Here is a picture of the lead author with Rossi taken in 2011. He doesn't look independent to me.
Posted on 05/24/2013 6:35:28 PM PDT by Kevmo
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1563 ... ity-of-gas
Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas By Sebastian Anthony on May 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm 338 Comments
Share This article
110 inShare.
Against all probability, a device that purports to use cold fusion to generate vast amounts of power has been verified by a panel of independent scientists. The research paper, which hasn’t yet undergone peer review, seems to confirm both the existence of cold fusion, and its potency: The cold fusion device being tested has roughly 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline. Even allowing for a massively conservative margin of error, the scientists say that the cold fusion device they tested is 10 times more powerful than gasoline — which is currently the best fuel readily available to mankind.
The device being tested, which is called the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat for short), was created by Andrea Rossi. Rossi has been claiming for the past two years that he had finally cracked cold fusion, but much to the chagrin of the scientific community he hasn’t allowed anyone to independently analyze the device — until now. While it sounds like the scientists had a fairly free rein while testing the E-Cat, we should stress that they still don’t know exactly what’s going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor. Still, the seven scientists, all from good European universities, obviously felt confident enough with their findings to publish the research paper.
As for what’s happening inside the cold fusion reactor, Andrea Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi have previously said their device works by infusing hydrogen into nickel, transmuting the nickel into copper and releasing a large amount of heat. While Rossi hasn’t provided much in the way of details — he’s a very secretive man, it seems — we can infer some knowledge from NASA’s own research into cold fusion. Basically, hydrogen ions (single protons) are sucked into a nickel lattice (pictured right); the nickel’s electrons are forced into the hydrogen to produce neutrons; the nickel nuclei absorb these neutrons; the neutrons are stripped of their electrons to become protons; and thus the nickel goes up in atomic number from 28 to 29, becoming copper.
This process, like the “conventional” fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium, produces a lot of heat. (See: 500MW from half a gram of hydrogen: The hunt for fusion power heats up.) The main difference, though, is that the cold fusion process (also known as LENR, or low energy nuclear reaction) produces very slow moving neutrons which don’t create ionizing radiation or radioactive waste. Real fusion, on the other hand, produces fast neutrons that decimate everything in their path. In short, LENR is fairly safe — safe enough that NASA dreams of one day putting a cold fusion reactor in every home, car, and plane. Nickel and hydrogen, incidentally, are much cheaper and cleaner fuels than gasoline.
As far as we can tell, the main barrier to cold fusion — as with normal fusion — is producing more energy than you put in. In NASA’s tests, it takes a lot more energy to fuse the nickel and hydrogen than is produced by the reaction. Rossi, it would seem, has discovered a secret sauce that significantly reduces the amount of energy required to start the reaction. As for what the secret sauce is, no one knows — in the research paper, the independent scientists simply refer to it as “unknown additives.” All told, the E-Cat seems to have a power density of 4.4×105 W/kg, and an energy density of 5.1×107 Wh/kg.
If Rossi and Focardi’s cold fusion technology turns out to be real — if the E-Cat really has 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline — then the world will change, very, very quickly. Stay tuned; we’ll let you know when — or if — the E-Cat passes peer review.
Now read: Nuclear power is our only hope, or, the greatest environmentalist hypocrisy of all time
Research paper: arXiv:1305.3913 - “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”
YOU FINALLY SAID SOMETHING THAT MADE SENSE.
I think that most Freepers would agree with you that there IS 'something' worth pursuing here. Otherwise none of them would have bothered to make any comments at all.
Just remember that most people only know about Rossi's many 'claims' that have not proved out. This latest 'test' follows a string of 'tests' that have had various conflicting results. Sure people are going to be skeptical. Are you going to be able to overcome EVERYONE'S OBJECTIONS with this one thread ?
You said that new 'inventions' may take 25 years to get to market. It's been umpteen years since Kennedy was assassinated and there still is not a consensual agreement on who did it.
Again, what I am saying is that while MANY would agree there is 'something' here, very few would agree (at this point in time) that this device is commercially available, and is the answer to ALL our ENERGY NEEDS. Even if it works as promised, It will take decades before it filters down to us.
Why was the test running when the testers showed up?
***In the 2nd test, that was not the case.
YOU FINALLY SAID SOMETHING THAT MADE SENSE.
I think that most Freepers would agree with you that there IS ‘something’ worth pursuing here.
***Judging by the ALL CAPs, I gather what you’re saying is supposed to be important. From that sentiment, would you consider it rational that those FReepers who do not agree with your sentiment could be categorized as hyperskeptics? Skeptopaths? Anti Science? Luddites? Seagulls? What is the proper term for somene so aggressively skeptical, and frankly, only when it comes to LENR?
Please... Please... Please do not avoid these questions. If they were stupid questions, the admin mod would be able to determine the difference. So you can’t say they’re stupid questions.
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.
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 · 105, and a density of thermal energy of about 6.1 · 107 Wh/kg. In the December test, about 160 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of 35 kWh, a power density of about 7 · 103 W/kg and a thermal energy density of about 6.8 · 105 Wh/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 bounds of the Ragone plot region for chemical sources.
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.
Source: http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect
what I am saying is that while MANY would agree there is ‘something’ here,
***Then why are threads being pulled? Why such one-sidedness from the mods? Why so many Freepers doing the PileUp you see on PeeWee football? Why is one side allowed to say “kevmo is a liar”, “Kevmo is a fraud”, “Kevmo is crazy”, “Kevmo is stupid” but the other side isn’t even allowed to say that people who disagree with you are hyperskeptical?
very few would agree (at this point in time) that this device is commercially available
***Commercial availability is NOT the issue. The reality of LENR is the issue. It has been replicated more than 14,700 times, and yet even you start to say such things as “well, I don’t know these scientists personally”... that does not exist for any other science endeavor.
and is the answer to ALL our ENERGY NEEDS.
***It is a simple hypothetical. If the energy densities demonstrated in LENR are real, wouldn’t it be the answer to the vast majority of our energy needs? Don’t avoid this question.
Even if it works as promised, It will take decades before it filters down to us.
***I don’t mind. What’s the objection here? Gasoline automobiles took decades to ‘perfect’.
Exactly.
I’m afraid your point escapes me at this time.
Kevmo:
recall that you have been notified and asked why you put ‘quotes’ around certain terms, if not to be simply sarcastic. You have avoided the question.
Ucansee:
I avoided it because it’s a stupid question, and everyone on the planet but YOU seems to ‘get it’.
***Is it possible to get you to simply be real? Can you acknowledge that the reason you put things in ‘quotes’ is to add an element of sarcasm to the debate? You claim that ‘everyone’ but ME seems to ‘understand’ it, but that is not the case. It is simply a matter of whether or not you are being genuine when you write. When you add ‘quotes’, it generates a sarcasm bifurcation, a way for you to backtrack on what you say by claiming you didn’t ‘mean it’. Such a thing doubles the number of things to address, EACH time you USE them.
Please forgive me. I did hold my breath. But I released it, and sure enough, you have not responded with the mathematical treatment which suffices.
What is the proper term for somene so aggressively skeptical, and frankly, only when it comes to LENR?
***I meant to say “aggressively and irrationally skeptical”
And yet... his earlier claims
***These are the independent claims of 7 scientists who know of Rossi’s crappy reputation, did the measurements, and put their own reputations on the line... OVER THESE MEASUREMENTS. You will note that none of the regular ‘aggressively skeptical’ inhabitants of these threads have questioned that such scientists could do the actual measurements, they only claim that these guys are involved in an ever-expanding (and indefensible) conspiracy.
He just generated a chemical energy density for batteries that is 10X of what is capable today.
***I meant to say “At the very least, he just generated An INDEPendently VERified chemical energy density for batteries that is 10X of what is capable today.”
YOU FINALLY SAID SOMETHING THAT MADE SENSE.
***I said it a long time ago.
The difference is, this isn’t Rossi claiming it. It is 7 independent scientists. Screw Rossi. Ignore him. Why would 7 scientists make simple measurements of Power and Heat, put their reputations on the line if there wasn’t something worth pursuing here?
You can hardly complain about others and then attempt to goad me into a personal insult or such. If that’s your purpose you’ve not paid attention.
And if you want the thread pulled I’m rather sure the mods would be happy to do so at your request, afterall it’s generated as much hot air as an e-cat.
Please forgive me. I did hold my breath. But I released it, and sure enough, you have not responded with the mathematical treatment which suffices.
Well? Your results?
Do your calculations based upon the Very, Very best Chemical Agent capable of generating Heat. Compare it to these results.
Here is a picture of the lead author with Rossi taken in 2011. He doesn't look independent to me.
Hold your breath, don’t hold your breath, who cares.
The E-cat Seven have produced a lovely paper, nay, a lovely, impressive paper remarkable for it’s unasked questions. Pehaps Engineer Rossi will do a peer review of it.
The E-cat Seven have produced a lovely paper
***You are right. It is an independent verification of Rossi’s claims.
Just a background note, the hottest chemical reactions produce close to 9000 degree F. heats.
(from my days in metallurgy studies)
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.