Industrial Heat to Organize ICCF21 in Raleigh, NC

  • Good to hear IH has committed long term to LENR. I was worried this legal battle with Rossi would not only deplete their investment funds, but also throttle them back a bit...or even worse, run them off. Looks like full steam ahead instead.


    Presents a conundrum for the few remaining Rossi fans that feel believing in Rossi,and supporting IH are incompatible...therefore necessary to trash talk IH. Maybe it is time to take a step back and rethink? Still believe in Rossi, but accept IH for the good they are doing, and will continue to do, for LENR?


    Whatever though, we have something to look forward to now, and it is only 2 years away...can't wait! :) Certainly IH will invite attendees into their nearby Cary, NC LENR lab.

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/10/07/industrial-heat-to-organize-iccf21-in-raleigh-nc/']Thanks to Sam for pointing out this comment on Peter Gluck’s Ego Out website here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2016/10/oct-06-201q6-lenr-news-info-and-short.html NEWS FROM ICCF- At the gala dinner at Sendai it was announced that the next ICCF21 will take place in June 2018 at Raleigh (North Caroline) organized by Industrial Heat. In May 2017 it will be organized a workshop […][/feedquote]
  • @Shane D.


    It presents no such conundrum, at least in my mind. I'm happy to see IH committing like this to LENR. Is there still a bad taste in my mouth that they attempted to damage LENR+ and the reputations of those involved in LENR+? Yes, yes there is. And still very much mysterious the circumstances surrounding that. But LENR is a short skip and a hop from LENR+, and 2018 is still quite a ways off. The trial would likely have wrapped up by then. We are all going to know much more. It is an interesting play.

  • It struck me as being very interesting that a North Carolina Locomotive could end up at the end of a piece by NASA singing the praises of LENR, and that's where IH is.
    https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrSbDsZtqJW3CwAkQJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Zawodny+NASA&fr=yfp-t-162#id=13&vid=28e463014354499cd41498d7a2f014d9&action=view This link is the Zawodny youtube with Locomotive


    @pmaher_art

  • There is a complaint but is it a battle? Probably, IH and Rossi were linked by a bad agreement about intellectual property, long test conditions and organisation, place of Rossi in IH and reverse... Before shift into industrial production they have same needs: a better contract, peace and work.

  • I'm happy to see IH committing like this to LENR. Is there still a bad taste in my mouth that they attempted to damage LENR+ and the reputations of those involved in LENR+? Yes, yes there is



    IHFB,


    IH did not start this; Rossi did by suing them. IH then did what anyone with the resources would do...defend themselves. What did you expect them to do?


    And the only reputation I see "damaged" here is Rossi's, and deservedly so because IH exposed his very questionable behavior regarding the VT, Hyfrofusion, and then most damning...his refusing to allow IH's representative Murphy access to the "GPT" until it was over. We won't even get into the fake customer, no product, JMP, until we see what Rossi provides in his defense, but so far that is looking pretty bad for him too.


    So in IHs shoes, with what we already know, would you fork over (pay) Rossi the $89 million?

  • Shane D.


    IH damaged LENR+ from their very first cunningly deceptive PR statement. Then a string of inconsistencies followed thereafter. Meanwhile, IH sympathizers pressed for cancellation of the first international LENR+ focused conference. Their surrogates have continued since then to disparage and discredit anyone who supports Rossi or other LENR+ ventures. Dewey even went so far as to downplay IH's investment in Brilluon. Why might you think he did that? Could it be because it doesn't fit well with their current narrative? The most disturbing of all, at least to me, is that IH continues to bash and discredit Rossi even though I believe, on good evidence, that IH has a LENR+ solution of their own.

  • @AlainCo


    I was initially doubtful of IH's sincerity in their funding of LENR / non-LENR+ research. Given that they have committed to hosting ICCF21 in 2018, my feelings have changed on the matter. But why do you think they have publicly distanced themselves from LENR+? Are you suggesting that LENR+ research is "not serious"?

  • IH is funding serious LENR research that may soon give us all what we need : a correct usable theory


    This is a long-standing and highly misleading idea, that what is holding LENR back is a "correct usable theory." The demand for "theory" was a major piece of the dysfunctional part of the rejection cascade, because the evidence of an anomaly became overwhelming. People may disagree over when that evidence reached that level, but it was on its way, and clearly, when Miles announced his heat/helium results in 1991. That work was extensively confirmed and most of the confirmation was done by the time of the U.S. Department of Energy review, certainly by 2005.


    No "theory" is involved, though the results do suggest some theory. No particular "mechanism" is needed. Just experimental results and sane analysis.


    What is still missing is a set of simple and accessible protocols to demonstrate the effect(s) so that anyone may confirm at least parts of it. Heat/helium requires major equipment and expertise.


    It is not clear that such protocols exist. There are various claims. Swartz claims that the Nanor is reliable. But Nanors are made of unobtainium. If you think otherwise, try to obtain one. The field is beginning to recognize that unverifiable claims are almost completely useless.


    At this point, with the state of the evidence, there is a very good chance that the "correct theory" would be immediately rejected. Pons and Fleischmann announced an "unknown nuclear reaction," but that was actually premature. They were right, and being right, and announcing it at a press conference, got them immediate fame and rapid notoriety, as poster boys for Bad Science.


    That very sad outcome arose because they made an extraordinary claim without providing clear evidence, but only "believe me" circumstantial evidence.


    A claim for anomalous heat would have been fine. And if somebody asked them about "fusion," they could have said, "Well, I suppose you could speculate about that .... we are looking for conclusive evidence of the origin of the heat, and, so far, we have not found it."

  • IH hosting ICCF? Hilarious. Wasn't Lewan having some huge conference to celebrate the end of Rossi's successful one year test in June in Sweden? Maybe this idea will go the same way that one did.


    I looked at Mary's post here (because I have personally blocked Mary). This is the dumbest post I have ever seen from Mary.


    The news here is that closest thing we have to a decision-making body in LENR or CMNS (the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) decided to trust IH with the next International Conference on Cold Fusion. This will happen. They have the interest, they have plenty of money, and this depends on no announcement or expected news. By then, Rossi v. Darden is likely to be resolved, or at least the core case.


    Mary thinks of the Rossi affair as a spectacular failure for IH, a complete waste of millions of dollars. IH is crying all the way to the bank. It's clear to me that what they did and what they continued doing earned them the $50 million investment from Woodford, which was not based on "Rossi technology," my conclusion. It was based on the same thing as the $6 million donation from Gates to the Texas Tech project (leveraged into $12 million by state matching funds).


    It's called science, with a heavy dosage of inspiration that looks beyond what we know into what is possible, that investigates mysteries instead of "debunking" them. This is also, by the way, genuine skepticism, that seeks to, as Darden said, "crush the tests."

  • Dewey W was there. He was the one that agreed that IH would tentatively accept the hosting of ICCF21 in NC (June?? 2018)


    I am not sure that IH has publically distributed data. But they do support (some only token) a half dozen or so researchers that mostly
    remain quite at this time.


    Don't believe people like Peter Gluck that suggests that Rossi is the only horse in IH stable. And certainly do not believe
    that Woodford invested in IH solely due to Rossi's work. They were very dissatisfied with Rossi a year ago and visited
    many others. For example, in Italy Tom Darden acknowledge "support" of Dennis Letts.

  • A couple questions:
    Did IH have a presence here at ICCF20?


    I assume so, but I don't have specific information on that. I know that Dewey Weaver, at least, was at ICCF-18, because I met him there. I know that Darden was at ICCF-19 because wasn't he the keynote speaker? For IH to be in the business they are in and not to be at an ICCF would seem really weird to me. The matter of ICCF-21 may have been pre-negotiated, so it doesn't prove anything. IH is clearly working extensively with the LENR community, but only a few open signs of that have appeared.


    Quote

    Has IH ever released any experimental data to the LENR community?


    I'm not aware of any. They have been acknowledged as providing funding for Peter Hagelstein in a paper published in 2015. This is not experimental data, but work on theory.
    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol17.pdf#page=72


    The way they work, technically it would probably not be "Industrial Heat" releasing data, it would be the funded researchers. I do not know what kinds of agreements they have with researchers, and those agreements may vary.


    This much I can infer: they had data from testing Rossi devices showing no measurable heat, probably by 2014, certainly by 2015, from the same devices as allegedly showed heat when demonstrated by Rossi -- or tested by the Lugano professors. They have not published any of that data. Their stand appears to me to have been to give Rossi every opportunity to reveal "the secret," if there was one. Publishing that data, if he was hiding the secret because he did not trust them, would have sealed that.


    However, Rossi went beyond limits, the extreme of which was suing them. They were then forced to reveal the historical evidence. So far, they have still provided only minimal details, adequate to suffice for a defense and for the counterclaims. While the case is pending, I don't expect much more. The actual test results are probably moot for the primary case (Rossi's claim against them). That case hinges primarily on purely contractual details. The counterclaim for fraud may get into test details.


    The ISCMNS action accepting an IH bid for hosting demonstrates the relationship between IH and ISCMNS: positive and cooperative. In 2013, at ICCF-18, people on the floor talked about Rossi, but he was not a major topic at the podium, I don't recall any mention. Defkalion attracted some attention because of that abortion of a demonstration, but the community had always been divided about Defkalion; some scientists, such as Kim, lent their names. Embarrassing.


    Speaking about activity on the CMNS mailing list, most scientists don't want to talk about Rossi at all. There is more talk of people like Parkhomov (and other NiH investigators). After all, he's a scientist!

  • What IH lacks is a single example of a working technology that produces respectable amounts of power. Abd thinks they are laughing all the way to the bank? I bet they are not very amused on the way to court and immense legal fees. Jones Day doesn't come cheap.

  • Sorry, but this is not a good idea to put an investment firm in charge, especially since we are not sure of IH motives.


    Who is "we"?


    The decision on the ISCMNS side would likely have been made by the Executive Committee, and the last list of members is from 2015:


    Collis, William
    Celani, Francesco
    Dufour Jacques
    Li Xingzhong
    Edmund Storms
    Jean Paul Biberian


    Industrial Heat is the "host," not necessarily "in charge."


    Edit: the speculation here -- given as such -- was likely technically incorrect. While the ISCMNS executive committee might have a kind of authority over the ICCF International Advisory Committee, the latter is probably the functional body that made the decision. See this ICCF-20 page on the IAC: http://iccf20.net/contents/Organization.html .. and it gives the members:


  • @Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    about need of theory, I agree that rejection cascade was based on theory, and that first there is experiments, BUT
    the error I supported too long is to imagine
    - that you can make experiments and replication without an embryo of theory to test, saying when it should work, and what is a replication or a non-replication (credit to Edmund Storms to have changed my mind)
    - that you can make something usable without a theory, and something powerful that cannot explode or irradiate without a theory, or simply make an industry which improve process without a theory to guide engineers (credit for JF Geneste to have explained this engineering problem)


    my concept of theory however is not the mathematical theory that physicist are fond of, and too much used with. The early theory involving minimum loading and current density was a beginning. It may be phenomenological or even "romantic" with loose concept, but it have to work and predict correctly.


    Of course experiment is the key, but even experiment need some theory to drive and interpret them, and YES since theorist are like a herd of cat, and prefer math to experiments, this is unmanageable.
    .
    This is why LENR don't advance. we need theory to drive experiments, which will drive theories, but theory seems to develop independently from experiment in real life.
    It is broken.


    EDIT: one cause of misunderstanding is that my vision toward a theory is mostly experimental. People are too much focused on armchair theoretical research and experiments are the core of theoretical research. We need more experiments, more investigation, more instruments, more tests, more parameter space exploration... once done, theory will be natural like finding the murderer after good interviews and good forensic.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    about need of theory, I agree that rejection cascade was based on theory, and that first there is experiments, BUT
    the error I supported too long is to imagine
    - that you can make experiments and replication without an embryo of theory to test, saying when it should work, and what is a replication or a non-replication (credit to Edmund Storms to have changed my mind)
    - that you can make something usable without a theory, and something powerful that cannot explode or irradiate without a theory, or simply make an industry which improve process without a theory to guide engineers (credit for JF Geneste to have explained this engineering problem)


    Great, Alain. There is an issue of what a "theory" is. The term can be used to refer to any hypothesis, but it is being used by Storms, in particular, to refer to a family of hypotheses. In Storms' "explanation," as he calls it, these are strung together, but they are actualls severable. In his mind, they are one piece, and that is part of the difficulty he is having communicating.


    An experiment without a hypothesis to test is not really an experimental test, it is merely an exploration (which can have some use, for sure!). When I am referring to "theory" not being "necessary," I am referring to what might be called a "fundamental theory." I.e., an understanding of the root process occurring, that can then be used to predict results quantitatively (which can be statistical in nature under some conditions). It is possible to have a root theory that is still impossible to calculate (because of the complexity of the solid state), but it is not, then, testable, and the value of this theory in prediction is weak.


    Storms' explanation includes, as an example, the idea that the Nuclear Active Environment is surface cracks. This is a potentially useful hypothesis that may be testable. Such hypotheses can be quite useful in guiding experiment.


    However, how about his hypothesis that the heat is released through "slow fusion," a gradual process which releases heat as low-energy X-rays *before* the nuclei actually fuse, and that this process continues until there is no energy to dissipate if the nuclei fuse, and then they they actually fuse?


    At this point, this provides no experimental guidance, other than something very specific -- and that appears to be missing. This would produce lower-than-ground-state-mass nuclei, a whole series of nuclear isomers. Nothing like that has ever been observed. So this hypothesis then requires additional hypotheses to explain that, besides the fact that this totally overturns our understanding of what fusion energy comes from. It does not exist until the nuclei actually fuse! This is an energy released, as I understand it, from a more efficient packing of the nuclei under the strong force, which I might call the insanely-strong force! As the nucleons collapse into this state, they get hot, the nucleus is then excited, and then stuff happens....


    The "slow fusion" hypothesis does predict low energy X-rays, but so do other theories. Searching for those X-rays is of interest, for sure, but ... does not give us any guidance at all as to how to facilitate this reaction. The crack theory does that.


    Are cracks a necessary component of cold fusion? No, that would be jumping ahead. When I support Storms' crack theory, it is only in the context of the FP Heat Effect with electrolytic PdD experiments. His crack hypothesis is plausible, supported by some extant evidence, but not proven.


    However, if something works there, it may apply to other environments. Ed explicitly makes the assumption of a single effect. While he might be correct, this assumption then creates many difficulties that remain unexplained and unexplored, perhaps.


    Any theory can be used to generate testable predictions, and there is a value in this even if the theories are incorrect.


    However, I look at a different function for theory. Ed seems to believe that cold fusion cannot be accepted without explanatory theory. In my view, deficient explanatory theory was behind much of the rejection cascade, starting with a premature hypothesis from Pons and Fleischmann that their measured heat was the result of fusion (later clarified as "unknown nuclear reaction," though "nuclear" was also premature).


    Now, this needs to be understood about transformation in science, paradigm shifts. The mainstream is not going to reject its own strong ideas without strong evidence. Until Miles showed the heat/helium correlation, there was no *direct* evidence that the FP Heat Effect was nuclear in nature. Because of the premature claims, that whole mess, the mainstream was sensitized to think of cold fusion claims as bogus, experimental error, possibly worse.


    Normally, without that, and once Miles was confirmed, the balance would have shifted and at that point -- with no explanatory theory -- LENR would have been accepted as a mystery to be explored. In fact, the Miles evidence and confirmations were largely overlooked, and when I came into the field in 2009 and began to learn about it, heat/helium was relatively obscure and not much discussed. As I realized this, I began to realize a major direction forward, and worked for it, starting with encouraging Storms to write a paper on it.


    In fits and starts, this moved forward and now there is a steam engine running on that track. This is happening.


    We need, now, what have been called "lab rats." That is LENR experiments that are reliable and reproducible. As yet, all theories are inadequate to reliably create these, this is largely trial and error. Some theories may suggest some approaches that will be tested. However, to imagine that we must have an explanatory theory first is putting the cart before the horse. We need more data to vet theories and to be able to better develop them. Are those X-rays being emitted? What is the spectrum?


    It would go without saying that they should be correlated with heat (which has never been properly done with CF X-rays). "Correlation" does not mean "commensurate with." That was an early error that confused many -- and this also applies to tritium production.


    Quote

    my concept of theory however is not the mathematical theory that physicist are fond of, and too much used with. The early theory involving minimum loading and current density was a beginning. It may be phenomenological or even "romantic" with loose concept, but it have to work and predict correctly.


    Sure. However, the work is not done until the math is done.


    There is a theory that high loading is necessary for PdD results. That's useful. It may also be incorrect, but nevertheless could lead in the right direction for a time.


    Quote

    Of course experiment is the key, but even experiment need some theory to drive and interpret them, and YES since theorist are like a herd of cat, and prefer math to experiments, this is unmanageable.


    Interpretation is not the first step with experimental results. Discovering correlations is crucial. (A related term is "controls.")


    Theory without verifiable predictions is almost totally useless. Some think that "plausibility" is important. Maybe. It's also quite possible that the "true cold fusion theory" will appear totally implausible to us, because of unrecognized assumptions we hold.
    .

    Quote

    This is why LENR don't advance. we need theory to drive experiments, which will drive theories, but theory seems to develop independently from experiment in real life.
    It is broken.


    To some extent, explanatory theory has been demanded by journals. This is part of what kept cold fusion research suppressed. Rejections based on lack of theory has then inspired, my opinion, reaction from some researchers who have bought the idea that explanatory theory is necessary.


    Anomalous heat is a fact that can be reported. Helium production is a fact that can be reported. That these correlate is a fact that can be reported.


    How that actually happens is almost irrelevant, at the first level of response! It confuses everyone. The primary question is, does it happen or doesn't it? This is a far, far easier question to explore than "why does it happen?"


    And then, can we make this happen reliably? If so, we can then explore what has been called the "parameter space." We can create tests of various theories, once we have standard conditions where we can see the effect and then vary one condition at a time. As we do this, knowledge will expand and more and more researchers, including theoreticians, will become involved.


    Quote

    EDIT: one cause of misunderstanding is that my vision toward a theory is mostly experimental. People are too much focused on armchair theoretical research and experiments are the core of theoretical research. We need more experiments, more investigation, more instruments, more tests, more parameter space exploration... once done, theory will be natural like finding the murderer after good interviews and good forensic

    .
    In my experience, seemingly intractable and puzzling situations resolve with increased experience, and it does not necessarily happen through "logic" and "figuring it out." It happens when some internal critical mass is reached, there is enough data for intuition to operate, and if one avoids jumping to conclusions, this can evolve and become more and more clear.

  • We mostly agree.


    Yes "Control", as the engineering term, is one expression of a real world theory.
    Maybe this could be the real expression of the quality of a theory. As is intelligence to the capacity to adapt to the newness.


    Explanatory theory, upfront physics, mathematical description, coherence with fundamental physics (GR+QM) are only the final results when real-world theories are improved.


    In fact Ed approach is two phases.
    One is "axiomatic" based on ed Occam razor, conservation or miracle, conservation of energy, thermodynamic laws, QM respect... it is the "lowest assumption" heuristic. Not only it may be wrong (nature may be funny), but the axioms may not foloow the least energy trajectory (what is being simple?).


    Mixed with known experimental results this lead to NAE bare concept, to NiH/PdD unification, Wet/Dry unification, limitation of energy quantum, many theory elimination, way to radiate elimination, ... it is a very negative method (removing the improbable, the impossible) even if some generic concepts emerge (NAE).



    The second, is more risky, it is crack, Hydroton, pep fusion, ded+X transmutaions of iwamura, slowfusion. It is a positive proposal, done by imagination filtered by elimination from evidences. Lack of knowledge of solution space (imagination?) may make some solution look unavoidable while they are simply just one in many possibilities.


    More experiments can really help by closing some hypothesis, forcing to abandon some axioms, forcing to have more imagination, to explore more possibilities.


    the initial refusal of LENR seems mostly to be from theoretical lack of imagination, lack of understanding that collective phenomenon could exist (because the mindguards were not of material science), mixed with laziness and prejudice against lower caste scientist (nuclear physicist versus more applied/dirty scientists) allowed by incompetence in the experimental domain (usual discourse against LENR is like "I dont trust those cookers thermometers, I want neutrons").

  • The decision on the ISCMNS side would likely have been made by the Executive Committee


    As I understand the history, at ICCF14 In Washington at the ISCMNS Annual General Meeting an informal proposal was made that ISCMNS should oversee the management of ICCF conferences. At ICCF15 in Rome the matter was discussed by the International Advisory Committee (IAC) but no decision was made. Consequently it is the IAC not ISCMNS which still appoints the ICCF chairman / organizer.


    It appears that Abd is speculating without checking the facts.


    Incidentally, Dewey Weaver made it very clear to all at the ICCF-20 dinner that his bid to host ICCF-21 was tentative. In the unlikely event he should need to withdraw I have no doubt that other US benefactors will step in. ICCF-21 will go ahead in the USA in 2018.

  • I don't think that at all. However, I dod suspect that IH was formed to make sure they own as much of the IP as they possibly can


    That would not be a sound business strategy. It would not be the goal that an experienced businessman would aim for. The purpose of a venture is to make as much money as possible while managing risk. You do not accomplish that by monopolizing IP. Instead, you set things up so that other people also contribute to the development and they also get IP. That way, they share in the risk, and they contribute in ways that you did not think of doing, or in ways you are not capable of. That increases the chances of success. The goal should be to own the most lucrative IP you can, while at the same time reducing risk and investment dollars. All major industrial developments since the 1840s have come about as a joint effort by many different inventors and corporations, from the earliest stages. There is never a sui generis contribution, with the possible exception of the record player (phonograph) by Edison, and even that was influenced by the telephone.


    James Patterson and his business manager James Redding told me their goal was to get "100% of the intellectual property" for Patterson's discovery. They achieved this goal, but they did not accomplish anything else. I told them they would have 100% of nothing if they did this. I was right: Patterson took the technology with him to the grave.