Search on {"George Miley" cold fusion}, {"Brian Ahern" cold fusion} and {"Edmund Storms" cold fusion} (omitting the curly brackets, of course). Also "Brillouin Energy". Some of these are much lower energy than Rossi is getting, but others are in the same ballpark. Also Sergio Focardi's old partner Piantelli has just released information for results rivalling Rossi's.
To: Wonder Warthog
Their COP is only a measly 2.0 SOME OF THE TIME!!! They are using pulsed data and during SOME of the time of the run it shows a gain of 2 BUT they provide NO calorimetric data and make all kinds of assumptions about “lost energy”. Bottom line is that they have NOT shown a gain of 2.
125 posted on 10/29/2011 11:38:48 AM PDT by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Another analysis (Horace Heffner) shows major problems with the 10/6 test. (Uses word ‘nonsensical’)
This means there is reason to suspect a 50% error in heat measurement for this period, i.e. 2 kW heat looking like 3 kW heat. This may be compounded at times with a 37% error added in this report spreadsheets due to 0.8°C added to delta T due to calibration errors.
ANOMALOUS FAST POWER OUTPUT INCREASE WHEN POWER CUT It is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may introduce water into the output stream, as seen before. If the thermocouple within the E-cat is subject to thermal wicking, the water temperature may actually be 100°C, as before. This sudden flow of 100°C water could then account for the at most 11.6°C increased temperature from the Tout thermocouple, which is located close to the hot water/steam input. The E-cat began leaking at the rate of about 2 kg per hour at 14:00 (168 min.). The water dropped from the lower edge of the wrapped E-cat. The insulation prevented knowing where the source of the leak. It seems highly coincidental that Pout and Eout began rising substantially right after 14:00 (168 min.) This may be an indication that water overflow via percolator effect began at about 14:00. The fact water or steam was leaking at such a large rate is an indication the E-cat should not have been under significant pressure after that time. The leak, plus the fact the primary water circuit is open following the heat exchanger, should make achieving a significant pressure unlikely.
Also anomalous is that all power was cut at 19:08 (476 min.) Hydrogen pressure was eliminated. By 19:22 the thermal power out measured jumped from 4.2 kW to 7.1 kW, a roughly 70% increase in power. This could be explained by a burst of nuclear power triggered by a high internal diffusion rate. It could also be explained by increased liquid water overflow. The latter is indicated as more probable by the fact that the internal E-cat temperature, T2, dropped from 116.6°C to 108.1°C during the apparent power burst.
In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that output power quickly momentarily rises. This kind of mystery can be, should be, unraveled using a dummy device and then an inactive (no hydrogen) E-cat during calorimeter calibration sessions.
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
128 posted on 10/29/2011 12:50:16 PM PDT by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Brillouin Energy’s process requires a frequency generator. Rossi said (until a couple of days ago) that he also required a frequency generator. When someone at the 1MW test noticed that he had no frequency generator, he said it was no longer required. How did he manage to get the 1MW test run with the SAME reactor but with no frequency generator that he had previously proven was required?
209 posted on 11/02/2011 5:37:41 PM PDT by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Their COP is only a measly 2.0 (at this point). But all their methods and experimental data are posted on their website.
From their website .... Give me a break!
“There are a number of reasons why calorimetric data is not provided in this document. Conduction, convection, and loss of small amounts of NaOH due to entrainment in solution that evaporates, are not fully controlled in these experiments. The beakers with electrolysis are more heavily influenced by ambient temperature in the room due to the increased surface area caused by the hydrogen and oxygen bubbles. The increased surface area causes increased conduction of thermal energy. These factors preclude calorimetric data collection”
210 posted on 11/02/2011 5:41:57 PM PDT by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]