Posts by AlainCo

Next Big Future publish an article on thet subject,

Will The Simple Act Of Building Cheap Energy Make Possible Superrapid Economic Growth?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/12/will-simple-act-of-building-cheap.html
referring to 2012 Neil Craig articles :

Energy Production's Direct Correlation With National Wealth part I
http://a-place-to-stand.blogsp…s-direct-correlation.html
http://a-place-to-stand.blogsp…irect-correlation_09.html
http://a-place-to-stand.blogsp…-direct-ciorrelation.html

as far as I understand the articles, best example is China, and GdP is simply linear with energy consumption.

My intuition is that if energy increase is done not by just building more powerplant, but by improving technology, bigger changes happens.
It is probably what Gaël Giraud have seen in his results.

@sengakut said ICCF20 facebook group is openened.
https://www.facebook.com/iccf20/

By the way notice the China "satellite meeting" in Xiamen University, not after but before.

"Satellite Meeting at Xiamen University: September 29 - 30, 2016"

note that this is the group from Xiamen university which participated ICCF19 with a partially replication of Defkalion
(They got heat after death with NiD, unreproducible and unexpected)
http://zqtian.xmu.edu.cn/

Dans TransportInfo petit article sur la COP21 qui au détour d'une réflexion envisage les LENR parmis les innovations possibles.

Quote from Patrice Salini - TransportInfo

A plus long terme le jeu des innovations potentielles sera très important. Qu’il s’agisse des progrès en matière d’énergies dites vertes, mais aussi de ceux espérés par certains scientifiques dans le domaine de la « fusion froide » ou LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions pour « réactions nucléaires à basse énergie »). Il faut tabler sur une révolution nécessaire des énergies utilisées pour assurer la mobilité des marchandises et des personnes et, par conséquent, bâtir des programmes de recherche et développement nécessaires.

Back to the question of self-interest,
this article seems funny but is not so much
http://gizmodo.com/one-way-tha…ent-from-other-1743990559
"neuroscientists’ brains get more excited about publishing in Nature Neuroscience than about stacks of 500 Euro notes."

It remind me JP Biberian in his book, explaining that the boss of the CEA lab where Longchampt was, stopped LENr research, however successful, because he was afraid it would ruin his Nobel chances.

This is why the policy of peer-review is more important than money incentives.

Russ Georges of AtomEcology propose a solution through LENR and Plankton fertilization
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…n-to-rescue-paris-accord/

Note about morrison that Morrison is only the most incompetent to have factually criticized F&P by proposing "explanations".
His personality, beside what you can infer from the exchanges with F&P, is described by Jed
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrob…ellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

Quote

In rare cases, a few scientists have been guilty of even more unethical behavior. McKubre and other prominent cold fusion scientists have given copies of journal papers to prominent critics, including Douglas Morrison, Robert Park, and John Huizenga. The papers directly contradict assertions made by the critics regarding matters of fact, not opinion, such as the amount of energy produced by cells in continuous bursts, the percent of input versus output, or the amount of chemical energy that a mass 0.5 grams of palladium deuteride will release as it degasses. Morrison often claims the degassing can account for the heat produced during an experiment performed by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann gave him a paper showing conclusively that he is mistaken by a factor of 1,700.6 Morrison has been told about this mistake countless times, at conferences, in writing, and in a formal reply published in Physics Letters A. Yet he recently contacted a Nobel laureate and repeated the same misinformation. Fortunately, the Nobel scientist contacted me, and I was able to give him the correct numbers.

and Charles Beaudette say the same without much details, surveying the claims of the only other 3 critics : Hansen, Lewis, and Wilson
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr home page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

Quote from Charles Beaudette

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.

What is funny is that Wilson in fact confirm F&P by bashing Lewis and hansen claims, and adding a tiny correction which does not change the general results.

It really stinks, any true-skeptic should admit the critic of F&P stink like pseudo-science.

Given that visible psychiatric context, any observer of the case should be cautious with the critics and especially with argument ad hominem, and anything that cannot be experimentally proved.

@sengakut have attended and reported presentations at JCF16 through twitter.
It is synthesized here, in japanese
http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2145001765091296601

the google translation is:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmatome.naver.jp%2Fodai%2F2145001765091296601&sl=auto&tl=en

This tweet is mysterious for me

Quote

The former president of a certain US semiconductor company Nippon corporation was a question of this element conversion in JCF16. Besides participation even [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] Inc. and Brillouin Energy's stakeholders. A small study group of about 40 people has attracted attention from the world. #LENR
https://t.co/9eN7p1wf5e

Dr Kitamura seems to have observed excess het for Ni nanopartiocle on Zirconium.

Dr. Tanabe Katsuaki have a research program around Laser and SPP...

I hope we can have more detailed report.

thanks to Peter Gluck for that Gem:

On Larouche PAC action center, there is a report on Brillouin presentation at Rayburnn Congressional building by Liona Fan Chiang

http://action.larouchepac.com/lenr

Larouche PAC is long time supporting LENR
here is a recent article by Larouche PAC

http://action.larouchepac.com/137965
and here an older article
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw…he_air_about_the_cold.pdf

Larouche is a strange personality, committed into a Promethean future, and strongly opposing current dominant neo-malthusianism.
His networks is supporting "Science positive", a scientific magazine supporting his promethean vision of science.

They asked me to write a "carte blanche" on LENR (free hand).
http://sciencepositive.unblog.…ologique-du-21eme-siecle/

To understand their vision, here is a recent video from Larouche PAC
transcripted by a danish site
http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/…webcast-11-december-2015/
I did not dig deep in the talk (LENR just considered), but on general geostrategy it crosses with my usual sources.

Jones Beene on Vortex gives a report on the conference
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg106440.html
This is quite experimental.

Quote

...
Yesterday a formative group in the SF Bay area met and heard presentations
by Jeff Morriss on his Parkhomov/Celani-type experiments and results;
Robert Ellefson on his Experimental design in progress, and Gene Thiers on
his experiences at SRI and measurement/ instrumentation for Cold Fusion
experiments during the early days of LENR of Pd-D.

To cut to the chase, since Bob is not yet collecting data - Jeff Morriss
(Intel) has put together a very capable system but has not yet seen thermal
gain. He is of the opinion that Parkhomov (assuming that he did see the
reported gain) got lucky with surface chemistry - which unfortunately he
(Parkhomov) has been unable to duplicate. Jeff intends to embark on an
Edisonian approach, now that he is completely confident in his calorimeter.
That would include altering surface chemistry of the nickel powders.

Jeff Morriss is in a perfect position to make a breakthrough, since like
Edison he has already tried many things which do not work and has complete
confidence in his system. His approach is strong on computerized control and
diagnostics, as would be expected from an Intel alum. A number of these
potential options - moving forward - were talked about at the presentation.

Gene Thiers strongly recommended adding a percentage of palladium and
deuterium to ANY EXPERIMENT, simply because it is known to work. IOW - even
if you are basically trying to find gain from Ni-H, using a Parkhomov
influenced design, Gene's advice is to add a percentage of palladium and
deuterium to the fuel mix, since. (this is one interpretation) having any
positive gain at all could have a quantum probability enhancement to the
bulk of the experiment.

..

Display More

On his blog, Jean-Paul Biberian, the editor of the only LENR scientific journal, the JCMNS (Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) reports that JCMNS will be indexed in the Web Of Science produced by ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) of thomson Scientific

http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian…ns-la-reconnaissance.html

This is a tiny but important move, toward acceptance of LENR science. This will allow more researcher to have access to articles. (without being burned alive )

Quote from Jean-Paul Biberian

Un premier pas dans la reconnaissance de la Fusion Froide par la science officielle

Le seul journal entièrement dédié à la Fusion Froide, le "Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science" va maintenant être indexé dans le "Web of Science", un service d’information universitaire en ligne produit par la société ISI – Institute for Scientific Information de Thomson Scientific. Ce site visité par de nombreux scientifiques permettra à plus de chercheurs d'accéder aux nombreux articles publiés sur le sujet.

The ICCF20 site is open
http://iccf20.net/

Quote from ICCF20

Welcome
We are pleased to welcome you to the 20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science "ICCF20".

The conference ICCF20 will be held in Sendai, Japan, from October 2nd to October 7th, 2016, and hosted by the Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction (CMNR) Division, the Research Center for Electron Photon Science (ELPH) of Tohoku University.

The ICCF20 is the prime conference for the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) in the interest of both science and technology and focuses on recent advances of the CMNS field. It continues the tradition of a conference series started in 1990 in Salt Lake City in USA and follows the most recent held in Padua in Italy on April 2015.

There have been great progresses in the CMNS research during the past few years. The new developments related to the heat generation strongly attract our attention, for example, in the Ni/Pd hydrogen-based higher temperature region. A movement which aims to direct practical use of thermal output has been activated, as well as fundamental researches to understand the basic mechanism. Further in Japan, in order to solve the energy problems and nuclear waste disposal, the CMNS research proposals were accepted recently by the government grant agencies, and the feasibility studies have already started.

The ICCF20 to be held under such circumstances dedicates to creating a stage for exchanging the latest research results, sharing the advanced research methods, deepening the theoretical understanding, constructing the technological basis and exploring practical applications.

We look forward to welcoming you to Sendai in October 2016.

Yasuhiro Iwamura and Jirohta Kasagi
ICCF20 Co-Chair,
Professor, CMNR Division, ELPH
Tohoku University

Important dates:

• Abstract Submission Deadline: June 30, 2016
• Notification of Acceptance of Papers: August 30, 2016
• Final Paper Submission Due Date: December 31, 2016
• Satellite Meeting at Xiamen University: September 29 - 30, 2016
• ICCF20 Conference: October 2 - 7, 2016

Display More

what is convincing is the pile of LENR papers , peer reviewed, by various institution.
especially compared to the no credible paper that find any explanation to those numerous results.

Defkalion make claims, were good looking ,a dn were stupid enough to lie. they were caught.
Rossi said he heated some place... let us assume he exaggerate the importance of that place and that it is just one of his COP=3 device looking like a tube.

anyway who cares, Darden and Woodford have invested after their due diligence.
unlike you and me they can check what happen.

Bay Area Cold Fusion (LENR) have its first meeting next Saturday :
http://www.meetup.com/Bay-Area…on-LENR/events/227284949/

Quote from Bay Area Cold Fusion--(LENR)

First Bay Area Cold Fusion--(LENR) meeting

Saturday, December 12, 2015
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM

This is the first Bay Area Cold Fusion (LENR) meeting. There will be 3 speakers, and a chance to meet other BACF meetup members. The meeting will be hosted in a private home, at:

Gustavson residence
1946 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA 94024

Speakers:

Jeff Morriss: Celani-type experiments and results
Robert Ellefson: Experiment designs in progress
Eugene Thiers: Experiences at SRI and measurement/ instrumentation for Cold Fusion experiments

Display More

It is one of the poster, they are published.
Or ask JP Biberian.

Don't move the debate.
In 1993 it was clear LENr was real to one of the best skeptic but competent electrochemist , Heinz Gerisher, two other best Fleischmann and Bockris being "believers" after numerous experiments.

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

the skeptic were so gullible, in fact so dishonest, that they even swalowed the theory of Gary taubes despite it was impossible.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…bes-fraud-depiction.shtml

gullibility of skeptics is endless.

The brillouin "independent" report , was clearly made in an investment vision (their mail address were LENR-Invest and CapStreamX, so this was clearly investment).

It is independent in the sense that it is not done by the company itself, but by "a not-yet client".
If I taste a cookie and then buy it, my test is independent.
If I make a cookie and test it, this is not an independent test. Neither it is if mum taste my cookie, or if I buy the cookie and taste it afterward.

It is clear that LENR-Invest are thinking about investing more, in LENR companies like Brillouin, Nichenergy...

Their approach is more classical than LENR-Cities, but they talk together.

Veblin on E-catWorld reports LENR-Invest latest move,

http://www.octafinance.com/len…t-submitted-dec-4-form-d/

Quote from Octafinance

Lenr-Invest Fund II Form D

The Alabama-based Lenr-Invest Fund II, Llc filed form D regarding $810,000 offering. This is a new filing. The Limited Liability Company raised $810,000. The offering is still open. The total private offering amount was $810,000. The private offering document was filed on 2015-12-04. Lenr-Invest Fund II, Llc’s clarification was: Tyler van Houwelingen, President and CEO of the issuer, has an interest in LENR-Invest, LLC, Manager of the issuer; which as Manager will receive a preferred distribution and management fee in accordance with issuer’s operating agreement..
Lenr-Invest Fund II is based in Alabama. The filler’s business is Pooled Investment Fund. The SEC form was submitted by Brandon J Stewart Corporate Secretary. The company was incorporated in 2014. The filler’s address is: 717 S Despelder St #28, Grand Haven, Mi, Michigan, 49417. Tyler Stuart Van Houwelingen is the related person in the form and it has address: 717 S. Despelder St #28, Grand Haven, Mi, Michigan, 49417. Link to Lenr-Invest Fund II Filing: 000165938515000001.

Read more: http://www.octafinance.com/len…m-d/304581/#ixzz3tdvHdvtQ

The form say it is equity, and "Minimum investment accepted from any outside investor : $60,000USD"

I let competent people explains what this exactly mean.

This article can feed the debate:

Why Does Culture Sometimes Evolve via Sudden Bursts of Innovation? A New Model
http://www.scientificcomputing…rsts-innovation-new-model

Quote

...
And it doesn’t seem like cultural accumulation just proceeds through time at a regular pace. The archaeological record shows some evidence of large bursts of innovation occurring after relatively long periods of little change.
...
The process of change in the frequency and distribution of cultural traits over time is known as cultural evolution. But what drives it? Why would the inventory of tools expand at some times and diminish at others? These are questions that have intrigued archaeologists for decades. We propose a new model we think addresses some aspects of how cultural evolution happens — and, crucially, it’s based on the idea that not all innovations occur in the same way.
...
These different processes of innovation — lightning-bolt ideas and incremental improvements — occur at different rates. The relationships between them determine whether the accumulation of tools occurs in a stepwise pattern. If large innovative leaps are fairly common, the number of tools in the population can show smooth, accelerating growth. On the other hand, if large-leap innovations are rare, but populations readily invent related tools and frequently combine existing technologies into novel tools, then each new large leap will lead to a rapid burst of cultural innovations in a punctuated pattern.

There are two other important contributors to cultural evolution that our model takes into account. The first is the differential distribution of knowledge in a population. We set our model’s “rules” so knowledge can be concentrated in a subset of the population, such as medicine-men or -women. When knowledge is restricted to a small group, there’s more risk that it may be lost.

...

Display More

This article is trying to explain the reality, but for us what is important is that the usual pattern is burst of incremental improvements which starts from a lightning-bolt idea.

e can safely bet that LENR is one of such "lightning-bolt" idea, and that an incredible amount of incremental improvement of all we know today will exploit that.
LENR is a great improvement, but as far as we know it is very accessible, unlike many technology, and so many "innovators" from each domain will be able to exploit it in their tiny domain.

Right I mixed two applications... corrected.
note that espacenet propose easier to analyse patents
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20131030&DB=&&CC=EP&NR=2656350A1&KC=A1&ND=1&locale=en_EP

Patentscope seems more focused for investigation, and epo more for the EPO process.

the key quote from Edmund Storms is

Quote from Edmund Storms

I watched how the attitude toward LENR changed at LANL. I watched as tolerance changed to hostility. The change was not based on lack of reproducibility. I and many other people were able to cause the effect. Besides, many phenomenon are initially difficult to control and are not rejected for this reason. The rejectors only used this claim as a fig leaf to hide another reason. I believe the rejection had a more sinter reason. The real reason was simply protection of self interest, initially by people funded by the hot fusion program.

In 1989, hot fusion was in trouble because Congress was getting increasingly impatient with the slow progress. I believe certain very powerful people realized that LENR would siphon funds away from hot fusion and eventually kill it. They could not make this fear public so they set about convincing the public that LENR was bad science, which was easy to do. This was power politics at its worst. This worked because Fleischmann and the rest of us were playing the honest game of understanding nature for everyone’s benefit. In contrast, a few powerful people were only protecting themselves using any dishonest tool they could find. We and they were not playing by the same rules and we still aren’t.

We see this process unfolding every day in Congress and being applied to a range of issues. Facts and what is real do not count in government these days. Self-interest rules. We in LENR have not created a self-interest for anyone of importance outside of a few groups having special needs, such as NASA. Even these groups have to hide their work to avoid being tarred by the bad science claim. In short, no one of importance needs LENR. Once the need is demonstrated, the attitude will change instantly. Perhaps Rossi will show that need or perhaps another country will create the need for the US to take an interest. We have to wait and see where the need is revealed before we can expect acceptance.

For some , the oil company behaved sincerely as they did not consider LENR was a serious affair, even as proven real, compared to their core business.
Only hot fusionist could consider LENR as a danger.

Here Edmund remind us that many key arguments send to the face of naive newcomers, are simply BS .
There is many phenomena that were initially harder to replicate, and the measurement was clearly replicated when the Fatwa against LENR was cast.
There are phenomenons that are accepted despite no theory can explain them.

Strangely this is so hard to accept, that rational people often imagine that behind those BS arguments there was necessarily real good arguments. This is even an argument of skeptics to prove LENR is not real, as any rational scientist have accepted such claims.

The real reasons are simply research budget and academic ego.