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
New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of
reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded
nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the
reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging
cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer.
Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 oC in the
first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat
yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 oC and 1400 oC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained
during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known
chemical sources in the small reactor volume.
A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using
several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was
found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially.
Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact
that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.
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.
No cat and mouse setup and no self-sustain mode mean that the COP presented here should probably be seen as a floor.
What do you think will be the next step? Will media to start writing about LENR this time?
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.
If the test is as solid as it looks, I think this can finally turn the tide. The coming week(s) will tell.
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 isotopesQuote
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%).
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
sorry Drew... I personally work on solving UK problem with my Swiss friends .
anyway that is less expensive than windmills... if you count the produced energy or course.
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"Mario Massa google translated" 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.
there is nothing new in that way of mind"Huizenga" 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."