How can we add 'Glamour' to LENR Research ? (ED Storms)

  • Maybe if the theories that describe the LENR reaction conformed to and were consistent with science principles, then the onus of pseudoscience might someday be removed from what you may desire to be reported.

    I was not aware that newspaper editors required scientific theories of any kind. They are interested in (a) not being laughed, (b) circulation, and (c) clickbait.

  • My take, for whatever it’s worth:


    I don’t think the field needs to be glamourised. If you accept the science as real, then it’s immensely important, exciting and interesting. I think it would be hard to resist for ambitious young scientists of many stripes.


    The field is withering for lack of attention, as well as its controversy and neglect. The historical reasons for this are well known and understood.


    The question then is, how can real, sustained attention be garnered for the field?


    I think the answer to that question can only really be: a breakthrough (i.e a big team in a big journal) publication of a genuine reference experiment.


    I speculated a little bit about what that might look like here:



    Metzler’s presentation on the history of semiconductor research is instructive:


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.


    Where is the point contact transistor of LENR?


    Perhaps we can say that there are two things that the field requires:


    1) A breakthrough publication of a ‘point contact like' LENR experiment


    2) Well functioning LENR ‘institutions’ that can quickly harness the attention provided by such a breakthrough publication and convert it into sustained and substantive interest.


    In the absence of the former, sustained work towards the latter seems like a good place to focus an effort.


    To my mind, there are three key online ‘institutions’ in the field.


    LENR-CANR.org, LENR-Forum and the ISCMNS


    LENR-CANR is everything you’d want it to be. It’s a testament to Jed and Ed’s extensive work.


    Likewise, LENR-FORUM is a well functioning discussion space.


    Between the two are a comprehensive library of papers, as well as some introductory material, and a structured forum for people to discuss the field.


    However, at the risk of ruffling feathers, the ISCMNS online presence could do with a bit of a do over; a glow up, as the kids say. I know that this has been tried before, and it didn’t get off the ground, but it really should be tried again. Bluntly, the website is terminally rumpled and perennially out of date.


    A comprehensive redesign of the ISCMNS website would be advantageous on a number of levels, not least of which is that it might assist with fundraising.


    More broadly, a redesign of the website offers an opportunity to slot it into a space between LENR-CANR and LENR-FORUM.


    Perhaps it’s a little tendentious of me, but my view is that there is no satisfactory, integrated online guide to the field - its history and its key literature - that is structured for multiple levels of technical ability. LENR-CANR has a good amount of material, but I would submit that more can be done.


    Said differently, I've never really seen a comprehensive 'best of' the literature packaged with a history of the field; in a format that would efficiently orient a newcomer to the field.


    For mine, I think that the field faces a unique challenge in so far as it (to some degree) cannot be learned like a regular field. i.e I don’t need to know anything about the history of chemistry to accept that covalent bonds are real. But because this field has no coherent theory, and makes claims that purport to break existing laws, it must clear a very high evidentiary hurdle, and unlike a field that is theoretically coherent, it can only do that on the back of the interpretation of the experiments - both successful and unsuccessful. These experiments, given their controversy, can only be interpreted from within the context of the history of the field.


    Thus, to teach LENR, (I submit) you must, to some degree, teach the history of the field too; addressing context and controversy coterminously to the science.


    For example: to understand why so many of the early replication attempts failed, you have to understand the sequence of publications, and how F&P didn’t really talk about loading ratios. This was first done by McKubre years later.


    Or from another angle: to understand how the field became so controversial, you have to understand the sequence of events that precipitated the original press conference and the subsequent media circus, which in turn produced a rash of premature attempts to replicate before critical necessary experimental conditions were understood.


    The insights and intuitions have to be chained off of each other, in sequence - as this is the only way to simultaneously address and neutralise controversies and criticisms that the uneducated reader is going to encounter with an open and receptive mind in other venues.


    To do this from a standing start on one’s own requires real initiative, and the lack of such a guide makes navigating the field difficult for a newcomer; a forbidding task of synthesis. Many people understandably find it hard to maintain a state of curious ambiguity and open mindedness for an extended period of time. Especially if they sense that accepting the claims of the field might be personally calamitous or invite opprobrium.


    In short, such a guide would be as much a coherent, logical progression of narrative (rendering the field more palatable) as it is a scientific document. It would be fair minded and elegant enough to subsume criticism (deserved or otherwise) and controversy into a coherent and rigorous whole. Indeed, for countenancing the criticism and controversy of the field, the ultimate effort should be stronger for having done so.


    This resource would be in two parts:


    A History of the Field

    A 'Best of' the Literature


    The first thing I would try to do is build this resource. And I’d submit, the best place to build it is at the ISCMNS, so that it can slot in alongside LENR-FORUM and LENR-CANR.


    Thinking in terms of online resources:


    LENR-CANR - Library

    LENR Forum - Discussion

    ISCMNS - Comprehensive Guides


    What would such a redesigned ISCMNS website look like?


    Here’s a brief hypothetical index I put together. I’ve attached a more thorough (though still incomplete, obviously) treatment as a PDF to this post.


    Home / Landing Page

    About the Society

    News

    Introduction to the Field

    A History of the Field

    A Guide to the Science

    JCMNS

    LENR-CANR Library

    Research Groups

    Books & Documentaries

    Primers for Journalists

    Events

    Conferences

    Newsletter

    Members

    Store

    Contact


    What would I do if I were me? I would build a new website on a modern platform, like ghost.org. Ghost is free and open source, and can be installed onto the ISCMNS’ server. Because it is an open source package, it’s more or less completely customisable. It offers a rich, integrated back end for design and publishing that removes the need to know code. Importantly, it offers multiple levels of admin permissions, so that more than one person can administer the site.


    Managing your team in Ghost: User roles and permissions - FAQ
    Collaborate effectively on your Ghost publication with teams and user roles.
    ghost.org


    Many custom themes are available, and the design of a ghost site is endlessly tweakable. Everything is modular on the back end, and pages can be moved around, edited, published, unpublished, drafted and saved, etc. It also has built in newsletter functionality and offers both ‘pages’ which are static, and ‘posts’ which are more akin to news items that can be structured as a separate stream. 'Posts' can be published to the website, to the email list, or to both.


    I took the liberty of mocking something up so that the reader can see what I’m getting at.


    This is on a trial instance of Ghost that is live for 14 days.


    ISCMNS - Private Site Access


    This site should be password protected - please let me know if it’s not. The password is ‘electronscreened’. I didn’t want this site to get indexed by google and throw off results for the actual society. Nor am I acting on their behalf in any way, so it seems highly presumptuous to have something ‘live’ and floating around. It will automatically wink out of existence in two weeks.


    This is very bare bones, and there are things that aren't perfect, like the menu system, but it illustrates the general point.


    Most important is that running a modern package like ghost would make it much easier to keep the site up to date, and allow for a division of labour in its maintenance.


    I realise that what I’m suggesting is not a small undertaking, but I think it would pay dividends. The largest hurdles would be in preparing the content, and paying a professional to install and customise ghost as needed.


    I note that there’s a lot of archival content at the current site, and a way would need to be found to ferry all of this rich history across to the new site. I don't think that this would be too challenging, just monotonous. A new index of it all would need to be constructed, but that index could simply link through to the historical HTML pages. You'd essentially preserve the old pages (of photos, workshop proceedings etc) with an index in a new format on the new website in the appropriate section(s).


    With respect to the generating of new content for a new website, I would be happy to volunteer time to such an effort, and I feel comfortable enough as a writer that I think I could at least draft some acceptable (non-technical) preliminary work. I would also be willing to edit the work of others for brevity and clarity. But I could in no way carry such an effort alone, and it would take a group of people working collaboratively to pull it off. It would also take the buy in, both figuratively and literally, of the ISCMNS.


    The key areas that would need to be written would be:


    Introduction to the Field

    A History of the Field

    A Guide to the Science

    Primers


    In the attached PDF of an expanded index, I’ve included a section of ‘one page primers’ for the general reader and a section of ‘kits’ for journalists.


    One benefit of having such a section on the website is that its inauguration would prove an event that could be used to reach out to the press.


    Some (more elegant and lengthy) variation of:


    Hi. We’re reaching out because we’ve just redesigned our website to include a number of educational resources designed for journalists. We think our field is really important. A lot has been happening with diverse groups from government and industry (list of key names) working in the field. Please take a look. Also please check out our newsletter, which you can subscribe to here.


    With a few choice quotes from heavy hitters thrown into the mix for good measure and rhetorical zazzle.


    And so, a thorough website redesign could form the platform for a public interest campaign.


    This would target both journalists at newspapers and popular science magazines, but also freelance writers, content creators and newer ‘next generation’ websites like Nautilus, Aeon, 3 Quarks Daily and Quanta.


    And whilst trying to precipitate coverage of the field might be the main game, another goal would be simply to make contact with writers and content creators, and convert that contact into an ongoing relationship by way of newsletter sign up and steady, ongoing, professionally structured contact.


    To the extent that an enterprise such as the one I'm suggesting is a marathon rather than a sprint, it would hopefully begin to create a platform from which really momentous news could eventually be amplified; as well as providing tools and resources for its interpretation.

  • I was not aware that newspaper editors required scientific theories of any kind. They are interested in (a) not being laughed, (b) circulation, and (c) clickbait.

    From Wikipedia


    Quote

    The United States Department of Energy organized a special panel to review cold fusion theory and research. The panel issued its report in November 1989, concluding that results as of that date did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion. The panel noted the large number of failures to replicate excess heat and the greater inconsistency of reports of nuclear reaction byproducts expected by established conjecture. Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require established conjecture, perhaps even theory itself, to be extended in an unexpected way.


    The advocates of the cold fusion meme must show that the fusion generated by the reaction meets the expectation of established conjecture. ICCF24 Results may be interesting but notwithstanding, no publisher is going to oppose over three decades of well entranced and widely held opinion to support the unproven cold fusion conjecture.


    Open minds are hard to find. Just like attentive cold fusion theory's make no impact on the well entranced beliefs of the cold fusion community, the fusion meme makes no impact on both science and the well entranced opinions of the general public.

  • axil

    The advocates of the cold fusion meme must show that the fusion generated by the reaction meets the expectation of established conjecture.


    I'm afraid the more I read the quote above, the less I understand what you are trying to say. Should we be lying about our results and conjectures to suit the ideas of Dr. Strabismus of Utrecht?



    Open minds are very hard to find. You are possibly an example of tunnel vision yourself. I also think that quoting Wikipedia's version of a 33 year old report is not particularly useful, since Wikipedia is a well known arena for closed minds to play in.

  • Yes my mind may well be closed but not without reasons. I have not seen any definitive data that says that fusion is occurring in LENR. However, I have seen data that shows how a exploding foil can produce a reduction in the instability of uranium isotopes at a distance through instantaneous radioactive decay reduction and the generation of daughter products (the remaining nuclide left over from radioactive decay). How can this data be derived from Fusion? There seems to be a contradiction with fusion. I have seen so many such widely varied contradictions in so many areas.


    The main fusion support is transmutation, But this process in its full extent does not comport with the established conjecture. Yes hydrogen might transmute to helium. But in contradiction as seen in SAFIRE, rare earths cannot be derived from iron unless under the action of a supernova. I can't abide such inconsistent contradictions. This state of affairs offends both logic and my perception of reality and I am compelled to look for other processes to explain such data and you should too and not shrug these exceptions off to the fusion meme. These contradictions discredits LENR as pseudoscience and Wikimedia is the common definitive reference where the general public and newspaper editors gets their information.

  • Yes my mind may well be closed but not without reasons. I have not seen any definitive data that says that fusion is occurring in LENR. However, I have seen data that shows how a exploding foil can produce a reduction in the instability of uranium isotopes at a distance through instantaneous radioactive decay reduction and the generation of daughter products (the remaining nuclide left over from radioactive decay). How can this data be derived from Fusion? There seems to be a contradiction with fusion. I have seen so many such widely varied contradictions in so many areas.


    The main fusion support is transmutation, But this process in its full extent does not comport with the established conjecture. Yes hydrogen might transmute to helium. But in contradiction as seen in SAFIRE, rare earths cannot be derived from iron unless under the action of a supernova. I can't abide such inconsistent contradictions. This state of affairs offends both logic and my perception of reality and I am compelled to look for other processes to explain such data and you should too and not shrug these exceptions off to the fusion meme. These contradictions discredits LENR as pseudoscience and Wikimedia is the common definitive reference where the general public and newspaper editors gets their information.


    WHAT ELSE ?

  • I have not seen any definitive data that says that fusion is occurring in LENR.

    Right here, on the front of LENR-CANR.org, is proof that it produces heat beyond the limits of chemistry, with no chemical changes. What else could it be but a nuclear reaction?


    https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg



    Proof that it produces tritium, and helium in the same ratio to the heat as D-D plasma fusion can be found in many papers. As shown in this graph:



    What more proof do you want? If hundreds of replications will not convince you, thousands would not. No amount of scientific proof will convince you. I suppose you are waiting for a commercial device.

  • Tell Ed he needs to start a PR campaign, targeting kids, k-12. They have no preconceived notion. Once they catch the bug it'll spread around the world via social media. Tee-shirts, comic books, maybe a scholarship, run a lenr science fare. It starts with kids, they will make it glamorous thru social media.

  • JedRothwell

    this is a misunderstanding between us. Never i neglected the Cold fusion/Lenr reality.

    You can ask the LF staff to know that i'm continue doing experiments in this way.

    As you have more anteriority than me ( since 1989) i asked only to know different points of view about the real He4 production.

    Maybe we only have had xsh by other ways that this one seeming, how to say, too simple to me.

    But probably i'm wrong.

  • I will vouch for David (cydonia). He has done his own research, and works quietly behind the scenes to help advance the science.

  • i asked only to know different points of view about the real He4 production.

    What other points of view are there? Some people think there is one helium atom per reaction (two deuterons), while others think that multiple deuterons are fused at one time. Either way, it is fusion, and the total heat per helium atom is the same. This is basic thermodynamics. This is why combustion and metabolism produce the same amount of heat per molecule of carbon dioxide, even though the paths are different.

    Maybe we only have had xsh by other ways that this one seeming, how to say, too simple to me.

    What other ways are there? Apart from shrinking atoms, I have not heard of any hypothesis other than fusion.

    But probably i'm wrong.

    Yes, you are wrong. Unless you can tell us how helium can be produced from deuterium yet it isn't fusion, you are wrong. It is fusion by definition, no matter what the path is or how complex the reaction may be at various stages. Only the final outcome matters.

  • Yes my mind may well be closed but not without reasons. I have not seen any definitive data that says that fusion is occurring in LENR.

    The above was a misquote of Cydonia. He had copied and pasted from Axil. So, the quote was from Axil. So, Jed Rothwell's response should have been to Axil.


    That said Jed arguments in support of "LENR" as fusion are in the 99% likely true. Also, Axil is correct that some radiation from "LENR" causes an acceleration of radioactive decay or other transmutations at some distance from the electrical plasma, which is thought to originate LENR, so a simple fusion is not the complete answer. This is also 99% likely true. Axil then goes on to mentions several non-starters that he finds offends his sense of reality. We need to note that Axil support for EVOs as the source for LENR offends many because " How does a cluster of electrons become attractive?" and his explanation seems lacking.


    Summary we have different threads so members can layout data in support of LENR. We don't expect members to agree with each other. Further, an avalanche of posts by one member in support of his/her opinion does not improve agreement but in most case increases disagreement.

    As a first step, I suggest a thread where administrators or member given the honorary assignment post highlights from all threads. It should include "among the best old posts" and "recent posts worth more attention". Member should be admonished not to post to this thread but to the original threads. Such a thread could then lead to the desired breakthrough and could be use by newcomers as a guide or authors to create a guide.

  • WHAT ELSE ?

    LENR initiated using light


    In our (parkhomov) laboratory, various substances were exposed to incandescent lamps [8] [9] . Release of excess heat and changes in the elemental composition in the substances surrounding the lamp were detected. In one of the experiments, the tube-shaped incandescent lamp was wrapped in a lead-tin alloy ribbon. In order to prevent the alloy from melting, running water was used. Many elements ranging from lithium to bismuth were reliably detected.


    It is important to note the following. Many attempts to explain LENR include hydrogen or deuterium as a necessary element of the process. In the lead-tin alloy ribbon experiment, nuclear transmutations occur in the complete absence of hydrogen. This indicates the need for approaches to explain LENR that do not require the mandatory presence of hydrogen.


    In a replication at ICCF24


    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.

  • Well i thought also about some beta desintegrations explaining only as ash Pd with a isotopic shift.

    Who tried to looking for if Pd transmuted ?


    Only Thoughts as say my friend Bert :saint:

    What other points of view are there? Some people think there is one helium atom per reaction (two deuterons), while others think that multiple deuterons are fused at one time. Either way, it is fusion, and the total heat per helium atom is the same. This is basic thermodynamics. This is why combustion and metabolism produce the same amount of heat per molecule of carbon dioxide, even though the paths are different.

    What other ways are there? Apart from shrinking atoms, I have not heard of any hypothesis other than fusion.

    Yes, you are wrong. Unless you can tell us how helium can be produced from deuterium yet it isn't fusion, you are wrong. It is fusion by definition, no matter what the path is or how complex the reaction may be at various stages. Only the final outcome matters.

  • Helium and hydrogen generation in pure metals irradiated with high-energy protons and spallation neutrons in LANSCE


    Neutrons, helium, and hydrogen nuclides (including He-3 & Tritium) can be readily produced in metals by firing high speed protons into the lattice. So any claims that the presence of those products prove that D+D fusion is occurring, due to high deuteron static loading, do need to be supported with some extra evidence.

  • It is important to note the following. Many attempts to explain LENR include hydrogen or deuterium as a necessary element of the process. In the lead-tin alloy ribbon experiment, nuclear transmutations occur in the complete absence of hydrogen. This indicates the need for approaches to explain LENR that do not require the mandatory presence of hydrogen.

    I know of several attempts to reproduce this work carried out in Europe -with some input from AlexanderP - None of them worked.

  • Well i thought also about some beta desintegrations explaining only as ash Pd with a isotopic shift.

    Who tried to looking for if Pd transmuted ?


    Only Thoughts as say my friend Bert :saint:

    There may be another alterative to the fusion process involved in LENR. Because the LENR process does not leave any radioactive byproducts around after the reaction occurs, the answer to transmutation may be Baryogenesis as occurred in the initial electroweak epoch of the early universe when the electromagnetic and the electroweak forces were united and this combined electroweak force was a long range force. Electroweak unification is indicated by LENR experimentation where no radioactive isotopes are produced by transmutation. This non nuclear electroweak transmutation process must be explained in the theory of LENR.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…the%20observed%20universe.


    Electroweak epoch - Wikipedia


    The next question to be answered is how the LENR reaction produces electroweak unification.