fredag 28 juni 2013

Comment on the "independent" E-Cat report

The so-called Energy Catalyzer, or short E-Cat, of Andrea Rossi has been around for quite a while now. The interest in this device seems still high despite all criticism and the fact that a proof that the device works as claimed is still pending. A good timeline can be found here (even though the author of this webpage, Steven B. Krivit, seems to be a supporter of the general idea of cold fusion, he is far from convinced concerning the E-Cat). A detailed history and critical investigation can also be found here (in German).

My interest in this story has nothing to do with serious doubts about what is called cold fusion and LENR. It has nothing to do with the business of Mr. Rossi. Using Occam's razor and given the history of "the inventor" a la Petroldragon, and given the secrecy that revolves about the device, my best explanation of the whole story would simply be that this is a question of fraud.

What does trigger me, and in fact surprises me, is the positive response that the E-Cat receives from some people on the academic side, especially when this response comes from my own Alma Mater. Hence I have earlier posted a comment about a public lecture given by Sven Kullander in 2011.

Now a report authored by G. Levi et al. titled "Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder." appeared in its first version on arXiv on May 16, 2013. The claims by Levi and co-workers put forth in the arXiv report have of course been noted in both the blogosphere and other media, e.g. Forbes. And it has also led to prompt severe criticism by Peter Ekström and even research ethical questions have been raised.

My colleague Göran Ericsson and I have written a comment on the Levi report, which is now available on arXiv. Here is the abstract:
In a recent report titled “Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder” and published on arXiv, G. Levi and co-workers put forth several claims concerning the operations and performance of the so-called E-Cat of Andrea Rossi. We note first of all that the circumstances and people involved in the test make if far from being an independent one. We examine the claims put forth by the authors and note that in many cases they are not supported by the facts given in the report. The authors seem to jump to conclusions fitting pre-conceived ideas where alternative explanations are possible. In general we find that much attention is drawn to trivialities while important pieces of information and investigation are lacking and seem not to have been conducted or considered. These are characteristics more typically found in pseudo-scientific texts and have no place in a technical/scientific report on this level. We also note that the proposed claims would require new physics in not only one but several areas. Besides a cold-fusion like process without production of any radiation also extreme new material properties would be needed to explain what rather seems to be a problem of correct measurement. Therefore, it is clear to us that a truly independent and scientific investigation of the so called E-Cat device, convincingly demonstrating an “anomalous heat energy production” has not been presented in the arXiv report and is thus, to-date, still lacking.

Update September 2013: An improved version of our comment is now available on arXiv. Major changes include a 4 page appendix explaining our wording in the abstract.

21 kommentarer:

  1. Se även http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&p=26635#p26635 (in Swedish)

    SvaraRadera
  2. The COMSOL simulation does not reflect the architecture of the e-cat. In the e-cat, the heating elements are located close to the outer edge of the cylinder. In the COMSOL simulation, the heating elements are located deep within the cylinder.

    The COMSOL simulation is showing a heat source exactly where the fuel would be in the e-cat, namely at R=15mm. The Levi paper describes the fuel cylinder in the March test as having a diameter of 30mm.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Thanks for this input. We have asked people for drawings but not received any such information.
      So we are guessing where the coils might be located, their shape, etc. Maybe there are more coils?
      We do not know and neither does Levi et al. it seems ...

      Radera
    2. See page 5 and 6 in the following document for a close up view of an e-cat.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/105322688/Penon4-1

      The description and measurements of the three e-cats in the Levi paper matches the pictures above. In particular, Fig. 1 in the Levi paper describes thermal shadows cast by the heating elements.

      Radera
    3. Thanks for this link. You might be right. Still it is a guess. Note that a number of different E-Cats seem to have been in use. And note that the report of the "independent test" should have documentet such information. It should not be necessary to look for other documents somewhere on the net ... That is one of our main points of critique concerning our scientist colleagues who should now that.
      But given we have time we will continue our simulations and try different configurations. Might be interesting to see what conclusions (if any) could be drawn from them.

      Radera
  3. Thank you, gentlemen, for putting together all the things that I and others have been pointing out about the awful shoddiness of the Levi report. There is one area, however, which I'd like to see you expand upon, and that's the simulated COMSOL energy balance. How much input power does it predict is necessary to produce the published thermal data?

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. A three times higher input power gives roughly the right surface temperature (300 deg C). But more we cannot say since, again, a lot of important information is missing in the Levi report.

      Radera
    2. Thanks. Did the published changes in surface temperature match your model of the pulsed input power at that 3x level?

      Radera
    3. No. We could not yet guess us so far as to completely reproduce the figures in the report. So far we have focused on the shape and the arguments put forth by Levi et al. concerning the shape. Maybe we'll invest some more work to see if we can draw any further conclusions from our simulations.

      Radera
    4. Perhaps the corrections suggested by AB above may be of help.

      Radera
    5. Maybe. But since we have no drawing we can only guess. The wire position _might_give a hint but to be sure we need to get at least drawings.

      Radera
  4. I've read your paper but, referring to the march test, a part from a bunch of observations, more or less valid, and a lot of quibbles, you and Ericsson were not able to explain where the presumed error of 290% (the measured COP) comes from.
    Any valid idea to be put in less than one page instead eight pages of chatters?

    SvaraRadera
  5. We did look at the report by Levi et al. and the proposed evidence for the claims. We examined the report and summerize the most problematic points. We do not see it as our task to try to interpret how the E-Cat _might_ work. If you find any problems with our arguments that the Levi report cannot be taken as proof that the E-Cat works, you are welcome to point them out. Prefereably detailed enough to be understandable ...

    SvaraRadera
  6. We have an input power measured correctly with a proper instrument, and an output power that results from a note physics formula in which the variables seems correctly measured (the emissivity with the procedure recommended by the IR camera constructor, and the temperature by a comparison with a thermocouple previously calibrated), so at the end we have proper values for input and output energy, moreover more than one detail has been take in count in order to get conservative values.
    Even considering error from the instruments on the limits of the specifications (and even beyond them) the result is clear: a COP of 290% is a conservative value.
    I don't care if this energy has nuclear, chemical or unknown origin, time will tell, but the result is a fact for that particular experiments and political, academical or *ideological* assumptions like yours doesn't change the fact that in the DUT there is something of anomalous unless you or Ericsson don't explain where the testers made some measurement error.
    I want to highlight that having done measurement on the E-Cat in the past, or having done measurement on Rossi's facility, *are not* errors measurement.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Note that what we did in our comment is to take a look at the Levi report and see how well measurements seem to be done judging from the information given there. As you can see from our comment the report by Levi et al. leaves a lot to wish for. Hence it seems clear that one cannot draw the conclusions claimed by the report. Maybe the authors have other "secret" information? Than they should report that. This is how science works.

      Radera
  7. I think that agreeing to do a 'test' under these circumstances is already unacceptable. Such a test can never have any value whatsoever. The fact that the testing has been done incompetently only adds to that. Even a competently performed test would be worth nothing under these circumstances.

    If Rossi truly believed in his machine, he would of course submit it for truly independent black-box testing, not with one but with several independent professional testing authorities such as DNV, SGS, CSA, Intertek, Bureau Veritas and others. Following successful results from such tests, Rossi would find himself flooded in billions of dollars. There is only one possible reason for why he has not done this.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Thanks fort the comment Johan. I think I agree :-)

      Radera
  8. The same faulty heuristics: that amazing claims need amazing evidence. I've heard the same faulty heuristic in philosophy class: if a person sees a UFO and reports it, that person's credibility can't be so strong as to counteract the unlikelihood that they actually saw such an amazing event. What I find particularly bothersome is that very intelligent people buy into this nonsense, and reinforce their "educated" opinion by nit-picking.

    It was a sanity test for goodness sakes. If you can't perceive the entire picture, and arrive at a probabilistic conclusion that is accurate, you ought not be allowed to spew analysis based upon trivia. If not all the i's dotted, and t's crossed, then discard it as unsupported. Only an unobtainable burden of proof can alter consensus reality opinion.

    “I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stones fell from the sky” - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an eyewitness report of falling meteorites.

    “Such startling announcements as these should be depreciated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to to its true progress” - Sir William Siemens, 1880, on Edison’s announcement of a successful light bulb.

    “The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote…. Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.” - physicist Albert. A. Michelson, 1894

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. If somebody makes a test and wants to report its result in a scientific manner one has to follow certain standards. This is not what has been delivered by Levi et al. Hence we point to the critical points that should have been considered and reported. Unless these points are clarified the point of view that makes the most sense is to say that a proof has still not been achieved.

      Radera
  9. With Respect, the people who is attacking the people performing the studies on the e-cat is not very smart.

    IF people want to study cold fusion devices in an open scientific maner there is the possibilities to do so. Andrea Rossi is not the only game in town...

    Kind Regards, DB

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Again: please note that we are not studying cold fusion but took a look at the Levi report and the "evidence" put forth in it. Hence we criticise the report and all its sortcomings but not cold fusion or Rossi per se.

      Radera