I guess you've probably seen this paper, but I think it is quite well written. There are no surprises in it, from my perspective.
Yes, I have seen this one and some other somewhat similar to this. The lower power is known, albeit in this case it seems way lower than in other cases, but the proper air mix has not been fully researched. The higher NOx is also a factor related to air fuel mix.
Another paper from 2013, not really independent (i.e.author Kaidesvily has been accused of being non existent and thus Santilli in disguise, just for the sake of clarity), it also found a heavier than it should be MagneHydrogen.
There's a truly independent Thai paper I haven't been able to translate, the Thai font is unreadable for Google Translate, it seems. The forum software doesn't let me upload it here but it can be downloaded from this link
View of Small-Scale Plasma Arc Flow Gasifier
In spite of the translation issue, it has some tables and equations in English, and it would appear to agree that there's an energetic anomaly, at least it mentions COPs above 1, the lower being 1,845, comparing the electric energy input to create the gas versus the caloric energy that can be released by burning the gas. This figure is roughly the same that was reported by Blaze Labs (1.7). This doesn't consider the heat released by the process, or the light emitted by the arc.
Another paper from 2013, not really independent (i.e.author Kaidesvily has been accused of being non existent and thus Santilli in disguise, just for the sake of clarity), it also found a heavier than it should be MagneHydrogen.
According to this document on the "i-b-r" website, JV Keidesvili died at the tragically young age of 54. Strangely, the exact date of his death seems to have been predicted the year before it happened. Maybe the telescope he had been using also offers the gift of precognition. J-v-Kadeisvili-CV.pdf
The site below carries an account of somebody trying to track down Kadeisvili - with the suspicion that he was a sockpuppet.
This does call into question the editorial policies and legitimacy of the IJHE. The paper reads like a Santilli puff-piece, in his own style, and only references Santilli sources. What level of peer review, and source verification, does (or did) the IJHE carry out?
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier
I am now getting slightly concerned over the number of occasions that papers from the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy appear in this forum.
Granted, it is a weekly publication, and seems to publish a large number of papers. But as the author of the website, mentioned above, discovered - the editorship might not be completely independent of influence. His attempts to get clarification from Elsevier over their oversight policies is also interesting.
This is the list of retracted papers from the IJHE since 2010. Quite a number are listed for "fake peer review", with "investigation by journal/publisher" additionally listed for some of those. But if the editors of the journal are in charge of organising the peer review process, who is at fault if a review is later revealed to be fake?
There's a truly independent Thai paper I haven't been able to translate, the Thai font is unreadable for Google Translate, it seems. The forum software doesn't let me upload it here but it can be downloaded from this link
https://ph01.tci-thaijo.org/in…rticle/view/159396/115312
In spite of the translation issue, it has some tables and equations in English, and it would appear to agree that there's an energetic anomaly, at least it mentions COPs above 1, the lower being 1,845, comparing the electric energy input to create the gas versus the caloric energy that can be released by burning the gas. This figure is roughly the same that was reported by Blaze Labs (1.7). This doesn't consider the heat released by the process, or the light emitted by the arc.
Without a full translation, it is not possible to figure out what they have done. Just looking at their formulas, which are in English, is not good enough - as their terminology could be misconstrued. For instance, it isn't clear how they have accounted for the raw calorific value of the graphite itself, which will contribute to the eventual gas calorific value in an overall energy balance. They appear to be only counting the electrical input to the process.
I also see that the references are rather limited in scope (i.e. the usual papers, plus the unpublished "New York Lab" document).
The above article is from 2017.
QuoteSo far, 13 of the papers were retracted this year: 10 in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy and three in Results in Physics. Of the remaining 13 papers, four others were published in Results in Physics, four in Journal of Crystal Growth, three in Journal of Alloys and Compounds, and one each in International Journal of Thermal Sciences and Fusion Engineering and Design.
It goes on to say:
QuoteWe asked the publisher how the fake reviews were missed during peer review, as well as how (and when) the peer review manipulation was discovered. A spokesperson explained that the editors of two of the journals alerted Elsevier “when they could not validate the email addresses of reviewers suggested by the authors upon submission:”
So it seems the editors had simply been accepting suggestions for reviewers from the authors. That is clearly wide open to abuse. And if any of the reviewers were sockpuppets, having their email addresses monitored - with prompt responses - then the fakes would not have been detected...
(note: the retracted papers mentioned above were in the Hot Fusion & Tokomak fields)
That is an often seen problem of the publish or perish system, but none of Santilli’s papers has been retracted, some have received countering papers, and these countering papers have also received countering themselves.’so I don’t see the problem other than Santilli’s ideas are controversial. So are Holmlid’s, Mills’s, etc.
So if a journal (the editor of which has links to S*ntilli) does not retract a paper by fake authors (who also have links to S*ntilli), it means that despite all the fakery, the non-withdrawal shows that there isn't a problem?
I give up.
I give up.
That is what most people do when Santilli is the topic under discussion. We do have a member here (last seen 22/May) NEPS*NewEnergy who may - or may not - have interesting things to say about this technology.
±250 eV/atom is not good enough when you think about it. In that case, why not just stick with fission reactors? They release much more 😁.
In fact, even if it will only generate 1/4 state, which I doubt, using deuterium will likely provide good results given the fact of previous "anomalies". It is by far, most realistic LENR scenario, as far as I can tell 😄. (Maaaaybe palladium comes close...)
500eV for every completed light emitting condensation is the reaction when, hydrogen burns with oxygen the end product is water. So here the end product of chemical energy release is always a stabler molecule with a closer bond. Considering the immense abundance of hydrogen, simple hydrides, chiefly water; this is better than fission when you account for radiation blocking mass/volume, and reversibility of reaction.
So here the end product of chemical energy release is always a stabler molecule with a closer bond.
And the reverse is an endothermic reaction which will make.. cold.. retain this somewhere in a corner of your head 
.. There is tricks to understand under the Mills way
Just a comment on this thread's title, now 16 months old.
Randall's Mills seminal and either ignored, or by a very public-spirited few debunked, theory has ben around for 20 years +
Hardly new.
Similarly BLP has been around making claims of excess heat production in excess of chemical for the same time. Any one of which, if real, would take the world by storm.
So the experimental work is not new either.
BLPs most recent demo is the mots difficult to determine whether in fact there is any excess power, since both power in and power out are short-lived transients, notoriously difficult to measure.
Various versions of so call cold fusion (LENR) or hydrino theory have failed to go commercial because they are all catalyzed nuclear reactions. The mass/energy balances which I have done on these reactions indicate that heat from free energy is about 2/100,000. The entropy term would then be 99,998/100,000 of the free energy. The free energy was predicted based on nuclear mass loss due to transformation. The mass loss was based on mass balance and stoichiometry for the nuclear reactions.
Just a note. Hot fusion is not doing any better. It may be that both are up against the same miss-understanding of the true nature of what matter really is. Fusion may occur in the sun but the conversion to heat occurs in the corona. The surface of the sun is 1000s of times colder than its outer edges.
And the reverse is an endothermic reaction which will make.. cold.. retain this somewhere in a corner of your head
Correct! I was reading about the mass relation between moons and their planetary bodies and the stability of orbit. Hydrogen with hydrogen 1/4th is a reversible reaction, but way more stable than a single "hydrino". A solid ash that looks like polymer silk or gas that resembles helium nuclei of a strange isotope would be the stablest result. With the silk, you get to keep the exotic polymer molecules for other uses. this is useful for cooling stuff.
A ratio of 1:25+ for Lagrangian orbital balance mechanics (this might have been for tidally locked bodies or not, I can't recall) makes the orbit a lot less likely to reverse. Please do additional research yourself, it was a YouTube video quoting others' math. So lighter transition metals specifically Titanium, Vanadium and Chromium should tend to get hot and above a certain energy level get cold again when constantly reacted with hydrogen, reversing in picohydride-chemistry, in that order proportionally. Manganese, Iron, Cobolt etc. are mostly hot because it takes a lot more energy to reverse the bond. The reaction speed limit control would be more based on Curie Temperature for 25+, and other changes of "magnetic-ness" and conductivity based on temperature. These examples become nonmagnetic resistors above specific temperatures blocking the electrical current or free electrons that facilitate further reactions in a solid medium.
paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05788
Display MoreJust a comment on this thread's title, now 16 months old.
Randall's Mills seminal and either ignored, or by a very public-spirited few debunked, theory has ben around for 20 years +
Hardly new.
Similarly BLP has been around making claims of excess heat production in excess of chemical for the same time. Any one of which, if real, would take the world by storm.
So the experimental work is not new either.
BLPs most recent demo is the mots difficult to determine whether in fact there is any excess power, since both power in and power out are short-lived transients, notoriously difficult to measure.
His chosen method of doing it is not ideal. He doesn't close or zip up the hydrogen bonds to keep the reaction exothermic. The cooling effect utilization is not optimized for the set-up either. You can excite electrons and make UV/X-ray light but you don't have a fire unless there are relatively stable oxides water, carbon dioxide and our friend H2(1/4)*.
The molecule dissociation (hydride or not) will cool the metal catalyst for some time.
You said: above specific temperatures blocking the electrical current or free electrons that facilitate further reactions in a solid medium
That what i called a while crazy electrons or for now lazy electrons.
in fact when slowed down they tend to convert a proton as a quasi neutron which next will be able to transmut some other surrounding atoms.
I have to mention too that EU rechearchers ( no italians at all 
) involved in space plasmas patented a Lenr device cop 5... Iwamura's band aren't on head at all 
Display MoreCorrect! I was reading about the mass relation between moons and their planetary bodies and the stability of orbit. Hydrogen with hydrogen 1/4th is a reversible reaction, but way more stable than a single "hydrino". A solid ash that looks like polymer silk or gas that resembles helium nuclei of a strange isotope would be the stablest result. With the silk, you get to keep the exotic polymer molecules for other uses. this is useful for cooling stuff.
A ratio of 1:25+ for Lagrangian orbital balance mechanics (this might have been for tidally locked bodies or not, I can't recall) makes the orbit a lot less likely to reverse. Please do additional research yourself, it was a YouTube video quoting others' math. So lighter transition metals specifically Titanium, Vanadium and Chromium should tend to get hot and above a certain energy level get cold again when constantly reacted with hydrogen, reversing in picohydride-chemistry, in that order proportionally. Manganese, Iron, Cobolt etc. are mostly hot because it takes a lot more energy to reverse the bond. The reaction speed limit control would be more based on Curie Temperature for 25+, and other changes of "magnetic-ness" and conductivity based on temperature. These examples become nonmagnetic resistors above specific temperatures blocking the electrical current or free electrons that facilitate further reactions in a solid medium.
paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05788
His chosen method of doing it is not ideal. He doesn't close or zip up the hydrogen bonds to keep the reaction exothermic. The cooling effect utilization is not optimized for the set-up either. You can excite electrons and make UV/X-ray light but you don't have a fire unless there are relatively stable oxides water, carbon dioxide and our friend H2(1/4)*.
Display MoreThe molecule dissociation (hydride or not) will cool the metal catalyst for some time.
You said: above specific temperatures blocking the electrical current or free electrons that facilitate further reactions in a solid medium
That what i called a while crazy electrons or for now lazy electrons.
in fact when slowed down they tend to convert a proton as a quasi neutron which next will be able to transmut some other surrounding atoms.
I have to mention too that EU rechearchers ( no italians at all
Those calibrated atoms are a feature though, put there by the God who designed reality. You can control temperature, the rate of reaction of the system by the ratios and spacial arrangements of specific metal elements. It makes the process more engineerable for whatever purpose us technological sophont beings might have for it. The extremes I've read in literature are either the reaction is slower, it has an inconclusive COP of 5 or less, often endothermic, unable to sustain reliably, or on the other hand explosions while vaporizing, and dissolving reactor chambers. With the right balance it can be plugged in like a high-temp fuel cell, a bright coal/pellet modern fireplace and a super dense battery that just lasts for years with hydrogen. Outputs like a raging rocket engine, a jet engine or an industrial forge that fizzle after 3-4 years are useful or something more domestically useful that lasts for 10-12 years on average or longer like a civilian family vehicle's engine, a portable gas generator, and a home HVAC/boiler/solar/battery combo. The length of operation can be based on emergent high energy chemistry, metallurgy and the programing of the structure of materials. It would not be limited by the cell's heavy atom energy content because after all the higher number metals are reacted in months it will still "burn water" within the set temperature ranges until the favorable molecular structures wear out. The larger elements to constrain or guide the features of the structure's operation over the long haul.
