• Industrial Heat : last news is Woodford reevaluating their hares positively... posted here. They fund some experimenters.
• Brillouin is active, have posted results (relayed here).
• Coolescence was closed
• Energetics technology patent were bought by SKINNER if I remember
• I don't know if Clean Nuclear Power is still alive , but they work with LENR Cities Suisse funded by George de Montmollin
• Gates is funding Seashore Research, which is silent but said active.
• LENR-Cities/LENRG have closed. Kresenn probably, no news.
• Airbus : JF Geneste is no more at Airbus. Not heard of Airbus in LENR since.
• There was Phononenergy, but they recently abandonned
• Nissan is new in the domaine, and participated the NEDO fundes experiment. There was an engineer of Nissan France at RNBE conferences
• Don't forget I2HMR with Nicolas Armanet (and colleagues), researcher on Hydrogen in Metals...

Even if 99% of what Ascoli says was true, it would not be a definitive proof there is nothing behind LENR numerous experiments, and his enthusiasm would be there only to push more research with more attention to more details.

I understand scientist who believe in their experiments, and skeptics who warn them to check details. that is sincerity, science, humanity, and prudence.

I understand also, but with more sadness when uncertainty in evidences is exploited to support certainty of absence.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/…u/files/redp_255_0665.pdf

It is a human kind of sincerity to believe in your own lies, as some con-artists do.

Anyway, all have been said since month, on both side.

Many experiments cannot be done again to check claimed pitfalls, or have already been done the way to cancel the warnings, and have not convinced...

I share the feeling of many here that the future is in dry powders, in nickel hydrogen, but scientifically I feel that wet PdD (or Fralick-like permeation) is the best lab-rat... that is an incompetent feeling, so to take with a grain of salt.

I would propose someone repeats an F&P/Miles/Storms/McKubre/Violante/Letts experiment, but it seems they have done it recently, and nobody cared, still criticizing F&P89-92.

Maybe is it like what Mickel McKubre explained at ICCF21, that his initial position what very negative on F&P experiments, despite Fleishmann was one of his professors, UNTIL HE MADE IT HIMSELF.

Edmund Storms say about the same, and it seems to be the standard pathway for the best LENR experimenters, to have started convinced it was a mistake, but anyway trying to find experimentally what was the mistake.

It is hopeless... Cold Fusion is just one of the oldest delusion of our time. I mean that it is not proven.

I noticed they claim the ingredients are raw from manufacturer, not further purified.

Since LENR is probably a subtle phenomenon involving minority element, it may not be easy to reproduce.

About some missing radioactivity from expected, it seems both the problem for physicist, and the key LENR characteristic...

LENR is dynamite burning without the bang.

seen on ECW open thread, an interesting China's (English) article nor far from Iwamura, in less evolved (maybe an artifact anyway).

http://www.jmcchina.org/html/2019/1/20190101.htm

The Detection of K-Ca Transmutation in the Mixture of K and Hydride Chemicals
LU Gong-xuan , ZHANG Xu-qiang , ZHEN Wen-long
Abstract: Here, we report the transmutation of K-Ca under the negative hydrogen condition (NaBH₄, LiBH₄ and NH₃BH₃) at room temperature. In all reaction systems, the amount of K⁺ and Ca²⁺ concentrations were monitored by inductive coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) techniques. The ICP-OES test results showed that K⁺ concentration was gradually decreasing, while the Ca²⁺ concentration was gradually increasing. In addition, by comparing the K and Ca concentrations and their isotopes from the ICP-MS results, we found the increase of ⁴⁰Ca concentration accompanied by the increasing concentration of ⁴¹K in the presence of hydride under our "reaction" conditions, which implying ⁴⁰Ca formation correlated to ⁴¹K.

seen on ECW open thread, an interesting China's (English) article nor far from Iwamura, in less evolved (maybe an artifact anyway).

http://www.jmcchina.org/html/2019/1/20190101.htm

The Detection of K-Ca Transmutation in the Mixture of K and Hydride Chemicals
LU Gong-xuan , ZHANG Xu-qiang , ZHEN Wen-long
Abstract: Here, we report the transmutation of K-Ca under the negative hydrogen condition (NaBH₄, LiBH₄ and NH₃BH₃) at room temperature. In all reaction systems, the amount of K⁺ and Ca²⁺ concentrations were monitored by inductive coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) techniques. The ICP-OES test results showed that K⁺ concentration was gradually decreasing, while the Ca²⁺ concentration was gradually increasing. In addition, by comparing the K and Ca concentrations and their isotopes from the ICP-MS results, we found the increase of ⁴⁰Ca concentration accompanied by the increasing concentration of ⁴¹K in the presence of hydride under our "reaction" conditions, which implying ⁴⁰Ca formation correlated to ⁴¹K.

I just fall on reddit on this article featured and commented by Zephir_AWT by FJ Mayer

Superconductivity and low-energy nuclear reactions - Frederick J.Mayer

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S2211379719302372

Quote

Abstract

It is proposed that the excess-energy released in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka cold fusion) is initiated in a phase-transition yielding a fraction of superconducting electrons, which then start a deuteron-driven chain of nuclear reactions recently detailed in the geophysics arena.

it looks it was discussed earlier, but I don't see it .. It does not seem 1-dimentional...

I remember Paolo Tripodi clearly shown that PdDx with X>1 is a HT superconductor, and as it is clear for many that the key to LENR is collective effects, superconduction is one of the key origin or at least inspiration model.

Explanations, ELI5 and comments are welcome...

JedRothwell

Charles Beaudette reports that Wilson criticized the position of jhansen and Lewis with arguments.

Do you have more information on the question?

I've heard guys from the 90s in CEA having replicated F&P and detected neutrons at RNBE French conference in 2016, and it is great and very technical job...

They controlled the energy spectrum of the detectors with nylons spheres, used few for various ranges and anti coincidence detection... used calibrated neutrons sources...

You need talent, but maybe less money today...

MFMP on Twitter relayed the offer of a relatively affordable neutron detector (<700$)

http://maximus.energy/index.ph…on-detector-spectrometer/

It seems great, but I see two reason to be careful :

• neutrons is a very rare outcome of LENR
• to make good neutron countring it seems you need few detectors to compensate ambiant and cosmic noises.

There is however a very interesting notice that I cannot understand totally, about gamma detectors, scintillators :

Quote

This is a UNIVERSAL SYSTEM that can be used with a variety of gamma scintillators (e.g. NaI(Tl) etc.) for gamma spectroscopy or with of geiger tubes for simple geiger counting.

I wait for experts to judge if it is valuable...

Ruby just remind us this video of ICCF21 with Dimitry Alexandrov

I caught this proposal by Dr. Dimiter Alexandrov

http://canadiancor.com/proposa…pment-of-an-lenr-reactor/

to "The Canadian Association for the Club of Rome (CACOR)"

IT proposes the developement of a LENR reactor, based on Dr Alexandrov's research.

Quote

Proposed LENR reactor

The design of the LENR reactor will be based on the apparatus (set up) used to date to obtain the results reported above. In particular:

1. The reactor will be designed base on the experimental scheme (apparatus) already used for this research;
2. The operational procedures of the reactor will be based on those developed to date.

The LENR reactor will be made of several units connected in a way to provide constant output power. Each LENR unit contains an anode and a cathode, in the chamber. The cathode can be made by either metals or metal alloys as indicated previously, or by other solids satisfying the requirements for effective LENR.

...

Ruby Carat publish a new Poscast interview of Yasuhiro Iwamura

The podcasts of Cold Fusion Now are really the place to be.

The artcle too is informative with introductions of his thin-film LENR research, and remind those experimens may have revealed a key fact to help to discover the theory.

https://coldfusionnow.org/yasu…-cold-fusion-now-podcast/

Yasuhiro Iwamura on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast

Dr. Yasuhiro Iwamura was the guest on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast with Ruby Carat. Dr. Iwamura is a Research Professor in the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science division at the Research Center

for Electron Photon Science at Tohoku University. He has been dividing his time there between engineering a second Metal Hydrogen Energy generator with Clean Planet Inc. , as well as continuing his signature transmutation work with Mitsubishi.

Using Wilson to deny F&P results is a bit risky, as

1/ he bashed politely Lewis and hansen that were the only serious experimental critics

2/ he added a correction to F&P that finally does not explain big burst results, and that Fleischmann integrated (as safe worst case) even if it was introducing strange anomalies.

3/ he was enough competent and motivated, so that if there was other serious claims he would have raised them

Citing Morrison given some of his errors, is raising doubt on one's credibility and sincerity, especially if at the same time you criticized a dozen of competent experiments; In the same way it raised doubt on the credibility of the editor who managed peer review of his paper, proving that high impact journal are less serious than domain journal.

One day some will have to respond of their gullibility about academic cocktail science, as some here will have to on another subject in LENR circus.

It is hard to judge if an experiment is good or bad, but it is much easier to judge when a critic is dishonest, when a review is a pal-review, when an author is dishonest or motivated incompetent.

Mathematic is not wired in human brain, but detecting dishonest people is... even if it is also wired to believe what the group believe. Two brain network are competing in the brain... the social and the survival.

Currently with recent failures to replicate with good instruments by Tajmar, the jury is out.

Tajmar latest experiment is very solid for the measuremen (torsion balance...), but some say he toasted his cavity...

We are far from the 153 peer reviewed papers on LENR for PdD electrolysis.

The evidences with galaxy rotation seems more solid for MiHsC/QI.

Future will say. The stakes are so great that rationality is to pursue replication, or explanation of what pretended to work. (not just proving you screwed your own experiences as everybody you claim have).

Zephir_AWT wrote:

In future the cold fusion and hot fusion processes undoubtedly converge (for example Lipinski fusion of Unified Gravity has many things in common with hot fusion).
But the production of neutrons will make hot fusion always prohibitive, not to say about energy waste.

As far as I understand there is a deep difference between LENR and classical fusion.

Even if it is still uncertain, it seems clear that LENR is a multibody "slow" fusion, while hotfusion is a fewbody high-energy outcome fast fusion.

The difference is as between particle accelerators and superconductors, as between rape and seduction.

The core of LENR weirdness is not overcoming the coulomb barrier, but avoiding the big bang of 24MeV afterward. For me this is the core difference.

Muon fusion, fractofusion, screening, lowering coulomb barrier, neutrons capture, it is hot fusion, at least not LENR.

Only when you have only sub-MeV quanta out of the like-a-fusion, can you talk of LENR.

Here is few article, one spotted by Michael McCulloch (the physicis behind MiHsC Emdrive/NoDarkMatter theory).

They focus on reasoning methods for very complex cases, and spot some tactic used by non rational actors, and problem with usual rational methods.

There are probably toos to understand why LENr is so much rejected, why absurd excuses are so much accepted, why evidences are so much denied despite being there unstained...

I don't have much time, not probably competences, to analyse all tha is said by this author, but I suspect it can be great.

https://theethicalskeptic.com/…inference-proves-unsound/

Quote

Heteroduction in contrast, would coalesce all these same anomalous observations (see below) into a competing paradigm; observations which either are unlike anything we have ever seen, or even contradict our current prior art on the subject. Heteroduction in this instance serves to develop a grounded-but-novel explanatory schema for these into a new competing construct (hopefully later hypothesis, if it can survive fake skepticism). Quantized Inertia stands as a key example of heteroduction in action.

Linear Induction

Dark Matter – a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density. Its presence is inductively implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained unless more matter is present than can be seen.¹

A person conducting heteroduction would sound warning on this line of reasoning – if enforced as a truth, rather than as the null hypothesis (note that I am not arguing against Dark Matter as a construct, simply using its deliberation as exemplary here).

Heteroduction

Quantized Inertia (QI) – previously known by the acronym MiHsC (Modified Inertia from a Hubble-scale Casimir effect), is the concept first proposed in 2007 by physicist Mike McCulloch, as an alternative to general relativity and the mainstream Lambda-CDM model. Quantized Inertia is posited to explain various anomalous effects such as the Pioneer and flyby anomalies, observations of galaxy rotation which forced Dark Matter’s introduction and propellantless propulsion experiments such as the EmDrive and the Woodward effect. It is a theory of inertia-like resistance arising from quantum effects, which serves to function in the place of dark matter – as the necessary conjecture explaining ‘missing matter/gravitation’ in our cosmological models.²

...

True science challenges its null hypothesis, and this construct/hypothesis challenges the null hypothesis within a reasonable basis of soundness. This does not mean that QI therefore as an idea is correct, rather that it stands as a potential foundational stone inside a Kuhn-Planck Paradigm Shift. The mode of inference and the method of investigation remain valid, despite whether or not the QI alternative pans out to be true in the end. Is is indeed science.

...

https://theethicalskeptic.com/…vy-handed-agency-at-play/

Quote

The contrathetic impasse is a lens tool used by intelligence agents to spot agency at play. Agency which believes that it has gone undetected, will eventually become abusively habitual both in regard to self and target.5

Contrathetic Impasse

/philosophy : hypothesis reduction : paradox-paralysis/ : a paradoxical condition wherein multiple competing hypotheses and/or ad hoc plausible explanations bear credible inductive evidence and research case history – yet each/all hypotheses or explanations have been falsified/eliminated as being sufficiently explanatory for more than a minor portion of a defined causal domain or observation set. For instance, the MiHoDeAL explanation contains 5 very credible possible explanations for challenging phenomena. However, the sum total of those 5 explanations often only amounts to explaining maybe 5 – 15% of many persistent paranormal phenomena. The presumption that one of those explanations is comprehensively explanatory, is a trick of pseudoscience. Another new hypothesis is therefore demanded in the circumstance of a contrathetic impasse paradox.

Causes or influences which contribute to a contrathetic impasse:*

1. Foundational assumptions/investigation are flawed or have been tampered with.

2. Agency has worked to fabricate and promote falsifying or miscrafted information as standard background material.

3. Agency has worked to craft an Einfach Mechanism (Omega Hypothesis) from an invalid null hypothesis.

4. Agency has worked to promote science of psychology, new popular theory or anachronistic interpretation spins on the old mystery.

5. SSkeptics have worked to craft and promote simple, provisional and Occam’s Razor compliant conclusions.

6. Agency has worked to foist ridiculous Imposterlösung constructs in the media.

7. Agency has worked to foist shallow unchallenged ad hoc explanations in the media.

8. SSkeptics seem to have organized to promote MiHoDeAL constructs in the media.

9. There exist a set of repeatedly emphasized and/or ridiculously framed Embargo Hypotheses.

10. Agency has worked to promote conspiracy theory, lob & slam Embargo Hypotheses as an obsession target to distract or attract attack-minded skeptics to the mystery. The reason this is done is not the confusion it provides, rather the disincentive which patrolling skeptics place on the shoulders of the genuine skilled researcher. These forbidden alternatives may be ridiculous or indeed ad hoc themselves – but the reason they are raised is to act as a warning to talented researchers that ‘you might be tagged as supporting one of these crazy ideas’ if you step out of line regarding the Omega Hypothesis.

Display More

And finally, this one that reminds me something...

https://theethicalskeptic.com/…ts-faithful-participants/

Quote

Wittgenstein Error and Its Faithful Participants

I neither want to understand your observation or contention, nor do I regard it as acceptable for consideration unless I see solid conclusive empirical underpinning; much as I hold for all the things I regard as true. Until it is proved, I will allow no language of science to develop around the subject. Your terms and measures are all pseudo-science.

Wittgenstein says bullshit to the supposed objectivity of those who game process in this manner, and identifies three types of error to which the social epistemologist falls prey.

E-cat World reports a finding of Sverre Haslund, a report on LENR by Norwegian Defense Research Institute

Quote

Thanks to Sverre Haslund for pointing out a report mentioned in the new Aftenposten article that was published in June 2018 by the Norwegian Defense Research Institute (FFI) titled Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Fiction or Reality. The author is Jon Øistein Hasvold.

Link is here: https://www.ffi.no/no/Rapporter/18-00678.pdf

It is interesting it happens in Norway, since few yeard ago mmckubre and few other LENr scientist reported a meeting on LENR.

http://www.infinite-energy.com…zine/issue119/norway.html

http://www.lenr-forum.com/foru…way-searching-how-to-hed/

While Brillouin's CEO Robert Godes posted pictures of meeting with Statoil, the national oil company.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…ls-and-statoil-in-norway/

there was also few articles by another engineer association

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…-reports-on-lenr-seminar/

https://energi.tekna.no/lavenergetiske-kjernereaksjoner/

https://portal.tekna.no/ikbVie…Nov%202014%20EN%20(2).pdf

The article seems to report the most solid claims, and facts, even if I cannot understand the details of the text.

About licensing patents, I remember that one key rule in LENR-Cities model was that any IP owned by a member should be ready to be used, against royalties, by another member of the ecosystem. Another rule was that the price was free, except it must not be higher than any contract with foreigners of the ecosystem.

The goal was to push cheap reuse of IP, "mutual assured development" as they say, when you benefit from the success of competitors.

One point also is that sitting on a patent is stupid, even manufacturing alone, because quickly other came to compete with your "you think could not be circumvented patent", and you did not build enough product yourself compared to what you could have been paid to let other manufacture.

I remember that in business strategy there are two rules of thumb :

• the price of any good is reduced by 20-30% every time you double the number of item produced (Learning curve)
• the volume of production is more or less proportionate to the capital expended (depend on the domain... chemistry is about 0.5sales/1invested cars is 1.5sales/1invested). "Asset turnover".

If you cannot flood the market immediately, which required huge capital you probably don't have, you will be overtaken by others with more capex, who will manufacture at lower price, fixing the price at a level you loose money, or at least cannot produce enough cash flow to reinvest and avoid losing market share.

Patent don't work anymore as barrier, just to motivate investors.

It is also seen as slowing your own innovation, and if competitors try to copy your loose patent it has been see slowing their innovation too. Publishing easy to circumvent patents is thus seen as a way to slow competitors.

Another rule in electronics is that you need a second source, and without a second source, most manufacturers refuse to manufacture, even to design. I don't have the details...

Ruby tells that Brillouin is member of GAIN network

https://gain.inl.gov/SiteAsset…on_1%2031%2019.pdf#page=3

https://gain.inl.gov/SitePages/What%20is%20GAIN.aspx

Quote

The mission of the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the nation's energy, environmental and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research, development and demonstration ﴾RD&D﴿.

Accomplishing this mission will realize the enormous potential of nuclear energy and maintain the United States' historic leadership in the field. While many innovative ideas exist, the research, development and demonstration ﴾RD&D﴿ needed to bring these concepts to a commercial readiness level is traditionally lengthy and expensive.
Therefore, DOE-NE has established the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) to provide the nuclear community with access to the technical, regulatory, and financial support necessary to move innovative nuclear energy technologies toward commercialization while ensuring the continued safe, reliable, and economic operation of the existing nuclear fleet.

...

GAIN provides the nuclear energy industry with access to the technical, regulatory, and financial support necessary to move new or advanced nuclear reactor technologies toward commercialization, as well as ensuring the continued safe, reliable, and economic operation of the existing nuclear reactor fleet. GAIN offers a single point of access to the broad range of capabilities across DOE's national laboratory complex. DOE has invested billions of dollars to build and maintain expertise and infrastructure within the national laboratory system. This vast capability should be leveraged effectively to support commercialization of new advanced nuclear reactor designs.

Focused research opportunities and dedicated industry engagement are important components of GAIN to ensure that DOE-sponsored activities support technology companies that are working to realize the full potential of nuclear energy.

Assistance for reactor technology developers in navigating through the regulatory process is another highly important element of GAIN. In collaboration with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DOE will work through GAIN with prospective applicants for advanced nuclear technologies to understand and navigate the regulatory process for licensing advanced technology.

GAIN integrates and facilitates efforts by private industry, universities and government research institutions to test, develop and demonstrate advanced nuclear technologies to accelerate the licensing and commercialization of these systems.

Display More

https://gain.inl.gov/SitePages/Industry.aspx

When reading the pile of abstract, not really convinced (by conformism),

this was my position " nature tell us something to hunt for."

and as engineer, my vision was that even if there is nothing huge, an artifact may be a great discovery for engineering.

When you see that mass of "possible discovery", criticized with wildcard explanations,

but never properly explained clearly, and you don't see scientists hunting like war dogs, there is something that frighten them more than losing time and budget.