Post ICCF24 thread.

Quote from rubycarat

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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 Na

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

So I edited the post and removed the quotes to make to make it truer. I also added a couple links. I have more photos to upload but reached the max.

I do believe I heard those exact words, originally written, during the conference. From who? I do not know. Maybe Matt Trevithick? I will have to look out for that in the video talks.

I did not like the way that paper was written and I would have to review it again to say why. I remember it was within reading the first couple paragraphs I had a sinking feeling. But whatever you are thinking their intention is, look what is the result. There exist some researchers who see this paper as a reason to initiate research in LENR. This was stated at the conference. People are using this paper to justify a research proposal. I am baffled too, but this is how it is. I wonder how many got this jumpstart? I wonder who is still waiting for another sign? What will it take?

Artifacts have services and disservices. We could list them all out but the google paper performed a service of activating other research efforts.

Quote from Seatrout

I thought the Telex started it in the 1930s

Sure. That was a precursor to the internet. Electronic communication really began in 1844, with the introduction of the telegram. By the 1850s millions of telegrams were sent. They had a large impact, especially in the U.S. because it was so spread out. As Arthur Clarke remarked, the telegraph and railroads knitted the U.S. into a nation. Telegraphers such as Thomas Edison were the high tech, wired-in experts of their day, similar to programmers today. Their culture was similar. They were prone to all-nighters, practical jokes, and filthy conditions. They were used to having instantaneous casual conversations with people hundreds of miles away, and hearing news from all over the world within hours of events. They were well educated, often autodidacts.

Here is an interesting book about telegraphers culture: "Wired Love A Romance of Dots and Dashes," by Ella C. Thayer (1880), who was an accomplished telegrapher.

Wired Love: A Romance of Dots and Dashes

Here she is describing a flirtation with someone on the wire she has not met. She is not sure if the person -- "C" -- is male or female, a situation similar to today's internet ambiguity where you can never tell who someone is, or what age or sex.

"Certainly," Nattie replied readily. "I am sure we are far enough apart to get on without quarreling, if, as they say, distance lends enchantment!"

"Particularly when I pride myself upon my sweet disposition!" said "C." . . .

"I fear you will have to prove your sweetness before I shall believe in it," Nattie responded to "C," all unaware of what she had done, or that the strange young gentleman went on his way with the firm resolve to pass by that office again and obtain another smile!

"It shall be my sole aim hereafter," "C" replied; and then asked, "Have you a pleasant office there?"

"I regret to say no." Then looking around, and describing what she saw—"a long, dark little room, into which the sun never shines, a crazy and a wooden chair, a high stool, desk, instruments—that is all—Oh! And me!" . . .

"Excuse me,"—some one at another office on the line here broke in—and with more politeness than is sometimes shown in interrupting conversations on the wire—"I have a message to send," and forthwith began calling. . . .

"I wonder," she thought, as she took up her book again, and tried to bury the remembrance of her accident therein, "I do wonder if this 'C' is he or she!"

Soon, however, she heard "X n" "call" once more, and this time she laid her book aside very readily.

"You did not describe the principal part of your office—yourself!" "C" said, when she answered the "call."

"How can I describe myself?" replied Nattie. "How can anyone—properly? One sees that same old face in the glass day after day, and becomes so used to it that it is almost impossible to notice even the changes in it; so I am sure I do not see how one can tell how it really does look—unless one's nose is broken—or one's eyes crossed—and mine are not—or one should not see a looking-glass for a year! I can only say I am very inky just now!"

"Oh! that is too bad!" "C" said; then, with a laugh, "It has always been a source of great wonder to me how certain very plain people of my acquaintance could possibly think themselves handsome. But I see it all now! Can you not, however, leave the beauty out, and give me some sort of an idea-about yourself for my imagination to work upon?"

"Certainly!" replied Nattie, with a mischievous twinkle in her eye that "C" knew not of. "Imagine, if you please, a tall young man, with—"

"C" "broke" quickly, saying,

"Oh, no! You cannot deceive me in that way! Under protest I accept the height, but spurn the sex!"

"Why, you do not suppose I am a lady, do you?" queried Nattie.

"I am quite positive you are. There is a certain difference in the 'sending,' of a lady and gentleman, that I have learned to distinguish. Can you truly say I am wrong?"

Nattie evaded a direct reply, by saying,

"People who think they know so much are often deceived; now I make no surmises about you, but ask, fairly and squarely, shall I call you Mr., Miss, or Mrs. 'C'?"

"Call me neither. Call me plain 'C', or picture, if you like, in place of your sounder, a blonde, fairy-like girl talking to you, with pensive cheeks and sunny—"

"Don't you believe a word of it!"—some one on the wire here broke in, wishing, probably, to have a finger in the pie; "picture a hippopotamus, an elephant, but picture no fairy!"

"Judge not others by yourself, and learn to speak when spoken to!" "C" replied to the unknown . . .

Quote from JedRothwell

but picture no fairy!"

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from JedRothwell

"Judge not others by yourself, and learn to speak when spoken to!" "C" replied to the unknown . . .

Classic jed.

When I say "phase" I mean the bond length between 2 Pd atoms. You can imagine a pure crystal, Grown in the same way they grow a silicon ingot. https://princetonscientific.co…palladium-single-crystal/

Here you can see a single wavefront while charging the target. My thought experiment envisions stimulating the target in such a way as to create multiple waves of these coherent phase waves.

These are things that have already been done and have been positive, that have already created demos.... I'm sorry for you, you'll see you're too late.. We'll shoot you and you'll get bored.. When we consider the lack of originality of experiments in electrolysis for 30 years, it is to cry..

The main religion to which you must convert are thoughts of your friend McKubre, Biberian, Mizuno, Google, NASA etc... I forget some probably.

Quote from Steve_Casselman

When I say "phase" I mean the bond length between 2 Pd atoms. You can imagine a pure crystal, Grown in the same way they grow a silicon ingot. https://princetonscientific.co…palladium-single-crystal/

Here you can see a single wavefront while charging the target. My thought experiment envisions stimulating the target in such a way as to create multiple waves of these coherent phase waves.

I see that you are still very fresh in the field, you have years to catch up below, you will see one of the patents from an Italian crook, then this one badly copied by Americans who upgraded it under a ketchup release.

you should go see what is REALLY going on behind the door of your compatriots, and not believe too much in the mountain of kisses that you have seen and received at Carl Page still fresh event.

https://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20210090752.PGNR.&OS=dn/20210090752&RS=DN/20210090752

Quote from Steve_Casselman

When I say "phase" I mean the bond length between 2 Pd atoms. You can imagine a pure crystal, Grown in the same way they grow a silicon ingot. https://princetonscientific.co…palladium-single-crystal/

Here you can see a single wavefront while charging the target. My thought experiment envisions stimulating the target in such a way as to create multiple waves of these coherent phase waves.

I've been keeping track of the field since 1989. The paper I'm citing is from the field of hydrogen storage and not cold fusion. I have no compatriots. I'm an independent inventor with 14 patents in high-performance computing.

The mechanism I'm proposing is very simple as is the experiment I propose. If Rossi's stuff worked It would be all over the place so I assume it doesn't work. You make no points for or against what I'm proposing so I'll leave it at that.

Small addings for your understanding. Google team probably left with a valiant heart, with a radiant smile, to the LENR war.

They were a brilliant team and certainly had good results, so we explained to them at the time that they shouldn't go any further, the game becoming too big even for them.

Regarding NASA, they were probably allowed to play only if their release was not repeatable by simple teenagers. This is why their ignition system requires the mastery of a certain level of technology.

Yes you should remain in computer science because at your side the game is already done, especially for independents.

I looked at the Google work. The size of the crystals they grew were very small. Too small to absorb the energy from a fusion event (according to me).

I'll keep working to get my experiment done. Thanks for the advice.

I have some questions about my idea. I was not sure about how much energy it takes to move a Pd-Pd bond from the alpha to the beta bond length. I used 1 eV just to make the calculation easy. But that number is crucial in figuring out how many bonds, and therefore how many atoms, it takes to be in alignemt in the single crystal. Pd is polycrystalline. depending on the manufacturing procedure those crystals could, on average, be small, the size of the google crystals, or large enough to accept a fusion event. If the energy to change the alpha to beta is larger than 1 eV it will take a smaller size of crystal to absorb a fusion event. If the energy to change bonds is less than 1 eV then it would take more atoms to participate in the fusion event. It would give a good bounds (sanity check) calculation for the size of crystals needed.

the other piece of information I need is the number of bonds in the unit cell. I don't think it's the coordination number (12) but it's close.

Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) Unit Cell | Materials Science & Engineering Student

The Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom on each face. It is one of the most common…

msestudent.com

There are 4 atoms in the unit cell.

If you look at a face and disregard the edges, it has 4 bonds. 6 faces = 24 bonds. Divide this by two because each face is shared with another face in another unit cell.

Now there are 12 edges with one bond but each edge is shared with 4 other edges from other unit cells that 12/4 = 3 so there are 12 + 3 = 15 bonds per unit cell.

Does that sound right?

Thanks in advance

Quote from Cydonia

Small addings for your understanding. Google team probably left with a valiant heart, with a radiant smile, to the LENR war.

They were a brilliant team and certainly had good results,

What good results did they have? Why didn't they report these results? How do you know about them?

Quote from Cydonia

As several theorie ways, i followed also your suggestions with plasmons by studying papers from Tanabe San for example.

However i have to say, plasmons are only collective movement of electrons.

Often you link plasmons and plasma BUT a plasma remains a collective movement of electrons both with nuclei.

In this way, only phonons do that especially with their electrons shift at high temperature acting as a pseudo plasma if fact;

If you dive deep into the literature there are teams that have produced coherent surface plasmon polaritons. What seems to be the case is if you can get a sufficient degree of electron bunching the charged particles will behave more like a Bose Einstein Condensate. Good places for this to take place are surface irregularities such as cracks, holes, pits, spikes, etc.

Quote from JedRothwell

Larry Forsley of NASA just uploaded the final Short Course video which is about glow discharge reactions:

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

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.

This is a comprehensive look at various glow discharge experiments including Claytor, Karabut, Storms, Savatimova & Gavritenkov, Lipson et al., Godes and Tanzella, Schenkel et al., and some NASA's own in-house experiments.

Forsley's presentation at ICCF24 was very good:

Contamination, Transportation or Transmutation in LENR Material Analyses - Lawrence Forsley | Nasa Glenn Research Center, USA

He discusses how contamination might be confused with transmutation. That possibility always makes me nervous about transmutation claims.

Display More

I would like to say that I enjoyed this presentation, but I wish he would have had a speculative section at the end. If he had combined his thoughts on electron screening with what he mentioned about how certain types of plasmas can be out of equilibrium, then it would have made sense to suggest that utilizing the most out of equilibrium structures with highest electron density may provide even greater electron screening and, hence, high reaction rates. The exterior electron dense membrane of a self organized plasma structure would be such a place where cold fusion and other reactions could go up. This makes sense even if only considering electron screening. However, if these out of equilibrium structures -- which the DoD and other government groups have been briefed on -- have other unique properties then there may be additional reasons to utilize such a structure.

Of course it's far easier to generate and control a glow plasma than a self organized plasma ball. This is because in far out of equilibrium systems tiny changes of input can cause huge changes in structure, output, etc.

I'm going to give you a personal reply in MP.

Quote from JedRothwell

What good results did they have? Why didn't they report these results? How do you know about them?

Electron clusters remain a too simple view insufficient.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

If you dive deep into the literature there are teams that have produced coherent surface plasmon polaritons. What seems to be the case is if you can get a sufficient degree of electron bunching the charged particles will behave more like a Bose Einstein Condensate. Good places for this to take place are surface irregularities such as cracks, holes, pits, spikes, etc.

Quote from Steve_Casselman

Now there are 12 edges with one bond but each edge is shared with 4 other edges from other unit cells that

Each corner of your cube has 3 'corner to corner' bonds, plus two more -one to each face-centred intercalated atom closest to it, making 5 in all. With four corners so I would say 4x5= 20. But I'm happy to be wrong, I'm not a crystallographer.

Quote from Alan Smith

Each corner of your cube has 3 'corner to corner' bonds, plus two more -one to each face-centred intercalated atom closest to it, making 5 in all. With four corners so I would say 4x5= 20. But I'm happy to be wrong, I'm not a crystallographer.

Look in the middle of this page where they could how many atoms are in the unit cell (4)

Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) Unit Cell | Materials Science & Engineering Student

The Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom on each face. It is one of the most common…

msestudent.com

You have to take into consideration whether or not bonds are shared between other unit cells.

Quote from Steve_Casselman

You have to take into consideration whether or not bonds are shared between other unit cells.

That adds more bonds of course. But I was thinking of the isolated cell as shown in the drawing.

A few more photoss from the last night dinner:

Above L to R. David Nagel, William (Bill) Collis. Below. Nicholas Chauvin, Alan Smith, Huw Price, Eugene.

Eli and I gave out t-shirts with art by Matt Howarth at the conference. I sent one to my pal Andrew. If you need a DJ, sound archiving, recording services, or the best live act in town the Spam Allstars to perform, call City of Progress http://www.spamallstarsbiz.com/city-of-progress He's got a cold fusion safe house.