MAGIC.... NO

Scholarly articles for Strained Layer Ferromagnetism in Transition Metals and its Impact On Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”

DeChiaro · Cited by 7

https://www.semanticscholar.org › S...

These results are applied to the study of some layered structures employed by a number of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) research teams

Magnitites Pycnonuclear Reactions within Electrochemical ...

US20140140461A1 - Magnitites Pycnonuclear Reactions within Electrochemical, Radioactive and Electromagnetic Medias - Google Patents

The magnetization and more so the metal core-electronic excitation, rehybridization and spill dynamics induce transitions and high spin excited nuclear states ...

http://ikkem.com › orpptPDF

Conventional Fusion in an Unconventional Place

http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-PLA-05%20Forsley.pdf

Although hot fusion research began 70+ years ago, great technical difficulties exist in bringing fusion to commercial fruition. Consequently, there is a ...

1 page·71 KB

This is about the 10th Forum thread dealing with US and LENR. Russ George and Stringham did prove transmutation from US already 30 years ago. Please read the literature and stop producing noise (useless posts).

One more who has been talking nonsense for a while. Besides, his whole theory on hyper regular calorimetry need is a misinterpretation when we put in parallel the deltaT need promulgated by Iwamura recently.

Quote from Daniel_G

Transmutations mean nuclear reactions. Whatever you label them, and whatever the method if good experimental technique shows transmutations, that’s a nuke by definition.

I personally believe the line between chemical and nuclear reaction is a lot more fuzzy than what we were taught as students.

Now, noise is usefull when you no longer appear as THE Japanese LENR top team.

Go back to your box phoney

Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Thanks Curbina.

Are you sure that is the correct paper? Look at the abstract in italics at end of this post. Nowhere there do they mention problems disposing of excess heat. Rather, they say that they noted problems in their calorimetry of a low temperature system, and have therefore developed a system which will work at high temperatures (not - please note - larger amounts of excess heat).

Specifically they say low temperature work became inaccurate due to coolant boiling. But taht is only because they want to explore characteristics at higher temperatures.

It is understandable that therefore they move to a radiation-based heat transfer system.

Two TC sensors were added in the D-system, for monitoring gas temperature directly and RC center temperature. Variation of RC temperature distribution along the axial direction of RC cylinder in D-system became ca. 30 °C, which is less than 200 °C in the C-system runs 4-6). However, there remains considerable variation of temperature distribution in MHE sample zone for using three points average of sample TC temperatures to estimate excess power. We conceive that estimation of excess power by increment of H-gas temperature from calibration runs is most appropriate at the moment.

(PDF) New MHE Experiments by D-System. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…E_Experiments_by_D-System [accessed Oct 01 2022].

So they have problems with varying temperature over the radiating surface and therefore can't do first principle calculation of enthalpy out. Instead they use comparison with a control.

My problem with that is that if the temperature distribution over the radiating surface is so uneven then it may differ between control and active, resulting in errors.

Time response of oil outlet temperature for removing heat by radiation transfer is found to be so slow (as more than 1 hour delay) that we cannot use for estimating time evolution of excess power generation. However, integral heat amount by oil mass flow is correctly estimated for very long time interval as several days. As a consequence, we decided to use excess power estimation by the H-gas temperature in RC for analysis of time evolution of excess power generation pattern, in correlation with dynamic evolution of H/Ni loading ratio1). We found that evolution of temperature at the mid-point of RC is most sensitive to the evolution of excess power generation. We can see rapid and clear AHE indication by this temperature evolution, but accurate estimation for excess power is difficult due to very local variation of AHE status.

(PDF) New MHE Experiments by D-System. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…E_Experiments_by_D-System [accessed Oct 01 2022].

As I understand this they are not looking for integrated power out (for overall enthalpy) so all they get from the new system is the radiative info - which is inaccurate.

Since they say this I do not think we can take the system here as providing any evidence for excess heat in their system.

We have studied the so-called AHE (anomalous heat effect) by calorimetry of our C-system. The C-system was designed to make accurate detection of excess thermal power larger than several W/kg-sample. By our latest data with significant increase of excess thermal power of the MHE (nano-metal hydrogen energy) experiment, we have met to needs for improving the system. Especially in cases of observing 200W/kg-sample level excess power evolution using re-calcined PNZ-and CNZ-type MHE powder-samples, we have found some drawbacks in calorimetry with the C-system. We have therefore developed a new system, called D-system. In our new system (D-system), we have made the following improvements: a) Heat recovery system to cover higher temperature conditions as over 500°C of hydrogen gas condition of reaction chamber b) Increase detection points of heat sensors c) Reaction chamber assembly with high temperature-tight performance One drawback of the C-system was due to the problem that calorimetry inaccuracy became very large (underestimation) when coolant oil temperature reached at boiling point (ca. 350°C). In the D-system, we use the heat recovery by radiation heat transfer from the surface of reaction chamber settled in outer vacuum chamber. As a result, we can operate H-gas feeding runs with MHE sample powder to extend for much higher temperature conditions. We can take characteristic AHE data of excess thermal power with additional key data as evolution of H/Ni loading ratio. Characteristic feature of latest AHE data will be shown by another paper in this JCF22 meeting.

Display More

Quote from Curbina

And please don't feel insulted by the use of the term "pseudo skeptics", I don't mean in with ill intention,

It's more close to idiot or as many think paid troll....

Quote from JedRothwell

As bad as T. H. Huxley.

"THH" is an unfortunate choice of moniker..

THH1 was good at rhetoric...but was not a scientist..

"“It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man,

cognisant of the facts,

believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man.”

Thomas Huxley: Once Respected, Now Rejected

Edited photo of a cartoon drawing of Thomas Huxley in front of the Environmental Science building with the name of the college in question. The cartoon drawing…

asreview.org

Quote from can

could be used for more closely replicating the test to F&P's conditions.

Maybe JeanPaul could donate Icarus9 to a good cause?

Quote from RobertBryant

"THH" is an unfortunate moniker..

THH1 was good at rhetoric...but was not a scientist..

"“It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man,

cognisant of the facts,

believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man.”

https://asreview.org/2021/01/2…e-respected-now-rejected/

Maybe JeanPaul could donate Icarus9 to a good cause?

Display More

Wow - RB you are good at personalisation as a substitute for rational debate!

We could have a long discussion on the topic you raise - it is very interesting and I know a lot about it - but it would be OT for this thread. Probably OT for this site.

Quote from RobertBryant

THH1 was good at rhetoric...but was not a scientist..

He was a superb scientist. One of the best of the 19th century. He was also deeply racist, but so were many other people back then. It was a common failing. You should not judge people in the past by the standards of today. Judge not, lest you be judged: it is likely that some people 150 years from now will think you were barbaric for customs and beliefs that you think are perfectly okay, such as eating meat.

Quote from JedRothwell

Judge not, lest you be judged:

Huxley appears to be being judged 125 years..after his death

but on the other hand James Watson was judged about fifty years after his Nobel Prize

Quote from JedRothwell

He was a superb scientist

Huxley was never mentioned once in my biochemistry and other undergraduate courses...

on the other hand Gregor Mendel...a contemporary of Huxley's was often mentioned..

THH's superbness was limited to rhetorical or descriptive biology...

not the experimental or quantitative biology that Mendel was superb at...

Huxley's 'ethnology' was something other than superb..

"

"On the Methods and Results of Ethnology,"
includes eleven distinct racial "stocks" (7:234- 37): Australians, Negritos" (such as Tasmanians
and Papuans), "Amphinesians" (Polynesians, the Maori), American Indians, Es_ quimaux,"
Mongolians, Negroes, Bushmen, t'Mincopies" (the An· daman Islanders), and the two great
groups that make up most of the population of Europe, North Africa, and much of western Asia:
the blond "Xanthochroi" who may be either "short" or "long-headed" (though in other essays
they are described as "long-headed" only), and the dark, "long-headed" "Melanochroi."

Huxley
remarks that "of the eleven different stocks enumerated, seven have been known to us for less
than 400 years; and of these seven not one possessed a fragment of written history at the time
it came into contact with European civilization" (T237-38).

https://president.wwu.edu/files/2021-04/TH%20Huxley%20Research%20Document_%20_Why%20is%20TH%20Huxley%20problematic__.pdf

Quote from Curbina

strongly disagree with him, but that's no basis for banning anyone.

The THHUXLEYNEW Thread is what I proposed.

What is your argument against that?

The American Nuclear Society accepted me as a member on their LinkedIn site. This allowed me to post articles. I posted two cold fusion articles which rose to be in the top 5 articles read that month. The comments and discussions were well studied responses, relevant and useful.

The point being... The ANS LinkedIn group will ban someone and not worry about censorship at all. Go talk somewhere else... We do not want you disrupting our discussions here. Find someone else to talk to.

Give THHUXLEYNEW his own thread where his thoughts can be contained. People can go there and talk with him if they want to. Maybe he could write a paper for peer review with his compatriots and supporters.

I have nothing more to offer here till this is resolved to my satisfaction.

Battling with THHUXLEYNEW is not what I'm here for. His diatribes are polluting almost every thread. You are insisting it is best to leave it be and have newcomers sort through all the crap posted by him.

If a guest tracks dog shit into your house you clean it up before other guests arrive. If a cat likes to shit on your bed you ban the cat from the house... or convince the cat to use the cat box made just for him.

Seriously... Resolved to my satisfaction.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Yes, it is great news.

To be clear: this is type 2 LENR where the credibility gap is maybe a bit less?

Also, it removes the main excuse for the LENR community to be working in the shadows without well-written papers, peer-review of those papers by mainstream scientists, robust debate in the literature. That robust challenge from many different people will I think vastly improve the quality of science and prevent prejudices and group think!

Although again perhaps the type 1 LENR, more difficult for mainstream science to accept, might still have that excuse.

Type 2 The credibility gap is maybe less.

Like the LEC?

No credible explanation at all. It keeps going... beyond belief. Incredulous! Simple! These are appropriate words at this time. The LEC is CMNS.

...vastly improve the quality of (CMNS add edit) science and prevent prejudices and group think!

Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

Improve the quality of this science?

CMNS is high quality science.

Vastly improve it?

It is not in need of vast improvement.

...type 1 LENR, more difficult for mainstream science to accept, might still have that excuse.

I.e. ...the main excuse for the LENR community to be working in the shadows without well-written papers, peer-review of those papers by mainstream scientists, robust debate...

Type 1 LENR is CMNS

The CMNS (LENR community) does not work in the shadows. CMNS papers are well written, peer reviewed and published in many of the most respected Physics Journals today. CMNS research is multidisciplinary and provides insight for a deeper understanding into aspects of these related, sister arts of Condensed Matter Physics. Many other CMP works cite CMNS papers.

Curbina

Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

Five of these presentations have been presented here in answer to this question.

Answer my question here please.

Can a newcomer find them amidst the THHUXLEY NOISE?

Five choices.

Twenty pages of comments.

Almost no discussion about the details of these selections and studied responses. All shredded into hard to discern bits and pieces by all of the NOISE. Why try to speak 🙊? Over the NOISE Why try to hear 🙉? Past the NOISE.

The NOISE runs through everything here.

Pages of off topic arguments approved by the... LENR Moderator Team

Meet Our Expert Skeptic

THHUXLEYNEW

Give him his own thread and turn down, or better yet, move all his NOISE (off topic arguments) over to the Expert Skeptic THHUXLEYNEW Thread.

Shane D.

I have critiqued a comment made by THHuxleynew which denigrates research in this field.

Yesterday I read this thread in it's entirety. I counted six choices presented, including my own.

Hard to tell.

So, I had an intelligent writer friend read the thread, once through, and list the number of choices presented in answer to your question. She listed five presented.

A newcomer, I asked of her opinion of the quality of this Forum conversation.

Low... Many reasons given. Poorly moderated was her basic impression.

We discussed it a bit. Not of weight to present here. No worries No blame

Do the same yourself and gain insight into others perception of LENR Forum

So, maybe you could settle the score here? How many presentations were chosen as the best and most likely to sway someone new here. Also, will someone new here, on this important thread about ICCF-24, even be able to sift through all the negative, denigrating, doubt inducing, off - topic THHUXLEYNEW arguments...

Or even want to.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

E The CMNS (LENR community) does not work in the shadows. CMNS papers are well written, peer reviewed and published in many of the most respected Physics Journals today. CMNS research is multidisciplinary and provides insight for a deeper understanding into aspects of these related, sister arts of Condensed Matter Physics. Many other CMP works cite CMNS papers.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Shane D.

I have critiqued a comment made by THHuxleynew which denigrates research in this field.

Yesterday I read this thread in it's entirety. I counted six choices presented, including my own.

Hard to tell.

So, I had an intelligent writer friend read the thread, once through, and list the number of choices presented in answer to your question. She listed five presented.

A newcomer, I asked of her opinion of the quality of this Forum conversation.

Low... Many reasons given. Poorly moderated was her basic impression.

We discussed it a bit. Not of weight to present here. No worries No blame

Do the same yourself and gain insight into others perception of LENR Forum

So, maybe you could settle the score here? How many presentations were chosen as the best and most likely to sway someone new here. Also, will someone new here, on this important thread about ICCF-24, even be able to sift through all the negative, denigrating, doubt inducing, off - topic THHUXLEYNEW arguments...

Or even want to.

Display More

Greg,

Our formula for success may not be up to your standards, or your expert friend, but we do the best we can. Contrary to what you say, the forum is thriving in every way, growing ever more influential within the community by the day.

Until that change's, we will keep doing what we are doing.

Quote from Edo

THH forum where CF/LENR/SSM/CMNS are simply a fringe impossibility and QM with the Copenhagen is true and on top of that the experimenters are stupid and never thought of contamination etc etc etc.

It is insulting if one thinks about it...

thriving in every way

Quote from Shane D.

Our formula for success may not be up to your standards, or your expert friend, but we do the best we can. Contrary to what you say, the forum is thriving in every way, growing ever more influential within the community by the day.

Until that change's, we will keep doing what we are doing.

Contrary to what you say

growing ever more influential within the community by the day.

Our formula for success may not be up to your standards, or your expert friend

Until that change's, we will keep doing what we are doing

Shane D.

What did I say?

THHUXLEYNEW NOISE is unacceptable and a problem for many of us here and I presented a newcomers impression.

I asked you to have a newcomer assess it as well.

I never said the forum isn't growing more influential in the community.

Not necessarily due to your formula for success, which you infer is do to allowing THHUXLEYNEW NOISE to dominate.

I never said my friend was an expert, she is a writer and intelligent person. As a newcomer she read your thread in it's entirety. She also scanned a few other ones.

She was turned off by the circular insistent arguments. She wondered why THHUXLEYNEW was allowed to run rampant. She also thought that comments should be reviewed for relevance before being posted.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

She also thought that comments should be reviewed for relevance before being posted.

What a wonderful idea. Who is going to do it though, we have 3 active mods kept busy enough as it is, because while the forum may seem to proceed in a fairly swan-like manner there is a lot of paddling required beneath the surface to make that happen.

All forums will attract obsessives, some more annoying than others. THH is at least civil, which is a good thing, though not always logical. He believes in the LEC results for example, but dismisses any suggestion that LENR is involved without offering any alternative suggestions for a mechanism that persists for years in the case of samples kept by Frank gordon.

There is BTW another LEC replication report (successful) which I will post soon in the appropriate thread - just querying the author on a few points.

Gregory Byron Goble Our private conversations should remain private. Alan and I often work quietly behind the scenes to keep the peace. This is the first time anyone has taken our words and made them public. That is not something you should be proud about.

Quote from RobertBryant

Huxley was never mentioned once in my biochemistry and other undergraduate courses...

on the other hand Gregor Mendel...a contemporary of Huxley's was often mentioned..

Huxley was more famous as a teacher. Many of his students went on to distinguished careers. He was founder of universities and adult education. He was the Principal of a Working Man's College. He was a social reformer and a London School Board member. His contributions to biology were important. He was an early supporter of evolution, sometimes called "Darwin's bulldog." Darwin was shy and retiring, and Huxley often spoke as his representative. Darwin admired him.

His views about race were unfortunate but common in those days, as I said. His American relatives were Confederates and fought in the Civil War. As I recall they lived in Tennessee. I suppose that influenced his thinking.

It makes no sense to insist that people who lived 150 years ago should have abided by our morality, with our sensibilities. On the other hand, some of them were well aware of their own moral failures. None more so than Thomas Jefferson. He had a towering intellect. His education was awesome. He spoke out against slavery with eloquence and inarguable logic. And as everyone knows, he kept slaves, including Sally Hemmings, his wife's half sister. He had several children with Hemmings after his wife died. By our standards this was monstrous. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Hemmings and others were fond of him. When she was in France with him, she had the opportunity to go free. French law did not allow slavery. She negotiated with him and secured various future guarantees, which he abided by. When he was governor during the Revolutionary War, British troops approached Monticello and Jefferson had to flee. The troops came to the estate and the officers demanded that the slaves tell them which way Jefferson went and where he was going. They refused to say. They were loyal to him, like something out of "Gone with the Wind" (which is mostly bunk).

History is complicated. People are complicated.

Quote from JedRothwell

People are complicated.

Time will tell

Somewhere in Seattle

People are complicated too

But I think the state of Washington will remain for some time..

"

Further Information: Laura Wagner and Francis Neff are the senators for the College of the Environment at Western and are working hard to get students involved with the Huxley College of the Environment name change. The senators plan to hold a public forum with students about Thomas Huxley and the name change on Monday, Jan. 25 from 6-7 p.m. If you want to get involved with the movement and follow their other term goals, their joint Instagram account is @collegeofenvironment.senators and their email is [email protected].

Share this:

Quote from Curbina

special section of the forum for a less cluttered discussion, and, to our amazement, is rarely used.

You recommend going to a private, not viewed by the general public, special section. Avoid this public forum to escape the cluttered discussions aka THHUXLEYNEW.

I hope the core purpose of this Forum will not get lost in the misguided desire to give a house skeptic free reign. Who decided that the purpose of this Forum was to provide a free speech platform to an ill informed skeptic who abuses the privileges and good grace of this open forum.

His comment, about my choice of the most likely ICCF-24 presentation to sway a skeptic, was critiqued by me.

What I want is a discussion about each of the choices members have posted. I'd like to see comments providing a historical background and previous papers published by the presenters. I'd like to see comments about the background and skill-sets of each researcher in that research team. Discussion about this science in front of us today. Relevant to a rather quickly changing field. Bringing the public up to date on this research.

Instead, this very very important thread is absolutely devoid of any of this.

I work alot with odd hours, I'm 64 years old working a swing/graveyard shift at Taste of Denmark bakery in Oakland CA. I also volunteer helping others with being able to die at home, end of life plan and stick by them throughout this final aging process. This is how I thrive.

In my spare time I am an amateur scientific research investigative journalist interested in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and all related arts of science. I provide posts with historical background and look into the skill sets of research teams. I find patents. I look into new, little understood, areas of physics research that hold a promise for reaching a deeper understanding of the atomic, and perhaps beyond atomic, forces and energies within the LENR CMNS reaction pathways.

I have no college education. Yet I seem to be better educated than someone who teaches in one of the world's top 6 universities who is afraid to tell us his name.

I have patience for skeptics.

I have absolutely no patience for THHUXLEYNEW.

This is a public forum. I want to post to the public, not in a special, protected, private hidden place on LENR Forum... just to avoid a few people who abuse the comment/discussion privileges at LENR-FORUM.

I should be getting my sleep now, instead I am arguing about NOISE.

Alan Smith  AlainCo  Shane D.  rubycarat  barty  David Nygren  Curbina  Rends  Max Nozin

You are the Keepers of the LENR Forum Big Big Big Thanks

Also, at some point you'll have to address this issue in a better way.

I'm confident that you will succeed.

Other Forums have....

Look to them for possible solutions.

Don't forget that which is our only agreed upon purpose here at LENR-FORUM.

Anyone working at a cross purpose to our goals here needs to be contained or restrained in some way if they abuse the commenting privileges of this public discussion forum.

SERIOUSLY

Gregory Byron Goble

[email protected]

(510) 772-4469

The LENR Forum Mission i.e. Purpose

The purpose is to promote collaboration through community for researchers and experts who have dived deep into materials science, electro chemistry, nano technology and plasma physics. The goal is to validate / replicate the LENR technology and see a commercial unit meet the market.