http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-OA-01%20Hubler.pdf
Hubier / SKINR ... is that a report of an old experiment? I thought it had folded.
They folded. Word was, I believe from Dewey, that they had some success as this old paper showed, but internal politics and leadership issues tore them apart.
For those of us who slept when the start was, do we know if the recorder matreale will be published?
According to the organisers, yes, it will be made available after the conference.
Leads ssesiya Klimov, well leads, well done!
I'm not probably the best, nor the worse.. But i wrote an article explaining a different approach.
I suggest that he temporarily leave US thinkers to try something else.
While this could ultimately be another B... path, it won't waste too much money for his giant company to test this.
In today's presentation, he again asked for the community to give their team some direction going forward with an experiment that will be reasonably repeatable by the next ICCF. Will that happen? He also asked what is the definition of "proven"...something he and I discussed while communicating on that thread.
Si nous les appelons Project Charleston comme Matt l'a révélé aujourd'hui, ils ont nommé leur effort, personne ne saura de qui nous parlons. Que faire... ce sera TG ou PC. Hmmm.
Simply TG2 or TG 2.0 to be fashionable at the moment.
Remember the geology and see how globular nodules are formed. There's terrestrial electricity that makes these nodules. The planet is completely different, not as we think. You can build the planet Earth itself!!!
I'm awake! Trying to survey the various power outputs being reported.
Wednesday 4:30AM PDT Akito Takahashi is reporting 10W to 500 W, with current COP 1.2 from the Metal Hydrogen Energy generator. He believes he can extend to 1kW and 3-5 COP with new changes. There's a new MHE system since July 2020, but he's not reporting on those results yet.
He shows graph of one experiment with power 85 Watts generated over weeks using Palladium-Nickel-Zirconium. They make the material themselves using nanopowders.
Another set of data shows samples generating from about 10Watts up to 200 Watts, oops that's Watts/kg, for various runs on the PNZ material.
Another graph shows energy of 128 MJ over 28 days.
He ends describing possible model of reaction tied to the experimental results.
Also, this is radiation-free power. In an experiment that was generating about 40W power, there was a 3kW heat burst, but no commeasurate gamma rays or nuclear particles.
I am always happy when scientists remind us that this is safe atomic power from the hydrogen in water.
Like Shane, I registered about a fortnignt ago. I havn't recieved anything, no emails
or links. I have checked my emails including spam filters but nothing.
Where do I go from here to see the conference ?
Pete.
They even have my login details as I was able to re-login a moment ago with my email and the
password I gave them 2 weeks ago. How do I contact them to recieve a link?
Like Shane, I registered about a fortnignt ago. I havn't recieved anything, no emails
Check your spam file. Spam files auto-delete so it may be gone.
Ooo, a schedule change.
Sheng Hu is talking about Hydrogen Isotope Separation. This is a peripheral topic to LENR. He is enhancing protons transporting through thin, 2d material like graphene. Driving protons through a membrane, he is using this to design a hydrogen "pump". In other words, this process can make hydrogen, and also separate hydrogen from the other isotopes like deuterium,which doesn't get through the material easily.
60 MJ is generated in this process (?).
He beilieves that tritium separation can be in ratio of H/T ~ 30 times.
This lab is attempting room-temperature isotope separation, an "atomic sieve". Very interesting stuff here.
In today's presentation, he again asked for the community to give their team some direction going forward with an experiment that will be reasonably repeatable by the next ICCF. Will that happen? He also asked what is the definition of "proven"...something he and I discussed while communicating on that thread.
Shane D. , I think the LEC could be an excellent experiment for team Google, can you get them in contact?
So frustrating to be sleeping through so much interesting information being presented.
GROUP PHOTO! on Zoom. Can't wait to see that one.
VIDEOS of ICCF23 Day 1 are up already. Check this page: http://ikkem.com/iccf-23_oralab.php
Dave Nagel is now fielding questions from the entire group of 110 people, currently. This is the last session until tomorrow.
Nagel makes a point of the durability of nano-scale materials. Will the power generated be sustained over weeks months or longer? or will these materials degrade over the high-temperature runs? What is known now?
Hasegawa replies that the lab there is going step-by-step, and we will see how far they can go. He also states that unless the labs crack COP of 2-3, no one will fund them, or believe the heat is real.
Hubler asks Iwamura about the reaction surface area of his samples, and the reply was that it depends on the sample, but almost all the area of the sample produces heat, and the surface area is about 13mm circle. hubler wants to know if particles are emitted from the sample that is emitted and stays cooler then.
Hubier / SKINR ... is that a report of an old experiment? I thought it had folded.
Yes, it folded. Dennis Pease took all the equipment and put it in his garage. He hopes to restart the research somehow.
This is a very good result. I wish they had presented it earlier. Graham Hubler's presentation is here:
Shane D. , I think the LEC could be an excellent experiment for team Google, can you get them in contact?
We talked about that a few days after Gordon's LEC hit the news. Asked if he could spare a promising grad student to try and repicate, but he would not commit. So he is well aware of it. Not that he needed me to tell him, as he and his team keep up on LENR news.
ZQ ends the day 1 by saying that the field is like a big dark building and they don't know the layout, so it's not as important to bring industry into the situation until the science is more known. He is for determining the science first and then developing a technology to make a better world for everybody. He is a science guy.
Check your spam file. Spam files auto-delete so it may be gone.
Thanks, I just found my invite there.
Display MoreThanks Ruby. I got your email and was able to check in. Not sure why I did not receive an invite. Enjoyed watching Trevithick. A very gifted speaker, as one would expect for someone in his position.
LF collaborated with he and his Team Google Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" ....but the LENR community was unable to deliver.
In today's presentation, he again asked for the community to give their team some direction going forward with an experiment that will be reasonably repeatable by the next ICCF. Will that happen? He also asked what is the definition of "proven"...something he and I discussed while communicating on that thread.
Trevithick and his team are obviously sincere, and hopeful that LENR is the answer to our future power needs, or he would not have wasted his time today.
BTW. I found it interesting to see who some of today's participants were. Some of the old, and I mean old guard. Like a who's-who of LENR. Good sign.
I am really surprised by this approach of the Google Team. They should do more reading and educate themselves and then make decisions what to attempt to replicate.
Here at LENR-Forum as well as the ongoing ICCF meetings one can easily observe that there is still lots of different opinions, approaches and theories. No concesis at all.
They should do their own homework. There is no clear solution yet that is reproducible in a simple way. Study and follow this forum, do a proper patent application landscape and pick a few candidates that have fairly robust data presented.
For me Iwamura and Holmlid are the most solid researchers that are fairly transparent what they do.
Akito Takahashi's approach is also promising but using materials in powder form will probably not be suitable for real commercial applications due to the too high risks of sintering of the active metals.
Another high potential approach is that of recent NASA work, lattice confined fusion.
BLP, BEC and Aureon are also promising parties but their technologies are not suitable to start replication with a small inexperienced team, besides these are companies that have commercial targets, so they will hold back essencial data.
