Posts by AlainCo

Quote from Eric Walker

This is not to say that neutrons cannot be involved; for example, if the tunneling of a neutron from one nuclide to another were to happen, you would not have the problems of free neutrons just discussed, and the daughters would generally be more energetically favorable, and hence less radioactive, than comparable daughters that would appear under a thermal neutron flux. I think you could expect de-excitation gamma photons, however, and an explanation would need to account for why these are not a problem.

This is a key point. No free neutrons, even ULM seems not to be possible without violating observations of low neutrons flux.
Tunneling seems the only solution.

This is what make me support Hydroton vision, not necessarily the linear+crack idea, but the NAE as insulated object which dissipate energy until fusion is done.
My main question is if there is keV interaction that can support a fine energy level structure of such a "schrodinger-cat" NAE.
Maybe ponderomotive force can be such a force? I cannot judge.
What else could make nucleus interact inside a NAE?

Here are the slides of Olafsson and Holmlid Presentation at SRI

http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf

provided by Mark Jurich on Vortex

the conclusion:

Quote

1. Ultra dense hydrogen can be the source of all or part of Cold fusion LENR related phenomena.
2. Laser induced fusion in Ultra dense hydrogen seemingly produces mesons, possibly in a proton or neutron meson spallation process. (Full 4π calorimetric high energy particle detection exp. needed)
3. If confirmed, such process releases similar or higher energy than fission of Uranium 200MeV.
4. Rossi Ni-H product commercialized 2016?
5. Limited energy system disruption starts 2016 and takes 5-20 years?
6. Funded basic research in cold fusion starting 2016-2017?
7. Full scale energy system disruption possible 2020-2030?
8. Theory possible 2017-2019?

Display More

Times Magazine publishes an article on Fusion startups...
They just name [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] of Raleigh, without any reference to Cold Fusion/LENR.

Inside the Quest for Fusion, Clean Energy’s Holy Grail
http://time.com/4082939/inside…clean-energys-holy-grail/

Quote from Lev Grossman @leverus

And there are others. [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] in Raleigh, N.C.

No comments allowed, as it is evolving on all elite media. Now you know why.

Quote from Ecco

for reference, gamma CPM ranged 15-40, sometimes peaking just below 50, during calibration too. Any correlation with heat at this level might be due to convection currents from the hot reactor affecting it. Apparently, that counter is somewhat sensitive to temperature.

as I remember edmund Storms observed such an artefact in hi current tests.
His radiation detectors suffered temperature bias, making false impression of radiation increase with temperature.

Quote from ХТЯ и ШМ

Организация, занимающаяся исследованиями холодных ядерных трансмутаций, объявляет конкурс на должность инженера - экспериментатора.

Контактный адрес [email protected]

Good luck!

Quote from Eric Walker

Ed Storms wants either to make the nuclear potential much more long range and less steep, or, as he describes, he wants to have nuclei shed mass-energy before they've come within range of the nuclear force.

You are right on that problem, but the solutions , and the solution for any LENR theory, is that there is collective behavior.

You reasoning is perfect for 2 bodies... it cannot work.

However except maybe LAV/DB/BNC, I don't see any mechanism to couple/entangle nucleus over such a wide range.
Now in my vision , is it possible that a thousands of protons, insulated in a NAE schrodinger-cat-box, became so much entangled that they emit thousands of quanta of energy, fusing thousands of thousandth of protons, and finally getting out of the schrodinger-cat box with one single nucleus fused, because one have to pay the bill?

I just found two synthetic LENR video...

and
http://www.coldfusionvideos.co…ituation-hannah-johnston/
(this one is probably not new, it came from ECW)

this are the short video that we can spread
like this older one from Jed

I understood few point, from his previous papers.
see thread: Energy localisation (discrete breathers/superoscillations)

One is that Discrete Breather, BNC, LAV are of the family of the "rogue waves", those huge impossible wave observed in the ocean in some strange situations. they are of the family of solitons, nonlinearities that are conserved and pump the energy of usual wave in non-linear systems.

The way it works is from something similar to parametric oscilators. the idea is to be compared with a kid moving on a child's swing. if the kid move , standing then sitting, he changes the parameter of the harmonic oscillator, it's resonance frequency. if he does that at the same rhythm as the swing, or at twice this rhythm, then he can pump energy into the swing and cause it to go higher.

a finding of Dubinko is that LAV ot only allows energy to concentrate more locally, but the objects concerned get entangled and strongly correlated at the quantum level.

this seems, if I understand well, to increase the probability of quantum tunneling, allowing fusion at lower energy.

for me it is a key concept, but it need to be adapted to LENR, and I feel from my armchair that it may improve Edmund Storms, or Widom-Larsen-Srivastava-Swain theories.

one is that Discrete Breather, BNC, LAV are of the family of the "rogue waves", those huge impossible wave observed in the ocean in some strange situations. they are of the family of solitons, nonlinearities that are conserved and pump the energy of usual wave in non-linear systems.

the way it works is from something similar to parametric oscilators. the idea is to be compared with a kid moving on a child's swing. if the kid move , standing then sitting, he changes the parameter of the harmonic oscillator, it's resonance frequency. if he does that at the same rhythm as the swing, or at twice this rhythm, then he can pump energy into the swing and cause it to go higher.

a finding of Dubinko is that LAV ot only allows energy to concentrate more locally, but the objects concerned get entangled and strongly correlated at the quantum level.

this seems, if I understand well, to increase the probability of quantum tunneling, allowing fusion at lower energy.

for me it is a key concept, but it need to be adapted to LENR, and I feel from my armchair that it may improve Edmund Storms, or Widom-Larsen-Srivastava-Swain theories.

Very interesting, even if it is had to understand the real conclusion.

As I understand this mean that LAV/DB/BNC not only increase localisation of energy (not enough for hot fusion?) but more than that create an entanglement that make tunneling easier , allowing fusion.

There is a link with THz vibrations?

My armchair intuition is that it would be valuable to connect this LAV concept, the associated entanglement, with the vision of Edmund Storms.

For me, Edmund Storms propose two level of theory.

One is the Crack theory with hydroton, that I consider as a overspecified answer, maybe right, but probably not the only answer. Anyway it may be interesting to apply LAV theory to the concept of hydroton.

However for me the best proposal of Edmund Storms is a more general vision of the theory.

As I understand, he concludes there is a NAE, which is a quantum object, of big size, insulated from the chemical environment, emerging from the entanglement of many particle, probably hydrogen.

He also propose that the quantum NAE object radiates low energy photons (keV,eV) like any atom, which is "cooling", because this object have many energy level organized in fine structure.

Finally he proposes that those energy level involve the energy of merging nucleons, and that only when the entanglement is broken, does the fusion emerge as a final real state. The strangeness is how the fine structure of NAE would split the energy of fusion in keV-separated collective-state transitions.

For me this vision is much more robust that Hydroton, and may apply to similarly behaving NAE, like WLS coherent patches of protons, of heavy electrons, of Kim-Zubarev BEC, ...

My question would be if LAV on an hydroton could allow a quantum object to emerge, with fine energy structure involving nucleus interaction forces.

I found this comment by a co-author, asking for correction in the translation

Quote from Igor Khromushin

Dear colleagues. I am a coauthor of this work. English version of our report is not quite correct because of translation. In Russian version of our report it is written that "The duration of our next testing was limited ..." not " The duration of the testing was limited..." as it is written in Enlglish version of the report at the end . Please, ask interpreter to make a correction to the translation. Hope now everything is consistent. Thanks for your comments.

On E-cat news, the home of the skeptic there is a very interesting comment, which focus on a detail of Lugano test.
As Thomas Clarke and MFMP wrote, the increase in emissivity can greatly reduce the real temperature of the reactor, even if this increase also the power emitted at the same temperature.
Under this hypothesis, which seems credible, but yet to confirm, I disagree with Thomas on the final minimal COP. For him it is a simple heater, COP<1. For me it is about 1.5, because the emissivity change works also for the calibration, and because emissivity cannot increase above the low temp value, and of course not above 1.

This comment adds a point that I noticed also, the change in COP during the test, at constant temperature.

Quote from paul42

I have looked at the Lugano Report. And I have looked at the critique of that report as written by Thomas Clarke. There is no doubt that Clarke does bring some very valid observations to this discussion. After reading the information from Clarke, and the response to that information from a member of the MFMP team, I think there is no doubt that the output power was considerably less than what the Lugano Report claimed.
—
So, I decided to look at the data coming from the Lugano Report to see if that data was consistent with the device in question being nothing more than an electric heater.
—
I looked at the day to day changes based on the data from table 6 and table 7 in the Lugano Report. As noted by the authors of the Lugano Report, “there seems to be an anti-correlation between the two behaviors, which stands out as a decrease in average consumption values corresponding to increases in production averages, and vice versa.” For example, a comparison between file 6 and file 16 shows that the calculated power out, which is based on the temperature, is higher in file 16, but the power input is lower.
—
If this device were nothing more than an electric heater, there should be a fairly direct relationship between power in and power out. An increase in power in, should always result in an increase in power out. I would expect to see a consistent non-linear error between the two, with some noise. However, since the data we have is averaged over a two day period, the effect of noise should be minimal.
—
To generate this kind of data with an electric heater, it would require that the test equipment had non-linear, non-constant, errors that changed in direction at random times over the period of the test. The emissivity of the alumina combined with the crest factor issues with the measurement of power would not account for this anti-correlation between power in and power out.
—
So, the answer I found is that this data is not the result of measurements performed on an electric heater.

Display More

The question remains, for those not supporting conspiracy theories, whether this test was a partial failure, testing the reactor about 900C instead of 1400C, with a real but modest COP, or just as said in the report.
Both positions have weaknesses.

maybe at one period was there RF excitation, but current hot-cat design seems to be just heat controlled.

I bet much more on the material science. Armchair position from what I read since few years... I don't know if Ed Storms is exactly right, but his intuition that it is crack, is linked to the network of evidence that say surface structure is important. I would bet on powder treatment, rather than on RF.

However the triggering may require "pumping" (SSM On-Off mode), when there is no RF/laser/ultrasound excitation.

Talgaton publish another post where he tell the story , the tragedy, of Semmelweiss, to finally compare with LENR
http://talgaton.livejournal.com/134904.html

I studied this tragedy, from Oliver Gordon de Aberdeen to Pasteur, through the ironic death of Semmelweis from Puerperal fever in asylum.
The incredible quality of his evidence, for the period, and the general denial of evidence.

The myth today, told in school, is that it was because of aristocratic doctors, lazy to wash their hands, that this evidence was ignored. It is following the class-struggle theory, to avoid the simple theory-driven academic denial theory.
I know, seeing the success of Pasteur that it is only because there was no accepted theory for Semmelweis observations. That the consensus at that period was spontaneous generation of disease from disbalanced body fluids. Only when an evidence that could be understood by a kid of 5 (Pasteur was good salesman at that) was shown to academic, did they reconnect their brain.

Semmelweis, once you rewrite the history as it is, getting above the usual historical mythology, is really a good lab rat for scientific denial.
Contrary to many I don't see Galileo as such an example. it was a political war, and catholic church was much more tolerant with those theories, as long as you don't relativize humanity as Copernicus, Galileo and others were doing, with a political agenda. It is really a shame that Catholic church was more tolerant than most academic organizations today, when they are challenged.

The worst exemplary tragedy of scientific denial by academics, is "Germs". It is theory-driven denial, forced consensus, inverted Popperian logic. Exactly what we observe with LENR.

Jean paul-Biberian just publish an article in French about the conference.
http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian…airbus-sur-la-fusion.html (Google translated)

paragraph are very short for each point and it seems easy to read in googlish.

I extract few point that I find especially interesting :

Quote

Jean-François Geneste in his introduction explained that LENR ([lexicon]Low Energy Nuclear Reactions[/lexicon]) have possible applications in aviation and space. He announced that they had a sound engine that could be used to confirm the results of a cold fusion generator. For this, it would have to generator has a Coefficient of Performance of at least three and a temperature of 700 ° C.

Jacques Dufour, used a powder composed of sodium, iron and SiC at a pressure of 7 atmospheres of hydrogen to 1075 ° C in a differential scanning calorimeter. He received an excess of 0.5 Watt. He observed excess corresponds to what is expected of its pico-chemistry theory.

Korshunov, the Russian Academy of Sciences has tried to reproduce the experience of Parkhomov with a mass flow calorimeter. He tried different types of heating, with a dc winding, pulsed, etc. It was limited to a maximum temperature of 800 ° C, and got no excess heat.

The final comment is double meaning:

Quote

A total of 9 French made presentations, which is very encouraging given the situation in France

Quote from Enrique Ferreyra

November 2015?

Maybe it is just the Issue of November, published end of october.

about the quality of the translator, I agree it is not so good. that is laziness... after all this is just to push you to read yourself and use you prefered translator.
Maybe @sengakut can help.

which preferred (free) translator is the best? Bing seems to be quite good...
maybe it depend on the source language?

@sengakut Just foud this article in Nikkei Electronics, by an author affiliated to BP CleanTech Institute.
It relays the growing interest on LENR/CMNS and especially the Tohoku new lab and cooperation with SKINR and ENEA.

Too bad, the article is behind a paywall.

Quote from Kenji Kaneko

Kenji Kaneko = Nikkei BP Clean Tech Institute

Source: Nikkei Electronics, November 2015, pp.94-95

...
　Research and development in the field called "condensed nuclear science", are increasingly active at home and abroad. "Condensed matter nuclear science" is, in a state in which the atoms and electrons are numerous, integrated as in the metal, and the field to study the phenomenon in which the element is to convert. The US University of Utah in March 1989, two researchers announced as "cold fusion (cold fusion)", it stems from that it has caused a sensation in the world.

In the country's first research department Tohoku

The University of Missouri in 2012, even though researchers of condensed nuclear reaction venture is he moved to set up a research center followed, in 2015 to set up a research center to Texas Tech University in cooperation with such research institutes of Italy. In April 2015, research department, which set a "condensed nuclear reaction" to the Tohoku University was first established in the country."

Display More

another oil company show it is aware.

Please get better information On Airbus.
I made an article on Airbus Innovations.

Jean Botti , CEO of Airbus Innovation is in charge of innovation (Chief Innovation Officer), but also of group IT architecture, of group technical choice.
Jean-Francois Geneste is qualified as "Executive Chief Scientist", which is the highest level for experts for that organization.
He participate the group Executive Committee (ExCom).

You should also wonder what is doing Bernhard Kotzias with LENR. Sure someone with more information that you have.

what is shocking me, comparing your positions of skeptic, the media silence, and the authorities silent tolerance in public, and many discrete commitments, is that no control authority, no academic authority, no funding agency, does moan about what is happening.

In fact I know why.
This is just an evidence that we are fooled by media and that politicians have no bollocks, but are not stupid and have informations.
No news in fact.

Peter Gluck reports more information of the Workshop :
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…r-war-will-be-won-on.html

There is again the idea of a convergence between Urutskoev's and Geneste's theory.

There was also a presentation of Vladimir Dubink on "Nano-breather".

Quote

A reader has informed us "Please note that Vladimir Dubinko's paper was 'speed' presented during the workshop, worked in on the fly, regarding nano-breathers. It was not in the initial electronic files attendees received but shall be included in a distribution of final proceedings. His same or similar paper was presented in Padua, but at the workshop, with fewer attendees and less quantity of activity going on, seemed to get more attention. Dubinko communicates his ideas very well."

I have attended his presentation in ICCF19, and yes the presentation are clear. My personal intuition is that emerging phenomenon like discrete breather are one key to LENR. but who knows...

The negative result is a negative.
It shows something is missing.

Biberian on his 20 failures explained that it is normal for scientific experiments to have such number of failures. They were caused by prosaic problems like coil melting.
The presentation by Biberian was made to warn the replicators about the various difficulties, and the interest of a flow calorimeter.

YES science is hard, it requires patience and care.

Note that one key question on the cause of Parkhomov replication failure is about the nickel treatment.
Rossi in his patent talk of treatment to increase permeability, something like baking wetted nickel.

David Fojt report exchange with a scientist on that subject... unclear.

Anyone knowing the early development of semiconductors find that banal.

Papp engine is missing a clear description and replications.

It is far from the level of replications and scientific data available for classic PdD LENR, and even for NiH or Plasmoid...
I will not invest a cent on it, but if someone can propose a design to test...