We are also looking for more people who want to help us seek information about the field.
Please let me know if you are interested.

LENR seminar in Oslo 5. November 2014 (Swedish)
4h-5h with videos, the last 3 videos English

The seminar was organized by the Norwegian Academy of Technological Sciences (NTVA) and Seniorteknologene, Technical and Scientific Association (Tekna).

The purpose of the seminar was to disseminate knowledge about the status of the field "low energy nuclear reactions" - (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, LENR). Specifically, there has been program committee intended to show that the practical development has reached so far that a professionally qualified monitoring of the further development is needed. This, considering the very large consequences for the global energy situation and Norway's economy if the companies that are engaged in product development based on LENR would succeed.

As research fields are LENR very special. In 1989 announced elektrokjemikerne Fleischmann and Pons that in an electrolysis setup had demonstrated a "surplus energy" that could not be attributed to any chemical process, and that they therefore assumed to be due to a nuclear reaction. This phenomenon was soon referred to as "cold fusion", and attracted great attention. Out of established nuclear physics were such "energy production" is not possible. A number of researchers tried to repeat Fleischmann and Pons' attempts, without success. Already three months after the original announcement was "cold fusion" declared "dead" at a conference organized by the American Physical Society. Further research in this field was of physicists branded as sectarian, faith-based and unscientific, with highly negative consequences for those researchers who work continued: loss of jobs, no research funding, etc.

During the 25 years since 1989, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles about LENR been published in reputable journals - most journals for chemistry. A number of theories are put forward, without any of them has won general acceptance. A theoretical main approach is based on the phenomenon is associated with resonance in the lattice structure of metals, most applicable nickel and palladium saturated with respectively hydrogen and deuterium. The phenomenon would thus be outside the regime of the well established free-particle theory of nuclear reactions. But about this, and other theoretical questions prevails thus no consensus. In leading physics environments, also in our country, it is claimed that the steadily LENR of theoretical reasons can not occur, so that allegations of experimental detection and practical utilization therefore must build on instrumentation error, any attempt to financial fraud.

The theoretical controversy has not been the topic of the seminar.

The seminar provides a brief overview of activity and status of LENR scientifically and commercially independent standpoint. In the following links to video recordings from the seminar, edited so that PowerPoints emerges clearly.

1 Opening of the seminar - Professor (em) His Haakon Faanes, NTVA, SET / Tekna
Despite unresolved theory and scientific controversy supported research on LENR now public in several countries, and by serious research organizations. The seminar aims to highlight leading activity in this area through contributions from researchers observe firsthand. If commercial products under development is a success, we will be confronted with an energy revolution - positive for the global environment, but perhaps detrimental to the Norwegian economy. It is very important that the development followed both that the effects on the economy should not come as a surprise and that industrial possibilities realignment means to be exploited.

2 Introduction to LENR - Dr Sten Bergman, Stone Power AB (Swedish)
What one understands by LENR and characteristics that differentiate LENR from other nuclear reactions: No spread of radioactivity, no ionizing radiation, no hazardous substances involved and no CO2 emissions. Elementomvandling confirms the existence of a nuclear reaction. Low production costs and modular technique for compact devices provide perspectives for commercial exploitation.
Overview of possible related natural phenomena. History for applications before Fleischmann and Pons. Patents. Overview of scientific and industrial main players today, with special emphasis on the development of commercial energy sources. Conceivable applications of LENR studied industrial: Heat, electricity production, propulsion of vehicles, ships, aircraft and spacecraft.

3 LENR project: E-CAT - Dr. Hanno Essén KTH (Swedish)
Report of tests funded by Elforsk and conducted by academics from the University of Uppsala, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) and the University of Bologna, as well as other independent tests of different designs of hot water generator E-CAT manufactured by the Italian inventor Rossi. It is ascertained net heat and elementomvandling.Discussion of objections to the tests. Conclusion: E-CAT generates "excess heat" that have not chemical explanation, while elementomvandlingen confirming a nuclear reaction. The phenomenon can be explained using the established theory core.

4 LENR Research that SRI International - Dr Michael CH MckKubre, SRI International (Eng)
McKubre has been conducting research on LENR by SRI for 25 years. The reasons why Fleischmann-Pons experiment not succeed by others attempt repetition. Later Fleischmann-Pons Effect Heat (FPHE) shown in over 100 trials at SRI, and over one thousand globally, albeit only once regardless F & Ps measure up. Review of experiments and results. High saturation of deuterium in palladium essential for the reaction.Scientific review of LENR experiments. SRI testing Brillouin Corporations hot cell based on nickel / palladium and hydrogen / deuterium. Heat of 100% of the supplied energy, working temperature approximately 650 ° C. The project is in development, with various problems, but progress is accelerating. Conclusion: The existence of LENR - Fleischmann-Pons Effect Heat can scientifically not be doubted. Doubters can not be satisfied by the data, but only the process in the market. Companies are well underway.

5 Financial Perspectives Norway - Dr. Oystein Norgeng, BI (Eng)
The development of industrial products based on LENR is in an initial phase where significant work remains. This will require time, both for technical completion and approval and acceptance in the market. This last condition relates not least to the burden of proving that there is no possibility of radioactive radiation / emissions. This is made difficult by the lack of accepted theoretical explanation. Earliest result - prototypes - in the market by the year 2020? But in the longer term, production of generators, initially for stationary applications, expected in larger series of low capital costs and low operating costs. Consequences in Norway of any breakthrough LENR technology: Further declines in oil and gas, further weakened government budget balance, impaired balance of payments, further reduction of offshore activity and supplier industry. Cheap energy will stimulate the world economy and other parts of Norwegian industry, oil fund's investments will become more profitable. For Norway as a major exporter of energy is vital to keep abreast of LENR.

6 Concluding discussion (Eng)
Call presenters themselves. LENR is a new science. Without a comprehensive theoretical basis, it will be difficult to exploit phenomena full potential, and difficult to handle issues related security and authentication. This can lead to practical application overtaken by countries that have less public attention to such matters. Interest LENR development is increasing, so that private financing is available. This development may be limited by the supply of qualified researchers. Overall progress is increasing. Potential is a global economic revolution.

Introduction to LENR seminar in English

Thanks for the reply!
I will consider what you write about files.

About youtube then just paste the link so shall, if everything is correct. Video will be played directly from lenr forum.

Quote from Majorana

I am also planning to do the experiment with an opened container and a proportionally smaller amount of Ni and LiAlH4 so that after a shorter time the same relative change in isotopic composition should be measureable with an ICP-MS device.

I will not measure calorimetrically, just mass spectra.

Nice to hear @Majorana, tell us more details please! I think many want to follow your project.

Replay from them

Good afternoon, David!

Unfortunately, our seminar in VNIIAES 27/01/2015 is only for Russian

identical workshop will be for all 29.01.2015:

All-Russian physics seminar "Cold fusion and Fireballs"

will be held on Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 16:00 in the hall number 1 (7th floor)

in the building of the

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (http://www.rudn.ru/en/),

3, st. Ordzhonikidze, metro Shabolovskaya

(at the Donskoy Monastery).

Agenda:

1. 16.00 - 16.30. N.V. Samsoneko, PhD, Peoples' Friendship University (http://www.rudn.ru/en/), Moscow, "Hydrinos, a brief digression"

2. 16.30 - 17.30 A.G. Parkhomov, PhD, Moscow State University, Moscow, "New experimental results with the analog of the high-temperature Rossi reactor "

3. 17.30 - 17.45 S.N. Andreev, doctor of sciences, GPI RAS (http://www.gpi.ru/eng/index.php ) , Moscow, " Possible LENR investigations in GPI. Trends and Prospects."

4. 17.45 - 18.00. The meeting of the editorial board.

Entrance to the seminar free upon presentation of an identification document.

Seminar leader: Samsonenko Nikolay Vladimirovich

Reply from Alexander

Diar David,
On many of the posed questions I would like to have answers itself. But my opportunities as experimenter are generally settled only by demonstration of excess heat and lack of the noticeable ionizing radiation in the device which, on my representations, in general reproduces the high-temperature reactor of Rossi. Clarification of the mechanism of this surprising phenomenon and features of process in a high-temperature capsule requires the difficult equipment and work of highly skilled researchers.

The problem of a high pressure of hydrogen, of course, excites me. At a simple reasoning, after decomposition of LiAlH4 to temperature less than 200oC pressure has to increase to hundreds of bars. And it has to cause explosion, or leak of hydrogen through a pores or cracks. But there is neither explosion, nor any signs of leak. It is possible to assume that 0,01 g of the allocated hydrogen are absorbed at once by nickel of which in 100 times more, and pressure doesn't increase to catastrophic values.

About that occurs in the high-temperature capsule, it is only possible to assume so far. Possibly, the nickel mixed with melted aluminum and lithium is in the environment of hydrogen and vapors of lithium. The air rest, reacting with hydrogen, lithium and aluminum, forms small impurity of nitrogen and ammonia, and also oxides and nitrides of lithium and aluminum.

Alexander

It seems to be poor with information about this group. We have contacted them and waiting for a response. Luckily we have @Mats Lewan that speaks and writes fluent Italian;)

Perhaps they can consider to answer some well-formulated questions from our users?

I received a letter with information about new exptiment, it looks to be trying to replicate ECAT / hotcat. An Italian research team have published a video showing interesting experiments something that might be high COP values.

(Check at Youtube)

From the research group's website

We are a group of technicians and professional researchers who devoted 25 years of the time and invests its resources in science frontier both experimental and theoretical levels.

Our mission:

Finding new sources of cheap energy: Cold Fusion (LENR) and direct conversion of matter into energy Space propulsion systems non-Newtonian Unification of Sciences

Theory

Presentation

Ongoing study

LENR Calendar

Open LENR Calender for related events

Google Kalender

----------------Calendar-ID: [email protected] If you want to add it to you one calendar

Please, post a new event in this thread.

You can also add this to your extra Google Calendar, search for lenr calendar.

How to share you calender

Share your calendar with someone - Calendar Help

Quote from Majorana

Hello,

my question could have already been answered in the documents he published but my russian is too bad to find out so I would like to ask:

Did Mr. Parkhomov also measure mass spectra of the sample before and after the run and could he confirm the results shown in the Lugano report which shows an isotope shift from Li-7 to Li-6 and from Ni-58, Ni-60 and Ni-61 to Ni-62 ?

If not, I would strongly suggest somebody to do this. If Mr. Parkhomov agrees to do this or to provide a sample for such a measurement, it will be a proof that can not be denied by the scientific community.

Kind regards,
Ettore

Display More

--------------
Answer by Alexander G. Parkhomov.
Of course, the strong changes of isotopes ratio founded in Lugano represent huge interest. These changes were stored in 32 days of Rossi reactor operation. I managed to ensure functioning of the reactor in the mode of excess energy at most an hour and a half so far. It is improbable that during this time there were strong changes. Nevertheless, samples of fuel are sent for the analysis. The result will be known in some days.

Many have already read that Russian scientist Alexander Parkhomov recently published information about a LENR reactor test, this is similar to the work of Andrea Rossi.

Today I have had contact with Parkhomov, he tells me that he can not reach lenr forum in Russia. Maybe our domain is blocked? (Edit, now working in Russia

Parkhomov also says that he can answer a number of questions from our users in the forum.
Write interesting questions and we will forward some of them to him by email and then post the answears in the forum.

Use this thread.

/ David

--------
Dr. Michael McKubre have a user on lenr forum, If you have any interesting question, please write in this thread, if we are lucky maybe @mmckubre want to comment well-formulated questions.
/David
--------

A Russian Experiment: High Temperature, Nickel, Natural Hydrogen

Michael C.H. McKubre

[Editor’s Note: Alexander Parkhomov’s E-Cat experiment report was issued on December 25, 2014. We have uploaded the original Russian report by Alexander Parkhomov and his English translation.]

The first thing to record is that the document under consideration is an informal, preliminary research note available to me only in English translation of the Russian original. Despite that it reads well. Alexander Parkhomov is a “known” scientist from a highly reputable Institution, Lomonosov Moscow State University, which I have visited on several occasions. He has published work with friends of mine including Yuri Bazhutov (Chairman of ICCF13 and member of the IAC) and Peter Sturrock (Stanford University). These are both very capable senior scientists so that when this research is prepared for formal publication I am sure we can anticipate a complete and solid report.

In the meantime I will comment briefly on what is presented. Because of the community interest in the topic and the apparently clear and elegant nature of the experiment, Parkhomov’s preliminary report has already received an astonishing amount of discussion on the CMNS news group. What is stated in this preliminary report is encouraging, potentially even interesting, but one is struck by material information that is not made available in this report. Much, most or all of this added detail apparently is available to the author so one must await further elucidation from Parkhomov or a serious engineering effort at replication before final conclusions can be arrived at.

Although clearly motivated by the Rossi “Lugano” experiment it is not correct to call either a replication of the other or of any before. These are new experiments, with new characteristics, and some common features. As shown below the reactor active core consists of nickel powder intermixed with a hydrogen (lithium and aluminum) source, LiAlH4, enclosed in an alumina tube and confined with bonded ceramic plugs. This core is surrounded by a helically wound, coaxial electrical heater extended in length to provide closely uniform heating. The whole is potted in ceramic cement to incorporate a single sense thermocouple.

To this extent this configuration mirrors the Rossi reactor recently reported from Lugano although we do not know the similarity or differences between the Ni samples used in each.[1] Since LiAlH4 decomposes to liquid and H2 gas at the temperature of operation its source and nature of are presumed not to make much difference although the impurity content (unstated) may. Also different is the nature of the electrical input used for heating. For Parkhomov this is unspecified. The Rossi effort at Lugano employed 3-phase (50 Hz.) power for the calorimetric input and thermal stimulus but also includes an unknown amount of power in unstated form as a trigger. No such trigger apparently was used by Parkhomov.

The two experiments diverge radically in their chosen means of calorimetry. Parkhomov states that the “Rossi reactor technique based on thermovision camera observation is too complex,” with which I tend to agree. The chosen mean of calorimetry on the new report is to employ the latent heat of vaporization of water — the well known amount of heat required to boil water to steam, in this case at ambient pressure. The heater/reactor combination shown above was enclosed with partial insulation inside a rectangular metal box that was contacted on 5 of 6 surfaces by water.

There are some second order effects that might pertain to this boiling water calorimetry but the method is “tried and true.” It has been employed accurately for well over 100 years and in a slightly different form (boiling liquid nitrogen) was the method selected in recent SRI calorimetry.[2] With simple precautions such a calorimeter should be accurate within a few percent over a wide range of powers and reactor temperatures. One must be concerned to interrogate the heat that leaves the calorimeter by means other than as steam escaping at ambient pressure, that water does not leave the vessel in the liquid phase as splattered droplets or mist (fog), and to accurately measure the water mass loss (or its rate to determine output power). Obviously one also needs to accurately and completely measure the electrical input power.

Although this last issue has been recently (and anciently) raised it is very rarely a problem. Measurement of current, voltage and time (power and energy) are some of the measurements most easily and commonly made. Parkhomov does not supply details of the electrical power or its measurement and he is very much encouraged to do this in his formal reporting. I have no reason, however, to doubt the input power statements. Splatter and mist are issues of observation and calibration and heat leaks are a matter of calibration. Much detail is missing here. Full information about the calibration(s) must be provided in any formal report and full resolution of the question “what do the data tell us?” awaits this detail.

In the meantime what can we learn? Parkhomov states without showing that data that: “The power supplied to the heater stepwise varied from 25 to 500 watts.” The thermocouple in the reactor reached 1000°C approximately 5 hours after initial heating. It would be very nice to have these early-time data together with the data for calibration with which to compare; the greatest weakness of this report is the paucity of data. We are forced basically to rely on three data pairs that I have re-tabulated below from the Parkhomov report with some calculated numbers. Three time intervals are reported of varying duration (Row 2) in which the cell reported an average temperature resulting from the stated average electrical input power, and accumulated the stated Energy In. Parkhomov states from his calibration (not shown) that the heat leak from the system to the ambient is 155 W with the boiler at 100°C. From this heat leak rate we can calculate the energy that leaves in each interval through the insulation and from the mass of water lost we can calculate the heat that leaves as steam by using the known latent heat of vaporization of water (40.657 kJ /Mole or 2258.7 kJ / kg of H2O). The sum of these is the Total Energy Output, the second half of our three data pairs.

These tabulated data (although few) exhibit an impressive set of characteristics:

Excess energies of ~120 to ~1900 kJ in 40-50 minutes.
Energy output greater than heat leak rate for the two higher input powers so that even if this loss approaches zero there is still calculated excess energy.
Percentage excess energies (and therefore average power) of ~20-160% with increasing input power and temperature.
Average excess powers of ~50 to nearly 800 W with a very small “fuel” load (0.9g of Ni).
Excess power densities of ~60 to nearly 900 W g-1 of Ni, well within “useful” regimes and consistent with previous CMNS results.
Excess power densities for the small reaction volume (~1 cm3) of ~50 to nearly 800 W cm-3.
All of these characteristics are exceptionally favorable. In the “plus column” we can also add that the experiment should be very easy to reproduce and we will hopefully soon have well-engineered replication attempts and conceivably confirmations. The experiment also does not appear to need stimulation[3] other than heat, hydrogen and possibly lithium or the need for solid-nickel/molten-metal interaction. So what are the worries? A very large amount has been said about this experiment in part because of the spectacular character of the tabulated data. Over and above the obvious need for calibration data and complete run-time data (ideally in the form of numbers not just plots) not everybody is happy. Why not?

Although others may have further points to add I would summarize three major concerns expressed[4] with the material that has been presented (rather than what was not):

The unexpected behavior of the Temperature at high power. When excess power (of apparently considerable power density) is being created one would expect to see the temperature of the source to be increasingly elevated. The observed trend is not in the “right” direction.
A plot of the data tabulated by Parkhomov for Reactor Temperature vs. Input Power is a stunningly good fit to a parabola. Because of limits of accuracy and precision experimentalists normally expect such close fits to be the result of calculation, not measurement. The goodness of fit may be explicable by the author or just be a fascinating coincidence.
A temperature arrest of approximately 8 minutes occurred at the end of the experiment after the rapid power and temperature drop following heater failure. This “Heat after Death” episode was preceded by a similar period of apparent temperature fluctuation. Either episode or both might be important signals of the underlying heat generation process or may signal sensor failure. It is difficult to resolve this ambiguity without redundant temperature measurement.
In the absence of relevant calibration data at least, and (better) a finite element model of the complex heat flow from the system as well, one can use only experience and intuition to predict what the reactor thermocouple sensor should register as a consequence of changing input power. The input power to the helical heater has a known (distributed) location. The excess power, however, while (presumably) volumetrically constrained has no defined or necessarily stationary position within the fuel volume. Even the first step of heat flow is therefore complex but an argument has been made qualitatively that, all else being equal, if you add a heat source the temperature should go up. Does it?

Let’s look first at a plot of percent excess power (left vertical axis) and temperature (right vertical axis, °C) as a function of input power (W). Three different colored curves are plotted for three different postulated values of the conductive heat leak from the calorimeter: red (155 W) the heat leak power calibrated by Parkhomov and assumed to be constant throughout the active run; blue (102 W) the value that makes the excess power for the first data point zero, as a conservative internal calibration; green (0 W) no heat leak, the most conservative estimate possible for this term. There is nothing at all surprising about this set of curves, and something quite encouraging. The observed excess power cannot be explained by an error in the conductive heat leak or any changing value of that parameter. The temperature of the reactor rises monotonically and smoothly with increasing excess and total power.

Now let's look at the same data plotted against the measured reactor temperature below. Here we see some indication of the first concern enumerated above. Although slight, the curvature of this family of curves is up suggesting that as the excess (and total) power measured calorimetrically by the released steam increases, so also does the rate of heat (or temperature) loss from the thermocouple sensor. Although this might indicate a measurement problem (unknowable without calibration data) note that the deviation cause by this curvature is well within the variation bounded by the assumed heat leak to the ambient and might easily be caused by a relatively small change in this calibrated “constant.”

At least two unincluded heat loss term are known that must cause the heat leak constant to change in the direction to cause upward curvature: radiant heat loss from the reactor to the enclosing metal box at higher temperature; increased convective transport from the enclosing metal box to the inner wall of the “steamer” at higher rates of steam bubble evolution. I do not know whether the shape of the curve is a problem or is not. The point that I would like to re-reinforce is that we can only answer such questions definitively and thus gain confidence in the data and therefore knowledge if we have direct access to calibration data in the relevant temperature regime. I would also like to see a good thermal model as the reactor/calorimeter system is nowhere near as simple as it seems having several parallel and series heat transport paths. I realize that such model would be labor intensive and/or expensive to develop so lets start with the calibration. How does the system behave with no possibility of excess power?

As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams.

Footnotes:
[1] Parkhomov has stated that the NI used to charge his reactor had an initial grain size of ~10µ and specific area ~1000 cm2/g.
[2] SRI DTRA report and ICCF17 proceedings.
[3] Note that the lack of need for stimulation is very good for demonstration but undesirable for control and thus technology.
[4] The first two points were elaborated initially by Ed Storms, who may make them more strongly than I do here.

About the Author: Dr. Michael McKubre is Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International. He received B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in chemistry and physics at Victoria University (Wellington, New Zealand). He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Southampton University, England. Dr. McKubre joined SRI as an electrochemist in 1978. He is an internationally recognized expert in the study of electrochemical kinetics and was one of the original pioneers in the use of ac impedance methods for the evaluation of electrode kinetic processes. Dr. McKubre has been studying various aspects of hydrogen and deuterium in metals since he joined SRI in 1978, the last 25 years with a close focus on heat measurements. He was recognized by Wired magazine as one of the 25 most innovative people in the world. Dr. McKubre has conducted research in CMNS since 1989.

http://www.infinite-energy.com…ine/issue120/russian.html

LENR Hydrogen generation from water from Robert Vancina HOPE CELL TECHNOLOGY – Plasma assisted hydrogen generation from water; Projected to serve on-demand scalable stationary and mobile utilisation with fuel cell, combustion and life support systems; Under highest energy efficiency employing LENR exothermic effect; Neutron capture and weak interactions explain the reactions and excess heat generation; Hope Cell can be adapted to many existing devices and utilities which already consist of significant technical and capital input while minimising need for grid or expensive hydrogen infrastructure, therefore bridging the gap of technology in transition from the 20th to the 21st century; Transition from hydrocarbon fuels to hydrogen technological solutions http://hopecell.wordpress.com/

We have received criticism that we can be better, especially suggestions for a better start page!

Please, give us hints about what we can do.

We are also looking for people with knowledge of lenr, moderates and development in the Web (community).

We want to optimize categories, contents and startpage, so it will be easier to find what you are looking for.

[email]David (A) lenr-forum.com[/email]

best regards
David

Exciting end to the year 2014

News about excess heat from Piantelli 25th of December. And now the news from Russia with COP 2.5.

I guess Elforsk 32-day report - October 2014.

What do you consider to be most important?

Please, write only one proposal per posting.
Thumb up what you like, then we get a simple form of evaluation.

Who will be the next one? Who do you think?

Please come with tips to us about lenr-forum, this thread should be about how we become better !

Those who not previously used an internet forum like lenr-forums can perhaps think that it's messy from the beginning. Do you have any tips how we can help them?

A New Paradigm Energy Trigger by LENR-Coldfusion & Its Ramifications

Video slide from Ben Rusuisiak, Vancouver BC

1

Slide link
http://www.slideshare.net/BenR…nergy-technology-34087356