH), like the NiCd, but the negative electrodes use a hydrogen-absorbing alloy instead of cadmium, being in essence a practical application of nickel–hydrogen battery chemistry

Edited by Bloo Loo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives.

sort of, like a, I dunno, a battery?

A nickel–metal hydride battery, abbreviated NiMH or Ni-MH, is a type of rechargeable battery. It is very similar to the nickel–cadmium cell (NiCd). NiMH use positive electrodes of nickel oxyhydroxide (NiOOH), like the NiCd, but the negative electrodes use a hydrogen-absorbing alloy instead of cadmium, being in essence a practical application of nickel–hydrogen battery chemistry

From the linked paper:

...

Conclusions

The two test measurements described in this text were conducted with the same methodology

on two different devices: a first prototype, termed E-Cat HT, and a second one, resulting from

technological improvements on the first, termed E-Cat HT2. Both have indicated heat production

from an unknown reaction primed by heat from resistor coils. The results obtained indicate that

energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any

conventional source.In the March test, about 62 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of

about 33 kWh, a power density of about 5.3 · 105, and a density of thermal energy of about 6.1 ·

107 Wh/kg. In the December test, about 160 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of 35

kWh, a power density of about 7 · 103 W/kg and a thermal energy density of about 6.8 · 105 Wh/kg.

The difference in results between the two tests may be seen in the overestimation of the weight of

the charge in the first test (which was comprehensive of the weight of the two metal caps sealing

the cylinder), and in the manufacturer’s choice of keeping temperatures under control in the

second experiment to enhance the stability of the operating cycle. In any event, the results obtained

place both devices several orders of magnitude outside the bounds of the Ragone plot region for

chemical sources.

Even from the standpoint of a “blind” evaluation of volumetric energy density, if we consider

the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production,

we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0.8) 102 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any

conventional source.

Lastly, it must be remarked that both tests were terminated by a deliberate shutdown of the

reactor, not by fuel exhaustion; thus, the energy densities that were measured should be

considered as lower limits of real values.

The March test is to be considered an improvement over the one performed in December, in that

various problems encountered in the first experiment were addressed and solved in the second

one. In the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of 2013, and will last about

six months, a long term performance of the E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial for

further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far.

...

EDIT: To be clearer:

ragone_lawrenceliv_ecat_130520.png

(as supplied here, if it stops working: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80345.html)

Updated Ragone Plot --- for the March test

Power density = (4.4 ± 0.4) · 10^5 [W/kg] (34)

Energy density = (5.1 ± 0.5) · 10^7 [Wh/kg] (35)

http://lenr.qumbu.com/ragone_lawrenceliv_ecat_130520.png

(Note that the axes are reversed from the version used in the paper.)

I got it from http://davisstraub.com/OZ/1236003460 -- who indicates that the

original is from Lawrence Livermore.

I used this one because it has good resolution and clear axes.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bologna university and by the looks of it ,it was tested by a Swedish university

Also from the linked paper:

Giuseppe Levi

Bologna University, Bologna, Italy

Evelyn Foschi

Bologna, Italy

Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér

Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Hanno Essén

Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

...

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank David Bianchini, M.Sc. for his cooperation in performing the test.

We also wish to thank Prof. Ennio Bonetti (Bologna University), Pierre Clauzon, M.Eng.

(CNAM-CEA Paris), Prof. Loris Ferrari (Bologna University), and Laura Patrizii, Ph.D. (INFN)

for their helpful discussions, Prof. Alessandro Passi (Bologna University [ret.]) for his patient

work in translating the text.

We would especially like to thank Andrea Rossi, M.A., inventor of the E-Cat, for giving us

the opportunity to independently test the apparatus, and Prof. Em. Sven Kullander and Prof.

Björn Gålnander (Uppsala University) for their continued interest in and support for these

investigations.

A special thought and warm thanks must be also expressed to Prof. Em. Sergio Focardi

(Bologna University) and Prof. Em. Hidetsugu Ikegami (Osaka University).

The authors would like to express their appreciation to Optris GmbH and Luchsinger Srl for

their support and technological assistance.

Financial support from Alba Langenskiöld Foundation and ELFORSK AB, for the Swedish

participation in the E-Cat test experiment, is gratefully acknowledged.

*Rossi is an engineer, not a professor. Sergio Focardi (who is aiding Rossi) is a professor though (see above).

* TBH, I'm not interested in dirt on Rossi either. It's the results which matter.

(Added authors too - d'oh!)

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from the linked paper:

*Rossi is an engineer, not a professor. Sergio Focardi (who is aiding Rossi) is a professor though (see above).

* TBH, I'm not interested in dirt on Rossi either. It's the results which matter.

(Added authors too - d'oh!)

Yes I agree it`s the results that matter, there is going to be a lot more dirt for Rossie to dig through though,but IMO they have done themselves no favours with the photos of the set up of their test equipment in the paper , it looks a bit Heath Robinson but if it`s accurate dose it matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. At least its independent.

However, it was very much a "hands off" analysis, as the authors make it very clear that they were allowed very little access to the device.

Unfortunately, this type of "hands off" examination is does not inspire me with confidence. There are lots of ways of tricking this. Interestingly, while the physicists went to great lengths to develop an extraordinary method of estimating heat output, they took purely on trust the performance of an electrical power meter, and provide no information of how this was connected.

Perhaps, it's because I don't fully understand the physics of their IR thermometry, while I build and modify electrical meters for fun on Saturday afternoons. That said, their IR thermometry measurement makes so many assumptions that I find it hard to believe that they considered their numbers viable.

There are lots of ways of fooling this type of meter, unless you actually splice the meter into the cables. However, most industrial meters are designed to use clip-on sensors, etc. for convenience and for safety when handling voltages/currents. This works fine, because industrial systems are not designed so as to obfuscate energy consumption. However, it's pretty easy to fool meters in this sort of circumstance. Minor wiring faults, can cause massive metering errors (e.g. a couple of wires "accidentally" switched in a plug socket - I've seen this mistake in a 3-phase electrical supply lead to the meter only registering approximately 33% of the energy used). It's telling that the "dummy" device was single-phase powered, but the "real" devices were 3-phase.

Then you have ways of deliberately obscuring power consumption... but that gets a bit technical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How I'd like this to be true.

This is not a scientific paper in the true sense. The main social purpose of publishing (apart from the more mundane aspect of establishing ownership of the discovery) is that other researchers can replicate and independently verify the results. As the object at the centre of this is proprietary and unexplained, its an interesting curio but no more.

Archiv is not peer reviewed, any of us could write a paper and put it on there, even those of use with egregious spelling abilities. :P

My fingers are crossed that this is real, but I'll wait until its really real before I get too excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. At least its independent.

However, it was very much a "hands off" analysis, as the authors make it very clear that they were allowed very little access to the device.

Unfortunately, this type of "hands off" examination is does not inspire me with confidence. There are lots of ways of tricking this. Interestingly, while the physicists went to great lengths to develop an extraordinary method of estimating heat output, they took purely on trust the performance of an electrical power meter, and provide no information of how this was connected.

Perhaps, it's because I don't fully understand the physics of their IR thermometry, while I build and modify electrical meters for fun on Saturday afternoons. That said, their IR thermometry measurement makes so many assumptions that I find it hard to believe that they considered their numbers viable.

There are lots of ways of fooling this type of meter, unless you actually splice the meter into the cables. However, most industrial meters are designed to use clip-on sensors, etc. for convenience and for safety when handling voltages/currents. This works fine, because industrial systems are not designed so as to obfuscate energy consumption. However, it's pretty easy to fool meters in this sort of circumstance. Minor wiring faults, can cause massive metering errors (e.g. a couple of wires "accidentally" switched in a plug socket - I've seen this mistake in a 3-phase electrical supply lead to the meter only registering approximately 33% of the energy used). It's telling that the "dummy" device was single-phase powered, but the "real" devices were 3-phase.

Then you have ways of deliberately obscuring power consumption... but that gets a bit technical.

Are you certain about that part? I thought both HT2 tests were using the same power supply (the 2nd run being the dummy run). Unless I read it incorrectly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you certain about that part? I thought both HT2 tests were using the same power supply (the 2nd run being the dummy run). Unless I read it incorrectly?

OH. I mis-read it. Both HT2 and the dummy were run on the same power-supply.

However, only 3 phase measurements were permitted with the "real" device. With the "dummy", 3 phase and single-phase measurements were permitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try looking for "LENR" and "CR39". CR-39 is a plastic used to detect energetic particles. You will find papers with abstracts such as this:

ENERGETIC CHARGED PARTICLES PRODUCED

IN THE GAS PHASE BY ELECTROLYSIS

R.A. Oriani* and J.C. Fisher**

*112 Amundson Hall, University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN 55455, U.S.A.

orian001@umn.edu

**600 Arbol Verde, Carpinteria, CA 93013, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

CR-39 plastic detector chips suspended in the vapor over the electrolytic solution during

electrolysis record the tracks of highly energetic charged particles. The probability that the track

densities found in these detector chips and the generally smaller track densities found in controls

belong to a common population is 3 x 10-10 by the Mann-Whitney statistical test. It is therefore

concluded that a nuclear reaction that originates in the vapor phase can accompany electrolysis.

Occasionally huge numbers of nuclear tracks are recorded by detector chips in the vapor over

active electrolysis cells. One such experiment is analyzed in which two contiguous detector

chips recorded approximately 40,000 tracks. Analysis of track orientations shows that the

shower of charged particles originated in a compact source in the vapor between the chips at

about 2 mm from one of the chips. A new type of nuclear reaction is indicated.

Another paper:

Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained

as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition

P.A. Mosier-Boss1,a , S. Szpak1 , F.E. Gordon1, and L.P.G. Forsley2

1

SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, Code 7173, San Diego, CA 92152, USA

2

JWK International Corp., Annandale, VA 22003, USA

Abstract. Earlier we reported that the pits generated in CR-39 detectors during Pd/D co-deposition

experiments are consistent with those observed for pits that are of a nuclear origin. Spacer experiments

and track modeling have been done to characterize the properties of the particles that generated the tracks

in the CR-39 detectors. The effect of water on the energetics of the particles and their resultant tracks is

discussed.

Conclusion

....

The energies of the particles formed

as a result of Pd/D co-deposition are consistent with DD

primary and secondary fusion reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taking way too long, I want one now!

Maybe the science would move faster if the proponents of LENR would allow full access to their apparatus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll up, roll up! Be first to buy shares in the future of mankind. Cold fusion was a dud (or a fraud) and neither Fleischmann nor Pons can show their faces in public now, but trust me folks, this is the real deal!

Look how much money those people who put money into Facebook made - you could have as much dosh as Bono for just a small initial investment .................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbes have published an article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

To put that in perspective, the following graph plots the peak power of various energy sources against their specific energy (energy per unit mass). As you can see, gasoline is way out in front in terms of how much energy is available and how much power can be delivered but if this paper is correct, you can make that “gasoline was way out in front” because, as can be seen, the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!

The chart also shows a comparison with Plutonium-238, although I'm not sure how the power density is calculated (I assume they are including a reactor of sorts?).

While a few commentators have raised criticisms concerning how the measurements were made and sources of error others have argued that the energy produced is so significant even knocking off an order of magnitude on either axis still portrays a process with insanely valuable output.

This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history it looks like the world may well be about to change. How quick will depend solely on Rossi.

I've been following the Vortex mailing list for some time and they are a pretty educated bunch, especially in the area of LENR. Ed Storms posts there, for example. While there is natural scepticism about the experiment process, this paper seems to have convinced any reasonable sceptic posting there. While I don't understand everything discussed there (not half of it, tbh), you can spot the difference between FUD and a compelling argument from some distance.

Ofc, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - when the devices are being manufactured, sold and tested. I'm sure we will get endless rounds of FUD in the mean time, just like Bitcoin has (likely from the same suspects, tbh).

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the science would move faster if the proponents of LENR would allow full access to their apparatus.

I think the inventors are rather wary of the Edison approach to new technology.

Steal it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the inventors are rather wary of the Edison approach to new technology.

Steal it.

Exactly.

A copy would be rolling off a Chinese production line before you could say 'call in the lawyers!'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the heat output was measured by some sort of camera !? Why not proper calorimetry?

I've used a point and read digital thermometer -you can make it read almost whatever you want. by twiddling a knob Surfaces have an IR emissivity number, ie the IR emission is not constant from one body to another even if both bodies are at the same temperature.

The CR39 tracks could come from cosmic rays (which would explain why the track density is so variable from experiment to experiment), or it could simply be over-developed. You develop it by etching it in sodium hydroxide solution, the longer and hotter it is developed the more surface damage.

So I' d be extremely skeptical about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the inventors are rather wary of the Edison approach to new technology.

Steal it.

Fine, but if they're not going to tell us what's inside the magic box then I'm going to assume it's a hoax until a working power station is built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the heat output was measured by some sort of camera !? Why not proper calorimetry?

I've used a point and read digital thermometer -you can make it read almost whatever you want. by twiddling a knob Surfaces have an IR emissivity number, ie the IR emission is not constant from one body to another even if both bodies are at the same temperature.

The CR39 tracks could come from cosmic rays (which would explain why the track density is so variable from experiment to experiment), or it could simply be over-developed. You develop it by etching it in sodium hydroxide solution, the longer and hotter it is developed the more surface damage.

So I' d be extremely skeptical about this.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80377.html

Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a

> thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured

> temperature.

>

They did that. See p. 18, QUOTE:

"Various dots were applied to the dummy as well. A K-type thermocouple heat

probe was placed under one of the dots, to monitor temperature trends in a

fixed point. The same probe had also been used with the E-Cat HT2 to double

check the IR camera readings during the cooling phase. The values measured

by the heat probe were always higher than those indicated by the IR camera:

this difference, minimal in the case of the E-Cat HT2, was more noticeable

in the dummy, where temperature readings proved to be always higher by

about 2 °C. The most likely reason for the difference is to be sought in

the fact that the probe, when covered with the dot securing it the surface,

could not dissipate any heat by convection, unlike the areas adjacent to

it."

The word "dot" is defined earlier in the paper:

"Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this

trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2’s coat of paint.

For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of

approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity

of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras (Optris

part: ACLSED)."

> I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from

> which the total power generated could be measured.

>

As I mentioned before, I think the device might melt again if they did

that. I would fear that.

- Jed

Perhaps that post helps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, but if they're not going to tell us what's inside the magic box then I'm going to assume it's a hoax until a working power station is built.

Even when you measure what is going in the box, coming out of the box, while knowing the volume of the box? Sure, it's wise to retain some scepticism, but there comes a point where evidence largely overwhelms this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even when you measure what is going in the box, coming out of the box, while knowing the volume of the box? Sure, it's wise to retain some scepticism, but there comes a point where evidence largely overwhelms this.

I've got a box. When I flick a switch a small electrical current flows into the box, which then starts humming and spewing out hot air and electricity. If you ask nicely I'll let you measure the amount of electricity going into the box, the amount of hot air and electricity coming out of the box, and the volume of the box.

Q: Is this proof that there is a low energy nuclear reactor inside the box which even the most hard-hearted sceptic must accept is overwhelming?

A: No, it's a petrol generator.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.