Ten Ingredients of a Hot Cat Replication Project (Hank Mills)

The following article was submitted by Hank Mills.

Months have past since the Lugano report was published. The detailed report, along with other documents, revealed important information about what is needed to build a working, self sustaining hot cat. However, a lack of serious replication attempts has resulted in very little being done with this information. Instead of replicating and proving to the world that LENR is a reality, only a limited number of tests have been performed. We have the recipe for the inner workings of an E-Cat. What we need now are a set of guidelines for a detailed, comprehensive, and serious replication project.

The following are ten ingredients that I think are critical for any replication project. If they cannot all be incorporated, the test should not be conducted. I think if only a few groups would start a project using these rules, the age of LENR could be started immediately.

1. Safety

If you are setting up a research project, it is absolutely essential to make sure all necessary safety guidelines are followed. There are many ways someone could seriously injure or kill themselves trying to replicate a hot cat. One death could be a tremendous setback to the cause of LENR.  For this reason, only experts in a professional setting should perform such tests.

2. Series of Tests

Don’t plan to perform a single test: one off tests prove very little. What we need are projects that will run at least a dozen or more tests in a row. By planning so many tests ahead of time, several variables can be adjusted until self sustaining heat-after-death (HAD) is found. Also, make sure you have the time to run the tests within a reasonable period of time. What you don’t do today may be put off forever.

3. Use Basic Fuel Mixes

We know from the Lugano report basic ingredients that are in the hot cat: nickel with tubercules, lithium aluminum hydride, and iron. Use these three elements in your fuel, along with whatever small amounts of other elements enter from the atmosphere. We know mixtures of these elements work, so please don’t try other metals or ingredients. Also, try to start off in the proportions of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride that Parkhomov used varying only accordingly to the volume of the reactor core. If HAD is not found, then adjust accordingly.

4. Use Alumina Reactor Cores

Alumina seems to block hydrogen from leaking at high temperatures, so stick to using this material as a core. Don’t try steel or other materials that will leak hydrogen. If you want to coat your reactor with another material, use alumina cement. Also, unless you are keeping it at a low temperature, don’t use steel seals. The Martin Fleishman Memorial Project discovered that a steel seal, unless it is kept far under 500 C, is permeable to hydrogen.

5. Keep Your Reactor Walls Thick

Very high pressures can build up in reactor core. This high pressure is critical towards inducing nuclear reactions. However, they can also cause explosions. Only use reactor cores with thick walls that are strong enough to withstand the forces. In addition, use a blast shield and other safety equipment that will help protect you in case of an explosion.

6. Use High Quality Resistors

High temperatures are critical for inducing nuclear reactions. The higher the temperature, the more likely a reactor will “run away” or experience HAD. Many types of resistors and resistor wire are not capable of extended operation at fourteen hundred degrees Celsius. Look for the best resistor you can find and determine how it needs to be protected. For example, coating it in alumina to prevent corrosion. Don’t try to perform experiments at lower temperatures that are not proven to produce high COP.

7. Setup Procedures

Have a written set of procedures before the first experiment and practice everything. One false move when dealing with lithium aluminum hydride could mean a visit to the hospital or death. Plan ahead of time for how you will safely load the reactor with fuel, safely run power to the resistors, deal with an explosion, etc.

8. Document Everything

Within your budget document everything and post it online as soon as possible. Measure the temperature of the room, the temperature of the reactor, the amount of input power, the current and the amperages, the power factors, the color of the reactor, the length of time it takes the reactor to cool back down to ambient, etc.

9. Look For Heat-After-Death Only

Any type of calorimetry you perform can be debated for years. The only way to provide absolute evidence that no one can refute is to document long lived heat after death. By measuring HAD you don’t have to worry about measuring input or providing an exact measurement of output. You simply measure how long it takes a fueled reactor to cool down to a certain temperature compared to a reactor with nickel but no LiAlH4. If you detect HAD, then keep making changes until you are able to measure a period of self sustain in which the temperature remains the same with no input. In one experiment  Alexander Parkhomov was able to achieve self sustain for several minutes after his resistor wire burned out. It is possible that you may get into a situation in which your reactor will go up in temperature until it destroys itself. The goal should be to keep the reactor going at a constant or rising temperature for at least an hour. Such a huge amount of output with no input would rule out any chemical source of energy.

 

10. Do It Again

If after several runs you achieve a positive run and achieve self sustain, do it again! If you can sucessfully repeat the experiment several times in a row then you may have a documented forumla that anyone in the world can replicate!

The fact is that so far we have not seen comprehensive project attempting to replicate the E-Cat or the Parkhomov device. The MFMP had a fantastic start, but seem to be slowing down significantly due to resources and financial issues. The good news is that a replication project should not cost a fortune. I think that someone in a professional research lab should be able to do so for around $1000. If we want the age of LENR to get started, we have to take action. Right now, the world does not accept that nickel-lithium-hydrogen energy is a reality. For a very small amount of money we can end the oil age once and for all.

Hank Mills

 

 

 

  • builditnow

    A reactor test setup that gets around many of the issues of heating at high temperatures.

    A hot air system heating and control system:

    It’s simple, controllable, no pressure issues, small leaks are not a problem and you can heat with a gas heater to easily achieve the desired temperature.
    It also has the ability to quickly dump lots of heat.

    Since the Lugano Report indicated kilowatts of heat, and the Russian replication indicated kilowatts of heat, measurements don’t need to be very accurate to get started with and refine the test reactors.

    I’m envisioning, a MFMP dog bone like reactor constructed of the same materials as the Lugano test and the Russian replication. It would be a tube sealed at both ends with no power source, no electric wires, just some high temperature thermocouples attached to the outside (and inside if you can).

    The reactor is placed in an air circulating system made of high temperature materials, built like a flattened circle mounted vertically. In the top part of the circle sits the reactor. In the bottom is a fan assisted gas heater to heat up the air and designed to not vent heat when the gas heater is not running. A circulating fan constructed of the same high temperature materials is placed in the cooler side of the lower tube driven by a motor outside the reactor (protected by insulation / cooling). If possible a similar circulating fan is also in the top tube to make sure that the reactor receives consistent moving air over it’s length.

    A cold air dump system is added with an air pump (could be a shop vac running in reverse) and control valves far enough from the reactor that they are not hot so they don’t need to be high tech (could be a used car automatic throttle control valve). The cold air dump system would consist of two down pipes attached to the bottom of the circle on both sides of the gas heater. The cold air in would be on the output of the heater. The air dump out would be on the in side of the gas heater.

    Explosion vents to be provided liberally. These are constructed as very thin areas that are designed to blow out very easily and can be replaced very easily.

    The whole flattened circle is insulated with a high temperature material.
    Around the top reactor section, multi turn fine copper wire coils are placed over the insulation and can be cooled by a fan with cold air. The electric stimulation of the copper coils can be provided by a standard chopping type dimmer switch or motor controller, preferably set to low (maximum chopped current) and designed to give a strong magnetic pulse.

    A programmable controller to automatically activate the cold air dump would be very nice to have.

    Data logging equipment is very desirable.

    The system operation:
    1. Load the reactor, seal it, test the seal,
    2. Place the reactor in the top part of flattened circle,
    3. Attach recording devices, thermocouples, IR camera via a suitable port with a high temperature window or small amount of cold air input to protect the camera,
    4. Start the cold dump fan with the control valve off so no cold air is provided (or it might be wise to dump small amounts of air to clear any leaked hydrogen out of the circulating air).
    5. Start the circulating fans that move the air inside the reactor circle,
    6. Place the safety gear in place, blast shield and fume extraction fans,
    7. Start the gas heater and bring the air temperature up the the first test point,
    8. Watch the reactor heat up,
    9. Look for any case where the reactor is hotter than the air,
    A REACTOR HOTTER THAN THE AIR = EXOTHERMIC, not necessarily LENR exothermic proof at this point,
    10. Very slowly increase the reactor temperature. Note if it is becoming increasingly exothermic (having an increasingly higher temperature than the hot air circulating).

    Expected results:
    A. Nothing happens, keep the experiment running for a week, try another reactor, talk to other researchers.
    B. There is a slight temperature increase. There might be a hydrogen leak, evaluate options.
    C. There is a very significant temperature increase. In this case the cold air dump system may need to be operated to keep the reactor from over heating.

    If you get option C. the reactor should easily maintain hot air in the entire flattened circle (which is well insulated) and some heat dump via the cold air dump system may be necessary to prevent reactor overheating. The external gas heat should not be required. The more exothermic the reactor becomes, the lower the temperature of the circulating air required to keep the reactor from over heating.

    If you get option C. working, enclose the reactor in a blast shield insulated box (with blast safety vents) and measure the exhaust air volume and temperature differential from the room temperature (a used auto mass air sensor and thermo couple could do). Measure the power input of the fans and remove it from the heat calculation. Now you have power output accurate enough for a multi kW reactor.

    When you have your reactors running reliably at multiple kW, obtain a small jet turbine (could be a model aircraft turbine) and adapt the turbine to be the heat dump part of the system. Get a turbine with shaft output power and a gearbox suitable to drive a generator, could be a car alternator charging a battery. Electronics can be powered by an inverter attached to the battery. In this case the system has to be much more robust with few leaks at 200psi. If all is good, you could have plenty of excess electrical power to drive the control electronics with power to spare. Then you have a self running system with no external connections. Enjoy watching the perceptual motion skeptics will go nuts.

    Keep me in the loop.

  • Axil Axil

    No, the goo was pushed into the structure of the reactor. This is how alumina functions at high temperatures. It is porous.

    • Obvious

      Depending on the manufacture of the alumina, the alumina can become a potent ionic conductor at high temperatures. It also becomes a progressively worse conductor of heat. This may create a strong electric potential within the alumina. I suspect this is where the negative resistance could occur, rather than in the heater coil itself, depending on additives. Where I disagreed with you earlier about Superconductivity in the heater wire, I do find this to be a plausible alternative.

  • Dr. Mike

    Hank,
    I agree with your basic premise that is might be best to first determine how to get LENR to work reproducibly, then fine tune the basic process by carefully measuring the reactor output power using calorimetry. I mostly agree with your comments for items #1, 4, 7, 8 and 10. However, I have a few comments on the other 5 items and also have a few suggestions for items that might be added to your list.

    #2- Series of Tests
    It would be a good idea to run an experimental initial matrix of runs with several key variables, those variables being what the experimenter considers most important (the Ni source material, the relative amount of LiAlH4, and use of iron powder to name a few). After the initial matrix is run, the results of this set of experiments must be used to determine the direction to go with the next set of experiments. Therefore, it is not possible to plan out much more than the first set of experiments.

    #3- Use Basic Fuel Materials
    It might be a good idea to plan on using at least two separate sources (maybe more) for the Ni powder since it is possible that the manufacturing technique for some Ni powders may be better than others even if the powders look similar under the SEM. Adding iron powder to the fuel might be one of the variables that I would want to investigate in an initial experimental matrix. Also, all of the fuel materials should be initially fully characterized as to morphology, density, surface area, and any other parameter that might be useful for future reproduction of results.

    #5- Keep Your Reactor Walls Thick
    I agree that thicker reactor walls are better. However, I believe it is also important to use a proper ratio of reactor volume to LiAlH4 weight to limit the maximum pressures that will build up in the reactor as the hydrogen is released from the LiAlH4. Although we don’t know the
    exact internal volume of the Lugano reactor, it was probably significantly larger than Parkhomov’s reactor or the MFMP “Bang!” reactor based on the reactor weight listed in the report for the Lugano reactor, the dimensions of the reactor, and the density of Al2O3.

    #6- Use High Quality Resistors
    I agree that the higher quality of the resistors the better. However, it’s probably not necessary to run the reactors at 1400C to establish a reproducible LENR The 1260C temperature used in the first part of the Lugano test was quite adequate.

    #9- Look For Heat-After Death Only
    I assume from this test you mean to turn off the power at a given temperature and record how fast the temperature drops, rather than waiting until the reactor fails? This is a reasonable measurement to take for each experimental run, in fact, this measurement could be taken at several different temperatures for each run. However, if one doesn’t want to make initial
    quantitative measurements of output power through calorimetry, the easiest way to determine the relative LENR effect for a given run is to just measure the input power required to achieve a set point temperature. You would already be measuring input power to the heater coil and the temperature of the reactor. The less input power required to reach a certain temperature, the larger the LENR effect. Heating an empty reactor or one loaded only with Ni powder to the desired set point temperature would serve as the control.

    I would also add a couple of items to your list:

    #11- Heat the Reactor Slowly, Following the Same Procedure for Each Run
    Ideally a reactor containing only LiAlH4 could be heated with pressure monitoring to establish a heating rate that results in a gradual pressure build-up in the reactor. The leak integrity of the reactor could also be verified by determining that the pressure remained constant at the desired operating temperature.

    #12- If Possible, Monitor the Reactor Pressure During Each Run
    It will be extremely hard to establish cause and effect results from a matrix of experimental runs unless it can be verified that there are no leaks in the reactor for each and every run. Pressure monitoring can also be used to determine how effective hydrogen is adsorbed onto or absorbed into the Ni to determine the effects of the Ni surface area, the Ni preparation technique, and perhaps the use of iron powder as a catalyst in the reactor.
    Dr. Mike

  • Axil Axil

    Alumina has an important downside.
    In the Lugano report at the very end, it reads as follows:

    “Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.”

    The additives that Rossi added were absorbed and hidden from the reaction starting at 1000C when alumina becomes permeable to many elements. In other words, the chemicals that you want to add will be taken away from you…they will be removed….by the alumina structure at 1000C just before you hope that these chemicals will help to moderate the reaction. You will be mislead and disappointed.

    Use tungsten because it does not absorb anything including hydrogen. It is very dense and impermeable. If the tungsten pipe is thick and strong enough, it will not explode do to over pressure. But to be safe, put the reactor in a blast proof shell as Rossi has done. Keep the amount of chemicals used very small to reduce explosion danger.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    If there is too much lithium aluminum hydride, there won’t be enough nickel to adsorb the hydrogen gas that is generated when the tube is heated and the pressure may become higher than what is needed for the LENR to take place. This might be causing the explosions.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      It might help to purge all of the air out of the tube with a gentle flow of nitrogen gas (to remove the oxygen before adding hydrogen) followed by a gentle flow of hydrogen gas (with a long syringe needle inserted all the way to the closed end of the tube) before sealing the tube. The hydrogen is a reactant. The air (I’m guessing) is not part of the reaction. So, all the air would do is increase the pressure without contributing to the LENR (increasing the chance of an explosion).

      • Alan DeAngelis

        PPS
        On second thought purging is too complicated. Just keeping the LAH to a minimum should be sufficient.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    Hank, I respectfully disagree. People should be trying to duplicate the Rossi device, not the Parkhomov device. We know the Rossi device works because it has been third party tested many times and has years of positive test results behind it. The Parkhomov device is new and not yet proven beyond doubt.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      the fact is, sure, we should be replicating the Rossi device, unfortunately, this isn’t possible. Not enough about the exact workings are known. Parkhomov stumbled on a winning formula, even if it isn’t quite the same, but has been transparent about his testing. This should allow reliable replication.
      after replication, by all means, add iron,

      • clovis ray

        Parkhomov, did not stumble into anything, he copied the legaino report, to the letter, and no real proof he has success, our guys MF/MP will show you proof, leaving nothing to chance, now that the ticket,

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          There was a lot of speculation on what constituted the ingredients of the fuel. Parkhomov stumbled onto a ‘winning formula’ for the fuel, based on choosing the simplest formula. has it occurred to anyone that rossi might have added iron and/or other additives that he knew would not significantly disrupt the reaction (i.e. iron) just to help throw people off the scent that its actually really simple?
          The fact is, we know the lugano fuel works well, but don’t know exactly what all its components were, or their proportions. We know that Parkhomov fuel mix works nearly as well (similar COP), but we also know exactly what fuel components he used and in what proportions.
          It should be pretty simple then to decide to use parkhomovs formula first, and modify it second (i.e. add iron and see what it does).

  • Obvious

    Here are some lithium handling guides from a lithium refiner. Note that some reactions may result in the change of the form of the lithium, so that the safety protocols for more dangerous compounds should be considered even if a more benign Li source is the starting material.
    http://www.fmclithium.com/Home/SafeHandling.aspx

  • Axil Axil

    If the past is prolog if you follow the replication formula, your alumina tube will explode as has happened to the Russian and to MFMP.
    To get around this problem in your next experiment, I suggest that you go with a 50 50 mix of lithium hydride and lithium aluminum hydride (LAH). These two chemicals are compatible with Lithium hydride less volatile than LAH.
    If hot spot behavior still occurs, then go with a 25 75 mix, or if the reaction is stable but weak then go with a 75 25 mix.
    In summary, it seems to be counter productive to continue to explode reactors in perpetuity without making adjustments to moderate the reaction somehow.

  • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

    Please use radiation protection and radiation detectors!
    And avoid impurities. There are indications that small amounts of other elements might cause unexpected effects, included radiation.

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      Mats, I’m curious about your earlier statement that you have reason to believe that the 1 MW plant exists and that it is working.

      I know you probably want to leave it at that, but I wonder if you can’t give us a little bit more without revealing any confidential info or sources.

      Would you characterize it more as a rumor or as info from someone in a position to know?

      Is the plant in the Raleigh area as Rossi has hinted?

      Does Rossi’s completion date of Nov – Jan square with what you know?

      Is there a “big reveal” in the works (assuming positive results) for that time frame?

      Is knowledge of the plant limited to IH and the business that has contracted with them or is there a grander scheme?

      Anything, Mats. Any shred that might help us sort fact from fiction would be greatly appreciated!

    • Gerrit

      Radiation occurrence by impurities would be incontrovertible evidence for nuclear reactions.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    Hank, You make some good points.

    One of the chemists on this forum figured out that Rossi’s formula was 55% nickel powder, about 39% iron powder, which is used to break H2 gas into H1 gas, and approximately 6% lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4), which is used as a source of hydrogen gas and as a catalyst. I cannot be sure these figures are correct, but they look reasonable. I don’t think you will get a high COP without the iron powder.