← E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss<http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/08/e-cat-test-demonstrates-energy-loss/> Rossi’s 11th Test, 11th Failure Posted on October 10, 2011<http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/10/rossis-11th-test-11th-failure/> by Steven B. Krivit <http://blog.newenergytimes.com/author/sbkrivit/>
On Oct. 7, promoter Andrea Rossi gave a public demonstration of his “energy catalyzer” in his showroom in Bologna, Italy. This was his 11th attempt and his 11th failure to show unambiguous evidence of the release of heat in excess of the input of electrical energy. Journalist Mats Lewan of *Ny Teknik* wrote a technical report and presented data on Rossi’s behalf. Lewan also wrote a news story<http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece> about his own report and Rossi’s test. I wrote an article<http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/08/e-cat-test-demonstrates-energy-loss> the next day based on Lewan’s news story. In my article, I stated, based on data reported by Lewan, that Rossi’s device demonstrated a net energy loss rather than a gain. When I read Lewan’s news story, I understood that Rossi heated the E-Cat with an electrical resistor for about four hours before the test began. Here is what Lewan wrote: “As in previous tests, the start-up was affected by heating the E-cat with an electrical resistor at about 2.7 kilowatts, this time for about four hours.” Lewan mentioned nothing about heat output measurements during this phase. I assumed that the well-insulated device was retaining the heat and there was no flow. Before I published my article, however, I sent my calculations and conclusion to Lewan. In his reply, Lewan said nothing about any heat output during the heating phase. In fact, he denied a net energy gain for the overall test. “I don’t think I reported a net energy gain. I only reported the energy developed during self-sustained mode,” Lewan wrote. According to Lewan’s report, the energy balance in the heating phase was irrelevant. As I pointed out in my article, this was his mistake. But I made an assumption that there was no appreciable heat output during the heating phase. This was my mistake, and I should have stated that assumption. I went back to Lewan and asked him to help me and my readers complete this equation: (31.5 + x) [*Output*] - (38.88 + 1.44) [*Input*] = – 8.82, where “x” is the possible heat output during the heating phase. I made three successive requests, and Lewan gave me three successive ambiguous answers and failed to provide me with the missing value. (See communication log below.) My conclusion is that Lewan and Rossi made no flow measurements that would allow them to directly calculate the energy output during the heating phase. My speculation is that the energy input during the heating phase was a significant contributing factor to Lewan and Rossi’s published claim that the device “ran in a completely stable self-sustained mode for over three hours.” My first concern is that Rossi, as well as Lewan, knew specifically that the applied energy in the heating phase was required to support their claim and that they were both not forthcoming about it. My second concern is that Rossi, as well as Lewan, knew that complete accounting of the energy balance was the most legitimate way to support their claim and that they chose not to do this. My third concern is that, in the absence of a complete and clearly measured energy balance and in the absence of a schematic clearly showing the placement of all components, Rossi can too easily deceive others or himself. For example, he could locate a thermocouple in a place that would give a false reading, which would cause an overestimation of heat output. All temperature measurements would be meaningless. This most recent test of Rossi’s illuminates the obvious question: Why has Rossi continued to obfuscate the details of his device which could be very helpful for substantiating his claims? I believe he doesn’t have what he claims. I believe he knows it. I believe he’s hoping that, if he can just get enough money, he can eventually make it work. *Oct. 8 and 9 Communication Log Krivit – Lewan* *Measurement of Energy Output in Heating Phase* SK: Can you please tell me the kj of heat released during the heating phase? And tell me how you derive it? ML: You have it all in my pdf report. Energy (kJ) is obtained by multiplying power and time (actually integrating power over time, or rather dt). If you use watts and seconds, you get joules (not kilojoules). Power is obtained by multiplying current and voltage (amperes x volts = watts). Current and voltage for each interval can be found in my report. SK: Let me be more specific with my question: How did you measure the kj of heat released during the heating phase? ML: The same method as during the self-sustained phase. Delta T of the water in the secondary circ. Although I didn’t specifically report it. But the values to do it are in the pdf report (T values in the 2nd circ; flow was the same). SK: In your news story, you provided simple and straightforward information about measured power output and time during the second phase, and measured power input and time for both phases. Some of my readers have assumed that there was significant power output during the heating phase. If this is the case, there is a major omission. One last time, can you give me a simple and straightforward answer about average measured power output and time during the heating phase, or total measured energy output during the heating phase? And if not, why not? ML: Let me repeat – the energy output during the start-up phase can be calculated from the data I provided in my pdf report. The output was significant and of the same order as the input energy. This is why I didn’t focus on this interval of the process. If you need help to calculate this, you can have a look at the graph attached. It’s made by a reader according to basic rules of physics, as I explained to you above, and I consider it accurate. *Measurement of Flow in Heating Phase* SK: I don’t see any evidence that you measured rate of outflow of primary circuit during the heating phase. Have I missed this information? ML: I measured the flow rate in the 2nd circuit continuously, output flow in the primary circuit only twice, as written in the pdf report. SK: Do you know for a fact whether water and/or steam was flowing out of the device during the heating phase, and if so, how do you know this? ML: I know steam was entering the heat exchanger when the internal temperature in the E-cat reached about 100 degrees, as I felt the heat from the output hose from the E-cat = the input hose in the primary circuit in the heat exchanger. It was clear that steam was flowing, and as I have already seen a similar experiments with the same object when I also measured the output flow, I base my assumption on the output flow in the primary circuit on this.
