Since eCAT has been discussed here before, I thought a few of you might be interested in a new test, which is performed by the same group from Italy/Sweden, which first test was discussed here some time go.
formatting link
(Sorry for not being able to find a more credible download source than infinite-energy.com, but that was the only place where I could locate a pdf)
They have addressed many of the problems pointed out back then. Although I didn't have the time to read the article in detail, it seems to be rather sound - I can't spot any obvious flaws in their new work. Most interesting is that they now provide an isotopic analysis of the fresh and spent eCAT fuel, which shows a significant change - although they can't measure any radiation?!?
All in all I'm still very skeptic, but have to admit it is getting harder to debunk it ...
Most of the debunking is just a flat out it's a scam, they didn't do the calorimetry right, it can't work without any reasoned analysis. Rossi's past is called into question, but if you read about that, it can be looked as unfair government prosecution.
Here's an Analysis of the report you posted. Mikek
formatting link
Or, read this part and decide if you want to go to the site.
Analysis of New E-Cat Report
Michael C.H. McKubre*
A team of scientists from Italy and Sweden have released a second, more substantive test analysis of the Andrea Rossi E-Cat. The report, ?Observation of Abundant Heat Production from a Reactor Device and of Isotopic Changes in the Fuel? , was released on October 8 based on a
32-day test done in March 2014. The same team (Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn
an earlier version of the E-Cat in spring 2013 and released a similar, though not as conclusive, report. The new report concludes with a clearly written and positive statement:
In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding.
All well and good. Is this confidence justified by the words in the report? Is there evidence of excess heat? My impression is ?Yes? (but see below). Is this evidence unambiguous? Not as presented. Is there evidence of nuclear transformation? Yes, very clearly, but questions remain to be answered (or, in some cases, asked). Do the heat and nuclear production correlate quantitatively? Yes, possibly. Is the report perfect? No, no report is perfect, but this one is imperfect in little ways and large. There is curious inattention to detail?surprising for a document as delayed, anticipated and important as this. When asked to provide a review (sight unseen) I agreed; this is important. But I also realized that unless the report was perfect in every detail, whatever I wrote would annoy somebody. Here goes.
For the proponents of condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) this report provides valuable impetus and strong support for the case that nuclear effects occur (implicitly by novel pathways) in the solid state. More importantly, the report provides concrete and testable information about fuel(s) and product(s), potentially of two separate branches of CMNS, of the sort to make theorists on both sides of the ?reality question? very happy indeed. Have we risen to the standard of Dick Garwin?s ?undoubtedly?? No, although he should be happy that multiple cups of tea might soon be available?perhaps on demand.
Although highly interesting, this report has problems at several levels that render direct interpretation difficult or impossible without further information and clarification. This is a shame and undoubtedly a source of great frustration to the CMNS community. There are substantive missing or broken issues dealing with the essential issues of calorimetry and sampling. There are also ?minor? or ancillary points that I will attempt to outline to improve technique and reporting. The latter do not change the conclusions but do affect credibility. You will note that this review contains more questions than answers. Not all of these questions required answers before the experiment was run or the report written but, in my view, many of them should have been addressed.
Let?s start with the calorimetry, the balance (or reported imbalance) between power input and power output. We begin with the input energy. I have only minor issues with the technique employed for input power measurements and the interpretation of values. Measurement of three-phase power is a standard matter that is critical in numerous industries. The community of scientists and engineers knows how to do this precisely and accurately on scales extending from well below to well above the power levels in this experiment. There is every indication that the authors of this report are well aware of possible pitfalls and have taken care to address them. They address the issue of unmeasured current flowing in unseen ?ground loops? by employing similar meters upstream and downstream of the load. These meters have harmonic monitoring capability in case unmeasured high frequency components contribute significantly to the input energy. As has been demonstrated many times (and again in this report) neither issue is ?really real.? But questions have been asked about other similar experiments; this report anticipates them and answers them, before being asked.
First class, perhaps overkill, but one issue I have with the input
large. My colleagues and I have considerable experience with almost identical measurements over a range of power scales from the small to the large. (click on link above)
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Easy scam: tweak the triac controllers to push some DC into the load. That will saturate the CTs in the power meters. CTs won't measure the DC component anyhow.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
A multimeter was provided to check for DC into the load. Maybe it was broken or they didn't know how to use it, or they were measuring at the wrong point. In any event, they should have provided their own instrumentation to check the input power.
If the test provided more heat than the input power supplied as claimed, why not simply disconnect the input power and let it heat itself.
Then the problem would be how to control the amount of power generated.
If it was producing more power than drawn from the grid, it should go into runaway and destroy itself.
There was no provision to control the amount of power generated. Instead, to stop the reaction, they simply turned off the power supply.
If Rossi were honest, and his ECat actually worked, he would disconnect the input power and let it run by itself.
At that point he would be swamped with companies and countries trying to buy his machines. He would become the richest person on the planet.
Instead, he keeps setting up these rigged demos to con gullible investors into parting with their money.
They are all supplied with power from the grid or from diesel generators.
To stop the test, he merely shuts off the input power.
If the ECat was generating power, why did it stop?
It is even easier to tell it is a scam. I think it was at least five years ago that Rossi said he was working on production of commercial units with orders to install them in just a few months. Yet they never materialized.
Why does anyone even read his crap anymore?
There are two types of researchers who are involved in cold fusion. Those who are fooling themselves and those who are fooling their investors. I firmly believe there is no overlap.
...which points to the stupidity of using AC power. Use of DC power in removes all possibility of harmonic power "loops", and allows use of batteries if needed to remove all possibility of "ground loops". AND,,,,,nobody is saying anything about that...
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.