Connect with us

Third Party Tests Conducted

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by amdx, May 21, 2013.

  1. amdx

    amdx Guest

    On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
    testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

    Anyone care to read and review the paper.

    This could finally the start of cheap power.

    "the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and
    three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!"

    The graph is a little strange because the E-Cat HT and Plutonium 238
    are so far out on the edges.



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgib...device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

    Mikek
     
  2. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    Credible third party tests using something that looked like precision
    colorimetry gear would be a start. I can't see any journal accepting
    that paper apart from possibly "The Journal of Irreproducible Results".

    Walks like a duck quacks like a duck. Nature is the final arbiter.
     
  3. The use of a calorimeter would have been nice, more exact.
    Measuring temperatures is almost meaningless. I can make something get
    real hot too. ;)

    Cheers
     
  4. Guest

    I'll play!

    Before I started, I went and read the Wikipedia entry on the device
    under test, but I didn't read any of the other criticism or alternate
    explanations for what it may be doing.

    The numbers are page numbers in the PDF. I have also given the section
    titles from the PDF.

    ---
    "Introduction"

    3: I guess the researchers had to infer how many resistors there were
    and how they were arranged because they were not allowed to see the
    device disassembled, either before or after the test. Seems a
    little strange. I would think the inventor would at least be willing
    to show people the outer housing and resistors, without the "secret
    sauce" installed.

    "Part 1"
    "Device and experimental set up"

    3: The internal construction of the device is described, but then it
    says they couldn't weigh parts of it because the device under test
    was already running when the test started. So how do they know that
    the description is accurate?

    3: Why is the AC input waveform a secret? Does plain old sinusoidal AC
    (at whatever frequency) not work? How about DC? DC would be a lot
    easier to measure accurately and cheaply.

    4: The seal of the end caps is asserted to be hermetic, without any
    further proof. Couldn't you take a similar cylinder, hammer an end
    cap into it, and work on it with pumps and pressure gauges to test
    that assertion? Hydrogens are pretty small, so they will leak
    through tiny places. If the hydrogen is essential to the process,
    leaky end caps would make the device work worse. On the other hand,
    oxygen, nitrogen, or other stuff leaking *in* might make it work
    better.

    4: I'm sure the 1200 C black paint has a product name, part number, data
    sheet, etc. Where is it?

    4: In so many words, "We weighed one that was just like the one that was
    already running". How do you know? Why not 1) look at the shell of
    one, weigh it, measure it, x-ray it, whatever you want to do; 2) make
    a unique mark on it somehow; 3) let the inventor put the secret sauce
    in it; 4) observe that the mark is still there; 5) do whatever
    additional measurements you want; 6) THEN turn it on? In super
    perfect world you'd get to watch the inventor putting the secret
    sauce in it, but that seems unlikely to happen here.

    4: The whole idea of working out the heat produced via an IR camera
    seems goofy to me. I know you can use IR cameras for this purpose,
    but as far as I know they tend to get used for relative measurements
    (this IC/circuit breaker/whatever is warmer than the one next to it),
    or for things that don't have built-in temperature sensors, like
    maybe electric motors or engine exhaust pipes. In the latter case,
    you usually only care about the instantaneous temperature, not the
    heat produced. Also, you don't usually care about a 1 C or a 5 C
    difference; the minimum step you care about is 10 C or more. The
    application here seems to require much greater precision than that.

    In high school physics we did calorimetry with thermometers and
    polystyrene cups. There was a picture in our textbook of an
    industrial-grade version with a vacuum for insulation and all
    that. Why couldn't you stick this device in a calorimeter like
    that?

    The device is going to have some amount of thermal mass. Presumably
    the input power gets diddled at 50 Hz or 100 Hz or so, but the camera
    is only updating at 1 Hz. I'd think you'd want a little better
    update rate on the camera.

    5: They decided that they only cared about the apparent power. I think
    another way to put this is that they assumed the power factor was
    1.0. Why not at least look at the active and reactive power just to
    make sure that's a good assumption?

    Can the meter they used deal with the presumably goofy waveform
    they used? The meter specs say it can autorange from 45 to
    65 Hz. If the waveform is goofy enough, it will have components
    outside that range. The meter specs say it can measure harmonics,
    but is it looking at *everything*, or just at 60, 120, 180, 240,
    etc?

    Why not hook up a couple of different meters and see if they agree?
    Given the levels of power involved, the voltage inputs to the two
    meters shouldn't load anything down excessively.

    Filming the meter and a wristwatch is kind of a cute idea (I've
    proposed it myself for other applications) but that meter can also
    log data to its internal memory... so why not use the internal
    logging?

    Again, it sounds like they used 1 Hz update on the power meter,
    which seems like it might not be enough.

    6: Why not include the results of the radioactive monitoring in this
    report?

    "Data analysis"

    6: They assumed conduction was negligible. It would have been really
    complicated to stick a couple of thermistors or thermocouples on
    the steel framework periodically to see how hot it was getting, I
    guess.

    "Calculating the power emitted by radiation"

    7: Why couldn't they measure the emissivity? This seems like something
    you could easily do if you had the outer shell, devoid of the secret
    sauce.

    7-8: They only had one IR camera looking at the bottom of the device.
    Why not have another one or two looking at the sides? I understand
    that if you had one on top, convection would tend to heat up the
    camera itself, but I would think you could tell the camera to factor
    that in when computing a temperature.

    "Calculating power emitted by convection"

    11-12: Well... OK. I guess you can do it this way, but I think I've
    read that in the real world, this depends a lot on the fluid,
    currents in the fluid, the exact shape of the devices involved,
    and so on.

    Again, wouldn't it be simpler to stick it in a calorimeter, and
    know that you've captured *all* the heat the thing is putting out?

    "Performance calcuation"

    13: Is there a rationale for the 10% error number?

    "Ragone chart"

    14, Fig. 9: Why not get a chart that has both conventional and nuclear
    sources on it, so the results for the device under test can be
    plotted with some context?

    "Part 2"

    "Device and experimental set-up"

    15: This time they at least give a brand name for the paint. Still
    no part number or spec sheet. They also admit that somebody can't
    paint evenly. Still no emissivity measurement.

    15: Magic power supply again. I wonder what the output waveform looks
    like?

    16: Using two IR cameras now, which is maybe somewhat of an
    improvement.

    16: Assertion that the video recording is non-falsifiable. Got a
    chain of custody for that recording? Did you buy the camera at
    random from a shop?

    17: Trying to measure the emissivity. Again, why couldn't you do this
    in a more accurate way by testing the outer casing without the
    secret sauce in it?

    18: Again, why not include the full report on possible radioactivity?

    "Analysis of data obtained with the "dummy""

    18: They did try their power meter on the input line to the resistors.
    No mention of what the waveform looked like, or what the meter
    thought the distortion was, or anything like that. If the control
    box really was dissipating 100 W, it must be a fairly beefy thing.

    "Analysis of data obtained with the device"

    20: The 35%/65% on-off time is kind of interesting, but over what
    time period?

    20: Any rationale for using 5 divisions instead of the 10, 20, or 40
    used in the previous test?

    22: They seem to be using the 2% "error" number for radiated energy
    as the error number for the convective energy also. I am not sure
    this is justified.

    "Ragone Chart"

    22: Why not just do 37.58 kWh / 116 h = 0.324 kW for the average
    consumption, and not have to refer to the (estimated? calculated?)
    35%/65% duty cycle?

    22: Is there a rationale for the 10% error number?

    23, Fig. 15: Why not get a chart that has both conventional and nuclear
    sources on it, so the results for the device under test can be
    plotted with some context?

    "Remarks on the test"

    25, Plot 3: Would you care to label your X axis? It is presumably
    seconds, but this is not stated. For extra credit, tell Excel to
    scale it so that the major divisions are 60 seconds or 100 seconds
    or something reasonable.

    26: Trying to prove the heat output is not due to a resistor alone.
    How about a resistor inside the same steel can but with no secret
    sauce?

    27, Plot 7 and Plot 8: Again, label X axis please. Scale X axis to
    even units. On the other hand, this does seem to show that the
    on time is roughly 2.5 minutes (assuming the X axis is seconds),
    which answers a question I asked above.

    27: The argument seems to be "the emitted power keeps going up after
    the resistors are switched off, so something else must be
    happening". What if it's just the heat from the resistors finally
    working its way through to the outside of the cylinder?
    ---

    Before anybody asks, I don't work for an oil company, mining company,
    or anybody in the power generation and transmission industries (coal,
    nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, whatever). The investments I have in
    any of these companies, if any, would be through a 401(k) plan, nothing
    direct. I also don't work for or have any investments in the
    manufacturer of the device under test.

    Matt Roberds
     
  5. Guest



    No gamma ray detectors?

    Michael
     
  6. amdx

    amdx Guest

    There are still people digging up old dump sites looking for that
    300MPG carburetor!
    Mikek
     
  7. Jamie

    Jamie Guest


    I just wonder how many of them the oil companies have bought or
    had them added to the compose heap.

    Jamie
     
  8. tm

    tm Guest

    I wonder how many on this group have ever taken a thermo course?
     
  9. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    * Note "hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some _additives_" sounds
    similar to test by Pons etc and others after the announcement.
    Seems that good production correlated with "additives" and/or
    contamination.
    * A heater is a heater is a heater, "secret" waveforms total bullshit.
    Use adjustable DC.
    Better yet, if it is so damn good,toss the F-ing heaters and let it
    power itself!
     
  10. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    In that case, i will sell you ten for the price of a certain (famous)
    bridge...
     
  11. rickman

    rickman Guest

    Wouldn't that be a 300 MPG fuel injector these days?
     
  12. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    DC would not allow you to cheat energy supply past whatever goofy way of
    trying to measure it these well meaning cowboys cooked up. Their
    attempts to measure energy in and energy out are risible. The whole
    thing looks like a bad example of a high school science fair project!

    If you think about it even for a moment if the peak power generation and
    energy density of this thing was anything like what they claim from the
    moment the "nuclear" reaction initiated it would require active cooling
    to prevent meltdown. Instead it continues to consume power using the
    magic waveform that defeats simple measuring instruments.

    See the Ragone diagram on Forbes. Incidentally why are Forbes pushing
    this? Do they have shares in this operation they want to pump and dump?

    http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png

    A humble wood burning stove is two orders of magnitude lower down the
    peak power pecking order and they put out a lot of heat. The obvious
    thing to do was insulate the test rig to the point where any additional
    internally generated energy becomes obvious and then look for *nuclear*
    reactions. I would probably have palmed one of the "tube reactors",
    substituted a fake then subjected the original contents to ICPMS
    analysis so that we could see what the thing *actually* contained.

    Basically it still looks exactly like an experimental setup by a well
    practiced conman who has duped a bunch of scientists/engineers.

    Fleischmann and Pons did at least generate enough peak power to actually
    damage their equipment even if it was not cold fusion. Their problem was
    that they were electrochemists and their practice of calorimetry (which
    was much better than this crap) was not up to snuff.
     
  13. Whoever gets duped by this nonsense is *not* a scientist or engineer.

    Jeroen --TANSTAAFL-- Belleman
     
  14. Nico Coesel

    Nico Coesel Guest

    If you look at the report close enough you'll find the mathematical
    and measurement errors for sure. The standard way to test these kind
    of systems is measuring the caloric value of the energy produced. Any
    other test can be tampered with.
     
  15. amdx

    amdx Guest

    From the paper, they did melt down the first one tested in November.
    Mikek
     
  16. Ughh.. you must really want to believe this stuff.

    OK let me ask one question... (I didn't read the whole thing), but
    they guesstimate the heat produced by measuring the surface
    temperature. And they claim not to be able to measure the emissivity
    of the surface.. but "conservatively" assume it's 1. Now correct me
    if I'm wrong but that is *not* a conservative estimate. If the
    emmisivity was (say) 1/2 then the thing would have to come to a higher
    temperature to get rid of the same amount of heat!

    George H.
     
  17. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    I can't imagine why. Amusing sci-fi plot but useless engineering.

    Fleischmann & Pons were at least credible scientists who rushed into
    premature publication based on slightly iffy calorimetry and had
    everybody and their dog trying to replicate their cold fusion experiment.

    This lot aren't even remotely credible except in the eyes of the
    terminally gullible who fall for every other "free energy" scam.
    And six orders of magnitude more bullshit than actual reality.
    Take with one very large pinch of salt. About 1 tonne ought to do it.
     
  18. amdx

    amdx Guest

    I think you have it backwards, But I can't find much to back me up.
    I did find this;

    "If you were to adjust the pyrometer for the theoretical emissivity
    value drawn from literature, the displayed temperature reading will be
    erroneously high. To obtain an accurate temperature reading, the user
    will have to adjust the pyrometer for a somewhat higher emissivity than
    declared."

    If I understand the logic of that statement, the temp reading was
    erroneously high, so they had to raise the emissivity on the pyrometer
    to get the proper lower temperature reading. Meaning, if the researcher
    used an emissivity of (1) vs (0.9), (1) would make the pyrometer read a
    lower temperature than setting a lower emissivity that would cause a
    higher temp reading.

    Quoted paragraph from the is page;

    http://www.keller-msr.com/temperatu...ce-in-non-contact-temperature-measurement.php

    Mikek
     
  19. Hmm... well I didn't read the whole thing. But if you measure the
    temperature and then from that you want to get the energy that is
    radiated. Then higher emissivity means more radiated energy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity

    If the 'conservative' estimate of emissivity is just to get the
    calibration of their pyrometer... then I just throw up my hands.
    Measure the surface temperature some other way (a thermal couple).

    So if the calibration of the pyrometer is a bit 'flaky', giving an
    uncertainty in the temperature... and the energy radiated goes as T^4,
    then that's an even bigger error.

    As others have said, there are lots of ways it could have been done
    better.

    Why do you want so much for this to be true? I tend to be skeptical
    about science claims... even in a peer reviewed journal.

    George H.
     
  20. P E Schoen

    P E Schoen Guest

    "amdx" wrote in message
    I was perhaps a bit quick to accept this as legitimate and convincing, but I
    still think it may have some validity. I did some searching of the Cornell
    University papers and found some more theoretical and probably more
    realistic analyses of "cold" fusion and low energy nuclear reactions of
    heavy nuclei such as Nickel. The probability of such reactions according to
    classical physics is in the order of 10e-2682, but quantum mechanical
    effects may have a more realistic probability. I posted a large number of
    links in a discussion in the DIYelectricCar forum:

    http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/rossi-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-86033.html

    But the paper that seemed most relevant was:
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.1243.pdf

    I am not a physicist by any means but it does seem that nuclear fusion as
    observed in Rossi's tests is at least possible. I doubt that the simple
    apparatus he has built can actually produce the results he claims, and I
    agree that many of the experimental methods are highly suspect, but I try to
    avoid knee-jerk rejection of such presentations and keep an open mind.

    Paul
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-