“New Result of Anomalous Heat Production in Hydrogen-loaded Metals at High Temperature” New Report by Songsheng Jiang of the China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIAE)

I received the following paper today from Songsheng Jiang who works in the Ni-H Research Group in the China Institute of Atomic Energy, in Beijing, China.

This is the first time I have heard of this institute, but a little research indicates that the China Institute of Atomic Research seems to be a legitimate research institute and according to Wikipedia France is a research arm of the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation.

The author, Songsheng Jiang, has provided a short profile about himself:

The author, Songsheng Jiang
Physicist, Retired professor at China Institute of Atomic Energy, China,
Research interest: Origin of rare isotopes (such as 3He) in the deep Earth and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), see related publications:
[1] Songsheng Jiang, Jing Liu and Ming He, A possible in situ 3H and 3He source in Earth’s interior: an alternative explanation of origin of 3He in deep Earth, Naturwissenschaften (2010) 97:655–662
[2] Songsheng Jiang,XiaomingXu,LiqunZhu,ShaogangGu,XichaoRuan, Ming He, Bujia Qi and Xing Zong Li, Neutron Burst Emissions from Uranium Deuteride and Deuterium-loaded Titanium, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014) 253–263.

 

songsheng jiang
Songsheng Jiang in his office

Here’s the submitted document:

New Result on Anomalous Heat Production in Hydrogen-loaded

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Time to super-size our reactors. Very interesting.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      No. Time to nail down what we have.

  • Svein Arild Utne

    After so many failed attempts by so many, it was good to
    read about Songsheng from China that could show some exec heat. Also that he
    start by evacuating the chamber and only use DC power to heat it, show that
    only heat is enough to get the reaction going. In addition, he is using 20g of
    fuel in stead of 1g as Parkhomove used. So maybe it is easier to get the
    reaction started with more fuel, but maybe more difficult to control? This gave
    answers to many of my questions.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If true (the ash test is the clincher) the DC aspect is the most interesting part of this work.

    • Sanjeev

      Evacuating the chamber is useful. It will ensure that the pressure readings we see are due to H2 mostly and not due to air.
      More fuel will obviously mean more signal, but also more danger of runaway. I guess they started with less quantity and then slowly increased it to get a good COP.

      The DC ! Yes this test can be a good evidence that the requirement of AC is only a belief not a fact. I’ve seen this hypothesis stated again and again as if its a proven fact. I’ve never seen any experiment where the person switches from AC to DC and says – “look it stopped working with DC”. Only such an experiment will prove/disprove it.

      If I recall correctly, Parkhomov also used DC in his first experiments. He wrote that AC is not needed, its in lenr-forums somewhere, where he is a user (now not active).

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        The use of DC is good: it is much more difficult to reliably measure AC, especially AC that is clipped to regulate power. As well, the AC coils will induce noise and maybe some heating current inside the reactor. DC avoids all this. If AC was needed for Parkhomov, it would be a sign of an AC-induced artifact, easily.

        The idea that AC was needed was a project of people taking every word of Andrea Rossi and attempting to extract as much information as possible. So when he wrote that his device ran on AC power, not on DC, they made assumptions. He was almost certainly talking about his controller, which is AC powered. As well, he might be heating with AC, or not. Whatever works, but AC is the cheapest and Rossi doesn’t care about possible artifacts.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    T1 seems to show normal behaviour in the „HAD“ phase. That could indicate a malfunction of T2, possibly due to escaping hydrogen.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      We don’t see a true HAD phase in this experiment. What we see is a flat temperature as a display artifact, the temperature readings there were not real. The actual temperature may have been over 1372 C or this may be totally useless. Problem is, as I read the schematic, both T2 and T3 were exposed to hot hydrogen. In any case, the T2 display below 1372 C appears as that of a malfunctioning thermocouple. The temperature of physical objects doesn’t ordinarily go up and down like that so dramatically, even if heat production in the nickel fuel cylinder were going up and down dramaticallly. T2 would be moderated. Instead it looks extremely agitated.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        That’s why I put „HAD“ in quotation marks. The thermocouple readings might have been influenced by proton conduction, for example. A test of such a TC in a hydrogen atmosphere at comparable temperatures and pressures would be advisable.

  • I hope these results will attract the chinese government to heavily invest into this “anomalous heat effect”!

    This is huge!
    China needs cheap and clean energy more than anyone else.

    No one could stop them when they have the knowledge!

    • SPUTNIK

      that is SPUTNIK

      bip bip bip

      • hehe you got it 😀

    • Omega Z

      Barty
      The World needs a cheap, clean & plentiful new energy source. Oil as we know it has a 40 year life expectancy. Coal maybe 50/60 years. LENR will take 60/75 years for a full transition. LENR will cause a gradual decline in these fossil energies demand. You could say LENR is just in time.

      I could make a list of all the Countries(Excluding the U.S.) & the entities within that are exploring LENR. I could then make another list of all the Entities exploring LENR in the U.S.. The later list would likely be much longer.

      I don’t know why people put so much emphasis on China. LENR isn’t treated any different by them then anyone else. When the 1st known & proven product is in use, Everyone will get on board. This Technology will be adapted by the world. No single entity.

      As you point out, China could really make use of it. As well as India. Both have populations well beyond 1 billion. But as I said in the beginning, The World needs a cheap, clean & plentiful new energy source. Including western nations. Fossil fuels are being depleted at an extraordinary pace & regardless of the present situation, prices will only go up in time.. It is urgent for all the World…

  • Omega Z

    I found something that appears interesting.

    Compare the Ni-H reactor in figure 5 of Songsheng Jiang’s report to what would be slide 12 from the Parkhomov Slides.(Slide 13 is the open chamber)

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/29/parkhomov-slides-from-presentation-on-iccf19-show-lugano-teams-work/

    In the Parkhomov Slide 13, it appears the reactor is copper clad. Low temp testing maybe. Levi would be familiar with that considering all his testing of Rossi’s original e-cat over several years.

    Songsheng Jiang’s Summary, he mentions 2 things of interest. A chopper.
    And a lack of understanding in how to control the Rossi effect. That be about increasing COP.

    Also not sure due to wording on the 0.77. I’ll assume(Ass of u/me) that he means a COP=1.77…

    All in All, It appears Rossi is still a year or 2 ahead at this point. Rossi can manage with much lesser amounts of fuel & is well ahead on the control mechanism & from his posts on JONP of very long SSM, Doing quite well on refining that control.
    ———————————————————————–
    Helium-3??? Whats the chances that the Rossi effect produces Helium-3? Interesting thought

  • Mats002

    If any popular science magazine editor read this: you better write about LENR/Cold fusion NOW if you expect keeping that job.

    • Sorry but I would still wait. This is a very controversial topic.
      But Songsheng wrote that he will do further experiments. Maybe we will hear soon officially from China Institute of Atomic Energy or even better from the china government itself.

      This would be the point to write about it!

      • Mats002

        Everybody is afraid of CF. Politicians will listen to their established science communities, and when do you expect them to promote it? PopSci mags are expected to tell about cutting edge subjects long before your politicians know about it.

        • China has other interests than western oil dependend and producing countries like the US or europe, whichs whole financial system and economy is heavily connected to the oil price.

          I guess when China smells the rat of cheap and clean energy, they can not be stopped by western scientists and politicans.
          And if china has it working, the western countries have to follow to not become the next third world. The typical zugzwang.

          • Mats002

            I can hear western politicians a few years from now asking “why did’nt you tell us about it?”. That day I will laugth out loud!

        • Valeriy Tarasov

          I am confused little bit by the fact that the temperature of the heater T1 is always constant in Fig 7b while, according to the Fig 7b, the power was constant (780W) during 4 hours. Because of heat transfer from T2 to T1 the T1 cannot be constant. I don’t understand this Fig 7b and the text (see quotation below) together. Did I miss something?

          “However, T2 still was working well (it is justified by the later exponentially cooling curve), and T2 (the temperature near fuel cell) was also increased to be higher than T1(the temperature near heater) rapidly. When T2 temperature reached a temperature over 1300C for 10 minutes, the power was turned off for protecting T2 from damage. The self-sustaining heat effect appeared and lasted about 20 minutes, then the T2 temperature went down rapidly. When the temperature decreased less than 1000 C, the power was turned on to 900 W, and an excited state of the anomalous heat production appeared again because T2 was back to be higher than the T1 again. In the most of running time, T2 temperature was kept less than 1200 C by controlling the electrical power. A typical result of temperature variation of T2 and T1 versus input power on 8 May is shown in Figures 7a and 7b.”

          • Arnaud

            T2 has been damaged as well. On the cooling down … T2 is far below T1. But they should go together to an equilibrium due to the setup of the experiment. If there is no added heat, delta T1-T2 must lead to 0. But T2 is below T1 at ~11:30. T2 is damaged!

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Yes. It is a good point.
            For me the presented results are strange. For such topic as LENR the results should be clear.
            I am convinced by Rossi’s results and there is no need to except blindly everything without normal critic. Such advertisemnet will bring only harm to the LENR field.

          • Sanjeev

            May be T1-T2 is not zero. We do not have the data without powder, so nothing can be said. I expect T2 to be less than T1 in normal condition because the heater should be the hottest thing in the setup.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I think the degassing of the chamber is essential. The standard way to run a chemical hydrogenation is to cycle back and forth between vacuum and hydrogen before pressurizing with hydrogen to remove all the air. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC4DT4ier2Q

          • bachcole

            Perhaps I think that it was a duplication because I know that it is possible and the guy put his reputation on the line.

  • Mats002

    If any popular science magazine editor read this: you better write about LENR/Cold fusion NOW if you expect keeping that job.

    • Sorry but I would still wait. This is a very controversial topic.
      But Songsheng wrote that he will do further experiments. Maybe we will hear soon officially from China Institute of Atomic Energy or even better from the china government itself.

      This would be the point to write about it!

      • Mats002

        Everybody is afraid of CF. Politicians will listen to their established science communities, and when do you expect them to promote it? PopSci mags are expected to tell about cutting edge subjects long before your politicians know about it.

        • China has other interests than western oil dependend and producing countries like the US or europe, whichs whole financial system and economy is heavily connected to the oil price.

          I guess when China smells the rat of cheap and clean energy, they can not be stopped by western scientists and politicans.
          And if china has it working, the western countries have to follow to not become the next third world. The typical zugzwang.

          • Mats002

            I can hear western politicians a few years from now asking “why did’nt you tell us about it?”. That day I will laugth out loud!

  • Omega Z

    “Research interest: Origin of rare isotopes (such as 3He) in the deep Earth and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR),”
    Brings to mind-

    Neutronic Fusion, A Deuterium/Helium-3 fusion

    If the Rossi effect produces Helium-3(The presence of Lithium may play a possible roll here in the isotopic shifts), he may have some Neutronic fusion going on. That may explain the energy imbalance that the isotopic shifts discussed in the Lugano test didn’t cover. If you recall, those isotopic shifts only explained about half the energy output.

    Neutronic fusion involves Helium-3 fusing with Deuterium. Regular Hydrogen contains some small percentage of Deuterium. If the Rossi effect creates any Helium-3, you have your fuel. I’m not sure what conditions are required for this reaction to take place, but, I know It doesn’t take 10’s of millions of degrees & millions of pounds of pressure as in Hot Fusion. They could start building power plants tomorrow if Helium-3 was available in quantity.

    Fun Facts about Helium-3:
    1. It would have a value of about $3 billion a ton
    2. 25 tons could power the U.S. for a year.
    3. 100 tons could power the World for a year.
    4. There’s an Estimated 1.1 million tons on the moons surface alone or enough for 11,000 years at present energy use levels. Some estimate 5x that amount.
    5. The byproduct of Neutronic fusion is regular Helium & interestingly, Stray Protons.

    Taken from this article on io9-
    http://io9.com/5908499/could-helium-3-really-solve-earths-energy-problems

    “The proton is a particularly nice side product, since clean energy can be harnessed from this stray proton by manipulating it in an electrostatic field.”
    Direct energy conversion of possibly 70% efficient.

    Curiously, I wonder if this explains Rossi & DGT’s claims of strange energetic effects detected from their reactors. I also read that you can get a stray neutron with this reaction which conjures up Rossi’s experiencing such a phenomenon in 1 of his early day tests under certain conditions.

    My Imagination may have run away on me on this, but thought I’d throw this out there…..

    Note: Here’s a video for some detail, tho much is outdated, the basics of Helium-3 on the moon is of interest. Obviously Certain Entities moon plans haven’t been fulfilled.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rEqHP9dOQ

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is very interesting – mostly because of DC power used and that the Chinese Atomic authority has a Ni+H research group.

    Good work Songsheng Jaing

    I await your ash analysis with keen interest.

    • seems they obbeyed to many good practice demanded by LENR scientists lik Michael McKubre… thermal barie, many thermociuple, stabilized DC, energy above chemistry, heat after death…

      it seems controlled so expect them to answer allc ritics.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Agreed – good experiment – proof will be in the pudding.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Songsheng Jaing’s work has several important aspects as has been identified here, that there are many ways to achieve LENR has been known for decades – some produce massive COPs but sporadically. That this is producing COPs between 1 and 2.5 is consistent with Parkhomov (and emmissivity adjusted Lugano) and the fact that it can be stimulated to do so with more predictability is key. Predictability is something that leads to utility.

    To get higher COPs, there is likely something that is not straight heat to maintain the reaction with lower input power.

    Let’s get that first predictable COP and work from there – many approaches provide many learning points, potential step changes, and avoid tunnel vision, a focussed path allows for historical reference and progressive reasoning.

    Both routes are important – but above all, open, honest, full disclosure sharing is the key to rapid progress.

    Songsheng Jaing and the China Institute of Atomic Energy should be commended for sharing this report – may it be the first of many.

    • Mats002

      And may science and engineering journalists do their expected job to report about new discoveries before Joe average know about it 😉

      • GreenWin

        Highly doubtful in the West.

        • jo6pac

          Very few and when I bring it up people just roll their eyes. The only reason I found this was do to a blogger I read. I have passed it on to others but same effect with eyes. I’m a retired blue collar type but have always been interested in science. I come by here and EGO once a day.

  • Marcus

    Hi,

    just wondering if the ssm is not really an ssm, but due to clipping of the thermocouple measurement: if it can not measure more then 1372°C the core might be heated to more than 1372°C and when power is cut it takes some time to cool down to 1372°C. This would be in line with the second peak, where the power cut is in the middle of the 1372°C plateu: Heater still on, core heated to i.e. 1450°C, power off, core cools down – but not seen in the measurement, since it is clipped at 1372°C due to the setup. Later it reaches 1372°C and cools down further, but the measurement setup shows it only now.

    Regards,

    Marcus

    • Obvious

      A type K melts at about 1400°C, so at 1372°C it is already beginning to fail. Who knows what it does in that in between state, although as long as the melt is conductive it should still work with the un-melted part, depending on a lot of other things. But Type Ks are not certified accurate above 1250°C usually, so by a 1372°C reading who knows what temp it really is.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        I could find no experimental data on K thermocouple behavior above 1372 C. All reports all stop there. My guess is that the temperature display is calculated from look-up tables. There is basically no about about this: the temperature was not constant when the graph shows a flat line. I think this is an artifact of the display procedure.

        The T2 display below 1372 C is quite erratic, while this is not a thermocouple in contact with the fuel. There is thermal mass and some space. This indicates a damaged thermocouple or something odd going on. For example, there could be variable thermal conductivity between it and the nickel fuel cell.

        However, this cannot be fully assessed without the actual data, which was likely collected at high rate.

        They sat there for about three hours with the T2 temperature above range, before deciding to lower the power, (to “protect” T2. Ya think?) and then they only lowered it to about two-thirds of the original power. The effect of lowering the power is only seen in T1.

        Then the jacked the power up *higher* than before. Why?

        I have an idea.

        It’s exciting. More Power! More Power!

        What the field needs is not more excitement, but more patient and careful exploration of the parameter space. We’ve had exciting results for 25 years.

        It is time for boring results with fewer and fewer mysteries. When results show mysteries, simplify, reduce the number of variables, build up a body of knowledge. Burning out thermocouples and heaters and blowing up cells is not telling us much.

        • Obvious

          A agree mostly, but I think we should be intentionally burning thermocouples and running them over limit on the equipment used to test for LENR. Then at least we know what it looks like if it happens during an experiment by accident.
          Edit: One thing to watch for in PID control is that many report 1372°C (or whatever the peak value the unit uses for maximum, sometimes 1250 or 1300) when there is a thermocouple open. This is an overfire safety interlock, to prevent the control from going to full heat, thinking the TC is reading too low.

        • Omega Z

          I agree Abd. There is a huge shortage in patience in all these replication attempts. Situations where necessary materials or equipment don’t arrive in time or what ever should cause the test to be postponed. Not continue going through the motions with no possibility of useable results.

    • Sanjeev

      Good point Marcus.
      If the core heated to more than 1372, then its extraordinary in itself (the heater barely reached 900 for a moment).
      The T2 operated most of the time in clipped mode, and I’m happy that the experimenter is aware of it, that its above limits. May be the meter clips it, because its so constant and smooth.
      Here we can see the trick to control the e-cat- cycle the DC power at a duty cycle just right so that it keeps going to the peak and coming back to be caught by the next pulse. This is exactly the arrangement shown in Rossi’s patent.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    I am confused little bit by the fact that the temperature of the heater T1 is always constant in Fig 7b while, according to the Fig 7b, the power was constant (780W) during 4 hours. Because of heat transfer from T2 to T1 the T1 cannot be constant. I don’t understand this Fig 7b and the text (see quotation below) together. Did I miss something?

    “However, T2 still was working well (it is justified by the later exponentially cooling curve), and T2 (the temperature near fuel cell) was also increased to be higher than T1(the temperature near heater) rapidly. When T2 temperature reached a temperature over 1300C for 10 minutes, the power was turned off for protecting T2 from damage. The self-sustaining heat effect appeared and lasted about 20 minutes, then the T2 temperature went down rapidly. When the temperature decreased less than 1000 C, the power was turned on to 900 W, and an excited state of the anomalous heat production appeared again because T2 was back to be higher than the T1 again. In the most of running time, T2 temperature was kept less than 1200 C by controlling the electrical power. A typical result of temperature variation of T2 and T1 versus input power on 8 May is shown in Figures 7a and 7b.”

    • Arnaud

      T2 has been damaged as well. On the cooling down … T2 is far below T1. But they should go together to an equilibrium due to the setup of the experiment. If there is no added heat, delta T1-T2 must lead to 0. But T2 is below T1 at ~11:30. T2 is damaged!

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        Yes. It is a good point.
        For me the presented results are strange. For such topic as LENR the results should be clear.
        I am convinced by Rossi’s results and there is no need to except blindly everything without normal critic. Such advertisemnet will bring only harm to the LENR field.

      • Sanjeev

        May be T1-T2 is not zero. We do not have the data without powder, so nothing can be said. I expect T2 to be less than T1 in normal condition because the heater should be the hottest thing in the setup.

        • Arnaud

          On the cooldown, the heater is off. It is then expected an equilibrium in the temp inside the reactor. I suspect then a failure in the measurements on the T2 TC.

          • Sanjeev

            Unfortunately, the graph cuts off at 400C. So can’t say whether it reached equilibrium. But I feel more peer review and clarifications are needed now before its taken as a proof.

  • Sanjeev

    Thanks to Alain for the link:

    India to revive cold fusionhttp://asianlite.com/news/indian-news/india-to-revive-cold-fusion/

    According to Raj, the high level group has suggested that cold fusion
    experiments could be started within three to six months in two or three
    laboratories to verify the claims made elsewhere and to validate each
    other’s work.

    I’m pleased to see China and India jumping into CF on a national level.

    • Guest12

      Expecting Japan and Korea to publish their experimental results next, and some real heavy weight industrial giants to move their muscles. The Tsunami is coming.

      • Sanjeev

        Are your expectations based on some news or information ?
        Let us know if you know something. Its difficult to know what’s happening in the far east because of language gaps.

        • Obvious

          A type K melts at about 1400°C, so at 1372 C it is already beginning to fail. Who knows what it does in that in between state, although as long as the melt is conductive it should still work with the un-melted part, depending on a lot of other things. But Type Ks are not certified accurate above 1250 usually, so by 1372 who knows what temp it really is.

        • Omega Z

          “Its difficult to know what’s happening in the far east because of language gaps.”

          Apparently not as much as we think. LENR has spread far & wide & communications find there way back. It may just be a little slower, but the internet has alleviated much of that. It this particular case, They reached out to Frank at ECW. ECW has a long reach & world influence. How cool is that.

    • Jarea1

      Me too. That means CF will not be slowed down anymore and the adoptation speed will be accelerated. Great news from China!!

  • Sanjeev

    Thanks to Alain for the link:

    India to revive cold fusion, 30/5/2015
    http://asianlite.com/news/indian-news/india-to-revive-cold-fusion/

    According to Raj, the high level group has suggested that cold fusion
    experiments could be started within three to six months in two or three
    laboratories to verify the claims made elsewhere and to validate each
    other’s work.

    I’m pleased to see China and India jumping into CF on a national level.

    • Guest12

      Expecting Japan and Korea to publish their experimental results next, and some real heavy weight industrial giants to move their muscles. The Tsunami is coming.

      • Sanjeev

        Are your expectations based on some news or information ?
        Let us know if you know something. Its difficult to know what’s happening in the far east because of language gaps.

        • Omega Z

          “Its difficult to know what’s happening in the far east because of language gaps.”

          Apparently not as much as we think. LENR has spread far & wide & communications find there way back. It may just be a little slower, but the internet has alleviated much of that. It this particular case, They reached out to Frank at ECW. ECW has a long reach & world influence. How cool is that.

    • Jarea

      Me too. That means CF will not be slowed down anymore and the adoptation speed will be accelerated. Great news from China!!

  • Sanjeev

    Great news !

    Its actually a milestone, because once China does this, there will be an exponential rise of LENR+.
    This looks like a fine experiment, not the work of a single person. The equipment and lab show that much effort and money went into it.

    The use of Ni container, quantity of powders and DC shows that they have already gone through the learning curve, trying the usual methods and arriving at something that works.

    It seems Songsheng Jaing and the team are much ahead of other replicators. I hope this will give rise to a new wave of replications in China and neighboring countries. Thankfully they have decided to share the details and the results.

    • Mats002

      Hurra for China!

      • Bob Greenyer

        China and by extension the world, needs this desperately – masks and p10 count are regular parts of daily life their where dirty coal burning and coal blight the lives of 100s millions.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          I agree, if this solid, the Chinese government will be “all in” with research dollars.

    • Omega Z

      I think people get ahead of themselves.
      Obviously, this tests setup had some issues. They will need to redo this several times & could easily take many more months for real conclusions.
      This would be followed by many more months of study before moving on.

      To be fair, We all tend to be overly optimistic thinking the next step will lead to mass produced products. I say We because I include myself in this over optimism. Tho I’ve had enough varied experiences with projects that I should know better. Just shows how easy it is for all of us to be effected by over optimism.

  • Sanjeev

    Great news !

    Its actually a milestone, because once China does this, there will be an exponential rise of LENR+.
    This looks like a fine experiment, not the work of a single person. The equipment and lab show that much effort and money went into it.

    The use of Ni container, quantity of powders and DC shows that they have already gone through the learning curve, trying the usual methods and arriving at something that works.

    It seems Songsheng Jaing and the team are much ahead of other replicators. I hope this will give rise to a new wave of replications in China and neighboring countries. Thankfully they have decided to share the details and the results.

    • Mats002

      Hurra for China!

      • Bob Greenyer

        China and by extension the world, needs this desperately – masks and p10 count are regular parts of daily life their where dirty coal burning and coal blight the lives of 100s millions.

        • e-dog

          Totally agree… when you guys at MFMP getting a set up like the Chinese one?? maybe bigger is better??

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          I agree, if this solid, the Chinese government will be “all in” with research dollars.

    • Omega Z

      I think people get ahead of themselves.
      Obviously, this tests setup had some issues. They will need to redo this several times & could easily take many more months for real conclusions.
      This would be followed by many more months of study before moving on.

      To be fair, We all tend to be overly optimistic thinking the next step will lead to mass produced products. I say We because I include myself in this over optimism. Tho I’ve had enough varied experiences with projects that I should know better. Just shows how easy it is for all of us to be effected by over optimism.

  • Huge.

    Labs around the world are reproducing the Rossi Effect. We are on the cusp of an economic and scientific revolution.

    Watching it play out is fascinating.

  • Jarea

    Well done Songsheng Jian!! Another name that has earned a place in the history together with Parkhomov! Great job!,

  • Huge.

    Labs around the world are reproducing the Rossi Effect. We are on the cusp of an economic and scientific revolution.

    Watching it play out is fascinating.

    • wonderboy

      It’s super crazy to watch!

      How will Rossi respond though.. could this be a serious contender? if it is government backed, they would have more resources then Rossi.

      1 year of operations to prove efficiency and effectiveness is a solid game plan, but if a serious competitor shows up, do you change strategies?

      • Omega Z

        Big money does not always mean faster.
        A 6 month test will always be a 6 month test.
        Time as far as we know is constant.

  • Zeddicus23

    I’m sorry but this is not at all convincing. No calibration. No control. Broken thermocouple. Comparison of temperature near heat source – but OUTSIDE reactor – with temperature INSIDE reactor near fuel. Difference in temperature could be merely due to difference in thermal properties inside reactor with those outside reactor, e.g. T outside reactor (near heat source) due to heat conduction/emission etc. Also have I missed something, but how is excess power estimated? Cannot judge this if it is not properly explained.

    • Sanjeev

      The document says that they saw 400°C more on the TC in contact with the core than on the TC contact with the heater, which was at 900°C.
      Since the heater is expected to supply the heat, the core must remain at the same temperature or lower than heater, if there is no lenr. But in his case, the core heated up more than the heater wire, which means the core became the heat source. And the difference is of 400 for many hours.
      This is what was taken as the evidence of lenr. Just forget about the HAD and power estimates etc, this is the essence.

      May be I understood it wrong, if so please correct me.

      • Obvious

        Even though TC 3 is reported damaged, it records nearly the same temperature as TC1, (the heater TC). TC2 is in between the two, so why does it go so high? It also records OL temperatures, where it is expected to fail. And fail it does, just look at the “grapes” after the OL event, while the other two TCs report nothing unusual.
        I suspect that TC 2 is actually TC 3, and vice versa.

        • Sanjeev

          But T3 is still more than T1, for most part. Not saying that T3 or T2 are not damaged. I agree, there is a chance that the readings are bad. I do not know how he decided that T3 is damaged and not T2.
          May be someone who can contact them (in chinese) can ask the question and ask them to repeat the whole experiment with a type B. Hopefully they have not broken the core yet and it will work again.

          • Obvious

            With T3 in the fuel area, it would need to be disassembled to see, but the data should give it away. In my opinion we can see it in the report, but that is as much as a hunch as anything, when we are not presented with the failure data of the T2 to see what it looks like. A bit more information on the set up would be helpful, and a longer history trace of the TC data, to see the behaviour before “excess” begins. Especially the early heat ramp-up part, which would easily demonstrate the positions of the TCs.
            Edit: I see the screen shot goes back in time, but I don’t know what the wild blue trace is.

          • Sanjeev

            After some more thinking and looking at the chart, I began to doubt too if its T2 that’s faulty.
            When the excess was happening, T1 is not affected at all. Why ? It should rise a little and not remain constant.

          • Obvious

            Yup. There is something weird here. The second, small heat pulse does affect the others, but not the big off scale section. (Figure 7a)

          • Obvious

            How about:
            T4 diagram = T4 real
            T1 diagram = T3 real
            T2 diagram = T2 real
            T3 diagram = T1 real
            When the power is increased, the order of reaction by the TC wires based on the traces is green (small spike first, but I think the wire is broken but touching), then red, then orange.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The blue trace is very likely T3. T3 and T2 track closely, one is inside the nickel box, the other is just outside, until the temperature reaches something like 1000 C. Then T3 blips up, then goes to zero, then is erratic. T2, very shortly thereafter, starts its rise and goes off-scale quickly.

            From then on, T2 indicates higher than T1. T1 does rise, reflecting possible additional heat. The elevated heat stays until more than a day later, when the power is reduced, T2 briefly falls to lower than T1, then jumps way up again when power is cranked up. Then when power is shut off, T3 rapidly falls to below T1.

            There are worries about hydrogen. Both T2 and T3 are exposed to hot hydrogen gas. T1 is not, it is outside the reactor.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            T3 is reported as broken. However, T2 *looks* broken. And that it would break, fail, would not be surprising at all. T2 and T3 were both exposed to hot hydrogen for substantial periods.

            They claim T2 is not damaged based on the cool-down readings, which look okay, but so do those readings from T3.

            However, this is odd: no matter which way the heat is flowing, the temperature of T2 should be between that of T1 and T3. Instead, T2 goes below both.

            These temperature readings cannot be trusted without calibrations and repeatability.

            That DC was used for heating was excellent, eliminating one of the possible artifacts: AC noise and possibly induction heating through the conductive fuel core. However, not yet enough to make this ready for prime time.

          • Sanjeev

            Agree. I emailed him. Lets see if the results are called back or any new info appears (if he replies).

          • Frank Acland

            I have sent a list of questions regarding the experiment, ones discussed here and others, and he says he will get to them on Monday.

          • Sanjeev

            Great. Thanks Frank.

      • Andy Kumar

        “May be I understood it wrong, if so please correct me.”
        You misunderstood the significance of the broken setup. But unfortunately, I don’t understand any better to try to teach you.
        What I wonder is why hurry to put out a half baked report. Why not fix the set up and publish complete results. And then the LENR people complain that PTB don’t take them seriously.

    • bachcole

      Perhaps I think that it was a duplication because I know that it is possible and the guy put his reputation on the line.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Yep. There is no clear explanation how exactly this guy calculated excess energy.

  • LuFong

    COP of 1.8: (Excess Heat + Input Power)/Input Power = (600+780)/780 = 1.77

    The differences in the reactor are also interesting.

  • Sanjeev

    The document says that they saw 400°C more on the TC in contact with the core than on the TC contact with the heater, which was at 900°C.
    Since the heater is expected to supply the heat, the core must remain at the same temperature or lower than heater, if there is no lenr. But in his case, the core heated up more than the heater wire, which means the core became the heat source. And the difference is of 400 for many hours.
    This is what was taken as the evidence of lenr. Just forget about the HAD and power estimates etc, this is the essence.

    May be I understood it wrong, if so please correct me.

    • Obvious

      Even though TC 3 is reported damaged, it records nearly the same temperature as TC1, (the heater TC). TC2 is in between the two, so why does it go so high? It also records OL temperatures, where it is expected to fail. And fail it does, just look at the “grapes” after the OL event, while the other two TCs report nothing unusual.
      I suspect that TC 2 is actually TC 3, and vice versa.

      • Sanjeev

        But T3 is still more than T1, for most part. Not saying that T3 or T2 are not damaged. I agree, there is a chance that the readings are bad. I do not know how he decided that T3 is damaged and not T2.
        May be someone who can contact them (in chinese) can ask the question and ask them to repeat the whole experiment with a type B. Hopefully they have not broken the core yet and it will work again.

        • Obvious

          With T3 in the fuel area, it would need to be disassembled to see, but the data should give it away. In my opinion we can see it in the report, but that is as much as a hunch as anything, when we are not presented with the failure data of the T2 to see what it looks like. A bit more information on the set up would be helpful, and a longer history trace of the TC data, to see the behaviour before “excess” begins. Especially the early heat ramp-up part, which would easily demonstrate the positions of the TCs.

          • Sanjeev

            After some more thinking and looking at the chart, I began to doubt too if its T2 that’s faulty.
            When the excess was happening, T1 is not affected at all. Why ? It should rise a little and not remain constant.

          • Obvious

            Yup. There is something weird here. The second, small heat pulse does affect the others, but not the big off scale section. (Figure 7a)

          • Obvious

            How about:
            T4 diagram = T4 real
            T1 diagram = T3 real
            T2 diagram = T2 real
            T3 diagram = T1 real

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The blue trace is very likely T3. T3 and T2 track closely, one is inside the nickel box, the other is just outside, until the temperature reaches something like 1000 C. Then T3 blips up, then goes to zero, then is erratic. T2, very shortly thereafter, starts its rise and goes off-scale quickly.

            From then on, T2 indicates higher than T1. T1 does rise, reflecting possible additional heat. The elevated heat stays until more than a day later, when the power is reduced, T2 briefly falls to lower than T1, then jumps way up again when power is cranked up. Then when power is shut off, T3 rapidly falls to below T1.

            There are worries about hydrogen. Both T2 and T3 are exposed to hot hydrogen gas. T1 is not, it is outside the reactor.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          T3 is reported as broken. However, T2 *looks* broken. And that it would break, fail, would not be surprising at all. T2 and T3 were both exposed to hot hydrogen for substantial periods.

          They claim T2 is not damaged based on the cool-down readings, which look okay, but so do those readings from T3.

          However, this is odd: no matter which way the heat is flowing, the temperature of T2 should be between that of T1 and T3. Instead, T2 goes below both.

          These temperature readings cannot be trusted without calibrations and repeatability.

          That DC was used for heating was excellent, eliminating one of the possible artifacts: AC noise and possibly induction heating through the conductive fuel core. However, not yet enough to make this ready for prime time.

          • Sanjeev

            Agree. I emailed him. Lets see if the results are called back or any new info appears (if he replies).

          • ecatworld

            I have sent a list of questions regarding the experiment, ones discussed here and others, and he says he will get to them on Monday.

          • Sanjeev

            Great. Thanks Frank.

  • Sanjeev

    Good point Marcus.
    If the core heated to more than 1372, then its extraordinary in itself (the heater barely reached 900 for a moment).
    The T2 operated most of the time in clipped mode, and I’m happy that the experimenter is aware of it, that its above limits. May be the meter clips it, because its so constant and smooth.
    Here we can see the trick to control the e-cat- cycle the DC power at a duty cycle just right so that it keeps going to the peak and coming back to be caught by the next pulse. This is exactly the arrangement shown in Rossi’s patent.

  • Andy Kumar

    Is he going to publish the results on JoNP? ECW is ok for a quick press release. But with all due respect, ECW is not setup for peer review. Apart from Axil, only a few people here have any theoretical understanding of LENR.

    • bachcole

      Fortunately, we are replete with those who are insightful when it comes to soft or social evidence. (:->)

      • wonderboy

        Well it’s good to have both. Those who have that understanding can help us common folk… I like to think of my self as a cheer leader…

        A uptight snobby pretentious judgmental cheerleader 😀

        Go Rossie, If he can’t save our world, no one can! goo ECAT!

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Does anyone have a ” theoretical understanding of LENR” ???

      • Andy Kumar

        Bernie,
        I stand corrected. I should say that Axil has the theoretical background and deep insights (as evidenced by his theoretical speculations sans mathematical pretensions) that may, one day, lead to theoretical explanation of the Focardi-Rossi effect. Let us give the late pioneer due credit.

        • keV

          As I recall (it’s been a few years now though) Rossi was originally experimenting on his own and found excess heat and contacted Focardi to basically confirm that he wasn’t getting false readings etc.. So I don’t think “Focardi-Rossi” effect is correct. He was a good friend of Rossi and no doubt was invaluable to him as a confidante.

          Rossi has stood on other shoulders for sure regarding LENR/Cold Fusion, but then so did Einstein (general/special relativity) and Newton (Gravity).

          If this 1MW plant is the real deal and is proven to work as stated, then personally I think “Rossi Effect” is a fair label.

    • Mike Ivanov

      With all respects, it looks like there is something really wrong with “peer review” mantra these days…

    • quax

      Theoretical understanding of Quantum Mechanics in general is rather underdeveloped, it really isn’t taught enough on the high school level. And while online resources like Khan academy do a great job with teaching math, QM is only touched on in Chemistry, and there are no meaningful exercises despite Khan academy covering complex numbers quite nicely.

      It doesn’t have to be that way, QM can be taught in a much more visual way, and I would like to bring this approach to the web.

  • bachcole

    I would call this a replication.

  • Ged

    There have been two potentially successful ones I believe (not counting ongoing), but no one quite to the same level of output yet, no.

  • e-dog

    woooooooooow … amazing

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Does anyone have a ” theoretical understanding of LENR” ???

    • Andy Kumar

      Bernie,
      I stand corrected. I should say that Axil has the theoretical background and deep insights (as evidenced by his theoretical speculations sans mathematical pretensions) that may, one day, lead to theoretical explanation of the Focardi-Rossi effect. Let us give the late pioneer due credit.

  • Obvious

    A agree mostly, but I think we should be intentionally burning thermocouples and running them over limit on the equipment used to test for LENR. Then at least we know what it looks like if it happens during an experiment by accident.

  • Omega Z

    Big money does not always mean faster.
    A 6 month test will always be a 6 month test.
    Time as far as we know is constant.

  • Omega Z

    I agree Abd. There is a huge shortage in patience in all these replication attempts. Situations where necessary materials or equipment don’t arrive in time or what ever should cause the test to be postponed. Not continue going through the motions with no possibility of useable results.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I think the degassing of the chamber is essential. The standard way to run a chemical hydrogenation is to cycle back and forth between vacuum and hydrogen before pressurizing with hydrogen to remove all the air. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC4DT4ier2Q

  • Paul Smith

    I think that there is something strange. When T1 and power are constant and T2 increases to very high values it seems that there is anomalous heat inside the reactor. But it cannot be true as in this case T1 also MUST increase for heat conduction inside the reactor. During this phase, where does go this supposed anomalous heat if it doesn’t affect the T1?

  • Paul Smith

    I think that there is something strange. When T1 and power are constant and T2 increases to very high values it seems that there is anomalous heat inside the reactor. But it cannot be true as in this case T1 also MUST increase for heat conduction inside the reactor. During this phase, where does go this supposed anomalous heat if it doesn’t affect the T1?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      T1 does increase. Look at Figure 6, which is the same reactor. Jiang’s response was good, I’m feeling a little more confident, but there is still quite a way to go before results are definitive.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Jones Beene who posts often on the Vortex-L mailing list proposes that a comparison between the following two reactor loadings is required to move forward:

    1. Ni and LiAlH4
    2. Al and LiAlH4 (or Mg and LiAlH4)

    Substituting Aluminum or Magnesium for Nickel, addresses concerns he has about chemical energy effects and hydrogen heat from LiAlH4 decomposition. See this link to read more about this and his other concerns: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg102959.html

    The comparison proposed by Beene has some merit in my opinion. Doing it would definitely add to the knowledge base of this realm of research.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is a good null, if piantelli is right – then one of the first products other than silicon from Al is Mg so both are good tests.

      Neither are transition metals, so according to piantelli cannot create the proton ejectile springboard, so both should have nulls and both are what would likely be in the cell ordinarily.

      • Axil Axil

        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/2012Mitsubishi-XMT-Summary.jpg

        Here are the transmutation products produced by Mitsubishi. In generat, anything can be transmuterd to anything else. Piantelli is in error when he states that only transition metals can support trnsmutation. Enen Rossi’s early patents list many nano metal transmutation precurers and produces.

        LeClair even produces trnsuranic elements.

        • Bob Greenyer

          That there appear many ways to create transmutations is not in doubt.

          I think you are confusing transmutation of target, with source of ejectile.

          Mitsubishi/Technova use Pd (which is a transition metal) as the basis for their D driven effect, Piantelli chooses not to use this as there are 100s of possible outcomes making it very difficult to study. It is clearly a different process, as the Japanese say, they thing that the process may be driven by D or Alpha. in any case, the cause of the ejectile is the transition metal Pd.

          Piantelli specifically says that his understanding of Proton based transmutations starting with Ni does not work with D.

          The Ni + H can transmute any element up to the limitation of a proton projectile with energy of 6.7 MeV. It stands that it is the transition metal Ni that is the basis for the proton ejectile.

          LeClairs work is materially different.

          So I repeat, since the suggested loads include no transition metal, IF Piantelli is right, there will be no excess heat.

          • Axil Axil

            Mazono has shown that the LENR reaction is supported in all combinations of nickel and palladium together with D and H.

            See table 1 on page 19.

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf

          • Bob Greenyer

            I am not wedded to any theory – I started my statements with phrases like “if we are to assume piantelli”

            The reported transmutations of Lugano and Parkhomov support Piantelli theory, that does not mean it is correct.

            I am not sure what your point is, I was talking about a claimed path to cause transmutations – and IF it is correct – these to proposed reactor loads would be unlikey to cause transmutations.

          • Axil Axil

            My point…As an experimenter, your thinking must be cleansed of theory.

            I my opinion, LENR is topological, relating to shapes and the sizes of things…anything.

            LaClair uses aluminum in his reactor.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Jones Beene who posts often on the Vortex-L mailing list proposes that a comparison between the following two reactor loadings is required to move forward:

    1. Ni and LiAlH4
    2. Al and LiAlH4 (or Mg and LiAlH4)

    Substituting Aluminum or Magnesium for Nickel, addresses concerns he has about chemical energy effects and hydrogen heat from LiAlH4 decomposition. See this link to read more about this and his other concerns: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg102959.html

    The comparison proposed by Beene has some merit in my opinion. Doing it would definitely add to the knowledge base of this realm of research.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is a good null, if piantelli is right – then one of the first products other than silicon from Al is Mg so both are good tests.

      Neither are transition metals, so according to piantelli cannot create the proton ejectile springboard, so both should have nulls and both are what would likely be in the cell ordinarily.

      • Axil Axil

        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/2012Mitsubishi-XMT-Summary.jpg

        Here are the transmutation products produced by Mitsubishi. In generat, anything can be transmuterd to anything else. Piantelli is in error when he states that only transition metals can support transmutation. Even Rossi’s early patents list many non metal transmutation precurers and products.

        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/2012MHI-LENR-XMTs.jpg

        LeClair even produces trnsuranic elements.

        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/2012Na-Mg-Al.jpg

        • Bob Greenyer

          That there appear many ways to create transmutations is not in doubt.

          I think you are confusing transmutation of target, with source of ejectile.

          Mitsubishi/Technova use Pd (which is a transition metal) as the basis for their D driven effect, Piantelli chooses not to use this as there are 100s of possible outcomes making it very difficult to study. It is clearly a different process, as the Japanese say, they thing that the process may be driven by D or Alpha. in any case, the cause of the ejectile is the transition metal Pd.

          Piantelli specifically says that his understanding of Proton based transmutations starting with Ni does not work with D.

          The Ni + H can transmute any element up to the limitation of a proton projectile with energy of 6.7 MeV. It stands that it is the transition metal Ni that is the basis for the proton ejectile.

          LeClairs work is materially different.

          So I repeat, since the suggested loads include no transition metal, IF Piantelli is right, there will be no excess heat.

          • Axil Axil

            This is only one fundimental cause for LENR. Even the LeClair reactor uses this same fundimental mechanism. All the other causes in all the LENR experiments are emergent from that fundimental principle.

            Mazono has shown that the LENR reaction is supported in all combinations of nickel and palladium together with D and H.

            See table 1 on page 19.

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf

          • Bob Greenyer

            I am not wedded to any theory – I started my statements with phrases like “if we are to assume piantelli”

            The reported transmutations of Lugano and Parkhomov support Piantelli theory, that does not mean it is correct.

            I am not sure what your point is, I was talking about a claimed path to cause transmutations – and IF it is correct – these to proposed reactor loads would be unlikey to cause transmutations.

          • Axil Axil

            My point…As an experimenter, your thinking must be cleansed of theory.

            I my opinion, LENR is topological, relating to shapes and the sizes of things…anything.

            LaClair uses aluminum in his reactor.

  • quax

    Theoretical understanding of Quantum Mechanics in general is rather underdeveloped, it really isn’t taught enough on the high school level. And while online resources like Khan academy do a great job with teaching math, QM is only touched on in Chemistry, and there are no meaningful exercises despite Khan academy covering complex numbers quite nicely.

    It doesn’t have to be that way, QM can be taught in a much more visual way, and I would like to bring this approach to the web.