Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

  • My question would be is where is the "there" and how will be know we are there? Where are the goal posts?


    OG,


    Very good question. You are on the inside looking out, as you do the work, and attend the conferences. What do you think?


    I know the old guard has tried to define the goal posts, and what the means to getting there should be. It seems to me none has gained any traction though. Abd I think, was commissioned to create some guidelines. The field IMO, seems to be drifting around without any clear consensus as to how move forward in a coordinated way.


    This topic is important, so If there is some interest I will start a dedicated thread.

  • I would vote for a dedicated thread.


    In my opinion, to get the field moving forward, we need a completely open source, do-it-yourself experiment that combines the following:


    1) The production of undeniable excess heat which requires continual, self sustained operation (after initial start up) that continues long enough to eliminate any possible chemical energy source by at least an order of magnitude, or more. In simple terms, we need an object that gets very hot and stays very hot LONG AFTER it should have achieved near equilibrium with the temperature of the surrounding environment.


    2) Total reliability which means that if you setup the experiment to-the-letter within all the parameters provided, you are virtually guaranteed success. We can't have a system that a half dozen parties are struggling to get up and running. It must just work. Repeatedly. For everyone who builds it.


    3) Easy accessibility which means no obscure or difficult to acquire fuel components, parts, or equipment. This means no palladium or deuterium. Once we crack LENR (which I think we have with the spheromak paradigm) nickel-hydrogen should work as well as any other combination.


    Once the above is achieved and starts being replicated, I think in weeks to months LENR will be headline news. But we're not going to get anywhere by begging individuals with inventors syndrome for puzzle pieces. The folks in this for profit aren't gonna share diddly squat with us; we have to come up with such an open source configuration on our own. The good news is that I think if we had a small team willing to obsessively compulsively test a variety of configuration (especially hydrogenated fuel exposed to plasma or pure plasma based configurations) we could develop this system fairly rapidly. The bad news is that as usual there's virtually no labor to perform such testing.

  • In my opinion, to get the field moving forward, we need a completely open source, do-it-yourself experiment that combines the following:

    Given the difficulties, the skills needed, and the manual equipment that most people have access to, you could only "do it yourself" if you happen to be a world-class electrochemist with a year or two of free time to devote to the task. As I said, Richard Oriani said this was the most difficult experiment he ever did. It has not gotten any easier since he said that.


    It would be easier if you have several million dollars to devote to the project, and a laboratory of world-class experts in things like mass spectroscopy such as the people at the Aerospace Corporation.


    Expecting it get easier is like expecting that open-heart surgery will get easier, or that any amateur should be able to do open-heart surgery from a 10-page manual. Or, expecting that you should be able to assemble an integrated circuit in on your dining room table, as a hobby. Even a first-generation circuit with 8 device large enough to be seen with the naked eye would probably be beyond the skills of most people. Such as this one:


    http://www.computerhistory.org…tion/digital-logic/12/329


    Heck, let's see you make a core plane, like this one:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory


    Do you think you could make one of these with a simple recipe, starting with raw materials? You don't know the first thing about it, if that is what you imagine.


    If you don't like those examples, think about building a house from lumber, pipes, electrical parts and so on. Hundreds of thousands of people can do that, but you probably could not, because it is difficult and it takes considerable experience and skill. It is not something you can learn from textbooks or a single paper. Unlike a cold fusion experiment: you can buy everything you need at Lowe's; the materials and tools do not cost millions of dollars, and they do not take a PhD to operate; and the methods are all described in great detail in various books that most people can understand. Whereas I doubt many people can understand an electrochemistry textbook. The methods of building a house are completely understood and regulated in enormous detail. You have to stick to them or the building inspector will post a failed inspection, and the structure will have to be built again or torn down.


    This is not to say that cold fusion can never be mass produced. Specialized equipment could do a year's worth of manual labor in a few minutes. It could be designed and programmed to do very complex operations that only a skilled person can do manually. There are countless examples of this kind of equipment, such as semiconductor fabrication equipment.


    A realistic goal, that might actually work, is to fund the best people you can find with $10 million or better yet $200 million, and let them do it their way.



    1) The production of undeniable excess heat which requires continual, self sustained operation (after initial start up) that continues long enough to eliminate any possible chemical energy source by at least an order of magnitude, or more. In simple terms, we need an object that gets very hot and stays very hot LONG AFTER it should have achieved near equilibrium with the temperature of the surrounding environment.

    This is a "bell the cat" fallacy. If anyone knew how to do this, cold fusion would already be accepted by everyone in the world, and hundreds of billions of dollar a year would be spent on R&D. Only a few of these goals are realistic at this stage.


    In my opinion, some of these goals are impossible, and some are not desirable. Heat after death is not a good thing. For a practical product, it would be an engineering nightmare, so I hope it can be eliminated. I hope it only happens with fairly large particles of palladium that hold a lot of deuterium which gradually outgases. Heat after death resembles an old fashioned burning pile of coal chunks that cannot be extinguished. You have to wait for the whole pile to burn. Modern coal fired generator plants use coal that has been crushed to powder, that burns quickly and completely.

  • It would be easier if you have several million dollars to devote to the project, and a laboratory of world-class experts in things like mass spectroscopy such as the people at the Aerospace Corporation.

    Needless to say, I am assuming here that no small scale effort conducted by relatively unskilled people will work. I would be delighted if one of these efforts panned out, but so far in the last 30 years none of them has, with the possible exception of Patterson. And Patterson was far from being an amateur.


    This may be unfair to the small-scale researchers. Smith and George, for example, seem to be doing a good job. I cannot judge from the information they have released so far, but there is some hope they have something. Maybe not. Maybe they are making a mistake of some sort, or they will not be able to reproduce the effect. That has been the outcome of all simple experiments so far, but that doesn't mean there is no possibility that a comparatively simple method will be found.


    I expect Smith & George would say this is not simple! I mean simple compared to the original Fleischmann-Pons bulk-Pd liquid electrochemical method. My comments above refer mainly to that method. I know little about other methods. I do know that methods such as Arata's and Takahashi's with gas loaded powder are not easy.


    Smith and George might also object to being called "relatively unskilled." Let's say relative to Richard Oriani, Fritz Will, Robert Huggins, Melvin Miles or Earnest Yeager. No one should feel insulted being rated less skilled than those people. And those people said they had considerable difficulty replicating. I am sure they would find it equally difficult today. It has not gotten easier. On the contrary, more is known about how cold fusion works, making it harder, not easier.


    To understand why it is getting more difficult, consider how much more difficult it has become to fabricate or repair automobiles in the last 100 years. You could make an early hand-made automobile with an instruction book from the Sears catalog. The Wright brothers designed a crude lightweight engine which they sketched full scale on paper. The block and crankcase was fabricated by a local foundry. Their mechanic, Charles Taylor, made the rest on his workbench in about 6 weeks. It could never have been used in a practical car or airplane, but it ran for 10 minutes or so and produced 12 HP, which was good enough for their purposes.


    You could not have made the first production line 1908 Model T, but with some shade-tree mechanical skills, you could fix one. A Model A was harder to make, and 1960s Volkswagen Beetle was harder still, but it is still easy to tell what each part under the hood is, and what it does. There were manuals showing how to fix most problems. Jump forward to a Prius hybrid. Most parts cannot be fabricated or fixed by people. Only by robots. Many of the critical components are computerized integrated circuits invisible to naked eye, and program code. The most skilled person on earth could not begin to replicate a Prius in a lifetime, even with access to every tool, instrument and computer available to the original designers. It is far beyond the skills or knowledge that one person can master. The first successful cold fusion cell will probably resemble a Prius more than a Model T. There will never be a version that a person can make manually, following a recipe. Especially not an unskilled person. Expecting a recipe is, as I said, a losing proposition.

  • This may be unfair to the small-scale researchers. Smith and George, for example, seem to be doing a good job. I cannot judge from the information they have released so far, but there is some hope they have something. Maybe not


    Alan taught himself to do open-heart surgery, so I have high hopes for he and Russ.

  • To be a little more specific, much of the difficulty is in materials. If you are an expert at Johnson Matthey with access to their teams of experts in metallurgy, you might have a good idea how to make a working cathode. J-M made by far the best cathodes in the 1990s, as you see on p. 6 here:


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


    I hope they have not lost this knowledge.


    If you are at Ames Nat. Lab. today, you have the expertise needed to make effective Ni-Pd powder.


    If you could get a J-M cathode or some of the Ames powder, and you know a great deal about other things such as electrochemistry, you could put them in a cell and probably produce excess heat. "Purchase the starting material from the only organization in the world that has the necessary in-house skill" is not what we normally think of as a "recipe." It reminds me of what people called "home-brew" computers in the 1970s. They began with a commercially manufactured Motorola or Z80 processor, and memory chips, which of course are devices you could never, ever make yourself. Putting them together was far simpler than fabricating a processor. It is kind of like paint by the numbers compared to being Renoir.


    If someone fabricated a sealed cold fusion cell with J-M or Ames material, and sold it to you, you might then have a 10-page "recipe" for how to operate it. This would be like purchasing a computer in 1980 when you had to know a lot about computers, operating systems and primitive software to make it work. That was still orders of magnitude simpler than making your own Z80 CPU chip. The "recipe" that we need is at the level of making a CPU chip, and will probably require rather similar skills and equipment. A recipe to take that and make it into a working device is second stage and cannot be done now, unless you spend a year winnowing through cathodes to find one that works. Or you work for a year and you don't find one. See:


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


    The recipe that J-M or Ames uses is not likely to boiled down to 10 pages, except for a Patent Office Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) who can read between the lines and supply all the knowledge not included in those pages. Along similar lines, I suppose that when a skilled surgeon invents an improved method, she can publish a 10-page description in the NEJM that will help other surgeons learn how to do it, but it wouldn't tell me a thing. I would have no clue what to do.


    The other reason people at home will not be able to do this is that the ingredients of a cell are toxic, and very dangerous to work with. Especially the powder. To be sure, with a commercial device they will be sealed inside a cell, so they will be no more dangerous than battery acid or gasoline. An amateur monkeying around with a gasoline engine fuel line in the garage is likely to burn the house down, but most automobiles parked inside garages are safe.

  • Jed,


    As you point out, there are many obstacles in the way, but can you point us in the right direction to the goal line? That is what this thread is all about after all. Yes, we know the difficulties as you, and the skeptics remind us of, but if LENR is a given as you and I believe, then there must be a way forward that gets us there. Hopefully without needing the 100's of millions you mentioned.


    Would also love to hear the opinions of other insiders.

  • As you point out, there are many obstacles in the way, but can you point us in the right direction to the goal line?

    Sure! It is piece of cake. Get $200 million and give it the people who want to make a robotic testing machine, similar to one that already exists for a somewhat related problem in catalysis. This is a gigantic trial-and-error Edisonian testing machine, like having thousands of Edison's lab assistants working day and night.


    You have to know what material charactoristics you are looking for, but I think there is widespread agreement on what those charactoristics are. The finer details are not understood. They describe what Ed Storms calls the NAE. Ed suggests various clever techniques to find the NAE on an active cathode surface, such as binary search with a laser.


    I realize this is a "bell the cat" fantasy solution, similar to what the Director wrote above. I am saying: "Let's solve the problem before we start!" Obviously, we cannot get $200 million. No one can get $20 thousand, never mind millions. However, the world is awash in money, and there is no doubt that someone, somewhere could supply $200 million, whereas no one on earth can do what the Director suggests. A recipe that anyone can follow is out of the question, in my opinion. I would love to be proven wrong.


    In that sense, my suggestion is somewhat more realistic. It is within the realm of what is possible. It is a plausible first step. Whereas what the Director suggests is a complete fantasy that will not come to pass without the aforementioned $200 million bucks. Or, at least, $10 million or so, but I doubt that is enough. It probably would not bring about anything more than what we had in the 1990s, because that is approximately how much people spent back then, and there is no reason to think they would make any more progress (or, actually, recapitulate more progress) than they did back then. The kinds of instruments and techniques you get for that kind of money today would not be substantially better than they were in the 1990s, and you couldn't work much faster. If you hired the kinds of people you need, it would be like hiring world-class computer programmers who get paid 6-figures and then giving them IBM 360 computers and telling them to work in COBOL. It is absurd to do physics or material science R&D in the 21st century without a gigantic investment in robotic equipment. Especially for a problem as difficult as this, which seems only amenable to trial and error techniques.


    I have absolutely no suggestions for how to raise $200 million, $10 million, or $20 thousand. If I knew how to do it, I would do it.

  • Jed,


    So it is all about getting the money in your opinion. Huge amounts. I could be wrong, but unless Duncan comes through for us and changes the dynamics, I do not see that happening. You seem to think the same thing from your comments. So what do we do? Nothing, or hope like hell that Alan/Russ, MFMP, and all the other skilled, and non-skilled, garage tinkerers get lucky?

  • I don't think it's about getting millions upon millions of dollars. In my opinion, the key barrier is putting together a relatively small cohesive team of relatively like minded researchers together, in the same physical location, rapidly setting up and performing experiments -- on a daily basis. The truth is that the vast majority of even the most well funded LENR projects performed experiments at snail's pace. When it takes weeks or longer to setup a single experiment and then sometimes at least that long to analyze data before writing a report and then moving on to performing another test, progress is likely going to be limited. There's simply not the opportunity to change parameters one at a time, try various stimulation methods, adjust fuel treatment routines, and gain the knowledge of what works and what doesn't. If we are to believe Bob Greenyer on this, which I do, Me356 achieved his success by setting up (with a few helpers) and running a new experiment almost every single evening after getting off work. At the same time, he studied the existing literature to find possible ways to optimize his configurations: first studying the work of Piantelli and Focardi and then moving on to plasma based stimulation. If his claims are valid, which I personally think they are but don't have proof of any kind, then the truth is that the majority of researchers simply aren't going to get anywhere near the level of results he claimed. I think in the broader fields of science this is why we have so few true fundamental breakthroughs these days -- at least in the fields of breakthrough energy and propulsion. There aren't an over abundance of Nikola Tesla's these days with sharp minds who imagine configurations in their head, build them, watch them work, and then draw up the schematics: repeating the process again and again at a frenzied rate in their own personal laboratories. Maverick's with revolutionary out-of-the-box ideas, especially in certain areas, are a dying breed: at least in the non-classified world.


    What I'm trying to say is that if we want to see surprising breakthroughs that push LENR from obscurity to being universally recognized and accepted, we need HUMAN resources more than FINANCIAL resources -- although both are required. I'd rather have a team of ten full-time almost unstable but brilliantly eccentric fabricators, engineers, and scientists on a team working around the clock for six months and a few hundred thousand dollars in funding than three technically full time (but with busy lives that get in the way) researchers in an academic setting and ten million dollars in funding.

  • I guess I am "old guard". It seemed as though with Rossi, the goals moved away from science and understanding to commercialization and large outputs (at least 1kW). But to me, my goal posts are in the science. I would be happy just to see numerous journal papers and conditions changed so that young grad students were not told to avoid the field, and PhD dissertations where written without fear.


    ....Perhaps when Science, Nature, and Sci. American have a half dozen positive articles in a year.


    Of course the question then becomes, how to get there.

  • "... make a robotic testing machine, similar to one that already exists for a somewhat related problem in catalysis. This is a gigantic trial-and-error Edisonian testing machine, like having thousands of Edison's lab assistants working day and night. ..."


    This inspires me to ask: Could software simulate this testing. Could the reactions be predicted by software.


    https://www.princeton.edu/news…future-chemical-reactions


    https://phys.org/news/2018-04-…cal-reactions-lowers.html


    I fully realize the links above concern chemical reactions. Nevertheless, I believe software might one day guide LENR development through simulation.

  • I realize this is a "bell the cat" fantasy solution, similar to what the Director wrote above. I am saying: "Let's solve the problem before we start!" Obviously, we cannot get $200 million. No one can get $20 thousand, never mind millions. However, the world is awash in money, and there is no doubt that someone, somewhere could supply $200 million, whereas no one on earth can do what the Director suggests. A recipe that anyone can follow is out of the question, in my opinion. I would love to be proven wrong.


    about plenty of fearful money, not talking of LENr is is an observation made byFaÿcal Hafied in his recent book. "Supercroissance"

    Not even talking of LENR, there is huge potential of multiusage technology that if well funded and dared could make a new industrial revolution.

    problem is that today the wagon of free money is managed by salaried managers to please pension owners and not by self managed tycoons., and in France by civil servant and fearful or demagogic politicians and not by daring ambitous dreamers.

    (Not so true, somewhere in france, and zone is resisting - NB: not in Britany)

    village_asterix_1.jpg?itok=Wy8zkmtj

  • This inspires me to ask: Could software simulate this testing. Could the reactions be predicted by software.

    No. There is no theory to explain cold fusion, so there is no basis to simulate it. This would be a little like trying simulate cellular reproduction before 1952 when people did not know the structure or function of DNA.

  • I don't think it's about getting millions upon millions of dollars. In my opinion, the key barrier is putting together a relatively small cohesive team of relatively like minded researchers together, in the same physical location, rapidly setting up and performing experiments -- on a daily basis.

    That would cost millions of dollars. Researchers cannot move to a new place for free, or work for free. They cannot work without instruments and without lab space. Five people will cost you a million a year, or more.


    The truth is that the vast majority of even the most well funded LENR projects performed experiments at snail's pace. When it takes weeks or longer to setup a single experiment and then sometimes at least that long to analyze data before writing a report

    I do not think so. The researchers I have seen work rapidly. A single experiment cannot be done in less that weeks or months. Look at the procedures described by Storms in the paper I linked to above. He tested nearly 100 cathodes to find 3 or 4 good ones. I don't see how anyone could do that in less time than he did, which was about a year.


    As I said, researchers may need to test thousands of cathodes. That could be done with robotic techniques but if it is done manually it will take decades, working quickly. The project at the ENEA to characterize cathodes also seemed rapid to me. They characterized hundreds of samples, I think.


    As I have often said, if you knew how difficult this was, you would be amazed at how much progress they have made. You would also be impressed at how quickly they work.

  • So it is all about getting the money in your opinion. Huge amounts.

    Well, not huge amounts by the standards of industry or government. It took roughly $1 billion to develop the Prius, which is a minor incremental improvement in technology compared to cold fusion. Plasma fusion and ITER consume billions of dollars a year with nothing to show for it. One small project in the star wars missile defense project was to make Pb-207 to use with a space based rocket laser. It did not work. It cost $250 million. By 2013, star wars had cost more than $200 billion.


    In Silicon Valley, the Juicero fiasco alone cost $120 million. As I said, the world is awash in money these days. Big money looking for a home.


    https://www.theguardian.com/te…icon-valley-shutting-down



    I could be wrong, but unless Duncan comes through for us and changes the dynamics, I do not see that happening.

    I don't either.


    So what do we do? Nothing, or hope like hell that Alan/Russ, MFMP, and all the other skilled, and non-skilled, garage tinkerers get lucky?

    I doubt they will get lucky. Small projects done by non-experts without proper instruments such as high res SEM have contributed nothing to cold fusion in 30 years. As Ed Storms put it, what they do is like looking for a semiconductor by examining rocks in your driveway.


    I cannot judge whether Alan/Russ have anything. They have published one small graph that they say is heat after death (HAD). It does not look like HAD to me, but perhaps this is a brand new type that is stable and does not respond to temperature the way other HAD does. I cannot judge. The graph did not even have the x-axis units, supporting data or a description, so it more like a trade-show poster advertisement than a scientific report. No one can say what it means, except perhaps Alan or Russ.


    There is nothing wrong with trade-show posters, by the way. "Revolutionary new concept to enhance the customer experience, smooth and integrate data transitions. One-click access allows rapid prototyping to fit your needs." It could be anything!

  • Rothwell has all the ICCF Conference Proceedings in print, now on his LENR-CANR: :thumbup:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=501


    Gives a good perspective on where the field is now, as compared to then. One thing I can say with a quick glance; there was some serious research going on back then. They did not miss anything. What is being talked about now, they were talking about, and running experiments on back then. Just like now, they were equally frustrated as they tried to narrow down why one experiment would be clearly successful, but not the next. That did not stop them though from trying, and trying again.


    While going through, I noticed the the 10 downloads Jed has from the 2000 "Accountability in Research". This one by Scaramuzzi, from the ENEA was most interesting. It is his observations/eyewitness account over a 10 year period, and best explains what I am talking about:


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

  • I guess I am "old guard". It seemed as though with Rossi, the goals moved away from science and understanding to commercialization and large outputs (at least 1kW). But to me, my goal posts are in the science.


    CF has moved away from science long before the Rossi's arrival, practically from the beginning of its history, as was explained by Melich - a main protagonist of the field - at ICCF3 held in 1993 (1): "There are two sets of criteria that have been in play from the beginning - the scientific criteria and those associated with patents. It was commonly assumed, particularly since the FPE was presented in a public press conference, that the most important criteria were those of science, yet a careful examination of what was made available in 1989 suggests that patent criteria were primary."


    So, the patent criteria - ie those of commercialization - have always been predominant over the scientific ones.


    The patent approach was already followed at the time by the ENECO, and Melich himself was involved in it (2): "Michael Melich, during the time he was a government employee, was also involved in the private company ENECO before it folded. ENECO aggressively began collecting cold fusion patents in 1991 and eventually obtained the original University of Utah patents for the Pons-Fleischmann discovery."


    ENECO disappeared at the beginning of 2008 (3), exactly when the last and most brilliant comet was rising in the sky of CF/LENR, accompanied hand by hand by the same exponent of the old guard (4): "I heard how Mike became involved in starting to explore what he was doing. Rossi claimed to be closing in on producing a working LENR technology. He had American partners who had worked with the U.S. Navy and were familiar with the continuing interest of the Navy in energy technology. In late 2007 the company requested someone with technical interest and competence to view a demonstration. It took until summer 2009 before the promised demonstration was nearly ready. The demonstrations were organized at the company’s facilities and several government scientists were invited to observe four to five hour demonstrations of the startup of the reactor and its operation and shutdown. It was an impressive demonstration. Although independent electronic instrumentation was not available, a rough estimate of how much energy was produced could be made. What Rossi said that night was that he was heating his offices in a factory building where he worked with the heat from his invention. That certainly got my attention. As soon as we returned to the U.S., I began to look into his background and realized it would take a lot of research to properly report on Andrea Rossi. His history included extraordinary inventions such as a technology that converted waste products, literally garbage, into a useable fuel oil. But he had also gone to prison, a story that either cast him as a hero who’d gotten in over his head in mixed circumstances or the opposite. He had explained to us that his interest in cold fusion began in prison, when he passed the time by reading scientific papers about it. Whoever he was, it was my husband’s job to be one of the people to try to figure out if what he had was real."


    So, Rossi's arrival has been the logical and coherent completion of the evolution of the CF/LENR field. Now, after 10 years, you can easily figure out not only what Rossi really had, but also what LENR really is, and where its goal line (or posts) could be.


    (1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MelichMEbacktothef.pdf

    (2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…1/36/3616ideologies.shtml

    (3) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#eneco

    (4) http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

  • Ascoli65 

    Your goal posts are not mine.

    I will be happy with a few simple things, like knowing what materials work reliably, what factors are most important in my figure of merits, what conditions must me meet to generate the effects, a friendly working environment that accepts studies on LENR.....


    To go for large commercialization devices before the scientific acceptance will most likely be futile.

    Many have gone down that path but it has not produced anything. Outlandish claims by Rossi without verification has almost destroyed the field.

    Oh you might find a few small items done but large items will not come until there is some better understanding of the reactions and materials required.


    My view is that you must have short term definite goals in life and long term objectives. You might have an objective of producing half the world's electricity with LENR but we need to have definite near term goals before we can reach such futuristic objectives.

  • began to look into his background and realized it would take a lot of research to properly report on Andrea Rossi.

    I know Mike and Marianne well. They have even stayed at my house. You might want to check with Marianne about what they think of Rossi now.


    http://infinite-energy.com/iem…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

    "making him “the biggest environmental hero in Italy” before events had turned his story in the opposite direction."

    " He had explained to us that his interest in cold fusion began in prison,.."

    "Michael Melich is on record in two public tutorials saying that Rossi’s 2009 demonstrations seemed to show that he was producing about 10 KW"


    "The bottom line is that there was not a conclusive Rossi test to report that we witnessed."

  • Your goal posts are not mine.

    [...] You might have an objective of producing half the world's electricity with LENR but we need to have definite near term goals before we can reach such futuristic objectives.


    You misunderstood my comment. I was trying to show you that CF/LENR has never been a scientific argument. It has always dealt with other less solemn objectives, and Rossi has been (and still is) the best interpreter of its spirit.

    "The bottom line is that there was not a conclusive Rossi test to report that we witnessed."


    And never will be! This is exactly the way a never ending bluff must work: control the public bias, convince people that a whatever LENR effect might be real, feed the doubt, exort to wait&see.


    This same strategy was presented at a Colloquium on LANR held on August 2007 (1):

    "Dr. Michael Melich discussed “Some Thoughts on the Creation of Useful Models of CMNS Systems,” including experiences he has had associated with convincing other people that something “real” is involved in cold fusion. He identified a potentially important way to convince people that the effects might be real by appealing to “conditional probability” ideas that, in fact, form the basis of speculative arguments that can mimic human activity. Specifically, E.T. Jaynes has pointed out that within the context of probability theory, biases can and do occur. Dr. Melich and his colleague, Dr. Rodney Johnson, have used what Jaynes has suggested, quantitatively, to illustrate how biases can become dominant." [bold added]


    Who better than people trained in philosophy can deal with such "speculative arguments"?

    Just then, one of them was trying to meet Piantelli or Focardi.


    (1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…e/issue75/colloquium.html

  • In my opinion, the key barrier is putting together a relatively small cohesive team of relatively like minded researchers together, in the same physical location, rapidly setting up and performing experiments -- on a daily basis.

    Bullseye! Most of the progress I made at SRI and most of my residual knowledge (and an awful lot lost) came in the first 2-3 years of the "Fleischmann Pons era" when I had a group of 8-10 highly talented folk focussed coherently, energetically and full time and on FP experiments. With a few consultants added and active participation from our sponsor (EPRI) this group encompassed all skill types we believed necessary to do the job. This group was young (for physical scientists ... at 40 I was the second oldest), and well funded (1-2 million $US / year).


    One of the reasons I am skulking (very happily) in New Zealand is that I cannot play that role again. I am too old, lacking both energy and imagination. Oh I pick a few things up and the residual knowledge helps, but I do not have a dozen people (and an entire research institute) around to bounce ideas off, culling the weak and tuning the strong before entering the lab. But my intense frustration and the reason for three stern ICCF lectures (ICCF19-21) is that I know a half dozen people out there who together have what I believe is a sufficient collective skill set to get us easily to the next phase (which I see as a working demonstration). And, as I have said before, money is not a problem. This would take 3-5 million $US / year for 3-5 years (and I know how to budget research - I did it successfully for nearly 40 years). That amount is easy.


    So what is the problem? I have blamed "secrecy" but that is just an excuse. The real reason is ego. Some of it is an individual desire for credit. But almost all of the pushback I have had against assembling my "dream team" is from the sponsors. On one side the people with the money do not appreciate that scientists (and engineers) are not mutable ... one cannot be substituted for another. The people we need for this job with the skill sets and attitudes are precise - some unique. On the other side men or organizations with money are ego driven to be "first" . If they feel they have control (by money or NDA) of a unique individual talent they cannot (apparently) be persuaded to pool this talent for a common good.


    So we wait, hoping that one or two of you in teams of one or two will get across the goal line. It has happened before. Someone mentioned Tesla above, and Martin and Stan were a team of two. But Tesla and Fleischmann were both geniuses ... and I know Martin had an extended and very able scientific family (albeit most not believing that "cold fusion" was an idea worth their time). Please don't ask me to identify my "dream team". This would embarrass some (whether on the list or not) and make the job harder by corporate pushback. But I concur precisely with "Director's" quote above. Which reminds me - the team would need a good director - and that is not me.

  • Thank you mmckubre! Just a reminder for others, there are several teams working now on the problem. Two of which may sound familiar to Mike; Duncan's Texas Tech/Seahorse Research, and Brillouin Energy (BEC). We have yet to hear from Duncan, but there is a rumor he will be submitting a paper to a reputable journal for peer review....soon. BEC has passed rigorous testing by Tanzella's SRI "team", and just recently had their EO patent approved. It had already been approved prior by China.


    Some others on the hunt, are the Japanese NEDO group. Unfortunately they *may* have lost their funding according to Jed, after putting out a solid report this past spring. ENEA is still at it. Celani has a team he works with, and last we heard from them is that they had achieved COP2. Indians seem to be coordinating efforts across their country, under the leadership of Srinivasan.


    Very promising also, is the NASA/GEC/JWK venture working together to develop a hybrid LENR/Fission system for space travel, and colonization. Then there is tight lipped Safire.


    Then we have an army of professional garage tinkerers, lead by Alan/Russ, toiling away. Last, but maybe not least (we shall see) is Brilliant Light Power. Not LENR according to Mills -he distances himself from us, but the information we have from within the organization, is positive.

  • Quote

    So what is the problem? I have blamed "secrecy" but that is just an excuse. The real reason is ego.

    After 29 years, maybe one should also consider the possibility that the findings so far are errors and/or misinterpretations where they are not rank fraud like Rossi (and several others I won't name in deference to the forum hosts). Fraud is a minor proportion, I admit, but various frauds have seemed to be eagerly accepted as real early in their course by long time enthusiasts of LENR. So, in the end, it is hard to trust anyone. If the phenomenon were real and as potent as claimed, I would expect demonstrations universally thought of as convincing, for example, a long running exothermic reaction that requires no input power. It would help if it could be kept around for people to see and test. We can argue about the power level and the duration and I am sure Jed will when he claims it's been done and people like me and legions of scientists and engineers are too ignorant or ill-willed to recognize it.


    Maybe the real reason is a lack of sufficient skepticism.

  • After 29 years, maybe one should also consider the possibility that the findings so far are errors and/or misinterpretations where they are not rank fraud like Rossi (and several others I won't name in deference to the forum hosts). Fraud is a minor proportion, I admit, but various frauds have seemed to be eagerly accepted as real early in their course by long time enthusiasts of LENR. So, in the end, it is hard to trust anyone. If the phenomenon were real and as potent as claimed, I would expect demonstrations universally thought of as convincing, for example, a long running exothermic reaction that requires no input power. It would help if it could be kept around for people to see and test. We can argue about the power level and the duration and I am sure Jed will when he claims it's been done and people like me and legions of scientists and engineers are too ignorant or ill-willed to recognize it.


    Maybe the real reason is a lack of sufficient skepticism.


    The issue is how you judge anomalous results.


    Jed sees this in black and white: where anomalies are well described (say McKubre) and not obviously explicable this is evidence positive of LENR.


    For me, and many others, the McKubre results do not show this. It is interesting that they show an effect, enough so that I continue to look at other stuff to see what is coherent with this. But what they show is no way conclusive. The few large excess outliers are non-replicable and could be one-off errors never detected. They typical small excesses could be some not understood systematic error.


    Why does that explanation of McKubre positives look plausible? Because there is as yet no coherent LENR theory that predicts these anomalies. just a general "things like this should happen",which will match a wide range of error. Looking just at one result you would leave exotic mechanisms. Given so many results from different groups trying to identify a new phenomenom, none of which stand up, and an effect which would be expected normally to have many incontrovertible signs, LENR looks less plausible.


    I don't rule it out: NAEs that self-destroy when active are difficult to rule out. Maybe there is some weird emergent effect that avoids all high energy products. But it seems unlikely. Coherence would come from Abd's He3 correlation experiments (nothing heard after a long time, so i'm inclined to think these inconclusive/negative). I should point out that for LENR experiments looking at low level effects all negatives will by definition be inconclusive - and a large number of inconclusive results should not be seen as smoke indicating fire.


    So i'm still open to interesting theory (nothing there except the electron shielding stuff) or experiment (nothing new there - given the Brillouin stuff released so far has been not convincing for reasons I've documented).


    Another negative is progress of IH. I'm not negative about IH. They are doing an outstanding job identifying likely candidates, funding them, checking results properly. Exactly what LENR enthusiasts have asked for. They remain hopeful, which is good, and maybe they will find something. But the fact that they have not done so yet means a whole load of stuff has been investigated and found wanting.


    THH

  • and I am sure Jed will when he claims it's been done and people like me and legions of scientists and engineers are too ignorant or ill-willed to recognize it.


    It would seem that Jed isn't the only person who acknowledges your level of (willful) ignorance:

    As I said before, I have no interest in claims for small, low level, low power LENR effects. I know nothing about those, I care little about them, and I don't evaluate them. So what?


    :S

  • Bullseye! Most of the progress I made at SRI and most of my residual knowledge (and an awful lot lost) came in the first 2-3 years of the "Fleischmann Pons era" when I had a group of 8-10 highly talented folk focussed coherently, energetically and full time and on FP experiments. With a few consultants added and active participation from our sponsor (EPRI) this group encompassed all skill types we believed necessary to do the job. This group was young (for physical scientists ... at 40 I was the second oldest), and well funded (1-2 million $US / year).


    This is gold data for me. "well funded (1-2 million $US / year)" (in US leconomic share it is below 6.5Mn$2017)

    mmckubre  

    • What would be the budget today you would advise for a coherent effort in a place where you find all instruments you need, by state funded labs experienced with hot fusion, hydrogen economy, accumulators, by nanotech small business companies,
    • What would be key competences ?
    • What would be the initial work? initial line of research? (I often advise something with PdD/PdNiH wet or dry permeation, even if Nedo funded study seems attractive. is it absurd?)
    • By the way, (I've heard it many times from JedRothwell and many others, and I tried to relay myself what I caught, but 3rd opinion always better) what would be the best documentation to relay to decision makers ? Those in political circles? business tech circles? academic circles?


    It may be more directly applicable that what people may imagine.