What is the current state of LENR?

    >do you think the Takahashi TC4 effects in Hydrogen approaching the reactor could be deuterium pre reaction before fusion..

    ==>Paper found and TC4 is the D2 supply line and its temperature increases with increasing reactor temperature.

    TC2 time lag is caused by the sensing location.

    I think just heating D2 not to cool-down the metal and reactor temperature, but this is not designed.

    The heater is necessary for the effective D2 gas loading.

    >as you know there is no electrolysis in the gas phase reactors

    ==>NO this is not in D2O electrolysis but D2 gas loading is faster than D2O loading and it is by far better to use this reactor.

    >Takahashi attributes this to turbulence..

    ==>NO IT was NOT turbulence it is similar to other curve so it is affected by other temperature possibly reactor tempetrature.

    >Ascoli65 attributed these to air conditioning... but this cause is impossible. since the calorimeter is isolated from the laboratory air.

    ===>No paper found



    http://jcfrs.org/JCF20/jcf20-abstracts.pdf


    Enhancement of Excess Thermal Power in Interaction of Nano-Metal and H(D)-Gas


    Re-calcination of PNZ (Pd1Ni10/zirconia) and CNZ (Cu1Ni7/zirconia) powders was found to be effective for the enhancement of weeks-sustaining excess thermal power Wex. We report further results by additional calcinations and baking treatments in this paper. In Table -1, summary results for PNZ10, PNZ10r and PNZ10rr samples with D (deuterium)-gas are given. Detail of data will be shown in the meeting. Study by CNZ7,CNZ7r and CNZ7rr samples with H (light hydrogen)-gas will also be reported.


    Mechanism of Nano-particle excess heat generation

    Excess heat generation=surface area X population of D at surface T site x D supply from from backside(bulk).

    This is different from E-CAT, but this is the standard Cold Fusion occurred at the surface T site of metal.


    FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT of excess heat generation

    LEFT Ni-D nano-particles and nano-roughness of Ni on nano-particle.

    Right Ni-D thin layer with nano-roughness on the ceramic ball to faster storage in thin metal region.









    TC4 is D2gas loading pipe and no heater around on TC4 pile line, so its temperature is the reactor temperature.

    I do not think this is good because gas is cooled into reactor and Nano-particle location.

    So once the temperature rise the excess heat increases.

    You should compare with TC2 TC4 and RTD1-4 by yourself.


    it is important to increase the total surface area as well as the curvature of particle so the smaller size is preferable.


    Thus the excellent excess heat generation is reasonable and I think this the the best among reactor.

    E-CAT use Nano-powder but the mechanism is different and for this reactor it is clear that heater triggers the cold fusion,

    but for E-CAT what triggers cold fusion of E-CAT is unclear. might be a heater but E-CAT is implemented LED?????


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ano-Metal_Hydrogen_Energy

    Progress in Nano-Metal Hydrogen Energy

    In this ICCF23 talk, we review our R&D works on nano-metal hydrogen energy (MHE) in 2018-2020, after the 2015-2017 NEDO-MHE Project [1, 2]. Major issues that we have obtained [3, 4, 5, 6] are as follows:


    1)Hydrogen Gas Loading Method using Nano-Metal Composite powders (Ni based binary nano-islands) at elevated temperature has provided reproducible AHE (anomalous heat effect) with significant excess thermal power (ca. 200 W/kg-sample at best) continuing for several weeks.

    2)Repeated re-calcination of PNZ-type and CNZ-type powders is very effective to enhance AHE excess thermal power. Levels are of encouraging grade for extending R&D of MHE toward industrial application.

    3)CCF (condensed cluster fusion of hydrogen isotope) is of guiding theoretical view of the AHE phenomenon.

    4)MHE (nano-Metal Hydrogen Energy) reaction is hard radiation free, namely biologically safe enough.

    What is the current state of LENR?

    I will throw in the answer to this question from my perspective...

    Answer: Deplorable, to use a popular term.
    - There is no theory or model that enjoys wide spread support and potential (no consensus).
    - without the theoretical explanation, no matter how well experiments show LENR to be a real thing. (it will not be accepted by main-stream)
    - Experiments have ignored transmutations far too much (in general) let alone isotopic ratios etc. (too chaotic/unsecure outcomes, prone to multiple explanations)
    - Media attention is at almost absolute zero, probably around the cosmic background radiation level (somehow needs to change)
    - Funding, like media attention, is shoe-string budget level (too few experimenters, and too low sophisticated and complete or follow-up experiments)
    - Hoaxers, ego's and money grabbers
    - competition (from "hot fusion" who take all the money with fancy machines)
    - Current scientific thinking, theories and models are zealously defended (no change in perspective, no solutions)


    It is of course easy to point out the flaws in all of this. I merely wanted to share this point of view in the hope we can somehow address these points of 'concern' and find our way to a future with better science and working LERN tech.


    Edo

    ARE YOU EDWIN of Edwin Kaal?????

    We need the media attention for the correct atomic structure model.

    As I sent you I totally agree with your model and have the experimental data to prove.

    As I explained bond compression of hydride makes hydrogen smaller which shows the electron orbit transition from n=1 to n=0.

    The conclusion is that neutron beta decay can be explained

    based on the correct nucleus model and neutron model.

    From this discussion, nuetrino hypo does not hold based on this correct theory,

    so no neutrino exist because neutrino is based on the larger electron energy variation of beta decay electron but it can be explained by the correct nucleus and neutron model.

    So many researchers are wasting time and effort on neutrino research based on incorrect theory.



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

    https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27304.49926

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Dear Ascoli. I'm banning you for a few days. This space is the 'LENR Forum, not the Ascoli's Obsession Forum. You never take notice of reasoned argument, you claim people agree with you when they patently do not...it's a long list of tiresome misdemeanours.


    Bye for now. Over and out.

    This is unjust. Of the people using this site who treat it as their own personal obsession forum, Ascoli65 is one who is unusually polite, well-informed, and rational.


    His activity on this thread is a completely appropriate response to the question that kicked it off. If he had acted in exactly the same way as here, but turned out to be strongly of the opinion that LENR is well-proven, he would not have been banned in the manner he was.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    This is unjust. Of the people using this site who treat it as their own personal obsession forum, Ascoli65 is one who is unusually polite, well-informed, and rational.

    I hesitate to comment on this. I have no objection to Ascoli, and I think it is a little unfair to ban him, because many other people do what he does. For example, people claim that input power is the same as noise, or that there is no way to falsify cold fusion. When I and others point out these people are wrong, they refuse to acknowledge what we say. They go on repeating these things again and again. That is what Ascoli does, so I stopped reading his messages long ago. But I don't see how he causes any more harm than, say, THHuxley. Probably less harm, because anyone can see Ascoli is obsessed and his hypothesis is ridiculous.


    I wouldn't say Ascoli is polite. I and others have posted a long list of objections to his hypothesis, such as the fact that the cells produce heat before and after the boil-off events, and this heat is measured with different methods, and it is unlikely the heat suddenly goes away and comes back. It is not polite to ignore a long list of objections to your hypothesis. Ascoli is not well informed, and definitely not rational. But none of the opponents of cold fusion are well informed. Not here, not in the mass media, at the Scientific American or Wikipedia. They are all -- without exception -- ignorant of the facts about cold fusion. Most have read nothing, and the ones who have read the literature fail to understand it. They do not understand the scientific method. That is, they do not understand that experiments are the only standard of truth, and when replicated experiments conflict with theory, the experiments are always right. Many of them think you must have a theory before you can accept an experimental result. Even the DoE reviewers made these kinds of elementary mistakes. See: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJresponsest.pdf


    If you are going to throw out people who are ill-informed and irrational, there will no one left opposed to cold fusion. It would be like throwing people out of science forums who think the Theory of Evolution might be wrong, or there is a problem with Special Relativity. (There seem to be a lot of people who have it in for Darwin and Einstein.) There are no well-grounded, rational objections to cold fusion, because as I said, it is congruent with calorimetry and the laws of thermodynamics. The only way to disprove it is show that calorimetry does not work. THH will not address that fact, even though I am confident he would dismiss a claim that thermodynamics might be wrong. That makes THH as nutty as Ascoli.



    By the way, I am not the only one who says that thermodynamics is the basis of cold fusion, and the proof that it is true. Every researcher said this, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. When the effect was announced in 1989, it was possible that F&P were making a mistake in calorimetry. As I said, anyone can make a mistake. Subsequently, the effect was widely replicated with a wide variety of excellent calorimeters, some of them made by the world's leading experts in calorimetry, such as at Texas A&M. F&P eventually employed four methods of calorimetry (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf), and other people used additional methods such as flow and Seebeck calorimetry. All methods confirmed the excess heat. So it is not possible the effect is an artifact of any one method. Once all of that transpired, there was no longer any basis to doubt the results. A widely-replicated high sigma result from experts using a variety of first-class instruments is true by definition. It is incontrovertible. If that were not so, no result in science would ever be fully accepted; no dispute would ever end; and no progress would be made. That is another thing THH and Ascoli fail to understand. You cannot go on year after year saying: "There might be some undiscovered error so I won't believe hundreds of scientists in 180 labs because I can envision some situation in which they are wrong even though I cannot describe that situation or give you falsifiable reasons why." That's rich, coming from someone who claims to believe in Popper and falsifiable arguments! What that is, is bullshit.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Mizuno’s calorimeter is sufficient to detect excess heat compared to a calibration run in similar conditions, as far as I can tell.

    Thanks again for that big reveal... in the eighties I did two years of flow and temperature measurement on all manner and size of pipes ,vessels and dirty fluiids...chlorine ..black liquor from RT to 200C...as you say its not rocket science and a cardboard box would suffice... but perhaps some form of neutron- absorber might be advisable .. til we know more


    Quote from Alan Smith

    We can all look forward to that

    I look forward to Ascoli's next big reveal... perhaps it is about 1993?

    Quote from Alan Smith

    And Ascoli will be able to return in a few days. We can all look forward to that, I have no objection to sceptics, but I do get grumpy with obsessional monomaniacs and faux-naieve critics. A shortcoming that I hope to remedy, but please, not yet.

    Well then be grumpy with all the obsessional monomaniacs and faux-naive critics here. The charge I bring is not that you are grumpy, but that you are biased.

    Exceptional Hydrogen Absorption of Palladium Nanoparticles

    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/a…/27/3/27_95/_pdf/-char/en


    ABSTRACT

    The nanometer-sized metals attract much attention since their physical and chemical

    properties are substantially different from those of bulk metals. In this work, neutron

    powder diffraction experiments on the nanoparticles of palladium deuteride, which is

    the most popular metal hydride, have been performed at 300, 150, and 44 K to

    investigate the position of the deuterium atoms in the fcc lattice of Pd. The Rietveld

    analysis revealed that D atoms are located at the tetrahedral (T) sites in addition to the

    octahedral (O) sites. This is in contrast to the result that only the O sites are occupied in

    bulk Pd and in other transition metals with the fcc lattice at ambient pressure and

    temperature. We guess that the T site occupation is due to the change in potential energy

    caused by the surface and/or distortion effects of nanoparticles


    Models 3 and 4,are that both T site and O-Site has D atom.

    Model3 is that D atom can occupy all site of the nano-particle, but

    Model4 is that D can occupy only T site in the shell region.

    Therefore, Model4 that D can occupy the O site in the core region and D can occupy both T site and O site in the shell region.


    WE conclude that Model4 is the most reliable based on the temperature dependence experiment,

    >the problem with LENR now is that neutron diffraction , gamma spectroscopy

    >are difficult to do from outside a hot 1 cm thick metal cylinder.


    I know that it is difficult to obtain the spectra from ColdFusion surface.

    I need to have the soft-x-ray spectra at less than 10keV and at around 500keV which is the theoretical calculation of electron transition from n=1 to n=0.

    The cold fusion is the surface reaction and need to adjust the metal surface potential on the positive side.

    So tool configuration in left figure is needed.

    Currently spectra data point of less than 10keV is insufficient whether it matches to the theoretical calculated value.

    >The current gas reactors are operating at 600K or so...

    But it can load D inside the metal faster than D2O electrolysis.



    capturing 'in media res' is very difficult.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6

    Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion

    Nature volume 570, pages45–51 (2019)

    Today I received the email on the Ticket ID [#5630136] from springernature

    Ticket ID [#5630136] Reply on the Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion

    https://www.springernature.com/jp

    and I inform the authors on my Cold Fusion theory and activity in this forum.

    So I think that they are preparing the Sequel of Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion

    I hope that sequel will include the latest progress of Cold Fusion theory and experiments.

    Now I am quite sure that cold fusion theory(hydride bond compression theory) is completed.


    Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply From Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control

    https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30250.95688


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

    https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27304.49926


    Quote from nkodama

    I need to have the soft-x-ray spectra at less than 10keV and at around 500keV which is the theoretical calculation of electron transition from n=1 to n=0.

    Quite a few people already are looking at that...

    an unexplored area

    because its not easy to access.

    Beryllium window...I think Tohoku Dai..

    Itoh reported something... the 10 kev region is quite busy..

    Page 18..

    vacuum +heat+ beryllium + spec is not cheap.....

    out of my payscale

    . gambare

    http://jcfrs.org/file/jcf21-proceedings.pdf

    lenr-forum.com/attachment/17803/.

    Thanks for your information.

    I know that this is very difficult.

    The commercial soft-x-ray measurement tool has restriction of the tool configuration so sample setting need to be designed properly.

    I found a few research paper and what I past is the best .

    [40] E. CAMPARI, S. FOCARDI, V. GABBANI, V. MONTALBANO, F. PIANTELLI, S. VERONESI, OVERVIEW OF H-NI SYSTEMS: OLD EXPERIMENTS AND NEW SETUP,

    5th Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen-Deuterium-Loading Metals, Asti, Italy (2004), Available from,

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…overviewOfH-NiSystems.pdf


    This research lab has several different labs and their reproducibility is excellent.

    The purpose of soft-x-ray measurement is to check whether the spectra match to the theoretical study.

    The direct evidence of EDO is to detect the soft-x-ray based on the theoretical calculation as follows. The theoretical calculation, which is now under study by Vavra Jerry and temporal results from the private communication shows that photons of these energies in case of relativistic Schrödinger equation are ~507.27 keV, ~2.486 keV, ~0.497 keV or 0.213 keV, depending on which transition is involved.


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.