Report on JONP: Positive Reception from ITER/Areva Scientist to Lugano Report

I found this comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics quite interesting. The poster is named JC Renoir, and he addressed this post to Andrea Rossi:

Dr Rossi:
I have given to control the ITP report to a scientist that is working with ITER project. He is a Ph.D. in nuclear physics, is a mainstream science person and I was interested to hear from him what he thinks of the report.
He told me is a well done work and that there was no better way to make the measurements. He said he has forwarded the report to Areva, with is where he works. I told you this, because I think you may be glad to hear.
Congratulations,
JC Renoir

ITER is a multinational project in France, attempting to create a fusion reactor. Areva is a French multinational company which is the largest nuclear power firm in the world, also specializing in renewable energy projects.

Andrea Rossi responded to the poster saying he has no contacts with Areva, and that he was “honoured of what you write and I forwarded to the Professors of the ITP your comment.”

It’s a little surprising, but encouraging to hear that a hot fusion/nuclear scientist comes away with a positive impression of the Lugano report, and is willing to share it with colleagues.

  • jousterusa

    This had to happen. The evidence of the E-Cat is unshakable, and its impact on the “hot fusion” industry will be devastating unless it quickly makes an effort to accommodate and integrate Rossi’s work. Then we will have the great minds of the whole planet working on the same page, and from that great things may come.

    • malkom700

      It is possible that ITER is the future and LENR is present. Condition in the world does not allow us, so we did not address our present.

  • Deepak Saharan

    I believe their would be two branches where awareness and progress will spread. Rossi industrial ecat plant will prove itself over the time and meanwhile this report will prepare the world slowly to open their minds for this new technology. Also till that time satisfactory and proved theory behind that will come out .which will shut the last skeptics in this world for this technology.

  • Billy Jackson

    Once we get past the knee jerk reactions of this is impossible then those who engage in deep thinking will begin to realize that something truly is going on. The accusation of Rossi doping the fuel just isn’t plausible because regardless of what he may or may not have put in.. it still is not a chemical reaction.. so unless he had nuclear material in his pocket (yea right) .. then that accusation simply doesn’t carry any weight.

    the other is simple a measurement of the dummy test.. do a replica of that without the fuel and if your numbers are close to what they got in the test.. then you can do the same calculations as the hot test using the same math…and then we know the truth of the e-cat.. indisputable if we do this. knowing fuel. or composition of components of the fuel is all guess work. we dont need it.. we just need the math from the dummy test (verified by applying the same steps as they dummy) applied to the numbers they gave us for the hot test.. no more argument about false meters if proven the math is right

    • builditnow

      Full support for Billy Jackson on a full dummy test at the same temperature.
      It could be likely that a dummy test is being carried out as we type impatiently.

      It could be very easy to fit an unused reactor with an additional heating element down the center, separately powered, run the power in the existing outer heater the same as in the active test and then add sufficient power to the new heater to get the same temperature readings on the camera’s. Total electrical power in to the additional heater equals the LENR power during the active test run. Perhaps another 10 day run with an active reactor. Have the peer review team closely monitor the additional tests to cover things like correctly hooking up the power measurement equipment (no reversed current sensors). A 3 phase power meter like those used by the utility power company to go be first in the power line as an additional power check.
      The peer review team could get to go visit the Industrial Heat 1 MW system.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Once you get that up to heat, the test is complete. There is no need for an active run, it has been done.

      • Dr. Mike

        builditnow,
        I really like your idea of running a separate heater wire in a dummy reactor at the power the Ni powder was generating to simulate the the actual reactor, that is, at about 1660W to simulate the first portion of the active run. However, don’t you think the powder was mostly in a line at the bottom of the reactor, and therefore the wire should just lay on the bottom of the alumina cylinder? If you would like to use a 2mm diameter Inconel straight wire (Inconel 600) for this secondary heater you would be able to match the 1660W generated during the first part of the Lugano run by running a current of about 156A through the wire (this assumes the wire is 22 cm long, sticking out of the center portion of the reactor by 1 cm on each end). If you used a 1mm diameter straight wire Inconel 600, you could reduce the current to about 78A. It would be really interesting to see if them alumina would reach a uniform temperature with the extra heater wire at the bottom, or if the top of the alumina cylinder would be considerably cooler than the bottom as I suggested in my recent post. By the way, when you run this experiment, let me know at what current the Inconel melts. My guess is the 1mm diameter Inconel will melt at a current of about 30-35A or at a power of about 250-330W.
        Dr. Mike

        • Gerard McEk

          I expect that the ferromagnetic nickel micro partickles may be lifted and spread around or near to the heating wires because of the the high pulsed currents.

          • Dr. Mike

            Gerald,
            I don’t see how pulsed currents would attract ferromagnetic particles (a dc current would). But suppose the particles were attracted to the heating wires. I think the Ni particles would clump above the wire they were closest to at the bottom of the cylinder. If there is an attractive force to the heating wire, there is no force that would make the particles spread that I can think of. Does this make sense? Why would you think they would want to spread?
            Dr. Mike

          • US_Citizen71

            There is speculation that the heating coils may act like inductors and create magnetic fields strong enough to move around the nano sized fuel particles. It also has been speculated that the magnetic fields might be creating a magnetic eddy current that might stir the fuel due to the three phase power and the wave form chopping.

          • Gerard McEk

            Normally the particles would not move in AC sinusoidal current, however due to the current shape (short peaks) and the very small size they may move if the current peak is high enough and the particle small enough. I agree they would very probably move to the nearest wire, but that may be the way LENR works: Near to a wire which contains lithium, that will liquefy at certain temperatures,due to which LENR becomes active with the liquefied lithium and nickel of the particles and the high current AC peaks. I have no idea why it should be AC though. Time will tell.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We have suggested and have been working towards this test for several weeks now. We have a good grasp of what the materials are and in the next few weeks will be visiting specialists and/or arranging to make a dummy.

          • Dr. Mike

            Bob,
            Tungsten wire would probably work to generate the 1660W equivalent heating that was being generated in the first portion of the Lugano test. Using a 1mm diameter straight wire 22cm in length would require a current of about 120A to generate 1660W. Please check the temperature uniformity with the wire laying on the bottom of the alumina cylinder. Even if you have about 800W of fairly uniform heating from the external coils, i think you will see, a top to bottom temperature gradient not reported in the Lugano test.
            Dr. Mike

          • bkrharold

            The report stated that the testers were responsible for setting up the test, not Rossi. His only role in the test was the insertion of the powder, and extracting it afterward.

          • psi2u2

            Which further supports the conclusion that the comment is a gratuitous attack on Rossi.

          • Bob Greenyer
    • ivanc

      how you do the test?, what is the fraction of the 240v 60 Hz wave that is cut by the tryacs.
      Is there one trigger per cycle or many?
      the power in the input was about 900 watts, with a current of about 50amps in each phase,
      if the resistors that consume the input power are in delta, What will be current in each resistor?
      Are the tryacs fired at the same time in each phase?
      In a three phase circuit the voltages are out of phase by 120 v. so the instantaneous current is not distributed evenly.
      Why you need 3phase? the feeding cables are not important in this case they could use as thick cables as needed, only the current in the resistances are important.
      Rossi wanted to use gas, so the source of the input power should not need to be three Phase, single phase should be easy for all measurements.

      actually could be even better to use DC current. to me the electrical setup of the test was to complicated for a demo test. and prone to measurement error.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Many of your questions are answered by the MFMP Facebook page. With the collective help of the crowd, more will come.

        https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

      • Frechette

        Three Phase power is used because that is the norm in Europe. Any appliance consuming more than 500 watts is designed to run on 3 Phase. Also in most European countries the domestic line voltage is 220V. This is to save on copper for the cables.

  • Billy Jackson

    Once we get past the knee jerk reactions of this is impossible then those who engage in deep thinking will begin to realize that something truly is going on. The accusation of Rossi doping the fuel just isn’t plausible because regardless of what he may or may not have put in.. it still is not a chemical reaction.. so unless he had nuclear material in his pocket (yea right) .. then that accusation simply doesn’t carry any weight.

    the other is simple a measurement of the dummy test.. do a replica of that without the fuel and if your numbers are close to what they got in the test.. then you can do the same calculations as the hot test using the same math…and then we know the truth of the e-cat.. indisputable if we do this. knowing fuel. or composition of components of the fuel is all guess work. we dont need it.. we just need the math from the dummy test (verified by applying the same steps as they did to the dummy) applied to the numbers they gave us for the hot test.. no more argument about false meters reading if proven then the math is right

    • builditnow

      Full support for Billy Jackson on a full dummy test at the same temperature.
      It could be likely that a dummy test is being carried out as we type impatiently.

      It could be very easy to fit an unused reactor with an additional heating element down the center, separately powered, run the power in the existing outer heater the same as in the active test and then add sufficient power to the new heater to get the same temperature readings on the camera’s. Total electrical power in to the additional heater equals the LENR power during the active test run. Perhaps another 10 day run with an active reactor. Have the peer review team closely monitor the additional tests to cover things like correctly hooking up the power measurement equipment (no reversed current sensors). A 3 phase power meter like those used by the utility power company to go be first in the power line as an additional power check.
      The peer review team could get to go visit the Industrial Heat 1 MW system.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Once you get that up to heat, the test is complete. There is no need for an active run, it has been done.

        • Cuthbert

          To get a complete comparison, is running the dummy cell throughout the duration to rule out any quasistatic behaviour..

          • Ophelia Rump

            Well that is certainly thorough.

      • Dr. Mike

        builditnow,
        I really like your idea of running a separate heater wire in a dummy reactor at the power the Ni powder was generating to simulate the the actual reactor, that is, at about 1660W to simulate the first portion of the active run. However, don’t you think the powder was mostly in a line at the bottom of the reactor, and therefore the wire should just lay on the bottom of the alumina cylinder? If you would like to use a 2mm diameter Inconel straight wire (Inconel 600) for this secondary heater you would be able to match the 1660W generated during the first part of the Lugano run by running a current of about 156A through the wire (this assumes the wire is 22 cm long, sticking out of the center portion of the reactor by 1 cm on each end). If you used a 1mm diameter straight wire Inconel 600, you could reduce the current to about 78A. It would be really interesting to see if them alumina would reach a uniform temperature with the extra heater wire at the bottom, or if the top of the alumina cylinder would be considerably cooler than the bottom as I suggested in my recent post. By the way, when you run this experiment, let me know at what current the Inconel melts. My guess is the 1mm diameter Inconel will melt at a current of about 30-35A or at a power of about 250-330W.
        Dr. Mike

        • Gerard McEk

          I expect that the ferromagnetic nickel micro partickles may be lifted and spread around or near to the heating wires because of the the high pulsed currents.

          • Dr. Mike

            Gerald,
            I don’t see how pulsed currents would attract ferromagnetic particles (a dc current would). But suppose the particles were attracted to the heating wires. I think the Ni particles would clump above the wire they were closest to at the bottom of the cylinder. If there is an attractive force to the heating wire, there is no force that would make the particles spread that I can think of. Does this make sense? Why would you think they would want to spread?
            Dr. Mike

          • US_Citizen71

            There is speculation that the heating coils may act like inductors and create magnetic fields strong enough to move around the nano sized fuel particles. It also has been speculated that the magnetic fields might be creating a magnetic eddy current that might stir the fuel due to the three phase power and the wave form chopping.

          • Gerard McEk

            Normally the particles would not move in AC sinusoidal current, however due to the current shape (short peaks) and the very small size they may move if the current peak is high enough and the particle small enough. I agree they would very probably move to the nearest wire, but that may be the way LENR works: Near to a wire which contains lithium, that will liquefy at certain temperatures,due to which LENR becomes active with the liquefied lithium and nickel of the particles and the high current AC peaks. I have no idea why it should be AC though. Time will tell.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We have suggested and have been working towards this test for several weeks now. We have a good grasp of what the materials are and in the next few weeks will be visiting specialists and/or arranging to make a dummy.

          • Dr. Mike

            Bob,
            Tungsten wire would probably work to generate the 1660W equivalent heating that was being generated in the first portion of the Lugano test. Using a 1mm diameter straight wire 22cm in length would require a current of about 120A to generate 1660W. Please check the temperature uniformity with the wire laying on the bottom of the alumina cylinder. Even if you have about 800W of fairly uniform heating from the external coils, i think you will see, a top to bottom temperature gradient not reported in the Lugano test.
            Dr. Mike

          • Bob Greenyer
        • ivanc

          The really best way to run this experiment will be to have the resistors in the active and dummy reactors in series. and having the same resistence.
          if they are in series both will have the same current, and if the resistances are equal both will have the same voltage. now you could compare beyond doubt

    • ivanc

      how you do the test?, what is the fraction of the 240v 60 Hz wave that is cut by the tryacs.
      Is there one trigger per cycle or many?
      the power in the input was about 900 watts, with a current of about 50amps in each phase,
      if the resistors that consume the input power are in delta, What will be current in each resistor?
      Are the tryacs fired at the same time in each phase?
      In a three phase circuit the voltages are out of phase by 120 v. so the instantaneous current is not distributed evenly.
      Why you need 3phase? the feeding cables are not important in this case they could use as thick cables as needed, only the current in the resistances are important.
      Rossi wanted to use gas, so the source of the input power should not need to be three Phase, single phase should be easy for all measurements.

      actually could be even better to use DC current. to me the electrical setup of the test was to complicated for a demo test. and prone to measurement error.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Many of your questions are answered by the MFMP Facebook page. With the collective help of the crowd, more will come.

        https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

      • Frechette

        Three Phase power is used because that is the norm in Europe. Any appliance consuming more than 500 watts is designed to run on 3 Phase. Also in most European countries the domestic line voltage is 220V. This is to save on copper for the cables.

        The Triacs are certainly not fired at the same time. They are in all probability 120 degrees out of phase. Standard design procedure for such power converters. Been there done that.

        To calculate the RMS current in each of the three resistors connected in Delta configuration is straight forward assuming the resistors are of equal value which most likely they are. No magic here.

        • bang

          Just a little correction:
          Standard mains power in Europe is 230V
          AC/50Hz, (single phase). You can read this also in the calibrations
          section in the Lugano report (Page 4). Industrial mains power is 400V
          AC/50Hz with 3 phases.
          (The wiring schemata in the Lugano report shows (Figure 4) 380V AC, which is not correct.)
          ” Any appliance consuming more than 500 watts is designed to run on 3 Phase.”
          This
          is not true. For example, a standard coffee machine has a power
          consumption of about 1400 Watt and is connectet so the standard mains
          plug with only one phase. Same for devices above 500W like fridges,
          vaccumcleaners and so on.
          See also:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_electricity#Voltage_levels

          • ivanc

            Thanks bang, a standard heater for a medium room will be 2k to 3k watts and runs in single phase, but your electric oven or/and cook tops will run at about 10k watts are three phase, but they could also be installed in single phase depending of your supply. you have to put in perspective that 900 watts is a small power quantity, at 240v (Australian voltage) in single phase 900w will represent about 3.75 amps.
            The ecat is using 50 amps, so is running at very low volts.

          • Frechette

            I lived in Europe for 9 years. Any motor larger than 1 HP (746 Watts) required to be 3 phase. You are right about the Voltage being 230 V of course.

          • note that official voltage have evolved since I’m a kid.
            it was officially 220/380V when I was kid and today it is now 230V/400V with peak at 240V/415V (all device have to accept that)

            this is why people today say “380V” when talking of triphase. it is abusive, but people understand.

            I know tha in france as soon as you house is big and heated with electricity, or it is a work place like butchery or small industry.

            I don’t know the rules, but I noticed that place with big engine were always triphase. those engine are working better (no need of starting capacitor)… and it is cheaper for high consumer.

      • bkrharold

        I don’t know much about measuring electrical inputs, but surely isn’t the normal domestic supply three phase AC? My electric company seems to have no problem measuring exactly how much I am using, and sending me the bill.

        • ivanc

          But you not using TRIACs and trying to demo something that should be imposible. Did they report the use of a normal energy metter ?

  • builditnow

    Indications are that the news has filtered through personal networks.
    A friend went to a high tech trade show a few days back, he casually mentioned Cold Fusion to many, most knew about it and became excited when talking about it. These people were CEO’s and the like.
    Those in favor of talking Cold Fusion up, appear to be held back by fear.
    Those that have deliberately held up Cold Fusion development could also have reasons to fear being accused of crimes against the planet.
    When will someone break the ice on the lamestream media and the peer rear-view science publications.

    • BroKeeper

      It won’t be long now MSM can continually deny the influx of LENR news articles.

  • builditnow

    Indications are that the news has filtered through personal networks.
    A friend went to a high tech trade show a few days back, he casually mentioned Cold Fusion to many, most knew about it and became excited when talking about it. These people were CEO’s and the like.
    Those in favor of talking Cold Fusion up, appear to be held back by fear.
    Those that have deliberately held up Cold Fusion development could also have reasons to fear being accused of crimes against the planet.
    When will someone break the ice on the lamestream media and the peer rear-view science publications.

    • bachcole

      Nice: “peer rear-view science publications”. Also very accurate, not just cleverly insulting.

      • bkrharold

        We should be careful not to repeat their “clever insult”. Derision is one of their main weapons.

    • Brokeeper

      It won’t be long now MSM cannot deny the influx of LENR news articles.

  • bachcole

    I guess he can kiss his career good-bye. I hope not.

  • Buck

    Just as we point out the extremely remote probability of collusion across 100% of those involved in ITPR 1 & 2, the same is to be said for those in mainstream physics.

    When the weight of evidence of ITPR2 is presented to those not afraid to be curious, open and willing to face constructive change, then we get to hear wonderful news like RC Renoir and Rossi shared with us.

    This is fantastic!

  • Alan DeAngelis

    So, ITER hasn’t been following Rossi’s work for the past three year? It’s hard to believe that they weren’t dissecting that report the second it went online.

    • Fortyniner

      Some of the people involved directly in research may well be open to new ideas, but that openness will diminish rapidly as the information gets closer to the money supply.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Or it may increase as they attempt to abandon a sinking ship.

        • Mark Szl

          Here is another analysis of an error in the report.

          http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf

          Apparently it cancels out.

          HOWEVER, the reverse clap issue is still alive and well it appears and people that previously thought it unimportant are now considering it an error that goes counter the conclusions of the report. We may only have a COP = 1! Ayayayaya

          • bkrharold

            Even a COP 1 is better than the hot fusion folks have been able to accomplish on a sustained basis for 32 days. I think they might have managed a few milliseconds at most. How much money have they wasted doing that?

          • Gerard McEk

            I still wait for the reply of the professors. That should make things much clearer. Does anyone know if they will reply at all and when?

          • Billy Jackson

            In every hookup phase of the manual for the device it warns to make sure the arrows flow in the same direction as the current anytime it speaks of hooking the clamps up…
            i HIGHLY doubt that after 32 days someone didn’t noticed the arrow was pointed in the opposite direction as the other 2…. or that the machine failed to beep and give you a warning for a bad hookup..

            (From the manual)
            NOTE: page 29
            If the voltage of L1, L2, and L3 is not connected in right sequence, the analyzer will
            show L1-3-2 in the right top corner, and beep to warn the users of incorrect phase
            sequence.
            Note: Page 30

            In this mode, the analyzer also detects the correctness of the phase sequence. If
            the voltage of L1, L2, and L3 is not connected in right sequence, the analyzer will
            show L1-3-2 in the right top corner, and beep to warn the users of incorrect phase
            sequence.

            that series of machine is set up to let you know you hooked it up wrong… page 29-30

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pce-instruments.com%2Fenglish%2Fslot%2F2%2Fdownload%2F313031%2Fmanual_power-analyser-pce-830-series_en.pdf&ei=SqpWVN2BLYOfyQSXxoCABw&usg=AFQjCNGc2dbjFlyf1oRauNyQVQVcgynauQ&sig2=Y2UZ_froKfuII61GmVfFng&bvm=bv.78677474,d.aWw&cad=rja

            New Skeptical Theory please…

        • GreenWin

          There has been movement toward low temperature “surface effect” studies at the world’s first hot fusion lab, PPPL at Princeton University. They are looking at the effect of lithium on enhanced D-D fusion. Surprise.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            And ahhh, I wonder what would happen if we threw a little palladium in there with it.

            Oh wow, look what we discovered!
            Aren’t we brilliant.

          • GreenWin

            Brilliant indeed. Hot fusionists realize they have failed. The humiliation is greater because the one thing they rejected by consensus is Cold Fusion. And that has succeeded. Now they will attempt to appropriate it.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    So, ITER hasn’t been following Rossi’s work for the past three year? It’s hard to believe that they weren’t dissecting that report the second it went online.

    • Some of the people involved directly in research may well be open to new ideas, but that openness will diminish rapidly as the information gets closer to the money supply.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Or it may increase as they attempt to abandon a sinking ship.

        • GreenWin

          There has been movement toward low temperature “surface effect” studies at the world’s first hot fusion lab, PPPL at Princeton University. They are looking at the effect of lithium on enhanced D-D fusion. Surprise.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            And ahhh, I wonder what would happen if we threw a little palladium in there with it.

            Oh wow, look what we discovered!
            Aren’t we brilliant.

          • GreenWin

            Brilliant indeed. Hot fusionists realize they have failed. The humiliation is greater because the one thing they rejected by consensus is Cold Fusion. And that has succeeded. Now they will attempt to appropriate it.

  • a bit off topic, but not so much, here are documents that shows that thermography is very common in industry to measure heat balance, in much more complex situation

    https://archive.org/details/useofinfraredthe1129krei

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00348-010-0912-2

    if some competent people can first analyse those documents, the maybe find better documents

  • Tom58

    The people at ITER have their own fight to keep their project running and this is not a small challenge. They are planning for decades. Here a 3h talk of a iTER section leader in a science podcast. LENR is mentioned but commented mainstream-science-like. http://omegataupodcast.net/2014/10/157-fusion-at-iter/

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Could you say where in the audio is LENR mentioned? It’s not mentioned in the text, only Lockheed is there.

      • Tom58

        Go to 3:02:40. – but listening at the entire piece is worth the time for technic savy folks

  • Bedroom_eyes

    I’ve sent the news about the E-Cat to every newsagency in the country, but I think any txt including Rossi or the E-Cat gets deleted.

    There’s not even an answer from the agencies that they’ve received it. Tipping about anything else and they respond instantly that the message has been received.

    • GreenWin

      This is due to programmed “reality.” Just more evidence there is thin veneer of intelligence controlling the game. Which also explains the sudden appearance of measurement “errors.”

  • Ophelia Rump

    Well that is certainly thorough.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    So, where was this Ph.D. in nuclear physics 25 years ago when LENR researchers actually needed his help? It’s too little too late.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot” ~ Mark Twain

  • Alan DeAngelis

    So, where was this Ph.D. in nuclear physics 25 years ago when LENR researchers actually needed his help? It’s too little too late.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot” ~ Mark Twain

  • Mark Szl

    Has everyone seen this two part analysis of the report?

    Part 1:

    http://blog.stepchange-innovations.com/2014/10/excess-heat-isotope-changes-ecat-lenr-reactor-real-part1/#.VFZu8mf4p8E

    Part 2:

    http://blog.stepchange-innovations.com/2014/10/excess-heat-isotope-changes-e-cat-lenr-reactor-part2/#.VFZuEGf4p8E

    Comments on Part 2 include:

    Thomas Clarke:

    “A careful analysis of the input power and current shows the strong
    likelihood of a X3 error, mediated by a misplaced current clamp probably
    the responsibility of Rossi, that explains the apparent high COP. (See
    my comment on Part 1). The testers have the data needed to confirm or
    deny this, so absence of further comment from them must be taken as
    confirmation (perhaps we will soon get some comment).

    This test overall provides very strongly convincing evidence. But it points in a
    direction far different from what Rossi would like everyone to believe.”

    • bkrharold

      The report stated that the testers were responsible for setting up the test, not Rossi. His only role in the test was the insertion of the powder, and extracting it afterward.

      • psi2u2

        Which further supports the conclusion that the comment is a gratuitous attack on Rossi.

    • psi2u2

      “probablythe responsibility of Rossi”

      As there would appear to be no evidence at all supporting this conjecture, in my mind it exposes a failure of objectivity on the part of the analyst. An objective analyst would not have needed to offer this gratuitous speculation.

      • Billy Jackson

        they call that agenda sir 🙂

  • Chris, Italy

    Pity he doesn’t name the bloke.

  • Mark Szl

    Here is another analysis of an error in the report.

    http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf

    Apparently it cancels out.

    HOWEVER, the reverse clap issue is still alive and well it appears and people that previously thought it unimportant are now considering it an error that goes counter the conclusions of the report. We may only have a COP = 1! Ayayayaya

    • bkrharold

      Even a COP 1 is better than the hot fusion folks have been able to accomplish on a sustained basis for 32 days. I think they might have managed a few milliseconds at most. How much money have they wasted doing that?

      • Mark Szl

        COP of 1 is a disaster.

      • Ivy Matt

        Well, there’s a reason nobody (unless you count Rossi and his licensees) is claiming to have fusion devices ready to sell on the market―apart from neutron generators, that is: http://www.nsd-fusion.com

        If the E-Cat has no net energy gain, then that’s quite a problem for Industrial Heat. They’re not going to corner the heater market with a device that has no advantages over existing heaters, and they’re not going to corner the generator market selling a generator that produces less electrical power (due to conversion losses) than is needed to run it.

        If they really want to make money, the obvious next step for them to take is to become a supplier of enriched isotopes. Isotopic enrichment can be very energy-intensive, and if IH has a process to enrich isotopes with no net loss of energy, then they have a huge advantage over the competition.

        • bkrharold

          If you have COP 1, at the worst, then COP > 1 is possible. The experiment was run very conservatively with constant power being applied instead of intermittent. The COP was reduced by a factor of 3 from the maximum possible.

    • Gerard McEk

      I still wait for the reply of the professors. That should make things much clearer. Does anyone know if they will reply at all and when?

    • LT

      In the new analysis of the repport the following comment was made :

      A possible mistake that would explain the discrepancy is that one of the current clamps was turned the wrong way during the long term test. The contribution from this clamp would then be subtracted from rather than added to the measured power.

      This possible issue was reported earlier, but I think that the error was possible due to an incorrect interpretation of the anayls done to prove this point.
      I did the same calulations in a spreadsheet (And got the same figures). To arrive at the phase current you make the following calculations :

      1. Calulate from the phase voltages the delta voltages
      2. Devide the delta voltages through the heater resistances to arrive at the delta currents.
      3. From the delta currents calculate the phase currents

      If you do this you indeed get a calculated phase current picture which is opposite in polarity what the PCE830 shows. However one has to consider that the calculated currents are with respect to the delta. For phase three these are the current at the point where phase three connects to the delta. A negative current at this point means that the current flows into the delta. The PCE830 however will see the current flowing towards the delta and for the PCE830 this is a positive current (If you connect the PCE830 as recommended). So indeed the PCE830 will show a picture with opposite polarities, which is correct

      • Mark Szl

        From the meters manual on pages 29 and 30, the meter has alarms and warnings so you cannot miss a reverse clamp situation. So this argument does not work.

        • LT

          My argument is that when you calculate the currents and compare the plotted picture of those calculations with the pictures from the PC830
          , the polarities of both pictures will be opposite. So my conclusion was that an inverted picture shows that the clamp was NOT reversed.
          So I don’t understand your comment why my arbument does not work.

        • AlbertNN

          There is an alarm if the voltages is not connected in the correct order. There is no such alarm for the currents, and thus it would not give any warning for a inverted current clamp.

      • Josh G

        Interesting. Have you posted this somewhere that Giancarlo et al. are likely to see it so they can respond? Like Mats Lewan’s blog or lenr-forum for example? Do you object to other people posting to see the response?

        • LT

          I have posted the above comment only here, but have no objection that others post this comment on other forums. We all are interested to find possible mistakes (also mine) and openly discus them.

    • Billy Jackson

      In every hookup phase of the manual for the device it warns to make sure the arrows flow in the same direction as the current anytime it speaks of hooking the clamps up…
      i HIGHLY doubt that after 32 days someone didn’t noticed the arrow was pointed in the opposite direction as the other 2…. or that the machine failed to beep and give you a warning for a bad hookup..

      (From the manual)
      Clamp on to the L1, L2, and L3. Make sure the current flows from the
      front of the current probe to the back of it. (this is repeated at every instance that it talks about the clamps in the manual.)

      NOTE: page 29

      If the voltage of L1, L2, and L3 is not connected in right sequence, the analyzer will
      show L1-3-2 in the right top corner, and beep to warn the users of incorrect phase
      sequence.

      Note: Page 30

      In this mode, the analyzer also detects the correctness of the phase sequence. If
      the voltage of L1, L2, and L3 is not connected in right sequence, the analyzer will
      show L1-3-2 in the right top corner, and beep to warn the users of incorrect phase
      sequence.

      that series of machine is set up to let you know you hooked it up wrong… page 29-30

      https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pce-instruments.com%2Fenglish%2Fslot%2F2%2Fdownload%2F313031%2Fmanual_power-analyser-pce-830-series_en.pdf&ei=SqpWVN2BLYOfyQSXxoCABw&usg=AFQjCNGc2dbjFlyf1oRauNyQVQVcgynauQ&sig2=Y2UZ_froKfuII61GmVfFng&bvm=bv.78677474,d.aWw&cad=rja

      New Skeptical Theory please…

      (Do we have a picture of the clamps in place?)

      • Mark Szl

        It could be simply that they took the picture with a bad clamp arrangement. It was changed later back to the right arrangement but they did not realize they had a problem with the photo they were using.

        • Billy Jackson

          do we have a picture? link please?

          • Mark Szl

            Oops, i was assuming that was why they believed this.

          • AlbertNN

            The issue with the reversed clamp is based on the photo of the power analyser in the report. And further supported by the independent analysis of the joule heating of the cables as reported.

        • note that from I1eff+I2eff=I3eff it seems clear the 3 wires on the E-cat are in phase. at worst two dimmer slightly increase power in one coild then the other…

          in that case, on the e-cat, after the controlbox, U1 and U2 woudl be more or less in phase… no problem for the wattmeter who will integrate all correctly, but for the armchair critics it make all looks weird.

          the typical skeptic behavior is :
          – notice something is not said
          – assume something by wild guess and lazy assumption
          – conclude that it does not work
          – assume that with another nastier wild guess involving conspiracy of stupidity it can give the good results
          – bend a little the numbers, assume errors collude and conspire
          – eliminate all consideration that dissent with the conclusion
          – add innuendo and conspiracy to fill the holes
          – thus conclude LENR does not exist

          • AlbertNN

            RMS values are magnitudes only, and you can not apply Kirchoff’s law to them.

          • Mark Szl

            There should be a debunking of the debunking page on all this stuff. I guess some are waiting on responses from the authors of the paper. BTW, everyone not just “skeptics” are guilty of being lazy … that is just being human. After all, we would not invent automation if we wanted to always work hard. LOL

      • AlbertNN

        A reversed current clamp does not give an incorrect phase sequence, as this is based on the voltages of the three phases. And we can not be sure if they ever looked at the phasor plot, so it is not certain that they would have noticed the issue with the currents.

      • Joniale

        Copying a comment from Mats Lewan block here:

        Abbe permalink
        @Mark Szl: A reversed current clamp is not the same as an incorrect phase sequence. The phase sequence is defined by the voltages of the phases, and not the currents. Thus a reversed current clamp would not be detected by the instrument.

        What they say is that the instrument will still not beep.

  • Hank Mills

    THEY MEASURED THE POWER CONSUMPTION OF THE CONTROL BOX AND THE RESULTS MATCHED THE DOCUMENTATION.

    THEY MEASURED PERFECT UNITY IN THE DUMMY TEST.

    IF THE CLAMPS WERE NOT USED CORRECTLY THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE.

    THE CURRENT CLAMP ISSUE IS DEAD

    • Billy Jackson

      agreed.

  • Hank Mills

    They measured the power consumption of the control box and the results matched the documentation.

    They measured perfect unity in the dummy test.

    If the clamps were not used correctly this would have been impossible.

    The current clamp issue is dead

    • Billy Jackson

      agreed.

    • Joniale

      Who measured the power consumption? Is there any source for that statement?
      If that is true, then we can end this critic point at last 🙂

    • AlbertNN

      You are assuming that nothing was changed between the dummy test and the real one. But we know that the E-cat was disconnected and reconnected, and that the settings of the control box was changed. If more things were changed we do not know. Thus it is not possible to scientifically draw the conclusion you do.

    • LT

      Totally agree !

      Besides that; The total sum of the currents for the three phases should be zero.
      If they are not zero you have an current unbalance. The PCE830 measures this unbalance. In the case of a switched current probe the unbalance would be very large and should have been seen by the operators of the PCE830.

      • Guest

        you don’t understand electricity.
        we talk of effective current. sqrt of quadratic average of current

    • Joniale

      I add here an interesting comment from Giancarlo in the Mats Lewan blog.
      He shows photos how the inverted clamp can cause a problem in the measurements of the input power. See document.
      I really think the test group should say something official about this and now.

      ——————-
      @mark hazelton
      Giancarlo
      Because you have access to a PCE 830, can I request that you connect the clamps in the correct sequence to a ‘Three-way AC output’ and post the relevant screenshots.
      Please, enjoy
      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66642475/PCE%20Clamp%20test.docx

  • psi2u2

    “probablythe responsibility of Rossi”

    As there would appear to be no evidence at all supporting this conjecture, in my mind it exposes a failure of objectivity on the part of the analyst. An objective analyst would not have needed to offer this gratuitous speculation.

    • Billy Jackson

      they call that agenda sir 🙂

  • Electro

    My argument is that when you calculate the currents and compare the plotted picture of those calculations with the pictures from the PC830
    , the polarities of both pictures will be opposite. So my conclusion was that an inverted picture shows that the clamp was NOT reversed.
    So I don’t understand your comment why my arbument does not work.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Sorry ITER but I don’t think your opinions carry the weight you think they do
    . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIHusZEIwio

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Sorry ITER but I don’t think your opinions carry the weight you think they do
    . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIHusZEIwio

  • note that from I1eff+I2eff=I3eff it seems clear the 3 wires on the E-cat are in phase. at worst two dimmer slightly increase power in one coild then the other…

    in that case, on the e-cat, after the controlbox, U1 and U2 woudl be more or less in phase… no problem for the wattmeter who will integrate all correctly, but for the armchair critics it make all looks weird.

    the typical skeptic behavior is :
    – notice something is not said
    – assume something by wild guess and lazy assumption
    – conclude that it does not work
    – assume that with another nastier wild guess involving conspiracy of stupidity it can give the good results
    – bend a little the numbers, assume errors collude and conspire
    – eliminate all consideration that dissent with the conclusion
    – add innuendo and conspiracy to fill the holes
    – thus conclude LENR does not exist

  • GreenWin

    The Problems with ITER and the Fading Dream of [HOT] Fusion EnergyScientific American

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fusions-missing-pieces-iter-problems/

  • GreenWin

    The Problems with ITER and the Fading Dream of [HOT] Fusion EnergyScientific American

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fusions-missing-pieces-iter-problems/

  • AlbertNN

    There is an alarm if the voltages is not connected in the correct order. There is no such alarm for the currents, and thus it would not give any warning for a inverted current clamp.

  • Josh G

    Interesting. Have you posted this somewhere that Giancarlo et al. are likely to see it so they can respond? Like Mats Lewan’s blog or lenr-forum for example? Do you object to other people posting to see the response?

    • Electro

      I have posted the above comment only here, but have no objection that others post this comment on other forums. We all are interested to find possible mistakes (also mine) and openly discus them.

  • Josh G

    Joniale, what about “Electro’s” analysis in the comment above stating that the polarities shown in the picture of the PCE are actually what you would expect?

  • Omega Z

    It should be known that those doing this test used 4 or 5 other instruments to periodically check voltage/amperage through out the test on various input output cables. This was done in order to be confident in the data acquisitions of the PCE 830’s. That they were functioning properly through out the test.. I find it highly unlikely, in fact ridiculous to think that the testers wouldn’t, notice if something was awry.

    That aside, Any comments on blogs aren’t going to have any impact on the E-cat. Development of it continues regardless what anyone has to say. Then there is the fact that Most of the skeptics haven’t yet grasped the fact that the E-cat technology no longer belongs to Rossi. Should they ever accept this fact, then all their arguments would fall on deaf ears.

    The fact the E-cat is under new ownership & they continue to pump time, money & manpower into this says it works. The question comes back to how far can it be pushed as in high COP & how difficult is it to harness this energy for useful purposes.

  • Omega Z

    It should be known that those doing this test used 4 or 5 other instruments to periodically check voltage/amperage through out the test on various input output cables. This was done in order to be confident in the data acquisitions of the PCE 830’s. That they were functioning properly through out the test.. I find it highly unlikely, in fact ridiculous to think that the testers wouldn’t, notice if something was awry.

    That aside, Any comments on blogs aren’t going to have any impact on the E-cat. Development of it continues regardless what anyone has to say. Then there is the fact that Most of the skeptics haven’t yet grasped the fact that the E-cat technology no longer belongs to Rossi. Should they ever accept this fact, then all their arguments would fall on deaf ears.

    The fact the E-cat is under new ownership & they continue to pump time, money & manpower into this says it works. The question comes back to how far can it be pushed as in high COP & how difficult is it to harness this energy for useful purposes.

  • Frechette

    I lived in Europe for 9 years. Any motor larger than 1 HP (746 Watts) required to be 3 phase. You are right about the Voltage being 230 V of course.

    • note that official voltage have evolved since I’m a kid.
      it was officially 220/380V when I was kid and today it is now 230V/400V with peak at 240V/415V (all device have to accept that)

      this is why people today say “380V” when talking of triphase. it is abusive, but people understand.

      I know tha in france as soon as you house is big and heated with electricity, or it is a work place like butchery or small industry.

      I don’t know the rules, but I noticed that place with big engine were always triphase. those engine are working better (no need of starting capacitor)… and it is cheaper for high consumer.

  • Guest

    you don’t understand electricity.
    we talk of effective current. sqrt of quadratic average of current