Sunday, July 21, 2013


Test code: 3.2.30

Hyperion lab devise Functional & Performance Test

Test Plans & Test Results

By: Defkalion GT S.A. R&D Team

Table of contents

TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO ............................................................. 1

R5.1 lab prototype testing procedures...................................................................................3
Overview .....................................................................................3
Test Description; Sub-Systems/ Critical Components Being Tested; Main test objectives; Secondary test objectives ....................................................................................3


Test Strategy……………………………………………………6

New Definitions; Important Terminology; Key Words ......................................................................12

Hyperion devise Functional & Performance Test Plans & Test Results

PART I: TEST plan 3.2.30, objectives and permissions (DEFKALION INTERNAL DOCUMENT as part of this protocol)

R5.1 lab prototype testing procedures


The 3.2.30 scheduled test on Defkalion GT’s lab reaction triggering procedures is part of the series of triggering and performance tests of R5 series lab prototype reactions focusing to investigate conditions that influence reaction’s triggering and performance versus expected phenomena.

Test Description; Sub-Systems/ Critical Components Being Tested;
Main test objectives; Secondary test objectives

Test description

3.2.30 testing of Hyperion Single Reactor Kernel will follow the same procedure as for all 3.X.X testing protocols. Reaction will be triggered in the R5 type reactor (R5.1, using the following test parameters:

Test parameter                                                              Condition                                                  Remark

Atomic Hydrogen production  method                                   SP                              As identified in ICCF17 paper by.J.Hadjichristos et all

Internal structure                                                          Typical 5.1

Calibration and control                                            Calibration of instrumentation     Control run using Argon “blind test” run before the H2 run (actual test) 

Leakages control                                                     Yes                                           H2 under pressure at min 10bar

Ni mixture                                                             No V04 sample, prepared 4gr

Initial dry preparation                                               Yes                                            With parallel heating up to 200C,for 25min, vacuum for at least
                                                                                                                                 12h prior to the test

Electric pre- heating                                                  Yes

H2 or Ar                                                                 1st input: >1,1 bar
                                                                               2nd input, 1,1 bar when reaching
                                                                               mixture temp if required

Safety levels                                                             Not changed

Sub-Systems/Critical Components being tested

R5 Kernel reaction ignition 

Reaction ignition is expected following the atomic hydrogen production only with the method
SP (high voltage spark generator)

Main test objectives

•   Control (Start, Stop, Increase, Decrease) Reaction ignition

•  Reaction duration to produce enough energy to exceed
equivalent energy of a chemical reaction of mass of
components internal to the reaction chamber

•  Total accumulated energy output divided by total
accumulated energy input greater than 1.1 on the active test
and less than 1 in the Ar control test 

Independent testers/observers

The test will be performed in the presence of: 
Paolo Vitulo (University of Pavia – Researcher for CMS Project, CERN – Geneve), 
Raymond Zreick (News editor, Focus), 
Mats Lewan (Journalist, NyTechnik) 
A member of CICAP (Italian comitee for the control on scientific scams). His name will 
be announced on Monday, 22. 
from Defkalion GT application lab in Milan, Italy. Test will be photographed and videoed from
DGT and broadcasted live to ICCF18. A short pre-recorded introduction will be broadcasted
also before the start of the live test (to be repeated 1 or 2 times during the test without
disturbing data broadcast using slit screens)

 Test objectives. 
Run Control test using Argon (instead of H2) in the same conditions and 
with all “powders” in presence within the reactor to isolate the  
dependence of Hydrogen in the reaction.
Run the test for as long as required to assure that excess heat is not due to 
chemical reactions.
To calibrate flow meters using scale and stop watch during tests..
To spot check the power measurements with independent loop meter 
provided by DGT (RMS factored post test on LabView data) and. 


Approved by: John Hadjichristos, Stavros Amaxas, Luca Gamberale (June 20th 2013., RDF VLT


Team Head Members 
John Hadjichristos, Luca Gamberale, Stavros Amaxas  
Ciro Areni, Fabio Salvaggio,
 Guide –
John Hadjichristos   Sponsor –Defkalion GT BOD 

PART II : Test scheduling

Test Strategy

Note to Teams: The important components of the Test Plan and later Final Test
Plan are:

1. Reactors type R5
2. One reactor of type R5 will be configured to run with flow calorimetry.
A R5.1 similar to th one operating will be weighted.

3. Monitor temperature
Calibrated thermocouples will be present inside the reactor chambers, on the
external surface of each reactor and in In and Out of the coolant circuit. All
temperature monitoring will be through the same DataLogger (NI) and National
Instruments Lab-View software. Data sampling every 3 sec.

Observer’s thermocouples can be attached in parallel with DGT LabView
thermocouples on the coolant circuit.

Pressure will be monitored and logged using both a manual pressure meter on the
hydrogen circuit and a digital pressure meter to Data Logger. Data sampling every

4. Electric consumption of heating element
Sampling/data logging for electric energy to the heating elements will be through
Carlo Gavazzi accuracy measure M2172D-3 phase energy meter will be every 3
sec, logging data in NI board. Manual or when changing conditions upon request of
the independent observers/testers, using portable clamp A/V meters. L1 is used to
power heating elements.

5. Electric consumption of spark high voltage
Sampling/data logging of triggering currents will be through Carlo Gavazzi 
accuracy measure M2172D-3 phase energy meter will be every 3 sec, logging 
data in NI board. Manual or when changing conditions upon request of the 
independent observers/testers using portable clamp A/V meters. L2 is used to 
power triggering high voltage mechanism.

6. Flow meter
Coolant in use to perform calorimetry will be water. Flow meter will be performed
with an Alpha Dynamic (Australia) AM2S pulse (1/4’) logging to NI board every 3

7. Maintenance of reaction
After pre-heating the reaction to its triggering level, maintenance of the reaction will
be performed with the triggering method, decreasing electric energy to the heating
elements and increasing the coolant flow in order to maintain the internal
temperatures in the reaction as steady as possible.

What you’ll test (and what you won’t test) 
Transmutations and gamma spectrum or gamma emissions will not looked at. 

How you’ll test: equipment and materials needed, test configurations and procedures

Equipment tested: 
As shown in Graph below

Test procedures

1. Leakages testing before tests
2. Test will run in two phases:
a. Phase I: Run R5.1 with the same input values as any active H2 tests, using
Argon instead of Hydrogen as input gas (control test).
b.Phase II: Run R5.1 with the same input values as with the Phase I test
above using Hydrogen instead of Argon as input gas (active test)
3.Calibration/ Accuracy Control curves
a.Run in R5.1 with Argon in the same apparatus with the test run
b.Check the accuracy of flow meter with scaling of coolant at 2 different
levels (0.2 – 0.8 lt/min)
c. Measure input electric energy during and after each test using RMS clamp
meters versus the recorded in the data logging system.
d.Calculate measurement error of each instrument.
4.Cool the reactor after shutting down reaction

5.Test procedure
a. Prior to start of test , dry and hold vacuum in reactors heating to 200C for
45min (approx) and maintenance the vacuum into the reactor’s chamber
for at least 12h. Leave the reactor to cool to room temperature (first run

b. 1st input of Ar at approx 1,2 bar
c.Preheat the reactor
d.Trigger sequence when reaching proper conditions
e.Maintain the input condition for the period of approx 1.5h by monitoring
output power vs input power
f. Shut down all input energy
g.Cool the reactor to room temperature and vent Ar using vacuum pump.
h.Maintain vacuum for at least 30 mins.
i. 1st input of H2 at a pressure in the range 1-2 bars
j. Preheat the reactor
k. Trigger reaction
l. 2nd input of H2 if we observe a leak 
m.Maintain the reaction for the period of approx 3h by monitoring output
power vs input power.
n. Shut down all input energy
o.Cool the reactor to room temperature

6. Test data logging:
a. T1(internal), T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 (external on reactors body) from R5.1
b. T-in and T-out of coolant
c. Water flow rate
d. Pressure in hydrogen circuit
e. Power in from L1+L2 -> TOTAL

Reactor and Test Equipment available

As shown in the following diagram:

Test equipment configuration 

(Thermocouple T_body in one of the hole heaters)

 New Definitions; Important Terminology; Key Words

The following table describes the sensors attached and the name of the
records in the log files:

The actual names and sequence of the data columns are the following

No.       Notation In  report file       Notation used in data files         Description 

1               T3                            Tamb                                  Room temperature

2               T4                            T_back                             Temperature of back flange of the reactor

3                T5                          T_front                              Temperature of front flange of the reactor

4                T1                          Tinside                               Temperature inside the reactor

5               Tin                          Tin                                      Coolant (cold) input temperature

6                Tout                       Tout                                    Coolant (hot) output temperature

7                 T6.1                      T_body                         Temperature signal around the reactor from a
                                                                                   thermocouple placed in one of the holes (#1) next
                                                                                   to heating resistors. Appears as T6 
8               T2                          Tcoil                           Temperature between the two coils rounding the
                                                                                  reactor where the coolant is driven.

9                                           Pressure (bar)                 Internal gas pressure

10 WR                               P in (heaters) W                 Electric consumption of pre-heating resistors

11 WTrig                            P in (HV) W                      Spark generator electric consumption

12                                      Pout (flow)W                    Energy output from the system

13 F                                    Flow(lt/min)                      Current water flow

14                                       Minutes since start             Minutes since start logging


  1. "Total accumulated energy output divided by total
    accumulated energy input greater than 1.1 on the active test ..."
    So if I understand this correctly, the COP will be 1.1? What about the claim to a multi-kilowatt reactor *net* outout? What about the claim that after it's ignited, no further electrical input is required? Those features will not be shown? Why not?

    1. Like for nelson test...
      The minimum to say sucess is 1.1, it is scientific revolution...

      Nelson found COP>3...

      Mistero leaks on 22passi support 6-7.

      of course all is meaningless, all is fraud, all instruments a evil and corrupted, all testers are accomplice because they accept to open their eyes and don't have access to the secret library of Vatican.

    2. "... the COP will be 1.1?"
      No, it will be "greater than..."

    3. I thought they were doing this test at ICCF, instead it will be done in a private lab and connected to 3-phase power.

      I don't get people like Alain. I mean he is aware that fraud happens, right? No one is saying that instruments are evil, there is simply no consistency between these experiments and they are all equally fishy.

      Want to convince us "patho-skeptics"? How about you take one of these portable reactors to ICCF and let the folks there test it under the eyes of of Defkalion and carried out (I mean connecting ALL external wiring) by a blindly selected group of scientists?

    4. Stupid effing garce! It says "Greater than" What part of that is too much for your pea brain, Mary?

  2. Reading the protocol, there's a lot that I don't understand.

    Consider, as an example, the use of argon in the control, but hydrogen in the active cell. The two gases have radically different thermal conductivity. Hydrogen is second in conductivity only to helium, while argon is completely at the other end of the scale.

    It would be far better to use helium as the control gas, not argon.

    Why power the heater from a 3-phase AC supply? In the fallout from the Rossi test, this would seem to open DGE up to the same criticism that Rossi experienced in his latest test. DC is a no-brainer to obtain and control and has the very straightforward characteristic that, when it's feeding a resistive load, P=IE. No funny waveform speculation. It might also be a good idea to dump the idea of a clamp-on ammeter probe and use a shunt-type ammeter. Most lab-grade power analyzers have provisions for this. Failing that, just use a simple voltmeter-ammeter setup and hook an oscilloscope across the two power leads to verify that it really is simple DC.

    As the saying goes, the devil's in the details.

    1. No need to worry about the control gas, since it is flow calorimetry.
      It is not isoberibolic, not thermography.
      Probably they cannot use helium not to contaminate the metal.

      criticism of 3 phase like MY have done , is stupid for any electric engineer. only innocent or manipulators may imagine that 3 phase annoy electricians.

      For Rossi, since his e-cat is designed to be assemble in pack of a hundred, this balanced among the 3 phase, using triangle triphase mode is logic.

      for defkalion they only use L1 to power the heating elements, so it will be mostly monophase. anyway 3phase powermeter are standards, and not less efficient than 1 phase... and they can measure anything, even not triphase provided there are 4 wires and it is AC below 20-100kHz (depend on the model of instrument). Triphase power meter can measure monophae, biphase, and even aperiodic and irregular voltage/current, providend the bandwidth is ok.

      the incompetence in electricity could be funny if that was not a clear tactic by manipulator (like MY) to fool the innocent (like you i imagine).

      anyway that classic calorimetry/metrology cannot break the wall of dishonesty and delusion.
      Wilt lack of competence and honesty it is possible to doubt on the test... this mean it is hopeless,because pathoskeptics delusioned nay-believers will invoke all FUD, doubt, incompetence, mud, reverse logic, black/white logic and reverse fuzzy, to reach the improbable conviction that it is not real...

      anyway it will convince people who have an independent brain and some engineer competence. thus few entrepreneur, but I imagine they are all aware already.

      I'm afraid it will change nothing.

    2. I don't understand. If this thing can self-sustain, or only needs a small amount of energy to start the reaction then would it not be possible to rule out fraud (or simply quell suspicions) by addressing this head on.

      How about a large battery bank going to an inverter with a shunt in series with the pack to monitor EXACTLY how much energy is being pulled from the stack. Do that and all these criticisms go away. Simple as that and it would change everything!

    3. You can rule out fraud with honesty, like with electric meansure and calorimetry... Rossi did that, and Defkalion with Nelson too...

      Of course this test ask for deniers to admit usual instrumentation... the fact is that they will only admit things that even a kid of 5 will admit...

      Hyperion cannot self sustain for long... it is a caracteristic of their reaction, like rossi.
      asking for that is the usual trick, the desperate trick to avoid seing fact...

      people who moan against triphase, IR cam, and so, are insulting century old measurements techniques.

      where we agree is that it is hopeless. absolutely hopeless.

      the problem about LENr since the beginning is that even physicist have denied century old instrumentation history, just because it is breaking their beliefs...

      they wont belief their eyes...

      thei only fear is that a man in the street incompetent in calorimetry, incompetent in electricity, may judge they are stupid...

      most people who are not competent in electricity or calorimetry, will swallow their doubt, especially if some authority (MIT, ERAB,...) support those stupidities.

      this is the secret of LENR being rejected...
      incompetent people trust the authority, and most people even physicist are incompetent in calorimetry or electricity. at least enough incompetent not to be sure of their interpretation of data.

      this is why introducing doubt is so important, even if it is unsubstantiated... most people cannot judge how unsubstantiated, stupid, competent are some claims, especially is shouted loud and repeated.

    4. Alain,
      You posted "Wilt lack of competence and honesty it is possible to doubt on the test... this mean it is hopeless,because pathoskeptics delusioned nay-believers will invoke all FUD, doubt, incompetence, mud, reverse logic, black/white logic and reverse fuzzy, to reach the improbable conviction that it is not real..."

      It is my humble opinion that you are dead right and that this barrage of attack of the DGT test even before it has happened, is taking place across multiple forums & blog sites - mainly by a few dedicated attack posters.

      Sad, but what you see is also what I am seeing. Too many of us are not scientific enough to read through the negative distortions being posted by those intent on trashing any optimism regarding a succesful LENR/LENR+. I am thinking that any success will be manipulated into some kind of negative and trumpeted into blogspace as 'proof' of failure.

      Common sense says, see the demo, list any concerns, debate them, and if they merit it, run a further demo.
      Also, commonsense says that the more 'respected' scientists who participate the better except that it may be hard to find acceptable 'respected' scientists because the nay-sayers have been attempting to trash them too.
      Final proof one way or the other may turn out to be a long dragged out highly emotive & very heated affair. It seems to me that a very important observation needed by us is to recognize those among us who wish to destroy vs those among us who genuinely wish to challenge.

    5. With all due respect to Alain, any claims will have to be bolstered by good measurement technique. I don't consider the Carlo Gavazzi EM21-72D power meter to be much better than the run-of-the-mill DMM.

      If the testers were serious about getting good accurate power measurements, something like a Tektronix PA-4000 might garner a bit more respect.

    6. no need for a very precise powermeter if you can rule out High Frequency and DC voltage.
      even 50% error is ok, and 5% is perfect.

      even a grandpa analogic (ferromagnetic) wattmeter (ok, need a recorder, so best is a grandpa billing better) with a grandpa DC volt meter, and a grandpa pass-high filter couple with a rectifier, can do the job...

      the problem is psychiatric, not electric.

      so here you have my testing protocol :
      - an old billing electricity energy meter
      - an old DC voltmeter (with a camera)
      - and a HF pass high filter with a germanium diode as rectifier an old DC voltmeter (with a camera)
      - honest observers (ie: people who will be rich only if it is real - Thanks Taleb "flesh in the game" concept)

      note that my theory have been challenged by a colleague :
      - it will only be accepted when the "authorities" have less capacity to ruin the life of those who accept reality...

      maybe it is a two stage constraint:
      - first to accept reality you have to be competent enough to judge the FUD as unfounded and dishonest
      - second you have to hope much gain, and fear lower pain from mainstream.

      all that make me sadly hopeless for now.

      Entrepreuneur , parners, industrialist have already asked for a private trial and are convinced.

      Mainstream will discover all in Wall-Street-Journal

    7. "the problem is psychiatric, not electric."

      Very true--but would that not mean that everything should be as precise and out in the open as possible for a public verification test?

      If this thing after a couple of years of development has reached any level of refinement, why not place tamper-proof seals on the unit and offer it to any testing laboratory that a group of skeptics chooses? Joseph Newman claimed his device was over-unity until a judge ordered that it be submitted to NIST (then NBS) for testing, whose disinterested testers demonstrated that it did not work as claimed.

      That removed all doubt. NIST didn't care if the device worked or not--their job is setting standards, such as how many electrons can dance on the head of a pin.

      With both Rossi and Defkalion putting on these demonstrations, it's more theater art than a true impartial test, don't you think?

      I'm certain than any SGS franchise is perfectly capable of testing and verifying the operation of either device.

    8. right, the shown test is a show, and even worst the spectators are not very challenging, worst of all the skeptic who just repeat the word of the skeptic bible and don't want to look in the telescope, in case she get convinced despite her will...

      Nelson test, as reported by Nelson, was a fair test, with free access to the device... free enough to rule out magician tricks.

      I don't expect more tomorrow.

      It is not scientific but a self-looped generator, a plane, would have more impact. yet it won't hold more scientific data that a grandpa measurement .

  3. I keep getting hung up on this. If it produces more out than in, why can it not run itself? Is it just insufficiently productive, and if so, why? Or is there some barrier in principle, and if so-what is it?

    1. You should install a turbine with batteries, with efficiency above 16%, which is hard with batteries and turbines... small turbine are not very efficients, and batteries are not efficient too...

      it may be on their roadmap, maybe the day before the sale, and I'm sure it will raise critics... batteries will call for accusation of batteries... complexity will call for critics...

      electric power measurement and simple calorimetry with a COP of 7 is much enough...

    2. Anonymous

      Because we aren't the scientists working on the challenge we will likely get tripped up on no end of such issues we see (that they have long solved).

      But, one line of thinking that I believe DGT solved, is that the NAEs that generate the heat do not remain active beyond a certain period unless 'triggered' at intervals.

      In the DGT device they achieve this triggering with bursts from their 'spark plugs' creating a plasma in the chamber as well as applying heat.

      In the Brillouin boiler I understand they achieve it by both heat and high frequency magnetic bursts within a specified frequency range related to the structure of the material in use (Ni particle size).

      Piantelli achieved it by inducing heat shock and I believe Andrea Rossi also uses that 'limited' technique. The heat shock method as best I can tell is not always able to keep the NAEs active and this appears to be where DGT made a major breakthrough.


  4. It will be interesting to see the results but this isn't going to amount to a proper scientific test. To do that they will have to apply for a patent that contains enough detail for a totally independent third party to build and run their own test. Once a few teams have done that you can start talking about proper scientific evidence.

    1. It is not needed scientifically.
      as I said, a simple electric meter, with controls of absence of DC and HF voltage, is much enough to prove electric consumption.
      add to that granddad flow calorimetry, or mass calorimetry, and it is perfect scientific result...

      The patent and replicability question is not science.
      It is a psychiatric method to convince hard-denialist.

      I agree however that, like the self-looped generator, it may help to convince electricity/calorimetry incompetent people, so they can safely judge that the "will-never-accept-it" denialist are conspiracy theorist.

      another technique would be to send Huygenza and Taubes to Guantanamo until they admit they manipulated the scientific community, so that the scientific community can safely change position without looking stupid...

      a fake can even work, and even a bad fake because it is clear that many scientist dream of accepting LENR.

      It is psychiatry, not science, not engineering.

      I have better hope that Engineering can save LENR because in corporation engineer are experienced with that kind of psychiatry.

      Science behave like corporate clients (delusions, stuck to habits, killing the dissenters, fashion, resistance to reality, to failures, rewriting the history). If things advance it is because at the bottom, those psychiatric problems are addressed every day.

      Sorry to be so nasty, it is time to stop thinking it is a material problem.
      The same disease fueled the many financial crisis, the Internet bubble... I know it from inside.

  5. "I think the skeptihawks, steam- maniacs (not an issue here) and
    invisible wire -obsessed are watching. Do you, Mary?"
    Hi Peter,

    There is not much to be learned from a test done with their equipment in their lab by their people.

  6. Dear Mary
    can yiu lead this idea of yours further?
    What to do, then? What's the logic?

  7. Note: Yesterday's demo ran with app. a COP = 2..3
    However, accounted were only the input energy of "heaters" and "high voltage".
    w/o knowing the amount of hydrogen put into the system, I must feed scepticism and say that the surplus energy might also have been resulted by just burning the hydrogen into water.
    So: Nice demo, but unfortunately not really a proof of concept!

    It also takes me wonder why neither Defkalion nor Andrea Rossi, etc. do a full-proof, independent 3rd party test: Either they are ready to sell systems soon -then everybody ha s the possibility to reverse-engineer the devices anyway. Or there technology is not working, then we are discussing scam..?

  8. What is the calculation for calorimetry in this case?

  9. "What to do, then? What's the logic?"
    What to do is to take a reactor to Sandia Labs, or UCLA, or CERN or any one of many places, for truly independent testing.

    I have questions of this test. Why did not Defkalion use an entirely liquid flow circuit using high temperature coolants as they claimed that had, by the *dozens*, working in their labs more than TWO YEARS AGO? Of course they since deleted those claims in their forum but I remember them well. Do you?

    The other thing I want to ask about is the claim that a 1 Tesla magnetic field is generated inside the apparatus. Why was this not tested for? It's easy to do. And they said they shield against this with Faraday shields? Don't they know that can't work? That is not what Faraday shields are for. They shield against RF, not magnets. And nothing of a practical size can shield against a 1 Tesla field. That's why MRI machines are placed in isolated rooms. So nothing gets sucked into them!

    How weird.

    1. Mary, I am absolutely convinced that you see that the
      Hyperion works and is under control. Your arguments are increasingly weak and illogical.
      Why should they take a genartaor to any lab, explain everything, instruct the staff, work together a few days and then let outsiders to do a test? Just to convince you thta they are not cheating? Many of my friends have visted Defkalion seen the test and told it woks fine. And it works so. sorry for you.
      What has the coolant to do with this?
      And what has the magnetic field has to do with the go/not go? You are not more logical, I am thinking about writing
      in Samuel Becketts' or Eugene Ionesco style- you are absurd
      in this role.

      Better tell it straight, what do you think sincerely beyond your role,- does the Hyperion work or does it not? Y/N?

      And dare to tell me that you have NOT enjoyed the presentation!


  10. E_man:
    Dear Peter Gluck.
    In spite of I bealive DGTG and E-cat, I no understand one think in yesterday Defkalion presentation.
    At the time from 21:10 till 21:33 the output temp rised from 143°C to 166°C. But inner reactor temp was all the time 355°C-358°C and coolant flow was 0,57 – 0.59 litre/min also.
    How to explain this please?? Thanks for answers.
    P.S. I strong bealive Your opinion. What is Your opinion about possibility of hydrino functions in E-cat - Hyperion devices?

    1. It was warming up the pipes?

    2. That could also be where it was converting all the moisture in the pipes into dry steam.

  11. It is well known that the glass reactor may include a variety of types including high pressure reactor, jacketed, single, glass-lined reactor and double layer glass reactors. From here: Among all glass reactors, the single glass reactor is the most unique and it may be equipped with many different functions and applications