PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:  Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.





    

News:Archive:October 6, 2011 E-Cat Test Updates:Page 04

From PESWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Page 4 of our archives of the real-time updates we have been posting about the October 6, 2011 test of the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) in Bologna, Italy, attended by around 30 scientists from around the world.


Click here for the most recent updates.

Contents

Monday, October 10, 2011

-- SilverThunder 18:38, 10 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

The website http://www.ecat.com has linked to the following video of the test of the one megawatt plant.

-- Nocompromises 18:11, 10 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -


The following was posted on Vertex L.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52641.html

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10

Daniel Rocha Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:37:26 -0700

The question was not posted, but I guess he is calling of clowns the people of Defkalion:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94489

Dear Martin: These are just clowns. No other comment is opportune. I want not to dirt this blog with that shit. My attorneys are taking care of them. Warm Regards, A.R.

-- Nocompromises 11:22, 10 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

ONE MEGAWATT PLANT ACTIVATES ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER 2011

Dear Don Witcher:
The test will be made on the 28th of October. I will give details within a week.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#comments

--Francesco 10:05, 10 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

Quoting from http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=285 posted today by Defkalion:

The technological breakthrough of LENR (or CANR) is no longer speculation. It is a fact that will eventually change the world’s energy problems and its sociopolitical divides through cheap, clean and green energy. The world needs LENR as a new energy source. Although change will not happen over-night, LENR will help reduce CO2 emissions, lower the cost of energy, and provide longevity to our planet’s energy needs.

Defkalion sees its role with responsibility and asks the community at large to continue its support.

Defkalion has: • Enhanced technology and engineering on Rossi’s invention or similar inventions • Prepared business models for international expansion • Established a strong network of global contacts • Prepared legislative and certification procedures • Ensured national, regional and international network in politics and business • Prepared global financing

Defkalion has worked in close partnership with Andrea Rossi for a very long time to prepare a commercially viable and industrially applicable product using his invention. Defkalion invested a lot of money to evolve Rossi’s E-Cat lab prototype into its Hyperion product. Defkalion is now at the stage where its industrial prototype is ready for production.

Defkalion has held direct business discussions with 62 interested companies who visited our offices in Greece and witnessed our work. Small industry and large energy players internationally were all impressed by our progress in technology and engineering. More are still coming. Despite this phenomenal progress, Defkalion never made promises.

Our aim has always been to inform and demonstrate to public our progress when the final product is ready for use, thereby avoiding any speculations.

Today, Hyperion engineering has completed version 7. We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. We were confused why our old designs were implemented wrongly, as well as witnessing insufficient use of instruments and testing protocols. We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. These actions have already paved the way for more negative criticism (unworthy) against the inventor, which do not give credibility to his important work.

The plethora of positive and negative comments is not helpful, as pointed out recently on the Vortex mail archive: (http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52357.html).

Defkalion fully supports and endorses this technology. Our mission is to introduce this technology on a global scale, responsibly. To date, we have self-financed all R&D and business development phases without asking for a single penny from anyone (private or public). We will soon be ready to announce the results of our extensive R&D with Hyperion final products.

Athens, October 10th, 2011 Defkalion GT S.A.

-- Nocompromises 09:35, 10 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

Rossi interviewed by Radio Città del Capo:
(in Italian, but there are also parts of the video in English, watch 5:11 Professor Roland Pettersson speaking and watch 11:18 Andrea Rossi speaking)


--Francesco 01:07, 10 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

I wasn't going to post this here because it really isn't related to the October 6 test, but it is of the Rossi device.

-- SilverThunder 07:38, 10 October 2011 (PDT)

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Please participate in the E-Cat Case Design Project

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Cold_Fusion_E-Cat_Case_Design_Competition

Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) has asked for the help of the alternative energy community, in designing the case for his home heating product. He has asked for the community to submit concepts, so he can purchase the best idea from the individual who submitted it!

-- Nocompromises 21:51, 9 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

Jed Rothwell has responded to an individual that was concerned over the placement of the thermocouples. He makes the point that the big issue about the test, is that after four hours of no input to the resistor, there was massive heat being generated.

- -

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52577.html

Okay TIME OUT. Stop worrying about this. Forget about the damned thermocouples altogether. Pretend they were not there. Stop obsessing over small technical details and Look At The Facts:

When the power went off, the reactor was boiling inside and the surface was around 80 deg C.

Nearly 4 hours later, the reactor was still boiling inside. The surface was still 80 deg C. Whether the thermocouples were properly placed or in the wrong places altogether, all of them still showed elevated temperatures. This was after 2.4 tons of cooling water went through the heat exchanger.

Deal with that! Explain it. You know perfectly well that if no heat had been generated inside, every temperature sensor would have equaled ambient air or the tap water temperature soon after the power was turned off. You can see that from the decay curve after the power finally went off. There was a tremendous flow of water going through. What else could happen?!?

Forget all about the cooling water outlet thermocouple. Or, if you like, assume that it was placed as badly as it could be, so that it picked up the steam temperature and the air temperature more than the cooling water. Question: what temperature would it be 1 hour after the power is turned off? 25 deg C. What would it be 2 hours later? 25 deg C. Four hours later? 25 deg C. ALL THE OTHER SENSORS WOULD ALSO BE AT 25 deg C. They are not. Lewan would have put his hand on the reactor and find it is stone cold. He would hear no boiling. That is not what happened.

Deal with the irrefutable first-principle physical evidence that you have in abundance, and stop fretting about details you do not have and will not get.

- Jed

-- Nocompromises 20:08, 9 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -


Now we just need NyTeknik and others who were actually at the test to provide such graphs.

sMn1ph.png

HwxRTh.png

WI8FOh.png

-- Nocompromises 16:12, 9 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

A list of attendees at the test has been posted.

http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusionefredda/ecat/ECAT_Presenze6ott11.pdf


Image:List123.JPG

-- Nocompromises 15:51, 9 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

Jed Rothwell, a long time cold fusion researcher, has submitted a very good post to the Vortex-L email list. In this post, he explains clearly why the test of the E-Cat proved that a massive amount of excess energy was produced. There are many skeptics on the net trying to find ways to deny the fact excess energy was produced, and the experiment was a success. However, Jed Rothwell has addressed each and every concern on the Vortex-L list. I suggest everyone go through the Vortex-L list archive, and review the posts he has made over the past couple of days.

Here is one of his latest submissions.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52546.html

[Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

Jed Rothwell Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:24:38 -0700

Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it. Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water.

I wrote to some friends complaining about the test. My conclusion:

Despite these problems . . . I think this test produced irrefutable proof of anomalous heat. Here is why I think so --

Look at the graph here:

304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg

Nothing happens until 13:22 when the steam begins to flow through the heat exchanger.

At 15:13 output is a little higher than input, even though there is a great deal of heat unaccounted for, especially the water from the condensed steam, which they poured down the drain.

At 15:50 the power is cut off. If there had been no source of anomalous heat, the power would have fallen off rapidly and monotonically, at the same rate it did after 19:55. It would have approached the zero line by 17:25. Actually, it would have approached zero before that, based on Newton's law of cooling. In other words, it would have been stone cold after 3 hours. During that time, 1.8 tons of water went through the cooling loop. It is inconceivable that an object of this size with no power input could have remained at the *same high temperature* the whole time. Yet Lewan reports that the surface of the reactor was still hot, and boiling could still be heard inside it.

As you see, the temperature did not fall. It went up at 16:26. The cooling water flow rate was unchanged, so only a source of heat could have caused this.

You can ignore the thermocouple data, and look only at the fact that it continued to boil for more than 3 hours after the power was turned off, and the reactor surface remained hot. That alone is rock solid proof.

It is possible that the placement of the outlet thermocouple was flawed, and it recorded a value midway between the outlet cooling water temperature and the steam in the pipe next to that. I do not think much heat can cross from the steam pipe to the water pipe next to it. Alan Fletcher did a rigorous analysis to demonstrate this. The thermal mass of the cooling water was much larger than the steam, so the average temperature was closer to the water than the steam. However, for sake of argument let us assume the temperature was too high. In that case, we can ignore the actual temperature and look only at the temperature trends. We can look at relative temperatures. Whatever the temperature was, it goes *up* after the power turns off. It stays up. It stays at a higher level than it was when the power was on! Even if the actual temperature was half this value, it still should have fallen monotonically, as I said.

This behavior is simply impossible without some source of heat, at some power level. I think that very little wicking from the hot water pipe occurred, so I expect the peak anomalous power was ~8 kW as shown in this graph.


(I also ran this analysis and my complaints past Rossi himself.)

- Jed

-- Nocompromises 15:34, 9 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

Except for the new information from Focus.it, the flow of news and updates has slowed down dramatically. I will keep an eye open for news to post here, but I expect that there will not be a lot to post. Although this test was a big success -- in that it proved cold fusion is a reality and excess energy was produced -- it does not seem to have broken into the mainstream media. For the most part, the mainstream media is still ignoring this test, and the E-Cat technology.

-- Nocompromises 13:40, 9 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

Articles from Focus (in Italian)

Written by scientific editor in chief Raymond Zreick who was present at the event

  • 6 OTTOBRE:
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/6-ottobre_PC12.aspx
  • I PREPARATIVI:
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/i-preparativi_19714201_PC12.aspx
  • L'ACCENSIONE:
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/l-accensione_PC12.aspx
  • AUTOSOSTENTAMENTO (3 ORE O 4?):
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/autosostentamento-3-ore-o-4_PC12.aspx
  • CHE COSA C'E' DENTRO ALL'E-CAT:
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/che-cosa-c-e-dentro-all-e-cat_PC12.aspx
  • COME INTERPRETARE I RISULTATI:
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/come-interpretare-i-risultati_PC12.aspx
  • LE DOMANDE DEL GIORNO DOPO:
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/le-domande-del-giorno-dopo_PC12.aspx

--Francesco 12:24, 9 October 2011 (PDT)

- -

About thermocouples et al.

The following comes from an individual that has contacted PESN. I do not find it accurate. I also totally dismiss the idea that the experiment "proved nothing." It provided absolute proof of a cold fusion reaction.

After consulting with various people and reading data reports it is unfortunate that the following has to be concluded. 1. Rossi specifically disallowed anyone to know the location of the output thermocouple. This is the same mistake Levi made in February. The thermocouple is not measuring the water flow temperature. It is measuring the temperature of the metal block in contact with the heater. 2. The rise of the temperature after turning off the power is clear evidence that the thermocouple is in the wrong position for taking data. It will never pass real scrutiny. 3. http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

Today I met up with some friends who study Physics with me at Padua University in Italy. The data presented in the NyTeknik report yields severe inconsistencies. We did some calculations and the major concern is that, even if the reactor is producing thermal energy during the allegedly self-sustaining phase, the maximum instantaneous thermal power is nearly 2.4 kW so nearly 31 MJ over 3:30 hours (which is indeed a remarkable energy output). We calculated this 2.4 kW from the NyTeknik specification regarding the hypothesized water vaporization rate of 0.91 g/s that the reactor should have produced and put inside the heat exchanger.

The problem aroused when we took a look at the Tout measurements: they're just junky because they're full of massive fluctuations. If we calculate how much thermal power it would have been required to heat up water with a flow of 0.178 l/s from 25°C (mean Tin) to more than 30°C (mean Tout) with a mean DeltaT of 6.34 (and not 4.2 as stated by NikTeknic) we found a required instantaneous power of: 5.23 kW which is more than the reactor could have been theoretically been able to put out, even if it was operating as a LENR reactor because of the vaporisation rate, which dictates the maximum energy output.

So the point is that 0.91 g/s is not enough to heat 0.178kg/s by 6.34° and even if you use the 4.2° factor instead, you get more than 3 kW of thermal power which is more than the reactor itself could have put out. Since we know that to vaporize 0.91 g of water every second you need at least 2.4 kW, if we assume that the heat exchanger was 100% efficient (fantasy), with a coolant flow of 0.178 l/s temperature should have rise by 3.23°C at most.

With all the flaws in the data and because of the fact that we don't know exactly where the temperature sensors were located and we do not know for sure the vaporization rate, this test actually proves nothing since with all the systematic errors and incorrect use of sensors, data is intrinsically flawed and thus useless for analysis. To prove once and for all that this is not another hoax, it should be sufficient to allow universities to put temperature sensors, flow meters and electrical measurement equipment wherever and whenever they want in the system.

After all, Rossi is making extraordinary claims which must be supported by extraordinary evidence and repeatable experiments.

-- Nocompromises 19:53, 9 October 2011 (PDT)

- - - -

Here is a post Rossi made on his forum.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=19#comment-93457

David Roberson, Good question, and opportune indeed. NOT ONLY I CONFIRM THAT I VERIFIED THAT THE WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE EXHAUST STREAM UNDER OPERATING CONDITIONS HAS BEEN MEASURED AND MATCHES THE READING SEEN ON THE TEST THERMOCOUPLES, BUT EVERYBODY CAN EASILY CHECK IT EVERYWHERE WITH FEW DOLLARS , WITHOUT ANY RISK: IN THE REPORT MADE BY NYTEKNIK THERE ARE THE PHOTOS OF THE CONNECTORS WHERE WE PUT THE THERMOCOUPLE; JUST GO IN ANY SHOP FOR PLUMBERS AND BUY THE SAME ARTICLE ( IT COSTS LESS THAN 10 $). ONCE YOU GOT IT, GO IN YOUR BATHROOM , CONNECT THE TOY WITH RUBBER HOSES ( ANY RUBBER HOSE) AND MAKE HOT WATER FLOW IN ONE ROW, AND COLD WATER FLOW IN THE OTHER, PUT AT THE OPPOSITE SIDE. ONCE YOU DID THIS, TAKE A THERMOMETER AND MEASURE THE TEMPERATURE IN THE EXACT PLACE WHERE WE PUT THE THERMOCOUPLE, THEN MEASURE THE TEMPERATURE AT A DISTANCE OF A COUPLE OF INCHES AFTER SUCH POSITION, ALONG THE WATER FLOW. IF YOU FIND ANY DIFFERENCE, LET ME KNOW: I NEVER DID . OF COURSE, THE MORE DISTANT YOU GO, THE MORE THE TEMPERATURE DECREASES, SO IT IS LOGIC THAT TO MEASURE THE POWER WE HAVE TO STAY IN PROXIMITY OF THE WATER FLOW EXIT. I WANT TO ADD THAT, TO ANSWER TO THE FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS MADE FROM THE SNAKES PAID BY THE USUAL WELL KNOWN TO DISCREDIT AND BLACKMAIL US (YES, I REPEAT: BLACKMAIL US):

1- THE CALCULATION OF ENERGY MADE BY THE SNAKES ARE EMBARRASSINGLY WRONG, JUST ANALYZE THE RATIO BETWEEN THE ENERGY INPUT AND THE ENERGY OUTPUT IN THE PUBLISHED REPORTS. BY HTE WAY: TO BE HONEST, THE REAL EFFICIENCY SHOULD BE CALCULATED AFTER 3 P.M., WHEN THE E-CAT WAS STABILIZED, BUT, NEVERTHELESS, ALSO BEFORE IT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY PRODUCED HAS BEEN MORE THAN THE CONSUMED…READ CAREFULLY THE PERIODS OF RESISTANCE SWITCH ON/SWITCH OFF DURING THE FIRST HOURS, BEFORE 3 P.M.: THE RESISTANCE HAS A POWER OF 2.5 Kw AT FULL LOAD, SO IF YOU MAKE IT GO 10 MINUTES YES AND 10 MINUTES NO YOU CONSUME 1.25 kWh/h, WHILE THE PRODUCTION WAS WELL ABOVE…AND WE WERE IN THE START UP UNSTABILIZED PHASE !!! AFTER THAT, WE WORKED WITH THE RESISTANCE FOR FEW MINUTES AND 3 AND A HALF HOURS WITHOUT RESISTANCE TURNED ON. EVERYBODY CAN READ IT VERY CLEARLY IN THE NYTEKNIK REPORT.

2- IT HAS BEEN FRAUDULENTLY WRITTEN IN THE BLOGS OF THE SNAKES THAT THE DEVICE HAS BEEN NOT WEIGHTED: FALSE, THE E-CAT AND ALSO THE COLORIMETRIC ASSEMBLY HAVE BEEN WEIGHTED BEFORE AND AFTER THE TEST, AND THIS IS CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE SAME REPORT OF NYTEKNIK: CLEARLY, THE SNAKES THINK THAT THEIR READERS ARE SO STUPID NOT TO BE ABLE TO READ THE REPORT, BUT, UNFORTUNATELY FOR THEM, IT IS NOT SO. I WANT TO UNDERLINE THAT NOT ONLY ALL HAS BEEN WEIGHTED, BUT ALSO THAT AT THE END OF THE TEST I HAVE DISASSEMBLED IN FRONT OF ALL THE ATTENDANTS ALL THE PIECES, AND TAKEN OFF THE INSULATION TO MAKE WELL CLEAR THAT EVERY COMPONENT WAS CLEAN, THAT THERE WERE NOT BATTERIES, OR ANY KIND OF POTENTIAL ENERGY SUPPLY INSIDE THE E-CAT AND INSIDE ALL THE OTHER COMPONENTS; FOR THIS REASON WE HAD TO STOP THE E-CAT, (WE FINISHED AROUND MIDNIGHT) OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO WORK ALONG THE SAME EFFICIENCY REACHED AFTER THE STABILIZATION. ALL THESE OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN FRONT OF HIGH LEVEL SCIENTISTS ARRIVED FROM: UNIVERSITY OF UPPSALA, UNIVERSITY OF PARIS, UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, US NAVY, RESEARCH CENTER OG CHINA, HIGH LEVEL INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS, UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS, AND I AM SURE I AM FORGETTING SOME: I ALLOWED ALL THIS PEOPLE TO BE PRESENT AN LOOK AT ALL THE OPERATIONS MADE DURING THE TEST: WEIGHTING, DISASSEMBLING, OPERATION, EVERYTHING! BESIDES: WEIGHTING ETC HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY US, TEMPERATURES HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROLLED BY US, BUT BY THE ATTENDANTS. A SNAKE HAS WRITTEN THAT INSIDE THE E-CAT THERE WAS DIESEL OIL TO BE BURNT………JUST LOOK AT THE WEIGHTS: AT THE END OF THE OPERATION THE E-CAT WEIGHTED SOME GRAM MORE THAT BEFORE THE OPERATION….

Thank you for your question, very useful. Warm Regards, A.R.


-- Nocompromises 09:29, 9 October 2011 (PDT)


Archive

October 9,10, 2011

Archived:

  • News:Archive:October 6, 2011 E-Cat Test Updates:Page 04

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Archived:

Friday, October 7, 2012

Archived:

October 5,6, 2011

Archived:

See also

E-CAT FOOTER

LENR FOOTER:

LENR NEWS, BLOGS, MAGAZINES:

LEADING LENR COMPANIES:

LENR GENRES:

RELATED:

NEWS FOOTER

NEWS BY TOPIC -->
Active: Best Exotic FE | Cold Fusion | Conspiracy | Electromagnetic OU | Events | Fuel Efficiency | Fundraisers | QMoGen | Plasma | Rossi Cold Fusion | Water as Fuel
Trickle: Alternative Fuels | Batteries | Electric Vehicles | Emergency Preparedness | Engines | Geothermal | Gravity Motors | Grid | Humor | Hydro | Hydrogen | Hydroxy / HHO | Inteligentry | Keshe | Magnet Motors | Nanotech | Open Source | Quantum | Solar | Storage | Tesla | Thermal Electric | Top 100 | Waste to Energy | Water | Wind | Zero Point Energy

- PESWiki main page

Personal tools

Departments
Related

Support
Toolbox