|
I have some updates on this: basically there is issue (warning pretty large pdf) in which the author Steven krivit, the director of New Energy Times state that the misurations presented huge flaws:
- not the whole water in input were turned into dry steam thus determining a lower energy input of the device
- the velocity of the output steam was wrong
and other things (i have not read the whole issue).
Also there are some controversial facts and declarations by Rossi: just for example the contract for the energy power plant in Greece was canceled due to the fact that the commissioner failed to pay the first rate.
I suggest to anyone interested in the whole e-cat thing to read this and this articles.
Sorry for worst english ever  i'm tired
|
On August 14 2011 04:43 rubio91 wrote:I have some updates on this: basically there is issue (warning pretty large pdf) in which the author Steven krivit, the director of New Energy Times state that the misurations presented huge flaws: - not the whole water in input were turned into dry steam thus determining a lower energy input of the device - the velocity of the output steam was wrong and other things (i have not read the whole issue).
Energy measurements based on steam are difficult due to the phase change (from water to steam). So let's assume that Krivit is correct and they were done in the wrong way.
There is still the February 10 test in which only hot water was produced. Measuring energy output based on water is a lot easier. Levi speaks about a 15-20 kW energy production for the duration of the test here http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
|
Why is this not gaining so much more attention. I'm still a skeptic, but if I was an energy company I would consider it worth the risk to buy him out.
|
Fun fact: the e-cat and anything around it was fully developed and designed by those professors' assistants. The guys with white hair have no idea what the thing does or how to recreate it, and since the original developers make less than 1.5k € a month chances are they might abandon the project at any point in time.
|
On August 14 2011 06:51 Risen wrote:
Why is this not gaining so much more attention. I'm still a skeptic, but if I was an energy company I would consider it worth the risk to buy him out.
Probably because the charlatan-inventors are doing their best to obstruct proper inquiry into his claims. Biding their time, waiting for an idiot to drop 15 million dollars in their hands.
|
On August 14 2011 06:59 r33k wrote:
Fun fact: the e-cat and anything around it was fully developed and designed by those professors' assistants. The guys with white hair have no idea what the thing does or how to recreate it, and since the original developers make less than 1.5k € a month chances are they might abandon the project at any point in time.
i've never read nothing about it. source?
|
On August 14 2011 06:59 r33k wrote:
Fun fact: the e-cat and anything around it was fully developed and designed by those professors' assistants. The guys with white hair have no idea what the thing does or how to recreate it, and since the original developers make less than 1.5k € a month chances are they might abandon the project at any point in time.
I think you're confusing things a lot. In the context of the e-cat, the post is complete nonsense. Maybe you mean some other project?
|
On August 14 2011 06:51 Risen wrote:
Why is this not gaining so much more attention. I'm still a skeptic, but if I was an energy company I would consider it worth the risk to buy him out.
If I were a scammer you would be exactly the kind of person I would look to scoop out, you would justify making a decision based on gullibility to yourself by saying 'well I'm a skeptical guy, I must be making a rational cost/benefit analysis here'
|
On August 14 2011 06:28 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 04:43 rubio91 wrote:I have some updates on this: basically there is issue (warning pretty large pdf) in which the author Steven krivit, the director of New Energy Times state that the misurations presented huge flaws: - not the whole water in input were turned into dry steam thus determining a lower energy input of the device - the velocity of the output steam was wrong and other things (i have not read the whole issue). Energy measurements based on steam are difficult due to the phase change (from water to steam). So let's assume that Krivit is correct and they were done in the wrong way. There is still the February 10 test in which only hot water was produced. Measuring energy output based on water is a lot easier. Levi speaks about a 15-20 kW energy production for the duration of the test here http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml#levimeasures
"Levi, on the other hand, performed a sub-boiling experiment. But, as he now knows, the data from that 18-hour experiment on Feb.10-11 is next to worthless. His instrumentation and data collection in that experiment left much to be desired. Levi told me on June 14 in the videotaped interview that he intends never to report that data [...] But in all the checks Levi made, he did not do any direct measurements of the output heat that would tell him the output energy. This oversight is inexplicable."
Yes, Levi did speak about a 15-20kW energy production. No, he did not measure the accuracy of the claim or release any data.
|
On August 14 2011 16:07 NathanSC wrote:http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml#levimeasures"Levi, on the other hand, performed a sub-boiling experiment. But, as he now knows, the data from that 18-hour experiment on Feb.10-11 is next to worthless. His instrumentation and data collection in that experiment left much to be desired. Levi told me on June 14 in the videotaped interview that he intends never to report that data [...] But in all the checks Levi made, he did not do any direct measurements of the output heat that would tell him the output energy. This oversight is inexplicable." Yes, Levi did speak about a 15-20kW energy production. No, he did not measure the accuracy of the claim or release any data.
Levi did not write a report, but if you read the Nyteknik article it is clear they did measure the output heat. Input water temperature, output water temperature and flow rate were measured. In a shoddy manner perhaps, but I can't even imagine how far off they would have to be with their measurements to mistaken the effect of the 80 watt input energy for 15-20 kW excess energy.
|
I also want to mention that Kullander and Essen's report contains this paragraph. Once again, even without going into details about steam energy calculations (steam dryness, hose exit speed, temperature), we see considerable energy production.
It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, as can be seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the temperature-time relation.
Link to the report
|
All we can do is wait and see what happens.
|
On August 14 2011 16:44 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 16:07 NathanSC wrote:http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml#levimeasures"Levi, on the other hand, performed a sub-boiling experiment. But, as he now knows, the data from that 18-hour experiment on Feb.10-11 is next to worthless. His instrumentation and data collection in that experiment left much to be desired. Levi told me on June 14 in the videotaped interview that he intends never to report that data [...] But in all the checks Levi made, he did not do any direct measurements of the output heat that would tell him the output energy. This oversight is inexplicable." Yes, Levi did speak about a 15-20kW energy production. No, he did not measure the accuracy of the claim or release any data. Levi did not write a report, but if you read the Nyteknik article it is clear they did measure the output heat. Input water temperature, output water temperature and flow rate were measured. In a shoddy manner perhaps, but I can't even imagine how far off they would have to be with their measurements to mistaken the effect of the 80 watt input energy for 15-20 kW excess energy.
Actually, proper calculations suggest they are several orders of magnitude off.
"In fact, the heat released from the experiment appears to be several orders of magnitude less than what they have claimed, at best.
Last year Rossi and Focardi claimed an energy gain of 213 times. This year, Rossi downgraded that to six. Our analysis shows a possible energy gain of one to two times. In other words, Rossi's device probably produces Watts, not kilowatts, of power."
Source
If you actually spend time calculating the figures, then you arrive at a low wattage of output energy (~150w). Flow rate was never properly measured, it was cited by Rossi to be almost 100 times greater than observation, which puts the flow rate at ~.6 m/s or 10mph. So despite your inability or unwillingness to imagine how their measurements could have been so far off, they actually were.
Rossi's LENR may very well show energy gains beyond what can be explained by chemical reactions, yes. That's also nothing new as far as the history of LENR is concerned. However, the overall shoddy data gathering, the lack of proper peer review, the declining magnitude of claims, him cancelling the plans to put the E-Cat to use in a power plant, and lying about it being a "self-sustaining" device, etcetera... well, that all casts this in what can only be described as a bad light.
|
NathanSC, get your experiments straight before you comment on them. You're confusing different ones here. I was talking about tests that involved hot water, you respond with a quote by Krivit on steam.
On August 16 2011 17:38 NathanSC wrote:
Actually, proper calculations suggest they are several orders of magnitude off.
This is a comment from Krivit on steam measurements. Since there is controversy about steam measurements, I went and posted about energy output calculations that do not involve steam, which happens to be the Feb. 10 demonstration. Then there also is the Nyteknik test with Kullander and Essen in which water flow was measured by weight (these guy happen to be physics professors and one is a former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics society. You would expect them to know how to take measurements. Krivit on the other hand has no physics education).
Both of these contradict Krivit's claims that there is no/little energy production because steam measurements were done wrongly.
Last year Rossi and Focardi claimed an energy gain of 213 times. This year, Rossi downgraded that to six.
This is a distortion of reality. Rossi never "downgraded" his claims. He said that for safety reasons, the commercial product will operate with 6-30x gains.
If you look at the Feb. 10 data, 15-20 kW output with 80 watts input, you get 218x gains by the way. Once again, this test only involved hot water, no steam.
|
On August 16 2011 18:55 Traeon wrote:
NathanSC, get your experiments straight before you comment on them. You're confusing different ones here. I was talking about tests that involved hot water, you respond with a quote by Krivit on steam.
You do realize that steam is hot water, right? I don't really feel like you clarified which experiment you were referring to by saying "output water temperature and flow rate," so it was perfectly reasonable to assume you were referring the Jan. 14th experiment. All experiments involve output water and flow rate.
The energy output calculations you're referring to I believe can be found here, source.
First, though, on the topic of Krivit's physics educations. The findings of the energy gain in the Jan. 14th experiment were done by a mechanical engineer, and not Krivit himself. These findings indicate a gain of only 2-3x input power. I also agree that you would expect Nyteknik and Kullander to know how to take measurements. Inexplicably, however, they do not take proper measurements.
The February experiment is equally wrong. Using the measurements given in the above-cited source, the diameter of the hose would need to be 48.72mm to achieve a flow rate of liquid water at ~20C of 3000L/Hr at 1mph. This would give you an energy gain of 16-17kW. These were all approximations from a "source close to the test."
However, the diameter of the hose used was observed to be 5mm. This would give a volumetric flow rate of ~31.5L/Hr, nearly 1/100th of the cited flow rate. This ballparks power gain at 160W-250W. This is done with volumetric flow rate calculations, which you can do yourself using any of numerous online calculators, such as this one - http://www.pipeflowcalculations.com/flowrate/. That's all taken from looking at the Feb. 10th data.
Also, yes, Rossi did downgrade his claims. In his Jan. 15th press conference ( source ), Rossi claims that the "same reactor and the same material" capable of 200 times energy output was safe to demonstrate to the public. Later, on June 15th, this claim changed to 6 times energy output. Regardless of the reason, which is ostensibly for safety as Rossi claims, this is a downgrade. The claim in question is the energy output of a larger model.
|
This was pretty controversial in the 90s and considering all the research that was done by respected scientist I'm surprised it didn't go anywhere if there's so much potential.
This could be a great discovery but we'll have to see, I'm still skeptical.
|
On July 27 2011 23:58 rubio91 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 21:24 Ravencruiser wrote:
Sigh, I wasn't even going to click on the thread but somehow did anyway.
Let's put it this way:
For those of you still trying to argue "it might be possible", I pity you.
The exact same thing, and I mean exactly the same, has happened at least a few hundred times before this. No independent review entities/methods allowed, zero information on mechanism of action, sets a future "revealing date" (while reaping the benefits of all the hype/publicity before the big blow-out), etc.
Every time, the scam has some sort of catch that tries to make itself unique; and yet in every case, a scam is still a scam. Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 20:48 Probe1 wrote:
For fucks sake if you want to prove it's real just allow independent verification without oversight instead of making a 50+ page document eliminating ways it could be a scam.
I don't want to be this negative.. wait, yes I do. There are ample procedures for being taken seriously. I suggest they try one of them. (Hint: That does not include inviting people over for a day pass to look at it.) I am myself a great skeptic, especially when the discussion is about scientific objects (just watch my previous posts on other threads). However, since i live in Italy, I had been observing this story for long time, and I came to the conclusion that there are great possibilities that the whole thing is real. Why? Because: 1) As said before (maybe) there is an energy output much greater than te energy put in the device to make it work, and there are no ways to produce such a great amount of energy with other reactions than nuclear reactions. 2) There is a power plant in production in Greece. 3) Rossi and Forcardi put their faces in that and, especially Focardi, have a reputation, that will be destroyed if the whole story is a fake. So no purpose of lying. 4) Many Scientist, from different nations (so not possibly connected by shared interests) are convinced that this "e-cat" can work: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ecehttp://www.queryonline.it/ this site, in italian, followed the evolution of the whole story, since almost the beginning. It is the main media of CICAP, a very skeptical Italian organization composed by scientists, journalists etc. (it was very skeptical about the reactor at the beginning, but gradually they changed their mind, keeping a cautious approach at least since a full demonstration end explanation of the phenomena will be given). 5) Rossi is actually in contact with Bologna University in order to organize this demonstration.
Pretty much, I'm a skeptic, but the reasons that people are giving out for why this is a scam are retarded.
"Too good to be true" - yes that's a logical reason to be skeptical of something 
"They don't want to tell anyone how it works because it's a scam" - bzzz, how do you think they are planning to protect themselves from competitors who plan on copying their products if it works?
It might not work as well as they hope, but I doubt that they are intentionally scamming people.
But so far it sounds promising, let's just wait and see where this technology goes.
|
It's an easy-to-do scam. Just take some radioactive material from some nuclear plant, and pump water through that. The water will heat up because the nuclear reaction is not fully finished in that material.
That way you get more-than-any-chemical-reaction quantity of energy.
|
Yeah, duh, anyone can go ask for a bunch of uranium or polonium and make a similar machine themselves.
|
Alan Fletcher's opinion on steam quality. It's the same person that analyzed all possible known methods of fakes (which the people talking about uranium etc. should read some time  , the link is in the OP)
The MINIMUM steam quality is thus ABOVE the dryout point, which means that the steam quality is above 75% Dry, and the total power is over 4300 W, much larger than the electrical input of 770 W.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
