10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[AcesHigh]

Sorta like what you are doing, IMHO. Long odds that the fringe science you are supporting will pay off. But, support enough of 'em and eventually you will be right. Won't you look super baller?!?!

dont know if he will look super baller (after all, it seems people here have good memories and will call him on that), but the IMPORTANT thing is that if ANY of these is not a scam, we will have an energy revolution on this planet.

while BELIEVING in these is not the most wise thing to do, without better evidence, having HOPES that they are not scams, that they are real, is a sensible thing to do.

[raphael]

Giorgio, mind reading isn't involved. The process is called reading comprehension and requires an awareness of something called context.

Within the context of the article, my understanding of what was meant by the writer is the correct one.

Interestingly, from the same writer comes these words of wisdom.

"The tests lasted for two and three hours respectively and the total net energy developed was calculated to be 5.6 and 6.9 kWh (see report for April 19 and April 28).

As Professor Sven Kullander and Associate Professor Hanno Essén noted previously, the energy released is greater than can be generated by a chemical reaction in the reactor, which has an estimated volume of 50 cubic centimeters."

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/ny-tek ... lyzer.html

Bottom line, it looks like you boys are splitting hairs about test minutia and the like while failing to notice that there's a huge elephant in the living room; an elephant whose name is BIG HEAT.

http://www.genistra.com/wp-content/uplo ... gRoom2.jpg

[D Tibbets]

D Tibbets,

Note I wrote reports - plural.

It HAS been reported that the voltage was measured for each of the various trials.

I know posters on this blog like to pretend everybody involved with the E-Cat are idiots and while the experiments could have been conducted to rule out some fraud, the purpose of the demo was to show it worked and give some idea of the surplus energy generated. I doubt any experiment would convince the hardcore skeptics, so why bother?

Please provide a link to anyone that at least claimed they measured volts in the system.

PS: If the catalyst is the key to the syetem and patent, how about a picture of the innards of their electrical control box.

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

Again, I may have missed it, but what is the flow rate of the hydrogen gass in the system? Gas stoves make pretty good heaters.
Lets see, they are inputting a certain amount of ohmic heating, they are inputting a certain amount of hydrogen gas. A stupid question perhaps, but how much heat could be comming from combustion of the hydrogen gas?

I'm not certain how they might hide the air intake (through the exaust tube perhaps?) without it being too obvious, but it is another avenue that would need to be looked at.

Dan Tibbets

[MSimon]

1. The ammeter used to measure the input current, from which the total power consumption is calculated, were calibrated by us against other instruments.

It is a big no no in electrical measurements to calculate power from current readings only. If it is DC or quasi DC a multiplier (can be a computer rather than analog multiplier if the sampling rate is high enough and simultaneous samples (voltage and current) are taken.

For AC the same (with a higher sample rate - 100 to 1,000 times the input frequency (or more) depending on the power spectrum.

And why aren't they using a data logger? An old PC would do.

======

And they depend on turning the water into steam. Any water losses will show up as "energy output". How convenient. Why not just use more water?

5 KWh = 17,060 BTU which is enough to raise 1,000 lbs of water about 17F. Or 250 lbs of water 68F. If you like metric 113.5 Kg of water 37.78 deg C. That is 113. 5 liters or about 28 gallons. An old water heater tank suitably covered wit foam might provide good results.

======

the electrical resistor positioned around the reactor.

======

In the first test on April 19, the national Italian television channel RAI was present and its reportage will be broadcast on the channel RAI News (live streaming here) Thursday, May 5th at 20:35.

Because they are experts at experimental design and measurement problems.

In the second test on April 28 only Ny Teknik, the inventor Andrea Rossi, and a colleague of his were present

A real confidence builder there.

[Giorgio]

Again, I may have missed it, but what is the flow rate of the hydrogen gass in the system?

There is no Hydrogen flow.
They load few tens of a gram before starting the reactor than remove the connection.

[Giorgio]

Giorgio, mind reading isn't involved. The process is called reading comprehension and requires an awareness of something called context.

Unfortunately you did nothing of what you stated above.
Your attitude is more toward "wishful thinking" than "context awareness".

Within the context of the article, my understanding of what was meant by the writer is the correct one.

As stated above. You are being subjective toward the issue, and not objective. In science being subjective toward data results is the first step to get big delusions.
Regardless of Rossi being right or wrong this is something you need to work on if you intend to make science a part of your living.

Interestingly, from the same writer comes these words of wisdom.

"The tests lasted for two and three hours respectively and the total net energy developed was calculated to be 5.6 and 6.9 kWh (see report for April 19 and April 28).

I'll try to pass again the message one last time.
Calculated is not equal to verified.

[chrismb]

Rossi has no interest in answering questions about the weaknesses of his demonstration. Read into that what you should.

Even if he doesn't want to do a 'real' scientific experiment with objective measurements in it, there are other set-ups that would have been wholly more convincing.

For example;

If I were him and I wanted to convince people like me but I didn't want 'real numbers' to get studied I would:

Have two tables in the same room on which both have the same [type of] charged-up 12V battery with a rated capacity of 50Ah. [Either use 12V directly or through an inverter, the same model.] Both tables have a 25 litre tank of water at ambient temp.

One table has the Rossi thing with a pump that recirculates water through it, from and back into the tank. The other table has a heating element from the battery into the tank.

The tank of water with the battery only should heat up by a maximum of 20 deg C, which observers could come and test for themselves - and also check that heat isn't being dissipated elsewhere. [A Mark I finger would be a sufficiently accurate thermometer.]

If the Rossi reactor really does put out 5kW then the tank of water would start streaming water vapour once it got to around 85C which it should do within the hour, and be unmistakable.

The fact that Rossi does not appear to have ever considered running a null or control experiment should speak volumes to any sensible person observing these demonstrations. [Curiously, thus is the current human lust for energy combined with modern superstitious belief systems that such sensibilites are evidently set aside by people, as here.]

OK, so he's saying that he's found a customer....

...so did that tailor who made clothes for an Emperor!

Whether it works or not is almost immaterial to this thread; what should be the content of this thread is that no convincing demonstration has been done, and no [published] science has been done either.

[tomclarke]

Rossi has no interest in answering questions about the weaknesses of his demonstration. Read into that what you should.

Even if he doesn't want to do a 'real' scientific experiment with objective measurements in it, there are other set-ups that would have been wholly more convincing.

For example;

If I were him and I wanted to convince people like me but I didn't want 'real numbers' to get studied I would:

Have two tables in the same room on which both have the same [type of] charged-up 12V battery with a rated capacity of 50Ah. [Either use 12V directly or through an inverter, the same model.] Both tables have a 25 litre tank of water at ambient temp.

One table has the Rossi thing with a pump that recirculates water through it, from and back into the tank. The other table has a heating element from the battery into the tank.

The tank of water with the battery only should heat up by a maximum of 20 deg C, which observers could come and test for themselves - and also check that heat isn't being dissipated elsewhere. [A Mark I finger would be a sufficiently accurate thermometer.]

If the Rossi reactor really does put out 5kW then the tank of water would start streaming water vapour once it got to around 85C which it should do within the hour, and be unmistakable.

The fact that Rossi does not appear to have ever considered running a null or control experiment should speak volumes to any sensible person observing these demonstrations. [Curiously, thus is the current human lust for energy combined with modern superstitious belief systems that such sensibilites are evidently set aside by people, as here.]

OK, so he's saying that he's found a customer....

...so did that tailor who made clothes for an Emperor!

Whether it works or not is almost immaterial to this thread; what should be the content of this thread is that no convincing demonstration has been done, and no [published] science has been done either.

The whole Rossi reactor debacle shows the issues that exist when publicists who are not scientists make extravagant claims that people want to believe.

Who can tell Rossi's motivation (though I can guess!)? If he is even vaguely aware of the world, and wants funding, he must know a convincing demo would get him that easily and quickly. There has been none such, which tells me that either he is very stupid or his equipment cannot give a convincing demonstration. That, BTW, is an inclusive or.

We are all gullible in this respect. Just as with a good magician, I find myself thinking "well, how can it possibly not be what it looks like" even when my training allows me to analyse what is happening and see many of the ways in which it is worthless. (The experimental conditions are so badly controlled that I doubt I am seeing ALL the ways it could be worthless).

Best wishes, Tom

[rcain]

This whole Rossi-Focardi business is starting to make me quite angry. If they have something worthwhile, I believe they have a DUTY to show CREDIBLE evidence, and save us all this useless speculation. (Albeit the same could be said of EMC2/Polywell!). It is within their power.

Otherwise, a hearty slap on the back to any man who reveals the inner workings of their device (be it bona fide or fake) on the pages of WikiLeaks.

[cg66]

Please provide a link to anyone that at least claimed they measured volts in the system.

PS: If the catalyst is the key to the syetem and patent, how about a picture of the innards of their electrical control box.

Dan Tibbets

They did measure the voltage - look at the top of the both of Mats Lewan's April 19th and April 28th reports.

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... l+2011.pdf
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... l+2011.pdf

The video shows the ammeter was connected by the wall socket and there seems to be a single plug for the controller and heater.

[url]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVEBCN6D13w


In an email exchange with Mats he said he monitored the current every few minutes and never saw it vary by more than a tenth of an amp (1.5-1.6). Short of messing with the wall socket I’m not sure how the power delivered to the E-Cat via the controller/heater could be any more than what was reported. Thoughts?

[tomclarke]

Please provide a link to anyone that at least claimed they measured volts in the system.

PS: If the catalyst is the key to the syetem and patent, how about a picture of the innards of their electrical control box.

Dan Tibbets

They did measure the voltage - look at the top of the both of Mats Lewan's April 19th and April 28th reports.

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... l+2011.pdf
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... l+2011.pdf

The video shows the ammeter was connected by the wall socket and there seems to be a single plug for the controller and heater.

[url]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVEBCN6D13w


In an email exchange with Mats he said he monitored the current every few minutes and never saw it vary by more than a tenth of an amp (1.5-1.6). Short of messing with the wall socket I’m not sure how the power delivered to the E-Cat via the controller/heater could be any more than what was reported. Thoughts?

(1) by drawing current only at peak voltage you would get +40% power

Note that if you had standard thyristor-controlled power then a setting of approx 75% maximum would have this effect, though only 20% under-reading.

(2) By drawing pulses of current at high frequency you could get anomalous results. Whether larger or smaller than real would depend on ammeter used.

[cg66]

1) by drawing current only at peak voltage you would get +40% power

Note that if you had standard thyristor-controlled power then a setting of approx 75% maximum would have this effect, though only 20% under-reading.

(2) By drawing pulses of current at high frequency you could get anomalous results. Whether larger or smaller than real would depend on ammeter used.

So if you look at the April 28th data Mats Lewan calculated a net energy of 2.327 kW. If we focus on measurement errors we have:
1) tomclark's 40% error in power measurement = an additional 151W
2) collected water in output bucket – 5.4 kg – if never converted to steam means only 52% of the water was converted to steam (out of 11.16kg total). This would reduce net energy by around 1142W.
This leaves a little over 1kW net (2327 – 151 – 1142).
Any other possible sources of measurement error? Is the adjustment for steam too high/too low? I know this doesn’t rule out fraud just looking for possible measurement errors in the setup of the April tests.

[Giorgio]

1) by drawing current only at peak voltage you would get +40% power

Note that if you had standard thyristor-controlled power then a setting of approx 75% maximum would have this effect, though only 20% under-reading.

(2) By drawing pulses of current at high frequency you could get anomalous results. Whether larger or smaller than real would depend on ammeter used.

So if you look at the April 28th data Mats Lewan calculated a net energy of 2.327 kW. If we focus on measurement errors we have:
1) tomclark's 40% error in power measurement = an additional 151W
2) collected water in output bucket – 5.4 kg – if never converted to steam means only 52% of the water was converted to steam (out of 11.16kg total). This would reduce net energy by around 1142W.
This leaves a little over 1kW net (2327 – 151 – 1142).
Any other possible sources of measurement error? Is the adjustment for steam too high/too low? I know this doesn’t rule out fraud just looking for possible measurement errors in the setup of the April tests.

The main area for potential errors is in measuring the theoretical power output considering all the input water transformed into steam.
To make a valid test they should simply heat water at no more than 85C.
This simple operation will remove a huge potential error and will add a lot more credibility to the experiment.
In case they need high temperature inside the reactor chamber they can use a high temperature thermal oil. They are stable up to 500C and more.

[parallel]

What a load of codswallop!
Just to set the record straight here is where I stand:

1. All the more obvious ways for fraud have been ruled out by one or more of the various demonstrations. Even quibbling about the power input measurement makes little sense as the possible error is far below the measured heat generated. Too many competent people have been allowed to inspect the experimental setup and scientists like Dr. Levi are unlikely to jeapodize careers for a month's fame.

2. Give Ing. Rossi the benefit of the doubt on what he says until proven otherwise. He says he is not interested in demonstrations beyond customer feedback that the E-Cat performs to spec. He has no incentive to please people like chrismb. He says he is busy building the promised 1 MW plant for a customer who will not pay him unless it works. He says he has had an E-Cat in continuous operation for two years. Is it beyond the ability of the press to check that out?

3. Rossi has no duty to give away his invention to the world. I forecast he will have endless troubles with patents and as far as I know the US Patent Office still will not even review a patent based on cold fusion. I hope he leaves it to his patent attorney and tries to stay out of the mess himself. He is doing the right thing commercially to keep the catalyst a trade secret as long as he can.

4. Mainstream academia is against him. History shows that even MIT reportedly cooked the books on replicating Pons & Fleischmann. There is a LOT of money riding on hot fusion that has been and will be protected to keep grants coming. There is no satisfactory theory to explain the anomalous heat from any of the cold fusion setups. Some senior scientists like John R Huizenga of DOE have made careers out of debunking cold fusion.

5. I won't know if Rossi's E-Cat performs as well as he claims until (or if) the 1 MW plant surfaces by the end of the year. Nor will anyone else on this blog without more information than currently available.
However I am persuaded that cold fusion is real. It is a matter of whether it produces enough heat to be useful. I find several posters to be needlessly insulting in their remarks about Ing. Rossi. Speculate all you want but keep it civil.