143
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 82:
Line 82: − + + + − +
→Presentation on January 14, 2011
During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600 Watts, at a calculated output of 12,000 Watts (12 kW). But according to a published report, actual mean average power was 1022 W. An re-alaysis of published values for heating power shows 1073 W.<ref>http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7</ref> Electrical heating 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 °C to 101 °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:
During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600 Watts, at a calculated output of 12,000 Watts (12 kW). But according to a published report, actual mean average power was 1022 W. An re-alaysis of published values for heating power shows 1073 W.<ref>http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7</ref> Electrical heating 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 °C to 101 °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 > 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].''
:''[...] 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].''
Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 13,66 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: 13,66 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]
[[image:Rf_14012011_8.jpg|Alternative calculation explaining the reported values without cold fusion(Source: unknown autor "Ascoli65" aus from Italian forum EnergeticAmbiente.it)|480px|thumb]]
[[image:Rf_14012011_8.jpg|Alternative calculation explaining the reported values without cold fusion(Source: unknown autor "Ascoli65" aus from Italian forum EnergeticAmbiente.it)|480px|thumb]]
'''Inconsistencies''': Several incomprehensible pieces of information were given shortly 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 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 C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The claimed water throughput of 292 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 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>.
'''Inconsistencies''': Several incomprehensible pieces of information were given shortly 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 17 minutes (where temperature was above 100 degrees) shorter than claimed (40 minutes), 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 C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The claimed water throughput of 292 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 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 l/h for the LMI 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 per minute. At 100 strokes/min maximum throughput is reached. In one of the YouTube-videos from the presentation on January 14, 2011 pump strokes are clearly audible for 30 seconds.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref> Counting them gives 29 or 30 strokes in those thirty seconds. The pump was regulated to 59 to 60 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 W instead of 600 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 manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h for the LMI 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 per minute. At 100 strokes/min maximum throughput is reached. In one of the YouTube-videos from the presentation on January 14, 2011 pump strokes are clearly audible for 30 seconds.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref> Counting them gives 29 or 30 strokes in those thirty seconds. The pump was regulated to 59 to 60 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 W instead of 600 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 kg. Available scales for the given range (for 20/30/60 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 to 0.4 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>
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 kg. Available scales for the given range (for 20/30/60 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 to 0.4 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>