How to make LENR technology a reality

  • There has been some talk lately about trying to get JM to re-start production of their special Pd batch that brought so much success to FP's/Miles. Also, I think the Japanese had a special source that produced better than the rest. Any movement on that front?


    Upping the success rate, might get things moving along faster.

  • Me winces at bad logic. Parallel thoughts: since no one questioned the existence of transistors then, there is no rational reason to question flying pigs now.

    Let me reiterate there are two separate, unrelated arguments here.


    ME: A low success rate does not call into question the validity of a claim. The first cloned mammal experiment worked only once in ~1000 attempts, but no one denied that Dolly the sheep was a clone.


    Seven_of_twenty: Cold fusion is like flying pigs. It has never happened, in any test. The failure rate is not 20%. It is 100%. All ~14,000 positive tests in the literature are mistakes. Every single peer-reviewed report by McKubre, Fleischmann, Miles, Srinivasan, Yeager, Bockris, Oriani and the other experts has mistakes in it. No one has identified these mistakes. There is not a single published paper pointing out mistakes in any of these papers, yet I am sure they are wrong. I am sure there is a not a single instance of an actual positive cold fusion experiment in history. Neither heat nor tritium has been detected. If there were one successful instance, that would mean the cold fusion effect is real.


    I would say that is bad logic. You should consider wincing at it. Or reconsidering. Your position is extreme. I have not exaggerated it. What I describe is the conclusion you must reach -- reach, and then cling to -- if what you say is correct, and cold fusion is impossible like flying pigs. Every single report must be wrong.

  • There has been some talk lately about trying to get JM to re-start production of their special Pd batch that brought so much success to FP's/Miles.

    I have not heard that. Who is trying to do that? Fleischmann and I tried many years ago, as described in the Fleischmann - Miles letters. I don't think anyone has tried since then. Mike McKubre mentioned that he got some of the old material and tried it, and it worked pretty well.


    Someone should try the modern version. That is to say, the palladium J.M. sells for hydrogen filters today. I'll bet it works as well as the older material did. The relevant material charactoristics are the same. If they were not, it wouldn't work as a filter. It would crack and leak after a while. Presumably, the resistance to cracking at high loading is what makes it work well as a cold fusion cathode. That's what Martin thought. The people at NASA and at BARC both used actual hydrogen filter machines to do cold fusion (Milton Roy electrolyzers), with deuterium gas instead of hydrogen. It worked. I do not know if that was with old or new filter material, but anyway, they say it worked. See:


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


    Also, I think the Japanese had a special source that produced better than the rest. Any movement on that front?

    At ICCF21 they wouldn't tell us anything, and they won't share the material. "Us" includes me, so they can't use the old "I have trouble with English" excuse. Within Japan, Arata refused to share his material with others, so others reverse engineered him. Now they won't share with us. Fortunately, Brian Ahern has some made at Ames Nat. Lab. and it seems to work pretty well. I guess we shouldn't give any to the Japanese. That'll fix their wagons!


    This is typical of cold fusion. It is typical of most academic science. If computer science worked this way, we would still be using vacuum tube computers.


    Upping the success rate, might get things moving along faster.

    True that.

  • Jed, where do you come up with 14000 results? Why not 15000?

    In your opinion, what is the single most irrefutable experiment of these 14000. And why has this greatest example not come to the forefront somehow. Can we talk to the people that know about and can duplicate the experiment? I assume they are dead too? I think it is time to revisit the most successful experiments and see if they can be duplicated.

  • I have not heard that. Who is trying to do that? Fleischmann and I tried many years ago, as described in the Fleischmann - Miles letters. I don't think anyone has tried since then. Mike McKubre mentioned that he got some of the old material and tried it, and it worked pretty well.


    I was hoping you would not ask that. :) I thought it was Miles in his CFN's podcast whom mentioned about trying to persuade JM to make another batch, but the cost to ramp up a line for such a small amount was too high. Or maybe it was FP's from your letters? I could not find a reference though. There has been talk here though, about those special batches of Pd:


    Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles


    The 21st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE - ICCF-21 registration is open


    Of course, we know about JM, but in the one thread you mention Violante at the ENEA making productive Pd, which was interesting. I will look, as I recall also the Japanese saying something similar about their supplier.

  • Jed, where do you come up with 14000 results? Why not 15000?

    As I noted above, that wasn't me. That was someone at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. A grad student, I'll bet. Imagine trying to count all those experiments! See Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102


    In your opinion, what is the single most irrefutable experiment of these 14000.


    There is no single most irrefutable. The well-funded studies by world class people such as Fleischmann, McKubre, Bockris, Will, Oriani, Storms and Miles have not been refuted. So that makes them irrefutable. Right? Morrison and Shanahan are the only two who even tried to refute them as far as I know. I encourage you to read their papers and judge for yourself whether they succeeded. See:


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


    These are all Pd-D electrolysis experiments, because these people were electrochemists. They used the same techniques and materials. These are close replications, with similar success rates. Other groups of experiments are quite different, such as Arata's. I think only 5 or 6 groups replicated him.


    The best papers were written by McKubre, Storms and Miles, because they did good work and they write well. Fleischmann's experiments are the most convincing, and they were repeated hundreds of times at enormously high s/n ratios, but his writing can be difficult to understand. To learn about the field I would start here:


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


    I used this as the basis for my video.


    And why has this greatest example not come to the forefront somehow.

    The forefront where? At LENR-CANR.org? In Ed Storms book? In my book? They are not at the forefront in Nature, Sci. Am. or the Washington Post because the editors at those publications say that all cold fusion researcher are frauds, criminals and lunatics; the effect was never replicated; and no paper about it was ever published in the peer-reviewed literature. I think they sincerely believe that, but they are mistaken. The rest of the mass media often claims the effect was never replicated. No mass media outlet anywhere in the U.S. or Japan will publish a letter or paper from any scientist disputing this view, or pointing to evidence contrary to it. Believe me, the researchers and their supporters have tried.


    Can we talk to the people that know about and can duplicate the experiment?

    Most of them are dead, so no. You can read their papers. You, personally, probably cannot duplicate their experiments, any more than you could perform open heart surgery. I have hung around with these people, spent weeks in the labs, attended conferences and I have read, translated and copy edited HUNDREDS of their papers, but when they start talking about the nitty-gritty details of chemistry and electrochemisty, this instrument, that technique, or what-have-you, I have no clue what they are saying. I could not actually do the physical experiments to save my life. If you want to know what they know, see how far you get with Bockris' textbook, "Modern Electrochemistry" which is the gold standard:


    https://archive.org/stream/Joh…28BookSee.org%29_djvu.txt


    If you cannot understand every chapter of that textbook about as well as I understand a Pascal programming manual (which is to say, in my sleep), you are not capable of doing cold fusion.


    As I described above in messages 14 and 15, you could only duplicate this work if you happen to be a world-class electrochemist with a fully equipped laboratory and 1 or 2 years to devote to the effort. Or you could do it faster if you happen to have $20 million burning a hole in your pocket. You can go even faster and enhance the likelihood of success even more if you happen to have ~$250 million in robotic test equipment for chemistry research, as I explained above.

  • Here are some sample paragraphs from the Bockris textbook. I grabbed these because they cite some fiends and teachers of Mizuno and various people associated with cold fusion such as Gerischer. I have no clue what this means. If you read these paragraphs and say to yourself, "ah, yes, I knew that." Or at least, "interesting . . . good point" then perhaps you know enough to do cold fusion. Maybe. On the other hand, Richard Oriani, who published 200 papers and certainly knew everything in this textbook, said it was the most difficult experiment he ever did. You can read about his work and judge how much he knew.


    From the book:


    Quote

    The great emphasis laid by the early workers in the theory of photoelectro-chemistry on processes within the semiconductor arose because the principal authors (Gerischer, 1970s; Pleskov and Gurevich, 1980s) stressed only the region of photocurrent near the limiting current. Hence, the electrode was in a condition in which the transport of electrons or holes within the semiconductor was indeed the rate-determining step. It was Uosaki 9 and Kita (1981) who first found normal Tafel relations in photoelectrochemical reactions occurring at current densities well below the limiting-current region. Such a result suggested that interfacial electron transfer is the rate-determining step in photoelectrochemical reactions (Fig. 10.13).

    More striking evidence of the effect of surface properties on the rate of photoelectrochemical reactions is provided from experiments on the effect of etching the surfaces of p-silicon and evolving H 2 photoelectrochemically on varying surfaces (Szklarczyk and Bockris, 1984). Thus, depending on the degree of etching (i.e., the degree to which an oxide film is removed and the underlying Si exposed the overpotential to reach a certain current density (e.g., 10 mA cm -1 ) was decreased. The effects are large (see Fig. 10.14); the photocurrent density at a given overpotential changed by about 10 6 times as the structure of the anodic surfaces on p-Si was changed.

    Thus, below the limiting-current density, for photoelectrochemical hydrogen or oxygen evolution reactions, an interfacial charge-transfer process is rate controlling. In support of this contention, the photocurrent density at a given electrode depends greatly on the nature of the solute species that supplies or takes away electrons at the interface (Gonzalez-Martin, 1993). This would of course be very difficult to interpret if the Schottky barrier approximation (diffusion of internal charge carriers that are in rate control) continued to be rate determining 10 below the limiting current region.


    If you read that and you think, "yes, indeed, of course it would be difficult to interpret if the Schottky barrier approximation continued at that rate" then okay, you may know enough. If you don't know that, or at least understand it, you are not a PhD in electrochemistry and you probably cannot do cold fusion.


    I have programmed millions of lines of Pascal, so I can probably do it better than you. I don't know everything in a Pascal programming manual, but there is no section I cannot quickly understand and make use of. (Unless it is some mathematical function or what-have-you that I don't understand outside the context of the language.) Obviously, I don't have the whole manual memorized. The point to a manual is to look things up! The point of this textbook by Bockris is to look up stuff about electrochem. But if you can't understand them having looked them up, and "of course" is not of course to you, you are not ready to do cold fusion.


    Bockris himself could lecture in detail on any part of this textbook without notes, writing the equations on the blackboard at speed without error. He was astounding. That's according to Mizuno and McKubre who knew him well. I spent several days with him all told, and I don't doubt that. Among 20th century electrochemists, he was second only to Fleischmann. That's why those two could do cold fusion. Actually, most active, professional PhD electrochemists can. There are only a few hundred of them in the world, and a large fraction of them did replicate cold fusion, but Fleischmann and Bockris were really good at it. As was Stan Pons, to give credit where it is richly deserved.

  • Evidence is not the problem; not the solution, not the question, there is a lack of theory which unlike in the openminded 1920s, prevent authorized people to accept facts.

    Sadly I see many proposal which are today accepted as fact despite there is not much solid evidence but great theories.

    AlainCo,


    This is not religion, philosophy, economics or politics. It is not a high school debate class yo be argued, it is science.


    “IF”,


    My experiments are accurately built, properly measured, getting the same results every time, are the experimental results not valid simply because there is no theory?


    Of course not.

    Damn the theory, in all cases the replicable experiment trumps the theory or lack thereof.


    Jed, and many others are missing a very important point about replication.


    “IF” the experiment does not get the same results EVERYTIME, then it has not been replicated.

    Something changed, this is science,

    there is an answer, find it.

  • Jed, and many others are missing a very important point about replication.


    “IF” the experiment does not get the same results EVERYTIME, then it has not been replicated.

    Something changed, this is science,

    there is an answer, find it.


    Nothing is ever that simple in LENR Roseland! :) Did you read McKubre's article I linked to? He and Jed make some very good points. In LENR, things do change, and there are so many unknowns. There are replications BTW, by every meaning of the definition. Read on.

  • Nothing is ever that simple in LENR Roseland! :) Did you read McKubre's article I linked to? He and Jed make some very good points. In LENR, things do change, and there are so many unknowns. There are replications BTW, by every meaning of the definition. Read on.

    Shane,


    Sorry to say amigo, for LENR to go anywhere, I believe it’s going to have to be.


    Tedious, relentless experimenting.


    (Eliminate the unknowns 1 by 1, until there are none and every experiment gets the same results, that is replication).


    I also believe it will,

    and hopefully in my lifetime

  • “IF” the experiment does not get the same results EVERYTIME, then it has not been replicated.

    Something changed, this is science,

    there is an answer, find it.

    Obviously. But just because there is variation in output, that does not mean it is not science. That means it is new science. Science in the making.


    As I said, the failure rate for transistors in the 1950s was 50% for some devices, and over 90% for others. Yet semiconductor science was science. It was new science. To clone Dolly the sheep, over a thousand attempts had to be made. Reproducibility was less than 0.1%. But no one would say that wasn't science. (Okay, maybe you would say that, if you apply the same standard you do in cold fusion.)


    The failure rate for U.S. rockets in the late 1950s was very high. Vanguard rockets often exploded or failed in other ways. Even today, after hundreds of billions have been invested in rocket technology, rockets often explode or go out of control. Two of the Space Shuttles were lost to accidents. This is highly unreliable, unpredictable technology. A great deal about it is not known. Yet I do not think you would say that rocket science is not science, or that rockets do not exist.


    Reproducibility has improved a great deal in cold fusion. It will improve tremendously if the $250 million robotic project is funded and it works. Cold fusion will not improve unless it is funded and unless academic freedom is restored and people who study it are not fired or threatened with deportation.


  • You are probably right Rose. Unfortunately, that takes money, acceptance, and mainstream participation to accomplish quickly. Neither of which the field has had, so guess we will continue on the slow road.

  • “IF” the experiment does not get the same results EVERYTIME, then it has not been replicated.

    Something changed, this is science,

    there is an answer, find it.

    Perhaps Jed is suggesting a new theorem explaining Lenr experiment nonrepeatability, RUP (Rothwell Uncertainty Principle). But i would admit not every test has to have the same result. Just statistically significant differences not explainable by chance.

  • Jed why are you so stuck on Pascal? I used it a long time ago but it really hasn't been used much in thirty years. Are you programming on a vintage 386 using Borland Turbo Pascal under DOS? Don't forget to configure himem.sys so you can get as much of that 640k as you can. :)

  • Just statistically significant differences not explainable by chance.

    The control factors for cold fusion are well understood. They are shown in the McKubre equation. There is no chance the heat can be explained by chance. It is difficult to achieve exactly the same level of loading and other control factors, but when you do achieve them, you get the same level of heat, in different labs, with different calorimeter types. That cannot be a coincidence.

  • Jed why are you so stuck on Pascal? I used it a long time ago but it really hasn't been used much in thirty years. Are you programming on a vintage 386 using Borland Turbo Pascal under DOS?

    I am stuck on it because I know it well, and the latest version is full featured and free. I don't program professionally any more. The latest version works well with Windows, mac OS, iOS, and Android. It has hundreds of features that I don't need, along with everything I do need. There is a functionally equivalent C++ version, with the same library. See:


    https://www.embarcadero.com/free-tools


    It is actually descended from Borland Turbo Pascal. It has about 3 million users, according to the company.

  • I am stuck on it because I know it well, and the latest version is full featured and free. I don't program professionally any more. The latest version works well with Windows, mac OS, iOS, and Android. It has hundreds of features that I don't need, along with everything I do need. There is a functionally equivalent C++ version, with the same library. See:


    https://www.embarcadero.com/free-tools


    It is actually descended from Borland Turbo Pascal. It has about 3 million users, according to the company.


    We use Pascal at work too and no plan to leave that platform. We also code in C++, Java so we know alternatives but find the Pascal quite good for it's task.

  • The Japanese Technova project is forging ahead, excellent paper here.


    Excess heat evolution from nanocomposite samples under exposure to
    hydrogen isotope gases

    Abstract Anomalous heat effect by interaction of hydrogen isotope gas and metal nanocomposites
    supported by zirconia or by silica has been examined. Observed absorption and heat evolution at RT
    were not too large to be explained by some chemical processes. At elevated temperatures of 200 ~ 300
    °C, most samples with binary metal nanocomposites produced excess power of 3 ~ 24 W lasting for up
    to several weeks. The excess power was observed not only in the D-Pd⋅Ni system but also in the H-Pd⋅Ni
    system and H-Cu⋅Ni system, while single-element nanoparticle samples produced no excess power. The
    Pd/Ni ratio is one of the keys to increase the excess power. The maximum phase-averaged excess heat
    energy exceeded 270 keV/D, and the integrated excess heat energy reached 100 MJ/mol-M or 90
    MJ/mol-H. It is impossible to attribute the excess heat energy to any chemical reaction; it is possibly due
    to radiation-free nuclear process.
    Index Terms − D2-gas, H2–gas, palladium-nickel, nanocomposite, excess, heat



    InternationalJHydrogenEnergy LENR Akuto.pdf