ICCF-22 (Sept. 8-13) News/reports/opinions

  • FYI, Still no one from Google has contacted me or anyone I work with. All there seems to be are rumors on the web - no substantal physical effort to connect or communicate. They are not serious, just fishing. I would "host" one of their researchers on one of my back benches, help them set up an electrochemical system and step them through it. But I doubt it would ever happen since they are not really serious.


    Can anyone point to a single case where they tried to work with someone within the LENR "community" (i.e. someone with positive experimental results)? Perhaps they talked to Storms or McKubre, but evidently did not even act on their advice.


    From Ruby's ICCF22 notes, this is what McKubre said today:


    "Mike McKubre is up now speaking about how the CF community should do better communicating what we know. He is addressing the negative google article. He says that they did not "not listen". He says that they listened, and we didn't effectively communicate. The failure is on the cmns community, McKubre says."


    "This field lacks a clearly and fully specified written protocol to reproduce even semi-reliably any aspect of our claims for cold fusion or condensed matter nuclear effects of any sort."


    "We need "to see ourselves as others see us!" Google did good things with their 4-year program:

    1. Vision and action. - $10 million and four years so far, and they are CONTINUING.

    2. Publication - an achievement to publish, despite the negative result.

    3. Confirmation -

    4. Youth involvement - google put together a young team that is INTERESTED in this field, and McKubre believes this participation with young people in this program may have actually saved the field, which is getting way too old."

  • Respectfully disagree. Skeptics potentially weed out scum like Rossi. If Tom Darden had enlisted skeptics to recommend ways to test Rossi's claims properly before he was given $11+ million, that money would most likely still be available for legitimate research like that performed by Drs. McKubre and Storms and others. Instead, it has gone to pay for a crook's condominium investments, as proven by property records.

    It does not take a skeptic to weed out bad data or lairs. Any good scientist, especially one who knows something about LENR and how it is known to behave would have done a good job of advising IH. What is worse, the skeptic tends to overlook supporting information while focusing on the claim not being real. For example, the initial Rossi tests clearly showed excess power. But then he did a bait and switch by changing the material and the way it was treated. No one seemed to notice. Then he lied big time. The people who ran Defkalion, who tried to rip off Rossi, also lied. Being a skeptic was not required to know this. But people were so intent on proving the skeptics wrong, they were willing to overlook the obvious flaws in the claims. The skeptics did nothing useful. In fact, the skeptics have been nothing but a distraction to advancing our understanding of LENR. I expect being called a skeptic of LENR will eventually be used as a form of insult, like being called a flatearther or a global-warming-denier.

  • Ruby is doing such a great job, actually several at once, passing out T-Shirts, videoing presentations, and running the mic (when found) round to questioners. Meanwhile I'm working the edge of the crowd, picking up gossip and discussing technicalities. I'm also on a recruiting drive. The reputation of LENR-Forum continues to rise and I hope to have persuaded some more very serious theorists and exprmenters in the field to post here on a regular basis. But be warned, they will be protected.


    Also doing the paparazzo photos which I'll post in here asap.

  • Outstanding work Ruby! You did the work of a team today...all by yourself. Honestly, I do not know how you managed it all, but thank goodness you did. So nice to be able to sit back, and read your almost simultaneous recap of the days events. Dynamite stuff too.


    For the other LF members attending, we ask that you please do not hold back from reporting on your own personal observations, just because Ruby is doing such a great job of it. Important you get your thoughts out while still fresh in the memory. If too sensitive to post it yourself, pass it on to me, or any of the other staffers. We will take the information, sanitize it, and get the word out to others.

    Hey Shane THANK YOU. I find the notes pretty incoherent, but I just tried to clean them up a bit, not too successful. Some of this science was way above my head today. I should have read several papers before coming here and listening, but had no time. Nevertheless, if they speak slow, I can type what I hear, whether I understand it or not! I will make another attempt tomorrow.

    OH BOY, I caught Alla Kornilova tonight sitting outside and got to ask her a few questions. She doesn't speak much English, and I don't speak any Russian, but there was five other Russians there ready to translate. I asked her how she first got started in cold fusion, and she went on for a while. It was too much to translate on the spot, and I asked her a few more questions, and it was amazing just to see her and hear her. It's on audio only - didn't have the camera there in that spontaneous moment.


    OH, I am going to the Assisi afternoon excursion tomorrow and I will be a bus leader. Yikes.

  • Quote

    It does not take a skeptic to weed out bad data or lairs. Any good scientist, especially one who knows something about LENR and how it is known to behave would have done a good job of advising IH. What is worse, the skeptic tends to overlook supporting information while focusing on the claim not being real. For example, the initial Rossi tests clearly showed excess power.

    So I admit to tending to believe Rossi initially which is why I got interested. But Rossi's initial tests, in retrospect, showed only poor measurement, a deliberate refusal to perform calibration and blank runs even when confronted to do so, and obvious deception with respect to the dryness of steam. This was amply discussed and documented on the Vortex mailing list until its owner decided to censor out many of the skeptics arbitrarily. That absolute censorship also happened on e-catworld.com and early on even on ecatnews.com until it's owner finally saw the light. Rossi's failures and crimes were thoroughly documented by Steven Krivit using contemporary news accounts.


    Scientists are not trained to detect sleight of hand or deception and do not expect it. Why should they? It is fortunately rare.


    Just as prominent investigators of the paranormal were thoroughly flummoxed by second rate magician Uri Geller, so were prominent scientists in LENR fooled by Rossi, from the start and all the way to the Rossi vs IH legal case. Many still think he had something although nobody seems to be able to replicate it or prove it. And despite the fact that Rossi is a consistent liar and a convicted criminal on several felonies and was convicted on others which convictions were vacated due to technicalities. Not only that but Rossi obviously lacked the technical background to do research in nuclear physics and engineering and had never had a successful project in his entire life other than those for which the only evidence is from him.


    Defkalion were complete scoundrels who thought there was something from Rossi that they could simply steal. They did nothing at all but but lie and generate insults on their highly censored blog. They also accepted millions of dollars from investors on false pretenses and outright lies.


    You suggest that skepticism means rejection of valid experiments. It means just the opposite. It simply means insisting on clear, well done and replicable experiments. It means not believing things (ie. crap Rossi said) simply because someone says them.

  • Once shared, the value contained in the information would be lost to the original owner.

    If the original owner files for a patent, and the patent is upheld, the information is not lost. Someone like Gates is likely to file a good patent and will have the money to uphold it. Even someone such as Mizuno might be able to cash in, because he will attract wealthy supporters who will pay the legal fees in return for a percentage of the income.


    Without a patent, the value will be lost. But it will be lost in any case. A few months after a practical device is introduced, it will be reverse engineered and every industrial company will know how to make it.



    Addendum: On the other hand, even when you file for a patent that you are likely to get, it is sometimes best to keep the device secret for as long as possible. That way, rivals will not be able to acquire a device, learn how to use it, and then file patents for improvements. I think large companies such as IBM that usually succeed in getting a patent still like to keep things under wraps for as long as they can. Perhaps Gates is doing this. This strategy makes business sense, but in the case of cold fusion it might prevent others from finding a mistake in your work.

  • Scientists are not trained to detect sleight of hand or deception and do not expect it. Why should they? It is fortunately rare.

    "Scientists" are as good at that as anyone else. Some of them are lot better, since they know the laws of physics. You cannot generalize about them. I have known a few scientists who were good amateur magicians, and more than a few who were good at poker -- which involves lying.

  • Respectfully disagree. Skeptics potentially weed out scum like Rossi.

    Skeptics have not discovered any errors in any major cold fusion study. You say you haven't even read the papers, and it is obvious you know nothing about them, so you cannot discover anything or contribute anything to the discussion. You do not even understand the difference between input power and noise. All of the assertions, claims, and physics suggested by Morrison, THH, Ascoli, you and the other so-called skeptics have been wrong. They have contributed nothing. Calling them "skeptics" is a misnomer, because they never question their own beliefs, or the beliefs of their fellow "skeptics." The moment Ascoli comes up with a cockamamie hypothesis, THH immediately signs on to it.

  • Claudio Pace starts the morning Buon gionrno!


    Peter Hagelstein is first on Recent Progreess on Phonon Modeling. ooo


    He wants to model excess heat for the FP experiment. His model is based on phonon exchange.


    PHonon-mediated D2/He4 transition comes first....


    Started with a D2, phonon exchange brings it to the He4 state, but it has to be very fast. The excited meta states "down-convert" and the energy goes into vibration.


    Bulk PdD is inert in our view...because electron density is too high.


    How to prove phone exchange mechanism for excess ehat?


    Cannot do it in a Fleischmann-Pons experiment since when it works properly no nuclear radiation comes out. We need a new experiment. and Hagelstein wants to see exceiteation moving from nuclear to nuclear .


    If excitation works, it goes from one nucleus to another nucleus. Details? He believes it's phonons. Tritium, nuetrons, up-conversion, all are connected, but one that is not is Ken Shoulders objects.


    The experiment? Start with some excited nuclei, make sure that htere are appropriatground state nuclei nearby. Add THz phonons resonant excitiation transfer "easiest" to make happen theoretically.

    It's possible to see that it happened from the modification of angular gamma distribution

    Non-resonant excitation transfer next "easiest" to make happen in theory

    Possible to see that it happened from delocalization of gamma emission.


    In 2017 an experiment was done. He was using a Megaherz transducer to make vibrations. The 14.4 keV line did show a transient decay. THz vibration s produced during experiment as a result of stress from screwing down clamps prior to experiment. 14.4 keV nuclear excitation transfer caused delocalization of emission, and pinholes in the Al mesh led to change in signal. It turns out that more excitation goes to the Fe-57.


    Need to develop an imagine experiment and see where the excitation goes to, and where it comes from. Lu discussed this at ICCF21 and found increase of emission at hot spot but found decrease of emission away from hot spot. Florian Metzer will give a stronger version of this in a day or so.


    Now comes the math.....

    .... Resonant excitation transfer is simplest excitation transfer calculation, but there was severe destructive interference. In 2002, he proposed a loss mechanism to break this destructive interference by its asymmetry. This was modeled, but it didn't work. Loss did not fix everything. Many orders of magnitude increase in the indirect coupling. Brainstorm last Fall - basis state energies shifting off of resonance can also reduce the destructive interference. Now symmetry is gone - going up and going down are no longer symmetric.


    The nucleon-nucleon potential changes off of resonance. This is the idea now.


    Many models of the deuteron, it's not so difficult to calculate extension of single pion exchange contribution off of resonance.


    On-resonance binding energy is 2.2 MeV. Off of resonance gives much bigger energies.


    He expects the dineutron to be bound far off of resonance. but he needs phonon-nuclear matrix elements.


    He's got a wish list of experiments he would like to see experiments on, and he hopes to move towards simulation models to test the model against experiments.

  • Because if it was like my smartphone, it would run out of batteries in like 15 minutes.

    Hi Seven! that 's a good question cause a mule like me usually has the whole kit and kaboodle. However, at that particular time, I was walking around and getting the ICCF22 participants (who were still up and about) to sign the 2019 LENRIA Calendar on their birthday. I had this calendar at the CF/LANR Colloquium, and got people ot sign it there. So I brought it to the ICCF22, and I'm going to get as many as I can to sign it here. Then we will have a nice momento of this historic anniversary year with many of the researchers who went to these meetings. So I had a pen and a calendar and my little digital recorder in case of any spontaneous talk, and voila I came upon Alla K. You're darn right I wish I had my camera. Sigh.

  • The Zitterbewegung Orbit of Electrons with A Kovacs is next. This is heavy stuff. He is talking about a very close electron-nucleaus proximity configuration , significantly closer than inner shell electrons. Experiments he observed characteristic of Bremsstrahlun and energy carried away by electrons. The close proximity electron -nucleus distance is around 1% of the Bohr radius, e.e 500 fm.

    He is using Maxwell's EM equations, adn their "remarkable consequences", like explaining "what mass is made of, explains what charges are made of, and he doesn't need EM gauge invariance constraints, which removes paradoxes. His next slide shows connections between EM and QM: one of which is QM probability denstity is EM Langrangian density (Lorentz invariant)

    and also, gauge invariance is a property of the QM wavefunction (not a real symmetry of EM) The consequence: Heisenberg uncertainty applies only to those oscillation modes of the particle wavefunction which exist.

    Local speed of electric charge is always the speed of light, but goes into decomposition into ZBW wave and particle motions. The energy of the wave is less than we had before, but it gains kinetic energy.


    This is hard to follow for me. I will have to say, "read the paper"!

  • Development of weak cold-fusion engine (Fusine) assisted by molecular chemical reaction by R. Konagaya is next. Hey - it's a she! She is a second year PhD student from Tokyo.

    She is talking about the collision of super multi-jets. Jets of what I don't know!

    But the reaction chamber (small 18 mm diameter) and device is on a track, and when the device reacts, I believe the unit will move, yes, she is measuring thrust and getting 103-167 Newtons for several cycles at startup.


    There are questions as to why this is called a "weak cold fusion engine" as this seems far from cold fusion reactions, says the questioner.


    That may be but this girl is going places and is bound to do something amazing in her career.

  • The Zitterbewegung Orbit of Electrons with A Kovacs is next. This is heavy stuff. He is talking about a very close electron-nucleaus proximity configuration , significantly closer than inner shell electrons. Experiments he observed characteristic of Bremsstrahlun and energy carried away by electrons. The close proximity electron -nucleus distance is around 1% of the Bohr radius, e.e 500 fm.

    He is using Maxwell's EM equations, adn their "remarkable consequences", like explaining "what mass is made of, explains what charges are made of, and he doesn't need EM gauge invariance constraints, which removes paradoxes. His next slide shows connections between EM and QM: one of which is QM probability denstity is EM Langrangian density (Lorentz invariant)

    and also, gauge invariance is a property of the QM wavefunction (not a real symmetry of EM) The consequence: Heisenberg uncertainty applies only to those oscillation modes of the particle wavefunction which exist.

    Local speed of electric charge is always the speed of light, but goes into decomposition into ZBW wave and particle motions. The energy of the wave is less than we had before, but it gains kinetic energy.


    This is hard to follow for me. I will have to say, "read the paper"!

    here is a link of a discussion of that Clifford Algebra and Maxwell-Dirac theory.