Andrea Rossi reactor, 32 day run in independent lab in Switzerland, very high excess heat, shifted Ni and Li isotopes, no nuclear radiations, huge mystery, Giuseppe Levi team 53 page report -- flaws...:Rich Murray 2014.10.10 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2014/10/andrea-rossi-reactor-32-day-run-in.html
https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf free full text full report 53 pages, with color photos, tables, graphs, pictures -- had 1 gram nickel and lithium powder fuel with LiAlH4 (providing hydrogen) in a sealed 2X20 cm alumina tube Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel Giuseppe Levi Bologna University, Bologna, Italy Evelyn Foschi Bologna, Italy Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Hanno Essén Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden ABSTRACT New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume. A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially. Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run. 1. Introduction This paper presents the results from a new extended study carried out on the “E-Cat” reactor, a device invented by Andrea Rossi. ... 9. Summary and concluding remarks A 32-day test was performed on a reactor termed E-Cat, capable of producing heat by exploiting an unknown reaction primed by heating and some electro-magnetic stimulation. In the past years, the same collaboration has performed similar measurements on reactors operating in like manner, but differing both in shape and construction materials from the one studied here. Those tests have indicated an anomalous production of heat, which prompted us to attempt a new, longer test. The purpose of this longer measurement was to verify whether the production of heat is reproducible in a new improved test set-up, and can go on for a significant amount of time. In order to assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length of time, we chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it working in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here. Our measurement, based on calculating the power emitted by the reactor through radiation and convection, gave the following results: the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ], the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge weighing 1 g) was (5.8 X 10E6 ± 10%) [MJ/kg], while the density of power was equal to (2.1 X 10E6 ± 10%) [W/kg]. These values place the E-Cat beyond any other known conventional source of energy. Even if one conservatively repeats the same calculations with reference to the weight of the whole reactor rather than that of its internal charge, one gets results confirming the non-conventional nature of the form of energy generated by the E-Cat, namely (1.3 X 10E4 ± 10%) [MJ/kg] for thermal energy density, and (4.7 X 10E3 ± 10%) [W/kg] for power density. The quantity of heat emitted constantly by the reactor and the length of time during which the reactor was operating rule out, beyond any reasonable doubt, a chemical reaction as underlying its operation. This is emphasized by the fact that we stand considerably more than two order of magnitudes from the region of the Ragone plot occupied by conventional energy sources. The fuel generating the excessive heat was analyzed with several methods before and after the experimental run. It was found that the Lithium and Nickel content in the fuel had the natural isotopic composition before the run, but after the 32 days run the isotopic composition has changed dramatically both for Lithium and Nickel. Such a change can only take place via nuclear reactions. It is thus clear that nuclear reactions have taken place in the burning process. This is also what can be suspected from the excessive heat being generated in the process. Although we have good knowledge of the composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the reaction is primed. Since we are presently not in possession of this information, we think that any attempt to explain the E-Cat heating process would be too much hampered by the lack of this information, and thus we refrain from such discussions. 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. Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source. Further investigations are required to guide the interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our work will continue in that direction. Acknowledgments By this work the authors would like to deeply and at heart honor the late Sven Kullander, who initiated this independent test experiment. He was a great source of inspiration and knowledge throughout the course of this work. The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat LLC for providing us with the E-cat reactor to perform an independent test measurement. The authors would like to thank Prof. Ennio Bonetti (University of Bologna) and Prof. Alessandro Passi (University of Bologna [ret.]) for critical reading of the manuscript. All authors of the appendices are gratefully acknowledged for their valuable contribution to this work. This paper was partially sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Elforsk AB. We would also like to thank Officine Ghidoni SA for putting their laboratory at our disposal and allowing use of their AC power. Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing financial support for the measurements performed for radiation protection purposes. http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ [ http://animpossibleinvention.com/about/ About the author Mats Lewan For over fifteen years, journalist and public speaker Mats Lewan — author of the book An Impossible Invention: The true story of the energy source that could change the world— has been writing about technology and science based on his profound knowledge in the field. His style is captivating and easy to follow, even for those who are not technology savvy. ... New scientific report on the E-Cat shows excess heat and nuclear process October 8, 2014 Uncategorized Reports ...“Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel” (Download here) and is written by Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér and Hanno Essén, all of whom also wrote an earlier third party report on the E-Cat. ... The authors are very careful not to make any decisive conclusions on how the reaction occurs. Yet, they make some interesting remarks, among them considerations on similarities with observations in astrophysics. Without any optimization with regard to input power, the reactor produced between 3.2 and 3.6 times the input power, and a total energy of 1.5 MWh from about 1 gram of fuel. The reactor was switched off according to plan, with no signs of the reaction slowing down. As I point out in my book An Impossible Invention — an energy source of this kind will have huge consequences for humanity, possibly solving a series of global issues. In order to avoid doubts that were presented with regard to their earlier report, several things have been changed: The measurement was performed during 32 days in a neutral laboratory in Switzerland, electric measurment on the input power has been improved, a 23-hour test of the reactor without [fuel] charge was done in order to calibrate the measurement set-up, and chemical analysis of the fuel before and after the run has been performed with five different methods. The report has been uploaded to Arxiv.org which, however has put it on hold, without specifying any motive for this. It has also been sent to Journal of Physics D. I got the report sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal until further notice from Journal of Physics D. http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/lenr-a-k-a-cold-fusion-has-reached-a-major-milestone/ Vo]:Leaning towards Inconclusive Alan Fletcher via eskimo.com a...@eskimo.com 1:44 PM (7 hours ago) PST 2014.10.10 to vortex-l Vortex-L@eskimo.com I hate to say it, but I'm leaning to "inconclusive" for the report as a whole. Controls: I don't have any problems with the experimental controls as a whole, and in particular Rossi's involvement, which was supervised at all times. There is no chance that secret power was fed to the system. Equipment structure: we know nothing about the internal structure of the "tube". Where were the heaters? (In the first test they were held in place by a cylindrical ceramic frame. Here they are just said to be "inside" the cylinder). This is important, as it might help explain the heating-wire "shadows" in fig 12. It's apparently so simple that I doubt there are any major trade secrets. Also, it would have revealed if there was a "magician" compartment to hold "fake ash". (But "fake" ash wouldn't have surprised Rossi.) Transmutation: the amount of material given for analysis was ridiculously small -- in the end, a single particle of Nickel "ash" was analyzed, which might not be representative of the fuel as a whole. Input power: since the input to the controller was from a Rossi-inaccessible AC source, and was checked for DC, I don't think there are any fake paths. It would have been interesting to see a very wide-band oscilloscope trace on the heater feeds, just to confirm there's nothing above the 5Kz (or whatever, 100 harmonics) that the meters monitored. Similarly, there was no direct measurement of EM fields, but Rossi had no access to this. Nor, I think, would any "mole" on the team. Output power: I'm inclined to agree with Jones Beene http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98226.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98253.html and Goat Man that the translucence of the Alumina cylinder is a major issue, and that the calculation of output power is questionable. All we have to analyze are visible-spectrum photos 12a and 12b -- and we don't even know when they were taken. In the "cool" half, or the "hot" half of the test? There certainly appear to be "shadows" of the heating wires. I presume (but there are no explicit photos) that during the dummy control run and maybe during the "cool" half, that the wires did not show up as "glowing" through the alumina. In the first report we knew the structure of the coils ... held by a cog-like ceramic holder, and that there was an outer steel cylinder which prevented all direct radiation from escaping. The "melting" photos of the first failed test showed light and dark bands which could be explained by the different thermal conductivity of the "cogs" and the gaps between them. But here we just see "shadows" of spiral wires, which are darker than the background. The wires themselves are too narrow to show a shadow on the outer cylinder when lit by a diffuse source on their inside. But with no knowledge of the structure of the tube we are left with speculation only. If we postulate that the "active" area is essentially a smaller cylinder just inside the wires, shining through the outer semi-translucent alumina cylinder, then we might be able to calculate the output power. But, If Might .... (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!) Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net 9:35 AM PST (13 hours ago) Friday 2014.10.10 to vortex-l Vortex-L@eskimo.com Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several grams of Ni-62. within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray Rich Murray, MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology, BS MIT 1964 history and physics, 1039 Emory Street, Imperial Beach, CA 91932 rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 cell 619-623-3468 home http://rmforall.blogspot.com rich.murray11 free Skype audio, video chat https://www.facebook.com/rmforall
