At Last, E-Cat Experimental Results — An Analysis (Gordon Docherty)

At last, EXPERIMENTAL values. Important points:

1. Testing was performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at [the testers’] disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA.

http://www.officineghidoni.ch/en/

Civil / Mechanical Engineering / Materials Science / Quality Control – strap-line “Quality, competence and flexibility are our prerogatives”.

2. Reactor makeup / size – alumina cylinder, 2 cm in diameter and 20 cm in length, ending on both sides with two cylindrical alumina blocks (4 cm in diameter, 4 cm in length),

Alumina, synthetically produced aluminum oxide, Al2O3, a white or nearly colourless crystalline substance that is used as a starting material for the smelting of aluminum metal. It also serves as the raw material for a broad range of advanced ceramic products and as an active agent in chemical processing.

“Hidden energy inputs” checked and ruled out – including hidden wires, DC offset, magnetron, batteries, death ray (it would have to be)… all environmental measurements undertaken by testers experienced in their fields … at an independent site

3. Weight of active powder sample used : 1g (0.01 kg)

4. To quote:

“Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat fluctuating at around 810 W. … After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W. Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.”

Also:

“We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, … (to avoid making) … calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult.”

5. Initial dummy test run below 500W, followed by 32 day main Test run with continuous higher input power (800 – 900W, as above). e-Cat not run in pulsed mode (which would have increased COP but made calculations and experimental evidence gathering much, much more difficult)

6. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh.

7. Sample of fuel carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. From these combined analysis methods, significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to Ni were found in the fuel. Further, protium but no deuterium was seen by SIMS (so, non-radiative protium main hydrogen isotope)

The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with a “natural composition” before the run, while after the run it was found to have been changed substantially.

8. However, no radioactivity, alpha particles, fast neutrons or other high-energy ejecta detected, despite rigorous observations

9. Remarkable change in ash as compared to initial fuel samples:

Lithium content in unused fuel found to be in natural ratios : 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %.

Nickel content in unused fuel also found to be in natural ratios: i.e. 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%).

So, the fuel is indeed changed at the nuclear level. Call it what you will, this is definitely LENR!

10. Performances obtain do not reflect the MAXIMUM potential of the reactor, even at this point in its development: the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ], the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge weighing 1 g) was (5.8 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [MJ/kg], while the density of power was equal to (2.1 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [W/kg]. These values place the E-Cat TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (on a Ragone plot) beyond any known conventional energy source. Even if conservatively repeating the same calculations using the weight of the whole reactor (including the casing) rather just the powder, the results confirm the non-conventional nature of the form of energy generated by the E-Cat, namely (1.3 ∙ 104 ± 10%) [MJ/kg] for thermal energy density, and (4.7 ∙ 103 ± 10%) [W/kg] for power density.

So, even with the “copy of the 3rd Party Report [that] has somehow been unofficially released”, the news is truly remarkable – and VERY positive.

As to the Lithium angle, the effects of Lithium in a nuclear reaction have been overlooked once before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjiWBkiBZQU&list=UUQnbHbBc8d_a_nFrGhVPe7w&index=4

And, more factually:

http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/07/they-just-cant-seem-to-get-lithium-7-right/

What’s that I read – “But what if, as Richter suggested, lithium-7 has some peculiar properties of lattice assisted nuclear reactions, or “cold fusion”?”

And that was back in the fifties…

Pass the smelling salts, someone…

  • wizkid

    Am I understanding correctly in the report that the (dummy) reactor without a charge outputs the same amount of power as input?

    “Page 20:
    Let us now compare this dissipated power with the power supply, the average of which over 23 hours of test is = (486 ± 24) W (uncertainty here is 5% of average, calculated as standard deviation). Keeping in mind the Joule heating of the power cables discussed in paragraph 4.3, we have the following results:
    Power supply (W) Joule heating (W) Actual input (W) Output (W)486 ± 24 7 486 – 7 = 479 ± 24 446 ± 10
    If we take error percentages into account, we will see that where input is at minimum possible value (455 W) and output at maximum possible value (456 W), our method overestimates by about 1 W, i.e. 0.2%. Vice versa, where input is at maximum possible value (503 W) and output at minimum possible value (436 W) our method underestimates the power supplied to the reactor by about 67 W, i.e. 14%.
    We can therefore rely on the fact that applying the very same procedure to data gathered from the E-Cat test does not lead to any significant overestimation; rather, there is a good chance that the power actually generated by the reactor is underestimated.

    Page 26:
    Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us, we may repeat the above calculations taking the weight of the entire reactor (452 ± 1 g) into consideration:
    (1618194 / 0.452) = (3580075 ± 10%) [Wh/kg] = (3.6· 106
    ± 10%) [Wh/kg] = 
    = (1.3· 104
    ± 10%) [MJ/kg] (31)
    (3580075 / 768) = (4661 ± 10%) [W/kg] = (4.7· 103
    ± 10%) [W/kg] (32)
    Even if taken from this extremely conservative point of view, the reactor lies beyond the limits of the above Ragone plot. ”
    ———————————-

    • mlwerner

      This only provides reassurance that the empty reactor doesn’t mysteriously absorb or create any power. The system dissipates just as much power as what was put in! No gain, no loss, just 1in = 1out.

  • wizkid

    The reactor without a charge outputs the same amount of watts as input?

    • Yes, read the report….

    • Ophelia Rump

      It would be interesting if it did not. The conversion of electricity to heat through resistance is 100% or near enough that any other losses are irrelevant.

      • wizkid

        True, but didn’t they include this power in the cop calculations?

  • Piero

    1 g = .001 kg

    • h_corey

      amazing how this wrong number get replicated.

  • Piero

    1 g = .001 kg

    • h_corey

      amazing how this wrong number get replicated.

  • bachcole

    Alumina, according to Alcoa, is powdered aluminium oxide (Al2O3), or powdered corundum. The same stuff that is sapphire. But fear not, it is not very expensive. Most sandpapers are made out of corundum. It is very hard, like 9 on the Mohs scale.

  • bfast

    Here’s something funny — I know that Google in its wisdom puts relevant ads on these pages. However, in Google’s wisdom I am looking at an ad claiming that there will be an oil boom in California. Like, in the age of LENR, who cares!

  • GreenWin

    Gordon, your links are fascinating. Looks like one of the reasons CF has been buried by mainstream is to satisfy a group, cabal, consortium? of power mongers. I am also impressed that Roland Pettersson of University Uppsala has worked on chemonuclear research with Ikegami: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:38053344 – relating the theoretical energy to be equivalent to Super nova. Looks like you’ve hit the obfuscation nail on the head. Again. 🙂 Great analysis!
    BTW, this confirms to me anyway why JTRIG-type pathoskeptics rule parts of the internet. THIS is a phenomenon that some would kill, to keep quiet.

  • GreenWin

    Gordon, your links are fascinating. Looks like one of the reasons CF has been buried by mainstream is to satisfy a group, cabal, consortium? of power mongers. I am also impressed that Roland Pettersson of University Uppsala has worked on chemonuclear research with Ikegami: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:38053344 – relating the theoretical energy to be equivalent to Super nova. Looks like you’ve hit the obfuscation nail on the head. Again. 🙂 Great analysis!
    BTW, this confirms to me anyway why JTRIG-type pathoskeptics rule parts of the internet. THIS is a phenomenon that some would kill, to keep quiet.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    1 g is not 0.01 kg, but is 0.001kg

  • Leonard Weinstein

    1 g is not 0.01 kg, but is 0.001kg

  • Ophelia Rump

    It would be interesting if it did not. The conversion of electricity to heat through resistance is 100% or near enough that any other losses are irrelevant.