Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[Reality Check]

Reality Check
In the experiments in question the steam quality was measured at the outlet of the chimney.

What experiments? You have linked to a video.

A temperature probe was used to confirm that the steam was above boiling (superheated at atmospheric pressure). Super heated steam cannot by definition be wet.

So there was no measurement of 'steam quality' - just a temperature measurement.

Do you know why Rossi used a relative humidity probe in his demo if there was no point in it?

Again the only reasonable explanation is legitimacy or fraud.

Then given that there are only demos of the apparatus then I would say fraud (according to your only reasonable explanation list) since legitimacy implies the confidence to publish the result in teh scientific literatures.
But I would also add delusion and incompetence as reasonable explanations.

 

[Craig B]

So here it is. Dekaflion has spoken: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White Paper_DGT.pdf . There are some technical descriptions of the proposed products. Are they plausible?

What concerns me the most (apart from the traditional Wright brothers reference on page 9 of the Defkalion paper - at least they leave Galileo's ghost in peace!) is the marketing strategy outlined on page 7: Defkalion shall sell the rights to manufacture its products (presumably the bolt-on "Hyperion" components) while the e-cat "kernel" is manufactured by as yet unrecruited and untrained workers in as yet unbuilt units in Xanthi, Thrace.

Mmm ... I'll think about that. I believe I've come across marketing of licenses before in the free energy field. However that may be, we're now many miles away from Rossi's original assurance:

I am assuming all the risks. No one is risking any money except me.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3123849.ece .

Interesting that Defkalion should use the name Hyperion for its power units, because there's already a company, Hyperion Power Generation, with a comparable product - mini nuclear reactors - and very similar motives and aspirations:

Hyperion power modules (HPM's) are a perfect alternative for those communities -- such as government facilities, hospital and college campuses ( ... ) over 25% of the world’s population does not have access to clean water. Hyperion Power can solve this appalling situation by providing the power to pump, clean, and process life’s essential element, thereby turning the tide on disease, poverty and social unrest. http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html

Hyperion's to-date production record is similar to Defkalion's as well.

(I)t has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

 

[unclep2k]

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3208908.ece

 

[Craig B]

unclep2k
Thanks for the link. Can you offer any further enlightenment on this extract?

After the press conference, the inventor Andrea Rossi also confirmed that an agreement regarding commissioned research into the energy catalyzer, worth EUR 500,000, was finally signed with the University of Bologna on Wednesday after several weeks of negotiations. The agreement which formally is made with the company EFA srl with Rossi’s wife Maddalena Pascucci as principal owner, will last for two years.

For more sceptical views of the Defkalion announcement, please see the comments at: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/defkalion-green-technologies-new.html

 

[nathan]

What concerns me the most ... is the marketing strategy outlined on page 7: Defkalion shall sell the rights to manufacture its products (presumably the bolt-on "Hyperion" components) while the e-cat "kernel" is manufactured by as yet unrecruited and untrained workers in as yet unbuilt units in Xanthi, Thrace.

Mmm ... I'll think about that. I believe I've come across marketing of licenses before in the free energy field.

Notice that such a set up will allow excellent finger pointing to occur when the device fails to generate more electricity than it uses. The 'fault' will be found in the Hyperion bolt-on, which is not extracting all the energy in the steam emitted from the e-cat. See? the e-cat is working perfectly, it's your sub-standard generator that's the problem.

 

[Jimmy42]

Nathan: If the thing can barely boil water, the Carnot efficiency would be quite low and require a (relatively) huge heat sink. Might not even be able to compete with fossil fuels.

 

[Andy_Ross]

My dad is a Model Engineer (and retired Marine Engineer (steam)) he has several 5 inch gauge 'live steam' locomotives. They produce more steam and hotter than the Rossi device from what I have read so far.

 

[Dancing David]

The uncertainty of these measurements is obvious but the measurements are still plausible. The latest experiment is the most questionable because of the high input power (which was only seen once whereas in other demos it was seen to vary over time).

So what is the level of error did they follow standard protocols at all, what level of error is there in this measure of heat out put?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8178-episimi-parousiasi-tiw-defcalion-.html

Once I can understand you can link to Google translations as well as I can:
http://translate.google.com/transla...fcalion-.html&hl=en&biw=792&bih=425&prmd=ivns

 

[Crawdaddy]

Reality check

What experiments? You have linked to a video.

There is a giant thread filled with links to all the experiments and data available to date on the net. You are posting on it.

Two other threads with contributors who have significantly more expertise than posters here are found here:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

or here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/

Feel free to inform yourself.

But I would also add delusion and incompetence as reasonable explanations.

It is far more likely that you are delusional and incompetent than the several professors of physical science who have all looked at the instrument first hand.

Dancing David

So what is the level of error did they follow standard protocols at all, what level of error is there in this measure of heat out put?

Here is a video of Rossi calculating the output of his reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA

 

[BenBurch]

My dad is a Model Engineer (and retired Marine Engineer (steam)) he has several 5 inch gauge 'live steam' locomotives. They produce more steam and hotter than the Rossi device from what I have read so far.

They HAVE to. A steam engine's efficiency is proportional to the pressure, and pressure is proportional (when the throttle is closed) to the temperature.

 

[CriticalThanking]

So what is the level of error did they follow standard protocols at all, what level of error is there in this measure of heat out put?

Dancing David

Here is a video of Rossi calculating the output of his reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA

Crawdaddy, in what way is that an answer to Dancing David's questions? Calculations are based upon inputs. He is asking how the inputs were measured, including error bars. The video addresses neither of those issues.

CT

 

[Horatius]

So here it is. Dekaflion has spoken: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White Paper_DGT.pdf . There are some technical descriptions of the proposed products. Are they plausible?

Well, once again they seem to be talking absolute bollocks when it comes to patents. From page 4 of that document:

the EU patent is on its final stage,

I'd love to know which EU patent this is referring to, as the only one I found:

EP2259998 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS

isn't anywhere near "its final stage". In fact, from what I can see there, the EPO examiners haven't even taken a look at it yet. Take a look at the "Event History" and the "All Documents" tabs there to see what I mean.

There is what looks like an automatically generated form letter from 29-11-2010, which is sent out for all applications where the EPO acted as the International Search Authority, and their response to that letter on 17-12-2010.

There's also an interesting submission from a third party on March 3, 2011, which points out Rossi's public statements about how the catalyst is essential, and suggests that the application is invalid as the catalysts are not identified. Good job, guy who sent that in!

This is no where close to its "final stage".



They also say:

while the global patent is pending

Well, duh, that's all a "global patent" (patent application, actually) will ever do, as there's no mechanism to actually issue a global patent. Their international application under the PCT has to enter national phase in every country in which they want to pursue patent protection, as patents, as opposed to merely applications, are still issued almost entirely under the national laws of each country. The EPO, which issues European patents, is the one exception, and even then, it doesn't apply everywhere in Europe, it only applies in those countries that recognize the EPO.

So, even more bollocks.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David



Here is a video of Rossi calculating the output of his reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA

And the error bars are?

Is it standard methodology?

What methods was used to measure the actual volume of water, I believe this is in dispute. What source of error and level of error is there in the 7 kg/hr alleged flow rate. Did they use a flow meter upstream from the device input? I believe that they did this rather inaccurately.

What is the error bar for the method they used to measure the flow rate?

It would appear from the Polyweel threads that there was no metter, as it would appear from other thraeds as well.

So IF (and that is an if) there was no metering of the inflow then we could have an error rate as high as 100%, now if they justa ssumed the flow rate then that is still as high as 100%, other methodd would vary depending upon sample size , time, duration , time of day and variation in water pressure.

So Crawdaddy, I believe there was no metering, do yiou have data to suggest that there was?

ETA:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/swedish-researchers-confirm-rossi-and.html

"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."

So they calibrated and estimated before the device was hooked up?

Right, so we don't actually know the flow rate. A diameter difference within the device could vary the flow, usage in the building with the device could alter the flow, usage in the section of water supply based upon the same main could vary teh water pressure, municipal issues could vary the water pressure.

hence the is considerable error in just estimating that flow.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Crawdaddy, in what way is that an answer to Dancing David's questions? Calculations are based upon inputs. He is asking how the inputs were measured, including error bars. The video addresses neither of those issues.

The input power is clearly shown in the video.

The output power is measured by the technique described by rossi in his calculation.

Do you want me to write out the calculation?

The Krivit video is very light on data. No conclusion can be drawn from it without more information. Dancing David no doubt understands this and so asks rhetorical questions.

The measurement of superheated steam at atmospheric pressure is a well published technique used for high pressure steam quality measurement. The difference in this case is that Rossi claims to generate superheated steam at atmospheric pressure. This is possible if heating of the water vapor occurs after boiling.

Here is a link to a page that will teach you the how to calculate steam quality by the standard technique. Which is what rossi is using. It took me five seconds to find this information.

http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html

The obvious source of error in the experiment is the temperature of the steam and the pressure at the chimney exit. This is very basic stuff. If you need it to be explained to you it is unlikely that you can contribute to a valuable discussion of the rossi results.

If you already understand it then please stop wasting my time. If you care enough you can find several calculations of possible errors in the rossi temperature and pressure measurements. I find none of them explain away the result as simple error.

I am not here to lead you by the nose to data and teach you how to do calculations. If you want to challenge the Rossi result on the basis of measured values and quantitative calculations then you will have to find and present data on your own.

 

[Dancing David]

The output power is measured by the technique described by rossi in his calculation.

The obvious source of error is that they did not measure the input flow of water, so how do they know how much water went into the device to produce steam?

he places 7 kg./hr. into the equation, but we don't know that at all.

Is that something they did emasure, I haven't found it yet. I have three numerous sources that say they did not meter it and one that says they estimated it.

What do you have?

 

[Crawdaddy]

Dancing David

So they calibrated and estimated before the device was hooked up?

Right, so we don't actually know the flow rate. A diameter difference within the device could vary the flow, usage in the building with the device could alter the flow, usage in the section of water supply based upon the same main could vary teh water pressure, municipal issues could vary the water pressure.

hence the is considerable error in just estimating that flow.

This betrays a complete lack of any interest in digging for information about these experiments yourself.

The answers to these questions have been so thoroughly talked about with regards to the e-cat observations that if you haven't already seen it then you just aren't paying attention.

This type of post is a good example of the type of question that won't get a detailed response from me. It is so basic and absolutely hashed out elsewhere that restating it here is pointless.

You may have noticed by now that I find the tone of your posts annoying. This is partly because you often make poorly researched assumptions and then expect me to correct you and with thoroughly researched and proven responses. Which you then don't acknowledge. I find this insulting.

What I find even more annoying is that the tone of your posts betray an extreme disinterest in actually finding the truth in this matter. Posts like "link one paper that proves cold fusion is real!" are the best examples of this. It sounds exactly like a creationist would say if you replaced cold fusion with evolution.

From my perspective you seem like a creationist. You seem to be using the same "tactics" they use in order to "win" a debate with me. I wonder what richard dawkins would say to you if you said "show me one paper that proves evolution" or if you said to Dr. Steven Novella "show me one paper that proves vaccines don't cause autism"?

 

[HoverBoarder]

Reality check

There is a giant thread filled with links to all the experiments and data available to date on the net. You are posting on it.

Two other threads with contributors who have significantly more expertise than posters here are found here:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

or here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/

Feel free to inform yourself.

Sure, but the posters on those threads have still overwhelmingly concluded that the Rossi claims are faked.

Here is a link to a quick experiment that one of the posters did to show that the steam levels that Rossi claimed were faked:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2805

The poster also included information on pressure variations to show that Rossi's inconsistent energy claims could not be explained by dry steam because of the speed of the steam exciting the hose.

Here are a few of the good comments.

I have just done a preliminary trial using a kettle on a gas hob. I allowed a kettle to get to a steady state by continuing heating after it reached boiling, then allowed it to boil continuously for a few moments to get to a 'steady state'. I measured the rate of vapour emission by removing from heat and measuring the mass, then boiling for a minute at a time and re-weighing. The vapour emitted was a surprisingly steady 25g/min. (Lowest was 23g, highest was 26g).

What is ridiculous is Rossi saying there is no condensation, yet takes clear and obvious steps to rid the pipe of water before pulling it out of the wall.

What is ridiculous is the nytek video where you can clearly hear condesate bubbling away inside the pipe.

What is ridiculous is the measurement (supposedly) of JUST 100C at one end of a 4m pipe, yet Rossi claims it is still 100C and has lost no heat by the end of the pipe! A perfectly insulated pipe, eh!?

Rossi went to pull the hose straight out, thought better of it and then backed off before tilting the hose to let the water run out!!!!

He holds the hose with the fingers of his right hand for several seconds. When I did my run, I unthinkingly went to touch the hose once with bare fingers, and dropped the ____ thing double pronto!! Not something you do twice!!

In other words, if there was a flow rate of 7 litres/hr of dry steamcoming out of the pipe, then there would be a pressue drop of 11kPa. As we know the pressure at the end of the pipe is ambient, so the pressure in the E-cat must be just over 1.1 bar, and the boiling point at just over 1.1 bar is... around 104 degrees C, I believe.

So either he's not boiling water at his measured 100C in the E-cat, or he's not flowing 7l/hr. He can't be doing both.

even if one has to assume little to no back pressure, and 101'C constant on all e-Cat and tube, the point that chris showed with his experiment is clear. There is not enough flow of steam in Krivit video to justify a 5 Kw/h (or even 4 Kw/h if we remove thermal dispersions) steam flow.

I agree. I could not put my finger on what has bothered me about the demos until this discussion. Claimed energy levels do not seem to be exiting the device at the rates suggested.

 

[Horatius]

... or if you said to Dr. Steven Novella "show me one paper that proves vaccines don't cause autism"?

Looks to me like he'd link you to one.

Or two

 

[Andy_Ross]

They HAVE to. A steam engine's efficiency is proportional to the pressure, and pressure is proportional (when the throttle is closed) to the temperature.

But steam is only entering the superheater when the throttle valve is open so max temp and pressure of steam is only produced after the throttle valve.