ISCMNS Workshop in Airbus Toulouse - Feedback

    • Official Post

    I have Feedback from LENR-Cities CEO ( @Michel Vandenberghe) about the conference in Toulouse.

    As we can see from the published agenda of the conference, there was strong participation of French scientists, with participation of Jean-Paul Biberian, many theoreticians, but also of a veteran, Jacques Dufour (see "Unconventional Heat Observation in the Hydrogen/Iron/Sodium System"). Russians were well represented too.

    Jean-Francois Geneste beside his two theoretical presentations, presented against his "Challenge", that he launched at LENR-Cities/LENRG event in Milan :
    LENRG G-Day Milano : Airbus and LENR
    (I will make a separate post on that)

    Many of the Russian presentations were also présented at ICCF19.

    According to some, the most "sexy" presentation was done by @fabrice DAVID , so I expect a report from him :evilgrin: (and the paper ^^ ).

    In the room, there was among others, the CEO of Neofire, the CEO of Hydrofusion, and the "business developer" of Brillouin.Swedish (Lundin or Lidgren) and Canada was also represented.
    There was also , Michael McKubre quite Discrete. He was surprised, and impressed by the number of French LENR scientists presents. (this is where every French say Cocorico 8) ).
    At the end he made a small talk, not far from ICCF19 :

    • He said there was many corporations ready to invest mountains of money, as soon as the game is unlocked.
    • Then he repeated again, like during ICCF19, the importance of "collaboration" in the domain. (Michel Vandenberghe took it as a positive word for initiatives like LENR-Cities for their work, and as the need to create scientific ecosystem)

    The conference was well organised, with a visit of A380 assembling hall, and a nice evening on Thursday where people could exchange freely in a nice ambiance.

    EDIT: Michael McKubre did not talk of LENR-Cities or Ecosystem, but his talk about need of collaboration resonated so to Michel.

    • Official Post

    @David Fojt made a report to Peter Gluck on Ego-Out blog

    many points raised, on Airbus and JF geneste, of Airbus application, of Russian contribution.
    David made a link between Geneste's theory and Couannier's theory.

    About McKubre talk:


    Mike McKubre- has said that today not money is the mot difficult problem but how to find open minded people willing to invest in LENR. California in the US is a good place, many laboratories there have money.

    There is also few comments, on Jacques Ruer about transition phases in alloys, and a French scientists about increasing holes in the lattice. It may interest replicators.

    Rossi's works seems respected but the problem to replicate E-cat/Parkhomov is important...

    A report to read on peter's blog !

  • Talking about results:
    Calorimetric investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems
    K.P. Budko and A.I. Korshunov
    Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
    Institute for Problems in Mechanics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

    the conclusion of this Report is quite clear:


    The calorimetric experiments with two types of nickel powders and hydrogen didn’t show any evidence of excess heat within the accuracy of measurement. Possible catalytic effect of LiAlH4 was not found. Possible influence of alternating magnetic field wasn’t noticed: total output power depended only on total input power.

    Moreover: Replication attempts of the Parkhomov experiment gave negative results, no excess heat was measured.

    Very funny, it seems that believers have no interest to consider these clear negative results in this forum. Silence, better not talk here. :oops:

  • I think that something very important is happening behind the scene.
    Something that we, normal people shouldn't be able to check.

    There is a big force that is trying to discredit LENR. It is so important, that it is worth to do anything to stop us.
    Fortunately there are too many people involved in the research that it is not possible anymore.

  • I think that something very important is happening behind the scene.
    Something that we, normal people shouldn't be able to check.

    There is a big force that is trying to discredit LENR. It is so important, that it is worth to do anything to stop…

    Wow. I bet ya can't be stopped then? Whoever might be wanting to stop a couple of loonies, beats me...

    • Official Post

    The negative result is a negative.
    It shows something is missing.

    Biberian on his 20 failures explained that it is normal for scientific experiments to have such number of failures. They were caused by prosaic problems like coil melting.
    The presentation by Biberian was made to warn the replicators about the various difficulties, and the interest of a flow calorimeter.

    YES science is hard, it requires patience and care.

    Note that one key question on the cause of Parkhomov replication failure is about the nickel treatment.
    Rossi in his patent talk of treatment to increase permeability, something like baking wetted nickel.

    David Fojt report exchange with a scientist on that subject... unclear.

    Anyone knowing the early development of semiconductors find that banal.

  • Well now, lets see.

    According to LENR crowd, experiment is all that counts. Actually I must fully agree, physics is an empirical science, after all.

    So what do we have left after Toulouse; only negative empirical results, and a couple of not even wrong cuckoo theories.

    Way to go!

    • Official Post

    Peter Gluck reports more information of the Workshop :

    There is again the idea of a convergence between Urutskoev's and Geneste's theory.

    There was also a presentation of Vladimir Dubink on "Nano-breather".


    A reader has informed us "Please note that Vladimir Dubinko's paper was 'speed' presented during the workshop, worked in on the fly, regarding nano-breathers. It was not in the initial electronic files attendees received but shall be included in a distribution of final proceedings. His same or similar paper was presented in Padua, but at the workshop, with fewer attendees and less quantity of activity going on, seemed to get more attention. Dubinko communicates his ideas very well."

    I have attended his presentation in ICCF19, and yes the presentation are clear. My personal intuition is that emerging phenomenon like discrete breather are one key to LENR. but who knows...

  • Budko and Korshunov's effort is apparently technically competent. It may well be strategic that they have chosen to publish data for a temperature range (25 to 800 degrees celsius) that has rarely, if ever, shown reported over unity COPs in the past. So essentially this would establish the baseline, that is the first of several subsequent investigations in which the temperature is further raised and other parameters might also be varied.

  • It may well be strategic that they have chosen to publish data for a temperature range (25 to 800 degrees celsius) that has rarely, if ever, shown reported over unity COPs in the past.

    So they were so smart that they chosen to run a test in the temperature range where nothing works and excess heat is rarely present.
    Moreover they strategically selected to present this work to ISCMNS Workshop in Airbus Toulouse to demonstrate to other researchers which is the temperature range where COP is ever 1 and it does not work.

    Really fun, it appears like a justification from believer that would invent a tale to minimize negative evidences.

    • Official Post

    Jean paul-Biberian just publish an article in French about the conference.
    http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian…airbus-sur-la-fusion.html (Google translated)

    paragraph are very short for each point and it seems easy to read in googlish.

    I extract few point that I find especially interesting :


    Jean-François Geneste in his introduction explained that LENR ([lexicon]Low Energy Nuclear Reactions[/lexicon]) have possible applications in aviation and space. He announced that they had a sound engine that could be used to confirm the results of a cold fusion generator. For this, it would have to generator has a Coefficient of Performance of at least three and a temperature of 700 ° C.

    Jacques Dufour, used a powder composed of sodium, iron and SiC at a pressure of 7 atmospheres of hydrogen to 1075 ° C in a differential scanning calorimeter. He received an excess of 0.5 Watt. He observed excess corresponds to what is expected of its pico-chemistry theory.

    Korshunov, the Russian Academy of Sciences has tried to reproduce the experience of Parkhomov with a mass flow calorimeter. He tried different types of heating, with a dc winding, pulsed, etc. It was limited to a maximum temperature of 800 ° C, and got no excess heat.

    The final comment is double meaning:


    A total of 9 French made presentations, which is very encouraging given the situation in France

  • Longview responds to "Henry" from ~7 hours ago:

    "Believer" is your word-- rather an inappropriate one in my case, but we don't need to dwell on that here.

    Some of their unpublished experiments may well have gone above 800 C. One viable strategy for scientists and engineers enmeshed in a research and publication establishment is to approach controversial findings cautiously. Your own incredulity is evidence that such caution is necessary. It is in any case necessary to show what does not work, and to show that it can be consistently assessed long before the daunting task of showing what is likely to bring strong critical analysis and even disbelief.

    It is a form of negative control (I know a lot about this in science], that is a deliberate negative is abundantly included to control for untoward sources of positive signals. If the negatives all behave as expected, then one can look at the conditions or inputs that may or may not give a positive (in this case over unity COP as an endpoint) signal. Here, as a preliminary, they chose to show a simple case. That is the range of temperature variation already known or at least widely suspected to give no excess heat production in a Lugano / Parkhomov and now others "replication" which are often loosely based on putative Rossi designs and on his predecessors.

    Even if these authors do not go on to complete the experiment [I will wager they do], they have set a protocol for a plausible negative or at least sub unity COP. The near 99% COPs, also demonstrate that they have good methodology with respect to heat balance and measurement.

    But what do I know? I am not a physicist.... but then again one very famous physicist has confided to me that he would "never again trust any physicist" for a critical view of the LENR / CF field [I paraphrase, except for the quote}.