• There is also no comparison with control in the water calorimetry..


    perhaps Booker is rewriting the report with a number of qualifications..

    due to feedback from BLP readership..


    A 300kw heater of the same size is a bit difficult to get thingie I suspect so It is not strange that there is no control.


    But why only high power short runs. Much more interesting to see the COP of what's working e.g. the 5h run.

  • I haven't carefully looked at the gallium calorimetry, but the water calorimetry is likely to be off, and a significant overestimation.

    First, it involved a water temperature change of only one third of a degree C, in a container that is about 1 cubic metre. Temperature measurements are almost certain not to be uniform, and thus error prone.

    Second, the calculations are assuming all the water mass loss is from a water change of state, from liquid to vapour. But surely this in untenable because the temperature of the water was only about 33C, and bubbles from the very hot SunCell surface in the bottom of the water tank would carry liquid water up and away from the tank. So clearly not all water loss is from change of state, perhaps not even close. This is made even more critical seeing that most of the excess energy calculation comes from change of state.


    I say this as a long term Mill's fan: It's a letdown to see both a low COP and questionable water calorimetry.


    I have to agree. It would be good to see more clarity and stronger results over time that can be verified top to bottom. This press release is cloudy and not a confidence builder. It's more of the same, at best.

  • On Booker's report, does anyone have an energy estimate for the H2 + O2 supplied before it hits the Pd catalyst, and any electric or thermal energy added at that point of the experiment. As Bob Greenyer pointed out the energy of atomic H to H2 or H2O must be accounted for to rule that out as the cause of the excess energy in the report.


    I read the report yesterday and noted around 950 kJ of excess energy in the runs. Back of the envelope that is about 8 grams of H2 or around 20 grams of gasoline, i.e. less than an ounce; so ruling this chemical energy out is necessary.

  • On Booker's report, does anyone have an energy estimate for the H2 + O2 supplied before it hits the Pd catalyst, and any electric or thermal energy added at that point of the experiment. As Bob Greenyer pointed out the energy of atomic H to H2 or H2O must be accounted for to rule that out as the cause of the excess energy in the report.


    I read the report yesterday and noted around 950 kJ of excess energy in the runs. Back of the envelope that is about 8 grams of H2 or around 20 grams of gasoline, i.e. less than an ounce; so ruling this chemical energy out is necessary.


    The amount of H2 used is not given, not even the pressure. If we're talking about burning the H2, only a tiny amount of O2 was added to produce a tiny amount of water, and so O2 would be by far the limiting factor. But let's assume that it was a fully optimized H2 + O2 reaction, and assume your 8 grams of H2 to produce that energy is correct. We know that 1 mole of any gas at 1 atmosphere is about 22.4 litres. Also, 8 grams of H2 gas is 4 moles. So we're talking about 4*22.4 =~ 90 litres of H2 gas at 1 atmosphere required to produce the energy reported, ignoring the extra volume for the O2 gas. The SunCell cube has a volume of about 1 L. Hard to see how the reaction could consume 90 litres in a few seconds in a volume that small.

  • The amount of H2 used is not given, not even the pressure. If we're talking about burning the H2, only a tiny amount of O2 was added to produce a tiny amount of water, and so O2 would be by far the limiting factor. But let's assume that it was a fully optimized H2 + O2 reaction, and assume your 8 grams of H2 to produce that energy is correct. We know that 1 mole of any gas at 1 atmosphere is about 22.4 litres. Also, 8 grams of H2 gas is 4 moles. So we're talking about 4*22.4 =~ 90 litres of H2 gas at 1 atmosphere required to produce the energy reported, ignoring the extra volume for the O2 gas. The SunCell cube has a volume of about 1 L. Hard to see how the reaction could consume 90 litres in a few seconds in a volume that small.

    Factual facts.

  • I honestly think the report, even if "better" than prior others, fails at large to be any convincing. Their policy of making reports to keep "shareholders engaged" seems to be in full force.


    If I had to make any decision based on the report data provided alone, I would not invest in them on a million years.


    Just my two cents.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • About 2 years ago I said we are in the takeoff phase of LENR where we now see reactions with clear COP's >>1. (Greetings to THH...)


    How long did it take from the detection of fission by Otto Hahn's team until the first commercial reactor - nuclear power plant was available ? Even Switzerland was building one ( called sapphire) and had a famous first total melt down... Luckily they were clever enough to calculate that in.


    Fission is damn simple compared to LENR as you need no theoretical physics knowledge to build a reactor just engineering skills and many careful measurements.


    The main problem we face today is greedy business (risk money investors) that since decades now are without any knowledge of engineering & development. Mills had a self-sustain reaction that was not conform with his model hence not covered by patents. Further he is not the born engineer and preferred to sell dreams (producing current from brilliant light) as real targets, albeit after one year of beginners college chemistry you already should know that this will not work with silver vapor ... Thus he seems - as his investors - to have missed a lot of basic eduction.


    But may be they are clever and just run a few fake experiments and in the background try to develop a LENR follow up process to get the real boost out of H*-H*...

  • The thing is it's alarming that the results claimed already haven't encited larger companies to take interest whether they believe it's predominently LENR or mostly some chemical like process. Something is going on hear even if it's a COP of 4.

  • LENR systems are expensive and difficult to get (deuterium, palladium), chemically aggressive and prone to traces of oxygen (lithium hydride), requiring high temperatures etc.

    Only electrolysis and co-deposition looks accessible for laymen from this perspective.

  • LENR systems are expensive and difficult to get (deuterium, palladium), chemically aggressive and prone to traces of oxygen (lithium hydride), requiring high temperatures etc.

    Only electrolysis and co-deposition looks accessible for laymen from this perspective.

    Relatively expensive. Compared to the R&D budgets of many tech, energy and science firms globally we could have hundreds of small productive high quality labs putting out data on this. And with super computers, AI pattern recognition, machine learning or intuitive open minded scientists looking at the data we would be a lot further ahead than currently. Average people being unable to start a quality one in their garage isn't stopping these anomilous hydrogen heat/electricity effect producing reactors from pushing forward. It's the medium and large businesses/governments who can afford it not seeing the worth or listening to very conservative advisors. The latest high performance H2/methane fuel cells or microturbines aren't cheap to make/develop. On the other hand, something with similar complexity, 100 - 2,000 times the energy output per the same fuel/reactor mass, with a microchip circuit added in, would be a more viable energy source.

  • Lenr isn't complicated, blah blah, negative resistance regime, blah blah, evos. Blah blah blah. Rossi's technology works, blah blah....

    LENR is complicated if you try to make a reproducible experiment with power out greater than power in. Saying it is simple makes one a fool.


    LENR is difficult for the reasons Zephir_AWT states. However, simple processes like a laser interacting with metal particles in water, a laser interacting with metal particles in a hydrogen atmosphere, an arc via carbon electrodes in water, an arc through deuterium contaminated with atmospheric gas, an oxidation reduction chemical reaction at high energy yield and with < 1% water (BLP), and cavitation in water all likely do nuclear fusion. Why? Because basics tools of chemistry have been used to prove an equation of state where hydrogen fuses to oxygen in an electric arc.


    Fellow fusion enthusiasts, fusion like in the sun may seem to be a reasonable reaction for LENR. Yet, the data is saying that non-thermonuclear fusion occurs differently. Look beyond the sun. Look beyond the proton-proton chain, the CNO cycle or the triple alpha process. The data suggest that the reactions are a version of the alpha ladder that starts with oxygen.


    I have heard the big objection before "that kind of fusion only occurs in very dense stars". Opinion is one thing, science is another. I for one would rather discussion data than opinions. If I am fool for laying it out so simple then show me what is wrong.

  • Fellow fusion enthusiasts, fusion like in the sun may seem to be a reasonable reaction for LENR. Yet, the data is saying that non-thermonuclear fusion occurs differently. Look beyond the sun. Look beyond the proton-proton chain, the CNO cycle or the triple alpha process. The data suggest that the reactions are a version of the alpha ladder that starts with oxygen.


    Lets wait for the new results from the solar mission. Then we might know how the sun produces its energy (LENR in corona??) . The classic model seems to be to simplistic and thus nonsensical... The key question is how deuterium is produced.