Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

  • When journals stop publishing them?


    Depends on which journals. When CF was first announced in '89, major journals like Science and Nature published several papers on the subject, but when it devolved into an irreproducible phenomenon they quit publishing them. That is exactly what was to be expected though as Science and Nature are 'hot topic' publishers, and while a controversy is interesting, it isn't what 'hot topic' journals are looking for. (Yes, the editor of Nature made some poorly chosen remarks at the time, but that doesn't alter the fact that the controversy made them unfit subjects for Science and Nature.) Publication them moved to journals whose topical fields were consistent with the CF work, i.e. Fusion Technology (renamed later to Fusion Science and Tech.), J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Physics Letters, etc.). Then those journals started to cut back, primarily because there was no resolution to the conflict and lack of reproducibility occurring. So then the CFers started up their own publishing sub-network (Proc. of ICCFxx, J. Cond. Nuc. Mat. Sci., etc.). So technically, to date they haven't stopped being published, so I believe your criterion is not adequate. And besides, the CFers just claim 'establishment suppression' anyways.


    Personally, I don't think you should ever stop listening completely, but when a field has persisted in producing non-reproducible results for many years, and when the prime researchers in the field clearly ignore critics and make gross errors in their response when they don't, others are at least justified in requiring some semblance of good scientific practice from the researchers before they are given any significant attention. That's just my opinion though. I was wondering what Epi thought was the criteria. Maybe I can be convinced I *can* ignore them...

  • Lipinski research is most generic case of cold fusion, which enabled me to understand its dominant mechanism. His experiments are difficult to reproduce, because they do require to keep lithium surface very clean and molten just a few degrees above melting point, so that the subsurface crystalline lattice gets preserved. Because during fusion a layer of hydride/deuteride is produced which blocks the further reaction a mechanism for cleaning surface must be developed. Also because the impacts of ions and fusion itself generate lotta heat the careful temperature control within thin film of lithium must be provided. The thinner the lithium film is, the wider is the temperature range of cold fusion reaction and the lower is the energy of ion required, which is why some high-temperature lithium based systems (ECat/Me356/Parkhomov) can work in thermal regime only for some time.

  • Zephir_AWT wrote

    "If it is so easy to build a working reactor, why further invest billions in something that will probably hardly or never generate excess energy like ITER?"


    Arata 2008 and Mizuno 2014 have both built working deuterium/solidcatalyst reactors with significant excess heat, both replicated.


    Raising the COP to 3-4 and maintaining durability and controllability appear not to be so easy..but the efforts so far have cost far less then ITER.


    The war incentive to develop LENR is not there as it was with the jetplane 1913-1940: LENR can not be weaponised.

  • high fusion rates from Li bombarded with protons at about 300keV.

    Sorry to say, you must not have carefully read the whole UGC document (over 100 pp. IIRC) . The maximum yields are/were seen at approximately 1000-fold lower energies than this. Last I looked at the document (I hope it has not been redacted, replaced or otherwise altered) the optimal yields were never seen at such high energies, quite the contrary. The optimal yields, IIRC, were in the 100 to 1000 eV range. The energies are/were sufficiently low to suggest that they might be taken out of an accelerator context and placed in a simple thermal excitation regime. The optimized low energy scenarios reported in great detail by the Lipinskis / UGC also involved modulated and often positive potentials applied to the lithium targets.

  • The experiments he has conducted show (he thinks) unexpectedly high fusion rates from Li bombarded with protons at about 300keV. He claims some sort of resonance at 307keV that promotes much higher fusion probability.

    Where are you taking this from? I assume you may refer to the Lipinski team, "he" and "he thinks". But, if it is the UGC WIPO application experiment series, where is this "300keV"?


    If it is father and son Lipinski "he" you refer to, their theory predicts a resonance at 223 eV. That's eV NOT keV. Perhaps they predicted another resonance at 307 keV?


    Regarding the Lipinskis and their UGC theory, I suspect that patent disclosures seeking to gain patentablility and exclusivity in such a fundamental area, are best advised to find fundamental theory that is both explanatory and predictive. To some extent it appears that the Lipinski abstractions at least begin to serve that purpose, with all due respect to what appears to be excellent empirical work in several very highly qualified USA National Accelerator facilities. At least it allowed them the opportunity to gain patents in what might otherwise be thought of as CF or LENR work (to which they explicitly disclaim their phenomena have any connection).


    I have specifically and repeatedly invited anyone studying their very impressive WIPO disclosure to disregard the theory and attend to the methods and results.


    Hopefully these links will lead to a wider understanding of the actual claims:


    http://www.unifiedgravity.com/…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf


    UGC Lipinski Replication

  • LENR can not be weaponised.


    If the reports of tritium are accurate, this product would be of great interest to the military. I myself wonder whether in some reports there was (possibly LENR-related) beta activity that was observed in a context that led researchers to assume it was due to tritium, without having dotted all of the i's and crossed all of the t's to get to that conclusion.


    More generally, the dearth of knowledge about any particular variety of LENR leaves open the possibility that there could be military applications that would be difficult to anticipate without a greater understanding.

  • Unified Gravity Corporation Inviting Replicators to Peer-Review Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Process Unified Gravity Corporation is a Morgan Hill, California company that claims a method of creating energy through a proton-lithium fusion method using hydrogen and nickel as fuel, for which they have applied for a US patent.


    On the main page of their Unified Gravity web site is a link to their paper on Gravity Theory. They state that Unified Gravity was established in 2007 in order to experimentally prove the Lipinski’s theory and also to verify if it can be used for efficient power generation. The Lipinski’s theory is that gravity acts instantaneously. Since it was recently found through LIGO that gravity travels at or nearly at the speed of light, the theory that forms the basis of their technology seems incorrect. Alternative (and IMO way more plausible explanation) is that the effect observed by LIGO aren't gravitatonal waves predicted by general relativity, but ipso-facto violating it.


    Edit: Regarding the UGC replication, you may want to visit this thread and my posts here and here.

  • Not sure where this goes best-- I don't want to derail the discussions elsewhere or here but ... sometimes it is useful to review the past. Some very good and elaborate arguments for and against the validity of any LENR claims was given here way back in 2013. Has anything much really changed since then? The discussions are mainly by Jed Rothwell and the pseudonymous Joshua Cude along with Rich Murray and some others:


    https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013…r-a-bright-future-part-1/


    I notice Rothwell called Cude an "internet nutcase" so I guess he does insult people from time to time.

  • The discussions are mainly by Jed Rothwell and the pseudonymous Joshua Cude along with Rich Murray and some others:


    https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013…r-a-bright-future-part-1/

    Ye Gods, what a waste of time that discussion was! I should know better than to respond to these trolls.


    I notice Rothwell called Cude an "internet nutcase" so I guess he does insult people from time to time.

    No often enough.

  • Yet somehow I understand and agree with Cude's position way more than yours. I must be an internet nutcase too. And so, probably, is anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how well reasoned, about LENR. Any exceptions? Know anyone who doesn't believe that LENR has been solidly proven to be a real phenomenon rather than methodological and measurement errors ... and who is not a nutcase?

  • Yet somehow I understand and agree with Cude's position way more than yours.

    That is because you cannot tell the difference between 6 seconds and 3 hours, and -- as you yourself have pointed out time after time -- you have read nothing and know nothing about most cold fusion experiments.

    I must be an internet nutcase too.

    Yes, anyone who makes a mistake by a factor of 1,800 and does not realize it, or acknowledge it, is a nutcase. In a technical discussion, that's pretty much the definition of a nutcase. In an English literature forum, if you were to confuse Shakespeare with Agatha Christie, and then refuse to admit you made a mistake, you would be a nutcase. That's the scale of the mistakes you have made in cold fusion again, and again, and again.


    You are also a nutcase for making assertion after assertion about the experiments and then, as soon anyone challenges you, for saying "oh, but I have not read anything and I don't claim to know anything." Which is it? Do you know what you are talking about, or don't you? (You don't -- it is obvious.) You think you can have it both ways, but you only make yourself look like a nutcase.


    The fact that you "understand" Cude's fact-free blather is also telling. There is nothing for you to "understand" about it. It has no technical content. It is all emotion, denial, distraction and confabulation. He posts whatever nonsense pops into his head. Cold fusion has been funded with $200 million, for example. Even if that were true, it has no bearing on the experimental evidence.