Changes

Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer (view source)

Revision as of 19:22, 6 May 2011

55 bytes removed , 19:22, 6 May 2011

no edit summary

Line 1: Line 1: −

[[image:Rossi_Focardi.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (picture "La Repubblica"). A (yellow) dosimetric pump of the type "LMI P18" can be seen in the foreground (maximum flow: 12.1 ~~or 7.6~~ l/h) switched at 60% flow rate.|thumb]]

+

[[image:Rossi_Focardi.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (picture "La Repubblica"). A (yellow) dosimetric pump of the type "LMI P18" can be seen in the foreground (maximum flow: 12.1 l/h) switched at 60% flow rate.|thumb]]

[[image:Rossi_Focardi3.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (picture: "Rainews24")|300px|thumb]]

The '''Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer''' (also ''E-Cat'' or ''Rossi Energy Amplifier'' or just ''Rossi energy catalyzer'') is an alleged compact fusion reactor planned to be brought to market in 2011. According to Italian inventors, alleged engineer(see below) Andrea Rossi<ref>Rossi: ''I am a doctor in the Philosophy of Science and Engineering from the Universita’ Degli Studi Di Milano''</ref>, [[Cold Fusion|cold fusion]] of hydrogen and nickel was taking place in the reactor<ref>Andrea Rossi and Professor emeritus in physics Sergio Focardi in their patent application, Page 12: ''the reaction actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.''</ref>, leading under emission of strong heat to the formation of copper. The demonstrations of Rossi in 2011 were criticized by various sources, for example neither gamma nor neutron radiation could be measured<ref>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</ref> and there is no proof for the creation of non-natural isotope ratios in the alleged fusion products. The respective experiments show several methodological weaknesses. Independent tests, which might prove a fusion process according to the said principle, failed so far. Specialist literature about the "Energy-Catalyzer" is not available(as of April 2011)

Line 65: Line 65:

==Presentation on January 14, 2011==

−

[[image:FAE4.jpg|Video of an experiment taking several minutes during a public presentation on January 14, 2011 (Source: [http://curiositybox.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/bologna-14111-cronaca-test-fusione-fredda-del-reattore-nichel-idrogeno-focardi-rossi/ Curiosity-Blog])|300px|left|thumb]][[image:RF_Dauer2.jpg|Screenshot from a video of the experiment used to estimate its duration|thumb]][[image:RF_Dauer3.jpg|Temperaturkurve, mit zwei Zeiträumen bei denen 100 Grad C erreicht wurden|thumb]][[image:RF_Thermometer.jpg|Comparison of the shown probe to a HP474AC probe (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|thumb]][[image:RF_Pumpe.jpg|Specifications of the used pump "LMI ~~P1/J5~~" (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|thumb]]

+

[[image:FAE4.jpg|Video of an experiment taking several minutes during a public presentation on January 14, 2011 (Source: [http://curiositybox.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/bologna-14111-cronaca-test-fusione-fredda-del-reattore-nichel-idrogeno-focardi-rossi/ Curiosity-Blog])|300px|left|thumb]][[image:RF_Dauer2.jpg|Screenshot from a video of the experiment used to estimate its duration|thumb]][[image:RF_Dauer3.jpg|Temperaturkurve, mit zwei Zeiträumen bei denen 100 Grad C erreicht wurden|thumb]][[image:RF_Thermometer.jpg|Comparison of the shown probe to a HP474AC probe (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|thumb]][[image:RF_Pumpe.jpg|Specifications of the used pump "LMI P18" (Image: www.physicsforums.com)|thumb]]

Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi gave a press conference on January 14, 2011 which was not only attended by Italian public television station RAI (RAI 3) and numerous journalists, but also by several physicists from universities. The presentation was done in rooms rented from the company "GM System" in an industrial area of Bologna<ref>Company GM System, Via dell'Elettricista 16, Bologna</ref> and not in rooms of the Bologna University as claimed on various places in the internet.

Line 77: Line 77:

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 292 ml/min. (= 17.5 liter/h) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI ~~P1" or "LMI J5~~" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h ~~(LMI P18) and 7.6 liter/h (LMI J56)~~.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> Other models (A/B/C) of LMI pumps can be ruled out, as they they look different. The pump strokes are audible in a Youtube video<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref>. The pump was switched to 60 strokes/minute, which corresponds to 60% of maximal flow rate (60% of 12.1 or 7,6 l/h). Rossi was asked in January 2011 which type of pump was used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model.<ref>From JONP-Blog, Question to Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM Excuse, Dr. Levi, my insistence, but on the lack of an answer to my previous question, let me temporarily assume that the model of the pump used in the January 14th test belongs actually to the Milton Roy LMI Series P1. In such a case, the capacity per stroke could be at maximum 2 ml (model P18 in the Series P1). Now, considering that the pump has been operated at about 57 strokes per minute (hear sound at the beginning of movie 2/3), it makes a maximum water flow rate of 114 ml per minute, that would be 39% only of the value indicated in your preliminary report. Probably, I have got a bad impression and the pump was another one. So I think it would be of great importance, if you could gather and kindly specify, here and/or on the final version of your report, the real specific model and the relevant operating data of the water pump used in your verification test. Thank you and best regards'' (Name) A. Rossi: Andrea Rossi January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM Dear (Name): I do not know which kind of pump it was, because it has been chosen by the testers, but what I can say, regarding your comment, is: 1- the amount of the flow of water has been tested many times during the test, filling a reservoir with a well known volume and taking the time to fill it up. 2- I thank you very much for validating our test by redundance: in fact, if only the 39% of the measured flow should have been passed, the reactor would have produced 4.8 kWh, consuming 400 Wh. I am sure that you, being an engineer of a great energy provider, know the first and also the second thermodynamic principle, therefore I am sure you made your comment to congratulate us. For this reason I thank you infinitely. Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>. The calculated heat output given by the team is far higher than actually possible with the pump visible in the video and therefore certainly wrong.. Assuming just a couple of percent condensed 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 292 ml/min. (= 17.5 liter/h) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI P18" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1 l/h.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> Other models (A/B/C) of LMI pumps can be ruled out, as they they look different. The pump strokes are audible in a Youtube video<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref>. The pump was switched to 60 strokes/minute, which corresponds to 60% of maximal flow rate (60% of 12.1 or 7,6 l/h). Rossi was asked in January 2011 which type of pump was used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model.<ref>From JONP-Blog, Question to Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM Excuse, Dr. Levi, my insistence, but on the lack of an answer to my previous question, let me temporarily assume that the model of the pump used in the January 14th test belongs actually to the Milton Roy LMI Series P1. In such a case, the capacity per stroke could be at maximum 2 ml (model P18 in the Series P1). Now, considering that the pump has been operated at about 57 strokes per minute (hear sound at the beginning of movie 2/3), it makes a maximum water flow rate of 114 ml per minute, that would be 39% only of the value indicated in your preliminary report. Probably, I have got a bad impression and the pump was another one. So I think it would be of great importance, if you could gather and kindly specify, here and/or on the final version of your report, the real specific model and the relevant operating data of the water pump used in your verification test. Thank you and best regards'' (Name) A. Rossi: Andrea Rossi January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM Dear (Name): I do not know which kind of pump it was, because it has been chosen by the testers, but what I can say, regarding your comment, is: 1- the amount of the flow of water has been tested many times during the test, filling a reservoir with a well known volume and taking the time to fill it up. 2- I thank you very much for validating our test by redundance: in fact, if only the 39% of the measured flow should have been passed, the reactor would have produced 4.8 kWh, consuming 400 Wh. I am sure that you, being an engineer of a great energy provider, know the first and also the second thermodynamic principle, therefore I am sure you made your comment to congratulate us. For this reason I thank you infinitely. Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>. The calculated heat output given by the team is far higher than actually possible with the pump visible in the video and therefore certainly wrong.. Assuming just a couple of percent condensed water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

The report about the experiment states that the used hydrogen cylinder has been weighted before and after the test to establish the amount of used hydrogen with less than a gram margin. For the weight of the pressure cylinder different values are given, but it is said to have been between 13 kg and 16 kg. Available scales for the given range (for 20/30/60 kg) allow to read weight in 0.1 gram steps but there precision is far less. Possible scales offer just a precision of 0.2 to 0.4 gram.<ref>Sartorius (CPA34001S) 34 kg d=0,1 gr e 0,2 gr.[http://www.sartorius-mechatronics.com/DE/de/praezisions-waage-dy3xpfyyb7o.html] Precisa 490K 34000D, 34 kg d=0,1 gr e 0,2 gr [http://www.as-waegetechnik.de/produkte/Industriewaagen/iw/praezisionswaagen_assets/Precisa%20490.pdf] Kern CDS 15K0.05 15 kg d=0,05 g, e 0,25 g Adam Equipment PGL-20001 Precision Balance 20 kg d 0.1g, linearity (±): 0.4g</ref>

Line 112: Line 112:

==Experiment on March 29, 2011==

−

A six-hours presentation was made on March 29, 2011 in Bologna attended by invited Swedish physicists Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén. For "stability reasons" a smaller "energy catalyzer" with lesser output was used, which is said to have yielded 25 kWh in 6 hours with a thermal output of 4.4 kW. The same pump LMI J5 was used in this presentation as in January, but this time the capacity was compatible with the maximum flow capacity given by the manufacturer and plausible. As in the experiment in January water was evaporated, but without measurement the dryness of the vapour errors of up to 600% a possible. It is also impossible to find out in retrospect if all the water was evaporated, since a tube for warm water was near the steam port. The unit was filled with 50 gramm nickel powder. At startup hydrogen gas was pumped into the device with 25 bar but without previously pumping air out. To quote: ''The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the container as a small impurity.'' (Remark: If oxygen from the air would have stayed in - as claimed - water could have been formed since the nickel powder would have acted as a catalyst). Heating was done with 300 Watt.<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece</ref><ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144772.ece</ref><ref>http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-fisici-svedesi-sulle-cat-e-una.html</ref> During the presentation isolation and lead shielding were removed from some shown Ecats but not from the used Ecat itself. The attending Giuseppe Levi made pictures which were published in Italian and Swedish blogs. The Swedish observers wrote a report, which was published in Internet blogs. They write in their report<ref name="Report_Kullander">http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.</ref> that a normal chemical reaction can be ruled out:

+

A six-hours presentation was made on March 29, 2011 in Bologna attended by invited Swedish physicists Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén. For "stability reasons" a smaller "energy catalyzer" with lesser output was used, which is said to have yielded 25 kWh in 6 hours with a thermal output of 4.4 kW. The same pump LMI P18 was used in this presentation as in January, but this time the capacity was compatible with the maximum flow capacity given by the manufacturer and plausible. As in the experiment in January water was evaporated, but without measurement the dryness of the vapour errors of up to 600% a possible. It is also impossible to find out in retrospect if all the water was evaporated, since a tube for warm water was near the steam port. The unit was filled with 50 gramm nickel powder. At startup hydrogen gas was pumped into the device with 25 bar but without previously pumping air out. To quote: ''The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the container as a small impurity.'' (Remark: If oxygen from the air would have stayed in - as claimed - water could have been formed since the nickel powder would have acted as a catalyst). Heating was done with 300 Watt.<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece</ref><ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144772.ece</ref><ref>http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-fisici-svedesi-sulle-cat-e-una.html</ref> During the presentation isolation and lead shielding were removed from some shown Ecats but not from the used Ecat itself. The attending Giuseppe Levi made pictures which were published in Italian and Swedish blogs. The Swedish observers wrote a report, which was published in Internet blogs. They write in their report<ref name="Report_Kullander">http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.</ref> that a normal chemical reaction can be ruled out:

:''Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.''

Starbuster

143

edits