You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News > July 23,
2013; 23:55 GMT
Defkalion's Live LENR Demo: Scientifically Impressive Notwithstanding
At its height today, the Defkalion reactor produced more than three
times more heat energy output than the input electricity required to run it,
bespeaking some kind of anomalous effect, probably nuclear (the safe variety).
They expected it to go as high as 4x, but not having time to properly vacate the
argon used for the control, they...
See our blog at Event:2013:July:Defkalion_Demonstrations
right, hosted the demonstration today. Matts Lewan, left, a journalist from
NyTeknik in Sweden, was present as an independent observer.
Pure Energy Systems News
gave a live, 9-hour webcast of a demonstration of their LENR (colloquially known
as "cold fusion") technology in Milan, Italy, with their audience
split between around 1000 viewers online at its peak, as well as the
participants of the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion at the
University of Missouri. At it's height, the apparatus produced in excess of
three times more energy than it consumed.
I woke up early to watch it and report the play-by-play developments all
day on the PESWiki
blog we created for this demo that was given in English.
For those of you who don't frequent our news, bear in mind that this is a
phenomenon that mainstream academia has been dubbing "junk science"
since the days of Pons and Fleishmann in 1989. But gratefully, there are a good
number of researchers worldwide who follow data and dreams, not politics, and
who have been successful in moving the science forward, notwithstanding its
blacklisting by their peers. (By the way, the reason it's named "low
energy" is not a reflection of the output or potential, but of the input
required to get it going, compared to the sun, where nuclear reactions require
many millions of degrees Celsius. Also, it's probably not "fusion" but
"transmutation.") And this demonstration today becomes a hallmark
example of how the grip of the political blacklisting is starting to loose its
hold, due to vindication.
For example, at 19:30 GMT, the electrical input to the Defkalion reactor was
1858.8 Watts, and the heated water output was 5721.6 Watts, giving a coefficient
of performance (COP) of 3.1. The water temperature was 165.43ΊC.
The data was being recorded by data-logger equipment provided by National
Instruments and their LabView software, and displayed on a large screen TV on
the wall, which the live webcam often focused in on. The live stream was of
excellent quality. The only disruptions in the feed came when Defkalion tried to
show a pre-recorded orientation about the set-up, while they were degassing the
Argon. After they finally got that to show, when they returned, they had Matts
Lewan, the independent reporter from the Sweden science magazine, NyTeknik,
vouch that everything on the ground there had been un-tampered with. [See Matts'
The apparatus was also demonstrated the day prior, in Italian, and allegedly
produced more than four times more energy than it consumed, with a peak output
of around 7.5 kW of heat.
The first hour of the demo involved an overview of the apparatus and the testing
protocol. For the next two hours, they ran a control test, using Argon instead
of the Hydrogen that is required for the LENR reaction to take place. Then, they
took about an hour to remove the Argon gas (they usually take 12 hours for
degassing), which prepared the apparatus to then be loaded with Hydrogen for the
LENR test, which they ran for three hours before shutting it down. They also did
a Question & Answer session for ICCF-18 about two hours after the LENR
reaction was under way.
They were going to run it a couple of hours longer, but apparently the process
of shortcutting the Argon degassing step had a larger detriment on performance
than some of them had expected.
Also, they apparently decided to do a test of controlling the reaction up and
down, but they didn't inform the audience of this, so to us, it looked like
something had gone terribly wrong about two hours into the run, shortly after
the Q&A session, as the output line began to drop precipitously.
One of the webcast viewers, Andrew Palfreyman, pointed out: "This demo was
done in 'manual mode'. They have an auto mode which stops all this up and down
These setbacks are unfortunate, but in my opinion, they do not discredit the
success that the test demonstrated.
I would have liked to have seen more transparency in the independent, manual
measurements of data that were being taken by Matts Lewan. They should have
enable his data to be reported clearly so we could hear it, along with a written
synopsis. I urged them to put a microphone on him, but apparently they didn't
have those resources available at that time.
When they did report it, the information was coming too fast for me to
accurately report in our blog, because I didn't have a way to pause and
re-check. But it seemed to me that at times, there were serious discrepancies
between what he was measuring and calculating and what the data-logger was
reporting. Rather than clarify these, or recheck them, it seemed that they just
pushed ahead like a steamroller.
Matt's body language was not one of satisfaction with what he was seeing. He
seemed to be more in turmoil and puzzlement and frustration, though not to the
point of wanting to protest out loud. He didn't seem to be conveying the
"check, check, check" composure, but more of a "What?, What about
this? What about that?" disposition.
I think the reason he was not protesting was because in most cases, if not all,
the discrepancies were on the conservative end of the spectrum. For example, at
one time, he was trying to figure out why their measurements came to 1 kW input,
while the data-logger displayed closer to 2 kW.
Mark Gibbs, of Forbes, in an email to me, was wondering about a discrepancy in
the COP calculation, which likewise favored Defkalion's results. He said that Alan Fletcher responded to
him: "Their MAJOR UNDER-estimate was in presuming in their COP calculations that NO water was converted to steam. For example, at 12:45 (PDT -- 146.73 minutes) with an output temperature of 169.25C assuming water only would give a COP of 3.83 -- but assuming saturated steam would give a COP of 12.8."
It's always nice when discrepancies are on this side of the spectrum rather than
casting doubt on the results.
# # #
What You Can Do
- See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy
- Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
- Click to Tweet: http://clicktotweet.com/oaeeH
- Donate to PES Network
to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
- Subscribe to our newsletter
to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy
- Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of