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
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 deleted account .
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 deleted account .
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".
I would recommend watching the password protected Vimeo version. The slides are fully legible on that one (and the sound is better).
I think this is a good example of treating these reactions as a "fourth quadrant problem".
By that, I am obliquely referring to the (by now) familiar idea often referred to as "black swan theory" - in which problems are assumed to fall into three categories. These are often labelled as problems with "known knowns", "known unknowns", and "unknown unknowns" - the last being the eponymous "black swan".
However if these phrases are tabulated, in a 2x2 square, you will see that there is a fourth quadrant, that can be labelled "unknown knowns". This fourth quadrant represents things that many people already know - but in the process of analysis we have ignored as irrelevant, forgotten about, dismissed as unimportant, or they are so far outside of our particular discipline that we either never learned they existed, or we are totally blind to them - even when looking straight at them.
This last issue is related to what the late, great, Douglas Adams referred to as an SEP Field.
QuoteDisplay MoreDouglas Adams' 1982 novel Life, the Universe and Everything (in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comedy science fiction series) introduces the idea of an "SEP field" as a kind of cloaking device. The character Ford Prefect says,
"An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot."
The narration then explains:
"The Somebody Else's Problem field... relies on people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain. If Effrafax had painted the mountain pink and erected a cheap and simple Somebody Else’s Problem field on it, then people would have walked past the mountain, round it, even over it, and simply never have noticed that the thing was there."
So, maybe, rather than assuming that there must be a mysterious black swan hiding behind a particular problem, we should spend more time applying what we already know, and ridding ourselves of particular blind spots.
By that, I am referring to the (by now) familiar idea often referred to as "black swan theory" - in which problems are assumed to fall into three categories. These are often labelled as problems with "known knowns", "known unknowns", and "unknown unknowns" - the last being the eponymous "black swan".
There is a book titled "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" by Nassim Taleb. It was on the best seller list for a long time. I was unimpressed by it. He lists many events which he claimed were little known, very surprising, and not anticipated. He is wrong about most of them. I, personally, knew about most of these things. The ones relating to technology. I was not surprised by them. I checked several, and they were predicted by experts, and also by very smart people such as Arthur Clarke. Some were predicted decades before they emerged.
I am uncreative, unoriginal, and conventional. As Fleischmann said, "we are painfully conventional people." He meant it, and so do I. That is actually an advantage when it comes to recognizing Black Swan events. It means I take things at face value, and I assume things have a prosaic explanation. You may think that means I do not believe in Black Swan events such as the discovery of cold fusion, but it is just the opposite. When hundreds of scientists confirm excess heat, I assume the heat must be real, because that is how science works. There must be a "prosaic" explanation -- that is, one that fits with the laws of physics -- but we have not yet discovered it. That often happens. It cannot be a miracle, and there is no way a widely replicated result can be wrong. That is the conventional, stick-in-the-mud view.
The people who deny cold fusion, and the people who are surprised by Black Swan events are the ones who should do their homework. Not me. I conclude the quality of being improbable is mostly in the mind of the observer. Events are seldom inherently improbable. Nature does not work that way. In physics, "everything not forbidden is compulsory" as Gell-Man put it. Events are surprising to people whose minds are not prepared for them. Who have not studied history, and not done their homework.
My mother was an expert in statistics and public opinion. Like most statisticians she had a strong feeling that things have a prosaic explanation. As the expression goes, when you hear hooves, think of horses, not zebras. She knew the difference between likely and unlikely, and she did not confuse the latter with "unanticipated." On November 1, 1950, she was riding in a streetcar close to the White House. There were several loud bangs. Someone said, "my God, they're shooting at the President!" She looked up from the newspaper and said, "nonsense, that is just a truck backfiring." It turned out someone was trying to shoot President Truman. They killed a Secret Service agent. My mother assumed the bang noises were prosaic and usual. I inherited that attitude from her. However, that does not mean that she never believed cold fusion. On the contrary, she had seen so much progress, and so many breakthroughs such as the atomic bomb, she was inclined to believe that human knowledge is limited, scientists and other experts are often wrong or they lack imagination, new ideas are often opposed for irrational reasons . . . and for all these reasons and more, cold fusion might well be right. In other words, conventional, well informed knowledge of history will make you more inclined to be open minded, and better at anticipating Black Swan events. That was true of my mother, and of Martin Fleischmann, and I hope it is true of me.
