Posts by THHuxleynew

    The problem I have with this analysis is that ITER is an experiment designed by physicists and not a power plant as it doesn't produce electricity. It is clearly designed to have extra measurement, calibration, monitoring, and safety equipment. This extra gear uses power. The data collected from ITER, good and bad, will be used to refine the next designs on the way to making a power plant. The criticism from the CF/LENR community of ITER is expected. Once fusion is proven to work in a controlled manner by physicists, what little longshot, 1 in 100+ chance, funding for CF/LENR that remains will disappear.

    That is hardly correct. ITER-style fusion would be v large scale. Even the proposed much smaller fusion reactors (an outside chance, just like LENR, except the issues are technological and fairly quickly resolved as breakers or OK) are still pretty big. Whereas LENR if it ever lived up to the promise would allow small-scale cheap power.

    So the reason LENR enthusiasts are so dismissive of hot fusion is not I think competition. More it is that hot fusion, though difficult and unclear in terms of final outcome, has clear science backing it with scientific results continuing to emerge. I think that, and the apparent inequity of massive funding for hot fusion, makes LENR enthusiasts unhappy, and the shrill condemnation relates to that.

    When this paper was published, I think it was reasonable to conclude there might be something to the claims:

    I have repeatedly asked whether you found any technical errors in this paper. You keep saying you don't believe it because you don't trust the authors. That is a reasonable reason to reject the paper, but it is not a technical reason. I conclude you do not know of a technical reason. Neither do I. So, a person who does trust the authors (or did trust them when this was published) would have a legitimate reason to think there was something to replicate.

    There are no overt technical errors in the results, it is true, merely indication from what was not checked that there is much room for much possible error.

    But, there is what could properly be called a technical error (of interpretation) in the paper. Remarks on the test, pp 25-27, is obviously thought significant by the authors since they spend significant time on it. They are looking at the shape of the temperature vs time waveforms and noting that these are not exponential, as would be expected from a resistor heating or cooling. The interpretation in this section is flawed. It could never be made by somone with a sophisticated understanding of temperature dynamics. Basically, they assume that the system they measure is characterised by a single time constant when it is actually a distributed system with multiple time constants.

    This error does not affect the results, it is just wrong. But, it does show a combination of lack of physical insight and partiality on the part of the report authors, making claims on the basis of wrong assumptions, which speaks to their lack of independent and critical attitude. Those who can see something extraordinary in normal heating curves on the basis of mathematics incorrectly applied are not a safe pair of hands as validators for LENR.

    You don't know it at all, because nobody would tell you anything.

    IO above has a point. While MY will always seem impolite on this topic, due to strongly held views along one axis, any skeptic not willing to accept what is being proposed will quickly be branded a skeptopath and similarly insulted, certainly shunned.

    The problem is that one person's skeptic is another's skeptopath. Shunning such is not helpful.

    acknowledgement HJspider

    Angry Zeus

    Rumbling in a distance
    like the rolling stones
    in the mountain river,
    feel it in your bones.

    It's touching your soul
    when the lightning strikes.
    It's so unpredictable
    Zeus laughs when all yikes.

    His way to show anger
    when we don't behave.
    His way to in-power
    that we are not safe.

    If we play with fire
    someone will get burn.
    Bad things ought to happen,
    we all get our turn.

    Suddenly darkness vanished
    as quickly as it came.
    It's was Zeus's warning,
    another nature's game.

    Rumbling in the distance
    gone out to the sea
    and I can relax now.
    The aim was not at me.

    Rossi has true grit.

    We have a number of validated occasions (Mats, NASA, multiple IH) where when presented with clear (and friendly) evidence of a technical problem Rossi has stormed off, refusing to engage with the truth, blaming others.

    There is a word for such behavior - it is not grit.

    EDIT - oldguy reminded me of NASA - egregious behaviour. And he has many many other examples!

    Oh, and don't bother posting any bullshit about how entrained water left the cell unboiled. People who actually read the papers (unlike you) will know that Fleischmann showed that did not happen. He demonstrated it several ways. They will see you don't know that because you did not read the paper and you wouldn't understand it if you did. It is like your claim that boils down to saying we don't know the heat of vaporization. It makes you look silly.

    I read papers. And while F described various methods he typically used, that indicated entrained water would not, given his assumptions, be an issue, he did not show it was not an issue in the specific case of the results described because he assumes that his typical empirical findings. That is not enough when anomalous results are discovered. In that case specific tests are needed in the anomalous case without assumptions.

    His paper was not primarily about specific results, since he was describing general methodologies. Which makes the general nature of the comments understandable. Unfortunately that makes it more difficult to determine the precise checks and tests done in the cases where he quotes specific results.

    Unless you know of a write-up other than the one much quoted here?

    "Total aggregate value" around 363K in USD. Not very impressive, is it? Barely enough to buy a decent house in most places.

    True. But IHHI is not IH. Maybe however IH is now a holding company with no assets other than IHHI? You'd need to look at the whole corporate picture to know.

    "Let's drill down into that prediction. Will this customer (identity revealed) be an independent entity [YES], no fan of Rossi [NO, Rossi-haters will not have an opportunity], no relationship with Rossi [NO, there will be a business relationship of some sort, such as a lease agreement, otherwise how would they have a QuarkX?], and willing to say whether the supplied product works in a real application [YES]?"

    Good. So I confidently predict you will be proven wrong (since lack of clarity from Rossi - as is typical - means you are wrong - and chances of Rossi's stuff working are effectively zero).

    Time will determine which of these projections is correct.


    2018 prediction:

    The identity of at least one customer will be revealed before the end of 2018. The customer will not be Rossi in disguised form.

    Let's drill down into that prediction. Will this customer (identity revealed) be an independent entity, no fan of Rossi, no relationship with Rossi, and willing to say whether the supplied product works in a real application?

    Rossi no doubt has many fans who would just love to be customers, and who would accept Rossi-given testing as evidence that the supplied device works.

    Rossi will produce a demo that will show what he wants to show. The job of the cynics is to come up with an explanation of the deceptions that Rossi has invented. Rossi will not show anything that his competition can used to move their research forward.

    This is, as you well know, arse over tits.

    It is of course Rossi's job disclose convincing evidence of a novel discovery if he wants others to think he is for real.

    If as you suggest he does not want this, then he need not do this. However that is the scammer's excuse "I know it looks like I'm a scammer - but, hey, if I made it look convincing they'd come and get me". No sensible person is likely to believe Rossi's stuff works on that basis.

    As for the skeptics (not, I think, cynics) who put effort into giving feedback on these many demos. It is, for me at least, sometimes fun. Not a job. And the response of the ECW acolytes, less fun, but an interesting study in the psychology of belief against all the odds.


    As evidence of no coherence, which I might perhaps write more about some time, consider the issue of whether the LENR effect means that reaction rates increase with temperature, or decrease with temperature.

    The clear consensus from much of the experimental work quoted here is that reaction rates increase a lot with increasing temperature.

    However one recently posted here theoretical paper proposes a (correct, sort of) electron shielding in liquid-phase (gamma = 1 - 170) plasma mechanism which would mean that reaction rates decrease (a lot) with increasing temperature.

    These two sets of data are incoherent. if one is true, the other is false, and vice versa. Unless are there two quite distinct new to science mechanisms at work here.

    I think that many people on this site take the abundance of different incoherent mechanisms as positive - well, one of them must be right. For me, the fact that they are nearly all incoherent is a big negative. The electron shielding mechanism (almost OK) cannot derive any support from the positive or neutral temperature-dependent LENR results. Or, from the many anecdotal accounts of thermal runaway (though I'm not sure many people see those as good evidence).

    You don't have to have an overall negative view of LENR prospects to pay attention to this. It is just one of many filters that helps to direct attention to things that could just possibly work.

    Some cold fusion experiments have produced far more energy than any tokamak ever did, albeit far less power. It seems unlikely that plasma fusion reactors can be made for long term use, because the radiation destroys the machinery. So, in some ways, cold fusion is closer to being practical than plasma fusion, despite having orders of magnitude less funding and intense opposition.

    The difference is this. The experiments validating Tokomak fusion are done by multiple groups and all broadly consistent. Where there are variations (one group says something is better or worse) they get checked and validated or not by experimental replication and theoretical checks. There remains a lot of uncertainty, but it is slowly being explored and understood. In that process there are surprises, both positive and negative. Take the now confirmed good confinement characteristics of H-modes as a small positive surprise. The (now well understood) problems maintaining plasma stability in torus Tokomaks as a big negative surprise.

    The LENR experiments have not yet produced a coherent body of understanding that advances. The excess energy Jed mentions above has not been validated and remains anomalous. It may be so validated, at which point LENR will emerge from the shadows and attract major interest. Or, it may never be, in which case Shanahan's CCS/ATER and other disparate unconsidered experimental issues are the most likley cause of the claimed results.

    THH: Tokomaks - who can tell? Most people reckon they will not work, but certainly worth trying, and the best bet.

    Jed: Experts at Los Alamos disagree. They do not think they are the best bet. See:

    My point was that for near-term fast workable fusion they are the best bet. ITER etc is more certain to work (we are reasonably sure it will work) but it requires very large size and will therefore take a very long time to get working in any useful way, if ever.

    Whereas the various designs (Tokomak is leading contender I think) for much smaller-scale fusion devices offer the possibility of near-term success. They are all, as I pointed out, a long shot. And, as I also pointed out, many people still (now, not 1993) think that Tokomaks will not be workable.

    Your link above is still the mainstream position but it is 25 years old (1993). Recent positive information is:

    (1) Containment in H-modes is better than previously expected- leading to the current resurgence of interest in spherical tokomaks

    (2) Much better HTS magnets (which the UK guys are hoping to use).

    Jed, as somone who promotes unusual non-mainstream possible new ways to get clean energy, I'd expect you to be more open to the possibilities.


    I expect some breakthroughs in hot fusion in the next few years which will make that a reality sooner than people think.


    Tokomaks - who can tell? Most people reckon they will not work, but certainly worth trying, and the best bet. Has better magnet technology on its side.

    Focus fusion - long shot but very well documented and it will make progress or not. They are now on $100,000 electrodes to reduce contamination...

    Inertial Confinement Fusion (lasers) - has got advancing laser tech on its side, but still a long shot

    What else? I agree, these three look a better bet than LENR.

    Why would IH have to fire Murray "and others" because of the Rossi lawsuit? I thought they had continued research with other claims than Rossi's.

    Just my guess (and maybe I'm wrong).

    IH's business plan is to get independent third party data on possibles. With the Rossi "could be close to commercial" mess they had to get in internal expertise (Murray) to work out why Rossi's stuff was only working on Rossi's tests. And, having Murray there, they could do other testing in-house. But that was never their long-term plan funding research - more efficient and also perhaps better validation to farm out all the testing.

    That aligns with the IH comment that Mizuno changes some instrumentation during this run. I don't take that as something that validates the data. As Murray said it is inherently difficult to prove the data is correct given such a change.

    Microstructure Evolution of Ti Tritides During Aging…6E3F811A0CFB8A4317A002B01

    10 GPa, not bad.

    If you read the whole paper:

    But most researchers think all the helium are in helium bubbles. To
    figure it out, we comparing the images of sample with and without tilt 4º, The contrast of the helium
    bubbles have great changes and some helium bubbles disappear, some new helium bubbles appear.
    When observing the sample through the other side, all the helium bubbles are renewed, only several
    helium bubbles could be figured out, but their intensities faded very much. Thiebaut had simulate the
    bubble contrast in Pd tritides showed that the contrast is affected by the position of the bubble in the
    sample thickness, It increase when the bubble is close to the lower surface of the specimen [3]. This
    means only helium bubbles close to the one side of surface are observed by TEM, and there are many
    more helium bubbles have not been observed in the current TEM analysis technique. Considering the
    loss of helium from both surface of samples, the density of helium bubbles obtain by TEM should be
    increased by several times to one order of magnitude.

    They (in this paper) think the pressure is 2 - 10 X smaller than 10GPa (because the number of bubbles larger than was previously thought).

    As always, the devil lies in the detail!


    The issue with LPP is the conversion of x-rays into electricity. Then there are all those neutrons that go to waste if boron fusion is not achieved and the damage the x-ray flux does to the electrical converter.

    Axil - that may be one issue, a long way down the line.

    The issue for now and the next few years is whether they can get a good enough plasmoid implosion to recoup (as fusion energy out) the energy put in to making the plasmoid. Direct conversion would give them a 2X advantage over a heat engine in the Q needed for this. The balance between energy lost of x-rays from bremsstrahlung and fusion is pretty narrow (one reason why Tungsten electrodes did not work, the metal ion contamination was increasing radiation since it is proportional to Z^2 (Z=ion charge).

    Having got there, there are many other issues about electrode wear and other things, but, if they got to being able to make an excess of energy over what they used everyone would see their work as a success and it would receive a lot of money to solve any remaining problems.

    Yes, but my posts are less colorful than yours! That is as strong a personal comment as you'll get from me...

    LPP have been working on this type of fusion for a long time now.

    Sustain is not quite the right word. They need to keep plasmoid symmetry while it compresses and then the self-induced magnetic compression can achieve the very high temperatures and pressures needed to get fusion. Their offering requires the temperature and density to be sustained for only a few microseconds because at these high densities fusion is very fast.

    Not sure why they are getting PR now (EDIT - they have a crowdfunding campaign to fund the next phase of experiments, through to p-B fusion next year). They have just installed their new beryllium electrode and are doing initial tests, it will be a while before they have reports of fusion rates that show whether they are getting better containment using it. They give regular very detailed reports and it is well worth following them when they are actually doing things, as will be the case for the next few months.

    Their proposal is a long shot. It explores an area in the Lawson fusion criteron (time vs temperature and density) that no-one else does. However, unlike others, they have hard data showing their progress (or lack of it) and when things don't work they find out the reason and do something about it. Read the last 2 years "electrode saga" reports...

    This is what outlying scientific research into unusual high risk fusion techniques should look like. But then, unlike LENR, they have enough theory and simulation to make sense of their results...

    Here, for example, is what the LPP guys do when they discover 5Mev deuterons coming out of their equipment.


    For the peanuts he was paid by IH joe certainly had a lot to say.

    "A.· So we had a group of, I don't know, five or

    six engineers that were working at the company.· And as·effective the end of October, they gave all of the·engineers a severance package and released us, paying us·through the end of the year.·And then subsequently we·had to agree to support their ongoing activities, as-needed basis for pay if needed.

    Q.· Have you provided any services to IH after October 2016?

    A Yeah.· Obligated to from October through December, and I did I would say very little.· And then in January there were a few questions, and then this··month in preparation for the deposition there were a lot··more questions.

    Q.· Okay.· What was the amount of your severance··package?

    A.· It was pay and benefits through the end of··the year, so for November and December.· It did not··include any leave on the books.· That was just terminated.

    Q.· · The question was how much.

    A.· · How much money?

    Q.· · Yes.

    A.· · I, I don't know, two months worth of salary.

    Emotive language does not help understanding. Do you know what was Murray's salary? If not, then the peanuts speculation is just your personal bias.


    Now then, I don't doubt for a second that Mizuno has used wrong formula in the calculations and presentations, it is just a typing error in the report.

    Agreed. I'm reluctant now to spend effort on Mizuno's report given what we know of the context, and the fact that it is untidy in this way. Even were it 100% reliable, we know that the test it describes had the issues described by Murray. And unless you have a major conspiracy theory, IH were, as stated by Murray under oath, going the extra mile to try and get positive validation of Mizuno's reactors. Hence their negative result tells us more than any analysis of the report.

    Mizuno as quoted above has excuses for his reactors not working with IH. I'm sure he does, and Bocjin thinks my saying "he would, wouldn't he" is somehow a slur on Mizuno's character. It is not. Rather, when an inventor (scientist or not) has something he believes sincerely works, and a third party says it does not, the inventor will often go on finding imperfections in the replication that keep his belief alive. This is a human characteristic and scientists, however eminent, are human. The LENR field is particularly likely to provoke such "believe it regardless" reactions from those who believe they have found working LENR because it would be so very important if replicable. Mizuno's reactor with the claimed characteristics would be the discovery of the century both scientifically, and with a bit of work, probably commercially. That is typical for LENR (high excess heat) results.

    The other aspect of this importance is that there are many ways to skin a cat and with a replicable working reactor as claimed in Mizuno's report third party calorimetry could easily establish this beyond doubt and the pay-off would be very very large. The lack of such replication therefore is additional evidence that IH's failure to replicate is because the result is non-replicable and therefore most likely some error in the experiment. If we, from an error-strewn report, manage to discover such an error it would be helpful, but I'm not expecting that.

    Mizuno, as a scientist, would no doubt find this lack of replication interesting and do further work to understand it. As an inventor with a world-changing invention, he might find it difficult to re-examine all his assumptions in a skeptical manner, and his comment about the IH replication (together with the fact that it did not at the time convince Joe Murray to continue going the extra mile) makes this seem quite possible.

    Suppose Mizuno does have working LENR. What is needed, for his discovery to be more generally believe, is that he adopt a skeptical stance and re-examine all his assumptions and calorimetry, repeating the experiment more carefully several times, and documenting the process with care. Positive results from this would encourage other third party replicators. It is a real shame that he did not, it seems, use the opportunity given by IH to do just this with them. though, as Joe has indicated, there may have been language issues.

    All for a demo that will reveal little, amateurish, and be tightly controlled. All the while the LT technology he spent 10 years developing...even getting "industrial certification" for, sits on the shelf, no longer for sale.

    I have to admit...the guy is fun to watch.

    Amateurish when evaluated technically. But, as PR for his fan base, I expect it will be superb. Blue light and all...

    true. But their process might have more in common with them than with mainstream hot fusion devices it i.e. various sizes tokamacs.

    There is no complicated magnetic confinement. They don't inject plasma from a separate source and so on. The process is 'aneutronic'. They also scrub excess energy through 'reverse accelerator' which sounds a lot as what Mills planning to do.

    Well, not really.

    The aneutonicity comes from a known hydrogen boron hot nuclear reaction - this happens to be preferentially selected in this specific confinement method, which is nice.

    The confinement is in fact complex and magnetic - but it is a dynamic collapsing plasmoid. A few other people are trying with vaguely similar ideas (e.g the FRC stuff but this uses much lower temperatures and pressures, and a longer confinement time.

    The charged particle direct-conversion idea has been around a long time (before mills or LPP). It is something you can maybe do with fusion that gives high energy alphas as products (as hydrogen-boron fusion does). It is highly speculative because there are issue due to the fact that you never get mono-energetic product but it is attractive because potentially it offers 80%+ conversion efficiency and therefore much reduced cooling requirements.

    In both this case and Mills this is jam tomorrow of PR value and nothing else till they get workable fusion - and if they had this it would be valuable whatever conversion method if used. (High efficiency maybe means you can get payback with a Q that is perhaps 2X lower, and a lower capital plant cost. But such a novel conversion method has its own set of practical issues).

    The difference is the LPP proposal for aneutronic fusion is sound, backed by multiple experiments with scaling results and consistent simulations, though highly challenging. Mills' proposal is backed neither by experiment nor simulation.

    It is not fair to the LPP guys and their transparent and complex work (very well documented) to compare it with Mills' opaque and incoherent PR, or Rossi's showmanship and technical errors.


    re this Mizuno result.

    • It has not (to my knowledge) been successfully replicated by anyone (even Mizuno)
    • It has multiple failed attempted replications from IH, who say (with evidence taken under oath) that they pulled out all the stops, including checking in M's lab, checking in their lab with M's cooperation and a reactor from M, etc.
    • IH say there were issues with the (only) positive data
    • Shanahan (here) has raised questions about the positive data posted here, these have not been answered yet to my knowledge. I have not looked at this so do not know if they are substantive, but an issue with the data would be expected from what IH say M said about equipment change in the middle of the test.
    • Mizuno says that IH did the wrong thing replicating his stuff. Well, he would. They clearly pulled out every stop so he would have made this clear to them at the time, and if they did not correct things (as they say they did) it would be weird. This anecdotal excuse from Mizuno has therefore little weight, when compared with the negatives above.

    If his reactors work, then surely he can demonstrate clear results. That he has not done so is relevant. pretty pictures and slides are not the point, clear replicable results are.

    Since these guys have been recently in the news…fuse-atoms/article/503354

    is there a commonality between their device and quarkx? Also what the call 'reverse accelerator' to harvest electricity from plasma, is it MHD generator Mills is talking for his SunCell?

    LPP fusion has no connection with Rossi, Mills, etc.

    they are doing ultrahot fusion using a clever idea that could just work although the technical problems are formidable. They have a lot of detailed tech reports and papers.

    They have data that shows fusion rates scaling as they expect - but only if they have a very pure and symmetrical initial plasma to collapse. Getting this is challenging due to electrode wear.

    The good news is that this could in theory give fusion with real power pay-back in a smallish system, and possibly run (almost) aneutronic fusion with H-B

    You will notice that their claims are realistic.

    You need not worry about imaginary ones that never show in calibration

    But non-imaginary ones that never show up in calibration (for the reason that the calibration tests do not cover the issue) are exactly the ones you should worry about!

    More to the point, there are many actual problems worse than Shanahan's imaginary ones.

    Actual problems known and evaluated are not problems... Nor does the existence of these prove there are not additional problems.