ICCF21 Thread

  • al months ago, after a period of intensive study consisting of obsessive compulsive all-night-long literature searches, I reached the conclusion that ultra-high-power LENR+ (or whatever funky term you want to use) is likely a ubiquitous phenomenon that a multitude of researchers have witnessed.

    I don't know what you consider ultra-high-power. If you mean power over 100 W, then practically no one has witnessed it. Except when Fleischmann and Pons' early device blew up. Mizuno and others have seen heat after death ranging from 20 to ~100 W.


    Mizuno probably saw ~480 W at one point. See p. 11:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf


    If you have in mind something like what Rossi claims, with a kilowatt or more, there are no credible reports of that. If "multitudes of researchers" had witnessed such a thing, they would have recorded the data and reported it. They would not keep it secret. They do not hide good results. On the contrary, they often report high heat that turns out to be a mistake, and is actually zero heat.

  • Parkhomov achieved self sustain at high temperature for a short period of time and has witnessed several meltdowns. Additionally, Songsheng Jiang produced a high level of excess heat in at least one of his experiments. There are a couple Russian groups that have produced E-Cat like reactors as well that produced high power. Then of course are the incidents discussed by Piantelli in which, at least for short periods of time, massive excess heat was produced. Then if we move away perhaps from more classical LENR systems, Black Light Power seems to have possibly achieved high powered reactions. I would have to think harder (I haven't been studying LENR stuff for several months so my memory is a bit fuzzy) but I know there are other incidents. Me356 also claims to have produced high output.


    Obviously, each of these incidents need to be reproduced by third parties to be totally, one hundred percent verified. But I think the sum of them indicate that high powered LENR is commonplace -- if not totally understood or reproducible by most parties.

  • Director,


    That is what they claimed, but we have been having a hard time getting solid scientific verification from their colleagues about Parkhomov, and Songsheng. Without, is that really science? We have Russian members here, and have asked for feedback from them as to what the rumor mill in Russia says about Park, but nothing so far. Songsheng has been almost silent since he first made himself known.


    Ah...the curse of LENR. So frustrating.

  • Parkhomov achieved self sustain at high temperature for a short period of time and has witnessed several meltdowns. Additionally, Songsheng Jiang produced a high level of excess heat in at least one of his experiments. There are a couple Russian groups that have produced E-Cat like reactors as well that produced high power. . . .

    I doubt these reports. I am not saying they did not happen, but the evidence is thin and they have not been properly reported or replicated, so for now they remain in limbo. Jiang's high heat results are artifacts of broken TCs, as far as I know. I don't buy vague reports by Russian groups or that fellow ME-something-or-other who reported here and then vanished after people went to visit him and found nothing.


    I think you need to hold researchers to higher standards than you do. Don't believe everything you read. In fact, don't believe anything . . . until it has been replicated several times and reported in detail.

  • Shane,


    It's not simply the curse of LENR, but the curse of exotic paradigm shattering technologies in general.


    For their credit, Parkhomov and Songsheng have from time to time corresponded and answered many questions (in Songsheng's case not recently). The other teams from Russia have also answered questions and don't seem, on the surface, to be holding back information. Of course to replicate someone's experiment being there hands on to observe is best: tiny things that these researchers are doing could be significant.


    However, I think the most pressing matter is that researchers that perform test after test for months or years are a very precious commodity. There are simply not many of them! Then factor in that only a certain percentage of obsessive compulsive testers will be following a successful line of thinking and the result is that success can be very elusive. Me356, unless he was completely dishonest with us about his results which I hate to believe, was an example of someone with the work ethic, obsessive nature, open mind, intelligence, and resources to achieve amazing results. He's now went dark, however. I doubt we'll be hearing anything more from him.


    Looking for Heat is really my only hope at this moment.

  • I doubt these reports. I am not saying they did not happen, but the evidence is thin and they have not been properly reported or replicated, so for now they remain in limbo. Jiang's high heat results are artifacts of broken TCs, as far as I know. I don't buy vague reports by Russian groups or that fellow ME-something-or-other who reported here and then vanished after people went to visit him and found nothing.


    I think you need to hold researchers to higher standards than you do. Don't believe everything you read. In fact, don't believe anything . . . until it has been replicated several times and reported in detail.


    From what I've been told by individuals who have worked with TC's extensively in real world industrial settings, TC's are not prone to showing abnormally high temperatures when damaged; instead, I've been told they usually show lowered readings. I'm not an expert at all on TC's, but from what people have told me and the tech papers I've read on TCs from manufacturers, I find it more likely that Jiang produced high heat than there were thermocouple errors. Maybe I'm wrong. And I admit there need to be many more tests to verify all of this. But there's basically no one around to perform such tests in an open, transparent manner. The MFMP have attempted replications in the past, but they mostly do one off tests instead of the series of tests that are really required.


    I don't believe everything I read. I compare everything I read to everything else I read and try to use logic and sound judgement. I'm often wrong. However, when it comes to high powered heat from Ni and various sources of hydrogen (LiAlH4, LiH, or from a canister) I'm very confident there is a very real phenomenon that exists and has been witnessed. I don't think many researchers who are willing to talk publicly know how to trigger it on command.

  • From what I've been told by individuals who have worked with TC's extensively in real world industrial settings, TC's are not prone to showing abnormally high temperatures when damaged; instead, I've been told they usually show lowered readings.

    There is no doubt the TC was damaged. Jiang himself said so. It did not work after the test. He included some of the data that was unstable. As I recall, he said the data came from before it was damaged, but Storms and I disagree. It was already fluctuating in way that looks like damage. I think the data was meaningless.

  • FWIW, the Jiang Thermocouple error voltage swings (decreasing T part) are less than 5 mV (which can be easily calculated with a TC voltage-temperature chart).

    The V swings are more like: 4 mV, 3 mV, 2 mV during the T decrease, actually)


    Although a 5 mV problem does not sound like much, for a thermocouple it is a lot, and could come from anywhere, like a ground loop, galvanic effect with the MgO insulation, or a Reference Junction problem.


    Anyways, once the TC goes overlimit (melting point) or open circuit, there's no useful and reliable info coming out of it.


    The subsequent Zhang Hang "replication" avoided overheating and several other problems (nicely done) and the results are totally mundane.

  • Parkhomov achieved self sustain at high temperature for a short period of time ...


    The only public presented self sustain LENR is R.Mills SUN-CELL development system. For interested folks - there are videos available.


    But what do we mean with self sustain?? Is it only no input energy needed or does it include cooling / "waste" removement etc..?

  • Jiang's high heat results are artifacts of broken TCs, as far as I know.

    Jed, while I agree with you about the lack of solid data from Jiang et al, this thermocouple stuff is a canard I thought had flown away. I have never known a faulty thermocouple read high, they either read low or don't read at all. Resistance thermometers may read high under some circumstances, but while I have tortured many hundreds of thermocouples to death, they never read high even in extremis.

  • Jed, while I agree with you about the lack of solid data from Jiang et al, this thermocouple stuff is a canard I thought had flown away. I have never known a faulty thermocouple read high, they either read low or don't read at all. Resistance thermometers may read high under some circumstances, but while I have tortured many hundreds of thermocouples to death, they never read high even in extremis.


    Alan,


    May I disagree ?


    Some thermocouple circuits have a high ohmic pull-up resistor, which when the thermocouple gets broken, cause a high voltage at the input. (We used 10 MegaOhm resistors)

    This will result in a high temperature displayed when a thermocouple is broken and will be an alert that there is something wrong.

    The high value displayed depends on the electronics and software, but will normally so much different from the expected value, that you will not interpret it aa a valid measurment.


  • The high value displayed depends on the electronics and software, but will normally so much different from the expected value, that you will not interpret it aa a valid measurment.

    Of course - but that reading is an error derived not from the thermocouple itself, but from external circuitry, and as you say, the readings are so 'out of range' that even a properly set-up data logger will reject them as 'error'.

  • Jed, while I agree with you about the lack of solid data from Jiang et al, this thermocouple stuff is a canard I thought had flown away. I have never known a faulty thermocouple read high, they either read low or don't read at all.

    You saw the data, didn't you? What do you make of it? It was fluctuating violently. Jiang said the TC was damaged because it exceeded the maximum temperature. I had the impression the numbers were "stuck" at the highest level recorded before it was damaged, which could indicate a problem with the interface rather than the TC itself.


    Anyway, if it is confirmed to be damaged after a test, I would toss out the entire test. I wouldn't try to guess when the damage began to have an effect.


  • My TC logger displays open TC circuits as 9999.


    Obviously, 0 (zero) is not safe be displayed for opens/unplugged TC's.

  • As most know here, many prominent AHE / LENR reports might be explained by some plausible mechanism of how the 782 keV/c^2 mass-energy deficit is made up.


    Earlier, discussed here on LF, in some detail from a quite different perspective, now linked at:


    deBroglie's equation and heavy electrons


    [I deduce we no longer need to advise "newbies" that the W-L theory ostensibly explains the "growing" a proton to neutron by adding such a heavy electron mechanism.]

    As many here may know, and IMHO, deBroglie offers, a quite different explanation for "heavy" electrons, and that explanation might be, at least under "classical" QM, quite inconsistent with the usual "classical" relativistic interpretation. I believe the relativity-based explanations may be quite difficult-to-reconcile with observations. Recently it seems the theoreticians are seeking, and more recently, demanding difficult-to-imagine scenarios. And if Dr. Hagelstein's, and other JCMNS articles analyzing the energetics are correct, it may be quite impossible or insufficiently productive to seek "relativistic" explanations of increased mass suitable to accomplish LENR. This has apparently now evolved to a "received view" that is often used to brush away any low velocity heavy electron explanations of LENR / CF.

    A little background: I was primed long ago, long before my science career, for discussions of QM via deBroglie from P.W. Atkins' Physical Chemistry (W.H. Freeman, 1978), especially the 2nd section "structure". And now I see a much later influence layered on the Atkins text: The (one volume version) of the 1993, 2nd edition of McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Physics (Sybil Parker, editor). In that tome was where I first saw the initial hints that led me to focus on one of the two core deBroglie equations, that is: lambda = h/p where "p" can be taken as classical momentum (that is: m dot v, as I understand it). Some key passages are there ca. p. 1112. I won't review that here, except to say that it appears that the by now classical QM uncertainty relationship, that is a reciprocal "complementarity" relationship of position (distributed as "wavelength" in lambda) with momentum distribution as "p".... can indeed be further decomposed (classical Newton: p=mv) to allow not only velocity uncertainty, but mass fluctuation, at least in one vectorial pairing, in that article, say the "x" axis.

    With the greatest respect for some of the living giants in the CF field, it seems such a strictly relativistic explanation of mass gain, at least at first view, is quite the contrived situation. So much so, that I suspected it a "strawman" to have electrons in the conduction band travel anywhere near the vacuum velocity of light.

    But, here is another piece the older folks know well -- or maybe not: in view of Cerenkov / Cherenkov / Tcherenkov radiation, which is the emission of energy of the "forbidden" transluminal velocity as energy via photons induced by superluminal particle transit through transparent media. For example, velocity of light in pure water is about 0.76 of vacuum c in free space. Thus, with ANY superluminal transmission (ie. over c in the media) of any massive particle, we might "have our cake and eat it too", that is an increased relativistic mass at a relatively modest velocity compared to vacuum, AND the possibility of bonus energetic photon(s) accompaniment via Cherenkov.


    [For "very newbies", Tcherenkov, Cherenkov, Cerenkov radiation, is the blue light seen in reactors and radwaste storage pools, the ostensible source of that blue light, for decades now, and I see at our never-to-be-trusted for controversial information, is Cherenkov's1934 explanation which led to Cherenkov's 1958 Nobel.]

    With respect to what has been somewhat difficult-to-envision, this claimed as relativistic mass gain of 0.782 MeV/c^2 (to give a total of ~2.53 X the nominal CODATA rest electron mass of 0.511 MeV), I am deducing from ICCF 21 chats and other conversations with some of our most famous LENR scientists, and yet others perhaps not so famous, that if indeed this were possible, it is enabled by the much lower velocity c (from our external perspective, of course!) in some solid media, such as boron nitride (B4N or simply BN), graphene, diamond-like coatings, PTFE, Schott and Nikon high refractive index glasses and polymers, as well as barium glass, uranium glass, leaded glass and so on.


    c in high refractive index materials such as boron nitride, boron carbide, as well as spodumene-like products, including high mp, low cost, quite transparent materials such as Corning's "Visions Ware", which is likely related to their "Vicor" glassware, or traditional transparent refractories such as fused or amorphous quartz, zirconia etc.


    As one simple example, here is a little boron nitride paper:

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/….nasa.gov/19870015584.pdf


    therein is reported a refractive index of 1.65 to 1.67, taking a mean, gives c =1.8 X 10 ^8 m/s, v. ~3.0 X 10^8 in vacuo.


    Finally, we see a conundrum of an almost ever-present structural theme in the more functional CF and LENR "cells" resolved and/or explained without resort to "crazy" stuff. That is the near universal presence of phase, state, field, or other structural interfaces / junctions in such cells . That may provide a plausible explanation of how a "situational transluminal velocity" could accomplish something constructive, even when there is too large a Fermi gap between the valence and conduction bands for metallic behavior. And proactively, we can now see that (perhaps) photons in transparent media are conjoined with electrons in nearby metallic media. Is there another parallel to Hagelstein's evocation and explanation of the Karabut data, or others theorists also seeking to explain the possible direct thermalization / "phononization", [to use an awkward term], of MeV photons?


    Ponderables: What is the likelihood of a "heavy" conduction band electron making an excursion, or channeled, stripline or TIR fiber style, into adjacent non-conducting / insulating dielectric material? What happens to Cherenkov photons in that case? Are they plasmons? Can they participate as bosonically additive entities (that is, can they coherently elaborate optical pumping that might through Thomson-Compton or other mechanisms, further highly accelerate already electrostatically accelerated electrons?


    As always, I admonish to "do you own due diligence". Think of energy and power densities that might accidentally occur. Don't want to lose these genii !!

  • As most know here, many prominent AHE / LENR reports might be explained by some plausible mechanism of how the 782 keV/c^2 mass-energy deficit is made up.

    [I deduce we no longer need to advise "newbies" that the W-L theory ostensibly explains the "growing" a proton to neutron by adding such a heavy electron mechanism.]


    W-L theory explains nothing as it is not a physical theory at all. It is a collections of guesses that point in the completely wrong direction.


    The neutron is an excess energy particle! Why? because it decays to more stable sub-particles and free - energy. There is absolutely no chance to produce a free neutron from a proton. Neutrons are only stable inside a nucleus. Why? A neutron has the property to acquire or to release (4D) energy. This amount can be exactly calculated. The 4D neutron model exactly reproduces the Aspect measured kinetic energy of 782010eV. It also explains the difference = non kinetic/potential like energy.


    For interested people (( https://www.researchgate.net/project/Nuclear-and-particle-physics-2.0))


    Contrary to WL theory the 4D model shows that the neutron is a combination of a non relativistic electron "base mass" with a proton. In Mills terminology rest-mass of the electron flux.


    There is one possibility to produce a heavy electron in combination e.g. with a proton base wave. According to Mills model (relativistic metric) the rotating/orbiting rest-mass can acquire the mass of me*2*pi. But be aware in what space/rest frame you work.


    Conclusion: Inside a nucleus there is no exact 782 keV/c^2 mass-energy deficit. It is either larger or smaller

  • I always appreciate your deep and sensible knowledge of New Physics, dear Wyttenbach. But you are not the only one speaking and writing in that way of neutrons without the evidence most can grasp. I prefer deposing a theory by experimentation rather than with words. Much of the W-L discussion seems fatal to itself. It is becoming reminiscent of the alchemical era with the best theories containing ideas such as "phlogiston".. I think the S of W-L-S did drop out, it just did not hold up in any evidentiary sense. No one is complaining about that loss, probably not even the author. And thus by experiment, it is seen that hypothetical superconducting regions are not able to shield or absorb say 1 angstrom gammas, that otherwise can pass through a lot of anything.... So what experiment will depose W-L?


    Experiment is vital to science. The rest is artful mathematics, attractive ideas and useful recipes.



  • So anything happening with your http://subtleatomics.com/ ?


    Hi Shane,

    Currently allocating limited time to working on a few things:

    - unification of dense hydrogen, below ground state hydrogen and LENR theory,

    - super fast LENR

    - experimental confirmation of LESNR (low energy sub-nuclear reactions)

    - new technologies for nuclear waste remediation

    - a meson based subatomic model

    - alpha based nucleus structures

    - designs for continuous process systems

    - publication/s

    Plenty of potential, but still need to secure investment.


  • Simon,


    You have your hands full with that list. Especially in unifying Holmid/Mills/FP's. You mentioned attending ICCF21 also...can you tell me if others you talked with, were receptive to, or studying your areas of focus? Anything else there in Boulder that you heard, have a lasting impact on you?


    Also, I see you are seeking investment. What is your general opinion on getting that in this environment? Last year both Coolescence and SKINR shut down due to poor results, and their funding drying up. Then you have the Rossi situation, which at the least would make any potential investors leery. Only new money in the field that I know of is IH. Have you contacted them? If you have something solid, there may even be someone reading LF right now that may be interested.

    Thank you for your thoughts, keep us updated on your progress, and good luck!

  • Simon,


    You have your hands full with that list. ....

    Thanks for the support Shane,


    Re: unifying Holmid/Mills/FP's - Done. I'm proposing that this can be done by a new modification to the Rydberg model. Presented an early version at ICCF21. Hopefully soon to be published.


    Re: ICCF21... if others you talked with, were receptive - Lots of interest, but plenty of other theories on the table as well.


    Re: ICCF21 other good stuff - dense hydrogen, new nuclear remediation technologies, chemical LENR, new models for where all that theoretical excess heat goes to, industrial scale LENR, sub-nuclear reactions...


    Re: Investment. - If you have a genuine product with a comprehensive low risk high gain financial business case, and you can sell yourself, you're going to get interest. The biggest current problems for LENR are patent issues and marginal products. Going to need a big player to commercialise without patents to be able to just simply stay ahead of the game, but unlikely to get this type of investment unless you have something that really works well, or you have a pretty good idea what's actually going on, which very few can claim ...


    Re: IH. They were at ICCF21. Had a very brief chat. Seem to have a few $ to fund smaller projects in exchange for IP rights.


    :) SB