The videos are all listed here:
Technical Sessions, 15 videos uploaded so far . . . That link did not work. It linked to first video itself. Try this:
Go to https://www.youtube.com/ and then append this:
/playlist?list=PLU0NX-S-T1yXEsmSgXNGPI1lFcBOQWYoB
Short courses:
/playlist?list=PLU0NX-S-T1yVRx-yE_SA4E0UoTECy0cen
The videos do not seem to be in any particular order. When you display one of these lists, you can do a ctrl-F search for an author name.
Plasma based LENR is superior from both a political standpoint, a research standpoint, and a practical standpoint to the disposition based LENR method because plasma based LENR works every time and is easily reproducible. Many of the presentations at ICCF24 describe attempts to produce the disposition based LENR reaction on a consistent basis. In this type of experiment, producing the superconducting seed that makes up the disposition based NAE is a hit and miss operation. Producing a plasma based LENR system is simple. Once the conditions that create the plasma environment is established, then the plasma reaction works every time because the creation of the plasma also creates the seeds of the LENR reaction.
In addition, the solid state LENR approach can only produce heat which is a low grade reaction product. In a plasma based LENR high COP approach, high grade electrical production is possible. This means that a investor is likely to sponsor a plasma system over a solid state system because of the requirement in a solid state system to convert heat into electric power. The market for industrial heat is miniscule in comparison to a system that produces direct electrical power. In a LENR system that produces overunity electrical power, a self sustain mode is possible if the electrical output is wrapped around to drive the input power requirements. And finally, standalone self sustaining LENR compact high density electrical system can be used to power most types of transportation.
As another surprise he said that current and voltage don't decay together to zero ?
What it implies ? Alan Smith ?
As another surprise he said that current and voltage don't decay together to zero ?
What it implies ?
The ratio of current to voltage changes when measuring conduction through the cell - just looking at the numbers at 275V it's 500uA, and at 26.5V it's just 7.5uA.
I think this is not a huge surprise - at the higher voltage some (faster moving) ions might be energetic enough to excite multiple gas molecules, whereas at lower voltages this happens rarely.
This little story I wrote after visiting ICCF-19 in Padua turned up when I was looking for something else. Not entirely off-topic I hope... I
As a child I was always the one tempted to ignore the warning signs about bridges and stick my head out of the train window, hungry for a glimpse of the locomotive, eager to taste country air properly perfumed with coal-smoke and hot metal. The years took away steam power – and train windows that opened y – but my curiosity always remained. So, comfortably retired after many years working first in research and later in manufacturing, I was delighted to find a new train, one with opening windows. It was the ‘science-geek internet express’. And inevitably, I stuck my head out to take a look at the view.
My Windows window showed me a place where nothing is impossible to anyone with a kitchen table and a blowtorch, or even without. Want antigravity, faster than light travel, electricity from thin air? Easy! Just drink some of the recommended quantum crystal magnetic water and you can make it work, with no need for anything fancier than a lack of critical faculties. It’s a world full of scientists who want to be engineers, engineers who want to be scientists, and plenty of others who are neither, but think they can be both.
Beguiled by this heady perfume, I started by building revolutionary ‘everlasting’ electric motors, as invented in Ireland – and helping others to build them too. My motors certainly revolved, but that was it. They flattened their batteries, just like every other motor. But it was fun, and it offered hope for a greener world.
Having destroyed enough perfectly good plastic and metal for a while, I went back to reading the forums, studying science, and started an inventor’s chat circle on Skype. I made good friends there –some of whom I meet in real life.
A couple of years back these same friends and I, bored with hopeless motors, became fascinated with this story:-
In 1989 Martin Fleischmann - one of the world's top electrochemists- and Stanley Pons reported ‘anomalous heat’ in a simple table-top device they had built. So much extra heat that they attributed it to some kind of nuclear event they called ‘Cold Fusion’, a nuclear reaction that happened at close to room temperature. This contrasts with ‘Hot Fusion’ the fire of stars, which takes place at huge pressures and temperatures measured in the millions. This revolutionary claim, made by two eminent men attracted much media attention, and raised hopes of a new source of cheap and abundant energy. But many others tried to repeat the experiment with little success, so inevitably hope faded fast. Before 1990 was out most scientists had decided that cold fusion was an illusion and abandoned further research. Withdrawn funding, and the risk of ‘professional suicide’ all played a part. It seemed for a while as if nobody was going to stick their head out of that particular train window again for fear of disgrace, if not decapitation.
Andrea Rossi, another cold fusion pioneer came to my attention in 2011. An enigmatic character in many ways, divisive, a fabulist, intensely private and with a criminal record in Italy, Rossi worked with the late Professor Focardi of Bologna University to make a device he called the ‘E-Cat’.
A seemingly impossible source of heat energy, E-Cat ran for weeks on a whiff of Hydrogen and enough Nickel to make you a Dime. It was tested and tested again by some smart people, but always there was doubt and dissent about the accuracy of the results.
Having been bitten before I was sceptical too, but my always hyperactive curiosity was troubling me again. As a result, in March 2015 I found myself among 500 real scientists at a cold fusion conference in Padua, Italy. For 5 days we shared and discussed the latest research into what I had learnt to call ‘LENR’. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. By now I was not just a passive observer but had a puzzle of my own to investigate. How could a plastic lunch box filled with water, coal dust, common salts start to boil and then explode when you fed it hardly enough electricity to toast a marshmallow?
By the time I left Italy my life was on a different course. I was no longer looking through a window, but really on the train. These were serious guys from prestige universities taking what is still considered to be fringe science very seriously indeed. And sprinkled among them were hedge-fund managers, guys who worked for Google, Bill Gates, PayPal and a few plain vanilla millionaires. All were ‘following the money’. What I had seen, and heard, and a very generous offer of funding to carry out some research of my own clinched the deal. From now on, at 70 years old I would become a fusion researcher. Wish me luck.
Ты мое ни чего не сделал, Я же тебе писал, напиши мне...
I have seen the ring of balls that Dr Egely describes appear before as a phenomena associated with superconductivity.
In a series of experiments Tao and coworkers\cite{tao1,tao2,tao3} found that superconducting microparticles in the presence of a strong electrostatic field aggregate into balls of macroscopic dimensions. No explanation of this phenomenon exists within the conventional theory of superconductivity. Dr. J.E. Hirsch show that this effect can be understood within an alternative electrodynamic description of superconductors recently proposed that follows from an unconventional theory of superconductivity called hole superconductivity. Experiments to test the theory are discussed in this paper.
Explanation of the Tao effect
also see my post as follows:
Also see my post as follows:
Also see my posts as follows:
There are numerous other posts, Just search on the TAO effect
Dr. Egely also sufferers from the cold fusion meme. He talks about fusion reactions that include mega-electron volts of gamma radiation, but he is not at all troubled by the LACK of gamma rays produced by his invention. What in nuclear reactions confine energy production only to electrical current and heat? Could the ASSUMPTION that fusion is occuring in the LENR reaction be fallacious?
Dr Egely describes appear before as a phenomena associated with superconductivity.
Oh! Dancing Plasmas with direct electrical output. Where have I seen that before?
One of the major issues with plasma reactor design is the avoidance of transmutation. According to theory, if the power input into the reaction is too great, then transmutation will occur. Dr. Egely talks about the avoidance of transmutation in this video lecture. There is a optimum input power value into the reaction that will minimize input power use and at the same time produce output power without the production of transmutation.
There is also a maximization method by which output power is maximized to the highest possible COP. That method is to generate the production of the high Dv/Dt spark at the highest frequency possible, since each cycle of the spark frequency produces energy.
It seems to me, that the best way to optimize the production of input power in your LENR plasma reactor is to use the 555 timer chip in your input power circuit. Of course, comment on other methods are alway welcome.
Also. one more optimization variable might be the spacing between the electrodes. What is the minimum spark voltage/current that will still produce the reaction. The reaction design process looks like there would be a multivariable adjustment process involved to get the minimum input required energy, producing the maximum possible output COP.
Oh! Dancing Plasmas with direct electrical output. Where have I seen that before?
Rossi?
The search for the minimum input power to avoid transmutation could be why Rossi has opted to produce such a low capacity reactor design. After years of configuring large reactors that would fall apart in short order due to transmutation, Rossi decided that the only way to avoid the plague of transmutation is to produce a small modular reactor.
I think George Egely's presentation was fascinating and his device is a unique conglomeration of existing systems. However, I don't really like how he is depending on dozens of electrical emission sites from the end of the cathode. I think it would be better if he focused on optimizing a single larger emission site. Then he could produce one larger well optimized EVO to impact the anode rather than dozens of smaller ones. Of course, I think it would be even better if he had produced a free floating EVO that didn't make contact with any part of the device. He could still extract electrical energy out in several different ways.
Rossi?
The search for the minimum input power to avoid transmutation could be why Rossi has opted to produce such a low capacity reactor design. After years of configuring large reactors that would fall apart in short order due to transmutation, Rossi decided that the only way to avoid the plague of transmutation is to produce a small modular reactor.
Rossi has never participated at a ICCF so I suggest to leave him out of this thread.
I think that would be a mistake due to the fact that his plasma based systems are probably closely related to the device George Egely demonstrated. Likewise, Andrea Rossi's device is similar in basic concept to others that harvested the emissions of electrical impacts to produce electricity. Take Edwin V. Gray's system, for example. He produced an electrical discharge across a gap which created a radial spray of electrically charged particles that surrounding pick up coils/grids collected. George Egely's and Andrea Rossi's devices are probably doing something very similar.
