Independent lab results testing E-cat device - very impressive!

[PhysicsProf]

Readable overview appears today, here:  http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/

Another:  http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-released/

Key findings: COP of 3.2-3.6 over a 32 day period and isotopic change in nickel and lithium was found to have changed substantially after run.

Scientific treatise for download here:  https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf

Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device
and of isotopic changes in the fuel

Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
Evelyn Foschi
Bologna, Italy
Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Hanno Essén
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
ABSTRACT
New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of
reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded
nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the
reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging
cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer.
Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the
first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat
yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained
during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known
chemical sources in the small reactor volume.
A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using
several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was
found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially.
Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact
that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.

1. Introduction
This paper presents the results from a new extended study carried out on the "E-Cat" reactor, a device
invented by Andrea Rossi. Various tests of this reactor have indicated that an excessive amount of heat is
generated from a fuel consisting of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The heat generating
process is initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. In addition, the resistor coils are fed with some
specific electromagnetic pulses. The E-Cat reactor was tested in March 2013 by the same collaboration
performing the present test and a report is given in ref. [1]. The March 2013 test showed indeed a clear
indication that abnormal heat was generated, i.e. that the amount of heat could not be explained by any
chemical processes in the limited volume of the reactor tube. This striking result prompted us to investigate
this phenomenon further. Therefore a second test has now been performed, this time over a much longer
period of time (32 days). Also, additional instrumentation was employed to further improve and secure the
experimental conditions during the run. A longer test was also motivated to investigate the long term
stability of the E-Cat operation, as well as running it at two different operational settings for comparison.
Furthermore, and more importantly, we wanted to investigate if the nuclear composition of the fuel had
changed due to the heat generating process. Such an investigation is indispensable in order to find out if the heat generating process has its origin in transformations at the nuclear level...

I'm looking at the changes in isotopic abundances between "fuel nickel" and "ash nickel" in particular.
If verified/true - these results are ASTOUNDING.

[ion]

The Lugano Report seems to be quite a rigorous and impressive test procedure of the E-CAT.

[PhysicsProf]

The Lugano Report seems to be quite a rigorous and impressive test procedure of the E-CAT.

I agree.  Studying it more now.

[PhysicsProf]

  This is what I find so exciting, yet so puzzling!!
From Appendix 3 in the Lugano report (below).

-->  Why is Li-7 consumed, but not Li-6? what is the reaction?  (I presume P+ Li7 reacting... LENR)

-->  Why are Ni-58 and Ni-60 consumed, but not Ni-62?!!   (Presumably p-Ni58 and p-Ni60 reactions are occurring - and releasing heat.  LENR.)

To perform a replication - but I would use standard WATER CALORIMETRY to measure the output energy -- one needs to know just what is in the cylinder, i.e., what chemical species of Lithium and nickel, and what else is there?

[Centraflow]

I have just started going through the report, one thing comes to mind and that is the hydrogen needed to start the reaction is coming from the lithium aluminium hydride which stores a huge amount of hydrogen. No other hydrogen is injected into the reactor, and the reactor is not air tight in so much that it would maintain a vacuum or pressure, so the interior is at AP!

The lithium change could be a result of the hydrogen expulsion due to heat, I will have to look that one up

Being that hydrogen is needed and the test was for 32 days, it seems obvious that the hydrogen is only needed to instigate the reaction and not maintain it, once the reaction is taking place it would seem the hydrogen is not needed. All the hydrogen would have gone in the first day if not in the first hours!!! or am I missing something here?

regards

Mike

[wings]

http://coldfusionnow.org/new-e-cat-report-positive-1400c-and-isotopic-changes-in-nili/
http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/

[PhysicsProf]

  What about the competitor, Defkalion and their results?

 Defkalion provided a live-by-internet demonstration of their P-Nickel LENR device at ICCF-18, conference held last year at Univ of Missouri in Columbia (Mizzou).  I was there.
 OTOH, Rossi et al. were NOT represented at the conference (not sure why not).

 I asked a question of a Defkalion scientist, and he responded - here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lPnUt4cNzM

 Note for the first approx two minutes, he fields a question about Nickel isotopes, which ones undergo the LENR reaction (in p+Ni) and which do not.  He says that Nickel-61 does NOT react in this way, but that all the other isotopes of Ni do react (LENR) with protons/hydrogen.

 HOWEVER, this latest Lugano report does NOT agree - they say that Nickel 62 does not react in this way.

So here we have a discrepancy between measurements that needs to be resolved.

[PhysicsProf]

  I don't think all of this Lugano report was intended for the public - too much detail perhaps -- and PESN agrees in their report dated today:

http://pesn.com/2014/10/10/9602543_Apocalypse-Revealed--The-Four-Horsemen_of_Andrea-Rossis_E-Cat/

         More skeptical, Mark Dansie weighs in also; this report is generating discussion in various venues and forums -

http://revolution-green.com/e-cat-lenr-test-results-released/

The comments are worth reading also.
--Steve

[PhysicsProf]

I have just started going through the report, one thing comes to mind and that is the hydrogen needed to start the reaction is coming from the lithium aluminium hydride which stores a huge amount of hydrogen. No other hydrogen is injected into the reactor, and the reactor is not air tight in so much that it would maintain a vacuum or pressure, so the interior is at AP!

The lithium change could be a result of the hydrogen expulsion due to heat, I will have to look that one up

Being that hydrogen is needed and the test was for 32 days, it seems obvious that the hydrogen is only needed to instigate the reaction and not maintain it, once the reaction is taking place it would seem the hydrogen is not needed. All the hydrogen would have gone in the first day if not in the first hours!!! or am I missing something here?

regards

Mike

Mike, yes my understanding also - is that the H comes from the LiAlH4 (call it LAH) .  At what temp?  we need to look that up!  also, at what temp does LAH melt?  

I understand that the container is SEALED and only contains 1 gram of fuel mixture!  
But the Hydrogen should be kept in the container, and they say the reaction(s) continue as long as the fuel stays HOT.

COP = 3.2 at 1260 C, and 3.6 at 1400 C, they claim, so temp-dependence is indicated.
--Steve

[PhysicsProf]

From wiki:

Thermal decomposition[edit]
LAH is metastable at room temperature. During prolonged storage it slowly decomposes to Li3AlH6 and LiH.[12] This process can be accelerated by the presence of catalytic elements, such as titanium, iron or vanadium.

Differential scanning calorimetry of as-received LiAlH4.
When heated LAH decomposes in a three-step reaction mechanism:[12][13][14]
3 LiAlH4 → Li3AlH6 + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R1)
2 Li3AlH6 → 6 LiH + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R2)
2 LiH + 2 Al → 2 LiAl + H2 (R3)
R1 is usually initiated by the melting of LAH in the temperature range 150–170 °C,[15][16][17] immediately followed by decomposition into solid Li3AlH6, although R1 is known to proceed below the melting point of LiAlH4 as well.[18] At about 200 °C, Li3AlH6 decomposes into LiH (R2)[12][14][17] and Al which subsequently convert into LiAl above 400 °C (R3).[14] Reaction R1 is effectively irreversible. R3 is reversible with an equilibrium pressure of about 0.25 bar at 500 °C. R1 and R2 can occur at room temperature with suitable catalysts.[19]

So at the operating temps of the experiment, LAH is first melted then decomposed and the hydrogen (atoms) are freed.

Presumably LENR reactions proceed:
p + 7Li yielding 2 alphas, ie., two 4He  - hence the lowering of 7Li (but not 6Li) reported in the paper
And
p + Ni yielding copper (??) - hence the lowering of certain nickel isotopes (but not 62Ni)
reported in the paper.

[PhysicsProf]

Reports seem to be rolling in. 

Obviously, if these third-party findings are to be believed — if the E-Cat really is performing cold fusion [or LENR, not fusion per se, if correct]
— then this is rather exciting. We are talking about an extremely cheap, green, and dense power source that could quite literally change the world.

Before the world can be changed, however, there will now be a very extensive period of scrutiny from the scientific community at large. The previous third-party analysis of the E-Cat device, published in March 2013, was attacked and debunked very rapidly. It seems this new report has been intentionally designed so that there are fewer plot holes and logical leaps. The research paper has reportedly been submitted to the Arxiv pre-print server, with the hope of eventually being published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

The next few weeks could be very interesting indeed. According to one report at Sifferkoll, a big bank downloaded the new E-Cat report just minutes after it was made available online — and "oil futures have stayed volatile since." And of course this morning Glasgow University announced that it would be selling its fossil fuel investments. Hmm...

more: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

[EMdevices]

So no hydrogen injection for this new design?   Nice!

[BEP]

Beware of temperature measurements using thermography....

"Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging
cameras."

See this for the reasons: http://www.qirt.org/archives/qirt1992/papers/007.pdf

In industries using thermography, one of which I am in, will not use thermography to measure temperature unless relative/comparative measurements are all that is required.

Examples:

1. You can point a thermal camera at a hot transformer on a power pole and see readings like -50 deg C. Why? Because the average temperature of the focal point includes outer space.
2. The same camera (even ultra high resolution types) can be pointed at a metal surface, known to be hot enough to melt aluminum, and obtain normal room temperatures. This, simply because the target had a shiny surface reflecting ambient room temperature, even though that surface could melt aluminum.
3. The same can be done monitoring almost any object with the results of ridiculously high temperature readings.

A good example of t-camera misinterpretation was one Ghost-Busters episode where their t-camera recorded a ghost at the end of a dark hallway. The idiots were looking at their own thermal reflections off the hallway end wall.  

The e-cat test setup seen in the photos is not conducive to even near accurate measurements with any camera unless reflectivity and emissivity and a host of other variables is part of the camera setup.

I carry an international certification as a trainer for this technology. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

The transmutation has my interest but calculating power out using a t-camera is nuts.

[bte]

In my own unprofessional opinion, I thought that using a camera would lend itself to inaccuracies and faulty measurement, but I am not a physicist nor a scientist. Wouldn't it be better to heat a container of water and infer energy produced based on that?

[PhysicsProf]

  I totally agree; as I also said above in an earlier post:

I would use standard WATER CALORIMETRY to measure the output energy

This is challenging given the HIGH Temperature allegedly needed for operation - 1260 and 1400 C for their tests in this paper.  But it can be done.

Another calorimetric approach is to use a large "heat leaking" box around the device - and another identical box around a simple resistance/heater; both in the same temp-controlled room.  Air as the coolant in each box.
 Put the SAME electric power into the control and into the "e-cat reactor", then observe the equilibration temp. inside each box, using say four temp probes and identical fans to circulate air in each box.
These are basically heat-flow calorimeters using air as the cooling medium.

Switch boxes and run again.  Then drive your "control" resistive heater with enough electrical power (Y) to reach the higher equilibration temp reached by the reactor.  This gives a decent measure of the electrical power being generated by the reactor (Y).  (Comparative air calorimetry.)

A COP of 3 or so (as claimed) should be EASY to see by this method.

[BEP]

I finally made it through the report.

In the image showing the camera setup the camera trained upon the reactor does appear to be of the right type for the measurement.

It is possible that it is monitoring in the SW or 'near-visible' band (7.5 to 13 um is more in the MW band but filtering may allow data from the high end to be used). If so, it is a lab-grade camera and quite accurate if used properly. Most of these have the ability to output an analog signal from a specified cross-hair or cursor box. The software available with these allows later data filtering for corrections.

I assumed they were using a more conventional camera. I may be mistaken. They did make comparisons to a t-couple. Perhaps their temperature data is not far off.

[ion]

I finally made it through the report.

In the image showing the camera setup the camera trained upon the reactor does appear to be of the right type for the measurement.

It is possible that it is monitoring in the SW or 'near-visible' band (7.5 to 13 um is more in the MW band but filtering may allow data from the high end to be used). If so, it is a lab-grade camera and quite accurate if used properly. Most of these have the ability to output an analog signal from a specified cross-hair or cursor box. The software available with these allows later data filtering for corrections.

I assumed they were using a more conventional camera. I may be mistaken. They did make comparisons to a t-couple. Perhaps their temperature data is not far off.

Makes me wonder why they simply did not place the entire device in a "fixed loss to ambient" box, and measure the temperature rise above ambient at the inside top of the box for both loaded with the "magic fuel" and a dummy load of e.g sand.

The thermal imaging also made me a bit uneasy.

[Centraflow]

I finally made it through the report.

In the image showing the camera setup the camera trained upon the reactor does appear to be of the right type for the measurement.

It is possible that it is monitoring in the SW or 'near-visible' band (7.5 to 13 um is more in the MW band but filtering may allow data from the high end to be used). If so, it is a lab-grade camera and quite accurate if used properly. Most of these have the ability to output an analog signal from a specified cross-hair or cursor box. The software available with these allows later data filtering for corrections.

I assumed they were using a more conventional camera. I may be mistaken. They did make comparisons to a t-couple. Perhaps their temperature data is not far off.

I think that all the angles have been covered, that being the empty dummy run just with the heater and then after with the "fuel", then we have the ref: spots also. I would say the % error is not a problem with the overall COP being over 300%.

The aluminium oxide would have to be changed for another type of container if water was to be used, we also get into the problem of water flow rates as the reactor temp would be at over 1200c "min" with super heated steam we start getting into some very complicated systems as in all WCR's (water cooled reactors).

What Ion has stated would have been a good idea but with an opening at the bottom of the box as well as the top, all that is needed then is the delta T between bottom and top, in and out, with appropriate temperature sensors.

I am sure they looked at all this, but what you can't get away from is the change from fuel to ash composition, unless all the SEM, X ray etc analysis was wrong, and I doubt that very much.

What is also interesting is that there was no radiation event for these changes, so do we have a new found type of nuclear reaction? and are we to find out that we don't know all about the atom as we think we do? hmm.

regards

Mike

[ion]

From Centraflow

What Ion has stated would have been a good idea but with an opening at the bottom of the box as well as the top, all that is needed then is the delta T between bottom and top, in and out, with appropriate temperature sensors.

If the box has enough radiative surface area to keep  the internal temperature and the loss to ambient at reasonable values, inlets and outlets are not needed and actually introduce another variable that needs to be measured i.e. flow rate through the box.

The temperature measurement at the top surface of the closed box with and without fuel would be ultimate proof of COP>1, of course these values are recorded and ambient is subtracted after each temperature reading has stabilized.

[Centraflow]

From Centraflow
If the box has enough radiative surface area to keep  the internal temperature and the loss to ambient at reasonable values, inlets and outlets are not needed and actually introduce another variable that needs to be measured i.e. flow rate through the box.

The temperature measurement at the top surface of the closed box with and without fuel would be ultimate proof of COP>1, of course these values are recorded and ambient is subtracted after each temperature reading has stabilized.

Thanks ION, foregot to mention the flow rate, this has to be fixed on the input side, and the box would have to be mirrored inside and insulated on the outside, the best would be a thermos with a hole at both ends.

At least they applied the right formula to account for convection and radiation, with a throughput of air in a box as suggested that is not needed.

regards

Mike

[BEP]

What is also interesting is that there was no radiation event for these changes, so do we have a new found type of nuclear reaction? and are we to find out that we don't know all about the atom as we think we do? hmm.

I'm always dumfounded that nuclear science is convinced that the only radiation to be generated in a nuclear reaction would show on a Geiger counter. Why don't they think of the rest of the EM spectrum? Perhaps the resulting radiation is radiated as heat of something that would show up on a spectrum analyzer.
Maybe, there is nuclear radiation of a type that is stopped by the reactor material and converted to heat...
Perhaps, that is the source of excess heat?

It may be that not all nuclear reactions create clicks on a Geiger counter  

BTW....

My preferred t-camera is an old M7800 (Mikron). I did some reading on my model and found that the accuracy can be better than .5% when limited to the single digit um band.

[PhysicsProf]

Indeed, the proton-capture reaction on lithium-7 discussed in the paper (hard to understand HOW it could proceed under the Lugano conditions) yields just energetic alpha particles, which are quickly stopped in the fuel or container walls.  There are no gammas or neutrons (which WOULD be observable outside the vessel; but not present in the reaction).

p + 7Li --> 4He + 4He  + 17.2 MeV, that is, each alpha carries 8.6 MeV.  

Seeing the energy signature of the alphas would be difficult, but DEFINITIVE of this nuclear reaction!
One would like to try for it.

[Centraflow]

Nobody says much about the RF injection into the reactor!!!! if anyone   apart from me

The three phase delta connected heater coils are also radiators of, I think stated, a complex multi signal (not DC, DC was stated, and I agree does not work), this I do know, from experience, causes huge changes be it gas or liquid, so why not solid as well I believe all nuclear reactions have a frequency signature, that means it would be prone to frequency manipulation. We are talking huge current here, some 100amps @4-5v input, if this was a transmitting loop that 100amps would be in the 1000amps ball park floating around those heater coils

So you see I am taking it for now that they have done it , but I'm trying to see how they have done it, and a lot ties in with past and present work by a few. What is the common denominator? who else can see it?

regards

Mike

[Matt Watts]

Nobody says much about the RF injection into the reactor!!!! if anyone   apart from me

I think Wesley would.  Pretty sure he is heterodyning two megahertz range (300 & 800 I think) frequencies into his Colman reactor.  If you look at this device, it isn't a huge stretch to see the similarities to the E-Cat.

[ion]

May I propose a simple setup the home experimenter can attempt for under $100 USD?

In the method shown, a Kill-A-Watt meter logs and tallies the input power, and a temperature controller maintains the target setpoint.

The reactor vessel is a Ohmite or equivalent power resistor, the ohmic value of which is chosen such that it can reach the target temperature without fuel.

First run is with no fuel or sand dummy fuel inserted into the hallow core of the resistor. One ends can be plugged with a small bit of ceramic cement, and the thermocouple can be cemented into the  core.

The other end has a removable plug of ceramic material.

No calorimetry needed here as the total power to maintain target temperature is logged.

With fuel in the core, the Kill-A-Watt meter should log 1/3 or less power required to maintain target temperature if indeed there is a heat reaction with a COP > 3.

The test can be run for example 1, 2, 5 or 10 hours in each case, whatever is desired.

The resistor may not last forever but it should last the length of the test or longer. If not, I have lots of alumina tubing and Nichrome wire on hand and can wind a resistor core.

For heat sinking of the resistor I propose the resistor assembly be placed in a small vessel and covered with sand. This will gently transport the heat to a larger surface area of the vessel through the thermal resistance of the sand. The vessel will have a fixed loss to ambient and if ambient does not change much, it should give good data.

The real problem is determining the actual magic mix of fuel used in the E-CAT.

Mike: I find it odd that they used such high current low voltage, when they could have wound the heater with finer wire and operated at mains potential. My only guess is that they did not want to deal with heater change of resistance due to excessive oxidation. This problem is eliminated with my proposed setup.