Date: 21/11/2014 07:43:24
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 631855
Subject: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy — has been verified by third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report. The researchers observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, or “far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.” The researchers were also allowed to analyze the fuel before and after the 32-day run, noting that the isotopes in the spent fuel could only have been obtained by “nuclear reactions” — a conclusion that boggles the researchers: “… It is of course very hard to comprehend how these fusion processes can take place in the fuel compound at low energies.”
This new report on the E-Cat was carried out by six (reputable) researchers from Italy and Sweden. While the new E-Cat looks very different from previous iterations, the researchers say that it uses the same “hydrogen-loaded nickel” and additives (most notably lithium) as a fuel. The device’s inventor, Andrea Rossi, claims that the E-Cat uses cold fusion — low-energy nuclear reactions, LENR — to fuse nickel and hydrogen atoms into copper, releasing oodles of energy. The researchers, analyzing the fuel before and after the 32-day burn, note that there is an isotope shift from a “natural” mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62 — a reaction that, the researchers say, cannot occur without nuclear reactions (i.e. fusion). The researchers say there is just 1 gram of fuel inside the E-Cat. For more info about the science/chemistry behind LENR.

More

And the independent report

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 08:03:27
From: Dropbear
ID: 631858
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

Oh ffs.

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 12:36:14
From: sibeen
ID: 632018
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

OK, I’ve had a read through.

I cannot comment on their section fro measuring the power output from the device. I couldn’t be arsed wading through the maths and I don’t have the relevant background to know if their assumptions stand up.

What I was looking for was how they measured the input power to the device, and here I have some concerns.

Firstly they used a triac controlled box to vary the amount of power that was supplied to the device. The problem with this is that a triac controller will break up the sinusoidal voltage into something that is far from sinusoidal, and therefore the current supplied will also be non sinusoidal. This makes the measuring of the power vastly more difficult than with a pure sinewave.

No information is given about the triac controller, other than it is microcontroller based. The current waveform shown in figure 5 just makes no sense to me. They claim that it was measured the same by both measuring instruments. That makes no sense if one instrument was upstream of the controller and the other downstream.

No results are shown from the PCE-830 measurement device, except in the tables. I’ve also never hear of PCE as a test and measurment company, so can nearly guarantee that it will be some cheap knock off out of China. Without seeing any of the data from the measuring devices I have to take their results with a grain of salt.

A far better way of adjusting the input power would have been via a motorised variac, with feedback to the motor allowing adjustment of the current flow. This would have kept everything sinusoidal and measurements of power a doddle.

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 12:40:15
From: sibeen
ID: 632019
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

>The current waveform shown in figure 5 just makes no sense to me.

I meant to expand upon that. It just doesn’t look to be the output waveform from a triac controller. in fact it looks identical to the inout current waveform that I would expect to see into a 6 pulse rectifier (Graetz Bridge). If I’d been standing there looking at that it would have set my alarm bells jangling at high volume.

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 12:43:20
From: furious
ID: 632020
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

I haven’t read it but wouldn’t it have been better to, after initial start up, remove it completely from an external power source and have it drive itself? Then any output would be surplus…

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 13:01:19
From: buffy
ID: 632021
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

I wish sibeen wouldn’t insist on applying science.

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 13:01:34
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 632022
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

sibeen said:


>The current waveform shown in figure 5 just makes no sense to me.

I meant to expand upon that. It just doesn’t look to be the output waveform from a triac controller. in fact it looks identical to the inout current waveform that I would expect to see into a 6 pulse rectifier (Graetz Bridge). If I’d been standing there looking at that it would have set my alarm bells jangling at high volume.

Its a bit difficult validating the experiment when you don’t have all the details

ask them to send it to you

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 13:07:16
From: sibeen
ID: 632023
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

There is pages and pages of maths and calculations and assumptions showing how they got the output power. There is nada showing the same for the input.

It wouldn’t surprise me if this was a group of very intelligent young boffins who have SFA idea about electrical engineering :)

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 13:07:40
From: dv
ID: 632024
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

furious said:

  • A far better way of adjusting the input power would have been via a motorised variac, with feedback to the motor allowing adjustment of the current flow. This would have kept everything sinusoidal and measurements of power a doddle.

I haven’t read it but wouldn’t it have been better to, after initial start up, remove it completely from an external power source and have it drive itself? Then any output would be surplus…

This.

I might end up looking like yesterday’s man but I won’t sit up and take notice until a reactor can run for at least some time without input power.

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 13:09:29
From: dv
ID: 632025
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

Still, the isotope ratio measurement is interesting.

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 13:16:08
From: Cymek
ID: 632026
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

dv said:


furious said:
  • A far better way of adjusting the input power would have been via a motorised variac, with feedback to the motor allowing adjustment of the current flow. This would have kept everything sinusoidal and measurements of power a doddle.

I haven’t read it but wouldn’t it have been better to, after initial start up, remove it completely from an external power source and have it drive itself? Then any output would be surplus…

This.

I might end up looking like yesterday’s man but I won’t sit up and take notice until a reactor can run for at least some time without input power.

Isn’t that the point of fusion reactors, they need a big kick start of power and then you maintain the output by feeding them fuel with no other input of energy

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 13:19:23
From: sibeen
ID: 632028
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

dv said:


furious said:
  • A far better way of adjusting the input power would have been via a motorised variac, with feedback to the motor allowing adjustment of the current flow. This would have kept everything sinusoidal and measurements of power a doddle.

I haven’t read it but wouldn’t it have been better to, after initial start up, remove it completely from an external power source and have it drive itself? Then any output would be surplus…

This.

I might end up looking like yesterday’s man but I won’t sit up and take notice until a reactor can run for at least some time without input power.

True dat, but I gave that a mis as for the test setup there was no way to tap off power from the device and feed it back in. Even an electrical generator needs a small amount of power from its output to be fed back into it to keep it going. So, for the test set up, which was only to measure input vs output power, I ignored that.

Reply Quote

Date: 21/11/2014 13:23:12
From: dv
ID: 632032
Subject: re: Small fusion reactor verified by 3rd party researchers

Cymek said:


dv said:

furious said:
  • A far better way of adjusting the input power would have been via a motorised variac, with feedback to the motor allowing adjustment of the current flow. This would have kept everything sinusoidal and measurements of power a doddle.

I haven’t read it but wouldn’t it have been better to, after initial start up, remove it completely from an external power source and have it drive itself? Then any output would be surplus…

This.

I might end up looking like yesterday’s man but I won’t sit up and take notice until a reactor can run for at least some time without input power.

Isn’t that the point of fusion reactors, they need a big kick start of power and then you maintain the output by feeding them fuel with no other input of energy

That’s my understanding.

Reply Quote