Energy Analysis Spreadsheet (LENR G)

The following linked-to spreadsheet and comment were first posted here by LENR G. I must say very nicely and clearly laid out. Thanks, LG! More of LENR G’s analysis of the Lugano report can be found here.

Thee energy generated, based on my calculations, pretty closely matches what was reported.
The caveat is that we don ‘t know exactly the level of iron content in the fuel and the calculations are sensitive to that amount. If one assumes that all the Nickel-62 nucleons come from other nickel isotopes, iron, aluminum and lithium and set the level of iron in the fuel to make that true, then the calculated energy works out to about 37% more than the reported energy.

Another consideration is that the iron in the calculations, while it will be largely iron based on the spectroscopy, is actually a proxy for all the other trace elements too that appear to be part of the reactions.

  • Thanks, Frank! If anybody sees any mistakes or has any questions let me know.

    • Ged

      The results of 37% more make sense, given how conservative they were in their calculations. Interestingly high sensitivity to iron/other trace metals, but not surprising either given nickel’s relative mass.

      • I really wish they analyzed the iron with the inductively coupled plasma analyses.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If I could ask for one more calculation from you. Where does your output number fall in relation to the report’s estimated degree of error and their output number.

      I am thinking in terms of your calculation as a crosscheck to the report. How consistent are the numbers? Would it flag an audit for an accountant or would it demonstrate reasonable internal consistency of the facts as measured and provided?

      • The report says 10% error for energy. My 37% lies outside that range but given the assumptions/approximations in my analysis (mainly in setting the iron content of the fuel) I’d say the error bars for my calculations overlap their’s easily.

        So I wouldn’t focus so much on the exactness of the calculations; focus more on the fact that the observed energy and calculated energy are in the same ballpark and therefore the report’s energy results and fuel/ash analysis results appear to be telling the same story (or at least are not in violent disagreement). I was happy to get order of magnitude agreement.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I would add to your analysis that your result lies to the positive side of their conservative number. Had if fallen on the other side, even I would see an apparent contradiction.

    • Gerard McEk

      As far as I have read, there was only 1 gram of fuel. You are using approx. 2 grams in total. Why the difference, or did I miss something?

      • Nice catch. I had done the mass in grams by accident. As it happens it doesn’t change the conclusions because I also divided by grams to get the specific energy instead of kilograms.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Thank you, very useful! Is it correct that your numbers indicate a released energy of 2.3 MWh per gram of fuel?

    • Added to spreadsheet. Works out to 2.2 MWh/g (or 2.2 GWh/kg) specific energy.

    • bachcole

      Thank you for the summary. I dozed off there for a second. (:->) I can relate to 2,300,000 watts hours per gram of fuel. That would mean that it would power roughly one 2000 watt household for 48 days. This would assume that peaks would average out with valleys. At night, in my house, we use very little energy, even in the winter time. It does not seem to me that that one little sapphire dumbbell could power my house without a whole bunch of other households being ganged together with a whole bunch of other sapphire dumbbells.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Buy 1 kg and power your house for 131 years. Very good argument for advertising.

  • Ophelia Rump
  • LENR For the Win

    Added “The Nuclear Binding Energy Checks Out” to the Fuel/Ash analysis section on the “Assessing the Lugano E-Cat Report.”

    Here’s part of it…


    The significance of this energy analysis is that it relates the expected energy, based on fundamental analysis of the nuclei seen in the fuel and ash, with the energy observed during the experiment. That they are in fairly close agreement is both expected and remarkable. It is expected because science demands a cause for any effect. If the ash had contained instead, for example, evidence of only surface events on otherwise unchanged particles, there would not have been enough changed nuclei to support the observed energy. The theoretical energy release would have been off by a couple of orders of magnitude and there would be a mystery (or a serious indication of faulty measurements or fraud). It is remarkable because it establishes a symmetry of ‘impossible’ observations, relating unexpected excess heat to unexpected nuclear events with a tight correlation. Both lack a convincing theoretical explanation at this point, but they support each other well. Direct evidence of a massive number of unexplained nuclear events is the smoking gun for which scientists have long been waiting.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Absolutely. Your analysis provides, so to speak, a second access to the energy balance. Since it is based on empirical data and the mass-energy relationship is very well understood, it is a valuable addition to the direct measurements – even if the random samples of the fuel might not have been fully representative.

    • psi2u2

      Excellent analysis. Easy even for us non-scientists to understand.

  • Hi all, I asked those question to the testers and to vortex, but maybe some courageous engineer can compute :

    *assuming the convection factor is maybe badly represented (underestimated for the dummy, over represented for the active) because the dummy was tested at lower temperature than the active, what is the minimum possible COP than one can absolutely judge from simply thermal radiation ?

    *can the moment when you increased the power by 100W and the apparent heat increased by 700W be enough to support a COP above 1 ?

    *is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP>1

    *it seems that the dummy was less hot with more power in, and the active version hotter with less power, do you confirm ?

    *was simply the active version wil less power visibly more brightly than the dummy when powered more without the load?

    *is it thus impossible that COP is not above 1, even if many errors have been done, like on emissivity, transmissivity, calibration, convection ?

    *can you provide computation of different possible COP assuming huge errors in those parameters ?

  • Omega Z

    It was sealed.
    The only access was thru the thermocouple bushing which was sealed with alumina cement. It’s mentioned in the report.