ICCF24 LIVE discussion.

  • Well, he shared his disappointement about the fact that he wasn't consulted by Google team when they attempted so many Parkhomov's replications.

    About Google, it remains strange that a "so great and responsible team" as highlighted yesterday by Trevithick followed the "Parkhomov way", a way came out from nowhere with albolutely no link with any theories previously knew in the field ?

    Parkhomov runs his reactor very hot. The failed replications could be due to a cold reactor.


    It is my beleive that electrons and photons form a quasiparticle called the polariton. Unless the reactor can produce the proper frequency of light through black body radiation, then the reactor will not work. Parkhomov runs his reactor very hot and therefore can produce this required frequency of light.


    This insight goes back to the Hot cat reactor where Rossi understood that a hot reactor could produce the reaction in a plasma. The Hot cat produced better results the hotter that it ran. Rossi went off and created the "Marie Curie" reactor: Rossi's first plasma reactor.


    I would asked the Google team replicators how hot they ran their replications. It could be that the replicators were constrained from high heat production or just afraid or unable to apply the required high heat to their reactors.


    Parkhomov's whole theory relies on the temperature of the bulk solid to be as high as possible above 1000ºC. It was 1700ºC + in the case of his 225 day reactor.


    The Google team based their replication on bad theory, the cold fusion theory. If the Google assumed the proper theory, the nanoplasmonic theory, they might have replicated Parkhomov.


    In the future like George Egely new plasma reactor, the sucessful LENR reactors will all be plasma reactors. The SAFIRE project teaches us that the reaction can be gainfully even when the plasma temperature exceeds 80,000K. The cold fusion meme will lead to failure as Google found out.

  • The Lenr are also a political topic like any other kind of topic. Also it is often the seducer who wins the investment to the detriment of the real worker.

    I let you guess who is the seducer, who is the worker on this picture.

    i can share plenty of other examples.


    About Parkhomov you mentioned technical things are more deep, trust me.

    Yes, a plasma is first of all more tunable and possesses some good points.


  • Oliver B from the Navy NAVSEA Warfare Centers and DARPA on the HIVER Electrochemistry Energy Project Results. He shows a US cold fusion timeline with DOE, SPAWAR, DOE NRL...


    There are issues and potential solutions. He puts a broad teaxm together from National Research Labs, Industry and Academia.

    Cells are Pt wires electrodes, heavy LiCl salt, PdCl2 salt, with 0.25 Tesla magnets. There is a Seebeck sensor roaming around the room for people to look at. CR-39 is used in their hot electrochemical experiments. Many tracks found on experimental runs and a lack of nuclear tracks on control runs.


    A statistical approach revealed the level of background neutrons. Background goes up and down in the lab. He needs more detectors though, situated around the lab getting neutron counts in real time.


    The model he is following at this time: Electochemically plated lattice structure w/Vacancies to Electron chemical deuterium loading in lattice to Parametric pumping through applied DC current to DD reaction. After experiments there is material analysis. No transmutations were found.


    He shows one run where an anomalous 5 Watts are present. RF was detected during experiments, including 330 MHz which others have reported that frequency also.

  • The Lenr are also a political topic like any other kind of topic.

    There is nothing political about it. If the research that is done is based on the incorrect set of assumptions, the research will not be successful.


    For example, it the SAFIRE system, there is no lattice compression to produce fusion, yet the SAFIRE plasma produces abundant transmutation. It is clear that the assumptions about the reaction based on lattice aided fusion are wrong. Google's assumptions they were told about the reaction were invalid, that is why they failed.


    The reaction is highly deceptive, what experimenters see in their research is the oposit of what they are expecting because of the nature of quantum mechanics. Like Richard Feynman once said, "nobody understands quantum mechanics".

  • Ben Barrowes CRREL US Army Research was at the ICCF1 in Salt Lake City when he was 16 years old. He found a sense of wonder, that we could try to figure out some of though secrets of the universe and he went into electrical engineering. He worked in the Army trying to find unexploded bombs underground.

    A new program is starting up. Army got more interested recently. He wanted to do a replication of HIVER, Oliver B's project. Here's the layout:


    They have not had a full experiment, but now that funding is flowing, they will do more than just turn it on.


    Another thing they are interested in doing is Palladium Laser following Biberian and Mastromatteo. This is preliminary, they just wanted to see what would happen, but they are planning more tighter situations.


    He looked at the locations where the lasers hit, and at first he didn't see anything, but when he looked closer, there were little tiny spots. He looked at them under SEM, and saw that under the Blue laser, there is a crater and a debris field, and other elements that weren't there before.


    Looking at the red laser spot, there was no nickel (like the blue spot) but more calcium and silicon.


    CR-39 shows activity, but not where you would expect near where the lasers were. he does not know what made the patch showing on the detector and asks, does anybody know?



    This is the first year of a three-year funding situation for Barrowes. He feels there is a sea-change in attitudes and optimistic about forwarding the research.

  • Evidence of reproducible tritium production in a pulsed electrolytic cell [virtual] - Guido Parchi | FutureOn Srl, Italy


    This could be the nuclear lab rat experiment people are looking for! They say it works every time. Better than excess heat because people believe tritium, and it remains after the experiment, whereas heat is evanescent.


    Also, this is easier and faster than Pam Boss's CR-39 lab rat.


    They have independent third party confirmation that it is tritium from 5 laboratories.



    PLUS heat after death for 12 hours. What's not to like?!

  • He looked at the locations where the lasers hit, and at first he didn't see anything, but when he looked closer, there were little tiny spots. He looked at them under SEM, and saw that under the Blue laser, there is a crater and a debris field, and other elements that weren't there before.

    This is an example of nanoplasmonics. Polaritons are being created using laser light on metal in a hydrogen atmosphere. As these polaritons aggregate, they form Bose condensates which are transmutation active. There are multiple experiments using low powered laser eradication of nanoparticles in solution that show nuclear energy effects.


    For example, see


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4268



    Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua-ions

    Authors: A. V. Simakin, G. A. Shafeev

    Abstract:


    Initiation of nuclear reactions in Thorium nuclei is experimentally studied under laser exposure of Au nanoparticles suspended in the aqueous solution of Th(NO3)4 (232Th). It is found that the reaction pathway depends in which water, either H2O or D2O, the laser exposure is carried out. Saturation of the liquids (H2O or D2O) with gaseous H2 or D2, respectively, enhances the nuclear reactions under laser exposure allowing their excitation at peak intensity as low as 1010 W/cm2. Enhanced gamma-activity of the probe is observed after the end of laser exposure for several hours.

  • The Role of Appropriate Calorimetric Methods for Scaling-up LENR Devices and the Irrelevance of Coefficient of Performance (COP) - Daniel Gruenberg | Mizuno Technology, Inc., Thailand


    Very impressive. They have made a great deal of progress since Mizuno and I published papers.


    The "irrelevance" of COP applies to this reactor type. It means the reaction is triggered or increased with temperature, and the temperature can be as high as you like by changing insulation. In an experimental unit, heat is produced by resistance heating. The amount of electricity needed is a function of the insulation, so there is no fixed ratio between input and output. So in that sense it is irrelevant. It would be relevant to other kinds of reactors that are triggered or controlled with electricity.

  • if the insulation is too high then the reaction will get carried away and all will melt.

    The Role of Appropriate Calorimetric Methods for Scaling-up LENR Devices and the Irrelevance of Coefficient of Performance (COP) - Daniel Gruenberg | Mizuno Technology, Inc., Thailand


    Very impressive. They have made a great deal of progress since Mizuno and I published papers.


    The "irrelevance" of COP applies to this reactor type. It means the reaction is triggered or increased with temperature, and the temperature can be as high as you like by changing insulation. In an experimental unit, heat is produced by resistance heating. The amount of electricity needed is a function of the insulation, so there is no fixed ratio between input and output. So in that sense it is irrelevant. It would be relevant to other kinds of reactors that are triggered or controlled with electricity.

  • It would be relevant to other kinds of reactors that are triggered or controlled with electricity.

    Or lasers, or pulsing or some other stimulation technique that takes a fixed or irreducible amount of power. Temperature as a stimulus does not take a fixed amount of power. Furthermore, cold fusion generates its own heat once you get it started. So, if you can stimulate it with heat only, it resembles a wood fire after the kindling ignites the larger logs. It is self sustaining in this configuration. I hope it can be scaled to a very small size for use in things like hearing aid batteries, with moderate temperatures. In other words, I hope the COP can be made infinitely high.


    A hearing aid battery or pacemaker will not work if the temperature must be high. That is what I said here, around minute 16:30:


    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.

  • if the insulation is too high then the reaction will get carried away and all will melt.

    Sure. Gruenberg discussed this. It may take a lot of work to find a way to regulate the heat, and remove it as needed. It is a little hard to imagine how you would do this with an earphone, or a cell phone. I can imagine how to do it with a steam turbine.

  • It was a phenomenal ICCF24. I followed virtually and based on the comments I saw in the Chat, I would say others feel the same. Many of whom are part of the LENR research community, and/or from the "Old Guard", and some from the US government labs.


    Was ICCF24 a turning point, and if so what exactly made it so? The field has had many successes over the years, so what is the difference now?

  • Attitude.

    Whose attitude? And how did that change, and what changed it from before? I am intrigued by this. Personally, I came to my own conclusion this was a turning point for LENR, but on further thought I am not sure why I came to think that.


    There have been so many successes before, and in fact much of the good news the past 4 days was from replications of earlier pioneer work done by the old guard. Then I thought; well, it must be the government labs are now showing positive results, but they have been since 1989!


    So then thought; maybe it is because the DOE (ARPA-E) is on board, but they have been funding LENR for decades.


    Oh well, good problem to be confused about.

  • Was ICCF24 a turning point, and if so what exactly made it so?

    That remains to be seen. There have often been what looked like turning points that turned nowhere, or went into dead ends.


    For example, they are talking about a $100 million Ansari X-prize for cold fusion. That's grand, but they talked about that in 2017 and nothing came of it. Not $100 million, or $1 million. Not even $10,000. Most cold fusion researchers are hamstrung because they do not even have $10,000. I personally have provided such sums. So, I am heartily sick of hearing from fantastically wealthy people that "gee, we really like cold fusion and we want to support it, and golly here is $100 million burning a hole in my pocket!" I also have a low regard for venture capitalists who say they want to give the researchers money after they have a proven product. At that point they will not need money. Every industrial company on earth will throw money at them! That is not a "venture." It just means they want a piece of the action without taking any real risk. As Mark Twain said, "the only people that a bank will loan money to is the very people who don't need it."


    Perhaps nothing will come of the X-Prize this time. I will believe such things when I see them -- not before.


    To take another example, the Clean Plant Roadmap (below) shows them developing a 350 W prototype this year. Not that they have finished it, but they will finish it. Again, I will believe it when I see it. Why didn't we see more about that 1 kW prototype they "started testing" in May 2021. Are they still testing it? How are those tests going? Why are they making a smaller, 350 W prototype now? (Not that I am hung up on actual power levels, but it does seem a little odd.) The Roadmap shows the Miura boiler company selling products in 2025. And again . . . I will believe it when I see it. I am jaded. I have seen too many people confidently claim they would do things like this. They all failed.


    It is understandable the researchers and companies do not wish to reveal technical details. Or that they do not want to admit a prototype never panned out. But if that is how they intend to operate, I think it would be prudent to say nothing about upcoming milestones. They should only discuss things they have actually accomplished, and they should provide proof. Otherwise they lose credibility.


  • Hi Alan,

    Thank you for attending ICCF-24 at Solid State Energy Summit (July 25 - 28, from 9AM PT). We hope you enjoyed the conference and all the talks that occurred.


    We plan to have replays of the talks and slides available a week or two after the conference, with permission from the speakers. So subscribe to our Youtube channel and hit the bell icon to get a notification of when they are posted.


    Thank you again for your attendance and hope to see you next year in Poland for ICCF25.


    Signing off from the Computer History Museum in Silicon Valley,

    ICCF24 Organizing Committee

    [email protected]