Thanks to Sverre Haslund for pointing out a report mentioned in the new Aftenposten article that was published in June 2018 by the Norwegian Defense Research Institute (FFI) titled Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Fiction or Reality. The author is Jon Øistein Hasvold.
Link is here: https://www.ffi.no/no/Rapporter/18-00678.pdf
The document is mostly in Norwegian, but below is an English Google translation of the conclusion.
Jon Hasvold writes:
“My personal opinion is that LENR is a real phenomenon that one must follow the development of. Alternatively, one has to believe in a conspiracy of independent scientists at many different levels
institutions. That a heat development that cannot be explained by traditional chemical thermodynamics can take place is, in my opinion, documented beyond any reasonable doubt.
“For F&P type reactions, the documentation is very convincing. At the same time, it is clear that much doubtful experimental practice of the e-cat type is discussed online. The technology referred to is often trivial simple and suitable for garage chemists, but what is desirable thinking and what is substance is often difficult to determine. The commercial value of unrestricted access to energy is high, which can tempt for overselling. If a LENR process becomes commercially viable, new issues arise; the energy development is MeV per atom while ordinary chemical reactions are measured in eV per atom. (Or in more common units for chemists: Gigajoule per mole against kilojoules per mole).
“The process must be able to be tamed and if successful, it will lead to a revolution both civilian and military. market. It suggests that the development of a LENR reactor is anything but trivial. Not least, high local energy development can cause material technical problems so that the substrate for the reaction is destroyed. (Some MeV per atom reacted is definitely more than what is handled by chemical reactions). McKubre’s claim is that developments in the field today are limited by the lack of talent, not the lack of money. Removing the “pathological” stamp from CMNS could help young researchers to work with CMNS in the future as well.”