Here are the analyses of the latest E-cat test

Here are the analyses of the latest E-cat test
Av: Mats Lewan Publicerad idag, 07:30
Three extensive analyses has been made of data from the test of Andrea Rossi’s E-cat on October 6. Two point to a clearly anomalous heat production, while the third leaves the question open .

here) .

Interest in the latest test of Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer has exceeded that in any previous test. The result has been discussed intensely internationally. Does Rossi’s apparatus generate net energy. If so, how much .

The shortcomings of the test measurement methods were clear, though significant improvements had been made compared to previous ones. Data were retrieved only because Ny Teknik, without being prepared, took responsibility for gathering and recording the readings .

A first, conservative analysis of the measurements was made by Ny Teknik’s reporter immediately after the test (here's a spread sheet with the data). Three extensive subsequent analyses have been done by the Americans Horace Heffner, David Roberson and Bob Higgins .

All three noted that deficiencies in the measurement methods make the result uncertain. Among the flaws is questionable positioning of the thermocouples for measuring water temperature .

In dialogue with Ny Teknik, however, Heffner, Roberson and Higgins tried to get answers to various questions to reduce uncertainty as much as possible .

The three made different assessments of what conclusions can be drawn .

Most skeptical was Heffner who wrote:
“Due to the locations of the thermocouples, the temperature measurements lack the degree of credibility required to make any reliable assessment of commercial value. The net power output could be anything from negative to positive.”
(Heffner's complete analysis is here) .

Roberson agreed on the problem regarding the thermocouples, yet drew a more positive conclusion:
“The long period of relatively constant heat production following deactivation of the E-cat main internal core heater suggests significant excess energy. Accurate determination of that energy cannot be established due to imperfections of the test setup.”
(Roberson's complete conclusion is here, spread sheet analysis here) .

Higgins also believed that the E-cat generated net energy:
“Despite the test’s flaws (and considering the integrity of those involved), the data suggests that substantial excess energy (as heat) was produced. (...) Critical error analysis of the experiment will continue; but the expectation is that errors will be unable to account for the large excess heat output.”
(Higgin's complete conclusion is here, spread sheet analysis here) .

Another person who commented was the American Jed Rothwell, who has followed the area LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) for many years .

He wrote: “The test produced irrefutable proof of anomalous energy production, in several different ways. After input power was turned off, not only did it remain hot for 4 hours, it twice sharply increased in temperature. This is first-principle proof that large amounts of energy were being generated inside the reactor.”
He also described a simple experiment that those who doubt the conclusion can perform .

(Rothwells conclusion and suggested experiment is here, and a comment by him also on lenr-canr.org) .

Currently, there seems to be no way to get further with the data from the test on October 6 (minor updates to these documents will be done though – check for the most recent versions) .

Rossi’s sight is now set on a test October 28 of a heat plant supposed to generate one megawatt thermal power. The test will be performed under the control of an unidentified customer who will buy the heat plant, provided that the promised power consumption can be verified by the customer .

According to most people Ny Teknik spoke to, it is doubtful whether the test of the large heat plant can provide a clearer answer regarding net energy produced than tests of single modules of the energy catalyzer have done so far .

Both independent analysts and Ny Teknik’s readers ask instead for a new test of a module, but with much more accurate measurement methods, preferably conducted by independent persons at a neutral site .

Meanwhile competition seems to build up. The Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies which had a license agreement with Rossi until August when Rossi communicated a breach of contract, recently claimed that it not only has developed a product for the energy market but also its own core technology based on “Rossi’s invention or similar inventions.”
Defkalion’s VP of R&D and board member Prof Christos Stremmenos declared in a letter that this was not true. Alexandros Xanthoulis, representing the owners of Defkalion, then answered that Stremmenos didn’t have knowledge about this as he had been absent for several months .

According to Ny Teknik’s sources, Defkalion continues to meet with companies interested in acquiring licenses for manufacturing and distribution of Defkalion’s products, at a license fee amounting to 40.5 million Euros per factory .

The sources also told Ny Teknik that Defkalion offers interested clients to see its technology and let them verify the validity of it with independent scientists of their choice, after having deposited 500,000 Euro in an escrow account .

Another researcher who works with LENR between nickel and hydrogen is the Italian Prof Francesco Piantelli who previously conducted research with Rossi's scientific adviser, Prof Sergio Focardi .

According to Newenergytimes.com NASA shows interest in Piantelli's work and in the company Nichenergy which is linked to his research .

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3295411.ece

IB4TS In Before The Seagulls FLAP FLAP----"SQUAWK" "SQUAWK"-----—~*SPLAT*

( { -------> ~&

{ -------> ~@ this thread

( { { -------> *~

http://www.therealmartha.com/buttments2/seagull_poop.gif

http://www.rupertwhite.co.uk/Letter_to_a_seagull.htm

I hope you know there’s no excuse for these measurement issues. All of this could easily and accurately be measured and continuously logged with modern equipment from cold start to return to room temperature. All energy in and out including that leaked in thermal radiation could be measured and accounted for. Instead we get this...

Sounds like they have children instrumenting their experiment. Why can’t they run it closed-loop for 24-48 hours, with proper instrumentation?

Oh, because Rossi’s scam would be unmasked immediately. Never mind.

This isn’t good news. A commercially viable process should be producing enough extra power that these mesurements wouldn’t even matter.

No more public tests! Where do you want your shipping container delivered?

“When looking at the sky for sea gulls keep your mouth closed”

From the article:
Most skeptical was Heffner who wrote:

“Due to the locations of the thermocouples, the temperature measurements lack the degree of credibility required to make any reliable assessment of commercial value. The net power output could be anything from negative to positive.”

Anything from negitive to positive nails it down. Maybe yes, no, yes, maybe.

Experimental sophistry. More and more tests, each saying nothing really, but the more tests that are run, the more “real” and legitimate it is supposed to look and sound. Its like listening to an obama speech.

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.