The Third Independent Party Report is Out!

  • From a quick scan:


    Similar format to 2013 report
    No theory provided, just measurements
    Test not tuned for maximum COP
    Measurements again via thermal cameras
    DC concerns specifically addressed
    ECat heat at 1290C - 1410C (own note: this bodes well for electricity generation)
    ECat slimmed down to a small rod weighing only 452g, outputting net 1600 - 2300W
    Again no harmful radiation
    Evidence of isotope shift in Nickel from 58/60 to 62, Lithium 7 depletion
    Industrial Heat provided financial support for measuring radiation

  • From Sifferkoll:

    Quote

    Apparently arXiv.org have put the second independent third party report on hold for unknown reasons that can only interpreted as censorship. It shows an undeniable COP of 3,2-3.6 over a 32 day period and substantial isostope changes in nickel and lithium. Anyway here it is for those interested.

  • According to Mats Lewan, the report was blocked by arXiv.org and also sent to the Journal of Physics D. But the authors got no response yet, so they decided to publish it now.


    Quote

    The report has been uploaded to Arxiv.org
    which, however has put it on hold, without specifying any motive for
    this. It has also been sent to Journal of Physics D. I got the report
    sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be
    public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal
    until further notice from Journal of Physics D.


    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2…heat-and-nuclear-process/

  • There will be some people who take notice but it will probably result in a similar reaction to last time. This is merely a stepping stone. Skeptics will again find some obscure, random and easily refutable reason to dismiss these results and everyone will just move on.
    And you know what? IT DOESN'T MATTER! The report is good enough for a few more thousand people to sit up and take notice, among them a few brave investors or managers who will be able to push this all the way to market, either via financing or industrial collaboration.
    All that really matters at this point is that IH and associates have enough resources to see this through to a self-sustaining setup hooked up to an electricity generator. Once we have a closed loop of 24/7 off-grid power there will be no more denying, only tears from the people who ignored it and continued to bet on fossil fuels.

  • the 1200C even allow brayton turbine to be considered.


    the COP is quite low, but much enough at 1200C to run a turbine.
    It may be much better, especially if one use a cooling fluid at stabilized temperature.
    if the activation energy is heat only, it can be naturally provided by the reaction, while the fluid can cool more or less.

  • the most shocking from summaries (I could not read the full report yet)
    is that theer are measurement of huge enriceùment of Li and Ni isotopes

    Quote

    Lithium content in unused fuel found to be in natural ratios : 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %.


    Nickel content in unused fuel also found to be in natural ratios: i.e. 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%).


    huge enrichment!


    it is a huge information for theory.

  • The additional detail is really quite exciting, I'll look to do some back-of-the envelope calculations on the costs of the setup shown but it can't be much given the following facts:


    1. Both Nickel and Lithium are not enriched, the isotope distribution appears to be close to natural, which cuts down very significantly on costs
    2. The particle size shown in the pictures is somewhere between 50 and 100 micrometers, far larger than commercially available Nickel powder in <100nm size http://www.canfuo.com/NanoNick…OGIkoasncECFSoOwwod8YQA4A . LiAlH4 costs almost exactly the same at under $1000/kg http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/199877
    3. The pictures show no expensive instrumentation connected to the E-Cat. This means that the control box must be operating on some fairly crude feedback mechanisms via the wires only to regulate the stimulus. As a result whatever is in the box (frequency generator and other electronics) can't be very expensive. My only question would be why it's so large - are there large capacitors inside? Again, this could not be very expensive.
    4. The physical ECat is very simple, the powder can just be poured into the rod, seems like there are no specific manufacturing requirements other than the ability to withstand 1500C.


    The only big cost component therefore will likely be the IP that deserves a huge reward for the persistence against all odds. As @barty mentions this will hopefully trigger many replication attempts. IH and Rossi better get their patents approved quickly!

  • Many many congratulations to Andrea Rossi and his team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    They did not put the reactor into self-sustaining mode which probably means an effective COP of 7+.
    Read today the ESTIMATED cost of Hinkley point nuclear power station in the UK has now got to £34BILLION from about £8bn 4-5 years ago it seems part of the problem is they (conveniently) forgot the interest on the loans :cursing:

  • Don't be sorry i don't want nuclear power stations
    PS forgot that the COP of the ecat may be much better when working under water...maximum torque = max efficiency etc.


    I have also sent a link to the report to my MP (member of parliament)

  • Latest outing of Mario Massa on fusionnefredda... typical of groupthink


    &quot;Mario Massa google translated&quot; wrote:

    "The colossal misunderstanding can be crushed only by the universities." In my university will not be able to suppress the statements of another. The only solution is that those universities (or even independent researchers) who have made claims they realize, either alone or aided, of having made a mistake and declare (as in the case of neutrinos superluminari). It 's very difficult, even Focardi before the evidence of the absence of anomalous heat published the results, but on the contrary Gamberale it did (and it cost him the spot). I wonder if Levi or Celani will follow. For now Levi confirming the measures in the new long-awaited TPR linked above by Dino. I will get to examine it with care, because now there are only two possibilities: either the donkeys fly or Levi and Essen are two cheaters.


    http://fusionefredda.wordpress…neutrino-4/#comment-43733


    there is nothing new in that way of mind


    &quot;Huizenga&quot; wrote:

    "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."


    http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html

  • With respect, Steven Pomp has made no statement other than strong expressions of opinion backed by evidence. Rossi's deliberately substituting a sample is a necessary corollary of the measurements if you think LENR is in this case not happening. I suppose whether in that case such substitution constitutes fraud is anotehr matter, but most people would consider it fraudulent.


    The 3rd independent report, on the other hand, has a clear inconsistency in its stated measurements that could only be reconciled by admission of error.

  • Dear Mr Clarke,


    Your inputs are valuable, but you should refrain yourself from repeating them in all threads of this forum. The idea is to keep a structure in the different discussions.
    We have understand your points on the joule heating measurements.


    Thank you.

  • Thanks for that. I am hoping they will be widely enough understood for the report's authors to take notice and explain the matter. It is, as it stands, most unfortunate that such an inconsistency should exist! My post on the "questions for the authors" thread got rather buried with many other matters which while indeed interesting do not cut to the heart of the report's meaning in quite the same way.


    Best wishes, Tom

  • wooowooo, "Mats Lewan and andrea.s are two Rossi-believers starting to have serious doubts on the last test report."


    What the heck are you talking about! I just listened to the interview you linked to (its a bit hard to find because it is now in archive.) I certainly didn't hear anything at all that would suggest that Mats Lewan "is starting to have serious doubts". The closest I heard was that he put in a soft note of caution, as is necessary for one in his profession (media).

  • wooowooo, "Mats Lewan and andrea.s are two Rossi-believers starting to have serious doubts on the last test report."


    What the heck are you talking about! I just listened to the interview you linked to (its a bit hard to find because it is now in archive.) I certainly didn't hear anything at all that would suggest that Mats Lewan "is starting to have serious doubts". The closest I heard was that he put in a soft note of caution, as is necessary for one in his profession (media).


    Yes, you are right. Lewan was doubting some of the numbers in the report but not its major conclusions. Andrea.s on the other hand has moved to the other camp. I guess we all just have to wait for Levi et.al to answer the critique so far, some of it devastating I think.