Getting Professional About H-Cat Testing

The following post was submitted by E-Cat World reader Rick Allen.

For the past few weeks I have been following the H-Cat saga. For those who are not familiar, Justin Church and some other experimenters have claimed to be producing excess heat, via a possible LENR process, by blowing HHO gas (also known as Brown’s Gas) onto the inner surface of a catalytic converter from an automobile. They claim that the amount of power produced in the form of heat is far greater than the electrical input needed to produce the HHO.

I see several problems with how these tests have been conducted. First, however, I think one thing needs to be specified. HHO is not simply hydrogen and oxygen mixed together. It is a combination of hydrogen in both mon-atomic and diatomic forms, oxygen in both mon-atomic and diatomic forms, water vapor, and potentially electrically expanded water. The reality of electrically expanded water is uncertain. Certain researchers and builders of HHO systems, such as George Wiseman of Eagle Research, claim that it is a form of water that has been expanded into a gaseous state not by heat but by electricity. Some theorize that one reason an HHO flame can heat materials so fast is because the flame is discharging an electric current into the material. Part of the heating effect would then be a resistance effect.

So far, when the H-Cat has been tested, HHO has been applied to the inner surface. This means a number of different gases are being exposed to the material. Also, a number of different gases from the outside atmosphere are being exposed to the inner surface. In traditional LENR systems, such as the E-Cat, all the air from the atmosphere has to be removed from a reactor before a test can begin. According to Defkalion and others who have performed LENR tests, atmosphere can contaminate the material and prevent LENR reactions. In fact, nitrogen, which is abundant in the atmosphere, is said to quench LENR reactions, at least in nickel based systems. So with the H-Cat, I am skeptical about how a mixture of gases can produce LENR reactions.

Another issue that having oxygen present brings up is the possibility that the metal inside the H-Cat is oxidizing and producing heat by being “burned.” Metal can burn. You can burn steel wool by placing a match near it. With a constant flow of oxygen from the electrolysis unit and more from the outside atmosphere, this produces another variable.

I personally think that exposing pieces of catalytic metal to a flow of mixed gases that is open to the environment is not the best way to go about testing.

Here are some alternative proposals that I think would make for better testing:

First, I think that multiple sealed catalytic converters or pieces of catalytic material isolated from the atmosphere should be used. In this way, the outside atmosphere will not be contaminating the reactions whether they be chemical or nuclear. For example, an inert material such as a high temperature glass beaker could be placed on the catalytic material and sealed with a substance that would not give off gas.

Second, I think we need to know the exact composition of the catalytic material.

Third, I think we need to have a way to apply not only apply HHO (a mixture of gases), but also pure hydrogen, pure oxygen, and water vapor. This way we could determine which gases are responsible for the heat production.

Fourth, someone who is qualified in chemistry and math should calculate the maximum amount of chemical energy that can possibly be obtained by exposing a known quantity of oxygen, hydrogen, or HHO to the catalytic material.

Fifth, we need a vacuum pump to remove all atmosphere from each piece of catalytic material before each test is performed.

Now, unlike previous tests of the H-Cat which utilized a constant flow of HHO, we would add a known quantity of gas. If the heat production is brief and does not reach the maximum possible chemical energy, we can conclude that most likely no (or very few) LENR reactions are taking place. However, if the heat production is large and lasts for a long period of time – far beyond what is possible chemically – we can conclude LENR reactions are happening.

The simple fact is that nuclear reactions can produce millions of times the energy of chemical reactions. The E-Cat, for example, uses a tiny amount of hydrogen to produce very high temperatures for weeks or months at a time. Seeing the H-Cat temporarily heat up for a short period of time while a constant flow of HHO is applied does not impress me. If it is a true nuclear reaction, a sealed H-Cat filled with one charge of hydrogen should produce constant heat (or at least more heat than is chemically possible) for an extended period of time.

If an LENR effect is strong and robust in the H-Cat, there will be no need for a calorimeter to determine if there is a gain of energy beyond what is chemical and beyond what is being used to produce the HHO. A sealed catalytic converter cannot produce huge amounts of excess heat for days or weeks. However, to enhance my proposed experiment further, each piece of catalytic material should be placed in a calorimeter. A calorimeter does not have to be a scary device. They can be made of styrofoam coolers and plumbing parts you can buy at Home Depot. It may not be as accurate as the ones in a scientific lab, but it would be accurate enough for our purposes. With the calorimeter we could determine, even if the sealed samples of material do not produce heat for long periods of time, if more heat is produced than chemically possible.

The H-Cat is interesting to me, but the way it has been tested so far (not talking about Alan Smith’s upcoming test) has been less than stellar in my opinion.

* We are not using a different, pure gas in each test to determine which one is producing the heat effect.

* We are allowing the atmosphere to contaminate the effect and potentially quench any LENR reactions.

* We are using an open container which does not allow us to do calculations on the maximum amount of chemical energy that could be produced by a known quantity of gas and catalytic material.

* We are not testing the reaction at different gas pressures or temperatures. For example, if we filled up a catalytic converter with these different gases, we may have to heat it up externally before the reactions begin.

* We are not using a calorimeter, which could be made at a fairly low cost.

The H-Cat is interesting, but I firmly believe that we need to GET SERIOUS about testing it using REASON and LOGIC if we are going to continue giving it time and attention. Pumping HHO on a sample of material in open atmosphere and measuring the temperature and guessing that excess heat may be produced is NOT scientific. It may be fun or interesting, but proves NOTHING.

I propose we get serious about the H-CAT or re-focus exclusively on the E-CAT – a technology that has been proven to work.

Rick Allen

  • Obvious

    Another dusty gem. EPA testing H into an auto catalysts in 1994.

  • Obvious

    I was looking at presentations from Candu about thorium reactors and found this PAR H2 catalyzer Candu makes.

    • AlanSmith

      Hi Obvious – a few of those would have helped to prevent the roofs getting blown off the Fukushima reactors – which was due to Hydrogen build-up in some cases

      • Obvious

        I bet sales were brisk after, though.

  • AlanSmith

    I may have missed this – in which case apologies – but has anyone tested for electrical flow at the Catbustion site? The simplest way to do this is to see if there is a magnetic field present- no current-flow without a magnetic field. It should be there, after all fuel cells produce electricity by recombining HHO.

    It is a quick test- a compass needle would be sensitive enough to show a field – all you need to see us more deflection when the Cat is operational.

    If there is a flow of electricity, it would be interesting to see how it might (just possibly) be extracted and measured.

  • AlanSmith

    Hi Allan – it is certainly not stainless – rusts rapidly if wet – and the stuff I am talking about is as fine as cotton wool.

  • US_Citizen71

    A little history lesson for you. Electrolysis was discovered in 1800 by William Nicholson and Anthony Carlisle, catalytic oxidation of hydrogen by platinum group metals was discovered in 1820 by Humphry Davy and was used by Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner in 1823 to make a lighter that created a flame from unheated hydrogen when passed over platinum. So lets move on to what you and your group has done exactly. You’re using a 200+ year old invention to re-discover a nearly 200 year old scientific discovery and you wonder why anyone with chemistry knowledge or the ability to use Google isn’t impressed. Gee I just can’t understand why so many people are underwhelmed at all.

  • Gerrit

    [OT] Mainstream science’s look on cold fusion is changing. At least that is the impression when I read the small paragraph about cold fusion in the 2013 book “Nuclear Energy” (ISBN 978-1-4614-5715-2).

    The book mainly discusses all aspects of nuclear fission energy generation, but one chapter is about fusion and cold fusion is mentioned (if very briefly) with a (imho) remarkable neutral point of view:

    “Cold Fusion Evidence for low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) has been reported from many types of experiments: electrolysis of water, gas discharges, gas diffusion through thin films, electron beam impact, exploding wires, and laser irradiation. The evidence includes apparent heat generation, x-rays, and transmutations. Such phenomena were once called “cold fusion” after the 1989 hypothesis by Fleischmann and Pons that the energy generation by their electrolysis cell was a result of nuclear fusion reactions [12]. Many theories have been proposed to explain the LENR phenomena, but so far, no theory has gained widespread acceptance.”

    • AB

      That’s remarkable for the absence of the usual misconception that it has never been replicated.

      • time to propose it to wikipedia, who is ready to be banned?

      • they avoid to state anything that convinced and skeptics would reject…
        apparent heat OK
        no theory OK
        no reference to bad peer review, bad experiments, no peer-review, frauds…
        no reference to peer-reviewed papers, nemrous replication,confirmation, absence of any sustained critic on the experiments

        only the minimum set of agreement.
        in 5 years it will be still acceptable. today it is acceptable. it is empty, but true.

  • Omega Z

    Where did you find the reference to N2.

    If your referring to 1 of the Gas bottles in 1 of the published photo’s, It may be the 1 that Rossi relabeled to throw people off.
    He does things like that from time to time.

  • NCkhawk

    From Brad Lowe on Vortex, a 1952 Oak Ridge HHO / Platinum on Alumina Catalytic study:

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Unfortunately, they do not address the energy issue. Their concept of “space velocity” looks somewhat vague, I’m not sure if you can use it together with the other parameters to estimate the reaction energies. However, the paper contains a lot of useful information on gas mixtures and different types of catalysts. Interestingly, nickel is found to be less effective than platinum (p. 26), which seems to weaken the LENR claim. The statements about the danger of explosion in certain configurations should be taken seriously.

  • Justin Church

    Wow, looks like I don’t even have to make a comment now to get the ball rolling on the “H-Cat Saga”, good stuff

    “The H-Cat is interesting, but I firmly believe that we need to GET SERIOUS about testing it using REASON and LOGIC if we are going to continue giving it time and attention”

    Absolutely, LETS GET SERIOUS…maybe if we stopped arguing and actually built something, we could get serious….

    “I propose we get serious about the H-CAT or re-focus exclusively on the E-CAT – a technology that has been proven to work”

    Re-Focus? When was anyone ever “focused” on the E-Cat to date none of you have ever seen one work in person or know how it works, The E-Cat is still out of focus for the general public, we can only read tidbits of information and get to see pretty pictures of the reactors glowing red hot giving us all butterflies in our stomachs but still you don’t know how to build it do you?

    Good stuff guys, the Soap Opera continues, I’ve read so many LENR patents now I know for a fact the H-Cat will lead to replication of the E-Cat, just going to take more than a half a dozen ballsy experimenters to make it happen…Rome wasn’t built in a day fellas…

    • Allan Shura

      I think LENR might be possible using the substrate in deuterium but as for the muffler effect …. heat can build up rapidly in an mostly enclosed space especially if insulated. If there is a cost saving to the outside surface heat great but a hot acetylene flame is 4000 degrees but much cooler an inch away.

    • Allan Shura

      I should say catalytic convertor but you get the idea. Of course I would never pin electrodes to stainless steel
      (very dangerous) so the substrate should be removed and place in ceramic or other suitable container to repeat the modified Fleischmann Pons – Yoshiaki Arata – modified experiment.

      • AlanSmith

        Hi Allan. Fine steel wool (what the UK calls 0000 grade) burns like paper in the air – in fact hikers and campers use it as kindling to light a fire with a sparker.

  • Allan Shura

    I must admit this is the first I have heard of steel being burned. Some alloy steels can be quenched hardened or
    have the appearance of scorching with a effect on the structure but steel will melt before it burns. Burning is generally considered to be oxidation such as iron oxide from contact with the atmosphere, water and or contaminants. Some
    cutting methods are carbon copper oxidation that changes the structure. Galvanized and stainless resist oxidation
    in normal atmospheres. Perhaps the steel wool is impure.

    • Obvious

      It’s a surface area thing. A shot of O2 can cause steel wool to spontaneously ignite.
      4(Fe)+3(O20) = 2(Fe2O3)

  • LCD

    Higgs boson found, Gravitational waves detected, wow maybe LENR will also be “confirmed” soon too. One can hope.

  • Steve H

    I have got to ask the obvious question here!
    Has any body carried out experiments with high frequency square wave as the power supply to the HHO electrodes. If the stories are true then the input power can be quite low which in turn makes the output heat from the catalytic converter more likely to be over-unity.
    I understand from sources on the net that 54 kHz is supposed to be a very efficient resonant frequency. Also every 9 kHz up to that point.
    Is it the power requirement of a pulse-width-modulator with the frequency which is difficult to source/manufacture?
    Brute-force electrolysis seems to be the mainstay, used by most HHO veterans. I have obviously missed some important piece of information.

    Comments from HHO veterans would be gladly accepted.

    Warm regards to one and all.

    • Fortyniner

      That is definitely something I’d like to see, if the initial experiment looks hopeful. In view of the inefficiency of ‘conventional’ electrolysis the HHO/catalyst would need to be three or four times overunity just to break even, in terms of electrical input. However, straight +/- DC electrolysis is what Justin Church uses, so it’s probably best to stay close to his protocol, at least initially.

    • Obvious

      Isn’t 54kHz an old submarine communication frequency?

      • US_Citizen71

        Remove the k and make it 54Hz and you might be right, kHz level frequencies do not travel well in salt water.

        • Obvious

          Side scan sonar.

          • US_Citizen71

            Sure sonar 54kHz might go 20 to 30 miles without the power getting out of hand, but I thought you meant communication like the ELF system they use to communicate when submerged.

            • Obvious

              I couldn’t recall what it was exactly. I see that 54kHz is used for testing concrete structures also, so a frequency generator is readily available for that range anyways.

  • AlanSmith

    Hi Rick. You make some good points, as you always. We (well some of us anyway) are trying to put together the equipment and systems needed for serious research. I am really looking forward to getting through the mountain of paperwork setting up Leap Forward Laboratory has thrust upon me. Business plans, cash flows, risk assessments, work programmes. I am a desk-bound researcher for the next 12 days at least. 🙁

    So – yes we can get serious. But proper research requires a step by step approach – not launching into a protocol like the one you describe until you have eliminated all the unknowns you know about 1 by 1. So be patient- there is more going on in the background than you realise.

    As for us doing E-Cat research, is it open source? The answer is ‘not really’ – it is acquiring patents like a dog does fleas -so why should we bother if the HHO route can be researched for the good of all, not just for the benefit of the patent holders?

    • Justin Church

      One of my favorite comments from you. Behind the scenes a lot is going on that even the readers of ecw is not aware of. Hcat is a hot topic for good reason. I caught wind of some interesting information tonight. More like validation for what I already knew but nonetheless the H-cat is well worth further pursuit and optimization. No matter my opinion on certain things, I am grateful you chose to step up and offer to work with this concept. Some high level LENR researchers/developers are interested and intrigued but refuse to publicly entertain what a couple of roughneck experimenters from YouTube started. True underdog story thats for sure….

    • Omega Z


      Posted above by Jamie Sibley That you & Justin may find very interesting.

  • georgehants

    Rick says —–
    “I propose we get serious about the H-CAT or re-focus exclusively on the E-CAT – a technology that has been proven to work. ”
    That sounds amazingly like the establishment and scientists who have said for 24 years, don’t ever Research any “possible” new science, just spend billions on “expert opinion” that Cold Fusion is impossible and Hot Fusion is the only Dogma to worship.
    Sounds a little closed-minded to me.

    • LENR G

      I don’t think that’s what he’s suggesting.

      The H-CAT may or may not be interesting but all the conjecture is pointless. Unless careful scientific measurements are made on it then it’ll never rise above that conjecture… just a bunch of posts and comments. He’s suggesting those careful measurements be made. That could make the H-CAT a serious topic for discussion… not dismiss it as you imply was his intent.

      We have Smith’s upcoming experiment and MFMP has decided to possibly take a closer look down the road too. See reactor #7 in That’s more than enough for now.

      Personally I’m focused on the E-CAT and its siblings, not the H-CAT. That’s where the real action is. Maybe the H-CAT is a distant E-CAT cousin; I doubt it but maybe so. But even if it is, paying it a lot of attention is like watching two cats fight off to the side while you’re parked with Jennifer Lawrence at a drive-in screening American Hustle.

      • georgehants

        LENR G you say “Personally I’m focused on the E-CAT and its siblings, not the H-CAT”
        —– Any individual can focus where they see fit.
        You say “The H-CAT may or may not be interesting but all the conjecture is pointless”
        —– Correct only Research will answer the questions.
        You say “That’s more than enough for now.”
        —– How can anything new in science be “more than enough”?
        If one follows your logic then as I wrote above, the crazy “expert opinion” of only Researching hot fusion is “more than enough” and all other Research should be abandoned.
        There seems to be an awful lot of “opinion” in your post, I personally prefer Facts.

        • LENR G

          I think you would agree that given finite resources one must make choices about where to focus them. It is absolutely correct that some resources should be focused on unlikely but still possible avenues of research — specially those of the low cost high reward variety which CF clearly is.

          My “more than enough” phrasing was meant to convey that the first step is to see if something interesting is really happening beyond all the conjecture and excitement over what anecdotally looks like anomalous behavior. If the initial indications are positive then further use of resources is justified.

          You seem to have it in for the “scientific establishment” and for all the flaws, politics and often dismissive posture the one thing they get absolutely right is that talk is just talk, videos are just videos, ideas and imagination are fine but must be constrained by reality. Data is where it’s at.

          Hypothesis. Experiment. Data. Peer review. Publish conclusions.

          • georgehants

            Your inuendo that “You seem to have it in for the “scientific establishment””
            —– that seems to be many “scientists view when faced with direct clear questions of Logic.
            It is much more scientific to concentrate on answering my clear points.
            You say ” that given finite resources”
            —– What do you mean, the money to begin the new Research was donated by ECW readers and I am sure there is plenty more where that came from.
            You say ” If the initial indications are positive then further use of resources is justified.
            —– how will we get those “initial indications” if like corrupt and incompetent science we do not follow through on initial Research and possible effects such as P&F reported.
            You say “Hypothesis. Experiment. Data. Peer review. Publish conclusions.”
            ——Do you think thats how science handled the P&F material?
            I think some scientists need to rethink their “opinions”

            • LENR G

              Ok I’ll try and answer your points directly, though I find it hard to follow you sometimes.

              1. Scientists love logic. It is one of their main weapons in their arsenal to get nature to reveal its truths. I assume the point you are trying to make though is that scientists often stray from the high road of logic and descend into defending rice bowls and closed-minded dismissiveness of ideas that don’t fit in their often rigid belief structure. I don’t disagree with this. I think our science culture is suffering — warped by the influence of money. The never-ending pursuit of money seems to screw up a lot of things. I would like to see much more willingness to pursue fringe ideas like cold fusion which have a huge payoff.

              2. I suppose I meant both money and attention. There aren’t many places to go on the Internet for good news and analysis of LENR. I see this site opening up recently to a lot of fringe claims. H-Cat. Now some company that magically turns water into hydrogen. We already have PESN for this wide-net purpose. I am concerned that this site — perhaps in pursuit of more clicks — is becoming more PESN-like. Of course it’s not my site so whatever, but that would be a sad development from my point of view.

              3. I am not saying to not follow through. My first response to the H-Cat guys was to get together with MFMP and get some real numbers. That may eventually happen but looks like Smith will be first. He should get a good indication if anything special is happening that warrants further investigation.

              4. I think science handled the P&F incident very poorly. My view of ideal science is open-minded pursuit of the truth wherever it leads, with resources committed commensurate with potential payoff for the greater good. The 1989 CF events revealed that we are very far from that ideal. We have to deal with very human traits of greed, lust for power and control, envy, closed-mindedness, hubris and more. Thing is those human traits aren’t going away. We have to find a better way to deal with fringe discoveries — some of which, as history has shown — do turn out to be valid, and ultimately of extreme significance.

              • georgehants

                Gone to lunch, will reply later, 🙂

                • georgehants

                  1 If you love logic then stick to answering my questions directly.
                  2 PESN covers all possibility’s it is only closed-minded individuals that cannot except the Logical position on say UFO’s that are upset by looking at reality.
                  3 If you are saying investigate and “follow through” then just say so and why waste time arguing against it.
                  4 Glad you agree re. P&F, so would it not be Logical to learn some lessons and for science to stop trying to debunk and delay other investigations into any subject.
                  You are clearly in favour of full investigation of all possible new energy directions.
                  You may as well have agreed with me in the first place.
                  But that would not be the scientific method I suppose.

                • LENR G

                  1. I did answer your questions directly. But I’ll talk about whatever I want.

                  2. So george there has to be some discrimination between good ideas that are borne out by observations and ideas that turn out to be fantasy however attractive initially or anecdotally persuasive. Science purposely sifts between fact and fiction using the only methodology that works reliably. There is a role for web sites that provide exposure to anything and everything to make sure each idea gets its chance in the sun. There is also a role for web sites focused on specific topics and a higher threshold for exposure. This site was the latter but is in danger of becoming the former. I prefer the latter and I think this site was helping establish credibility for the E-Cat… but less so now.

                  3. What I said is easy enough to understand. H-Cat folks think they may have something. Let’s find out. Smith is doing that. Let’s not give it too much credence before we have some facts beyond WOW that gets unexpectedly hot!.

                  4. Science needs some improvement. Science is also the best thing we’ve got going for us. Acknowledging science has its problems, mainly due to the fallibility of people, does not mean that every claim that somebody makes is true or that they are all worthy of equal attention.

                  What I said to your initial post was that you missed the gist of Rick’s post and I stand by that.

                • georgehants

                  Thank you for a interesting exchange, you may note that the initial points I made in my first reply are still perfectly correct.
                  I am sure you feel that all the “words” you have used since, to divert that Logical correctness has served some purpose.
                  Best wishes.

                • LENR G

                  Agree to disagree. I did not intend to offend you.

                • georgehants

                  LENR G, Absolutely no offence, Best wishes.

    • rick allen

      first of all, we have zero hard evidence that any excess energy is being produced. Why? So far, no one has even attempted to try in precisely calculate how much output power is being produced and how much is that could be from chemical reactions. For all we know, most of the heat could be from reactions with oxygen in the atmosphere. There is absolutely nothing to get extremely excited about at this time.

      Secondly, if you think this is closed minded,then do you think we should jump on the bandwagon of every inventor who claims to see excess energy but refuses to take any measurements? There are countless inventors out there who build devices and think they are seeing excess energy. The problem is most of them do not try and prove they are producing excess energy.I have talked to inventors before who were extremely excited about the fact their systems seemed, without any actual measurements or testing, to be producing excess energy. When a test is proposed, some of them get quiet and do not want to have further contact.

      When it comes to LENR and cold fusion, there have been successful test for decades. There’s a reason to be open minded about palladium hydrogen and nickel hydrogen reactions. However, not a single test has been done of the H cat. Until one is done, there is little more reason for me to be excited then if I put my frying pan on the stove and claimed excess heat was being produced. A hotspot on a piece of catalytic material that is being continually blown with hydrogen or hho proves nothing.

      By the way, I am proud to be skeptical in regards to claims where nothing obviously OU is happening and no testing has takenplace. Claims of excess heat and OU are a dime a dozen and most of them never are proven to work. I hope the H cat does work, but there is absolutely nothing at this time that shows heat is being produced.

      • georgehants

        Rick, nothing wrong with being reasonably and open-mindedly sceptical but any sign of not supporting further investigation and research on any subject is clearly irrational.
        Do I need to say any more!

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        “Claims of excess heat and OU are a dime a dozen and most of them never are proven to work.”

        Isn’t that what Smith is trying to do? Prove or disprove it. We’re not excited. We’re curious.

  • Gerard McEk

    Rick has a good point that oxygen in the air can contribute to the heat production, because it can burn the cathalyser. This should indeed be avoided if you compare just burning HHO with burning HHO using a cathalylizer. The best solution is to use a closed environment where burning takes place. As mentioned by BuildItNow below, that closed environment test can be done later, but should be done if excess heat using a cathalyzer is found!

    I have never heard that during electrolysis ‘electrically loaded water’ can produce heat elsewhere. Maybe I should google on that….

    • Obvious

      Synthetic cordierite is the most common substrate. You will find that it is very nearly incombustible, as it is already nearly maximally oxidized (approximately 18 oxygen atoms for each 11 formula atoms). Alternate versions with zirconium, yttrium, and cerium are also in maximally oxidized states. The convertors wouldn’t last long in an exhaust stream if they were combustible in any likely conditions. Synthetic cordierite is also used for very high temperature ovens because it is stable to extreme heat levels.

      Also of note is that synthetic cordierite is a very efficient infrared emitter when heated enough, contributing to the effectiveness of oven uses. The infrared emission efficiency is specifically employed for high temperature heaters of various types.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks Obvious, so there isn’t so much risk for wrong measurement after all.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I welcome the fact that methodology is put up for discussion here again. It seems clear that the HHO videos which we have seen do not prove excess energy (not to mention a nuclear reaction). On the other hand, they also do not prove the opposite. That’s the reason why Alan Smith has proposed a controlled experiment. To me, his design appears to be ok, at least for the time being. You will hardly find the perfect experimental setup from the start, especially if you are looking for something unknown. It may be better to use an ‘evolutionary’ method: Start with something simple, then discuss the results and analyze the method again. If there are any doubts, modify the experiment, and so on. It’s an iterative process.

    If I understood it correctly, the purpose of the H-Cat is a practical one, rather than a ‘scientific’. However, one could perform a comparative test with an infrared light bulb or a resistance heater in order to demonstrate roughly that the generated amount of heat is atypically high. But you cannot force the H-Cat people to do so.

    I agree that it would be an advantage to know the composition of the catalyst. One could try at least to get a data sheet from the manufacturer. However, if you use only a small amount of catalytic substance and perform calorimetry over a long time frame, you should be able to rule out any possible chemical reaction by calculation.

    Atmospheric nitrogen can be indeed a problem in some experimental setups, but as long as we don’t know if there is a LENR effect at all, degassing the reaction chamber would make IMO not much sense. Besides you would need professional laboratory equipment to do that; the same applies for the analysis of the reaction products. We should not try to exceed the scope of our capabilities.

  • Obvious

    So what portion of the above work is the author suggesting to do, in order to address these issues?

    I have some issues with the general H-Cat idea and think some of the suggestions in the article above are valid.
    But eventually it comes down to either actually do something or get the popcorn, sit down and be quiet so “we” can all watch the show. Alan’s upcoming test is a good start, so let’s see what happens.

    The main reason “we” are spending so much time on the H-Cat idea is that “we” are interested in it. If nobody cared, the subject would have died off a long time ago. Whether it works or not, I think “we” all learned a little bit from the topic.

  • BuildItNow

    Rick Allen has missed a key point. At the same time his analysis is valuable. The point Rick misses is the “all” the parameters of the existing experiment need to be duplicated as closely a possible, or, it’s no longer the same setup, no longer the same experiment. This means, the mixtures of air with HHO need to be duplicated. We don’t know what the important ingredients are, so, don’t change them before duplicating the experiment as “exactly as possible”.
    There is nothing to prevent other experiments, just acknowledge they are different and don’t prove or disprove Justin Church’s observations.

    How to do this and look for excess heat.
    1. The catalyst should be operating at similar temperatures
    2. The mix of air and HHO should be similar.

    This could be tricky to get calorimetry on, but, if there is lots of extra heat, then the calorimetry can be simple.
    An example:
    1. Place a piece of catalyst in a tube.
    2. Fit the tube to a heat gun to electrically heat the catalyst
    3. Fit a gas inlet for HHO after the heat gun and before the catalyst
    4. Fit a spark ignitor so that the HHO can be ignited while the test is running
    5. Fit a high temperature thermometer after the heat gun and before the HHO inlet
    6. Fit a high temperature thermometer after the catalyst.
    7. Fit an observation window (with appropriate safety) to observe the catalyst, particularly the front.
    8. For safety reasons, consider having blow out valves to safely release any explosive pressures.

    Running the setup with air coming in the HHO inlet at the same rate as HHO should result in similar temperature on both thermometers while the heat gun is operating.
    Operate the heat gun till the desired temperatures are reached.

    Add HHO and observe any temperature rise on the after catalyst thermometer, allow the temperature to settle.
    Ignite the HHO before the catalyst and allow the temperature to settle.

    Repeatedly run the system on air, Ignited HHO and unignited HHO and collect the figures.

    If there is a large jump in the after catalyst temperature when the HHO is unignited vs ignited, get excited, share the results, avoid going to the press until some very solid experiments are done. If you get a strong result, Stanford Research Institute’s cold fusion labs could be interested in taking a look.