Just an observer here with no physics knowledge, I've been following
the LENR story since 2011. So three years and still lots of people
saying it's a fraud, they don't understand calorimetry, the theory is
wrong, etc.
On the other hand, there are plenty of papers with with data showing
excess energy output, with reputations exposed.
Anyone care to pick this experiment apart.
Or at least explain some of the data.
Interesting that this article does not mention transmutation of nickel
to copper, but has lithium as an ingredient, it adds, "after the 32 days
run the isotopic composition has changed dramatically both for Lithium
and Nickel."
http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2014/week40/Thursday/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
Here is the Summary and concluding remarks.
A 32 day test was performed on a reactor termed E-Cat, capable of
producing heat by exploiting an unknown reaction primed by heating and
some electromagnetic stimulation. In the past years, the same
collaboration has performed similar measurements on reactors operating
in like manner, but differing both in shape and
construction materials from the one studied here. Those tests have
indicated an anomalous production of heat, which prompted us to attempt
a new, longer test. The purpose of this longer measurement was to verify
whether the production of heat is reproducible in a new improved test
setup, and can go on for a significant amount of time. In order to
assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length of time, we
chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it working
in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the performances
obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was
not an object of study here.
Our measurement, based on calculating the power emitted by the reactor
through radiation and convection, gave the following results: 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 ∙ 10 ± 10%) [MJ/kg], while the density of power
was equal to (2.1 ∙ 10 ± 10%) [W/kg]. These values place the E-Cat
beyond any other known conventional source of energy. Even if one
conservatively repeats the same calculations with
reference to the weight of the whole reactor rather than that of its
internal charge, one gets results confirming the non-conventional nature
of the form of energy generated by the E-Cat, namely (1.3 ∙ 10 ±
10%)[MJ/kg] for thermal energy density, and (4.7 ∙ 10 ± 10%) [W/kg] for
power density.
The quantity of heat emitted constantly by the reactor and the length of
time during which the reactor was operating rule out, beyond any
reasonable doubt, a chemical reaction as underlying its operation. This
is emphasized by the fact that we stand considerably more than two order
of magnitudes from the region of the Ragone plot occupied by
conventional energy sources.
The fuel generating the excessive heat was analyzed with several methods
before and after the experimental run. It was found that the Lithium and
Nickel content in the fuel had the natural isotopic composition before
the run, but after the 32 days run the isotopic composition has changed
dramatically both for Lithium and Nickel. Such a change can only take
place via nuclear reactions. It is thus clear that nuclear reactions
have taken place in the burning process. This is also what can be
suspected from the excessive heat being
generated in the process. Although we have good knowledge of the
composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the
internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the
reaction is primed. Since we are presently not in possession of this
information, we think that any attempt to explain the E-Cat heating
process would be too much hampered by the lack of this information, and
thus we refrain from such discussions
.
In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have
a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but
it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste
nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics
this should not be possible.
Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results
from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning and that the
E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most
unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical
explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored
just because of lack of theoretical understanding. Moreover, the E-Cat
results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In
addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the
E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy
source. Further investigations are required to guide the
interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step
detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our
work will continue in that direction.
On 10/9/2014 12:07 PM, amdx wrote:
>
> Just an observer here with no physics knowledge, I've been following
> the LENR story since 2011. So three years and still lots of people
> saying it's a fraud, they don't understand calorimetry, the theory is
> wrong, etc.
> On the other hand, there are plenty of papers with with data showing
> excess energy output, with reputations exposed.
>
> Anyone care to pick this experiment apart.
> Or at least explain some of the data.
> Interesting that this article does not mention transmutation of nickel
> to copper, but has lithium as an ingredient, it adds, "after the 32 days
> run the isotopic composition has changed dramatically both for Lithium
> and Nickel."
>
>
> http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2014/week40/Thursday/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
>
There will be as many conflicting analyses as there are analyzers.
The primary issue surrounding LENR is fraud.
Inability to describe what's happening is troubling, but it is the
definition
of engineering breakthrough/invention.
You don't have to understand how gravity works to put a rock on a stick,
another one on a chain and produce a perfectly satisfactory clock.
Unfortunately, obfuscation of what's happening and incomplete information
is often the basis for fraud.
The way you tell if it works is:
Can a sophisticated physics lab build a working system from a youtube video.
This has been going on for a long time. This is a WORLD game changer.
If it works, you should see thousands
of working models consuming massive investment.
This is what you need to hear, copied from the original posting:
These values place the E-Cat beyond any other known conventional source
of energy.
If it's true, that's great.
But you can't get your paper published if you don't say that.
Every time I go to Home Depot, I look for LENR on the shelf in the
generator section.
XML site map
> Just an observer here with no physics knowledge, I've been following
> the LENR story since 2011. So three years and still lots of people
> saying it's a fraud, they don't understand calorimetry, the theory is
> wrong, etc.
> On the other hand, there are plenty of papers with with data showing
> excess energy output, with reputations exposed.
>
> Anyone care to pick this experiment apart.
> Or at least explain some of the data.
> Interesting that this article does not mention transmutation of nickel
> to copper, but has lithium as an ingredient, it adds, "after the 32 days
> run the isotopic composition has changed dramatically both for Lithium
> and Nickel."
>
>
> http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2014/week40/Thursday/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
>