One day someone could prove it wrong!

Just an observer here with no physics knowledge, I've been following the LENR story since 2011. So three years and still lots of people saying it's a fraud, they don't understand calorimetry, the theory is wrong, there is no theory, etc. On the other hand, there are plenty of papers with with data showing excess energy output, with reputations exposed.

Anyone care to pick this experiment apart. Or at least explain some of the data. Interesting that this article does not mention transmutation of nickel to copper, but has lithium as an ingredient with the nickel, it adds, "after the 32 days run the isotopic composition has changed dramatically both for Lithium and Nickel."

formatting link

Here is the Summary and concluding remarks.

A 32 day test was performed on a reactor termed E-Cat, capable of producing heat by exploiting an unknown reaction primed by heating and some electromagnetic stimulation. In the past years, the same collaboration has performed similar measurements on reactors operating in like manner, but differing both in shape and construction materials from the one studied here. Those tests have indicated an anomalous production of heat, which prompted us to attempt a new, longer test. The purpose of this longer measurement was to verify whether the production of heat is reproducible in a new improved test setup, and can go on for a significant amount of time. In order to assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length of time, we chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it working in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here. Our measurement, based on calculating the power emitted by the reactor through radiation and convection, gave the following results: the net

[MJ], the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge

beyond any other known conventional source of energy. Even if one conservatively repeats the same calculations with reference to the weight of the whole reactor rather than that of its internal charge, one gets results confirming the non-conventional nature

power density. The quantity of heat emitted constantly by the reactor and the length of time during which the reactor was operating rule out, beyond any reasonable doubt, a chemical reaction as underlying its operation. This is emphasized by the fact that we stand considerably more than two order of magnitudes from the region of the Ragone plot occupied by conventional energy sources. The fuel generating the excessive heat was analyzed with several methods before and after the experimental run. It was found that the Lithium and Nickel content in the fuel had the natural isotopic composition before the run, but after the 32 days run the isotopic composition has changed dramatically both for Lithium and Nickel. Such a change can only take place via nuclear reactions. It is thus clear that nuclear reactions have taken place in the burning process. This is also what can be suspected from the excessive heat being generated in the process. Although we have good knowledge of the composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the reaction is primed. Since we are presently not in possession of this information, we think that any attempt to explain the E-Cat heating process would be too much hampered by the lack of this information, and thus we refrain from such discussions . In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source. Further investigations are required to guide the interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our work will continue in that direction.

Reply to
amdx
Loading thread data ...

How did they measure the isotopic composition of the fuel? This is not very easy to do! What WAS the isotopic composition? They don't say - why not just tell us how MUCH different isotopes appeared?

The article quoted is VERY thin on details, and therefore looks a LOT like all the other stuff reported on this Rossi project.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

"measurement [made] with ICP-MS" Page 53. (I'm clueless)

I think that's in appendix 4, page 53, but not something I understand. Only one page, but if it has all the data, fluff isn't desirable.

Thin on what details? What details would you like to see?

I don't see Rossi anywhere in this project.

Mikek

Reply to
amdx

Looks like the right type of gear for this.

I only read what you quoted in the SED post. OK, now that I knew where to look, I found the table. Sure looks like a big change in isotopic amounts, and not likely to be a little error bar.

Everything having to do with this E-cat stuff originated from Andrea Rossi. He may be hiding in the shadows as a lot of people don't trust him. I don't, either.

My main reason is, if this thing generates all this heat, why do they have to add heat from outside? Why not let it create all the heat it needs and be totally self-sustaining? it would be a lot harder to make mistakes that way.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

Yes, I have wondered that myself, I have seen tests were they cycle the power, which makes even less sense to me. I can see applying heat to get the reaction started but after it generates it's own heat, why continue the power input. They are measuring power in the harmonics of the 60 cycle 3 phase power, wouldn't DC make power input measurement very simple. (rhetorical)

Mikek

Reply to
amdx

Do a text search -- they mention that he was there asking for adjustments during some of the tests.

--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply to
Tim Wescott

Yup -- stick that thing into a well-insulated kiln and let it generate its OWN heat for 32 hours.

I'm OK with the notion that it has to be heated up to initiate some reaction -- but your point about letting it take things from there is a tremendously good one.

--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply to
Tim Wescott

The last 3 paragraphs of page 7 touch on the possible operation without input power. I missed it. Mikek

Reply to
amdx

That pretty much sums up the *scientific* position on this junk science.

That doesn't really tell you much apart from that if they were serious about getting the right answers for isotopic analysis they would have used TIMS (Thermal Ionisation Mass Spectrometry).

ICPMS is a plasma source mass spectrometry method that can give you a very quick mass spectrum and a look see at every element in an unknown sample with moderate quantitation and phenominal dynamic range.

But and it is a *BIG* but there are mass bias effects that scale with dM/M which at uranium is nothing to worry about but at mass 7 for lithium - well you do the numbers.

Quadrupole ICPMS has quite intrinsic strong mass bias at lithium. And finding a non-natural abundance in commercial lithium is very common - the bomb makers (and now the fusion people) have skimmed some Li6 out of it to make fusion weapons and fusion researchers now use it too.

Heating it for a month or so will preferentially drive off some of the Li6 - it has a significantly higher vapour pressure than its heavier cousin. This forms the basis of thermal diffusion enrichment.

On the nickel on p29 they say: "Another remarkable change in the ash as compared to the unused fuel is the identified change in the isotope composition of Ni. The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e.

58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%). We note that the SIMS and ICP-MS give the same values within the estimated 3% error in the given percentages"

If they really can manufacture pure Ni62 in bulk as they claim then that would be a hard confirmation of having done nuclear reactions. Assuming here that they are reporting the truth and have not faked it with a spike (like some gold prospector conmen have been caught doing).

formatting link

You can buy almost any enriched stable isotope these days for a price. But if they could show they made say 1g of pure Ni62 in this eCat contraption then physicists like me would take them seriously.

Last time ISTR remember they were claiming transmutation into copper.

Basically until they publish the mass spectra of the fuel before and after I remain completely unconvinced that this is anything other than a bunch or sycophants and charlatans with an advanced fee fraud.

Looking at the description in the appendix p53 I have to wonder why the amount of "fuel" analysed before and after was just a few grains 13mg. This would be trivial to fake. Given that they run a decent sized fuel load how about dissolving say 100g of the fuel grains. That would be prohibitively expensive to spike isotopically to fake the results!

They might genuinely believe what they are saying but I strongly suspect that they are just doing bad calorimetry.

The composition of the bulk fuel before and after as determined by an independent team of analysts at a recognised national laboratory.

Either the thing works and they can demonstrate that fuel really is being burned to generate additional energy or they cannot. It really is that simple. They could easily apply for a patent on the fuel mix and design if it really was a genuine invention that demonstrably *WORKED*.

This eCat thing works along the line of "free energy" scams but on a larger scale suckering in somewhat bigger credulous punters.

When they publish in Nature or Phys Rev C I will take it seriously.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

"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."

The E-Cat reactor was run in a low efficiency test mode designed for the most accurate energy input and heat output measurements, and thus was not run in the normal commercially useful self-sustain mode which produces much higher energy efficiency. If the reactor had been set up in its normal high efficiency self-sustain mode, it would have likely outputted between 8 and 12 times energy input, a personal estimate I derive from previous test results of earlier generation E-Cats. No official efficiency numbers have yet been claimed for the newest generation of E-Cat, but even the earliest, unrefined versions produced

6 times energy input in self-sustain mode. Testing in self-sustain mode would be more difficult because energy input would be turned on 25% of the time and turned off 75% of the time. The scientists wanted an easy test to prove the basic principle, not determine the highest possible energy efficiency, so they kept the energy input turned on 100% of the time, which lowered the energy output to 3.6 times the energy input.

From another article with some additional things that will make you crazy.

formatting link

Mikek

I hope there are products in the field by then.

Reply to
amdx

The "sample" being so small that faking it would be trivial. It is a bit surprising that their initial lithium was at natural abundance too. It never used to be when I was still in the isotopic ratios business. Bomb makers had invariably skimmed some Li6 off it.

I guess now that Li-ion batteries are consumer items it may be that some commercial lithium is at natural abundance.

So show me a 1kg lump of pure Ni62 from eCat LENR "ash". Time for the conman to put up or shut up.

It *is* quackery and nothing more. The analysis such as it is was done on tiny grains totalling 13mg each. Easy enough to fake at that size.

I cannot understand why you are taken in by this tripe!

Don't hold your breath. It is unmitigated bollocks(TM).

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Here's some info, about the power input cycling, it is a little cryptic, but more and more info keeps coming.

formatting link

Mikek

--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 
http://www.avast.com
Reply to
amdx

I can't believe that you got so many people to read this document and take it seriously. I've been watching Rossi, et al., for some time and they have made all sorts of claims and forecasts none of which have panned out. Levi and Rossi are con men in the truest sense of the term.

There are plenty of papers which show all sorts of crap, but it is always just that, crap! There is never enough evidence to show one way or the other if they are lying. I prefer the simpler explanation...

In particular I believe it was Rossi who several years ago promised that the project he was working on would produce working commercial units to fill orders... within 6 months. It never happened... of course.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

Mistakes!??? They aren't making any mistakes!!! They are showing exactly what they intend to show.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

That would be too easy. They have typically explained by saying the reaction is too unstable so they must apply heat to control it. That makes no sense to me. But people keep giving them the benefit of the doubt and they keep publishing their junk.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

I understand...

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.