Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device

Arxiv.org ^ | Submitted on 16 May 2013 | Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Es

[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.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep repeating that. Unfortunately, it isn't true.

It was, for a previous Rossi "test".

To yield the needed energy, the H2O2 would need to be very concentrated

For the Rossi test, drugstore concentrations were well over the needed concentration.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source.

Hopefully it's true this time, unlike the last time I ridiculed, and disproved, that claim.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow, yet another prediction fail by you.

[Moonman62]

I hope the mods take notice of your attempts to stir discord to the point of having this thread removed.

Only you would consider requests for details, stating facts, and asking you to defend your claims, stirring discord and trying to get the thread pulled.

You remind me of Obama saying that Democracy is messy.

[Kevmo]

I hope the mods take notice of your attempts to stir discord to the point of having this thread removed.

Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19

[Kevmo]

I hope the mods take notice of your attempts to stir discord to the point of having this thread removed.

Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19

[Kevmo]

I hope the mods take notice of your attempts to stir discord to the point of having this thread removed.

Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19

[Toddsterpatriot]

[Kevmo]

Only you would consider requests for details, stating facts, and asking you to defend your claims, stirring discord and trying to get the thread pulled
***The mods beg to differ. That’s why they pull threads.

[Kevmo]

Gee, it’s a fascination why the mods allow such obvious flamebait posts.

[Moonman62]

The mods pull your threads when you start calling names.

[Kevmo]

They pull threads when you start whining to them. Why is it that using a noun, name-calling, is frowned upon, but your use of adverbs and adjectives in the same fashion is acceptable? Because one of the mods agreed with you.

Thanks for bumping the thread.

Maybe even you can get such a historical development as this removed from FR discourse. Maybe not. But your damage is done, throughout the entire exchange. Now that independent evidence comes in to validate what I’ve been saying, how does your incredible level of hyper-skepticism benefit FR?

[AZLiberty]

Their experimental methodology suggests to me the following test: Run an experiment where they produce a constant measured temperature -- the same for the dummy and the E-Cat -- over a period of time, and measure the energy input for each device, rather than the energy output. If the measured temperature is the same, then the energy output should be the same. If the E-Cat temperature can't be maintained at a constant value, another approach would be to run the E-Cat first and measure the temperature profile over time. Then run the dummy, using the electrical input to continuously match the E-Cat temperature profile over time.

Then the difference in energy input, if any, would be equivalent to the net energy produced by the reaction.

[Moonman62]

This “report” isn’t evidence, and your claim of independence is without merit. There is nothing historic or particularly unusual about your continued promotion of con-artist Rossi.

[Kevmo]

Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19

[from occupied ga]

You’re boring AND you’re clueless. You don’t have the faintest grasp of physics - obviously - so all you can do is insult those you have sufficient comprehension to know a scam when they see one. Like I said put your money where your mouth is. Prove the sceptics wrong.

[Wonder Warthog]

"It was, for a previous Rossi "test".For the Rossi test, drugstore concentrations were well over the needed concentration."

I'm a chemist and well acquainted with the energy density of H2O2. Post your source.

[Moonman62]

I'm a chemist

How do we know you're a chemist? You don't act like one.

[MHGinTN]

I haven’t a clue about Physics? Bwahahahaha, go get your diaper changed, you’re satrting to stink up the place. And just to help you get a handle on ‘things’, oil is not the future energy base for humanity and Pons & Fleishman have been vindicated. Now go read about Steven Jones as your homework assignment. You’ll need to reach back into the eighties for the full story on Jones.

[Wonder Warthog]

DO NOT POST TO ME. You have nothing to say that I have any interest in.