How to make LENR technology a reality

  • 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.

  • 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

  • I, for one, hate to see criminals enriched by their crimes and even respected for them. Rossi has bamboozled many people peripheral to LENR with detrimental results. For example, there is this paper linked below which prominently includes his work (pp 29-31) and thereby places all the rest of the content in doubt. Rossi was originally cited by name in that paper. Several U of I alumni objected and the author edited out Rossi's name. But he still left in the drivel about "energy catalyzer" and ecat and Rossi's lame photos of his early ecats, complete with their chintzy insulation and huge electrical heaters.


    http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%…%20condensed%20matter.pdf


    SOT,


    The author (Ragheb), did not display Rossi's early energy catalyzer "prominently". It was one of the last of the experiments he reviewed, and seems to write it off as a HO fuel cell. If anything, he downplays it. Maybe because of the peer pressure from UI alumni, as you claim...I would not know.


    Besides that, it was a good read. It is a new paper (dated 8/1/2018), but reads mostly like the majority was written years ago. Ragheb has been on the LENR for a long time, so that would not be surprising. He writes mostly about the older experiments/theories, of Patterson/SPAWAR/BEC/Widom. He does include Safire however, which happened last year, so maybe this triggered an update.

  • Quote

    The author (Ragheb), did not display Rossi's early energy catalyzer "prominently". It was one of the last of the experiments he reviewed, and seems to write it off as a HO fuel cell. If anything, he downplays it. Maybe because of the peer pressure from UI alumni, as you claim...I would not know.


    The article had Rossi in a much more prominent place and his name was in several places. So, BTW, were Brillouin and dare I say it, Defkalion or defecalion or whatever it was. Only because of several letter written by someone I know and others did the author change Rossi's prominence but he did not delete that silliness altogether. It has no place in his paper! Including it that way makes him a (deleted-by-author-to-please-admins_). Rossi also was prominently featured in a class syllabus, not sure if it still is, I don't follow it that closely unless people email me stuff.


    Actually, several more letters about this paper and the guy's class outline are being prepared for the Provost of the university and the head of the department of physics. One of those letters is by an alum and the other by a former assistant dean of the school. And I am sure there are more I don't know about. It's also being pursued with licensing organizations and attorneys general. Some people take Rossi's miscreant statements and claims to be a much more severe thing than is usual around here. Rossi has violated law and usual practice and continues to do so. Maybe someone will nick him for it. I wish Darden had the intestinal fortitude to do it. Or perhaps Dewey.

  • SOT,


    Thank you for the behind the scenes account. Interesting, and good to know, but the reason I put your post under this thread, was more so for the content of Ragheb's article...not the politics. But then again, LENR is equal parts politics, science, so maybe this is a good place for it.


    My main concern is for the author. Understandably some alumni, and your *friend* would take exception with adding the passage on Rossi's Ecat. I would also in their shoes. Maybe not forcefully, but fill him in on what the Doral court documents revealed about Rossi's integrity, then leave it up to him to edit out what he wanted. Without knowing the politics behind however, the average reader would not make much of what he put in his report about the Ecat. They would glance over it, see he dismissed it, and that would be the end of it. The authors integrity intact. I would hope those now informed of the "rest of the story" would not prejudice him , after having read your inside scoop.


    On to Brillouin (BEC); I think it unfair to lump them in with in with the likes of Rossi, and Defkalion. Totally different creatures. Robert Godes has twice now, had one of the finest research institutions in the country (SRI) do an independent validation of his Q-Pulse system. Both times they succeeded not only in replicating, but in doing so in their own lab, and multiple times. That to me puts them in their own category. That does not mean they are perfect as you will no doubt point out, but they have at least checked some blocks Rossi never has, nor ever will check.


    Taking that into account, Ragheb would have been negligent by not including them in his article. Same goes for the others. Someone needs to brave the critics, and sometime the alumni, and talk about all those doing the research.


    If there are other developments, please keep us informed.

  • AlainCo, interesting topic.


    It seems that a replicated experiment alone is not enough to persuade academia. Consider Fleischmann and Pons, who have been replicated 100 times according to Jed, or Brillouin.

    Why? is the question.


    Part is due to a reluctance of admiring they were wrong and teach theory that is at least incomplete.

    The larger reason is that so many are tied to expensive projects like fusion, wind and solar power that would be threatened by LENR.

    A friend relates the story of trying hand a paper on LENR to a senior scientist at DOE: he let it fall t the ground rather than touch it. I went to considerable trouble to get a letter delivered through the Durector of Science to the Secretary of DOE. I never got a reply.


    Large laboriousness with lots of money are only effective at doing things when they have a theory to work with. The scientists don't make anything themselves, they talk to engineers and the stuff is made at great expense and takes a long time. Time doesn't matter they still get paid.


    Most individuals have neither the time nor the money to carry out the experiments they would like to. Hence it is necessaryf or them to get an investor, which is very difficult to do and generaly leads to discord. The low COP and low tmperature reactors are not appealing to investors wanting to make money.


    So it ooks like the best current way forward is is some dedicted,intuitive,practical person, like Edifison or the Wright Bros, or Rossi (Gasp), who can make simple cheap fast experiments, hundreds of times, to fond out what works.

    As Rossi forecast, LENR will not be accepted before there are commercil rectors on the market. After that, money will be plemtiful and it will spread fast.

    Like it or not, Rossi is your best bet right now..

  • A friend relates the story of trying hand a paper on LENR to a senior scientist at DOE: he let it fall t the ground rather than touch it. I went to considerable trouble to get a letter delivered through the Durector of Science to the Secretary of DOE. I never got a reply.


    You misinterpret the situation. Most money for LENR is spent by former military people (like Lipinskis) , what makes it clear that there are huge efforts behind the scene.


    What you should know too, is that some of the people IH hired are military insiders. I will not say that IH is acting as a shell for the US-Military (DOD) to hold down the rest, but at least it looks like...

  • Quote

    So it ooks like the best current way forward is is some dedicted,intuitive,practical person, like Edifison or the Wright Bros, or Rossi (Gasp), who can make simple cheap fast experiments, hundreds of times, to fond out what works.

    Right now, it looks as if Alan Smith and company and possibly MFMP are the best bet for doing what you suggest. Need I point out that Edison and the Wrights are long dead and Rossi is a scamming criminal?

  • Adrian Ashfield

    lack of theory is indeed a great problem, that prevent research as usual today.

    Even Edison have a strong method, and was driven by (sometime wrong or personal) theories.


    As I've exchanged with many people, first it seems many people, especially in evil organisations like militaries, oil industry, car industry, nuclear industry, are very open minded on LENR and sometime very interested.

    The problem is with good organizations like academics, state funded labs, physicists, media, editors, good willing citizens, who try to protect good science from evil influence. They often harass, forbid, defund, block, menace, the evil guys who dared to look inside the forbidden box.

  • it seems many people, especially in evil organisations like militaries, oil industry, car industry, nuclear industry, are very open minded on LENR and sometime very interested.

    I can't speak for the industries you list nut I used to know most of the corporations in the glass industry pretty well, having done industry surveys for various research organizations.


    First, they are increasingly run by bean counters and lawyers, only interested in short term profits. Second, they talk big about being interested in new things, but always end up saying they want to be a close second. not the developers of the process.

    I suspect this applies to most existing corporations. To be first they need a champion in the organization and that is an endangered species. Rossi is a very rare bird.

  • Quite right, the evil organization are more and more driven by good guys, who avoid evil subjects.

    In fact it is well explained in SuperCroissance (French), by Faÿcal Hafied.

    translated here:

    https://translate.google.com/t…oppe-la-voiture-a-essence


    well fed people are less hungry.

  • My point is like you that even in "evil organizations" that dare much more than average, the management is no more daring anymore, just managing grannie's money as safe as daddy would.

    The point of faycal hafied is that

    • Secular stagnation is not a new concept, and is wrong as explained below.
    • there is huge portfolio of multipurpose innovation that could trigger a great technology revolution in all domains (not even talking of LENR - AI, drones, crypto, IoT, EV, 3D fab, Industry 4.0, Platforms)
    • there is hug pile of available cash (pension funds, central banks)
    • this cash is not used to develop breakthrough , but to safely develop what needs some slow improvement. the decision makers are managing funds, not their own fortune.
    • obsessive Regulation and precautionism is preventing any breakthrough
  • obsessive Regulation and precautionism is preventing any breakthrough


    I am always wary of cries for 'less regulation'. The house builders in the UK always claim that planning restrictions prevent them building new homes, not true, they have plenty of approvals, but if they don't build slowly the ridiculous prices houses fetch would fall. So they blame 'regulation', The same is true of labour market regulations, gun laws, drug laws and so on. There is always somebody who wants less, even when it is obvious we need more. Apart from that, I cannot see how regulation is inhibiting investment in LENR- it seems to me that there is plenty of venture capital sniffing around what they see as potentially a honey-pot - so much so that some players are seeking to create and own a monopoly. It's all very confusing,, best thing IMHO is just to get on with the work.

  • obsessive Regulation and precautionism is preventing any breakthrough

    I have never heard of an experiment that was delayed by regulations. At one point, the managers at China Lake tried to stop Miles by telling him this is a nuclear effect and it has to be regulated. He pointed to articles in Nature saying it is a mistake, and not nuclear, so they agreed it should not be covered by nuclear safety rules. I have heard of precautions slowing down research. Mizuno was not allowed to do experiments after one of his cells exploded.

  • The point of faycal hafied is that

    faycal hafied? Why do you suppose the things you list happen? I blame the business schools who teach Freedman's philosophy that the only thing that matters is profit to the shareholders & huge bonuses for yearly profit. I don't agree that regulations play much of a part in this.


    The financial sector is supposed to be 40% of GDP. It should be 4% They skim billions off the general population and don't really add much.


    Part of the lack of innovation is due to the up coining generation that are ignorant of basic skills. A friend hired a new graduate engineer who had never heard of a tap and die for making threads. Kids don't repair their motorbikes at home and cars have become too complicated.

  • The house builders in the UK always claim that planning restrictions prevent them building new homes, not true, they have plenty of approvals, but if they don't build slowly the ridiculous prices houses fetch would fall.

    When I moved to St Lambert (suburb of Montreal) The city owned all the land and would only sell a plot on the condition that it was built on inside a year. This stopped land peculation driving prices up.


    So I was able to buy a plot and contract the building of a home for a small fraction of the price in America. Wnen I m\ed again I sold it for twice what it cost me, that was enough to buy a home in Oakville (that I didn't like as much). Moving again, last I looked that home sold for five times what I paid for it


    The regulations are for a minmum standard and a house should be better built than tht. House prices ar rediculous and made so delibderately for profit. It's the American way and I don't see it changing.


  • What I cite is usual regulation that delay testing, or innovation... like uber vs taxis (or in France, installed uber vs new drivers)... some like for cars prevent newcomers unless they invest billions. even regulation on parking can block vehicle sharing in cities...

    About research, some research are forbidden by law or by fear. We plan to regulate AI in France... Big guys can adapt, and some suggest that is the intent, but small innovators cannot pay the entry ticket (is it on purpose?).

    All those regulation seems rational at first sight... but their impact on average is underestimated.


    About LENR the only opposition I hear was about fear of career and Nobel destruction, and there was an informal reguation in EDF/CEA/CNRS, no LENR research even at home...

    Since it does not happen it could not be radioactive.


    Of course without regulations, there is more accidents, but this make the difference between today's secular stagnation, and 19th century (or Chinese current) explosive improvement of average life, despite some catastrophe (which costed much less than usual starvation periods, epidemia, cold weather)...


    This is a choice, and no surprise that taking the risk is impopular, we are not there by accident, but because it is current consensus.


    Of course there could be a middle position, but we are not at the middle position between stagnation and 19th century frenzy times.