Collaborative Project Proposal: In Search of the E-Cat’s Secrets (Gerard McEk — Updated With Status Report)

The following post is a proposal by Gerard McEk who is inviting interested people to participate in a collaborative project to help people attempting to understand and replicate the E-Cat

Why is it that we can’t replicate the E-Cat or the Hot Cat? Are we really such lousy replicators, or are there other reasons? Recently Andrea Rossi published his first patent and we found that additional lithium was missing from replicators’ recipes. Some replicators immediately tested reactors,with additional lithium but again with no positive results. Clearly, the patent does contain important ingredients and information to start a LENR reaction and without it, it would not work, but we are so far still missing important information. Perhaps Rossi still keeps some secrets to himself!

I have been thinking how we can find a way of how to uncover Rossi’s secrets and came up with the methodological approach using the ‘crowd’ to quickly come to results. So how does it work?

(BTW: It is not my intention to steal the secrets of Andrea who has worked so hard to bring his E-Cat into the world. I hope his patents and his advancements will prevent anyone from misusing the secrets we may uncover, but I do believe that LENR must be understood by science and that understanding can only be stimulated when we can replicate the “Rossi effect” and positive tests can be done in any suitable lab.)

I propose that first we collect as many details as possible about the E-Cat and Hot Cat in a commonly accessible Google Document. The details will be ordered chronologically, and accompanied with the source and a remark what relevance might have, or what you think the issue is.

These details can go from known reactor designs, to remarks of Rossi, to test results to remarks about these results, etc. Every item will also have an item number, which is required for the analytical part as a reference. The items are collectively gathered by the crowd and can come from patents, E-Cat World, The Journal of Nuclear Physics, Ego Out, LENR Forum, vortex-l, books (Lewan, Cook, Nikolova) and other websites and documents, and these can be added by the crowd-members in a Google document. Commenting will be available for people to add new information, questions, etc.

I have volunteered to organize and moderate this crowd-work and I hope that many of you will volunteer as a crowd-member. Once I have sufficient volunteers I will ask each volunteer to search a certain site/document over a limited period of time for relevant items.

You can view the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sMy_b8DwniTqQ1JEv25R2zwCI5ZKlJbHHHUc_waAAHI/edit?usp=sharing

If you would like to become an editor of the document, you will have to have a Google account. To request access to become an editor of the document, click on the link above, and then on the blue button on the top left that reads “View Only”, and choose “REQUEST EDIT ACCESS”.  After you submit your request I can approve you as an editor.

 

The document may look something like this:

Date Nbr Source Information Remark
2011 1 Vessela Nikolova The New Fire p 256

McEk

Focardi does not know what the ‘secret additive’ is. That is where we are looking for
2011 2 Vessela Nikolova The New Fire p 258/259

McEk

Kullander and Essén were allowed to examine the Ecat without the cover  of its isolating case and the leaden shield (2 cm thick) at the University of Uppsala. “The reactor, which is charged with powder composed of Nickel, a secret catalyst and pressurized hydrogen gas has a volume estimated at 50 cc and is of stainless steel surrounded by a copper pipe so that the water is heated as it flows between the steel and the copper”. It contained 50 gr. Ni powder and the H2 pressure was about 25 Bar. “The process was set off using an electrical conductor. The input power was 330 W, of which 30 W was used to make the electronics work”. “They observe in their report that it took nine minutes to go from 20 to 60 0C and this corresponds to the heating due to the electric power. Instead it took just a four minutes to move from 60 to 97.5 0C”. Water only 60 0C, when the LENR process starts, but difficult to say what the internal (reactor) temp was.
2011 3 Vessela Nikolova The New Fire p 260

McEk

The control box contains mainly passive components and rectifiers.

K&E got a sample of the nickel during their first meeting with AR and a sample that comes from a reactor that was in operation during 2.5 month. “Their analysis has shown that the pure powder is composed essentially of nickel, while the powder that had been used also contains a number of other substances, first of all 10% copper and 11% iron. Though copper is not one of the additives used as a catalyst, the 63 and 65 isotopes of copper can only be formed during the process. Their presence is proof, therefore, that nuclear reactions are taking place, Kullander said”.

So no active components! How is it controlled?

In the Ecat transmutation takes place. Seems different to the Hot cat. K&E cannot be sure about the samples.

4
5
6
7

 

Once many of these items are collected, it can be analyzed by anyone. I am sure I will be one of them. What I would like to know, for example, is the methodology Andrea is using to come to new designs, and I hope to find hints in the many items that are collected. If you look at the items above, for example, you can see that even Focardi did not know Rossi’s secret, but did Cook?

We know that some people in Industrial Heat know how to make an E-Cat. I assume that also IH did not put that in their patent either, but a good look and a proper comparison may reveal something.

I hope this project will be helpful for all the replicators. I also hope it will open many discussions and that we will find a way to produce a stable LENR reaction soon.

A project like this will require good organization and communication, so in addition to the document linked above, I have created a forum which can be used for people involved in the project to communicate. The forum can be accessed here — https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/rossis-secret You will need to request access in order to participate.

I trust that many of you will volunteer, because only then it becomes a small job for everyone.

Thank you!

Gerard McEk

UPDATE: Oct 28, 2015

Hi all,
We have now 10 members, including myself and Frank Acland. I intend to wait a bit longer and hope more people will join in. About 20 would be perfect.Once we start I will ask you for a short introduction, like your: nationality, (alias) name, educational level and in what, how long you follow LENR, fluency in English and other languages, preferences where you want to look and how much time you can spend on this. (Maybe you can think of other important things I should know before we start, please tell me, this is new for me too).

Based on your answers, I will select an ‘area’ for you to search for details, after which we start to work. Obviously I will do some work too in the Google Document. Does this sound OK for you?

Regards, Gerard

  • builditnow

    translate.google.com detected Dutch and translated as follows:
    “According to my theory, the secret catalyst of AR was created by nickel or a close relatives of nikkel.De best reaction between types get their own kind to you or any relatives species and that is a kind of the same quality as those species and thus nickel or relative of nickel.”
    This does not seem to be a very good translation. Perhaps someone can do better for us mono linguists.

    • Gerard McEk

      I believe that Saba Amedeo is not Dutch, the translation of bad Dutch leads to worse English. I do not understand the issue Saba wants to make (and I am Dutch).

  • Omega Z

    Note the E-cat isn’t a magic box. It still requires external electricity to operate it. Always will. It just puts out more heat then it consumes in electricity.
    ————————————————-
    From Rossi’s posts, IH and Rossi have every intention of selling E-cats. They will also sell heat to those who do not wish to actually purchase the E-cat itself. Or perhaps the customer may want to lease or lease to buy.

    The Customer of the current Pilot plant has the option to buy at the end of the test. If I were the customer, I’d prefer the next model that will have a much smaller footprint all self contained with the improvements applied.

    Why would anyone expect them Not to make a profit. By the time they start regular production, they’ll have invested at the least 100 Million$ in facilities, machines & R&D. After a few years, they will have spent 5 to 10 times that for manufacturing facilities and such. It takes profits to pay for all that.

    I don’t understand people’s concern that Rossi will make a profit. How is he to recover the million$ he’s spent & many years of his life developing it.

    Rossi says, I’m going to sell you a product that will reduce your heating bills by 90%. Do you mind if I make a profit? Of course not. I’d be an idiot to be concerned with him making a profit. He’s saving me 90% of my heating costs. Good for him. He’s earned it.

  • GreenWin

    Oy. So much mishegas! Again, LuFong tells us Rossi’s first 1MW reactor was bought by the U.S.
    government. As the government is financed by and in service to its
    people, why not FOIA petition for government disclosure?
    If LuFong is correct we (the People) may already have the secret!

  • GreenWin

    Ha! Last chance? For who? These denials look very much like GHCQ ham-fisted bumbling. Should we re-post the intercept??

  • clovis ray

    Hi Guys,
    Sometimes it helps to go back to the beginning, and retrace your steps, Gerard Mc is on the right,track.
    i see the Rossi effect, as balanced on edge, and like the new jets,that can’t actually fly with computer control, so does the magic cat, and once this process is fine tuned, the cop goes up.

  • Omega Z

    “a company that has the only working cancer medicine but rather then saving people they need their investment money back.”

    Yes, And your way is that they do not get their money back & then you wonder why they don’t come out with an improved product latter. That would be because they have no money to research a new product. They didn’t get their money back.

    Under that premise, there would never be a working cancer medicine to begin with. A bigger problem I see is people have developed a disconnect between money & the work performed. Currency is merely a replacement of bartering that frees one up from the hassles involved in a bartering world.

    Using a currency preserves the value of your work. In a bartering world, You may lose that value in order to obtain what you want. As in a bartering world, the person who has what you want, may not see much value in what you have to barter. No matter how much labor you put into it.

    By using a currency, you may get that value from someone who sees it’s real value. Thus using that currency, the person you would have bartered with sees the value of the currency. Not what you would have been bartering.

    • LindbergofSwed

      I agree with you but it depends on the product. If it is about saving peoples lifes, then its important to make an exception from the capitalist powers and that is sometimes what governments do. They can set a new law to override the patents to prevent a lot of people from dying. it is a lot at stake here now. it will take a divine intervention for the climate to be repaired

      • Omega Z

        I find it despicable when Pharma says- We’re going to charge $1000 for a $1 pill because we can because, Without it you’ll die.
        It’s time to intervene…

        To step in & take their research in progress & distribute it under the guise that it will save lives, I can’t condone. Assure me that this is a possibility & “I” can assure you I will do no research. Ever…
        This is a sure way to suppress & eliminate all research.
        How many lives will be lost in the future.

        Saving lives as an argument doesn’t justify stealing from others any more then price gouging because you can. i.e. If you sell plywood for $30 a sheet, a hurricane doesn’t justify tripling your prices.
        Saving lives as an argument can be used to justify about everything. Doesn’t make it right.

        ——————————————————————
        Rossi’s technology if given away. Competitors will not use his technology. They will still develop their own & file for IP.
        Universities will study it for decades & never produce a product. They will however, file IP on any findings they make & they will charge people to license it.

        You may think sharing Rossi’s technology will speed up the process, but in reality, it would more likely delay it by several years. If you want to see it put to use faster, let Rossi start putting product to market. Every investment group in the world will be shoving money & expertise at Rossi’s competitors. It will happen fast.

        (F9) is real. Not a delaying tactic. The pilot test really could fail. That doesn’t mean the technology isn’t real, just not ready for prime time. Rossi’s reactors obviously produces excess energy. If not, there wouldn’t be a pilot plant in operation. He would still be playing with singular reactors in a lab.

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

    Try adding carbon dust to the mixture. I believe Rossi has left out important information to make replication difficult. Other ingredients to try are steel dust, iron dust, and potassium carbonate. Try different mixtures.

    • MasterBlaster7

      I’m thinking iron dust. After the NAVSEA notes from DeChiaro. Thats some good stuff.

    • Omega Z

      What Rossi has left out isn’t in the Fuel.
      What Rossi has left out is the crucial element to make it work every time in a consistent manor. That crucial element is the electronics & what they do. Be it frequency, EMF or what ever. Without this crucial element, you may or may not get excess energy. Even when you get excess energy, it will never exceed COP=3.

      • clovis ray

        hi,Oega z
        So you might say, we seek the god element, not practical, it would seem so.

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

        I agree that the electronics need to be fully addressed. Why not try to beat Rossi with this experiment combined with E-Cat architecture. A very high COP may be possible.

        http://www.irf.se/link/irf_scientific_report_305

      • Axil Axil

        Most replicators have produced blowouts in the tube during startup. Rossi could have found a way to get past that startup problem. This massive release of energy is similar to the gamma problem at startup. I think Rossi did it via the heat pipe idea expressed below.

        • Omega Z

          Has “Rossi found a way to get past this start up problem.”
          NO. This problem is just the nature of the beast. It impacts every segment of industry including modern power plants. They’ve learned to minimize these problems through experience.

          The 1st time you heat something up to high temps, there’s a high probability of catastrophic failure. That’s why it’s done slowly. It allows the material to slowly create a path of stress fractures. Additional Reheating can be done faster as it naturally follows and reinforces these created paths of least resistance like memory. After a few times, you should easily be able to heat these reactors up in about 2 hours. If you want instant start, you need to take a totally different approach. It’s never going to happen with ceramics & metal reactors.

          Rossi has accumulated experience by(trial & error). He has a process. He knows how many hours & how many incremental steps to bring it to temp the 1st time to minimize blow outs. Note: Minimized, not eliminated the problem. He sent extra reactors to Lugano…

          • Axil Axil

            The dummy reactor does not fail, but the identical reactor with fuel does. They are both subject to the same stresses so its the fuel that makes the difference.

        • Gerard McEk

          Axil, another subject: What is your opinion about this article: http://www.cfcr.de ? Are CP’s the same as SPP’s?

          • Axil Axil

            They have different names and are produced in different ways but they are the same.

    • Obvious

      Perhaps the Lugano device used LAH in the outer cavity, like the me356 experiments, and the fuel is Li (carbonate?), Ni, and some getters and improvers (Fe, Na) etc., only inside the inner core tube. Then the “dummy” may have had a “COP” of 1.2 to start with.

      • Mats002

        If so we have seen replications of the mouse. No Cat yet.

        • Obvious

          Indeed.
          The radiative spectra, or H diffusion, or something, from the me356 type effect (mouse/Activator) has not yet been combined with a reactor with fuel in any public replication attempt to date. Everything so far has been lumped together as fuel in the same compartment.

          • Ecco

            As for the mouse/activator.
            Try filling the gaps in the text here (likely deleted in the original document due to confidentiality reasons).

            http://i.imgur.com/rJSDuBy.png
            http://i.imgur.com/bmbk9br.png

            From http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
            Application number: 61/819,058
            EXEMPLARY DEVICES AND METHODS FOR GENERATING HEAT

            Courtesy of Cobraf.

            • Obvious

              I have looked at that, and I also searched for a parent document un-redacted. I looked at the Levi et al. 2013 paper, from which moist of this patent document is sourced, but these are new paragraphs. Perhaps they occur in a private version of the report not available to us.

            • Obvious

              Here is the original

              • Mats002

                OK guys, we have an outer and an inner chamber. The outer is the mouse and the Lugano fuel and ash is from the outer, the mouse. The mouse works without pressure tight vessel, remember Mr Rossi loaded the device without gas tight sealing.

                What makes the Cat mjau? I propose it is coherent IR radiation from the mouse. If so, the replicators should test the IR frequency bands.

                What is the Cat? Well. Should be NiH again but with some extra sauce, I think we as a group already are at it but there are more suggestions than verified answers.

                • Obvious

                  I think the fuel is in the inner, and the outer already had it’s fuel in it. me356 restarted his tube after opening it, and it worked again, after a small delay.

                  But your guess is as good as mine.

                  (I think that nickel powder on the coils would be bad)

                • Mats002

                  I think fuel are both in inner and outer. Outer fuel is mouse, inner fuel is in a pressure gas tight chamber. Lugano fuel and ash was only from outer, ie from the mouse.

                • Obvious

                  From the exploded diagram, the only ingress to the tube is for the inner. That is where the caps fit. (4mm [supposedly], RH side)

                • Obvious

                  Like so:

                • Mats002

                  The mouse fuel (‘powder’, ‘charge’) will not touch the coils, see picture from Ecco above.

                • Obvious

                  That is the first Levi test style device. It was loaded with “hydrogen-loaded nickel powder” from the start.
                  (I don’t know why there are two fuel compartments. Figuring out why might solve something.)

                  I am not sure that it applies directly to the Lugano device for filling.
                  Below is the V2 design.

                • Mats002

                  Yes.

                • Obvious

                  OK. Now I know where you are coming from.
                  I’m just not sure how that fits in with the Lugano device.

                • Mats002

                  Why? Do you have a drawing of the Lugano device that negate my suggestion?
                  Parkhomov’s first replication (without the pressure meter) had only one chamber, but do we know anything about the inner architecture of the Rossi Lugano device?

                • Obvious

                  The drawing is just below in one of my posts, sourced from a patent photo.
                  The inner tube scales to about 1 cm diameter, so with a plug/bushing diameter of 4 mm, it doesn’t leave much space.
                  I will note that the supposed 4 mm plugs end up being about 7.5 mm in diameter when scaling the drawing up to the dimensions noted in the report, if the ends caps are 4 cm, and the tube section 200 mm long. So there are some discrepancies that could work in favour of your idea.

                • Obvious

                  The resistor sandwich is likely to be very efficient.
                  I thought about simply rolling it into a tube configuration. It is likely to be quite a bit more complicated than that, though, in practice. The circumference difference introduces a major level of cooling differences and radiant heat problems between the two layers that become complicated when a sandwiched resistor is used in a rolled sandwich. Putting two layers inside the coil seems even trickier to me. And it seems like a waste of electrical heat. But it may simplify development of devices powered by other forms of outside heat.

                • Ecco

                  I believe Reactor and Activator are referring to this configuration:
                  http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Fig1-2_Patent_2.jpg

                  This seems simpler in principle than the Lugano reactor.

                • Obvious

                  I don’t see this as being much different than the Lugano device, in overall design.
                  It does use an off-the-shelf heater, though.

                • Mats002

                  Cited from the Lugano report, page 3 of 53:

                  “A thermocouple probe, inserted into one of the caps, allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by measuring the internal temperature of the reactor. The hole for the thermocouple probe is also the only access point for the fuel charge. The thermocouple probe cable is inserted in an alumina cement cylinder, which acts as a bushing and perfectly fits the hole, about 4 mm in diameter. When charging the reactor, the bushing is pulled out, and the charge is inserted. After the thermocouple probe has been lodged back in place, the bushing is sealed and secured with alumina cement. To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal.”
                  Conclusions from above drawings and the Lugano text:

                  a) The charge is put into the outer chamber, the inner chamber is not reached by this description.

                  b) Sealing with alumina cement will not make the outer (mouse) chamber H2 pressure tight.

                  This is the base for my statements earlier in this thread.

                • Omega Z

                  I would suggest the Lugano device is strictly a cheap R&D device.
                  The Image Ecco has provided is representative of an Actual E-cat.

                • Obvious

                  Probably it is an R&D device.
                  Which unit is easier to make a working version of?

  • Herb Gillis

    We have “replications” but not replication-at-will, despite many attempts by qualified people. Unfortunately this pattern may still be consistent with a null hypothesis (ie. where Rossi is a fraud and the few “successful” replications were measurement or interpretational errors). If we get more delays and excuses next February then I think we have to consider this possibility.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      Seconded. While I do think LENR/CF exists. I think it is still an open question as to whether or not Rossi has the goods. Or at the very least has released enough information to allow for repeatable replication attempts. So come the middle of next year I will be looking for something concrete from Rossi/IH.

      • Omega Z

        The answer that is missing is the electronics & what they do.
        Another problem for those trying to replicate is technic. They are still thinking simplistic & are missing the nuance in practice.

    • Agaricus

      Why? Can you suggest some sound commercial reason why Rossi/IH must prove themselves to you and other doubters by February?

      • Herb Gillis

        This is about science not commerce. Science is based on verification. Rossi/IH don’t have to do anything, and I don’t have to continue believing them indefinitely. At some point there have to be tangible and verifiable products. Personally; I want very much to keep believing in the claims that were made almost 5 years ago. I remain cautiously optimistic, but claims must be verified beyond equivocation at some point. To me, that mean verification-at-will.

        • GreenWin

          No Herb. You and other skeps fail to understand what’s happening. Science has fumbled the ball the past 25 years. Commerce is the primary reason we see E-Cat success. Outside the Lugano professors it has been investors, businessmen, and commercial enterprise that has helped Rossi’s venture grow. And there’s little we can do or say about it.

  • BarneyP

    May I suggest a more “technical” approach? I mean, why using (even if only as guidelines) Nikolova’s quotes of her book as a starting point for such a project, instead of all the data we can get from TPR and other more technical sources?

  • georgehants

    What a crazy World when some people except that keeping secrets that can cost lives is exceptable.
    That other scientists have to waste their time looking for replication when they could be working on improving the technology.
    Commonsense seems to be a commodity that has become more extinct as time goes by.

  • Gerard McEk

    Don, there may be another reason. The three phase system, directly driven from the 240 V mains supply cause a much voltage between the coils as well as large current peaks because of the low resistance of the three individual coils. I believe that at elevated temperatures the Al2O3 reactor pipe starts to conduct. Due to the high voltage difference between the coils, current starts to flow though the fuel. The short high current peaks will enhance LENR. This explains also the virtual reduction of the coil resistance as has been found with the analysis of the Lugano test results.

  • Mats002

    EM = electromagnetic (field) induced by a current in a coil or sharp changes in amplitude or arcs. What is the origin of your magnetic field?

    • Don Witcher

      The magnetic field I am referring to is the one generated from the helically wound resistor wire which surrounds the reaction chamber. It is a function of the magnitude of the current through the resistor wire.. All the western failures have used resistor wire current which is almost an order of magnitude less than the current described in the Lugano report (40-50 amps) and that means the magnetic field created by the resistor wire in western experiments was almost an order of magnitude weaker than that of the Lugano reactor.

      • Mats002

        Agree that the parameter space of EM stimulation have not been explored in the western replications ^^

      • US_Citizen71

        I think here in the states it may be due to the fact that our power is about 120Vrms and the resistance wires have been very small gauge causing high resistance values. I think one solution may be to go with larger gauge heating wires than have been used up til now. Looking for a source for larger diameter Kanthal A1 I found the website below. They carry 13 gauge Kanthal A1 and they are even willing to coil and pigtail it for you.

        http://kruegerpottery.com/repair-parts/kantal-wire/kanthal-a1-wire-13-gauge.html

  • Dr. Mike

    Gerard,
    Good luck on your project! Your statemen:”Clearly, the patent does contain important ingredients and information
    to start a LENR reaction and without it, it would not work, but we are
    so far still missing important information. Perhaps Rossi still keeps
    some secrets to himself!” means that Rossi’s patent is invalid due to incomplete disclosure. Anyone that finds (and proves) a key ingredient that is missing from the patent can get the patent rights to that ingredient and invalidate the Rossi patent.
    Dr. Mike

    • Owen Geiger

      My guess is Rossi’s lawyers are filing one patent update after another to gradually fill in the details. This leaves the competition guessing. They seem to be clearly in the lead and so this strategy could be successful.

      • Dr. Mike

        Owen,
        You are probably correct. This could be a dangerous strategy if someone files a patent on a key ingredient before Rossi.
        Dr. Mike

        • Obvious

          If the reaction works at all with the ingredients in the patent, that will be good enough. Vanilla Coke is just Coke with vanilla in it. Maybe it tastes better to some folks, but it is not any more patentable than adding another scoop of sugar.
          Not that the Coca Cola recipe has ever been patented anyways.
          Nor does it appear that anyone has attempted a replication of Rossi’s accepted patent.

          • MasterBlaster7

            Recipe’s are not patent-able. Its the law.

            • Obvious

              That was my point, more or less.
              The critical question is whether or not an enabling “ingredient” or process has been withheld from the patent (which should not be confused with the applications, which may be, or contain, intentional red herrings).

            • Ecco

              It doesn’t look it’s the case in the petrochemical field, then. Have a look at a patent which appears (in my view) to mostly describe a recipe or many recipes for a slightly improved version of certain kind of catalyst:
              http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4152300.pdf

            • Obvious

              Apparently recipes can be patented. The rules are very specific. Chucking in an extra carrot won’t cut the mustard….

            • Omega Z

              They can be copyrighted.
              However, that makes them publicly available & easy to semi copy them.
              🙂 However, is there any recipe today that can’t be copied due to today’s technology? Secret or Not…

    • Mats002

      Thanks to Peter Gluck with congratulations on his birthday yesterday, he put this statement on his blog:

      5) Andrea Rossi says:
      October 25th, 2015 at 2:41 PM

      Luna:
      Obviously, anybody trying to make a product in the field of LENR is a competitor. If anybody will arrive to make a product that will make LENR generated thermal energy ( whatever the eventual use of such thermal energy) his product will compete against ours.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Me thinks: The use of thermal energy – if any – is to demonstrate it’s presence. Would that make open innovation a competitor?

      • Dr. Mike

        Mats002,
        Open innovation is definitely a competitor in that anything discovered in open innovation that was not part of patent would be free for anyone to use commercially.
        Dr. Mike

    • Gerard McEk

      Dr. Mike, I do think that it is possible to start a LENR reaction with the patent ingredients and description. I guess it will be less efficient and more difficult to achieve. Parkhomov is the example, but Rossi can manage do it any moment at will with his recipe.

      • Ecco

        All patents and written information published so far by Rossi have always omitted that it’s quite likely he’s used a petrochemical iron oxide catalyst all along for (at the very least) efficiently dissociating molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. The chemical composition of these catalysts can look like that of stainless steel (with Fe, Cr, Mn content). I wonder if those who somehow managed to replicate the experiment (assuming no errors or something worse) serendipitously created such catalyst in-situ by using a stainless steel fuel container modified with heat, stress and embrittlement.

        • Gerard McEk

          I fully agree Ecco. I am sure the ‘professors’ were not allowed to inspect the ’empty’ interior of the hot cat before AR put the fuel in. That interior could have contained the secret mixture to cause the Rossi effect. BTW stainless steel was also used in the original 1MW Ecat plant and Rossi can well have found that this materials was needed to start LENR!

          • Ecco

            Since Rossi obviously knows what the “secret” catalyst is – assuming it’s actually the one I’m referring about – he wouldn’t need in practice to create it in-situ from stainless steel, as he could simply include it in the fuel. The catalyst could then pass as a potential stainless steel contamination in ash analysis.

            Curiously, upon careful look at the powder analysis in the Lugano report it does look like that iron oxide particles possibly similar in composition to such petrochemical catalysts were already present in the starting fuel.

          • Omega Z

            Gerard

            That doesn’t hold water. The reactor was powered up for the dummy test. Then the charge was added to the same reactor for the test. I would propose the missing ingredient is in the electronics that provides the big difference.

            • Gerard McEk

              As an electrical engineer, I sympathize with your remark, which I also frequently made. I do believe that an IGBT based medium frequency PWM converter should be used that can generate high currents pulses with an adjustable frequency. (see: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/01/the-mcek-lenr-controller-gerard-mcek/). However, I do think that these scientists were not allowed to carefully inspect the interior of the hot cat before the ‘fuel’ was loaded. Unfortunately these ‘professors’ did not care to answer the numerous questions of the Lugano test, so we are still in the dark. I believe they have shown no professional behavior and this has put a black mark on them.

              • Omega Z

                Rossi would not let them see the internals. That is why he needed to be present. But I think this has to do with design IP.

                As to the Scientists not answering questions. One started to but then retracted his statement.
                Something going on behind the scenes. (Fact) They are building their own reactors. Now Speculating, Are they still working with Elforsk. Recall Elforsk started their own research facilities which was about the time the scientists were supposed to provide some clarity about the Lugano test. Elforsk was talking about a small team(half dozen to a dozen scientists) doing the research. This would fully explain their silence..

    • MasterBlaster7

      You can’t patent recipes. Take a look a coke and KFC secret spices.

    • Omega Z

      Dr. Mike,
      The evidence indicates Rossi’s ingredients in the patent works.
      What is missing is an additional component that makes it work much better & dependably.

      Aside from that, Rossi’s patent is more about the hardware. Not the fuel mixture.

    • Nigel Appleton

      If a patent applicant omits information that is vital to replication of the patented matter, then the patent is invalid. End of story

  • Axil Axil

    Axil to Ecco

    Omega Z posted: As to WHY they only had a limited sample.The reason Rossi was involved with extraction of the sample was he didn’t want the Professors to analyze the internals of the reactor. Rossi stated this at the time. Everyone seems to have missed that.I don’t have that link but,Follows is some additional info provided by Rossi

    ———————————————————————–

    Alexvs October 19th

    Why the sample withdrawn from the E-Cat in Lugano was only 2 mg from a 1 g charge ?

    Andrea Rossi October 19th

    Alexvs:Because that was the maximum amount that was possible to withdraw from the E-Cat by the Professors without breaking the reactor, due to its complex internal design.Warm Regards, A.R.http://www.journal-of-nuclear-

    ———————————————————————–

    Everyone assumes the reactor is a smooth bore. It could contain ridges internally as it does on the exterior, or fluted along it’s internal length.It could also be of a threaded nature having been molded around a piece of threaded ready rod.

    These could have various effects. One is it could allow increased heat transfer in from the resistors & out when producing excess heat. It could also aid in the circulation of the Li/H around & into the Nickel catalyst reducing hot spots. The internal shape of the reactor can even control the temperature zones and focus the heat to specific zone of the reactor. It would definitely provide more surface area and definitely make it much harder to scrap out the used fuel.

    ———————————
    Axil Axil to Omega Z: Particle 2 of the ash assay on page 45 of the Lugano report shows a particle that is a silicon dioxide particle. This leads to the speculation that the inside of the Lugano reactor is filled with silica based Aerogel. Like carbon, silicon is a Hydrogen Rydberg matter catalyst. Silicon monoxide is also LENR active since it mimics potassium in terms of electron outer shell bonding. It also may be necessary to keep the nickel particles separated to avoid overheating at startup in order to give the reaction some time for the reaction to establish itself.

    Ecco to axil: with your discussion about ridges in the internal ceramic tube, are you suggesting that the Lugano experiment might have been internally shaped like a sort of heat pipe?

    http://i.imgur.com/zL17Ge6.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/EegRT9Q.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/D75gmrLl.jpg

    In principle this could ensure a constant flux of hydrogen on the active sites, needed to observe the effect (ie to form ultra-dense hydrogen according to Leif Holmlid).

    In real life applications a working fluid (usually water or alcohol) able to exist in both gaseous and liquid state is used in these pipes. How could it work in this case?
    That is, unless you meant something else.

    Axil to ecco: The heat pipe works by using a liquid like lithium that flows down a heat gradient from the cold end to the hot end where the liquid evaporates. The liquid is held within the mess by capillary force and is carried along by a screen or a foam. After evaporation, the vapor moves down the clear channel down the center of the pipe. What makes the pipe work is a adjustment of a partial vacuum that lowers vapor pressure that reduces the boiling point of the liquid coolant so that the liquid evaporates readily in the optimum temperature. The vacuum is adjusted to produce the proper temperature operating range. I will bet this heat pipe idea is what Rossi is doing and is one of his secret methods. This protects the reactor from hot spots, keeps the temperature isothermal and keeps the fuel powder from clumping since the powder gets suspended in the wire mess or foam.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Laptop_CPU_Heat_Pipe_Cross_Section.jpg/500px-Laptop_CPU_Heat_Pipe_Cross_Section.jpg

    Lithium is a major liquid metal coolant uses in the commercial heat pipe marketplace.

    Heat pipe design includes refractory metal envelope/lithium working fluid for high temperature (above 1050 °C) applications.

    • Ecco

      Thanks to Obvious’ suggestion I realized that the 2014 IH patent includes some more information on the internal reaction chamber used in Lugano. Some claims are interesting. See claims 0069-0078 here:

      https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription

      reaction chamber 12 is the internal tube.

      For example:

      […] Although the reaction chamber 12 is illustrated as a cylinder, the reaction chamber may have other shapes in other embodiments which may have cross-section which may be a regular polygon and/or any closed geometric shape.

      • Axil Axil

        At Lugano, there was something inside that tube that kept the small ash particles from flowing easily out of the tube, an obstruction that filtered the largest fuel particles in such a way to be positioned at the opining where the fuel was loaded. This filtering allows only .02 grams of ash to be extracted by pouring from the reactor. This small fraction was not sintered as is common after a long operating period in such a reactor tube.

        • Ecco

          Bob Higgins and others found out that actual reactor temperatures during Lugano might have been much lower than inferred due to possible errors in alumina emissivity estimation by Levi et al., which could explain how the particles did not look sintered.

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/view

          On the other hand, this would also make the usage of stainless steel as suggested in the IH patent more plausible.

  • Obvious

    Considering that there is an exploded diagram of the Lugano device available, I am surprised that no one has had a closer look at the parts, dimensions, etc. Especially since the exploded diagram is an actual photo of the parts.
    Notably, some of the parts don’t actually scale well to the described dimensions in the Lugano report. Potentially the air gap between the inner coil tube and the outer housing is important, as exemplified in the recent experiments by me356.
    WO 2015 127263

  • GreenWin

    Ambitious plan Gerard! In the “Myth of Basic Science” thread LuFong tells us Rossi’s first 1MW reactor was bought by the U.S. government. As the government is financed by and in service to its people, should we petition for government contribution to this effort? If LuFong is correct we may already know the secret!

  • Mats002

    Agree that the parameter space of EM stimulation have not been explored in the western replications.

  • Sanjeev

    Why is it that we can’t replicate the E-Cat or the Hot Cat?

    So many people from Russia and neighboring countries have replicated it. Does that count ?
    There can be only two possibilities – either these people are mistaken or they did not provide full information along with their claims of success.

    • Gerard McEk

      You are right Sanjeev, but only Parkhomov succeeded in a ‘stable’ LENR reaction during 3 days. The others were a lot shorter and quite different from Rossi’s Ecat. During this year, the success of Parkhomov has been tried to copy maybe a hundred times, even with the same fuel, all without hardly any result. So we are a long way off Rossi’s Ecat or Hot cat replication. That is why I took this initiative.

  • radvar

    Check with Frank on the work done with respect to Parkhomov replication, you might be able to fold that into this effort.

    • Gerard McEk

      I have been in contact with Frank and the replicaters.

  • Mats002

    Great

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    David Fojt reported that ther was discussion by LENr scientists about details in latest Rossi’s patent (the “boiler”).
    Probably there is keys there. I cannot find what.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Great