I haven’t posted about Rossi and his E-Cat since last August simply because there wasn’t much to report other than more of Rossi’s unsupported and infuriating claims that included building large-scale automated factories to churn out millions of E-Cats (the factories still have no sign of actually existing) through to unsubstantiated performance claims that sounded far too good to be true.
And from a link in that paper:
Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
(Submitted on 16 May 2013 (v1), last revised 20 May 2013 (this version, v2))
An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.
Note that any heat benefit was not measured, it is described as computed.
These quotes are based on the link provided by, er, hodson2k9. No agenda here.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
woodburner wrote:Note that any heat benefit was not measured, it is described as computed.
That's just semantics. The paper clearly reports that in both experiments, more heat was produced than could be accounted for by the electrical input energy. The power is only described as 'computed' as there's radiated and convected heat and several different regions of the device are measured with different emissivities.
Note, this paper hasn't been peer reviewed or accepted for publication yet, but the results it reports do show the device under test emitting a lot more energy than was input, and emitting a lot more energy than can be explained by any known chemical reaction going on inside (based on it's weight and volume).
woodburner wrote:From the link at the top of the page:
I haven’t posted about Rossi and his E-Cat since last August simply because there wasn’t much to report other than more of Rossi’s unsupported and infuriating claims that included building large-scale automated factories to churn out millions of E-Cats (the factories still have no sign of actually existing) through to unsubstantiated performance claims that sounded far too good to be true.
And from a link in that paper:
Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
(Submitted on 16 May 2013 (v1), last revised 20 May 2013 (this version, v2))
An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.
Note that any heat benefit was not measured, it is described as computed.
These quotes are based on the link provided by, er, hodson2k9. No agenda here.
Woodburner do me a favour and bore off, go burn some more wood or something, because you sir bore me considerably. More than anyone on this board infact!
Simply put i couldnt care less what you have to say your view is insignificant to me.
Last edited by hodson2k9 on 23 May 2013, 16:17, edited 1 time in total.
"Unfortunately, the Fed can't print oil"
---Ben Bernake (2011)
woodburner wrote:Note that any heat benefit was not measured, it is described as computed.
That's just semantics. The paper clearly reports that in both experiments, more heat was produced than could be accounted for by the electrical input energy. The power is only described as 'computed' as there's radiated and convected heat and several different regions of the device are measured with different emissivities.
Note, this paper hasn't been peer reviewed or accepted for publication yet, but the results it reports do show the device under test emitting a lot more energy than was input, and emitting a lot more energy than can be explained by any known chemical reaction going on inside (based on it's weight and volume).
Well thanks clv, because you put it better than i ever could.
"Unfortunately, the Fed can't print oil"
---Ben Bernake (2011)
woodburner wrote:From the link at the top of the page:
I haven’t posted about Rossi and his E-Cat since last August simply because there wasn’t much to report other than more of Rossi’s unsupported and infuriating claims that included building large-scale automated factories to churn out millions of E-Cats (the factories still have no sign of actually existing) through to unsubstantiated performance claims that sounded far too good to be true.
And from a link in that paper:
Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
(Submitted on 16 May 2013 (v1), last revised 20 May 2013 (this version, v2))
An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.
Note that any heat benefit was not measured, it is described as computed.
These quotes are based on the link provided by, er, hodson2k9. No agenda here.
Woodburner do me a favour and bore off, go burn some more wood or something, because you sir bore me considerably. More than anyone on this board infact!
Simply put i couldnt care less what you have to say your view is insignificant to me.
You seem to have difficulty with the English language, I didn't offer a view, I presented a couple of quotes from the paper to which you provided a link. If you have to respond as you did, it seems you are very insecure in your argument for cold fusion. (Now that is a view which I suspect you will confirm with a suitable worded reply.) Try presenting an argument for your case instead of throwing your toys out of the proverbial pram.
PS I'm flattered that I am top of your list on the forum
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
woodburner wrote:From the link at the top of the page:
And from a link in that paper:
Note that any heat benefit was not measured, it is described as computed.
These quotes are based on the link provided by, er, hodson2k9. No agenda here.
Woodburner do me a favour and bore off, go burn some more wood or something, because you sir bore me considerably. More than anyone on this board infact!
Simply put i couldnt care less what you have to say your view is insignificant to me.
You seem to have difficulty with the English language, I didn't offer a view, I presented a couple of quotes from the paper to which you provided a link. If you have to respond as you did, it seems you are very insecure in your argument for cold fusion. (Now that is a view which I suspect you will confirm with a suitable worded reply.) Try presenting an argument for your case instead of throwing your toys out of the proverbial pram.
PS I'm flattered that I am top of your list on the forum
Ok, Mr Treeburner, if thats what you want to think and thus makes you feel better, then good for you.
And thats great that your flattered, as your top of my list on a few traits
P.S i said view as you used quotes from my link to try and make a point. A point clv blew out the water.
E.T.A. and yes before you say, view was clearly the wrong word but as you obviously know my depth of vocabulary is rather low compared to most (if not all) on this board.
"Unfortunately, the Fed can't print oil"
---Ben Bernake (2011)
It might be better if people didn't get so bitchy with each other.
I've no idea whether there is anything useful in this work, but a few years ago I let a scientist use my garage and field for some cold fusion research that required a safe space as a lot of static electricity was involved. Sometimes one has to support things that have a low probability of success but a high return if successful. A bit like the opposite of avoiding low-probability high risk threats. I'm sure some folk would have regarded my scientist acquaintance as either a charlatan or nuts.
I like his general idea that the material, mechanistic view of the world that modern science assumes isn't the whole story. He outlines 10 scientific dogmas.
Looking at the paper it seems a strange way to go about measuring the system. I'm not a real science guy more practical engineering in product development. Thermal imaging seems to be a strange way to measure the setup, if I was looking at a gas burner I would build something to extract the heat and measure thermal increase over time.
I'm wondering why they chose an IR camera?
Really this only gets useful when they can extract heat and do something with it, quantify that versus the energy put in and I'll buy it. Until then I remain interested.
As I've said before Rossi clearly believes in his theory over and above the facts before his eyes. I suspect he believes so much that he is more than willing to help the data along a bit in order to prove he is right.
Sad really but it has interesting parallels with other branches of science.
All Rossi ever had to do was plug un-plug it and let it whiz along by itself and he would have more funding than he would ever need. That he refuses to do it tells you all you need to know about the current state of his experiment.
hodson2k9 wrote:
As for your point of surely he can just start
selling energy. It is obviously clear from the
3rd party indepentant tests that rossi is still
having issues with controlling his device.
does that just mean "it doesn't work"
"The stone age didn't end for a lack of stones"... correct, we'll be right back there.
