Changes

==History==

==History==

[[image:RF_Ferrara.jpg|First experiments with a predecessor of the "ECat" by EON in Bondeno(Ferrara). On the right the "reactor", cooled in a bucket of water, can be seen. (Picture: S. Focardi, May 2011 [http://it.paperblog.com/la-fusione-fredda-e-tornata8230-371137/])|350px|thumb]]

[[image:RF_Ferrara.jpg|First experiments with a predecessor of the "ECat" by EON in Bondeno(Ferrara). On the right the "reactor", cooled in a bucket of water, can be seen. (Picture: S. Focardi, May 2011 [http://it.paperblog.com/la-fusione-fredda-e-tornata8230-371137/])|350px|thumb]]

"Anomalies" when adding hydrogen to nickel are reported since 1936. 1989 was marked by wide media attention to cold fusion as a result of the claims regarding failed experiments by Fleischmann and Pons. In the same year, Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli (University Siena) believed to have incidentally observed a strong heat emission with temperatures above 1,450°&nbsp;C during an experiment with organic material which came into contact with nickel and hydrogen(nickel is used in industry as a catalyst for fat hardening with hydrogen), which he could not explain. The incident was reported by several Italian daily papers. In 1995, Piantelli received a "Truffle Prize" for his observations during a "Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals".<ref>"Truffle Prize", second Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals, 1995</ref>  Various workgroups have made experiments with electrolysis and with nickel and hydrogen since then.

"Anomalies" when adding hydrogen to nickel are reported since 1936. 1989 was marked by wide media attention to cold fusion as a result of the claims regarding failed experiments by Fleischmann and Pons. In the same year, Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli (University Siena) believed to have incidentally observed a strong heat emission with temperatures above 1,450°&nbsp;C during an experiment with organic material which came into contact with nickel and hydrogen(nickel is used in industry as a catalyst for fat hardening with hydrogen), which he could not explain. The incident was reported by several Italian daily papers. In 1995, Piantelli received a "Truffle Prize" for his observations during a "Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals".<ref>"Truffle Prize", second Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals, 1995</ref>  Various workgroups have made experiments with electrolysis and with nickel and hydrogen since then.

[[image:Ecat_power.jpg|heating power|thumb]]

[[image:Ecat_power.jpg|heating power|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 P18" (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|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 P18" (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&nbsp;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&nbsp;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. During the press conference the function of the reactor was demonstrated for about an hour (55&nbsp;minutes) in an adjoining room. An analysis of the recorded measurements which can be seen on the screen of a notebook for a couple of seconds allow to estimate a duration of  15&nbsp;to 20&nbspminutes where a water temperature of 100&nbsp;degrees or more were reached. (see picture). In the report about the experiment the data which can be seen on the notebook are omitted.  It also speaks of a duration of 40&nbsp;minutes, obviously the whole duration including heating up is meant. To calculate the heat output inadvertent or deliberately incorrect values of the water throughput were made, which was in truth less than half of the said amount. The inventors reported about their experiment in their blog<ref>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360</ref>, and published three Youtube videos in Italian language [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc].

During the press conference the function of the reactor was demonstrated for only a few minutes in an adjoining room. Varying durations for the experiment between 15 and 40 minutes are available. As far as can be seen from the graph of the heating power, the reactor was heated for 55 minutes (sse image). A close look at the measured data on the screen of a laptop allow to conclude that for a duration of 15 to 20 minutes the water temperature was close to or higher than 100 degrees (see image). In the report about the experiment the data, which are seen on the notebook are omitted. It also speaks of a duration of 40 minutes, obviously the whole duration including heating up is meant. The values given about the water throughput which were used for calculating the heat output were inadvertent or deliberately incorrect and in truth less than half of the said amount. The same is true regarding the heating power.

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600&nbsp;Watts, at a calculated output of 12,000&nbsp;Watts (12&nbsp;kW). Actual mean average power was around 1073&nbsp;W.<ref>http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7</ref> Power used was between 400 and 1500 W. The inventors calculated their estimation of generated heat from the heated water: 292&nbsp;grammes of water per minute were heated from 20&nbsp;°C to 101&nbsp;°C (dry vapour) and evaporated. The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements. They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma radiation was denied for secrecy reasons. A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes. Excerpt from the report:

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ&nbsp;> 200&nbsp;keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;<br>regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings and other industrial secrets, the γ&nbsp;rates measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].''

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 13,66&nbsp;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]

The inventors reported about their experiment in their blog<ref>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360</ref>, and published three Youtube videos in Italian language [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc].

'''Inconsistencies:''' Several incomprehensible pieces of information were given after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said pieces. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20&nbsp;minutes (where temperature was above 100 degrees) shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventors and operators of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made assuming 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&nbsp;C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The claimed water throughput of 292&nbsp;ml/min. (= 17.5 liter/h) was doubted too, since the used pump has only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI&nbsp;P18" was used, which was confirmed in May 2011 by the Swedish reporter Mats Lewan. Several previous inquiries about the type of the pump were not answer by Andrea Rossi.<ref>From JONP-Blog, Question to 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>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 manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1&nbsp;l/h for the  LMI&nbsp;P18.<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. Water throughput of these programmable peristaltic pumps can be regulated. The number of strokes per minute and the pumped volume can be regulated separately. The maximal number of strokes is 100&nbsp;per minute. At 100&nbsp;strokes/min maximum throughput is reached. In one of the YouTube-videos from the presentation on January&nbsp;14, 2011 pump strokes are clearly audible for 30&nbsp;seconds.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref> Counting them gives 29&nbsp;or 30&nbsp; strokes in those thirty seconds. The pump was regulated to 59&nbsp;to 60&nbsp;strokes/minute, which corresponds to 60% of maximal flow rate. Thus the heat output calculated by the team is 240% higher than the actually possible output using the pump shown in the video and certainly wrong. Because of the wrong claim about the mean average powerg (1.073&nbsp;W instead of 600&nbsp;W)  an additional grave error of 78% has to be added. Assuming just a couple of percent condensed water in the vapour would allow to explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

The report about the experiment states that the used hydrogen cylinder had been weighted before and after the test to establish the amount of used hydrogen with less than a gram margin. For the weight of the pressure cylinder different values are given, but it is said to have been 13,66&nbsp;kg. Available scales for the given range (for 20/30/60&nbsp;kg) allow to read weight in 0.1 gram steps but their precision is far less. Possible scales offer just a precision of 0.2&nbsp;to 0.4&nbsp;gram.<ref>Sartorius (CPA34001S) 34 kg d=0,1 gr e 0,2 gr.[http://www.sartorius-mechatronics.com/DE/de/praezisions-waage-dy3xpfyyb7o.html]<br>Precisa 490K 34000D, 34 kg d=0,1 gr e 0,2 gr [http://www.as-waegetechnik.de/produkte/Industriewaagen/iw/praezisionswaagen_assets/Precisa%20490.pdf]<br>Kern CDS 15K0.05 15 kg d=0,05 g, e 0,25 g<br>Adam Equipment PGL-20001 Precision Balance 20 kg d 0.1g, linearity (±):  0.4g</ref>

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600&nbsp;Watts, at an estimated output of 12,000&nbsp;Watts (12&nbsp;kW). In reality, the mean average power was around 1073 W.<ref>http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7</ref> Power used was between 400 and 1550 W. The inventors calculated their estimation of generated heat from the heated water: 292 grammes of water per minute were heated from 20 degrees to 101 degrees (dry vapour) and evaporated. The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements. They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma radiation was denied due to secrecy reasons. A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes. Excerpt from the report:

==Undocumented experiment on February&nbsp;10/11, 2011==

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;<br>regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].''

On February&nbsp;10 or 11, 2011 a further "internal test" of the „E-Cat“ was carried out in Bologna, attended by allegedly "independent" physics lecturer Guiseppe Levi from Bologna University. Several sources in the Internet claim that the test had happened on February&nbsp;18, 2011 instead. Sole witness was physicist Levi, leader of a physics faculty research group that got financial support for their aid in the project.  Levi was also responsible for the poor report regarding the test in January. According to Guiseppe Levi's description, published in a Swedish online article titled ''"Cold Fusion: 18&nbsp;hour test excludes combustion"''<ref>Mats Lewan: ''Cold Fusion: 18&nbsp;hour test excludes combustion'', "nyteknik.se", article from February 23, 2011. [http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece Text]</ref>, a hose connected the device this time to a water tap in order to cool the "reactor". Tap water was said to have flown through the device at about 1&nbsp;liter per second and was warmed by 5&nbsp;degrees. Obviously this test was done to counter the criticism of the the test conditions in January. The test was said to have run continuously for 18&nbsp;hours, a water meter had quantified the flow and it was monitored by video during the night. The "reactor" was allegedly heated up for ten minutes with 1,250&nbsp;Watts initially and subsequently only a control unit was supplied with 80&nbsp;Watts, while an alleged constant thermal performance of 15-20&nbsp;Kilowatt was established. According to Levi a 0.4 gram hydrogen were used in those 18&nbsp;hours. The same source quotes Levi with the remark that he excluded "chemical energy sources" as heat source now:

:''...Now that I have seen the device work for so many hours, in my view all chemical energy sources are excluded..''.  

:''...Now that I have seen the device work for so many hours, in my view all chemical energy sources are excluded..''.  

Supporters of so-called "[[Cold Fusion]]" (LENR ''Low Energy Nuclear Reactions'' - CANR ''Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions'') calculated an alleged accumulated output of thermal energy at 270-288&nbsp;kWh (about one GJ) which was compared to the energy of 26 litres of heating oil.<ref>To cite:<br>News<br>Rossi 18-hour demonstration<br>

The alleged heat output was calculated by supporters of [[Cold Fusion]] (LENR ''Low Energy Nuclear Reactions'' - CANR ''Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions'') to be 270-288&nbsp;kWh (about one GJ), which has compared to the energy of 26&nbsp;litres of heating oil.<ref>Zitat:<br>News<br>Rossi 18-hour demonstration<br>

<br>

<br>

February 2011<br>

February 2011<br>

18&nbsp;hours * 16&nbsp;kWh = 288&nbsp;kWh = 1,037&nbsp;MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26&nbsp;kg of gasoline (7.9&nbsp;gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.<br>

18&nbsp;hours * 16&nbsp;kWh = 288&nbsp;kWh = 1,037&nbsp;MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26&nbsp;kg of gasoline (7.9&nbsp;gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.<br>

<br>

<br>

Levi et&nbsp;al. are expected to write another paper about this test. We will upload it when it becomes available. NyTeknik published a fascinating description of the latest experiment (in English). This includes new details, such as the fact that the power briefly peaked at 130&nbsp;kW. NyTeknik also published an interview with two outside experts about the demonstration: Prof. Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. Two versions are available, in English and Swedish.<br>LENR-CANR Org. News of February 2011. [http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm]</ref> Assuming an average output of 17 kW (the input of electrical energy for pre-heating and control may be neglected) over 18 hours actually renders about 300 kWh arithmetically speaking. The fuel value of 1 litre of oil is at about 10 kWh<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_oil</ref> so that in terms of figures, an amount of 30 litres may be calculated to produce the same heat quantity.

Levi et&nbsp;al. are expected to write another paper about this test. We will upload it when it becomes available. NyTeknik published a fascinating description of the latest experiment (in English). This includes new details, such as the fact that the power briefly peaked at 130&nbsp;kW. NyTeknik also published an interview with two outside experts about the demonstration: Prof. Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. Two versions are available, in English and Swedish.<br>LENR-CANR Org. News von Februar 2011. [http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm]</ref>

Assuming an average output of 17&nbsp;kW (the input of electrical energy for pre-heating and control may be neglected) over 18&nbsp;hours actually renders about 300&nbsp;kWh arithmetically speaking. The fuel value of 1 litre of oil is at about 10 kWh<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_oil</ref> so that in terms of figures, an amount of 30&nbsp;litres may be calculated to produce the same heat quantity.

Since the volume of the visible devices can be estimatet, interested parties in the Internet(Usenet) tried to find candidates for a known chemical reaction which could be done in the given volume and produces enough heat while having no problems with smoke emission, toxicity, costs and controllability. While a normal chemical reaction can indeed not be ruled out for the first demonstration in January, a replacement candidate for the alleged 18 hour experiment in February could not be found. The volume of the external control unit is said to be about 60 litres, but according to Levi contained only electronics. He estimated the actual reaction chamber at a volume of about 1 liter; the shielding is said to be a layer of 2 cms of lead with an overall weight of 30 kgs.

Since the volume of the visible devices can be estimated, interested parties in the Internet(Usenet) tried to find candidates for a known chemical reaction which could be done in the given volume and produces enough heat while having no problems with smoke emission, toxicity, costs and controllability. While a normal chemical reaction can indeed not be ruled out for the first demonstration in January, a replacement candidate for the alleged 18 hour experiment in February could not be found. The volume of the external control unit is said to be about 60&nbsp;litres, but contained only electronics according to Levi . He estimated the actual reaction chamber at a volume of about 1 litre. The shielding is said to be a layer of 2&nbsp;cms of lead with an overall weight of 30&nbsp;kgs.

Criticized was also the placement of the probe, which was supposed to measure the heat of the water during the test. The probe was inserted from outside the "reactor" and might have come into contact with an inner heating resistor which would have made an assessment of the heat output impossible. Further criticism was targeted at the start temperature which might even have been below the (unknown) room temperature, which complicates the interpretation of the data even more.

Criticized was also the placement of the probe, which was supposed to measure the heat of the water during the test. The probe was inserted from outside the "reactor" and might have come into contact with an inner heating resistor which would have made an assessment of the heat output impossible. Further criticism was targeted at the start temperature which might even have been below the (unknown) room temperature, which complicates the interpretation of the data even more.