With proof of Andrea Rossi’s eCat likely some time in coming, eyes and hopes are turned to his competitor and arch enemy Defkalion GT. Promising to deliver a series of independent tests of their Hyperion systems, they appear to be painting themselves into a corner where the only way out is through the door at their back marked Stealing eCat’s Thunder. For that to happen, fuel for scepticism must be kept to a minimum.
Blows are already being swung, one common complaint being that without flow calorimetry, their test is meaningless (it is not).
Defkalion answered this ‘accusation’ in their forum, promising a series of steps that will cumulatively knock over all the pins.
We now have (we are told) official testing for certification, tests (commisioned by DGT) by independent professionals and bare Hyperion tests ) performed by independent qualified organisations (or individuals?).
To this we can now add the following:
marcodeleonardis wrote:Making hot water (not steam) with relevant temperature increase (about 50 °C) is the simplest way to measure production of energy and it is currently used all over the world.
This is not rocket science, it is common practice for thermotechnicals.
If someone complained about this method, this is insignificant.
We are considering Defkalion assertions as very relevant for the humankind future and we are not joking.
We are expecting Defkalion to do the best to let us trust these claims.
If Defkalion designed an alternative method for energy production calculation in the independent test, we kindly ask you to share the method.
Dear Defkalion, can you answer this question please?
Re: DGT Press Release -Invitation for Indepentent Testing*Defkalion GT*Post
*Posted:* Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:54 pm
*Joined:* Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:56 pm
We have already answered this question, at least twice. Even though please note again the following:
Our decision to ask first for such “bare” reactor indepentent test before any full product indepentent tests (including flow calorimetry) is based on the knowledge and experience gained from previous similar tests in other CF/LENR devises in the past. If someone tries to prove everything in one test (excess heat energy from LENR and performance and stability and functionality etc), the tested system and its testing becomes complicated and LENR skepticism survives.
What we ask to be mainly checked/confirmed through this first series of “bare” reactor tests is very simple:
Do Hyperion reactors stable/controlled produce excess heat energy, that is LENR and not chemical nor from any “hidden source” originated, or not?
Following several expected third party independent positive confirmations on this rather simple question, then we have scheduled a second series on tests with flow calorimetry on Hyperion complete systems equipped with reactor(s) of the same technology and configuration. Conditions for such flow calorimetry (ie hot water or steam, measure the primary cooling system or the secondary or both etc) will be upon the requests of the independent testers of such second series of tests. There the COP of the Hyperion system as well as its functionality, system stability and overall safety can be also checked and measured.
Thank you for understanding our independent testing strategy.
It remains to be seen whether the results of the volunteer testers will be published any time soon or even when they will take place. As a first step, if that phase delivers, it may be all that is needed to burst the dam.
ETA… It is not clear if the DGT post is clarifying details of the commissioned tests or is indeed an additional layer of proof above the three sets already known. For most of us, it wont matter if the testers, the method and the results are credible and demonstrate their claims.<< Previous Post -- -- Next post >>