Curbina Administrator
  • Member since Mar 1st 2014

Posts by Curbina

    These were published a good while ago (we discussed them in october 2021 already) and then they were made unavailable, good to see them available again. May be wise to dowload them this time.

    I have emailed somebody who was close to KS to see if they have any idea about Hutchinson's possible role as inspiration for Ken's work on EVO's. I will let you know what (and if) I leanr more.

    Thanks! Will be nice to have a first hand point of view.


    I will try to find the letters to the editor of Matsumoto where he acknowledges the importance of Ken’s work. I recall was a exchange with Ed Lewis.

    Nonsense. The inspiration was from Bostick's work.

    Ok Alan Smith , I can't argue with you as you have a much better understanding of these relationships.


    I can only say that this doesn't come from me.


    My source for the above statemente is Bob Greenyer. He and John Hutchison are currently in almost daily touch, and Bob has a video where he states that was Hal Puthoff, at the request of Eric Davis (if I recall correctly, this last bit may not be accurate), who hired Ken Shoulders to study the Hutchison effect and this is what led to the EVO discovery. If this is nonsense, I am surprised. Bostick's work is however also involved in this by Bob's account of the story, as being already under research by Davis / Puthoff when they got interested in the so called "Hutchison effect".


    I recall also seeing a lenghty video of Kenneth Shoulders talking with Jon Hutchison in a very relaxed demeanor, where they appear to be talking at large of plenty of stuff in the absolutely fringe side of things, and I recall specifically Ken talking about being interviewed by the Prince of Liechtenstein about his work.

    I asked several questions about the particular professional relationship between Kenneth Shoulders and the controversial John Hutchison to LENR-CANR ChatGPT bots 1 and 2. Bot 1 provided no results but Bot 2 at least gave some general answers that I was able to narrow down to the following:



    This answer is quite revealing of the general reception the EVO topic has received.


    I just want to add that has been stated since long that the work that led Kenneth Shoulders to discover EVOs derived from his mission of studying and replicating the Hutchison effect. This is a hairy topic and probably contributes to the general silence with which most EVO-LENR relationship claims are met with.



    Wuhan market samples shed no more light

    Hopes have been dashed that genomic data from swabs collected in the early days of the pandemic will reveal the origins of COVID-19. Data from the swabs, collected by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, have been analysed by three teams, but each has failed to pinpoint which animal species — if any — infected people at the market. “I would basically describe this as a negative result,” says Jesse Bloom, the virologist who conducted the latest analysis.

    Nature | 5 min read

    I wonder if there's anyone left still waiting for evidence to say if the bat soup hypothesis-fantasy was ever true.

    Appreciate your willingness to deep dive in this topic. I just wanted to point out that Ken Shoulders work is not at all shunned by LENR-forum, in fact we even have available for download “A Tale of Discovery” in the USEFUL BOOK THREAD.



    We are also aware that Takaaki Matsumoto realized the importance of Kenneth Shoulders’s work and recognized that EVOs / Ball lightning were at the core of LENR, which was recorded for posterity in a letter exchange published in Fusion Technology.


    That said, the problem for a wider acceptance and understanding of this important knowledge is that Ken’s work is complex and completely against the grain of mainstream knowledge, hence is met with silence, mostly. I don’t recall at which ICCF Kenneth attended and presented his conclusion that the key to LENR was the EVO. He was largely ignored. A shame, but also a fact.

    An article in Chinese, about a replication of those experiments by Zhang Hang

    http://www.lenr.com.cn/index.p…dex&a=show&catid=7&id=905


    The google translation seems clear

    https://www-lenr-com-cn.transl…o&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

    Thanks AlainCo , it seems to be the same that Alan Smith posted in English a few posts back in this thread, now we have the original in Chinese.

    I have seen similar formations being shown as formed at the micrometer scale in the samples prepared in the “VEGA” experiment that is an analogue of the SAFIRE reactor.

    A new paper by Carpinteri finds LENR in Gypsum and Quartz fracturing.


    Abstract

    Extensive experimental investigations were conducted on Gypsum and Quartz compression specimens of different sizes. They were brought to complete failure, showing two different failure modalities: (1) Very brittle loading drop for micro-crystalline Gypsum and Quartz; (2) Stable strain-softening behaviour for macro-crystalline Gypsum. All the tested specimens emitted acoustic and electromagnetic waves and the single events cumulated up to the peak load. On the other hand, neutron emissions were evident only for the largest specimens. The significant chemical composition changes occurring on the fracture surfaces are consistently explained by the assumption of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), both fusion and fission. It is the first time that fusion reactions emerge from crushing tests, whereas fission reactions have already consistently explained the results related to other materials like the iron-rich natural rocks. Therefore, a correlation emerges between fusion nuclear reactions and strain-softening mechanical behaviour, as well as between fission nuclear reactions and brittle mechanical behaviour.



    Gypsum and quartz specimens in compression failure: Fracto-emissions and related stoichiometric balances
    Extensive experimental investigations were conducted on Gypsum and Quartz compression specimens of different sizes. They were brought to complete fail…
    www.sciencedirect.com

    I post it here to highlight that one of the aspects they state will be explored is “In our project we will combine an electro-chemical cell with ion beams for deuterium loading and defect engineering of palladium.be which is the topic that interests us in this thread. Its interesting they are attempting to engineer the cracks on the Pd lattice as one of the aspects of their research.


    This description makes no sense. This word salad. I have no idea what "defect engineering" means. Also, cracks are NOT THE SITE of LENR. The sites are gaps having a critical dimensioin. The details are important yet getting the details understood seems to be impossible.

    Well probably my understanding that cracks are what cause the gap is totally wrong then, yikes!. Are the gaps associated then to what process?

    This is what I mean by inherently safe when talking about Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactors (LTFRs):


    Safety Features

    Molten Salt Reactors, and by extension LFTRs, have several very attractive safety features. First, and most importantly, is the negative coefficient of reactivity. This means that as the temperature in the reactor increases, the rate at which the fission reactions proceed decreases. This will self-regulate the temperature in the fuel salt and prevent the reactor from going prompt critical (i.e. blowing up). [2] It is worth noting that the coefficient of reactivity for the reactor shown in figure 1 would actually move from negative to positive due to heating of the graphite moderator. [2] LFTR designs generally do not have a graphite moderator.

    In most MSR designs, there is a freeze plug safety mechanism built into the reactor plumbing. If the plug were removed, the reactor salt would flow down into holding tanks. A freeze plug needs to be continuously cooled to prevent it from melting and thus allowing the salt to flow out of the reactor. If power to the MSR facility were removed, say due to some natural disaster, the reactor would power down without the need for any human intervention.


    Quoted from Stanford University LFTRs page.


    Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

    Safety is clearly the main concern, and as Stone correctly points, we have decades of Hollywood fear porn propaganda that makes nuclear guilty by default.


    That’s not to say is not a true concern, and in my country, being it arguably the most seismic country in the world, nuclear power has been studied and discarded for good, as we get too many strong EQs, too often.


    The question is as often of balance, and the NRC taking things to the extreme of making nuclear power a stagnant field compared to China’s booming nuclear plant building makes one wonder what is the proper balance.


    And because of this I must go back to the Liquid Thorium Fluoride reactors, fully developed in the 1960s, and with inherently safe design to stop the reaction as the natural state of the reactants prevents the reaction to proceed in case of a total power black out. One can only wonder why this never became a commercial reality.

    Thanks to Ahlfors for posting the (I assume recently available online) website of one of the ARPA-e funded projects, the one that is a collaboration between UC Berkeley and UC Davis.


    FS & IBT - Low energy nuclear reaction
    The project will focus on quantifying nuclear reactions, such as the deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction at relatively low reaction energies, below 500 eV. At…
    ibt.lbl.gov


    I post it here to highlight that one of the aspects they state will be explored is “In our project we will combine an electro-chemical cell with ion beams for deuterium loading and defect engineering of palladium.be which is the topic that interests us in this thread. Its interesting they are attempting to engineer the cracks on the Pd lattice as one of the aspects of their research.

    We had already posted a brief review of this paper by Brazilian Nuclear Engineer and ICCF 23 participant Luciano Ondir in the Last newsletter of 2021. It is really good so great that Dave Nagel has noticed it.

    Brazilian Nuclear Energy Researchers officially join the LENR field with a strong claim:

    A team led by Dr. Luciano Ondir Freire (Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares (IPEN-CNEN/SP), Nuclear Engineering Center, São Paulo, Brazil) has published recently in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry the review paper "Preliminary survey on cold fusion: It’s not pathological science and may require revision of nuclear theory". This extensive review paper has thoroughly assessed the 30+ years of LENR research to conclude that it is a valid and potentially ground breaking research field in spite of the controversy, and that it may lead to revise accepted nuclear models. Dr. Luciano Ondir participated in ICCF 23 as expositor with a Poster Presentation. You can join the discussion of this important paper at the following LENR-Forum thread: Brazil Joins the party- a survey of the LENR field.

    We have also a link to the paper


    https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/19202-brazil-2021-paper-pdf/