What is the current state of LENR?

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    This has nothing to do with magnetic field and spin of course - but simply with fact, that lower energy input always brings higher yield.


    Anyway, the intriguing question is, why the output energy should change, when we change the input energy? The energy of nuclear reaction should be independent on energy which triggers it. I guess, it would have something to do with unidimensional mechanism - again. If we strike line of billiard balls stronger, then more balls will collide along single line and they will create environment, which would allow release of fusion alpha particles with higher speed..


    At any case, there is no apparent saturation of this effect for 100 eV energy and the particle count looks pretty uniform all across whole voltage range.

    Kinetic energy --> chaotic collisions --> thermonuclear fusion


    Potential energy --> directional impact --> cold fusion

    Quote from the end of the preprint "and, for example, at $b= 10^{-13} cm$, $n= 10^{18} cm^{-3}$, we get a threshold value of the proton potential energy $U\approx 0.3 eV$, which is several orders of magnitude less than the threshold value of the kinetic energy of paired collisions approximately equal to $1 MeV$."

    Quote from Drgenek

    is that the dislocations are required to form waveguides to collect specific energies

    ...molecular engineering of the lattice may include elements suitable to forming waveguides...


    ...waveguides that focus, direct, or carry away energies/particles...


    ...also elements that create super conductive nano environs...


    ...engineering specific nano spacing, not ad hoc cracks and crevices...


    ...choose elements for nano engineering/constructing the lattice that strengthen or protect the lattice structure where needed...


    Layman thinking gbgoble

    Waveguides of specific size based on the equation for the energy of phat photons of Hydrogen E= n2(energy of hydrogen ionization). So put this equation into a spreadsheet and look at it. It relates the hydrogen bond energy to the rest mass of an electron and to the mass difference of a proton and a neutron. Think about how incredibly impossible that that is by coincidence. That relationship is quantum. Because it is the weak force. It is probably weak isospin. What is n? It is a multibody effect. n is number of bodies which are exchanging energy and can in a coherent way condense the bosons in that exchange to one boson. It is not specific for ionizing hydrogen. It works if the photons are in a chain, if the electrons are in a chain, or if the interaction involves a greater rotation of the cluster of interacting particle such as per Bayak.


    It should work for a wave of molten lithium ions floating on crystal solid. It is just a mechanism that produces the necessary high energy to catalyze a nuclear reaction and provides a direct link of energy into weak isospin. That energy then reduces the proton to proton repulsion of coulomb barrier. The standard model allows it because weak isospin controls protonness compared to neutronness.

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    ...we are the host and organizer of the ICCF24 conference, which is co-located with the Solid State Energy Summit. - end quotes

    rubycarat  David Nygren  Rob Woudenberg  JedRothwell


    Hoping to find more information as it becomes available about the "co-located Solid State Energy Summit".

    Anything you can find would be appreciated by all of us here. Perhaps worthy of it's own thread?

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    albeit 100eV is still quite hot

    via Boltzman constant

    Boltzmann constant (eV/K)
    The Boltzman Constant (0.000086173324 eV/K) is a physical constant that relates a particle energy with temperature.
    www.vcalc.com


    100eV =1,1 million Kelvin


    on the other hand, 600K = 0.05eV..


    LENReactions occurring in deuterium-metal solid phase at about 300C are not via a fast collision..

    Quote from Alan Smith

    many scientists employed by the large hot fusion program would be out of a job

    I think this is actually the primary reason. The people with the politicians'/business leaders' (i.e. people born to rich families) ears in terms of alternative energy production are those very same hot fusion proponents.


    I'd love to think that hot fusion research is a net positive for all fusion research at any "temperature-equivalent" fuel particle energy level, but the concepts and designs are simply too different for this to be the case. Unfortunately, I think hot fusion would need to be shown to be viable and then implemented widely in order for cold fusion to be reexamined by mainstream science (as a 'new/next frontier,' so to speak - probably by the current groups in the hot fusion space). The sunk cost into hot fusion is enormous, and cold fusion is in the unenviable position of taking flack from hot fusion proponents citing the same ad hominem accusations from the 1990s towards anyone even considering cold fusion research, as well as getting caught in the crossfire of the flak the hot fusion projects get for being 20 years away from energy production for the last 50 years or so.


    I don't think it's malice, I just think academia in general is woefully unequipped to self-correct its past mistakes. Too many tenured professors and too many advisors built their careers in the zeitgeist of their fields to create anything but an institutional need to preserve that zeitgeist in the face of contradiction.


    For an easy way to determine which fields have become ad hoc "desperate dogma defenders", simply check whether or not the field has a 'widely accepted' "standard model" that builds the ad hoc definition into itself (i.e. 'the model changes as a result of new evidence'; what this means in practice is contradictory evidence is simply turned into additional epicycles to add to the model and the broader structure of the model lies unquestioned and unfalsifiable - it's the unfalsifiability that makes the ad hoc reasoning fallacious). A common refrain in these fields is "well what's a better model?", which is logically about as useful as a priest asking an atheist "if God didn't create the universe, where did it come from?" - the response "i don't know" is treated as an admission of the truth of the existing model, despite being the exact statement any honest scientist should be making. It's missing the point of the criticisms of the dogma, because it has no defenses to offer against them.


    I find it rather amusing that physics has managed to get itself into a half-century-long rut by accidentally building two standard models (relativity and quantum mechanics) that disagree with each other. What's extra hilarious is both models are built on foundations of solipsism (rest frames and quantum observers) that they can't seem to shake off without breaking what is generally observed by people - namely relativity of simultaneity and the many worlds interpretation, which is in essence "simultaneity of all possibility". Combining the two gets you relativity of simultaneity of all possibility - all things can happen at all times and no one can tell what happened to anyone but themselves. Meanwhile the philosophers and epistemologists the physicist natural philosophers shoved out of academia because they weren't dogmatically atheist enough look on in frustration as physics runs headlong into creating the most complicated expression of Descarte's "cogito, ergo sum" ever devised - blissfully ignorant of the fact that solipsism as a conclusion about reality has been considered a philosophical dead end for centuries.


    Sorry, I drifted into a rant there.

    Google has a whole lot of money. Carl Page alludes to the strength of silicon valley in his ICCF24 9am Version welcoming video.


    What comes after the 9am wake up call? Don't offend the big money you hot fusion folks... Alan Smith $$$Alphabet$$$


    Actually CMNS research may improve the laser fusion target at LLNL where Team Google is. Just a wild thought, most likely I'm wrong.


    Quote from InkTide

    half-century-long rut by accidentally building two standard models (relativity and quantum mechanics) that disagree with each other. What's extra hilarious is both models are built on foundations of solipsism (rest frames and quantum observers) that they can't seem to shake off without breaking what is generally observed by people - namely relativity of simultaneity and the many worlds interpretation, which is in essence "simultaneity of all possibility". Combining the two gets you relativity of simultaneity of all possibility - all things can happen at all times and no one can tell what happened to anyone but themselves

    InkTide Love your description...


    Carl Page said in the 80's physicists felt great because the models explained 80% of the known universe.


    Now what we see of the universe and beyond nano has grown so much that our known universe (of physics research and applied engineering) is so much larger the models barely explain 20% of it with any clarity... Oh my!


    Some key is sure to simplify it all.


    Eureka... oops almost had it.


    Anyways, Alphabet Inc. may be investing big time and link their name to future patents. I'll keep an eye out. Google and the DoE are doing fine though... Carl seems to be describing their advanced capabilities. Meanwhile, I still can't find anything about the Solid State Energy Summit.


    I get a good feeling about it.


    Alphabet Inc Cl A (GOOGL)

    Alphabet, which doesn't pay a dividend at all is sitting on cash and investments of $168.5 billion. That's more than 6% of all the S&P 500's cash in the hands of a single company. And it just keeps piling up. Alphabet's cash pile is 7% higher now than it was in 2020.     Nov 12, 2021

    Quote

    Hats off to the many hot fusion, fission and high energy physics researchers and scientists who actively contribute to the nascent art of CMNS energy development.

    These ones are just who is responsible for present energetic and environmental crisis by boycotting cold fusion research. In the same way, like GMO pharmacists developing vaccines, because just these people are responsible for Wuhan virus spreading. For example Ernest Moniz - the former Energy secretary and long-time fighter against cold fusion at MIT who has joined the board of directors of Tri Alpha Energy now pushes next-gen nuclear reactors...

    Here Dr. Peter Hagelstein from M.I.T. discusses the difficulty of getting adequate funding for cold fusion research in the United States. He goes on to give an account of how his department was able to arrange for funding from a large US company, only to have a "very famous" physicist at MIT actively work against it:


    .."..However, a very famous physicist at MIT, who is involved in the energy program, found out what we were trying to do, and he cancelled the program. And he called up the vice president of the company and said some things that weren’t very polite about the research. And not only did the funding not come and the experiments didn’t happen, but my colleagues at the company were very worried about where they’re going to work next. As you know, there are unemployment issues currently in our bad economy, so there’s a fundamental difficulty with respect to getting support for the experiments, and what that means is that the science can be expected to go very slowly for these reasons, until a solution is found to this problem..."


    This included said physicist turned out to be Ernest Moniz - a former energy secretary of the USA engaged in nuclear research, who did call the vice-president of the company that had approved the funding and convincing him to to withdraw the previously agreed upon money for cold fusion research. But other leaders of DOE aren't any better. Mildred Dresselhaus - now known as the "queen of carbon science" - was a long-term fighter against cold fusion, particularly against its research at MIT. She also signed the negative DOE report in 1989.


    This serves as an example that there are prominent people, who want breakthrough finding go away, regardless of the overwhelming experimental evidence that they're real and the fact, they could maintain technological leadership of the USA. Under normal healthy situation such a people would be prosecuted and jailed - but this is not gonna to happen. No wonder that economy of USA looks as it looks under such a leaders.

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    Hats off to the many hot fusion, fission and high energy physics researchers

    there are not many who contributed to LENR

    perhaps because it affects their reputation/salary?

    George Miley?

    Takahashi and Iwamura were brought up in the conventional nuclear school

    and have achieved a lot... noticeably much finance has been from private Industry

    MHI ?

    and the NEDO finance is spread very widely,thinly

    What you are describing here so eloquently is the basis for my motivation to try and figure out how the different elements are structured, because I wanted to understand reality better. This lead in the end to the Structured Atom Model, which is not based on the described mainstream thinking at all. Meaning we found how the elements are structured and how this relates to all physical phenomenon and expressions, from the Nobility of an element to the stability of isotopes and much more than that.
    However since almost all are rooted firmly in the "old" thinking (current models), most do not even comprehend how important these findings are. Those that,
    - read our book https://curtis-press.com/produ…he-structured-atom-model/
    - look at the elements in our openly published "Atom Builder" https://structuredatom.org/atomizer/atom-viewer
    - and perhaps even watch the video's made by our friend "See the Pattern" on Youtube

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    will see how this is the case.

    In the mean time, we continue our search for the "impossible" "cold fusion" based on this century old thinking that has been promoted like a champion, while it is a beggar!

    I ask those that have the courage to look at this material and use it to further our thinking and scientific progress. Or... stay in this bubble and keep up hope that things might change or someone finds our 'salvation'.....

    We will continue with this most fascinating research and insights which gave us already much much more understanding of our reality than any black hole, big bang or dark matter dribble that are supposed to explain things to us.

    "were brought up in the conventional nuclear school" is a real issue for cold Fusion society.


    Real understanding of the mechanism of cold fusion affects the fundamental nuclear physics theory, thus it affect the researchres activity and loose money.


    I know the hot fusion is really hot by the traditional researchers, because international activity offers a huge amount of money.

    and because mechanism of hot fuion is easy because it is a traditional physics.

    The Cold fusion is now confused all over the world due to the mistake of traditional nuclear physics.


    AS I explained everywhere, cold fusion is caused by small D2 atoms with deeper orbit of electron.Fig(d)

    Fig(a) is the cause of mistake of nuclear physics theory that charge is point charge so schredinger equation at around nucleus has hiuge error or meaningless.

    So the correct nuclear physics use the uniformly distributed charge in the nucleus.

    AND the relativistic schredinger eqaution is used, and this can be numerically solved and it showed the deeper orbit tnah n=1, as cloas as a few femto-meters from the nucleus in Fig(d), and the electron density between the nucleus is so dense that it can shiled the coulomb repulsive force perfectly.

    The above is the real cause of Cold Fusion and current nuclear physics does not have this(electron deep orbit) theory.

    All the traditional nuclear physics researchers including pure nuclear physics researchers and all and high energy physics researchres has not studied this correct theory just because it is inconvinient for them to continue their study at university, and if this is admitted, nucleus is constituted by proton and internal electron and no neutron as a fundamental particle and no neutrino and explanation of the stable magic number of nucleus is incorrect and most theories need to be reconsidered, and a lot of researchers will lose their research area.

    Refer to the paper on this correct nuclear physics theory.

    Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons.pdf

    Because this is not the subject in the university no explanation the the physics textbook. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, traditional nuclear physics researcher want to believe the traditional incorrect theory.


    I asked to admit this theory to all of the nuclear physics researcher all around the world but no reply.

    But I found the huge risk of the experiment of compressed chemistry reactor, which can have the fusion of the element but the researchers is just the chemict and he might understand the risk of this kind of experiment, so I posted the risk to japanese goverement site and Riken researcher.

    Compress of the compound can create small element whoch can fuse together.

    This is nuclear physics experiment, so the risk is so large.

    It may be releted to the hazardous incident to kill researcher in the worst case.


    [] Kengo OKA, High-Pressure Synthesis of Pb, Bi Containing Perovskites, The Review of High Pressure Science & Technology, Vol. 26, No. 2 (2016), Also available from

    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jshpreview/26/2/26_178/_pdf/-char/ja

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.