LENR FAQ (for Newcomers)

The is an overall mosaic of evidence that nuclear reactions are taking place in cold fusion experiments. This collection of evidence is continuing to grow at an accelerating pace that cannot be denied. Now, as evidenced by the varied presenters at ICCF-24, the most credible "mainstream" organizations in existence are not only recognizing this fundamental truth but forming teams and conducting experiments themselves. We're surging forward towards the point that the so-called skeptical view about CF/LENR is about to be widely considered irrational: the old paradigm is almost over. I sit here tonight pondering what the world may be like in the near future because I am aware of other formerly controversial topics which are undergoing the same transformation. They are going to synergize together in a catalytic reaction that's going to make our world undergo a metamorphosis into something different, hopefully better.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

the so-called skeptical view about CF/LENR

Quote from CoherentMembrane

widely considered irrational

When discussing LENR Circa 2022 and WHILE studying everything disclosed, published OR found. There is absolutely no time to argue about the past. I have felt that way since 2010 or so. Dwelling on the past rehashing old arguments. The skeptics and the defenders position hold no interest to me or the many people who I introduce to contemporary CMNS Energy technological developments Circa 2022.

I agree. There is too much forward momentum now. When you have major corporations, government agencies, and other parties all admitting that the CF/LENR phenomenon is real -- in addition to posting their own data -- the time for tiresome debate of thirty year old experiments is over. There are too many viable routes forward. A couple are plasma based systems like SAFIRE or what might be the answer to high powered bulk systems, Ed Storms new method of implanting inert particles into the lattice.

Quote from JedRothwell

Of course they will be discovered! In the calibrations. That is why people calibrate. Why would an artifact show up with Pd-D and not any other time?

Calorimetry errors (real ones) come from differences between calibration and active runs.

And we have discussed possible errors of this type many times.

If you ask: why should Pd-D be different from Pd-H? That is the wrong question.

Instead: why could Pd-D be different from Pd-H?

• D and H have very different thermal resistance
• D and H have very different characteristics when absorbed in Pd - including how much is absorbed: https://technology.matthey.com/article/4/4/132-137/
• D and H have different diffusion rates through pretty well anything

If you ask: why would an artifact show up with Pd-D and not at any other time? That is the wrong question.

An artifact is simply some difference between what happens in the calibration system and what happens in the control system. It is not happening in one or the other - but the result of any difference between the two.

If you state: LENR researchers understand all the differences between D & H and therefore can rule out any differences. How can you know that? We are all agreed (along with the non-LENR community) that transition metal hydride systems, and particularly Palladium hydride systems, have very complex properties and are not well understood.

Working out what calibration errors are possible also depends on the type of system. Open cells (F&P) have many more possible errors than closed cells (McKubre). Which explains McKubre's much smaller results when compared to the same experiments measured by F&P.

THH

Quote from CoherentMembrane

I agree. There is too much forward momentum now. When you have major corporations, government agencies, and other parties all admitting that the CF/LENR phenomenon is real -- in addition to posting their own data -- the time for tiresome debate of thirty year old experiments is over. There are too many viable routes forward. A couple are plasma based systems like SAFIRE or what might be the answer to high powered bulk systems, Ed Storms new method of implanting inert particles into the lattice.

Love the optimism and hope you are right. I'd just caution you against thinking that because a commercial company can fund raise and publish PR (I'm thinking of BLP) therefore it has more than hope and vapourware.

Stick to the scientists are the companies with transparency towards testing and demo systems that can be tested.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

The is an overall mosaic of evidence that nuclear reactions are taking place in cold fusion experiments. This collection of evidence is continuing to grow at an accelerating pace that cannot be denied.

I don't actually know what are the metrics over time for money and people working on LENR. But I'm quite happy to believe that there is now a revival in interest. Rossi's debacle remains helpful with investors because of the "no smoke without fire" mentality. And the need for over unity devices (OK - LENR is not technically over unity - but as good as in terms of applications) has never been greater.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

the most credible "mainstream" organizations in existence are not only recognizing this fundamental truth but forming teams and conducting experiments themselves. We're surging forward towards the point that the so-called skeptical view about CF/LENR is about to be widely considered irrational: the old paradigm is almost over.

As one of these about to be widely considered irrational skeptics - I hope you are right, and that we will shortly have strong evidence for LENR. That would also unlock scientific understanding because strong evidence would come with better characterisation and then the possibility of formulating predictive and disprovable theories. In fact technological progress relies on the existence of predictive (and therefore disprovable) theories. LENR at the moment is not disprovable - although one of the most promising theories, W-L - has more detail and therefore can be (pretty well) disproved.

I'm putting the skeptic side of the argument here (I am normally more tactful on this site) because of the thread title. To make an FAQ for skeptics you need to understand their views and the reasons for them. It is lazy to assume that because somone disagrees with you they are necessarily close minded.

The Doctoral Degree granted on the merits of an LENR thesis at Urbana-Champaign. The Department of Energy Solid State CMNS Energy technology patents lead inventor being the interim Director of LLNL, "prove it to me" arguments would just bounce off him. I'm sure he can adequately defend these patents. The PineScie current NASA patent AND clear theoretical underpinning.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Love the optimism and hope you are right. I'd just caution you against thinking that because a commercial company can fund raise and publish PR (I'm thinking of BLP) therefore it has more than hope and vapourware.

Stick to the scientists are the companies with transparency towards testing and demo systems that can be tested.

No single company or their PR (or pet theory) is what's giving me optimism and hope. There are commonalities between what's being observed in various systems that are unlikely to be coincidences, in my opinion. This is even true not only when comparing devices producing large scale self organized plasmas but also technologies utilizing more classical techniques involving electrolytic or gas loading systems. We're really past the point of needing one individual to come up with a genius breakthrough idea that somehow will push CF/LENR into the realm of undeniability. Instead, there's enough known to provide many paths forward towards commercialization of practical systems.

The one factor that may slow (but not stop) the progression might be the unwillingness of certain parties to disclose information (know how, intellectual property) that would be useful in replication of specific systems. I really hope we learn more about Mizuno's latest technique, for example. Yet even if they keep whatever they are doing to the mesh confidential for some time, there's other methods of activating LENR fuel and stimulating the resonant structures into producing the active agents.

Technological progress depends on modeling that while almost always wrong are good enough (predictive) to allow for engineering of the phenomenon into working, practical gizmos. I don't know if in the near future (next few years) we will figure out the "true" indisputable hard reality that underpins CF/LENR. But I'm confident new models, evolving from previous ones, will appear that can be used to build and design all sorts of systems. It's far more important that this phenomenon is used at this point than argued back and forth for another thirty years.

I tend to think that we're going to find connections -- perhaps a way of modeling the constant interaction -- between matter undergoing whatever processes allow for CF/LENR and vacuum fluctuations. So instead of eventual systems being described as "nuclear" or "overunity" we may be utilizing different nomenclature that's hopefully a little more accurate and less wrong, even though imperfect.

When it comes to considering other people closed minded, I can only respond by saying it doesn't matter if people agree with any of my particular, individual views. I can be wrong on all sorts of issues. However, the CF/LENR field has been yet is becoming even more so filled with extremely credible parties that are repeatably and undeniably showing effects that have to be something other than mundane chemistry. When I think about all the high quality results showing anomalies of one kind or another, I can logically conclude that this phenomenon is real and something much more than snake oil. I cannot fathom any other possibility due to the mosaic of evidence available provided by individuals far more capable, intelligent, and well trained than myself.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I don't actually know what are the metrics over time for money and people working on LENR. But I'm quite happy to believe that there is now a revival in interest. Rossi's debacle remains helpful with investors because of the "no smoke without fire" mentality. And the need for over unity devices (OK - LENR is not technically over unity - but as good as in terms of applications) has never been greater.

As one of these about to be widely considered irrational skeptics - I hope you are right, and that we will shortly have strong evidence for LENR. That would also unlock scientific understanding because strong evidence would come with better characterisation and then the possibility of formulating predictive and disprovable theories. In fact technological progress relies on the existence of predictive (and therefore disprovable) theories. LENR at the moment is not disprovable - although one of the most promising theories, W-L - has more detail and therefore can be (pretty well) disproved.

I'm putting the skeptic side of the argument here (I am normally more tactful on this site) because of the thread title. To make an FAQ for skeptics you need to understand their views and the reasons for them. It is lazy to assume that because somone disagrees with you they are necessarily close minded.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

The Department of Energy Solid State CMNS Energy technology patents lead inventor being the interim Director of LLNL, "prove it to me" arguments would just bounce off him. I'm sure he can adequately defend these patents. The PineScie current NASA patent AND clear theoretical underpinning.

I'd just say that no-one needs to be able to defend such a patent when publishing it. They would only be challenged some time in the future, when the technology clearly waords. At that point it is reasonable to assume more science, and useful working devices (to do the defence) would exist.

However you say there is clear theoretical underpinning here. Are you sure? Did ICCF24 agree with this theory?

If you mean the NAE, coherent pseudoparticle with v high Q and therefore high energy I'd agree that is a promising idea that might eventually pan out, but not that it was clear theoretical underpinning. Too many gaps, for example the mechanism for zero high energy products. For that you need the whole reaction to be coherent at quark wave function level. No work there yet that I know, though I am sure Hagelstein would like to do that (not sure that QCD is really his field).

Quote from CoherentMembrane

But I'm confident new models, evolving from previous ones, will appear that can be used to build and design all sorts of systems.

Let me put it this way. When we have these approx engineering-ready models, all skeptics will agree that LENR is real (though maybe not whether it is nuclear or some more woo-woo mechanism).

there have been 30 years of investment around certain theories, certain people.

Today if a new wave of investors were to materialize, I would recommend that they feed this fresh money into new approaches by fresh teams.

BTW, don't waste their money like Google, which acted like a real estate agent, minimizing the risks, asking for a thousand guarantees.

And finally by redoing what had already been done a thousand times with the same people.

Some keywords you mention are the right ones, if you are an investor, contact me.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

No single company or their PR (or pet theory) is what's giving me optimism and hope. There are commonalities between what's being observed in various systems that are unlikely to be coincidences, in my opinion.

Quote from GRMattson

And then there was Joseph Papp's Noble Gas Engine which was capable in tests of producing 100 horsepower and was safe to touch, as well as sealed.

This is, indeed an example of the sort of issue I am raising. Is it ever possible to produce a convincing set of experimental results if you have only a sealed system? Daniel_G proposes to send investigators sealed reactors. Is this doomed to fail to convince sceptics of the reality of LENR? Or are there ways around this?

Quote from Bruce__H

This is, indeed an example of the sort of issue I am raising. Is it ever possible to produce a convincing set of experimental results if you have only a sealed system? Daniel_G proposes to send investigators sealed reactors. Is this doomed to fail to convince sceptics of the reality of LENR? Or are there ways around this?

An apple and oranges comparison. If Bob Rohner can send out 5 Papp engines to various ME labs at credible universities and they publish their results do think this would not lead to sufficient investment?

What specifically would you say the problem would be? I send out reactors which contain a temperature dependent heat source inside. The researchers can easily test energy out vs energy in. This is what calorimeters do. We are not looking for mW we are looking multiple kW of heat in these new reactors.

This is not rocket science. It can be easily done for days or weeks or months to rule out any other possible source of chemical heat.

If I am unwilling to send out reactors (like the Papp people) then I can see an issue. We already have a team of engineers from a major electronics maker in our lab with their own equipment measuring Mizuno’s reactors. This is another way possible serious investors can complete their due diligence on our technology without disclosing our secret sauce.

In the startup world similar situations happen all the time. You need a credible team that speaks proper startup language and follows up properly and in a professional way. No reasonable investor is going to ask us to cut open our reactors.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'd just say that no-one needs to be able to defend such a patent when publishing it. They would only be challenged some time in the future, when the technology clearly waords. At that point it is reasonable to assume more science, and useful working devices (to do the defence) would exist.

However you say there is clear theoretical underpinning here. Are you sure? Did ICCF24 agree with this theory?.

Yes,

Reference point

QUOTE

The experiments described herein were guided by the theoretical analysis. The experiments described below further illustrate the fundamental concepts of some embodiments of the present invention, namely, locally hot - globally cold fuel, process initiation and control by hot neutrons created in this particular case by photodistintegration of deuterons by gamma radiation, high density cold fuel, and highly screened fuel nuclei created from a combination of shell and conduction electrons and plasma channels from gamma irradiation.

-end quote

I would have preferred to have Vladimir Pines present his theoretical works at ICCF-24.

PineSci et al were brought into the AEC Advanced Energy Conversion Project (to work alongside GEC/SPAWAR) at NASA GRC well over a decade ago. This became the NASA Lattice Confinement Fusion - see Benyo ICCF-24 presentations

Also reference a point

A NASA GEC Space Act Agreement was announced at ICCF-21

Note Shane D and Ahlfors created a thread on this, which should be read in its entirety with attention paid to Ahlfors screenshots.which documents the Addendum to the Agreement, which has been removed by NASA (the link is dead)

In the NASA GEC Space Act Agreement Addendum, PineSci was awarded an exclusive no bid contract for "theory essential for guiding design of advanced reactors". In that contract the Department of Defense is listed as an agency with interests in this work and as impetus to "Fast Track" these designs. Other agencies are listed as well.

As to Reproducibility being established at 99+ success,

See the lengthy presentation by Frank Gordon titled

"Frank Gordon - How Hot is Cold Fusion"

Note the year 2010 presented to the Natural Philosophy Alliance

This is a 10 part playlist. Total time almost two hours!

View it in its entirety. Full of fun facts.

Such as,

Frank presented this to the Alliance because the Navy wouldn't let him present it on 60 Minutes. Michael McKubre presented something else instead. The Alliance presentation is better IMHO.

Frank states one hundred percent reproducibility.

Cross Reference

Quote

Free Science Public Day Challenges Mainstream Ideas Including Einstein and Bernoulli Theories

Jun 3, 2010 — Michael McKubre will answer the question “How Hot is Cold Fusion?” as he did when he appeared on 60 Minutes in April 2009.

Source

prweb.com was first indexed by Google more than 10 years ago

Article Link

https://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4083874.htm

Your connection to this site is secure

Display More

Back to the Natural Philosophy Alliance 2010

The playlist title is "Frank Gordon - How Hot is Cold Fusion?"

This is segment 6.

A friend sent a link to the entire Natural Philosophy Alliance Playlist

Frank Gordon - How Hot is Cold Fusion?

NOT to be confused with this recent "How Hot Is Cold Fusion" article.

What a popular title, No? Atomic Insights

Source Thanks sam12

sam12 Replied to the thread Post ICCF24 thread..

"How Hot is Cold Fusion" by Valerie Gardner.

How Hot is Cold Fusion? - Atomic Insights

The 24th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF24) was held at the lovely and spacious Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA over four days in

atomicinsights.com

Further reference

DAVID DE HILSTER

Natural Philosophy Alliance

310-991-5744

Email >

The PineSci Theory Finally (next comment)

Quote from PineSci

It was found that energetic neutrons provide the most effective heating of fuel ions to initiate nuclear fusion reactions in condensed matter, in comparison with heating via energetic charged particles. The above effects were integrated into an overall analysis of a nuclear fusion process that could be used as a theoretical basis for understanding, designing, and optimizing of experiments, such as those discussed below.

Quote from PineSci

A theoretical framework is provided for d-D nuclear fusion reactions in high-density cold fuel nuclei embedded in metal lattices, with a small fraction of fuel activated by hot neutrons. Also established is the important role of electron screening in increasing the relative probability Psc(ji/2 £ q < p) to scatter in the back hemisphere (p/2 < q < p), an essential requirement for subsequent tunneling of reacting nuclei to occur. This will correspondingly be reflected as an increase in the astrophysical factor S(E).

[0278] Also clarified is the applicability of the concept of electron screening potential energy Ue to the calculation of the nuclear cross section enhancement factor /(£) .

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Back to the Natural Philosophy Alliance 2010

The playlist title is "Frank Gordon - How Hot is Cold Fusion?"

This is segment 6.

This section also contains input from our member Simon Brink .

Thanks Alan Smith  Simon Brink

Quote from Simon Brink

I had a look at the basics of this method to derive transition energies a couple of years back. Refer to the paper ‘LENR catalyst identification model’ on the Subtle Atomics website.