Posts by AlainCo

    What is causing the lack of recognition of evidence on LENR is much discussed.

    Evidence shows it is not a conspiracy of military guys, nuclear energy guys, oil guys, because they all were allowed, or just ignored, to publish papers, from Amoco,Shell, BARC, LANL to EDF, CEA.

    EDF was more tolerant than CEA probably because it is less academic, less Nobel expecting (fear of Nobel losses seems the greatest reason). DoD is funding LENR, and even cooperating with SRI, ENEA, japanese teams in industry... no conspiracy holds.


    The theory that it is because of hot fusion budget is very credible, but I have reason not to be sure.


    This recent article talk of the finally unimportant and real conspiracy by industrial on scientific questions...

    finally cultural and social points are the most important.


    Quote

    Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?



    Our analysis illustrates how conspiratorial narratives in science can distort the past in the service of contemporary causes and obscure genuine uncertainty that surrounds aspects of research, impairing efforts to formulate good evidence-informed policies. In the absence of very strong evidence, there is a serious danger in interpreting the inevitable twists and turns of research and policy as the product of malevolent playbooks and historical derailments. Like scientists, historians must focus on the evidence and follow the data where they lead.

    Ego, big voice, hierarchy of sciences (physics above chemistry), lasiness to change theory, is what was the most evident cause for me when I started to be interested.

    The book of Charles Beaudette showed to me clearly that the nasty jokes of Lewis at Baltimore seems to be the key to that fiasco.


    If there was conspiracy, it may be the no more secret conspiracy of Seaborg, which was proud of it, so not conspiring , to build a Stalinian trial against cold fusion, the ERAB panel. Il looks more like Mao Cultural Revolution, where everybody follow the flow with enthusiasm first, then not to be exterminated like birds were.


    Intimations of Disaster: Glenn Seaborg, the Scientific Process, and the Origin of the “Cold Fusion War” - Eugene F. Mallove

    • Rossi is the worst example
    • First thing to confince an honest skeptic is (you did it) get reasonable discussion, understanding that without all data you have acquired not believing LENR is just rational. To understand how LENR is impossible, my advice is to read "the explanation of LENR" by Edmund Storms... You will find the skeptics have just a problem to trusts other's experiments, as you may not believe what I say on Globalization, LLNT or GMs.
    • You will also have to admit there is much bullshit in the domain, and beside BS, many shoestring experiments that are dubious, unfinished, but among all there are great results, and globally too many "unbelievable coincidences" that exclude it is only artifacts. You can also remind that if there is doubts, it should promote research, not silence it, proving that current situation to refuse to investigate, is a pathology.
    • By the way Ed in this book explains that there is no MeV gamma&alike, why it is a huge problem, but that there is a narrow corridors wher things are possible, because anyway it is proven. this is IMHO the best book for someone aware of physics and skeptical because of gammas and alike.
    • My advice is to share old article , when there was mainstream teams and millions of budgets. M4 experiment by McKubre is often cited. He4/heat papers are very good (read the review by Abd Ul Rahman Lomax in Current science). The Special section on LENR in Current Science is a good start too, if you follow the citation that inspire you. There are also tritium results that are convincing for someone educated in radiochemistry. The first book of Edmund Storms (the science of LENR), his numerous articles, his 2010 review in Naturwissenschaften, are great to start. JedRothwell sure know the best ones.
    • Another line of study is to follow the replications sequences... like F&P->Miles/McKubre&many others with PdD calorimetry... but also He4/heat replications... the gas permeation Fralick 89/Liu 2005 Biberian 2007 Nasa GRC 2008, Fralick 2012. Nedo funded study 2017+... Jed may help you.
    • Maybe the recent japanese Nedo funded, replicated, experiments may be intriguing. Beside that nothing recent is inspiring for me. (call that a depression).
    • The conferences by US Navy Spawar was great. maybe the interview of the pilars of LENR by Ruby carat on cold fusion now are probably very convincing
    • about misconducts, hate, harassment, it is a reality but it is probably counterproductive with mainstream supporters... In this domain, someone already interested but wonderwing how this could happen, may understand the key problems by reading "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette. You can also look for few article in infinite Energy by Mallove, some papers by Pam Boss&Miles, few articles by Jed, will explains the problems/fraud/mistake with MIT and caltech experiment. It can only be understood when you accept the data. There are debunking of Gary Taubes tritium myth.
    • Forget anything about companies, startups, inventors, and worst of all, theories... it is science

    there are many answers in quora, some by me, Jed, Abd...

    @Roseland67

    For a good experiment, I would prefer that

    - each result is based on two different methods, even if one is rough

    - a replication with a different measurement method would be even better


    as long as all is not understood asking for same results while materials may be different for an unknwn reason, is not honest.


    I'm more convinced by the fact that different teams show that same factors have similar effects.

    A way I am convinced that LENR is real is that some factors seems to have effect (impurities, metal batch), and this does not looks like artifact, but clearly material science.


    a great experiment would be to find what can kill the reaction to show this factors cannot kill an artifact.

    Even if I have no doubt about Doral, about the Petroldragon story, things are not clear, and there was from our incomplete data a plausible deniability.

    As I caught in La Stampa and in Il coriere de la Serra, even if the journalist were initially enthusiastic, the absolutely furious on Rossi, the informations let some doubt.

    Pollution happened after someone opened some tanks, and the cleaning of the sone was visibly the occasion for some to get easy money, letting impression organized crime was near...


    What is more shocking is the fact that he was condemned clearly for gold smuggling, and Dewey reported that this was not "recycled" garbage but truck-size gold smuggling...

    Anyway who cares, you can learn a true job in Jail, you can be a clown, a jerk, and be good at repairing cars or just lucky with nickel hydrides.

    Without clear data, accepting journalists can be dishonest, like police, or con-men and mafia contractors, it is hard to build a certainty.


    Doral, Lugano, are all we need to have an opinion. Face your opinion, don't make guesses with old stories.

    Infinite Energy have published an article by David J. Nagel and Steven B. Katinsky


    Overview of the 21st International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
    http://infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue141/ICCF21.pdf


    By the way, ICCF22 will be in Italy in September 2019.

    Quote

    ICCF22
    The chairman and location, and sometimes the dates of the next conference, are decided at each ICCF by the International Advisory Committee (IAC). That group is made up of the past Chairmen and Co-Chairmen of a conference in this series. The IAC met on the evening of June 6to consider a proposal from Bill Collis to hold ICCF22 at Lake Bled in Slovenia in the fall of 2019. That proposal was accepted. Subsequently, Bill Collis determined that the conference could be held in Assisi, Italy, at a more favorable cost. The IAC concurred with this possibility. So, ICCF22 is slated to occur in the center of Assisi during September 8-13, 2019. The location will be the Hotel Domus Pacis.34

    Infinite Energy have published an article by David J. Nagel and Steven B. Katinsky


    Overview of the 21st International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
    http://infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue141/ICCF21.pdf


    By the way, ICCF22 will be in Italy in September 2019.

    Quote

    ICCF22
    The chairman and location, and sometimes the dates of the next conference, are decided at each ICCF by the International Advisory Committee (IAC). That group is made up of the past Chairmen and Co-Chairmen of a conference in this series. The IAC met on the evening of June 6to consider a proposal from Bill Collis to hold ICCF22 at Lake Bled in Slovenia in the fall of 2019. That proposal was accepted. Subsequently, Bill Collis determined that the conference could be held in Assisi, Italy, at a more favorable cost. The IAC concurred with this possibility. So, ICCF22 is slated to occur in the center of Assisi during September 8-13, 2019. The location will be the Hotel Domus Pacis.34

    As I understand the sputtering is done without any hydrogen.

    The hollow cathode seems to be important during the electrolysis that is doing something not far from "co-deposition" wit Ni/H as Spawar did with Pd/D.

    The "compressions" discussed during the conference maybe be because , since the metal lattice is growing from inside a fixed circle, and tend to keep the continuity despite the fact that distance are reduced...


    Naively, without much knowledge of metallurgy, maybe (question to experts) :

    • the lattice size is slightly reduced as metal is deposited?
    • maybe vacancies/twin-crystal appears to release constraints

    In some engineer theory I've heard, key factor is twin-crystal defects (not cracks), and cathodic sputtering create much.


    My own pet theory vision involve low dimensional defects (no idea what, crack, twins, vacancies, coupled defects ), with a Schrodinger-cat style of NAE (Hydroton-like). This is why Didier Gras' accident is inspiring me... why not.

    Maybe irrelevant maybe not. Why don't you try if you can a pickle jar dc magnetron sputtering machine like this

    . no hard vacuum required if any. just hydrated nickel substrate in argon atmosphere on a lithium/nickel target and mesure for radiation.


    Is ther any relation with "cathodic sputtering" ?

    Didier Gras observed an extreme reaction that looks like a LENR burst with ZrO2 powder cathodic sputtered with Ni (0.1µm), then electrolysed as cathode (with Ni anode) with nickel sulfamate


    Another key idea seems that he used a setup similar to "hollow cathode" , said to enforce higher than normal compression of deposited Ni...(I don't understand well what it means)


    See (in French) RNBE2016: Couche mince de nickel realisé par pulvérisation cathodique par Didier Grass

    As I've understood the accumulated observation, lack of MeV gamma, tritium and neutrons and similar MeV output, anything like few particles interacting seems incoherent.

    Either something really new happens (new physics, but really new, not just a new particle, and why not observed in free space), or it is a collective phenomenon (which is logical in a solid, and which explain logically why we understand it very badly).

    Maybe I misunderstood something, but the number of theory and claims that pass by a few body reaction, that have to produce something of the MeV size, that nobody could miss, surprise me.

    The problem of LENR is mostly the quiet output, not only the low energy triggering.

    Every LENR experimenter that survived shows that there is a problem with few bodies theories.

    (what is the energy limit of what was not detected but would be if existed... I remember of something around 25keV?)


    Once considered that, anyway, hard to guess what happens, as metallurgy in LENR is probably not what we imagine, and collective quantum phenomenon is an open world (I know enough from semiconductors to panic about material science).


    naively I imagine that solution will came from investigation instruments, like microscopes, MRI,


    this kind of lab experiments gives me hope, but sure there is a budget required

    https://www6.slac.stanford.edu…ion-battery-material.aspx

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S1369702115002473


    Some people I know however think using some shared instruments, with services sold at marginal cost, as provided in some research clusters...


    reversely some "exploration test" could be done by nanomanufacturing.

    I remember someone explaining that in Milan La Bicocca they could design nanostructure shaped even like brocoli, and I know an industrial who design nanopowders like some design screws and nuts.

    I personally believe it will be within 5 to 10 years for a commercial product of some kind (water heater??) and such things are already in reach or at least "at the finger tips". Reaching that goal is inevitable and a true long range goal is something that is beyond your current reach. It is the hopes and dreams that keep people like me going through years of struggle.


    About the question of tspeed of the rebolution, my vision is that the situation is the one of a dam menacing to break.

    Faycal Hafield as I often cite his book Supercroissance, explains well that there is mountain of cash waiting to be invested (see Woodford), and piles of wide usage innovation waiting to be used (AI, GM/Crispr, cryptography+decentralization, new Nuke, autonomous driving/flying/boating, 3D printing, biotech) plus LENR.

    For me there is even more, an incredibly solid wall preventing the innovation to flow, and many pseudo innovations are supported in order we don't challenge the wall (I will disagree with many people here, but that is my position), occupying the money and hope of people ready for the supercroissance.


    5-10 years is for me both too short and too long. it is a critical delay, linked to the end of a taboo, not to a linear mechanism. It's a question like "when will the earthquake destroy california?" sure it will, no idea when.

    In current situation, unless people like Darden or some of my daring contacts, can convince key people, who get lucky convincing key people, .... (this is an avalanche mechanism like earthquake), it will stagnate, and skeptics will laught at our lack of progress, eternally repeating we have evidence, that nobody cares, with less and less good results, by less and less recognized teams, because the domaine have less and less money.


    once the dam have broken, it will be incredibly fast. Jed explain it cannot be too fast, with very very good arguments. I'm just saying people will try to compete as fast as possible, beyond even what is reasonable, trying to beat the Moore law of LENR. Note that for me the key problem of LENR will be in satellite technologies, turbines, chemistry, nanotech, hybrid propulsion, AI, and domaine we don't even imagine (medicine? farming? hydraulic? actuators? sensors?)


    see how fast France in the 70s changed it's electric power plants, making it low carbon because of oil price. It was state driven, and I'm sure the desperate energy of private investors trying to beat their best competitor will make it very fast (plus the desperate competitions of states for ego, à la Apollo vs Korolev), once all the money used for blockchain or similar fashion subject (I will avoid quoting them), will be derived to making car turbines, electric planes, mass nanostructures factories...

    again TheNewFire found an interesting news:


    http://mil-embedded.com/news/n…est-pulled-power-sources/


    Quote

    DAYTON, Ohio. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Plasma Physics Division will be working with MacAulay-Brown, Inc. (MacB), an Alion company, to research, design, develop, integrate, and test pulsed power sources.


    Under this effort, MacB scientists, engineers, and technicians will perform on-site experimental and theoretical research in pulsed power physics and engineering, plasma physics, intense laser and charged particle-beam physics, advanced radiation production, and transport. Additional work will include electromagnetic-launcher technology, the physics of low-energy nuclear reactions and advanced energetics, production of high-power microwave sources, and the development of new techniques to diagnose and advance those experiments.

    ...

    valuation in very risky business is not as precise as the 57 of 357% (not even as 400%)...

    it is a bit funny, but what I took is : "we are half an order of magnitude (+/- 2 order of magnitude of uncertainty) more optimistic than despaired compared to what we were before."


    what is important is they dare to speak...


    You cannot imagine how it is risky today not to think like the (political) consensus.

    Relayed by The New Fire


    http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-m…_manager_all_stories_list


    It starts by explaining that the IH shares were reevaluated to +357%

    Quote

    Woodford Patient Capital gets 357% energy boost

    Shares in Woodford Patient Capital Trust (WPCT) have jumped on the back of a significant increase in the value of one of its disruptive holdings in the technology sector.

    Link Fund Solutions, the trust’s appointed alternative investment fund managers, has upgraded the value of Industrial Heat by 357% to $112.9 million (£85.2 million).



    Then they explains that IH is working on Cold Fusion, LENR, and Neil Woodford explain the reason of the upgrade:


    Quote

    It added: 'Over the course of the past eighteen months, there have been developments within Industrial Heat's portfolio of technologies that have shown increasing promise.

    'Hence, with the company raising capital from other investors to continue the path to commercialisation, the valuation of the company has been adjusted to reflect this progress.'

    'Although, this is positive progress for Industrial Heat and the Trust, it remains early days in the development and commercialisation of these technologies.'



    Not much data, but this only mean that they feel enough confident, with preliminary non-operational results (as we are probably are already informed), to reevaluate the company, and communicate to the market.

    Weak signal.

    What is clear is that many papers from the early times let no room for credible doubt on excess heat&tritium.

    More than letting no doubt, on a very biased scientists not yet in asylum, they should at least let a serious doubt there might be something great and real.

    There is a mystery of psychology behind that, like the fact that someone I know reports many students working with his daughter in California believe in flat-earth (not a metaphore, flat earth).

    Sadly it seems very common in many domains to find people believes in facts that are publicly refuted by open evidences, and respectively ignore clear evidences in from of their public nose.

    One mechanism I'm experiencing in LENR and other is #muteNews, public facts that don't spread while #fakenews spread like measles in France.


    I've though about groupthink theory of Romand Benabou (basically one can ignore evidences that show he is not as successful as he expected before, especially when peers may ruin any tentative to benefit from this realism, and will also enforce desperate harassment on any dissenter).

    recently an article caught my eyes, and resonate with the description of Baltimore's Conference "science by nasty jokes" of Nathan Lewis, described by Charles Beaudette in Excess Heat

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2018/09/180904150353.htm


    This is why confronting with ridicule and critics is good for mental sanity.


    beyond that, those who sincerely think in private LENR is bullshit, should wonder why they have not the least doubt in private, while there is renowned chemists, experts in tritium, strange corrélation, international replications, and no serious refutations, plus some clear frauds, abnormal absence of retraction and presence of review...

    Of course it may be a conspiracy of nature, but why so many people have no doubt, why so few people who invest trillions in technologies that are judged hopeless by some experts of the domain, dare to invest just a billion, in case... just in case...


    Every week I wonder why I'm confident on LENR, wondering if I fool myself. Most of LENR claims let me skeptical, even if many of my more competent contacts are more confident than me... but clearly not accepting there is probably excess heat and tritium, plus He4/heat correlation in PdD experiments is not better than being flat earther


    Even if I don't believe one second Rossi is serious, and that the due diligence was incomplete, wasting useful money in Asian banks, sure the 10Mn$ investment was just rational, in case. Governments and corporations do that every month on less credible hypothesis with less expected benefits.


    Being sure LENR don't exist is beyond irrationality, it is a cognitive syndrome.

    By the way I know people entering in LENR research focusing on that point... epistemology, change management, group cognition, beside material science... don't expect anyone to accept evidences before you find what is the cognitive problem.

    You don't feed an anorexic just with tasty food.

    What you say looks true, but that is not what theyr taught me as high power electronic engineer...

    The point is that AC gives you a chance to escape 50 times a seconde (bounce, flee, react). the danger with DC is you get stuck forever...

    Maybe is it a wrong point, it is just what they taught me, and they had experience.

    (the kind of guy who pour water every day on their earth pole to remember about safety)


    EDIT: I reread what you cite accross many safety articles, and finally it seems rational. My old guard professors seems to refers to experiments that were wrongly interpreted.

    The fact remains that AC is much more dangerous than DC. AC is necessary because electricity must be transmitted over long distances. However, as Arthur Clarke pointed out, if cold fusion generators become available, DC will be a much better choice. At the same power levels it is far less likely to electrocute a person.

    In fact I've been taught the revers during my electrotechnic (high power electronic) courses.

    at same voltage, DC kills for sure while AC gives a chance to escape. DC make you stuck to the wire you touch.

    50V DC is deadly more than 100V AC.

    anyway beside a danger ratio of that amount , what count is current, which depends on voltage and conductivity (for humans, wetness of skin).


    the fear came from high tension that AC allows with transformers. Today with IGBT and alike, you can have good control on DC to produce Very high voltage DC (useful to transfer power accross channels or from offshore power plants).


    It is funny how myth stays despite practice.

    Just a point on Longchamps, as I know he is one of the only to have replicated the tricky isoperibolic calorimetry of F&P, which he proven was very subtle and efficient.


    Most other replicators used easier calorimetry, even is some lie Melvin Miles used isoperibolic calorimetry, not far from F&P. maybe I'm not fair for Melvin Miles.

    Mickael McKubre used servo mode calorimetry in closed cell, and this answered the claims of Lewis and Hansen.

    Some used Seebeck calorimetry like Edmund Storms or Oriani.

    Replicating the instrument is not the best way to prove a point. changing the measurement method is good to cross check.

    By the way about lost inventions and discoveries, I've read report of Germanium parasitic PN junction measurement put into the drawer in the 1920s (not the 30s with the famous first dubious transistor). I cannot find back the reports (often history is polished in wikipedia/sciAm, like on Shechtmann/quasi-scientists - reality from the witness disappears slowly).


    There are many similarities between LENR and semiconductors, especially materialScience/metallurgy/nanotech/pseudoparticlesQM hellish problems. For someone trained in microelectronics, and aware of 1930 science (my kid science books were 1930 updated 1960)

    Talking the crypto language, when US government or a bank disagree with a transfer they just do a hardfork, and every miner who disagree is under sanction. Unless you are Iranian, or Total, this looks safer than "code is the law".

    for bitcoin&al, the way to hack is mostly like stealing files on your computer, passwords, either at home, in a network ...

    Not more different from the way they hack data, personal data, passwords hash, in corporate networks, or your bank account password. Some hardware like Ledger can help avoid that, but they can steal the paper backup too, or menace you.


    the advantage of banks is that they mostly can get back your money by "stealing" it to the destination with the force of law, or reimburse you (not always, especially when money goes abroad).

    The main purpose of cryptocurrencies is to avoid that "stealing" by law. some corporate crypto like Ripple have official protocol to get back money when disagreeing.

    I don't feel that even a big hole sized like a British county could convince of LENR those who don't want.

    Things as much as shocking have been "explained" as artifacts by serious physicists, and repeated by serious journalists.

    They will just say you have used an atomic bomb of a new kind.


    The problem is not what is happening, but the interpretation.

    There is (reported by one of my LENR contact, from his daughter studying in California) a great amount (not far from majority... I don't remember) of young Californian University students (maybe a local bias) convinced earth is flat (not jokers to polling guys, but talking to a french girl of their age).

    There is no limit to reinterpreting the world. I'm desperately Feyerabend'ist.


    The best solution in my opinion is to work for yourself (problem is k$$$ budget. that is the catch22 of my solution, make good experiments for ourselves (reliable, easy to instrument), understand what is happening, develop a system that works, make Mn$ money, get exploited by big Bn$ money, get Tn$ savings by technology, raise you middle finger to the forgotten physicist. Priceless.


    I follow many other subjects, and I'm desperate. all our governments are invaded by flat-earther of various kind (joking at each other - French flat-earther are so funny joking at Trump's F-E). Exploit the freedom they still have not removed to find the keys. Even money cannot convince them, until you bankrupt them (because most use your own money to fund their craziness).


    Sorry, I'm tired, not by LENR, but by Western minds.

    Unlike some other actors, we don't have enough data to judge this team and their ICO.

    ICO is a way to be funded when you cannot afford usual mainstream procedures and constraint, like when funding a joke like Cold Fusion. I have been contacted to advice (and said it is an attorney's business, not a geek question - now good attorneys are on it). ICO are also good to get small money by small people. Question is trust, and trust is very costly and imply that entry ticket is huge, around million, not thousands dollar. An ICO' investors interests should be protected by laws, by contracts, and this is a special job. In some countries, blcockchain have a legal value, like paper or regulated Digital Signature (EIDAS...).... Switzerland (and Lituania) seems to be a place where you can work that way, but it is an attorney's specialty. Beside safety, like avoiding the owner goes with the money, there is a big question about what the ICO gives to you ? token allow you a share of the company? a pre-sale access? access to the produced IP? share of the benefits, of the votes ?...


    I don't know the team but Bazhutov was respected by Russian and Russian-aware LENR actors.

    fabrice DAVID have good contacts and may get more informations from the horse's mouth.

    Some of the older actors in Russia worked seriously for the H-bomb, the nuclear industry, and are very competent...


    If they are sincere and working well, I wish them to succeed and send a wide grin with a double up finger to the deniers.

    If they try to fool their investors, there is a place in Hell for them, with some of their peers.


    Be careful, but why not.