Data Indicates That Rossi’s October 6th E-Cat Demonstration Showed Nuclear Reaction

As the dust clears and the chatter subsides, and we take a look at the facts pertaining to Andrea Rossi’s October 6th demonstration of the energy catalyzer, data collected indicates that unless Rossi has been able to rig an extremely sophisticated trick (which no one who attended the demo has accused him of) he indeed managed to show that he has discovered a new source of nuclear power.

One of the most clear representations of the data collected at the test can be seen in the graphs and table below. The overall result shows that there was a clear overall energy gain — 33.6 MJ in, and 101.3 MJ out.

In addition to the overall energy in/energy out picture we have the remarkable fact of a three and a half hour time period in which water was constantly boiling — with the electrical input which had been used earlier in the test turned off.

One of the clearest pieces of analysis of the event that I have found comes from Jed Rothwell who posts on the vortex-l mailing list. Of this data, Rothwell comments:

Nothing happens until 13:22 when the steam begins to flow through the heat exchanger.
At 15:13 output is a little higher than input, even though there is a great deal of heat unaccounted for, especially the water from the condensed steam, which they poured down the drain.
At 15:50 the power is cut off. If there had been no source of anomalous heat, the power would have fallen off rapidly and monotonically, at the same rate it did after 19:55. It would have approached the zero line by 17:25. Actually, it would have approached zero before that, based on Newton’s law of cooling. In other words, it would have been stone cold after 3 hours. During that time, 1.8 tons of water went through the cooling loop. It is inconceivable that an object of this size with no power input could have remained at the same high temperature the whole time. Yet Lewan reports that the surface of the reactor was still hot, and boiling could still be heard inside it.
As you see, the temperature did not fall. It went up at 16:26. The cooling water flow rate was unchanged, so only a source of heat could have caused this.
You can ignore the thermocouple data, and look only at the fact that it continued to boil for more than 3 hours after the power was turned off, and the reactor surface remained hot. That alone is rock solid proof.

There had not been too much in the way of public comment from those who attended the event, but Focus magazine reports that the attendees seemed to be impressed by what they saw, and ended the day with a round of applause which Andrea Rossi said was one of the greatest moments of his life.

The video below provides a view inside the demonstration. Much of it is in Italian, but there are sections in English: At 5:11 Professor Roland Petterson of Uppsala University speaks of his reaction and the upcoming testing he will be doing in Sweden; at 11:18 Rossi speaks at the conclusion of the demonstration.

The debate will no doubt continue — not everyone is convinced at this point, but taken at face value, to me it appears clear that Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer is not powered by chemical processes; Andrea Rossi seems to have discovered a means of creating a new form of nuclear reaction.

Frank Acland

  • Karlo

    Looks like it died.

  • Harnischmacher

    Dear Mr.Rossi,
    as a German Mechanical Enigeer I am looking forward to hear more of your great invention. If it really fullfils all of your and mine espectations, and I believe in it and You, then it will change the world we are living in. Please be wise and philanthropic and give your invention as a present to all people in the world.
    Warmest regards,
    Ingo Harnischmacher

  • Pingback: The Rossi’s E-Cat; Free Energy at our doors! | HunabKuBlog()

  • Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » Cheap, unlimited energy()

  • http://www.aquapulser.com Max Hugoson

    Good point about the need for O2 for combustion reactions.

    Take the infamous “hand warmers”. They have some sort of iron in them, other pure species compounds, and what keeps them going is an OXIDATION PROCESS.

    Because of the “thermal seal” around Rossi’s device, very hard to supply enough O2 for standard chemistry.

    So consider this: At LEAST he has invented a “HIGHLY DENSE ENERGY STORAGE/RELEASE MECHANISM WHICH CAN BOIL WATER…” which seems to have applications (say under sea) for usage.

    Consider the Swedish U Boats run on Compressed Air, and Fuel Cells. One month without surfacing, el-zippo underwater noise. Note they have NAILED US Air Craft Carriers numerous times in drills.

    SO you give ANY system the ability to run with a COMPACT fuel source, without need for O2, and give yourself 1, 2 or 3 months under water, (and say it is “non-nuclear”..and relatively “simple”… and you have a significant invention.

    Hum…????!!!!

  • http://www.aquapulser.com Max Hugoson

    I must be missing something here, I understood the thermal box WAS opened, and the rather smallish “reactor” was shown.

    That would be important.

    As to the claim that someone did the old “switcheroo” during the lunch break. Possible, but how is Rossi going to do that with the 1MW device?

    I do admit the possible problem here.

    Rossi may need to take the individual units out of the 1MW and subject them to a commercial Xray. That would NOT reveal much detail, but show the size of the Ecat Reactors and assure people in a larger sense of no fraud with regard the technology.

    Max

  • Pingback: Daily Pundit » Latest Focardi-Rossi Test()

  • Waiting

    In the October 6 demo, a 10-liter black box generated as much heat as 1 or 2 liters of chemicals would have. The 10-liter box was never opened. The observers never saw inside it.

    Maybe the box contained a LENR nuclear reaction that generated all that heat. Maybe it contained 1 or 2 liters of chemicals that had an exothermic chemical reaction. We don’t know which, because no one looked inside.

    The Rothwell quote, in context, was arguing against a passive thermal mass. He was arguing that the black box must have actually generated heat. Let’s assume he’s absolutely correct about that.

    The estimated heat production here was 101.3 MJ – 33.6 MJ = 67.7 MJ. Rossi claimed a significantly smaller number. But let’s be generous and assume a full 67.7 MJ.

    Energy density in MJ per Liter can be found on the vertical axis of this chart from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

    According to that chart, 67.7 MJ could be released by less than a liter of aluminum, silicon, or anthracite, or by about 2 liters of gasoline, magnesium, or polystyrene. Of course, there are many other chemicals that would have similar energy density. Some chemicals, such as thermite (which is based on aluminum), consume and generate no gasses, and simply stay solid. They would be cheap and easy to put inside the black box.

    NyTeknik indicated that the inner box that was never opened was at least 9.9 liters, possibly more. The detailed report says: “Inside the heat exchanger there supposedly was a layer of about 5 centimeters of shielding, and inside the shielding the reactor body, supposedly measuring 20x20x1 centimeters and containing three reactor chambers.” If there was no gap between the reactor and shielding, then the unopened box would be just the reactor plus shielding on all sides, which is 30x30x11 cm, which is 9.9 liters. It’s possible that there was a gap, and so the box was bigger. One poster on this blog estimated 18 liters from the photos. But let’s be conservative and assume the lower limit of only 9.9 liters.

    There were a number of flaws in the demo. The energy produced may have actually been less than the 1 or 2 liters worth assumed here. The available space may have actually been more than the 9.9 liters assumed here. But if we’re conservative and assume a full 1 or 2 liters worth of energy production, and a mere 9.9 liters inside the black box, then we’re still left with no evidence of anything nuclear.

    It certainly might have been nuclear. But it equally well could have been chemical. A longer run might have distinguished them. But this run was cut off at less than half the duration of the February demo. This particular demo gives no evidence one way or the other. It doesn’t help us distinguish whether the energy source was nuclear or chemical.

    • Eric B

      Good analysis. Let’s see if commenters here can take it further. The unopened box (I’m frustrated about that too) weighed quite a bit, and was essentially the same at just under 100 kg. before and after, as I recall. (Can anyone link the exact weights? I can’t find that detail now).

      Anyway, the minimal or no change in mass rules out some potential energy sources. We should also rule out anything that would produce noticeable gases/fumes. Nothing of that sort, surely, was noticed. And secreting a pipe to remove such gases from the room begs the question – if such a pipe could be hidden, it would be a lot simpler to just run a wire through it for electric power.

      So that leaves us with power sources that don’t give off any gases or significant volumes of fumes, maintaining the same mass in the mystery box. Perhaps someone could list the possibilities here so we could look for further clues to rule in or out each possibility. For example, could you really control a thermite reaction within the box to maintain a fairly even heating level, without burning right through the shielding (or whatever) enclosing the box?

      • PersonFromPorlock

        Don’t overlook the possibility that the ‘test’ box was exchanged for one that would withstand scrutiny while the witnesses were at dinner. MAYBE a neutral witness was with the reactor throughout the cooling-down period, but I haven’t seen it stated explicitly anywhere. If someone was, then I withdraw this caveat.

  • John Salinger

    Major news regarding the 1 MW Plant:

    Andrea Rossi
    October 10th, 2011 at 11:39 AM
    Dear Don Witcher:
    The test will be made on the 28th of October. I will give details within a week.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#comments

  • nima

    new announcement

    Defkalion GT S.A.

    The technological breakthrough of LENR (or CANR) is no longer speculation. It is a fact that will eventually change the world’s energy problems and its sociopolitical divides through cheap, clean and green energy. The world needs LENR as a new energy source. Although change will not happen over-night, LENR will help reduce CO2 emissions, lower the cost of energy, and provide longevity to our planet’s energy needs.

    Defkalion sees its role with responsibility and asks the community at large to continue its support.

    Defkalion has:
    • Enhanced technology and engineering on Rossi’s invention or similar inventions
    • Prepared business models for international expansion
    • Established a strong network of global contacts
    • Prepared legislative and certification procedures
    • Ensured national, regional and international network in politics and business
    • Prepared global financing

    Defkalion has worked in close partnership with Andrea Rossi for a very long time to prepare a commercially viable and industrially applicable product using his invention. Defkalion invested a lot of money to evolve Rossi’s E-Cat lab prototype into its Hyperion product. Defkalion is now at the stage where its industrial prototype is ready for production.

    Defkalion has held direct business discussions with 62 interested companies who visited our offices in Greece and witnessed our work. Small industry and large energy players internationally were all impressed by our progress in technology and engineering. More are still coming. Despite this phenomenal progress, Defkalion never made promises.

    Our aim has always been to inform and demonstrate to public our progress when the final product is ready for use, thereby avoiding any speculations.

    Today, Hyperion engineering has completed version 7. We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. We were confused why our old designs were implemented wrongly, as well as witnessing insufficient use of instruments and testing protocols. We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. These actions have already paved the way for more negative criticism (unworthy) against the inventor, which do not give credibility to his important work.

    The plethora of positive and negative comments is not helpful, as pointed out recently on the Vortex mail archive:
    (http:[email protected] … 52357.html).

    Defkalion fully supports and endorses this technology. Our mission is to introduce this technology on a global scale, responsibly. To date, we have self-financed all R&D and business development phases without asking for a single penny from anyone (private or public). We will soon be ready to announce the results of our extensive R&D with Hyperion final products.

    Athens, October 10th, 2011
    Defkalion GT S.A.

    • s

      The wording might make it hard to speculate. But, engineers design and build based on the input/output specifications of a component all the time without having the actual component. Perhaps, and this is only speculation, they were given performance specifications of the ecat reactor and designed their box around those numbers. Take this last test, for instance. The public was given input power, output power, temperatures, some flow rates, how output responded to input, etc… Obviously, the public was not given all the info. But, it seems the public was given enough to begin to consider a design to house an ecat core.

    • the snake

      That’s somehow strange. First Rossi quits with Defkalion, then he announces collaboration with US investors and US companies but cancels the contract upon his media appearance on Oct. 6. Now Defkalion is back all of a sudden although they never documented any work they’ve done and although Rossi stated they were given no trade secrets.

  • Johannes Hagel

    First of all:

    Congratulations to you Dr. Rossi! These graphs clearly indicate to me that you have proven a new form of energy (LENR) to exist and work in practice. Although I have to share some critical remarks concerning the test procedure itself (this could have been done in a much better way), the result seems clear and very positive. Now I hope first of all for a similar and maybe better demonstrated result for the 1MW plant and secondly I would have no objection if it this will take place in Europe and why not in Bologna.

    Good luck!

  • Joao Corvelo

    Parabéns Engº Andrea Rossi.
    Tenho acompanhado desde Portugal Açores a sua saga para demonstrar a existencia desta nova forma de energia nuclear limpa .
    Estou certo que após este sucesso,o dia 6 de Outubro ficará na historia da energia nuclear e o financiamento necessário para desenvolver a democratização do E CAT não vai faltar.

  • Lloyd

    Everyone needs to relay this news to the world’s greatest entrepreneurs: George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Hedge Funds etc..

    When adequate financial backing arrives, this technology will truly change the world.