Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

LENR--32 day E-cat run, COP 3.2

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by amdx on October 9, 2014, 7:07 pm
 

   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.



Posted by mike on October 9, 2014, 9:05 pm
 
On 10/9/2014 12:07 PM, amdx wrote:

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.






Posted by Morris Dovey on October 10, 2014, 1:35 am
 On 10/9/14 2:07 PM, amdx wrote:


Interesting report. Thanks for posting!

--  
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/  


Posted by amdx on October 10, 2014, 1:56 am
 On 10/9/2014 8:35 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

  I have a thread running else where and the standing question is;

Why (after it is heated with external power and it starts generating  
it's own excessive heat) is it necessary to continue heating with  
external power?

                           Mikek

Posted by Morris Dovey on October 10, 2014, 2:30 am
 On 10/9/14 8:56 PM, amdx wrote:


See the final paragraph of page 7

--  
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/  


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread