Display MoreDear ICCF-25 Participant,
we are pleased to inform that a videos of the oral presentations given during ICCF-25 Conference have just been published at https://recordings.iccf25.com/
Use a “iccf25poland” as a password to see the content.
Kind regards,
Katarzyna Wejsis
ICCF-25 Official Secretariat
Great! Thanks!
Very well formatted and with subtitles to complement the audio, main focus in the slides and the presenters in a small window. I really liked the site and the quality of the videos, Kudos to the organizers for an outstanding job, and much earlier than anticipated!
Li's talk is very interesting (And his English is good)
He has a model, showing various power-of-3 effects, which are linear on suitable log plots
His model considers a two-step resonance on the surface of an atom.
Near resonance the coulomb barrier is irrelevant. In hot fusion it dominates.
Hot fusion goes as e^ -3280/(1/T) and produces gammas
Cold fusion goes as e^-E0/T and produces neutrons .
The "energy deficit" between the two is 1 MEV
This involves a "k" electron. It annihilates, producing a neutron, and then another electron fills its place, emitting X-rays.
He predicts both LENR heat-production and Transmutation rates (viewed as peaks of depletion)
From 3 points on a straight line he predicts Big Bang Lithium production!
2-step resonance explains some of the present experiments. He thinks 3-step resonance will explain the rest.
The predicted neutron flux 10^5/m2/sec is similar to solar, so he plans to look for them.
(This is from notes on the talk.... but I think it's mostly right.)
WARNING: the video password has quotes, which are easy to copy'n'paste.
iccf25poland
Maybe edit the original post, without quotes
The predicted neutron flux 10^5/m2/sec is similar to solar, so he plans to look for them
I think he expects neutrino flux,, not neutrons emitted,
Its good to see Xing Zhong Li still burning and not consumed..
He's been in LENR for a long time
Display MoreDear ICCF-25 Participant,
we are pleased to inform that a videos of the oral presentations given during ICCF-25 Conference have just been published at https://recordings.iccf25.com/
Use a iccf25poland as a password to see the content.
Kind regards,
Katarzyna Wejsis
ICCF-25 Official Secretariat
God Bless All of You for accomplishing the video editing so rapidly and making it available.
Deeply grateful for all of your hard work, and literally praying for the LENR global community to achieve breakthroughs asap.
The world is in desperate need of energy.
"Energy Impoverishment" oppresses the lower 3 Billion in abject poverty, of which over 40 Million Die each year from energy poverty.
I'm a member of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1953 Atoms for Peace Initiative.
Had his vision been accomplished for the world there would be no climate change and no energy poverty.
Dear Alan Smith ,
Would it be possible to have a Forum dedicated to discussing each video topic from the conference in Poland? Or would that be too complicated?
Again, deeply grateful for all of your hard work.
Dear Alan Smith ,
Would it be possible to have a Forum dedicated to discussing each video topic from the conference in Poland? Or would that be too complicated?
Again, deeply grateful for all of your hard work.
Not too daunting if by 'forum' you mean 'thread'. If you care to pick a video - preferably an experimental science one. since theory discussions often generate more heat than light, we could try.
After ICCF 24th we had a thread to comment which presentations had been the best for us and why we thought that, but in that case one could paste the link to each presentation in the post. I think the ICCF 25 videos are not linkable in the same way due to the password protection of the site. Anyway you can start such a thread if you think is worth it Lenora .
The Solid State Energy Youtube Channel, which contains the ICCF 24 presentations videos since they were released, now is uploading the ICCF 25 presentation videos also, so far about 31 of them have been uploaded, I hope they upload them all, as one can then link to them for further discussion.
Here is the link:
is uploading the ICCF 25 presentation videos also
I've noticed that these videos are of a poorer visual quality than the password protected Vimeo ones - and appear to have come from different source recordings.
I've noticed that these videos are of a poorer visual quality than the password protected Vimeo ones - and appear to have come from different source recordings.
I agree, but I think is good they are on youtube for the sake of sharing the link of specific presentations and facilitating the discussion.
Glad they released them earlier than what they said.
After ICCF 24th we had a thread to comment which presentations had been the best for us and why we thought that, but in that case one could paste the link to each presentation in the post. I think the ICCF 25 videos are not linkable in the same way due to the password protection of the site. Anyway you can start such a thread if you think is worth it Lenora .
I missed the conference, but have been playing catch up on the videos. I have been through most now, and have to say that -unlike last year's ICCF25 in Silicon Valley, there is nothing that stuck out to me as newsworthy.
Not saying it was not a success, because it was. Better techniques. better equipment, measurements, with the same, or slightly better, results over last years. But in my capacity, I look for something that may challenge the scientific community and the public to reconsider their long held consensus that LENR is pseudoscience.
Ben Barrow from the US Army Lab, kind of summed up my overall impression. He said something like "yes, I am still getting tantalizing results of transmutations like last year. So have others for many years...yet we have been ignored by the mainstream. We need to get more conclusive proof". He is working on that BTW.
Haven't seen the CleanHME video yet though, and some others, so still have an open mind. But curious if others see things differently?
Nice that a staff member watches the truth face to face 
Display MoreI missed the conference, but have been playing catch up on the videos. I have been through most now, and have to say that -unlike last year's ICCF25 in Silicon Valley, there is nothing that stuck out to me as newsworthy.
Not saying it was not a success, because it was. Better techniques. better equipment, measurements, with the same, or slightly better, results over last years. But in my capacity, I look for something that may challenge the scientific community and the public to reconsider their long held consensus that LENR is pseudoscience.
Ben Barrow from the US Army Lab, kind of summed up my overall impression. He said something like "yes, I am still getting tantalizing results of transmutations like last year. So have others for many years...yet we have been ignored by the mainstream. We need to get more conclusive proof". He is working on that BTW.
Haven't seen the CleanHME video yet though, and some others, so still have an open mind. But curious if others see things differently?
Not saying it was not a success, because it was. Better techniques. better equipment, measurements, with the same, or slightly better, results over last years. But in my capacity, I look for something that may challenge the scientific community and the public to reconsider their long held consensus that LENR is pseudoscience.
Ben Barrow from the US Army Lab, kind of summed up my overall impression. He said something like "yes, I am still getting tantalizing results of transmutations like last year. So have others for many years...yet we have been ignored by the mainstream. We need to get more conclusive proof". He is working on that BTW.
Haven't seen the CleanHME video yet though, and some others, so still have an open mind. But curious if others see things differently?
LENR is not pseudo-science as long as those involved are honest and don't conflate "tantalising results" with "proof of new physics". Which AFAIK is the case for moat (all?) of the new gen scientists. For commercial reasons you don't expect quite the same clarity from companies - where cheery optimism is necessary to get funding.
Thus:
Results that fit (in an interesting way) within existing physics - tantalising or not - science. For example the lattice-enhanced reaction rates.
Results (e.g. transformation) which come from interpretations outside existing physics - science only if noted as tantalising and unsubstantiated until the proof is available.
The pseudoscience bit comes from rolling up all the tantalising and just plain not understood stuff into a grand "Useful LENR exists" meme which is then used to interpret all future experiments in a "unexpected results are likely to come from new physics" way.
LENR is sufficiently flexible as a set of potential phenomena / theoretical interpretations that it encompasses all this stuff, both the science and the pseudo-science.
Anyway I hope anything interesting from ICCF-25 will be highlighted here.
THH
A very important presentation by Pr. Nancy Lynn Bowen. I urge you all to watch it several times, take notes, and cite it in your future publications.
This is a brilliant refutation of all the criticism we have suffered for over thirty years:
-There is no need for new physics to explain the virtual absence of neutrons and gammas.
-The superconductivity of Palladium and deuterium alloys is the key to our observations.
-LENRs are chain reactions, and the calculation proves that these chain reactions are possible.
-It is possible to improve the efficiency of these reactions by means which relate to conventional physics, and which are within the reach of current engineering techniques.
We all knew it more or less, of course, we each said it in different words ("Nuclear Active Environment", "Diafluidity", to name only two amongs dozens terms) but this presentation remarkably supported by uncontestable calculations confirms to us that LENRs are possible.
There’s a reference to a ‘negative probability’ at one point, and a probability ‘greater than 100%’ at another – can someone clarify what this means?
Not a specialist in statistics and probability science, I am an experimentator, but in my mind, its means "close to zero".
Our Partners
