It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Such a third party test has now been reported, in a paper dryly titled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder”.
“Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively,” with the first experiment demonstrating a COP (Coefficient of Performance) of almost 6, and a energy density estimated at five orders of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources. This means an energy production (per liter) one order of magnitude higher than a conventional source.
Skeptic Quote -- "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." --William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899.
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.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
So many people have been repeatedly saying the inventor is a hoaxer out to make money but right from the start i've always said "how could he ever hope to get away with any cash if its not real?".
So far all the tests seems to back up the claims. I have my fingers crossed for this invention.
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.
In a detailed report, two Swedish physicists exclude chemical reactions as the energy source in the Italian ‘energy catalyzer’. The two physicists recently supervised a new test of the device in Bologna, Italy.
Dick Smith offered Rossi one million dollars to demonstrate that the E-Cat system worked as claimed, while the power through the earth wire was also being measured, which Rossi refused.[50][51] Peter Thieberger, a senior physicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, said it would be very difficult for this misconnection to happen by accident and that the issue could only be cleared with a fully independent test.
A paper titled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device" was published on 16 May 2013. The authors of the paper noted that they weren’t in control of all of the aspects of the process
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. 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.
Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Thill
I was so stoked when I got the email about this. Unfortunately, I'm reluctant to ever discuss it here because people instantly feel the need to tell you how it's impossible.
What they don't realize is that everything we do was impossible until we did it.
Yes I read the paper, and you already have my feedback, that it wasn't completely independent, as there were aspects of the experiment not in control of the authors, and I saw no specific effort to measure current though the ground wire as the million dollar challenge suspected was a "cheat".
Originally posted by Thill
Since You seem to be more knowledgeable in this topic than I am, could I get Your input on the validity of the research paper then ?
That summary is a bit harsh, but his analysis which is too long to repost here in its entirety does make a lot of valid points. For example, the the "35%" figure they mentioned in the report does not seem to be a measured value at all, but some sort of "guess" or assumed value. This is exactly the kind of sloppy assumption I referred to that should be measured instead of assumed.
To summarize, the preprint is complete rubbish and the authors are probably linked to Andrea Rossi personally but that doesn't prevent the loudest blogger of the LHC's CMS Collaboration to partially endorse this preprint – without even attempting to read it because "this is not [his] field of research" – and suggest even though he hasn't looked at this paper at least to see that it's pure trash (and it's very easy to see), he will more closely follow cold fusion because of that. It's so easy to propagate lies and stupidity in this world especially because most people are even more stupid, mindless sheep than Tommaso Dorigo.
I made the exact same observation independently, as well as some others this author mentions. There's way too much unnecessary guesswork going on for things like this, which could be measured, and that's just one example.
Where does the figure 35% come from? The resistors (electric heaters of a sort) were on for "about" 35% of the time and off for "about" 65% of the time. Couldn't one just measure the precise time during which something was turned on and off?
Originally posted by DiscreteParticle
PDF download of paper
This looks so cool (no pun). I wish I could understand what I just read!