Here's the link to John Dlouhy's post: http://ecatnews.com/?p=1010#comment-5135
Interesting prior discussions -- here's a selection of a few skeptical comments: http://ecatnews.com/?p=980 Ny TekNik’s Report admin on October 7, 2011 — 131 Comments Ny Teknik’s Report [Thank you, Renzo] I am disappointed. After writing a hopeful post, I expected the report to give us some solid data to hang our optimism from. While Ny Teknik’s initial offering is probably a preliminary stab, first impressions are not good. Rather than solidifying optimism, I have taken a step closer to scepticism. To hear that three cores were enclosed in a flat box but that only one was in use and that we had around 4 hours of almost 3KW input followed by over 3 hours with an output of 3.5KW, I struggle to call that definitive. Without that near-certainty, I do not understand the purpose of the test. To further learn that the very important US customer is no more, makes me worry that the pattern is been set for a fall. Anyone who has read my previous posts will know that I say the above with extreme reluctance. I also allow that once we know more, the let-down may yet be turned around. It really is too early to call. Was the flat box opened to show the three cores? Why was only one used? Why did one 3.5KW core need four hours of high power to fire when previously a 12-20KW core needed around 1KW input? Why stop the test so early and at such a critical juncture? Why take all the trouble to kill the steam argument to create a whole load more that are just as obvious? The data may tell a different story when we look closer but we should not let hope blind us to the fact that we need more than the Ny TekNik article appears to give us. Let us hope that the data provides exactly that. ETA My position is not accusatory but deflated. I do not conclude (yet) that the eCat does not work but that AR did not knock the ball out of the park as he should have been able to do if the 1MW plant was ready as advertised. Why? Posted in Bologna, Media/Blogs, test | Tagged Bologna, Ny Teknik, report, Rossi, Test 131 Comments to "Ny TekNik’s Report" John Dlouhy October 7, 2011 - 3:21 pm | Permalink Renzo, here’s why I’m pessimistic. The large volume of the “housing” was filled up with water and brought to boiling temperature by 4 hours of electric heating at 2.7KW. In addition, in the large reservoir of heated water, there is a 2.4L container which could contain exothermic chemicals, like the ones used in hand warmers for example, that could easily have boosted the heat output. The temp. observations were made on Rossi’s own instrumentation which we can NOT reasonably trust considering the nature of the claim, but even if we do accept the readings, they indicate an amount of energy easily supplied by known means. John Dlouhy October 7, 2011 - 3:38 pm | Permalink Not at all, Renzo, Thicket’s scenario is entirely plausible. If the 100 L volume of the reactor was filled with water and brought to just below boiling temp., the energy content would be: 100,000 g X (100C-30C) X 4.184J/C = 29.3 MJ If we divide that by the number of seconds in 3.5 hours we get 29,300,000 J / (3.5 X 3600s) = 2324 Watts or about 2.3 KW. That is exactly in the range of output estimated by Lewan using data from Rossi’s own measurement instruments. John Dlouhy October 7, 2011 - 7:46 pm | Permalink It doesn’t make sense that the insulated case was too hot to touch. It can’t be hotter than the 117C steam inside, and if so, how poor is the insulation? I can pick up a hot casserole from my oven, 180C with a folded dishtowel. Surely Rossi is using better insulation than that. As well, touching something is a little too subjective to be worthwhile as evidence; the conductivity of the surface comes into play as far as the sensation is concerned. While the reactor core dimensions indicate a volume of 400cc, it is encased in 5 cm of lead shielding. Since it can’t be opened to verify, we have to include its volume as unknown, at least 2L more if you shield only the top and bottom and ignore the edges, in reality, probably more. I was one of the most hopeful people entertaining Rossi’s claims, discussing its economic potential, anxiously waiting the big day when the truth would be revealed to the world. Well that hasn’t happened. Not even close. I’m a sincere person, and my skepticism is based, I hope, on scientific imperative. We haven’t seen anything within several orders of magnitude of a nuclear output. Why? maryyugo October 7, 2011 - 6:18 pm | Permalink I’ve just started to look at the data. I’m with John Dlouhy on most of his remarks. I am somewhat gratified that many of you now recognize the reasons that this sort of test has to be done *independently* of Rossi when it comes to everything other than the E-cat. Even the method of measuring the output should have been left to others. While a heat exchanger can work, it’s not as easy and clear cut as simply sparging the steam (dumping it through a simple coiled copper tube into a large insulated vat of water). Even better (MUCH better), why not repeat Levi’s experiment in which the E-cat directly heated water and the water remained liquid. Steam was not needed for that demonstration and the claimed output was much higher than this one. Why not simply repeat it? So, Rossi should have simply repeated Levi’s experiment with the same E-cat Levi used. It supposedly made as much as 130 kW during a short burst and then settled down to (I’m too lazy to look up the exact) something like 15 kW at steady state and ran 18 hours. It was, however, not disconnected from the electrical heater and of course, Levi won’t provide the exact data and methods of measurement. As to this experiment from what we know so far, it is at best, highly underwhelming. Why not make more power? Why not make a lot more energy by running way longer? After all this is supposed to be a powerful fusion reactor that can be a part of a plant generating a megawatt for 6 months. And what did we supposedly see? A few kilowatts for four hours after an input of heat within measurement error of the output and for about the same amount of time. A robust demonstration of nuclear fusion this most certainly is not. And look at this temperature time curve from Ny Teknik’s own detailed report: http://imgur.com/GG4aC (I simply copied it and uploaded the copy to an image server so that nobody has to scroll through the PDF file to find it) Note that the output temperature starts to droop down as soon as the heater power is removed. And it continues to droop and the drooping accelerates at the end when the experiment is stopped. What would happen if the experiment were not stopped? Well… reasonable extrapolation says the heat would drop off faster and faster. What would one expect from a nuclear reactor — one which Rossi says can become dangerous unstable and “run away” if the “safety heater” is removed? Well… I’d expect the output temperature to increase steadily upward and stabilize and level off at some much higher level than it was with the heater running. I’d also expect a nuclear reactor to run indefinitely until the hydrogen was removed or spent. And that supposedly takes months! And it only ran four hours. I am also disappointed that the inspection of the device consisted only of removing the top (if that’s what actually happened). Why not show ALL the innards except the inside of the reaction vessel itself? Again, we have no evidence of fraud. What we have is an extremely weak demonstration of who-knows-what. My best guess (and it’s just a guess and not a determination of any sort) is that Rossi combines some sort of conventional heat producing reaction with electrical heating to get the effect. The reaction could be quite sophisticated. It might be related to Raney nickel (read the wikipedia entry on that). Or it could be something I’d never think of or some other means of sleight of hand. But this shows no evidence at all that the energy comes from a nuclear, LENR, or cold fusion process. I wonder what Levi thinks of this demo.
