I have a doubt. Is that H2 pressure just on the loading before the experiment? But, there is no mention of what is the pressure during the experiment, right?
2011/11/23 Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> > There are obviously much, much bigger problems than the weight of the > hydrogen tank, but nevertheless: > ** > *September 7th:* > > "Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure > inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. > Weight hydrogen bottle: - > before filling: 13613.4 grams - > after filling: 13610.7 grams > Total loaded: 2.7 grams > Pressure H2 Bottle: 60 bar Reduced: 20 bar " > > *October 6th:* > "Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure > inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. > Weight > hydrogen bottle: - > before filling: 13606.4 grams - > after filling: 13604.9 grams > Total loaded: 1.5 grams > Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar " > > *October 28th:* > "The Hydrogen tank has been weighted (sic) by means of a scale before and > after loading of the Hydrogen In the reactor. > Before the loading the weight measured is: 13604.5 kg > After the loading the weight measured is: 13602.8 kg > The Hydrogen tank pressure has been measured before and after the load: > Hydrogen pressure before the load: 55 BAR > Hydrogen pressure after the load: 55 BAR " > > Rossi later corrected himself. The 13604.5 kg and 13602.8 kg measurements > should have been 13604.5 g and 13602.8 g, respectively. > > So, one "Ottoman" E-Cat sometimes takes 2.7 g at 20 bar, and sometimes 1.5 > g at 15 bar. On the other hand, 107 of the "Ottoman E-Cats" only take 1.7 > g. > > But, Jed says that there is no reason to think that the numbers were > fabricated, so it must be fine. > > > > > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:51:48 -0500 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill > > > > > Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > > > > This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in > > > rather poor manner. > > > > > > > There is no reason to think the figures are fabricated. > > > > Weighing the entire tank is an extremely inaccurate method. Almost > useless. > > > > > > > There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was > > > in kilogramms instead of gramms. > > > > > > > This was obviously a mistake. People often confuse units of measure. > > > > - Jed > > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:36:35 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > That hydrogen bottle weight is a good point. It has been discussed > somewhere, but I do not remember was it here or elsewhere. > This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather > poor manner. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen > quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This kind of typo in units > implies that figures were just put there without much of thinking. > Certainly they were not measured! > —Jouni > On Nov 23, 2011 3:00 PM, "Gigi DiMarco" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We can derive the following conclusions: > > - no intermediate experiments/tests have been made since 0.4 grams is > likely to be a leakage, unless a different vessel was used > > - almost same quantity of Hydrogen is needed for either 1 or 107 fat-cat > systems > > OR > > - Fioravanti & Rossi report misleading figures > > Since Rossi in his blog says that 18 kg are needed in 6 months to charge > the 1MW plant, 100 grams are needed in 1 day. > > > Giancarlo > > > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
