May 21, 2013 – By Steven B. Krivit –
On May 16, Hanno Essén, a theoretical physicist and lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, submitted a paper to arXiv, the physics pre-print server, and claimed that he and several co-authors performed an independent test of an E-Cat device that was built by Andrea Rossi. Essén submitted a revised version of the paper on May 20.
The authors of the paper did not perform an independent test; instead, they were participants in another Rossi demonstration and performed measurements on one of Rossi’s devices in his facility.
New Energy Times stopped counting the Rossi demonstrations after the 13th one on Feb. 12, 2012. (See Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer Master Timeline.)
The authors of the paper lack full knowledge of the type and preparation of the materials used in the reactor and the modulation of input power, which, according to the paper, were industrial trade secrets.
The authors didn’t perform any calorimetry and used a method to measure temperature to extrapolate output power that neither they nor anyone in the field of low-energy nuclear reaction research has ever used to analyze for heat power or energy.
In response to a question from New Energy Times about whether he had full knowledge of how to perform and operate the experiment, Essén effectively confirmed that he had not replicated the experiment.
“No, but I am sure that I could repeat it with some effort,” Essén wrote.
Essén is the former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Association, and his co-authors are Giuseppe Levi (University of Bologna), Evelyn Foschi (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics-Bologna), and Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér (Uppsala University).
Andrea Rossi is a convicted white-collar criminal with a string of failed energy ventures. (Report #5: Rossi’s Profitable Career in Science) His most notorious endeavor was his effort between 1970 and 1990 to turn industrial waste into fuel. Rossi’s company produced only toxic waste and environmental damage to the land and groundwater in the Milan, Italy, area. (Rossi’s Italian Financial and Environmental Criminal History)
New Energy Times questioned Essén about the March 18-23, 2013, experiment that was, according to the paper, carried out by Essén and his co-authors.
SBK: In whose building/premises was the experiment performed?
HE: In Rossi’s facilities in Ferrara.
SBK: Who built or constructed the reactor?
SBK: Who set up the experiment?
HE: Giuseppe Levi and Evelyn Foschi – within the constraints set by Rossi.
SBK: Who purchased or acquired the materials used in the reactor?
SBK: Do you have full knowledge of the type and preparation of the materials used in the reactor?
SBK: Do you have full knowledge of how to perform and operate the experiment?
HE: No, but I am sure that I could repeat it with some effort.
SBK: Who acquired or supplied the instrumentation?
HE: Giuseppe Levi mainly, with some input from the Uppsala group.
SBK: Who tested and/or calibrated the instrumentation?
HE: Levi and Foschi did the main work, but several cross-checks were done by the rest of the participants. The temperature measurement cameras were checked on boiling water. The electric measurements were checked with standard resistors.
SBK: At any time during the 116 hours of the experiment was Rossi at any of the controls?
HE: Not that I recall. He showed us his ongoing projects in general but did not participate in the measurements.
SBK: Do you know of any other experiment performed in this field in which infrared measurements were made not just to acquire temperature readings but also to analyze for total heat enthalpy?
SBK: Do you know of any other experiment performed outside this field in which infrared measurements were made not just to obtain temperature readings but also to analyze for total heat enthalpy?
SBK: Is there any reason you did not use either mass-flow calorimetry or envelope calorimetry to analyze for total heat enthalpy?
HE: Yes, practical reasons. The current setup made it difficult. (Practical reasons determined by the reactor, its placement, and the available equipment.)
SBK: Who paid for the travel expenses of the Swedish participants in the test?
HE: All travel and living expenses were paid by Swedish and Bologna university sources.
[May 21, 1603: Article updated to include question and answer about who built the reactor.]
To the Editor:
Good job with all the slides about the different methods used in the LENR field!
About the Levi et al. paper, you know that I’m not a theorist, but I like the good analysis of experiment, and I can’t agree with the statement of the authors about the “shade” of the resistors:
EVEN IF THE AMOUNT OF POWER IN THE RESISTOR IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE TOTAL POWER OF THE E-CAT, IF THERE IS A JOULE POWER PRODUCED IN THE RESISTOR COIL, IT CANNOT BE COOLER THAN THE OTHER PARTS!
I my mind, Rossi’s trick is probably very simple: there is probably a hidden electrical input which heats the corundum tube, and the “shade” is probably the signature of the “leak” of this main power input into the “fake” resistors.
Clearly, the voltage of the hidden power supply is higher than the voltage of the resistor’s power supply.
The path of this current is perhaps the steel frame of the experiment, if Rossi’s team members are the only guys authorized to touch the whole device
Rossi has done a good “David Copperfield Job.”
May 23, 2013
Here is a good example of a credible, non-Joule heating effect from a LENR cathode, courtesy of SPAWAR. Hotter in center, not edges:
Steven B. Krivit
To the Editor:
Here is how Rossi has fooled the same bunch of academic physicists this time:
He has given them the thick insulated wires to measure with a “clamp ammeters.” This type of measurement uses magnetic field created by the current flowing trough a wire. The calculation of the current has an assumption of a single, non-wound and non-shielded wire. However, internal structure of the cables used in this setup were not exposed. It can be seen that they are thick enough to hide things like shielding, winding, or even ferrite rings that could completely distort the magnetic fields and so the validity of the measurement.
It looks like while focusing a lot on temperature measurement, they got fooled by simple electric measurement distortion. Cables are definitely thick enough to deliver several kW of power while actual measured current would be much less if magnetic field that is being measured is partly shielded. So while there was no mistake in heat calculation, the electric power measurements were completely uncertain and open to any manipulations Rossi might want to implement under the insulation of these thick cables that were passing an “unidentified waveform” of current.
Physicists could not legally wire the Rossi device to a 3 phase mains supply in most countries because they have little expertise and the results of the test come down to the reading of the power meter. That section should have been done by an electrical engineer because there are some glaring problems.
The power meter used only has a valid power factor range of 0.5-1.0 if you pull the manufacturer datasheet. The physicists never measure the power factor and from what I can see of the results it looks to be a triac firing horribly into an inductive load and is highly likely to be around 0.25 well outside the meters range.
The waveform also appear to be highly distorted which also defeats the power reading ability of the power meter. Legally you couldn’t not sell this device in most countries it requires and filters and active power factor correction to be able to be connected to the mains. The meter used in the test is the type that expects a complying device and it’s results are prefaced on the device meeting normal electrical compliance specifications.
Equipment designed for testing power with irregular and non compliant waveforms are much bigger and much more expensive than the meter used.
Concerning is that Mr. Rossi openly discusses the waveform as being important to the operation of the device he ties it to some LENR thing but more than likely it is important because it upsets the meter reading ability.
The bottom line here is there is no certainty what power exactly is being drawn from the 3 phase mains because the electrical testing was done by physicists not electrical engineers and since the result of the whole test revolves around what power was drawn from the mains it is not clear there is any excess power at all and it wasn’t simply drawn from the mains.
Leon de Boer