LENR archives of posts?

  • On lookkng to see previous posts that I and others have made over the last 8 months, I am surprised to see that there is apparently no "archive" function available. This is a mistake in my estimation. It makes the LENR Forum far less valuable as a venue for first announcements, for beginning new discussions, for scholars to subsequently review and understand how LENR / CF went from "pariah" to established fact. In my view there should be an easily followed path at the Forum to view the deeper history of every subject there, the deeper history of every individual posting there and so on.

    Someone might ask "who cares" about old posts? Just as a small example, I promised recently to allow an older scientist going by the name of "Fusionist" here to review for us his own reported experiences with apparent far over unity heat production predating F-P. I cannot find Fusionist's posts, I cannot find his posts under other names as a "guest". I am lucky that I happened to save separately his most descriptive posts. And after a decent time to allow Fusionist to put up his own descriptions, if he does not, I will post my own archived notes.

    But this specific situation is not the point. The point is that there appears to be a significant lack of functionality at the LENR Forum. Whoever here that has the authority and ability to correct this issue, I hope will do so as soon as possible. I would appreciate if the full archive can be reconstructed and made accessible, at least to members.


  • Thanks for the effort, Barty. I don't see any of the posts by "Fusionist" there-- but what I recall of them was just a few months back, clearly within the last 6 months, not so far back as those particular archives you have linked. I think his earlier "nom de plume" was OEL and then perhaps OEL-GAR. I suppose those may have been his initials, or some other acronym identified with him, his employer or his location. Anyway, I hope he shows up here soon. But at least I have some of his posts saved that I can re-post here to satisfy the question asked by Forum moderator "pelgrim 108" on Saturday morning.

    I believe we are at a stage where we need to pay attention to the details. For example, there is abundant evidence given by Lipinski UGC that protons alone may be key actors in their Li-H system. "Fusionist"s claims and fairly detailed descriptions strongly suggest that somehow lithium may not be at all necessary, that is a strictly Ni-H system can go way beyond unity. If the latter "Fusionist" evidence is taken at face value, then it is likely p + p or p + P with loss of a positron to make the deuterium neutron. We imagine some other direct route, say something like p + p + P --> He 3 may be possible as well, since his system used straight hydrogen. I suppose it could have worked on the 1 part in 6000 of D, by a somehow very efficient D + P --> He 3. But that would also really be amazing. By the way "Fusionist" claimed his analytical tools showed nothing but hydrogen out as I recall with 5 or 6 place mass spec, but that ppm he reported should not have missed natural or synthetic deuterium.

    Whatever, it all (including Lipinski and "Fusionist") needs to be given detailed study rather than placed in a lost archive to be never seen or read again. We don't have to worry about Lipinskis, since they surely have enough energy left to let us all know what they find. But "Fusionist" was close to 90 years old at his postings a few months back, if I recall correctly. Other minor items that show up on the Forum may well prove vital to future understanding. Not to mention the science and technology history information that surely must be preserved here and in the few journals that publish LENR / CF. Big Science has screwed up big time. It would make matters worse if no one analyzed how that happened and how it was overcome.

    • Official Post

    I hijack this subject on archive to raise the question of historical studies on LENR.
    For people researching in epistemology, group psychology, sociology, history, LENR will be a great subject of research.

    If we could expect LENR-Forum, like vortex or ECW to keep their archives, I expect to see the italian skeptics of fusionnefredda who conspire currently to make LENR be canceled in ENEA and INFN, to fire Celani, the mindguarsd at Occasapiens, the tribune of Jenifer Ouelette or Seagel, the "educative" resource of Ivy League schools against cold fusion, and not the less, the Wikipedia biased pages and pathetic discussions, to be erased quickly by the mindguards.

    some noticed the DoE 2004 report on cold fusion is no more accessible... is it the begining of the "erasure" as Thomas Kuhn describe ?
    I don't think so, and I imagine it is rather just incompetence in keeping documents referenced ... but who knows.
    When the acceptance of LENR will be clear, all the mindguards will pretend to have resisted.

    This is why it is important to keep evidence of all the intrigue, public conspiracy, insults, delusions, pathetic arguments, so that people can make a catalog of bad reasoning for later.

    if you read the skeptic crowd on e-cat news, they use many arguments that "look good", and it is very interesting to be immunized against those fallacies.
    The problem that Thomas Kuhn have well documented is that during each paradigm change, the archive of science and media is erased to rewrite a linear and good looking history. the kind you see on wikipravda about quasi-crystals.

    • Official Post

    Hello and thank you for feedback!

    I do not know exactly what you mean, but everything we write in lenr forum is saved for the future! However, it is important that we try to tag so we can find the right search words when we post new threads and posts.

    Here you will find advanced search

    Here you find all members and what posts they have written.

    By clicking on a member so you can see all activity in the forums.

    all the best

  • I have not yet tried your links (this second). But will next thing. I thank you for your personal attention.

    Perhaps naively, I would expect, or hope, that there would be a "button" at the Forum front page or the Portal that says "archives" or one labeled "Forum History" then a folder for "past postings". Maybe I'm asking too much.

    I am glad to read that you have everything archived. I assumed that was the case.

    It is simple (swift, painless) access that was my main concern. And a concern for others who might need to look at the past for whatever reason. (I appreciate Alain's points above in that regard as well.)

    Do I have to save that link you gave to get into "archived" material every time I need it? To reiterate the point, it seems there could be a logical path to search the Forum front page to get there.

  • I guess the problem why you can't find OEL is, that he wrote his postings as a guest, without registration. :fie:

    Yes, you are right, at least initially as OEL and OEL-GAR he was just a guest. I thought he did sign in as a member under the moniker "fusionist" or "Fusionist".

    Fortunately I saved the main points he made, so this is just a "test case" for what might become more difficult issues of postings by others in the future.

    It seems somewhat odd that Fusionist has not returned here in awhile. I hope he is OK!

    Thanks again,

  • I cannot select any one or two items above. It is exactly a correct summary of what has, is and likely will happen. Fortunately the density of information today will probably allow us to avoid the official erasure of all that led up to this failure of the old paradigm and the triumph of the new. But, I think we need to keep the records not only safe, but also accessible.

    I cringe to see the name Jennifer Ouellette-- Google has that on record with what may be an ambiguous coincidence of a NY hat designer of the same name. Oellette single handedly destroyed my ~56 year subscription history with Scientific American which began shortly after my father happened to buy me one in the summer of 1956 (had an article on the "plasma jet"-- I remember well). So from 1957 to 2013 I had diligently saved every issue--- that era is over, with great sadness. [Do not be concerned that I no longer read, I am an AAAS an ACS and an AACR member and do keep myself up to date with the publications from them. I've been thinking of trying New Scientist just to get back to science reportage written with an open mind.....]

    Thanks Alain, please keep up your conscientious concern for the present and future history of science.

  • Thanks again David,

    I see nothing for "fusionist" there, so that was not his member name. For OEL I do see him signing up around March 12, 2015. That was after his most informative posts. I believe he signed up to be able to communicate offline at perhaps the suggestion of you or Barty.

    Anyway, I will wait another couple of days before posting the descriptions OEL [etc] gave us as a guest. As I mentioned, they are different enough to expand our understanding of what might work in a Ni-H reactor.

  • The lack of interest in the RAGOEL reactor causes me to go dormant but now I see there is some renewed interest. So, I'm back as the old fusionist. Thanks, Longview for your concern about my health. I'm almost 90 and still extremely interested in this mysterious interaction of hydrogen with NiO at nanoscale dimensions.

    I'd like to see if my results can be repeated. The most important issue is the green NiO particle size. Must be ball milled until colloidal in size (approaching nanometer dimension). Next is the deposition of this suspension on fiberfrax. The fiberfrax should be vacuum fired at 1000 C to condition the material and protected from moisture until the NiO suspension is added.

  • Great to see you back! I think it is the best thing to try to precisely replicate your process "RAGOEL" (I forgot the name, sorry). Hopefully we could use a quartz or even an alumina tube..... but even those changes might be risky. Perhaps boron from the Pyrex was contributing in some way??

    I saw from some recent reading that FiberFrax may be good to 1790 C, but I also see some types are limited to 1400 or so.

    I suspect you may have an opinion on whether quartz or alumina would be OK.

  • If the discovery of how to use fire seems important this fusion reaction would dwarf it. My reactor melt down was done once and am anxious to repeat it with greater care.

    No problem with either quartz or alumina for the reactor tube. Either would melt if the reaction isn't controlled. The heat generated is enormous.

    I think the reaction is related to the periodicity of the nickel in the nickelous oxide matrix. This nanometer structure allows the proton/nickel interaction to overcome the repulsion barrier between protons with consequent fusion. Fortunately only a very small amount of helium results with this crude arrangement. Stars can get very hot.

    I'm at a loss to remember why I soaked some ball milled NiO into fiberfrax, stuffed it into a tube and run hydrogen gas through the tube while monitoring the temperature years ago while working in my lab. I do remember the big surprise at 830 C. The green NiO was used as paint material for labeling ceramics at work and I was probably interested in decomposition when hydrogen firing.

  • It wold be good if we can use alumina, since most of the replicators around here have already acquired it. I think everybody has pretty much thought of 1400 C as top temperature using Kanthal wire. But with Alumina one can go to 2000 C or more. With the SiC heating element available there is little concern about that failing at say 1300 C as in the past few replications, instead the new working maximum would be closer to 1700 C, if I recall the SiC heater limits..

    I believe I have my old FiberFrax near my present location..... if I did not stupidly ship it 3000 miles away. I will look at it tomorrow or the next day and report. I can cut up the blanket (carbide scissors!) into some reasonably sized pieces for the replicators and of course I can send you some as well. We can get a lot of suitable pieces out of this box. I hope is the higher temperature version, but any is better than none.

    I wonder if there would be a quick and more convenient way to attach Ni to the Fiberfrax. Here is a chemical idea or two. You had mentioned firing the Fiberfrax at 1000 C and I believe you mentioned heating it for a time in a hydrogen atmosphere as well. Was that correct? I'm thinking the exposed oxygens were either reduced to OH or maybe even H or opened to H-H, and that they were already prepared in that way to form a direct oxygen mediated linkage to Ni through the NiO as it drifted by in the solvent system. I know it is a stretch, but perhaps we could leave the Fiberfrax in an oxidized form or even boost that some by oxidizing it intentionally in hot O2, then directly react nickel vapor or with nano particle metallic nickel from some precepitation reaction???? The idea being to end up with exposed oxygens bridging to the nickel atoms. I am beginning to think that redox chemistry is important in Ni to H activity. That is the bond to oxygen may for something susceptible on the other side for the approach of an H or a p+, or even the H2 itself.

    Liquid approaches to depositing the Ni are clearly good from a distribution to the inside of the FiberFrax.

    Anyway, your thoughts on that would be good.


  • I'm realizing through this exercise that an 80 year old brain works much more slowly than a 40 year old one. I'm having recollection problems

    Anyway, I used alumina because it was readily available in the lab. Kanthal would be ok for the heater, I used nichrome. If this process repeats, here is what will happen. At the magic 830 C the H2 dissociates and interacts with the NiO array and all hell breaks loose. If some control isn't present either throttling or heat extraction with a heat exchanger the reactor undergoes meltdown. It happens fast!

    The fiberfrax was hydrogen and vacuum fired before adding the ball milled NiO. The slurry was NiO in amyl acetate with methacrylate binder. Ball milling had been for months in the chem lab. I think about 1 micron is the limit for ceramic rollers because the particles support the rollers and won't fracture further.

    Check into nickel carbonyl as a way to thermally decompose a compound and leave a nanoscale deposit. Loading fiberfrax with this gas and thermally decomposing it would be interesting. Requires extreme protection because of toxicity. We wore gas masks when working with this.

    Thanks for your fiberfrax offer------but I'd have to have a hydrogen cylinder and other accessories here at my daughter's and granddaughters home and it's no no.

  • ""Yes, you are right, at least initially as OEL and OEL-GAR he was just a guest. I thought he did sign in as a member under the moniker "fusionist" or "Fusionist".""

    I'm guilty of using all the above monikers in my posts. Anything that would simplify axcess would be useful.
    My hope is for the forum specifying subject direction for easy access. Also keeping on record my work with a nickelous oxide reactor for initiating hydrogen fusion.

  • After posting my formula for success in initiating hydrogen fusion using a nickelous oxide reactor I had expected some replies. At worst "no success" with the reactor and requesting more detail for preparation. After months there have been no replies.

    Final conclusion: All talkers and no doers out there.