Well, even if i won't underestimate their contribution, to me the real breakthrough was done this same year by Piantelli.
More to learn by this way.
What Hagelstein does not do is explain how his theory would explain Fleischmann and Pons experiments and why they could not reproduce their own work. This is the foremost result any CF theory must explain.
Electron clusters remain a too simple view insufficient.
If you dive deep into the literature there are teams that have produced coherent surface plasmon polaritons. What seems to be the case is if you can get a sufficient degree of electron bunching the charged particles will behave more like a Bose Einstein Condensate. Good places for this to take place are surface irregularities such as cracks, holes, pits, spikes, etc.
I'm going to give you a personal reply in MP.
What good results did they have? Why didn't they report these results? How do you know about them?
Small addings for your understanding. Google team probably left with a valiant heart, with a radiant smile, to the LENR war.
They were a brilliant team and certainly had good results, so we explained to them at the time that they shouldn't go any further, the game becoming too big even for them.
Regarding NASA, they were probably allowed to play only if their release was not repeatable by simple teenagers. This is why their ignition system requires the mastery of a certain level of technology.
Yes you should remain in computer science because at your side the game is already done, especially for independents.
I see that you are still very fresh in the field, you have years to catch up below, you will see one of the patents from an Italian crook, then this one badly copied by Americans who upgraded it under a ketchup release.
you should go see what is REALLY going on behind the door of your compatriots, and not believe too much in the mountain of kisses that you have seen and received at Carl Page still fresh event.
When I say "phase" I mean the bond length between 2 Pd atoms. You can imagine a pure crystal, Grown in the same way they grow a silicon ingot. https://princetonscientific.co…palladium-single-crystal/
Here you can see a single wavefront while charging the target. My thought experiment envisions stimulating the target in such a way as to create multiple waves of these coherent phase waves.
These are things that have already been done and have been positive, that have already created demos.... I'm sorry for you, you'll see you're too late.. We'll shoot you and you'll get bored.. When we consider the lack of originality of experiments in electrolysis for 30 years, it is to cry..
The main religion to which you must convert are thoughts of your friend McKubre, Biberian, Mizuno, Google, NASA etc... I forget some probably.
When I say "phase" I mean the bond length between 2 Pd atoms. You can imagine a pure crystal, Grown in the same way they grow a silicon ingot. https://princetonscientific.co…palladium-single-crystal/
Here you can see a single wavefront while charging the target. My thought experiment envisions stimulating the target in such a way as to create multiple waves of these coherent phase waves.
This work should interest you.
Currently, it's all thought experiments. I predicted alpha-beta phase waves in 2012. In 2017 phase waves were recorded in this paper published in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020
More importantly, they recorded a "mystery" where the phase of the area they were recording suddenly flipped from alpha to beta through what they surmised was a "lattice realignment" This is also predicted by my theory. They just charged and discharged their samples. In my proposed experiment you change the sample and then plate to lock in the hydrogen. Then you stimulate it at a very low frequency to generate phase waves. When I presented this to McKubre in 2013 he told me a story about how somebody's kid cranked down the frequency on the cube target and the next day the target had melted.
I'm trying to get the experiment done. I don't have the calorimetry chops or the money or the time to do it myself. I'm doing my day job which is creating a hardware/software codesign project. It's a runtime loadable microcoded algorithmic state machine that is programmed in a subset of C.
Very nice presentation by Dr McKubre, the Youtube solution being, I think the future, because it gives dynamism to papers often very heavy especially for beginners.
Hagelstein made me laugh and surprised me because he's not a kind of guy to ask disturbing and uncomfortable questions normally 
.
This year important things were said however hidden by the ambiant fog.
You evoked surely real results but only from secondary works.
You talked about the US army or navy however you well know that size isn't the most important, see recent Google's fiasco related friendly by Hagelstein.
Dear Jed,
i have seen this last ICCF as an italian cappuccino.
One millimeter strong at cup's bottom, by new words i heard from Hagenstein and Visostki, work from this guy Casselman, this one about dusty plasma, Czerski, what else ?
The other millimeters were only this white milk foam plenty of air, we see, every year.
well your milliwatt reactors don’t interest noone.. the ICCF cake is fell back.. Mass médias need more than dreamers to move forward.. Fortunately the field still have the LEC to give nuts to formers.
Fully coexistence of different dimensions fills our universe and as you said well explains a lot of things as light but also at higher scale the controversial black matter. I don’t know if it exists a relation between scale of things and number of dimensions. So all of this sticks well with string theory. Again probably neutrinos and single quantas are the same objets apart a gap in nb of dimensions .
I like string theory good or bad. How do you judge to define a good or bad theory.. Good or bad this of Wyttenbach is also speculative..no ?
And Fabrice David ?
We didn't see or hear him at this ICCF, maybe he made a poster?
Agree with that 👍
I sympathize with the Brillouin people. It is difficult to move an experiment into a new building and make it work. In 1980s trade shows, many companies had difficulty setting up production models of computers and running almost-but-not-quite ready demonstrations. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
As several theorie ways, i followed also your suggestions with plasmons by studying papers from Tanabe San for example.
However i have to say, plasmons are only collective movement of electrons.
Often you link plasmons and plasma BUT a plasma remains a collective movement of electrons both with nuclei.
In this way, only phonons do that especially with their electrons shift at high temperature acting as a pseudo plasma if fact;
There is nothing political about it. If the research that is done is based on the incorrect set of assumptions, the research will not be successful.
For example, it the SAFIRE system, there is no lattice compression to produce fusion, yet the SAFIRE plasma produces abundant transmutation. It is clear that the assumptions about the reaction based on lattice aided fusion are wrong. Google's assumptions they were told about the reaction were invalid, that is why they failed.
The reaction is highly deceptive, what experimenters see in their research is the oposit of what they are expecting because of the nature of quantum mechanics. Like Richard Feynman once said, "nobody understands quantum mechanics".
if the insulation is too high then the reaction will get carried away and all will melt.
The Role of Appropriate Calorimetric Methods for Scaling-up LENR Devices and the Irrelevance of Coefficient of Performance (COP) - Daniel Gruenberg | Mizuno Technology, Inc., Thailand
Very impressive. They have made a great deal of progress since Mizuno and I published papers.
The "irrelevance" of COP applies to this reactor type. It means the reaction is triggered or increased with temperature, and the temperature can be as high as you like by changing insulation. In an experimental unit, heat is produced by resistance heating. The amount of electricity needed is a function of the insulation, so there is no fixed ratio between input and output. So in that sense it is irrelevant. It would be relevant to other kinds of reactors that are triggered or controlled with electricity.
