Changes

Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer (view source)

Revision as of 19:49, 6 May 2011

516 bytes added , 19:49, 6 May 2011

→‎Presentation on January 14, 2011

Line 74: Line 74:

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.

−

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. 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 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.

+

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.

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 they stated the heat input was 600 Watts, at an estimated output of 12,000 Watts (12 kW). 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:

+

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600 Watts, at an estimated output of 12,000 Watts (12 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:

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence; 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: 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 292 ml/min. (= 17.5 liter/h) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI P18" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h.<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>From JONP-Blog, Question to Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM 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. 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. 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. Thank you and best regards'' (Name) A. Rossi: Andrea Rossi January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM Dear (Name): 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: 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. 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. For this reason I thank you infinitely. Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>. The calculated heat output given by the team is far higher than actually possible with the pump visible in the video and therefore certainly wrong.. Assuming just a couple of percent condensed 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 (in which the temperature was above 100 degrees) 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 292 ml/min. (= 17.5 liter/h) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI P18" was used, this was declared later, in april 2011. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h.<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>From JONP-Blog, Question to Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM 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. 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. 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. Thank you and best regards'' (Name) A. Rossi: Andrea Rossi January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM Dear (Name): 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: 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. 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. For this reason I thank you infinitely. Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>. The calculated heat output given by the team is far higher than actually possible with the pump visible in the video and therefore certainly wrong. Also, the graph showing the heating power disproves the indication, that the heating power was 600 or 700 W. Assuming just a couple of percent condensed water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

The report about the experiment states that the used hydrogen cylinder has 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 between 13 kg and 16 kg. Available scales for the given range (for 20/30/60 kg) allow to read weight in 0.1 gram steps but there 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] 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] Kern CDS 15K0.05 15 kg d=0,05 g, e 0,25 g Adam Equipment PGL-20001 Precision Balance 20 kg d 0.1g, linearity (±): 0.4g</ref>

Starbuster

143

edits