I wondered what you thought of Leif Holmlid's work showing spontaneous meson release from an ultra dense form of deuterium (UDD) enhanced by 1064 nm lazer stimulation? Although his work does not have general acceptance since the only other known means of meson generation is via high energy proton collision in the Large Hadron Collider or via high energy Cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere, if true it could be an attractive hypothesis underlying CF.
__mm_____o Ö
"... if anyone is interested in applying my ideas during their replication, I would be glad to go into more detail."
So we create cracks. Questions: In which materials? How many materials? Placing them in what environment(s)?
How simple can the experiment be? You can rub a balloon and demonstrate one aspect of charge.
What can you do with common materials to demonstrate LENR?
The idea that we should fear failure strikes me as nonsensical. So I invest my energies elsewhere.
I hope I have done other than put words into your mouth, or attributed thoughts to your thinking mistakenly.
I express my imagination and understanding when posting and seek to make them allies.
Shane D. What are you even talking about? Can you be a bit more clear now that you decided to go public about whatever it is you are going public about?
We have a secret group, that meets in a clearing in the forest every full moon. We wear animal skins, and do ritualistic things I don't want to talk about.
I disagree that a single spectacular demonstration isn't useful to prove the existence of LENR and stimulate more and better funded research -- from private parties including entrepreneurs if not government. An old example of a spectacular experiment which convinced a lot of very hardened skeptics was the discovery that peptic (gastric, stomach) ulcers are frequently caused by bacteria and can be treated by killing the bacteria. All the microscopic and bacteriological studies failed to convince the old main line medical establishment. But when brave (and incautious) experimenters swallowed the bacteria, got ulcers, treated them with antibiotics and were able to repeat the cycle, more and more main line physicians became convinced.
That is not quite what happened. Barry Marshall did drink Helicobacter pylori, and he did become seriously ill with a precursor disease that often leads to ulcers. He then cured it with antibiotics. But it did not convince others. It was many years after that people started believing the results. The skeptics attacked him or ignored him, just as they attacked lasers and many other discoveries, including, of course, cold fusion.
Just to be upfront with you, this is now on a two-track path to getting us to our final 3 list, which we will recommended to TG. Alan and I started a team 8 days ago, under the "Converations" to manage this process a little better. Originally I thought it better to keep the effort secret, and asked those selected, to keep it quiet. Reason for that, is I wanted to keep the panel small (more nimble), and with so many members qualified...I did not want to hurt the feelings of those left out. Since this thread is becoming more productive, I reconsidered and decided it best you know.
The selection committee are whittling down the list to the 3 best, through a matrix magicsound put together, which sorts the experiments by weighting several criteria, on a scale of (1-5). While they are sorting that out, this thread can serve the dual purpose of providing them fresh ideas, new experiments to consider, and lay a foundational background for TG that may be of some use.
It would be most helpful for any of the old guard here to pass along their thoughts, recommendations, how to increase the chance of success...anything really.
Good stuff. Will the assembled team be preparing a formal document of some kind that summarises their thinking about the experiments? If so, I, and I'm sure others, would be interested to read it, or any other deliberative proceedings that can be shared.
Interesting to note that Stan Szpak and Pamela Boss did actually try Nickel Mesh and Palladium at SPAWAR.
This was a test of using an IR Camera to observe thermal events on the mesh in their co-deposition research where Pd and D was deposited on Nickel Mesh.
And Lo & behold! , there where thermal spots indicating excess heat events taking place in various spots on the mesh.
So again I would suggest Google to look into the SPAWAR research. It was more reproducible than most of the other LENR research.
ref.
I agree with oystla, the SPAWAR research is probably the most likely to yield positive results if replicated by TG - and I would suggest TG repeat not just one of their experiments but every experiment they have ever published. With further experiments to chase down interesting leads/anomalies etc. Such a comprehensive study would firmly establish LENR as the energy source to be developed for future generations!
I agree with @oystia, the SPAWAR research is probably the most likely to yield positive results if replicated by TG - and I would suggest TG repeat not just one of their experiments but every experiment they have ever published. With further experiments to chase down interesting leads/anomalies etc. Such a comprehensive study would firmly establish LENR as the energy source to be developed for future generations!
and it is OYSTLA for Øystein Lande 🤓
where thermal spots indicating excess heat events taking place in various spots on the mesh.
Later Cr39 detectors (Mosier-Boss)
apparently showed localised soft xray emission
https://www.researchgate.net/p…origin=publication_detail
It was more reproducible than most of the other LENR research
Most other LENR was electrolytic at that time .. gas phase is probably simpler
Display MoreLater Cr39 detectors (Mosier-Boss)
apparently showed localised soft xray emission
https://www.researchgate.net/p…origin=publication_detail
Most other LENR was electrolytic at that time .. gas phase is probably simpler
Performing Gas phase research may be easier (I'm not fully convinced), but is the excess heat conditions easily reproducible? We will see on the success rate of the Mizuno recipe.
I just think Szpak and Mosier-Boss did som wonderful creative work on CF at SPAWAR and deserves more attention on replication attempts.
The basic question is, "What is the NAE and how can we create it on purpose and in large amount"? That is the basic question that the field has failed to address effectively.
I think we should discuss this question as a topic. Then that would lead to a better choice for a recommendation to Google.
For example, Miley et al’s work. I provide here an advancement to it. The basis is coulomb barrier shielding and improvements are based on fusion on a nuclear catalyst. For more on this approach see my other post.
To be specific the hypothesis that each NAE has a cluster of catalyst that transmits energy via a wave action involving w particles to the nucleuses of the atoms of metal which surround the catalyst in the NAE. W-wave energy in the nucleus creates a giant nuclear resonance that creates an atmosphere of transient positrons and electrons above each nucleus. That atmosphere creates a strong magnetic field per relativity but also creates a shielding factor for nuclear fusion. The shielding factor might be placed into the equation for energy needed to pass the coulomb barrier. The effect of the shielding factor is that as it increases, the value of energy required to bridge the coulomb barrier drops. High atomic number elements can absorb more w-wave energy that low atomic number elements. Hence, per the report in ICCF-7 by Hora, atoms in the metal fuse and then fission to produce a spectra of elements which is characteristic of fission. So, energy from this type of LENR is mostly from fission.
Per the above basis and for this most common form of LENR, one's objective is to produce a waveguide to collect the specific spectra which create the catalyst from hydrogen isotopes.
The arrangement and type of metal creates the catalyst in this type of LENR. However, the catalyst can be created without any waveguide.
To put the current state of LENR research in perspective, a useful analogy to the NAE problem might be the development of commercially useful transistors. LENR research is about at the stage of semiconductor physics in the 1930s. Strange variations in resistance in germanium crystals had been observed at that time, but they were seldom reproducible and there was no theoretical apparatus that would account for them. Unlike calorimetry, of course, measuring electrical current leaves little room for controversy, and some theoretical speculations did suggest a solid state valve could be made. It was a time of unbounded technological optimism, and a few researchers persevered. Schockley actually thought he had created what we now call a field-effect transistor, when he in fact his first transistors were bipolar devices. Producing the earliest transistors was more haute cuisine than chemistry, and according to the Wikipedia article, the first commercially sold transistors appeared in France in the early 1950s. It wasn't until methods were developed for producing incredibly pure germanium and silicon and for doping them in controllable ways that the transistor became a believable alternative to the thermionic valve, and that a coherent quantum-physical theory of its operation became accepted. I believe the theory came AFTER the devices; the solid-state physics of the 1940s more or less predicted nothing but impossibility. That's probably what we should expect with LENR -- a long period of culinary art with gradual development of theory.
To put the current state of LENR research in perspective, a useful analogy to the NAE problem might be the development of commercially useful transistors
Yes. For other parallels, see:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf
To put the current state of LENR research in perspective, a useful analogy to the NAE problem might be the development of commercially useful transistors. LENR research is about at the stage of semiconductor physics in the 1930s. Strange variations in resistance in germanium crystals had been observed at that time, but they were seldom reproducible and there was no theoretical apparatus that would account for them. Unlike calorimetry, of course, measuring electrical current leaves little room for controversy, and some theoretical speculations did suggest a solid state valve could be made. It was a time of unbounded technological optimism, and a few researchers persevered. Schockley actually thought he had created what we now call a field-effect transistor, when he in fact his first transistors were bipolar devices. Producing the earliest transistors was more haute cuisine than chemistry, and according to the Wikipedia article, the first commercially sold transistors appeared in France in the early 1950s. It wasn't until methods were developed for producing incredibly pure germanium and silicon and for doping them in controllable ways that the transistor became a believable alternative to the thermionic valve, and that a coherent quantum-physical theory of its operation became accepted. I believe the theory came AFTER the devices; the solid-state physics of the 1940s more or less predicted nothing but impossibility. That's probably what we should expect with LENR -- a long period of culinary art with gradual development of theory.
Hi BruceInKonstanz,
Nice post. My guess is Rossi is able to progress stuff a lot quicker.
Cheers,
JB
I agree with oystla, the SPAWAR research is probably the most likely to yield positive results if replicated by TG - and I would suggest TG repeat not just one of their experiments but every experiment they have ever published. With further experiments to chase down interesting leads/anomalies etc. Such a comprehensive study would firmly establish LENR as the energy source to be developed for future generations!
SPAWAR, and the Takahashi group seem to pop up the most. Lots of other good ones out there too, which is a good indication of the robustness of the research. Be interesting to see which one TG picks. Of course, we won't know what that is for probably a few years. Takes a long time from inception to finish, when aiming for a Nature, or Science publication.
Takes a long time from inception to finish, when aiming for a Nature, or Science publication.
The most important thing is that when making a choice no quick-shots are made and above all the decisions are not burdened by prejudices, legacies and these often decades-long petty wars among the scientists themselves. Better a longer selection phase and unencumbered expert opinions, as e.g. such often meaningless discussions of the here known protagonists who often only feed their own ego and do not serve the cause.
