Line 1: |
Line 1: |
− | <pre>Article is in translation and unfinished</pre>
| + | [[image:Rossi_Focardi.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (picture "La Repubblica"). A (yellow) dosimetric pump of the type "LMI P1" or "J5" can be seen in the foreground (maximum flow: 12.1 or 7.6 l/h) switched at 60% flow rate.|thumb]] |
− | [[image:Rossi_Focardi.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (picture "La Repubblica"). A (yellow) dosimetric pump of the type "LMI J5" can be seen in the foreground (maximum flow: 7.6 l/h).|thumb]] | |
| The '''Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer''' (also ''E-Cat'' or ''Rossi Energy Amplifier'' or just ''Rossi energy catalyzer'') is an alleged compact fusion reactor based on an assumed [[Cold Fusion]] technology which is planned to be brought to market in 2011. While allegedly using no more than several hundred Watts in electrical heating energy, it is said to emit a heat output capacity of more than 10 kW. After reaching operating temperature the electrical heating is said to be turned off, the released heat should keep the process going. According to Italian inventors, alleged engineer(see below) Andrea Rossi<ref>Rossi: ''I am a doctor in the Philosophy of Science and Engineering from the Universita’ Degli Studi Di Milano''</ref>, cold fusion <ref>Andrea Rossi and Professor emeritus in physics Sergio Focardi in their patent application, Page 12: ''the reaction actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.''</ref> of hydrogen and nickel was taking place in the reactor, leading to the formation of copper. As a side-effect of the reaction, ionizing radiation is said to be emitted, which was disproved by independent parties.<ref>http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf</ref> So far, attempts to replicate the experiment independently failed. The latest (partially public) presentations took place from mid-January to end of March 2011. The respective experiments show several methodological weaknesses. A Greek business newspaper announced in March 2011 that the concept is central to a speculative investment-deal of several hundred million Euro. Inventor Rossi stated in April 2011 to have won a major customer in USA, whose identity may not be revealed due to clauses in the contract. | | The '''Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer''' (also ''E-Cat'' or ''Rossi Energy Amplifier'' or just ''Rossi energy catalyzer'') is an alleged compact fusion reactor based on an assumed [[Cold Fusion]] technology which is planned to be brought to market in 2011. While allegedly using no more than several hundred Watts in electrical heating energy, it is said to emit a heat output capacity of more than 10 kW. After reaching operating temperature the electrical heating is said to be turned off, the released heat should keep the process going. According to Italian inventors, alleged engineer(see below) Andrea Rossi<ref>Rossi: ''I am a doctor in the Philosophy of Science and Engineering from the Universita’ Degli Studi Di Milano''</ref>, cold fusion <ref>Andrea Rossi and Professor emeritus in physics Sergio Focardi in their patent application, Page 12: ''the reaction actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.''</ref> of hydrogen and nickel was taking place in the reactor, leading to the formation of copper. As a side-effect of the reaction, ionizing radiation is said to be emitted, which was disproved by independent parties.<ref>http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf</ref> So far, attempts to replicate the experiment independently failed. The latest (partially public) presentations took place from mid-January to end of March 2011. The respective experiments show several methodological weaknesses. A Greek business newspaper announced in March 2011 that the concept is central to a speculative investment-deal of several hundred million Euro. Inventor Rossi stated in April 2011 to have won a major customer in USA, whose identity may not be revealed due to clauses in the contract. |
| | | |
Line 64: |
Line 63: |
| | | |
| ==Presentation on January 14, 2011== | | ==Presentation on January 14, 2011== |
− | [[image:FAE4.jpg|Video of an experiment taking several minutes during a public presentation on January 14, 2011 (Source: [http://curiositybox.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/bologna-14111-cronaca-test-fusione-fredda-del-reattore-nichel-idrogeno-focardi-rossi/ Curiosity-Blog])|300px|left|thumb]][[image:RF_Dauer2.jpg|Screenshot from a video of the experiment used to estimate its duration|thumb]][[image:RF_Thermometer.jpg|Comparison of the shown probe to a HP474AC probe (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|thumb]][[image:RF_Pumpe.jpg|Specifications of the used pump "LMI J5" (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|thumb]] | + | [[image:FAE4.jpg|Video of an experiment taking several minutes during a public presentation on January 14, 2011 (Source: [http://curiositybox.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/bologna-14111-cronaca-test-fusione-fredda-del-reattore-nichel-idrogeno-focardi-rossi/ Curiosity-Blog])|300px|left|thumb]][[image:RF_Dauer2.jpg|Screenshot from a video of the experiment used to estimate its duration|thumb]][[image:RF_Thermometer.jpg|Comparison of the shown probe to a HP474AC probe (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|thumb]][[image:RF_Pumpe.jpg|Specifications of the used pump "LMI J5" (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|thumb]] |
| Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi gave a press conference on January 14, 2011 which was not only attended by Italian public television station RAI (RAI 3) and numerous journalists, but also by several physicists from universities. The presentation was done in rooms rented from the company "GM System" in an industrial area of Bologna<ref>Company GM System, Via dell'Elettricista 16, Bologna</ref> and not in rooms of the Bologna University as claimed on various places in the internet. | | Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi gave a press conference on January 14, 2011 which was not only attended by Italian public television station RAI (RAI 3) and numerous journalists, but also by several physicists from universities. The presentation was done in rooms rented from the company "GM System" in an industrial area of Bologna<ref>Company GM System, Via dell'Elettricista 16, Bologna</ref> and not in rooms of the Bologna University as claimed on various places in the internet. |
| | | |
Line 76: |
Line 75: |
| Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 18.6 kgs or according to other sources more than 13 kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme, not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf] | | Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 18.6 kgs or according to other sources more than 13 kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme, not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf] |
| | | |
− | '''Inconsistencies:''' Several incomprehensible informations were given after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said informations. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20 minutes shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventor and operator of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made based on dry vapour without fractions of condensed water which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The throughput of water claimed at 29 mls/min. (= 17.5 liter/min) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI J5" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 7.6 liter/h.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> The calculated heat output given by the team is more than twice as high as actually possible with the pump visible in the video. Assuming just a couple of percent condensated water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating. | + | '''Inconsistencies:''' Several incomprehensible informations were given after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said informations. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20 minutes shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventor and operator of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made based on dry vapour without fractions of condensed water which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The throughput of water claimed at 29 mls/min. (= 17.5 liter/min) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI P1" or "LMI J5" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h (LMI P18) and 7.6 liter/h (LMI J56).<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> Other models (A/B/C) of LMI pumps can be ruled out, as they they look different. The pump strokes are audible in a Youtube video<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref>. The pump was switched to 60 strokes/minute, which corresponds to 60% of maximal flow rate (60% of 12.1 or 7,6 l/h). Rossi was asked in january 2011 which type of pump was used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model.<ref>Aus dem JONP-Blog, Frage an Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM<br>Excuse, Dr. Levi, my insistence, but on the lack of an answer to my previous question, let me temporarily assume that the model of the pump used in the January 14th test belongs actually to the Milton Roy LMI Series P1.<br>In such a case, the capacity per stroke could be at maximum 2 ml (model P18 in the Series P1). Now, considering that the pump has been operated at about 57 strokes per minute (hear sound at the beginning of movie 2/3), it makes a maximum water flow rate of 114 ml per minute, that would be 39% only of the value indicated in your preliminary report.<br>Probably, I have got a bad impression and the pump was another one. So I think it would be of great importance, if you could gather and kindly specify, here and/or on the final version of your report, the real specific model and the relevant operating data of the water pump used in your verification test.<br>Thank you and best regards'' (Name)<br><br>Antwort von A. Rossi:<br>Andrea Rossi<br>January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM<br>Dear (Name):<br>I do not know which kind of pump it was, because it has been chosen by the testers, but what I can say, regarding your comment, is:<br>1- the amount of the flow of water has been tested many times during the test, filling a reservoir with a well known volume and taking the time to fill it up.<br>2- I thank you very much for validating our test by redundance: in fact, if only the 39% of the measured flow should have been passed, the reactor would have produced 4.8 kWh, consuming 400 Wh. I am sure that you, being an engineer of a great energy provider, know the first and also the second thermodynamic principle, therefore I am sure you made your comment to congratulate us.<br>For this reason I thank you infinitely.<br>Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>. The calculated heat output given by the team is more than twice as high as actually possible with the pump visible in the video. Assuming just a couple of percent condensated water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating. |
| | | |
| ==Undocumented experiment on February 10/11, 2011== | | ==Undocumented experiment on February 10/11, 2011== |