preliminary radiation and heat findings on two recent tests Dec 16 and Jan 14 on the same HNi fusion Rossi reactor by U. Bologna scientists, D Bianchini, G Levi: Rich Murray 2011.01.23
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimento-della.html [ Rich Murray: minor typos and confusing language corrected -- see photos on the report ] Sunday, January 23, 2011 Report official experiment in "cold fusion" reactor (Ni-H Rossi Focardi) - Bologna, 14/01/11 [ 2011.01.14 ] Eng. Andrea Rossi sent me today two reports of scientific experiments carried out on [ December 16 last year ] and January 14 this year, by researchers at the University of Bologna (Department of Physics - INFN). We explain below in the original version the time to translate it and then insert the text (also in Italian) the report of Dr. Joseph Levi. >From this link you can download the report of Dr David Bianchini: http://www.22passi.it/downloads/TEST%20BO%20BIANCHINI%20RELAZ.pdf [ 6 page January 21, 2011 ] Experimental evaluation, for radiation protection purposes, of photon and neutron radiation fields during the public presentation of the prototype named "Energy Amplifier" " CONCLUSIONS >From the measures, it is shown that there is no evidence, within the bounds of the instruments presented herein, of meaningful differences in the measured values, compared to the background environmental radiation. Further: * The absence of a neutron field observable from the measured background does not allow a dosimetric analysis for comparison with the calibration values associated with the instrument. * The measured results are not dissimilar from the environmental background, both as average and as maximum values. " Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor. Dr. Giuseppe Levi January 23, 2011 This first and preliminary document reports the heat production measures during two short tests on December 16 2010 [Test 1] and January 14 2011 [Test 2]. On December, 16 2010, I had the opportunity to test, for the first time, a prototype of the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor. A photograph of the apparatus used in both tests is shown in Fig .1, and a schematic is shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 1 Fig. 2 The Rossi Reactor prototype has a main horizontal cylindrical body ending with a vertical pipe. The H2 inlet was connected to a hydrogen bottle through no-return valves. There was no H2 outlet, aside from a small purge valve that was closed. Cables were connected to a control box, with 5 digital displays, that were, “controlling the power sent to the resistors inside the reactor”. Prudentially, I lifted the control box to search for any other possibly hidden cables, and found none. The weight of the control box was a few Kg. Two water pipes were connected to the system. Temperature was measured and logged by two NTC sensors. Another sensor, in the logger, measured the ambient temperature. Power from the 220V line was monitored and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro Es power meter. Before igniting the reactor, the water flux was set and measured by collecting, and then weighing, an amount of water in a container in a given time. The measured flux was of 168 +/- 2 g in 45 +/- 0.1 s. [ about 3 cc/sec ] Then the power was turned on, and temperatures started to rise. In Fig. 3, there is a plot of the temperatures that appeared on the monitor during the test, taken from the start to just after the end of the test. Fig. 3 The three lines refer to: (B) blue line: T1 water input temperature (Y) yellow line: T2 water (steam) output temperature (R) red line : ambient temperature As it can be seen the system was turned on just around 16.55. After about 30 minutes, a kink can be observed in the (Y cordinate). Because input power ( 1,120 W, also checked via a clamp amperometer ) was not modified (see Fig. 5 later), this change of slope testifies that the reactor had ignited. After a startup period about 20 minutes long, a period where the reactor power was almost constant, taking the water to ≈75 deg C, a second kink is found when the reactor fully ignites, raising the measured temperature to 101.6 +/-0.1 deg C and transforming the water into steam. At this point, we can try a simple calculation in order to evaluate the power produced. In order to raise the temperature of 168 g of water by 1 deg C, ≈ 168 * 4.185 = 703 J is needed. The water inlet temperature was 15 deg C, so the ΔT was 85 deg C. We have 703 * 85 = 59,755 J. At this energy, one must add the evaporation heat ≈2,272 J/g * 168 = 381,696 J. Total energy in 45 sec is 59,755 + 381,696 = 441,451 J, and so power is 441,451 / 45 = 9,810 W. Statistical experimental errors in power estimation, due mainly to flux measurements, can be conservatively estimated to within about 1.5%. In this case we have +/- 150 W. This result is only a lower limit of the energy produced. because the system was not completely isolated, and we have not taken into account any heat loss. >From the calculation of the “produced power” when the water was at 75 deg C, which gives a result that is less than the electrical input power, it is easy to understand that this systematic under-estimation surely exceeds the statistical errors . Before ending [Test1], all the power was reduced and then switched off from the resistors, and also the hydrogen supply was closed. No pressure decrease was noted in the H2 bottle. Even in this condition, the system kept running self-sustaining for about 15 minutes, until it was decided to manually stop the reaction by cooling the reactor, by using a large water flux (note the decrease of the water input temperature). The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measurement was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry. During [Test2 ], this measure was done by Dr. Galantini, a senior chemist who has used an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe. Also in [Test2], a high precision scale (0.1g) was used to weight the hydrogen bottle (13 Kg), before, 13,666.7 +/- 0.1 g and, after, 13,668.3 +/- 0.1 g, for this experiment. The cause of this unexpected rise in weight was traced to be a remnant piece of adhesive tape used to fasten the bottle during the experiment. After careful examination of the tape, the weight loss was evaluated to be <1g. This is far less than the expected weight loss due to chemical burning. In fact, 1g of H can produce (max) 285 KJ. In [Test2], the power measured was 12,686 +/- 211 W for about 40 min with a water flux 146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s. This means that 12,686 * 40 * 60 = 30,446 KJ was produced. Dividing this number by 285 KJ, a weight of 107 g is obtained, two orders of magnitude larger than the H consumption observed. As a prudential check, the reactor was lifted up to seek any possibly hidden power cord. None was found. During the test, the main resistor, used to ignite the reaction, failed due to defective welding. Even in that condition, the reactor successfully started operating, using the other resistors, but the duration of the experiment in full power (≈40 min) was “too short” to observe a self sustaining reaction. Fig. 4 The temperatures recorded in [Test 2] are shown in Fig 4. Unfortunately, the original data has been lost, but the different evolution is evident. Fig. 5 Fig. 5 Power absorbed during both tests, in Watts. The time abscissa has 15 min tics. [ small ] Spikes in [Test 1] are due to line voltage spikes. The anomalous behavior in [Test 2] is clear. The average power absorbed during [Test 2] is ≈1,022 W. Conclusions The amount of power and energy produced during both tests is indeed impressive, and, together with the self sustaining state reached during [Test 1], could be an indication that the system is working as a new type of energy source. The short duration of the tests suggests that it is important to try longer and more complete experiments. An appropriate scientific program will be planned. [ also interesting... ] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/cold-fusion-going-commercial/#more-32272 2011.01.22 http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&TabControl1=TabCV Bernard E Souw, Ph.D. January 22nd, 2011 at 8:09 AM Dear Dr. Rossi, Is your novel invention somehow related to Dr. Randell Mills (Blacklight Power, Inc.) hydrogen reactor based on hydrino reaction? If not, do you see any possible relation with it? Regards, Bernard Souw, Ph.D. Bernard Eng-Kie Souw, Ph.D., Electrical Engineer, Dr. rer. nat., Diplom Physiker Principal Scientist BMS Enterprise, Herndon, VA 20170 Primary Examiner U.S. Patent & Trademark Office U.S. Department of Commerce Alexandria, VA 22314 Contact: 571 272 2482 <bernard.s...@uspto.gov> http://www.oocities.com/qedpressrelease/24August06.htm http://sonoluminescence.14194.free-press-release.com/
