ICCF21 Thread

  • If the heat is of nuclear origin, what stopped it? Certainly not complete consumption of fuel!

    It stopped because it degassed. The remaining fuel left the system.


    You could have learned that by reading this paper, and others. It is clear that you have not read the literature, and you know little about cold fusion, so I think you should not form any opinion, positive or negative. I would never express an opinion about a complex scientific experiment I knew nothing about.

  • Bruce H,


    If you go onto LENR-CANR, you will find many highly respected public and private institutions have been involved with, and successful doing LENR research. I do not understand why you want to drag LENR down to the level of astrology and homeopathy. What next...UFO's, and flying pigs? Wait, others have made those comparisons already!


    As Bob so well explained, you are now part of the problem for LENR, as they seek respectability from their colleagues. Another in a long list of those who refuse to give them credit for their quality work, and mock them as little better than witch doctors and fortune tellers.


    Hopefully some of those young interns attending ICCF21 do not read the many negative comments here, and then decide to study something else for fear of career suicide.

  • Quote

    If you go onto LENR-CANR, you will find many highly respected public and private institutions have been involved with, and successful doing LENR research. I do not understand why you want to drag LENR down to the level of astrology and homeopathy. What next...UFO's, and flying pigs? Wait, others have made those comparisons already!


    The comparisons are made because those fields and LENR all have unlikely premises according to established and well tested physics and proof that the claims are real are not convincing enough, considering their a priori improbability.

  • Quote

    As Bob so well explained, you are now part of the problem for LENR, as they seek respectability from their colleagues. Another in a long list of those who refuse to give them credit for their quality work, and mock them as little better than witch doctors and fortune tellers.


    Hopefully some of those young interns attending ICCF21 do not read the many negative comments here, and then decide to study something else for fear of career suicide.


    LENR proponents caused their own problems by supporting and rudely defending the likes of Andrea Rossi against completely reasonable critiques, something many of those rude folks are still doing on e-catworld.com. I would argue that this is worse for the field than scientifically based critiques. And you don't see anyone well versed in legitimate LENR work going on e-catworld.com and explaining the truth about Rossi and all the other garbage that the folks there tend to favor. Which BTW, includes UFO's, homeopathy, and psychic phenomena!


    As for those interns, their concern should be to get funding, not reputations. If they real think the field has promise, they should also believe that it will enormously profitable and that when they are able to prove it works, most of the present ridicule will be replaced by praise and riches.

  • He metastasised...


    Shanahan has a theory.

    Technically a hypothesis, no?


    I have a very difficult time separating these obviously dubious fields from LENR. In the end only solid replicated results will suffice.

    You a member of any homeopathy/astrology forums, Bruce?


    You could have learned that by reading this paper

    Do you really think, after all this time, he would actually first read a scientific paper before judging and commenting on it?


    "ROTFWL!"

  • As for those interns, their concern should be to get funding, not reputations. If they real think the field has promise, they should also believe that it will enormously profitable and that when they are able to prove it works, most of the present ridicule will be replaced by praise and riches.


    Oh give me a break. You really think some young potential candidate would not worry about their reputation...before they even get tenure, or a job in the corporate world? LOLs, that is not going to happen. The only early pioneers to stick it out, were well established, and even then got their reputations drug through the mud.

    Maybe it is a good thing the up and comers would check here first and read this thread, and others, before entering the field. Best they know what awaits them, and if they do accept the challenge after seeing what is in store, then that means they are mentally tough...Exactly what it takes in this field. It would not hurt for them to have some leadership skills also, as we need some new blood to replace the old guard working their way out the door.


    Now, that is not to say there are not some oasis in the harsh science desert, where they can pursue LENR in relative peace, because there are such places. Dr. Miley has carved out a niche at the University of Illinois for instance. Same probably can be said for Texas Tech where Duncan will be able to provide safe haven. NASA/UOM/SKINR also.

  • Fuel cannot give up its energy without combustion, which includes the mass of the oxidizer.


    Dan21 : Such comments, bare of any knowledge, are very displaced. Oxygen, usually the most active/energetic combustion partner does not deliver any extra energy. People usually calculate the energy content based on a full oxidation of the base material.


    LENR will soon change the world. For some people here it will take a bit longer...

  • Shanahan has a theory. He has presented it.

    Now, LENR in general is weak in replications. Very weak.


    Bob : If you would read papers and may be understand them, the you could notice that during the last year some major LENR claims (Parkhomov, Mizuno, Takahashi) have been replicated with high success and with an error margin where "Shanahan's" theory cannot be applied to downscale the result.


    I hope that some noisy people here soon switch to a flat earth forum.

  • LENR will soon change the world.

    Would you care to define what “soon” means? Some firm date?

    In the context with Rossi / LENR, the term “soon” apparently has a very flexible meaning.


    Reminds me of a presentation (a “paper”) given at the ICCF in Korea years ago.

    At this time, the predicton for LENR beeing scaled and controlled to commercial power generating levels was:

    33% by end of 2013

    66% by end of 2015

    95% by end of 2017

    http://coldfusion3.com/wp-cont…/2012/11/slide-28-638.jpg


    Now, after several updates, the presentation says:

    Not fully clear:

    ~10% by 2018

    ~15% by 2020

    http://lenrproof.com/slide_26.html


    What a progress!

  • Jean Paul Biberian made a report on Wenesday at ICCF21:


    here is the google translate

    https://translate.google.com/t…-3eme-journee-iccf21.html



    Wednesday, June 6th, 3rd day ICCF21, Fort Collins

    This 3rd day is limited to the morning, because the afternoon was devoted to tourism.

    Storms . "The Loading and Deloading Behavior of Palladium Hydride". The experiments were done with a Seebeck calorimeter.Electrochemical cells are equipped with a catalyst that allows hydrogen-oxygen recombination. Considerable work has been done to measure hydrogen loading rates in several ways: by measuring the catalyst temperature, measuring the amount of oxygen that escapes, and weighing at the end of the experiment. the calorimeter has an accuracy of +/- 5mW.

    Nee . "Lattice Confinement of Hydrogen in fcc Metals for Fusion Reactions". DFT calculations have been made on palladium gaps in a PdH network. Calculations have shown that these gaps create an electronic screening effect.



    Hagelstein : "Statistical Mechanics Models for the PdHx and PdDx Phase Diagram with Both O-sites and T-sites Occupation.It has shown that to fitter the isotherms of hydrogen and deuterium uptake into palladium, one must associate not only the Octahedral sites, but also tetrahedral sites The transition between O-sites and T-sites is second-order and not first-order as one might have thought.

    Imam. "Characterization and Evaluation of Palladium-Boron Alloys Used in LENR Experiments". In the 1990s, it manufactured palladium cathodes with 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75% boron. These electrodes all gave heat to Miles. To make this alloy, it started from a 99.999% pure palladium foam, and the boron was of high purity. After formation of the alloy, the electrode was annealed, and gradually, the size of the grains decreased. An experiment with cerium instead of boron did not give heat.



    Miles. "Excess heat for Pd-B electrodes". The experiments were done at the China Lake laboratory from 1989 to 1995. As indicated by Martin Fleischmann, the excess heat appears only from 60 ° C. He noticed that an electrode that had been positive once re-used works even better.In June 1995, the program was stopped in China Lake. He thinks that the role of boron is to remove the oxygen present in palladium by forming Be2O3.

    Egeley . "Electron generation by LENR". He showed that in the past some inventions have been forgotten, especially the Morlay machine.Recently Lockheed-Martin is working on a transportable fusion reactor on a truck. Some inventors think they can recover the energy of the vacuum.

    Metzler . "Non-Exponential Decay of X-Ray and gamma lines from Co-57 on Steel plates". According to Hagelstein's theory, the LENR reaction energy is transmitted to the lattice by phonon creation. This same idea should work in the opposite direction, that is to say that phonons can produce X-rays or gammas. Experience with a steel plate containing Co-67 under mechanical pressure produces intense emission.

    McCarthy . "Light Hydrogen LENR in Copper Alloys". He used a copper-lithium-boron alloy at 400-900 ° C in a hydrogen atmosphere. Once charged, the alloy is rapidly cooled and immediately placed in a Seebeck calorimeter. Alternate layers of this charged alloy placed between a dielectric. An excess of heat has been observed.



  • Shane: you will I hope agree that although undoubtedly a skeptic I have never stigmatised workers in the field as whack jobs, nor bad scientists.


    With a single exception (Rossi, where I'd take into account a long documented prior history of deceit) I don't pay attention to who scientists are and look at the quality of their work. Of course rossi is not a scientist, nor a qualifies engineer, so not really an exception.


    I do credit the LENR field with openness, in general. I'd like to see more challenge and criticism from within the field. Too often papers are written with misleading power or energy density figures (the former, over short periods, means nothing. The latter, when summarising small measured power out/in discrepancies, means nothing). I'd rather that everyone presenting calorimetric results summarised the reasons to be wary. Or at least if that did not happen some peer reviewer should be doing it. It is a proper understanding in detail of the weaknesses in one methodology that helps others evaluate it and design replications that remove that weakness. Then, a set of replications becomes incremental, each one plugging previously identified gaps.


    With a very few exceptions leading to inconclusive results, I don't see this type of clear critique and better replication.


    Personally I can't see the point of emphasising the positive aspects of an experiment when everyone knows that artifacts exist and it only needs one unidentified error to generate them? As PR to get funding it may be needed, although not IMHO honest. As science, communicated to other scientists, i see no place for it.


    That is why I side with Abd over attitude towards skeptics. People who determinedly ask difficult questions and look for loopholes and lack of care are what LENR experiments need. There can never be too much of that, until some new physics is unambiguously proven - and even after that, since identifying which of the indications are real helps further development. Nuclear levels of excess energy, isotopic transmutation to non-natural isotopes, high energy products, are all unambiguous and replicable signs when properly measured.


    Again personally, but quite uncontentiously, given ambiguous results, I can only remain skeptical. However, when judging overall the likelihood of LENR I look at the coherence between results. Things like the scaling issues that Louis Reed usefully pointed out and I expanded above. Such meta-analysis provides additional information about whether a given hypothesis is likely explanation for a set of individually anomalous results. Scaling is one way that specific indications could be turned into much stronger results.


    It is clear to me that there are anomalies in this area. Less clear how many are real surprising physical anomalies, because almost without exception all the quoted results are in the area where lack of care, or just bad luck, can generate results that look like anomalies but have a natural explanation. For example, a consistent +10% anomaly in power out/in would be very surprising but not lead to an explanation involving a new exothermic reaction. That would generate power out uncorrelated to power in. Where these are one-off errors it is amazingly difficult to identify them without a lot of hard work from the original team pinning down what they have really got. Time or other constraints may prevent that. Replications do not help if most fail, and a few, non-identical, produce similarly questionable results. Where identical replications produce the same results with enhanced instrumentation we have progress and the endpoint is either LENR proven (well, something beyond chemical proven) or that specific indication disproven. As a hypothesis LENR can never be disproven. It is that weakness that skeptics outside the field accept, and know makes the benchmark of evidence needed for LENR higher than a non-expert view would think.


    Personally, I like anomalies, hope they are real. That is true of almost all scientists (and BTW I don't claim myself to be a scientist). You might for example look at the current excitement over the excess electron neutrino measurement anomaly:


    https://www.quantamagazine.org…mental-particle-20180601/


    Now that evidence is a replication of an old experiment that shows the same anomalous results. They are not easily explained. Everyone would just love these results to indicate a real deficiency in the standard model. equally, because other neutrino measurements are not consistent with this most people, while hoping for new physics, expect it is probably some unconsidered effect in this type of experiment. As a result new experiments are proposed to try to measure the same result a different way.


    If your hypothesis is so weak that it does not securely predict "a different way" and just says there can sometimes (but not always, and not replicably) be some kind of anomaly, it is a weak hypothesis. It can never be disproven. It may still be true, and in principle there are non-understood scientific issues so complex that the only early signs are hidden in noise and possible artifact. Mainstean scientists will correctly view such hypotheses as likely false unless some stronger evidence can be found. That is the state LENR has been in for many years. Were the indications coherent you would see a pattern of better indications over time given continued effort. We can hope that is what we see now: but don't kid yourselves that indications on their own are enough. What is needed is an LENR hypothesis that can be disproven, or an anomaly consistently replicable and scalable to make beyond all error. In the context of LENR experiments that would mean, for example, that the +50% excess power results sometimes quotes survived replication and

  • The comparisons are made because those fields and LENR all have unlikely premises according to established and well tested physics and proof that the claims are real are not convincing enough, considering their a priori improbability.


    Perhaps a better common factor is that all involve hypotheses which are essentially non-disprovable.


    LENR might, in some stronger form, be disprovable. Specific LENR theories certainly are disprovable. But what is presented at the moment at ICCF is a collection of results unified only by a weak non-disprovable version of LENR hypothesis.


    The interest in LENR theory is because if one theory gained traction it would make a true disprovable LENR hypothesis. But, were it to be disproved LENR would remain on the table as a weak hypothesis.


    The importance of this idea of disprovability is essentially probabilistic. I don't hold with Popper who was arguing for essentially non-inductive scientific proof (silly idea). But a probabilistic (in fact Bayesian) version of Popper correctly assigns lower merit to hypotheses that cannot be disproved.

  • Forty-Two : Why should I care for the gossips ? Let's say the easy way! Much sooner than ITER.


    But physics theory will change soon! In fact it already has changed.


    Physical theory changes all the time, but major theoretical advances are quite rare. There are many hints that a new advance will emerge but it is proving slow. There are any number of people who have tried some rewriting of existing theory but not achieved such an advance.


    For examples (historical and current):

    David Hestenes et al, geometric algebra. Beautiful mathematically but physically identical.

    Everett (and others) many worlds theories of QM. Has gained traction over time (because nothing else works) but still brings nothing new to the table except philosophy. (That might change, or it might prove totally wrong).

    Many fringe authors self-publishing: none proven other than wrong or trival

    Many QM / spacetime unifications: interesting, incompatible with each other, and none yet has gained traction enough to be a major advance, yet there is enough content to give a lot of hope that advance will come.

  • Hopefully some of those young interns attending ICCF21 do not read the many negative comments here, and then decide to study something else for fear of career suicide.

    A comment from Lion a LENR researcher

    regarding Andrea Rossi.


    Hi Max Nozin,

    no offense taken Max, but if you are calling me Rossi 2, then I will get the hat and T-shirt and wear it with Pride, such is my RESPECT for the Great Man.


    Ecat World thread on Lion work.


    https://e-catworld.com/2018/06…-for-upcoming-experiment/






  • I'm going to defend LENR scientists here.


    I've nothing against amateurs doing experiments. Sometimes they can make a very important contribution. And diversity is great. Also, if Lion comes up with well-written research papers I'll be the first to applaud his/her work. But to my knowledge he has not yet done so, and the fact that there are guys out there doing experiments who admire Rossi cannot be generalised to genuine LENR scientists.


    PS - if Lion were to show himself interested in stuff like does he have controls, do controls have similar conditions to active experiments, does instrumentation change during an experiment, then either he is woefully uninformed about Rossi, or he'd know Rossi has a long record of generating false positives and moderate his enthusiasm.

  • Mary, who was agnostic on LENR

    You can’t be willfully ignorant, and be an agnostic at the same time, it’s counter to the definition of the word...

    Of course. Yet no LENR reaction has self sustained for any length of time, or has one?

    ...I can’t delete this quote for some reason. I was going to reply previously, but decided it wasn’t worth the effort. Seems to fit in well here though.

  • Yes he is his admirer and we have yet to see something confirmed from him before taking him seriously. His endorsement of Rossi maybe will gain value after that. Not sure why you are so exited about what he said now.

    There are so many exotic materials we can try to soak in heavy water and load them into reactor. Very existing, hopefully leading to confirmed replications. But if he is going to follow the path of his subject of admiration , withholding important details and using MFMP and LF as promotional vehicle he is going to end up it the freaks section like many others before him. And that is what I was trying to point him out to.

    He later dropped Steve Greer and bunch of other conspiracy theorist. I am still not sure how this was relevant to getting his results out in a verifiable way.

    When people can not talk straight it is an alarm sign.

  • Sam12,

    Please realize that someone stating Rossi is a "Great Man" is like me stating Bernie Madoff is "a Great Man" because he was successful in finance!


    For one, the ends do no justify the means. Rossi CLEARLY lied, deceived and misled MULTIPLE people. He lied to his partner Hydrofusion, per his OWN words.

    He cheated IH out millions. He lied to his OWN followers and supporters about the "Customer", "Robotic Factories" and the list goes on. He has done this continually.


    Rossi has NEVER shown ANY reactor that he HIMSELF deemed following up on! He states he is ready for production and building factories and then about the time production is to start, he comes up with a new and improved model. One that his "customer" now wants to wait for....


    He has done this time and time again.


    "Great Men" do not do this. If anyone calls Rossi a "Great Man", my opinion will drop for them considerably! Again, Bernie Madoff is NOT a great man and he succeeded FAR more realistically than Rossi ever has!

    Some of the coal and railroad barons of the early 20th century became some of the most wealthy men in history. They helped shape the fabric of this country...... unfortunately on the backs of the working poor! I would not call them "Great" either. Successful... yes... Great... no.


    Rossi is not "Great" nor is he successful in but one thing.... Not LENR but is scamming money.

    He took 11 million dollars from IH, sued for 89 million more for a eCat plant that he dropped like a hot potatoe right after he caved in the lawsuit.


    What do you think that REALLY means.....???


    Very early on I was a Rossi supporter. His OWN actions have damned him in my sight. Other than Frank Ackland, there is hardly any that keep on supporting him. They eventually fall away as they watch his deceitful ways.


    Alan Smith being one of his continued supporters and I cannot for the life of me understand why! Even if Rossi had a minor reactor or process early on with Focardi, it was Focardi or Piantelli's work and credit. I cannot see how anyone can continue to support Rossi after all the fraudulent acts and what he continues to do to this day.... "lie".


    Why cannot his supporters defend Rossi on his own works? I asked Alan Smith to report from an experienced researcher's point of view on the Stockholm event. He seemingly refuses to do so. Yet he still throws in the occasional support and even states he believes Rossi.


    Again I ask....please advise from the experienced point of view what Rossi has shown, why we should believe. Should not be that difficult if it is true.


    (Alan, I am not being an A-Hole here. It is as THH stated, the LENR field NEEDS to critique itself!

    Yet you refuse to simply report what a public demo was from a first hand point of view. Why?)

  • I asked Alan Smith to report from an experienced researcher's point of view on the Stockholm event. He seemingly refuses to do so. Yet he still throws in the occasional support and even states he believes Rossi.


    I never refused - but from memory said that it was a demo, and therefore not a way of proving anything. But if you care to dig up our exchange you can show how wrong my memory is.


    As for defending Rossi, why would I -he is captain of his own ship, a big boy who can look after himself. I have plenty of things to do without spending my time squabbling with (mostly) anonymous posters.

  • I would think that if you presented that argument to those at the ICCF, they would not have a problem with it. I think there is this impression that those in the field reject criticisms, and have withdrawn into their own little world where they rubber stamp each others work without question.


    See D. Goodstein, American Scholar, 1994, reprinted substantially unchanged is several places. See for ex. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/569/2/Goodstein.pdf


    See here for one of those reprints with an added 1st paprgraph https://www.tandfonline.com/do…573966?journalCode=gacr20


    It ended up as a chapter in the book "On Fact and Fraud" https://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fr…eywords=on+fact+and+fraud


    You might want to read it. It clearly points out that by 1994, almost all mainstream criticism had ceased. That is until 2002 when I published my main paper. Goodstein also points out that the CF community felt it was 'under siege'. Kinda hard to envision if no one was paying it any attention. In fact at that time, Douglas Morrison was perhaps the only 'active' critic left. Jed can probably correct me on that. But the early furor had died off, with the 'mainstream' concluding CF was pathological science. The impression you mention is put in writing in the article too.


    From what I have read going back to the earliest conferences, it is just the opposite. They have begged mainstream to look at what they do, and critique it. Only a few have taken them up on their offer....


    This is really what is so hilarious. From 1994 to present, please name these 'critics' (aside from me, we all know I am a critic these days) and lets discuss the CF communities reaction to them.

  • Yes he is his admirer and we have yet to see something confirmed from him before taking him seriously. His endorsement of Rossi maybe will gain value after that. Not sure why you are so exited about what he said now.

    I thought it is an interesting comment from Lion a LENR researcher about

    Rossi another LENR researcher.Here is another part of a comment Lion made

    about Rossi a couple months back.Lion just had his 60th birthday.


    Experimental work takes great patience, perserverance and fortitude, ANDREA embodies these qualities.

    If people are after instant gratification best reach for the cookie Jar.


  • I never refused - but from memory said that it was a demo, and therefore not a way of proving anything. But if you care to dig up our exchange you can show how wrong my memory is.


    As for defending Rossi, why would I -he is captain of his own ship, a big boy who can look after himself. I have plenty of things to do without spending my time squabbling with (mostly) anonymous posters.

    Alan,

    I have no desire to quibble with you.


    If you do not want to give a peer review of a reactor presentation that Rossi made, then simply state so, but I would ask why you choose not to?


    You have not given a review, you simply stated it was a demo. That is not a review. You have not given the barest analysis from an experienced researcher's view point after being there first hand.


    Some here, such as Adrian, make claims of success or at least probable validity of this "demo" from only "Rossi says".


    You were there. You can provide a review from an experienced point of view. But you refuse. Why? Is it because your review would be damning to the event as having any validity? If so, do it! This is not bad, it is what science is supposed to do!


    You do throw out the occasional thumbs up to Rossi, If he presents something as being valid and it is not, you should state that as well. He posts daily about the "Stockholm" event as being such a masterpiece. Was it or was it not?


    Otherwise, your bias is discrediting you just as many claim some uber skeptics are discredited due to their bias.


    As you have posted before I believe..... "Pot Kettle Black"!

    :thumbup:


    P.S. I do wish you the best in your experiments regardless.

  • sam12 whatever Lion thinks about Rossi can be true. Right now it is a product of his imagination. Does he follow Rossi around the lab to check out his lab staying power? Of course not, Rossi never lets anybody to get close to him. Good example is Matt's Lewan.

    Lion's attitude towards Rossi is based on rossysays only. Would you believe me if I say that I am typing this response to you as I am finishing my weekly 100km extreme marathon?

  • See D. Goodstein, American Scholar, 1994, reprinted substantially unchanged is several places. See for ex. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/569/2/Goodstein.pdf


    Kirk,


    That is a good read and I would recommend it to others. Too busy today to get to the other reads, and also address all your points. But from that one Goodstein article, I would say it appears nothing has changed since 1993. That is nothing new, as many have been saying the same thing since 1993. As back then, if today you want to believe in LENR, there is experimental evidence in support, and for those that believe it pseudoscience, there is theoretical and experimental evidence to support that view also.