A Russian Experiment: High Temperature, Nickel, Natural Hydrogen by Michael C.H. McKubre

This is a re-post of an article written by Michael C.H. McKubre and published in Infinite Energy Magazine issue #119.

The original article can be found here.

A Russian Experiment: High Temperature, Nickel, Natural Hydrogen
by
Michael C.H. McKubre

[Editor’s Note: Alexander Parkhomov’s E-Cat experiment report was issued on December 25, 2014. We have uploaded the original Russian report by Alexander Parkhomov and his English translation.]

The first thing to record is that the document under consideration is an informal, preliminary research note available to me only in English translation of the Russian original. Despite that it reads well. Alexander Parkhomov is a “known” scientist from a highly reputable Institution, Lomonosov Moscow State University, which I have visited on several occasions. He has published work with friends of mine including Yuri Bazhutov (Chairman of ICCF13 and member of the IAC) and Peter Sturrock (Stanford University). These are both very capable senior scientists so that when this research is prepared for formal publication I am sure we can anticipate a complete and solid report.

In the meantime I will comment briefly on what is presented. Because of the community interest in the topic and the apparently clear and elegant nature of the experiment, Parkhomov’s preliminary report has already received an astonishing amount of discussion on the CMNS news group. What is stated in this preliminary report is encouraging, potentially even interesting, but one is struck by material information that is not made available in this report. Much, most or all of this added detail apparently is available to the author so one must await further elucidation from Parkhomov or a serious engineering effort at replication before final conclusions can be arrived at.

Although clearly motivated by the Rossi “Lugano” experiment it is not correct to call either a replication of the other or of any before. These are new experiments, with new characteristics, and some common features. As shown below the reactor active core consists of nickel powder intermixed with a hydrogen (lithium and aluminum) source, LiAlH4, enclosed in an alumina tube and confined with bonded ceramic plugs. This core is surrounded by a helically wound, coaxial electrical heater extended in length to provide closely uniform heating. The whole is potted in ceramic cement to incorporate a single sense thermocouple.

Fig. 1 Design of the reactor.
Fig. 1 Design of the reactor.

To this extent this configuration mirrors the Rossi reactor recently reported from Lugano although we do not know the similarity or differences between the Ni samples used in each.[1] Since LiAlH4 decomposes to liquid and H2 gas at the temperature of operation its source and nature of are presumed not to make much difference although the impurity content (unstated) may. Also different is the nature of the electrical input used for heating. For Parkhomov this is unspecified. The Rossi effort at Lugano employed 3-phase (50 Hz.) power for the calorimetric input and thermal stimulus but also includes an unknown amount of power in unstated form as a trigger. No such trigger apparently was used by Parkhomov.

The two experiments diverge radically in their chosen means of calorimetry. Parkhomov states that the “Rossi reactor technique based on thermovision camera observation is too complex,” with which I tend to agree. The chosen mean of calorimetry on the new report is to employ the latent heat of vaporization of water — the well known amount of heat required to boil water to steam, in this case at ambient pressure. The heater/reactor combination shown above was enclosed with partial insulation inside a rectangular metal box that was contacted on 5 of 6 surfaces by water.

There are some second order effects that might pertain to this boiling water calorimetry but the method is “tried and true.” It has been employed accurately for well over 100 years and in a slightly different form (boiling liquid nitrogen) was the method selected in recent SRI calorimetry.[2] With simple precautions such a calorimeter should be accurate within a few percent over a wide range of powers and reactor temperatures. One must be concerned to interrogate the heat that leaves the calorimeter by means other than as steam escaping at ambient pressure, that water does not leave the vessel in the liquid phase as splattered droplets or mist (fog), and to accurately measure the water mass loss (or its rate to determine output power). Obviously one also needs to accurately and completely measure the electrical input power.

Although this last issue has been recently (and anciently) raised it is very rarely a problem. Measurement of current, voltage and time (power and energy) are some of the measurements most easily and commonly made. Parkhomov does not supply details of the electrical power or its measurement and he is very much encouraged to do this in his formal reporting. I have no reason, however, to doubt the input power statements. Splatter and mist are issues of observation and calibration and heat leaks are a matter of calibration. Much detail is missing here. Full information about the calibration(s) must be provided in any formal report and full resolution of the question “what do the data tell us?” awaits this detail.


Infinite_energy_logo2
Get Infinite Energy now!


In the meantime what can we learn? Parkhomov states without showing that data that: “The power supplied to the heater stepwise varied from 25 to 500 watts.” The thermocouple in the reactor reached 1000°C approximately 5 hours after initial heating. It would be very nice to have these early-time data together with the data for calibration with which to compare; the greatest weakness of this report is the paucity of data. We are forced basically to rely on three data pairs that I have re-tabulated below from the Parkhomov report with some calculated numbers. Three time intervals are reported of varying duration (Row 2) in which the cell reported an average temperature resulting from the stated average electrical input power, and accumulated the stated Energy In. Parkhomov states from his calibration (not shown) that the heat leak from the system to the ambient is 155 W with the boiler at 100°C. From this heat leak rate we can calculate the energy that leaves in each interval through the insulation and from the mass of water lost we can calculate the heat that leaves as steam by using the known latent heat of vaporization of water (40.657 kJ /Mole or 2258.7 kJ / kg of H2O). The sum of these is the Total Energy Output, the second half of our three data pairs.

Tab-data-MM-analysis

These tabulated data (although few) exhibit an impressive set of characteristics:

  • Excess energies of ~120 to ~1900 kJ in 40-50 minutes.
  • Energy output greater than heat leak rate for the two higher input powers so that even if this loss approaches zero there is still calculated excess energy.
  • Percentage excess energies (and therefore average power) of ~20-160% with increasing input power and temperature.
  • Average excess powers of ~50 to nearly 800 W with a very small “fuel” load (0.9g of Ni).
  • Excess power densities of ~60 to nearly 900 W g-1 of Ni, well within “useful” regimes and consistent with previous CMNS results.
  • Excess power densities for the small reaction volume (~1 cm3) of ~50 to nearly 800 W cm-3.

All of these characteristics are exceptionally favorable. In the “plus column” we can also add that the experiment should be very easy to reproduce and we will hopefully soon have well-engineered replication attempts and conceivably confirmations. The experiment also does not appear to need stimulation[3] other than heat, hydrogen and possibly lithium or the need for solid-nickel/molten-metal interaction. So what are the worries? A very large amount has been said about this experiment in part because of the spectacular character of the tabulated data. Over and above the obvious need for calibration data and complete run-time data (ideally in the form of numbers not just plots) not everybody is happy. Why not?

Although others may have further points to add I would summarize three major concerns expressed[4] with the material that has been presented (rather than what was not):

The unexpected behavior of the Temperature at high power. When excess power (of apparently considerable power density) is being created one would expect to see the temperature of the source to be increasingly elevated. The observed trend is not in the “right” direction.

A plot of the data tabulated by Parkhomov for Reactor Temperature vs. Input Power is a stunningly good fit to a parabola. Because of limits of accuracy and precision experimentalists normally expect such close fits to be the result of calculation, not measurement. The goodness of fit may be explicable by the author or just be a fascinating coincidence.

A temperature arrest of approximately 8 minutes occurred at the end of the experiment after the rapid power and temperature drop following heater failure. This “Heat after Death” episode was preceded by a similar period of apparent temperature fluctuation. Either episode or both might be important signals of the underlying heat generation process or may signal sensor failure. It is difficult to resolve this ambiguity without redundant temperature measurement.

In the absence of relevant calibration data at least, and (better) a finite element model of the complex heat flow from the system as well, one can use only experience and intuition to predict what the reactor thermocouple sensor should register as a consequence of changing input power. The input power to the helical heater has a known (distributed) location. The excess power, however, while (presumably) volumetrically constrained has no defined or necessarily stationary position within the fuel volume. Even the first step of heat flow is therefore complex but an argument has been made qualitatively that, all else being equal, if you add a heat source the temperature should go up. Does it?

Let’s look first at a plot of percent excess power (left vertical axis) and temperature (right vertical axis, °C) as a function of input power (W). Three different colored curves are plotted for three different postulated values of the conductive heat leak from the calorimeter: red (155 W) the heat leak power calibrated by Parkhomov and assumed to be constant throughout the active run; blue (102 W) the value that makes the excess power for the first data point zero, as a conservative internal calibration; green (0 W) no heat leak, the most conservative estimate possible for this term. There is nothing at all surprising about this set of curves, and something quite encouraging. The observed excess power cannot be explained by an error in the conductive heat leak or any changing value of that parameter. The temperature of the reactor rises monotonically and smoothly with increasing excess and total power.

Now let’s look at the same data plotted against the measured reactor temperature below. Here we see some indication of the first concern enumerated above. Although slight, the curvature of this family of curves is up suggesting that as the excess (and total) power measured calorimetrically by the released steam increases, so also does the rate of heat (or temperature) loss from the thermocouple sensor. Although this might indicate a measurement problem (unknowable without calibration data) note that the deviation cause by this curvature is well within the variation bounded by the assumed heat leak to the ambient and might easily be caused by a relatively small change in this calibrated “constant.”

At least two unincluded heat loss term are known that must cause the heat leak constant to change in the direction to cause upward curvature: radiant heat loss from the reactor to the enclosing metal box at higher temperature; increased convective transport from the enclosing metal box to the inner wall of the “steamer” at higher rates of steam bubble evolution. I do not know whether the shape of the curve is a problem or is not. The point that I would like to re-reinforce is that we can only answer such questions definitively and thus gain confidence in the data and therefore knowledge if we have direct access to calibration data in the relevant temperature regime. I would also like to see a good thermal model as the reactor/calorimeter system is nowhere near as simple as it seems having several parallel and series heat transport paths. I realize that such model would be labor intensive and/or expensive to develop so lets start with the calibration. How does the system behave with no possibility of excess power?

As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams.

Footnotes:
[1] Parkhomov has stated that the NI used to charge his reactor had an initial grain size of ~10µ and specific area ~1000 cm2/g.
[2] SRI DTRA report and ICCF17 proceedings.
[3] Note that the lack of need for stimulation is very good for demonstration but undesirable for control and thus technology.
[4] The first two points were elaborated initially by Ed Storms, who may make them more strongly than I do here.

About the Author: Dr. Michael McKubre is Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International. He received B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in chemistry and physics at Victoria University (Wellington, New Zealand). He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Southampton University, England. Dr. McKubre joined SRI as an electrochemist in 1978. He is an internationally recognized expert in the study of electrochemical kinetics and was one of the original pioneers in the use of ac impedance methods for the evaluation of electrode kinetic processes. Dr. McKubre has been studying various aspects of hydrogen and deuterium in metals since he joined SRI in 1978, the last 25 years with a close focus on heat measurements. He was recognized by Wired magazine as one of the 25 most innovative people in the world. Dr. McKubre has conducted research in CMNS since 1989.

***********************************END RE-POST

Related Links

Russian scientist replicates Hot Cat test: “produces more energy than it consumes”

Interview with Yuri Bazhutov by Peter Gluck

Infinite Energy Magazine

Q&A with Jack Cole on new Hot Cat replication, experiment completion

A new replication attempt of the Andrea Rossi E-Cat technology has been announced by Jack Cole on http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/13/hot-cat-replication-attempt/.

The Universal LENR Reactor was designed by Dale Basgall and Jack Cole and they have been posting updates since September 2012.

Nikita Alexandrov, President, Permanetix Corporation has contacted the lab and generated these details about the experiment.

 
Photo: Reaction chamber in operation. Note that the true light color was orange. Courtesy Jack Cole.
 

Q&A with Jack Cole and Nikita Alexandrov

Q A replication of the Rossi type Ni-H LENR system was posted to your website. Were you the one who performed this experiment or was it someone else?

A Yes, I was the one who performed the experiment.

Q Can you go into detail regarding the nickel powder ie: grain size, composition, purity, source, batch number, etc?

A INCO Type 255 Nickel Powder (2.2 to 2.8 um particle size). Purchased on Ebay. I also use Fe2O3 added to the nickel.

Q Can you explain which type thermocouple/DAQ system you were using?

A I’m using a type K thermocouple of the type frequently used in kilns. I use a USB thermocouple adapter that has it’s own software (http://www.pcsensor.com/index.php?_a=product&product_id=49). The power data is acquired directly from the programmable DC power supply using a Visual Basic .NET program that I wrote. The VB program samples and adjusts power levels every 5 seconds to compensate for changing resistance to maintain a constant power output.

Q Can you explain which sources you ordered your alumina materials from?

A I purchased a 12″ alumina tube from Amazon and cut it into 3″ sections. It is 3/8″ OD and 1/4″ ID. The experiment was conducted with a 3″ tube.

Q Can you explain the geometry of your reactor and heating coils as well as method of sealing?

A The heating element is simply coiled Kanthal. The seal is not hermetic (it leaks hydrogen). I tested with a dangerous gas detector and it was leaking up to the last power step. After that point, I detected no more hydrogen. It was either sealed at that point or no more hydrogen was being produced. Based on the description of how Rossi sealed his reactor in the Lugano report, I find it unlikely his seal was hermetic (unless he found a very clever method of sealing the tube).

Q Can you explain which hydrogen carrier you used? In the report it was implied it was not LiAlH4, was it magnesium based – if you do not want to go into detail can you just confirm it was not a gas or which elements were present?

A I used lithium hydroxide and aluminum powder. The advantage with this method is that it does not start producing significant amounts of hydrogen until the LiOH melts at 480C. Earlier experiments were performed with KOH and aluminum powder. It starts producing hydrogen after 100C (presumably when the water absorbed in the KOH is liberated as steam). I haven’t seen any research discussing these facts as most research looks at combining water with these elements at room temperature to produce hydrogen. I don’t add any water (not really needed since these compounds absorb water from the air). The hydrogen production can be quite vigorous as I found out in an earlier copper tube experiment where the end cap was shot across the room into the basement wall.

Q Can you tell me if you made a blank, sealed reactor for the calibration?

A The calibration (control run) was performed with the same cell with one end sealed. The lack of seal on one end is a potential limitation. What bolsters the results is that the apparent excess heat has been decreasing (makes it less likely that the lack of seal on one end gave a bad calibration). Additionally, the Delta T at the first two power steps was almost identical between the control and experimental run. Hydrogen production started at the third power step.

Q Can you tell me how many trials you performed with this system before you saw xP?

A I performed many experiments with different types of tubes before this (brass, copper, and stainless steel). The trouble with all those is the melting temperatures and difficulty sealing. Copper is easy to seal, but you have to keep it below 150C to keep the solder from melting. You can get hydrogen with KOH and aluminum at that level (which produces chemical heat). I had promising results with alumina on my first run (but I used it as it’s own calibration comparing the lower temperature curve to the higher temperature curve–certainly not ideal). Part of the difficulty has been finding the right heating element diameter to match with my DC supply to be able to produced the needed heating levels. I have done probably 15 experiments with alumina tubes, but I had the best configuration for making measurements on the last one that I reported on.

Q Would you be interested in having a sample of your spent nickel material analyzed for elemental transmutations?

A I’ll keep it after I’m done with it in case this could be done in the future. Right now, I need to work on calorimetry to verify this in a more rigorous way.

Q Would you feel comfortable having me post your answers publicly, online and not just to the private mailing list?

A You can use it in whatever way you like. Keep in mind that I am not yet convinced by these results and there is more work to be done. I might yet discover that there is a simple conventional explanation that is not LENR. The results have to convince me, and I’m not to that point yet.

Q Thanks so much, this will really help educate the general community.

GlobalBEM PULSE #3: “We ourselves are the biggest obstacle to breakthrough”

PULSE-3-coverThe Global Breakthrough Energy Movement is a collective of artists, activists, and technologists creating events and forums for new energy researchers in order to power a revolution in human living arrangements, and they have published another edition of their flagship magazine.

PULSE presents science and technology in the field of breakthrough energy. The gorgeous PULSE #3 is a sensory banquet of full-page, beautifully-printed art, and has articles on topics such as The Agonizingly Long Wait for Breakthrough of Breakthrough Energy by Fred Teunisson, who laments the lack of progress in commercial development of new energy technology, and ultimately takes a hard look in the mirror for why.

This issue also features an article on The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction by Dr. Edmund Storms, a book that compares the observational data from cold fusion experiments with the many theories of LENR. Cold Fusion Now’s Ruby Carat was one of the editors of the book and designed the front cover hydroton.

Subscribe to PULSE and support the work of GlobalBEM.

Read articles in PULSE #3 like:

Two possible propellantless or reactionless (space) drives … or not? … page 6

The agonizingly long wait for the breakthrough of Breakthrough Energy … page 12

Scientific proof of a potential alternative energy source dating back 2,5000 years … page 15

Truth and reality in the 21st century – or why GlobalBEM should create her own reality … page 10

Thunderclap Campaign – Energy Revolution! … page 21

An interview with New Earth Nation founder Sacha Stone … page 24

The Secret Space Programme 2014 … page 34
Secret Space Program and Breakaway Civilization Conference 2014 Review … page 36
Secret Space Program Conference and Laura Eisenhower … page 38

New book in German discusses zero-point energy.
New book in German discusses zero-point energy.
Free energy for all humans … page 40

Hemp, the controversial plant – hemp, the graphene contender … page 42

See a free peek inside PULSE #3 online!

Or, help to make forums and conferences for breakthrough energy science and technology researchers.

Subscribe to PULSE!

It just might be that the discovery of vacuum energy as a limitless energy source, is to be synchronized with a spiritual renaissance for all of humanity
Moray B. King from PULSE #3

Cold fusion defended against ITER at Channeling Conference

Edward Tsyganov presented Cold Nuclear Fusion at the Channeling 2014 Conference held October 5-10, Capri, Italy.

During the Oct. 8 roundtable session, Dr. Tsyganov has reported that “some of the participants suggested that we avoid rushing to promote cold fusion and, therefore, prevent any interference with the implementations of international tokamak ITER.”

Tsyganov explained, “… it is difficult to ignore the cold fusion process because it is much less expensive and much more practical than traditional thermonuclear fusion.”

In a summary of the discussion in English, Tsyganov continued:

Fig. 8. The transparency of the Coulomb barrier for the reaction of DD in the crystal depending on the effective interaction energy Eeff.
Fig. 8. The transparency of the Coulomb barrier for the reaction of DD in the crystal depending on the effective interaction energy Eeff.
The scientific community has always had trouble adapting to truly new knowledge. The current paradigm of nuclear physics does not contain effects such as cold fusion, although this phenomenon does not contradict any of the fundamental laws of nature. Attempts to generate controlled nuclear fusion, which have been conducted for nearly half a century, have already come a long way. The most advanced attempt, ITER, a tokamak of cyclopean size and corresponding value is currently under construction. Realists assess that this facility will take 35-50 years to complete and commence operations. It is only considered as a research project and is expected, after its launch, to start even more gargantuan industrial tokamak. The prospect of huge financial and material spends for another half century looms.

Oil and gas can no longer serve as global fuel, due to its exhaustion, while the companies will try to fight back. This way also may well lead to climate change, a population reduction, and social upheavals.

Cold fusion is a real alternative to this tragic scenario. We believe that in the coming years, the scientific success of cold nuclear fusion will be realized and a radical change in the applied nuclear research will come.

Unfortunately, cold fusion still seems to be quite distant from wide recognition, even though the issue is now practically solved in experimental and theoretical terms. At the moment we are facing a problem that is not scientific but sociological. It is difficult to predict how fast events will develop in this direction. A paradigm shift in science has never been an easy task for society. We should propose the optimal behavior for scientists in these circumstances.

Find Powerpoint presentation slides and photos of the event here:


http://www.coldfusion-power.com/channeling-2014.html

Open Power Newsletter 14: “WE WANT A CHANGE OF CONSCIENCE!”

Open Power Association Newsletter #14 has been released. The newsletter is archived in Italian here. The following are a few google-translated and slightly modified excerpts that refer to cold fusion-related activities.

Open Power lab workstation
Open Power lab workstation
Hydrobetatron Full Gallery http://www.hydrobetatron.org/

Ugo Abundo speaking in Rhodes
Ugo Abundo speaking in Rhodes
Our Scientific Director: Prof. Ugo Abundo at the International Conference of Rhodes
From 22 to 28 September was held in Rhodes (Greece) International Conference 2014 on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics. Ugo Abundo was invited to participate in the proceedings as a representative of Open Power, to discuss the results of the activities that are part of the Association.

The work has been focused on the re-establishment of new mathematical foundations of physics, able to address the many issues currently unresolved, through change of paradigms in force. The new isomatematica (and evolutions “geno” and “hyper”) Professor Ruggero Maria Santilli presented as the appropriate tools to deal with maps deformed intrinsic irreversibility fields to ipervalori.

By means of these tools, it has been shown by speakers from all over the world, in view of industrial development, advanced applications in the field of energy, and in particular, in regards to the structure of the neutron and the atomic behavior for the purpose of nuclear synthesis. In the previous treatment of such areas, the math, as well as Quantum Mechanics appears inadequate. Hadronic mechanics, specifically developed by Prof. Santilli as an evolution of the above when both distances between particles comparable to the size of the nuclei, is revealed adequate to treat nuclear-type energy situations, where the particles can not be assimilated to material points, as in Quantum Mechanics.

Ugo Abundo presented in two separate reports, the LENR experiments conducted in the Open Power laboratory, and a neural network model generalized setting from the field of Artificial Intelligence, which makes homogeneous Quantum Mechanics and the Hadronic, justifying the applicability conditions of each of them, showing from the mathematical point of view, what happens in terms of internal information to physical systems when the first turns in the second.

Abundo’s report, entitled “An intrinsically Irreversible, Neural-network-like Approach to the Schrödinger Equation and some Results of Application to Drive Nuclear Synthesis Research Work” [.pdf] has been accepted for publication as part of the American Institute of Physics in the Proceedings of the Conference. Hence, the conditions for collaboration with other mathematicians (mainly French, Indian, Greek) to jointly pursue such studies about the applications of AI in the field isomatematica and subsequent transferability to modeling of elementary particles in interaction.

Ugo Abundo presentation slides http://www.hydrobetatron.org/files/ABUNDOpdf.pdf

(L) Prof. Santilli, (R) Prof. Abundo at Rhodes Conference
(L) Prof. Santilli, (R) Prof. Abundo at Rhodes Conference
New web site nuovascienza.org dedicated to the work of Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli
It is certainly easy to understand and explain briefly the complex thought articulated by Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli, developed in the ‘arc of 40 years of work, both theoretical and experimental. Remarkable also is the amount of writings, conference papers, and scientific publications, he authored. This website has as main purpose to spread all those materials, video lectures, writings, etc.. In which Santilli describes in clear words and straightforward His theories and their mathematical models; His experimental paths (and industrial), and insights for the future of scientific research and experimentation in the field of new energy …

Here lists the work and thought of Santilli, who (unlike many academics pigtails Italian or not), does not miss at all courage in an attempt to place in certain areas more correct and the same theories of Eintein (Holy Grail?), and even quantum mechanics, from certain points of view. He did not even hesitate to take a picture of the “Science Today”; a photograph very brave, uncomfortable, and merciless; in substance, very critical …

In fact, he argues more explicitly that “the greatest responsibility for the crisis of physics should be seen in the press as a result of the total subservience to the centers of scientific power, while the political responsibility is only indirectly, as the political world uses print as a medium of information and action.”

This website has been designed so as a sort of very concise and articulate “compendium”, the enormous scientific thought and work Santilliano not yet sufficiently known and disclosed, and therefore unappreciated by the general public (at least in Italy, in my opinion), but certainly well-known and much appreciated from a small circle of experts and professionals, even in Italy, for his innovative value; a “compendium” I said for the use of those Italian researchers thirsty and with the critical spirit of true knowledge, but alas mè, with little time available to study the large amount of material and information that the Internet provides us every day.

Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli Works and Thought http://www.nuovascienza.org/

Third-party report on ‘E-CAT released — Andrea Rossi

Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device of and isotopic changes in the fuel [.pdf]
Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
Evelyn Foschi
Bologna, Italy
Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
They 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.
Read the full report: http://www.hydrobetatron.org/files/ROSSI.pdf

Ugo Abundo on the E-Cat
Ugo Abundo on the E-Cat

Newsletter compiled by L.S. and the Open Power Association