All the energy we need to run ourcivilization will soon be readily available. This test used 300 watts to produce a net gain of 2300 to 2600watts. It is a confirmation test of theFocardi Rossi demonstration test of a couple of months ago. We will be seeing many more such testsobviously as every physicist will want to see it in action.
As expected a number of naysayersare been heard, but this demonstration is at a magnitude both practical andreally irrefutable. The original ‘coldfusion’ announcement made the error of claiming it demonstrated physics wethought we knew instead of merely presenting the empirical evidence which wasat best marginal though real enough.
Here we have the empiricalevidence and it is not slightly marginal. In fact we are going immediately to ahot box to produce brake horsepower totaling one megawatt. The purpose is to assure the world beyondreasonable doubt that it is all real in a way no bench test will ever convincethe diehards.
The present theory attempting toexplain this argues that the crystal geometry is able to shield an electronfrom the coulomb barrier which was the obvious conjecture back when cold fusionwas first announced. At least that waswhat I thought at the time, impossible as it may have seemed.
I will share an additionalthought. It is assumed that Coulombforce is mathematically smooth down to the boundary of the acceptingproton. In fact this is not true at allbut it is presently not understood. Thesame also holds true for the electron and the prospect of a pathway is real ifthe atoms can be held rigid enough which is plausible in a dense crystalline structure.
Now we know that this trick iseven possible we will certainly rig up additional protocols and make even more efficientheat engines using the same ideas. Thisis actually great triumph for empiricalphysics which went ahead exploring the limits whatever the theorist had to sayabout how it cannot be done.
MAY 02, 2011
The new tests with the energy catalyzer, which seems to generate heatby an unknown nuclear reaction,took place in Bologna
As in previous tests the objective was to measure the net energy that thedevice generates as accurately as possible.
The results of the two tests showed a developed net power of between 2.3 and2.6 kilowatts – of the order of a large stove plate. Input electric power wasin the order of 300 watts.
As previously, the power output was calculated from the amount of waterboiled into steam, and thus depends on the water flow. At the two new tests thewater flow was set at a slightly lower rate than in previous tests.
The device used was the smaller version of the energy catalyzer, which wasfirst shown at a test March 29, 2011.
The tests lasted for two and three hours respectively and the total net energydeveloped was calculated to be 5.6 and 6.9 kWh (see report for April 19 andApril 28).
As Professor Sven Kullander and Associate Professor Hanno Essén notedpreviously, the energy released is greater than can be generated by a chemicalreaction in the reactor, which has an estimated volume of 50 cubic centimeters.
At this point precise measurement is crucial if credibility in the processunder study is to be established.
Hundreds of thousands of readers have now followed our reporting on the energycatalyzer, and in thousands of comments readers have discussed among otherthings possible sources of error in previous tests.
In the new tests, Ny Teknik aimed to reduce measurement uncertainty in threeways:
1. The ammeter used to measure the input current, from which the total powerconsumption is calculated, were calibrated by us against other instruments.
2. Total water-flow input was measured by weighing.
3. By calibrating the temperature-sensor probe in boiling water, we have as faras possible ensured that there is only vapor at the outlet of the energycatalyzer.
The last point has been discussed intensively. To assess developed energy, it’sessential that all the water flowing into the energy catalyzer evaporates,given that the phase change – evaporating water into steam – requiresmuch more energy thanmere heating.
Shortly before the test on April 28, we calibrated the probe by immersing it ina pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degreescentigrade.
The probe, which sits just below the outlet of the energy catalyzer, laterduring the test showed temperatures of about 100.5 degrees centigrade.
Therefore it cannot reasonably be in contact with water, thus there should beonly water vapor (steam)at the outlet.
Alternatively, the probe is subjected to other heating, but probably notelectrical as the temperature curve during start-up is quite uneven.
During the April 28 test, we also checked the steam flow through the outlethose regularly. Some steam was reasonably being condensed back into water inthe three-meter-long tube that was exposed to air and was thus at a slightlylower temperature, and a small amount of water was observed coming out of thehose.
The amount of water coming out before boiling was clearly larger, and this wasinitially measured.
We also controlled all other equipment and checked that there were no hiddenconnections from the floor orwalls.
To safely exclude the transfer of external wireless energy, we measuredelectromagnetic fields from 5 Hz to 3 GHz. No increase could be noted exceptfor a slight increase at the power-grid frequency of 50 Hz, close to theelectrical resistor positioned around the reactor.
In the first test on April 19, the national Italian television channel RAI waspresent and its reportage will be broadcast on the channel RAI News (livestreaming here) Thursday, May 5th at 20:35.
In the second test on April 28 only Ny Teknik, the inventor Andrea Rossi, and acolleague of his were present Energy Catalyzer
Many physicists are very skeptical. Partly because fusion of nuclei,which with their positive charges repel each other (the Coulomb barrier),requires hundreds of millions of degrees according to current knowledge, andpartly because fusion should produce very high levels of gamma radiation.
The debate has gained new momentum after Professor Sven Kullander and AssociateProfessor Hanno Essén participated in a test on 29 March and found that themeasured values can only be explained by a nuclear reaction, while an isotopicanalysis of the used nickel powder raised questions.
Among the most critical is Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of NuclearPhysics at
Slightly more cautious in his skepticism, Kjell Aleklett, physics professor atUppsala University in Sweden, summarizes his discussion: ’I myself have nothingagainst to reveal a scam, or join in and verify something that no one couldimagine. Both extremes belong to that which makes life as a researcherincredibly interesting.’
An intense debate is also being held on the Wikipedia discussion page relatedto the article ‘Energy catalyzer’, and in many other forums.
However, to date no one have been able to explain the measured values that NyTeknik now has been able to confirm.
The inventor Andrea Rossi is planning an installation of 300 energy catalyzersat a total of one megawatt in
No comments:
Post a Comment