Cold fusion device in production

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by quantum_wave, Apr 26, 2011.

  1. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    April 23.

    Professor Sven Kullander says the nickel and copper are identical to natural nickel and copper. Rossi fails to elucidate.

    April 6.
    Do not confuse a professor emeritus's measured evaluation with endorsement of the claims. When the professor says "märkligt" -- he means "remarkable, strange, surprising, and requires verification."
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    There is also one other possibility - that he has hoodwinked HIMSELF into believing it really works. I think that was truly the case with Fleischmann–Pons at the beginning.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Not likely. The reported gain (>30x) is simply too great and he's done it too many times and with two different size reactors to claim that the huge gain he is getting was due to a simple measurement error.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Notice the way the figures are reported.
    The output figures are peak power.
    The input figures are continuous power.

    What is the total energy input and output?
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Roger that, lol. But my suspicion is that there will be some leaks, either related to the undisclosed details of the device or about the meaning of the comment posted in the discussion treads linked to earlier:

    Phillip Newell
    April 18th, 2011 at 8:17 PM
    Dr. Rossi,

    I have now obtained the Ni samples from our sputter chambers, if you want I will share the info but would prefer to do so in private. You have my e-mail send me yours and I will pass on the information after the ICPMS results are in.

    Best Regards

    Phil Newell


    But you are right, time will tell. I wonder what Newell means by ICPMS results?
  9. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I agree, it also could be that their initial analysis of the sample wasn't accurate enough.

    I believe they are looking at that part of it to confirm as that would exclude a reaction as we know it.

    If it's real and that is the resulting sample then it's a new reaction. It can't be both real and an expected reaction with the sample outcome as natural, from what I understand. So either the sample is tainted, or not accurately identified or it's a new reaction.
  10. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Yes that was/is a possibility but the more people look at it and either confirm or deny that the numbers are at least close the more that possibility fades.

    This is why I am still following, a few more independents have confirmed. The more of them that confirm the less likely it's false because then we are starting to get into conspiracy theories that all of these scientists are involved in the scam or the delusion.

    I believe that any scientist who would be involved in the test would want it on the level to avoid looking like a fool for endorsing it's outcome. It appears at least Levi has done so on the 18 hour test, so then we would have to include him in the delusion.
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    This was posted yesterday on Midas Oracle.Org:

    Some interesting videos and links I hadn't seen and some familiar (in case you haven't had enough. It will be ongoing for awhile).

    Last edited: Apr 27, 2011
  12. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Sven Kullander considers this to be evidence of a nuclear reaction unless the sample has been adulterated. But he doesn't know anything first-hand, since only Rossi manipulates the device and provides the samples.

    From the Interview:

    If Rossi is unreliable, then Kullander has been mislead and there were no nuclear reactions of any kind. Unless you have independent review, there is no science.
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Yes, still hinges on that.

    Thanks, in you link, "According to Rossi, a total of 300 reactors connected in series and parallel, will be used in the installation. Originally 100 reactors of the version that delivered 10 kW of power during earlier trials, were supposedly planned for the one-megawatt installation. Rossi still expects the inauguration to take place in October 2011."

    Interesting that they are down sizing the reactors for that one megawatt installation.
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Jeff Sutton
    April 29th, 2011 at 1:14 PM
    Hello Mr Rossi.
    I understand you are well on your way to the 1MW reactor that will no doubt change the world. Can’t wait.
    Could you comment on the technology you are employing to convert from thermal (steam) to electricity? Is it a commercially available turbine or otherwise common method?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 29th, 2011 at 2:48 PM
    Dear Jeff Sutton:
    We are working on this issue, very hard.
    Warm regards,

    Question: Is this conversion going to be a problem. Why not just use a steam turbine? Shouldn't they already have this part done?
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2011
  15. jpappl Valued Senior Member

  16. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    It does not appear that Kullander and Essen were at the new tests.
  17. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    You may be right, reading again says "Ny Teknik" and only alludes to statements made by them. So who was representing "Ny Teknik" ?

    Thanks for catching that.

    Here is another link from that article I found interesting because it delves deeper into the reporting by Mats Lewan, he answers some questions that I have had from the previous articles but again, I feel this will play out over time regardless of what view is taken at this time.

    He, Rossi is holding onto the cards that will show us something of increased value to the demonstations in Oct/Nov or that is was nothing but a house of cards to begin with.
  18. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    I read the April reports linked from that link.

    I'm not sure if their calorimetry method is good enough - they're just assuming that all the heat of vaporization is output, with no heat of condensation returned to the device, and their measurement is woefully imprecise.

    I haven't done any calorimetry since high school, but my recollection is that it's pretty simple to get reliable and precise results. We only did bomb calorimetry, which is particularly simple, but I would have thought that the same principles could be used to accurately measure a device's exhaust heat?

    Like bubbling the output into an insulated sealed container of enough water that they'd expect a rise in temp of just a few degrees?

    (Edit) Even better, the small device could be submerged in a big sink of water (with appropriate electrical insulation, of course) in an insulated container, with both the input and output water pipes going into the surrounding water. Measure water temperature before, run for x hours, measure water temperature after.

    Bam - easy, precise, accurate calorimetry.

    They also appear to assume that the input current is constant. They might have continually measured it continually and just not said so, but again it would seem prudent to have a more direct measurement of input power with some kind of integrating precision power meter (I think I recall such things from my aborted study of electrical engineering, but need to check...) This would also prevent under reporting of input power if the device load is not purely resistive.

    It seems kind of amateur for people working with nuclear reactions.

    Edit to add:
    I've just read the report of the 29 March experiment, and it has the same calorimetry issue.

    You can see that the exhaust vapour temperature is measured before the exhaust reaches the outlet. See the photo of the exhaust chimney: the temperature probe comes in from the right, the exhaust leaves through the black pipe on the left. Since the probe recorded the exhaust to be just above boiling point (100.1 - 100.2 C), I'm suspicious that perhaps a significant amount of vapour is recondensing and returning its heat to the metal device before it is exhausted through the outlet... or perhaps the rise in pressure with the exhaust hose attached and the safety valve open is enough that the exhaust is not actually vapourised at all:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The input power is also still not apparently monitored through the experiment, only measured at the beginning and assumed to be constant.

    So yeah, I'd really like to see better calorimetry.
    Last edited: May 3, 2011
  19. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    OK, the internal pressure in the exhaust chimney is a serious factor.

    The output temperature was maintained at between 100.1 and 100.2 degrees celsius (never more than 100.3)

    The exhaust hose goes into a bucket of water, with the exhaust vapour bubbling out.

    They checked visually that the exhaust was fully vapourised by opening the safety valve and removing the exhaust hose from the bucket.

    Now, with the safety valve closed and the exhaust hose in the bucket... surely the pressure in the chimney will be increased by the depth of water in the bucket?

    Note that normal atmospheric pressure at an altitude of 100m (Wikipedia says Bologna is at 50m alt) is around 1000 millibars, and at 1025 millibars, the boiling point of water is 100.3 degrees C.
    So, an increase in pressure in the chimney of only 25 millimetres of water will be enough that muchof the exhausted water vapour is not, in fact, vaporized.

    So I suspect that their calorimetric calculations are just wrong. The heat of vaporization should not be included in the output, and I think the resulting calculation overestimates the actual heat production by a factor of maybe 7.
    Last edited: May 3, 2011
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Now, the input heat source is apparently a constant voltage AC power supply in series with a steel resistor of nominal power 300W at 230V.
    This matched the tester's initial measurement of current.

    But, the resistance of the element will change with temperature. Going from 20 to 100C will increase the resistance by (I think) about 25%, which would reduce the input power by the same amount.

    Note that this means that the experimenters seem to have also underestimated the input energy.

    This 'experiment' is useless without better measurement techniques. Too many shortcuts have been taken.
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Maybe, but there is still much interest and futher tests. One test seems to answer a question I have had in the back of my mind, i.e. wireless energy input. That was checked and eliminated in the recent round.

    To me it is still anticipation so when I read the following comment I had to laugh:
    Göran Crafte
    May 3rd, 2011 at 2:58 AM
    You are right Mr. Rossi. I am happy about your tight timeline. I just feel like a young man in love who cannot meet the woman of his heart until late autumn. What should I do about the summer?! To live in Sweden and long for late autumn when it is springtime is plainly sick! Will she love me? Will she give herself to me? I am longing for the puss… sorry, Mr. Rossi… I mean the E-cat! She is soo hot both in black rubber and in the more glittery dress I first saw her!
  22. jpappl Valued Senior Member


    See here regarding some of your comments from Mats Lewan who observed and was part of the recent tests.

    "Lewan discussed his role in the tests and some additional thoughts with New Energy Times today.

    "I personally did measurements: weighing water and hydrogen, measuring current and voltage, checking water flow at output, checking vapor flow," Lewan said.

    "I also discussed the set-up before the test and, among other things, arranged that we keep the outlet hose visible at all times,” he said, “and not put it into the hole in the sink, as was done in previous tests.

    "I’m still disappointed that I forgot one very simple check: I only measured the input current on one cable, the 'zero,' or 'cold' line. Obviously, this leaves open the possibility of deception if there is a large current on the phase, or 'hot,' line and it is distributed in part (1.6A) on the ‘zero’ ('cold') line and in part over the ground line (about 10A to achieve 2.5 kW).

    "However, I discussed this with [Giuseppe] Levi and Rossi, and I regard it as highly improbable for several reasons, among them that Levi, in his 18-hour test, measured the input power with a watt meter controlling all the three cables."

    For what it's worth.

    The interesting thing is that they have tested it now using different parameters and it keeps coming out as producing excess heat in line with previous tests.

    It doesn't mean there isn't something either intentionally or un-intentionally missed, which is why the more they pick away at it the more likely it is real or they will find the culprit.

    We will see. The linked article is interesting because it also discusses some of the back biting going on in the "cold Fusion" "LENR" field, it seems it's not just conventional oil/gas, hot fusion advocates who have something to lose if this turns out to be valid. Not to mention all of the other renewables such as solar and wind.

    Which brings me to the most complex part of this. Let's just imagine that the device actually works.

    Can you then imagine the impact to our society from a financial standpoint. Considering what the pyramid is essentially built on, we certainly would not want it to take over too quickly, that would be a disaster and would do more harm than good.
  23. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member


Share This Page