| “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.” -- Report
“The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source.” -- Report Conclusion
Pure Energy Systems News
The debate about whether or not Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology really works should be quieting now, with a very readable, definitive third-party test report having been released today, stating that at the most conservative, the Hot-Cat technology showed at least a ten-fold increase in power density over what could possibly have been ascribed to any presently-known chemical processes.
The long-awaited, third-party report on the E-Cat is a single report, but the report offers two independent studies carried out in December 13-17, 2012 and March 18-23, 2013 in Andrea Rossi's premises in the city of Ferrara in Italy, without the inventor's involvement.
The first was conducted by Giuseppe Levi, of the University of Bologna, in collaboration with Evelyn Foschi. The second was conducted by the previous scientists, joined by Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér at Uppsala University in collaboration with the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.
As for credentials, Hanno Essen used to be chairman of the Swedish Skeptics' Society. He is one of the scientists who visited Andrea Rossi in 2011 and was impressed. Here is what he concluded then, according to a Swedish TV Documentary made about the E-Cat.
As for the recent testing, reported in this third-party report, the first test lasted 96 hours continuous, and the second lasted 116 hours continuous. In both cases, the tests were limited to observe an E-Cat at high temperature in operation, by measuring the electrical energy input into the system and the heat produced by the module. And in both tests, the two E-Cats were provided by Andrea Rossi, and the scientists conducting the independent tests had no way of opening the reactor to see what it contained. Rossi was not involved in the testing, other than being available if they had any questions.
As in the original E-Cat, the reaction is fueled by a mixture of nickel, hydrogen, and a catalyst,
which is kept as an industrial trade secret.
High-resolution thermal imaging cameras were used to record the heat inside the reaction tube, with the data recorded on a second-by-second basis. Electrical power output was measured using a large bandwidth, three-phase power analyzer.
The report was published at Cornell University's arXiv.org, titled Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device. At the footer of the home page of arXiv.org is the following statement: (emphasis added)
"arXiv is an e-print service in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance and statistics. Submissions to arXiv must conform to Cornell University academic standards. arXiv is owned and operated by Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is funded by Cornell University Library, the Simons Foundation and by the member institutions."
significant radioactivity above background radiation was measured during the
The report refers to the device being tested as the E-Cat HT, where HT stands for high temperature. Up until now, in all the reporting that has been done of this technology, we have been colloquially referring to this as the "Hot-Cat".
In the interview Frank Ackland of E-CatWorld and I did with Andrea Rossi on May 7, 2013, here is what he said about this matter.
Third-Party Testing of Hot-Cat
I would imagine that at least some, if not all, of the professors involved in
conducting that test are now named above in the list of authors on the
Note that a correction to what Rossi said is that there were actually two tests, not one, with no interruptions.
The tests were funded by Elforsk and Alba Langenskiöld Foundation.
Not Necessarily a Vindication of "Cold Fusion"
Note that scientists do not yet understand the mode of action of how Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) works.
"Fusion" is the combining of two elements. Near the end of his life, Martin Fleishmann bemoaned that he ever called his process "cold fusion", because he doesn't believe that "fusion" is what is actually taking place, though the reaction is most likely a nuclear process. The general phenomenon has been replicated more than 17,000 times according to Jed Rothwell, author of the industry bedrock website: http://lenr-canr.org/
Andrea Rossi's technology has been called "cold fusion" by some, but from what I understand from one of the top scientists working with Andrea Rossi, Bill Donavan, fusion is not involved at all. It is all transmutation. The Hydrogen goes to Deuterium (non-radioactive) through a series of steps, liberating a huge amount of energy in the process, as the primary transmutation reaction. And the Nickel goes to Copper (non-radioactive) through a series of steps, as a low and infrequent secondary transmutation reaction.
That is why LENR, for Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, is a more suitable name for the class of technology this comes under. "Low Energy", meaning that in contrast to the sun, where nuclear fusion reactions require tens of millions of degrees Celsius to take place, these reactions take place near room temperature.
"Low Energy" does not refer to the output being wimpy. These reactions could power the energy needs of humans across our planet, cheaply, safely, and cleanly.
Different from 1 MW Plant
Note that the Hot-Cat is a research and development variation of the LENR
technology that has been for sale since October 28, 2011 when Andrea Rossi
demonstrated a 1 MW Plant running at half power in self-sustain mode for more
than five and a half hours, which I attended. (Story)
You can purchase a 1 MW E-Cat plant for producing heat in the range of 103 -
130şC for $1.5 million USD. (Story)
In his interview with us on May 7, Rossi said that the Hot-Cat runs at 350şC and is "very stable." At this temperature, he said that creating electricity will be easy, and that they are making progress on building such embodiments.
Later in the interview, in response to a question: "Is Andrea Rossi still working with Siemens to generate electricity?" he replied to the affirmative, but said that the conditions were under NDA and he was not at liberty to elaborate.
Ragone Plot of Hot-Cat Energy Density
Where the data really shines is when inserted in a Ragone plot.
Jed Rothwell brought this chart by Alan Fletcher to my attention, showing the energy density of the Hot-Cat in relation to other conventional energy production and storage technologies. Click on the link or on the image below to get an enlarged view of the chart.
The official report states: "The results obtained place both devices several orders of magnitude outside the bounds of the Ragone plot region for chemical sources."
To be more precise, the highest specific energy is Gasoline (which has a lower peak power), shown at 3x103 Wh/kg. Whereas the specific energy of the Hot-Cat is shown at 5x107 Wh/kg -- over four orders of magnitude greater (1700x). And from the peak power scale, super capacitors (which have a very low specific energy) are listed at 1x104 W/kg, whereas the Hot-Cat registers at 4x105 W/kg, more than an order of magnitude greater (40x).
And they add (emphasis mine): "Lastly, it must be remarked that both tests were terminated by a deliberate shut down of the reactor, not by fuel exhaustion; thus, the energy densities that were measured should be considered as lower limits of real values."
The power output was nearly constant for the duration of the ~100-day testing.
Here are some excerpts from the report published today at arXiv.org:
Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder
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.
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.
According to one of the authors of the report, Bo Höistad, Professor at Uppsala University, the next test will be a long-term test. "We will probably run for six months and see if heat production is continuous throughout an entire semester." (Ref.)
The report itself states at the end of the conclusion: "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."
This portion of this article is being
updated as more coverage is found
Most recent save: July 16, 2013 10:14:09 PM Mountain
Here are some links to stories about this from around the web:
(mostly in chronological sequence within each category)
Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success? (Overunity.com; May 20, 2013)
On May 22nd, 2013 at 4:30 PM; Andrea Rossi wrote:
I read the article on Repubblica, is sincere and honest, but contains some imprecision:
1- the peer reviewing has been done. Read more carefully the report . Arxiv has anyway a peer reviewing ( a publication must be examined by at least one of the competent of the art that is well known by the Arxiv commettee: try to publish a bad article on Arxiv and you will understand that I am right); secondly, to be published in a cartaceous peer reviewed magazine takes many months, so the Examiners decided to anticipate the publication on Arxiv, pending a publication on another peer reviewed magazine. By the way, the report has been peer reviewed by the list of Professors you find in the acknowledgements, not to mention the fact that when a paper is signed by many Professors of international Universities, there is also an automatic peer reviewing made among the same Authors of the same report. It is more difficult that 7 Authors make mistakes than 1 Author , isn’t it? Also: the Report is 30 pages, and is impossible to publish 30 pages in a normal magazine, therefore by necessity the report will have to be reduced to be published in a normal magazine: for this reason Arxiv has been chosen by the examiners for the first publication.
2- the description of the process has been described uncorrectly, but I understand that for a non expert is difficult to write in few lines an abstract of 30 pages of report.
In conclusion, the journalist of Repubblica has made honestly and sincerely the job.
ScienceGuy posted in our comments:
Ok. I've done a first pass reading of the report and seriously caution excitement. I looked at the report as I would as a peer reviewer (I am not aware of the academic credentials of the authors, but will look that up), which I've done dozens (a hundred?) of times. There are 3 major issues which would cause me to reject this submission. I will be happy to respond in more detail if anyone would like but here would be my comments for a journal submission
1. While the author(s) provide Information regarding the thermal imager, no information is provided as to the calibration of the instrument prior to the measurement. As detailed in future comments, a small change in measured temperature will result in a large change (T^4) power calculation.
2. Given the relative uniformity in measurement of the horizontal pixels, an R/S/T type thermocouple mounted on the system would provide more confidence in the measurement.
3. The author(s) have fundamental mistake in the calculation of the radiative power. On page three, they state "if one relates the length of the verticle line (32 pixels) to the diameter of the device (11 cm)....." This is a very large source of error in the computed temperature and power. Given the cylindrical geometry of the device, a 1 cm wide horizontal slice of the image will actually correspond to 17.27 cm^2 of radiative area. By the numbers provided by the author(s). They have computed only 11 cm^2, which is error. This can also be seen in the image itself. The homogeneity of the image should not be see if one calculates the radiative intensity of a thermal device with the apparent area. That is, the image appears to be at the same temperature even though there is additional area.
I think I ran out of space. I could not make this comment. An order of magnitude power calculation is approximately a 14% increase in temperature at 700 kelvin. Given concerns 1 through 3, the conclusion can not be substantiated by the measurements provided. Recommendation "reject for publication pending response to comments 1,2 and 3."
May 21, 2013 8:55 PM Mountain
Here is my very preliminary re-assessment of my previous comments
As I said before, I took a look at this report from the standpoint of a peer reviewer. I also said that my conclusions were based upon a "first pass" of the paper. Just to frame the situation, I work as a scientist and, as a member of several scientific organizations, I peer review many papers. That being said, I have had the chance to take a second, more thorough, look at the paper and would make the following modifications of a review report;
1. It does appear that there was a calibration of the optical pyrometer with respect to a thermocouple (P18 Paragraph 3)
2. Addressed by comment #1
3. The actual area is accounted for in equations 3-6. This also answers questions regarding the apparent intensity measured by the 2D camera matrix
The statements presented in this paper are rather profound and require a further review before any serious assessment of the accuracy of the conclusions can be performed. However, at this point, I would be willing to state that the temperature measurements, as presented, appear to be accurate.
There does remain a large amount of analysis regarding the input power to the system that must be performed. I would caution that any assessment of the COP reflected in the paper be held in reserve pending further review of the design of experiment and measurements made.
You may publish this under "scienceguy" Please refrain from using my real name until I have further guidance. It is always better to err on the side of caution
I will review the power input section and get back to you... You may also make a statement regarding that... I need to consult with my materials experts and EE's to get a better understanding of the power input as presented in the paper.
And Ian Fisk wrote in our comments:
Another problem seems that the authors make a basic mistake which may explain their results. They assign the apparatus an emissivity of 1 for a black body (generally a very dull, very black object). They call this a "conservative" assumption but it is actually produces the maximum power from the radiation - it is an extreme assumption.
But the apparatus is actually quite dull and gray. That suggests that the emissivity is less than 1. For example Iron with a dark gray surface has emissivity has an emissivity of 0.31 at 300C.
Jed Rothwell, a pillar in the LENR field for two decades, wrote on Vortex:
“This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.”
Roger Bird, on May 20, 2013 at 1:58 pm, wrote at e-catworld:
This image was posted at http://www.lenrnews.eu/
And over at ColdFusionNow, at May 20, 2013 at 6:39 AM; Gerard McEk writes:
I read the whole article and this is where we have all been waiting for: We have a new Energy Source which works and can be manufactured at any moment, delivering usable amounts of energy and with an energy density which exceeds any chemical process by factors (1000 when calculated per kg and 10 when calculated per litre). This is the paradigm change, now hope mankind will be able to manage this for the good of all.
Tell the world!
Thanks to Rossi, Fleischmann and Pons
Jed Rothwell posted the following in response to Matts Lewan's story. I should note that this is the first article that NyTeknik has run since September 11, 2013, following the E-Cat conference in Zurick. Before that, they gave fairly regular coverage on the developments. Matts Lewan was one of the reporters present with me at the October 28, 2011 demo of the 1 MW E-Cat.
Regarding skeptics, on Vortex I wrote that it is time for everyone to accept Rossi’s claims. All of his claims, including previous ones:
“It is not possible that Rossi was lying or faking in previous tests and only now he has something real. No one can go from nothing to something as dramatic as this in one step. It is time for the skeptics to admit they were wrong about Rossi. (Real skeptics, I mean, not the pathological ones.)”
Some of Rossi’s previous tests did fail, as he himself readily admitted. Frankly, I would be suspicious of any cold fusion device that works all the time. I have been to several labs and read hundreds of papers. I have never heard of a cold fusion reactor that always works. If commercial cold fusion is developed it will be far more reliable than today’s laboratory reactors. It will be as reliable as an automobile or battery. These machines do fail, but only once in thousands or hundreds of thousands of runs. (I have a 22-year-old car that I have started roughly 11,000 times. It has failed to start 3 times, but it was my fault twice — I left the lights on.)
I doubt that Rossi’s devices can be improved and tested enough for general commercial use in only one year. Twenty-first century standards for reliability and safety are too high for that. Devices would have to undergo thousands of hours of testing at places like the Underwriter’s Laboratory before they can be sold in most markets. There are similar requirements in Europe and Japan.
You wrote that the e-cat energy output has been “beaten only by nuclear based power sources.” That is inaccurate. The e-cat did not exhaust the fuel in these test runs. It would probably have to run for months to do that, possibly for years. In that case it would probably produce more energy per gram of fuel than a fission reactor.
In other words, this can be compared to a test run of a uranium fission reactor for 116 hours, which leaves plenty of un-fissioned uranium in the fuel rods.
To which, Matts replied:
Jed, the energy and power densities conservatively calculated in the report are about 100 or 1,000 or even 10,000 times those for conventional energy sources whereas nuclear power sources generally have values about one million times those for conventional sources. In this sense the output is beaten by nuclear energy sources.
However, if this would turn out to be a nuclear reaction I believe we will find figures around one million also for this process and in that case the lower numbers in the report probably depends on the extremely conservative calculations, e.g. including the steel taps of the reactor tube in the weight of the fuel.
And also in this process I would expect to find lots of “un-used” fuel even after months of operation, if it’s a nuclear based reaction.
Then Jed came back with:
You said “heat production” which I took to mean energy density, not power density.
Conventional fission reactors fuel rods do not have high power density. I do not recall what it is, but it is lower than a combustion reactor core. (Lower than fire, in other words.)
Nuclear bomb power density is very high!
If Rossi’s device is made into practical technology, I expect the power density and energy density will range from low to very high. It will be whatever the product designer needs. A device such as a thermolectric pacemaker battery will have low power density and a low temperature. You do not want to implant a red-hot object in someone’s chest. An aerospace engine will have high power density, up to the melting point of the materials. It seems this device exceeded these limits, and partially melted, indicating that Rossi does not have perfect control yet.
At least six other cold fusion devices has melted or vaporized. See:
I do not think the input to output ratio (COP) will be an issue. Rossi and others have demonstrated reactors running with no input power for hours or days at a time. It may be safer or more convenient to have input power modulating the reaction, but I predict this will be a small fraction of output.
And over at ColdFusionNow, at May 20, 2013 at 7:01 AM; Nixer writes:
Hard to overstate the significance of this, the dawn of a new age for the planet. Energy at a fraction of the current rate, a break from the controlling super powered energy monopolies, equity and growth for the third world, power to manufacture goods at extremely low cost resulting in lower prices for manufactured goods, compact power sources leading to low cost space travel, switch away from fossil fuels and other non renewable energy sources, less need for Military forces to control and protect fossil fuel resources in the Middle East and many other things that we cannot even imagine. The unattainable Star Trek universe of our dreams, suddenly becomes obtainable.
And http://www.drboblog.com/cold-fusion-is-real/ reports: [Note, most of these applications will take years to develop.]
This will lead to:
- A breakthrough for electric cars.
- A new market that create jobs
- Less war for oil and other resources
- Cheaper manufacturing and transport for day to day goods
- Technology for cleaning up the environment
- Affordable clean water technology for every person on the earth
- Local and more nutritious food production will bloom
- Individuals become less vulnerable from an instable Global Economic System
- Better and smaller batteries
- Space Travel becomes orders of magnitude cheaper and thus profitable
(We lack resources on earth and can compensate with space mining for resources)
Congratulations: Your Life Quality Is About To Increase – A LOT
# # #
Resources at PESWiki.com
|Page posted by Sterling
Last updated July 16, 2013