Posted on 04/07/2011 7:04:17 AM PDT by Liberty1970
In a detailed report, two Swedish physicists exclude chemical reactions as the energy source in the Italian ‘energy catalyzer’. The two physicists recently supervised a new test of the device in Bologna, Italy.
Essén and Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee, both participated on 29 March as observers at a new trial in Bologna of the so-called ‘energy catalyzer’, which could be based on cold fusion, or LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.
Participants included the inventor of the device, Andrea Rossi, his scientific advisor Professor Sergio Focardi, and physicists Dr. David Bianchini and Dr. Giuseppe Levi from Bologna University who both supervised the first public demonstration of the E-cat on 14 January 2011 in Bologna, Italy.
The new trial was conducted in much the same way as the trial in January, and lasted for nearly six hours. According to observations by Kullander and Essén, a total energy of about 25 kWh was generated.
In a detailed report (download here), they write:
(Excerpt) Read more at nextbigfuture.com ...
The power output was estimated to about 4.4 kW. It’s barely half the power compared with the two previous documented experiments in January and February 2011, because the trial was made with a new and smaller version of the energy catalyzer.
The new trial was the first officially documented with the smaller version which, according to Rossi, is more stable.
“With the smaller version we avoid the power peaks that occurred at ignition and switching off,” Andrea Rossi told Ny Teknik.
He also stated that the smaller version will be used for the planned installation of about one megawatt for the pilot customer Defkalion Green Technologies in Greece.
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.
At the trial in Bologna, Kullander and Essén could investigate the energy catalyzer with the surrounding insulation and the lead shielding stripped away. The exterior design is described in their report.
The reactor itself, which is loaded with the nickel powder and secret catalysts pressurized with hydrogen, has an estimated volume of 50 cubic centimeters (3.2 cubic inches). The reactor is made of stainless steel.
A copper tube surrounds the steel reactor. The water to be heated flows between the steel and the copper. In operation, the construction is also surrounded by insulation and a lead shielding with a thickness of approximately two centimeters (0.8 inches).
Before starting, Kullander and Essén calibrated the water flow and estimated it at 6.5 kg per hour. The power required to heat the flowing water from 18 degrees and convert it completely into steam was calculated to 4.7 kW.
They also filled the reactor with hydrogen at a pressure of about 25 bars. The reactor was according to Rossi loaded with 50 grams of nickel powder.
As in previous trials the process was ‘ignited’ with an electrical resistance. Input power was 330 watts, of which about 30 watts were required to operate the electronics.
A phenomenon that Kullander and Essén noted was that the curve for the water temperature at the output showed a steady increase up to about 60 degrees centigrade, after which the increase escalated.
“The curve then became steeper, it clearly had a new derivative. At the same time there was no increase in power consumption, it rather decreased when it got warmer,” said Essén.
In their report they note that it took nine minutes to go from 20 to 60 degrees centigrade, which corresponds to the heating from the input electrical power. Going from 60 to 97.5 degrees centigrade, by contrast, just took four minutes.
Throughout the experiment Kullander and Essén had the opportunity to examine the equipment.
“We checked everything that could be checked, and we could walk around freely and have a look at most of the equipment,” said Essén.
“We looked specifically into the big control unit (with electronics) and it contains mostly rectifiers and passive components – there was nothing of interest in it,” said Kullander, which is in line of what Dr. Levi previously noted.
Kullander and Essén had their first contact with Rossi in mid February, at the time of a discussion of the physics in the energy catalyzer, organized by Ny Teknik. After getting answers from Rossi to several questions, they expressed a cautiously optimistic opinion about the technology.
At a first meeting with Rossi at the end of February they were given access to a sample of the pure nickel powder, intended for use in the energy catalyzer, and another sample of nickel powder which, according to Rossi, had been used in the reactor for 2.5 months.
Their analyses showed that the pure powder consists of essentially pure nickel, while the used powder contains several other substances, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron.
“Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process,” Kullander said (see further details below).
The meeting in February in turn led to their involvement in the new trial in Bologna.
“My belief that there is an energy development far beyond what one would expect has been strengthened significantly as I have had the opportunity to see the process for myself and perform measurements,” said Kullander.
“Everything that we’ve found so far fits together. There is nothing that seems to be strange. All people seem to be honest and competent,” Essén added.
In line of what they expressed during the discussion in February, they believe that the physics of the energy catalyzer may possibly be explained by a combination of atomic, molecular, nuclear and plasma physics. At the same time they are skeptical of detailed and hypothetical theories suggested at this stage, and stressed instead the need for more data.
They describe that Focardi and Levi have the same approach, and support their viewpoint.
Analyses of the nickel powder used in Rossi’s energy catalyzer show that a large amount of copper is formed. Sven Kullander considers this to be evidence of a nuclear reaction.
For copper to be formed out of nickel, the nucleus of nickel has to capture a proton. The fact that this possibly occurs in Rossi’s reactor is why the concept of cold fusion has been mentioned – it would consist of fusion between nuclei of nickel and hydrogen.
A term that many consider to be more accurate, however, is LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.
Ny Teknik: For how long has the powder supposedly been used in the process?
Kullander: The powder has reportedly been used for 2.5 months continuously with an output of 10 kW (according to Rossi). It corresponds to a total energy of 18 MWh, with a consumption of up to 100 grams of nickel and two grams of hydrogen. If the production had been done with oil, two tons of oil would have been required.
This is apparently a new report on the latest trial of the Rossi/Focardi E-Cat device, or rather, a new model of it.
The device is quite small, as shown in photos in the downloadable report. I estimate you'd need ~100 kWh for a passenger vehicle, whereas this device supposedly ran at 25 kWh for over 5 hours. At that level it would be simple to package these into an engine compartment and have a vehicle that only needs refueling every 6 months or so, at minimal cost. To say nothing of the potential for replacing power plants with home power units. ('Free' electricity for everyone, apart from the unit itself and an occasional nickel recharge.)
Does anyone have information on the expected sale price/product cost of the E-Cat? Obviously, if this is real, the inventors can charge an arm and a leg for it. I'm just curious whether there is something about the device that involves exorbitant cost that would hold down application. It is so small that I expect costs will be low once the design is refined and economies of scale are achieved.
And as usual, I'm interested in any hard evidence or reasonable explanation debunking the E-cat. But not irrelevant circumstantial claims or vague speculation. If the E-cat is a fraud, someone needs to explain how they are doing it.
If they had concocted a fraud, I would expect them to keep using the same fraudulent device, not start making copies and refining the fraudulent device. This latest demo apparently involved a newer, smaller model, consistent with the idea that they have a new invention that is rapidly being refined.
They now say they will need 300 units instead of 100 for the demonstration 1 MW reactor. This strikes me as a sign of authenticity - that the earlier, rosier prediction is being replaced by a more reserved estimate based on issues that are cropping up as they get further along in implementation. If they simply had a fraud, why change the numbers?
Why You Need to Own Nickels, Right Now
Hoard Nickels.
PV/T(1)=PV/T(2)
How to prove the Rossi/Focardi eCat LENR is Real
Unless they have a cleverly hidden pipe or wire leading to a hidden reservoir or power source, it's looking like this thing is genuine.
One quibble: kWh is a unit of energy, ie the energy from a kW of power over a period of an hour. I think you meant kW if you're talking about power.
I've been saying for a while that I want to see this device spitting out orders of magnitude more output energy than input electrical energy, under supervised conditions, in somebody else's lab, over a period of at least a week (and preferably a month), with the lab being under the control of somebody of stature and complete independence, before I start getting really excited.
As far as using this for vehicles, its output is currently hot water (later to be steam). I could see this running a revamped steam locomotive, maybe a large tractor-trailer, but it would involve a lot of engineering before it would be viable for a small vehicle.
Or some other hidden way of transferring power to it, such as electromagnetic transmission, which is why I'd like to see them transport their device to an independent lab, and preferably see it work inside a Faraday cage to eliminate power transmission tricks.
There will be a bit of engineering needed to put this into a vehicle, but the incentives will be enormous. Even if package size remains large due to a boiler or somesuch, it would make practical sense. Think of it this way: Would you rather buy a little econo-car for $15,000 and pay $3,000/year for fuel thereafter, or spend $30,000 for something the size of a Ford Expedition (albeit with the same passenger space as the econo-car) that has negligible fuel expenses thereafter?
I tend to agree with you. So far I’ve seen nothing that smells of fraud. It looks legit.
Total cost per MW is reasonable.
Source material is abundant.
Waste is not an uncontrollable environmental issue.
With addition of batteries for bursts of power, 50 kilowatts should be adequate for a car. That’s about 70 HP all the time, a standard engine is made to run continously at about 1/4 of peak HP. Assuming a decent battery pack, 50 kw power source should perform about the same as a good sized v-6 engine.
Direct link to the paper by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011
I was allowing a little extra for oomph on acceleration, as well as some loss from translation of the heat energy to vehicle motion.
Yeah, you are right, if you are talking kilowatts of heat, 100 may be marginal, I was thinking kilowatts of electric output, my mistake not yours.
Depending on temperatures, you may need several hundred kilowatts of heat to run a car, Carnot efficiency is lousy at lower temps.
The good news is that you wouldn’t have to worry about freezing to death in your car even if it doesn’t run like a sports car.
Here’s my understanding of what Rossi has said:
Initial cost will be 1 cent per kWh
Nickel is the 25th most common element in the world. Rossi says the amount needed for his device should not impact the cost of the raw material (meaning it doesn’t use up large quantaties)
The waste is not radioactive.
I’m hoping he’s being straight with us.
Another point. Rossi says that the catalyst (while a trade secret) is not a precious metal.
You can read ongoing dialogue between Rossi and the public at his web site here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360#comments
If he can deliver electricity for a penny a kilowatt hour, that would be astounding. That is less than half of what coal generated electricity costs which in turn is less expensive than gas fired, nuclear, wind and solar which encompasses the current and proposed alternatives.
My only contribution to the thread is that I’m happy to see that the usual crop of poo-poohing suspects hasn’t demolished the intellectual conversation taking place here.
I, for one, believe that it’s only a matter of time before someone comes to market with a viable alternative energy production unit of some kind. I’ve been a (somewhat) avid fan of such developments for a very long time, and still harbor the hope that one day, I’ll see such a breakthrough in my lifetime.
Thanks to all for your enlightening conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.