Conversations on LENR with John MaGuire (Ed Storms and Frank Acland)

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/09/28/conversations-on-lenr-with-john-maguire-ed-storms-and-frank-acland/']John Maguire is a journalist and interviewer who has been interested in the LENR/cold fusion field for some time, and he has interviewed some interesting interviews with people in the field. He has recently published a couple of new interviews on his Pentamental show on Syncbook Radio, which subject with Edmund Storms and myself, Frank […][/feedquote]
  • for the lasy one,
    the post on LENR Explained
    http://lenrexplained.com/2016/…s-on-pentamental-podcast/
    and the podcast on pentamental itself
    http://thesyncbook.com/network/?rtag=pentamental&ep=18


    can someone make a transcript of the podcasts ?


    EDIT: I though about using youtube but it seems not to work on MP3, however it seems manual transcription can be helped by some players
    https://transcribe.wreally.com/ Not sure if it is good tool. When I have time I may try, but I'm afraid it will be only in 2027...

  • I could make a youtube auto caption with
    tunestotube.com
    into a private video with a picture and the mp3


    I don't have time yet to read or correct it, but it can help native english hearers to make good captions
    I put cations files as an attachment for those trying to translate manually.

  • I found time to hear Ed Storms interview.


    There is a review of history, and presentation of various question on theory, and hydroton ideas.


    The is a description of the problem of LENR community, of the damage caused by mainstream opposition.
    He describe the various people inside this community, and I noticed beside those who observed LENR, some profile that he don't like : the people who love LENR because there is no rules, and they can say anything they like whatever are the evidences.


    In the interview one metaphor caught my attention, because it explains some recent result of Edmund Storms : that temperature control the reaction.


    LENR reactor is like a car engine.

    • The NAE are the cylinders, and you have to build NAE to have reaction. There is key research to do about creating the NAE, and not enough was said by early experimenters.
    • Temperature, which control the D2 diffusion, is like the throttle.
    • If you have high temperature but not NAE, you have nothing because no "cylinder" is there to be throttled.

    This interview is a good synthesis, of the history and the challenges.
    Beside the car engine image, I don't see really new message, but there is much for newcomers.

  • In the interview one metaphor caught my attention, because it explains some recent result of Edmund Storms : that temperature control the reaction.


    This is a bit odd, because I have known since 2011 that LENR reaction rates increased with temperature, and it seems to be common knowledge. However, for whatever reason, few researchers took advantage of this with PdD. That is what Storms did, in creating a "heat after death" experiment in a different way than has been common. Pons and Fleischmann allowed the electrolyte to boil away, which was messy, but they reported significant HAD.


    Storms, instead, maintained the electrolyte at an elevated temperature with a heater, thermostatically controlled. I had suggested this for Lett's work, way back. Letts also predicted, has a formula that works for him, increase of XE with temperature.


    Most experiments, however, allowed temperature to vary. That is what I didn't like about Lett's otherwise very interesting work, hence my suggestion. I don't know if it has been followed, Letts is active. Maybe I should ask him.


    Then, having obtained a reaction in the normal manner (loading the palladium cathode, prepared as Ed prepares cathodes, to high loading), and seeing significant XE, Storms turned off the electrolytic current.


    The excess heat remained with no decline. So (if this can be confirmed) the common idea that heat varied with electrolytic current density was a kind of error, probably caused by correlation of current density with loading and thus cathode preparation a la Storms -- setting up NAE through nanocracks. With the electrolytic "pressure" turned off, the cathode will deload, so, as well, the correlation with loading may have been the same kind of error. This is "heresy"!!!


    (But it is quite plausible, given Ed's basic theory, setting aside his specific reaction mechanism, just the "theory" of how the reaction is set up, which was heavily based on experimental results.)


    Turning off the current, Storms replaced the heating effect of that current with an increase in heating power, but heating power would also be thermostatically reduced by any XE. (this is a quite reasonable way of doing calorimetry that can be additional to other forms, a confirmation. This was suggested by some early skeptics! Maintain the experiment at an elevated temperature with heater power. This is similar to running in a room at higher temperature. Is this "input power"? It could be replaced, if there is XE, by good insulation. If, however, the input power to the heater is reduced to zero, it can no longer control the temperature..... However, most experiments, scaled down as these are, will not generate that much heat.)


    Actually, I take that back. There could be controlled cooling introduced, this could be flow calorimetry with cooling possible. Or the "insulation" could have controlled conductivity. I once suggested mirrors that could be turned. I don't know if that would be practical.


    Storms, in that same self-published work, reported that "active cathodes" may be cleaned and stored and, placed back in a cell and loaded with deuterium, generate immediate XE. If this is confirmed, it has major implications (creating "replicable experiments!"). I was very interested in the dual laser work of Letts, and Letts is work I have suggested for Phase II research. Confirming or disconfirming Storms would be just as advisable, if not more. This is quite generic and of high interest, and not really far out of what is already known.


    Phase I work, as I defined it, was work to confirm and nail down what is already confirmed. At this point, funding for that work is highly justifiable. Both U.S. DoE reviews actually recommended it. It is highly likely to produce results of high interest. That's important for funding! While this work might be expensive, it is not speculative. Hence convincing funding sources should not be difficult (and this proved to be true, apparently).


    Phase II work is confirmation/disconfirmation of interesting results already reported. It is not exploratory, and hence also likely to generate results of interest, even if they are "negative." If apparently negative, this work would attempt to identify artifact by controlled experiment. If that cannot be done, continued research may be in order, until the experiments are understood (as to reality of some effect. "Understood" does not necessarily mean that predictive theory has been developed.)


    In Phase III, the funding logjam has been broken. There will be massive exploration and the physics community will be taking up the challenge of explanation. There will be breakthroughs in commercial possibilities, and CMNS theory will become predictive and harmonized with mainstream physics. Whether or not that requires a modification of the fundamentals of mainstream physics, my view, cannot be predicted at this time. Physics will, however, remain the province of physicists, as it should be.


    All we needed to confront was the common declaration of impossibility, which was based on ignorance and lack of imagination.

  • But it is quite plausible, given Ed's basic theory, setting aside his specific reaction mechanism, just the "theory" of how the reaction is set up, which was heavily based on experimental results.


    This is how I first consider his theoretical work, as a phenomenological theory induced by experiments.
    Hydroton talk to me (it is simple) , but seeing how other theorist reject it I won't be surpised if it is not the exact NAE...
    I just catch the idea of NAE Cylinder, and diffusion throttling.


    By the way this simple engineering model could be productive to design a stable reactor.
    If we get from Ed a simple model of the throttling (temp->diffusion->energy. I think he have it ), then connecting that model cylinder&throttle to a thermal model (dry, wet, phase change or not, bulk or powder) maybe there will be ideas to make a stable HAD ?




    Storms, in that same self-published work, reported that "active cathodes" may be cleaned and stored and, placed back in a cell and loaded with deuterium, generate immediate XE. If this is confirmed, it has major implications (creating "replicable experiments!").


    I hope this can be done, but transporting electrodes may be tricky (no idea how fragile is the cylinder).
    If it works it is great.


    Dennis Letts triggering by THz and laser is something new to the Cylinder and diffusion throttle model.
    This probably mean much about how works the engine.


    we are not far I think.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    This is how I first consider his theoretical work, as a phenomenological theory induced by experiments.
    Hydroton talk to me (it is simple) , but seeing how other theorist reject it I won't be surpised if it is not the exact NAE...


    It is merely at this point, to me, the most plausible suggestion. It suggests experimental approaches, which are then worthy of testing. Ed claims that Hagelstein claims "vacancies." More recently, I think I saw "surface vacancies" in a Hagelstein paper. Simple vacancies seem implausible, because vacancies in palladium are a simple function of temperature. It would have to be more complicated to explain the replication difficulties. That's Ed's basic point. Assuming that cracks of a particular size (I have called this "resonant") does explain much.


    Quote

    I just catch the idea of NAE Cylinder, and diffusion throttling.


    By the way this simple engineering model could be productive to design a stable reactor.
    If we get from Ed a simple model of the throttling (temp->diffusion->energy. I think he have it ), then connecting that model cylinder&throttle to a thermal model (dry, wet, phase change or not, bulk or powder) maybe there will be ideas to make a stable HAD ?


    Ed's HAD lasted for hours, until he shut it down by allowing the electrolyte to cool. So we don't know duration from experiment. How far down could deloading go? Could the cathode be reloaded quickly? Lots of experimental questions. First comes simple confirmation, repeating the experiment, as closely as possible.


    Complicating this is that Ed does not appear to be willing to disclose all details. He has funding from sources that may be imposing restrictions on him, wanting intellectual property. I'm not really sure about this, But I do know that Ed has done a great deal of research he has not published. I suggested to him that having an assistant who would, at least, document everything, would be helpful to him. He was negative about that.


    Quote

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    I hope this can be done, but transporting electrodes may be tricky (no idea how fragile is the cylinder).
    If it works it is great.


    Ed did not give storage details (and I asked). However, the implication was "nothing special." this is a metal with surface nanostructure. The cracks may heal with time and relief of stress. Nevertheless, they might be persistent. And if they are, then cathode preparation could become a business, and independent reliable experiments possible, using a "standard product" available on the market. Pretested.


    Quote

    Dennis Letts triggering by THz and laser is something new to the Cylinder and diffusion throttle model.
    This probably mean much about how works the engine.


    Letts found resonances in the ThZ region, generated by beating together two higher-frequency lasers. Ed speculates that the sum frequency is instead operative, though that would be weaker than the difference. Ed doesn't like the implications: the resonances in the band where Letts found them was predicted by Hagelstein phonon theory.


    None of this work is confirmed yet. Ed tried to confirm the Letts dual-laser finding, but may not have understood how to handle the lasers. He did not publish this.


    The field is ripe for hordes of graduate students, there is plenty to do. Funding is appearing. All the students need is supportive professors and assurance that they won't be trashing their future by working on "cold fusion."


    The time has come.

  • The field is ripe for hordes of graduate students, there is plenty to do. Funding is appearing. All the students need is supportive professors and assurance that they won't be trashing their future by working on "cold fusion."


    That seems clear to me, and blockage seems from the authorities and the hierarchies.
    Seeing how things refuse to change, even to adapt to modernity, increasing gap with reality, I expect that only deliquescency of the system and the collapse can allow evolution.
    I'm afraid it won't be far, from US/DE/FR/UK evolution in process.


    I've talk to master-level students interested in that domain, ready to make a startup... in French I would call that
    "La Bohème Entrepreneuriale"...
    A startup version of Hippies.


    I know labs (biochemistry, semiconductors/MEMS) that could do the job in (college/engineering) schools, but have no network to make it done. LENR-Cities even have found labs, much more experts, ready to be funded (one in north UK, one it north IT, some in CH, in NO)

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    That seems clear to me, and blockage seems from the authorities and the hierarchies.


    I'll grant the "seeming" and not the reality. This is part of the training I mention. "Blockage" is a story that we tell to justify not doing anything or our own failure to move ahead. In the training. The fact is that progress is being made. There is resistance in some places. So move around it? The training looks at the stories we tell ourselves, with reference to whether they empower or disempower us. "They won't let me -- or us" is obviously a disempowering story, a generalization and universalization of some particular experience or set of experiences. Rather, the training will ask what is missing in us that stops us!


    We are responsible for what we create and do not create. In order to avoid crushing shame -- taking responsibility for the world as it is! -- the training points out that shame is based on illusions about good and bad, and that it is all "empty and meaningless." There is more, because the "empty and meaningless" of the training is not despair or nihilism, quite the contrary. Rather it's a tool for setting aside the vast piles of "meaning" that we created as children. We would say "we created" rather than "they made us this way," because the latter is disempowering, even though there could be some "truth" to it. What is empowering is to take full responses for the choices we made, even as children, because this gives us maximum power. If we chose something one way as children, we can, now, choose it another.


    Quote

    Seeing how things refuse to change, even to adapt to modernity, increasing gap with reality, I expect that only deliquescency of the system and the collapse can allow evolution.


    It's crucial to return to basic ontology. "Things" do not "refuse to change." Reality is reality, and it is apparently, from one point of view, in constant transformation, and from another, there is never any change at all! Which of these stories one operates on may depend on the chosen purpose. I deal routinely with situations where known and established research is contrary to standard public practice. In education, for example. The damage is enormous. Now, what can I do about this?


    A lot! One action at a time, one child at a time that I can protect, one person in positions of authority that I can reach. This, especially the latter, takes skill in communication. It is not easy. I have failed many times. Does this mean that it is impossible?


    Of course not! My failure is just may failure, a goal I declared that I did not reach. Yet.


    And, in fact, I often succeed. The world is transforming and I see that very often.


    People are the way they are for evolutionary reasons, often. The human brain was designed for, first of all, survival, in situations where, commonly, there must be an immediate response to conditions, without thought, or one could be quickly dead. This response is mediate by the amygdala, and it is not "wrong." But ... it can be disempowering, because humans have access to much more. Railing against people for displaying knee-jerk thinking is not productive. It actually can convince them that you are an enemy, attempting to take over their thinking. There are far more powerful approaches.


    Quote

    I'm afraid it won't be far, from US/DE/FR/UK evolution in process.


    There can be two steps forward and one step back, and if we just look at the one step back, it can seem Awful!


    It helps to have some perspective, starting with the recognition that we will all die. All humanity will die. Life on earth will die. Life in the universe will die. Nothing is permanent. "Empty and meaningless."


    Then, given that, what is possible?


    Quote

    I've talk to master-level students interested in that domain, ready to make a startup... in French I would call that
    "La Bohème Entrepreneuriale"...
    A startup version of Hippies.


    Yeah, you might as well have called me a "card-carrying Hippy." Except, of course, we had no cards. Bohemian entrepreneurs can sometimes become fabulously wealthy. "Bohemian" indicates a willingness to think outside the box. On the other hand, boxes exist for a purpose. The strongest position is to respect the boxes but not to be controlled by them.


    Quote

    I know labs (biochemistry, semiconductors/MEMS) that could do the job in (college/engineering) schools, but have no network to make it done. LENR-Cities even have found labs, much more experts, ready to be funded (one in north UK, one it north IT, some in CH, in NO)


    Lenr-Cities obviously overreached, went beyond the resources they had. That indicates lack of caution in their plan. My guess is that they placed too much weight on the expected positive results from Rossi's "test" with IH, instead of waiting for clear confirmation. My own sense of Lenr-Cities is that they rushed way ahead of what could be supported in reality. It was premature, perhaps.


    However, organizations dedicated to fostering the research could survive. Money is not the major issue, labor is. Yes, money can buy labor, but ... that requires readiness of a market. It requires obtaining funding that can be sustainable in the presence of delay. It requires clarity about goals and measures. That is, by the way, part of the training, when it comes to community projects, which is where I did the most work. Infusion Institute was an Self Expression and Leadership Program project.


    https://www.facebook.com/Landm…-Program-181790255280501/


    I took that program in 2011, as a very new graduate. I promptly served as a coach, because coaching is part of the Assisting Program, and coaches get the best training for obvious reasons. Because my work with participant was successful, I was invited to be a Head coach, but that was impractical for me at the time. Later, after having done more advanced training, I did become a coach again, this time for my personal goal of creating Infusion Institute. The program provides major organizational support. Not directly support, i.e,. it is contrary to the rules for an SELP project to the targeted to Landmark graduates. It must be external. It can be quite modest, or it can be strikingly bold with major impact on the world. One of my participants as a coach was a woman who wanted to bring together her vary large extended family that had become split, by organizing a whole-family event. That did not actually happen, but what she did toward making it happen transformed her relationship with her family, in many ways. "Success" is a secondary goal, the primary goal is training in identifying what stops us and moving beyond it.



    Warning: this video is followed by other videos that are "sales pitch," for Landmark training, if one wants to think of it that way. This first video doesn't mention the training specifically, but anyone familiar with it will recognise the man's involvement.


    The "Advanced Course" is a prerequisite for the SELP. That's because the Advanced Course awakens community, instead of just individual transformation. So I took the Forum, the Advanced Course, my first SELP, coached the SELP, and did a Seminar, in that first year. It was insane. I live over two hours drive from Boston. I had very little money, but I recognized what this was about, so I didn't want to delay. The Advanced Course is the last program of weight that I paid for. (I've done three seminars, located more closely to me in Connecticut, which are $125 each. I haven't done anything I paid for since maybe 2012 or 2013. Rather, I use the training constantly, in daily life.)


    Trolls here are talking about Landmark as a cult. Several comments have been deleted. One recent one has, when I suggested the possibility of asking me about the Infusion Institute plan,



    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    One imagines it might involve a 'conference' in Guyana, and some Kool-aid?


    If people don't recognize it, this is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown


    Nope. The plan has substantial support in the CMNS community. When I describe my life the way it is, some think that I must be involved with some cult. Nobody has the right to be that happy, they think, they must be deluded, "drinking the Kool-Aid." Trolls are not happy people, that's obvious. I wrote that I face death and laugh. That actually happened a bit more than a week ago. The world is not the place that these trolls imagine it to be. The trolls are the flip side of the dark-minded pseudoskeptics.


    From my perspective, this is like clockwork, it all proceeds from recognizing how the brain works and working with it, instead of against it. There is no Kool-Aid, though people do tend to become enthusiastic when they "get it." After bouncing a bit, they then settle into the long term work, which may or may not involve any more contact with the organization.