ICCF23 open discussion

    • Official Post
    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    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.

    I believe TG were accused of that after their Nature paper came out. Turns out they did do their homework in prepping for their deep dive into LENR, culminating in the Nature paper, as Matt explained last night. Another critique was that they had not tapped into the old guard for help, but that was laid to rest last night also.

    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    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

    Yes, this is promising, but TG heavily explored powders also, and did not see any anomalous effects.


    BTW: Did anyone catch Trevithick's last comment about this possibly being a "quantum effect"? I found that interesting, and wonder if he has plans to explore that further. He and Google are investing in quantum computing, so if anyone would see a connection, it would be them.

    Quote from Shane D.

    BTW: Did anyone catch Trevithick's last comment about this possibly being a "quantum effect"? I found that interesting, and wonder if he has plans to explore that further. He and Google are investing in quantum computing, so if anyone would see a connection, it would be them.

    That has crossed my mind as well (much earlier than this presentation of TG).

    Matter and antimatter, as suggested sources of LENR, might also have quantum effects that may be useable for Q-bits as used in quantum computing.

    Ultra Dense Hydrogen is possibly a candidate for this. This would mean no extreme low temperatures would be required anymore. But one has to keep in mind that the existence of UDD/UDD is still very controversial.

    Linking LENR to quantum effect for computing would be a smart option for larger budgets :)

  • Shane D.

    Changed the title of the thread from “Reminder: ICCF23 starts June 8 (or June 9 in China)” to “ICCF23 open discussion”.
    • Official Post

    In about 9.5 hours from now, at 5:30PM Pacific in Eureka, Larry Forsely talks, then Fran Tanzella, then David Nagel, Milesetc.... Later Zhang will talk on reproducing Mizuno, and Celani speaks as well. These will provide more experimental results in heat-production and we will see more variety of experiments.


    Transmutation talks are later on Day 2 as well.

    A few theory talks are sprinkled in, too. But I'm looking for heat.

    P. Ramarao et al. have done a solid replication of Mizuno's experiment. I personally was very pleased -- and relieved! -- to see this.


    Abstract:


    http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-IA-03%20Ramarao.pdf


    Video:


    http://ikkem.com/iccf23/speakervideo/1a-IN03-Ramarao.mp4


    Previous communication from Ramarao:


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


    This was a completely independent replication. Because no one has been able to go to Japan, because of COVID-19. Independent is good. I guess that is a silver lining to a very black cloud.

    We always see this climate of great excitement at each ICCF.

    At each of these events, we are made to believe, that's it, it's for soon, then very soon, then it's tomorrow morning ...

    A few days pass and the foam falls quickly.

    I would like a clarification about TG which would be criticized for having made his soup without the old guard ?

    My understanding being complementary to the opposite Matt trevithick being very close to Mc Kubre,

    I had the impression that his shadow was everywhere regarding TG works, am I wrong ?

    • Official Post
    Quote from Cydonia

    I would like a clarification about TG which would be criticized for having made his soup without the old guard ?

    My understanding being complementary to the opposite Matt trevithick being very close to Mc Kubre,

    I had the impression that his shadow was everywhere regarding TG works, am I wrong ?


    As you can see, TG did enlist the old guard. And yes, McKubre and Trevithick are tight. Their relationship goes back to when Trevithick had his own LENR experience before moving on to Google. Like everyone, he was unable to replicate it.

    • Official Post

    Hint: For those wanting to watch videos of presentations, I've found the links to recent presentation on the speaker page:

    http://ikkem.com/iccf23_Speakers.php

    EDIT: I've finally found the post by Ruby who point to

    http://ikkem.com/iccf-23_oralab.php

    Both works...

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    The old guard complained to me that he did not enlist them.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    And to me.

    As I understood it from the comments back then, what happened is that Team Google (now Project Charleston or PC from now on) indeed approached the "old guard", but did not implement any of the things that were adviced to be able to get the excess heat, and this is what caused the complaint from the old guard, after the publication: a sort of "you claim not finding any Excess heat but you did not implement anything of what we recommended". A complaint that, IMHO, is very valid.


    As I already commented in this thread, I think the LEC is a very good opportunity for PC, and I am really concerned that, as Shane D. already has commented, PC through Trevithick, declined to replicate it. Why refusing to replicate such an straight forward and well documented experiment? This, IMHO, and being aware that is not a good thing to say, but I have to say it nevertheless, can ony raise doubts about the true purpose of PC.

    Quote from Curbina

    As I understood it from the comments back then, what happened is that Team Google (now Project Charleston or PC from now on) indeed approached the "old guard", but did not implement any of the things that were adviced to be able to get the excess heat,

    Ed Storms says they approached him, asked some questions, and pretty much ignored what he told them. Others say they never heard from Google. I don't recall anyone other than McKubre who heard from them.


    I was not impressed by the Nature paper. I am still not impressed by it. It was too vague. It did not have enough technical details to judge what happened. In the lecture yesterday Trevithick confirmed that only one bulk Pd-D experiment reached the necessary loading. That is what what paper said -- or hinted. He gave quantitative details yesterday. Loading was pretty high. Some other parameter must not have been reached. All of the other tests would be expected to fail. In other words, they only did one valid test which failed for unknown reasons. That's not much for $10 million.


    The SKINR project was also disappointing, but they did have one notable success, as reported by Hubler. That cell produced 90 mW of heat for 58 days. That was not the only success. Some other cells produced ~60 mW for varying durations.

    Quote from Curbina

    As I already commented in this thread, I think the LEC is a very good opportunity for PC, and I am really concerned that, as Shane D. already has commented, PC through Trevithick, declined to replicate it. Why refusing to replicate such an straight forward and well documented experiment? This, IMHO, and being aware that is not a good thing to say, but I have to say it nevertheless, can ony raise doubts about the true purpose of PC.

    I do not care for their attitude. I talked with them a few times during the project, and I did not like it then, either. They struck me as know-it-alls. However, since 2019 they have not funded any research, at any level. It seems the project is over. So I guess funding the LEC is out. Funding anything is out.


    After they finished the project, they continued to publish papers. Most of the papers seem to have little or nothing to do with cold fusion, as far as I can see. I cannot judge whether this was useful research. But it wasn't useful cold fusion research.

    A lot of interesting thought here :thumbup: :thumbup:

    First of all a question to Rob Woudenberg because you said:

    This forum has simply too much non-experts and the opinions are too scattered.

    In this way, what kind of people do you consider as relevant expert ?


    First of all guys, we have to do an overview..

    At one side, we have entities able and motivated to put money on table.

    At other side, we have so many experts who have to share a part of this cake..


    Now, if you consider the Mat Trevithick position , how he should do to find experts from "others" ?

    This is from Dewey Weaver i learned this english word "mignon"..

    So, when we have a king able to distribute all parts of cake, we have also "mignons"at the other side..

    Especially to Rob Woudenberg mignons aren't especially the more relevants in relation with the field.

    Mat Trevithick fell into this trap but he's smart, he shouldn't make the same mistake twice.

    In EU we have had the same situation with Mauricio Maggiore the king who vented the EU cake , clean HME and the other one..

    About the other one, i forgot the name, they were able to seduce Maggiore while they have no Lenr experience at all but really none, they will rather start to repeat the former experiences from 30 years ago!

    I'm not a pro Mizuno, but frankly I would have preferred that money to be attributed to him rather than the other mignons.


    Now as for Trevithick as for Maggiore, i can understand this is not easy to find to separate the relevant teams from others.

    In this way, they should multiply small portions of cakes and distribute them shamelessly .. challenge the teams ..

    In a second step, they will be able to make a first sorting and distribute less pieces of cake but larger portions .. This is how i would have managed .. :thumbup:

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    I do not care for their attitude. I talked with them a few times during the project, and I did not like it then, either. They struck me as know-it-alls. However, since 2019 they have not funded any research, at any level. It seems the project is over. So I guess funding the LEC is out. Funding anything is out.


    After they finished the project, they continued to publish papers. Most of the papers seem to have little or nothing to do with cold fusion, as far as I can see. I cannot judge whether this was useful research. But it wasn't useful cold fusion research.

    I am suggesting the LEC as a potential answer to Trevithick's question "What should we do next?" as posed in the pinned thread. I don't know if they have funds or not, but if they are asking, and offered a good straight forward "lab rat" and they decline, then I begin to think they really don't want to find an answer to the question.

    You should be more serious Curbina what is this kind of fashion toy, the LEC ?

    Do you think that the main community will finally find serious Cold fusion by the help of LEC ?

    I'm not surprised that Biberian was soaked in it, he who is not even going to be able to propose his own subject but that from Mastromatteo during this ICCF.

    Quote from Curbina

    I am suggesting the LEC as a potential answer to Trevithick's question "What should we do next?" as posed in the pinned thread. I don't know if they have funds or not, but if they are asking, and offered a good straight forward "lab rat" and they decline, then I begin to think they really don't want to find an answer to the question.

    Quote from Cydonia

    First of all a question to Rob Woudenberg because you said:

    This forum has simply too much non-experts and the opinions are too scattered.

    In this way, what kind of people do you consider as relevant expert ?

    Members that have a verifiable identity, relevant scientific education and experience that tolerate different opinions, are able to discuss on topic and not on person in a constructive way and have a mature level of emotional and social intelligence.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.