The following post was submitted by Rick Allen.
It appears that in the near future a team of scientists from across the world will be releasing a report detailing an extended six month test of the E-Cat. The exact contents and conclusion of the report are unknown. No one can be certain of the test methods used or what analysis may have been performed on the “charge” or nickel powder. However, what we already know about the Energy Catalyzer can give us clues about what to expect. Unless something dramatic and unforeseen occurred during the test period or an outside force has interfered – which is unlikely – the report will probably be the most important document produced in the history of cold fusion or LENR research.
The previous report, produced by many of the same scientists working on the upcoming report, utilized a method by which the output of the Hot Cat version of the E-Cat was calculated by measuring the surface temperature of the reactor. After attaining this information with the use of an infrared camera, the scientists were able to determine that significant excess heat was produced – even using conservative estimates.
In the much anticipated upcoming report, similar test methods will most likely be described. But other methods of testing may have also been utilized. Although there is no evidence of this, reviewers may have requested traditional water based calorimetry to be performed. This could be a very good thing, providing an additional verification of excess heat.
When it comes to the results that will be discussed in the report, they will most likely be very positive. This means, in my opinion, a high COP that would represent a technology with the potential to be immediately utilized by industry. There is currently debate on internet forums and websites about what level of COP (power in vs. power out) is required for an industrially viable LENR technology.
Because the Hot Cat is capable of producing very high temperatures, a COP of 6 (six) which Rossi has often described as his minimum goal would be sufficient. Such a high COP combined with high temperatures – capable of producing super critical steam – could allow the E-Cat to be used with high efficiency turbine generators and closed looped. I think a COP of 6 is probably the bare minimum we can expect from this report. If they ran the reactor at higher temperatures (which yields a greater COP) than the previous test, the COP should be higher.
The COP in this test may also be higher due to the fact the “mouse and cat” E-Cat was utilized. My understanding is that in this setup, the mouse, or inner reactor is heated with resistances powered by electrical input. The mouse heats up and stimulates reactions in the cat or outer layer of the device. This setup is supposed to allow for greater stability and COP. Combined with higher temperatures, I think a COP of ten or higher is likely – although in unverified internet rumors a COP of up to 18 has been mentioned.
I think a low COP of two or three is very unlikely. But if the scientists involved only ran the E-Cat at a low temperature and then intentionally made the lowest possible estimates (removing any heat production a single reviewer questioned) of output, it could turn out to be the case. This would not be a disaster for Industrial Heat, of course. We already know the technology can produce a near infinite COP in self sustain mode. In one torture test described by Rossi, an E-Cat with no input produced up to a megawatt of power for a period of seconds while rising from one thousand to two thousand degrees Celsius. The only barrier preventing the COP from being so high in ordinary, long term operation is stability. If there are still issues regarding how high the COP can be without the reactor going out of control, they will quickly be resolved when this technology hits the mainstream.
We can also expect the report to include an analysis of the powder used in the E-Cat. The fuel, a mixture of several different elements including nickel, hydrogen, and perhaps lithium, is the key to producing a working E-Cat. Replication is a critical element of the scientific method, and the scientists involved in this report will hopefully seek to find out how the device works and can be replicated. I hope they not only performed tests to determine the elemental and isotopic composition of the “charge” in both the “mouse” and the “cat”, but also used advanced microscopy to determine the particle size and surface geometry of the nickel. Since we know the size of the powder (micron range) and tubercles are both vital to making the technology work, I hope this information is provided in the report.
To summarize, here are a list of aspects of the E-Cat that I expect will be confirmed in the upcoming report.
1) High Temperature Operation – Temperatures high enough to produce super critical steam.
2) High COP – More than enough energy out than in to allow for close looping.
3) Endurance – Long term operation (many months) without the need for adding fuel.
4) Safety – No radiation and no nuclear waste found.
5) Stability – The capability to run for long periods of time without going out of control or melting down.
6) Cost Effectiveness – The amount of fuel used compared to the power output will be small.
There are also other issues that may be discussed in the report. For example, does the “mouse” and “cat” configuration allow for the output of the device to be throttled up and down quickly, how well does the metal used for the reactor walls hold up against wear and tear, does the output decline at all over a period of months due to fuel degradation or consumption, etc. In addition, we may learn more about the mysterious electrostatic charge that may have been discovered on the inside of the reactor.
For now, all we can do is wait until the report is published. I think the outlook for the report is good, however. The chance of the results being negative is small, and the probability of the results being positive are high.