Triangle Business Journal: Despite lawsuit, Industrial Heat continues mission, investor says [No Rossi please]

Quote

In the meantime, work continues on about six projects, scattered across multiple continents.

So, who would be those six?

I can speculate but it would be good to see a list from them.

Quote from AlainCo

My bet is : Miley, Letts, Hagelstein, Brillouin, SKINR, ENEA... with alternative options : Seashore Research, SRI

I think probably not Brillouin as statements have been made in the past about BEC getting help once, but nothing further.

Bob - Thank you for understanding that I am unable to comment on details but I did like Tom's quotes from the interview. I can confirm that we are encouraged by the progress we are seeing.

Deae Dewey,

IH encoutaged by the half of the CF testers-OK, abndoned the other half-vae victis!

Is now the organization of ICCF-21 by IH OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED? Or it still depends on the verdict in the RvD Trial?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Peter

Calorimetry is a laboratory method- the survival method and the locus of main effort for classic CF.

In technology heat -energy balances are used. As in the recent

ERV core report.

To convince a nuclear physicist you must show him comparative elementary isotpic analyses of raw materials and ashes.

peter

Thank you Bob - confirming a credible, repeatable experiment is our focus right now. With the obvious exception of the recent unpleasantness, we're very pleased with the hit rate so far but realize that there is a long way to go and some or all of these may yet stall out. I don't think that "a form of independent replication" is a good description of our efforts. Thats about all I can say right now.

Peter - While we are encouraged with progress across the board, including the ongoing unpleasantness, our timeframe for making a formal decision regarding ICCF-21 remains unchanged.

Repeatable experiments seem to be the current step on the way towards confirming LENR. At what point does a robust theory come. I am coming from the point of view that the theory is the main point to get customers, who will actually field test/use the device, to procure a LENR device with confidence, The theory, that is "the theory", that is the one that actually works under all conditions and leaves no questions unanswered or at least leaves only minor questions unanswered to the point where the device made under that theory is the one that is used for dependable devices in the long run. Without such a theory then the devices made under it cannot be depended on in case of breakdown. When a breakdown occurs the theory can be used towards efficient repairs. Without the theory, repairs are more ad hoc then efficient. If A customer has a multi-million dollar installation, just swaping it out for a new model is costly. With a proper theory in hand of how it works exactly, then the machine can analysed for what the actual problem is and instead of sawpping it out then it can be repaired or tweeked to work while in place at the customers site. This makes for a more effeicient and a less costly device in the long run. Until this point is reached customers will be wary in procuring a device that is based on less than a fully robust theory. It may be that the actual workings that make up the theory may be so obscure at this time that Widom Larsen and the like may only look like the best theory so far. For that reason the final theory or at least a good working theory, may be some time in the future.

Quote from AlainCo

I'm afraid calorimetry will never convince a nuclear physicist, and nobody without balls (government officers, politicians, editors, journalists) will decide anything if a nuclear physicist don't support him.

What can convince a nuclear physicist ?

Not sure what would convince them. If tritium production doesn't what will? And that has been seen by people at national labs at LANL (Claytor) and at BARAC.

Quote from Bob

Possibly three things, but the question is can they be done?

Self-sustain mode. If a reactor can be setup and run without input power for a long period and the accurately measured output is significant to the mass of the fuel, then, it would be hard to argue. Again, calorimetry is involved, but not so much COP. If a device repeatedly and independently produces heat without input power and it goes significantly beyond what the mass could chemically produce, the burden would then fall on the physicist.

Transmutation. If a reactor does indeed repeatedly and independently produce elemental transmutations, again the burden now shifts.

Measured radiation. I hope this is not part of the forumula!

Lastly, I do not think all physicist are so encased in dogma. SKINNR and Texas U have physicist actively working on LENR and some with pedigree. I think if one of these institutions, with careful experimental results are able to have the other institution replicate independently, then it will be hard to argue. I think and hope, that these two institutions would not be against replicating each other. And then they could have a third, "non-lenr" institute replicate afterwards.

Again, it all depends on a reactor that can function repeatedly at will. So far, an elusive gadget!

Display More

Self sustaining mode - that does not do it. Cravens had a sphere full of material running for days, months, years and showed it Nat'l Inst. in public over several days to engineers and even cut it open at the end of the demo.

oldguy - On my always hope kick. Do you know what happened to this experiment (even though he called it a demo or some such) If we get anything at all working I wonder why it is not being exploited (unless you are aware). I have heard no more of it. Since it is a low cost, I would like to see MFMP do it along with the dogbones. I would love a video from Bob G. well here is the latest from the dogbone and BTW the Craven balls have been running now for 4 months.

To hat tip MFMP, I used to stay up all night looking at the live runs. I went to their website QH they have a new interface that is pretty sweet. They must be smoking Virginia Slims, "you have come along way baby".

Rigel, I am assuming you are talking about the spheres and not Claytor's T.

I think Tom has "retired" but still doing some T research and measurements away from LANL.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf

I don't have a link for it but also the replication in

My Most Successful Cold Fusion Experiments Rod F. Gimpel Issue 120 March/April 2015 Infinite Energy Magazine

and that special Indian CF issue: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0582.pdf

But it looks like he has "gone dark" . Makes you wonder.

I always wonder when researchers go "missing". Did they give up or found something to keep them fully occupied in the lab? Tongue in cheek- It is a conspiracy I tell you.

oldguy, I read the pdf's. thanks. I wonder what B. Ahern and Dr. Cravens are up to, I think I read that Brian A. is working on reproducing Thermacore . Brian also posts on EgoOut. I wonder if LFH could duplicate the balls (like the Model T.) we could have a kit. Also Dr.Cravens device seems rather fool proof. As it does not have many moving parts.

I wonder why MFMP does not try to duplicate, I must be missing some reason here. (I spend to much time wondering )

Rigel, my guess is that few are interested in microwatt or milliwatts while Rossi is claiming MW.

And I understand that Brian is working on a Thermocore like system using large volumes of Ni (with K carbonate?) similar to the old Thermocore runaway and melt down. Long ago I looked at the thermocore set up but the problem I saw was that their vacuum flasks were for liquid N2. Most of those have something like water vapor in the jacket and rely on the LN2 to freeze it out to zero vapor pressure. Food grade thermos bottles are better for higher temps.

If you want something to try, someone needs to try to replicate the Chinese hot Pd wire systems.