DIY Cold Fusion Experimenter Claims COP 11 with a NaOH Electrolysis System

Here’s a different type of cold fusion experiment that has been posted on the Overunity.com YouTube channel in which a German researcher named Andi demonstrates how he has conducted a an experiment using a tungsten cathode and an electrolyte made up of 90 per cent water, and 10 per cent NaOH (sodium hydroxide). Here’s a screenshot that gives an overview of the experiment:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=577783865708632&set=gm.1331510526864848&type=3&theater

coldfusionexperimentNaOH

In the video (which has an English spoken translation) Andi spends a lot of time showing how he calculates energy in/energy out — and comes to a conclusion that he has achieved a COP of 11.

Instructions for the experiment can be found here: http://www.freefromfuel.com/lenr/

The video can be seen below. Note that the whole setup is very DIY/Homemade, and personally I would not attempt such an experiment in my home. There are clear safety warnings in the YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wENFciq1-Q

  • Curbina

    I just watched some minutes in the video, and I see he is using a set up that could be doing water spliting and also HHO gas. Its very like the Bingo Fuel reactors of Jean Louis Naudin.

    • Brokeeper
    • TVulgaris

      Has anyone seen or heard anything from Jean-Louis in the past 2 years? I was following many of his projects, and while his lapses in rigor were unpredictable and sometimes quite annoying, I always appreciated his willingness to try nearly anything.

      • Curbina

        The last time I knew something about him, around 4 years ago, was when another French blogger criticized him for striking a deal with the French military for some Coanda effect drones.

  • Curbina

    He is certainly splitting water, and generating highly explosive H and O on the process.

    • Zephir

      Due to high temperature of plasma, the hydrogen released would probably burn immediately in contact with air.

      • Appleby

        I think your onto something Zephir. I think he is making HHO gas and burning it off at the same time. That being said I don’t know how to go about adding in (or subtracting out) the BTU’s from the HHO.

        • TVulgaris

          People are complaining (quite reasonably) about the power measurements and CoP calcs.
          A reasonably-sized battery, maintained off a charger, makes input power VERY reliably determined. Output power is the total light plus heat, including heat of vaporization. ALL of the vapor could be captured by condensation, and any visible light fluoresce to IR by enclosing the entire thing in a box (and it doesn’t even have to approach ideal “black box” character, as deviation from that can be calibrated for with fair precision and accuracy). The tiny window required to mount the camera for the eye-catching light show doesn’t change much of anything…quick and dirty bomb calorimetry is pretty cheap, and done right, certainly accurate enough to get within 10% of the actual value- which means a CoP anything over 1.5 is well worth looking at.

  • Curbina

    He is certainly splitting water, and generating highly explosive H and O on the process.

    • Zephir

      Due to high temperature of plasma, the hydrogen released would probably burn immediately in contact with air.

      • Appleby

        I think your onto something Zephir. I think he is making HHO gas and burning it off at the same time. That being said I don’t know how to go about adding in (or subtracting out) the BTU’s from the HHO.

        • TVulgaris

          People are complaining (quite reasonably) about the power measurements and CoP calcs.
          A reasonably-sized battery, maintained off a charger, makes input power VERY reliably determined. Output power is the total light plus heat, including heat of vaporization. ALL of the vapor could be captured by condensation, and any visible light fluoresce to IR by enclosing the entire thing in a box (and it doesn’t even have to approach ideal “black box” character, as deviation from that can be calibrated for with fair precision and accuracy). The tiny window required to mount the camera for the eye-catching light show doesn’t change much of anything…quick and dirty bomb calorimetry is pretty cheap, and done right, certainly accurate enough to get within 10% of the actual value- which means a CoP anything over 1.5 is well worth looking at.

  • catfish

    This has nothing to do with LENR or cold fusion

  • Sanjeev

    The input power measurements seems to be unreliable. A multimeter is not suitable for HF currents, especially sparking or pulsing waveforms, you need an oscilloscope of high bandwidth (GHz). The heat could be simple chemical reactions, like HHO as commented below.
    Not very convincing.

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree. You need a proper (professional) power meter able to measure up to high harmonics power. Also using RMS metering is totally unsuitable for measuring power, when the current is distorted.

    • Mark Underwood

      I commented on the Youtube video:

      The major flaw here which generates the largest error by far is the assumption that 7 ml of water was boiled off as water at 100 degrees C.

      First, the water was at only 60 degrees C. The energy to get it there was almost entirely from heating over a stove. The simple fact is that water kept that warm for that long will suffer evaporative losses, whether or not an electrode is even in the water.

      A proper experiment would have controlled for such losses. In fact most experiments of this nature would simply ignore evaporative losses . But this experiment has instead made it into the primary means of showing energy gain, which is a no no.

  • Sanjeev

    The input power measurements seems to be unreliable. A multimeter is not suitable for HF currents, especially sparking or pulsing waveforms, you need an oscilloscope of high bandwidth (GHz). The heat could be simple chemical reactions, like HHO as commented below.
    Not very convincing.

    • attaboy

      Keep in mind that even if the measurements were crude, with a COP 11, it would be hard to refute that the COP is at least > 1.

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree. You need a proper (professional) power meter able to measure up to high harmonics power. Also using RMS metering is totally unsuitable for measuring power, when the current is distorted.

  • Mats002

    I do not consider HHO systems as being LENR. I don’t think HHO can have a COP over 1, we did cover HHO extensively a few years ago.

    • Zephir

      /* we covered HHO extensively a few years ago */

      Really? John Kanzius claimed COP > 1 during electrolysis of water in 2007 and he was never attempted to replicate. This is simply how the pluralistic ignorance is working: everyone believes, that the stuff doesn’t need to be replicated because everyone believes, someone else has already attempted to replicate it. This is a result of pure laziness – the void twaddling at anonymous forums is indeed more comfortable for most nerdy people… 😉

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

      • Mats002

        My mind is closed for HHO, I admit it. I will not try to talk others out of it. Good luck, hope it works but I will not be a follower (until if/when I change my mind).

      • LesioQ

        Situation bears similarities to Steven Greer’s ‘hidden in plain sight’ idea.

  • Mats002

    I do not consider HHO systems as being LENR. I don’t think HHO can have a COP over 1, we covered HHO extensively a few years ago.

    • Zephir

      /* we covered HHO extensively a few years ago */

      Really? John Kanzius claimed COP > 1 during electrolysis of water in 2007 and he was never attempted to replicate. This is simply how the pluralistic ignorance is working: everyone believes, that the stuff doesn’t need to be replicated because everyone believes, someone else has already attempted to replicate it. This is a result of pure laziness – the void twaddling at anonymous forums is indeed more comfortable for most nerdy people… 😉

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

      • Mats002

        My mind is closed for HHO, I admit it. I will not try to talk others out of it. Good luck, hope it works but I will not be a follower (until if/when I change my mind).

      • LesioQ

        Situation bears similarities to Steven Greer’s ‘hidden in plain sight’ idea.

  • Gerard McEk

    I do not exclude that this type of plasma like electrolysis may cause LENR effects, but to prove that better measurement equipment is needed, especially power measurement.

  • Gerard McEk

    I do not exclude that this type of plasma like electrolysis may cause LENR effects, but to prove that better measurement equipment is needed, especially power measurement.

  • Jarea

    Thanks Andi for sharing. I am amazed of the creativity and tinkering work. We need more people like you. Please, go ahead and share more of your experiments. Besides, it would be good to find a professor to give you a second opinion about safety and accuracy of your measurements. It could bring more ideas and give you good devices 😀

  • Jarea

    Thanks Andi for sharing. I am amazed of the creativity and tinkering work. We need more people like you. Please, go ahead and share more of your experiments. Besides, it would be good to find a professor to give you a second opinion about safety and accuracy of your measurements. It could bring more ideas and give professional devices 😀

  • I don’t like such video electrolysis experiments.

    They are mostly too enthusiastic and the spectacular arcs amf flashing should convince the viewer….

    I don’t take this serious.

    • Mats002

      I am hardheaded against BLP/Mills of the same reason. Flashes, explosions and smoke is not enough to be taken seriously.

      • Zephir

        LOL, this is what the whole hot fusion is all about: just laser flashes and plasma explosions… 🙂 And it’s research business for billion dollars.

        • Michael W Wolf

          If Mills can’t convince you of the power density of this technology, no one can. For gosh sakes, he creates the reactions of the sun on a bench top.

          • Zephir

            I’m not saying, BLP/Mills is working, but his experiments should be definitely attempted for replication for to be sure. This is how the science is supposed to work.

  • I don’t like such video electrolysis experiments.

    They are mostly too enthusiastic and the spectacular arcs amf flashing should convince the viewer….

    I don’t take this serious.

    • Mats002

      I am hardheaded against BLP/Mills of the same reason. Flashes, explosions and smoke is not enough to be taken seriously.

      • Zephir

        LOL, this is what the whole hot fusion is all about: just laser flashes and plasma explosions… 🙂 And it’s research business for billions of dollars.

        • Michael W Wolf

          If Mills can’t convince you of the power density of this technology, no one can. For gosh sakes, he creates the reactions of the sun on a bench top.

          • Zephir

            I’m not saying, BLP/Mills is working, but his experiments should be definitely attempted for replication for to be sure. This is how the science is supposed to work.

    • bachcole

      I also am skeptical. Way too easy.

      • Bruce__H

        You never know though. Could be real. Why not try it out and see?

        • bachcole

          Someone is. It is way above my laboratory budget, Bruce_H.

          • Bruce__H

            But I thought that it was important to you that people should try everything for themselves or else their skepticism is seen as arrogant and pathological. The only expensive thing in this experiment is a dc power supply and you can get those for $20-100 on ebay.

            It is one of the charms of this setup that it is within range for ordinary people. We can do public science here!

          • bachcole

            Deliberately misrepresenting my thinking in order to pester and annoy me only causes me to have contempt for your lack of character. And for me, character is everything and everything else is a big fat zero. So, guess what I think of you. Misrepresenting me adds nothing to the conversation. I NEVER started to believe in cold fusion because of any experiments I ever did. The same can be said for 99.9% of the people here. Most of us believe in cold fusion here because of experiments that other people did, and we believe them because our social skills are alive and well, unlike yours, and we know that they are in such positions that they would never say that the experiment was positive it it weren’t.

            If a person can do an experiment and there is any question in THEIR minds about the reality of something, it behoves them to do said experiment. You don’t want to do a $14.72 experiment, so you really aren’t interested in knowing the truth of the matter.

          • Bruce__H

            Don’t get me wrong. I believe that your thinking about the whole cold fusion matter is correct. It is the right way to do things. I myself am in a superposition of states about Rossi’s adventures. I am still skeptical, but I would love it if it turns out to be real.

            I just don’t see, though, how this open-minded skepticism should be called pathological. I can be misled, others can be misled, so I am skeptical and ask for proof. I don’t see what’s wrong with that And if you say there there is nothing wrong with that, then why should it be OK for cold fusion but not OK for something like homeopathy?..

      • Zephir

        The heating of nickel dust with LiAlH4 in oven is even simpler.

  • People also claim they have been abducted by aliens. If cold fusion was that simple, it would have been proven and accepted a hundred years ago.

    • Zephir

      /* If cold fusion was that simple, it would have been proven and accepted a hundred years ago */

      So far the mainstream physics has no single ATTEMPT for replication of cold fusion at nickel published in peer-review press during last TWENTY YEARS after Piantelli – so it’s just plain ignorant. Nobody says, that the replication of cold fusion is easy, but it shouldn’t prohibit anyone to at least attempt for it and to publish negative results – or not? The cold fusion is not the only case of pluralistic ignorance of mainstream science – here I’m discussing many others

      https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/46crlg/what_values_are_important_to_scientists/

      • Michael W Wolf

        Yea Z, establishment keep saying they need a working unit. But isn’t that what they are for? Once the anomaly was observed, the establishment scientists should have taken the lead in figuring it out, so that engineers can make something useful from it. To say the discoverers need to find the anomaly, figure it out, and engineer it is crazy. What the heck are scientists for then?

    • Golden

      Christopher calder, the world is not as you have been traumatized to believe in schools. Everthing you have been taught is not true(big lie).
      Cold fusion/free energy is really if only you stop craming text books and use a little bit your common sense, you’ll realize it!!

  • ScienceFan

    If this is really so simple, it should be simple to reproduce the experiment and the findings.

    • bfast

      I think that’s these guys’ point. Replicate it.

  • Bruce__H

    You never know though. Could be real. Why not try it out and see?

  • Mark Underwood

    I commented on the Youtube video:

    The major flaw here which generates the largest error by far is the assumption that 7 ml of water was boiled off as water at 100 degrees C.

    First, the water was at only 60 degrees C. The energy to get it there was almost entirely from heating over a stove. The simple fact is that water kept that warm for that long will suffer evaporative losses, whether or not an electrode is even in the water.

    A proper experiment would have controlled for such losses. In fact most experiments of this nature would simply ignore evaporative losses . But this experiment has instead made it into the primary means of showing energy gain, which is a no no.

  • Zephir

    This is classical plasma electrolysis according to Mizuno and it produces COP > 1 routinely. Naudin has been involved in its replication before some time too http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr

    Nevertheless the exact thermal balance of this electrolysis is not so easy to estimate, because the voltage drop at electrode oscillates wildly in range of many volts.

  • Zephir

    This is classical plasma electrolysis according to Mizuno and it produces COP > 1 routinely. Naudin has been involved in its replication before some time too http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTproduction.pdf
    http://jcfrs.org/file/jcf4-07.pdf

    Nevertheless the exact thermal balance of this electrolysis is not so easy to estimate, because the voltage drop at electrode oscillates wildly in range of many volts. In addition, the water vapor gets removed from electrolyser by splashing and with stream of hydrogen released – so it’s not saturated and the actual amount of heat required for water removal from system is much lower.

    In particular, I don’t think that the current gets so low (~ 20 mA) during plasma discharge at the surface of NaOH solution, which is highly conductive.

  • Zephir

    The heating of nickel dust with LiAlH4 in oven is even simpler.

  • Zephir

    Why do think? These experiments were done by Mizuno for years in context of cold fusion research. Modern people are dumb and lazy http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTproduction.pdf

  • bfast

    I think that’s these guys’ point. Replicate it.

  • Skip

    I think the real usefulness to this, and the reason I (kinda) support it is, it gets people thinking and tinkering. It worked for me. Early in 2013, I did it a bit better and compared the energy input to a kettle throttled to the same wattage.
    With the same volume of water and the same wattage input, I could maintain a boil in the beaker but not the kettle.

    No claims, but it got me started…

  • Skip

    I think the real usefulness to this, and the reason I (kinda) support it is, it gets people thinking and tinkering. It worked for me. Early in 2013, I did it a bit better and compared the power input to a kettle throttled to the same wattage.
    With the same volume of water and the same wattage input, I could maintain a boil in the beaker but not the kettle.

    No claims, but it got me started…

  • Curbina

    Just to be clear, this process is, IMHO, related in some loose way to LENR, and it somehow releases more heat than “it should”. It is also of the same “family” of experiments than those performed by Dr. Graneau passing an electric arc in a water mist, in which he and his team generated explosion that also generated excess heat, but they got published in mainstream journal in 2000 (Journal of plasma Physics) because they did not went on a exotic claim but tried to explain the excess heat by a conventional mechanism of water molecule binding energy extraction. Graneau is a very good example because he calculated the excess heat to be up to 4x the energy required to create the plasma arc, and, there is an independent replication by a Stanford student that even got a small grant (USD $1500) to replicate his work and did it in 2015, with positive and impressive results. So, we can say that this kind of experiments have been shown to be “overunity” by both enthusiast tinkerers and experimented researchers. Yet, they have been largely ignored by mainstream because “its impossible”. Here’s Dr. Graneau’s paper I mention (one of them, he had many published). http://rodscontracts.com/docs/Cambridge_MIT_Energy_From_Water.pdf

    • Zack Iszard

      As hopeful for LENR’s success as I am, I believe that known chemical processes can account for 100% of the energy released from this system, and that the best way to illustrate the only-chemical nature of the energy release here, the reaction would slow to a crawl once the anode is sufficiently destroyed.

      I agree with other contributors that tinkering like this is beneficial, but only if the experimenter is good at eliminating possible sources of error. This experiment, repeated with a much pricier platinum or gold electrode, would yield significantly less impressive results.

  • Curbina

    Just to be clear, this process is, IMHO, related in some loose way to LENR, and it somehow releases more heat than “it should”. It is also of the same “family” of experiments than those performed by Dr. Graneau passing an electric arc in a water mist, in which he and his team generated explosion that also generated excess heat, but they got published in mainstream journal in 2000 (Journal of plasma Physics) because they did not went on a exotic claim but tried to explain the excess heat by a conventional mechanism of water molecule binding energy extraction. Graneau is a very good example because he calculated the excess heat to be up to 4x the energy required to create the plasma arc, and, there is an independent replication by a Stanford student that even got a small grant (USD $1500) to replicate his work and did it in 2015, with positive and impressive results. So, we can say that this kind of experiments have been shown to be “overunity” by both enthusiast tinkerers and experimented researchers. Yet, they have been largely ignored by mainstream because “its impossible”. Here’s Dr. Graneau’s paper I mention (one of them, he had many published). http://rodscontracts.com/docs/Cambridge_MIT_Energy_From_Water.pdf
    And here’s the replication from a Stanford student in 2015. http://waterarcresearch.blogspot.cl/

    • Zack Iszard

      As hopeful for LENR’s success as I am, I believe that known chemical processes can account for 100% of the energy released from this system, and that the best way to illustrate the only-chemical nature of the energy release here, the reaction would slow to a crawl once the anode is sufficiently destroyed.

      I agree with other contributors that tinkering like this is beneficial, but only if the experimenter is good at eliminating possible sources of error. This experiment, repeated with a much pricier platinum or gold electrode, would yield significantly less impressive results.

  • US_Citizen71

    I think I have figured out what is going on in his experiment.

    The electrolyte is made from water and NaOH which become Na+ and OH- ions in solution. The DC power sends the Na+ to the W cathode and the -OH ions to the stainless steel anode. Because of the current flow the -OH ions react with the stainless steel I am guessing probably the iron, due to the darkening of the liquid electrolyte through the experiment, forming iron oxide commonly known as rust. The oxidation of the iron releases heat, think thermite. At the cathode the H+ ions released from the breakdown of the -OH ion with Fe collect and form hydrogen gas. The Na+ ions are also present in quantity at the cathode the mixture of Na+ and H+ ions form the orange plasma that has the characteristic Na orange color. Depending on the turbulence at the surface of the solution surrounding the cathode, air might be pulled in and some of the orange plasma maybe flame from oxidation of either the Na or the H ions.

    The decrease in volume with little loss in weight is due to the rust being more dense than water. The anomalous heat is due to oxidation of metal.

    Tell me where I went wrong…

    • Mark Underwood

      Since the solution was shown to go darker I don’t doubt that there was some exothermic oxidation with iron going on as you propose. Also, as you say it could have resulted in some volume loss.

      The main problem with the experiment, the one that dwarfed all other sources of supposed COP, was what they did with the volume loss. They assumed the 7 ml of volume loss was boiled off at 100C – even though the temperature was only about 60C! – and calculated the energy required to do this. Before they did this calculation the reported COP was only a bit over 1. After the volume loss calculation the COP jumped to 11. Clearly the main faux pas of the experiment.

    • Zack Iszard

      I think you have most everything right, including volume loss and the oxidation of the anode material, except that the orange “flame” is likely not from oxidation of already oxidized ions. I would pin that to simple arc discharge, he is using 55 VDC, which is a very considerable voltage from a chemical perspective. Possibly the glow is the reduction and subsequent “water burning” of sodium ions. This reaction is shredding the anode, though I doubt the cathode gets much punishment aside from some re-deposition of reduced iron/nickel from the anode. If there is any LENR occurring, an inert anode mush be used to find out!

      Yes, this is essentially electrode-destructive electrolysis, and the measured COP comes from the considerable chemical potential of the system in both the stainless anode. Since there isn’t a better counter-ion to sodium than hydroxide (barring some molecular anionic metal oxides), the lye is catalytic in this reaction.

  • US_Citizen71

    I think I have figured out what is going on in his experiment.

    The electrolyte is made from water and NaOH which becomes Na+ and OH- ions in solution. The DC power sends the Na+ to the W cathode and the -OH ions to the stainless steel anode. Because of the current flow the -OH ions react with the stainless steel I am guessing probably the iron, due to the darkening of the liquid electrolyte through the experiment, forming iron oxide or hydroxide commonly known as rust. The oxidation of the iron releases heat, think thermite. At the cathode the H+ ions released from the breakdown of the -OH ion with Fe collect and form hydrogen gas. The Na+ ions are also present in quantity at the cathode the mixture of Na+ and H+ ions form the orange plasma that has the characteristic Na orange color. Depending on the turbulence at the surface of the solution surrounding the cathode, air might be pulled into the plasma and some of plasma might actually be flame from oxidation of either the Na or the H ions.

    The decrease in volume with little loss in weight is due to the rust being more dense than water. The anomalous heat is due to oxidation of metal.

    Tell me where I went wrong…

    Weighing the stainless steel cup before and after will F9 my proposed above theory.

    edit: There would most likely be a drop in volume as well with the replacement of the -OH ions with metal oxides from the the stainless steel as well as the hydrogen gas lost to atmosphere. If I remember my high school chemistry correctly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(II)_hydroxide

    • Mark Underwood

      Since the solution was shown to go darker I don’t doubt that there was some exothermic oxidation with iron going on as you propose. Also, as you say it could have resulted in some volume loss.

      The main problem with the experiment, the one that dwarfed all other sources of supposed COP, was what they did with the volume loss. They assumed the 7 ml of volume loss was boiled off at 100C – even though the temperature was only about 60C! – and calculated the energy required to do this. Before they did this calculation the reported COP was only a bit over 1. After the volume loss calculation the COP jumped to 11. Clearly the main faux pas of the experiment.

    • Zack Iszard

      I think you have most everything right, including volume loss and the oxidation of the anode material, except that the orange “flame” is likely not from oxidation of already oxidized ions. I would pin that to simple arc discharge, he is using 55 VDC, which is a very considerable voltage from a chemical perspective. Possibly the glow is the reduction and subsequent “water burning” of sodium ions. This reaction is shredding the anode, though I doubt the cathode gets much punishment aside from some re-deposition of reduced iron/nickel from the anode. If there is any LENR occurring, an inert anode mush be used to find out!

      Yes, this is essentially electrode-destructive electrolysis, and the measured COP comes from the considerable chemical potential of the system in both the stainless anode. Since there isn’t a better counter-ion to sodium than hydroxide (barring some molecular anionic metal oxides), the lye is catalytic in this reaction.

  • bachcole

    Deliberately misrepresenting my thinking in order to pester and annoy me only causes me to have contempt for your lack of character. And for me, character is everything and everything else is a big fat zero. So, guess what I think of you. Misrepresenting me adds nothing to the conversation. I NEVER started to believe in cold fusion because of any experiments I ever did. The same can be said for 99.9% of the people here. Most of us believe in cold fusion here because of experiments that other people did, and we believe them because our social skills are alive and well, unlike yours, and we know that they are in such positions that they would never say that the experiment was positive it it weren’t.

    If a person can do an experiment and there is any question in THEIR minds about the reality of something, it behoves them to do said experiment. You don’t want to do a $14.72 experiment, so you really aren’t interested in knowing the truth of the matter.

  • Zephir

    This experiment looks much closer to Brilliant Energy experiments, than the common cold fusion experiments… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0PYe-4090g

  • Zephir

    This experiment looks much closer to Brilliant Energy experiments, than the common cold fusion experiments… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0PYe-4090g

  • CWatters

    Due to the arcing the current won’t be constant. How can they be sure the ammeter is correctly averaging the current?