LENR Future Hopeless Until Looking for Heat 2.0 Emerges

  • Things are bad. Ten years post Rossi's announcement of the E-Cat and thirty years since P&F announced Pd/D cold fusion, the world at large still considers the field pure 100% snake oil and we are yet to see a single commercial product. Even worse, all the most promising cold fusion and LENR technologies are metaphorically being "held hostage" by inventors who put maximizing profit above even proving to the reality of the phenomena to the world. Then, on the other hand, we have other companies that keep trying again and again to improve their weak, low COP systems instead of attempting to try new concepts. I don't see anything changing anytime soon, because human nature keeps getting in the way. People like to share knowledge, ask questions, and talk about openness when they haven't done much testing or they are producing trivial amounts of excess heat. But as soon as they get real results and see the financial value of their discovery, they immediately go dark. Perhaps the only exception here is BLP who at least are open about how their technology works - sharing practically everything they know. But in their case, they are willing to screw science and hinder human knowledge by sticking to the false notion (to protect their intellectual property) that the reactions their technology has absolutely NOTHING to do with LENR.


    There's not a single party with a powerful, robust technology who are being both honest about what they have and sharing all the information needed for third parties to replicate. Yeah, Andrea Rossi did release the crudest of details about the Ni-LiAlH4 combination which has been replicated by a few teams, but the number of failures exceed successes because of the lack of additional information such as electromagnetic stimulation. And BLP has been extremely open, but they refuse to admit (even though Randell Mills first few patents admitted to the connection) that their technology is related to LENR. Perhaps the only group that gives me some hope are the Russians. They are performing lots of interesting experiments and gaining knowledge, but they don't seem to be working at a pace that will produce any type of commercial product (or even a prototype) any time soon.


    When it comes to open source groups, the MFMP does some GREAT work - but they only have manpower and resources to perform a very small number of experiments. So although Bob Greenyer and his team have done a great job exposing the truth about the EVO connection to LENR, unless they were to receive the funding to hire workers to perform more experiments I don't see them producing anything soon. Then, of course, there was Looking for Heat. It was a purely 100% open source organization exactly like what we need, but without a "guaranteed to work" recipe that would attract replicators they ended up folding. This wasn't Alan's fault. When you are on a very limited budget you can only keep giving away free stuff for so long without going broke, and when almost no one reports back on any results they have achieved the motivation to continue goes away.


    I don't see anything good happening - beyond a better understanding of theory - for several more years. The only exception is if someone manages to build a high powered LENR system and is capable of withstanding the lure of massive profits to openly distribute the information online.

  • Meanwhile, on planet earth, Brillouin Energy - the evil corporate entity, who don’t wish to deny their investors a reward for having shouldered the risk - have demonstrated a “weak” and “low” COP of 2.34... And signed at least one license agreement. Plus they measure their output with a real calorimeter too. (Rather than measuring the idiocy of their supporters by merely offering some bastardised equations).


    Obviously none of that counts though, as the claims of a proven liar are to be deemed more important than claims verified by an independent assessor. Perhaps Brillouin should add more puppets to their website, in order to be truly convincing? (Sock and finger, that is).


    (Edit: Even the noted skeptopath / dangling sausage Seven Of Twunty can’t find anything to criticise them over, bar one spelling error they made several years ago).


    Maybe Brillouin could regain some much needed credibility by moving their operation to one of the last four the last remaining truly communist country (Cuba), well-known for being a hotbed of innovation and cutting-edge technology. No doubt a large workforce could be pressed into working for free, as Director insists on.


    Should speed up progress no end.

  • I wouldn't be too despondent about LENR's progress - surely this is a good time to take stock of all the evidence from a scientific standpoint. This makes a clear conclusion that just how to trigger and regulate cold fusion to induce a sufficiently high rate of nuclear fusion reactions for energy/heat production at a commercial level simply has not as yet been discovered. Combining further theoretical modelling (eg Wyttenbach's new theories) with new experimental nano-or pico-scale approaches (looking at new materials eg other transition metals and their oxides) is clearly the way ahead and we are now far better equipped to study this now in the C21 than we were in F&P's time. So remain optimistic - its just a matter of time before we have the answers, make a new discovery.

  • Being held hostage? BS! Most likely reason LENR doesn't take off is that either it doesn't work at all or, like muon-catalized fusion which does work, it isn't economical or feasible to make practical amounts of power from it.


    That is not a "likely reason." If cold fusion did not work at all, this would the first time in the history of experimental science that a widely replicated high sigma result was wrong. If you think that experimental science and the scientific method can fail, you are the extreme opposite of a "skeptic" or conservative. You are a new-age true believe in woo-woo nonsense. You have no basis to judge whether any claim is true or mistaken.


    Cold fusion has already achieved temperatures and power density equivalent to a nuclear fission reactor core, so there is no doubt that it is feasible to make practical amounts of power from it. The only thing that can prevent that is academic politics.

  • Yeah, well, a lot of people who know much more than me and perhaps you, disagreed. Now, most main line scientists simply ignore it.


    I know more than those people know. I have read their letters, newspaper columns and papers. So I know why they reject the findings, and I know that they are mistaken. If you read them, you too will see they are mistaken. See, for example:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294


    Or, if you agree with them, you too will be mistaken. The thing is, in science you can look at original source data and the textbook laws of physics and chemistry, and you can often reach firm conclusions on your own. You do not need to depend on other people, or respect their opinions just because they are considered experts. You are making a logical fallacy here: a Fallacious Appeal to Authority. The people you cite are not actually authorities, although they think they are.

  • Most main-line scientists ignore it because of academic politics ie its too dangerous, they'd lose their jobs by taking a risk of supporting a so-called pseudoscience . More enlightened cultures eg Japanese/Russians/Chinese take any data at face value and investigate accordingly without any preconceived dogma. Unless we can pull something out of the bag soon in the UK or US, the Japanese will probably be the first to crack this one.

  • Director, your obsession with the so-called "Inventors Syndrome" I believe is misguided, particularly because I don't think there is such an officially sanctioned syndrome by the mental health authorities.

    In all these cases there are simpler and case specific reasons why the technologies have not progressed, from problems with reproducibility and materials (ex. FP, Mills), to probably fraud (ex. the puppet show dude).

    Then there always is the explanation that none of them work at all, which I hope is not true.

  • The thing is, in science you can look at original source data and the textbook laws of physics and chemistry, and you can often reach firm conclusions on your own. You do not need to depend on other people, or respect their opinions just because they are considered experts. You are making a logical fallacy here: a Fallacious Appeal to Authority.


    In some cases, where the claim is very complicated and you cannot understand the technical details, you are forced to depend on the opinions of experts. In that case you hope that the experts you depend upon really are experts. If they are experts, you are good to go. You have not made a fallacious appeal to authority. An appeal to an actual authority is a valid argument. It is logical. But it is weak. An argument based on scientific evidence and laws is stronger.


    For example, researchers at the LHC claim they discovered evidence for the Higgs boson. I know practically nothing about high-energy particle physics and I have no idea whether their claim is valid. It is over my head. However as far as I know, these people are real experts, and there are no other groups of experts disputing the claim. So I will take their word for it. I assume it is right. I am aware that some experts think the quality of the science at LHC is poor, and there have been a number of false alarms there. See:


    The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics


    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0…arge-hadron-collider.html


    I would not be shocked to learn there is room for doubt in the Higgs boson claim. But I wouldn't know about it now, and if doubts emerge I would not understand them.


    In contrast, the technical issues in most aspects of cold fusion are much simpler than the LHC. They are based on 18th and 19th century instruments and techniques. So, unlike the LHC, I can judge these claims. I can see that the "main line scientists" that seven_of_twenty cites do not know what they are talking about. I do not have to depend on an appeal to authority.


    People who cannot understand the technical issues in cold fusion papers are forced to depend on an appeal to authority. In many cases, they accidentally pick the "main line scientists" who oppose the research, because they do not realize these scientists are wrong. They should, instead, pick the main line scientists such as the Chairman of Indian Atomic Energy Commission who published experiments showing cold fusion is real. If you do not understand the literature, or you do not read it, you are likely to pick the wrong group. There is a tremendous amount of misinformation in places such as the DoE, Scientific American, Nature, and Wikipedia. That is why many main line scientists have reached incorrect conclusions.

  • Director, your obsession with the so-called "Inventors Syndrome" I believe is misguided, particularly because I don't think there is such an officially sanctioned syndrome by the mental health authorities.


    I have often use the term "inventors syndrome." I don't suppose there is an officially sanctioned syndrome but there are many inventors both in history and alive today who suffer from the syndrome I have described. In most cases it is greed. They want lots of money and fame for their discovery. Greed itself is not a mental illness, but they go to such extremes that their greed prevents them from developing or profiting from the invention. I cannot judge whether it is mental illness but it is dysfunctional. It prevents them from reaching the goals they seek.


    However, most cold fusion researchers are immune to this syndrome. They cannot possibly benefit from the discovery. As I pointed out recently, most of them worked for government research laboratories such as China Lake, BARC, or Osaka National University. No financial benefit could accrue to them personally. They do not own the IP. They are in the same position as the government researchers who invented nuclear power, computers, and the Internet. They might become famous among scientists, but only if they publish the results first to get priority. It is extremely unlikely they will get any financial benefit, such as the Nobel prize.


    I see nothing wrong with that, by the way. I have no objection to a social system that rewards scientists with research money, laboratory space, and a lifetime of doing what they love to do. Their efforts sometimes result in billions of dollars of benefits to the rest of us, or even trillions of dollars. Some of them feel they should be rewarded more, and I get that. Shuji Nakamura invented the first blue LED, which also meant there could be white LEDs since red and greens ones were already invented. His discovery led to unimaginably large benefits to society, saving energy, increasing communications and recording bandwidth, and in many other ways. He felt shortchanged and he eventually sued the company for more money. He was angry. He was bitter. I read his autobiography in Japanese, so I know some of the details. He did eventually win the legal battle and got some money, and not only that, he was eventually awarded the Nobel prize. He is doing pretty well for himself now, so he cannot complain. Other scientists who have made important discoveries have been given various prizes such as the Arata Award, established in his Arata's own name, or the Turing Award. These are high honors and recognition, but not cold cash! (The Turing award nowadays is cold cash, $1 million.)


    It is a little unfair that people who invent practically nothing, such as Steve Jobs, sometimes make huge amounts of money, and not only that, but the public mistakenly imagines they are technical geniuses so they also get recognition as inventors. However, life is unfair and there is no point to moaning about that. Jobs did have remarkable instincts for what makes a good product. He was incapable of inventing things, but he recognized good things when other people invented them.

  • Cold fusion has already achieved temperatures and power density equivalent to a nuclear fission reactor core, so there is no doubt that it is feasible to make practical amounts of power from it.


    Cold fusion has already demonstrated that "power density equivalent to a nuclear fission reactor core" can be claimed on the basis of misrepresented data:


    From http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf :


    We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors.

    You are making a logical fallacy here: a Fallacious Appeal to Authority.


    Like this one?

    From How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals? :


    But here is my larger point. Somewhere out there, someone may have a coherent set of arguments and facts that call into question the results from Flieschmann, Miles, McKubre, Srinivasan, Lonchampt, Storms, Will, Bockris and the other major results. Say, the top 50 studies. Someone may know good reasons to reject all of these claims. Or they may have reasons to reject one of them, leaving the others intact. HOWEVER, I have not heard from this person. He or she has not published a paper. So I have no way of knowing what this person thinks, or why he rejects the claims. I cannot guess, and I have never read a critique from anyone address any of these claims. (Except Morrison and Shanahan!)




  • That is not an appeal to authority. It is the opposite: I am saying there are no papers by anyone, authority or otherwise. I am not appealing to (that is, citing; pointing to) non-existent papers! This is a negative appeal to non-existant authorities.


    As far as I know, the authorities do not exist. If Ascoli65 has some authorities in mind who have published arguments and facts that call into question these experiments, he should tell us who they are. He himself has called these experiments into question. I believe he is mistaken, for various reasons I have given.

  • For example, researchers at the LHC claim they discovered evidence for the Higgs boson.


    Jed you are completely right. The so claimed Higgs boson is an exact (= all measured digits and easy to predict...) resonance of the proton magnetic mass. Or let's sum up: The standard model is outraging nonsense or just fringe science. I wouldn't give any physicist more than a few dollars until they give a model that is really able to predict the measured data of the last 40 years....................

  • As far as I know, the authorities do not exist. If Ascoli65 has some authorities in mind who have published arguments and facts that call into question these experiments, he should tell us who they are.


    Morrison and Wilson have published some valid arguments against the validity of the F&P experiments. In particular, Morrison has raised many remarks on the 1992 boil-off experiment. Some of them were valid, but he failed in recognizing the "foam issue", which easily explains the cause of the error made by F&P in calculating the excess heat during the boil-off phase. He probably saw the lab video only once during the Pons' presentation at the ICCF3 and he didn't have the chance to perform an accurate comparison between the paper and the video, otherwise he would probably have found the same errors that I have pointed out in these last months in the recently closed thread (1).


    Quote

    He himself has called these experiments into question. I believe he is mistaken, for various reasons I have given.


    I replied to all your comments, showing that all your reasons against my remarks on the F&P's boil-off experiment were wrong. You have abandoned the confrontation many times and eventually your supporters have thrown the towel in the ring, proving in the clearest way that you were not able to oppose valid arguments to my criticisms.


    The closure of the thread dedicated to their experiments has definitively sanctioned that F&P were wrong.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion