Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

  • Ascoli has the merit of being polite, logical, and clear.

    Polite maybe. Logical? Clear? -- don't be ridiculous! All of his assertions violate elementary textbook laws of physics, and also common knowledge going back thousands of years, such as fact that when you put a hot nail into water, the water boils for a moment and the nail instantly cools down. Anyone can confirm this in a kitchen with a pot of water and hot nail. Ascoli refuses to do it.


    All of his assertions violate elementary laws of physics. You do not realize this, or you refuse to admit it, because all of your assertions also violate elementary laws. Such as your recent claim that the difference between heavy water and light water magically affect calorimetry done outside a cell. As for logic -- you have none. Your main claims are:


    1. Someone, somewhere, somehow may just have made a mistake, and you don't what that mistake might have been, but that means all experiments are wrong. Magic!


    2. Jed says that all experiments are right because McKubre is right. Jed did not say anything remotely like that. He cited dozens of labs that did hundreds of experiments. But, by stuffing words into his mouth, and declaring he said the opposite what he actually said, YOU WIN! You make your case. Bravo and congratulations. How polite, logical and clear you are!

  • Jed says that all experiments are right because McKubre is right. Jed did not say anything remotely like that. He cited dozens of labs that did hundreds of experiments. But, by stuffing words into his mouth, and declaring he said the opposite what he actually said, YOU WIN! You make your case. Bravo and congratulations. How polite, logical and clear you are!

    I do not much enjoy winning, or losing, these discussions. They are more productive when the two different perspectives try to see the point of each other's view.


    I thought that you considered McKubre's v expensive and high quality work to be unequalled. If there is otehr work (replicating this) of equal quality I'd be interested to hear about it.


    THH

  • Well, they said they are testing 1 kW prototypes. I don't recall any details, but if true that is evidence they have near-practical prototypes. Also, Miura announced they will have cold fusion reactors by 2025, which is soon. There is not technical evidence, but that is what Clean Planet and Miura are saying. Here is the Clean Planet slide:


    One of their reactors has been running since May 2021, over a year, at the one office location. I do not know if that is the 1KW generator that was stated as beginning proto-type testing in May 2021.


    Clean Planet has proven they can make big heat, reporting publicly 200-300 Watts excess, and now, not bothering to report big heat, but reporting little heat, repeatedly generated to test parameters. It is a new level of research.

  • Here the CP spokeswoman talks about the joint venture with Miura and what the plan is:


    External Content youtu.be
    Content 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.

  • Google proposal: Get consensus on the best F&P cell design, and make at least 1500 of them exactly the same. It costs what it costs for this part.

    Find and fund groups known in the field to be of the “best” at doing the experiment successfully, and set them up with 100 or 200 active cells and everything they need, for as long as needed (3-6 months?). Do this at least 5 times, perhaps keeping a couple of 100 cell batches ready in reserve for further tests on any leads.

    Batches for specific tests, blanks etc., obviously made available as required.

    Otherwise, repeat until successful or $10 million (or whatever) is gone and then maybe graduate to fully crowd funded (hopefully enough forward momentum is imparted to keep the money coming).

  • I was surprised too, especially as Cold Fusion is now considered to be national security matter in Japan.

    Says who? The last I heard, government officials said cold fusion does no exist, and even if it does, the government should not invest in it because it will hurt energy industry in Japan. Granted I heard that a long time ago. But I have not seen evidence to the contrary. Takahashi's government funding stopped around 2017 as I recall. I have no idea how they are continuing now.



    I think it is a little silly to say cold fusion is a national security matter. Yes, it is, but it transcends that category. If the public becomes aware that cold fusion is real, and that it is likely to become a practical source of energy, it will be worldwide headline news for years. As important as electricity, or the internet. Granted, both electricity and the internet are important national security issues, but not exclusively or mainly national security.


    (Electricity and the internet are national security issues because, for example, the Pentagon worries that the Chinese army may be able to sabotage U.S. power generators remotely, by secret built-in backdoor codes, via the internet.)

  • Says who? The last I heard, government officials said cold fusion does no exist, and even if it does, the government should not invest in it because it will hurt energy industry in Japan. Granted I heard that a long time ago. But I have not seen evidence to the contrary. Takahashi's government funding stopped around 2017 as I recall. I have no idea how they are continuing now.

    Says the Japanese Nuclear Energy Authority. As of around 2 years ago. Have you not noticed Akito Takahashi apologising for not being able to freely discuss his work? They are certainly still getting funding, Tohaku and Clean Planet both.

  • Google proposal: Get consensus on the best F&P cell design, and make at least 1500 of them exactly the same.

    Do you mean this is what you would propose Google should do? Not what they have proposed.


    I think 1500 units is 1450 more than anyone could use at first. Also, no one know that the best F&P cell design is. Retired and dead people formerly at Johnson Matthey might have known, but that knowledge is lost. There is no consensus. I think 50 LECs might be a better choice at this stage. Start with 5 of them.


    You would never find more than 5 labs willing to look at them at this stage. Maverick labs not afraid to kick ass. The only way it will increase is to have each lab find other labs interested and willing to try it, and have them do it. You need an exponential increase where the exponent is some number higher than 1.0. I would love to see 2 or 3, but 1.2 would be okay.


    Find and fund groups known in the field to be of the “best” at doing the experiment successfully, and set them up with 100 or 200 active cells and everything they need, for as long as needed (3-6 months?).

    The problem is finding people who are not dead. As I said, you don't need 100 cells. 2 or 3 would be enough, unless the group has more than 5 people, I suppose.


    If you do want to test multiple cells, I think an array is a good idea. Like this one:


    https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Bockrisandcells.jpg

  • Here the CP spokeswoman talks about the joint venture with Miura and what the plan is:

    Thanks for finding that. It is hard to keep track of all the ICCF24 presentations. That's a good thing! We have not had so many presentations since ICCF4.


    I must say, her English is excellent. I could not do as well in Japanese unless I wrote it down and practiced beforehand.


    I wish them all the success in the world. But . . . as I said, I predict the LEC may make their approach obsolete even before the product is launched. First, because I think the LEC has many technical advantages. Second, because most of the time, you can only have one or two core technologies; i.e., gasoline and Diesel engines in cars, or AM and FM radio. Even when something marginally better comes along it can seldom penetrate the market. That is one of the reasons it took electric cars so long to start to compete with gasoline and Diesel. Companies do not want to manufacture widely different machines for the same market. Mechanics and repair services do not want to stock parts and train employees to deal with different kinds of machines.


    It is heartbreaking to think about all the effort that goes into worthy products that fail in the marketplace. People spend years doing great work, but the product never sells, or it is obsolete before it gets a chance. It is a waste of effort and people's lives, but that is how capitalism works. I have a computer textbook from 1972 listing four types of RAM memory then in use:


    Core planar

    Planar thin film

    Plated-wire

    LSI (semiconductor)


    Only LSI remains. The others were marvelous and companies put a lot of effort and money in them, but they soon vanished.

  • Well, I guess it’s a dead end then.
    Might as well stop talking about it and move on to something else.

  • No- I don't read Japanese and have not looked for the English. I can only say I have many friends in Tokyo, some of them highly placed.

    JedRothwell , don’t forget we are talking with Alan Smith , who has more LENR intel gathering resources than the CIA, MI6 and Mossad, combined.


    Bragging apart, the national Security aspect has also been mentioned by Italian researchers.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Well, since reproducing F&P cells has been done so many times it is unscientific to deny it then certainly it can be replicated several more times with a best efforts attempt.

    I am missing your point. With so many reports of success at the ICCF, why should the community devote time and resources to try and replicate FP's?

  • Well, since reproducing F&P cells has been done so many times it is unscientific to deny it then certainly it can be replicated several more times with a best efforts attempt.

    There are two problems with this.

    1. Very few people are qualified. Most of the people who replicated in the 1990s are dead. The people who knew how to make the materials are dead.
    2. It takes a year or two of hard work to replicate. You have to do the procedures described here, which take years: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf

    It has to be done manually, starting with hundreds of cathodes and winnowing them down to 2 or 3 that will work. Or winnowing them down to zero and then spending another year or two. Very few people are willing to devote this much effort to the task. I do not know anyone who has done it since the 1990s.


    You could automate the work, which would speed it up, but designing and building the machines to do that would take years and millions of dollars.


    The F&P approach with bulk Pd-D electrolysis does not seem likely to lead to a practical source of energy. Something like the LEC or the present systems from Takahashi or Mizuno seems more promising and easier to replicate, so that is where I put some money if I were Google. I would fund several different approaches, not just one.

  • Well, since reproducing F&P cells has been done so many times it is unscientific to deny it then certainly it can be replicated several more times with a best efforts attempt.

    Let me put what I said another way, with an interesting example. Prof. Donald Cardwell (U. Manchester) and his students built a 1/3rd scale working replica of the 1712 Newcomen steam engine. Everyone knows that engine worked. There is an existing one in a museum in Devon. The details of the engine are well know. Despite this, it took great efforts to make the engine work. They had to rediscover many lost secrets about how it works. Everyone involved felt that Newcomen was a genius. In other words, replicating it was much more difficult than you might think, even for people who have far greater knowledge of physics and thermodynamics that Newcomen did. In contrast, nobody has more knowledge of electrochemistry than Fleischmann and Pons. We are the position of someone trying to replicate the 1712 Newcomen engine in 1730, after Newcomen died. If you could hire Newcomen's workers they could do it, but replicating from plans or by looking at the machine would be very difficult.


    QUOTE:


    "[O]ur experiences in building and operating an exact replica of the 1712 engine (at one third scale it stands five metres high) has convinced us of the original genius of Newcomen, a real hero-engineer. Problems, not mentioned in any of the literature, were met and overcome; the true functions of the key components were fully understood and their relationship to the operation of the engine appreciated."

    - Cardwell, Donald. Wheels, Clocks, and Rockets: A History of Technology (Norton History of Science) (p. 498). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.


    Along the same lines, some of the top engineers and rocket scientists at NASA tried to build and fly exact copies of the early rockets made by Robert Goddard. They were small, simple devices. The NASA people are the most qualified in the world. Their copies of the rockets failed to fly. Most exploded or went out of control, or went nowhere. They had to make a big effort to rediscover what Goddard knew in 1930. Years ago I saw a video they made, which I cannot find, alas.

  • One of their reactors has been running since May 2021, over a year, at the one office location. I do not know if that is the 1KW generator that was stated as beginning proto-type testing in May 2021.


    Clean Planet has proven they can make big heat, reporting publicly 200-300 Watts excess, and now, not bothering to report big heat, but reporting little heat, repeatedly generated to test parameters. It is a new level of research.

    Forgive me for reiterating. I have nowhere seen test results that are obviously far above possible measurement issues. nor ahve a\i seen enough details to know whether they have measurements issues - the information that has been posted here from ICCF24 does not show clear LENR.


    Nor do either of the things you say show clear LENR. 250W excess measured on a large 3kW reactor could be an artifact - I agree if they have 250W excess with say only 150W in that is pretty easy to measure and you would expect it to be definite. But without details we do not know.


    Characterising performance is great, especially, sensibly, on small systems. But without the detailed results we do not know what is their progress or lack of it.


    They may not wish to give out much info. That is fair enough. However in that case we cannot distinguish between them as a company that has cracked commercial LENR, and them as a company that has nothing real and is just hoping. In a sense - it does not matter. If they really have working prototypes with high power gain there will be plenty evidence of this eventually.


    THH