Recipes for cold fusion

  • During ICCF-21, Mike McKubre commented that what we need are more recipes for cold fusion experiments. I know of two recipes:


    Cravens, D. Factors Affecting Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF Cells. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.


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


    Storms, E., How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 261.


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


    I asked people if they knew of any others. Dennis Cravens and Dennis Letts (D1 and D2) said they have one. They sent it to me, and I just uploaded it:


    Letts, D. and D. Cravens. Cathode fabrication methods to reproduce the Letts-Cravens effect (paper and PowerPoint slides). in 5th Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium loaded Metals. 2004. Asti, Italy


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


    This file includes the paper, the PowerPoint slides, and another set of PowerPoint slides describing the dual laser cell fabrication technique.

  • MFMP!


    I would urge you to dive into the above (or at least one of them) versus following anonymous and secretive posters. These guys are the real deal and publish their experiments. Probably would answer questions if you ask, versus disappearing into cyber space.


    I am not trying to say amateurs cannot accomplish anything, but if they come on line and make claims, they should follow legitimate protocol. The actions we have seen from ME356 and LION are quite puzzling. A group like MFMP who has no commercial agenda and these guys "stiff arm" them for lack of a better term!?! What gives. Very puzzling indeed. This conduct will not enhance their credibility any.


    On the other hand, following any of the above will have a much higher change of success and aid in MFMP's original goal. Creating a LENR "lab rat".

  • The Japanese have it all figured out:


    January 2018 Nikkei article about cold fusion


    "The cold fusion method announced by researchers in the United States about 30 years ago was to electrolyze heavy water with palladium electrodes. Although this method has been attempted extensively abroad, the research group such as Technova has concentrated on the method of permeating deuterium (or hydrogen) gas into the metal rather than the electrolysis method, because they consider it more promising.


    Based on these experiments, the conditions under which an exothermic reaction occurs have been clarified. First of all, it is necessary to combine two kinds of metal such as palladium and nickel, rather than using a single type of metal. Moreover, when the ratio of palladium and copper was decreased to palladium 1: nickel 7 or copper 1: nickel 7, the generation of heat was enhanced.

    "A specimen made at an appropriate ratio has a clearance structure smaller than a nanometer (one-billionth of a meter) on the surface, and hydrogen seems to enter into this space and a reaction occurs." Professor Emeritus of Osaka University explains Prof. Akito Takahashi, who is a senior adviser to the research group and Technova.


    If the proportion of palladium or copper is high, these metals surround the specimen around the specimen tightly, and it is impossible to create "places" where hydrogen react with each other. "Heat is generated in experiments by electrolysis, probably because these nanostructures were made by accident on the metal electrode surface," said Prof. Takahashi. It is also clear that exothermic reaction occurs even when the species of hydrogen gas injected is not deuterium gas but normal hydrogen gas. Also, when injecting gas, when the temperature inside the device was raised to 200 to 400 degrees Celsius, it was found that the exothermic reaction did not stop within a short time, but rather continued for several weeks."

  • Based on these experiments, the conditions under which an exothermic reaction occurs have been clarified. First of all, it is necessary to combine two kinds of metal such as palladium and nickel, rather than using a single type of metal.

    That is what they said at ICCF-21. They showed examples of pure Pd that did not work, in contrast to Ni-Pd that did work.

  • MFMP!


    MFMP is not anonymous. All MFMP experiments are streamed on the internet from beginning to end and all data acquisition is recorded and shown in real time. Any viewer can extract that data from globally accessible files and process that data in any way that the viewer sees fit.


    One of the goals of MFMP is to excite interest in LENR, increase experimentation, and aid in the startup of commercial LENR activity. If completely open and fully documented experimentation does not inspire trust, than something is wrong or there may be a campaign of AstroTurfing that is beginning to be applied against MFMP to besmirch there spotless reputation together with the open source LENR movement in general.

  • I am not trying to say amateurs cannot accomplish anything, but if they come on line and make claims, they should follow legitimate protocol. The actions we have seen from ME356 and LION are quite puzzling. A group like MFMP who has no commercial agenda and these guys "stiff arm" them for lack of a better term!?! What gives. Very puzzling indeed. This conduct will not enhance their credibility any.


    Bob,


    I would add Suhas to that group. Maybe Rossi, although he took it much further by ripping IH off. Plus, he also has the early LENR history with Focardi, which still puzzles many of us, so I put him in his own special category. Parkomov...who knows?


    As you say, amateurs can accomplish things, so they should not be discounted outright. Certainly though, what these 3 did...stiff arm, take us for a ride, yank our chain, or whatever, will make it all the more difficult for any other amateurs who venture forward with great claims, to attract serious attention.


    Your post also reminded me of me356's interview last Sept. 2017. That was several months after the BG/Egely visit where the Aura did not work. His comments are funny in hindsight. It was like he took a page out of Rossi's playbook; if you get caught in a lie, tell a bigger lie!


    https://e-catworld.com/2017/09…owards-commercialization/


    What are you focusing on in your work with LENR these days?


    I am trying to simplify manufacturing process in the way that the most work can be done by machining, at least semi-automatically. This will minimize possible deviations from required model to achieve same results across the units. Initially everything was done by hand, especially welding, where the most errors can be made.


    What is the scale of your operations with LENR — how many people working with you on it?


    If we count also workers in external companies it could reach at least one hundred people that are directly involved with the reactors.

  • What lesson did me356 learn from his experiences here at LF and the Rossi saga? Take all the knowledge that this site and MFMP can provide then go dark and hope that the memory of your existence fades as time passes.

  • Sorry if I must it but has any of the fuels tested used zink dust within the bind, ?

    I seem to vaguely remember that one of the oldest patents that Rossi authored stated the the powder he used was copper and zink might have been a possible alternate.


    Piantelli lists zink in his patents as one of the many transitions metals that support LENR.

  • Amateurs have greater challenges than professional, in a domain where everybody is challenged.

    It is correct to say amateurs should read more what was written (like above papers), hear more , exploit better their network, collaborate more ?

    :?::?:


    My feeling is that for too long everybody was more or less preparing for the international cold fusion war, like we have seen on oil, on nuclear energy, on IT, Internet, biotech...

    The problem is that the maturity of the domain is too early, and we are at the phase of basic international fully collaborative science.


    As someone said to me, you are preparing to make a cake, buying floor, eggs, sugar, and the guys are battling to steal the ingredients before anything is even cooked.


    Amateurs cannot afford that game... professional cannot, but it take more billions until they realize.


    I've heard this is the way the Japanese company work when "attacking" a foreign market.

    First they collaborate between Japanese companies, without any "moderation"... only when they landed on the market and are solidly installed, it is time for competition. (Normandy D-Day style).


    I hear people explaining me how the geopolitic of Cold Fusion cause secrecy, when US DoD is suspected to hide result, when Russian nationalists, French state labs, Japanese corps are suspected to work discretely... Until the media ban is raised, it is stupid, and probably just paranoid fantasies.


    Many thanks to the Japanese teams, because they are doing the job.

    In few years, it may be time for the war, but by replicating XH between labs, between continents, they have done the job for the "informed circles". Press is not yet ready to accept they screwed up deeply, as usual, but in few years I hope they will just forget they screwed up (journalists never accept they screwed up, they deny, forget, or die).


    Amateur have their place, but behavior should adapt to resources. work as bee-swarm, not as lonewolves.


    Don't forget also that beside state an universities labs, foundations (SKINR), corporate labs, you have maybe more than you imagine, of medium companies labs, local technology valleys labs, with some motivated engineers reading here.

    They have very cutting edge competences in their domain, whether it is nanotechnologies, accumulators, chemistry reactors, and cannot talk much, but they can read and evaluate who is serious here.


    You are not alone... ;)

    Be serious. Bee-have like a swarm.

  • Amateurs have greater challenges than professional, in a domain where everybody is challenged.


    The biggest advantage of an amateur, was the missing training in wrong theories/models and that lack of respect he owns to the godfathers!


    What we already can say today: Thanks to LENR nuclear and particle physics will reappear, with a completely different face and only very few connections to old models. Stay tuned!

  • I see many problems among some scientists...

    Difficulties to replicate, always trying to improve.

    Putting theory before it works. Ignoring other's results if it disagree.

    Start hiding when it seldom works.


    Amateurs don't have the budget to afford losing time and money that way.


    Anyway It seems collaboration develop...

  • Quote

    One always looks for that, but it is often made difficult.

    People are understandably afraid of having their ideas and work stolen. Patents are not bullet proof yet they provide pretty good protection in most cases. Sometimes it is expensive and time consuming to defend a lucrative patent but it usually gets done. Given that, it is amazing how secretive some inventors are when they really should be focusing on perfecting their patents so that they don't need to be.

  • Patents are not bullet proof yet they provide pretty good protection in most cases.

    The problem is that the Patent Office refuses to even consider giving a patent for cold fusion, except in some odd cases, such as one given to Patterson because he was old. They reject applications. When you ask them why, they send copies of New York Times articles from 1989. I mean that; I have seen the correspondence rejecting patents that was sent to several researchers.


    Some cold fusion patent applications deserve to be rejected. Others, I think, should have been allowed.

  • David French said the USPTO informed him 4 years ago that LENR patents will be approved, if the applicant can prove it works.

    That is an enlightened policy. I hope they are following it. I wonder how they expect the applicant to prove it works. If the people at the P.O. are reasonable this should not be an onerous requirement. There are a number of cold fusion claims that I would like to see put to some sort of test.


    I have often spoken with David French, but I have not been following events at the patent office so I was not aware of this.

  • Quick note about LENR patents: In his CFN podcast David French on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast (#008) David French said the USPTO informed him 4 years ago that LENR patents will be approved, if the applicant can prove it works.


    :)

    Uh, prove it works? Interesting indeed! To borrow a line from Ghost Busters.... "Who you gonna call?"


    Shanahan? Heck no it doesn't work.


    Russ George? Heck yes, and there is bodacious amounts of heat along with lovely gamma radiation.


    Alan Smith? It is only a demo.

    (Sorry Alan, I could not resist!):)


    Rossi supporters? Heck yes, there are robotic factories already built!


    Jed Rothwell? Read the published papers!


    THH? It might be real, but there are too many unknown artifacts to know for sure. It could always be....


    Bob Greenyer? O day will reveal all!


    Many University Physics heads : Cold Fusion? What? That was so 1980's!



    Yes the problem is "who you gonna call" ! :S

  • I agree; "prove it works", and what it means, is in the eye of the beholder. That was about the time the USPTO anti-LENR SAWS program was exposed, and ended, so they almost had to say something like that.


    Interesting question as to what it would take to prove something LENR works? Surely excess heat, but what about "gammas", tritium, dead lab assistants? Maybe David French would have the answer to that.

  • Jed Rothwell? Read the published papers!


    Only because that is the best evidence we have. Papers are not much to go on. A live experiment is better proof, but there are few experiments you can go and look at yourself. However, there are more experiments this year than there have been in a long time. If someone important wanted proof I would try to arrange to have them visit Cravens, Beiting or Mizuno.


    I like the I.H. standard described by Higgins in his ICCF-21 slides:


    “The IH standard for official confirmation of any excess heat claims requires verification by a major independent lab with recognized, credible, and skeptical researchers."


    Visiting an experiment does not always work. Richard Garwin was tasked with looking at the experiment at The Aerospace Corporation. He came up with a ridiculous reason to deny it. As I mentioned, he said that hydrogen affects K-type thermocouples. This was ridiculous because:

    1. The thermocouple was shielded.
    2. This only happens at temperatures much higher than they were in this experiment.
    3. The effect would be to lower the estimate of excess heat, not increase it.

    People such as Garwin & Shanahan will never be convinced by an experiment. Only by commercial devices.

  • As a general rule, in experimental physics you prove something works by having it independently replicated at high signal-to-noise ratios. By that standard, bulk Pd-D cold fusion is real. Tritium is real, and the 24 MeV ratio of heat to helium is real. To be conservative, most other claims are less real, and some are borderline. The ZrO2NiPd claims have emerged from borderline darkness unto light.


    I doubt the Patent Office would agree to this standard. I do not know what they have in mind, but they are not experimental scientists. Different groups at different institutions have different standards. The kind of proof an engineer demands is quite different from what a typical academic scientists wants to see. I cannot imagine an engineer saying "show me gammas" or "what is your theory?" Gamma, schmamma, an engineer should be satisfied the heat is real with good calorimetry. Beiting and Higgins are consummate engineers. If Higgins' SPICE simulator analysis of the Cravens experiment does not quite fit the calorimetric data, I suppose God accidentally left out a term. (Sorry for the blasphemy. Perhaps I should say "mother nature left out a term.")


    No engineer would demand to see helium correlated with heat the way Abd demands. That is not to say the demand is unreasonable. It is just not the kind of thing engineers look for.

  • What if the people in the HQ were already convinced, trying to convince the old experimenters who faced Garwin-like opposition for 30 years to work again, and help rookies.

    What if the only problem was media coverage.

    What if there was budget, universities, state labs, high-tech big and small corp labs, preparing their plan... Like teenagers plan their secret marriage when dad and mum disagree.

    I don't know what happens in US...

    If nothing happens in US (IH put aside), time to worry. I don't think so, but I'm not there.


    My feeling is that it is time to collaborate, prepare serious research plans, stop stupid behaviors, pet theories, pet experiments. Build research proposal, as provider or as consumer, let them public, assemble offers, create meshes of proposal... Someone you don't know yet, someone I probably don't know either, will sure find it, evaluate it, and if you are serious like what serious engineers and researchers demand, something will happen, and I will probably be informed very late.


    By the way, recently with IH/Letts patents, with Biberian/Iracus9SIMS, with few experimental results presented at ICCF21, there is both food for theorist, and many nails in the coffin for many pet theories.


    Do you realize we are at a turning moment? It is no more time to prove, but time to analyze and understand mechanism.

  • If Higgins' SPICE simulator analysis of the Cravens experiment does not quite fit the calorimetric data


    I've not seen Higgins' paper, but if his results are within 20% or so, I'd say that's a great fit. SPICE isn't really the most accurate way to model heat flows, its just doing calculus - but its free, compared to paying $1000's for a Solidworks licence or similar.

  • Science will not be able to change the bad image of cold fusion (LENR),

    The moment research funding becomes available, the bad image of cold fusion will evaporate like dew in the morning. As Stan Szpak said, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.


    The "bad image" was never anything but a ploy to keep funding in the plasma fusion program and out of cold fusion, salted by a few delusions from scientists who think you cannot tell an object is hot by sense of touch. In 1989, some of the big name scientists who vociferously attacked cold fusion were quietly applying for funding from EPRI to study it. They attacked it to prevent others from getting funding, so they could get a jump ahead. It is all dirty politics.

  • In public what I say is not true.

    In public:

    • LENR is not confirmed.
    • Japanese companies could not reproduce and prove the phenomenon as Garwin explained.
    • Heat/He4 ratio is not an evidence, as it is just correlation of errors with errors.
    • Tritium just is an error of measurement.
    • Hundred of replications are not replications, but hundred of errors.
    • Heat above chemistry is just error.
    • Only hot fusion can work.
    • No serious institution HQ, at any power strate, would contact an LENR scientists.
    • LENR Patents will never be accepted.

    If it was not true, this would mean there is a great problems with reference media and academic media. Sure it is not true, as there is no problem.


    This is why until recently I was sad, because there is no way for LENR to be publicly accepted.

    Don't expect that to change until many years, and much work.

  • Quote

    Science will not be able to change the bad image of cold fusion (LENR), it will only be possible through the detour of functioning, disruptive devices that ordinary customers can buy..

    Overly pessimistic. For example, If a cold fusion device made lots of heat and self ran for a long time compared to its size and "fuel" load, then it would accepted. It would have to be more than one independent and clearly unbiased tests. But it could be so expensive, dangerous, or delicate and tedious that it would not be anywhere near market ready.


    On the other hand, if you're simply saying that a marketed device would convince, then your name is probably Captain Obvious.