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

  • The reactor when turned on produces an elevated gamma emission baseline, say 2-3x background.
    When the reactor is turned off it takes a while (days to weeks) for the baseline to return to background.

    This slow behavior is controllable and reproducible. . . .

    Alan Smith confirms this is the claim. That is quite different from any other cold fusion claim that I am aware of. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean it will have to independently replicated before I have confidence it is true. A "me too" claim that closely resembles previous ones, such as heat from Pd-D electrolysis, is more readily believable, in my opinion.

  • can said.'When the reactor is turned off it takes a while (days to weeks) for the baseline to return to background.'


    This is probably not correct in all cases, but we have seen this. ETA- Just this morning in fact. Tube at room temperature persistently 20% above background and the controls (only 3) nearby.

  • can said.'When the reactor is turned off it takes a while (days to weeks) for the baseline to return to background.'


    This is probably not correct in all cases, but we have seen this. ETA- Just this morning in fact. Tube at room temperature persistently 20% above background and the controls (only 3) nearby.


    That is pretty impressive except that 20% above background is so marginal.


    I'm still unclear about the controllability. For example, if you switch the tube on/off and you then get consistent higher/lower gamma counts, that is interesting, and what I'd call controllable.


    Otherwise, if switching on/off does not give consistent changes, I'd say it is not controllable and while positing a reaction that continues is a possible solution so are other options... Non-controllable opens up a much wider class of extraneous sources, and makes linking the gammas to a putative reaction less clear.

  • Indeed it is. Switching on by applying heat gives consistent changes in gammas in good fuel tubes, switching off is sometimes more hit and miss.

    Do I understand correctly that you are once again detecting gamma rays? Good for you! (Except, as I said, I hope they do not become a hazard.)


    I have not been following the discussion, but weeks ago you said they faded away. Now they are back. Right?

  • JedRothwell


    The very first fuel tube is still active, at a lower but still measurable level. That one dates back to May but still showed signs of life when re-heated. New experiments are just beginning, and once again we see gammas, an excursion well above background (if I told you how much above THH wouldn't believe me anyway). But these are not at dangerous levels by any means, since they are only a signature of LENR, not the source of XSH.

  • This thread is showing a tendency to degenerate into a second Rossi debating zone. This has caused complaints from several members. Accordingly 22 recent Rossi posts have been moved into the 'Rossi Blog' thread. Please keep directly and purely Rossi-related posts in that thread.

  • Go to the atom-ecology thread. Then you will notice that gamma rays are measured at high level above background.

    Any time that anyone has gamma rays, even only slightly above marginal, they should invite a ton of people to come over and take Geiger counter measurements. Eventually the setup would be replicated and the practice of inviting others to take gamma measurements should be repeated. That practice is where it becomes precisely "Where the LENR goal line is". And especially if you calibrate with a known gamma ray producing device.

  • My experience when it comes to this field is that there are many people who think like McKubre. They start off dreaming of the benefits cold fusion or LENR could bring to the world and start working towards seeing it proven as a reality. When they start seeing extremely positive results -- not just a few watts -- they change their minds. Instantly, they put themselves first and decide that if they can't beat everyone else the world can go without such an energy source.


    Personally, I absolutely despise the world we live in today. What I value about LENR is it's potential to change our civilization in huge ways. That's why I want to see the technology be acknowledged as real and proliferate.

  • My experience when it comes to this field is that there are many people who think like McKubre. They start off dreaming of the benefits cold fusion or LENR could bring to the world and start working towards seeing it proven as a reality. When they start seeing extremely positive results -- not just a few watts -- they change their minds. Instantly, they put themselves first and decide that if they can't beat everyone else the world can go without such an energy source.


    Personally, I absolutely despise the world we live in today. What I value about LENR is it's potential to change our civilization in huge ways. That's why I want to see the technology be acknowledged as real and proliferate.

    Actually I agree with your analysis and have no problem playing the role of

  • Mmckubre,


    I can't agree with you more.


    At this stage in the evolution of LENR, there's not a single product on the market and the vast majority of mainstream scientists don't even accept that the phenomenon is real. To keep know how that could produce high powered systems capable of breaking down the barriers to the acceptance of this technology a secret is absolutely repugnant. For example, consider Andrea Rossi. Piantelli and Focardi did great work on Ni-H before Rossi ever started doing cold fusion research. However, their systems did not produce the kind of breakthrough output that is needed to break through the barriers the cynics, skeptics, and naysayers have put in place. Andrea Rossi came along and made some enhancements resulting in the ability to produce very high outputs. Now, it's pushing a decade since Andrea Rossi achieved these results, but LENR is still considered pseudo-science by the mainstream. Due to his willingness to put his own personal gain before the needs of the whole planet, we still don't have an absolute proven to work recipe to produce high powered LENR. Ten years from now we may still not have such information from Rossi, because if he can't monopolize the market he's not going to share any information that could in anyway assist potential competitors.


    What's so frustrating to me is that I think we have the information RIGHT NOW to produce these systems. It's not all in one place, but if you look at the wide variety of systems that have been tested many common themes seem to form. The problem is that whenever someone who is in a position to perform serious testing -- with an open mind and not confined to one specific view point about LENR -- starts getting results, they go secretive as well. The way I see it, the only way LENR will ever emerge is if groups form that somehow enforce openness, perhaps with legally binding contracts, from the beginning. For example, if ten people are working together on a project (even if they want to be open at first), start getting really good results, and start to see the potential for profit if they don't reveal their know how, the vast majority of the time they'll go dark. However, if they signed a contract with each other from the beginning that enforced open sharing with the larger community regardless of earnings potential, they would have a legally binding CONSCIOUS in effect even if they LOSE THEIRS.


    I think something like this needs to happen ASAP. Otherwise, we'll see team after team start getting results only to go silent in the hope of riches only to achieve nothing in the end. I personally don't want to wait another five years and go through a few more Andrea Rossi's, Patterson's, me356's, and a few other names I won't mention here to see LENR be accepted as reality.


  • Dewey,


    I don't call them "kingdoms" so much as suspicions, and rivalries that create divisions in the field. Probably what you would find between many groups competing in other branches of the sciences. It can be for the good, or the bad, depending on how it is channeled. That requires leadership though. And with IH being LENR's defacto leader right now, I would think you are in a unique position to direct it in a positive direction...if you want. And what better tool to achieve that, than right here at LF? We have a worldwide, 24/7 audience, with some of the bigger names either members, or guests.


    I have thought about this, and wonder how much of this distrust in the field results from disagreement over Rossi. Those thinking he has something, and that IH wronged him on the one side, and those thinking he is a thief on the other? That does seem to be where the fault line starts.


    Glad you are pleased with Greccio, and your team is making progress. Maybe one day you could provide us an organizational chart?


  • Mike - do you think that the Lubbock folks will be able to publish anything in the not too distant future?

    Ciao Dewey. I helped with initial set up of the Texas effort but have not visited now for a couple of years. I do not know their publication schedule but knowing Rob, whatever emerges will be solid and well measured.

    I speak for you below ;)

  • http://iscmns.org/conferences/workshop13/


    And from Dewey's posts since it is over Shane speculated that he ain't happy.

    Speculated incorrectly I believe. Although I don’t (need to) speak for Dewey I was with him there and we both found the meeting in Greccio very productive. The problem that we face (pre-commercialization) is threefold – all facets were discussed and advanced in our little monastery in the hills of Umbria:

    1. What is the nuclear active environment and how do we make it on demand? I believe this matter is now resolved. Many have found ways to achieve the NAE (many adventitiously) … see http://coldfusioncommunity.net/sav/sav-as-nae/

    2. What is/are the triggers? Some were discussed publicly there (microwaves) – others privately.

    3. What is the mechanism/theory of CMNS? This is still lagging and will until we have a more reliable/repeatable demonstration object but Hagelstein is making good progress, is still very much engaged, and still happy.

    Progress is good. Results will follow. IH has put in a good effort to prop the community up. Others are also involved who can/will speak for themselves.

  • 1. What is the nuclear active environment and how do we make it on demand? I believe this matter is now resolved. Many have found ways to achieve the NAE (many adventitiously) … see http://coldfusioncommunity.net/sav/sav-as-nae/

    This has a link to Mike Staker's upcoming paper:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf


    I am a big fan of Mike Staker. People should pay attention to him.

  • What does superabundant vacancy (SAV) do to hydrogen to make it LENR active? This is my opinion as follows.


    Hydrogen accumulates in the SAV. The SAV is the location where an inclusion develops. An inclusion is a body or particle recognizably distinct from the substance in which it is embedded. The SAV is a mechanism that compresses hydrogen to extremely high pressures, but not high enough to cause hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium. Hydrogen based nuclear fusion does not occur in the high pressure environment produced by the hydrogen inclusion. But the pressure that exists in the hydrogen inclusion is sufficient to generate ultra dense hydrogen.


    Hydrogen based LENR fuel includes metal that contains SAV which contains ultra dense hydrogen. When LENR fuel is heated, the ultra dense hydrogen is stimulated by heat. What happens when ultra dense hydrogen is stimulated...it exits the metal lattice that produced it by eating through that lattice.


    To described and justify this posit, here is a SEM picture of LENR fuel that was manufactured by ME356. It shows what ultra dense hydrogen ( either deuterium or protium) does when it exits the SAV in the LENR fuel that produced it.


    A SEM shows high atomic weight elements as white and low atomic weight elements as black. The hydrogen inclusions are transmuting carbon into metals as they move over the carbon.


    de7c0393bde731b1fe9e6c31c9fe44abf78e2a0d.jpg

  • Thanks Gruber.


    Shane, what was presented that you think Mr. Weaver did not like?


    Bob,


    What I was referring to had nothing to do with a presentation. Just a bad guess on my part as to why he was grumpy, and Dewey picked up on it right away. Enough said.


    Speaking to another question asked of me, as to whether I consider IH the de facto leader in LENR now? I did say that BTW, and probably a better way to say it, would be that they are a prominent leader, among others in the field. About a year ago, rumor had it that McKubre *fully* retired. Well, he appears to be alive, kicking, attending just about every LENR event there is, and active here, so he naturally continues on as the main spokesman for the field IMO. And a good one at that!


    Next in line, or coequal maybe, I think would be Dewey, as he is the face of IH. IH presently is a motivating force driving, and defining the research. They are a source of funding for many researchers, and a few opinion makers. In a field long starved of funding, that is very important, and makes them/him influential on top of being a leader. Also important, is that Dewey is a relative youngster, and as long as IH stays in the game, he will be around for a long time. With so many of the old guard being...well, old, that is important in keeping the torch lit for the next generation.


    Then there are Nagel, and Rothwell who have been tireless defenders, and promoters of the field for 29, and 25 years respectively. In their roles, they also qualify as leaders in the field. Did I miss anyone?

  • Speculated incorrectly I believe. Although I don’t (need to) speak for Dewey I was with him there and we both found the meeting in Greccio very productive. The problem that we face (pre-commercialization) is threefold – all facets were discussed and advanced in our little monastery in the hills of Umbria:

    1. What is the nuclear active environment and how do we make it on demand? I believe this matter is now resolved. Many have found ways to achieve the NAE (many adventitiously) … see http://coldfusioncommunity.net/sav/sav-as-nae/

    2. What is/are the triggers? Some were discussed publicly there (microwaves) – others privately.

    3. What is the mechanism/theory of CMNS? This is still lagging and will until we have a more reliable/repeatable demonstration object but Hagelstein is making good progress, is still very much engaged, and still happy.

    Progress is good. Results will follow. IH has put in a good effort to prop the community up. Others are also involved who can/will speak for themselves.


    LENR takes place due to prime movers and clusters of prime movers that are organized in different constructs.


    Prime movers are created when electrons and protons are exposed to a powerful electric field -- augmented by an external magnetic field and other factors.


    One NAE for the prime mover can be in SAV inside of the nickel lattice.

    Another NAE for the prime mover can be on the surface of the nickel lattice.

    Yet another NAE for the prime mover can be a pure plasma.


    The qualities of the prime mover may vary depending upon which NAE was utilized.


    Some prime movers may be individual and others exist in clusters.

    Some prime movers may have the momentum to exist the reactor body while others may have ultra low momentum.

    Some prime movers may have formed large clusters and be capable of traveling out of a reactor.


    In designing a reactor, one must decide which NAE is going to be utilized. Each NAE will then require an optimized stimulus.


    In the example of a nickel-hydrogen wire or powder based system, I think every method possible should be undertaken to enhance the loading of hydrogen into the nickel. In the process of doing so, I think we could end up providing a stimulus at the same time. I would begin by taking the nickel and subjecting it to cycles of loading and deloading. Then I would attempt to use one or more methods of modifying the surface to produce spillover effects (perhaps by adding palladium nano-particles) and to produce the most intense surface plasmon polaritions (waves of electrons) on the surface. Perhaps we could utilize a method of producing properly shaped spires or "tubercles" on the surface of the nickel to generate intense surges of surface plasmon polaritons. Next, I feel strongly that we should incorporate the usage of a plasma environment. Not only would plasma continue modifying the surface (depending on the intensity of the plasma and the heavy ions we include) but provide more atomic hydrogen for absorption and provide charged particles that could impact the surface generating intense SPPs.


    By using plasma we could be aiding the formation of NAE's (SAV in the nickel and surface modifications) and adding stimulation. Moreover, there's a chance that with the proper additives to the plasma we could produce some quantity of Prime Movers directly in the ionized environment.


    My guess is that Rossi and a few others have mastered the production of Prime Movers. However, I think they also discovered that they can become problematic if they are produced in too high of quantities or have such high momentum that they exit the reactor.


    I really wish there was a lab somewhere that would incorporate many optimizations to try and maximize the production of prime movers.

  • There are no leaders of LENR.


    There are only a number of money hungry dictators with inventors syndrome.


    There are also a few really intelligent people who are not inventors but are willing to keep important information confidential when there is no need to do so.


    What needs to happen is for a group of people with a WRITTEN ON PAPER CONTRACT FOR TOTAL OPENNESS start utilizing all the techniques to optimize NAE creation and stimulation to produce high powered systems. This will make all of the so-called leaders panic: because their chance of a monopoly on LENR will be over. Rossi is a great example. He is unwilling to conduct any demonstration that meets a level that would be considered absolutely irrefutable. If he did, enough smart minds might get interested that they'd figure out what he is doing and become a competitor. Just like Patterson, he wants total control over the LENR field and if he cannot get that then he doesn't care one bit if his technology never sees the light of day. He's not the only party in the LENR field that feels this way.

  • Speculated incorrectly I believe. Although I don’t (need to) speak for Dewey I was with him there and we both found the meeting in Greccio very productive. The problem that we face (pre-commercialization) is threefold – all facets were discussed and advanced in our little monastery in the hills of Umbria:

    1. What is the nuclear active environment and how do we make it on demand? I believe this matter is now resolved. Many have found ways to achieve the NAE (many adventitiously) … see http://coldfusioncommunity.net/sav/sav-as-nae/

    2. What is/are the triggers? Some were discussed publicly there (microwaves) – others privately.

    3. What is the mechanism/theory of CMNS? This is still lagging and will until we have a more reliable/repeatable demonstration object but Hagelstein is making good progress, is still very much engaged, and still happy.

    Progress is good. Results will follow. IH has put in a good effort to prop the community up. Others are also involved who can/will speak for themselves.

    Thank you for this elaborate answer. It's much appreciated.

    Regards

  • The only true leader of Cold Fusion was the late Eugene Mallove.If you want someone

    with his leadership qualities you might have

    to go outside of the LENR community.


    https://thebulletin.org/2016/0…f-a-cold-fusion-crusader/

  • This has a link to Mike Staker's upcoming paper:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf


    I am a big fan of Mike Staker. People should pay attention to him.


    Took a quick look at the paper. He assumes only eletrochemical recombination is allowed and that that is limited to 2%. IOW he uses the original F&P "gamma=0" assumption without proof. IOW there is no allowance in his calorimetry for CCS/ATER, yet he uses the same design as all the other CF cells that I claim allows for the CCS to happen. Excess heat claims are suspect. (P.S. This paper is a good example of how not to convince a skeptic. Science by assertion and assumption rarely does.)


    Edit: "gamma = 0" implies the assumption of no recombination. In the original F&P calorimetric equation it might actually be "gamma=1", I didn't go back and check if he used gamma or '1-gamma' in their equation.