Experimental Measurement of Excess Thermal Energy Released from a Cell Loaded with a Mixture of Nickel Powder and Lithium Aluminum Hydride

  • Experimental Measurement of Excess Thermal Energy Released from a Cell Loaded with a Mixture of Nickel Powder and Lithium Aluminum Hydride.
    I. N. Stepanov, Yu. I. Malahov, Chi Nguyen Quoc

    Thx to @BobHiggins for translation.



    This paper describes the experimental setup, and methodology for assessing the energy in a small volume heat cell, that was loaded with a mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride. This paper confirms the results obtained previously by Andrea Rossi and AG Parkhomov - that under certain conditions the cell makes excess energy; I.E. in the amount of heat released exceeding the input.

  • Very detailed description, useful for replicators.
    Good enough but simple setup for flow calorimetry. I like the damping tank...
    Detail of geometry, time of ramp that cause meltdown... many interesting details it seems...
    Note there is no calibration reported. With flow calorimetry it is not absolutely required (theoretical computation works) but it improves confidence, eliminate hypothesis, increase precision.

    It should be confirmed by a replication of the same quality, but it match Parkhomov and Lugano results...

  • I applaud these authors for having performed a good experiment and publishing the results -THANK YOU FOR SHARING! Everyone hopes for a perfect experiment where there are no details left that can be criticized and the results are completely confident. For the sake of helping improve follow-on experiments, I offer the following observations:

    • As Alain points out, there appears to have been no calorimetry calibrations (at least not reported). This should consist of dummy heating and measurement of the total recovered heat from the calorimetry compared to the total input heat. Better yet, develop a dynamic, calibrated thermal model of the calorimeter in SPICE.
    • It was reported that k-type thermocouples were used, but there was no description of the configuration. Were the couples sheathed or bare junction? Bare junction thermocouples in the reactor tube will be exposed to both molten metal and H2. Either of these could change the junction alloy and hence the junction voltage. Bare junctions in the water flow would corrode and will ultimately fail. Since the entire experiment is based on thermometry, careful choice of thermocouple type and configuration is very important. I would recommend platinum RTDs for measuring the water to provide fast accurate response and no corrosion.
    • The Tee fittings used to make the taps for measuring the calorimeter water appear to be high thermal mass metal parts. Use of plastic parts is better to prevent inaccuracy by heat flow into and through the fitting.
    • The Aquarius-P flow meter is being operated at the very minimum of its range of calibrated reading. It would have been valuable to have done a bucket filling test to determine whether the flow meter was reading true.
    • Insufficient details were reported about the assembly of the reactor tube with its fuel. The sealing of this tube is a critical part of reactor construction and may greatly affect success. The sealing should be described in explicit detail where the materials, procedure, times, and temperatures are explicitly called out.
    • How was the fuel prepared and inserted into the reactor tube?
    • Inside the reactor tube, the sealed empty volume into which the fuel was placed was not reported. This may also be a critical success factor.
  • Thanks to you, Bob Higgins, for providing a great translation of this paper - your effort here is very important and greatly appreciated!
    And many thanks to the authors of the paper for sharing their important results - I wish you folks the best of luck in continuing your work.

  • &"How many of these experiments will it take to convince the scientific establishment they should fund this research big time?"

    No more experiments needed. It's already established that hydrogen fusion in a reactor is possible. A simple modification of the e-cat reactor would allow sale of reactors that supply electrical needs for every household based on the hydrogen contained in a gallon of water needing replenishment yearly.

    The economic problem created is enormous. Funding is needed to move away from burning oil and the consequential loss of jobs.

  • THAT'S not calorimetry. This is: gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/10/28…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/ (works fine with Google translate if you do not read Italian)

    8| ?( :phatgrin: Mary, you're "too much". That is a parody of denialism. There is a description of Hypercriticism, that really match your behavior. The moving target is among the symptom. Every Time the requirements are fulfilled, the hypercritic increase them. :borg: This is the end.

  • flow calorimetry is flow calorimetry, and there is various level of precision attained by various precautions.

    To measure >100% anomalous heat, measuring the temperature variation of a dozen of degrees at few degrees errors by constant flowing water at few % is much enough, and this work is better than that.
    Please be serious and don't play the fool.

    If you want more precise measurement, accept the one done at few watts, like what is doing Edmund Storms.

    You behavior is childish.

    anyway calibration would help to ruleout dramatic mistakes, and would ruleout conspiracy theories like those you love, but there is no need for more precision.

    5 sigma is enough.

  • Look at Figure 7 (b) in the report http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-c…H-Ni_Stepanov_English.pdf.

    Just before the two curves separate the temperature at both thermocouples is around 1000° C. This means that there is no radial heat transport from the fuel tube and thus the fuel does not yet produce any heat. We assume that the heat input is 850 W which was used during the phase with heat production from the fuel.

    Now we calculate the thermal resistance from the heating element to the cooling water. I found it to be 1.22°C/W. (If the input power was less than 850 W the resistance would be higher.)

    Next, look at the last phase of the test. According to the calorimetry 2100 W was transferred to the cooling water which had e temperature between 16 and 50°C.

    Then we calculate the temperature at thermocouple 10 in Figure 1. It will be 33 + 2100*1.22 °C = 2595°C.

    Conclusion: Something is not right. Question: What?

    (A simplified way to state the problem is: The heat output is more than doubled. Why doesn't the thing get hotter?!)

  • this is an interesting observation.

    The TC don't measure heat transfer between heater and water, but between powder and surface=heater.
    note that T2 is outside, and that T2>T1 initially means the heater warm the powder until 300C.
    then after 300C it is oscillating with powder heating the resistor (thermal inertia) most of the time, and resistor heating powder some short time (pulse?)

    after 900C, powder seems in stable equilibrium with the resistor, with tiny heating by resistor on powder at the beginning.
    and suddenly the powder massively heat the resistor.

    This confirm the excess heat behavior.

    thanks for pointing that phenomenon.

    It would be more clear if there was a graph of electric power, and flow calorimetry result, at the same time.

  • My argument does not rely on the central thermocouple that measures T1. It may well be that this TC is compromised by the hydrogen / lithium environment.

    Instead I am just looking at the temperature drop from the inside of the alumina tube to the cooling water. From this I calculate the thermal resistance which is more than 1°C per watt. If more than a kilowatt of thermal power is produced in the central tube it has to diffuse to the water over the same thermal resistance as the heat generated by the electric heater.

    This would give an increase of T2 of more than 1°C/W x 1000 W = more than 1000°C which adds up to more than 2000°C. This is in conflict with the temperature recording in Figure 7 (b) where only a very small (average) temperature increase is observed. Of course it is also in conflict with the fact that the apparatus did not turn into liquid.

  • the estimation of thermal resistance of the powder-to-heater path is not easy, since the heat flow from resistor to water mostly, and that T1 is influenced
    - by phase transition heat and chemical changes
    - by thermal capacity

    moreover the T1 may show a local temperature on one side, not the average one.
    Flow calorimetry is much more reliable, and the COP>2
    mean that water is warmed more than twice more than what is expected...
    Since the heating is few dozen degrees, errors is hard to justify, especially impossible to justify by TC position, ambient temperature change, water property change, convection change, and other minor details.

    moreover provided temperature

  • It is not said that the outer surface of the reactor (ceramic) is in direct contact with the copper of the inner surface of the cooler. It would probably not otherwise the copper would have melted! It is not the thermal conduction law in play here but the radiation law which take the temperature in Kelvin at the power 4.

  • @Arnaud
    Yours is a clever suggestion. Let us suppose that there are air gaps that the heat has to pass on its way to the water. Then at low temperature they will give a considerable contribution to the heat resistance. For moderate temperatures my linear model will be adequate but as you say, for higher temperatures the heat will be carried by infrared radiation that will cross the air gaps with the speed of light, essentially short cutting them.

    It would be nice if the test group could make an agreement with MFMP to duplicate the test. They are trustworthy and open minded and the data would be much easier to access for those of us that are not fluent in Russian.

    If this turns out to work I will have some pardons to beg for, I am afraid. But at first I would like to see some gammas. It does not matter how you upset an atomic nucleus. When it retaliates we know what it does, I am pretty sure.