Sterling Allan Interviews Justin Church about the H-Cat

Here’s a new interview posted by Sterling Allan from PESN with Justin Church of JDC Products. Justin has been a good contributor here at ECW lately, and it’s nice to see an interview with him here.

Many people are interested in the phenomenon, and would like to know if there is a connection with other LENR effects — so we have sponsored an interesting experiment by Alan Smith of Leap Forward Laboratory to try and get some precise measurements of the H-Cat effect.

Ultimately, LENR is only of much interest if it can be put to practical use, andI like Justin’s practical approach — he is primarily interested in providing usable heat for his own use, and is public spirited enough to share his knowledge and experience with the wider world, and I for one appreciate that.

  • pg2014

    I don’t quite understand what the excitement is about. It takes energy to break apart water into hydrogen and oxygen, and energy is given out when the the hydrogen and oxygen combine again to make water. The fact that a catalyst helps to get the reaction going is pretty much old school. This is only exciting if the amount of energy coming out is greater than the energy it took to break apart the water in the first place. High temperature is not necessarily a sign that there is more energy out than in. Has anyone done an experiment that measures energy in vs energy out?

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “Has anyone done an experiment that measures energy in vs energy out?”

      Members of this forum have funded such an experiment………in progress.

      • fritz194

        I appreciate the funded experiment and I am interested in the outcome.

    • commentor

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyers_water_fuel_cell Simple conventional electrolysis, but to get the OU he kept the voltage very low, and at a very high rate the polarity of the anode and cathode were reversed. With every polarity reversal the H20 molecule realligned itself north/south. At the right frequency a ressonance occurs and the bonds of the water molucule break, using very little voltage as compared to conventional electrolysis used to create HHO. Im sure Im missing something but that was my general take. After his death his brother was supposed to carry on but I never heard anymore about it.

      • Obvious

        If the kinetic energy potential of a bare (electron-free) hydrogen atom (proton) is limited by physically restraining the movement of the protons (like cramming them into a lattice which takes up their electrons), does the excess energy then become a sub-electron state potential energy field similar to what Mills proposes, if the kinetic energy cannot be effectively re-transmitted into the lattice itself (as heat/kinetic energy, since the lattice would be the same temperature) and there is insufficient energy to produce a photon to eliminate the excess energy by emission? If a group of these resonantly excited protons/H nuclei become coherent (loaded “together” in a lattice), then electrons, (some of which might spontaneously appear close enough to a rattling proton to be absorbed and convert the pair into a neutron) could be created as a route to eliminating the excess energy of the group. Very high AC frequencies might be the key to causing this to happen.

        So if 780 keV is required to allow a proton and an electron to combine to make a neutron, and 156 protons can be crammed into a Pd lattice defect (I can’t remember where that number came from at this moment), then only 5 keV is needed to be donated from each proton in order to generate the required energy to allow an electron to join with a proton. The A/C field might be required also to make sure electrons are moving around near the angry protons in the lattice at the edge of the coherent group, or else new electrons created from the group field might be required. But it would take too much energy for 156 protons to make an electron from the excess group coherent energy (something like 3276 keV each). The neutron process is therefore a lower energy route.

        I think is about right. Not sure this applies to water, though.

      • Fortyniner

        Wikipedia’s opening statement on the subject: “The water fuel cell is a technical design of a “perpetual motion machine” created by American Stanley Allen Meyer….” tells the reader that he will not find much unbiased information there. There is a group that is dedicated to investigating and replicating Meyer’s claims along with other claimed ‘water power’ designs. They maintain a number of downloads of Meyer’s work including detailed write-ups and diagrams, for the use of replicators and other interested parties:-

        http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

    • mecatfish

      I believe the hoopla will come when we find out that this thing is more efficeint than a regular electric space heater. If you can heat a room using even 10% less electricity, would you not think this is a good deal? Everyone wants this thing to be overunity. It does not have to be. It only needs to be as good or better than a regular space heater for it to be a viable heat source.

      • guga

        Let’s see what the results of the ECW-funded experiment will be. If it was even just 10% overunity it would be fantastic for scientific reasons. Though 10% overunity are damn hard to proof.
        About the 10% electricity saving, I don’t think that in your home you would want and electrolysis/catalytic converter system that is much more expensive and more dangerous than a simple electric resistor heating.

  • pg2014

    I don’t quite understand what the excitement is about. It takes energy to break apart water into hydrogen and oxygen, and energy is given out when the the hydrogen and oxygen combine again to make water. The fact that a catalyst helps to get the reaction going is pretty much old school. This is only exciting if the amount of energy coming out is greater than the energy it took to break apart the water in the first place. High temperature is not necessarily a sign that there is more energy out than in. Has anyone done an experiment that measures energy in vs energy out?

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “Has anyone done an experiment that measures energy in vs energy out?”

      Members of this forum have funded such an experiment………in progress.

      • fritz194

        I appreciate the funded experiment and I am interested in the outcome.

    • commentor

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyers_water_fuel_cell Simple conventional electrolysis, but to get the OU he kept the voltage very low, and at a very high rate the polarity of the anode and cathode were reversed. With every polarity reversal the H20 molecule realligned itself north/south. At the right frequency a ressonance occurs and the bonds of the water molucule break, using very little voltage as compared to conventional electrolysis used to create HHO. Im sure Im missing something but that was my general take. After his death his brother was supposed to carry on but I never heard anymore about it.

      • Obvious

        Edit: Sorry, reworking that idea.

      • Wikipedia’s opening statement on the subject: “The water fuel cell is a technical design of a “perpetual motion machine” created by American Stanley Allen Meyer….” tells the reader that he will not find much unbiased information there. There is a group that is dedicated to investigating and replicating Meyer’s claims along with other claimed ‘water power’ designs. They maintain a number of downloads of Meyer’s work including detailed write-ups and diagrams, for the use of replicators and other interested parties:-

        http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

    • mecatfish

      I believe the hoopla will come when we find out that this thing is more efficeint than a regular electric space heater. If you can heat a room using even 10% less electricity, would you not think this is a good deal? Everyone wants this thing to be overunity. It does not have to be. It only needs to be as good or better than a regular space heater for it to be a viable heat source.

      • guga

        Let’s see what the results of the ECW-funded experiment will be. If it was even just 10% overunity it would be fantastic for scientific reasons. Though 10% overunity are damn hard to proof.
        About the 10% electricity saving, I don’t think that in your home you would want and electrolysis/catalytic converter system that is much more expensive and more dangerous than a simple electric resistor heating.

    • Keith

      Here’s the excitement. 80 watts to break up the water into hydroxy gas. The gas his the substrate and heats it to 2,000 F. Just take a tenth of the wasted heat and use it to power a TEG (thermoelectric generator). The TEG will send the power to a capacitor bank where it can go back to the small battery giving a paltry 80 watts to generate hydroxy and the circle goes on forever. I know these TEG’s very well and to get 80 watts of power would be nothing.

  • fritz194

    As already tried to point out flameless combustion using catalyzers is nothing new nor LENR.
    You use that in industrial processes – “Flox Burners”
    http://www.bine.info/fileadmin/content/Publikationen/Projekt-Infos/Zusatzinfos/2006-07_Flameless_Combustion.pdf
    You can buy modules…
    http://www.microinnova.com/microreactorpdf/Catalyst_Micro_Burner_Reactor.pdf
    The “power”, “cop” rated on peswiki page: “482 ºC for nearly 8 hours using around 200 Watts” can be outperformed with my solder iron pretty easy using 25 Watt.

    • Justin Church

      First of all I’d like to say thanks to Frank for covering the H-Cat for the past month or so. I also want to point out a few things for the commenters on E-Cat world. Most of you guys are “backseat” drivers. Most of you have never picked up a tool and built anything so anything you say is pure speculation.

      As far as the h-cat goes I’ve heard over and over from people that this is “nothing new”, and yet absolutely NOBODY within the HHO/Hydrogen research community had a clue about it. I have even had several email exchanges with famous legendary hho researchers that also had no clue, so everyone needs to stop sticking their nose up like this process is “old news” when in fact its a new concept which has never been explored when it comes to hho.

      I’d also like to point out that your poor example of how a 25 watt soldering iron can outperform the 482C test at 200 watts. I can guarantee you that 25 watt soldering iron stuffed inside a catalytic converter would do nothing to heat up the exterior of the catalytic converter to temperatures over 400f degrees. A catalytic converter is a heavy duty piece of equipment featuring an outer casing of 1/8″ thick stainless steel weighing in at around 3 pounds. During that test I could pour water over the exterior and it flashed it to steam. Try that with a stupid 25 watt soldering iron stuffed inside the cat. Your example is irrelevant my friend.

      How in the world you guys can say this isn’t at least a crude form of LENR is beyond me. They are using the exact same nano particle catalyst metals, they are using Hydrogen, and the gas reactors are almost identical to the catalytic converter itself. Nobody ever said we had to stick with hho at atmospheric pressures. We can pull a vacuum on the cats and inject H2 if need be.

      You folks need to also realize that Hydrogen and its isotopes Deuterium and Tritium is showing up in HHO gas, so when you send those isotopic versions of Hydrogen into a catalyst metal, some wild stuff can happen. Please do some research on Hydrogen isotopes and its use in the Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion technologies. Also realize we can electrolyze Heavy Water and send the gas into the catalytic converter as well, which is exactly what some of the LENR researchers are doing. You guys are completely blind if you don’t see how the H-Cat parallels with LENR.

      You guys need to open your mind and wake up. HHO in at atmospheric pressures into a catalytic converter is just the beginning of these experiments. Most of you guys are closed minded and yet you are making comments on a LENR website. Grow up!

      • mecatfish

        +1°C

        • Allan Shura

          As I understand it the palladium deuterium experiment was a self sustaining reaction long after the initiation of the reaction
          and shutting off the power to the electrodes. If this is not the case then a continual stream of HHO would be needed for the
          catalytic converter. The economics would then have to be compared to the optimal resistance heat of 200W on nichrome of the right width and length.

          • Obvious

            The Pd-D2 systems continue to produce excess heat after the power is shut off (sometimes). This was called “heat after death”. The production of gas, however, did not extend beyond the power-on cycle.

      • blanco69

        Whilst I applaud your hands on research in this field I don’t think it gives you the right to slate the opinions of the ECW faithful. I’ve not seen any evidence that what you’re doing is lenr. It might be, but it might not. ECW has always given logical doubt a voice here and, in my view, these views are valid. Please keep up your good work but let’s not forego proper scientific analysis.

      • Freethinker

        Hi Justin,

        I appreciate your comment. I appreciate your efforts. I am also agreeing with blanco69.

        I sense a lot of passion when you write about the H-Cat. I also sense a lot of resentment that people not accept the claims around the H-Cat without question. In relation to this we, commenters and visitors to this website, have been named members of the peanut gallery, we are close minded and lazy non-technical individuals that do nothing to experiment on our own.

        I am fine with the passion (excellent!), but the anger and resentment I think you can do without. It does not server your purpose. If you consider it for a while, you know little or nothing about the rest of us. You have been around this a while and you know what inventors like Rossi has to endure to get acceptance. Yes, critique is a b**ch, but that is something you must face if you stick your neck out. At least, in this forum you have people who are likely to see your point more clearly – and in fact open mindedly – than most other places (You can always try ECN 🙂 ).

        I have studied some docs and videos on the HHO experiments available on the net. I say – have previously been more skeptic – that this is something worthwhile looking closer at (as I am sure many readers of this site think that as well). But anger and resentment will never replace good experiments, measurements, and scientific analysis. That rule supreme if you are to truly convince anybody, not hard words.

        Looking forward to more result on the H-Cat.

      • Guest

        What LENR researchers electrolyze Heavy Water?
        * serious question

      • fritz194

        Hi Justin,

        I appreciate your experiments as well as your comment.
        My point was that “flameless combustion” using fuel/gas and a catalyzer is nothing new –
        that doesn´t neccessarily mean that the “h-cat” is nothing new.

        A given time, temperature and electric input power _WITHOUT_ estimating thermal radiation / conduction /capacity of the DUT has no point. Same with my example. agree.

        New is that you expect LENR to be involved.
        I agree that the used materials are similar – but the conclusion that there is an LENR miracle taking place using the same materials is an “opt-in” and not “opt-out” feature – depending on calorimetry results or whatever evidence.
        I appreciate your experiments and your enthusiasm – and even if you think I´m a NAYSAYIN closed-minded tool-less backseat driver – I can tell you from my 15 yrs R&D experience that careful and conservative claims doesn´t weaken your credibility.
        I understand your arguments and motivation – and my blind eyes see lots of fields where LENR may play some unidentified role.

        peace, my friend.

  • fritz194

    As already tried to point out flameless combustion using catalyzers is nothing new nor LENR.
    You use that in industrial processes – “Flox Burners”
    http://www.bine.info/fileadmin/content/Publikationen/Projekt-Infos/Zusatzinfos/2006-07_Flameless_Combustion.pdf
    You can buy modules…
    http://www.microinnova.com/microreactorpdf/Catalyst_Micro_Burner_Reactor.pdf
    The “power”, “cop” rated on peswiki page: “482 ºC for nearly 8 hours using around 200 Watts” can be outperformed with my solder iron pretty easy using 25 Watt.

    • Justin Church

      First of all I’d like to say thanks to Frank for covering the H-Cat for the past month or so. I also want to point out a few things for the commenters on E-Cat world. Most of you guys are “backseat” drivers. Most of you have never picked up a tool and built anything so anything you say is pure speculation.

      As far as the h-cat goes I’ve heard over and over from people that this is “nothing new”, and yet absolutely NOBODY within the HHO/Hydrogen research community had a clue about it. I have even had several email exchanges with famous legendary hho researchers that also had no clue, so everyone needs to stop sticking their nose up like this process is “old news” when in fact its a new concept which has never been explored when it comes to hho.

      I’d also like to point out that your poor example of how a 25 watt soldering iron can outperform the 482C test at 200 watts. I can guarantee you that 25 watt soldering iron stuffed inside a catalytic converter would do nothing to heat up the exterior of the catalytic converter to temperatures over 400f degrees. A catalytic converter is a heavy duty piece of equipment featuring an outer casing of 1/8″ thick stainless steel weighing in at around 3 pounds. During that test I could pour water over the exterior and it flashed it to steam. Try that with a stupid 25 watt soldering iron stuffed inside the cat. Your example is irrelevant my friend.

      How in the world you guys can say this isn’t at least a crude form of LENR is beyond me. They are using the exact same nano particle catalyst metals, they are using Hydrogen, and the gas reactors are almost identical to the catalytic converter itself. Nobody ever said we had to stick with hho at atmospheric pressures. We can pull a vacuum on the cats and inject H2 if need be.

      You folks need to also realize that Hydrogen and its isotopes Deuterium and Tritium is showing up in HHO gas, so when you send those isotopic versions of Hydrogen into a catalyst metal, some wild stuff can happen. Please do some research on Hydrogen isotopes and its use in the Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion technologies. Also realize we can electrolyze Heavy Water and send the gas into the catalytic converter as well, which is exactly what some of the LENR researchers are doing. You guys are completely blind if you don’t see how the H-Cat parallels with LENR.

      You guys need to open your mind and wake up. HHO in at atmospheric pressures into a catalytic converter is just the beginning of these experiments. Most of you guys are closed minded and yet you are making comments on a LENR website. Grow up!

      • mecatfish

        +1°C

      • Keith

        JD, You’re right. Anyone that says they can start a nuclear reaction inside a platinum coated substrate with a soldering iron is a nutcase. They don’t know the difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction.

      • blanco69

        Whilst I applaud your hands on research in this field I don’t think it gives you the right to slate the opinions of the ECW faithful. I’ve not seen any evidence that what you’re doing is lenr. It might be, but it might not. ECW has always given logical doubt a voice here and, in my view, these views are valid. Please keep up your good work but let’s not forego proper scientific analysis.

      • Freethinker

        Hi Justin,

        I appreciate your comment. I appreciate your efforts. I am also agreeing with blanco69.

        I sense a lot of passion when you write about the H-Cat. I also sense a lot of resentment that people not accept the claims around the H-Cat without question. In relation to this we, commenters and visitors to this website, have been named members of the peanut gallery, we are close minded and lazy non-technical individuals that do nothing to experiment on our own.

        I am fine with the passion (excellent!), but the anger and resentment I think you can do without. It does not server your purpose. If you consider it for a while, you know little or nothing about the rest of us. You have been around this a while and you know what inventors like Rossi has to endure to get acceptance. Yes, critique is a b**ch, but that is something you must face if you stick your neck out. At least, in this forum you have people who are likely to see your point more clearly – and in fact open mindedly – than most other places (You can always try ECN 🙂 ).

        I have studied some docs and videos on the HHO experiments available on the net. I say – have previously been more skeptic – that this is something worthwhile looking closer at (as I am sure many readers of this site think that as well). But anger and resentment will never replace good experiments, measurements, and scientific analysis. That rule supreme if you are to truly convince anybody, not hard words.

        Looking forward to more result on the H-Cat.

      • Guest

        What LENR researchers electrolyze Heavy Water?
        * serious question

      • fritz194

        Hi Justin,

        I appreciate your experiments as well as your comment.
        My point was that “flameless combustion” using fuel/gas and a catalyzer is nothing new –
        that doesn´t neccessarily mean that the “h-cat” is nothing new.

        A given time, temperature and electric input power _WITHOUT_ estimating thermal radiation / conduction /capacity of the DUT has no point. Same with my example. agree.

        New is that you expect LENR to be involved.
        I agree that the used materials are similar – but the conclusion that there is an LENR miracle taking place using the same materials is an “opt-in” and not “opt-out” feature – depending on calorimetry results or whatever evidence.
        I appreciate your experiments and your enthusiasm – and even if you think I´m a NAYSAYIN closed-minded tool-less backseat driver – I can tell you from my 15 yrs R&D experience that careful and conservative claims doesn´t weaken your credibility.
        I understand your arguments and motivation – and my blind eyes see lots of fields where LENR may play some unidentified role.

        peace, my friend.

    • Mike

      I don’t think that Flox burners use catalysts, only a high temperature and a very high degree of recirculating flue gases into the combustion zone. This gives the flameless Combustion/oxidation (FLOX). Other companies use other names for the same process.

      • fritz194

        Flox burners start with a flame – once entering certain operating point – the heated stuff itself is the “catalyst”.

  • jouni

    Research is good. Perhaps new discoveries can be made, not only in the field of the research, but also in the process, tools, communication etc. Keep up the research on HHO.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, JC i am glad to see you are so fired up, no pun intended, i too hold the same view on this enomaly, it seems to have all the ear marks as the lenr enomaly, from all that i understand about lenr it does have a lot of the same things going on . i like your long standing scientific, manner of getting things done, you came down on our members a bit hard, when you said your self that you thought ecw to be like minded people, when i first saw your video about your experiment, i thought now there is a guy, that we would like here on ECW, we think a lot alike, we may not be real quick at getting things rolling but we do try to come away with the right conclusions, enough to move forward or drop it and move on, in our quest to get to the bottom of this discovery, we also appreciate all your good advice and suggestions, i know Alan does, so thanks again and welcome.

  • John

    The criticism is legitimate- if you split h2o into HHO (2:1 ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen) it requires an energy input, because those bonds have formed to reduce the energy state of the atoms making them- you have to travel back up the energy ‘hill’ to break them. It stands to reason that when they form again, regardless of the process, they will release at most the amount of energy put into them. Catalyzed combustion is used in numerous unremarkable consumer products- a propane catalytic heater is the most obvious parallel- the best and easiest experiment I can think of is to use a heating filament with the same power draw as whatever electrolysis method is used inside of a catalytic converter and measure the temperatures achieved. Many might be surprised at the temperatures achieved, but the explanation is a simple one, radiation of heat is a surface-area phenomenon. An electric blanket’s maze of conductors has many times more surface area than a catalytic converter and will radiate heat much more effectively. Sorry.

    I’m still going to throw you a bone though- I’m becoming convinced that LENR’s effects are an alarming glitch in the matrix. Imagine that LENR’s primarily occur when crystaline structures fracture from shear stress, the recent discovery of flour cracks emitting voltage for example, and that the physics underlying this phenomenon is delocalization of an electron into a density wave. A singular electron, before the fracture, has probabalistic density in more than one place within the crystal, and when the crystal lattice fractures there is less than one electron in two places that are no longer electronically connected. Leptons do not decay, so how would the simulation overseeing our reality process this error? Reform the partial electrons as full electrons- electrons do have mass, and increase of mass is an increase of energy.

    Now imagine that within this catalytic hydrogen process that the gas is ‘wet’ and that the heat of reaction is kinetically shearing hydrogen bonds between water molecules endlessly- it would stand to reason that if my above scenario is possible that the same event could occur at some infinitesimally small rate, creating excess energy and mass.

    Finally, consider a nickel lattice, electrons are much more delocalized, they form an ‘electron sea’– hydrogen atoms easily infiltrate this lattice, the process is known as embrittlement because the presence of hydrogen reduces the amount of shear stress the lattice can be subjected to because the hydrogen pockets exert pressure on the lattice as it cools. Rapidly cycle heating/cooling/external magnetic field and these pockets will continually crack the lattice, a lattice with a larger amount of electron delocalization than water molecules- more electron reformation events occur and more excess heat is produced.

    I’m reluctant to share this because it gives charlatans a feasible sounding psuedo-scientific basis for overunity claims, and additionally relies on the postulation that ‘reality’ is mostly obscured from us- the rules of a computer simulation are underlying it, which is equivalent to the kind of chicanery represented by ley lines and earth forces. Also, if true, it robs life of all meaning. So, careful what you wish for.

  • John

    Wanted to posit an alternative explanation- if electrons are strings- what happens when they are looped over a large area and suddenly severed into two pieces, do the ends of the strings reform into two new electrons?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I like this kind of questions, although (or perhaps because) I don’t have the faintest clue. To continue the speculation: If virtual particles can arise from a vacuum, why shouldn’t they be able to connect to the ‘ends’ of the broken strings and form some stable state?

      • Obvious

        Interesting ideas. The 1/2 electron strings would have less energy than a whole string, and so couldn’t be equal to two electrons. The universe might be completely full of electrons by now if halves easily could become wholes. It then would seem that the correct conditions where the correct amount of extra energy that might be available to fix broken strings must be very rare, (if strings exist or break at all).

        Virtual “particles” seem to “pop into existence” in particle-antiparticle pairs (therefore with net zero energy). They need the addition of a little extra energy to keep them “alive” in our universe. This has been tested experimentally, where virtual photons were made to “stay alive”, so the concept is valid.

        http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/nov/17/how-to-turn-darkness-into-light

  • Allan Shura

    As I understand it the palladium deuterium experiment was a self sustaining reaction long after the initiation of the reaction
    and shutting off the power to the electrodes. If this is not the case then a continual stream of HHO would be needed for the
    catalytic converter. The economics would then have to be compared to the optimal resistance heat of 200W on nichrome of the right width and length.

    • Obvious

      The Pd-D2 systems continue to produce excess heat after the power is shut off (sometimes). This was called “heat after death”. The production of gas, however, did not extend beyond the power-on cycle, except for the release of the formerly lattice-loaded D2 molecules.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I like this kind of questions, although (or perhaps because) I don’t have the faintest clue. To continue the speculation: If virtual particles can arise from a vacuum, why shouldn’t they be able to connect to the ‘ends’ of the broken strings and form some stable state?

    • Obvious

      Interesting ideas. The 1/2 electron strings would have less energy than a whole string, and so couldn’t be equal to two electrons. The universe might be completely full of electrons by now if halves easily could become wholes. It then would seem that the correct conditions where extra energy might be available to fix broken strings must be very rare, (if strings exist at all).

      Virtual “particles” seem to “pop into existence” in particle-antiparticle pairs (therefore with net zero energy). They need the addition of a little extra energy to keep them “alive” in our universe. This has been tested experimentally, where virtual photons were made to “stay alive”, so the concept is valid.

      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/nov/17/how-to-turn-darkness-into-light

  • fritz194

    Flox burners start with a flame – once entering certain operating point – the heated stuff itself is the “catalyst”.