E-Cat Twizy test discussion - UPDATED #4
Where is the fuel coming from?
E-Cat Twizy test discussion
(IMPORTANT UPDATES BELOW)
LIVESTREAMed on 3 oct 2024 at 23:00 CET
UPDATE #1 - Fri 4 Oct 2024
Maico the integrator and owner of the test vehicle responded to my evaluation
Hi Bob,
I would like to make a small integration in the sheet of your energy calculations.
I don't think you took into account the higher consumption of the E-Cat EV due to its greater weight.
The Twizy without E-Cat, as you could see in the video, has a "kerb weight" of 513 kg
The E-Cat EV weighed about 100 kg more (611 kg).
I can assure you that the additional energy requirement necessary to transport those 100 kg more is NOT proportional to the increase in weight....
On the accelerator that additional weight is felt and not a little!!!!It is true that the Twizy can carry a passenger (but certainly not 100 kg), but its efficiency in this condition, for a whole series of reasons that I don't have time to explain, decreases a lot in this condition.
but let's also consider a linear increase in consumption.... and then we make a reasoning by defect ..... which is not true anyway.....
in your calculations, very well done, compared to this reasoning at least 19% more KWh are missing
sorry if I allowed myself to intervene but I think it was an important aspect
regards
ciao Maico
I relplied
Thankyou for your comment.
I did mention it and that I was excluding it for the calculation.
You can easily do a test yourself with your unmodified car to see as a back and verification. Add 100kg of load and see how far you can run with 96% charge and we can re-calculate the little over 80 Wh/km estimated. Since most of the power difference is acceleration and rolling fiction resistance (air friction should be similar at similar speeds), the small amount of extra H2 needed could easily be estimated.
On that note, I was saddened to see that the tyre type and pressures were not verified and measured respectively. Pressure and state of wear is known to make a big difference as can the type of tyre. Tyres account for about 20% of the fuel consumption of a car and the variance can be 7.5%.
Lastly, we do not know the age of the batteries in both cars.
I would therefore ask if it is possible for you to
Confirm the age, type, level of wear and pressure of the tyres used on both vehicles
Assuming the above is equivalent, please run the test with 100kg from a high level of charge to zero in your unmodified Twizy
I do consider it a big miss to have not done the exact comparative test. It would have been trivial to match the curb weight precisely. This is exactly the principal in horse racing where each horse in a race has to have a load, including jockey, of the same weight. Had the same been done for this test (and tyre wear, pressure and type and battery age), people doing due diligence such as myself, could have done an equivalent 1:1 verification.
As this test stands, it is no where near conclusive and 100kg device could have run for an extremely long time based on LiAlH4.
UPDATE #2 - Fri 4 Oct 2024
100W is not enough!
Thanks to a conversation with Johnny B
If a modified E-Cat did 201km in 6 hours, considering the extra charging it therefore produced 17.394kWh as we calculated,
the power production rate is correspondingly 2.899 kWh per hour on average, a single 100W E-Cat would be insufficient!
Rossi would need 30 x 100W E-Cats for his system to deliver the observed experimental data
So different fuel cell capacity needed
A 3kW fuel cell is therefore required -
https://www.fuelcellearth.com/fuel-cell-products/horizon-3000w-pem-fuel-cell/This weighs a maximum 17.7kg, the fans would need to be larger but the LiAlH4 system would be the same and you would still only need 522g of H2 to be made, or there about
This would obviously not fit in the original claimed 10kg limit, but the system would still easily fit inside the actual 89 kg unit tested
UPDATE #3 - Fri 4 Oct 2024
Perfect solution for testing E-CAT
Using a heavy lift drone flying untethered would need no driver, little issues with safety and just someone’s field, so no track hire costs.
I have found a suitable off the shelf drone.
This drone fits the bill perfectly,
It can carry 100kG and uses around 3kW!, same as the likely average power draw in the Twizy car test. No need for comparative unit.
Just let it sit there in the sky and optionally fly it around for an indeterminate number of days.
This would be a critical tool for disaster monitoring for instance and has real applications today.
UPDATE #4 - Fri 4 Oct 2024
Cheap and spectacular solution for testing the used E-CAT
Following a comment from Curbina below, I re-iterated my personal favourite that I have mentioned several times.
The proposal is to raise a volume of water up an known height.
For his current configuration, all that would be needed is an off the shelf 3kW immersion pump with an invertor, and piping with a flow meter at the output of the raised height, say 30m.
Let the water run down to the bottom reservoir under gravity into a fountain maybe for something dynamic.
A whole setup could be done for $2000. Totally safe and autonomous demonstration with easy calculation of energy used based on water mass raised to a known height.
There are many better ways to prove this than the one actually used, the drone idea proposed here is a very good example. As is glaringly evident now, “il dottore” will never do a conclusive and exhaustive test. Isn’t it obvious why he does this kind of crappy, easily simulable tests? At what point the followers will admit they had been had?
I finally got around to tuning in with these two posts, and so don't know your (apparent) long history of learning to distrust Andrea Rossi, but here is how it sounds to someone like that: You just made a video coming up at length with how Rossi could have faked it, but without one word of evidence that he did. But the nuance in your voice and presentation here is "Rossi did it: he cheated! 'He's a Nuclear Liar' " (to quote Ryan McBeth, April 24 Substack--fat check that fat check!). It thus puts the onus on you, now, for those like myself just tuning in--pardon me--that is, and no longer on, the much more well-known, Rossi.