Clearance Items

Quote from Ascoli65

I totally agree on this. The very low level of scientific consensus towards CF/LENR cannot be considered a sufficient reason to deny its reality.

However, a much simpler reason to deny the existence of CF/LENR is that all its major supporters and researchers state with absolute certainty that the two pioneers of the field were right in reporting the results of their experiments. This is demonstrably wrong. F&P made huge errors. Errors that no LENR believer is willing to admit. This is the real reason that has allowed a worldwide research on an impossible phenomena to last for 30 years.

An example of this fact is provided by one of the most renowned researcher in the field in a recent interview.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

This is the transcription of his words at the beginning of the video:

Intanto una premessa, presentazione. Io lavoro in questo campo cosiddetto, anche in maniera non completa, fusione fredda da 30 anni, dall'inizio. E ho iniziato questo tipo di lavoro per trovare un qualche errore sugli esperimenti fatti 30 anni fa dai professori Fleischmann e Pons. Errori veri non ne ho trovati, altrimenti non avrei continuato, ma ho visto che il fenomeno è estremamente difficile da riprodurre. Quindi difficile è una cosa, impossibile un'altra. Io e tante altre persone nel mondo, siamo una comunità di molte migliaia di persone, in particolare giapponesi, americani, russi, cinesi, indiani, francesi, sono 30 anni che cercano di aumentare la riproducibilità delle stranezze che a volte avvengono quando l'idrogeno o il deuterio, che è un isotopo dell'idrogeno (non è radioattivo), viene messo dentro speciali metalli …

He said that it he wouldn't have continued to work on CF if he found errors in the initial F&P experiments. Probably, this reason also applies to many others of the thousands CF researchers (Japanese, Americans, Russian, etc.) that he mentioned. But in reality, F&P were wrong. Therefore, the entire CF history is based on their errors, on their refusal to admit them and on the incapacity of the whole scientific community (both CF and mainstream) to detect this true errors and to correctly highlight them to the public.

Display More

Incorrect, because not all claimed "cold fusion", LENR, or intense hydrogen reactions are similar apparatus compared to F&P experiments. What about plasma based systems with self organization or a more explosive release? I am not saying that I am 100% sure of this, I'm saying you're too quick to dismiss a whole category of potential energy sources based on a "foundation" of two researchers. The explanations and potencial theories have changed and increased in detail since.

Quote from LeBob

The explanations and potencial theories have changed and increased in detail since

Verification of anomalous heat detected by differential scanning calorimetry from Palladium-Nickel-Zirconium alloy in hydrogen flow (2)

Yuya Satoh1, Itsuki Imoto1, Tsuyoshi Yamamoto1, Masahiro Kishida1

1 Graduate School of Engineering, Kyushu University, 819-0395 Japan

E-mail: [email protected]

It has been reported that anomalous heat different from hydrogen absorption heat is maintained for several weeks

when hydrogen or deuterium gas is in contact with some metal alloys at a temperature of 200-300ºC.

The total amount of the heat is so large that it cannot be explained by only chemical reaction [1].

However, not only the mechanism of such anomalous heat generation but also the heat generation condition has not been revealed. To clarify the condition,

it is important to evaluate the anomalous heat from a small amount of metal alloy sample that has a uniform temperature distribution.

In this work, we examined the anomalous heat generation from a small amount of palladium-nickel-zirconium alloy (PNZ)

by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) under various conditions, which is aimed to clarify abnormality of the heat generation phenomenon.

The DSC (Linseis PT1600H) measurements were conducted as follows.

100 mg of PNZ sample (provided by Nissan Motor Corp.) was heated at 5 ºC/min to a predetermined temperature

and then kept at the temperature for more than 4 h, during which the heat behavior of the sample was measured by DSC.

In that manner, a sample was measured in both hydrogen and inert gas (helium, argon),

and the difference of the heat flow between them was determined as the heat generation derived from hydrogen.

First, nickel or zirconia sample which is a component of PNZ showed no difference in the heat flow between hydrogen and helium.

On the other hand, in case of PNZ, the heat flow in hydrogen was significantly larger than that in helium, and the difference was maintained for more than 4 h.

The heat flow difference is often due to changes in the specific heat of the sample, so we examined the heat flow difference when the temperature was changed periodically at 400±5 ºC. If the specific heat of the sample varies with hydrogen and helium, the heat flow difference must be constant even if the temperature changes periodically.

However, it was observed that the heat flow difference changed periodically and that the change was out of phase with the temperature change.

These results indicate that PNZ continuously emitted the heat derived from hydrogen at a constant temperature.

Such heat generation was observed at above 250 °C and the maximum heat flow was obtained around 400 °C,

while hydrogen absorption was observed below 250 °C.

Despite the maximum exotherm at 400 °C, the hydrogen desorption from PNZ was observed at 400 °C by a temperature-programmed-reduction (TPR) method.

These results clearly show that the heat generation from PNZ in hydrogen is not due to hydrogen absorption. Next we examined the phase transition in PNZ by powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) method, since metal alloys can undergo phase transitions at high temperatures, often generating heat.

As a result, it was suggested that no phase transition occurred in PNZ below 450 ℃ in hydrogen and inert gas.

Therefore, it was clarified that the continuous heat generation from PNZ in hydrogen above 250 °C was not caused by hydrogen absorption heat and phase transition heat.

Reference [1] A. Kitamura et al., Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 43 (2018) 16187-16200. JCF20-10

Quote from zorud

Wyttenbach - it seems it is out of your control, to give up on ranting, hating and throwing mud and insults on hot fusion, ITER, CERN

Its neither ranting nor out of control: The facts are well know since 1978 "unobtainium" the all mighty neutron curtain/blanket needed for ITER cannot be found at reasonable costs. Thus ITER is an ongoing act of criminal researchers looking for a fun job nothing more.

CERN invented particles to get more funding instead of correctly reporting resonances only.

You can say that's clever marketing as there are plenty of useful secondary products developed. Also technology makes big steps forward.

The problem is that these people block more than half of the world wide free/open research money that could be used for really important stuff like battery development, better insulation, solar cells, LENR etc.

Quote from zorud

I do like your approach with your theory to try to answer so far unanswered

Its good that Zorud does have at least one eye open on the LENR scene..

even if its looking with disdain through euro tinted glasses..from the taxpayer?

please bear with the passion... and keep that eye open...

Quote from Curbina

You will insist on F&P being wrong ad nauseam, fair enough, let’s entertain that position for the sake of argument.

Sorry, for the nausea. Anyway, it's only just one year that I am reminding L-F readers that F&P were wrong. They were the founders of CF, so they are much more related to the field than Edison or the Wright brothers, who have been cited for almost 30 years to support the idea that F&P were right.

Quote

But then Jones et al were wrong, too, and their April 27th 1989 article published in Nature, should be withdrawn?

I don't care about Jones. He is not considered the founder of CF. So, I don't know if his article should be withdrawn by Nature. I can only tell you that, at the end of a very interesting thesis on the "The Rhetoric of Science: A Case Study of the Cold Fusion Controversy" discussed in 1992, D.L.Hatfield concluded that:

What I can say with certainty is that the F&P article "Calorimetry of the Pd-D20 system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity" published in 1993 (1) should be withdrawn by Physics Letter A, with deep apologies to its readers.

(1) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

Quote from Shane D.

Back to the absolutes. Don't you think it would be fair, and more scientifically proper for you to add: "in my opinion. FP's were wrong"? Afterall, you have been wrong before, and could be again.

Agree. Actually, the sentence of mines that you have quoted is not an absolute. It starts with an "I", so it implicitly express a personal opinion. I'm a man and I'm conscious of my limits. I made some errors (I hope I've recognized most of them) but I'm aware that I can commit others. Should I repeat it for every sentence I write?

I urge readers to check every single statements I write by looking at the links I provide or at any other source they have.

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm sure that we are all touched to know that you consider yourself- at a distance of many thousands of miles and 30 years to be a better judge of those experiments than the two world-class scientists who performed them. However, I am never sure if you consider them to be fraudulent or merely stupid. Which is it?

I consider them just wrong. As already explained at length in these threads:

- "FP's experiments discussion", starting from comment FP's experiments discussion

- "F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement", F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

Hi LeBob,

Quote from LeBob

Incorrect, because not all claimed "cold fusion", LENR, or intense hydrogen reactions are similar apparatus compared to F&P experiments. What about plasma based systems with self organization or a more explosive release? I am not saying that I am 100% sure of this, I'm saying you're too quick to dismiss a whole category of potential energy sources based on a "foundation" of two researchers. The explanations and potencial theories have changed and increased in detail since.

thank you for your reply. You raised a good point.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "plasma based systems with self organization or a more explosive release", so let me assume that they have something to do with the Satoh et al. article mentioned by RobertBryant as an example of "potencial theories [that] have changed and increased in detail since" F&P experiments.

This Satoh article mentions a single reference: "Excess heat evolution from nanocomposite samples under exposure to hydrogen isotope gases" by Kitamura et al. (including Kishida, one of the authors of the Satoh article), published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy in 2018 (1).

Well, the few lines of the first chapter (Introduction) appearing on the first page mention F&P, Celani and Rossi. By coincidence, I have examined papers and claims related to the CF/LENR activity of all of them and this is enough for me to conclude that there is no reason to turn the page to start reading the second page. IMO, Kitamura and, consequently, Satoh articles can be dismissed without looking at their contents, because their premises are wrong.

This is the problem. Almost every papers on LENR are introduced by a chain of references which start with F&P, so that they explicitly state, or imply, that their findings were real but unfairly dismissed by mainstream science. However, IMO, F&P were wrong in such blatant and obvious way that researchers who are unable to recognize and admit these errors are also prone to commit the same mistakes.

IMO, in order to possibly regain some credibility, the category should first solve this big problems with its past, recognizing that F&P were wrong. The present still going 30th year from the F&P announcement is a good and unique occasion to put a big dot and turn the page.

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…aca272fdaf7795f7/download

Quote from Ascoli65

Hi LeBob,

thank you for your reply. You raised a good point.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "plasma based systems with self organization or a more explosive release", so let me assume that they have something to do with the Satoh et al. article mentioned by RobertBryant as an example of "potencial theories [that] have changed and increased in detail since" F&P experiments.

This Satoh article mentions a single reference: "Excess heat evolution from nanocomposite samples under exposure to hydrogen isotope gases" by Kitamura et al. (including Kishida, one of the authors of the Satoh article), published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy in 2018 (1).

Well, the few lines of the first chapter (Introduction) appearing on the first page mention F&P, Celani and Rossi. By coincidence, I have examined papers and claims related to the CF/LENR activity of all of them and this is enough for me to conclude that there is no reason to turn the page to start reading the second page. IMO, Kitamura and, consequently, Satoh articles can be dismissed without looking at their contents, because their premises are wrong.

This is the problem. Almost every papers on LENR are introduced by a chain of references which start with F&P, so that they explicitly state, or imply, that their findings were real but unfairly dismissed by mainstream science. However, IMO, F&P were wrong in such blatant and obvious way that researchers who are unable to recognize and admit these errors are also prone to commit the same mistakes.

IMO, in order to possibly regain some credibility, the category should first solve this big problems with its past, recognizing that F&P were wrong. The present still going 30th year from the F&P announcement is a good and unique occasion to put a big dot and turn the page.

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…aca272fdaf7795f7/download

Display More

I'm refering to SAFIRE, various Russian ball lighting experiments, Mills BLP and other similar apparatuses.

Quote by a vexatious anonymity

"Satoh articles can be dismissed without looking at their contents, because their premises are wrong."

,, the experimental results are not premises... they are facts... as with Kitamura et al 2018

https://www.researchgate.net/p…origin=publication_detail

(1) Observed absorption and heat evolution at RT were not anomalously large, and could be of explainable levels by some chemical processes.

(2) At ET of 200 ~ 300 °C, most samples with binary metal nanocomposites produced excess power of 3 ~ 24W sustainably lasting for up to several weeks.

(3) The excess power was observed not only in the D-Pd⋅Ni system but also in the H-Pd⋅Ni system and H-Cu⋅Ni system.

(4) On the other hand, single-element nanoparticle samples produced no excess heat at ET.

(5) PNZ6 and PNZ6r samples with Pd/Ni=1/10 generated much higher excess power than other PNZ samples with Pd/Ni=1/7. The Pd/Ni ratio is one of the keys to increase the excess power.

(6) The maximum phase-averaged excess heat energy, ηav,i, exceeded 270 keV/D (26 GJ/mol-D), and the integrated excess energy Ea reached 1 keV/Pd⋅Ni (100 MJ/mol-M) and Eex = 90 MJ/mol-H.

(7) It is impossible to attribute the excess energy to any chemical reaction; it is possibly due to radiation-free nuclear process.

(8) The anomalous heat effect was observed with very small amount of D(H) transfer in both direction of net absorption and net desorption. It is conceived that this might be a hint for AHE generation sites and some nuclear mechanism in the binary metal nanocomposite samples and may match with the models by Takahashi TSC theories.

References

[1] F. Celani, E. F. Marano, B. Ortenzi, S. Pella, S. Bartalucci, F. Micciulla, S. Bellucci, A. Spallone, A. Nuvoli, E. Purchi, M. Nakamura, E. Righi, G. Trenta, G. L. Zangari, and A. Ovidi, "Cu-Ni-Mn alloy wires, with improved sub-micrometric surfaces, used as LENR device by new transparent, dissipation-type, calorimeter", J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 13 (2014) 56-67.

[2] F. Piantelli / Nichenergy; http://e-catsite.com/2012/06/1…ser-to-commercialization/.

[3] A. Rossi / Leonardo Corporation; http://ecat.com/.

[4] G. Levi, E. Foschi, B. Höistad, R. Pettersson, L. Tegner and H. Essen., http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf.

[5] A. G. Parkhomov, International Journal of Unconventinal Science, 6(2) (2014) 57-61; ibid. 7(3) (2015) 68-72; ibid. 8(3) (2015) 34-39.

[6] S. Jiang, http://ja.scribd.com/doc/26708…etals-at-High-Temperature, (2015).

[7] J. Cole, http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com…tes-apparent-excess-heat/, (2015).

[8] A. Takahashi, A. Kitamura, K. Takahashi, R. Seto, T. Yokose, A. Taniike and Y. Furuyama, "Anomalous Heat Effects by Interaction of Nano-metals and D(H)-gas", published in Proc. ICCF20 (2016), pp. 13-25, Tohoku University.

[9] Akira Kitamura, Akito Takahashi, Koh Takahashi, Reiko Seto, Yuki Matsuda,Yasuhiro Iwamura, Takehiko Itoh, Jirohta Kasagi,Masanori Nakamura, Masanobu Uchimura, Hidekazu Takahashi,Tatsumi Hioki, Tomoyoshi Motohiro, Yuichi Furuyama, Masahiro Kishida, "Collaborative Examination on Anomalous

21

Heat Effect Using Nickel-Based Binary Nanocomposites Supported by Zirconia", J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 24 (Proc. ICCF20) (2017) 202 - 213.

[10] Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, J. Kasagi, A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi and K. Takahashi, "Replication Experiments at Tohoku University on Anomalous Heat Generation Using Nickel-Based Binary Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Isotope Gas", J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 24 (Proc. ICCF20) (2017) 191 - 202.

[11] A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, K. Takahashi, R. Seto, T. Hatano, Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, J. Kasagi, M. Nakamura, M. Uchimura, H. Takahashi, S. Sugitomo, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro, Y. Furuyama, M. Kishida, and H. Matsune, "Heat evolution from silica-supported nano-composite samples under exposure to hydrogen isotope gas", Proc. JCF17 (2017) 1-14.

[12] Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, J. Kasagi, A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, K. Takahashi, R. Seto, T. Hatano, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro, M. Nakamura, M. Uchimura, H. Takahashi, S. Sugitomo, Y. Furuyama, M. Kishida, and H.Matsune, "Anomalous Heat Generation Experiments Using Metal Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Isotope Gas", Proc. JCF17 (2017) 15-27.

[13] Akira Kitamura, Akito Takahashi, Koh Takahashi, Reiko Seto, Takeshi Hatano, Yasuhiro Iwamura, Takehiko Itoh, Jirohta Kasagi, Masanori Nakamura, Masanobu Uchimura, Hidekazu Takahashi, Shunsuke Sumitomo, Tatsumi Hioki, Tomoyoshi Motohiro, Yuichi Furuyama, Masahiro Kishida, and Hideki Matsune, "Effect of Supporter Material on Heat Evolution from Ni-based Nano-Composite Samples under Exposure to Hydrogen Isotope Gas", presented at 12th Int. Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen-Loaded Metals, Costigliole d'Asti, Italy, 5-9 June 2017.

[14] Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, J. Kasagi, A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, K. Takahashi, R. Seto, T. Hatano, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro, M. Nakamura, M. Uchimura, H. Takahashi, S. Sugitomo, Y. Furuyama, M. Kishida, and H. Matsune, "Anomalous Heat Generation Experiments Using Metal Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Isotope Gas", presented at 12th Int. Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen-Loaded Metals, Costigliole d'Asti, Italy, 5-9 June 2017.

[15] A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, R. Seto, Y. Fujita, A. Taniike and Y. Furuyama, "Brief summary of latest experimental results with a mass-flow calorimetry system for anomalous heat effect of nano-composite metals under D(H)-gas charging", Current Science, 108(4) (2015) 589-593.

[16] A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, R. Seto, Y. Fujita, A. Taniike and Y. Furuyama, "Comparison of some Ni-based nano-composite samples with respect to excess heat evolution under exposure to hydrogen isotope gases", Proc. JCF15 (2015) 1-19.

[17] A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, R. Seto, Y. Fujita, A. Taniike, Y. Furuyama, "Effect of Minority Atoms of Binary Ni-Based Nano-Composites on Anomalous Heat Evolution under Hydrogen Absorption", J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 19 (2016) 135-144 (Proc. ICCF19 (2015)).

[18] A. Kitamura, E. F. Marano, A. Takahashi, R. Seto, T. Yokose, A. Taniike and Y. Furuyama, "Heat evolution from zirconia-supported Ni-based nano-composite samples under exposure to hydrogen isotope gas", Proc. JCF16 (2016) 1-16.

[19] Y. Arata and Y. Zhang, "The special report on research project for creation of new energy", J. High Temperature Society, 34 (2008) 85-93.

[20] Akito Takahashi, "Physics of cold fusion by TSC theory", J. Physical Science and Application, 3 (2013) 191-198.

Quote from Ascoli65

IMO, in order to possibly regain some credibility, the category should first solve this big problems with its past, recognizing that F&P were wrong.

Ascoli65 : Dear "ITER money eater": Why not starting each ITER related paper with an excuse like the following:

Dear people we really did enjoy to squander 20 Billions of taxpayers money albeit we know since 40 years that we never will find a containment for the fusion neutrons and thus D-T fusion is non manageable.

ITER is forgiven but not F&P

..an idiosyncratic religious spin..

the original sin.. not Adam and Eve..Anno Mundi 1,

but Martin and Stan ..Anno Domini1989

Quote from LeBob

I'm refering to SAFIRE, various Russian ball lighting experiments, Mills BLP and other similar apparatuses.

Ah, OK. Now I understand what you meant.

I didn't examined any of these apparatuses and related experiments, but it seems to me that they are very far from F&P cells or any evolution close to their approach. Have any of the proponents of these systems claimed that their apparatuses are an evolution of F&P cells? In my previous post (*), I was referring to the CF/LENR phenomena as summarized at the beginning of the linked video, that is the "strangeness's that sometimes happen when H or D is put into special metals" (my translation).

In any case, I confess, I'm also very skeptical of the ability of the plasma based systems you mentioned to generate any measurable amounts of nuclear phenomena, but this opinion is not based on a direct examination of the respective results. So this is just a personal opinion, not my convincement of non-existence, as it is for the results claimed by F&P, Celani, Rossi and Mizuno.

Btw, may I ask you, what do you think about the "1992 boil-off experiment" of F&P? Are their conclusions correct?

(*) Clearance Items

Quote from Ascoli65

Btw, may I ask you, what do you think about the "1992 boil-off experiment

btw may I ask you .. vexatious A

what is the date on this reference?

"

The American electorate realized this and elected who promised to make them an island. The English, who have always been on an island, have preferred to focus on Anglo-Saxon solidarity, rather than on that of Europe, which has very little to share. We Italians also need to look around and start taking stock of the little we have under our feet and above our heads, before they even take that away from us. ..

Quote from RobertBryant

,, the experimental results are not premises... they are facts... as with Kitamura et al 2018

https://www.researchgate.net/p…origin=publication_detail

My reading stops here. I'm sorry, but I don't even feel the curiosity to give a look at the beginning of the next page, to see what Kitamura et al. consider unignorable facts.

Quote from Ascoli65

My reading stops here

Your reading stopped in 1992

and even then it was misreading with intent