Third Party Report Finally Gets Permanent Home (Rossi Mentions Updates and Corrections)

The way the new report was released meant that copies are located all over the internet. It seems now that the official home for the report will be located at Elforsk’s website.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi wrote:

The site where the Report of the Independent Third Party has been put and where the Professors will make all the updatings is:

http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-matrapport-publicerad

Some minor corrections already have been made.

I did notice one or two spelling problems in the first draft, which I expect will have been fixed. It’s interesting to hear that we might get some updates. The 2013 report had three editions, so we may see something similar this time.

  • Donk970

    You make a really good point here. The picture could have been of the reactor with a dummy load being run before the real one.

  • hempenearth

    Also Professor Alessandro Passi whose resume in English I couldn’t find. Anyway Passi and Bonetti are thanked for “critical reading of the manuscript”. Is that not peer review?

  • hempenearth

    Doesn’t this guy count as one of the reviewers?
    Prof. Ennio Bonetti (University of Bologna)

    Resume :
    Currently an associate professor at the Department of Physics, University
    of Bologna. Representative for the University of Bologna in the National
    Interuniversity Consortium for the Physical Sciences of Matter. He was director
    of RU Bologna National Institute for the Physics of Matter (INFM) from 1994 to
    2000 Member of the National Board of INFM from 1994 to 2000 Previously 1984-
    1990 member of the Executive Committee of the National Group of Structure of
    Matter (GNSM) of CNR and later (1988-1990), representative of the University of
    Bologna in CINFM (Interuniversity Center for the Structure of Matter).

    Lecturer in “Solid State Physics” (ownership) and
    “Physics of Materials” as part of the degree course in Physics.
    Supervisor of more than 60 dissertations and teacher in charge of 10 curricula
    PhD in Physics. The research was divided mainly on issues related to the
    Experimental Physics of Materials Materials Science and Metallurgy Physics.
    Topics include: Elastic properties and structural metallic materials in
    crystalline, nanocrystalline and amorphous. Thermodynamic stability and phase
    transitions, magnetoelastic properties. Synthesis of nanostructured metallic
    systems and the development of techniques of mechanical spectroscopy.

    He has published about 170 papers in international journals (see the
    entries: Registry publications and other publications). Co -Publisher of 4
    volumes. (I-IV IWOMP : international worksop on metastable phases ) . He was
    organizer and co-organizer of 10 national conferences (I – X National Congress
    on “Nanophase Materials”) and 4 international workshops (I-IV IWOMP:
    international worksop on metastable phases). Member of the scientific advisory
    committees of more than a dozen international conferences and meetings.

    Member of the ‘International Advisory Board of the journal
    “Materials Science Forum”.

    Apologies for anything that was lost in translation

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Maybe the internal glow is caused by gaseous species (lithium etc). Alumina is partly transparent at optical. In other words, maybe the gaseous core is like a bright lamp which partly shines through alumina, but of course inconel wires are opaque to it.

  • Freethinker

    Some of them may choose to be anonymous, and will not be known to the authors even. Some may choose not to, and possibly some may even agree to be recognized in the paper.

    We have little or no chance to find out, unless the authors let us know.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I cannot even see the lines. Sorry.

    I doubt the generated excess heat is from an electrical charge induced in the heating wires by the reaction, that would be too weird. So I doubt the conjecture is correct.

    • psi2u2

      “You cannot explain away the excess heat by saying it does not count because it came from magic induction fairies hiding in the resistor wire.”

      Really? O shit!~

  • Ged

    That’s silly. Look at the images of the reactor glowing in visible light, and remember a control run was done on the same reactor just without fuel and was used as a basis for comparison with the fuel version. The wires can absolutely be less bright than the rest, especially if the core is hotter than the wires and the wires are working by induction (Even if resistive, less power is going in to the wires than the core is making). Simple contrast of heat emissions would make the wires shadowed and has nothing to do with cooling.

    • Freethinker

      There are more issues in swedish fora:

      The image5 of the PCE.830 and the curve from of the signal and the fact that it says OL. My take on this, is if this image is representative of active measurements of the power/voltage and current downstream the control box, and that data was in fact used for computations, then should not the data log indicate error?

      Also there is this issue with the how the control box output is shaped (is it clipped 🙂 ) and the ability of the PCE830 to accurately measure the power.

      You have any take on these two Ged?

      Anyone else?

      • Ophelia Rump

        My take is the authors of the paper should be allowed to respond to questions in the traditional manner.

        Somehow I doubt that the Swedish forum constitutes that setting.

      • Ged

        Easy answer to both: they measured power from the mains -to- the control box as their power in, not only after the control box. Nothing the control box does changes the power in from the mains :).

        Also, they did a control run, same box, sane everything, just in fuel and no excess energy found. So if the control box output was used for the input equations (instead of tge mains which tgey actually used) and was doing something they didn’t see, there’d have been excess heat in the control run, which there wasn’t.

        See, easy refutations right there in the report all along.

    • Omega Z

      Ways to attack a credible report.
      #1 Just Skim the report. nothing in depth.
      #2 Don’t read it at all. Just parrot.
      #3 Cherry pick & use things out of context.

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    After correcting an error in Lithium-7 neutrons counts it now looks like the number of neutrons shed by Lithium-7 matches within about 10% the neutrons that show up in the nickel nuclei.

    Suspicious.

    Pondering how to do an energy analysis to see if this might be the prime source of the energy produced.

    http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html#fuel-analysis

  • Freethinker

    I wrote Arxiv an email, they will of course not reply.
    Well, their bot did, courteous of it, but there will likely be no human intervention.
    I do not understand who Cornell University Library and ArXiv lend itself to political nonsense.

    As time goes this seem to evolve to a great scientific battle, and I cannot for my life see how these people reason. There are bright minds in academia. Minds that realize that, of course there is merit to LENR even though they are dictated in their action by politics, fear of ridicule or simply loosing their grants.

    If academia is not careful, all LENR research will end up as corporate R&D, and the competence in the field will be weak in academia, and rather be treated as pure IP among corporations. I think this is a bad thing, because this field would need a few decades of true ground level research, to go boldly where no corporation dare as the risk is too high and the expected ROI is not good enough in certain directions. We might miss out on, or at least delay, discoveries yet to come, simply because academia cannot stand tall and accept this. Sure there are some bright spots, but I have a feeling they will wither and die if there is not a broader acceptance pretty soon.

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions yet. There are some legitimate questions about the report that might be holding up publication.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Nonsense, the Universities will be funded by new management. Big LENR.
      Those who stand to firmly will be washed away by the changing tide.

      • bachcole

        I am looking forward to that tsunami.

    • Omega Z

      They are Ignoring it.

      I don’t understand. Is this out of order
      I thought it went, 1st they ignore you, etc, etc…

      Sorry, I can’t find my list

  • Curbina

    Ophelia, the report as we knew it won’t be published, but a shorter (15 page max) version is submitted to Journal of Applied Physics D.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Thanks.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Does this mean that it will not be published in a Journal?

    • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

      I can’t think so. There are to much things unclear in this report, and no replications yet. Let’s hope MFMP can make pressure.

      • Freethinker

        A replication by someone else cannot be a prerequisite in the normal case. If you do an experiment, do measurements, ofcourse it can be published. It is more a question of quality, and the fact that this is … ARs ECAT .. ! You know … Tough sale…