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

  • 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.

  • 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.


    I'm sure you are right, they are certainly sprinkling money across the field, though from what I hear in modest amounts. No major program they are solely funding AFAIK. Biggest problem I see is that they will be tempted to deprecate tech they have not funded and thus have no IP stake in, and being a totally commercial enterprise may want to work entirely below the radar. The 'below the radar' bit is fine, but I'm not so happy about the tendency to try to build a tech monopoly.

  • 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

    This is ruled out, for two reasons:


    1. You are saying that someone, somewhere may someday find an error in all of the mainstream experiments. They may all be wrong. Your assertion cannot be tested or falsified. It applies equally well to every experiment in history. Someone might find out that Ohm's law is incorrect, but that is extremely unlikely.


    No scientist has found any error in any of these experiments. Morrison and Shanahan thought they did, but they are wrong.


    2. In experimental science, a replicated, high-sigma result is true by definition. There is no other definition. In the history of science, no such result has ever been found wrong later on. If that could happen, the experimental method would not work, science would not work, and we would still be living in caves.


    Furthermore, many of the people who did these experiments were distinguished experts with decades of experience and dozens of papers and confirmed claims. People such as the Chairman of the Indian AEC, and the person who designed the Indian atomic bomb. The likelihood that every single one of these people made a mistake is roughly the same as the likelihood that on the same day in August every one of them might be driving to work, lose control, and whack into a telephone poll. That would not happen in the life of the universe. (One of them might do that, of course, but not all of them on the same day.)


    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.

    You have not found an experimental error in McKubre's results, so you are saying you interpret them differently, and they do not indicate a nuclear effect. You are mistaken.


    As far as I know, you have not found an experimental error in any other mainstream experiment. You thought that you found some in Fleischmann's boil-off experiments, but all of the problems you found were ruled out by Fleischmann.


    Also, there are not "many others" who agree with you. There are none, as far as I know. That is to say, no one has published a paper showing an error in McKubre's work, or challenging his conclusion that this is a nuclear effect. If you know of "many others," I suggest you name three of them. I do not mean people such as Robert Park who claim that all cold fusion experiments are wrong. Park has never said anything specific about McKubre or any other author. He has never addressed any technical issue. I do not mean people who say they disagree on the Internet. I mean scientists who have published papers with rigorous analyses.

  • I had a group of 8-10 highly talented folk . . . at 40 I was the second oldest), and well funded (1-2 million $US / year).

    In the discussion above I estimated very roughly that 5 people would need at least $1 million a year. I am glad to see your estimate is in the same ballpark. You estimate is grounded in far more knowledge & experience than mine.


    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" .

    The history of technology has been dogged by many similar events. People who are successful in one field often come to think they know what should be done in another.


    This has happened less often in the history of science because science tends to be arcane, and even a successful industrialist such as Henry Ford, or a top notch programmer such as Bill Gates will probably realize he does not understand the science well enough to manage the project.


    The smart thing to do is to ask someone who has succeeded already, such as McKubre or Miles, to assemble a dream-team of the people he thinks can do it. Give the team what they say they need, and get out of the way. Prepare to spend twice as much as they say they need, or maybe 10 times more. No one can predict how much R&D will cost. The best technologists in history, such as Edison, spent lavishly with no thought to the consequences, buying all kinds of equipment they did not need, just out of curiosity. Edison was spending J. P. Morgan's money and he knew there was plenty more where it came from.

  • That's what I was talking about... I know we all can interpret a cryptic comment differently, but I'm struggling to see how you get from:


    Shane - I can share that we are seeing slow steady and solid progress. Its going to be a while longer but we're getting there.

    Crawl Walk Run!


    to:


    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.


    I can get on board with whats in bold, but the rest seems utterly unsubstantiated, based on the above, to me at least.

  • Alain posted this today on another thread:


    iscmns.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/JCMNSVolume26.pdf


    He also mentions, and I agree, that in the opener, McKubre gives his answers to the threads title. He lays out where we need to go (goal line), and how best to get there. What it will take to convince the skeptics, and bring mainstream science onboard. Plus he adds a good bit of interesting reminiscing.


    Something also I would like to comment on: This thread is about sorting out what it will take for us believers, to convince you -the skeptic, that LENR is real? Restating your opinion for the umpteenth time that "it is probably not real", is not as productive, as explaining what it will take for you (not you SOT! :) ) to be convinced.

  • 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.

    I hesitate to ask, but what do you think went wrong at U. Missouri's SKINR? They were not able to replicate convincingly, although Dennis Pease told me he thought they did replicate. Was that not a "dream team"? If so, why not?

  • I hesitate to ask, but what do you think went wrong at U. Missouri's SKINR? They were not able to replicate convincingly, although Dennis Pease told me he thought they did replicate. Was that not a "dream team"? If so, why not?

    Jed,


    This is from Nagel's summation of ICCF19:


    "Two new papers at ICCF19 on production of excess heat

    by electrochemical means came from the Sidney Kimmel
    Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR) at the University of
    Missouri. Orchideh Azizi and a team of eight others took creative
    approaches to production of cathode materials with
    surface structures on the scales of micrometers and nanometers.
    In the first paper, they produced Pd nanoparticles and
    then suspended them in an electrolyte of D2O and 0.1 M
    LiOD prior to electrolysis. This yielded cathodes having particles
    uniformly distributed on the Pd substrates, which
    achieved high loading with deuterons. Both a closed cell
    with a recombiner and an open cell were employed. The
    closed cell did not yield excess heat, but the open cell gave
    excess heat for “several days” with a gain of 1.15 to 1.65. Low
    cell currents favored excess heat production. The SKINR team
    also studied the effects of proton or deuteron absorption into
    and diffusion through foils in a permeation double cell.
    The second method used by Azizi and her team involved
    single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT). An aqueous suspension
    of SWCNT was drop cast onto the surfaces of “pretreated”
    Pd foils at a density of 0.1 mg/cm2. Graphene coated
    Pd foils were also prepared and decorated with Pd
    nanoparticles. Cyclic Voltammetry and Impedance
    Spectroscopy, as well as both Scanning Electron and Atomic
    Force Microscopies, were used to characterize the materials.
    Twenty such cathodes were run over two years, only one of
    which (with SWCNT) showed excess heat in a pair of separate
    bursts. In the first, 75 kJ was obtained during three
    hours for an energy gain of 55. During the second, 13 kJ
    appeared in 1.5 hours, giving an energy gain of 27. Only the
    heat producing cathode showed Sn and Pb surface impurities
    after the run."


  • This is from Nagel's summation of ICCF19:


    "Two new papers at ICCF19 on production of excess heat


    by electrochemical means came from the Sidney Kimmel
    Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR)

    But in the end they said results were not definitive, and they closed.


    Dennis Pease now has all of their equipment in his garage, and he hopes to find a way to use it.