Post ICCF24 thread.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

suspect the organizers realize the prize presents difficulties like no other. A prize for the largest, most troublesome and often corrupted market in the World... Energy! Money Money Money.

I do not know if energy is the most troublesome or corrupt market, but I do not think that will make any difference at this stage. It might later on. Let's look a the present situation. Suppose an X-Prize of $100 million is offered for cold fusion. I hope that gets the attention of industrial corporations and the general public. I hope it spurs additional research. But I do not think it will generate any opposition from the fossil fuel or electric power industries. I do not think they will take it seriously, or oppose it, any more than they oppose the recent plasma fusion ventures. These ventures are getting a lot more than $100 million. My guess is that fossil fuel company executives look at plasma fusion ventures and think: "This will never work. They have been doing it for decades with no success. Even if it does work, it will be 30 to 50 years from now. I will be retired or dead. Not my problem." I expect they will look at cold fusion the same way.

Looking at the history of commerce, as a general rule, large industry and vested interests do not respond to new technology until it is too late. They do nothing, and they are wiped out. Even the largest corporations vanish after a few years, like dew in the morning. That's why the biggest and most powerful companies from 1900 to 1930 no longer exist: The Pennsylvania Railroad, AT&T and General Motors are gone, gone, gone. (There are still companies with the latter two names, but the stockholder value was wiped out.) IBM was almost bankrupted in the 1980s by Microsoft and personal computers.

Baldwin and the other companies that made steam locomotives never even tried to make Diesel ones. They went of business instead. The minicomputer companies in the 1980s hardly responded to competition from the personal computer. They acted like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. Data General and DEC made a few feeble attempts to address the personal computer market, but their hearts were not in it and the products went nowhere. There are many reasons for these non-responses, including some you may not have thought of. See the book, "The Innovator's Dilemma" for details.

More speculation on this subject --

Suppose cold fusion devices go into production sooner than a company executive anticipates. I expect some execs will be frightened, and they will begin to oppose cold fusion. They will tell the mass media and the Congress that cold fusion is dangerous, or that it will never meet demand, and various other nonsense. In the 1990s, when the coal companies began to realize that wind turbines were taking large chunks of their business away, they began fighting wind power by every means they could come up with. They formed the "Greening Earth" organization which advocated in favor of global warming. That went nowhere. They had their puppet Congressman from West Virginia propose laws to ban the use of wind power in the U.S., and remove all existing towers and turbines. As I recall, the ostensible reason was because turbines kill birds. That's preposterous, because coal kills many orders of magnitude more birds, not to mention 20,000 people per year. Anyway, that effort went nowhere. They claimed they were working on "clean coal," which does not exist. Later, the Trump administration tried to pass laws subsidizing coal and preserving coal generators, because it claimed that coal is more reliable than alternatives. Which is ridiculous. The power companies said no thanks, we don't want obsolete, expensive generators, so that went nowhere.

In other words, the coal industry tried to stop wind power with every "troublesome and corrupt" method in their playbook, but they failed. Why did they fail? Because electric power companies don't care where the electricity comes from. They want the cheapest and most reliable sources. Wind and solar are cheaper and quite reliable, with modern weather forecasting, so that is what they are installing. As old coal generators wear out, they are scrapping them. They do not own coal mines and they don't care what happens to coal companies. There is no loyalty from electric power companies to coal companies. Or from electric power companies to natural gas extraction and pipeline companies. If the power companies find a source that is 1 cent per kilowatt hour cheaper than gas, and also abundant and reliable, they will dump the gas companies overnight. They don't care if the gas companies begin losing billions of dollars. That's where cold fusion comes in. The power companies think they can generate electricity with cold fusion and sell it at a profit. A big profit! That's why EPRI funded early cold fusion research. That is what I have heard from electric power company people. They are wrong about that. Cold fusion will work much better in a decentralized system with no power companies, as I explained at ICCF24 and here:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

Power company execs do not understand this. By they time they realize they are doomed, it will be too late. They will be headed straight for bankruptcy. Their only option will be to plan an orderly liquidation of their industry. They will be up against two irresistible forces, that cannot be stopped or even slowed down: 1. Industrial corporations that make home generators, which will be very profitable at first; and 2. Consumers, who always buy cheaper, better products. Consumers have absolutely no loyalty toward electric power companies or ExxonMobil. They will dump them the moment a cheaper alterative comes along, and cold fusion will soon be 20 times cheaper than electricity or gasoline.

Do we have on this site a convenient set of links indexed for ICCF24? It is difficult for me to link things I refer to - or to watch the presentations people have talked about that I have not seen now when I have lost the original links.

Quote from Shane D.

They will also be creating a permanent video library soon.

At YouTube, or somewhere else?

I think YouTube is a good choice because these things take a lot of bandwidth. On the other hand, YouTube is now annoying because they put ads into every video.

Here are some notes about that, for people who have uploaded their own YouTube videos:

I wish YouTube would offer an option to the people uploading videos. I would pay a small amount to have them remove the ads from my video. But that ain't going to happen, alas.

If you would like to offer your video without ads, you can download it from YouTube and then upload it to your own site. As long as there are not thousands of downloads your ISP will not care, and they will not limit your bandwidth. I uploaded my video here:

Video

Direct link:

https://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Brief%20Introduction%20to%20Cold%20Fusion.mp4

It is in .mp4 format. That is what YouTube recommends. To download a copy of your own video:

1. Sign in to YouTube Studio.
2. From the left panel, select Content.
3. Point to the video you’d like to download, and select Menu then Download.

Message from Carl Page (to all physical attendees).

Was this presentation by Edmund Storms discussed here ?

"The Nature of Cold Fusion (Cold Fusion Made Simple)"

I'm not an experimenter, but with some exchange, maybe is it "actionable", maybe some experimenter could try to replicate ?

Is there any replication in process ?

Quote from AlainCo

Was this presentation by Edmund Storms discussed here ?

"The Nature of Cold Fusion (Cold Fusion Made Simple)"

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.

I'm not an experimenter, but with some exchange, maybe is it "actionable", maybe some experimenter could try to replicate ?

Is there any replication in process ?

Display More

It hasn’t been much commented, but with some recents events, specially derived from the interaction between the LEC team and Ed Storms, let’s say this is already old news.

I'm interested knowing more about what Storms currently calls Nuclear-Active Structure (NAS), formerly Hydroton. It seems it is now theorized to be an EVO-like assembly of hydrogen and electrons that allows nuclear reactions, and which will release energy upon formation before nuclear reactions occur. This appears to be closer to what some of the various "small hydrogen" theories propose. But if that is the case, most or all of the excess heat in cold fusion experiments could be from NAS formation rather than nuclear reactions, which could in part explain why nuclear reaction products are not consistent with the excess heat.

A related paper based on the ICCF24 talk was submitted on LENR-CANR which expands a bit on the topic:

The Nature of Cold Fusion (Cold Fusion Made Simple)

Edmund Storms

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthenatureoc.pdf

Quote from THHuxleynew

Shades of Mills/hydrino.

And the same criticism.

If NAS formation is highly exothermic then we end up with lots of NASes floating around. Why do we not see them?

It's unclear how much energy would the process release here, although in the paper I linked above Storms suggests that it might occur with the emission of X-rays. The Nuclear-Active Environment (NAE) which allows the formation of NAS is also supposed to be a rare condition which needs hydrogen atoms not to be able to recombine to the molecular form and in a special electron-rich environment, so molecular hydrogen wouldn't normally spontaneously form NASes.

Other authors have more expanded theories that attempt to explain why NAS-equivalent hydrogen structures are not easily detected in nature, but you might see them as hand-waving.

Quote from can

I'm interested knowing more about what Storms currently calls Nuclear-Active Structure (NAS), formerly Hydroton. It seems it is now theorized to be an EVO-like assembly of hydrogen and electrons that allows nuclear reactions, and which will release energy upon formation before nuclear reactions occur.

Ken Shoulder said that EVO spontaneously emerge from an electron plasma. EVO formation is not exothermic rather it requires electrons convert to R-electrons. R-electron states are above the ground state and reversible. A R-electron is string-like connection between a neutrino and an electron. These strings decay in such a way that the energy emitted must be equal to a quantum number n² times an energy of approximately 13.6 eV i.e n=1, 13.6 eV; n=2, 54.4 eV, etc.

An analysis of Ed' data that shows how this works can be found here: Ed Storms Amazing results data fitting - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)

The electron-neutrino string is a pendulum which puts the neutrino in relative motion to its attached electron. Because the neutrino mass is less than 0.109 eV, absorption one of quanta of energy defined above results in contraction of space and dilation of time where R is time space curvature.

A planetoid of R-electrons (an EVO) results from a balance at the escape horizon of gravitational potential (electro gravity) and electron repulsion (coulomb repulsion of negative charges). The quanta defined above are boson condensates. Hence, the planetoid is an accelerator. Hence, it can produce anions (mostly negatively charged hydrogen atoms) with energies in the MeV range. Hence, near the escape horizon of a larger planetoid, deuterium can be photo-disintegrated to a proton and a neutron.

Surprisingly these photo-produced neutrons exposed to the extreme negative charge of the planetoid can also become anions, Matsumoto called them neutrons, other have said pseudo-neutrons but regular neutrons do not collapse under extreme gravity (electro gravity is 42 orders of magnitude stronger than universal gravity) to produce black-hole like objects that radiates out of existence and in the process produce images on film emulsions.

Large planetoids of R-electrons can absorb matter into wormhole on their surface and emit reconstructed matter as a trace as they move across a metal surface.

The planetoid of R-electrons is extremely efficient at absorbing energy from any fusion events on its event horizon. Hence, fusion can be detected by mass balance and stoichiometry, but heat production is low. For example, heat balance from [0074-0078] US2012/0033775 is as follows. Approximate output: the heat from the rise in temperature of the steel of the reactor: 7404 BTU = (449 J/kg x 127 C)/1055 J/BTU. Input: the heat from the electric arc: 4533 BTU = ((40 kWhr x 2)/60) x 3400 BTU/kWhr). Hence, the net heat production via nuclear reaction: Output-Input: 2874 BTU = 7404 BTU - 4533 BTU).

The energy production of the planetoid of R-electrons is unexpected in two ways. 1st, that fusion does not produce much heat. 2nd that the energy from fusion goes into a reaction that disintegrates these anionic neutron-based complexes. This second reaction produce a radiation which matches no type of radiation from the standard model yet will still produce an image on film emulsion. Hence, the actual mass deficient is very large but the heat production is low. Most of the nuclear reaction ash is likely these "anionic-neutrons" because the entropy for reaction is so enormous.

For energy production one needs find a way to use this strange radiation and these "neutrons" that don't react like neutrons.

Regarding Guido Parchi's tritium presentation:

I made a list of his main experimental findings, with the time in the video (minutes: seconds):

They first used a Scionex 38B57 scintillation detector (video time 7:50)

Test with a Geiger counter, with SBM20 tubes (8:20)

A test for tritium in the gas phase, using plastic wrap. Again detected with the Geiger counter. A video of this test is shown. (9:50, results at 10:50) I recall Takahashi said this is not a good technique. Others commented that this test by itself would not be conclusive but combined with others it is good evidence.

No gammas or neutrons (11:40)

Energy spectrum of the gas in the plastic wrap was tested with a CANBERRA germanium detector. Two peaks at 7.7 keV and 16.5 keV detected. This instrument works better with higher energy particles, but it does work. (12:30)

Two different independent third party analyses, by ENEA and somewhere else (not sure where). (13:10) "The most important and irrefutable proof" (Parchi). Beta emission spectrum shown. A blank sample also tested. It is unclear to me what instrument was used. The video is at low resolution, and blurred, unfortunately.

Apparent heat after death, based on thermometry, not calorimetry. (16:10)

Quote from JedRothwell

A blank sample also tested. It is unclear to me what instrument was used.

The blank was tested in independent laboratory. Somewhere in the ICCF24 threads gio06 posted the official lab test results that are done in an independent lab with normalized standard reference methods.

Quote from Curbina

Somewhere in the ICCF24 threads gio06 posted the official lab test results that are done in an independent lab with normalized standard reference methods.

Where?!? It is difficult to find things in this forum. Let me know if you find them.

Ah, here they are:

http://www.cleanhme.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ICCF24_Parchi_presentation.pdf

Someone who speaks Italian should please tell us about the third party tests, slides 12 - 18.

Quote from JedRothwell

Where?!? It is difficult to find things in this forum. Let me know if you find them.

Ah, here they are:

http://www.cleanhme.eu/wp-cont…4_Parchi_presentation.pdf

Someone who speaks Italian should please tell us about the third party tests, slides 12 - 18.

Display More

MCR stands for Minimum Detectable Concentration. It is a function of the sample volume, it seems. The error is quite large, but the blank is clearly free of Tritium (Trizio) and the lower bound for the concentration found is still “infinite” with respect to the blank that has no tritium in it.

This is the ISO standard method, the document requires payment to see details but the available information is enough to know this is an standard approved method.

Quote from Curbina

the blank is clearly free of Tritium (Trizio) and the lower bound for the concentration found is still “infinite” with respect to the blank that has no tritium in it.

Thanks. I guess the instrument is a Quantulus 1220 liquid scintillator. (Slide 18). This gadget?

https://resources.perkinelmer.com/corporate/cmsresources/images/44-73870spc_1220quantulus.pdf

What does "Procedura Tecnica di rif" mean, and what is this procedure? These are image Acrobat slides so I cannot run them through Google translate.

I must say, it is easier for an English speaker to guess what Italian means than Japanese. It feels like cheating.

Quote from JedRothwell

What does "Procedura Tecnica di rif" mean, and what is this procedure? These are image Acrobat slides so I cannot run them through Google translate

It means Reference Technical Procedure.

Akito Takahashi has updated his ICCF-24 presentation paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365411800_Correlation_between_excess_thermal_power_generation_and_HM_loading_ratio

This paper is extended abstract to ICCF24 Conference, for asserting a key factor to induce cold fusion energy in condensed matter, to be studied for many researchers. There are found two cases for generating excess thermal power in correlation with H/M loading ratio. One is strong excess power by H/M > 1.0 condition under optical phonon excitation at T-sites of metal FCC lattice, the other is weaker excess thermal power by H/M < 1.0 small loading ratio or under H-desorption process, with CF reaction at defects on surface/interface. CF reactions is modeled by 4H/TSC WS fusion for the two cases.