Quote from Paradigmnoia

I am not saying that exactly. But there are many of those for sure.

Scraping the gunk out of the LENR bin is a good idea, however. It spoils the rest of the batch.

I made a Lugano Style COP of 7.2 not just to prove a point, but to keep thousands of hours and dollars from being wasted on a dream made of bullshit. People can still cook ceramic rods full of nickel and lithium etc, but at least they are forewarned. Notice nobody uses IR cameras for LENR claims anymore. Not because it doesn’t work, but because as soon as someone does, they figure out the Lugano problem for themselves. But then they seem to say nothing about it.

And all that’s good, but assuming that all people that report an excess heat are scammers because one can fake a high COP experiment is kind of arrogant, too.

Quote from Bruce__H

So is temperature-sensitive activation of internal heating. Lots of groups seem to think that this is a characteristic of LENR. So how is it arrogant to include it into a model?

I have never said it’s arrogant to create a model (albeit it might as well be useless if the understanding of the phenomena is poor). What I consider is arrogant is to deny the validity of observations because they don’t fit a model. And this is what you have been doing all along, casting doubt on the validity of the data because it doesn’t fit what you think it should do.

Quote from Daniel_G

We are in uncharted territory. The difference of opinions is healthy here. Even passionate disagreement is interaction that may open our minds to other paths in the future.

I am fond of different opinions and points of views when they are honest. Paradigmnoia has honestly stated his thought we all are a bunch of self deluded hopefuls (perhaps in not so many words) and he has done experiments himself to prove his point, the interpretation of which we not always agree upon (case In Point, the so called strange radiation tracks).

Quote from Bruce__H

But this is a big assumption too isn't it? You can't get away from the process of conjecture and refutation ... that is just science. It isn't intellectual arrogance.

Not an assumption, but an inference based on studying reports of a quite large number of observations.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

A reaction that responds to temperature as a control of some sort should have certain characteristics.

I think that by calling it “reaction” A lot is being assumed, perhaps because the mind always try to approach new phenomena from a known point of view. From what I have gathered since I started studying this and up to this very day, I think this is an entirely different phenomena than a “reaction”, thus expecting a behavior based on known reactions will get you no where.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

A reaction that instead depends on input power, rather than temperature, seems to be an odd beast.

Again, thinking of this as a reaction leads nowhere. The electromagnetic aspect of LENR is key to its success, leaving it out of the picture is self defeating.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Other than modelling and seeing what “sticks”, what do you suggest?
Iterating blindly only gets one so far

I do have a lot of respect of your opinion because you are the kind of person that wants to see things for yourself, thus you went on and built a calorimeter to test if what Jed Rothwell helped Mizuno to publish “held water” from a practical point of view, and as far as I can tell from your reports, it seems that what was reported by Mizuno - Rothwell was plausible to have been measured. Experimentalists rank high in my list of people.
That said, I know your starting hypothesis is that is impossible to see excess heat and if the error is not in the calorimetry, or at least it can’t be entirely traced to the calorimetry, it’s elsewhere.

What I suggest is to continue do experiments and recording data. Some have achieved results, they need to keep going and gathering more data until we get enough to begin understanding what is going on, and then try to make a model to explore it theoretically.

Quote from Bruce__H

. It may just be an artefact of using the Arrhenius formula.

As often happens when one insists on using a model to describe reality without real understanding of the underlying phenomena.

The insistence of trying to make observations fit a preconceived model and not letting them guide your thinking towards a higher level of understanding has always struck me as a kind of self defeating intellectual arrogance.

You can’t force nature to fit your limited understanding of it, you have to observe nature and try to understand what it does.

Quote from Alan Smith

I think the problem with Ag is that is blackens the optical windows very quickly. It might be more effective, but not without problems.

I have to admit that this last video is the first one from BLP, ever, that impressed me as showing something very interesting. Those molten tin Jets and the intense light are something to admire.

Quote from Curbina

It took almost two years but this article from Leif Holmlid was finally published

https://energsustainsoc.biomed…0.1186/s13705-022-00338-4

I followed since it was a preprint, and it underwent the process twice before getting accepted.

Muon-catalyzed fusion and annihilation energy generation will supersede non-sustainable T + D nuclear fusion

Abstract

Background

Large-scale fusion reactors using hydrogen isotopes as fuel are under development at several places in the world. These types of fusion reactors use tritium as fuel for the T + D reaction. However, tritium is not a sustainable fuel, since it likely will require fission reactors for its production, and since it is a dangerous material due to its radioactivity with main risks of release to the environment during tritium production, transport and refuelling operations. Thus, widespread use of fusion relying on tritium fuel should be avoided. At least two better methods for producing the nuclear energy needed in the world indeed already exist, using deuterium or ordinary hydrogen as fuel, and more methods need to be developed. It should be noted that the first experiments with sustained laser-driven fusion above break-even using deuterium as fuel were published already in 2015. Similar results for T + D fusion do not exist even after 60 years of development, which gives no confidence in this approach.

article is open access, as all Holmlid’s articles.

Display More

Thanks for copying this post here, I had forgot to recommend a thread for discussion of the paper.

The main difference between the final version and the pre print version is the annex of graphs and tables backing up some of the assertions, in general terms I think is great this paper was finally published.

Now, on other topic, has anyone heard or been in contact with can ? He hasn’t logged in for a good while and I fear he might have had some health issue.

It took almost two years but this article from Leif Holmlid was finally published

Muon-catalyzed fusion and annihilation energy generation will supersede non-sustainable T + D nuclear fusion - Energy, Sustainability and Society

Background Large-scale fusion reactors using hydrogen isotopes as fuel are under development at several places in the world. These types of fusion reactors use…

energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com

I followed since it was a preprint, and it underwent the process twice before getting accepted.

Muon-catalyzed fusion and annihilation energy generation will supersede non-sustainable T + D nuclear fusion

Abstract

Background

Large-scale fusion reactors using hydrogen isotopes as fuel are under development at several places in the world. These types of fusion reactors use tritium as fuel for the T + D reaction. However, tritium is not a sustainable fuel, since it likely will require fission reactors for its production, and since it is a dangerous material due to its radioactivity with main risks of release to the environment during tritium production, transport and refuelling operations. Thus, widespread use of fusion relying on tritium fuel should be avoided. At least two better methods for producing the nuclear energy needed in the world indeed already exist, using deuterium or ordinary hydrogen as fuel, and more methods need to be developed. It should be noted that the first experiments with sustained laser-driven fusion above break-even using deuterium as fuel were published already in 2015. Similar results for T + D fusion do not exist even after 60 years of development, which gives no confidence in this approach.

article is open access, as all Holmlid’s articles.

It took almost two years but this article from Leif Holmlid was finally published

Muon-catalyzed fusion and annihilation energy generation will supersede non-sustainable T + D nuclear fusion - Energy, Sustainability and Society

Background Large-scale fusion reactors using hydrogen isotopes as fuel are under development at several places in the world. These types of fusion reactors use…

energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com

I followed since it was a preprint, and it underwent the process twice before getting accepted.

Muon-catalyzed fusion and annihilation energy generation will supersede non-sustainable T + D nuclear fusion

Abstract

Background

Large-scale fusion reactors using hydrogen isotopes as fuel are under development at several places in the world. These types of fusion reactors use tritium as fuel for the T + D reaction. However, tritium is not a sustainable fuel, since it likely will require fission reactors for its production, and since it is a dangerous material due to its radioactivity with main risks of release to the environment during tritium production, transport and refuelling operations. Thus, widespread use of fusion relying on tritium fuel should be avoided. At least two better methods for producing the nuclear energy needed in the world indeed already exist, using deuterium or ordinary hydrogen as fuel, and more methods need to be developed. It should be noted that the first experiments with sustained laser-driven fusion above break-even using deuterium as fuel were published already in 2015. Similar results for T + D fusion do not exist even after 60 years of development, which gives no confidence in this approach.

article is open access, as all Holmlid’s articles.

I found another mention of Cold Fusion, this time in the Series “The Blacklist”, Season 6 episode 5. Around The 8 minutes mark they are discussing the victims of a supposed organization that had been killing inventors of revolutionary technologies and the first one of the list is a fictional Russian descent researcher that invented a working Cold Fusion device.

It turns out later that the murder was a single person, a bitter USPTO bureaucrat that wanted to gather all the inventions and demanded money in exchange of not releasing them to the entire world for free.

Gennadiy Tarassenko , about the book you asked, it’s very recent and published independently by the author himself, I doubt there are plans of translation to Russian.

New Paper:

PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND ATOMIC NUCLEUS
2022. V. 53, no. 1. C. 110–144
THE PHENOMENON OF ARTIFICIAL
RADIOACTIVITY IN METAL
CATHODES UNDER GLOW DISCHARGE CONDITIONS
S. F. Timashev, I. B. Savvatimova, S. S. Poteshin,
N. I. Kargin, A. A. Sysoev, S. M. Ryndya *
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow

Original in Russian can be found here:

https://www1.jinr.ru/publish/Pepan/v-53-1/05_Timashev.pdf

English Abstract:

It is shown that artificial radioactivity can be initiated under the conditions of a glow discharge plasma. When analyzing the isotopic and elemental composition in the near-surface region of Pd and Ni cathodes, before and after 40-hour treatment under D- and H-containing plasma, respectively, changes in isotopic ratios were recorded for impurity Pt and Pb in Pd cathode and Fe, Cu and Zn in the Ni cathode.
A significant reduction of these impurity elements in the cathodes and the formation of isotopes W in Pd with impurity isotopes of Pt were found. Possible nuclear processes responsible for the established artificial radioactivity are considered.

New independent book on Cold Fusion by Author David Moon:

While browsing for any new paper or article I found this interesting new book that takes "cold fusion" as a given and explores its implications. Of course not "mainstream" nor coming from a recognized authority, but interesting ideas, nevertheless.

David Moon

Book Summary

Paleontologists and geologists are interested in the ages of fossils, rocks, and minerals, from which they deduce the ages of geologic strata in the Geologic Column. Scientists make use of radioactive dating methods, such as the radioactive decays of carbon 14, uranium 238, and thorium 232 in fossils and minerals. Accurate age determinations depend on knowing the rate of the radioactive emissions and the relative amounts of initial and product elements in the decay series. However, if an interfering nuclear change took place earlier, the perceived age of the earth deposit would have to be wrong.

In 1989, the discovery of cold fusion-the fusion of hydrogen to make helium and energy inside metal electrodes at room temperature-was announced by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah. Soon after, cold fusion research also revealed that nuclear transmutations, forming many new elements, occur liberally. Even purposely-added radioactive uranium and thorium in cold fusion-type cells resulted in transmutations, and the disappearance of up to 95 percent of the radioactivity in hours or minutes. In addition, special water pumps, invented in America and Europe, were discovered to generate "excess heat"; and possible nuclear effects by intensely agitating water and creating "cavitation bubbles".

In Carbon Dating, Cold Fusion, and a Curve Ball, the author postulates interfering nuclear (element) changes occurring in the Earth, and proposes that extensive element transmutations occurred from intense hydrodynamics during the Flood of Noah (Genesis 6-8). If so, it is conceivable much alteration of radioactive elements took place, rendering unreliable the radioactive dating results in most analyses done today. A relatively simple test of this theory is outlined. The test would use a piece of bismuth metal, a tank of water, and a boat's outboard motor.

The book is written for the non-scientist, but those trained in the physical sciences or engineering are invited to examine the new hypothesis of Earth's element transmutations and the consequential alteration of dating earth material by radioactive elements.

Quote from Shane D.

Sounds good. Is it the March, or February newsletter?

Well, should have been the February one but we are on March, so...

Hello to all readers and subscribers of LENR-forum.com

This is the March 2022 Edition of our monthly Newsletter, and we have some exciting developments to share with you all.

Highly interesting results in Bubble / Cavitation Fusion Experiments:

Russian-American Physicist Max Fomitchev-Zamilov has published a research report in which he describes the ability to produce several orders of magnitude above background neutrons with a Cavitation device. He shared the report at his ResearchGate page, you can find all the links in the following post: BUBBLE FUSION STILL BUBBLING

He also held a very informative Zoom meeting with Bob Greenyer of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial project where he discusses the in and outs of his experiments and reports for the first time a number of anomalous observations that are very enlightening about the nature of this phenomena (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z01586zdnM0 )

Solid State Fusion Prize to be announced at ICCF 24:

As if it were not enough good news that ICCF 24 will be held in Silicon Valley, organized and sponsored by the Athropocene Institute, we learn now that at ICCF 24 will hold a devoted session, on its second day (July 26 2022), to announce and discuss the Solid State Fusion prize in which participation and expectations will be discussed. Scant little is known about this prize, and we at LENR-forum are striving to get more information from our network of contacts, we will be sharing any further information we can find in the following thread: ICCF-24 Call For ABSTRACTS

Video of the LENR-forum online LEC Symposium finally released:

The fascinating effect that drives the Lattice Energy Converter, an invention of Frank Gordon and Harper Whitehouse, is discussed in depth by a panel of replicators and developers of this invention, in this two part presentation that is finally available to our audience. You can watch both parts and take part in the discussion in the following thread: Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)" online Simposium video

We are proud to announce that LENR-Forum.com has planned a series of upcoming videos of the same kind with open discussion of hot LENR-topics, we will announce and publish them in due time.

New IEEE Spectrum Article brings "Cold Fusion" to Mainstream in a positive light (again):

In what is becoming quickly a trend, an interesting and optimistic new article has been published at IEEE Spectrum, under the title "NASA’s New Shortcut to Fusion Power", where the recent work of NASA on the so called Lattice Confinement Fusion is discussed in relation to the more classic hot plasma approach, but classic experiments of LENR (deuterium diffusion through Pd and Electrolysis with Pd) are mentioned and discussed as being one and the same phenomena. You can read this article here: https://spectrum.ieee.org/lattice-confinement-fusion

And that's all for now, stay tuned for further news and don't forget to visit us at LENR-Forum.com and engage in the active discussion!!!

The LENR-Forum Staff.

I created an account at IEEE just to be able to post in the comments section. I encourage other members of LENR-forum to do the same to get the conversation going there.

My comment is:

“As I understand, Sakharov’s ideas were originally developed thinking of a space propulsion system, the idea of turning it into an energy reactor came later and overlooked that fact entirely.

Anyway, I see briefly mentioned that you are also doing deuterium

diffusion through palladium experiments (I read the paper in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy) and also electrolytic palladium loading (I read the paper where you counted an increase in neutrons with bubble detectors).

I can only say: isn’t this 1989 all over again? I am just astonished that 32 years had to pass to people begin taking seriously LENR again. Thanks to all the involved in this Important research, please keep an open mind, this is not just about smashing particles together, there’s an entire electromagnetic aspect being completely overlooked.”

Quote from orsova

https://mobile.twitter.com/ARPAE/status/1498347021291462659

The full anouncement can be read here:

https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/press-releases/us-department-energy-announces-10-million-small-businesses-working

And the link for enquiring further can be reached here.

https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/Default.aspx

Thanks to Orsova for bringing this up to our attention. It seems it could be interpreted as being useful for a LENR company.