The Day After the E-Cat Test : We Wait For Reports


The day of the first major E-Cat test is over, and we are in waiting mode for details of what happened in Bologna yesterday and how the test was received by those involved. We received tweets yesterday from Daniele Passerini and Raymond Zreick who gave brief reports of what was happening. The test apparently ran for 12 hours and for four of those hours the E-Cat ran in self-sustain mode (without any external electrical input), the E-Cat was taken apart for weighing of the components, and there was mention made of a mysterious black box which the journalists were not allowed to photograph.

This morning Andrea Rossi posted this remark:

I THANK ALL OUR READERS FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT I RECEIVED: SHOULD I BE ABLE TO TURN YOUR PASSION INTO ENERGY, WE COULD FUEL ALL THE HIGH SPEED TRAINS OF EUROPE WITH IT.
THE TEST IS GONE. WE FINISHED AROUND MIDNIGHT YESTERDAY, THIS MORNING AT SIX WE HAD TO RESTART THE WORK ON THE 1 MW PLANT.
WE WILL NOT PUBLISH A REPORT, BECAUSE I HAVE NOT TIME TO DO IT, BUT YOU WILL FIND REPORTS IN MANY OTHER BLOGS AND IN THE SCIENTIFIC MAGAZINES WHICH ATTENDED THE TEST: NYTEKNIK AND FOCUS.

Rossi then still has to complete the work on the 1MW plant which is still in Bologna — it will surely need to be shipped to the US before too long if he is going to make his announced timetable of deliver to his American customer for a public demonstration by the end of the month. Below is a picture of Rossi in front of his plant taken by Passerini yesterday.

So it’s like the day after the election when the the votes are being counted and the results are still unclear — we’re waiting on the reports from NyTeknik and Focus. Feel free to post any slivers of news or analysis you may have in the comments section below. Hopefully things will be clearer later today.

UPDATE:

Daniele Passarini has posted a report and some video that is due to be posted on NyTeknik soon: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/ny-teknik-sul-test-e-cat-del-6-ottobre.html

A couple of points that stand out: Professor Roland Petterson of Uppsala University states, ““I’m convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements.” Also we learn that the 1 MW Plant that was supposed to be shipped to a customer in the USA is still in Bologna because of contractual terms that were unacceptable. The 1MW plant demo is still scheduled to take place; however, the location or customer is still unannounced.

  • Franz

    Maybe you are the one with the erroneous assumptions Angelo.
    Gas bottles often have two pressure gauges. One showing the pressure inside the bottle and another at the output of a pressure regulator which “reduces” the pressure inside (55 bar) to a usable/safe pressure (15 bar). And that’s meant in the quote you posted.

    • Angelo

      Perhaps, but then this just means they completely neglected to include a very significant input of energy. Not one person has ever mentioned the input due to the compressed gas.

      Cars and buses are using compressed gas systems as a substitute for a battery in hybrid vehicles to capture and release braking energy. It simply cannot be neglected, and it has been thus far.

  • Angelo

    People who do not understand basic physics are making comments that are erroneous.

    From Wikipedia:
    “Since a system under pressure has potential to perform work on its surroundings, pressure is a measure of potential energy stored per unit volume measured in J·m−3, related to energy density.”

    Clearly, the pressurized gas is feeding energy into the system which is not accounted for. It has nothing to do with mass or whether someone feels the gas should cool upon expansion. Remember, the gas goes in still pressurized. Who knows what happens inside?

    Additionally, the volume of gas was never measured though the pressure differential was. A knowledge of the size of the container would be sufficient to make rough calculations. However, there is the additional issue of units used to measure pressure. Per the report, it was made in “bar”. However, CGS units are barye (ba) so it is unclear what units were used. US units are the bar, though Pascal and psi are more commonly used.

    There was recently a gentleman killed upon exiting his house carrying a compressed air tank for diving that exploded. It killed him and almost destroyed the interior of his house and windows of nearby cars. He found out very suddenly how much energy was in that tank, cold or hot.

    • Angelo

      Additionally, I had money invested in this being true technology, so I am not debunking this for my own benefit. I am doing this because the analysis is flawed = bad science. Any college engineer who has taken a thermodynamics class knows I am right.

      You cannot neglect the energy supplied to the system via the pressure differential.

      Let me simplify this. If the gas was used to drive a small turbine inside the eCAT that then drove a generator and one measured the energy generated, it would be clear to everyone what was happening. How the actual process works is irrelevant. That same pressurized gas is going into the system and must be included.

  • Franz

    Pressure reduced probably means they are using a pressure regulator. That means the 55 bar and 15 bar is the difference at the regulator input (bottle pressure) and regulator output (not difference before and after the demo).

    • Angelo

      This is clearly a before and after measurement, thus one must assume this is the pressure of the supply tank. Any other measurement would not make sense. Who cares what the pressure was regulated at? Ultimately all that matters is the pressure of the supply tanks before and after and the volume of the tank. This is the measure of work. 1.5 grams of gas means nothing, especially since there is no chemical reaction taking place. Mass of gas is useless.

      On the other hand, if mass of gas was relevant as one would expect in any nuclear reaction, 1.5 grams of Hydrogen would be a ridiculous amount of energy released, and that is not seen.

  • Franco

    Here is a report from Radio Città del Capo (an italian private radio station)
    one of the two radios allowed

    Bologna, October 6, 2011.
    In a warehouse in the industrial suburbs of the city a group of scientists, journalists, sales agents and representatives of industry have been invited to attend a private test: to check if it works and how much energy “the energy catalyzer” produces.
    The engineer Rossi and the physicist Focardi have tested the reactor presented in January with a new test on the so-called “cold fusion”
    Moral? According to Rossi, in over ten hours of testing, we would be able to supply energy for several hours to three apartments … The cost? Virtually anything one gram of hydrogen. According to Rossi, the net value, the cost of “fuel” in a cold fusion device are almost irrelevant.
    Hard to say with complete certainty what actually happened: These scientists were understandably “reserved”. However, there was a perception (sometimes unspeakable) that they were witnessing something real.
    The data gathered shows that there is a self-sustaining system of energy production, not huge, but concrete, measurable and broadly constant.

    video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIzU1esPIA&feature=player_embedded

    forgive me if my translation is not accurate!

  • Angelo

    This is a scam!

    Not once have I ever sen anyone include the energy supplied by the high pressure hydrogen tanks in their calculations. They are essentially batteries. The energy they store is simply pressure times volume. Volume is fixed. Pressure starts at 200-300 atmospheres. The pressure differential is almost certainly guaranteed to equal the “energy production”. You can see the lines pulsing during operation.

    A shame so many “experts” are unaware of basic thermodynamics and energy equations……like electricity is the only energy you need to consider. All inputs should be included.

    • Angelo

      From the report itself:

      “At the end of the test, the heat production was slowed down by
      eliminating hydrogen pressure and increasing the water flow from the
      peristaltic pump through the E-cat”

      and

      “Weight hydrogen bottle:
      – before filling: 13606.4 grams
      – after filling: 13604.9 grams
      Total loaded: 1.5 grams
      Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar”

      A drop of 15 bar is huge and if the volume was as one would expect this easily explains where the “excess energy” comes from, but of course no volume measurement was made so we can’t know.

      • TPBurnett

        1.5 grams of hydrogen reduced in pressure from 55 bar to 15 bar would produce cold, not hot. Even at that it wouldn’t be enough to make an ice cube. Your theory of this being a source of excess heat is seriously flawed.

        • Angelo

          You are wrong. It is not 1.5 grams. The equation is pressure times volume. Work = PxV. It has nothing to do with mass. Work was done to compress that gas. That energy is then released inside the eCAT. That is indisputable despite what you might think about the gas expanding and cooling. If the tank was to explode instead the energy released all at once would make it very clear to you how much energy was there.

        • Angelo

          And in case you are counting, 1.5 grams of ANY gas is a very large volume. In any case, mass has nothing to do with it.

          • TPBurnett

            I would suggest you read Boyle’s law. Then review your calculations regarding how much work 1.5 grams of hydrogen @ 15 bar expanding to ambient air pressure could accomplish. If you have worked it out correctly, it should be orders of magnitude less than what is being observed in Rossi’s device.
            At any rate, the work you get from an expanding gas is mechanical. Converting the energy to heat with a device invisible to observers is a bit of a stretch.

            • Angelo

              Really? Perhaps you should perform the calculation yourself. Boyle’s law pertains to pressure and volume, as I stated in the beginning, not mass. Nevertheless, 1.5 grams is a huge amount of gas. If it is compressed to 200-300 atm as Rossi states his H2 bottles are, and the bottle loses 1.5 grams of H2 from that pressure to ambient conditions, which it must (otherwise, where does the H2 go?), then that is a very large amount of energy – not the insignificant amount you suggest. Regardless of how you envision the energy being released, mechanical or otherwise, it is still going into the system.

              • TPBurnett

                I think you misunderstood the loading of the hydrogen from the compressed bottle. First, the tank pressure was not 200 to 300 atm. The rating was given as 55 bar (54.28077 atm). Second, a regulator reduces that pressure to 15 bar before the hydrogen reaches the E-Cat.
                He attaches the gas line to the E-Cat. He charges it to 15 bar. Then he disconnects the gas line. The entire run of the E-Cat was done with some of the 1.5 grams of hydrogen measured. At the end of the run the E-Cat was shut down by releasing the leftover hydrogen in the reactor cell. This meaning that at least some of the energy of the pressure was set free.
                Also 1.5 grams of hydrogen at 1 atm is about 0.59 cubic feet (not huge).
                So, I say again, your statements are seriously flawed.

      • Franco

        Indipendentemente da come vada a finire, mi sono messo le pantofole, e aperto una bottiglia di Lambrusco…. Per godermi fino alla fine questo Spettacolo…

    • Janne Strom

      What are you talking about Angelo??!!!
      How can you Not be aware of the fact that they use, around 1 gram of Hydrogen?
      The bottle is weighed before and after the test.
      You are a scam

      • Angelo

        It has nothing to do with mass. See above note. It is pressure times volume equals work. This is basic thermodynamics over a control volume.

  • Dr. Y. V. Kissin

    The test leaves little doubt that a significant amount of energy is produced in the e-cat apparatus in a self-sustained mode. Tre real amount of produced energy is significantly higher because a large fraction of the heat was wasted; the insulation was hot and the surface of the secondary heat exchanger was hot. Any specialist in heat exchange can guess quite precisely the efficiency of the total set-up. My very crude estimation is: the efficiency is not higher than 0.6-0.7. The 0.5oC decreasing of the measured deltaT value has no ground. Looking at the plot of the run, the real deltaT value was, on average, 5.0oC or higher. These two corrections alone will increase the energy production by a factor of 1.8-2.0.
    One simple experiment (a dry run), without engaging the e-cat action, would greatly increase the significance of the October 6 test:
    .Use the e-cat unit without nickel and hydrogen.
    Heat it, in stages, until the same electric power is applied. Wait until the steady temperature reading is reached and at least 30-40 minutes longer. A comparison with the Temperature/Time plot in the real experiment will tell when the e-cat action really starts.
    Turn off the heat and plot the temperature as the empty unit cools. The rate of cooling will tell whether there is any post-action in the real e-cat, after hydrogen is released.
    Two final comments:
    The posts that suggest some outrageous foul play clearly show that the real opposition to the e-cat idea rapidly evaporates and only angly rumbling of defeated opponents remain.
    Second: any attempts to declare that there is some unidentified chemical reaction between nickel and hydrogen that may lead to the heat evolution are useless. Nickel does not react with hydsrogen at increased temperatures. Ane there is no chemical reactions called “Well, I do not know”.

    • John Dlouhy

      To Dr. R.U. Kiddin

      The test demonstrates a mere 1 / 1000th of a possible potential nuclear output.

      Scientists would have put a temp sensor on both exchanger inputs and outputs so the efficiency wouldn’t have to be “guestimated”, it could be measured.

      Error in the temp. probe could just as easily REDUCE the results.

      Running the E-Cat without its fuel is an unnecessary control. If scientists accurately measure the input and the output of the “black box” for a sufficient period of time they can positively rule out known reactions on the basis of energy density and radiation emissions.

      Skeptics aren’t opposed to E-Cats, they are opposed to bad science and to fraudulent behavior.

      Who cares if nickel reacts with hydrogen or not? We have no way of knowing whether there is nickel inside of that shielded volume as it is off limits to the investigators.

      As news readers, if we want to be confident the E-Cat is real, scientists we trust must make their own measurements and journalists we trust report them to us. This hasn’t happened yet.

  • Abraham A

    I’d like this to be true as much as the next guy, but it’s so frustrating that during any test, there’s always something that somehow limits it. This time, it’s only 1 out of 3 reactors working. Strange, given that it’s so close to the 1MW delivery date.

    And then there’s the issue with the plant not being delivered at all, at the very last moment. What’s up with that? A revolutionary new product that will make billionaires out of those who would invest in it, and companies are reluctant to come to an agreement? That should make anyone think more than twice.

    It’s not difficult to be sceptical about this whole ordeal; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Way back in march it seemed like it had more credibility to it then your average scam due to the fact that it appeared to involve genuine scientists and a university or two, but now…no.

  • daniel maris

    Ny Teknik have published an article on the test.

    It appears successful but so many questions remain and now we have the usual Rossi-style story about things not being quite right with the American company.

    I think some progress has been made, but not much.

    • Fred L

      Can you explain what you have understood regarding this American Company issue. As far as I know, the problem was that the American Company sent an agreement contract whith things that the lawyers of Rossi said should not be included. Either the contract as been changed by now, or Rossi took the responsability to sign it anyway. Taking in account the potential of the E-CAT, I’m not quite surprise that patent and ownership negociations is taking place between the inventor and the money provider (which is likely to be the producer as well). I doesn’t trouble me at all…

      • daniel maris

        Well, we had the Dekaflion debacle and now this – it does create a pattern.

        I remain a qualified enthusiast who’d like to be an unqualified one. But somes aspects remain concerning – we need a long test run for one thing. I’ve no idea why this was stopped after 3-4hours. Why? And why only operate off one of the three internal reactors? Odd again.

        But if Rossi can get the 1 MW plant going and run it on a long test run, well – I will be a happy bunny.

  • Matt Smart

    Still questions that need to be answered, I think we will have to wait for other reports still as NyTechnik have already seen the machine work so I imagine that they are not as overly impressed after seeing the E-Cat work a second time. My main concern now is with the report is the 1MW plant and the secret US company not taking the order, why? Reason given is the lawyers were not happy with a contractual stipulation, it does raise a few more concerns I’m sure you all agree.

    • roseland67

      Customer:
      “Um Andrea, I believe in your work and all, but I’m paying a lot of money for this gizmo, if for some unforeseen reason it doesn’t work, I get my money back, right”?
      Rossi:
      “No way Jose’ it works fine, just look @ our inconclusive test data”.
      Customer:
      Miss Stein, call LEGAL in here and lets modify this contract”.

  • Fred L

    To be honest, the report is quite dessipointing, there is no data… They say that from their estimates, the device produced 2-3KW of power in self-sustained mode. From the video you can see the DeltaT° beeing around 6°C. Apparently NyTeknik is convinced that it works but they are clearly not jumping as if they had witnessed a world changing demonstration of energy production.

    • Beaker

      There is data. attached in the reprot a link to detailed report. You will hav to do the calculations yourself though to get a figure.

      • Fred L

        Thanks, I missed it. So they say that the reactor chamber has a size of 20x20x1cm… that’s ridiculously small. that’s 0,4L ! How a chemical reaction could be hidden in such a smal space ? Anyone ?

        • John

          The apparatus supposedly had three cores. Who’s to say what was hidden in them? Sadly, I do not think this demonstration was yet conclusive.

          • Fred L

            I agree we have to believe Rossi that there were 3 cores and only one was working. But the core’s box was only 20x20x1cm… There is no way in the world to produce the 14kW of heat during self-sustained mode in such a small space. It’s conclusive beyond any reasonable doubts.

  • http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/ Maarten

    The report is online!

  • Fred L
    • Kevin Stabel

      Thank you Fred, i’ve read it and it looks good!
      Nice video on there too!

  • Renzo

    Passerini has just written that the first report will be published at 2pm on NyTeknyk, he also added that the reactor had 3 cores but only one was activated during the test!

    • John Dlouhy

      They were TOLD that only one reactor was activated, it wasn’t something that they could actually OBSERVE. Therefore we can’t count it as known.

  • Andrei

    I see the 1MW plant is small enough a cargo aircraft

    • Eric B

      Sending the 1 MW facility by air will be very expensive though, and Rossi’s financial resources are stretched. It seems ridiculous given the amount of $$ involved if this is real, but at the moment I’d be surprised if they end up air shipping it unless someone with deep pockets is in a big hurry to prove the E-cat to the world. (Of course that is just what many of us want, but we don’t have the deep pockets, nor does Rossi at this point.)

      It’s possible the demo will happen on schedule but in Italy. I’m more concerned with sticking to the timetable than where it happens, so long as observers have good access to the unit and can rule out and kind of fraud.

      • John Dlouhy

        Rossi has the greatest invention in human history already developed and weeks away from commercial readiness, yet he is still having money problems. Doesn’t that seem inconsistent to you?

        • Fred L

          Considering the media converage of this “greatest invention in history”, and the amount of “pathological” skepticism inside the science community and in the general public… well no, it’s not inconsistent. Maybe, juste maybe… If I have the money and in negociations with Rossi, knowing he is almost bankrupt, I will try to put pression on him in order to control his invention. That is maybe what Rossi meant by mentionning that the contract included “conditions that his lawyer said were not acceptable”.

          • John Dlouhy

            I agree with the idea that Rossi would face some unusual pressures if this invention were real. I just can’t, at this point, imagine how his actions could lead to a successful marketing. I wish they could though. Like the poster on Mulder’s wall reads “I want to believe”.

          • http://www.nickelpower.org Bruce Fast

            “Doesn’t that seem inconsistent to you?” No.

            Dr. Rossi is refusing to take money from anyone including me. He seems to think (something to do with a previous project that bit him bad) that if he doesn’t take investment money, he cannot be accused of scamming. In response, you take his lack of money as proof that he is scamming. “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

          • John Dlouhy

            Bruce, don’t confuse me with the pseudoskeptics. I’ve never once said it was a scam, that Rossi was trying to take people’s money. I’ve said it could be fraud, the intent of which is unknown.

            If this is real, then it CAN be proven easily, and the investment funding available for it would be UNLIMITED. On the other hand, there really are people that would try to stop it, I believe,in ruthless ways.

            So how do you demonstrate and get funding while mitigating these very real threats? I don’t know the answer to that.

            • TPBurnett

              Rossi didn’t create the playing field. A field with no patent protections, no mainstream scientific support & lots of snake oil salesmen out there. I believe Rossi is taking the only approach possible in this environment. Further, I believe that Rossi is one of the few people in the world with the resources, know how, history & benevolence to get this gift to us.

              • John Dlouhy

                I hope you’re right. I felt the same we before this last demonstration.