Posts by AlainCo

    There is n interesting video in French about Bayesian logic for the zetetician skeptic

    https://skeptikon.fr/videos/wa…3d-4049-95be-5f919be25498

    it correct some bias , but finally it explains why people can safely have different opinions, depending on their known data and initial probabilities.


    I think the difference in opinion between usual plasma/particle physicist, chemist, and engineers like me is related to the data we have, the confidence we have in various experimental facts and theories, the epistemological story or out domains.


    Particle physics is a respected domain, having greatly succeed in its predictions since the 50s, with low competence thus trusts in calorimetry, and looking at LENR they find no neutrons, cannot even consider collective effects at nucleus scale, and consider their theory is bullet proof. They don't understand well the methods used for calorimetry and He4 analysis, and can safely assume there is an unknown error...


    Chemist have longer trust in calorimetry, seen bullet proof for 2 centuries, and looking at many small details in experiment descriptions consider some of the best LENR experiment are bullet proof. Having seen many changes in theory, in QM, derivation of QM in practical chemistry, problem with approximations of QM in chemistry, knowledge of material science discoveries, they consider that QM "practices" (hidden assumptions, not necessarily core mathematics) have to be adapted, as usual. Looking at He4/Heat correlations, analyzing the details, they can judge if contamination is well controlled, and be even more convinced there is something nuclear (ie, not their fault), happening.


    Engineers trained in semiconductors like me, with a knowledge of pas innovations from greek electricity, to transistors, Branly coherer, superconductions, know that science is evolving, that theories, and even more the way we use them to solve engineering problems, is moving fast. BEC theory, the unexpected problem of doping in semiconductor, and metallurgy, and LENR, is well-known. Problem of collective effects is just logical, as it seems a trend in modern science and technology.

    We trust chemist, physicist in their respective domain, but we know they have a huge ego on theory, thus we trust their results not their judgments.


    A farmer will probably be very conservative on his domain, but could be too much trusting one of the 3 population above, as he has seen huge progress in science, with deep effect on his practice...


    When we accepted evidences, we in fact use some implicit trust, and we do some Bayesian analysis, comparing the weight of evidences in our perspective, and the weight of past evidences supporting the opposite point, in our perspective too.


    I accepted LENR first as an evident anomaly probably caused by a very tricky new artifact, with hope of unexpected applications, trusting both the evidences that seemed good, and the mainstream corpus which was successful. Now, in the perspective of semiconductor and nanotechnology engineering, it seems evident that not only LENR is real, nuclear, but also a collective QM effect... For me it is a coherent, self-evident conclusion, in line with the long trend of science and technology.


    The way it is opposed is not new, but I suspect the globalization of groupthink by US high impact journals and Ivy League universities, transmitted by state funding, citation index and funding panels, make it much more unavoidable than under Galileo time, where in fact science was less controlled, at least less centralized.

    those supporting LENR hypothesis are not necessarily more believer than skeptics are.

    I see a range


    1. Believer in LENR, whatever are the new evidences, trying to rationalize contrary evidences, instead of integrating them. (guess who I think about on what, not LENR but a Fiasco)
    2. Convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, because of experimental results accumulated, despite past experiments in mainstream science, but ready to change opinion, probably with pain. Have to find the mechanism, to get reliable evidences that even convinced opponents cannot deny. (NB: this is my position today)
    3. Positive, estimating without total confidence, it is probably (very? some?) true, because of coherent evidences of fair quality, and possible hole in mainstream position... Sure research is to be done, even if it leads to deceiving results, and finding the mechanism is required to convince everybody.
    4. Unsure of anything, troubled by contrary evidences, like past scientific results having driven current maintream theories, and contrary LENR evidences... Hard to judge something impossible supported by undeniable evidences. Sure, need to search to have an answer, finding the artifact, or the mechanism. (I know some people not far from there; some ready to talk with me).
    5. Negative, estimating it is probably errors and misconducts because of possible holes in experiments, and good confidence in mainstream results until now. Sure, need to search to close the question definitively, finding the artifact and the tricks, that is still missing for most experiments. Artifact may even lead to applications (NB: this was my position in 1993).
    6. Convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each LENR experiment is an error, or a fraud, but ready to change opinion, probably with pain. Research is probably a waste of time, but that is the game of Science. Maybe we could learn something from that BS experments... it happened before . (This is my position on Rossi, but not with my money).
    7. Believer in non-LENR, sure whatever is shown that it is wrong, trusting without any question nor verification, that mainstream position is right on LENR. Don't search. (guess who I think about on what)

    The replication problems, which is not an experimental problem, as when it is observe with one batch of material, it is replicable, is symptom of a missink key : metallurgy.

    ENEA worked on that point, and Storms, Staker, push ideas.


    All is not failure as showe Iwamura and NEDO-funded line of replications, or even Fralick line...

    The electrolytic PdD line of replication is a bit messy but huge.


    Anyway, there is a need for a theory as Jean-Francois Geneste said at LENRG Milan before ICCF19.

    Always going back to that point. Something usable, not just QM theories with no consequence in choosing the Pd batch.

    quiestion of size.

    How many seconds of storage? you need few days for wind, when there is a cold spelle with antcyclonic configuration.

    The cost of storage is huge.

    Best option is Hydro, STEP, but it is expensive, limited, and opposed.


    Someone of the domain gave this quick numbers:


    Honestly, LENR is more probable in 5 years than the desired breakthrough in storage (by the way some technology is common).

    Sometime I'm sad the mindguard attack us, with those crazy mainstream dreams free in the media.


    Teapot calling the kettle black.

    Problem with intermittent, as seen in Germany, is that is 2/3-4/5 of fast start fossil fuel, while you have to retrain the nuke base power. French nuke are quite exceptionally managed as they are "load following", but this has limits especially in speed and predictability, and it wears the installations.


    Few days ago Germany wind farms passed from 1-2% to 20% of the mix in few hours. last night I've read they sold their uncontrolled power at minus EDIT 49euro/MHW (about the price of french nuke, but in negative).


    This subject is crazy emotional and politic, if not religious. You know how population is manipulated about LENR... Not only there.


    My naive hope WAS that LENR WOULD solve the ambiguity, but what I see is that beside some sincere polarbear-lovers like we have here, most activists in that domain just hate solutions that are not theirs, and basically that don't induce green business, pain and restrictions.


    My prediction is that if someone makes LENR really practical, he will be but out of business by campaign of fear, hate, and finally forbidden in EU. this is a recurrent scheme. I've even seems weak signal of such fearmongering, finally limited by general denial of LENR evidences.


    Good struggles to experimenters...


    One team working on LENR, put some researchers on sociology of science... problem is psychiatric.

    Not reactors, but replicated process that could be exploited if some were not more afraid for their reputation than for humanity future.


    NEDO funded work by technova was reproduced by another university

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


    Technova have replicated Iwamura

    http://dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.52.107301


    There is a line of replication from Fralick 89, Tsinghua/Inficon and Biberian around 2008, Nasa GRC 2008, reproduced by Fralick around 2012...


    Of course there is a tons of electrochemistry experiments, but with only an improvement in success rate, not total control.


    The problem is usability of the work replicated, I agree.

    Strange that Rossi is not already captured by North Korean agent as they seems to love doing, or bought by wealthi intelligence Agency, poisoned by Special Bureau, or seduced by a foreign beauty.

    Sure he has good bodyguards.

    Takahashi&al sure is best for me.

    Brillouin is very different style of news, but breatest on the biz axis.

    For me Staker is minor as a result, but his analysis based on metallurgy, SAV/Fukai phase, is maybe a theoretical breakthrough.

    Not enough votes for other experumental works, from Beiting to Ecalox...

    I would need more synthetic data on GEC, Ecalox/AE, Safire, as it was spread over many posts... something like the Takahashi report. (easy to ask, har to implement), sorry.

    This is why this should be the job of state sponsored basic research to pass this hard time of

    • results that have still no applications
    • results that cannot be obtained in a predictable delay
    • results that can be exploited by competitors and ensuire no real competitive advantage

    Mindguards prevent states to do what they are useful in.

    LENR at least is high energy density, even if at modest power density.

    High autonomy, is an evident application, especially for drones and vehicles (flying drones, boats, submarines, tanks, motorbikes/bikes) and why not just for soldier electronic, and building powering and heating.

    There was a LENR presentation by George Miley at https://www.tacticalpowersourcessummit.com/

    in Jan 2014...



    For riffles, not sure it is interesting, as war is evolving.

    If you can bring a hammer, a drill, a small focused explosive charge, on the target, why need of poverfull projectile. Drone like inside jobs, can change the face of war. See minority reports.


    You can read this booklet by JedRothwell

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

    which is more and more realistic as time pass.

    Make your due diligence, we cannot think for everybody. Even the most informed can disagree or be all wrong.

    As a tech watcher my best story is a silence, which says more than does a tech musical.


    Weak signal is a discrete whisper of a nuclear bomb exploding in silence.

    If what is claimed is confirmed, this push some theory where low dimensionality is key to LENR (no surprise for me), not far from Hydroton, TSC, SAV. However, I that case, it should not be SAV "à la Staker", but similar 1D structure.


    This assumes the claims are supported by experiments, which "seems" rational, but not proven here.


    Maybe it could be replicated (with due respect) by a nanotech lab?

    A nice farewell by Ruby Carat on Cold Fusion Now

    https://coldfusionnow.org/davi…e-to-breakthrough-energy/


    David French leaves legacy of public service to breakthrough energy

    french-pic.jpg

    Patent lawyer and Cold Fusion Now! contributor David J. French passed away quietly in his sleep the night of Sunday Dec 2.

    He spent his career at private law firms and also worked with the Canadian government on law reform and international patent issues before retiring to his own law firm Second Counsel in Ottawa, Canada.

    ...

    https://coldfusionnow.org/davi…e-to-breakthrough-energy/

    It seems that, beside LENR blackswan, semi-precious resources (rare earth, Co,Ni,Li) are becoming the object of modern strategic wars, like was oil.


    One big question I have is whether LENR will need Pd and D, as Mizuno shows, in line with PdD long experimental corpus.

    Ni will be much enough abundant to replace fossil fuels, but as I've heard, Pd will be under tension.


    Other problem will be the resources needed for the LENR generators, beside the PdD/NiH core... what about turbines and alternators and associated materials...


    About LENR, from today's data it seems LENR transmutations are anecdotal, but once we have a theory that works, who knows if we could harness LENR for transmuting grams or kilograms

    A positive article in IEEE Spectrum about LENR, referring to recent Japanese NEDO funded replications, and to Widom-Larsen theory


    Scientists in the U.S. and Japan Get Serious About Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions

    It’s absolutely, definitely, seriously not cold fusion


    It’s been a big year for low-energy nuclear reactions. LENRs, as they’re known, are a fringe research topic that some physicists think could explain the results of an infamous experiment nearly 30 years ago that formed the basis for the idea of cold fusion. That idea didn’t hold up, and only a handful of researchers around the world have continued trying to understand the mysterious nature of the inconsistent, heat-generating reactions that had spurred those claims.

    Their determination may finally pay off, as researchers in Japan have recently managed to generate heat more consistently from these reactions, and the U.S. Navy is now paying close attention to the field.

    In June, scientists at several Japanese research institutes published a paper in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy in which they recorded excess heat after exposing metal nanoparticles to hydrogen gas. The results are the strongest in a long line of LENR studies from Japanese institutions like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

    ...

    Hi,


    I try to get various opinion about recent papers and proposal, around the ideas of Edmund Storms "Hydroton".


    in his book "The explanation of LENR" , Edmund Storms starts by explaining LENr is necessarily cased by a small and rare structure near surface, the NAE, containing an hydrogen "polymer" insulated from chemical environment by the NAE.

    1. Edmuns storms support the NAE is hosted in nanocracks, small enough to host dense linear hydrogen polymer, the hydroton.
    2. In recent presentation Staker (paper), propose that a special phase denser stable phase (Fukai Phase:/) of Hydrogen/palladium (strangely named Super Abundent vacancies, where vacancies are in fact hydrogen space), cause the NAE, that he propose are tunnels of SAV
    3. In recent JCF18 a paper by Kazuo Ooyama propose a mode quite different from Hydroton, based on edge dislocation. Maybe "edge dislocation" can be the key of the NAE ? (It seems K. OOyama don't support hydroton/NAE vision, but some of his claims may fuel an hydroton variant).


    Not focussing on the QM phenomenon, but rather on the metallurgy, the past experimental results, could support one of the 3 cristal defect for the NAE?


    Does anybody have arguments for or against one of those cristal defect/phase as NAE ?

    :/

    on both sides there is risks of Doxxing, and harassment... true or not one might be afraid to have a broken career, trouble with colleagues and peers, either to think differently, or just to talk to outlaws, or even be harassed by activists .


    Anonimity is a problem, pseudonimity, as long as it is quite stable and allows establishment of a "reputation" (branding in fact) may be a good compromise. I think that being gay is more acceptable in academic community than stating politely ones disagreement with LENR experimenters.

    Another point is not to endanger ones organization which is not at all connected to one's opinions.

    If an Amazon developper exchange about LENR, this does not mean Amazon is interested in LENR, and may endanger a career.

    Great, and greater that it is in line with replicated work done in cooperation before.

    This is a replication, with scale-up.

    Scientifically this is an answer to the reproducibility crisis!


    Too bad it was only a burst...


    Now there is hope of some "funny" application, like what JF Geneste proposed, a looped engine-reactor, and hope for engineers to tweak the reactor so it is usable as a toy, not just an experiment.

    If the toy works for a month, at least engineers will be interested.


    Now why CuNiZrO works well, maybe better explained by Staker paper ;-)

    We need metallurgy experts

    About gamma origin "discrimination", I remember of some techniques in others sensor domain to discriminate mixed signals.


    Would it be interesting to use a radiation occultation switch (a Malta Cross of lead? turning slowly like a roasting chicken) at a given frequency, so that the difference between ambiant and reactor is apparent ? After signal processing, maybe would there be clearer signal? is this a common method in the domain?


    I know some use two detectors with coincidence elimination to reject cosmic bursts, but it is very expensive.

    There are mostly open skeptic, who have negative prejudice because of what they know of public consensus on wikipedia, of nuclear physics, and from few heuristics (too good to be true), not helped by proven mistakes (the initial neutron error by F&P have hurted much), and frauds (follow my finger). They are sincere, and very rational, like most people when there is no serious initial commitment. Anyone who accept LENR without having read much is just gullible.


    As you present them evidences, they quickly catch enthusiasm, and most of the time I have to cool them down, like I had to cool me down.

    They start with great ideas, then face the proeminent minority of not-at-all-skeptic-on-their-own-opinion, who first refuse to look into the telescope. Hard not-at-all-skeptics who justify anything are not so common, since starting to argument without any credible evidence with you demdn much effort, and I mostly see operational self enforced ignorant (very coherent with Roland Benabou theory of groupthink).


    More importantly they also face the fearful in apparent power, but very dependent on others opinion, who in fact don't care because they have a nice job and don't want to put it at risk, and are frightened more by the not-at-all-skeptic in noisy power than interested in making fame or money with something risky that failed (because of people like they), since 30 years.

    Mindguard, cowards... finally the enthusiastic either crash, or throw the towel.


    If someone can make something apparently industrializable (Brillouin seems not far, and why not some lucky experimenter here may design a reliable protocol), that can be demonstrated as an autonoumous engine turning for months (this is what JF Geneste proposed, proposing to lend a thermoacoustic heat engine designed by Airbus), the engineers and then the entrepreneurs will be enthusiastic, even if there is no theory, because there will be no doubt of an industrialization horizon, and a transmissible evidence of no doubt (very important notion, transmissible evidences). Of course there will be the need to find "the explanation of LENr", but it will be easy to find few billion for that from private pockets, and even states.


    The alternative is to find first "the explanation of LENR", which as I understand will ask a complex team of nanotech experts, metalurgy experts, QM theoreticians, many experimentalists, expensive nano-scale instruments, low radiation labs probably, with a huge budget of probably 25-250Mn$, and this is typically done in rational period by governments and state universities or military labs.

    But we are not in rational period, and this is the problem to solve first.

    I remind Magnetism (nanomagnetism) is core to the vision of Brian Ahern...


    I remember Dennis Letts & Bockris, have triggered/enhanced LENR with magnetic pulse. I forgot the link...

    Violante in his RF studies used a similar enhancement pulse http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVrfdetectio.pdf


    if one assume that LENr is cause by a coherent organization of nuclei, it seems logical that magnetic helps, and why not that RF and static field have some effect like in MRI.


    EDIT: I've found few articles


    TRIGGERING OF HEAT AND SUB-SURFACE CHANGES IN Pd-D SYSTEMS

    J. OíM Bockris, R. Sundaresan, Z. Minevski and D. Letts

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…a3b5a168c0e4c80d297fe.pdf


    Magnetic Field Triggering of Excess Power in Deuterated Pd - Digital Download $1.00 by Scott R. Chubb and Dennis G. Letts

    http://www.infinite-energy.com…&cPath=11&products_id=309

    “IF”, the test results run by 5 different groups, all showed Energy Out > Energy In


    And all of the results were the same, then

    Publish the experiment on the internet.


    Once the entire world is replicating excess heat academia can no longer say it doesn’t work.

    In fact, there is no news. there is already thousands of experiments, hundreds of papers, dozens of respected labs or top recognized experimentals who did the job.


    As you can see, there is no limit to denial.

    A manager trying to develop LENR explained me his daughter studying in Californiad had most of her colleages believing in flat-earth... In france we are flatearther in some subjects, but not on astronomy...


    Of course many people have been convinced since the 90s, and started to launch program to develop LENR research, Then they realised rationality is a rare resource in real world, and rationality have a short budget, and is not very influential in politics. Since you can no more work alone , especially for a nasty problem like LENR (complexity, material science, cross-domain, metallurgy, coherent QED, various nano-scale instruments, particle detections, heat measurement...), and best experimental results that could be done with a limited team have been done in the 90s, you need the groupthink to end.


    No need to look at LENR, I can launch a flame war, here just reporting know facts (off-topic. to the moderators, I won't do it ! enough noise here). And a journalist can again be petitionned for resign for reporting such facts.


    Groupthink is general, and it is better for a tycoon to fund hopeless investment that will be subsidised, than fund researshers that will find no help from fearful colleagues. You cannot make good science alone. I've understood that since few month, because things go too far, and I don't talk of LENR.


    Few documents to understand why apparent stupidity and denial rules, in a community of (very) intelligent people.

    https://www.yumpu.com/en/docum…nctional-stupidity-scaiem

    https://scholar.princeton.edu/…vard_be_seminar_4_snd.pdf


    I wish the best to experimeters, but my work is now on fighting denial of reality, out of LENR first.