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

  • I don't think it is very important that Russ and Alan share the details at this time. We need to remember that the recipe right now is little more than a witches brew of a ton of different elements. There is no way of knowing what elements are involved in the LENR effect. And if the recipe was revealed right now, I don't think there is anyone on this forum (which would report their results openly) that would do the work of repeatedly testing different combinations to optimize the fuel mixture. Normally, I'm for flat out openness at all stages of a project when it comes to LENR. Maybe I'd like for Alan and Russ to give us all of the information right now. However, I just don't see it as very important. If they figure out which elements are active and dramatically boost the output of the fuel pellet so that high temperature and high power operation is possible in self sustain mode, I'll be actively arguing for them to release everything.

  • This post is for those who are pushing Alan and Russ to share all their information.


    I'd like to remind you that there was a user on this forum who I personally think achieved far greater results than Alan and Russ. His username was me356. When he first started posting, he was a total newbie to LENR and used this place to gain a lot of information. Then he started testing and produced meager results. According to him, he went back and studied the work of Focardi and Piantelli. The information gathered allowed him to enhance his output dramatically. He then promised, on multiple occasions, that he would teach us all how to replicate. Weeks and months went by and his claims became more and more exciting. Actually, he dropped a large number of unorganized hints and tips: but he never shared a single well written post or document explaining step by step what a replicator should do to get good results. Eventually, his results became so stunning -- especially when he started working with plasma -- that he became fearful of safety issues and stopped posting.


    I think that if we want to be frustrated with anyone, it should be me356. He could teach us how to build high powered LENR systems right now. However, the community more or less ignored his lies and treated him as a celebrity instead of someone holding back the acceptance of LENR. You see, once there are a couple really convincing, high powered systems that can be replicated by anyone, secrecy won't be a big deal anymore. There will be hundreds of companies around the world working on LENR projects. But until then when people like me356 break their promises they are doing a disservice to everyone interested in LENR and the entire world. Alan and Russ's situation is very different. They have a crazy mixture of a whole bunch of stuff that's producing a meager amount of gammas and excess heat. If they put a lot of work into it, they should be able to figure out what is going on. However, it is nothing more than an anomaly to figure out at this time. Me356 was far beyond them and had figured how exactly how to produce high powered LENR results again and again. If we want to fuss about secrecy with anyone, it ought to be me356.

  • What we have here (and more generally in LENR work) is some work that indicates marginal high energy particles,


    High energy particles = high momentum. That only happens in asymmetric decay (alpha, beta) or in kinetic experiments.


    Usual LENR reactions as D-D fusion, have no (or sometimes - Lipinski - very low) kinetic input. If you see particles from LENR reactions, then there are asymmetric fusions happening (e.g. 7Li + H*) or the total energy produced is over (Holmlid) the Kaon barrier being around 50MeV (= twice the alpha core binding energy - needed for magnetic binding reversal).


    Once more I remind you that all low Z (<=6) "particle like nuclei" have no gamma levels except (6Li) the exact binding energy of sub-particle "bonds".


    Thus it is absolutely clear, why we rarely see particles and mostly no gamma radiation.

  • Director,


    The Essex team has plenty of qualified people coming over to kick the tires. That makes me comfortable in saying that whatever they have, will be quickly determined, and relayed to us...good or bad. I think McKubre had a good point about how some feedback is good, too much not so good. I am happy getting the tidbits, parables, and force fed poetry, knowing we will be kept in the loop.


    In comparison, and why I disagree with the main point of your post, is that me356 was a one man show. He had no team, and the two, and *only* qualified visitors he had were BG and Egeley. And they both determined within minutes of the run, that all he had was a standard resistance coil (heater). Out of kindness, they even left their equipment so that when he got his act back together, he could run it again. He never did. Then, a few months later, he was interviewed by ECW, and came up with some BS story about being near production, employees, etc. That was it, and now he has disappeared.


    There is no comparison, in anyway, between Essex, and 356.

  • What we have here (and more generally in LENR work) is some work that indicates marginal high energy particles, some work that indicates marginal excess heat, but both happen arbitrarily in a non-correlated way and the chances of this having a common mechanism are small.

    Plus we also have high heat, 20 to 100 W, which you pretend does not exist, and we have tritium at 50 times background or more, which you pretend does not exists.


    Plus, correlation is not the only relation. Particles and heat are probably anti-correlated, like smoke and open flames. Heat and tritium, and heat and neutrons are very likely anti-correlated. That does not mean they are unrelated or coincidental. It means one happens, or the other, but not both in the same part of the cathode. It does not mean they cannot happen at the same time, in different parts of the cathode.


    If the high energy particles are real, not an instrument artifact, and not coming from outside the experiment, then of course they are proof of a nuclear reaction. By definition, that is what they are. The heat definitely is proof of a nuclear reaction, because there are no chemical changes and the heat usually exceeds the limits of chemistry by many orders of magnitude. The notion that they might be meaningless coincidences is extremely unscientific, to say the least.

  • Director,


    The Essex team has plenty of qualified people coming over to kick the tires. That makes me comfortable in saying that whatever they have, will be quickly determined, and relayed to us...good or bad. I think McKubre had a good point about how some feedback is good, too much not so good. I am happy getting the tidbits, parables, and force fed poetry, knowing we will be kept in the loop.


    In comparison, and why I disagree with the main point of your post, is that me356 was a one man show. He had no team, and the two, and *only* qualified visitors he had were BG and Egeley. And they both determined within minutes of the run, that all he had was a standard resistance coil (heater). Out of kindness, they even left their equipment so that when he got his act back together, he could run it again. He never did. Then, a few months later, he was interviewed by ECW, and came up with some BS story about being near production, employees, etc. That was it, and now he has disappeared.


    There is no comparison, in anyway, between Essex, and 356.


    If you are talking about the test in which BG and his team went over to Me356's residence, then that whole event was a joke to begin with. Me356 told Bob from the start that the resistors were of a new design from a new supplier and that the hydrogenation process of the fuel had been very short. My memory is a little fuzzy about this event, but I remember Bob telling others that they knew the setup was not likely to work from the start. We cannot judge Me356 from that test. He only reluctantly agreed to it. Me356 was never going to show his best systems and/or reactors. He has inventors syndrome! They only want publicity when it helps them get funding or financing. They do NOT want to show off so much that it gets other parties interesting and motivates them to build their own systems. Also, it should be remembered that Me356 build many different types of systems. Even if one didn't work in a single type of test many of the other ones could have worked.

  • Director,


    Yes, I know me356's excuses. So does BG as I remember. And also as I remember, he had an opinion about those excuses.


    BG is a very nice guy, smart as can be, and rightfully so IMO, diplomatic in his criticisms. He has an open invitation to become a member here. I wish he would take up the offer.

  • CMNS was so-named because multiple different nuclear "things" do seem to happen in similarly prepared condensed matter systems. I regard them as having a common mechanistic origin - but different manifestations (like smoke and flame).

    What surprised me most in LENR is the different manifestations of nuclear products. Or should I say their lack of. The reason of my (initially) high skepticism in LENR.


    Some theories try to circumvent this issue by assuming that the nuclear products have a low energy (cold neutrons, low energy gammas...). This doesn't make sense to me because this can't explain the high variations in energy observed in LENR, the famous triple-tracks in CR39 and last but not least some heat up to the W level. In my opinion only highly penetrating particles can fit what is observed. Some highly energetic relativistic particles are so penetrating that in most occasions only their by-products are detected using standard instrumentation. In particular, based on available evidence in LENR, I postulated that these particles should have an energy level close to the minimum of the Bethe-Bloch curve. This explains my interest in Holmlid's work on ultra-dense hydrogen because the kaons that he sees from the decay of UDH fall precisely in this window.


    In practice, the decay of UDH in mesons via the weak force could be the primary nuclear reaction (together with D-D fusion in UDD) and a kaon flux could explain the various manifestations of nuclear products observed in LENR. This in function of the stopping power of the materials present close to the source (as secondary or even tertiary reactions in the case of muons). Evidence of a flux of relativistic kaons can be found in this paper. Pretty convincing to me I admit.

  • https://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/


    This new Pamela Mosier-Boss interview (thank you Ruby!) is already entered into our library. It has some sections that apply to this discussion. Starts off with a little history of how, and why she and her partner Szpak pioneered the co-deposition method to replicate FPs. Concludes it is good for research, but not for commercial use as the Pd tends to slip off the substrate.


    At 10:40 she explains using neutrons from LENR in a hybrid fission process. Nothing new we have not already reported on, but still an educational listen. Interesting part to me starts at 14:35. There she mentions her main problem with designing these experiments, are the diagnostics to monitor the reactions. Said the reactions that happen are sporadic, and in bursts, and conventional monitoring diagnostics averages away the signal. Never heard that one before.


    The lady knows her science, that is for sure. Speaks quickly, so be ready to pay attention. Listening to Mosier-Boss strengthens my belief in LENR even more. By the way...she still has lab privileges, so still working at it.

  • a kaon flux could explain the various manifestations of nuclear products observed in LENR. This in function of the stopping power of the materials present close to the source (as secondary or even tertiary reactions in the case of muons). Evidence of a flux of relativistic kaons can be found in this paper. Pretty convincing to me I admit

    Interesting. Not being a "particle guy" I expected to be repulsed by the paper you cited (despite your recommendation 😶). But thank you. I learned something.


    Waxing philosophical I view the expanding particle zoo (I think that was Feynman's word) as evidence that we are plotting with ever increasing rigor the epicycles in the orbit of mars around the earth. In other words our perspective is wrong and we a doggedly pursue a channel of thinking that is getting deeper and narrower. Time to back out. Waves anyone?

  • As I've understood the accumulated observation, lack of MeV gamma, tritium and neutrons and similar MeV output, anything like few particles interacting seems incoherent.

    Either something really new happens (new physics, but really new, not just a new particle, and why not observed in free space), or it is a collective phenomenon (which is logical in a solid, and which explain logically why we understand it very badly).

    Maybe I misunderstood something, but the number of theory and claims that pass by a few body reaction, that have to produce something of the MeV size, that nobody could miss, surprise me.

    The problem of LENR is mostly the quiet output, not only the low energy triggering.

    Every LENR experimenter that survived shows that there is a problem with few bodies theories.

    (what is the energy limit of what was not detected but would be if existed... I remember of something around 25keV?)


    Once considered that, anyway, hard to guess what happens, as metallurgy in LENR is probably not what we imagine, and collective quantum phenomenon is an open world (I know enough from semiconductors to panic about material science).


    naively I imagine that solution will came from investigation instruments, like microscopes, MRI,


    this kind of lab experiments gives me hope, but sure there is a budget required

    https://www6.slac.stanford.edu…ion-battery-material.aspx

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S1369702115002473


    Some people I know however think using some shared instruments, with services sold at marginal cost, as provided in some research clusters...


    reversely some "exploration test" could be done by nanomanufacturing.

    I remember someone explaining that in Milan La Bicocca they could design nanostructure shaped even like brocoli, and I know an industrial who design nanopowders like some design screws and nuts.

  • Interesting. Not being a "particle guy" I expected to be repulsed by the paper you cited (despite your recommendation 😶). But thank you. I learned something.


    Waxing philosophical I view the expanding particle zoo (I think that was Feynman's word) as evidence that we are plotting with ever increasing rigor the epicycles in the orbit of mars around the earth. In other words our perspective is wrong and we a doggedly pursue a channel of thinking that is getting deeper and narrower. Time to back out. Waves anyone?

    Deuterium reactions in diamond are almost identical to those that are produced in highly deuterium loaded palladium, but there is an advantage that the diamonds afford in that they are transparent. The way deuterium behaves inside the diamonds and the transmutations that they produce are visible using SEM. In the MFMP video below, the deuterium aggregations are called "miners" based on their ability to dig through the diamond lattice.



  • If the high energy particles are real, not an instrument artifact, and not coming from outside the experiment, then of course they are proof of a nuclear reaction. By definition, that is what they are. The heat definitely is proof of a nuclear reaction, because there are no chemical changes and the heat usually exceeds the limits of chemistry by many orders of magnitude. The notion that they might be meaningless coincidences is extremely unscientific, to say the least.


    We agree that validated high energy particles from an experiment would prove nuclear reactions, and therefore reaction rates higher than expected (if from stable constituents and with low energies).


    In fact I'll go further, this is an expected first sign of any unusually high reaction rates: e.g. some enhanced shielding effect. Far more sensitive than excess heat.


    But it needs to be validated, which Alan et al will have been able to do, or not do. If after this time they have not validated these "lovely gammas" they are most likely an artifact or extraneous to the experiment. The characteristics reported here seemed most likely artifactual or extraneous.


    My remark about coherence remains. The excess heat expected from such levels of high energy particles is very low. The particle count expected from measurable excess heat is much higher. The chances of branching ratios for a specific reaction just happening to be at the correct magnitude for detectable but not validated particles AND detectable but not validated excess heat is low. It is possible, but a coincidence, and so the two marginal results do not support each other.

  • The characteristics reported here seemed most likely artifactual or extraneous.


    Is that some kind of a joke? What you mean is that you don't believe what we say, or don't believe we know what we are doing. Well, we are certain what we see is real, and so are those invited visitors who turned up. Nobody who knows about this stuff (like the staff of a well-known US-funded physics laboratory) disputes the gammas are kosher, but for my part I suspect that you know nothing about the detection, measurement or spectroscopic analysis of radiation signatures and are thus not really able to deny their reality in this case. Reaching for the word 'artifact' is just too easy.

  • Is that some kind of a joke? What you mean is that you don't believe what we say, or don't believe we know what we are doing. Well, we are certain what we see is real, and so are those invited visitors who turned up. Nobody who knows about this stuff (like the staff of a well-known US-funded physics laboratory) disputes the gammas are kosher, but for my part I suspect that you know nothing about the detection, measurement or spectroscopic analysis of radiation signatures and are thus not really able to deny their reality in this case. Reaching for the word 'artifact' is just too easy.


    Alan, what has been reported here is fragmentary and contradictory. The periodic 24 hour signal, reported here, seems like extraneous or artifactual. Of course, I cannot speak for what a distinguished visiting physicist has judged, based on more complete evidence.


    I don't think you should be surprised about this. You are not disclosing enough for us to say otherwise here! We would need to accept your statements of what other people have judged, and that is a separate matter. Personally, I'm not prepared to do that unless I judge the relevant person to be both fully competent in the area, and fully informed.


    That is just common sense, and not me putting my judgement of physics above that of others.


    I'm not denying that everything you say may be true and mean what you think it does. It is quite understandable that you limit information here in such a way as unfortunately to make it impossible for us to know that.


    PS - "kosher" gammas can be extraneous. I'm adding artifactual here to be cautious and because the extraneous gammas could, technically, be considered an artifact of the experiment (though not the GC). Where have I denied the "reality" of what you see?

  • THHuxleynew : If you can bear Russ's posting blog, then you can look at his most actual explanation:


    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…ys-on-the-standard-model/


    He presents the gamma counter output once more, that shows a constant, much higher rate than background. The interesting point is that some cosmic particles can obviously increase the already high reaction rate by one magnitude! This could also be some explanation why experiments with low excess energy sometimes work and sometimes seem to show no effect.

  • THHuxleynew : If you can bear Russ's posting blog, then you can look at his most actual explanation:


    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…ys-on-the-standard-model/


    He presents the gamma counter output once more, that shows a constant, much higher rate than background. The interesting point is that some cosmic particles can obviously increase the already high reaction rate by one magnitude! This could also be some explanation why experiments with low excess energy sometimes work and sometimes seem to show no effect.


    My understanding of the experimental data (partial) is that there is a once a day sharp peak clearly above background, which varies in amplitude.


    Russ speculates this is orbit-related (as opposed to just earth rotation related), but the shown data do not support this in any obvious way.


    It is fascinating I agree to speculate what this is. I don't see any obvious way in which GCR effects could be so highly directional and also relatively stable over time at well above background. Solar flare gammas would be so directional, and could impinge on the detector periodically via a window etc perhaps, but I don't think they are so common though I admit to not being an expert on astronomical and solar gamma background and its components.


    There are other possible reasons for such periodicity, but it is foolish to speculate with partial info.