Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?

[markdansie]

As was expected the recent testing of the Ecat has been heavily criticized
In this months Ny Teknik the headlines read


[size=2.9167em]Harsh criticism of report[/size][/color]

Energy measurement on the controversial energy unit E-cat, Which was published last week criticized now. [size=0.8667em]67 comments [/size]

[size=1.3333em]Wagering halted after testA group of Swedes were preparing an investment in the E-cat.[size=0.8667em]298 comments [/size]


I think this second article was published after last September's test results


Read more at
http://www.nyteknik.se/


you will need to translate.
Kind Regards
Mark

[markdansie]

The Discovery Channel's web site has come out with an article by Jesse Emspak (which features a large picture of Andrea Rossi at at its head) titled "5 Reasons Cold Fusion is Bunk".[/font]
The five reasons listed in the article for being skeptical about Rossi and the E-Cat are :[/font]
1. The Coulombe barrier — only possible with super high temperatures and massive brute force, such as in the stars)[/font]
2. Gamma Rays — two inches of lead shielding would be needed to stop 96 percent of gamma rays from a fusion reaction, and Rossi would be very sick if even only four percent of gamma rays escaped from his device. There didn't seem to be any shielding in his reactor.[/font]
3. Transmutation — there would need to be new elements coming out of the machine if cold fusion was occurring. Rossi said initially that nickel is being transmutated to copper — not even supernovas can do that)[/font]
4. Testing — during the test the reactor was never disconnected from the mains power even when their equipment measured no power was being consumed. The team did not test for a hidden DC wire.[/font]
5. Catalyst — Rossi has not disclosed the catalyst he is using claiming it is a trade secret and this is a red flag.[/font]

[markdansie]

Quote from New Energy Times
From: Dr. Alessio Guglielmi
To: Drs. Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
Dear Doctors Levi, Foschi, Hartman, Höistad, Pettersson, Tegnér and Essén,
I have read your recent manuscript `Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder´ on arXiv[/b] and I am very perplexed.
This brings me to asking another natural question: who will profit from the release of your manuscript? You do realize that Mr. Rossi sells distribution licenses and that he needs to convince customers to order some of his devices. There is no doubt that your manuscript will help his marketing efforts, but is this something that academics should do? Is it our job to help a private individual sell his stuff in the absence of solid, reproducible evidence?
In other words, I wonder whether you are adhering to scientific protocol and I wonder whether what you are doing is legitimate for academics. Other people questioned your technical ability, but I think that the ethical questions that I am posing here come first, also because they are more understandable by the layman. I trust that you appreciate my frankness, and I hope that you can prove my concerns unjustified.

[TinselKoala]

From the Essen Q&A:

> 3. Why was the "dummy" test carried out with different conditions
> regarding the supply of power, than the non "dummy" test?

It was not. It was carried out with everything as equal as possible.
The on/off mode was due to a thermostat that prevented the reactor
getting too hot and this was not relevant in the dummy test.

Did Essen actually not even read the paper that carries his name as an author?

From the paper:
Dummy:

This "unloaded" device
was subject to measurements performed after the 116-hr trial run, and was kept running for about
six hours. Instrumentation and data analysis were the same as those used for the test of the active
E-Cat HT2. We prefer to present the data relevant to the dummy beforehand, since these data
made it possible to perform a sort of "calibration" of the E-Cat HT2, as shall be pointed out
below.
The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box, but without the ON/OFF
cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was continuous.
Power to the dummy's resistor coils was stepped up gradually, waiting for the device to reach thermal
equilibrium at each step. In the final part of the test, the combined power to the dummy +
control box was around 910-920 W. Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the
instrument in single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on average, about
810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately =
110-120 W. At this power, the heat produced from the resistor coils alone determined an average
surface temperature (flange and "top" excluded) of almost 300 °C, very close to the average one
found in the same areas of the E-Cat HT2 during the live test.

HotCat:

The E-Cat HT2 was started approximately at 3:00 p.m. on March 18. The initial power input was
about 120 W, gradually stepping up in the course of the following two hours, until a value
suitable for triggering the self-sustaining mode was reached. From then onwards, and for the
following 114 hours, input power was no longer manually adjusted, and the ON/OFF cycles of
the resistor coils followed one another at almost constant time intervals. During the coil ON states,
the instantaneous power absorbed by the E-Cat HT2 and the control box together was visible on
the PCE-830 LCD display. This value, with some fluctuations in time, remained in any case
within a range of 910-930 W. By checking the video image relevant to the PCE-830 LCD
display, we were also able to estimate the length of the ON/OFF intervals: with reference to the
entire duration of the test, the resistor coils were on for about 35% of the time, and off for the
remaining 65%.

"Everything as equal as possible"?? Is Essen dissembling, or is he simply not an experimentalist at all? A bright ten-year-old child could have equated the conditions better. Of course if "Possible" means "What Rossi would allow", the situation is somewhat different, isn't it.

1. The dummy was the SAME UNIT that was run in the active test, but without the inner end caps. Therefore, the dummy had aged and used heater coils and did not have the same thermal mass as the active unit.
2. The dummy was only operated for six hours; the active unit was operated for at least 116 hours.
3. The electrical power to the "dummy" was continuous, stepped up gradually and the temperature was allowed to equilibrate at each step. The power to the active unit was applied and maintained very differently, according to the paper.
4. Nothing is said about ensuring that the environment was "equated" between the two runs. In a drafty warehouse, on the open, hung from a framework.... the only way to assure that the dummy and the active unit are equated environmentally is to run the TWO SEPARATE but identical-exept-for-fuel-charge units SIDE BY SIDE and simultaneously for the same time periods and receiving the _identical_ power schedules, and monitored on the SAME INSTRUMENT with the exact same calibrations.

There are more inequalities between the "dummy" and the active unit but these are enough to refute Essen's rather naive statement altogether.

By checking the video image relevant to the PCE-830 LCD
display, we were also able to estimate the length of the ON/OFF intervals:

This right here is enough to completely invalidate the entire paper. Any peer reviewer seeing this in a paper submitted for publication would toss it in the circular file right then and there. You are monitoring the power supplied to the unit with a two thousand dollar instrument, and then you "estimate" one of the most critical parameters of the whole "experiment" from a set of photos of its display.  What is the Italian word for FACEPALM ??

[profitis]

i find it very interesting that the temperatures of these ecats centre around the curie point of nickel(350degree).if those guys bash rossi up it wont affect the truth one iota because somebody else will replicate.if nobody replicates this effect then it might begin to smell like kaka.we demand replications from far and wide.