Skip to comments.
How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
LENR.QUMBO.com ^
| April 6, 2011
| Alan Fletcher
Posted on 06/05/2011 7:52:15 PM PDT by Kevmo
This document has been updated : please check for the latest version at lenr.qumbu.com
1. Breaking news
A new test had just been released, with pictures of a smaller 5KW device with and without shielding and insulation.
Swedish physicists on the E-cat: Its a nuclear reaction
In some way a new kind of physics is taking place. Its enigmatic, but probably no new laws of nature are involved. We believe it is possible to explain the process with known laws of nature, said Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.
The new trial was conducted in much the same way as the trial in January, and lasted for nearly six hours. According to observations by Kullander and Essén, a total energy of about 25 kWh was generated.
Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011.
Participants: Giuseppe Levi, David Bianchini, Carlo Leonardi, Hanno Essén, Sven Kullander, Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi. Travel report by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011.
Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.
Note : also need to add nickel/hydrogen to the materials.
1.1. Photos
Fig 5 Fig 2 Fig 4 Fig 3
During the running we used the rightmost one of the devices, figure 4, which is surrounded by a 2 cm thick lead shield, as stated by Rossi, and wrapped with insulation, figure 5. We had free access to the heater electric supply, to the inlet water hose, to the outlet steam valve and water hose and to the hydrogen gas feed pipe. The total weight of the device was estimated to be around 4 kg.
They DID inspect the vertical arm by unwrapping the insulation. (Fig 4)
They did NOT state that they had access to the Horizontal Arm of the unit that was actually used for testing. Fig 2,5 -- nor do they provide a photograph showing the insulation and the lead shield of the horizontal arm.
I read "As stated by Rossi" as "He said so and we believed him" -- not that "he previously stated it but we inspected it".
Fig E
Ruler rotated in photoshop
The total volume of the REACTOR was estimated as a cylinder:
Reactor cylinder, length: 6.00 cm diameter: 7.00 cm
volume: 179.59 cm3 = 0.1796 L Since the horizontal arm was NOT inspected, I have estimated its volume:
Fig F1
Scale ruler from fig D onto Fig B = 10cm Fig F2
Repeat for Length of Horizontal arm = 30cm (Any foreshortening would over-estimate the length.)
Fig F3
Scale rule to diameter of reactor = 7 cm
Fig F4
Step and Repeat for diameter of horizontal arm = 25cm
Horizontal Arm : cylinder, length: 30.00 cm diameter: 25.00 cm
volume: 14725.78 cm3 = 14.7258 L
I should also estimate the volume of the "steam outlet" section.
Preliminary Conclusion:
Because the horizontal arm was NOT inspected "unwrapped", we have to assume it contained FAKE material. The 6 hour test was NOT long enough to eliminate all of the fakes.
2. Abstract
A new "Cold Fusion" device was recently demonstrated at the University of Bologna, Italy on Jan 15, 2011. Unlike the Pons and Fleischmann setup, which uses Palladium and Deuterium and can take months to perform an experiment, the Rossi/Focardi eCAT uses Hydrogen and Nickel, produces large amounts of power (more than 10kW), and can be turned on and off on command.
A total of three experiments were performed : One in December 2010 by a panel of independent scientists (led by prof Levi), one in January 2011, attended by the same scientists and invited press, and one in February 2011 attended only by Levi, and for which a formal report has not been issued.
This paper attempts to prove that the Rossi/Focardi device is real, by ruling out all known fakes. For any particular fake the total energy and run-time is computed, assuming that the ENTIRE unknown volume is occupied by the fake material, and that its conversion to heat energy is 100% efficient. If the fake could run LONGER than the experiment, then it is NOT eliminated. If the fake would run out of fuel before the end of the experiment, then the fake is eliminated.
If ALL known fakes are eliminated, then the device must be real.
The December/January experiments were too short to rule out ANY of these theoretical fakes. But if Levi's informal reports on the February trial are accepted, then ALL fakes are eliminated.
Printable HTML Version
Printable PDF Version
3. Introduction
A new "Cold Fusion" or "LENR" (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) device -- the Rossi/Focardi Energy Catalyzer or eCAT was recently demonstrated at the University of Bologna, Italy on Jan 15, 2011: Rossi-Focardi Energy Catalyzer
An additional experiment was performed in February : Cold Fusion: 18 hour test excludes combustion
A good summary of these is given by Scott Chubb Infinite Energy Issue 96 March/April 2011
Cold fusion was first announced by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, and was rapidly "debunked". But contrary to popular (and mainstream scientific) opinion, Cold Fusion was never actually disproved (see the history section.) Work has continued in a variety of private, university and government studies, with an annual ICCF conference, now in its 17th year. Most of the work has concentrated on the Pons and Fleischmann setup, which uses Palladium and Deuterium. It has been replicated hundreds of times, though experiments can take months to run, and require sophisticated calorimetry.
In contrast, the Rossi/Focardi eCAT uses Hydrogen and Nickel, produces large amounts of power (more than 10kW), and can be turned on and off on command. Rossi plans to install a 1MW water-heating plant, made by connecting 100 10kW devices in series and parallel, in Athens, Greece, in October 2011.
Both of these eCAT demonstrations were primarily a "black box" calorimetry experiment. Because his patent application has not yet been approved, Rossi declines to make detailed comments on the process, or to let anyone see inside his "reactor chamber".
Villa notes in his report on the January experiment:
In the present test, as a precautionary attitude, whatever was not known, not disclosed or not understood has been considered as the energy source. This forces to consider relevant only very large energy productions, as those described in [1] where the reactor has been working for weeks and month
....
The duration of the tests would be directly proportional to the mass and volume of unknown origin. For the present set-up a convincing evidence would include a power production of (order of) 10 kW sustained for weeks in a controlled and monitorized environment.
This paper attempts to put numbers to that philosophy, by calculating UPPER BOUNDS on what any known chemical process could produce.
If it's not real, how can the experiment be faked? And if it's faked, how can we detect it, or eliminate it?
As Sherlock Holmes said in The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet:
It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
If all possible fakes are eliminated then the eCat must be real -- even though we do not know how it works. If current science can't explain it, then the science is wrong.
4. History
Cold fusion was first announced by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, and was rapidly "debunked".
But contrary to popular (and mainstream scientific) opinion, Cold Fusion was never actually disproved.
Cravens And Letts (The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt) performed a statistical analysis of 167 papers, and identified 4 criteria which were satisfied in all successful experiments (including Pons and Fleischmann's original paper), and in which one or more were omitted in failed experiments -- including all the original "Debunking" papers. The most important are Lewis (Caltech) -- where NONE of these criteria were met, and Williams (Harwell), in which only ONE was met. These two papers effectively removed Cold Fusion from main stream science (and funding). Cravens And Letts point out that although ignoring these criteria almost guarantees failure, following them improves, but does not ensure success. Alchemists were well advised to include the "eye of newt" in their potions, since they did not understand which of the many steps were critical to success, and which were irrelevant. Perhaps those alchemists used better science than Lewis and Williams.
Also see Krivit: How Can Cold Fusion Be Real, Considering It Was Disproved By Several Well-Respected Labs In 1989?
Work has continued in a variety of private, university and government studies (Experiments), with an annual ICCF conference, now in its 17th year. Hundreds of papers have been written, some in peer-reviewed mainstream journals. (Library).
Most of the work has concentrated on the Pons and Fleischmann setup, which uses Palladium and Deuterium. It has been replicated hundreds of times. However, it has not reached 100% reproducibility. Experiments take months to "load" the deuterium into the palladium (though recent experiments with co-depositing deuterium and palladium eliminate this step), and are not guaranteed to work. (Though a set of cathodes which work in one experiment will almost always work in a different set-up). They require very subtle calorimetry over a long period, which introduces doubt into the results.
In addition to the calorimetric results, a 'CR-39' polycarbonate detector (long used by the Russians) placed next to the electrode shows clear evidence of high-energy particles (Mossier-Boss et al : Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments and Reply to a comment .. by Kowalski).
The first reported work using Nickel and Hydrogen was by Francesco Piantelli (See articles by Krivit: Deuterium and Palladium Not Required and Piantelli-Focardi Publication and Replication Path ).
The Rossi/Focardi eCat uses Hydrogen and Nickel, produces large amounts of energy (more than 10kW), and can be turned on and off on command.
5. eCAT Demonstrator Apparatus
Image from Passerini Report (January 2011)
Image from Levi report (December 2010?).
The setup is
*======> steam
| outlet
*---------*
| : |
| : |
| Vertical|
Main | Arm |
Unit | : |
| : |
Horizontal Arm| : |
*-------------* : |
| Reactor : |
| * - - - - - -* : |
| :Shielding : : |
*------* | *- - - - - - * : |
Water ====| pump |=======>|::>: Heat :-* |
*------* | : Exchanger : |
*--------------* | *- - - - - - * |
AC:--->| Control Unit |===>|::>: Resistors : |
*--------------* | *- - - - - --* |
*------* | : Chamber : |
Compressed | H |======>|::>: Ni/H : |
Hydrogen | | | *- - - - - - * |
*------* | |
^^^^^^^^ *-----------------------*
scale || || metal legs
*============================*
board
The components are:
- Main Unit (Made up of a Horizontal and Vertical Arm)
- Horizontal Arm : Contains the Reactor Unit, reportedly made up of:
- Chamber -- contains Nickel, fed with Hydrogen
- Resistors -- used to "ignite" the reactor, then lowered to maintain the reaction
- Heat exchanger -- heats and/or boils the water.
- Radiation Shielding -- Lead
- Vertical Arm
- Water and Pump
- Control Unit powered from an AC wall-plug.
- Compressed Hydrogen bottle, weighed before and after.
The entire Horizontal and Vertical arms were enveloped in tinfoil for the December/January trials.
The presence or absence of any evidence of nuclear activity is NOT considered in this paper.
Operation:
- Load the reactor with hydrogen
- Apply 1 kW through the control panel until the reactor "ignites"
- Reduce the input power to 400 W (Jan) or 80 W (Feb)
- Pump water in at a measured rate and temperature
- Jan: Observe steam output, measure temperature and dryness
OR
Feb: Measure the water temperature at the outlet - Accurately measure the weight of the hydrogen bottle, before and after
6. Experiments
6.1. January 2011 Experiment
In December 2010 a team of scientists was allowed to examine the device, and performed a number of experiments.
In January 2011 a "press" demonstration was held -- though the reactor developed an internal problem (reportedly on the leads to an internal heating resistor), took a long time to "ignite", and ran at lower efficiency (higher input power).
These two will be referred to as the "January" apparatus and experiment.
The things we know about the January apparatus as a whole are:
- The input power to the controller
- The input water volume and temperature
- The output steam temperature and dryness
- The amount of hydrogen used
- ESTIMATED volumes of the various elements (Villa)
(These could be confirmed from the photographs).
- A very rough estimate of the weight of the Control Box (Levi)
Villa reported:
The basic observable elements are an horizontal metallic tube (approximate length 70 cm, diameter 20 cm, 22 l volume, 30 kg weight as a guess-estimate) as the reaction chamber, a vertical tube for steam output (50 cm length, 15 cm diameter, 9 l volume), a control system box (approx 40x40x40 cm3 dimensions, 64 l volume, unknown weight), a water pump and an hydrogen bottle.
Levi reported:
Prudentially I have lifted the control box in search for any other eventually hidden cable and found none. The weight of the control box was of few Kg.
The things we do NOT know about the January apparatus include:
- The contents of the controller
- The power from the controller to the main unit
- The output steam volume
- The weights before and after, other than the hydrogen bottle
- Whether any air was taken in by the device, or combustion products released.
ASSUMING that ALL the water was converted to steam the total OUTPUT energy was computed:
- Heat water to boiling point
- Convert to steam
- Heat the steam
Given the rate of flow, the output power (kW) was calculated, and the INPUT power (kW) to the controller was subtracted.
The volume of the various elements were estimated by Mauro Villa to be:
- Control Box 60 liters
- Horizontal Arm 22 liters
- Vertical Arm 9 liters
The measured values as summarized in LENR-CANR News are:
- Duration: 1 hour, of which 30 minutes was steam-producing
- Flow Rate: 17.5 L/Hr (292 ml/min)
- Input Power : 400W
- Excess Power 12.5 kW
- Factor 12.5/0.4 = 31
- Excess Energy (Excess Power x Run Time): 6.25 kWH
- Hydrogen: less than 0.1 g of hydrogen was consumed.
If the hydrogen had been burned it would have produced 0.0143 MJ (0.00397 kWH)
At the press conference Rossi announced that they have a working system providing heating in their own plant (presumably with multiple eCATS), and that he plans to install a 1MW Plant in Athens, Greece in October, 2011.
Reports:
6.2. February 2011 Experiment
The February trial reportedly had the same general structure, except that is was only used to HEAT water, not to convert it to steam.
The primary observer of the February run, Prof Levi, was allowed to examine everything EXCLUDING the reactor chamber, which he estimated to be about 1 liter in volume. He reported that a lot of the volume of the horizontal and vertical arms was insulation, and that lead shielding was visible around the reactor chamber.
Nyteknik.se: Cold Fusion: 18 hour test excludes combustion
This time I opened the control unit (and examined the interior), as someone said that it could contain a hidden battery. And I can swear in court that the box was empty, except for the control electronics five very simple PLCs and it weighed about seven kilograms, said Levi.
I have also seen inside the reactor device itself most of the volume is isolation, and most of the weight of about 30 kg is due to lead.
He confirmed that the reactor chamber, supposedly containing nickel powder, the secret catalysts and hydrogen gas, had a volume of around one liter. The reactor chamber was the only part he could not inspect.
LENR-CANR: Rossi 18-hour demonstration
On February 10 and 11, 2011, Levi et al. (U. Bologna) performed another test of the Rossi device. Compared to the January 14 test, they used a much higher flow rate, to keep the cooling water from vaporizing. This is partly to recover more heat, and partly because Celani and others criticized phase-change calorimetry as too complicated. There were concerns about the enthalpy of wet steam versus dry steam, and the use of a relative humidity meter to determine how dry the steam was. A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. These are approximations: ....
The things we know about the February apparatus as a whole are:
- The Control Unit and all parts of the Main Unit excluding the reactor were inspected.
- The input power to the controller
- The input water volume and temperature
- The output water temperature
- The amount of hydrogen used
- ESTIMATED volume of the reactor CHAMBER is 1 liter
- ESTIMATED mass of the REACTOR (Levi reports that the mass was 30 kg)
The things we do NOT know about the February apparatus include:
- The power from the controller to the main unit
- The VOLUME of the whole REACTOR.
- The weights before and after, other than the hydrogen bottle
- Whether any air was taken in by the device, or combustion products released.
The values reported by Rothwell are:
- Run Time: 18 hours
- Flow Rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s.
- Cooling water input temperature: 15°C
- Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C
- Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours
- Excess Power 16 kW
- Factor 16/0.08 = 200
- Excess Energy (Excess Power x Run Time): 288 kWH
- Hydrogen: less than 0.4 g of hydrogen was consumed.
If the hydrogen had been burned it would have produced 0.0572 MJ (0.0159 kWH)
However, the some of the values reported in Nyteknik are significantly different (and in favor of Rossi's eCAT):
Minimum power was 15 kilowatts, and thats a conservative value. I calculated it several times. At night we did a measurement and the device then worked very stable and produced 20 kilowatts.
Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts.
Note : Levi has not released a report of this experiment, and Rossi has declined to comment on it.
This paper uses Rothwell's numbers.
6.3. Recent Events
Rossi continues to provide a trickle of information (some of it conflicting with previous statements) on his blog JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE
For instance, he now now indicates that it is not the ELECTRICAL power which modulates the output, but the HYDROGEN:
Our plants of 1 MW are made with series and parallels of 10 kW modules. Our 10 kW modules have been tested from 2 years and we have a deep knowledge of them. If the temperature or the pressure inside the apparatus goes critic we cut the hydrogen supply and cool down the E-Cat increasing the flow of water as much as necessary. Consider that we do not use radioactive materials and we do not produce rad waste, that a single module has a volume of about 1 liter and is very easy to cool down with water. Every module is controlled indipendently from the others and if one module has to be stopped the others can work.
Through a live interview with NyTeknik Rossi answered a number of questions : E-cat inventor in live chat with the readers (+ Video Interview) and And here are 36 more questions with Rossi's answers -- though many of these were not technical in nature.
He recently appeared on a US Radio Program : Andrea Rossi with Sterling Allan on Coast to Coast AM
There is some evidence that the Hydrogen/Nickel reaction can become self-sustaining, so the ratio of output to input electrical power would become infinite.
Since the February experiment was reported, Rossi has reportedly PAID the University of Bologna €500,000 to investigate and develop the eCat device, and presumably under a non-disclosure agreement: This is how Rossi is financing his E-cat (this Nyteknik article also gives some background on Rossi). Another Nyteknik interview explores the manufacturing : Cold Fusion: Here's the Greek company building 1 MW
Rossi has stated that NO experimental results will be published for at least a year.
Since many of the original independent observers are now presumed to be under contract to Rossi, some might question their future impartiality. However, as Levi noted:
If I were an old professor with his career already done, then I would not have anything to risk. But any attempt at fraud on my part would be a terrible personal goal. What could I hope for? To have a title for ten days, and then be thrown from my own department. Because (the matter of) fraud comes up sooner or later. There is no hope for it. So if I ... well, I would be really stupid. Honestly, I would be really stupid!
7. Methodology for FAKE eCATS and their Detection
As Villa reported:
In the present test, as a precautionary attitude, whatever was not known, not disclosed or not understood has been considered as the energy source.
....
The duration of the tests would be directly proportional to the mass and volume of unknown origin.
The general methodology for Batteries and Chemicals is:
- Choose some kind of FAKE (eg batteries)
- Presume that the ENTIRE unknown structure is made up of the Fake material.
- Make NO allowances for implementation efficiency.
- Make NO allowance for practicality (the material or combustion products might be fatally toxic: the required equipment would be impossibly small).
- Use the energy density (by weight or by volume) to determine the MAXIMUM energy content of the fake.
- Using the observed excess POWER (kW) of the system, determine how long you would have to run it to exhaust the energy.
- If that time is LESS than the observed run time, then the FAKE is eliminated.
Some kinds of fake could also be detected by analyzing the output:
- Analyze the chemical composition of the output, to make sure no 'combustion' products are hidden
- Make sure that all the water which goes IN goes OUT
- Weigh the device before and after, to see whether chemicals have been consumed, or combustion products stored
... but see Rothwell's Razor, below.
Rothwell argues that some kinds of fakes would have been NOTICED by the observers (For example, if Diesel fuel were burned, there would be copious, fatally asphyxiating fumes --- though in the January experiment they could theoretically have been piped out of the room in the steam pipe.). However, this paper takes an extremely conservative position, distinguishing between "not NOTICED" and "tested and NOT FOUND":
- Anything which is not TESTED must be ruled in favor of the FAKE.
If both the Volume AND the weight are known, then calculate the maximum run time for both, and use the LOWER number.
These calculations assume that the experiment is run at constant power for the duration of the experiment, although during the February test there were reports that it produced 130 kW for short periods. In this case one would compare the total energy output of the fake and the measured values : it is not as easy to predict the time required to eliminate the fake.
If all fakes are eliminated, then, As Sherlock Holmes said -- again and again -- this time in The Sign of the Four:
You will not apply my precept, he said, shaking his head. How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
8. Organization
First, we define the Equipment Sections, giving the weight and volume.
Section |
Abrev |
Mass |
Volume |
kg |
L |
Section Name 1 |
SEC-1 |
11.000 |
12.000 |
Section Name 2 |
SEC-2 |
21.000 |
22.000 |
Section Name 3 |
SEC-3 |
31.000 |
32.000 |
Then we define various "Fake Materials" which could be used.
Material |
Abrev |
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Comment |
MJ/kg |
kWH/kg |
MJ/L |
kWH/L |
Material 1 |
MAT-1 |
12.300 |
3.417 |
45.600 |
12.667 |
|
Finally, we construct "Experiments", in which we put various materials in the sections of the unit (presently fixed at three sections), note the POWER that the experiment produced, and the TIME it ran for. We calculate and add up the total ENERGY that the sections could contain, and calculate how long the FAKE could run at the observed POWER level.
If the FAKE could run LONGER than the actual experiment, then it is NOT eliminated.
If the FAKE only runs SHORTER than the actual experiment, then it is ELIMINATED.
Experiment 1 : All sections contain MAT-1 |
Section |
SEC-1 |
SEC-2 |
SEC-3 |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
MAT-1 |
MAT-1 |
MAT-1 |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
152 kWH |
279 kWH |
405 kWH |
836 kWH |
10.0 kW |
83.6 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
Fake can run longer than the experiment: fake is NOT eliminated |
Experiment 2 : Only SEC-2 contain MAT-1 |
Section |
SEC-1 |
SEC-2 |
SEC-3 |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
MAT-1 |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
279 kWH |
|
279 kWH |
16.0 kW |
17.4 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
Fake cannot run as long as the experiment -- Fake is eliminated |
9. Equipment Sections
9.1. Control Box
Villa reported the volume as 60 liters.
In January Levi reported its weight as "a few kg".
In February Levi looked inside the control box, and reports its weight as 7 kg
Section |
Abrev |
Mass |
Volume |
kg |
L |
Control Box |
Ctrl |
7.000 |
60.000 |
9.2. Horizontal Arm
The weight is unknown -- estimated by Villa as 30 kg
Villa reported the volume as 22 liters.
Levi reported in February that much of the volume is insulation.
Section |
Abrev |
Mass |
Volume |
kg |
L |
Horizontal Arm |
Horz |
- |
22.000 |
9.3. Vertical Arm
The weight is unknown.
Villa reported the volume as 9 liters.
Levi reported in February that there are no hidden components.
Section |
Abrev |
Mass |
Volume |
kg |
L |
Vertical Arm |
Vert |
- |
9.000 |
9.4. Reactor
In February Levi reported:
- The mass of the reactor is 30 kg, and that most of that is lead.
- The volume of the Reactor CHAMBER is 1 liter, but did not give not the volume of the REACTOR as a whole.
Pending further information, this paper ASSUMES that the volume of the reactor as a whole is HALF the volume of the Horizontal Arm
Section |
Abrev |
Mass |
Volume |
kg |
L |
Reactor |
React |
30.000 |
11.000 |
Reactor Chamber |
Chamber |
- |
1.000 |
10. Batteries and Chemicals
This section describes various techniques and materials which could be possibly used to construct a fake.
The materials are selected from Wikipedia Energy Density
(Unfortunately not all entries give the Energy by volume AND by weight.)
The Wiki table gives the Energy Density for some materials, assuming that oxygen is obtained from an external source. If the oxidant also has to be stored, then the Energy Density is reduced in proportion to the mass or volume of the two components. These calculations are shown in a separate section.
The materials selected represent the highest efficiency for any class.
These all have the characteristic that they contain a fixed amount of energy, and can therefore only run for a limited time. A fake made from batteries or chemicals simply has to be run for long enough to exhaust the material.
Batteries could be contained in the Control Box, and in the Main Unit.
10.1. Lithium Ion Batteries
Lithium-Ion batteries are listed as the most efficient by volume.
(Lead-Acid batteries are listed for comparison.)
Material |
Abrev |
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Comment |
MJ/kg |
kWH/kg |
MJ/L |
kWH/L |
Lead-Acid Batteries |
Lead B |
0.140 |
0.039 |
0.360 |
0.100 |
|
Lithium-Ion Batteries |
L-i B |
0.720 |
0.200 |
3.600 |
1.000 |
|
Lithium-Sodium batteries are listed as a higher Energy Density by Mass -- but the volume is not given.
10.2. Hydrogen Fuel Cell
This method uses a Hydrogen Fuel Cell, which could deliver electric power from the Control Box to the Main Unit.
It could use compressed or liquid Hydrogen, in conjunction with external air, compressed Oxygen or liquid oxygen.
Material |
Abrev |
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Comment |
MJ/kg |
kWH/kg |
MJ/L |
kWH/L |
Compressed Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell |
CH/Air-FC |
143.000 |
39.723 |
5.600 |
1.556 |
|
Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell |
LH/Air-FC |
143.000 |
39.723 |
10.100 |
2.806 |
|
Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen Fuel Cell |
CH/CO-FC |
15.990 |
4.442 |
3.734 |
1.037 |
|
Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen Fuel Cell |
LH/LO-FC |
15.990 |
4.442 |
3.748 |
1.041 |
|
Comments : the by-product is water, which could be vented, or, if burned with oxygen, condensed and stored.
10.3. Hydrogen burned with Air or Oxygen
This could be used in the main unit only.
This method burns compressed or liquid Hydrogen with external air, compressed Oxygen or Liquid Oxygen
Material |
Abrev |
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Comment |
MJ/kg |
kWH/kg |
MJ/L |
kWH/L |
Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
CH/Air |
143.000 |
39.723 |
5.600 |
1.556 |
|
Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
LH/Air |
143.000 |
39.723 |
10.100 |
2.806 |
|
Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
CH/CO |
15.990 |
4.442 |
3.734 |
1.037 |
|
Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
LH/LO |
15.990 |
4.442 |
3.748 |
1.041 |
|
Comments : the by-product is water, which could be vented into the outlet, or, if burned with oxygen, condensed and stored.
10.4. Diesel burned with Air
Material |
Abrev |
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Comment |
MJ/kg |
kWH/kg |
MJ/L |
kWH/L |
Diesel/Air |
Dsl/Air |
46.200 |
12.833 |
37.300 |
10.361 |
|
The Wiki Energy density table indicates that diesel has a slightly higher energy content than gasoline.
Diesel or Gasoline would produce large quantities of fumes, which would be very hard to hide from observers. It might be possible to vent it into the steam outlet.
10.5. Boron burned with Air or Oxygen
This method uses Boron, burned with external air, compressed Oxygen or Liquid Oxygen, forming solid Boron Trioxide, which can remain in the unit.
Material |
Abrev |
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Comment |
MJ/kg |
kWH/kg |
MJ/L |
kWH/L |
Boron/External Air |
B/Air |
58.900 |
16.361 |
137.800 |
38.278 |
|
Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
B/CO |
18.293 |
5.081 |
16.131 |
4.481 |
|
Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
B/LO |
18.293 |
5.081 |
23.345 |
6.485 |
|
Boron is hard to ignite in air. Even in Oxygen it has to be raised to a high temperature. It is not clear whether non-toxic, glassy Boron Trioxide is formed by burning, or whether toxic BO and BO2 compounds are formed.
It might only be feasible to burn powdered Boron : we assume that solid Boron is used.
10.6. Aluminum burned with Air or Oxygen
This method uses Aluminum, burned with external air, compressed Oxygen or Liquid Oxygen, forming oxides, which can remain in the unit.
Aluminum is easier to ignite than Boron.
Its energy density is less than Boron, so it would be easier to detect. As with Boron, it might only burn in powdered form.
10.7. Beryllium burned with Air or Oxygen
This method uses Beryllium, burned with external air, compressed Oxygen or Liquid Oxygen, forming oxides, which can remain in the unit.
Beryllium is easier to ignite than Boron, but both Beryllium and its combustion products are extremely toxic.
10.8. Magnesium and Steam
Reactions of Metals and Water
Magnesium combines with STEAM to produce Magnesium Oxide and Hydrogen.
Mg + H2O ==> MgO + H2
The hydrogen can then be burned with Air or Oxygen to produce water.
An initial amount of water can be boiled using the internal resistors, and then the resultant steam can be recycled.
Material |
Abrev |
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Comment |
MJ/kg |
kWH/kg |
MJ/L |
kWH/L |
Magnesium/Steam |
Mg/Steam |
24.884 |
6.912 |
43.248 |
12.013 |
|
10.9. Explosives
One might expect that Explosives would contain a lot of energy. In fact, most of them do not. For instance, Nitroglycerine only contains 10 MJ/L, compared to Boron/External Air, which has 138 MJ/L. They just release their energy very quickly.
10.10. Compressed or Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen
These ABSORB energy when decompressed or evaporated. It is presumed that this is obtained from the ambient air.
10.11. Previously Unknown Chemical Reactions
Rossi has indicated that the reactor chamber has to be re-charged every six months.
A chemical reaction which can produce 10kW for 18 hours (let alone 6 months) would be as big a break-through in Chemistry as a LENR device would be in Physics.
10.12. Other suggested fakes (Pending analysis)
This section lists fakes which have been suggested by readers, but which have not yet been evaluated.
- Krzysztof Dydak : The reactor could contain Raney Nickel/air fuel cell fed with hydrazine dissolved in water with caustic.
11. Other Fixed-Energy Methods
11.1. Pre-loaded Heat Sink
Proposed By : Rothwell (Rossi credibility)
The entire volume is composed of a material with high specific heat.
See Heat capacity, which has an entry for Volumetric Heat Capacity J·cm−3·K−1
Material |
Specific Heat |
Maximum Temperature |
Minimum Temperature |
|
MJ/ Liter |
Comments |
Water |
4.21 |
100 |
14 |
0.36206 |
Boils |
Be |
3.38 |
1287 |
14 |
4.30274 |
Melts. Poisonous |
Iron |
3.53 |
1538 |
14 |
5.37972 |
Melts |
Lead |
1.44 |
327.46 |
14 |
0.4513824 |
Melts |
Beryllium and Iron are selected for their high specific heat values. Water and lead are included because they are known to be constituents of the main unit.
These values are loaded into a material table:
Material |
Abrev |
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Comment |
MJ/kg |
kWH/kg |
MJ/L |
kWH/L |
SPH Water |
SPH Water |
- |
- |
0.362 |
0.101 |
|
SPH Be |
SPH Be |
- |
- |
4.303 |
1.195 |
|
SPH Iron |
SPH Iron |
- |
- |
5.380 |
1.494 |
|
SPH Lead |
SPH Lead |
- |
- |
0.451 |
0.125 |
|
Note that the heat capacity might also explain "heat after death", when the output power continues after the inputs are turned off.
This fake must be entirely contained in the main body of the apparatus.
The upper temperatures are set to the boiling point of water, or for other materials, their melting point.
11.2. Input Water Diversion
Proposed by : Rothwell
The water which is pumped INTO the system is NOT all sent into the heat exchanger, but some is diverted into storage.
For example, if the observed output power is 10 times the input power, and only 1/10 the water is converted to steam then the apparent output will be FAKE. It can run until the diverted 9/10 of the water fills the reservoir.
As an UPPER limit, presume that the ENTIRE flow is diverted.
Maximum run time = volume / flow_rate
|
Sections |
Volume (liters) |
Flow (liters/hr) |
Time to Fill (Hrs) |
Jan |
Horz and Vert |
31.00 |
17.50 |
1.77 |
Feb |
Horz |
22.00 |
3000.00 |
0.01 |
12. Unlimited-Energy Methods
These have the characteristic that they can run for an unlimited time.
Instead of calculating how long they could run, one has to calculate what is is needed to produce the observed power.
12.1. Hidden Wires or Tubes
It has been suggested that hidden wires could have provided the observed power (Rothwell:
Hidden wire hypothesis redux). This can only be eliminated by inspecting the apparatus.
Similarly, a small tube could supply gas to the unit (Rothwell: Vortex List) --- although other methods might detect this (change of weight, imbalance between input and output volumes).
The January experiment was fully open to inspection. There were clearly no hidden wires capable of carrying 10kW or any tubes.
12.2. Heat Pump
KitemanSA on the polywell forum. suggested that a
heat pump could have provided the observed power.
If these numbers are true, then even with a perfect heat pump, the output power (given max Coefficient of Performance and 80W input) could only be ~4.6kW.
CoP ~ T/ΔT ~300/5 = 60
60*80 = 4800 = 4.6kW
So unless there is significant measurement error or fraud, this isn't a heat pump device either.
Actually...
if the room was at typical room temperature, which is ~21 ºC, the theoretical CoP would be infinite, so it COULD be a fancy heat pump.
The Wiki article indicates that the maximum CoP in a Carnot Cycle might be as low as 12.5
The January experiment would have needed a CoP of 31, and the February experiment would need 200.
A theoretical, infinite-CoP heat pump could probably only be ruled out by enclosing the entire Main Unit in a calorimeter. If this were filled with Nitrogen, it would also rule out any method using Air as a fuel.
12.3. Nuclear : Plutonium 238
One gram of Plutonium 238 generates approximately 0.5 watts of power.
Material |
Abrev |
Power by Mass kW/kg |
Power by Volume kW/L |
Specific gravity |
Plutonium 238 |
Pu238 |
0.500 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
To produce 10 kW of power one would need 5.00 kg of Pu 238.
Since 1993, all of the plutonium-238 the U.S. has used in space probes has been purchased from Russia. 16.5 kilograms in total have been purchased.
For the proposed 1 MW unit, one needs 500.00 kg -- more than was acquired by NASA.
Note : the Wiki Energy Density value is very high : it is probably the total energy emitted until the Plutonium is effectively depleted.
13. Experiments -- FAKES by VOLUME
For each type of fake, various "experiments" are defined, with individual sections loaded with fake materials.
For each combination of materials, five experiments are evaluated:
- The January Power and Duration, with ALL sections, including the Control Box, filled with fake material
- The January Power and Duration, with the Main Unit filled with fake material. Levi's statement that the control box "weighed a few kg" and therefore cannot contain fake material, is accepted.
- The February Power and Duration, with the Horizontal Arm filled with fake material. Levi's statements about the control box and the vertical arm are accepted.
- The February Power and Duration, with an ESTIMATE of the volume of the whole reactor.
- The February Power and Duration, with Levi's description of the volume of the reactor CHAMBER..
13.1. Lithium Ion Batteries
Control Box: Lithium-Ion Batteries Main Unit: Lithium-Ion Batteries |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
L-i B |
L-i B |
L-i B |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
60.0 kWH |
22.0 kWH |
9.00 kWH |
91.0 kWH |
10.0 kW |
9.10 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Lithium-Ion Batteries |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
L-i B |
L-i B |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
22.0 kWH |
9.00 kWH |
31.0 kWH |
10.0 kW |
3.10 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Lithium-Ion Batteries |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
L-i B |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
22.0 kWH |
|
22.0 kWH |
16.0 kW |
1.38 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Lithium-Ion Batteries |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
L-i B |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
11.0 kWH |
|
11.0 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.688 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Lithium-Ion Batteries |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
L-i B |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.00 kWH |
|
1.00 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.0625 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Lithium-Ion Batteries |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
L-i B |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
14.7 kWH |
|
|
14.7 kWH |
4.39 kW |
3.35 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Lithium-Ion Batteries |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
L-i B |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0898 kWH |
|
0.0898 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0205 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Lithium-Ion Batteries |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
L-i B |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0500 kWH |
|
0.0500 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0114 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
13.2. Hydrogen
Controller contains a Hydrogen Fuel Cell, Main unit burns Hydrogen.
Liquid Hydrogen and external Air are the most favorable for a fake.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
LH/Air |
LH/Air |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
61.7 kWH |
25.3 kWH |
255 kWH |
10.0 kW |
25.5 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
LH/Air |
LH/Air |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
61.7 kWH |
25.3 kWH |
87.0 kWH |
10.0 kW |
8.70 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
61.7 kWH |
|
61.7 kWH |
16.0 kW |
3.86 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
30.9 kWH |
|
30.9 kWH |
16.0 kW |
1.93 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
2.81 kWH |
|
2.81 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.175 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
41.3 kWH |
|
|
41.3 kWH |
4.39 kW |
9.41 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.252 kWH |
|
0.252 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0574 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.140 kWH |
|
0.140 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0320 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
Compressed Hydrogen, External Air
Control Box: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
CH/Air-FC |
CH/Air |
CH/Air |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
93.3 kWH |
34.2 kWH |
14.0 kWH |
142 kWH |
10.0 kW |
14.2 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
CH/Air |
CH/Air |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
34.2 kWH |
14.0 kWH |
48.2 kWH |
10.0 kW |
4.82 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
34.2 kWH |
|
34.2 kWH |
16.0 kW |
2.14 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
17.1 kWH |
|
17.1 kWH |
16.0 kW |
1.07 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.56 kWH |
|
1.56 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.0972 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
CH/Air |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
22.9 kWH |
|
|
22.9 kWH |
4.39 kW |
5.22 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.140 kWH |
|
0.140 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0318 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Compressed Hydrogen/External Air |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0778 kWH |
|
0.0778 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0177 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
Compressed Hydrogen, Compressed Oxygen
Control Box: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen Fuel Cell Main Unit: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
CH/CO-FC |
CH/CO |
CH/CO |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
62.2 kWH |
22.8 kWH |
9.34 kWH |
94.4 kWH |
10.0 kW |
9.44 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
CH/CO |
CH/CO |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
22.8 kWH |
9.34 kWH |
32.2 kWH |
10.0 kW |
3.22 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
22.8 kWH |
|
22.8 kWH |
16.0 kW |
1.43 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
11.4 kWH |
|
11.4 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.713 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.04 kWH |
|
1.04 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.0648 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
CH/CO |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
15.3 kWH |
|
|
15.3 kWH |
4.39 kW |
3.48 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0931 kWH |
|
0.0931 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0212 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Compressed Hydrogen/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
CH/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0519 kWH |
|
0.0519 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0118 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
Liquid Hydrogen, Liquid Oxygen
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen Fuel Cell Main Unit: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/LO-FC |
LH/LO |
LH/LO |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
62.5 kWH |
22.9 kWH |
9.37 kWH |
94.7 kWH |
10.0 kW |
9.47 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
LH/LO |
LH/LO |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
22.9 kWH |
9.37 kWH |
32.3 kWH |
10.0 kW |
3.23 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
22.9 kWH |
|
22.9 kWH |
16.0 kW |
1.43 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
11.5 kWH |
|
11.5 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.716 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.04 kWH |
|
1.04 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.0651 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
LH/LO |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
15.3 kWH |
|
|
15.3 kWH |
4.39 kW |
3.49 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0935 kWH |
|
0.0935 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0213 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
LH/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0521 kWH |
|
0.0521 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0119 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
13.3. Diesel Fuel
Controller contains a Hydrogen Fuel Cell, Main unit burns Diesel.
For both, external Air is the most favorable for a fake.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: Diesel/Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
Dsl/Air |
Dsl/Air |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
228 kWH |
93.3 kWH |
490 kWH |
10.0 kW |
49.0 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Diesel/Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
Dsl/Air |
Dsl/Air |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
228 kWH |
93.3 kWH |
321 kWH |
10.0 kW |
32.1 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Diesel/Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Dsl/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
228 kWH |
|
228 kWH |
16.0 kW |
14.2 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Diesel/Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Dsl/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
114 kWH |
|
114 kWH |
16.0 kW |
7.12 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Diesel/Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Dsl/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
10.4 kWH |
|
10.4 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.648 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Diesel/Air |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
Dsl/Air |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
153 kWH |
|
|
153 kWH |
4.39 kW |
34.8 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Diesel/Air |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Dsl/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.930 kWH |
|
0.930 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.212 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Diesel/Air |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Dsl/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.518 kWH |
|
0.518 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.118 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
13.4. Boron and Air or Oxygen
Controller contains a Hydrogen Fuel Cell (Liquid Hydrogen/Air), Main unit burns Boron with Air.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: Boron/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
B/Air |
B/Air |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
842 kWH |
345 kWH |
1355 kWH |
10.0 kW |
135 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Boron/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
B/Air |
B/Air |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
842 kWH |
345 kWH |
1187 kWH |
10.0 kW |
119 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Boron/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
B/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
842 kWH |
|
842 kWH |
16.0 kW |
52.6 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Boron/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
B/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
421 kWH |
|
421 kWH |
16.0 kW |
26.3 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Boron/External Air |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
38.3 kWH |
|
38.3 kWH |
16.0 kW |
2.39 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Boron/External Air |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
B/Air |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
564 kWH |
|
|
564 kWH |
4.39 kW |
128 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Boron/External Air |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
3.44 kWH |
|
3.44 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.783 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Boron/External Air |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/Air |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.91 kWH |
|
1.91 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.436 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
Controller contains a Hydrogen Fuel Cell (Liquid Hydrogen/Air), Main unit burns Boron with Compressed Oxygen.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
B/CO |
B/CO |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
98.6 kWH |
40.3 kWH |
307 kWH |
10.0 kW |
30.7 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
B/CO |
B/CO |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
98.6 kWH |
40.3 kWH |
139 kWH |
10.0 kW |
13.9 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
98.6 kWH |
|
98.6 kWH |
16.0 kW |
6.16 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
49.3 kWH |
|
49.3 kWH |
16.0 kW |
3.08 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
4.48 kWH |
|
4.48 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.280 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
B/CO |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
66.0 kWH |
|
|
66.0 kWH |
4.39 kW |
15.0 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.402 kWH |
|
0.402 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0917 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Boron/Compressed Oxygen |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/CO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.224 kWH |
|
0.224 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0510 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
Controller contains a Hydrogen Fuel Cell (Liquid Hydrogen/Air), Main unit burns Boron with Liquid Oxygen.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
B/LO |
B/LO |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
143 kWH |
58.4 kWH |
369 kWH |
10.0 kW |
36.9 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
B/LO |
B/LO |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
143 kWH |
58.4 kWH |
201 kWH |
10.0 kW |
20.1 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
143 kWH |
|
143 kWH |
16.0 kW |
8.92 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
71.3 kWH |
|
71.3 kWH |
16.0 kW |
4.46 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
6.48 kWH |
|
6.48 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.405 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
B/LO |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
95.5 kWH |
|
|
95.5 kWH |
4.39 kW |
21.8 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.582 kWH |
|
0.582 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.133 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Boron/Liquid Oxygen |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
B/LO |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.324 kWH |
|
0.324 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0739 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
13.5. Magnesium and Steam
Controller contains a Hydrogen Fuel Cell (Liquid Hydrogen/Air), Main unit burns Magnesium in Steam, producing Hydrogen, which is burned with external Air.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: Magnesium/Steam |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
Mg/Steam |
Mg/Steam |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
264 kWH |
108 kWH |
541 kWH |
10.0 kW |
54.1 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: Magnesium/Steam |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
Mg/Steam |
Mg/Steam |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
264 kWH |
108 kWH |
372 kWH |
10.0 kW |
37.2 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: Magnesium/Steam |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Mg/Steam |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
264 kWH |
|
264 kWH |
16.0 kW |
16.5 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Magnesium/Steam |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Mg/Steam |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
132 kWH |
|
132 kWH |
16.0 kW |
8.26 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Magnesium/Steam |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Mg/Steam |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
12.0 kWH |
|
12.0 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.751 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: Magnesium/Steam |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
Mg/Steam |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
177 kWH |
|
|
177 kWH |
4.39 kW |
40.3 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: Magnesium/Steam |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Mg/Steam |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.08 kWH |
|
1.08 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.246 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: Magnesium/Steam |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
Mg/Steam |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.601 kWH |
|
0.601 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.137 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
13.6. Water Heat Sink
The entire volume of the main unit is a water heat sink. Note that this cannot BOIL the water for the January experiment.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: SPH Water |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
SPH Water |
SPH Water |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
2.21 kWH |
0.905 kWH |
171 kWH |
10.0 kW |
17.1 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: SPH Water |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Water |
SPH Water |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
2.21 kWH |
0.905 kWH |
3.12 kWH |
10.0 kW |
0.312 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: SPH Water |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Water |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
2.21 kWH |
|
2.21 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.138 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: SPH Water |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Water |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.11 kWH |
|
1.11 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.0691 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: SPH Water |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Water |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.101 kWH |
|
0.101 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.00629 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: SPH Water |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
SPH Water |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
1.48 kWH |
|
|
1.48 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.337 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: SPH Water |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Water |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.00903 kWH |
|
0.00903 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.00206 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: SPH Water |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Water |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.00503 kWH |
|
0.00503 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.00115 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
13.7. Beryllium Heat Sink
The entire volume of the main unit is a Beryllium Heat Sink ... pre-heated to its melting point.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: SPH Be |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
SPH Be |
SPH Be |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
26.3 kWH |
10.8 kWH |
205 kWH |
10.0 kW |
20.5 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: SPH Be |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
SPH Be |
SPH Be |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
26.3 kWH |
10.8 kWH |
37.1 kWH |
10.0 kW |
3.71 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: SPH Be |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Be |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
26.3 kWH |
|
26.3 kWH |
16.0 kW |
1.64 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: SPH Be |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Be |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
13.1 kWH |
|
13.1 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.822 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: SPH Be |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Be |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.20 kWH |
|
1.20 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.0747 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: SPH Be |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
SPH Be |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
17.6 kWH |
|
|
17.6 kWH |
4.39 kW |
4.01 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: SPH Be |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Be |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.107 kWH |
|
0.107 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0244 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: SPH Be |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Be |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0598 kWH |
|
0.0598 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0136 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
13.8. Iron Heat Sink
The entire volume of the main unit is an Iron Heat Sink ... pre-heated to its melting point.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: SPH Iron |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
SPH Iron |
SPH Iron |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
32.9 kWH |
13.4 kWH |
215 kWH |
10.0 kW |
21.5 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: SPH Iron |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
- |
SPH Iron |
SPH Iron |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
32.9 kWH |
13.4 kWH |
46.3 kWH |
10.0 kW |
4.63 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: SPH Iron |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Iron |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
32.9 kWH |
|
32.9 kWH |
16.0 kW |
2.05 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: SPH Iron |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Iron |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
16.4 kWH |
|
16.4 kWH |
16.0 kW |
1.03 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: SPH Iron |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Iron |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.49 kWH |
|
1.49 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.0934 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: SPH Iron |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
SPH Iron |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
22.0 kWH |
|
|
22.0 kWH |
4.39 kW |
5.01 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: SPH Iron |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Iron |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.134 kWH |
|
0.134 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0306 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: SPH Iron |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Iron |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0747 kWH |
|
0.0747 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.0170 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
13.9. Lead Heat Sink
The entire volume of the main unit is an Lead Heat Sink ... pre-heated to its melting point.
Control Box: Liquid Hydrogen/External Air Fuel Cell Main Unit: SPH Lead |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
FAKE? |
Material |
LH/Air-FC |
SPH Lead |
SPH Lead |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
168 kWH |
2.76 kWH |
1.13 kWH |
172 kWH |
10.0 kW |
17.2 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with ALL sections |
Main Unit: SPH Lead |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Lead |
SPH Lead |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
2.76 kWH |
1.13 kWH |
3.89 kWH |
10.0 kW |
0.389 Hrs |
0.500 Hrs |
January with MAIN unit -- excluding Control Box |
Horizontal Arm: SPH Lead |
Section |
Ctrl |
Horz |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Lead |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
2.76 kWH |
|
2.76 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.172 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: SPH Lead |
Section |
Ctrl |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Lead |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
1.38 kWH |
|
1.38 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.0862 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: SPH Lead |
Section |
Ctrl |
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Lead |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.125 kWH |
|
0.125 kWH |
16.0 kW |
0.00784 Hrs |
18.0 Hrs |
February with reactor CHAMBER volume |
Horizontal Arm: SPH Lead |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
SPH Lead |
- |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
1.85 kWH |
|
|
1.85 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.421 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with HORIZONTAL unit |
Reactor: SPH Lead |
Section |
Horz |
React |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Lead |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.0113 kWH |
|
0.0113 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.00256 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with ESTIMATED reactor volume |
Reactor chamber: SPH Lead |
Section |
|
Chamber |
Vert |
Fake Energy |
Expt Power |
REAL |
Material |
- |
SPH Lead |
- |
Fake |
Expt |
Energy |
|
0.00627 kWH |
|
0.00627 kWH |
4.39 kW |
0.00143 Hrs |
6.00 Hrs |
March with reactor CHAMBER volume |
FAKE? means that the fake could run longer than the experiment, and is NOT eliminated REAL means that the fake is ELIMINATED by an experiment, so the device could be REAL |
14. Experiments -- FAKES by WEIGHT
At present we have no independent measurements of the weight of the various parts of the eCat.
15. Rothwell's Razor
This is a variation of (the usually misquoted)
Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories ... until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation.
It is very tempting to propose elaborate schemes by which a fake eCat could be detected. For instance, in the author's physorg.com posts he suggested feeding it a brew of various isotopes of water to make sure that the SAME water goes in and comes out.
However, in the Vortex mailing list Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
Jed Rothwell suggests in response to another comment:
This is my point, there may be a million things you haven't thought of.
Nope. That does not work. A good experiment cannot have a million possible problems. If we had to think up a million ways that an experiment might be wrong (or fake -- pretty much the same thing) then no experiment would ever prove anything, and there would be no progress.
A bad experiment can have a large number of possible errors (or ways to make it fake).
....
Flow calorimetry experiments similar to this, with boiling water or flowing water, have been done many times. The potential errors are well understood and their number is strictly limited -- unless you are aiming for the kind of precision SRI achieved.
In an experiment with only 4 main parameters -- input power, inlet temperature, outlet temperature and flow rate -- the number of potential significant errors will [be] small, and so will the number of ways deliberately fake data can be surreptitiously introduced. When the method is complicated, and the results close to the margin, with many parameters with, for example, the possibility of recombination producing a significant error, then there are many ways an error can creep in, and many ways to deliberately introduce fake data.
Complexity and a low s/n ratio invite error, misinterpretation or fraud.
16. Conclusion
Since the December/January experiments only recorded the inputs and outputs for a short time (30 minutes), almost ANY of the fakes could have produced the result.
For the February experiment Levi was allowed to inspect everything, EXCLUDING only the 1-liter reactor chamber.
Neither the January or February experiments can rule out a Heat Pump which exceeds known efficiencies by a factor of 100 (or even higher, if the 130kW peak output could be sustained). An eCat doing this would be as important an engineering breakthrough as an LENR device. Similarly, a previously-unknown chemical reaction which can produce 10kW for 6 months from a 1 liter source would be an equally important discovery in chemistry. As Sherlock Holmes said in Silver Blaze:
... and improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still.
The "Proof" that the device is real currently rests on Levi's informal description: if you accept all of Levi's February report, then all fakes are conclusively ruled out. Or as Sherlock Holmes repeatedly said (in The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans):
We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Here all other contingencies have failed.
17. Discussion
This paper considers UPPER BOUNDS for what a Fake could achieve.
Any actual fake would run into engineering difficulties long before those limits were reached.
When designing a machine for propulsion or for electricity, thermodynamics is your enemy. The heat of friction, for instance, robs your output. But if your machine is simply heating water, then thermodynamics is your friend, or at least neutral.
But the limits of thermal efficiency are not THAT far off 100% : for instance, modern gas furnaces have an efficiency of over 95% (Furnaces and Boilers). Nor is the assumption that 100% of the weight or volume is fuel : advanced rockets such as the Proton UR-500 have a 95.6% fuel-to-dry-weight factor.
So any discussion of "implementation" is quibbling over less than 5%!
Because of the difficulty of measuring the results with steam (volume and content), future experiments should be used to heat the water (as in the February experiment).
For this we need:
- Input electrical power (BETWEEN the control panel and the reactor)
- Input hydrogen (by weight)
- Inlet temperature
- Outlet temperature
- Water volume
- Total weight before
- Total weight after
- Heat pump requires an air calorimeter round the main unit
- Sealed unit, to prevent drawing air as a fuel (calorimeter filled with Nitrogen)
OR
Thorough inspection to check for leaks
As much as possible of the unit should be open to inspection to reduce the volumes (or weights) in which fake material could be hidden, and thus shorten the time needed to eliminate fakes.
18. Calculations
18.1. Wiki Energy Densities
The Wiki of Energy Densities doesn't have entries for all cases where (for instance) Hydrogen is used with Compressed or Liquid Oxygen.
This section calculates how much the "wiki" Energy Densities by Mass and by Volume are reduced if the available space has to be shared between the Hydrogen and Oxygen.
18.2. Reference Documents
18.3. Atoms and Molecules
H mass 1.0071
H2 mass 2.0142
Gas Density : 8.988E-5 kg/L
Compressed Density : 0.046647636700649 kg/L (700 Bar)
Liquid Density : 0.07099 kg/L
O mass 15.999 O2 mass 31.998 Gas Density : 0.001429 kg/L Compressed Density : 0.74164967562558 kg/L (700 Bar) Liquid Density : 1.141 kg/L
B mass 10.811 Solid Density : 2.52 kg/L
18.4. Compressed hydrogen + Compressed Oxygen
Formula: 2 H2 + O2 ===> 2 H2O
H2 (Compressed H2)
O2 (Compressed O2)
H2 mass : 2 * 2.014 = 4.028
O2 mass : 1 * 31.998 = 31.998
Total mass : 36.026
H2 mass fac : 4.028 / 36.026 = 0.112
O2 mass fac : 31.998 / 36.026 = 0.888
Volume : mass / density
H2 volume : 4.028 / 0.047 = 86.358
O2 volume : 31.998 / 0.742 = 43.144
Total vol : 129.502
H2 vol fac : 86.358/129.502 = 0.667
O2 vol fac : 43.144/129.502 = 0.333
18.5. Liquid hydrogen + Liquid Oxygen
Formula: 2 H2 + O2 ===> 2 H2O
H2 (Liquid H2)
O2 (Liquid O2)
H2 mass : 2 * 2.014 = 4.028
O2 mass : 1 * 31.998 = 31.998
Total mass : 36.026
H2 mass fac : 4.028 / 36.026 = 0.112
O2 mass fac : 31.998 / 36.026 = 0.888
Volume : mass / density
H2 volume : 4.028 / 0.071 = 56.746
O2 volume : 31.998 / 1.141 = 28.044
Total vol : 84.790
H2 vol fac : 56.746/84.790 = 0.669
O2 vol fac : 28.044/84.790 = 0.331
18.6. Boron + Compressed Oxygen
Formula: 4 B + 3 O2 ===> 2 B2O3
B (Solid B)
O2 (Compressed O2)
B mass : 4 * 10.811 = 43.244
O2 mass : 3 * 31.998 = 95.994
Total mass : 139.238
B mass fac : 43.244 / 139.238 = 0.311
O2 mass fac : 95.994 / 139.238 = 0.689
Volume : mass / density
B volume : 43.244 / 2.520 = 17.160
O2 volume : 95.994 / 0.742 = 129.433
Total vol : 146.593
B vol fac : 17.160/146.593 = 0.117
O2 vol fac : 129.433/146.593 = 0.883
18.7. Boron + Liquid Oxygen
Formula: 4 B + 3 O2 ===> 2 B2O3
B (Solid B)
O2 (Liquid O2)
B mass : 4 * 10.811 = 43.244
O2 mass : 3 * 31.998 = 95.994
Total mass : 139.238
B mass fac : 43.244 / 139.238 = 0.311
O2 mass fac : 95.994 / 139.238 = 0.689
Volume : mass / density
B volume : 43.244 / 2.520 = 17.160
O2 volume : 95.994 / 1.141 = 84.131
Total vol : 101.292
B vol fac : 17.160/101.292 = 0.169
O2 vol fac : 84.131/101.292 = 0.831
18.8. Magnesium and Steam
Reactions of Metals and Water
Magnesium combines with STEAM to produce Magnesium Oxide and Hydrogen.
Mg + H2O ==>MgO + H2 dH -360 kJ/mol
The hydrogen can then be burned with Air or Oxygen to produce water.
H2O: H2 (g) + 1/2 O2 (g) ==> H2O (l); dH = -285.8 kJ/mol
(Remove Latent Heat 41 kJ/mol = -285.8 + 41 kJ/mol )Check math by comparing liquid H /External O2
Total (from H2) is -286 kJ/mol.
Atomic weight: 2.01 g/mol.
Density (L): 0.0710 g/cm3
Energy by mass : ( 286 kJ/mol)/(2.01g/mol )
= 142 kJ/g = 142 MJ/kg
Energy by volume: 10.1 MJ/L
Comparison to Wiki values
|
Energy by Mass |
Energy by Volume |
Wiki |
143.000 |
10.100 |
Calculation |
141.893 |
10.100 |
Total (from Mg/Steam + H/O) is -604.8
kJ/mol. Atomic weight : 24.305
g/mol Density : 1.738
g/cm3 Energy by mass : ( 605
kJ/mol) / (24.305
g/mol) = 24.9
kJ/g = 24.9
MJ/kg Energy by volume : 43.2
MJ/L
18.9. Embedded Calculations
All calculations in this document are performed with the PHP programming language which generates the document.
Partial PHP Source Code
19. Physorg Posts
These ideas were first noted in PhysOrg (posting as alanf777)
The 1,000-character posting limit made my comments rather hard to read), so I have extracted and clarified them in Physorg v1
20. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jed Rothwell, Jeff Driscoll and Jones Beene on the "Vortex" mailing list for information, corrections and comments.
Oh, and thanks to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who really, really liked the phrase which Sherlock Holmes used more times than this paper has space for (in The Sign of the Four):
Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canr; coldfusion; ecat; focardi; lenr; loser; rossi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
1
posted on
06/05/2011 7:52:20 PM PDT
by
Kevmo
To: Kevmo
Dam
whut part of da country is you frum?
2
posted on
06/05/2011 7:54:37 PM PDT
by
woofie
To: Kevmo
To: Kevmo; All; y'all; et al; no one in particular; dangerdoc; citizen; Lancey Howard; Liberty1970; ...
4
posted on
06/05/2011 7:54:45 PM PDT
by
Kevmo
(Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all. ~Ronald Reagan)
To: Kevmo
I like the books with tha pictures in em
5
posted on
06/05/2011 7:56:05 PM PDT
by
woofie
To: Kevmo
So this report tends to support Rossi and his LENR?
6
posted on
06/05/2011 7:57:23 PM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
To: Kevmo
7
posted on
06/05/2011 8:01:18 PM PDT
by
woofie
To: woofie; FlyingEagle
Something like this.
To: Kevmo
Sounds good. To where do I send the check?
9
posted on
06/05/2011 8:02:48 PM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(Obama said OBL is dead I didn't believe it. Al Qaeda says he's dead and now I do!)
To: Kevmo
You should be pants’d for posting this... and made to go through a TSA screening... and forced to watch an episode of “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.”
10
posted on
06/05/2011 8:03:15 PM PDT
by
fieldmarshaldj
(~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
To: woofie
I always wondered what became of John Holmes’s wang.
11
posted on
06/05/2011 8:04:41 PM PDT
by
fieldmarshaldj
(~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
To: woofie
Far less complicated than a light water nuclear reactor, coal-fired power plant, automobile engine, personal computer, or cell phone.
12
posted on
06/05/2011 8:08:36 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: Kevmo
We’ll all know for certain this fall. Either it works, or Rossi becomes the new Camping.
13
posted on
06/05/2011 8:09:31 PM PDT
by
Roccus
To: Kevmo
Do a test? OK, set up 5 1000 W light bulbs and keep them lit for a week. A reasonable test of a 5 KW power source.
The OP format is hard to read, and does not really prove a point.
14
posted on
06/05/2011 8:12:31 PM PDT
by
DBrow
To: ClearCase_guy
So this report tends to support Rossi and his LENR?
***It looks like 40%/60%. 40% chance it’s a real
breakthrough of some sort, 60% chance of fraud. As each fake possibility is knocked off, the chances of it being real grow higher.
One thing that comes to mind is the idiot scientists Targ & Puthoff at SRI who were testing psychics. They were good scientists but they lacked the skillset of a good magician and they were completely fooled. We need investigators who are skilled at fraud to be looking at this, alongside any overly trusting scientists.
15
posted on
06/05/2011 8:12:31 PM PDT
by
Kevmo
(Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all. ~Ronald Reagan)
To: Roccus
Rossi probably isn’t going to make the Autumn deadline, so the situation will be murky for some time.
16
posted on
06/05/2011 8:15:42 PM PDT
by
Kevmo
(Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all. ~Ronald Reagan)
To: Kevmo
Kev, that has to be an FR record for the longest post ever committed to a thread on this forum ;-)
I am very hopeful that the E-Cat turns out to be all that the inventor has claimed that it is, but I don't have the technical background to read and digest everything you posted.
One thing from the write-up that does trouble me, is the statement that all fakes could not be ruled out. Until a test is performed, in which the observers testify (and document) that NO evidence of trickery or fakery could be found, we're still sort of in a grey area with this.
17
posted on
06/05/2011 8:17:42 PM PDT
by
Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: Kevmo
No need to post someone’s entire web site as a thread. Links will do just fine.
18
posted on
06/05/2011 8:18:39 PM PDT
by
CodeToad
(Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
To: DBrow
Yeah but if it’s 39% H202 feeding into a Nickel catalyst and some other trickery, it could light those bulbs.
19
posted on
06/05/2011 8:18:56 PM PDT
by
Kevmo
(Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all. ~Ronald Reagan)
To: CodeToad
I’ve been on FR long enough to know that those links will go dry. But I haven’t picked up HTML well enough in all these years. The information is valuable and needs to be preserved.
20
posted on
06/05/2011 8:21:03 PM PDT
by
Kevmo
(Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all. ~Ronald Reagan)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson