Posts by AlainCo

    changing of scale, with passion, people can do big acts as Lone Wolf.

    Often there is a network, but it is more a community, like we are, than structured military organization.

    This is how thing seems to work recently with Internet, with many subjects. Even NGO and cults are surprised by they 2.0 version...

    Often also the stakes of people make them commit the worst, the stronger stakes being ideology, emotion, but also sometime money and job.

    I think of people who have invested money in business, time like me... beside pride, ego, network, travel...

    it is hard to distinguish between sincere biased/convinced supporters and paid professional.

    My bet is that the worst tactics are amateur.

    As Milgram experiment have shown, even money cannot buy the worst behaviors, but you can do it for free.

    So Cherokee has learned 2 very valuable lessons now: Don't buy polluted land in California and expect things to go as planned, and do not invest in ornery, mercurial, overunity inventors with a checkered past, without doing a true DD.

    This is the way usual people takes lesson.


    a VC, take the lesson as statistic... as warning to always consider thing can fail.

    It is funny to hear people who accuse experiments like Miles, Storms, McKubre, of no replication while there is hundreds of replication in peer reviewed papers... beside regular replication by ENEA , SKINR, NRL, and Storms.


    of course no replication exist for oneself if one say there is none that exist.


    as said the scientistwhose paper should have been rejected for error if Nature was doing their job,no lab with a decent football team have replicated cold fusion...


    not even sure it is true, this guy have a problem with facts that dissent with his opinion, and even more with his ego.

    A big naive question mirror my naive remarks in 1993.

    Maybe is LENR just a never need kind of artifact, which as an engineer I woudl consider as something to investigate deeply in case it can make emerge a real technology, on a surprising domain.


    Some critics of LENR have propose super chemistry... naively given that chemistry is older than nuclear physics, i consider it as a bigger breakthrough than cold fusion claim (having surprise in quantum mechanics, given it's youth and numerous evolutions and surprise especially in material science, is more a confirmed prediction than a surprise).


    Some have proposed miraculous extreme energy storage, which I am sure would interest engineers working in thermal solar energy, or in engine design...


    Miraculous constant change is very important question in calorimetry, as it could not only put many devices in danger of destruction and dramatic accident, but also may create opportunities to new measurement techniques and why not even new machines and technology.


    I suspect that many engineers like me have considered the idea, and have look with better competence at this possibility, with the sincere and greedy hope to exploite this artifact...

    then they realized it was not an artifact, that it would cause them trouble, it was not their business, and they had better things to do than fight a desperate battle.


    My advice to Kirk Shanahan, is that like all people who work on LENR because their have observed it and think it is a nuclear phenomenon, he try to amplify the phenomenon, characterize it, and why not make money with it.


    Battling to negate the hope of others is less important than battling for your hope.

    This is the difference between mindguard and innovators.

    Looking for various misconduct,

    instead of focusing on respected experimentsres who have been transparent and survived review (but not trolling), there is indeed meat for the chevalier of science :


    First is the pathetic erroneous Caltech paper who was not retracted or corrected of it's errors, who are as public as Defkalion critic by Luca Gamberale and E-cat pacermonitor

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


    you have the MIT data tweaking, who not only is not documented, but seems to even be manual as Jed Reports, and who launched the furor of MIT editor himself

    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

    and this is not accounting for the addtional incompetent which was not enough documented (you can be honestly incompetent but document it)

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedg.pdf#page=138


    You also have the very strange peer review of Morrison article who make our beloved pet theorist sand conspiracy theorists look very serious

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


    You also have Gary Taubes conspiracy theory on tritium, and the bent inquiry against, directed by Huizenga and Parks anti-science epistemology. The impossibility of that theory and the cherry picking of data is documented.


    all that would allow good trial, and I'm sure you would be competent in finding the crimes, if motivated.


    so, Mary you you want to denounce fraudulent behaviors, and why not academic misconduct, or epistemoly errors, I propose you attack first the clear example. I'm sure I will share the 2 first on your list, like many people here, but afterward I'm afraid your motivated beliefs will bend your hierarchy of fraudulent behaviors, toward a more tribal and position-based critics.


    how long ago did you change your mind?


    each of us should ask secretly to that question.

    An article in a Los Alamos news about the Preparata Medal he received at ISCMNS Workshop in Asti.

    http://www.ladailypost.com/con…-giuliano-preparata-medal


    Most important is the science, his key work on tritium detection in LENr experiments.


    Quote

    Claytor has collaborated with investigators at other organizations to improve hydrogen isotope and neutron detection from solid state LENR cells. Since his retirement, he has maintained his connections to Los Alamos National Laboratory as a Guest Scientist.


    While at LANL, in addition to on and off research into LENR funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Director’s Reserve and technology transfer funds, Claytor worked on various instrument and materials projects. He developed the first large area a-Si neutron tomography system at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE). This work eventually resulted in a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Hi-Tek resulting in more than $20 million annually in sales for the company and royalties to LANL.


    Prior to his retirement, Claytor received five patents, a Department of Energy Defense Program Award of Excellence, a LANL Distinguished Performance Award and two R&D 100 team awards He has mentored some 34 graduate and undergraduate students and sponsored Ph.D. research at three major universities. He received NASA and Siemens awards for excellence in and sustaining mentoring in 2003 and 2004.


    Beyond his work, his career can talk, like the one of Bockris, of Fleischmann, against the myth that the LENR scientist are all incompetent and fringe.

    Regarding Ni62, the alternate explanation is that Rossi purchased Ni62 and swapped the sample.


    no need to swap samples, if the tube contained Ni62 before the test, and classical Ni was added manually...


    My 7 years old daughter is playing magic tricks, and this is typical tricks.

    and for those , not just failing to reproduce, but proposing an explanation in an article that was published (some got published in surprising way, and some were not retracted in surprising way), 4 articles.

    Kirk Shanahan battle to make the 5th published.


    Beaudette summarize the story:

    Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.


    The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.


    The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.


    Few people realize how weak is the consensus.

    Consensus exploit mostly failures by people whose competence don't apply (physicists) to the experiment.

    They exploit failures in a reverted Poperian logic.

    They ignore refutation of proposed explanation.

    They ignore the weak number and weak quality of the refutations.

    They ignore reference experimenters who confirmed the results.

    They ignore well known problems experience daily in material science.


    In a way for someone experience in history of science, in epistemology, in semi-conductors, they are incredibly naive and uneducated, and incredibly tolerant with incompetence and fraud when on their side.



    In fact the fallacy at the core of LENR denial is the reverted poperian logic, that things cannot happen if they have no theory.

    If you get that fallacy as true, then LENR was falsified because every theory was refuted, theory that it was easy , that just electrolysis was enough, that it was hot fusion in a jar, and all pet theories,

    This reverted logic is core to today's pathology of science, who prefer unproven coherent theories, refuted numerical models, unrefutable infinitely tunable models, to uncertain experimental results and unexplained anomalies.

    We are back at a dogmatic age.

    Sincerely, Galileo was more respected scientifically than today's experimenters without (official) theory, and got home-arrested only for having insulted the Pope (who did not let his executors burn him)... Today, not only science is politicized, but even when not politic, there is dogma you cannot challenge even with data.


    Even LENR community suffer from that fallacy with pet theory meditations more popular than old experimenters intuitions.

    http://ecat.org/2017/decentral…nr-blockchain-technology/




    This is not a new Idea, I have heard of it since few years...


    Unstoppable organizations.

    The slow sunrise continues for CF despite the global man-century and tens of millions lost by the recent unpleasantness / distraction.

    I'm hopeful about what you say.

    Jed recent description of the shoestring war of the true scientists of LENR made me sad. We are too optimistic of what is happening. IH abandoning ICCF 21 is one more tear to flood the river of LENR tears.


    Since I've read Ed Storms book, and "pacemaker" (;)) I'm convinced that the solution is good old PdD science, but with bleeding edge nanotech/Li-Ion/nanoelectronic instrumentation. We need a theory to make it work reliably, and this need instruments, not shoestrings and proof of reality that nobody accept.

    I realized it needs big money, the tens of minion Rossi's burned and the 250Mn$ I know he made flee 2 years ago.


    I hope I'm wrong and hobbyist work, like the amateur astronomes' work, have a room in the big Science landscape. Maybe they can discover a new comet, but they cannot build Hubble.

    About LENR entrepreneurs, I see only one possible reality in a tragic landscape of delusion and con.


    It won't be cheap.

    4th day of conference is summarized by JP Biberian.

    http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian…rence-asti-4eme-jour.html

    3rd and 4th day have been translated by M Swartz on CFT

    http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html


    quick points:

    • Jacques Ruer have shown that with industrial chemistry knowledge it is possible to stabilize LENR reaction, and even to exploit modest COP to obtain better COP. assumption is simply that reaction get stronger with temperature (NB: observed by F&P and many). Reaction if strong enough lead to melting, but with strong flow cooling one can make anyreacton stable. Low COP can be improved by using multiple reactors together...
    • P Hatts talk of his theory.
    • Bob Greenyer presented some experumental results, with transmutations.
    • Katinsky (LENRIA) presented colaboration with Melvin Miles in electrochemistry, to be easily reproduced bu University labs. Using PdB electrodes, manufactured few years ago and having produced excess heat in a reproducible way. Once experiment is ready, it will be sent for free to University labs who coul make experiments.
    • It was announced that next ICCF21 will be on East Coast of USA summer 2018
    • Congrats to Frabrice David for bronze medal of best poster. Preparata medal granted to Tom Claytor for his works in Los Alamos about tritium production

    new report by JP Biberian

    http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian…rence-asti-3eme-jour.html

    This 3rd day was mostly about theories.


    Only comment beyond theory is about McKubre who made a synthesis on LENR situation:

    JP Biberian translated by Google wrote:


    Michael McKubre retired from the SRI gave a detailed review of the cold fusion situation. For him, the most important fact was the discovery of tritium, which can only be explained by a nuclear reaction. Then comes the measurement of excess heat then the presence of helium-4. The theory is not going to save us, we need a better experimental understanding. In the past we used the concept of hot fusion that did not apply to our situation. We now need a clear demonstration to convince other scientists.

    Neglecting the questions of lethal radiation and overcoming the Coulomb barrier, that's the amount of energy obtained by running Rossi's 1MW plant for over an hour. Not as much as the curious case of the Coimbatore iron smelting facility, however, which had a presumed yield of about 2023 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs every 24 hours.


    His framework is picochemistry where atom/ion get into orbit into a bigger atom... This may explains the absence of huge radiation, or energy, as there is no fusion... Anyway it is big claim.


    I agree that lack of penetrating radiation is key definition of LENR, and raping the coulomb barrier is just not the way it happen. there is more seduction than violence in the phenomenon.

    2nd day summary by JP Biberian

    http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian…rence-asti-2eme-jour.html


    Dr Mitchell Swarts have translated in English the reports of the two days

    http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html


    My summary/vision:

    • Iwamura (Tohoku U, cooperating with Technova) have results with nanomaterials, powder with Cu,Ni, and H, (not D). 100g of product produced 2.47MJ.
    • JP Biberian is quite positive on Klimov presentation of his work with plasmoid, COP 2-10 with excess heat above 3kW. Transmutations with K, Li,RZn. Collaboration with Germans for commercialization.
    • Celani presented resulst with his constantan wires, Ni,Cu,Mo (NB: in fact it seems Mn, not Mo?). he observed heat when addinf Fe and K. Need out of equilibrium conditions. COP=2 at 70W heating.
    • David nagel presented how works with electrochemical cells...
    • Jacques Dufour present results (intriguing), with Na and Fe at 1000C. he thinks he transmuted 0.524g over 1.087g Fe into a new element atom incorporating a proton ins the electron cloud (woh!), whose mass is near cobalt.
    • JF geneste present a new concept of physics... (woh).
    • Mitzler and hagelstein of MIT work to produce X-rays with phonons. Not yet X-rays, but anomalies with losses of radioactive cobalt on Fe plate used as resonator... (intriguing).

    I feel that the most interesting for funded scientists is to reproduce PdD, in wet then dry cells, with top instruments to control and observe metallurgy, transmutations, and radiations.


    But, yes for hobbyists, or underfunded scientists, those cheaper experiments, provided you work with rigor, can pay more... More risky, as it is less replicated, but this mean more hope to find new phenomenons.


    PdD with shoestring will never teach anything new anymore. Too many shoestring top talented experts have been abused around PdD. They need instruments.


    I concede a slight depressive state.

    In JPB report I notice/translate, that interest me most :

    • Itoh who replicated Iwamura (3rd team at least after Takahashi). Praseodyme is again produced according to XPS and SIMS, and author triy to cross check with RBS.
    • Takahashi working with 4 univesities and Nissan, working with Pd/Ni/Cu/ZrO2 have shown excess heat of 3-10W for weeks
    • Alakin have reproduced old tungsten wire explosion (1922) producing He4
    • Dubinko have reprpduced Parkhomov ([email protected]). He observed excess heat with Nd90%/Fe10% + H2 and D2 at 300C
    • Iwamura reproduced Mizuno experiments with Pd Ni nanoparticle produced by plasma discharges. Excess heat greate withH2 than D2. at 300C with 7W heating, excess heat is 83%. Electronic Microscopy show apperance of Si, Na, F and Cd.
    • Tom Claytot (retired of Los Alamos) continue tu work on measuring tritium during discharge with Pd and other metal. He whown excess heat during plasma discharge with Pt, Cu, Ni.
    • Malcom Fowler have shown a new mass spectrometry system to separate He4 from D2, having same mass.


    in fact most is interesting, except maybe the most fringe...

    For those interested there is more and more slides published


    Alan Smith will present a poster

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/SmithAlenrexistentia.ppt

    about Risk and how LENR can help...



    I noticed the David French presentation on Patentig LENR

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/FrenchDpatentsinthel.ppt


    About theory this presentation by David Nagel try to put things in order

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/NagelDexpectationsof.ppt


    Interesting too the "analysis of an explosion", useful if you plan to make your lab explode.

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/RuerJreanalysisofane.ppt

    If you love CSI serie, or NTSB documentary, you will love.

    This presentation is an evidence that you need peer-review by various kind of experts before claiming LENR. This is what usual science and engineering benefit of. Ostracization of LENR does not helps. Some safety advices given.

    About "radiation" experiment safety, Bill Collis will make a presentation, which consider many theories

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/CollisWcanweavoidpen.ppt


    Jacques Ruer present also how to prevent thermal runaway in LENR reactors

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/RuerJpreventingtherm.ppt

    from his experience in chemical reactors, instructive and colored presentation




    KA Alabin will describes work about wire explosion of tungsten... not totally new, but less popular than PdD electolysis or NiH+Li* gas permeation

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/AlabinKverificationo.ppt

    A Klimov have presented his work with heterogeneous plasmoid, not far from exploded wires...



    There are many presentations around NiH.

    The presentation of Takahashi caught my eyes, but is not clear to me without having seen the presentation. Maybe Alan could explain it's meaning

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/TakahashiAeffectofsu.pdf

    It seems it could lead to advise on Ni based powder...


    many other presentations...

    follow the program

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/program.htm

    Edmund Storms got a paper published in Environ Sci Ind J, Volume: 13( 2), as "A New Source of Energy using Low-Energy Fusion of Hydrogen"


    http://www.tsijournals.com/art…-fusion-of-hydrogen.html#


    A New Source of Energy using Low-Energy Fusion of Hydrogen

    Abstract

    This paper describes the claim for energy production based on the so-called cold fusion effect. Reasons are given to explore this energy source based on the need for such clean energy and the observed behavior. Chemical energy alone has powered civilization until relatively recently when nuclear fission power based on uranium became available. Efforts are now underway to go the next step on this path using nuclear sources by harnessing the fusion of hydrogen. The first attempt using the so-called hot fusion method has not been successful in producing practical power. Furthermore, the required generator is expected to be impractical as results of its complexity and size even after the many engineering problems are solved. Perhaps a different approach is needed. Fortunately, a new method to cause fusion using a simpler method was recently discovered; only to be widely rejected because it conflicts with what is known about nuclear interaction. This paper addresses this issue by summarizing some of the evidence supporting such a novel fusion reaction.

    It is an introduction on the subject, with some explanations on the human and scientific challenges behind LENR.

    Another report in Chinese about experiment done by Xian Zhang

    http://www.lenr.com.cn/index.p…dex&a=show&catid=7&id=817


    Report by the Chinese Academy of Atomic Energy Jiang Songsheng teacher to cold fusion world, thanks to the help of cold fusion experiments Jiang teacher give. The flight engineer Zhang Xian experiment is part of an experiment done this year, the results of cold fusion experiments using Raney nickel porous heating device made great overheating, provide a solid experimental data for us to continue exploring cold fusion technology.


    I don't understand all, but it seems a modest COP of 1.2, 70W excess heat...

    20170511090134946.jpg

    The reactor have changed shape.

    20170511085905517.jpg


    Some serious analysis of the claims is required.

    In France law about insults and libeling seems quite sensible, even if practice is very tricky.


    First you have to complain if the attack was an insult, or a libel.

    an insult is just a nasty word without claims, cannot be verified, and it is forbidden on LENR-Forum.


    Libel state a claim that can be supported by evidence and verified more or less.


    In France there is no libel if the evidence can reasonably lead you to believe in the claim, even if finally it is false. this point is hard to judge, and many affairs turn visibly to errors by being too tricky.


    My personal advice is based on child and adult education advices.

    When you make a critic, never do it unconditionally (you are stupid, you are a clown, you are deluded), but conditionally (you are wrong about that point, your opinion is not supported by evidences).

    However you can make unconditional greets (you are so nice).


    here instead of saying someone is deluded, dishonest, defrauding, manipulating, you could say "the evidence support that position", or "your opinion seems not supported by the data"...

    It let room for disagreeing politely.


    Let us try to be polite, even if we have solid position, which however as any scientific position, can be reverted when new facts or analysis emerge.

    We share our analysis and evidences, not our beliefs nor our tastes.

    ISCMNS have published the latest volume of JCMNS, volume 23

    Jed Publish the volume there

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


    there is a null/negative result on NiH LENR among the paper


    Jed Rothwell on Vortex-l wrote:

    I regret to say that it includes yet another study of Ni-H that showed no excess heat:


    Budko, K. and A. Korshunov, Calorimetric Investigation of Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2017. 23: p. 85-90.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…JPjcondensedv.pdf#page=90

    Brian Aherns, consider it as a null, because the conditions are not the one where other got even ambiguous results.

    Brian Ahern on Vortex-L wrote:

    It is not a negative LENR experiment. It is a null result.

    My recent Thermacore replication was not negative. It was a null result (I believe due to a loss of hydrogen gas to leaking copper gaskets above 600C.)


    I hope to remedy that soon and I hope for a positive result.

    Ever since humans started building settlements with a wall around them, there have been those who are excluded.


    there was a discussion in Liberal/Libertarian community about freedom of speech (sacred right) and freedom to moderate your territory (sacred right).

    The conclusion was that as long as someone can express his opinion somewhere, it is good that some place manage some censorship, moderation.

    Vortex and ECW ban overactive critics of LENR. SciAm band LENR discussion.

    here the courageous mod (among I'm not currently, I watch only, sorry...) try to allow debate ("is master of the place one who organize it"), but ban insults, doxxing, and flooding behaviors (among other), and more generally anti-social behaviors after exchanging with annoying poster, when behavior don't improve.

    When LF ban someone who is not pure annoyance, it is a loss for LF. Expectation is that it improves debate. If the banned have something to say worth reading, many people will follow him elsewhere, even discuss of it here or there.


    Free speech is right to create a blog and ban who you consider annoyance.

    Censorship is when there is no place to express your wisdom nor your stupidity.


    I don't understand well the relation with LENR, and if the company is serious.