It is actually a logical error to suppose that because there is an LENR hypothesis for a not understood effect, therefore the effect is evidence for LENR.
If there were a predictive LENR theory that made a falsifiable informative prediction about these cells - that would be different!
I a will probably move several posts from this thread to the one of the boil off experiment because some of you insist in going off topic to the same old “is CF real” issue that honestly to me is a moot point 33 years later. Let’s keep this for the merits of ICCF 24 presentations discussion only.
edit to add: already did.
Francesco Celani has asked me post a link to his ICCF-24 presentation- these are certainly interesting experiments. And not impossible to replicate.
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ases_at_high_temperatures
Following the efforts to find simple procedures to activate the specific material we developed (since 2011; based on surface-modified Constantan in the shape of long and thin wires, Joule heating), able to produce measurable values of AHE we reproduced them. Made new specific tests to investigate also isotopic effects. Moreover, according to our interpretation of the results, the main origin of AHE seems reconfirmed: in agreement with the initial (some since 1989) results of Researchers in USA, Japan, Italy. The work was originated because we would like to reconfirm the procedures we discussed deeply, both at the talk and after waiting 1 month for questions (by web), during the ANV8 Workshop: held in Assisi-Italy on December 2021 (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27006.6683).
I really like how methodical has this work been performed. Testing one thing at a time. Seems like slow process but fundamental to gain understanding of what is happening. The idea that flux of the H gas is necessary to see the excess heat is becoming more and more clear.
Is Cold Fusion Pathological Science? The Rational View Podcast With Dr. Al Scott Podcast (player.fm)
This is not from the ICCF, but in this new podcast Dr. Al Scott tried to answer the question "Is CF pathological science?". After going through the history, science, Google/Nature, and BEC he concludes 'there is something there", and that "CF has been treated poorly by mainstream science".
Good news is that in the coming weeks he will be reviewing some of the tech, and interviewing a few of the players. We can follow him on this thread.
Here is Al Scott's next podcast in his exploration of LENR:
Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right
Edmund Storms obtained a Ph.D. in radiochemistry from Washington University (St. Louis) and is retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory after thirty-four years of service. His work involved basic research in the field of high temperature chemistry as applied to materials used in nuclear power and propulsion reactors. He presently lives in Santa Fe where he is investigating the "cold fusion" effect in his own laboratory. An authority in the field he has published 2 books, over 100 papers and four complete scientific reviews of the field over the years. In May 1993, he was invited to testify before a congressional committee about the "cold fusion" effect. In 1998, Wired magazine honored him as one of the 25 people in the US who is making a significant contribution to new ideas. He was awarded the Preparata Medal by the International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and honored as Distinguished Scientist by University of Missouri. His large collection of literature about LENR was used to create the website www.LENR.org where information about the phenomenon is available. His recent work has focused on understanding LENR and making the effect reproducible.
This ICCF24 presentation by Post-Doc student Erik Ziehm under George Miley was one of my favorites. The audience and those in the virtual attendance chat section were also clearly impressed. Using CR39, and creative imaging/measuring/tracking techniques he painstakingly concludes LENR experiments create charged particles originating from the electrodes, and are not from other sources. At the end, he tells of his most skeptical committee member having a change of opinion after reading his work. Enjoy:
External Content youtu.beContent 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 have to admit I have not seen this one because the title was un appealing to me, but now that you painted an interesting picture about it, I am proceeding to watch it.
Have to agree the presentation of Erik Ziehm is very impressive, he did a very thorough work. This is probably one that might be able to pick the curiosity of skeptics, as it apparently did with one of Ziehm’s own PhD thesis reviewers, specially because it is within the more classic methods of Nuclear science and was done taking painstaking steps to isolate potential confounding sources.
Have to agree the presentation of Erik Ziehm is very impressive, he did a very thorough work. This is probably one that might be able to pick the curiosity of skeptics, as it apparently did with one of Ziehm’s own PhD thesis reviewers, specially because it is within the more classic methods of Nuclear science and was done taking painstaking steps to isolate potential confounding sources.
You know when the old guard lines up to ask questions it was good. Unfortunately, there was only enough time for Forsley and one other to be heard. Ziehm is a young man, and we need many more like him to enter the field. They are the future.
But...when you get a PhD in LENR, where do you get a job/position? I can see the US Navy/NASA taking him in as they are heavy into the research. But not too many academic openings for an expert in a "pseudoscience".
Thank goodness everyone involved with, or interested, in the field are either LF members or check in here regularly as Guests. So if any of you are looking for new, fresh, imaginative talent, you know where to find him.
You know when the old guard lines up to ask questions it was good. Unfortunately, there was only enough time for Forsley and one other to be heard. Ziehm is a young man, and we need many more like him to enter the field. They are the future.
But...when you get a PhD in LENR, where do you get a job/position? I can see the US Navy/NASA taking him in as they are heavy into the research. But not too many academic openings for an expert in a "pseudoscience".
Thank goodness everyone involved with, or interested, in the field are either LF members or check in here regularly as Guests. So if any of you are looking for new, fresh, imaginative talent, you know where to find him.
It seemed to me that Ed Storms and Theresa Benyo were lined up for asking him more questions, I hope they had plenty of time to talk afterwards.
It seemed to me that Ed Storms and Theresa Benyo were lined up for asking him more questions, I hope they had plenty of time to talk afterwards.
And Czerski. The Chat (virtual attendance) section had some very flattering comments also.
Here is Al Scott's next podcast in his exploration of LENR:
Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right
Edmund Storms
It was good to hear this interview - considering how many of the old pioneers have been lost over the years.
However, I was more than a little disappointed by him stating, at one point, something like "it's easy to measure neutrons. You just buy a detector and put it next to your cell".
I really would have thought that someone of his background and professional experience should have known better - and even more so considering the controversies from 30 years ago 
(This is getting away from ICCF-24 stuff - so I'll understand if this comment gets moved)
Just watched Ben Barrowe’s presentation, very encouraging to see people finding transmutations on a first try of replication of the Mastromatteo’s laser on H loaded Pd experiment.
This is what I suspect, we don’t see this things because we don’t look for them.
Display MoreIt was good to hear this interview - considering how many of the old pioneers have been lost over the years.
However, I was more than a little disappointed by him stating, at one point, something like "it's easy to measure neutrons. You just buy a detector and put it next to your cell".
I really would have thought that someone of his background and professional experience should have known better - and even more so considering the controversies from 30 years ago
(This is getting away from ICCF-24 stuff - so I'll understand if this comment gets moved)
Don’t worry, this is on topic as long as it refers to the impact that ICCF 24 has made on increased media attention to the LENR field.
Just watched Ben Barrowe’s presentation, very encouraging to see people finding transmutations on a first try of replication of the Mastromatteo’s laser on H loaded Pd experiment.
I loved that one also. Very interesting story by the US Army researcher Ben Barrowe's. He attended the very first ICCF in Salt Lake City, and was enamored with what he saw and heard. Took decades for him to finally talk the Army into opening their own program. Found some interesting results after only 1 year. We will hear more from he and his team:
Don’t worry, this is on topic as long as it refers to the impact that ICCF 24 has made on increased media attention to the LENR field.
Yes. I posted Al Scott's podcast in this thread on purpose. He was a skeptic and now after putting the time in to take a look at the history, experiments, players, he has changed his position and now believes "there is something there".
This is a thread about skepticism, so it fits in nicely. So please, feel free to discuss this Frogfall and everyone else.
I loved that one also. Very interesting story by the US Army researcher Ben Barrowe's. He attended the very first ICCF in Salt Lake City, and was enamored with what he saw and heard. Took decades for him to finally talk the Army into opening their own program. Found some interesting results after only 1 year. We will hear more from he and his team:
External Content youtu.beContent 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.
Yes! The fact he was at the first ICCF was indeed interesting. Coming a full circle.
But...when you get a PhD in LENR, where do you get a job/position?
not too many academic openings for an expert in a "pseudoscience".
I have viewed every presentation and accompanying papers. I will study more papers as they become available. As always, I am impressed by the backgrounds and skill sets of the scientists employed in the research of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, which is an established branch of Nuclear and Condensed Matter Physics.
Erik Ziehm's presentation is my number one pick. My reasoning on the issue in regards to SKEPTICS is lengthy. It's being edited and peer reviewed by a friend who is employed as a G5 level editor at UC Berkeley before I post it at LinkedIn.
I'll summarize it here when it's finished.
Meanwhile
Study is required to keep up to date on this field. CMNS is multidisciplinary, involving many of the relatively new branches of Condensed Matter Physics. Rudimentary physics? No.
Studious Skepticism
If you are a scientist and disagree with any recent CMNS paper published you can submit a critique of the work, to the corresponding journal for publication. You might present an argument that can not be defended against... Or your critique may be responded to with a studied and superior counter argument by the author(s)
A tremendous trove to study.
Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications
Editor(s):Steven B. Krivit, Jay H. Lehr, Thomas B. Kingery
First published:27 June 2011
Print ISBN: 9780470894392 |Online ISBN:9781118043493 |DOI:10.1002/9781118043493
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118043493
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ix
(Steven B. Krivit)
Introduction xi
(Jay Lehr)
Contributors xiii
Nuclear Fission: Glossary and Acronyms xv
(K. Anantharaman, P.R. Vasudeva Rao, Carlos H. Casta˜no, and Roger Henning) Nuclear Fusion: Glossary and Acronyms (Lester M. Waganer) xix
PART I GENERAL CONCEPTS 1
1 Nuclear Energy: Past, Present, and Future 3
(Jay Lehr)
2 Benefits and Role of Nuclear Power 7
(Patrick Moore)
3 Early History Of Nuclear Energy 15
(Roger Tilbrook)
4 Early Commercial Development of Nuclear Energy 23
(Roger Tilbrook)
5 Basic Concepts of Thermonuclear Fusion 31
(Laila A. El-Guebaly)
6 Basic Concepts of Nuclear Fission 45
(Pavel V. Tsvetkov)
7 Oklo Natural Fission Reactor 51
(L.V. Krishnan)
8 Electrical Generation from Nuclear Power Plants 57
(Pavel V. Tsvetkov and David E. Ames II)
9 Nuclear Energy for Water Desalination 65
(Saly T. Panicker and P.K. Tewari)
10 Nuclear Energy for Hydrogen Generation 71
(Alistair I. Miller)
PART II NUCLEAR FISSION 77
11 Uranium-Plutonium Nuclear Fuel Cycle 79
(Shoaib Usman)
12 Global Perspective on Thorium Fuel 89
(K. Anantharaman and P.R. Vasudeva Rao)
13 Design Principles of Nuclear Materials 101
(Baldev Raj and M. Vijayalakshmi)
14 Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing 121
(Carlos H. Castano)
15 Safety of Nuclear Fission Reactors: Learning from Accidents 127
(J.G. Marques)
16 Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal 151
(Clifford Singer and William R. Roy)
17 Fission Energy Usage: Status, Trends and Applications 159
(Pavel V. Tsvetkov)
PART III FISSION: BROAD APPLICATION REACTOR TECHNOLOGY 165
18 Light-Water-Moderated Fission Reactor Technology 167
(J’Tia P. Taylor and Roger Tilbrook)
19 CANDU Pressurized Heavy Water Nuclear Reactors 175
(Rusi P. Taleyarkhan)
20 Graphite-Moderated Fission Reactor Technology 187
(Pavel V. Tsvetkov)
21 Status of Fast Reactors 193
(Baldev Raj and P. Chellapandi)
22 Review of Generation-III/III+ Fission Reactors 231
(J.G. Marques)
23 Tomorrow's Hope for a Pebble-Bed Nuclear Reactor 255
(Jay Lehr)
24 Hydrogeology and Nuclear Energy 257
(Roger Henning)
PART IV FISSION: GEN IV REACTOR TECHNOLOGY 271
25 Introduction to Generation-IV Fission Reactors 273
(Harold McFarlane)
26 The Very High Temperature Reactor 289
(Hans D. Gougar)
27 Supercritical Water Reactor 305
(James R. Wolf)
28 The Potential Use of Supercritical Water-Cooling in Nuclear Reactors 309
(Dr. Igor Pioro)
29 Generation-IV Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor 340
(J’Tia P. Taylor)
30 Generation-IV Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors (SFR) 353
(Robert N. Hill, Christopher Grandy, and Hussein Khalil)
PART V THERMONUCLEAR FUSION 365
31 Historical Origins and Development of Fusion Research 367
(Stephen O. Dean)
32 Plasma Physics and Engineering 371
(Francesco Romanelli)
33 Fusion Technology 389
(Lester M. Waganer)
34 ITER—An Essential and Challenging Step to Fusion Energy 399
(Charles C. Baker)
35 Power Plant Projects 405
(Laila A. El-Guebaly)
36 Safety and Environmental Features 413
(Lee Cadwallader and Laila A. El-Guebaly)
37 Inertial Fusion Energy Technology 413
(Rokaya A. Al-Ayat, Edward I. Moses, and Rose A. Hansen)
38 Hybrid Nuclear Reactors 421
(Jose M. Martinez-Val, Mireia Piera, Alberto Ab´anades, and Antonio Lafuente)
39 Fusion Maintenance Systems 435
(Lester M. Waganer)
40 Fusion Economics 457
(Lester M. Waganer)
PART VI
LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS
479
41 Development of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research 481
(Steven B. Krivit)
42 Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions: A Three-Stage Historical Perspectiv 497
(Leonid I. Urutskoev)
43 Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions: Transmutations 481
(Mahadeva Srinivasan, George Miley, and Edmund Storms)
44 Widom–Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs 503
(Joseph M. Zawodny and Steven B. Krivit)
45 Potential Applications of LENRs 547
(Winthrop Williams and Joseph Zawodny)
PART VII OTHER CONCEPTS 551
46 Acoustic Inertial Confinement Nuclear Fusion 553
(Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, Richard T. Lahey Jr., and Robert I. Nigmatulin)
47 Direct Energy Conversion Concepts 569
(Pavel V. Tsvetkov)
Ignorant Skepticism
Easy to defend. It is found at.
Wikipedia Cold Fusion
QuoteIn 1989, two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, reported that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes.[1] They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.[3] The reported results received wide media attention[3] and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[4]
Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10] Presently, since articles about cold fusion are rarely published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals, they do not attract the level of scrutiny expected for mainstream scientific publications.[11]
Nevertheless, some interest in cold fusion has continued through the decades—for example, a Google-funded failed replication attempt was published in a 2019 issue of Nature.[12][13] A small community of researchers continues to investigate it,[6][14][15] often under the alternative designations low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) or condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS).[16][17][18][19]
However, I was more than a little disappointed by him stating, at one point, something like "it's easy to measure neutrons. You just buy a detector and put it next to your cell".
I really would have thought that someone of his background and professional experience should have known better
Yes. If only it were that easy. It reminds me of a discussion many years ago. I was describing helium measurements made by Miles and the people in Italy at the ENEA. Someone said something along the lines of:
"If cells are making helium, someone visiting a lab should put a helium detector his pocket and secretly measure the helium when no one is looking."
I pointed out that you have to design the experiment to contain the helium, which is not easy. And I pointed out that helium detector suitable for these experiments is not something you can put in your back pocket. I pointed to this photo of a detector:
Display MoreYes. If only it were that easy. It reminds me of a discussion many years ago. I was describing helium measurements made by Miles and the people in Italy at the ENEA. Someone said something along the lines of:
"If cells are making helium, someone visiting a lab should put a helium detector his pocket and secretly measure the helium when no one is looking."
I pointed out that you have to design the experiment to contain the helium, which is not easy. And I pointed out that helium detector suitable for these experiments is not something you can put in your back pocket. I pointed to this photo of a detector:
Even Bubble detectors which are simple devices are questioned when it comes to be used as proof of LENR
I pointed out that you have to design the experiment to contain the helium, which is not easy. And I pointed out that helium detector suitable for these experiments is not something you can put in your back pocket. I pointed to this photo of a detector:
And from what I know, even that detector which has no liquid-nitrogen cryabsorption stage is not reallt good enough for the job. You have to have super-cold charcoal or zeolite to soak up the hydrogen, because even the best mass spec has trouble telling H2 from He.
