Posted on 05/20/2013 10:14:07 AM PDT by Kevmo
Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
Authors:Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
(Submitted on 16 May 2013)
Abstract: An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.
Comments: 29 pages, 15 figues, plus plots and diagrams
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1305.3913 [physics.gen-ph]
(or arXiv:1305.3913v1 [physics.gen-ph] for this version)
Conclusions
The two test measurements described in this text were conducted with the same methodology on two different devices: a first prototype, termed E-Cat HT, and a second one, resulting from technological improvements on the first, termed E-Cat HT2. Both have indicated heat production from an unknown reaction primed by heat from resistor coils. The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source. In the March test, about 62 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of about 33 kWh, a power density of about 5.3 • 10^5, and a density of thermal energy of about 6.1 • 10^7Wh/kg. In the December test, about 160 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of 35 kWh, a power density of about 7 • 10^3W/kg and a thermal energy density of about 6.8 • 10^5Wh/kg. The difference in results between the two tests may be seen in the overestimation of the weight of the charge in the first test (which was comprehensive of the weight of the two metal caps sealing the cylinder), and in the manufacturer’s choice of keeping temperatures under control in the second experiment to enhance the stability of the operating cycle. In any event, the results obtained place both devices several orders of magnitude outside the
Even from the standpoint of a “blind” evaluation of volumetric energy density, if we consider the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production, we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0.8) 102 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any conventional source.
Lastly, it must be remarked that both tests were terminated by a deliberate shutdown of the reactor, not by fuel exhaustion; thus, the energy densities that were measured should be considered as lower limits of real values.
The March test is to be considered an improvement over the one performed in December, in that various problems encountered in the first experiment were addressed and solved in the second one. In the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of 2013, and will last about six months, a long term performance of the E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial for further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far.
Steve Jones has not shut you up yet?...
and even the summary states a POSSIBLE bit of excess heat..... now that is underwhelming in scientific terms. You keep pushing this silliness and I have to admit I now just get a chuckle out of it.
I wouldn’t call this independent testing.
Rossi is exposed, give it up
From the abstract:
Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.
Rossi wasn’t even involved in the testing nor writing. He simply handed over his device to them. If you can’t call that independent testing then you shouldn’t step on an airplane because the Wright brothers never invented the airplane by your incredible standards.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
Levi and Rossi are cohorts
Independent would be shipping to an outside certified testing lab.
Is this the announced test from last year that was supposed to have results released around now?
Is this the same Levi who is Rossi’s friend, then how can it be independent?
Read the report - it says no such thing. They tested 2 devices, one had a COP of 5.6. The report states that these are low end numbers, they’re deliberately conservative.
These scientists are risking their careers on this report. I suggest you read it before making judgement.
Yes, it is the same Levi. You can’t exactly say he gave this thing to an uninterested third party when Levi is involved?
happy to oblige :-)
You mean to tell me that a person cannot be a friend and still independently test a device? If that were the requirement of other sciences, we would all be riding horses still. The 2 space shuttle crash investigations would only have enemies of NASA on the panel, etc. It is a ridiculous & unfounded requirement that seems to only exist for this area of investigation.
Also, what about the 6 other authors? Are you saying the oldest university in Europe is incapable of independent testing?
Independent means that Rossi wasn’t involved in the testing nor writing.
Uninterested? Where is that requirement in other sciences? These guys were more than a month late on their report to begin with, if “uninterested” were a requirement, no report would ever get written because, of course, the parties are not interested.
I think they are going to jail!
I hope you don’t mind if I BUMP this thread. If we can get Wonder Warthog interested I’m sure he’ll BUMP it a couple of times too.
“Unknown reaction!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Well, scientists, stop crowing until you determine what the reaction is! Not difficult, guys! This is planet Earth. Not Mars.
Hint. Analyze the elements and compounds going in.
Analyze the elements and compounds coming out.
Is it exothermic or endothermic?
Put a few chemists together in a locked room until they determine what the reaction is.
and even the summary states a POSSIBLE bit of excess heat..... now that is underwhelming in scientific terms.
***Of COURSE that’s what it says, because that is what they’re INVESTIGATING in this paper. Have you EVER read a single scientific paper? What kind of pseudo-intellectual baloney is this? If someone is investigating the possibility of the Higgs-Boson particle existing, by mentioning that is it automatically “underwhelming in scientific terms”? Geez, what kind of nonsense are you pushing here?
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.