Changes

The inventors reported about their experiment in their blog<ref>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360</ref>, and published three Youtube videos in Italian language [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc].

The inventors reported about their experiment in their blog<ref>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360</ref>, and published three Youtube videos in Italian language [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc].

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600&nbsp;Watts, at an estimated output of 12,000&nbsp;Watts (12&nbsp;kW). Inventors calculated the heat generated from heated water: 292 grammes of water per minute were heated from 20 degrees to 101 degrees (dry vapour) and evaporated. The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements. They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma radiation was denied due to secrecy reasons. A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes. Excerpt from the report:

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600&nbsp;Watts, at an estimated output of 12,000&nbsp;Watts (12&nbsp;kW). The inventors calculated their estimation of generated heat from the heated water: 292 grammes of water per minute were heated from 20 degrees to 101 degrees (dry vapour) and evaporated. The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements. They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma radiation was denied due to secrecy reasons. A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes. Excerpt from the report:

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;<br>regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].''

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;<br>regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].''

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 18.6 kgs or according to other sources  more than 13 kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme, not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf]  

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 18.6 kgs or according to other sources  more than 13 kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme, not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf]  

'''Inconsistencies:''' Several incomprehensible informations were given after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said informations. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20 minutes shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventor and operator of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made based on dry vapour without fractions of condensed water which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The throughput of water claimed at 29 mls/min. (= 17.5 liter/min) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI J5" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 7.6 liter/h.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> The calculated heat output given by the team is more than twice as high as actually possible with the in the video visible pump. Assuming just a couple of percent condensated water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

'''Inconsistencies:''' Several incomprehensible informations were given after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said informations. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20 minutes shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventor and operator of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made based on dry vapour without fractions of condensed water which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The throughput of water claimed at 29 mls/min. (= 17.5 liter/min) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI J5" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 7.6 liter/h.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> The calculated heat output given by the team is more than twice as high as actually possible with the pump visible in the video. Assuming just a couple of percent condensated water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

==Undocumented experiment on February 10/11, 2011==

==Undocumented experiment on February 10/11, 2011==