I received from Eng. Ventola the following article specifically focused on the E-Cat technology: in this case, on a “Type I” design of the Hot-Cat reactor tested by third parties:

The picture here below, published in a skinny version in the patent application filed by Industrial Heat on April 26, 2014, shows a layered tubular reactor device (Fig. 1), also represented in cross-sectional view (Fig. 2). It can be described as Energy Catalyzer HT, where HT stands for “high temperature” and it is the first of three different embodiments described in such patent application, so for sake of simplicity hereinafter I’ll indicate it as “E-Cat HT – I’“.

Fig1-2_Patent_2Diagram of a reactor device E-Cat HT “Type I design”  (from IH’s patent, slightly modified).
You can use this image provided that you leave its attribution and a proper link.

This reactor, with the charge non evenly distributed but concentrated in two distinct locations along the central axis of the reactor, was used in the first of the three tests described in the first Third Party Report (TPR-1), performed in November 2012 (see the table below about the TPR tests on Hot-Cat reactors). Such test failed, due to the overheating and melting of the steel cylinder containing the active charge and the surrounding ceramic layers.

Tests_TPRAll the tests described in the Third Party Reports released from the scientists Levi et al.

According to the description given in the cited patent and integrating the info contained on this issue in the TPR-1, a sealed steel inner tube (110) included a cylindrical wall (112) that extended between two end caps (114). The inner tube contained reaction charges (116) in two distinct longitudinal locations. A first cylindrical ceramic shell layer (118) surrounded the inner tube.

Each of 16 resistor coils (120) extended the length of the interior of the reactor device between the inner cylindrical ceramic shell layer and a more outer cylindrical ceramic shell layer. The resistor coils were circumferentially distributed around the inner cylindrical ceramic shell layer to produce uniformly distributed heating when electrical current was passed through the coils.

According to the patent application, the resistor coils were operated continuously at about 1 kW to perform experimental investigations of heat production. Once operating temperature is reached, it is possible to control the reaction by regulating the power to the coils.

IR_ImageAn IR thermal image of the November 2012 test device. Area 1 is at 793 °C. The temperature dips visible in the diagram on the right are shadows of the resistor coils, projected on the IR thermal camera lens by a source of energy of higher intensity located inside the device.

The reactor device was charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder. However the fuel was, more precisely, a mixture of nickel, hydrogen and a catalyst consisting, according to the TPR-1, of some “additives” pressurized with the hydrogen gas and not disclosed being an industrial trade secret (I hope to discuss this topic in a future article).

The E-Cat HT-I is a further high-temperature development of the original apparatus described in detail in the old patent application WO 2009125444, which has also undergone many changes in the last years. As in the original E-Cat, the powder charge activated by heat produced by the resistor coils produces excess heat from some type of reaction.

As said before, the reactor was destroyed in the course of the experimental run.

Before melting, it looked just like in the picture below, where you can see the shining charges distributed laterally in the reactor and the horizontal darker lines, corresponding to the shadows of the resistor coils, projected outward by a source of thermal energy located further inside the device, and of higher intensity as compared to the energy emitted by the coils themselves.

E-Cat_HT_I_2The E-Cat HT “Type I design” during the Third Party test performed on November 20, 2012.

This is evidence of an exothermic reaction that occurred within the inner tube.

The test was fruitful also because it demonstrated in a more direct way, i.e. completely destroying the entire reactor, a huge production of excess heat, which however could not be quantified. The device had similar, but not identical, features to those of the reactors used in the December 2012 and March 2013 TPR-1’s runs, which I’ll illustrate in detail in my future contributes.

R. Ventola – Electrical engineer

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply