Idea: An E-Cat World H-Cat Challenge

There have been a lot of interesting reports and videos that show that HHO gas, when fed into a catalytic substrate, produce a spectacular reaction of light and heat. I am interested in seeing if we can get to the bottom of whether the H-Cat reaction that Justin Church and others are obtaining is an LENR-like event that provides excess heat — and I know I’m not alone in this.

The bottom line is — does the reaction produce more energy than it consumes? If the answer is yes — great! That would be a phenomenally interesting result with far-reaching implications. If the answer is no — then that’s a very important result which is useful to know in our search for understanding of LENR.

What I am proposing here is that E-Cat World be the sponsor of a challenge to see if we can answer this question to a reasonable degree of certainty. If we do this, here are the basic things I think we need.

1. A qualified person or group who would volunteer to carry out experiments with HHO and a catalyzer of some kind (similar to what Justin Church has shown, publish video and report findings back to the community here at ECW (and any other online outlet of their choosing).

2. A means to raise funds to provide the volunteers with the essential equipment to carry out the experiments — I would be happy to promote a crowdfunding effort here at ECW.

3. A forum in which ECW readers can ask questions of the experimenters and make suggestions.

Here are some points I would like to emphasize.

I am suggesting a ‘quick and dirty’ approach here — something that could be done cheaply. We will need to use common sense and creativity which could be done on a low budget. If there is a large excess heat event, it should be reasonably easy to detect, even without exact measurements. If the results seem positive more exact testing can be done later.

This would not be a test to try and figure out exactly what is going on in the reaction — all we would be looking for is whether there seems to be excess heat being produced.

Fundraising would be to fund the purchase and shipping of essential equipment — and anyone who volunteers to do the experiment would do so on a voluntary basis, not for pay.

Whoever volunteers will be responsible for taking all necessary safety precautions, and won’t hold E-Cat World, or any other person or organization liable for any harm or damage.

This is the basic idea. I will throw it out there for comment. I’d like to hear from readers about whether you think it would be a good idea, whether you would support it financially, and any suggestions you might have on how to make the idea better.

If there seems to be enough interest, we can move forward with organizing an effort.

If anyone wants to contact me privately about this, please send me an email.

  • I think the site would be better served by focusing on the “established” players in the LENR field. At this point in time I’d like to see a laser beam on Industrial Heat, Nanortech, Brillouin, Defkalion, Lenuco, Nichenergy, etc.

    Chasing everything that gets hot in a video and having every other post talk about it is damaging the credibility of the site IMHO and is tangential to what’s happening in the biggest year for CF since 1989.

    Hook up the H-Cat folks (and anybody else with claims of excess energy) with MFMP and be done with it. We have more important things to consider here in this one space on the Internet that consistently offers reasoned discussion on LENR developments.

    My 2 cents. I do appreciate your desire to get to the bottom of it.

    • Job001

      Promoting science has insignificant bias. It is better to report what is science and what is falling short of science. Both “established” and unestablished players fall short of full disclosure. We need an improved “critique” process.

      • LENR+ lives in a gray area between science and industrialization. We are collecting data points and drawing conclusions as best we can under the circumstances.

        We all wish every single player in the field would be completely transparent and join the open science movement. That way we’d have some certainty by now. But businesses don’t operate that way — and for good reasons.

        • Job001

          So as you’ve implied, business, science and publishing has been corrupted by marketing mendacity, as suspected!
          Science needs an improved first level “critique” by real peers(not a marketing A-hole) process!
          Business and funding biased science butt-heads historically have routinely failed shamefully.
          We might as well do it!

    • John

      I’m a big fan of this site, but some common sense needs to be applied here, yes platinum catalyzes oxidation of hydrogen. No, this is not anything new. The process is so exothermic that it reaches ignition temperature rapidly and the hydrogen simply combusts. I know it might appear bizarre or magical for a surface interaction with two gasses to ignite, but catalysis is well known and studied. Platinum has freely moving electrons (it’s a metal) that make an electron ‘sea,’ when a highly electronegative oxygen atom contacts the surface it splits into monoatomic oxygen and binds to the surface. Same with diatomic hydrogen. What’s amazing is those atoms freely move across the surface because of the loose association with the metal. Eventually 2 hydrogen and an oxygen collide, and form a water molecule with a lower energy state. The difference in potential energy is radiated as heat. The amount of heat released is equivalent to the amount of energy required to split the h2o to begin with. It’s basic chemistry. The E-Cat definitely does not function this way.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        I’m not a scientist but my electrical engineer friend thinks the localized high heat would vaporize the platinum. The cat would be sacrificed.

        • US_Citizen71

          I’ve used catalytic heaters for years when camping and over time the catalyst is used up and must be replaced. I believe the mechanism is simple oxidation not vaporization, I may be wrong.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Well, how ever the cat is ‘used up’, it should be considered when calculating the efficiency of the process. The cat is in essence, a fuel, and considerable energy was expended in constructing the cat.

          • Obvious

            Usually the catalyst is slowly poisoned by some element(s), rather than consumed. In high volume fuel use, it is very hard to prevent this.

      • Bob Greenyer

        John, you have it right – it might need to be addressed though to settle debate and if it can be achieved simply and cheaply then the result would help understanding. I have suggested similar discussion on Hydrogen inorganic chemistry on the previous thread which accounts for all the observed and reported points. If a simple replicated test was to come back with a clear and significant excess then further scrutiny might need to be applied – if not, then no great harm is done.

        • Justin Church

          Well buddy a lot of people here are either directly or indirectly asking your group to openly test and “settle the debate”. Suggesting testing protocol is only part of the bigger picture. Easy test to be done only its not so easy to contain and control. My hats will go off to the person or groups that is able to control the reaction using pure hho. We can also switch to Hydrogen if need be and that will be something we explore further.

          The big question I have is how does the H-Cat process at its basic core differ from some of the other LENR reactors? As far as the gas reactors go, are they not all essentially pumping Hydrogen gas or isotopic variations of Hydrogen into the the core of the reactor which is composed of a porous, powder, or nano metallic structure of Nickel, Platinum, Palladium?

          What is so special about the “Hydrogen Gas” these guys use as opposed to the gas us garage engineers can produce with our electrolysis cells? If the gas needs Deuterium can we not concentrate our own heavy water using electrochemistry?Are the LENR open container experiments nothing more than sophisticated electrolysis cells?

          My point is you guys keep talking like LENR research is some way off track practice as compared to the basic electrolysis of water and re-combination of that gas through use of catalytic metals. Fuel cell technology is based around this principle and as far as I’m concerned LENR is too.

          One of the comments here stated:

          ” I think the site would be better served by focusing on the “established” players in the LENR field” I find that hilarious, who in the world is ESTABLISHED IN THE FIELD OF LENR? Nobody even understands it enough to make anything useful out of it so obviously, Nobody in this field beginner or so called expert can be considered established.

          For us, it has not been easy to contain and control the reaction. And we may find out we may need to switch to Hydrogen to tame the system but I for one see absolutely no difference in say the gas reactor Rossi has or the gas reactor Brillouin has when it comes to the H-Cat.

          I hope some of you guys quit talking and step up to the plate. This ain’t as easy as it looks…We are dealing with a beast here, not a tiny piece of wire.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Justin,

            Ryan is back from his holiday in the sunny southern states ( can’t blame him living in minnisota! ) and we will discuss what practically we can do.

            There reason we run a little bit of wire is that it is controllable (we can precisely control the input power) and safe, plus we are testing the claims of Celani who claimed over unity by various methods. It might seam slow and tedious, but even by doing things in this way, we rightly get challenged on the results and get asked to test for increasingly complex potential sources of error that might account for the results.

            There are 18 isotopic variations of water, three main hydrogen isotopes and a hydrogen molecule has two energy states, ortho and para with ortho containing more energy. This is just the beginning.

            It would make things easier if we made that beast a “wire” as that may give us more and cheaper options to control and test it. Perhaps by some pulsed delivery. We would need to know the full nature of the HHO + H2O vapour that comes out of your HHO generator and then know what volume of it is fed into the device. This way we can know the maximum energy that is being fed into the CAT. This is a lot harder than measuring the current in a little wire. Additionally, it will be very complex to determine if there is any non-consumed chemical and thermal energy potential in the exhaust gas, this is far more complex than testing Celanis wires and that has taken several people across multiple teams in and out of the MFMP over a year and a half.

            What would work would be if the effect was so huge that none of the above was a concern.

          • Justin Church

            Some of us are looking for is answers. I for one am not equipt and knowledgeable enough to measure and document using proper scientific methodology. I am a builder with a little bit of engineering knowledge. I’m here to build usable products not to scrutinize the means. I’m cold, my neighbors are cold, and my entire community is cold, we are tired of waiting on you guys…

            I realize this is work that has to be done but for me, all of the research community has had plenty of time to study the phenomena. Its time to build useful product around it. I know enough about the proposed field of LENR to understand the basics of reactor design and I understand the H-Cat will be the home-brewed version. We really haven’t even begun to explore the different parameters and approaches to this design using an easy to obtain part off the shelf.

            The only thing I can say moving forward is that some ego’s of the high level researchers and institutions will be badly bruised if one of garage tinker’s gets something working and makes its useful. We want heat not hand warmers….

          • Bob Greenyer

            The MFMP has said from the beginning that it does not care who delivers a practical LENR device, just that it gets done. We are just like you, people trying to get things done with limited resources, we do not have any scientific reputations to uphold/defend and are not bound to withhold IP because of investors – likewise, if we have no funds, we don’t end we pause. If some egos are bruised, then so be it, this is bigger and more important than any one person or organisation. Having said that, we must respect the detailed science that discovered the transition metal + H LENR systems that have inspired you and I and those that developed the car Catalytic convertor that has made our air more breathable for decades.

      • The claim is that the product of a certain type of pulsed electrolysis cell (‘HHO generator’) is not simply a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, but some other gas with properties that differ from a stoichiometric H2/O2 mixture. Commercial welders have been on sale for some time that supposedly exploit some of the properties of so-called Brown’s gas, a fact that may support this contention.

        http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/fabuses/cutting.php

        In this case (leaving aside the controversial nature of such claims for a moment) the conventional explanation of the process would not apply. The proposed experiment, or one like it, would hopefully settle the issue quickly.

      • Glen

        Fownes’ Manual of Chemistry, Theoretical and Practical (1878) page 153

  • Jaja6984

    Repeat this comment from the other post:

    It’s so easy to measure if there is excess heat, so why isn’t someone doing it?

    As I understand it they use a HHO-generator alleged consuming 50W. So do like this:

    1. Put the H-cat in a box and start it up. Measure the maximum temperature reached inside the box.
    2. Now take out the H-cat and put a 50W light bulb inside the box. Measure the maximum temperature reached inside the box.

    If temperature 1 is higher than 2, you are on to something interesting. Can be done in a couple of hours, get on to it!

    • barty

      I guess it’s not easy like that.
      I think you have to calculate the maximum energy density of HHO produced by a chemical reaction, and compare this with the energy produced by this effect.

      But it is a good start to see if further effort is reasonable.

      • Job001

        In my view it is easy and a vast improvement to do science rather than something else like mendacious marketing(deception included). The very first step should be the cheapest test possible, that is economical smart science!

    • Mr. Moho

      Device and temperature sensor placement inside the box could potentially be a source of significant measurement bias, though.

      • Fortyniner

        Jaja6984’s proposal seems sound – most complicating factors would slightly reduce the temperature rise recorded for the ‘live’ experiment and I can’t see any way for a false positive to arise. I would think that we would be looking for a significant gain, so small errors would be acceptable anyway.

        The test box could contain a small fan to even out air temperature variations due to stratification etc. Any heat from the fan would be equal in both ‘runs’ and so could be discounted, as could minor heat losses through the box walls, and losses due to displacement of a small amount of air by water vapour ‘exhaust’ from the reaction. The only thing to watch would be measurement of the input to the electrolyser in case there is any power factor to complicate things. An isolating transformer in the feed line would sort that if measurement is taken upstream of the transformer.

        • Bob Greenyer

          A resistance heater would be best. like the NiCr wires we use.

          The HHO should form water that then would carry energy away through steam or hot vapour.

          Immersing both boxes in a uniform volume of stirred water with the H-Cat vent bubbling through the water would help capture most heat.

          This would show rate of rise and capture most of the cumulative thermal energy

          • Nicholas

            this is a very old method of welding. Hydrogen gas was passed through a plasma created by a high voltage arck which causes H2 to disassociate into H atoms. Past the arc they recombine into H2 producing a very hot flame useful for welding. After doing its job, the H2 just burns off with the oxygen in the air. The energy produced really just comes from the high voltage arc

    • Allan Shura

      It is generally accepted in industry that nichrome wire or heating elements are the more efficient and economical for electrical heat transfer.

    • Neal Ward

      If it is so easy , Why don’t you get on to it ???

      • Chris Marshalk

        Still no eCat??? C’mon Rossi, get that research paper done already. Oh wait, he keeps on saying it’s out of his hands and 3rd party is doing it. I’ll keep my focus on Solar until something better comes out.

        Good Interesting read.
        http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246558/IBM_solar_energy_tech_claims_to_harness_power_of_2_000_suns?source=rss_latest_content&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+computerworld%2Fnews%2Ffeed+%28Latest+from+Computerworld%29

        • Fortyniner

          What has publishing a research paper got to do with R&D, troubleshooting, and scaling up for manufacture? And when did Rossi say he was going to submit a research paper anyaway? Oh wait – you seem to have answered that one: “it’s out of his hands and 3rd party is doing it”.

        • bkrharold

          Interesting article, thanks. If their estimates are true 10c per kilowatt hr is competitive with coal. I am not giving up on Rossi yet. It has been a long frustrating wait, but I believe there will be some real progress this year, either from Rossi or Brillouin Energy. They are not mutually exclusive, we can have solar wind and LENR when it is ready, we don’t have to pick one winner.

          • Allan Shura

            A far from the promise of 1c or less per kilowatt hour is that a typo? Defkalion and others are sticking to the 1c or less projected cost. Hydro is as low as 5c kWh to produce in some areas.

          • Obvious

            How can one become reliably capable of testing a real excess heat phenomena until at least being proficient in calculating and quantifying the efficiencies and losses comprising a normal 1:1 system? (if that is what it is)

      • Jaja6984

        I don’t believe it will give excess heat so why spend money and time on it? There are people who claim excess heat and have the equipment set up. My suggestion is the simplest way to prove their case. I suggest they get on to it.

  • Jaja6984

    Repeat this comment from the other post:

    It’s so easy to measure if there is excess heat, so why isn’t someone doing it?

    As I understand it they use a HHO-generator alleged consuming 50W. So do like this:

    1. Put the H-cat in a box and start it up. Measure the maximum temperature reached inside the box.
    2. Now take out the H-cat and put a 50W light bulb inside the box. Measure the maximum temperature reached inside the box.

    If temperature 1 is higher than 2, you are on to something interesting. Can be done in a couple of hours, get on to it!

    • barty

      I guess it’s not easy like that.
      I think you have to calculate the maximum energy density of HHO produced by a chemical reaction, and compare this with the energy produced by this effect.

      But it is a good start to see if further effort is reasonable.

      • Job001

        In my view it is easy and a vast improvement to do science rather than something else like mendacious marketing(deception included). The very first step should be the cheapest test possible, that is economical smart science!

    • Allan Shura

      It is generally accepted in industry that nichrome wire or heating elements are the more efficient and economical for electrical heat transfer.

    • Neal Ward

      If it is so easy , Why don’t you get on to it ???

      • Jaja6984

        I don’t believe it will give excess heat so why spend money and time on it? There are people who claim excess heat and have the equipment set up. My suggestion is the simplest way to prove their case. I suggest they get on to it.

  • Owen Geiger

    I’m in favor of seeing a simple, low cost experiment to resolve this issue. Hopefully MFMP will be able to take on this interesting project. Even if it’s not LENR, an affordable heater could possibly evolve from this work and end up on the [black?] market or free online plans. I’d like to see practical products available in the next year or two.

  • Owen Geiger

    I’m in favor of seeing a simple, low cost experiment to resolve this issue. Hopefully MFMP will be able to take on this interesting project. Even if it’s not LENR, an affordable heater could possibly evolve from this work and end up on the [black?] market or free online plans. I’d like to see practical products available in the next year or two.

  • Curbina

    It’s kind of the same question that arises when one reviews the work of the late John Kanzius. He discovered by accident that “polarized” emission of a radiofrequence of around 13 Mhz splits water (with at least 0,3% of salt in it) molecules in H and O. Dr. kanzius died shortly after this discovery, and to my best knowledge,after a first replication by Dr. Rustum Roy (published in 2008 in a peer reviewed journal) nobody ever has taken up this work, so we don’t know it’s efficiency. A real shame.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      You apparently know every species in this “underground zoo” (without negative connotations). For those who are interested, here are two papers:

      http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=0201fb1843953449ae4b3b5f3bd423a1&action=dlattach;topic=1477.0;attach=8033
      http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=0201fb1843953449ae4b3b5f3bd423a1&action=dlattach;topic=1477.0;attach=8034

      Perhaps somebody wants to build a combined oxy-hydrogen generator/catalytic burner in this way?

      • Curbina

        I’m sure I don’t know all the species, but I try to be as up to date as one can be. Thanks for the link to the papers, I had read them before but now I downloaded them for further reference. The reason I brought up Kanzius is because I think it was a deeply interesting phenomena that was discovered and coudl be of much use for plenty of applications, and even tho it was published and independently verified, it vanished in the haze, and one can only wonder “why o why?” Indeed this could be a way to “close the loop”.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          A disadvantage of this method is that you cannot produce separated hydrogen and oxygen, as in electrolysis. Instead of that, you get an oxygen-hydrogen mixture, which can likely not be bottled or transported by a pipeline, for safety reasons. It must be burned immediately. Therefore, this method could not replace electrolysis on an industrial scale. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it has not been further investigated.

          • Curbina

            Well, I think we cannot say that the gases cannot be separated before igniting, as far as I have understood, the ignition was not spontaneous, but if it is spontaneous, I see you point.

    • US_Citizen71

      I also wish that someone had continued researching the phenomenon. Every experiment I’ve seen video of was always done with a test tube, why not a beaker or a flask. They left me wondering what would happen with a larger volume of water. I know there is a limit on how far the signal would transmit through salt water. I would think that a container just slightly smaller than the limit would likely give the most efficient conversion of radio wave energy to gas. I never encountered what the frequency he used was or even a round number on the energy involved until the link A.M. posted. At only 300 watts and at such a low frequency I am surprised no one continued looking into it.

      • Curbina

        Exactly! This, even if not overunity, needs only to be fairly efficient to be of many potential uses. Kanzius hinted it was OU shortly before passing. A shame ihe did not left more clues as to the precise nature of his RF emitter. I also think that this is LENR related, as Rossi and other researchers use a modulated pulse as part of the reaction…

  • Curbina

    It’s kind of the same question that arises when one reviews the work of the late John Kanzius. He discovered by accident that “polarized” emission of a radiofrequence of around 13 Mhz splits water (with at least 0,3% of salt in it) molecules in H and O. Dr. kanzius died shortly after this discovery, and to my best knowledge,after a first replication by Dr. Rustum Roy (published in 2008 in a peer reviewed journal) nobody ever has taken up this work, so we don’t know it’s efficiency. A real shame.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      You apparently know every species in this “underground zoo” (without negative connotations). For those who are interested, here are two papers:

      http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=0201fb1843953449ae4b3b5f3bd423a1&action=dlattach;topic=1477.0;attach=8033
      http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=0201fb1843953449ae4b3b5f3bd423a1&action=dlattach;topic=1477.0;attach=8034

      Perhaps somebody wants to build a combined oxy-hydrogen generator/catalytic burner in this way?

      • Curbina

        I’m sure I don’t know all the species, but I try to be as up to date as one can be. Thanks for the link to the papers, I had read them before but now I downloaded them for further reference. The reason I brought up Kanzius is because I think it was a deeply interesting phenomena that was discovered and coudl be of much use for plenty of applications, and even tho it was published and independently verified, it vanished in the haze, and one can only wonder “why o why?” Indeed this could be a way to “close the loop”.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          A disadvantage of this method is that you cannot produce separated hydrogen and oxygen, as in electrolysis. Instead of that, you get an oxygen-hydrogen mixture, which can likely not be bottled or transported by a pipeline, for safety reasons. It must be burned immediately. Therefore, this method could not replace electrolysis on an industrial scale. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it has not been further investigated.

          • Curbina

            Well, I think we cannot say that the gases cannot be separated before igniting, as far as I have understood, the ignition was not spontaneous, but if it is spontaneous, I see you point.

    • US_Citizen71

      I also wish that someone had continued researching the phenomenon. Every experiment I’ve seen video of was always done with a test tube, why not a beaker or a flask. They left me wondering what would happen with a larger volume of water. I know there is a limit on how far the signal would transmit through salt water. I would think that a container just slightly smaller than the limit for the length would likely give the most efficient conversion of radio wave energy to gas. A container slightly larger than the limit for length would allow the use of signals from two ends with one being polarized say vertical and the other horizontal since the signal was polarized. I don’t think the phenomenon would end up being over unity but it just might be a more efficient means of attaining hydrogen than breaking down methane or electrolysis. I never encountered what the frequency he used was or even a round number on the energy involved when I looked into it in the past. At only 300 watts and at such a low frequency I am surprised no one continued looking into it.

      • Curbina

        Exactly! This, even if not overunity, needs only to be fairly efficient to be of many potential uses. Kanzius hinted it was OU shortly before passing. A shame ihe did not left more clues as to the precise nature of his RF emitter. I also think that this is LENR related, as Rossi and other researchers use a modulated pulse as part of the reaction…

  • bachcole
  • mecatfish

    For overunity – Convert the heat to electricity, feed the HHO generator with it, unplug the HHO generator from the wall outlet. If it does not shut off then we have overunity.
    Practical application – Don’t look for overunity. Devise a way to see if it uses less energy than a standard space heater. Even if it creates the same heat for 10% less energy then that in itself is a million dollar idea.

    • Mr. Moho

      Even converting just 10% of the generated heat into electricity would be a huge achievement at this scale. To “close the loop” the device would have to generate so much more heat than the input energy that it wouldn’t even be necessary to do that in the first place to determine that it’s overunity.

  • mecatfish

    For overunity – Convert the heat to electricity, feed the HHO generator with it, unplug the HHO generator from the wall outlet. If it does not shut off then we have overunity.
    Practical application – Don’t look for overunity. Devise a way to see if it uses less energy than a standard space heater. Even if it creates the same heat for 10% less energy then that in itself is a million dollar idea.

  • bachcole

    When we can’t even support MFMP, I don’t have a lot of hope for an H-Cat contest.

  • bachcole

    When we can’t even support MFMP, I don’t have a lot of hope for an H-Cat contest.

  • Paul

    As a physicist, I totally agree with Jaja6984 comment below, suggesting the simple comparison with the temperature reached in a box with a light bulb of the same nominal power of the HHO apparatus. Indeed, it is a steady-state comparative calorimetry, ideal for amateur scientists! I do not expect nothing of special but if I am wrong the result, also for the simplicity ot the experiment, would be extraordinary.

  • snowvoardphil

    There would actullay be 2 things to test here:

    1- heat produced by HHO+catlyst VS heat produced by simply burning HHO. This would need a relatively large flow HHO generator (to achive a consistent flow of HHO for the reaction) and then the simplest part: would be to feed the HHO to an insulated box with the catalyst “burner” and do the same experiment with a simple Bunsen Burner inside the box instead of the catalyst. Calorimetry could be done with both setup by mesuring heat rise VS time inside the box.

    If experiment 1 would prove to be succesfull than experiment #2 would be :

    2 – Heat produced by HHO+catalyst VS heat produced by a simple electric heater (small ceramique model on regular houshold 1500W outlet circuit). Now this one is a bit more elaborate but would tell us if there is any potential for this HHO+Catalyst reaction as a means to heat for less (witch I highly doubt). Calorimetry could be done with both setup by mesuring heat rise VS time.

    According to Wikipedia, the best HHO generators get about 50 -80% efficiencies (meaning that 1 kWh of electricity input will get you 0.5kWh – 0.8kWh of heat-out from burning the HHO). Therefore, HHO+catalyst would need to be at least 21% more efficient than simple burning of HHO to see a 1% gain from standard electrical heat systems.

    Now the big question is can anybody point us to the most efficient HHO generator that they know of and we could start from there cost wise.

    I could contribute by sending a KillAWatt meter I have at home that is rated to 1500W and that can monitor kWh consummed by the HHO generator (provided it can output sufficient flow with 1500W) and consumed by a simple ceramic heater.

    Thanks
    Phil

    • ecatworld

      Thanks for the ideas, Phil — and the generous offer to loan equipment!

    • Allan Shura

      Interesting but some of these efficiency arguments are isolated in context. An internal combustion engine is only 50 percent efficient and losing energy to heat plus polluting. Yet it is not rejected as a failure nor does this fact prevent
      building them. I think there are more efficient generators than Wikipedia is aware of and new catalysts being tested.
      Fossil fuels are subject to rapid price changes as well and that is endangering economic stability and they ran
      out of propane in the cold with enormous price hikes in the US in the past few weeks.

  • snowvoardphil

    There would actullay be 2 things to test here:

    1- heat produced by HHO+catlyst VS heat produced by simply burning HHO. This would need a relatively large flow HHO generator (to achive a consistent flow of HHO for the reaction) and then the simplest part: would be to feed the HHO to an insulated box with the catalyst “burner” and do the same experiment with a simple Bunsen Burner inside the box instead of the catalyst. Calorimetry could be done with both setup by mesuring heat rise VS time inside the box.

    If experiment 1 would prove to be succesfull than experiment #2 would be :

    2 – Heat produced by HHO+catalyst VS heat produced by a simple electric heater (small ceramique model on regular houshold 1500W outlet circuit). Now this one is a bit more elaborate but would tell us if there is any potential for this HHO+Catalyst reaction as a means to heat for less (witch I highly doubt). Calorimetry could be done with both setup by mesuring heat rise VS time.

    According to Wikipedia, the best HHO generators get about 50 -80% efficiencies (meaning that 1 kWh of electricity input will get you 0.5kWh – 0.8kWh of heat-out from burning the HHO). Therefore, HHO+catalyst would need to be at least 21% more efficient than simple burning of HHO to see a 1% gain from standard electrical heat systems.

    Now the big question is can anybody point us to the most efficient HHO generator that they know of and we could start from there cost wise.

    I could contribute by sending a KillAWatt meter I have at home that is rated to 1500W and that can monitor kWh consummed by the HHO generator (provided it can output sufficient flow with 1500W) and consumed by a simple ceramic heater.

    Thanks
    Phil

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks for the ideas, Phil — and the generous offer to loan equipment!

    • Allan Shura

      Interesting but some of these efficiency arguments are isolated in context. An internal combustion engine is only 50 percent efficient and losing energy to heat plus polluting. Yet it is not rejected as a failure nor does this fact prevent
      building them. I think there are more efficient generators than Wikipedia is aware of and new catalysts being tested.
      Fossil fuels are subject to rapid price changes as well and that is endangering economic stability and they ran
      out of propane in the cold with enormous price hikes in the US in the past few weeks.

      • bachcole

        That is a very good point about LENR+. There will of course be a lot of ups and downs as society gets with the LENR+ program. But once we are there (probably not in my lifetime), there won’t be this constant up and down of this one, single fundamental factor to the whole economy.

  • Gerard McEk

    First I have to say that I am not so very optimistic about this test, but I am quite willing to contribute and try to find a simple approach. Simply measuring power and see how much is produced as suggested by others below is not that simple. That approach requires a calorimeter and that is not easy to construct for these circumstances. Beside that, quite a lot of energy is lost in the electrolysis process itself, because that is not very efficient. If you buy an “Electrolysis Micro Welder” then you can assume that the efficiency of the small instrument is in the order of 50%: Half of the energy you use will be converted into heat in the electrolysis liquid, transformer and electronics (when I am optimistic). So do not compare energy in-energy out.

    What you in fact want to know is that the catalysed process produces more energy than burning the HHO or H2-O2 back to water. That is a test you may be able to do in a rather simple way: Make a well insulated box of a square meter (3 feet). Make the inside walls black. Install 3 temperature sensors inside and connect them to a recorder. Take care the box material is not burnable. Buy a micro electrolysis welder. Do the following tests in sequence after each other:
    1. Install the micro torch inside, lit it, close the box, start temperature recording during n minutes and switch the welder off.
    2. let everything cool down during an hour and install the catalyse material and the gas outlet of the welder so it will heat-up when the welder is switched on.
    3. switch the welder on, check heat is produced, close the box, start temperature recording during n minutes and switch the welder off.
    4. let everything cool down during one hour and start with 1 again.
    5. do the sequence above 10 times.

    Remark:
    Unnecessary to say that you do not change the settings of the welder, so you can assume every time the production of the same amount of gas. I know there may be some differences, but that is why you have to to these tests 10 times in sequence.

    Analysis of the results:
    1. If every time the heat increase is significantly (>15%) higher when you use the catalyse material then when you use the torch then you can assume that LENR takes place.
    2. If the heat increase with the burning torch is higher or equal every time, than a LENR effect can be dismissed.
    3. If you get mixed results, then you have problems with the welder stability and/or measuring accuracy.

    • Harold Baker

      Even if heat increase with catalyzer is > 15% greater than without the catalyzer, this is not proof of LENR. It might just be a more efficient chemical reaction. The only proof positive would be if the amount of heat produced was greater then we would expect from a chemical reaction. This would require a careful measurement of the amount of each gas input, and an exact measurement of the heat produced. It would require extremely accurate measurements, which would be quite expensive in time and money. This effort would not be trivial.
      I don’t believe we could achieve any meaningful results by trying to do this on the cheap ourselves. Remember Rossi’s validation experiments? They were painstaking and had to be performed by scientists well versed in calorimetry, using expensive equipment. I think we can all agree that Rossi’s ecat is real and does produce excess heat. Proving it was not trivial. It has taken years of work by highly skilled professionals, and the work is still ongoing.

      • bachcole

        I could not agree more with Harold. I am very much in favor with people doing experiments. I do experiments all of the time, usually on myself with regard to health. But measuring excess energy is a bitch. Watts do not equal degrees. I have learned this here just reading these comments.

        And isn’t this exactly what MFMP is trying to do. Why aren’t we supporting them? Have we become infatuated with this HHO business that we just forget about them.

        • Gerard McEk

          What I propose is a comparative test, not a test to measure the amount of energy, which I agree is not easy to do. When you collect all the H2 and O2 gas separately and burn it, the efficiency of that will be near to 99 %, because both gasses are being supplied in the optimal volumes. Much improvement of a catalyzer cannot be expected in a purely chemical reaction. If however the heat production is a lot higher when you use a catalyzer, then something else is going on and that may be LENR. We are looking for a lot, hopefully 5-10 times as much. When it is just a bit, I would stop this type of testing. This is just the first step: does it really produce more heat or not. If so then further tests can be done. This is meant to be a simple test!

  • Gerard McEk

    First I have to say that I am not so very optimistic about this test, but I am quite willing to contribute and try to find a simple approach. Simply measuring power and see how much is produced as suggested by others below is not that simple. That approach requires a calorimeter and that is not easy to construct for these circumstances. Beside that, quite a lot of energy is lost in the electrolysis process itself, because that is not very efficient. If you buy an “Electrolysis Micro Welder” then you can assume that the efficiency of the small instrument is in the order of 50%: Half of the energy you use will be converted into heat in the electrolysis liquid, transformer and electronics (when I am optimistic). So do not compare energy in-energy out.

    What you in fact want to know is that the catalysed process produces more energy than burning the HHO or H2-O2 back to water. That is a test you may be able to do in a rather simple way: Make a well insulated box of a square meter (3 feet). Make the inside walls black. Install 3 temperature sensors inside and connect them to a recorder. Take care the box material is not burnable. Buy a micro electrolysis welder. Do the following tests in sequence after each other:
    1. Install the micro torch inside, lit it, close the box, start temperature recording during n minutes and switch the welder off.
    2. let everything cool down during an hour and install the catalyse material and the gas outlet of the welder so it will heat-up when the welder is switched on.
    3. switch the welder on, check heat is produced, close the box, start temperature recording during n minutes and switch the welder off.
    4. let everything cool down during one hour and start with 1 again.
    5. do the sequence above 10 times.

    Remark:
    Unnecessary to say that you do not change the settings of the welder, so you can assume every time the production of the same amount of gas. I know there may be some differences, but that is why you have to to these tests 10 times in sequence.

    Analysis of the results:
    1. If every time the heat increase is significantly (>15%) higher when you use the catalyse material then when you use the torch then you can assume that LENR takes place.
    2. If the heat increase with the burning torch is higher or equal every time, than a LENR effect can be dismissed.
    3. If you get mixed results, then you have problems with the welder stability and/or measuring accuracy.

    • Harold Baker

      Even if heat increase with catalyzer is > 15% greater than without the catalyzer, this is not proof of LENR. It might just be a more efficient chemical reaction. The only proof positive would be if the amount of heat produced was greater then we would expect from a chemical reaction. This would require a careful measurement of the amount of each gas input, and an exact measurement of the heat produced. It would require extremely accurate measurements, which would be quite expensive in time and money. This effort would not be trivial.
      I don’t believe we could achieve any meaningful results by trying to do this on the cheap ourselves. Remember Rossi’s validation experiments? They were painstaking and had to be performed by scientists well versed in calorimetry, using expensive equipment. I think we can all agree that Rossi’s ecat is real and does produce excess heat. Proving it was not trivial. It has taken years of work by highly skilled professionals, and the work is still ongoing.

      • bachcole

        I could not agree more with Harold. I am very much in favor with people doing experiments. I do experiments all of the time, usually on myself with regard to health. But measuring excess energy is a bitch. Watts do not equal degrees. I have learned this here just reading these comments.

        And isn’t this exactly what MFMP is trying to do. Why aren’t we supporting them? Have we become infatuated with this HHO business that we just forget about them.

        • Gerard McEk

          What I propose is a comparative test, not a test to measure the amount of energy, which I agree is not easy to do. When you collect all the H2 and O2 gas separately and burn it, the efficiency of that will be near to 99 %, because both gasses are being supplied in the optimal volumes. Much improvement of a catalyzer cannot be expected in a purely chemical reaction. If however the heat production is a lot higher when you use a catalyzer, then something else is going on and that may be LENR. We are looking for a lot, hopefully 5-10 times as much. When it is just a bit, I would stop this type of testing. This is just the first step: does it really produce more heat or not. If so then further tests can be done. This is meant to be a simple test!

          • bachcole

            I like your idea. Simple, swift, get it over with. Yes or no, up or down.

        • bkrharold

          Waiting for the big breakthrough has been a long frustrating wait for everyone. My family and all my acquaintances have given up, and no longer wish to hear another word about Cold Fusion from me. I understand the organizer of this site needs to keep up the morale of the troops, and help them stay engaged and positive.

  • Bernie777

    Please stop complicating the issue, we are looking for major heat gain. Do as Jaja6984 suggests it is simple and effective.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Please stop complicating the issue, we are looking for major heat gain. Do as Jaja6984 suggests it is simple and effective.

  • clovis ray

    hi guys, nice discussion, have we reached any conclusions,i would like to know one way or the other, if something is really going on, or is it just something simple , like a porous ceramic material such as being used, will encapsulate, some of the gas being trapped and slowly burning off, when the heated ceramic like material reaches a high enough temp, or something along those lines, but my hope is for lenr, being discovered from a new source, now that would be exceptional.

  • clovis ray

    hi guys, nice discussion, have we reached any conclusions,i would like to know one way or the other, if something is really going on, or is it just something simple , like a porous ceramic material such as being used, will encapsulate, some of the gas being trapped and slowly burning off, when the heated ceramic like material reaches a high enough temp, or something along those lines, but my hope is for lenr, being discovered from a new source, now that would be exceptional.

  • Christopher Calder

    I think it is a mistake to get involved in this kind of thing. Let the real scientists who know what they are doing accomplish the work. This just diverts attention and may become an embarrassment.

    • Fortyniner

      We are essentially awaiting further developments at present, so addressing this issue is not diverting attention from anything significant – not that it matters very much what we do or do not discuss here. ‘Real scientists’ seem to have successfully ignored anything connected to this area for decades, just as they have ignored real evidence for LENR for decades.

      Some of the heat given off during the process we are discussing either is, or is not, anomolous. A relatively simple experiment would determine which. I think it’s called ‘science’ and I’m afraid I don’t understand the suggestion that honestly looking into an observed phenomenon without any preconceptions could be ‘an embarrassment’.

    • bkrharold

      I agree, from the little information I have been able to gather about this effort, there is a strong possibility this is a chemical effect. If they are in fact using plasma, is the energy used to create the plasma even being calculated in the final comparison of energy in to energy out?
      Just because we are willing to accept the validity of the ecat and Rossi, does not mean we are gullible and open to every unsubstantiated claim of excess energy. I understand the need to keep people engaged and excited about LENR, but we must also use out own critical thinking skills to decide what is reasonable. Rossi has a great record, and his work has been duplicated, and independently checked by highly qualified professionals. I believe in Rossi

  • I think it is a mistake to get involved in this kind of thing. Let the real scientists who know what they are doing accomplish the work. This just diverts attention and may become an embarrassment.

    • We are essentially awaiting further developments at present, so addressing this issue is not diverting attention from anything significant – not that it matters very much what we do or do not discuss here. ‘Real scientists’ seem to have successfully ignored anything connected to this area for decades, just as they have ignored real evidence for LENR for decades.

      Some of the heat given off during the process we are discussing either is, or is not, anomalous. A relatively simple experiment would determine which. I think it’s called ‘science’ and I’m afraid I don’t understand the suggestion that honestly looking into an observed phenomenon without any preconceptions could be ‘an embarrassment’.

    • bachcole

      I will agree only to the extent that when we have funded MFMP to the extent that it should be funded so that they are not constantly pestering us and the world for money, then perhaps we can think about some kind of contest.

    • bkrharold

      I agree, from the little information I have been able to gather about this effort, there is a strong possibility this is a chemical effect. If they are in fact using plasma, is the energy used to create the plasma even being calculated in the final comparison of energy in to energy out?
      Just because we are willing to accept the validity of the ecat and Rossi, does not mean we are gullible and open to every unsubstantiated claim of excess energy. I understand the need to keep people engaged and excited about LENR, but we must also use out own critical thinking skills to decide what is reasonable. Rossi has a great record, and his work has been duplicated, and independently checked by highly qualified professionals. I believe in Rossi

  • mecatfish

    I like the temperature inside the box measurement…with some corrections. You want to measure temperature rise (must include thermocouples outside the box and subtract from temperature inside the box)
    Also replace the light bulb with a 50 W heater. Buy 2 identical catalytic convertters. Use one of them as is with HHO. The other one, remove enough honeycomb to equal the weight of the 50W heater, put the 50W heater inside the converter and power it up. That will give 2 experiments with equal mass inside the box.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thermometry is fraught with problems as we have discovered though we have learnt a lot of best practice like thermal shunting so heat can only really exit one way. Good calorimetry would be the best (like mass-flow) and would give better resolution but is expensive. Another good option is isothermal baths as I suggested below (which would be slower, but easier to achieve) like that used in the MFMP S&G experiment. A very large signal would be easier to determine by any method, so a small sample in a small “reactor” might be a good idea.

    • Job001

      Good ideas, but, you are not funding or doing the science. The first idea was the least expensive and should be done first, IMO. Science builds upon observable results and always gets expensive fast. Quick inexpensive designed experiments are the best route.

  • mecatfish

    I like the temperature inside the box measurement…with some corrections. You want to measure temperature rise (must include thermocouples outside the box and subtract from temperature inside the box)
    Also replace the light bulb with a 50 W heater. Buy 2 identical catalytic convertters. Use one of them as is with HHO. The other one, remove enough honeycomb to equal the weight of the 50W heater, put the 50W heater inside the converter and power it up. That will give 2 experiments with equal mass inside the box.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thermometry is fraught with problems as we have discovered though we have learnt a lot of best practice like thermal shunting so heat can only really exit one way. Good calorimetry would be the best (like mass-flow) and would give better resolution but is expensive. Another good option is isothermal baths as I suggested below (which would be slower, but easier to achieve) like that used in the MFMP S&G experiment. A very large signal would be easier to determine by any method, so a small sample in a small “reactor” might be a good idea.

    • Job001

      Good ideas, but, you are not funding or doing the science. The first idea was the least expensive and should be done first, IMO. Science builds upon observable results and always gets expensive fast. Quick inexpensive designed experiments are the best route.

  • Chris I

    Is the catalyser publicly known?

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Which catalyst are you asking about?

      • Chris I

        The one that turns gold into lead…

  • Chris, Italy

    Is the catalyser publicly known?

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Which catalyst are you asking about?

      • Chris, Italy

        The one that turns gold into lead…

  • Mike Phalen

    Hi everyone. I think this is a great thread. I visit E-cat World several times a day and right now the LENR world is pretty quiet. As soon as any kind of LENR event happens I’m sure Frank will be all over it as usual.

    I agree that a H-Cat project could hurt the rep of this site if it’s not handled right. But let’s not forget we are already a “fringe science” site to most of the mainstream thinkers. Frank has been very careful not to make any claims about the H-can effect. Just curiosity.

    I looked around online for quite a while looking for info related to HHO-vatalyst reactions. There are a couple interesting videos from science sites but nothing as dramatic as what the H-cat guys are doing. And in those science videos they pre-heat the catalyst and use only H. I posted them in the E-Cat World forum under “Videos showing the H-can effect”: http://www.e-catworld.com/forum/#/discussion/7/videos-showing-the-h-cat-effect

    It is certainly a known and studied reaction but I was unable to find any mention of energy in/out. Does anyone know of such a study?

    Probably the most interesting piece of info that I found was a paper by Lewis Larsen of the Widom-Larsen LENR theory. “Low Energy Neutron Reactions ( LENR ) in Automotive Catalytic Converters”: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/20100625LatticeEnergySlides.pdf One of the things mentioned in the report is the possibility of isotope shifts happening in catalytic converters. So, there is a LENR connection to the H-cat from a respected LENR player.

    Here are my questions: Has anyone in the past compared energy into an HHO generator to the energy out put by the H-cat reaction? My mind keeps going back to the mindset of science prior to the Wright brothers. No one would try to make metal, cloth and wood fly because it is a waste of time trying to do the impossible. Is it assumed that there would be no gain so don’t bother looking? It is quite possible that there will be no gain — but do we know?

    I’m sure that people have worked on optimizing HHO generators to use as little power as possible. What’s the best design? Does anyone know? What about splitting the water with the polarized RF frequency as mentioned in this thread, how much power does that take?

    I like Bob Greenyer’s idea about submerging a heater for one test and an h-cat designed to run underwater in another. We could design them to heat sync to the water. Also we would need to check if the gas coming out was ignitable? If so we have a loss. Set the power input to the same wattage for each test and see what we get. It is a crude exploratory test. Measure the temp rise in each container,

    If we are going to go forward with this we should form a group have some Skype and chat meetings, organize some research, come up with a plan and have someone do it.

    I also put several links from my Platinum catalyst research in the Forum.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Some great points. The two “reactors” should be the same (for equivalent volumetric displacement) but one resistively heated only, that will help ensure equivalent thermodynamics. Essentially the S&G type experiment but with the CATs replacing the S&G.

      • Obvious

        Automotive cats have highly variable compositions, depending on year, make, engine, and availability/cost of various reactive elements. Therefore it is critical that tests be done on identical materials. There may be considerable variation in effectiveness for “HHO” operation, depending on composition. Most newer cats have different compositions in the inlet and outlet halves, so even that is a variable to control for tests. Information on the various compositions is very difficult to obtain. Some specialist cat recyclers will have a database of compositions for the PGE content. However, the substrate is also variable. Newer cats have cerium, while older ones didn’t, for example.
        It is interesting to note that many cat substrates have high zirconium and yttrium content, which may operate as a dilute Nernst masse, contributing to reactions.

    • Justin Church

      Yes that is the problem your going to find. Very little to no information on the process of pure HHO catalytic reactions. You will also find very little information on the process for Hydrogen. You will find no product line whatsoever on hydrogen based heaters. No on demand setups have ever been built and tested. As in 1000 watt on demand hydrogen / hho catalytic heater vs 1000 watt electric resitive heater. People say it cannot work but one has to test something before you can say it won’t work. I have yet to find any type of heating product line based on this effect. Most people can only reference 100 year old experiments and nothing more. Show me a on demand hho or hydrogen catalytic heater before trying to debunk the work and concept of the H-Cat…Just sayin…

      We have yet to stabilize and control the reaction with hho gas yet to really take accurate measurements. This is the biggest issue right now preventing some of the calorimetry tests to be done. We are trying to control flashback and seal up the Cats in such a way we limit dilution of the gas to maintain a concentrated reaction within the reaction chamber. I am working on such experiments but it takes time and I need the help of some skilled resources to finalize it. We can also work with Hydrogen based reactions as well. We were thinking we could pre-heat with HHO then switch over to Hydrogen to maintain the reaction, in the case of a Nickel based core. Lots of places to go with it but even at small scale, its a difficult reaction to control. We are working with hho gas right now because anybody on the planet can build a simple hho generator, its a little more difficult and expensive to build a hydrogen separation cell. Bottled Hydrogen and Oxygen is also not easy to obtain by most people. The amount of Hydrogen needed to make the LENR reactors function is very minimal and in most cases can be produced on demand as needed much more efficiently than using bottled gas, not to mention it would be much safer as well.

      Despite the setbacks we are progressing and we hope the end product will not need detailed input/output measurements because the proof is in the pudding. If my heater design which I hope to run between 250-500 watts outputs substantially more heat than the same resistive heater of the same wattage, which one are you going to buy? If they are set up side by side and you can literally feel the intensity levels of heat from each one, your not going to care what the numbers say. As I said before, we are not far from being able to test that, its a matter of engineering a stable reactor and I want to do it with parts that are on the shelf, not using proprietary electronics or nano fairy dust.

      • Fortyniner

        Justin – could you explain how you are generating your HHO (apologies if I have missed this info somewhere). Do you use a Brown’s gas welder, a pulsed DC unit or just plain vanilla DC electrolysis?

    • US_Citizen71

      One way to make the tests more even at least for thermal mass would be to make the test chamber large enough to house both the light bulb/electric heater and the HHO catalyst setups including the power supply for the HHO setup. On one run use the HHO and catalyst, collect your data open the chamber let it cool down to ambient and then close it up and run again with the light bulb/electric heater. The power draw for the HHO setup won’t likely end up being a watt value that is easy to duplicate with the electric heating setup so limiting the test to total watts used I think would solve the problem. With something like a Kill-a-Watt device you would be able to use total watts used/inputted instead of time as your limiter.

  • Mike Phalen

    Hi everyone. I think this is a great thread. I visit E-cat World several times a day and right now the LENR world is pretty quiet. As soon as any kind of LENR event happens I’m sure Frank will be all over it as usual.

    I agree that a H-Cat project could hurt the rep of this site if it’s not handled right. But let’s not forget we are already a “fringe science” site to most of the mainstream thinkers. Frank has been very careful not to make any claims about the H-can effect. Just curiosity.

    I looked around online for quite a while looking for info related to HHO-vatalyst reactions. There are a couple interesting videos from science sites but nothing as dramatic as what the H-cat guys are doing. And in those science videos they pre-heat the catalyst and use only H. I posted them in the E-Cat World forum under “Videos showing the H-can effect”: http://www.e-catworld.com/forum/#/discussion/7/videos-showing-the-h-cat-effect

    It is certainly a known and studied reaction but I was unable to find any mention of energy in/out. Does anyone know of such a study?

    Probably the most interesting piece of info that I found was a paper by Lewis Larsen of the Widom-Larsen LENR theory. “Low Energy Neutron Reactions ( LENR ) in Automotive Catalytic Converters”: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/20100625LatticeEnergySlides.pdf One of the things mentioned in the report is the possibility of isotope shifts happening in catalytic converters. So, there is a LENR connection to the H-cat from a respected LENR player.

    Here are my questions: Has anyone in the past compared energy into an HHO generator to the energy out put by the H-cat reaction? My mind keeps going back to the mindset of science prior to the Wright brothers. No one would try to make metal, cloth and wood fly because it is a waste of time trying to do the impossible. Is it assumed that there would be no gain so don’t bother looking? It is quite possible that there will be no gain — but do we know?

    I’m sure that people have worked on optimizing HHO generators to use as little power as possible. What’s the best design? Does anyone know? What about splitting the water with the polarized RF frequency as mentioned in this thread, how much power does that take?

    I like Bob Greenyer’s idea about submerging a heater for one test and an h-cat designed to run underwater in another. We could design them to heat sync to the water. Also we would need to check if the gas coming out was ignitable? If so we have a loss. Set the power input to the same wattage for each test and see what we get. It is a crude exploratory test. Measure the temp rise in each container,

    If we are going to go forward with this we should form a group have some Skype and chat meetings, organize some research, come up with a plan and have someone do it.

    I also put several links from my Platinum catalyst research in the Forum.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Some great points. The two “reactors” should be the same (for equivalent volumetric displacement) but one resistively heated only, that will help ensure equivalent thermodynamics. Essentially the S&G type experiment but with the CATs replacing the S&G.

      For long life the rate of thermal extraction should keep the core of the device below 900ºC – in that respect mass flow would be a better approach.

      • Obvious

        Automotive cats have highly variable compositions, depending on year, make, engine, and availability/cost of various reactive elements. Therefore it is critical that tests be done on identical materials. There may be considerable variation in effectiveness for “HHO” operation, depending on composition. Most newer cats have different compositions in the inlet and outlet halves, so even that is a variable to control for tests. Information on the various compositions is very difficult to obtain. Some specialist cat recyclers will have a database of compositions for the PGE content. However, the substrate is also variable. Newer cats have cerium, while older ones didn’t, for example.
        It is interesting to note that many cat substrates have high zirconium and yttrium content, which may operate as a dilute Nernst masse, contributing to reactions.

    • Justin Church

      Yes that is the problem your going to find. Very little to no information on the process of pure HHO catalytic reactions. You will also find very little information on the process for Hydrogen. You will find no product line whatsoever on hydrogen based heaters. No on demand setups have ever been built and tested. As in 1000 watt on demand hydrogen / hho catalytic heater vs 1000 watt electric resitive heater. People say it cannot work but one has to test something before you can say it won’t work. I have yet to find any type of heating product line based on this effect. Most people can only reference 100 year old experiments and nothing more. Show me a on demand hho or hydrogen catalytic heater before trying to debunk the work and concept of the H-Cat…Just sayin…

      We have yet to stabilize and control the reaction with hho gas yet to really take accurate measurements. This is the biggest issue right now preventing some of the calorimetry tests to be done. We are trying to control flashback and seal up the Cats in such a way we limit dilution of the gas to maintain a concentrated reaction within the reaction chamber. I am working on such experiments but it takes time and I need the help of some skilled resources to finalize it. We can also work with Hydrogen based reactions as well. We were thinking we could pre-heat with HHO then switch over to Hydrogen to maintain the reaction, in the case of a Nickel based core. Lots of places to go with it but even at small scale, its a difficult reaction to control. We are working with hho gas right now because anybody on the planet can build a simple hho generator, its a little more difficult and expensive to build a hydrogen separation cell. Bottled Hydrogen and Oxygen is also not easy to obtain by most people. The amount of Hydrogen needed to make the LENR reactors function is very minimal and in most cases can be produced on demand as needed much more efficiently than using bottled gas, not to mention it would be much safer as well.

      Despite the setbacks we are progressing and we hope the end product will not need detailed input/output measurements because the proof is in the pudding. If my heater design which I hope to run between 250-500 watts outputs substantially more heat than the same resistive heater of the same wattage, which one are you going to buy? If they are set up side by side and you can literally feel the intensity levels of heat from each one, your not going to care what the numbers say. As I said before, we are not far from being able to test that, its a matter of engineering a stable reactor and I want to do it with parts that are on the shelf, not using proprietary electronics or nano fairy dust.

      • Justin – could you explain how you are generating your HHO (apologies if I have missed this info somewhere). Do you use a Brown’s gas welder, a pulsed DC unit or just plain vanilla DC electrolysis?

    • US_Citizen71

      One way to make the tests more even at least for thermal mass would be to make the test chamber large enough to house both the light bulb/electric heater and the HHO catalyst setups including the power supply for the HHO setup. On one run use the HHO and catalyst, collect your data open the chamber let it cool down to ambient and then close it up and run again with the light bulb/electric heater. The power draw for the HHO setup won’t likely end up being a watt value that is easy to duplicate with the electric heating setup so limiting the test to total watts used I think would solve the problem. With something like a Kill-a-Watt device you would be able to use total watts used/inputted instead of time as your limiter.

  • Neal Ward

    We will get around to the numbers when we get around to them…..Why can’t everyone wait until we are able to stabilize the reaction ? Once the reaction is stabilized , we will continue on to the inputoutput numbers. Not a minute sooner. If you really want to help, figure out how we can stabilize the reaction.
    I have two full time jobs and a family, My time and funds are very limited.
    Justin, Myself and the guys on our forum will get the job done.

    Neal Ward

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Fundraising can take a life of its own where it becomes the objective more than the original mission.

    • Fortyniner

      I don’t think MFMP have encountered any runaway in their fundraising efforts – in fact they operate at a loss that is probably made up by Paul Hunt. Your repeated comments of this nature indicate that you may be on some kind of mission to damage MFMP’s credibility – I wonder why this is?

      • friendlyprogrammer

        I only said,”Fundraising can take a life of its own where it becomes the objective more than the original mission.”. I have not brought MFMP into the discussion of this page.

        You seem to think they are worth mentioning in regards to professional fundraisers though. How can they be operating at a loss unless they are including high wages, travel, dinners, and beer into the mix?

        Please link to their claimed expenses then. In the past I have said I dislike that their every communique and web page seems bent on fundraising and they seem more aware of new and untried fundraising methods than they do of LENR.

        But it is you who brought it up on this page. I was referring to the idea in the subject at hand which is raising money for HHO exploration.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It is clear that even more clarity needs to be presented to address your concerns. This is not the correct place to do this as it will be lost in this thread, we shall do that on the site as the insinuations you are presenting add insult to the sacrifice we have made to undertake this task.

          No MFMP member has received a salary for our work, we have cumulatively donated many 1000s of hours for no financial reward. We have also put cash and very large resources from our companies to assist our commitments to the project.

          We have all been challenged by friends and family about our involvement in the project as it has, to a man, significantly affected our income and free time.

          On a personal note, yes it was agreed by the project that I would go to Rome after 2 nights without sleep by diverting my own trip back from India to UK via Rome to present the findings our first successful run. It was a punishing experience, deeply unpleasant in many respects and I missed time with my then 3 year old daughter to do it. I did have costs associated with that gruelling trip and will list them, thanks for the reminder, but nothing like you guess.

          I ask you, if you were asked by an organisation to do research, produce a report and use your free time to travel to a location for no income for several days and to front the costs only on the possibility they may be returned in the future – would you? If you had to take out £50 from your pocket to pay for the only option of a taxi from the centre of Rome to get the the airport, would you think that you would be wrong in asking that if possible, it would be nice to have that back? I have no organisation to benefit from LENR success, I am doing it in the hope of a better world for my 5 year old daughter and my 9 month son – and there are no guarantees that it will happen.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Fundraising can take a life of its own where it becomes the objective more than the original mission.

    • I don’t think MFMP have encountered any runaway in their fundraising efforts. Your repeated comments of this nature indicate that you may be on some kind of mission to damage MFMP’s credibility – I wonder why this is?

      • bachcole

        Seems like.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        I only said,”Fundraising can take a life of its own where it becomes the objective more than the original mission.”. I have not brought MFMP into the discussion of this page.

        You seem to think they are worth mentioning in regards to professional fundraisers though. How can they be operating at a loss unless they are including high wages, travel, dinners, and beer into the mix?

        Please link to their claimed expenses then. In the past I have said I dislike that their every communique and web page seems bent on fundraising and they seem more aware of new and untried fundraising methods than they do of LENR.

        NVM found it…
        Sheet Total
        Website $853
        EU cell equipment costs $5,633
        EU Steel/Glass cells costs $6,663
        Differential engineering costs $16,800
        Expenses $2,059
        Accountancy $150
        Media & Publicity $960
        Total $33,118
        Donations $21,570 Thank you everyone!!
        MFMP Balance -$11,548

        It cost them $150 to have hire an accountant to do the above spreadsheet? These are guys who can do basic math. Does a $30k project need to hire an accountant? They claim to be volunteers so they must have hired a pro right?

        I can run a website better than theirs for $125/year…
        How can they have $16k in Differential Engineering costs if they claim to be doing this voluntarily?

        Their CLAIMED expenses have no paperwork backing it up. They CLAIM to be over $10k in the red. What is the $1k spent on media/publicity? I’d bet it is related to fundraising if such bills exist.

        They devote more words on their home page to fundraising then any other topic.

        They “URGENTLY NEED” a 3D printer according to their “URGENTLY NEED LIST”, here….
        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/donate/donate-equipment

        Please tell me what LENR component they Urgently need a 3D printer for?

        Greenyer went to Rome also. If he did this at personal expense then why not list it as a cost to gain sympathy. I guess that’s another $5k trip we should add to his negative bankroll.

        I believe and support LENR, Rossi, BLP, Hagelstein, Miley, Celani, and more, but these MFMP seem to be all about the donations. I’d like to be wrong but … (See 3D Printer Urgency)..

        But it is you who brought it up on this page. I was referring to the idea in the subject at hand which is raising money for HHO exploration.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It is clear that even more clarity needs to be presented to address your concerns. This is not the correct place to do this as it will be lost in this thread, we shall do that on the site as the insinuations you are presenting add insult to the sacrifice we have made to undertake this task.

          No MFMP member has received a salary for our work, we have cumulatively donated many 1000s of hours for no financial reward. We have also put cash and very large resources from our companies to assist our commitments to the project.

          We have all been challenged by friends and family about our involvement in the project as it has, to a man, significantly affected our income and free time.

          On a personal note, yes it was agreed by the project that I would go to Rome after 2 nights without sleep by diverting my own trip back from India to UK via Rome to present the findings our first successful run. It was a punishing experience, deeply unpleasant in many respects and I missed time with my then 4 year old daughter to do it. I did have costs associated with that gruelling trip and will list them, thanks for the reminder, but nothing like you guess.

          I ask you, if you were asked by an organisation to do research, produce a report and use your free time to travel to a location for no income for several days and to front the costs only on the possibility they may be returned in the future – would you? If you had to take out £50 from your pocket to pay for the only option of a taxi from the centre of Rome to get the the airport, would you think that you would be wrong in asking that if possible, it would be nice to have that back? I have no organisation to benefit from LENR success, I am doing it in the hope of a better world for my 5 year old daughter and my 9 month son – and there are no guarantees that it will happen.

          • bkrharold

            Thank you for your hard work and sacrifice. I was not aware that there had been a successful run, so congratulations for that too. Hopefully your wish for a better world will be fulfilled not only for your own children, but for all people everywhere.

  • US_Citizen71

    One of the things that seems to get missed in these discussions on HHO is that the temperature of the reaction is far less important than the total quantity of heat released. A 55 gallon plastic barrel of water at 95C will heat a room better than the tip of a cigarette which hovers between 500C and 700C depending if it is being dragged on or not. Without a measurement of the heat quantity released all the measurements one could make in a lifetime with the world’s best high tech thermometers no matter how accurate are fairly meaningless.

    • bachcole

      I already said that, but you said it much better. I put out more energy per cubic meter than the Sun puts out, but what a difference. Measuring energy is very difficult when that energy is coming at you as heat.

    • Agreed. There does seem to be a tendency to over-complicate and diffuse this issue. It just comes down to whether more energy comes out than goes in – that’s all we need to know.

  • Chris Marshalk

    Still no eCat??? C’mon Rossi, get that research paper done already. Oh wait, he keeps on saying it’s out of his hands and 3rd party is doing it. I’ll keep my focus on Solar until something better comes out.

    Good Interesting read.
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246558/IBM_solar_energy_tech_claims_to_harness_power_of_2_000_suns?source=rss_latest_content&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+computerworld%2Fnews%2Ffeed+%28Latest+from+Computerworld%29

    • bachcole

      Chris’ link was spam, I think.

      But, Chris’, don’t leave us. I am sure that there are dozens of people here who would love to demolish your disbelief.

      • Broncobet

        No it was a useful solar devise.

    • What has publishing a research paper got to do with R&D, troubleshooting, and scaling up for manufacture? And when did Rossi say he was going to submit a research paper anyaway? Oh wait – you seem to have answered that one: “it’s out of his hands and 3rd party is doing it”.

    • bkrharold

      Interesting article, thanks. If their estimates are true 10c per kilowatt hr is competitive with coal. I am not giving up on Rossi yet. It has been a long frustrating wait, but I believe there will be some real progress this year, either from Rossi or Brillouin Energy. They are not mutually exclusive, we can have solar wind and LENR when it is ready, we don’t have to pick one winner.

      • Allan Shura

        A far from the promise of 1c or less per kilowatt hour is that a typo? Defkalion and others are sticking to the 1c or less projected cost. Hydro is as low as 5c kWh to produce in some areas.

        • bkrharold

          The 10c was quoted in the computerworld article that Chris Marchalk posted which describes a concentrated solar device, not for LENR

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    “After discovering computer-generated research papers that were little more than gibberish, Springer and IEEE will be removing more than 120 papers from their subscription service. The best part? The papers had been peer-reviewed prior to acceptance.”

    http://www.cnet.com.au/publishers-remove-gibberish-computer-generated-research-papers-339346727.htm

    • Fortyniner

      Hilarious! The emperor has no clothes.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    “After discovering computer-generated research papers that were little more than gibberish, Springer and IEEE will be removing more than 120 papers from their subscription service. The best part? The papers had been peer-reviewed prior to acceptance.”

    http://www.cnet.com.au/publishers-remove-gibberish-computer-generated-research-papers-339346727.htm

    • Hilarious! The emperor has no clothes.

  • Ophelia Rump

    You should really isolate this amateur stuff from the serious LENR reporting. Don’t give the dis-information and negative propaganda trolls backyard tinker quality tidbits to confuse into the mix in order to frighten the uninformed.

    • Obvious

      Separate amateur science from unicorn tales? Why? If this site only contained serious reporting and discussion of facts, it would very nearly empty of content.

      • bachcole

        And I would be banned for life. (:->)

  • Ophelia Rump

    You should really isolate this amateur stuff from the serious LENR reporting. Don’t give the dis-information and negative propaganda trolls backyard tinker quality tidbits to confuse into the mix in order to frighten the uninformed.

    • Obvious

      Separate amateur science from unicorn tales? Why? If this site only contained serious reporting and discussion of facts, it would very nearly empty of content.

      • bachcole

        And I would be banned for life. (:->)

  • Guru

    Warning !

    After 155 dealys and 8 years of talking on little showing, a little different LENR (supposedly magnetic) technology called HephaHeat is ACTUALLY on way to doing big news.

    Within “weeks”. No joke. And 2 big manufacturers are heavily involved into this.

    “Sometimes stuff takes longer than you want…. it’s going to be a LOT of fun in the next few weeks, a lot” – Steorn CEO Shaun McCarthy (Comment from 24-02-2014)

    • Broncobet

      Wouldn’t that be fun? But seriously in a few weeks when they have nothing to show you’ll buy their explanation and just wait some more.Can you blame them?If they’ve been talking with nothing to show for eight years are they to blame if they take another eight?

  • Dr. Physics

    I do like the idea of comparing the temperatures proposed by Jaja6984 comment below, suggesting the simple comparison of temperature steady-state in a box with a resistor of the same power of the HHO apparatus. However, Water vapours + emitting light could be a source of error.
    Here is my idea for an inexpensive solution:
    1. setup two identical test tubes in two identical metal containers
    2. add identical amount of water into each metal container
    3. position the test tubes in exact X and Y locations in each container. You can do this by using two simple test tube holder apparatuses. Set them in a room with a relative constant temperature and no air/wind movement.
    4. add identical amount of wax in each test tubes. You can use butter or solid fat as long as it melts below 100C
    5. start heating both metal containers at the same time and stop at the same time. Do not allow the water to reach boiling point. Use a stop watch. If carefully controlled, you can reach a steady-state but ensure the heat exchange areas/distances of both are identical
    6. Wax melts at below 100C
    7. Use a caliper or a good ruler to measure the heights of liquid wax formed in both test tubes
    8. do this a few times and you can take an average or even do a standard deviation.
    9. higher level of liquid wax indicates more energy being produced
    Measuring correct temperature is a more difficult than you think!

  • malkom700

    The forthcoming third party report can be an important dividing line. If this might be negative, and thus the academic and business world fail, then the people themselves will be forced to develop a device. This initiative is currently only work as a compelling tool.

  • malkom700

    The forthcoming third party report can be an important dividing line. If this might be negative, and thus the academic, political and business world fail, then the people themselves will be forced to develop a device. We should understand one thing, the measurements do not solve the problem. We must figure out a complex structure which works without energy input. As one of the great philosopher said, “that does not work, do not push ‘. This idea might be time for hot fusion also apply if we already have other alternatives.

  • Guru

    Warning, these Steorn guys and 2 big name manufacturers will first on market !

    After 155 dealys and 8 years of talking on little showing, a little different LENR (supposedly magnetic) technology called HephaHeat is ACTUALLY on way to doing big news.

    Within “weeks”. No joke. And 2 big manufacturers are heavily involved into this.

    “Sometimes stuff takes longer than you want…. it’s going to be a LOT of fun in the next few weeks, a lot” – Steorn CEO Shaun McCarthy (Comment from 24-02-2014)

  • DJA

    Surely this is just an exothermic chemical reaction? Hydrogen and oxygen is being pumped into a substance that contains a chemical soup of hydrocarbons. I am surprised it does not glow white hot.

  • Jaja6984

    With 99.99% certainty this H-cat thing is just burning the HHO gas. Until someone can show at least a simple measurement that show excess heat the H-cat articles should be removed from E-cat World.

    • Obvious

      How can one become reliably capable of testing a real excess heat phenomena until at least being proficient in calculating and quantifying the efficiencies and losses comprising a normal 1:1 system? (if that is what it is)

  • Neal Ward

    It appears to me , the majority here would rather read if there are any results, rather than trying.
    Some say they don’t think it will produce excess heat, so why bother trying ??

    WELL ….Life on this polluted planet is just a shitty existence……I will not live my life without trying
    to make a better world for my children and grandchildren to live in. I really despise those who sit
    behind a keyboard, and tell me it won’t work, cant work, when they have done nothing their whole
    life, sitting on their ass watching others do wonderful things, then criticize them for trying…..
    I believe there is something worth investigating in the H-Cat, and I will continue my research regardless
    of what you think ! I only have myself to prove it to……no one else..

    You don’t want to bother trying ? Then don’t, but don’t you dare get in my way, or tell me it can’t be done !!

    • Omega Z

      Neal

      I made a post above with some suggestions if your interested.
      For what their worth… Tho no longer in a situation to do this myself, I wish you luck.

      80% of all advancements come from the commons as long as they keep trying rather then waiting on others.

      Those who try May Fail,
      But those who don’t try never succeed…

  • Neal Ward

    It appears to me , the majority here would rather read if there are any results, rather than trying.
    Some say they don’t think it will produce excess heat, so why bother trying ??

    WELL ….Life on this polluted planet is just a shitty existence……I will not live my life without trying
    to make a better world for my children and grandchildren to live in. I really despise those who sit
    behind a keyboard, and tell me it won’t work, cant work, when they have done nothing their whole
    life, sitting on their ass watching others do wonderful things, then criticize them for trying…..
    I believe there is something worth investigating in the H-Cat, and I will continue my research regardless
    of what you think ! I only have myself to prove it to……no one else..

    You don’t want to bother trying ? Then don’t, but don’t you dare get in my way, or tell me it can’t be done !!

    • bachcole

      I worry about people who say “Life on this polluted planet is just a shitty existence”. Life on this planet has never been better, and if you want true happiness you have to cultivate it from within.

      And yes all of this pollution is a problem and will get worse until LENR is implimented widely.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
        A beautiful day for a neighbor,
        Would you be mine?
        Could you be mine?

        • bachcole

          I hate it when I am a VICTIM of Iggy’s wit.

          But it remains true that happiness is the result of the person’s thoughts, words, and deeds.

      • Broncobet

        I share your worries about the air pollution,why does a solution have to be LENR? I was just reading A Rossi’s thread and he said it might work it might not,that sounds reasonable.Nuclear power is clean ,safe and afordable,and is getting better all the time.I would like to see some or any of this stuff work,I am especially interested in the energy that causes cavitation,but you all should not be suprised if it took a while.I would like to see the experiment run the way Jaja6984 outlined,but there will be no excess heat,if it was easy some one would have done it already.

    • Omega Z

      Neal

      I made a post above with some suggestions if your interested.
      For what their worth… Tho no longer in a situation to do this myself, I wish you luck.

      80% of all advancements come from the commons as long as they keep trying rather then waiting on others.

      Those who try May Fail,
      But those who don’t try never succeed…

  • Bernie777

    General Electric (GE) has launched a distributed-power business and plans to invest $1.4B in the new division over the next four years. The business combines three product lines: Aeroderivative Gas Turbines, Jenbacher Gas Engines and Waukesha Gas Engines. To this non engineer the Aeroderivative Gas Turbine sounds like a perfect fit for the Hot-Cat.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    General Electric (GE) has launched a distributed-power business and plans to invest $1.4B in the new division over the next four years. The business combines three product lines: Aeroderivative Gas Turbines, Jenbacher Gas Engines and Waukesha Gas Engines. To this non engineer the Aeroderivative Gas Turbine sounds like a perfect fit for the Hot-Cat.

    • bachcole

      It would be nice to know what those big words mean. Could you jump on that Bernie777 while I continue to pontificate the next idea that pops into my head. (:->)

    • Broncobet

      It is much more reliable as natural gas comes from a buried pipe while electricity is vulnerable to branches falling on power lines.

  • Nicholas

    this is a very old method of welding. Hydrogen gas was passed through a plasma created by a high voltage arck which causes H2 to disassociate into H atoms. Past the arc they recombine into H2 producing a very hot flame useful for welding. After doing its job, the H2 just burns off with the oxygen in the air. The energy produced really just comes from the high voltage arc

  • ecatworld

    I’m pleased to say that I have been in touch with someone who is willing to take on this project – someone with the skills and qualifications to do a thorough job with this. More information will be published tomorrow as we get organized.

    • Justin Church

      That is excellent news. We can’t do it alone. I’m all for someone taking the reigns and following the scientific method with this process. Whatever the outcome it will be more information than we have now, which is nothing but theory and argued debates.

      • Omega Z

        Justin

        I made a post above if interested.

  • Frank Acland

    I’m pleased to say that I have been in touch with someone who is willing to take on this project – someone with the skills and qualifications to do a thorough job with this. More information will be published tomorrow as we get organized.

    • Justin Church

      That is excellent news. We can’t do it alone. I’m all for someone taking the reigns and following the scientific method with this process. Whatever the outcome it will be more information than we have now, which is nothing but theory and argued debates.

      • Omega Z

        Justin

        I made a post above if interested.

  • Linus Johansson

    Someone might already have mentioned this, but a test would be to leave out the oxygen.
    Maybe start with HHO-gas from hydrogen + oxygen in separate bottles to get the cat up to temperature, and then cut off the oxygen part.
    If the reaction continues whit pure hydrogen… Well, then we are on to something! 🙂
    (the catalyzer need to be sealed so no oxygen from the air can enter)

    I have done some experiments myself, and my guess is that what we are seeing is simply catalytic combustion of the gas.
    But is there excess energy? Thats the big question, and I can’t really tell from my simple experiment. But the reaction is indeed powerful.

    Since I’m interested in cars i have a few catalytic converters laying around… Searched the Internet and made up a simple HHO-generator. Connected the output to the cat, via a bubbler to avoid blowing up my work bench.

    Without any doubts, the HHO-reaction seen in Justin’s videos are real!
    Had to burn off the soot in my cat (from a Volvo 945 Turbo -96) with a propane torch to get a nice clean surface, and pre-heat it some for the reaction to start.
    Also tried to feed the warmed up cat with propane+air from my torch and got no reaction, so i guess it has something to do with the hydrogen – or maybe the high oxygen content in HHO?
    Would be interesting to try a mix of pure oxygen + propane or any other combustible gas.

    • JDM

      Maybe an unlit oxy-acetylene torch into a cat?

  • Linus Johansson

    Someone might already have mentioned this, but a test would be to leave out the oxygen.
    Maybe start with HHO-gas from hydrogen + oxygen in separate bottles to get the cat up to temperature, and then cut off the oxygen part.
    If the reaction continues whit pure hydrogen… Well, then we are on to something! 🙂
    (the catalyzer need to be sealed so no oxygen from the air can enter)

    I have done some experiments myself, and my guess is that what we are seeing is simply catalytic combustion of the gas.
    But is there excess energy? Thats the big question, and I can’t really tell from my simple experiment. But the reaction is indeed powerful.

    Since I’m interested in cars i have a few catalytic converters laying around… Searched the Internet and made up a simple HHO-generator. Connected the output to the cat, via a bubbler to avoid blowing up my work bench.

    Without any doubts, the HHO-reaction seen in Justin’s videos are real!
    Had to burn off the soot in my cat (from a Volvo 945 Turbo -96) with a propane torch to get a nice clean surface, and pre-heat it some for the reaction to start.
    Also tried to feed the warmed up cat with propane+air from my torch and got no reaction, so i guess it has something to do with the hydrogen – or maybe the high oxygen content in HHO?
    Would be interesting to try a mix of pure oxygen + propane or any other combustible gas.

    • JDM

      Maybe an unlit oxy-acetylene torch into a cat?

  • BuildItNow

    A quick & easy test to see if there is any LENR / CF.

    1. Prepare cat with HHO flame as Justin shows
    2. Use a heat gun capable of around 600c to heat up a full cat still with all it’s pipe.
    3. Measure incoming and outgoing temperature of the cat
    4. Run until temps stabalize
    5. Add HHO into the input airstream, wait till temperatures stabilize, record temps
    6. Ignite the incoming HHO, wait till temperatures stabilize, record temps
    7. Test with repeated periods of the incoming HHO ignited and not ignited, record temps

    If the temperatures are higher when the incoming HHO is not ignited, looks very interesting.

    If no temperature rise, go for higher heating temperature.

    It’s conceivable that having HHO (with the oxygen) is an important component of any LENR (if it exists).
    HHO could also be a very convenient way to get the cat up to temperature.

  • BuildItNow

    A quick & easy test to see if there is any LENR / CF.

    1. Prepare cat with HHO flame as Justin shows
    2. Use a heat gun capable of around 600c to heat up a full cat still with all it’s pipe.
    3. Measure incoming and outgoing temperature of the cat
    4. Run until temps stabalize
    5. Add HHO into the input airstream, wait till temperatures stabilize, record temps
    6. Ignite the incoming HHO, wait till temperatures stabilize, record temps
    7. Test with repeated periods of the incoming HHO ignited and not ignited, record temps

    If the temperatures are higher when the incoming HHO is not ignited, looks very interesting.

    If no temperature rise, go for higher heating temperature.

    It’s conceivable that having HHO (with the oxygen) is an important component of any LENR (if it exists).
    HHO could also be a very convenient way to get the cat up to temperature.

  • Freethinker

    This is a cross post from another topic:

    Off topic :

    Run into a transmutation article in KitCo Tech Metals Insider:

    http://bit.ly/1egYTUQ

    Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) is cited extensively about the possibilities of transmutations and LENR.

    Soon there will be a gold rush ….

    • Obvious

      tungsten rush

  • Freethinker

    This is a cross post from another topic:

    Off topic :

    Run into a transmutation article in KitCo Tech Metals Insider:

    http://bit.ly/1egYTUQ

    Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) is cited extensively about the possibilities of transmutations and LENR.

    Soon there will be a gold rush ….

    • Obvious

      tungsten rush

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
    A beautiful day for a neighbor,
    Would you be mine?
    Could you be mine?

    • bachcole

      I hate it when I am a VICTIM of Iggy’s wit.

      But it remains true that happiness is the result of the person’s thoughts, words, and deeds.

  • John

    This is in response to a question asking how the H-Cat is fundamentally different than say Rossi or Celani using Hydrogen gas in the presence of a catalyst. The H-Cat has oxygen present, and there is an expected chemical interaction between hydrogen, oxygen, and a metallic catalyst. There is no interesting reaction expected between hydrogen gas and a metallic catalyst in the absence of any other elements- in fact there seems to be no reason to even investigate because nothing of chemical interest should occur. The claims of LENR seem extraordinary and absurd in that context, and pushes interest into the realm of nuclear physics. Now, fusion is NOT occurring in the e-cat or anything like it- the high energy gamma rays would have killed everyone who ever witnessed it in action by now. That only rules out strong force interactions, not weak force- and I am going to post a link to a Feynman diagram of beta minus decay. Imagine it going in reverse, and electron-neutrino interaction producing a W boson that changes a proton into a neutron.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Beta_Negative_Decay.svg/200px-Beta_Negative_Decay.svg.png

    Now imagine this happening multiple times within a small space, and that these newly created low-energy neutrons are not electrostatically repulsed (no charge), and that eventually one of these neutrons decays back into a proton while in close proximity to each other. Deuterium and tritium, that’s what, exothermically produced by what is effectively neutron capture. What happens when one of those spontaneously produced cold neutrons is captured by deuterium though? It is endothermic, and Rossi said deuterium ‘poisons’ the E-Cat.

    I don’t think that is even remotely close to what’s going on LENR reactions, I’m not smart enough to figure it out and there are many many problems with what I just wrote, I’m just posing a thought experiment along the logical lines that LENR requires. It isn’t chemical. ‘HHO’ and a platinum catalyst is chemical.

  • Obvious

    The entire H generating part of this experiment needs to be separated from the “burning” part. Electrolysis based on house current is not likely to be better than 40% efficient so already more than double the heat energy is needed to catch up to 100% of the original energy if you include that. (I saw a car battery running an elctrolyser, so that needed to be charged requiring another transformer and results in compounding losses).
    But H can be made much more efficiently than by straight electrolysis, so that end can be improved, reducing the overunity requirement on the burn end to get back to 100%. Direct solar electrolysis would massively improve the H generating side efficiency of the problem. Even though solar itself is very inefficient, the losses do not compound.
    So we need to know the burn side of the equation most.

    If we are supposing that HHO rather than 2(H2) O2 is important, then that is another experiment, and needs the freshest browns gas possible to keep the H as H as long as possible so that it goes as H into the catalyst.

  • irondmax

    TEST OVER. cost me 11 bucks for a 55 watt car headlight and a flower pot to get the pot to reach 300F degrees in a 50 degree room. like 20 min. 55 watts is 187 btu at 100% effeciency. clearly my test was not 100% efficent . so any of the HHO devices feeding the H cat can simply match there wattage to the heat radiated. so a HHO kitty cat maker can measure a true wattage to heat dispersion of a surface area of a small flower pot. then post there findings here. if by chance they are anywhere close to that….then you guys have fun spending your money on more tests. here is btu to wattage rates http://www.theunitconverter.com/watt-to-btu-hour-conversion/165-watt-to-btu-hour.html and here is my flower pot heater http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erkz2zaNrYE and here is a real H cat info already done for you………. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaHnRguC2mo you are welcome…. someone owes me my 11 bucks. do your crowd funding for it now, please. i need to buy lunch.

  • Omega Z

    I don’t think Neal Ward & Justin Church & friends intent is/was to invent some Over-unity device. If there is a LENR effect that’s a plus but I don’t think it’s likely.

    I think what drives them is to find a way to replace a $200 Heating Bill with something much cheaper. Something Much more efficient. This is what drives many a work shop tinkerer. The Cheaper, the Better.

    Hydrogen is a good starting point. It has a high energy density. That’s why NASA uses it.
    My understanding is that a gallon of hydrogen could obtain 4 times the mileage in a car verses a gallon of gas. 4 to 1 ratio.

    However the common method of producing Hydrogen is 50% higher per gallon equivalent in cost. And of course, in liquid form, is much more volatile. Thus, Electrolysis to produce it as needed rather then storing it has safety advantages.

    Note that there is much research happening in reducing the cost of producing Hydrogen & these technologies can be incorporated at a latter time. Once they have a consistent device & Data to determine cost/benefit if there is any??

    So, that said, Any discussion about whether this is Viable, is way to premature should someone bring it up. I’d say to Neal & Justin Etc.. not to let this Hydrogen production costs prevent you from moving forward. This can all be taken into consideration after you have a consistent device with measurable results.

    Moving ON: You need something consistent.
    What I’ve seen or am aware of is Junk yard parts & a jumble/patch work setup. All Problematic. Way to many Variables unaccounted for. 5 years from now, you’ll wont no anymore then you do now.

    Temperature readings don’t tell you much. Other then you have a positive & interesting Heat Effect. Temps by themselves don’t tell you how much energy is being produced. Just spinning your wheels.

    1st thing I would do is obtain a Flow Meter.(Like something used in Gas shielded Welding) Much more precise then a pressure gauge. Pressure is far more effected by variable temperatures in your work environment. Such as your device giving off heat. It’s similar to when tire pressures drop when it turns cold. You need to know how much gas volume is flowing in.

    This by itself may give you better consistencies in your results if you use the same Cat setup precisely the same every time.

    Next, I would find a way to make my Cat devices more standard & precise. Even dismantling & building something that can be easily replicated. In size, mass & quality of the elements inside.

    This gets complicated using Cats from the Junk Yard. No 2 are ever the same. Some are in excellent shape & others are nothing but a shell. The quantity/mass & quality of the goodies inside may vary greatly as would your results in the heat effect.

    If/When building this, You need to keep in mind, you will likely need to put this in some kind of enclose to get very accurate measurements of heat production later. So you now if you have a net gain over cost.

    Flow Meters can be reasonable or expensive. Shop around. And Good Luck…

    http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=argon+flowmeter&tag=googhydr-20&index=tools&hvadid=31737595116&hvpos=1s1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1140984808751629666&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_3vqoaa9vnz_b

    NOTE: MFMP may be able to provide some advice once you get closer to taking measurements for best accuracy..
    Also, Comments by others is welcome if I’ve overlooked something.

    • Omega Z

      P.S.

      I read somewhere that the “H” is more energetic for a short period of time after Electrolysis.
      I don’t know this to be a fact. Just what I read & don’t recall the source. Interesting if it’s true tho…

    • Obvious

      NASA uses hydrogen fuel because it high energy for its MASS, which is important when lifting a spaceship against gravity.
      Hydrogen has very poor energy per VOLUME, however, which is important if you want to run a car with it that isn’t the size of a bus.

      • bachcole

        But, ALL hydrogen would be compressed (more or less), so any general comparison of energy per volume is no longer valid.

        • Obvious

          I was waiting for that. Gasoline has 6 times the energy density of liquid hydrogen by volume, but gasoline has less than 1/2 the energy density of compressed hydrogen by mass.

          Not to mention that compressed hydrogen needs very heavy, bulky storage containers to keep it compressed.

          A good example is that a 5 gallon pail full of liquid hydrogen (if you could do that) would weigh about 3 pounds.

  • Omega Z

    I don’t think Neal Ward & Justin Church & friends intent is/was to invent some Over-unity device. If there is a LENR effect that’s a plus but I don’t think it’s likely.

    I think what drives them is to find a way to replace a $200 Heating Bill with something much cheaper. Something Much more efficient. This is what drives many a work shop tinkerer. The Cheaper, the Better.

    Hydrogen is a good starting point. It has a high energy density. That’s why NASA uses it.
    My understanding is that a gallon of hydrogen could obtain 4 times the mileage in a car verses a gallon of gas. 4 to 1 ratio.

    However the common method of producing Hydrogen is 50% higher per gallon equivalent in cost. And of course, in liquid form, is much more volatile. Thus, Electrolysis to produce it as needed rather then storing it has safety advantages.

    Note that there is much research happening in reducing the cost of producing Hydrogen & these technologies can be incorporated at a latter time. Once they have a consistent device & Data to determine cost/benefit if there is any??

    So, that said, Any discussion about whether this is Viable, is way to premature should someone bring it up. I’d say to Neal & Justin Etc.. not to let this Hydrogen production costs prevent you from moving forward. This can all be taken into consideration after you have a consistent device with measurable results.

    Moving ON: You need something consistent.
    What I’ve seen or am aware of is Junk yard parts & a jumble/patch work setup. All Problematic. Way to many Variables unaccounted for. 5 years from now, you’ll wont no anymore then you do now.

    Temperature readings don’t tell you much. Other then you have a positive & interesting Heat Effect. Temps by themselves don’t tell you how much energy is being produced. Just spinning your wheels.

    1st thing I would do is obtain a Flow Meter.(Like something used in Gas shielded Welding) Much more precise then a pressure gauge. Pressure is far more effected by variable temperatures in your work environment. Such as your device giving off heat. It’s similar to when tire pressures drop when it turns cold. You need to know how much gas volume is flowing in.

    This by itself may give you better consistencies in your results if you use the same Cat setup precisely the same every time.

    Next, I would find a way to make my Cat devices more standard & precise. Even dismantling & building something that can be easily replicated. In size, mass & quality of the elements inside.

    This gets complicated using Cats from the Junk Yard. No 2 are ever the same. Some are in excellent shape & others are nothing but a shell. The quantity/mass & quality of the goodies inside may vary greatly as would your results in the heat effect.

    If/When building this, You need to keep in mind, you will likely need to put this in some kind of enclose to get very accurate measurements of heat production later. So you now if you have a net gain over cost.

    Flow Meters can be reasonable or expensive. Shop around. And Good Luck…

    http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=argon+flowmeter&tag=googhydr-20&index=tools&hvadid=31737595116&hvpos=1s1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1140984808751629666&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_3vqoaa9vnz_b

    NOTE: MFMP may be able to provide some advice once you get closer to taking measurements for best accuracy..
    Also, Comments by others is welcome if I’ve overlooked something.

    • Omega Z

      P.S.

      I read somewhere that the “H” is more energetic for a short period of time after Electrolysis.
      I don’t know this to be a fact. Just what I read & don’t recall the source. Interesting if it’s true tho…

      • Neal Ward

        Thank you for the positive comment, much appreciated.
        There are some followers who think is is as simple as putting a bulb in a flower pot, that is the joke…
        LOL…A flower pot was an idea, an example of how this could work..
        Here I did this Here i did that, look at me look at me. mommy look at me…
        That is the attitude that we do not want, We want this problem solved and for free.
        We will not hide anything from the public. Nor will we ask for donations for this project,
        We are open sourced and for free…….I have sent packages containing pieces of test catalytic substrate out to many places in north america, I have
        not charged for nothing, not even the postage…..I want everyone to have access to a better life…It really is that simple guys.
        I will show the numbers as soon as i get them, I am almost close to showing input power, and
        showing the btu rating at different wattages, Building my complete test bench as we speak.
        I will be doing a side by side comparison, of a 2000 watt hair dryer against a 1000 watt hho system
        just to keep the numbers easy to figure out .

        The shit you can buy that recombines water, is not what we are doing.
        This is much more than something a high school dropout can figure out…

        Neal Ward

        • irondmax

          the question raised here was as anyone can read above. the reaction is an exothermic reaction, and will never output more energy then is put into it. physics, real physics. energy in and out can easily be computed using online calculators. watts converted to btu s. a hair dryer is like a inch circle with a fan behind it. if you heat the pussy cat up enough to melt the metal………its a dead pussy cat. maximum heating is less then 1500 degrees, probibly much less. so a bulb in a flower pot makes heat, 55 watts changed to a flower pot surface area heated to 300 degrees from a 50 degree temp in like 20 min. lets see the H cat heat the outside of its surface to 300 degrees using 55 watts, in 20 min. 55 watts is 187 btu. 1000 watts is 3412 btu. 200 watts 6824 btu. place a fan behind it and you have wind chill. place a mass around it and you have a thermal mass radiating energy. radiant heat vs fan forced heat, they are not the same. you can use these numbers to base a test on. http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200615642_200615642 , put a fan on your pussy cat heater element and measure the btus equal to or less then this cheapy heater. you will not find an over unity. and the question posed on this page was excess heat, which is over unity. and the catilytic reaction makes water…..just ask delvis11. his cat looks just like one that is sold already, which known parameters already exsist. johnson mathey makes them every day. real scientist doing it and posting real results for free to the world

          • Neal Ward

            It appears that you are seriously misinformed, you should join the H-Cat forum, there is lots of great info there for free.

          • irondmax

            how so? anyone reading this can understand what was said. i suggest you do some research on things that are already made. like electric heaters, or catilytic physics.

          • irondmax

            please allow me to help you out, since you are obviously struggling to reply to my posts. the hho flowing into your cat is …..”An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that releases energy in the form of light or heat.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_reaction. the reaction is clearly defined by real scientific research from…. johnson mathey who are a huge manufacture of said products. you can see what they say on this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaHnRguC2mo . now back to light and heat, which are part of the electromagnetic spectrum of energy waves. also known as radiation. which you can read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum . so you see your radiation detector really puts egg on your face because it is designed to read ultra high frequency nuclear radiation and the radiation your device is out putting is visible light and heat, and possibly some low frequency neutron decay. now here is the real guts of the matter…… to generate power, you take a spinning magnet and pass the flux field through some copper wire. this induces a voltage . lentz s law. it requires a force to spin those magnets, which is a loss. now you take that power and put it to your hho cell and make hho….yet another loss of energy. then you put that hho across a cat and it is converted back to water, another energy loss. now you get light and heat from that, the light is not absorbed by your cat, so another energy loss. now you have hydrogen left over, so somewhere you lost oxygen, yet another energy loss. so you add up all the losses and zero gain. the actual heat emited in the form of heat radiation is pretty small, compared to what you started with. there is no possible way you will ever get more heat out then the energy you started with. an electric heater is better then a cat, simply there are less losses. and the electric heater is cheaper to buy and operate. what you are building already exist and is sold, with maximum flow guidlines and heat output, designed and tested by real scientists. and sadly you were told all this before on the forum you deleted your post from. and your buddy justin really left some smart comment on this video….funny as funny can be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaHnRguC2mo looks like an even better reply was made to him. more funny!

          • Neal Ward

            give me a screen shot where you said that…..You had no clue about this, yet you play it off like it is old news,,,,,,,,That is just like you , steal everyones work and claim it as your own…..Just Like Russ , Max you have stooped really low this time trying to make yourself look good….
            Better off to use an electric heater you say, So all your talk and show about what you are trying to do ,,,is for what then, so you can plug a heater in the wall and continue to feed the machine….

          • clovis ray

            Neal, don’t feed the trolls.

    • Obvious

      NASA uses hydrogen fuel because it has high energy for its MASS, which is important when lifting a spaceship against gravity.
      Hydrogen has very poor energy per VOLUME, however, which is important if you want to run a car with it that isn’t the size of a bus.

      • bachcole

        But, ALL hydrogen would be compressed (more or less), so any general comparison of energy per volume is no longer valid.

        • Obvious

          I was waiting for that. Gasoline has 6 times the energy density of liquid hydrogen by volume, but gasoline has less than 1/2 (closer to 1/3 actually) the energy density of compressed hydrogen by mass.

          Not to mention that compressed hydrogen needs very heavy, bulky storage containers to keep it compressed.

          A good example is that a 5 gallon pail full of liquid hydrogen (if you could do that) would weigh about 3 pounds.

          Depending on rounding and figures used, approximately:
          5 gallon pail of gasoline: 682,000 BTUs
          5 gallon pail of liquid hydrogen: 106,000 BTUs

  • irondmax

    the question raised here was as anyone can read above. the reaction is an exothermic reaction, and will never output more energy then is put into it. physics, real physics. energy in and out can easily be computed using online calculators. watts converted to btu s. a hair dryer is like a inch circle with a fan behind it. if you heat the pussy cat up enough to melt the metal………its a dead pussy cat. maximum heating is less then 1500 degrees, probibly much less. so a bulb in a flower pot makes heat, 55 watts changed to a flower pot surface area heated to 300 degrees from a 50 degree temp in like 20 min. lets see the H cat heat the outside of its surface to 300 degrees using 55 watts, in 20 min. 55 watts is 187 btu. 1000 watts is 3412 btu. 200 watts 6824 btu. place a fan behind it and you have wind chill. place a mass around it and you have a thermal mass radiating energy. radiant heat vs fan forced heat, they are not the same. you can use these numbers to base a test on. http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200615642_200615642 , put a fan on your pussy cat heater element and measure the btus equal to or less then this cheapy heater. you will not find an over unity. and the question posed on this page was excess heat, which is over unity. and the catilytic reaction makes water…..just ask delvis11. his cat looks just like one that is sold already, which known parameters already exsist. johnson mathey makes them every day. real scientist doing it and posting real results for free to the world

    • Neal Ward

      It appears that you are seriously misinformed, you should join the H-Cat forum, there is lots of great info there for free.

      • irondmax

        how so? anyone reading this can understand what was said. i suggest you do some research on things that are already made. like electric heaters, or catilytic physics.

  • Neal Ward

    You are a liar LIAR, give me a screen shot where you said that…..You had no clue about this, yet you play it off like it is old news,,,,,,,,That is just like you , steal everyones work and claim it as your own…..Just Like Russ , Max you have stooped really low this time trying to make yourself look good….
    Better off to use an electric heater you say, So all your talk and show about what you are trying to do ,,,is for what then, so you can plug a heater in the wall and continue to feed the machine….
    You are losing your mind bud.

    • clovis ray

      Neal, don’t feed the trolls.