The general methodology for Batteries and Chemicals is:

• Choose some kind of FAKE (eg batteries)
• Presume that the ENTIRE unknown structure is made up of the Fake material.
• Make NO allowances for implementation efficiency.
• Use the energy density (by weight or by volume) to determine the MAXIMUM energy content of the fake.
• Using the observed excess POWER (kW) of the system, determine how long you would have to run it to exhaust the energy.
• If that time is LESS than the observed run time, then the FAKE is eliminated.

Some kinds of fake could also be detected by analyzing the output:

• Analyze the chemical composition of the output, to make sure no 'combustion' products are hidden
• Make sure that all the water which goes IN goes OUT
• Weigh the device before and after, to see whether chemicals have been consumed, or combustion products stored

... but see Rothwell's Razor, below.

Rothwell argues that some kinds of fakes would have been NOTICED by the observers (For example, if Diesel fuel were burned, there would be copious fumes). However, this paper takes an extremely conservative position:

If both the Volume AND the weight are known, then calculate the maximum run time for both, and use the LOWER number.

The Wiki Energy density table indicates that diesel has a slightly higher energy content than gasoline.

Diesel or Gaslone would produce large quantities of fumes, which would be very hard to hide from observers. It might be possible to vent it into the stream outlet.

Does Magnesium burn in air? It DOES combine with STEAM to produce Magnesium Oxide and Hydrogen .... so the INPUT water can be used as fuel.

The weight of the Main Unit would increase, less water would go out than went in, and there would be Hydrogen in the output.

One might expect that Explosives would contain a lot of energy. In fact, most of them do not. For instance, Nitroglycerine only contains 10 MJ/L, compared to Beryllium/External Air, which has 120 MJ/L. They just release their energy very quickly.

Proposed By : ....

The entire volume is composed of a material with high specific heat.

See Heat capacity, which has an entry for Volumetric Heat Capacity J·cm−3·K−1

Note that the heat capacity might also explain "heat after death", when the output power continues after the inputs are turned off.

This fake must be entirely contained in the main body of the apparatus.

One would have to allow for molten metal, though this would be hard to contain.

... calculation to follow ...

Proposed by : Rothwell?

The water which is pumped INTO the system is NOT all sent into the heat exchanger, but some is diverted into storage.

For example, if the observed output power is 10 times the input power, and only 1/10 the water is converted to steam then the apparent output will be FAKE. It can run until the diverted 9/10 of the water fills the reservoir.

Maximum run time = volume / storage_rate

Jan/Feb : Volume (H and V) : 22 liters Flow: x.xx litres/sec Factor : 10 Time:

... calculation to follow ...

... to follow ... Load table of Amperage vs Wire Gauge ...

These can only be eliminated by inspecting the apparatus.

7.2.1. Plutonium 238

7.2.2. Haffnium 178 Isomer

8. Experiments

8.1. January Experiment

In December 2010 a team of scientists was allowed to examine the device, and performed a number of experiments.

In January a "press" demonstration was held -- though the reactor developed an internal problem (reportedly on the leads to an internal heating resistor), took a long time to "ignite", and ran at lower efficiency (higher inout power).

These two will be referred to as the "January" apparatus and experiment.

The things we know about the January apparatus as a whole are:

• The input power to the controller
• The input water volume and temperature
• The output steam temperature and dryness
• The amount of hydrogen used
• ESTIMATED volumes of the various elements
  (These could be confirmed from the photographs).

The things we do NOT know about the January apparatus include:

• The contents of the controller
• The power from the controller to the main unit
• The output steam volume
• The weights before and after, other than the hydrogen bottle
• Whether any air was taken in by the device, or combustion products released.

ASSUMING that ALL the water was converted to steam the total OUTPUT energy was computed:

• Heat water to boiling point
• Convert to steam
• Heat the steam

Given the rate of flow, the output power (kW) was calculated, and the INPUT power (kW) to the controller was subtracted.
The total excess energy (kWH) was computed from the Power (kW) times the runtime (H).

The volume of the various elements were estimated by Mauro Villa to be:

• Control Box 60 litres
• Horizontal Arm 22 litres
• Vertical Arm 9 litres

[ These could be conformed from photographs.]

The measured values are:

• Flow Rate: 17.5 L/Hr (292 ml/min)
• Input Power : 400W
• Excess Power 12.5 kWH
• Factor 12.5/0.4 = 31
• Duration: 1 hour, of which 30 minutes was steam-producing
  
• Hydrogen: less than 0.1 g of hydrogen was consumed.
  If the hydrogen had been burned it would have produced less than 14.3 kJ (xxx to follow)

8.2. February Experiment

The February trial reportedly had the same general structure, except that is was only used to HEAT water, not to convert it to steam.

The (sole?) observer of the February run, Prof Levi, was allowed to examine everything INCLUDING inside the cental cavity of the reactor, which he estimated to be about 1 liter in volume. He reported that a lot of the volume of the horizontal and vertical arms was insulation, and that lead shielding was visible around the reactor chamber.

Cold Fusion: 18 hour test excludes combustion

The things we know about the February apparatus as a whole are:

• The Control Unit and all parts of the Main Unit including the reactor were inspected.
• The input power to the controller
• The input water volume and temperature
• The output water temperature
• The amount of hydrogen used (Less than 0.4g), producing XX kWH is burned.
• ESTIMATED volume of the reactor chamber
• Very little water could be stored (see note)

The things we do NOT know about the February apparatus include:

• The power from the controller to the main unit
• The weights before and after, other than the hydrogen bottle
• Whether any air was taken in by the device, or combustion products released.

The measured values are:

• Flow Rate: 17.5 L/Hr (292 ml/min)
• Input Power : 80W
• Excess Power 16 kW
• Factor 16/0.08 = 200
• Run Time: 18 hours
• Hydrogen: less than 0.4 g of hydrogen was consumed.
  If the hydrogen had been burned it would have produced less than xxx kJ (xxx to follow)

Note: Since all of the system was visible except the central reactor, and a high rate of flow was used, we can reasonably assume that ALL the water was sent through the system.

9. Methodology for FAKE eCATS and their Detection

9.1. Energy Densities

9.2. FAKES by VOLUME

9.3. FAKES by WEIGHT

10. Rothwell's Razor

It is very tempting to propose elaborate schemes by which the eCat could be faked. For instance, in the author's physorg.com posts he suggested feeding it a brew of various isotopes of water to make sure that the SAME water goes in and comes out.

However, in the Vortex mailing list Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux

Jed Rothwell suggests in response to another comment:

11. Spreadsheet

12. Physorg Posts

These ideas were first noted in PhysOrg (posting as alanf777)

The 1,000-character posting limit made my comments rather hard to read), so I have extracted and clarified them in Physorg v1