ICCF24 LIVE discussion.

  • A great (and positive) analysis of what a scientific field of LENR could/should be doing

    Yes

    As I studied Metzler's ARPA-E presentation I listed the known groups approaching commercialization and considered which groups have already been doing what Metzler suggests in his concluding remarks.


    This has proved to be a valuable exercise. Applied to an industry wide group improvement effort... Invaluable!


    Team Google might be enticed to share every bit of research behind their solid state atomic and fusion energy patent development. They are seemingly in pursuit of carving out a large share of the CMNS energy market.


    Other groups that have been doing what Metzler suggests could also be enticed to share data and work together to advance all commercial efforts. The NASA presentation provided a rough overview of work began in 2012. Detailed research and data from 2022 has not been disclosed. Neither has progress on the GEC NASA Space Act Agreement been disclosed.


    How might we entice the most advanced teams to help other teams improve products and succeed in rapid market entry and energy market takeover?

    This nascent industry has the potential to face no other competition in the energy marketplace. Competition against each other is detrimental to the CMNS Energy Tech Industries and shortsighted.

  • This was more than an ICCF. It was the ICCF24 x Solid State Energy Summit, with the "x" articulating the extension of a CMNS meeting into engagement with a broader sector of policy, technology and financials. ICCF is the signature conference of the research CMNS community, while the Solid State Energy Summit represents a reach-out beyond ISCMNS for partnerships that will both collaborate with and complement LENR research. Steve Katinsky, co-founder of LENRIA, discussed this in his remarks at the end of the day (which I look forward to seeing when it's posted).


    Conference host Anthropocene Institute made the leap and exposed LENR science in the best possible setting to their friends in Silicon Valley. They also reached out beyond to bring global figures in to inform CMNS researchers about what is needed to take their research to the next level. The first day of the conference was an education for all in attendance, online or in-person. There were limited science reports. In its stead were global energy analysis, risk assessment, Technological Readiness factors, and a bullet list with the rubric LENR research scientists need to satisfy in order to gain investment capital. Anthropocene's Media Relations had released a statement saying as much:


    The conference will focus on observations, results, and theory, with an eye toward satisfying increased interest in practical fusion from the investment and research communities. https://oilandgaspress.com/new…-energy-summit-kicks-off/


    Former Executive Director of the IEA Nobuo Tanaka attended virtually, and reported that energy policy makers are searching for solutions beyond fossil fuels, indicating continued real interest in alternatives. But how does LENR develop into one of those alternatives? Conference attendees were treated to an advanced lesson in how investors think about "Risk Transfer Approaches" surrounding environmental, social and governance ESG factors, as presented by PhD quantitative analyst Jeffrey Bohn. And Carly Anderson was just one of the speakers who provided a required qualifying criteria for venture capital funding to develop a potential technology, and tips for lab groups on how to meet those criteria. These were the tutorials the LENR community needs to move forward to the next level.


    The investment crowd was educated, too. The conference featured several US agencies with established labs successfully pursuing LENR research dispelling negative perceptions and lifting the very real and serious research. NASA Principle Investigator and Physicist Theresa Benyo of Glenn Research Center presented on the Lattice Confinement Fusion LCF project, within an overview of the history of Glenn cold fusion research. US Navy Project Manager Oliver Barnham gave an overview and timeline of US Navy research and introduced the current replication program he's working on. [See notes on Theresa Benyo RE: ICCF24 LIVE discussion. ] Oliver Barnham [See notes Oliver Barnham here: RE: ICCF24 LIVE discussion. ]


    Later that week, Larry Forsley and former-Navy SPAWAR researcher Pam Mosier-Boss gave data on projects, as did US Army Corps of Engineers Benjamin Barrowes, whose father worked at the National Cold Fusion Institute back in the day, who presented data on the replication project he's doing. The overviews were given early, and the hard data provided later. Like the European Union and Japan, US agencies are funding Hydrogen Metal Energy openly because they can't afford not to.


    Scott Hsu, Senior Advisor and Lead Fusion Coordinator in the Office of the U/S for Science & Innovation and Program Director, ARPA-E of the U.S. Department of Energy, who does not like to hear the words "cold fusion", spoke about their new LENR funding program, tip-toein in with the vocabulary "considering issuing a new Exploratory Topic ...."


    The Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) is considering issuing a new Exploratory Topic under Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) DE-FOA-0002784 and DE-FOA-0002785 to solicit applications for financial assistance in pursuit of hypotheses-driven approaches toward realizing diagnostic evidence of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) that are convincing to the wider scientific community. A goal of this Exploratory Topic will be to establish clear practices to rigorously answer the question, "should this field move forward given that LENR could be a potentially transformative carbon-free energy source, or does it conclusively not show promise?" https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/…d3-4afc-bd17-bc7a7f05fb2f. [ # RFI-0000065 ]


    The ARPA-E program is based on "recent progress in the field". The announcement includes references to the google Nature paper written by C.P. Berlinguette et. al., "Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion," Nature 570, 45 (2019) "and references therein", and the ARPA-e LENR Workshop https://arpa-e.energy.gov/even…uclear-reactions-workshop


    This was not the only time I heard how the google Nature paper was the catalyst to thinking that we should take another look at this. The paper describing their program was a huge disappointment to the LENR community, where the lack of veteran researcher involvement was criticized. Nevertheless, the google program managers had their own idea, and ultimately concluded that there is something anomalous going on, and they continue investigation to find out what it is. Apparently, that sentiment alone was enough for other researchers outside of LENR to feel confident about approaching their supervisors with a proposal to experiment to see what people are talking about. 33-years of experimental data showing nuclear reactions are happening in a solid material, but a google paper ignites action. We know now there is a much greater interest in pursuing new energy research than we hear about. People are laying silently in-wait for the right opportunity to present itself, and then, springing up with ideas.


    If you want to unlock that potential inventiveness, there's nothing like a cash award. Carl Page announced a Prize will be administered with the intention of spurring research interest and engineering in solid state energy. But how to measure success is the current question, and it will be some months before we hear further word on that. To be determined is what type of measurement will indicate a winner? [Notes on Carl Page's update here: RE: ICCF24 LIVE discussion. ]


    Peter Diamondis zoomed in virtually for a discussion and confirmed from experience that a Prize can stimulate the technology breakthroughs needed and jumpstart development money. They would like to see $100 million dollar prize, with a Winner and Runners-Up, but raising that much is still a problem. Depending on the racing criteria, a few million to $10 million is more likely.


    Anthropocene Institute co-Founder and Director Carl Page and Chief Science Officer Frank Ling accessed their network to attract the best and the brightest, and rolled out a red carpet leading directly to the LENR lab. Curiosity, collaboration, and money is knocking, and LENR researchers need to answer. However, solid state energy has no technology; more R&D needs to happen. To show the current level of development, a "Tech Expo" was set up in the Grand Hall. Brillouin Energy had a room where they had brought one of their Hot Tube test generators, and conference co-sponsor Clean Planet had private office for their in-person group. There were tables with info and merch from NASA, nuclear advocacy groups, and our comics and t-shirts. Live demos were scheduled.


    Frank Gordon and Harper Whitehouse were able to operate the small Lattice Energy Converter LEC on a table, creating an anomalous voltage by an as yet unknown mechanism. This was a success demonstration of a growing number of devices being researched to provide LENR direct to electricity. Fabrice David, co-creator of the Fusion Diode, was attending in-person, and George Egely zoomed in virtually with a video of his device claimed to anomalously amplify electrical input by 10.


    The LEC was there in the Grand Hall operating Live during most of the four-day conference making microwatts of electricity. The hope is to scale the effect to a useful output. There were a lot of suggestions to that effect and this group generated a lot of interest. Go to http://www.inovl.com/ for more.


    In the US, Brillouin Energy stands alone in their successful engineering efforts towards a technology. They hauled their Hot Tube along with the box of requisite measuring apparatus it's contained in, all designed by Chief Technical Officer Robert Godes and his team, from the Berkeley lab down to the Computer History Museum in Mountain View. It was on wheels, but Bay area traffic and roads in need of repair made for a bumpy ride and shook the unit into a fatal state. The live demo with the Sterling Engine didn't make it through the meeting. Unfortunate. Nevertheless, the Brillouin crew touted their steadily increasing results, reports of which can be found on their website. https://brillouinenergy.com/


    Clean Planet CEO Hideki Yoshino leads the number one R&D LENR program on the planet. They have incrementally increased heat output of the Metal Hydrogen Energy generator and its cousins, as well as transmutation work, over the last decade. The word is they can make over 2 kW and are working with a Japanese company to make a water boiler by 2025. This is huge Follow their work at https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/.


    The Poster area was in that same Grand Hall, though many of the posters were configured digitally and hosted online. LENR-forum's Diadon put a poster together at https://lenrdao.com/ Alan Smith gave away LENR-forum cards and talked at the poster. I did not make it through to speak with everybody there at the Posters and I regret that. I was there with Eli Elliott to capture video for our documentary movie, and during Poster Session, between interviews, we were at the Coldscope table, giving away books, comics, and t-shirts with art by Matt Howarth. See https://www.discovercoldfusion.com/ and https://www.atomicfuntime.com/



    There was so much action, I was out of my mind trying to get what I could, and it wasn't nearly enough. This mini-Science Expo was a trial run for the next one, the one ready to exhibit a usable technology. Marshall McLuhan remarked how the service environment for any new technology is always in place as a "ground", before the technology comes on the scene as a "figure". The solid state energy service environment sampled at the ICCF24 shows a ground almost assembled. If McLuhan is right, the technology can not be far behind.

    Organizing an international conference is not an easy task, especially with a mix of online, in-person presentations, and it was smooth. Anthropocene's Frank Ling can science around with the best of them, but at the meeting, he also safely managed multiple world-lines involving nuclear scientists, artists, rappers, and the tech investors that Silicon Valley is famed for, with the whole thing broadcast live to world, oh, and during a bump in a pandemic. Participants took COVID tests each morning and had to show a negative result to enter the space. I had never even taken a COVID test until I had to take these tests for the conference. Once entered, there were big Airlock air-cleaning machines, and high-end masks were available. Confident in my immunity and consistently negative test results, I chose the paper masks with the ICCF24 logo for most of the time, but use of masks fluctuated. In smaller groups, near the Airlock machines, and outside, it was easy to feel safe interacting with no mask. In a smaller room with a crowd, the masks were worn by most.


    The Lovelace Room held a smaller, second stage where I attended several lectures. Kazuaki Matsui presented about the New Hydrogen Energy NHE program in Japan which ran for five years during the 90s. He commented how they never really found anything positive in their experiments. But Melvin Miles, who attended the conference online, posted in the comments how he found clear signature excess heat in the larger cells he activated at NHE during the last few months of the program. Martin Fleischmann's analysis agreed with that, but apparently, it wasn't enough to keep the program going.

    Use of AI as a Tool for LENR Research was also in that room. I wanted to know, could artificial intelligence find the theory of LENR? Sadly, the lecture was way over my head, confirming that I haven't a clue how AI operates. However, speaker Charles Martin, who designs AI systems for a living, told us in plain simple terms that AI can only solve "basic physics" problems, nothing like the problem of LENR. At this point, if we want a theory of LENR then we need humans to do it. Nevertheless, this work informs data modeling, too, so there will likely to be some crossover for AI in the LENR modeling groups. [ Notes for Charles Martin RE: ICCF24 LIVE discussion. ]



    The ISCMNS holds an Awards Banquet at the end of each conference, but this one was held promptly on the second evening.





    This time, ISCMNS Chief Executive Officer William Collis, who also lectured on Exotic Particles, distributed the gold Minoru Toyoda Award to Edmund Storms, a 33-year CMNS veteran researcher and author. Storms had, in the last couple years, found the formula to make active material, that is, a palladium-powder mixture, pressed and treated, that will produce excess energy everytime. These materials are now being tested by others, with at least one confirmation of a nuclear reaction. He signed copies of his 2014 book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction published by Christy Frazier, Managing Editor of Infinite Energy magazine. I also had a copy of the first edition of Cold Fusion magazine published back in 1994 with Edmund Storms on the cover. See http://infinite-energy.com/

    Chef Martin Yan cooked the banquet food and educated the audience on how his favorite salad is made. He also chopped a whole chicken in 18 secs! Chef Yan is an ambassador of culture through food, and put the whole crowd in a great frame of mind through their stomachs.


    Not afraid of a little subversion, the art was unleashed after dinner. A conference attendee - whose name I need to know - sang a fantastic version of The Impossible Dream. Science rap artist Baba "I don't give a deuteron" Brinkman performed his latest "Cold Fusion" plus amazing feats of freestyle LENR lyric, even rhyming with "indoor gardening"! Check out his Youtube for more of his science rap.


    You Must LENR

    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.

    Cold Fusion

    External Content youtu.be
    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.




    There were so many great lectures I witnessed, and lots I didn't. It will take a while to process what was reported. I've been checking the ICCF24 Youtube channel to see what I've missed. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY5ZAbIS5LNSlAM001veh9w


    Now, I'm making a movie! I went to the ICCF24 to get more interviews with original scientists from 1989 and the early 90s for a documentary movie about the early controversy. Eli Elliott showed up to do the camera work. (Eli is the man responsible for all of those ICCF18 videos posted up on the ColdFusionNow Youtube channel back in 2013.) We interviewed David J. Nagel, Kazuaki Matsui, Tom Passel, Thomas Dolan, Francesco Celani, Ben Barrowes, Alan Goldwater and Robert Godes. We also spoke with a young college student from Las Vegas, Nevada who is interested in studying more about LENR and will check out Texas Tech where Robert Duncan is located. On the way back home, I stopped over the Energy Research Center with Alan Smith and interviewed Fran Tanzella on his account of the early days. We now have ten years of video interviews of scientists telling their story. We will piece together the account of those early days in the scientists' own words and lay it down for all time.


    Hey! Do not forget to check out the LENR Short Course videos https://youtu.be/eLm7YqLiMvI They provide the basics on the tools used in this field. Usually given in person on the day before the conference, this year David J. Nagel put together the set online. I, and Jed Rothwell who hooked me up, too, stepped in to help Dave Nagel edit the series because the Anthropocene Institute unexpectedly lost a valuable member Richard Chan. I met Richard at the 2019 CF/LANR Colloquia at MIT hosted by Mitchell Swartz and Peter Hagelstein. Richard was capturing video with serious equipment (compared to my rinky-dink operation), but I knew we would be friends when he showed me the Cold Fusion Now! sticker on his water bottle. We worked together to get some great video interviews at that meeting. Then, he got up and blew my mind delivering a lecture containing both heavy science and law describing his work at the US Patent and Trademark Office, telling us how they operate, in particular, within the nuclear energy and new LENR-designations. THANK YOU Richard and lots of Love to You, for making the world a better place.


    The ICCF24 x Solid State Energy Summit was held at the Computer History Museum. Here we are only 4 decades into the computer revolution, and there's already a museum! And the next transformational technology was showcased in that historic wrapper. It was remarked that 33 years isn't really that long a time to have a breakthrough development. Florian Metzler presented the analogy of the vacuum tube, and how the anomalous behavior took decades to understand, but still, a technology was developed in spite of the lack of understanding.


    Going from a science to a technology will be a bumpy ride, and there could be no better first step than what Carl Page and the Anthropecene team provided to the Solid State Energy researchers at the Summit. As a pioneer of Internet applications, he was there when the dot com bubble began, and he was there when it burst. Emerging with his soul still in tact, he's committed the Anthropocene Institute and its resources to solving the world's biggest problem. To do it, Carl Page and his team brought a world of talent and resources to the front door of the CMNS science research community and is hoping "everyone gets to know each other and we can build the supply chain we need to get research done, get socialized in the right places. We have to work on how papers get published. This is an opportunity to create an industry here."


    The next ICCF25 is scheduled for September 2023 and will be hosted by Konrad Czerski and the team in Stettin, Poland. Surely the goodest news will be upon us, and we will celebrate Breakthrough 2023.



    Til then, you got to enjoy Eli Elliott's phone mash-up

    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.


    Goodbye Dinner friends:





    Plus, we went to the Sports Page and surrepticiously dropped a pack of Resonating Hydrogen coasters at the bar. I hope they look at the URL on the back, and become intrigued.


    MAX Attachments Allowed reached!

  • Nevertheless, the google program managers had their own idea, and ultimately concluded that there is something anomalous going on, and they were going "to find out what it is".

    I do not think the paper said that. It said the experiments are challenging and worth doing on their own merits. It gave no hint that they think cold fusion is real. The Nature editorial that accompanied the paper was a hatchet job no better than any of the other hatchet jobs Nature has published since 1989. There was no softening, no concessions, or no indication they know anything about the research.

  • Kazuaki Matsui presented about the New Hydrogen Energy NHE program in Japan which ran for five years during the 90s. He commented how they never really found anything positive in their experiments. But Melvin Miles, who attended the conference online, posted in the comments how he found clear signature excess heat in the larger cells he activated at NHE during the last few months of the program. Martin Fleischmann's analysis agreed with that, but apparently, it wasn't enough to keep the program going.

    Miles and Fleischmann were very upset about this. Look for the term NHE in Fleischmann's letters:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf


    Here we are only 4 decades into the computer revolution, and there's already a museum!

    Eight decades since computers were invented in 1945. By 1950 people knew about them. They began having a large impact around 1960. Bill Gates, I, and many others learned how to use them in the mid-1960s. Microcomputers (later called personal computers) that were cheap enough for ordinary folks to buy emerged in the late 1970s.


    I have not been to the museum in California, but I see from the online materials they have many exhibits from the 1950s on, long before microcomputers emerged.


    Here is part of my own personal computer museum. This is a planar core RAM module and a DIMM semiconductor RAM module. The planar core is 64 bits x 64 bits = 4096 bits. This is the kind of memory computers had when Gates and I learned to program them. It is 10.5 cm per side, 110 cm^2, bit density is 37 bits/cm^2. The DIMM is an old 4 GB ram, 34,359,738,368 bits. It is 13.5 cm x 3 cm = 40.5 cm^2; 848,388,502 bits/cm^2. Bit density has increased by 22.9 million. Newer RAM DIMM modules are usually 32 MB I think. There is one with 512 GB.


  • I do not think the paper said that. It said the experiments are challenging and worth doing on their own merits. It gave no hint that they think cold fusion is real. The Nature editorial that accompanied the paper was a hatchet job no better than any of the other hatchet jobs Nature has published since 1989. There was no softening, no concessions, or no indication they know anything about the research.

    Yes, you are correct. I am paraphrasing. It should not be in quotes. I did not look up exactly what they said. Essentially, that is what they said. They are not stopping. google will continue, because they believe there is something there. The presenter Ben Barrowes remarked about the google paper, and how it made him think he could propose something because of that exact sentiment. He got that sentiment from the paper. He is not alone, as Scott Hsu said as much. This is how the google Nature paper had an impact, despite not being what the LENR community had hoped for.

  • They are not stopping. google will continue, because they believe there is something there.

    I do not get the sense they believe there is something there. I get the sense they are playing political games, but I cannot image what games, or what purpose they serve. Judging by the Nature editorial that was published with the paper, this was a crude hatchet job intended to make people think cold fusion does not exist. That seems like an expensive hatchet job, so I do not know why they would bother. They could have accomplished the same thing with the usual bullshit editorial in Nature.


    If they continue with the program the way they have done up to now, they will waste another $10 million (or however much it was), and accomplish nothing. They did the same experiment 400 times, with no hint of a positive result. Peter Hagelstein wondered what they learned between experiment 399 and 400. He had other unkind things to say about them.


    The Google paper in Nature was a masterpiece of obfuscation, misdirection, and confusion. I think I know what they did -- sort of -- because I asked them, and I heard through the grapevine.


    This reminds me of the first NHE program, which was a travesty conducted by people who knew less about cold fusion than I did (which is to say, hardly anything on a professional PhD level). It was a waste of money. It gave cold fusion a bad name. When Miles visited their labs, did an experiment, and produced excess heat, they refused to look at it, and they did not mention it in their final reports. Matsui did not mention it in his presentation, which upset Miles. The final report and Matsui's summary should have said: "Miles concluded that his experiment produced excess heat, but we disagree [for thus and such reasons]." For them to not even mention it is way out of bounds in academic science. You do not invite one of the world's top electrochemists to your lab, have him work for months, and then refuse to mention his results in your final report. If he came for a 3-day visit that would be another matter.


    With friends like Google and Matsui, we don't need enemies.

  • I do not get the sense they believe there is something there. I get the sense they are playing political games, but I cannot image what games, or what purpose they serve. Judging by the Nature editorial that was published with the paper, this was a crude hatchet job intended to make people think cold fusion does not exist. That seems like an expensive hatchet job, so I do not know why they would bother. They could have accomplished the same thing with the usual bullshit editorial in Nature.


    If they continue with the program the way they have done up to now, they will waste another $10 million (or however much it was), and accomplish nothing. They did the same experiment 400 times, with no hint of a positive result. Peter Hagelstein wondered what they learned between experiment 399 and 400. He had other unkind things to say about them.


    The Google paper in Nature was a masterpiece of obfuscation, misdirection, and confusion. I think I know what they did -- sort of -- because I asked them, and I heard through the grapevine.

    Rightfully so, Trevithick/Google took a beating from Hagelstein and others about doing the same Parkhomov experiment 400x's and failing each time. But IMO the good they have done for the field outweighs that. As mentioned, some of the new presenters at this ICCF expressed gratitude to Google for either spurring them on to do their own research, or giving them the cover they needed to start.


    Trevithick has stayed involved with the community even after the nature article. That tells me something. He attended the ICCF23 right after that Nature paper came out, and hosted a discussion panel (Nagel, Duncan, Schenkel) at this ICCF24. In his talk he proudly pointed out that some on Team Google (Project Charleston) decided to stay active in the field. Indeed, Schenkel was on the panel, and his results were the one bright spot in the Nature paper.


    That does not spell "I do not get the sense they believe there is something there) to me.

  • Miles and Fleischmann were very upset about this. Look for the term NHE in Fleischmann's letters:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf


    Eight decades since computers were invented in 1945. By 1950 people knew about them. They began having a large impact around 1960. Bill Gates, I, and many others learned how to use them in the mid-1960s. Microcomputers (later called personal computers) that were cheap enough for ordinary folks to buy emerged in the late 1970s.

    That is a good question. When do we define the start of the revolution? It isn't one moment. I guess I was thinking about it in terms of the societal applications that were the final straw in breaking the old institutions, when us ordinary folks got involved.

  • Trevithick has stayed involved with the community even after the nature article.

    He was involved long before that, as well. McKubre and others speak well of him. I do not blame him, exactly. I suppose the people at Nature would only accept the paper written in that uninformative style, accompanied by the infuriating editorial. It seems that Nature said something like: "we'll publish your paper as long as it casts doubt on the people you are replicating, and as long as we can include an editorial with flat-out lies about your research." I think it is a violation of academic ethics to agree. I would never agree to that. Perhaps Trevithick et al. decided that even with those conditions, the paper would do more good than harm. Perhaps it did . . . But I wouldn't agree to it.

  • When do we define the start of the revolution?

    The computer revolution began in early 1943 at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering, with the ENIAC project. The revolution become an assured success, and future progress become inevitable in the summer of 1944, on a passenger railroad platform in Aberdeen Maryland, when Herman Goldstine had a chance meeting with John von Neumann. Goldstine was a young mathematician working on ENIAC. Years later, Goldstine remembered that he was understandably nervous upon meeting the world-famous mathematician on the platform at the Aberdeen station. Goldstine recalled:


    "Fortunately for me, von Neumann was a warm friendly person who did his best to make people feel relaxed in his presence. The conversation soon turned to my work. When it became clear to von Neumann that I was concerned with the development of an electronic computer capable of 333 multiplications per second, the whole atmosphere of our conversation changed from one of relaxed good humor to one more like the oral examination for the doctor's degree in mathematics."


    von Neumann soon wrote "First draft of a report on the EDVAC" and other seminal papers in collaboration with Goldstine. He defined von Neumann architecture and the methods of stored program control. Later, at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, von Neuman gathered a group of mathematicians and engineers and oversaw the IAS computer, which was a huge step forward. It was replicated at Los Alamos and elsewhere, in various versions in including the JOHNNIAC. von Neumann did not just oversee this project; he personally designed key parts of the machine and solved many difficult conceptual problems and engineering problems.


    The IAS computer had an immediate and profound impact on the whole human race: it was used to develop the hydrogen bomb. I gather they couldn't have built the damn thing without it. By the mid- to late 1950s computers were essential to things like the air traffic control system, the air defense system, nuclear weapons and reactors, and many large business. In 1956 there were ~600 computers. By 1966, after the introduction of the IBM 360, there were 30,000. 90,000 by 1970. (Computers in Business (textbook), 1972 edition, p. 52, 53.) People did not see them, but they already had a profound effect on industry, government, the military and so on.


    Sometimes, one event and one person changes the whole world. Sometimes you can pinpoint the day, the hour and the person who changed history.


    I guess I was thinking about it in terms of the societal applications that were the final straw in breaking the old institutions, when us ordinary folks got involved.

    That was mainly due to the microprocessor, introduced in 1971, and the internet, which was mainly designed in 1973 by Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf. The internet succeeded largely thanks to support from the politician and later V.P. Al Gore. People made fun of Gore for saying this, but it is true. See:


    https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt

  • Very nice presentation by Dr McKubre, the Youtube solution being, I think the future, because it gives dynamism to papers often very heavy especially for beginners.



    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.

  • I thought the Telex started it in the 1930s

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telex

    It's funny that people here should talk about computer systems. In 1986 I came up with what might be the end evolution of computers. It's called reconfigurable computing nowadays. It is a multi-billion industry (I didn't get the money). I still have ideas I'm working on that will change the computer industry I just need to raise a little money.


    Who is Steve Casselman
    Who is Steve Casselman? These are some notes 1 1987 SBIR
    bit.ly

    https://bit.ly/FPGA-Fabric-Eats-The-World


    I'm a visionary. I see how things work all in one flash. Just as I saw how computer systems would evolve and how we would one-day program hardware with software languages I saw how coherent alpha-beta phase waves were one way to explain cold fusion. Only quantum mechanics can explain the weirdness that is cold fusion. My explanation is simple, straightforward forward, and recorded on video. In 2012 I "saw" how it all went together. Just like I did with reconfigurable computing in 1986.


    Cheers

    Steve

  • Steve_Casselman


    Thank you for the mini-autobiography , I'm impressed.. Can you describe some of your cold fusion work?

    Currently, it's all thought experiments. I predicted alpha-beta phase waves in 2012. In 2017 phase waves were recorded in this paper published in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020


    More importantly, they recorded a "mystery" where the phase of the area they were recording suddenly flipped from alpha to beta through what they surmised was a "lattice realignment" This is also predicted by my theory. They just charged and discharged their samples. In my proposed experiment you change the sample and then plate to lock in the hydrogen. Then you stimulate it at a very low frequency to generate phase waves. When I presented this to McKubre in 2013 he told me a story about how somebody's kid cranked down the frequency on the cube target and the next day the target had melted.


    I'm trying to get the experiment done. I don't have the calorimetry chops or the money or the time to do it myself. I'm doing my day job which is creating a hardware/software codesign project. It's a runtime loadable microcoded algorithmic state machine that is programmed in a subset of C.