Rossi with the lead "independent" scientist in 2011.
Posted on 06/02/2013 7:17:12 PM PDT by Kevmo
Has the E-Cat been proven to work?
5.23.2013 | by Mike Weaver
In the world of LENR or cold fusion, one cannot help but come across Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat device. Rossi claims to harness LENR or cold fusion via a nickel-hydrogen process to produce excess thermal energy in his energy catalyzer. On May 20th, a report on independent testing of the E-Cat HT device was released. Let’s take a look!(updated 5-23-13 14:39EST)
First off, the reading list: ■The Report ■An article at ExtremeTech about the report ■An article at eCat News on the report
The report is billed as independent verification that the E-Cat device produces anomalous heat at levels far higher than can be accounted for by the energy inputs. At first blush, the report is quite interesting. The authors tested E-Cat HT devices in two experimental runs, 96 hours and 116 hours in length each performed in December 2012 and March 2013 respectively. Each test run produced anomalous heat output. I liked that they ran an E-Cat without “fuel” as a control during the 116 hour test and showed that it did not produce any heat beyond what was expected from the internal heating elements. The report references an earlier test made in November of 2012 which resulted in catastrophic failure of the E-Cat device.
The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the E-Cat HT on the same premises. In that experiment the device was destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted. The partial data gathered before the failure, however, yielded interesting results which warranted further in-depth investigation in future tests. Although the run was not successful as far as obtaining complete data is concerned, it was fruitful in that it demonstrated a huge production of excess heat, which however could not be quantified. The device used had similar, but not identical, features to those of the E-Cat HT used in the December and March runs.[1]
The device used for the November test is shown in these images.
If the thermal camera is correct, that is quite warm, indeed.
The key characteristic of the devices used appears to be heating elements with a core of “powder charge” which is the fuel.
As in the original E-Cat, the reaction is fueled by a mixture of nickel, hydrogen, and a catalyst, which is kept as an industrial trade secret. The charge sets off the production of thermal energy after having been activated by heat produced by a set of resistor coils located inside the reactor. Once operating temperature is reached, it is possible to control the reaction by regulating the power to the coils.[1]
Interesting stuff. I did see an item that troubled me somewhat, however.
It was not possible to evaluate the weight of the internal steel cylinder or of the caps because the ECat HT was already running when the test began. Weighing operations were therefore performed on another perfectly similar device present on the premises, comparing a cap-sealed cylinder containing the active charge with another identical cylinder, empty and without caps. The difference in weight obtained is 0.236 kg: this is therefore to be assigned to the charge loaded into the E-Cat HT and to the weight (not subtracted in the present test) of the two metal caps.[1]
Why weren’t they able to weigh the actual test device? How did they know that the one they did weigh was exactly identical? While this may not be a real issue, it continues to reinforce the impression that Rossi gives of possible shenanigans. A little thing, perhaps, but it does trouble me.
The report goes on to detail the methods used to gather data and the data itself. I have no real issue with any of this, and, frankly, I’m probably not qualified to judge a lot of it on its face. I am curious as to why they used estimates of energy output based upon thermal camera imaging. I would have thought that a calorimeter-style setup would have been far more precise and useful. Immerse the device (or the device + heat-tolerant, waterproof shell) into a container of water, seal the lid, and measure the temperature of the water over time. Easy, simple, precise measurement of energy output. Far simpler and less prone to confounders than their estimates and secondary measurement techniques. While I’m sure there was a good reason, again, it bothers me.
The report concludes:
The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source.[1]
And
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.[1]
Hrm. Interesting. The claim is that, not only did the E-Cat produce excess energy, it did so in such a way that the energy density of the “fuel” would be at least an order of magnitude higher than any conventional source. This report is interesting and it does provide evidence for the E-Cat and perhaps for LENR as a whole. I look forward to the scientific community’s response to this and, most importantly, to see if it can be replicated by an independent research group. Preferably without Rossi or his people controlling the experimental conditions.
Update 5-23-13 14:49EST: Came across this blog with a good analysis of the report. Give it a look, Ethan Siegel makes some very good points that I missed.
Be well
[1] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
I think Rossi might just be on the way in that regard. He recently said he turned over business operations to some partner, and he’s making noises about suing Wikipedia for Libel. Those are the kinds of things a guy does when he starts making money hand over fist and no longer is consumed with the development of his prototype. His life story might be about to read like the Count of Monte Cristo. I wouldn’t want to be the judge that put him in jail for “defrauding his investors” when it was only Rossi himself who was the investor in the company. He appears to have been convicted of defrauding himself.
Rossi with the lead "independent" scientist in 2011.
Watch out. He’s gonna start calling you a liar now as well.
Rossi is pretty obviously a nut.
But some nuts are brilliant. See Tesla.
oh, you again
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
That is a Patent Office policy, not law. Watch the policy change instantly if the device is proven to work.
I have worked with about 4 or 5 true geniuses. All but one were mercurial in personality. It seems to go with the territory. “genius is next to insanity”
Actually, for as long as I can remember hot fusion has been “20 years away.”
Funding would dry up if they said it was 50 years away.
That's a patent for LENR. I know people like Krivit make a distinction between LENR and cold fusion. Cold fusion he calls a complete fraud, just like Rossi.
Take away 10% of their funding & give it to LENR, and you’ll see their whole house of cards fold.
The simple reality that IF the stuff worked it could be patented. Period. There are no across the board bans on patenting things, other than they need to actually work. Rossi’s got nothing to fear if he isn’t a lying shyster. By his constant refusal to patent, and to open the box he shows he’s a lying shyster. It’s really just that simple. If it isn’t a scam he needs to stop acting like it’s a scam.
Well, at least this time it’s not a personal attack.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
If Rossi were to file a patent and be turned down because of a cold fusion policy, he’d still be in an excellent position to legally protect his “invention.”
Well, well, I usually don’t read your posts... but this time you actually said something worth considering.
It’s an interesting postulation but all the risk would be his. Competitors would start right away working with his published secret sauce and they would patent all around him. The Japanese in particular are famous for this approach. The Chinese would simply steal it, period.
Right now, if I were in his ‘claimed’ position of having a secret sauce that worked as these tests show, I’d be doing exactly what he’s doing rather than the strategy you propose. In this case he’s crazy like a fox.
It seems to me that by doing all these demonstrations and encouraging massive postings on the Internet, he is alerting the Chinese and others to start to work on the "secret sauce." If a con-artist with a fake degree can stumble on it, why can't an entire country?
If a con-artist with a fake degree can stumble on it, why can’t an entire country?
***The same sentiment was aimed at the Wright brothers between 1903 [first flight] and 1908 [first sale]. If a couple of bike mechanics could unlock the secret, why can’t we? So they were treated to a parade of lookieloo inquirers who had no intention of buying airplanes. The Wright brothers were accused of being frauds during this time.
That said, I realize this is a thread by you, Kevmo, and I know how you like to play it, so I am done, and suggest everyone else stop feeding the troll.
or he goes down as another in a long line of scientific frauds.
***greatest in history, as far as I can see... if it turns out that way.
We live in a different world now. By going so public, the Chinese know where to look. They can look at Focardi’s papers. They can break into one of Rossi’s facilities, or conduct computer espionage. If they can steal our military secrets, they can get the recipe for Rossi’s secret sauce. Rossi should have either filed for a patent or kept everything totally secret.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.