ICCF21 Thread

Quote from Shane D.

Thank you Can for transcribing. Storms has extensive knowledge of LENR. He has been investigating it for 29 years, both by himself and with others. I would say that if he thinks this "rather strange characteristic" is "truly unusual, very novel, and no doubt reveals something very very important about the nuclear reaction" then others in the field should take notice. Perhaps they have?

Also, reports of "strange radiation" seem to be popping up everywhere lately, and I could not help but wonder if there is a link? Too bad mainstream science is not involved, as it may take their involvement to piece all these seemingly unrelated, strange and unusual effects together...whether what they discover turns out to be an unusual anomaly, or LENR. They *are* seeing something, that is for sure.

It is a hell of a mystery this LENR, so it is understandable why those in the field like Storms call it an addiction.

Shane D, it's always a real pleasure to read your comments.

I decided to not go to ICCF 21 becausen for myself, always the same circus made by mostly self-satisfied retirees.. ( no more than few XH since long long years)

The good point was : Money saved for own experiments.

The bad : I lost opportunity to meet people like Ed Storms.

During an older event in France a friend shared his paper/work where it was well explained how a palladium test sample deforms anisotropically in relation to its length and width, helped too by famous alpha and beta phases.

Therefore, Jacques Ruer shared a paper at ICCF 21 where he proposed tangible scenarios to explain that events listed as LENR would not be in fact.

I remember for example P&F sample that melted/crossed the table.

I understand palladium remains expensive therefore why Ed didn't test some sample with large geometric differences to try to increase its XH ?

I would have liked to ask him this question ..

David Fojt

Quote

Been "right there" for many years, just ready to introduce either a lab kit, a product, or "close the loop", but still trying. Reminds me of Piantelli.

Always ready but never delivering an incontrovertibly working model with enough excess power to self run, etc. etc.

Reminds me of most all LENR experimenters.

Quote

It also sounds to me that he thinks he has enough overunity to theoretically close the loop. Every time he tries though, the circuitry eats too much of the excess.

That just proves you can't have too much overunity... and it can't come too S00n!

Industrial Heat efforts

http://ansannual.org/wp-content/2018/Data/pdfs/212-24651.pdf

DW: ... "the rejuvenation of this hunt may just prove to be worth it in the long run (perhaps for us, and/or our children, and / or our children's children). ..."

>>> Too much children

SD: ... "I can not say anything really sticks out as earth shattering."

>>> Flatline

As it seems, not fully. My screen shows this , which somehow indicates that his post ist still under moderation, but possible to show it.

Quote from Shane D.

I have listened to the Storms, Forsley, Biberian, Mosier-Boss, Norman Cook, Swartz, Hagelstein, Miley audios, and a couple other speakers whose English was hard to follow. I can not say anything really sticks out as earth shattering.

I was mainly focused on hearing those tidbits related to commercialization of either a consumer product, or lab kit to send to the Universities. Swartz seems close, but he was also close 18 years ago...in other words, nothing new. Miley says he could probably cobble together a 30 or 50W unit using grams of fuel, but he did not sound too enthusiastic about it.

IMO, GEC appears closest to having something, but Forsley, or Mosier-Boss, did not reveal anything on the commercial side we did not already know. Basically they talked about their patent submitted in 2007, and approved in 2013. Little about their joint NASA venture. Good stuff though, in that what they said confirmed many aspects of the SPAWAR JWK LENR and the claims made by Global Energy Corporation (GEC) thread.

One of those I most wanted to hear from was the Safire reps, yet I see no audio from them on CFN. Did they do a presentation, and if so what did they say? BG over on ECW says they listened to him during breaks, but were tight lipped in return when he tried to compare notes. Their lead spokesman Childs is set to speak http://www.electricuniverseuk.com/events.html#os so maybe we will get a report from what he says there later on.

Which brings me to what sticks out most to me, and that was McKubre and his lecture against secrecy in the field. He claims "everyone one of you is concealing something". I am but a person on a forum, but if my opinion means anything, I would have to agree with him. We see so many of our own examples right here, and on ECW with me356, Suhas, Lion, and ahem. Other examples go back to the earliest days of CF when someone, or some group, thinks they have figured it out, smell money, and go dark. They had their Eneco back then, formed to capitalize on the advances, and we have our IH today doing the same.

Nothing wrong with secrets, and making money BTW, but unfortunately it never seems to come to anything other than the few *pieces* of the puzzle they really had, get buried alongside them. As McKubre mentions; we consume tremendous amounts of resources rediscovering that same piece of the puzzle they took to the grave. Well, he did not quite say it that way, but close.

Frustrating, and one can not help but wonder if the field is it's own worse enemy, as many of the old guard have said before? Nonetheless, my hat is off to Storms, Biberian, the Japanese, and MFMP who are committed to open science first, and profit second.

Display More

Shane D, congratulations to dare to say things, the true reality of things.

A lot of excitement before each ICCF, many disillusions a few weeks later.

Three quarters about lenr's papers are related to Pd / D cells, for example.

What an originality !

The recent "japanese" works which had XH, by Ni/Pd particle way, are only replications of things already done for 10 years now.

Following this observation, we understand that Lenr problem should not money necessarily but rather inspiration.

The old guard is overwhelmed because they realize that recipe wasn't written in their old school books.

So called secrecy in Lenr field both with so called lake of money well helps to hide failures.

I don't know whether to feel frustrated as you seem to be, but rather angry.

Why ?

Because many newcomers refer to old ones work , therefore at the end not a lot to keep, if you consider low levels of results.

Probably better to put eyes on a blank sheet.

DF

At ICCF-21 I had the opportunity to chat with Peter Hagelstein, where the Lipinski patent came up. He indicated that he had only looked at the Google version. I suggested it might be useful to look over the original WIPO application of 2014. I mentioned that it did not seem to be available at all. This is a bit of a shame, since that 100+ page document had a depth and abundance of revealing details. The key, in my experience, to reading that original was ignoring or skimming the first ~19 pp of theory. The results reported and the Q values become ever more impressive the deeper into their application one reads.

Perhaps Jed or someone else with foresight managed to archive that original WIPO application "as it was". My own document handling skills unfortunately failed to save it in a survivable original form. All the old links I now find here are "404" dead.

Longview

Isn't it available here?

https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…&sortOption=&queryString=

It appears likely to be there (the 137 pp, and 157pp docs in 2014). Thanks, Can.

Wyttenbach kindly also just sent me a link that is active.

Happily all is still preserved for examination.