Is the E-Cat finally proven?

[amdx]

Here's a link to a PDF (right side of page) of third party testing
on the E-Cat HT.

I have only read reviews so far but it looks good.

Please read and review the paper.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Maybe this will generate a little traffic,
believers and non believers. :-)

Mikek

[Morris Dovey]

Thanks for posting the link!

[amdx]

Sure!.

I posted on >sci.electronics.design< under the subject,
Third Party Tests Conducted.
I ask for reviews, I did not find any believers and
had one fellow do a page by page breakdown of things
he didn't like about the tests.
He made some good points but "if the authors are credible",
with all the conservative positions they took this thing has more output
than input.
Looks like there still some info that needs to be more open
to help convince the masses.
Mikek

[j]

On 5/21/2013 9:23 PM, amdx wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 3:44 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
>> On 5/21/13 2:43 PM, amdx wrote:
>>> Here's a link to a PDF (right side of page) of third party testing
>>> on the E-Cat HT.
>>>
>>> I have only read reviews so far but it looks good.
>>>
>>> Please read and review the paper.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>>>
>>> Maybe this will generate a little traffic,
>>> believers and non believers. :-)
>>>
>>> Mikek
>>
>> Thanks for posting the link!
>
> Sure!.
>
> I posted on >sci.electronics.design< under the subject,
> Third Party Tests Conducted.
> I ask for reviews, I did not find any believers and
> had one fellow do a page by page breakdown of things
> he didn't like about the tests.

It's a very indirect way of measuring heat.

Some kind of heat balance calorimeter would give a much more direct
answer with a lot less assumptions.

Use water or another fluid to cool the device. The temperature rise of
the fluid * specific heat * weight of fluid will give the heat
generated. Run the same test with the same cycling for a control and a
lot of doubts would be ameliorated.

It would also be a step toward a useful device where heat was doing
some work rather than heating the office.

Jeff

[amdx]

I'm curious, How much can you cool it before the reaction stops?
Is the resistance heating enough to keep the reaction going even when
bathed in room temp water?
Mikek

[Vaughn]

On 5/21/2013 9:23 PM, amdx wrote:

> I ask for reviews, I did not find any believers and
> had one fellow do a page by page breakdown of things
> he didn't like about the tests.

This is the best test so far. The "tests" that have been provided by
E-Cat in the past have been laughable.

Still, you can include me among the interested but still unconvinced
parties. For starters, I don't like their method of measuring output.
Also it concerns me that it was conducted at E-cat, and apparently under
their supervision, and so doesn't quite qualify as a true 3rd party test.

Hasn't E-cat invented some way of tapping useful energy from their
cells? If so, why wasn't it used?

Vaughn

[Vaughn]

On 5/22/2013 8:54 AM, amdx wrote:
> I'm curious, How much can you cool it before the reaction stops?

Good question!

> Is the resistance heating enough to keep the reaction going even when
> bathed in room temp water?
> Mikek

There is no particular reason for it to be bathed in room temperature
water. Assuming that the final use of the E-cat will be as the energy
source in a heat engine; the hotter the operating temperature, the more
useful and more efficient it will be.

To power a commercial steam plant of useful efficiency, 400 degrees F.
is around the lower limit.

Vaughn

[Bob F]

It would seem as if there is a power density problem with these devices,
assuming there is any reality to these stories. If the previous test melted the
device down, clearly there are temp regulation problems, The latest test
suggests that the temps can get high enough to be useful, but that they have
little faith in their ability to increase the energy level to useful levels
safely without destroying the device. Walmart won't have these for awhile.

[j]

Yes,

There are a lot of fairly easy ways to remove some heat without cooling
too far. And it is much easier to accurately measure that heat that was
removed than averaging IR readings. Just add insulation and a cooling
fluid that could even be air. You can run it at any temperature needed
by adjusting coolant flow.

And you would have a device headed towards not only more accurate
measurements, but towards being "operational". I don't see Rossi doing this.

Accurate calorimetric readings are taken everywhere but by Rossi.

Regards,
Jeff

[mike]

Yet another study in obfuscation.
They go well out of their way to avoid making a measurement.

Put a water jacket around the thing.
Measure the water volume at beginning and end of the experiment.
Vent the steam.
Control the steam outlet pressure to vary the water temperature.
If you know the
starting water temperature.
volume of water vented as steam
steam outlet pressure or temperature
you should have enough information to make a useful output
measurement in a REAL application that can be used to
extract useful energy.

The measurement is trivial. You could do it in your garage
with instrumentation found in the kitchen drawer.

The ONLY reason for not making
a similar DIRECT measurement is to obfuscate the result.

Thumbs-down in my corner of the universe!!!