Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society!

Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

pesn.com

Yet another test of Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) has been performed on a 4.5 kW version near the University of Bologna. This time a new set of observers were present, one of which is the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, who confirmed that Copper is being formed from Hydrogen and Nickel -- cold fusion!

(visit the link for the full news article)





Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

I find this absolutely fascinating! With such a prestigious panel of witnesses, the anti-cold fusion community is surely going to be buzzing...or will it?

It's quite apparent the MSM wants very little or nothing to do with this project. The question is, will we ever see this technology on store shelves. My hope would be yes, but my gut tells me there's a remote chance.

"The evidence in support of Andrea Rossi's "cold fusion" or "LENR" (low energy nuclear reaction) based Energy Catalyzer continues to grow. For those who are not aware, his system combines nickel powder, hydrogen gas, and an input of pressure and heat to produce a large output of thermal energy. On March 29th, 2011 yet another test of the technology was performed at the University of Bologna. Like previous tests, the outcome was a complete success. However, this time a smaller version of the E-Cat was tested and two new observers were present.

Some well known players were present during the test. These include Andrea Rossi (the inventor of the E-Cat), Professor Sergio Focardi, Dr. David Bianchini, and of course Dr. Giuseppe Levi. Two guest observers were also present. One of the guest observers was Hanno Essen, associate professor of theoretical physics at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. He is also the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society. The other guest observer was Professor Sven Kullander of Uppsala University. He is also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Energy Committee."


pesn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Great news in bad times.

Thanks OP!

Now that is very interesting.
Where do i get the ebook to build one myself?

The tube was made of copper and according to Rossi, the reaction chamber is hidden inside in the central part and made of stainless steel.

During the running we used the rightmost one of the devices, figure 4, which is surrounded by a 2 cm thick lead shield, as stated by Rossi, and wrapped with insulation, figure 5.

Since we do not have access to the internal design of the central fuel container and no information on the external lead shielding and the cooling water system we can only make very general comments.

WOW, more misrepresentation by Rossi. The "skeptics" validate it?

They couldn't have because they didn't have access to the system


Very sad, yet another media release to promote Rossi. The test was run in Rossi's place too.

Paper

I guess they will have a freak accident sooner or later....

This is a great invention that wont be forgotten

reply to post by boncho


Has anyone met a magician that lets them look inside their bag of tricks?
Another thread on the e-cat.

reply to post by boncho


I think you are jumping the gun here a bit, they did validate it as putting out more then was input and ruled out external power supplies and chemical sources That is pretty significant. One can understand the reluctance to fully disclose the full process for the time being until they are in production. However this paper does validate that what they are doing is working and that in and of itself is pretty significant.

The result of the experiment was a constant average production of 4.69 kW of power for almost six hours. Additionally, the input was on average 330 watts (30 of which was used by the electronics controlling the setup). This is fifteen times less than the energy produced by the device (15x overunity).

This output was less than the 10 to 15 kW produced by the previous version of the E-Cat, but this is very impressive for a device 1/20th the volume!

Kullander and Essen also ruled out that the energy could be coming from a chemical source. They stated, "Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production." This statement is VERY significant coming from a report written not only by professional scientists, but also by the chairman of a skeptical society!
pesn.com...

During the demonstration, T2 = 13.3°C and T3 = 101.2°C.

Using the values of the specific heat (cal/degree-gram) for

water, and the heat of vaporization (540 cal/gram), and the

rate of flow of water into the apparatus (4.9 g/s), a value

exceeding 12,900 W for the excess power was inferred, when

the input power was less than 370 W.
..

Answering skeptic’s concerns about hidden batteries,
told Lewan: “This
time I opened the control unit. . .
[T]he box was empty
except for the control electronics. . .
I have also seen inside
the unit itself—most of the volume
is insulation and most of
the weight of about 30 kg is due
to lead.” Rossi will have Levi
do analysis, before and
after operation, of the nickel powder
involved in the process
as a catalyst.

Rossi tells IE, “We are making a thorough series of tests

with the University of Bologna, which will be 12 months

long with a reactor in operation 24 hours per day. During

this year we will make a long theory of measurements and

tests, also in collaboration with CERN researchers...

www.nyteknik.se...(pdf

f it had been a chemical
process, a maximum of 0.15 watt-hour of energy could have been produced from nickel and
0.11 gram hydrogen, the whole hydrogen content of the container. On the other hand, 0.11
gram hydrogen and 6 grams of nickel (assuming that we use one proton for each nickel atom)
are about sufficient to produce 24 MWh through nuclear processes assuming that 8 MeV per
reaction can be liberated as free energy. For comparison, 3 liters of oil or 0.6 kg of hydrogen
would give 25 kWh through chemical burning. Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh
from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that
there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.

www.infinite-energy.com...

reply to post by discl0sur3


I was so disappointed to find that the word "Validated" (or even "verified") was nowhere in the article except the headline.

Sadly, start-ups like this always seem to make the mistake of allowing the marketing people to run the website. Which leads to hyperbole and sales-pitches where people like us are looking for facts and ... well... hope.

I suppose the 'validation' could be a 'misinterpretation' on someone's part, but once I discovered that one other website was listed as reporting (i.e., on the 'bandwagon' of cheering premature or dubious success), I parked my enthusiasm until some more concrete news surfaces... the other website? Beforeitsnews... hence the disappointment.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by discl0sur3

 

I was so disappointed to find that the word "Validated" (or even "verified") was nowhere in the article except the headline.

Sadly, start-ups like this always seem to make the mistake of allowing the marketing people to run the website. Which leads to hyperbole and sales-pitches where people like us are looking for facts and ... well... hope.

I suppose the 'validation' could be a 'misinterpretation' on someone's part, but once I discovered that one other website was listed as reporting (i.e., on the 'bandwagon' of cheering premature or dubious success), I parked my enthusiasm until some more concrete news surfaces... the other website? Beforeitsnews... hence the disappointment.

Read the the paper they did validate it as putting out at least 10 time what was input with no batteries or chemical sources etc. That is pretty significant. People need to quit attacking the messengers and stick to the results.

reply to post by hawkiye


I attack no one. The article itself makes no reference to validation of any kind.

The additional links provided by the website are replete with additional information, but the press release does not make that assertion. I usually believe that such things are not said because no permission to make such a statement was granted.

The pdf link regarding the measurements made was not part of the OP, but it does give encouragement to the idea that the device is not a 'trick' of some nature they expected to find. That is good news.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary vigilance. If offense was taken - know that it was not given.

reply to post by hawkiye

I think you are jumping the gun here a bit, they did validate it as putting out more then was input and ruled out external power supplies and chemical sources That is pretty significant. One can understand the reluctance to fully disclose the full process for the time being until they are in production. However this paper does validate that what they are doing is working and that in and of itself is pretty significant.

Acutally no. That is not true. IF THEY DIDN'T INSPECT THE APPARATUS THEN THEY DIDN'T VALIDATE ANYTHING!

No external power source? What about internal power source. If the set up is not up for scrutiny than NO VALIDATION can occur. Because the test can be manipulated through unknown means.

There is no reason to post anything from pesn, it is like posting a CNN story on something scientific.


I already posted the paper in an earlier post I don't know why you are reposting it. That is what I am basing my posts off of.

Discussion. Since we do not have access to the internal design of the central fuel container and no information on the external lead shielding and the cooling water system we can only make very general comments.

There is no reproduction, there is no attempt to make it falsifiable, nothing.

reply to post by Maxmars


The article supplied the report of their validation and I posted another report.

reply to post by boncho


Actually yes they did examine the apparatus enough to rule out chemical sources etc. I posted a quote read it. I reposted parts of the report because you picked one quote that reinforced your scepticism and failed to mention the part about them ruling out other sources. Maybe you would care to tell us what else it could be causing ten times the output as input when all other sources have been ruled out? Enough testing has been done to rule out all other sources and but nuclear reaction. Read the other report. if you don't think that is significant enough to at least warrant significant interest and further testing as high powered scientist from Cern and elsewhere are now taking such interests then I don't know what to tell you.

reply to post by hawkiye

Read the the paper they did validate it as putting out at least 10 time what was input with no batteries or chemical sources etc. That is pretty significant. People need to quit attacking the messengers and stick to the results.

I read the paper! The only thing it validates is that Rossi has once again done a demonstration to make people believe something is happening! NOTHING CAN BE RULED OUT BY THESE EXPERIMENTS.

He has validated his unwillingness to use scientific method! He has validated his lack of transparency.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Maxmars

 

The article supplied the report of their validation and I posted another report.

reply to post by boncho

 

Actually yes they did examine the apparatus and and ruled out chemical sources etc. I posted a quote read it.

You missed the part where they said they didn't have access to the entire apparatus?

Since we do not have access to the internal design of the central fuel container and no information on the external lead shielding and the cooling water system we can only make very general comments.

And then...

The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.

Of course, the only alternative is nuclear reactions...



This 'paper' if you want to call it that, would be laughed into the garbage can by any respectable scientist. It would hail a giant 0 first year study.

The only citations are of Rossi's papers that he posts on his blog which he named the "Journal of Physics".

Laughable...

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Read the the paper they did validate it as putting out at least 10 time what was input with no batteries or chemical sources etc. That is pretty significant. People need to quit attacking the messengers and stick to the results.

I read the paper! The only thing it validates is that Rossi has once again done a demonstration to make people believe something is happening! NOTHING CAN BE RULED OUT BY THESE EXPERIMENTS.

He has validated his unwillingness to use scientific method! He has validated his lack of transparency.

Tell That the scientist THAT HAVE RULED OUT ALL OTHER SOURCES. So I guess Scientist validating 10 times the output then input and ruling all other sources but nuclear reaction of which I quoted some of their calculations and findings is not scientific...Sigh. You did not read the other report I posted did you...

Update:

This 'paper' if you want to call it that, would be laughed into the garbage can by any respectable scientist. It would hail a giant 0 first year study.

The only citations are of Rossi's papers that he posts on his blog which he named the "Journal of Physics".

Laughable...

it seem when you can do nothing else y just try and ridicule with no substance. The paper by Scott Chubb (whom received his B.A. degree in physics from Princeton University in 1975 and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees, also in physics, from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook, in 1978 and 1982 respectively.)

Perhaps you can give us your credentials and refute the paper by Professor Chubbs? You seemed genuine at first but now it appears you have an agenda. When you deny valid testing and results by qualified physicists and then dismiss them as nothing and laughable with no substance what else can we conclude...

Is further testing of course it is, however that does not negate what has been done. And equating protecting proprietary technology before it is in production with magic is what is laughable. it is a common business practice and good sense especially in this field.

Am I the only one who noticed the mention of a "proprietary catalyst" being used in the reaction.

Since there is a catalyst being used to start and maintain the reaction, there is an EXTERNAL ENERGY SOURCE, THE CATALYST.
It is not cold fusion, but a catalytic chemical reaction, they might have discovered new branch in chemistry, but its not cold fusion.

reply to post by hawkiye


These are the same two people that were brought into Rossi's last demonstration. There was no scientific method done in this 'paper' they released.

And there is only one in your link. The rest are no different than news reports. You aren't getting it. There is no science behind this to explain what is going on, they don't even have proper testing equipment for it.

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Am I the only one who noticed the mention of a "proprietary catalyst" being used in the reaction.

Since there is a catalyst being used to start and maintain the reaction, there is an EXTERNAL ENERGY SOURCE, THE CATALYST.
It is not cold fusion, but a catalytic chemical reaction, they might have discovered new branch in chemistry, but its not cold fusion.

Ah no, the catalyst is internal to the device and what causes the nuclear reaction with the nickel and hydrogen. Being proprietary is is smart business sense till it is in production and patents secured.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

 

These are the same two people that were brought into Rossi's last demonstration. There was no scientific method done in this 'paper' they released.

And there is only one in your link. The rest are no different than news reports. You aren't getting it. There is no science behind this to explain what is going on, they don't even have proper testing equipment for it.

Again you just attack character with no substance. What part of Professor Chubbs tests and calculations based on those tests were not Scientific? Also what part of Essén, and Kullanders calculations and observations ruling out other sources were not scientific?

Update:

In some way a new kind of physics is taking place. It’s enigmatic, but probably no new laws of nature are involved. We believe it is possible to explain the process with known laws of nature,” said Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and chairman member of the board (chairman until April 2) of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

www.nyteknik.se...

So are you going to attack Essén, and Kullanders character now too?