Talk-Polywell.org

Haven't looked at it. I'm busy. My mother (94yo) is coming in for the weekend. But it came across my desk.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1917 ... f-gasoline

The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer.

Umm, what about DC?

The radiative output is meaningful only if the total surface area of hte radiative surface is known and the output is constant over that entire surface. If the output is not constant then gradients have to be known, or carefully measured. Taking a temperature of any one or several locations can be very misleading without the above consideration . There is no mention of the surface area, measuring modalities, etc. The conductive heat transfer is also suspicious as the device is setting on a simple metal rack. The ceramic sleeves are poor heat conductors so if the heating is not constant throughout the ceramic pipes, but the radiative out put is measured near the center and the entire surface area of the ceramic is assumed to be putting out the same radiation, then the calculations are erroneous.

Without specific details about the methods, any conclusions is only as valid as the credibility of the authors. As reported, the researchers are "credible" and yet remain anomalous. Without careful examination of the methods, even sincere reports are best viewed with skepticism .


An easy conclusion is that this is another attempt to claim excess heat output by using inappropriately applied methods in the same vein as their claimed steam production as a measurement modality- which has been repeatedly shown to be severely flawed, and easily correctable, if they actually wished to present credible results.

Dan Tibbets

I agree with Dan that their measuring techniques were really not very good. They spent pages in their report on how they calculated it. It is too complicated. They even added up energy transferred via convection. Convective heat transfer is tricky to calculate even with finite element methods.

If I ran the experiment, I would have used the heat of the reactor to boil away water. If necessary the reactor could be coupled with the surrounding boiler via black body radiation. It would then be a simple matter of measuring how much water was boiled away, and with periodic readings of ambient humidity and air pressure it should give you a good idea of how much power it was producing.

From the paper: http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4r ... Submit.pdf:

The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually
brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the
following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and
powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration

I wouldn't be too excited about isotope changes!

Even worse:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 98421.html

Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the
sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are
you certain?

That is because several months ago, I personally talked to
the person who sold Rossi enriched Ni-62 in what was for all practical
purposes that same purity. The coincidence is stunning.

Of course, it's just hearsay for now, and it seems Rossi would be crazy to give away a profitable scam so carelessly, but stranger things have happened. Whatever, at this point I think Rossi has, intentionally or not, raised the stakes so high that there's either a Nobel Prize in Physics or a jail cell with his name on it.

At this point he has wound people up so far that he can truly maximize his infamy by spontaneously disappearing all of his junk. Intermodals, coffe machine, and all. Gone for everyone around the world to be left guessing.