What I cite is usual regulation that delay testing, or innovation... like uber vs taxis (or in France, installed uber vs new drivers)... some like for cars prevent newcomers unless they invest billions. even regulation on parking can block vehicle sharing in cities...

About research, some research are forbidden by law or by fear. We plan to regulate AI in France... Big guys can adapt, and some suggest that is the intent, but small innovators cannot pay the entry ticket (is it on purpose?).

All those regulation seems rational at first sight... but their impact on average is underestimated.

About LENR the only opposition I hear was about fear of career and Nobel destruction, and there was an informal reguation in EDF/CEA/CNRS, no LENR research even at home...

Since it does not happen it could not be radioactive.

Of course without regulations, there is more accidents, but this make the difference between today's secular stagnation, and 19th century (or Chinese current) explosive improvement of average life, despite some catastrophe (which costed much less than usual starvation periods, epidemia, cold weather)...

This is a choice, and no surprise that taking the risk is impopular, we are not there by accident, but because it is current consensus.

Of course there could be a middle position, but we are not at the middle position between stagnation and 19th century frenzy times.

My point is like you that even in "evil organizations" that dare much more than average, the management is no more daring anymore, just managing grannie's money as safe as daddy would.

The point of faycal hafied is that

• Secular stagnation is not a new concept, and is wrong as explained below.
• there is huge portfolio of multipurpose innovation that could trigger a great technology revolution in all domains (not even talking of LENR - AI, drones, crypto, IoT, EV, 3D fab, Industry 4.0, Platforms)
• there is hug pile of available cash (pension funds, central banks)
• this cash is not used to develop breakthrough , but to safely develop what needs some slow improvement. the decision makers are managing funds, not their own fortune.
• obsessive Regulation and precautionism is preventing any breakthrough

Quite right, the evil organization are more and more driven by good guys, who avoid evil subjects.

In fact it is well explained in SuperCroissance (French), by Faÿcal Hafied.

translated here:

https://translate.google.com/t…oppe-la-voiture-a-essence

well fed people are less hungry.

Adrian Ashfield

lack of theory is indeed a great problem, that prevent research as usual today.

Even Edison have a strong method, and was driven by (sometime wrong or personal) theories.

As I've exchanged with many people, first it seems many people, especially in evil organisations like militaries, oil industry, car industry, nuclear industry, are very open minded on LENR and sometime very interested.

The problem is with good organizations like academics, state funded labs, physicists, media, editors, good willing citizens, who try to protect good science from evil influence. They often harass, forbid, defund, block, menace, the evil guys who dared to look inside the forbidden box.

Evidence is not the problem; not the solution, not the question, there is a lack of theory which unlike in the openminded 1920s, prevent authorized people to accept facts.

Sadly I see many proposal which are today accepted as fact despite there is not much solid evidence but great theories.

My path of reasoning is the following.

• To break the wall of denial, best is a working application...
• Nice, but to develop an application you need a minimum of understanding of what is happening, so you can control it. No need to have the hamiltonian of the NAE, but at least where and what it is, what is needed, the metalurgical conditions, the chemical conditions, and as Jex explain well, something to convince a regulation agency it will not kill someone just as a black swan.
• So you need to find the explanation, which mean hard work with investigation in what is happening, with expensive instruments, many experts, thus big budget.
• But to have that big budget, you need to convince mainstream labs, and logically you could do that with nice papers, more or less replicated in various places, with many different protocols and instruments to be sure it is not an artifact. This have been done and it does not work.
• So maybe developing a lab-rat experiment which is reliable would help, but LENR is very hard to replicate reliably as the least unknown parameter may make it fizzle like a candle in the storm.
• Finally it seems needed to understand first what are the key parameters to LENR, so at least we can make a lab-rat and why not have int on the explanations, and good ideas for experiments.

Shane D.

I hope it will work, but it seems that convincing with evidence no more work today. Sadly you need a theory, and if you have a good looking theory, probably evidence are no more needed today. (sarcasm).

If it happening that way, in relative secret, this mean that Duncan have been trying to hide from the mainstream mindguards, which after all seems required.

JedRothwell My meaning was to lock a market for your interest, reserve yourself most of the added value (not stall the development straight).

As You say, it is impossible to lock up LENR to make the most of money only for you.

It is not only a legal question as you explain, but simply impossible because of market and people forces.

You have to share.

Someone told me that the rules of business is that more or less you make money proportionally to what you put on the table. Usually if you put a billion on the table you get half as benefit... if you are really on a locked market with great advantage (think of Microsoft Windows), you can expect to double.

That money is usually there to build the manufacturing infrastructure, the marketing, the market structuration... and technology is a tiny point in that.

An inventor don't put much money, so cannot expect billions back. There is apparently an exception to the above rule that makes the inventor be paid few millions, like a tip to the guy who make it possible, but most money is for the guys who put the billions on the table to make it real.

I forgot to say that most money is not even for the investors, but for... the clients... with cost saving and service.

Never forget that the always winning is the client.

Only the king could afford an ice cream... and I have few pots in my surgelator today. I'm the king.

I've heard many positions about what to do to make LENR a reality, not a scientific phenomenon as one see if one read the papers or work in labs, but something that is well funded and will after much work from mainstream, produce applications.

I've evolved myself, and I'm no more certain of any option.

1. First option is to ignore the scientific question first, and try to develop a working technology, to sell it, and convince the population of LENR interest. The problems raised is that without a vision of the mechanism, there is no way to optimize the technology, and as Jean-François Geneste said, without even a phenomenological theory, you cannot start an industry.
2. Second option is the one that seems to have been followed by LENR scientists from the early days : to make experiments, and publish results, proving to mainstream scientists that the phenomenon is real, which is scientifically astounding. The problems are that it have been done with hundreds of papers and thousands of experiments, without any success in mainstream circles. Much energy have been used, and reused, and used again, probably wasted, while the mystery of the parameters and the explanation was not enough investigated.
3. Third option is a variation, and is promoted in some conferences (ICCF, RNBE) : to develop a very reliable experiment that can be replicated by any lab, and would convince mainstream researcher of the reality of the phenomenon. First it is very hard today, without a vision of what is happening and not enough data on the key parameters, and finally it seems mainstream community is not much more open-minded to LENR as flat-earthers to Newtonian mechanics.
4. Fourth option is to work experimentally to detect signature of what is happening during LENR, with instruments, so a theoretical proposal can be initiated. Theoretical proposal is not only a result of research, but it is also the key ingredient of the design of a lab experiment (Edmund Storms is clearly explaining that point), so it seems a good idea too. But There is still no theory that is accepted by peers, despite dozens of proposals.
5. Finally, fifth proposal I've heard is the modest idea, not to convince mainstream scientists, nor to really find a theory, or make a lab-rat directly, but just to start to work between LENR scientists to understand the parameter space, the key factors, the conditions and inhibitors, for the LENR phenomenon. Some have done that on few points, and there is for example a very interesting debate between Edmund Storms and Michael McKubre, whether loading or temperature is key throttling factor of PdD LENR. There is also key question on cracks, vacancies, , THz radiation, Laser correlated or not with LENR power. Problem is that it often move into a theoretical debate...

Each point can be defended, and sure every point will be done during LENR technology inception.

The real question is what to do first, to allow the pursuit of the other 4 points.

Multiple vote are allowed.

After discussing with people from innovation domain, I'm convinced :

• there will be no way to lock LENR with a patent, as there is no way to block a tsunami.
  
  • like with a tsunami best would be not to put wall, but to free the way, and just take a fee along the long way.
• when LENR is recognized, the wave will be so powerful that
  • any patent of interest to give tiny advantage will be valuable as a tiny part of a mega huge value
    • if you ask tiny fees, it will be worthless to argue with you, and you will be paid
    • if you ask big fees, it will be so valuable to circumvent your patent that you will be circumvented
  • any expert, assumed expert, possible expert, will be valued as long as he may help, even maybe, and maybe maybe.
    • even if everybody stole your ideas, you will be valued as someone who can have new ideas, which is invaluable
  • the wind of innovation will be so fast that even pig will fly.
    • fight to create the wave, and don't care of the way to surf, A Stonehenge pillars would float over that wave.

Problem is to start the wave, and the method is a big question.

My only light in the tunnel are banal lab work

• Nedo funded 6 organization replicated experiment.
• IH patents that shows some lab work with better control.

I don't understand the maturity of GEC's claims, as I was depressed few years ago by the same team... I'm probably under estimating their claims.

Lab is the way.

when I says damned theory, it is not about the theory itself, but that I judge a theory have nothing to do in a patent, or just a minor citation...

What is needed is evidences, experiments, protocols...

I agree I may be biased gains theoretical discussions, as I judge it is the source of all evil around LENR denial...

People refusing facts without a theory/

People using their theory to prove experiments cannot exist.

People refusing to considers others' work because of theory dissent.

I realized with exchange with Dr Storms that anyway theory is not only a tool for engineers, but a guide to experimenters..

Too bad.

about trade secret, I'm not sure cocacola is a good example as it seems it was ccopied.

their main asset is their brand, image, marketing.

I know people who use trade secrets for metallurgy tools, as you cannot even imagine how to create the tool when you see it... all is in tricks, know how, recipes... too hard to defend also as you cannot prove your competitor is using your technology, as he cannot see what you do .

Someone told me :

- it you can reverse engineer it, patent. (and pay well your attorneys)

- if you cannot reverse engineer it, secret. (and pay well your engineers)

anyway protection don't work well, as competitors can invent a similar solution, be inspired by the ideas.

Some says that best answer is to run faster, collaborate with competitors, exchange IPs fast, promote exploitation of your IPs, and be recognized for your competences, your reactivity, not your IPs...

It works well if you are a dynamic company with great innovations department, not a small inventor with an idea, having worked for years to implement it.

this is a core question for LENR.

I remember exchange with guys from LENR-cities. IP is key problem... chicken and egg.

Their concept was "Mutual Assured Development".... share sincerely with partners you choose, reduce IP price, but innovate fast, create applications, reuse, cross license, invent with partners faster than foreign competitors can copy ...

As I understand from many experts, like David French, with good and clear evidences it works, SAWS can be disarmed on a patent.

In theory patent don't requires evidences it works (if not it is useless patent, wasted money), but as some exploit patents as evidences they have something real, SAWS make sense.

Saws in a way gives scientific value to any patent that pass SAWS test.

I see two problems with patents in LENR from my incompetent readings.

First until recently I don't see really openly proven useful device patented.

(Waiting for IH patents, Brillouin patents... too bad Swartz cannot share his success).

Anyway I understand that proving it works is a dangerous move for an inventor, as it can trigger competitors.

Second, why do inventors put damned theory in their patents.

My instinct is to dismiss any patent including a theory... for me it is bad symptom. Maybe I'm just incompetent, but it is my naive instinct, like about attorneys that don't sort their files property, or restaurants with dirty toilets...

A followup apparently:

http://www.lenr.com.cn/index.p…dex&a=show&catid=7&id=847

LENR cn wrote:

冷聚变世界七月最新一次高温镍氢实验结果

本次实验反应结束后，打开反应器容器，发现部分镍粉发生了熔化，形成一个直径2毫米左右，几个1毫米左右的亮银色小球。

冷聚变世界实验室最近展开了一轮新的镍氢高温实验，实验采用耐高温的高纯刚玉管作为反应容器，铁铬铝耐高温电炉丝制作加热线圈，铂铑S热电偶作为反应器加热线圈外部测温元件，红外探头测量整个反应器外壳温度，整个反应器外观为下图：

....

Translated by Google wrote:

Cold fusion world, the latest high temperature nickel-hydrogen experiment results in July

After the end of the experiment, the reactor vessel was opened and it was found that part of the nickel powder was melted to form a bright silver ball of about 2 mm in diameter and several 1 mm or so.

The Cold Fusion World Laboratory recently launched a new round of high-temperature nickel-hydrogen experiments. The experiment used high-temperature high-purity corundum tubes as reaction vessels, iron-chromium-aluminum high-temperature electric furnace wires to make heating coils, and platinum-rh thermocouples as reactors for heating. The external temperature measuring element of the coil and the infrared probe measure the temperature of the entire reactor casing. The appearance of the whole reactor is as follows:

An article about conflicts in the lab, that may be of practical interest for the experimenters not working alone.

Not so different from conflict in the openspace.

from Asian Scientist Magazine at: https://www.asianscientist.com…flict-control-in-the-lab/

Quote

Conflict Control In The Lab

Disputes among lab members are inevitable, but tackling them promptly and proactively is key.

Some things are commonplace across all work environments, whether you spend your 9-to-5 at a desk or a lab bench. Conflict, unfortunately, is one of those things.

“The lab is filled with people, and people are very similar everywhere,” says Wan Yue, a senior research scientist at the Genome Institute of Singapore.

Disagreements in the lab can vary from the “very absurd to the unethical,” says physicist Nathaniel Hermosa II from University of the Philippines Diliman. Resources, ideas, division of labor, credit and authorship are just some of the many things lab members fight about.

“It’s the nature of being a scientist—we can be open but stubborn at the same time. We’re like kids in a playground,” Hermosa says.

While conflict may be unavoidable—sometimes it finds us, even when we’re not looking for it—there are ways to manage it well. By recognizing conflict and understanding its nature, we can then attempt to handle it before it gets out of hand. Here are some of our top tips for dealing with conflict in the lab.

...

Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: https://www.asianscientist.com…flict-control-in-the-lab/

This article is from a monthly column called Beyond The Bench. Click here to see the other articles in this series.

Display More

Patents for me are good to start proposing to share all patents with a competitor.

Note that IH patents are not made on the core reaction but on smart tricks of engineers for details...

What I like in those patents is they patent useful tricks to deign a reactor, not a reactor.

as if you patent an electronic injection, or speed limiter.

Moreover unlike most LENR patents, I can understand them., and even guess who the LENR reactor is designed.

Let's wait and see how the USPTO examiner or the EPO examiner, react.

Fair use of a patent is to protect your ability to use the technology without a troll running behind you, and to be able to negotiate a patent cross-use with competitors...

More deterrence than weapon.

For gentlemen only.

It seems great news and symptom of something that works.

this applications

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0193816&RS=DN/20180193816

seems to imply they work on a reactor where discharge is used to help:

Quote

Electrical discharge may drive more hydrogen (deuterium) ions into the hydrogen-absorbing metal, enhancing the efficiency of exothermic reactions.

it seems they work on Pd and Ni , with gold as shielding metal

Quote

wherein the hydrogen-absorbing metal is selected from the group comprising palladium and nickel.

wherein a shielding metal is first plated onto the bore surface, and the hydrogen-absorbing metal is then plated onto the shielding metal.

wherein the shielding metal is gold.

[0004] FIG. 1 is a section view of a plasma type of exothermic reaction chamber 100. The reaction chamber 100 comprises a cylinder 102 formed of a rugged metal, e.g., stainless steel. For example, the cylinder 102 may be approximately a foot long and an inch in diameter. The cylinder 102, which has one open end, is fitted with a lid 106 and hermetically sealed, allowing the interior to be drawn to a vacuum of 10.sup.-6-10.sup.-7 Tor. The interior wall of the cylinder 102 may be plated with a shielding metal 108, such as gold (Au), and then with hydrogen-absorbing metal 110, such as palladium (Pd) or Nickel (Ni). Hydrogen (H) has an affinity for the metal lattice of the hydrogen-absorbing metal 110, and an aversion to that of the shielding metal 108. Hence, the shielding metal 108 may act as a seal to maintain hydrogen nuclei in the hydrogen-absorbing metal 110.

[0005] The metal cylinder 102 is grounded, forming an effective cathode, and an electrode 104, acting as an anode, is positioned in the center. Hydrogen or deuterium (.sup.2H, a stable isotope of H, also known as "heavy H") is introduced into the cylinder 102 at a low pressure via passage 114 through the lid 106. High-voltage, low-current power is applied to the electrode 104 via a power supply coupling 116. The high voltage along the electrode 104 generates an electric field directed radially outwardly, which ionizes the hydrogen or deuterium and accelerates it toward and into the hydrogen-absorbing metal 110. An insulating collar 118, formed for example of Teflon.RTM., covers the electrode 104 over the area opposite the cylinder 102 that is not plated with shielding metal 108 or hydrogen-absorbing metal 110, to prevent electrical discharge directly from the electrode 104 to the grounded cylinder 102.

the second patent

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0197643&RS=DN/20180197643

let also leaks the design of their reactor

Quote

A method includes vacuuming an environment containing a low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) system and flowing a gaseous material into the environment. The method includes heating the reactor to a first temperature range and applying a voltage to an electrode passing through a core of the LENR system

wherein the applied voltage is between about 200 volts and about 1200 volts.

wherein the vacuum is a minimum of 10 -3 torr.
wherein the flow of gaseous material is between 1 and 10 Pa.
wherein the flow of gaseous material is between 1 and 3 Pa.

wherein the heating is between about 100 degrees C. and about 400 degrees C.

The third patent

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0193815&RS=DN/20180193815

resonate (joke) with dual laser experiments of Dennis Letts, using plasma to produce the good THz frequency (instead of laser THz beat).

Quote

According to one or more embodiments described and claimed herein, an exothermic reaction of hydrogen/deuterium loaded into a metal or alloy is triggered by controlling the frequency of a plasma. In a plasma, charged particles oscillate at certain frequencies, which are referred to as plasma frequencies in this disclosure. The plasma frequency is controlled by adjusting the electron density of the plasma. The plasma frequency is in turn controlled by adjusting the pressure within the reaction chamber. An exothermic reaction is generated at certain discrete plasma frequencies, which correspond to the optical phonon modes of D-D, H-D, and H--H bonds within the metal lattice. For example, in palladium metal, the frequencies are 8.5 THz, 15 THz, and 20 THz, respectively.

One embodiment relates to a method of triggering an exothermic reaction in a sealed reaction chamber including an anode and a cathode having a reactive metal coating. The reaction chamber is evacuated to a predetermined vacuum. One or both of hydrogen (H) and deuterium (D) gas are introduced into the reaction chamber at predetermined partial pressures. A plasma is created in the reaction chamber by applying a high voltage DC electrical signal to the anode. The electron density in the plasma is adjusted to achieve a predetermined plasma frequency by controlling the pressure within the reaction chamber. An exothermic reaction is triggered by achieving a plasma frequency of a predetermined value.

Another embodiment relates to an exothermic reaction assembly. The assembly includes a reaction chamber including a sealed metallic housing grounded to function as a cathode; a reactive metal coating on the interior surface of the housing; and an anode suspended within the chamber. The assembly also includes a signal generator operative to generate a high frequency, high voltage electrical signal and apply the signal to the anode or alternatively to the cathode. The assembly further includes a gas manifold and controller operative to connect a vacuum pump and one or more gas chambers to the reaction chamber and to control the mass and pressure of gases in the chamber. The signal generator is operative to create a plasma in the reaction chamber by applying an AC electrical signal superimposed over a high voltage DC signal to the anode or alternatively to the cathode. The gas manifold and controller are operative to adjust the electron density in the plasma to achieve a predetermined plasma frequency by controlling the pressure within the reaction chamber.

Le fourth patent seems to follow a similar vision to the third, with wider frequencry range from MHz to THz.

Their implied theory and operation seems a bit different.

There is something about graphene, way to extrude wires... Quite rich.

Quote

In either of the preferred embodiments, a closed feedback loop may be used to prevent a runaway reaction and control oscillations in the electrode lattices. The microwave heated materials generate plasma EERs that produce an RF microwave output within a metal lattice. A radio frequency sensor or sensors capture the EER radio frequency lattice output oscillations that are 180 degrees out of phase from the RF input source. Through software and hardware, the RF is harmonically synchronized or coupled between the input source RF with the lattice output RF to create harmonic oscillations with local interaction between the source and reaction RF within a closed feedback loop. The resonance lattice reaction between input and output RF in a closed feedback loop keeps the oscillation in a constant state that results in an improved reduced input power to maintain a constant output power. As the lattice metal heats up using the RF power with lithium and hydrogen gas pressure during cathode hydrogen loading between the lattice's super abundant vacancies, a switching magnetic field can create a vortex that can cause a ferromagnetic flip within the Face Center Cube (FCC), Body-Center-Cube (BBC) or Hexagonal Close Packed (HCP) alignment of the lattice. This mismatched magnetic alignment within the lattice causes the FCC, BBC or HCP to jump out of alignment and cause a spin of the FCC, BBC, HCP or other transitional metals to spin like a top at microwaves speeds to create a microwave motor vortex swirl that melts nearby materials with friction heat. Once the Vortex is in motion, it melts metals that are in contact with the spinning metals and it also produces an RF signal. The oscillating lattice will try to find a harmonic equilibrium.

[0015] Another novelty of the invention is using fine stranded wire such as nickel or Titanium or a blend or other transitional materials that soak hydrogen and co-extruding them with a polymer with Lithium and or metal powders such as copper and iron or rhodium to make a roll of solid fuel that is motor driver into a RF reactor zone to produce a EER reaction as outlined in FIG. 20,21. Another novelty of the invention if a polymers is used such as Polyethylene that consist of four hydrogens and 2 carbons, when heated by the RF or other heating sources the hydrogen is soaked into the metal while the carbon uses the Nickel or Copper as a host to form graphene on the surface of the wire to produce a valuable continuous roll of graphene wire that is crosslinked by the RF during the formation of the graphene coating to produce one of the strongest and conductive wires in the world. The graphene can also enhance the EER reaction by applying a stress on the surface of the wire during H2 or D2 loading and absorb additional H2 or D2. In FIGS. 20,21 the RF feedback loop with a PID can be employed or a gas injection with a spark or resistive heater to melt the Pe into a EER reaction. The solid fuel allows for safely storing Lithium within the polymer. Bare lithium will explode when it comes in contact with moisture the current invention solves that problem and in addition the graphene wire can be used for electrical transmission power lines or high speed internet or faster computers. The strength of the graphene wire can be used for building stronger and lighter planes, cars and other manufactured use in computer chips etc.

[0016] Another novelty of the invention is to form single or multi-walled cross-linked graphene tube from several feet to several miles long by taking an extruded polymers With H2 and carbon with or without lithium to generate a EER furnace. The polymer extrusion with a thin metalize coating of nickel or other host materials such as copper over the polymer extrusion will for a graphene tube.

The metal transitional foils, foams, wire knitted mesh, or powdered materials can be constructed under hydrogen, deuterium, lithium chloride, or gas pre-loaded pressures and mixed with lithium or graphene as a readymade reaction material. The RF can range from a Hertz to Terahertz range with the optimal ranges in the MHz to THz range. The electronic and software (PID) feedback loop prevents a run-away reaction to control the oscillations at a maximum set point level to prevent a chain reaction as shown in FIG. 1.

Maybe an interesting article on hydrogen in Pd and influence of gold alloying.

Gold plating seems important in some expertyiments. i remember of Dennis Letts about that.

Materials that absorb hydrogen are used for hydrogen storage and purification, thus serving as clean energy carriers. The best-known hydrogen absorber, palladium, can be improved by alloying it with gold.

New research led by The University of Tokyo Institute of Industrial Science explains for the first time how gold makes such a difference, which will be valuable for fine-tuning further improvements.

...

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-…hydrogen-storage.html#jCp

More information: Kazuhiro Namba el al., "Acceleration of hydrogen absorption by palladium through surface alloying with gold," PNAS (2018). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800412115

Adrian Ashfield wrote:

Thanks for that Alain. As I said, the evidence for LENR (and Rossi ) continues to grow but many here still deny it.

Evidence of LENR are old, and slowly growing.

Evidence of Rossi is another story. Doral is evidence of different facts depending on who observes.

Lugano also is evidence of different facts depending on the observer.

So many maps, and one territory.

The paper reports both EM excitation like Energetics superwaves, Bockris/Letts triggering, or CECR, and some observations of EM production like ENEA/V.Viollante experiment.

Not sure it is LENR, as it may just be hydrogen flowing in the lattice, or surface events...

Just reminded this paper from 2016 in JCMNS, after latest article in ECW.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…btained_by_Different_Rese

Electromagnetic Emission in the kHz to GHz Range Associated with Heat Production During Electrochemical Loading of Deuterium into Palladium: A Summary and Analysis of Results Obtained by Different Research Groups

December 2016

Felix Scholkmann ; David Nagel ; Louis F Dechiaro

Abstract

There is a small literature on the combination of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) experiments and radiofrequencies (RF). The papers are worth attention in case they can teach anything about the mechanisms behind LENR. Application of RF to LENR electrochemical cells in the mid-1990s clearly showed increases in the production of excess power. More recently, RF have been measured in LENR cells. However, it is still possible that those data are artifacts of the operation of the system, and not indicative of LENR. It has been suggested that the appearance of RF in LENR experiments is the cause of LENR, and not merely a manifestation of such reactions. That possibility has significant implications. In the present paper, we summarize and analyze the results obtained by different research groups concerning the application and emission of RF in the kHz to GHz range associated with heat production during electrochemical loading of deuterium into palladium.

It cites a recent experiment by Vittorio Violante at ENEA that was discussed here

http://www.enea.it/it/seguici/…of-deuterium-in-palladium

one of the Current science LENR special section article :

Observation of radio frequency emissions from
electrochemical loading experiments D. A. Kidwell, D. D. Dominguez, K. S. Grabowski and L. F. DeChiaro Jrhttp://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0578.pdf

Maybe it can give ideas to some experimenters.

Abds made anarticle on that podcast and publish slides

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…abstracts/review/mckubre/

the slaides are very interesting, starting with a kind of synthesis, to continue with challenges, and need to make a demo device.... studying it's requirements.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/ICCF21-Main-McKubre.pdf

I hope Zeus46 is right.

I'm epidermic on that because ambiance in France is worrying on many subjects...

Bob Greenyer reports that MFMP is "being held for futher review t make sure it meets our policies".

I don't support all what Bob publish, but I find ALARMING that policies designed to protect from "Fake News" are as expected used de facto to block dissident voices.

https://disqus.com/home/discus…t_date#comment-3973316116

Quote

Four months after applying for Youtube Partner Program (after meeting their new punitive application requirements and with a waiting time claimed to be weeks) we receive this email - which we cannot reply to.

I have this epidermic reaction because I remember this french mindguard article bashing Jean-Paul Biberian's book.

Luc Allemand in La Recherche feb 2013 wrote:

Si on dresse un jour la liste de tous les méfaits d'Internet, il ne faudra pas oublier celui que mentionne Jean-Paul Bibérian dans La Fusion dans tous ses états (p. 194) : « Sans ce nouveau médium, il est probable que la fusion froide aurait disparu pour de nombreuses années. » Et cela aurait été une bonne chose ! Que ceux qui n'ont jamais entendu parler de cette fusion froide se rassurent, ils n'ont rien manqué.

If we draw up a list of all the misdeeds of the Internet one day, we must not forget the one mentioned by Jean-Paul Bibérian in The Fusion in all its states (194): "Without this new medium, it is likely that cold fusion would have disappeared for many years. And that would have been a good thing! That those who have never heard of this cold fusion reassure themselves, they have not missed anything.

It seems Internet is trying to clean it's attic, but I'm not sure that what will be cleaned will be all bas and what will be sanctified will be all good.

1984 is coming, and beside the FakeNews, you have the new concept od MuteNews... when a known fact in 2012, is ignored, then millions are wasted to prove it published in april 2018, ignored, and just yesterday published on the web site of an opinion journal...

Meanwhile on the same domain, a "decoder", pretending to check news, is caught being accomplice with a fake news editor in another reference journal,...

let it be clear that no method exist to know what is good or wrong, because as Lugano and Doral shows, as LENR replication shows, as Mizuno bucket and CCS show, we cannot even agree on what is a fact.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co…-empiricism-and-sola.html

http://sargonauta.blogspot.com…5c-11e8-faaa-90b11c40440d

In 1993 from a thousands of page of abstract I analysed, it was clearly replicated, and artifact eliminated.

someone more competent sure would have said proven. It was clear for me that no unchecked critics (the man who gathered articles was a honest skeptic)...

My feeling at that time was there was something about "out of equilibrium" as triggering and condition.

Best evidences are BARC, McKubre, Storms, Oriani, Miles/Bush, F&P 90+, Bockris.

A competent skeptic, Heinz Gerischer, expert in calorimetry admitted evidences were solid, despite problem with theory and reproductibility,

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf#page=2

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…dFusionAReality-ICCF2.pdf

Ruby carat just published a podcast of Michael McKubre at ICCF21

http://coldfusionnow.org/michael-mckubre-at-iccf-21/

Michael McKubre at ICCF-21

LENR consultant and former Director of Energy Research at SRI International Michael McKubre presented at the 21st International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science held at Colorado State University in Fort Collins Colorado. The five-day conference ran June 3-8, 2018 and featured multiple groups reporting solid results in the generation of excess heat and transmutations.

Several labs are regularly able to produce between 6-20 Watts excess thermal power and are now experimenting with the various parameters in order to determine how to scale that output up. There were several theory sessions and more theories presented, but no consensus on modeling features of the reaction was determined.

In episode 13 of the Cold Fusion Now! podcast, we join Michael McKubre just starting his talk on Monday morning June 4 with The Fleischmann Pons Heat and Ancillary Effects: What Do We Know, and Why? How Might We Proceed?

Listen at our podcast page http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ or subscribe in iTunes.

Today consensus can be worldwide in few weeks, and blocks any freedom to dissent.

Today the need for budget is so huge that you can believe in any absurdity that give you a job for a decade.

Today the old mindguard of academies live longer, and the young boys need money to sustain the Western lifestyle they expect with a PhD.

and anyway you are right, because of internet, the information survived, but not in the upper level of authority.

When you see TB and measles reapearing because of Salem-like psychosis at planet scale, you don't think we evolved so much .