Pages

June 17, 2011

Alan Fletcher write up of how to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real

"Fake?" means that all Fakes are NOT excluded. "Real" means that ALL fakes are excluded

Alan Fletcher has written How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real. He summarizes a lot of discussion at the Vortex mailing list

This paper attempts to prove that the Rossi/Focardi device is real, by ruling out all known fakes. For any particular fake the total energy and run-time is computed, assuming that the ENTIRE unknown volume is occupied by the fake material, and that its conversion to heat energy is 100% efficient. If the fake could run LONGER than the experiment, then it is NOT eliminated. If the fake would run out of fuel before the end of the experiment, then the fake is eliminated.

If ALL known fakes are eliminated, then the device must be real.

The December/January experiments were too short to rule out ANY of these theoretical fakes. But if Levi's informal reports on the February trial are accepted, then ALL chemical fakes are eliminated. However, neither the January or February reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake.

The March report probably rules out a Tarallo fake -- but since the Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes.

Two new tests were run in April. These definitely rule out a Tarallo fake. The experimental setup was adequate, but since the eCat was NOT unwrapped the time of the run was NOT long enough to rule out ANY of the chemical fakes. (Only some of the stored-heat fakes are eliminated).

At present EVERY known fake has been eliminated by at least ONE of the experiments, but the Rossi eCat has NOT been proven to be real by any ONE experiment. Some will argue that this means it's real, while others will argue that it could still be fake.

It must, however be noted that Rossi made the "Calorimetric Black Box" eCAT available without any restrictions (other than the use of radioactive spectral detectors), so the lack of proof is due to defects in the observers instruments or techniques, not due to his attempt to conceal anything.

This paper considers UPPER BOUNDS for what a Fake could achieve.

Any actual fake would run into engineering difficulties long before those limits were reached.



Fixed-Energy FAKE eCATS

The general methodology for Batteries and Chemicals is:

Choose some kind of FAKE (eg batteries)
Presume that the ENTIRE unknown structure is made up of the Fake material.
Make NO allowances for implementation efficiency.
Make NO allowance for practicality (the material or combustion products might be fatally toxic: the required equipment would be impossibly small).
Use the energy density (by weight or by volume) to determine the MAXIMUM energy content of the fake.
Using the observed excess POWER (kW) of the system, determine how long you would have to run it to exhaust the energy.
If that time is LESS than the observed run time, then the FAKE is eliminated.

We also estimate the Fake's Feasibility (could it be made) and Concealability (could it escape immediate detection). For example, a fake powered by Batteries is both Feasible and Concealable. One powered by Diesel fuel is Feasible, but since its output fumes would instantly be noticed, it is not Concealable.

Unlimited-Energy Methods

Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Flavio Tarallo has proposed that the flow of water might be diverted inside the machine, such that one tube leads to the thermocouple and RH meter, and another bypasses them. The flow of water is then joined and it empties out of the end.

During the April 28 test, we also checked the steam flow through the outlet hose regularly. Some steam was reasonably being condensed back into water in the three-meter-long tube that was exposed to air and was thus at a slightly lower temperature, and a small amount of water was observed coming out of the hose.

Hidden Wires or Tubes

For the April test Lewan reports:

We also controlled all other equipment and checked that there were no hidden connections from the floor or walls.

To safely exclude the transfer of external wireless energy, we measured electromagnetic fields from 5 Hz to 3 GHz. No increase could be noted except for a slight increase at the power-grid frequency of 50 Hz, close to the electrical resistor positioned around the reactor.

Reduced Water Intake

Instead of an internal heater, substitute a water flow valve (the wires are in the correct place). Let the external 300W heater heat the initial water flow up to 60 Celsius – then get peoples attention by stating that they should watch the computer as the reaction is initializing – then simply close the flow valve so that the water flow is greatly reduced – the insulated device and the 300W external resistor will do the rest. Thus the question to be asked – did either Essen or Kullander monitor the water flow during this transition from flowing water to steam generation?

* Accidental Water Diversion Through the eCat (or Measurement Artifacts)

* Input Electrical Power

* The water supply is not, in fact, water, but a combustible liquid which looks like water.

* Pump Power and Friction

Alternative Explanations

These would pass all calorimetric tests and inspections. They should therefore be regarded not as fakes, but alternative explanations of the source of energy.

* Nuclear : Plutonium 238

* Heat Pump

* Magnetostriction and Cavitation






Future experiments : all measurements must be conducted OUTSIDE of the Rossi Device, not through the "instrument port".



If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks
blog comments powered by Disqus