Confirmed Global LENR results

Quote from Daniel_G

I’d like to start a thread where we can share any kind of information on commercial or academic LENR projects with known or estimated power results. As an example BEC’s 2018 SRI report states an XSH output of around 5-6W and COP around 1.5-2. It’s been five years since this has been updated so I expect them to be far ahead of that by now.

I will try to compile replication data and original data from Mizuno himself for my part including keeping my promise to Bruce to post original calibration and test data.

I am hoping that researchers globally would feel comfortable enough to post results here for public scrutiny which benefits all of us. As far as I can tell no such thread currently exists.

Good topic for discussion. Surprised no takers yet. Perhaps there is some confusion as to what you mean by "confirmed LENR results"? We on the forum have debated that before, and as I remember, it never seems to resolve in a consensus. Understandable, as few discoveries in their infancy do.

For years we were testing our reactors. I am very glad that it all went smoothly and very excited what was achieved.

Presently we are producing 40Kg of fuel per two weeks for our reactors.

The cost is just around 8 USD per 100 grams but output power higher than Fission Reactors in respect to W/g..

We plan to make public announcement in Q4 this year. There will be public presentations and possibility to measure power and radiation by any means by any interested party. We have no investors, no external funding from any other party and are fully independent all the time.

You can decide if it is scam or not quite soon. Certainly we are not company that will need to "raise" their funds.

I did a COP of 7.2 using the Lugano method, which is still a record to my knowledge. That includes all input and losses from the outlet to the reactor. IR surface temperatures >2100 C. This reactor was solid alumina (unfuelled)

The MFMP did a COP of 4.8 (plus) using the Lugano method. It was going a bit higher but the IR clipped out at maximum temperature for the IR camera, at about 1524.7 C. This COP does not include the power supply losses, and was calculated using the voluminous data reported by the MFMP, but not by the MFMP themselves. I estimate a COP of about 5.4 was achieved. I believe that this reactor was also unfuelled.

Rossi did a COP of 3.75 using the Lugano method. This is the Lugano reference demonstration. Although power supply losses were considered, they were not included in the COP calculations. Peak temperature reported was 1412 C. This reactor contained a proprietary Ni-Li powder fuel.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I did a COP of 7.2 using the Lugano method, which is still a record to my knowledge. That includes all input and losses from the outlet to the reactor. IR surface temperatures >2100 C. This reactor was solid alumina (unfuelled)

I thought the consensus of opinion here is that the Lugano results were an experimental error, caused by measuring emissivity wrong. Is that not the case?

I did not remove the Lugano paper from LENR-CANR.org. I wouldn't do that. I would like to upload a paper describing this error, if a knowledgeable person would write one.

Quote from JedRothwell

I thought the consensus of opinion here is that the Lugano results were an experimental error, caused by measuring emissivity wrong. Is that not the case?

I think that is what he was getting at.

Quote from JedRothwell

I thought the consensus of opinion here is that the Lugano results were an experimental error, caused by measuring emissivity wrong. Is that not the case?

There are valid complaints against many reports but if we used dissent as a criterion to exclude these then there might be no list.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

There are valid complaints against many reports but if we used dissent as a criterion to exclude these then there might be no list.

Well, if experts say the critiques have technical merit, that should be noted. Experts have not found any errors in the leading cold fusion results, such as F&P, McKubre etc. (I realize that THH and others claim they have found errors, but they have never described these errors.)

Quote from JedRothwell

Well, if experts say the critiques have technical merit, that should be noted. Experts have not found any errors in the leading cold fusion results, such as F&P, McKubre etc. (I realize that THH and others claim they have found errors, but they have never described these errors.)

The better ones will be more obvious among the lesser ones in a decent table.

As LDM i confirm that Lugano's COP was 5 but this is not the most important.

The more important is only a tunable device especially for the market.

If someone isn't able to achieve that yet it will stay blocked at his laboratory.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I did a COP of 7.2 using the Lugano method, which is still a record to my knowledge. That includes all input and losses from the outlet to the reactor. IR surface temperatures >2100 C. This reactor was solid alumina (unfuelled)

The MFMP did a COP of 4.8 (plus) using the Lugano method. It was going a bit higher but the IR clipped out at maximum temperature for the IR camera, at about 1524.7 C. This COP does not include the power supply losses, and was calculated using the voluminous data reported by the MFMP, but not by the MFMP themselves. I estimate a COP of about 5.4 was achieved. I believe that this reactor was also unfuelled.

Rossi did a COP of 3.75 using the Lugano method. This is the Lugano reference demonstration. Although power supply losses were considered, they were not included in the COP calculations. Peak temperature reported was 1412 C. This reactor contained a proprietary Ni-Li powder fuel.

Quote from me356

The cost is just around 8 USD per 100 grams but output power higher than Fission Reactors in respect to W/g..

That is definitly an heavy USP!

I just hope that such claims are not just dust in the wind, because fierce competition is around the corner.

For sure not wanting to loose a few billions USD in start-up investment.

Quote from gerold.s

I just hope that such claims are not just dust in the wind, because fierce competition is around the corner.

Plasma fusion is not fierce competition in the technical sense. It is a competition in public relations. It is only a competition thanks to the confusion of the public. From a technical point of view, plasma fusion is about as competitive as a Babbage Difference Engine would be to a modern desktop computer.

Difference Engine | calculating machine

Difference Engine, an early calculating machine, verging on being the first computer, designed and partially built during the 1820s and ’30s by Charles…

www.britannica.com

The comparison is a little unfair to Babbage, because unlike plasma fusion reactors, Babbage engines actually work. They produce valid answers. They do not cost billions of dollars.

Quote from gerold.s

because fierce competition is around the corner.

the corner for heavy crashbang fusion is decades long..

the corner for 'lite' LENR'fusion looks to be 2023

9 months of annus mirabilis left..

Considering Rossi have technology from around 2008 and he is changing it from the ground each 3 years I would not expect to see anything real in his life.

Results from laboratory are useless if there is nobody who can deliver it to customers. I think this thread should find company that can deliver the goods. Not these asking for funds and another years of research.

Quote from Daniel_G

Why do you report COP and not absolute watts? What were the uncertainties of the measurements? It’s fantastic work but in order to be complete this critical data must be included. How about repeatability, reaction sustain time, or any other details you can share or links to results?

I was going from memory. This from a few years ago now. Much data was posted about here at the time, albeit scattered around different threads a bit.

It was peak 3187.77 W out, 450 W in for the 7.2 Lugano Style COP experiment, an average of two sets of data. The Cylinder device not unexpectedly melted down when I pushed for more. I replicated the Cylinder with Cylinder2. The Cylinder had one internal and one exterior thermocouple embedded, and I raised the Alumina temperature to partial conduction temperatures, the 60 cycles AC becoming increasingly visible on the thermocouple traces before one melted.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I was going from memory. This from a few years ago now. Much data was posted about here at the time, albeit scattered around different threads a bit.

It was peak 3187.77 W out, 450 W in for the 7.2 Lugano Style COP experiment, an average of two sets of data. The Cylinder device not unexpectedly melted down when I pushed for more. I replicated the Cylinder with Cylinder2. The Cylinder had one internal and one exterior thermocouple embedded, and I raised the Alumina temperature to partial conduction temperatures, the 60 cycles AC becoming increasingly visible on the thermocouple traces before one melted.

Your results are quite interesting so why you stopped with it? It seems I missed a lot of news about Lugano In any case I guess sharing experimental results was not aim of this thread.

Quote from JedRothwell

I thought the consensus of opinion here is that the Lugano results were an experimental error, caused by measuring emissivity wrong. Is that not the case?

I did not remove the Lugano paper from LENR-CANR.org. I wouldn't do that. I would like to upload a paper describing this error, if a knowledgeable person would write one.

You have one:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf