Analysis2I received from a friend engineer, who lives and works in Germany, the following contribute.

After the release of the new Third Party Report, it was a spontaneous curiosity for me to compare quantitatively different energy sources to see where the Hot-Cat fuel ranks.

I found very useful, in order to make such an assessment, the chart published on the website LENR for the Win and given here. It is a so-called “Ragone chart”, used for performance comparison of various energy-storing devices. Both axes are logarithmic, which allows comparing performance of very different devices (for example, extremely high and extremely low power).

On such a chart the values of energy density (expressed in Wh/kg or, after an appropriate equivalence, in J/kg like in this case) are plotted versus power density (in W/kg). Conceptually, the vertical axis describes how much energy is available, while the horizontal axis shows how quickly that energy can be delivered, otherwise known as power, per unit mass.

It is interesting to note that, in the 2nd Third Party Report (TPR) by Levi et al., the Hot-Cat fuel showed to be about an order of magnitude more “powerful” than in the 1st TPR (see the chart). Also renewable energy sources such as solar panels and wind plants, although imperfect candidates for inclusion in a Ragone chart, have been included for comparison.

ragone_modified4

The Ragone Chart (from LENR for the Win, slightly modified)

So, Hot-Cat fuel can be compared with a powerful nuclear source such as Plutonium-238 and the most common Uranium-235 (an isotope of Uranium whose fission in chain reactions is used in fission reactors), which appears to have a much lower power density (at least a factor 100 lower) and an energy density substantially similar.

All the traditional fossil energy sources (such as natural gas, coal and so on) have instead, compared with the Hot-Cat fuel, a significantly lower power density (a factor 50 lower or more) and a much lower energy density: at least 4 orders of magnitude lower!

So, it is quite obvious to consider the reactions behind the operation of an E-cat not chemical reactions, but rather a new type of nuclear reactions, although occurring at low temperatures and without dangerous or polluting by-products. In short, they are a form of LENR.

R. Ventola – Electrical engineer

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

4 comments

  1. about the tiny sample, note that it is very comon in chemistry, and in opinion poling…

    it is possible to have a sampling bias, and there are statistics for that.
    note that a strong evidence of the reality of the isotopic change is that the various methods disagree, showing that surface and bulk are not enriched the same way.

    what I am very skeptic about is the assumption that the fuel and the ash are fuel and ash.

    hydrogen is a key, and the outcome have been ignored… was it He4, Li6, D2 ? of Cu…
    anyway the isotopic shif show something happens…

    some scientists propose even that Ni62 is not enriched by transmutation, but by “selection” as all other isotopes may be transmuted (as part of the energy production, or by useless accident)…

    there are many question, like the precise reaction, the way “self sustain mode” works and what is the performance.
    the way the reactor react to heat dissipation through gas cooling, fluid cooling…

    but about reality, the evidence, and even the protocol of the test, rules out fraud and delusion.

  2. You assume that Ni is consumed…
    You also assume that a fraudster would not be intelligent enough to just make a visible enrichment of 50%…
    As Rossi answered, he would be intelligent enough to fraud in, a way he can explain…

    the most probable is that Ni is not consumed, and Ni62 is just a neutral side effect.
    It remind me that a clean shiny barbecue get quickly black after some usage. it does not make it work less nicely for years.

    and how do you explain the 1.5MWh produced by a 450g device…
    NB: I don’t judge that the powder is really all the fuel. the probable fuel is hydrogen, and it is well documented with PdD reaction porducing He4 at a commensurate level to the heat.

    one question to those who imagine conspiracy theory is to provide a total and complete theory of their conspiracy :

    if Rossi is deluded or frauding, if Darden and Industrial hear employees are in the conspiracy, if Levi, Hoistad, Foschi, … are in the fraud ? or just incredibly incompetent ? how the lucky errors can be predicted by the fraudsters ? or if it was just mutiple luck in

    just says who is
    – defrauding
    – incompetent
    – lucky
    let us judge if your theory is a conspiracy theory or not.

    then you add from Fleischmann&Pons to Piantelli/Focardi/Miley/Fralick/Tripodi through McKubre/Miles/Boss/Spazc/Storms all the same answerd about the
    – deluded
    – lucky
    -incompetent
    -fraudsters

    since there is no written paper against those guys that is still credible and supported, just failed experiments, quantum theory ignoring collective effects, insults in journals, I won’t push another theory that the skeptics are in love with their old text books and too shy to admit they insulted and ruined careers, wrongly. A typical case of groupthink.

  3. Thank you for your opinion, even if not so logical. You cannot draw this kind of conclusions from an infinitesimal sample of the powders. An objective person should know it… It is quite obvious that the reaction was going on in other parts of the fuel.

  4. If the measurement would be a fact, but the measurement was a fake!
    http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html

    The experiment lasted for 32 days (time was choosen in advance)
    at the end, the all (99%) the Ni isotopes where converted to Ni 62
    – this means, 8h later the reaktion would have stopped, not serios.
    The fake was, you can buy 99% Ni 62 online and Rossi did this and gave this to the lazy observers of the experiment.

    No cold fusion in the Rossi eCat

Leave a Reply