Online After La Tribune article on Cold Fusion revival and E-cat, Paul Molga , correspondent of Les Echos in Marseilles publish an article on E-cat and cold fusion/LENR in Les Echos "Ideas&Debates" section.
The article is questioning E-cat reality, reminding physicists critics.
[news=110,meta][/news]
Un article , apparemment sans rapport avec celuis de La Tribune, par Paul Molga le correspondant Les Echos à Marseilles.
dans Idées et débats
http://www.lesechos.fr/idees-d…e-la-physique-1203524.php
Vingt-sept ans après l'expérience de Pons et Fleischmann, un chercheur relance le débat sur la possibilité d'une réaction nucléaire à température ambiante.Andrea Rossi est-il parvenu à maîtriser l'expérience controversée de Stanley Pons et de Martin Fleischmann ? Le 23 mars 1989, ces deux scientifiques reconnus (le premier est alors directeur du département de chimie de l'université d'Utah, le second membre de l'Académie royale de Grande-Bretagne) avaient stupéfait la planète en prétendant avoir réalisé l'équivalent d'une réaction nucléaire dans un simple tube à essai…
...
Pas de référence aux investisseurs américains, britanniques, japonais, chinois, ce qui est dommage pour un journal économique, mais c'est la section "idées et débat".
J'attend toujours un vrai article économique sur la fusion froide.
Il va peut être falloir que je l'écrive moi-même 
.
I disagree and invite you to elaborate on the basis for your comment. I suspect it goes back to dogmatic assertions from well-known LENR researchers and watchers. I should add that any LENR theory that involves sub-MeV transitions and thousands of bodies seems likely to be unphysical.
My vision is influenced by Ed Storms, Julian Swinger, Preparata, Widom/Larsen/Srivastava, Luca Gamberale, Dubinko, Hagelstein, Kim/Zubarev.
Without adding new physics, any few body interaction with Heat/He4 ratio around 24MeV, would produce massive penetrating radiation , directly (gamma, neutrons) or indirectly (Bremsstrahlung), that is not observed.
This is why I relay ed Storms conclusion that energy is dissipated by tiny quanta.
Moreover breaking coulomb barrier with few body requires high energy input.
LENR happens in condensed matter because it requires collective effect, like superconductivity, Laser, superfluidity...
If you add new physics... it is a wild card... But for me new physics is "too easy excuse" not to accept horrific "multi-body" physics that is the key to material science.
Worst of all, it seems that LENR is not even linked to regular-3D collective effect, but to something terrible like 2D (WLS) or 1D (hydroton), or (my desperate proposal) to fractal (damaged surface, or arborescent cracks).
Best hypothesis is that Rossi forget to say you have to cool the reactor, even if you waste that heat...
Even if the reactor was an electric machinery (PV cell, betavoltaic, electromechanical) it would dissipate some heat.
about the article PDF, you have to get it from JONP as there is a referer check leading to HTTP403 else.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=940
Anyway any theory that create energetic impact, then usual two-body nuclear reaction with energetic outcome, cannot explains LENR.
The real mystery is that the outcome is not energetic.
Ed Storms propose his "slow fusion" idea, that allows multi-steps (thousands or millions of energy levels required) fusion, instead of the single step like in two-body reactions.
What is nearly sure is that any theory that does not involve thousands of body, and sub MeV transitions, is not an LENR theory.
Yu.N. Bazhutov, , A.I. Gerasimova and V.P. Koretskiy have published an article on Andrea Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" about what they call "Russian E-Cat Heat Generator", a plasma electrolysis reactor, that they recently proposed for patent.
[news=109,meta][/news]
Dr Bob have published an update that gives some precision, but with some remaining mystery.
Display More
UK based company called LENR Ltd will be launching a new web page on March 1st.
This project is a collaboration between Sam Hansson from Cold Fusion Sales, Alan Smith from Leap Forward Labs and Klee Irwin from Quantum Gravity Research. I’m not allowed to speak about exactly what it is they will be doing, but if you’re already familiar with these people, you could probably guess what would happen if you brought them all together.
All though operated as a for-profit company, LENR Ltd intends to follow (whenever possible) an Open Science methodology, adding value to the Garage Researchers and Open Science communities already out there. Meaning – there will be fierce collaboration, rather than fierce competition.
I’ve been told that a press release will be posted on E-catworld.com early next week!
I like this quote:
"there will be fierce collaboration, rather than fierce competition"
It remind me the "mutual assured development" promoted by LENR-Cities to explain their ecosystem.
what are the differences with previous.
Like the previous one there is no claim of LENR, but many references in the descriptions
Peter Gluck on his blog publishes an interview of LENR-Cities CEO, Michel Vandenberghe, the European startup promoting LENRG innovation ecosystem.
Among the subject, the impact of MFMP replication, a proposed scenario for the transition from asia to USA, and LENR Cities approach to manage this transition in EU...
[news=108,meta][/news]
Another article on the same idea by Gail Tverberg
https://ourfiniteworld.com/201…f-energy-and-the-economy/
Voici une traducton en Français
http://lesakerfrancophone.fr/l…-de-lenergie-et-leconomie
Greg Gobble found that Rice University's Baker Institute acknowledged LENR in a recent report.
Last Year LENR was not considered. Baker Institute is a non-partisan think tank that seems quite influential.
[news=107,meta][/news]
@fabrice DAVID parle tu des Echos ? ou du précédent dossier de La Tribune?
Sam Hansson, aka Dr Bob, is pre-launching the website "lookingforheat.com" to support LENR, 1st of March.
The teasing video is funny as we are used with Dr Bob, but Sam is a dynamic entrepreneur.
He updated, explaining that this project is a collaboration with Alan Smith from Leap Forward Labs and Klee Irwin from Quantum Gravity Research. LENR ltd. will be operated as a combination of for-profit and crowd funding.
They intend to follow Open Science methodology.
No more idea of what he prepares, but be prepared for something creative and serious...
On 16th of April, APS have programmed in Utah, a meeting with a presentation by Sveinn Olafsson and Leif Holmlid on LENR.
APS sponsoring a presentation on LENr, moreover in Utah, where F&P made their first announcement, is something unbelievable.
[news=105,meta][/news]
Dans un blog de mediapart (A Tanguy) la traduction de l'article de Mats Lewan sur la fin du test de l'E-cat
Un événement historique: Premiere application industrielle de la fusion froide
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/ata…ielle-de-la-fusion-froide
Yes, profitability report is also a possibility to explain the questions.
The reactor cost much today, in investment and in maintenance.
Not sure it is profitable as-is.
As said here that is was working have been proven in the first days of operation.
If it was not working at all, if it were a scam, it would have ended after few days of analysis, at worst after first billing analysis.
The goal of the test is just legal to determine contractual commitments, confirm reliability targets.
The F9 is like "presumption of innocence", a legal position not related to factual evidences.
I see 3 population.
We will have to work for the growing few who support LENR, ignoring others while will only admit it when a kid of 5 years old will menace to ridicule them.
Maybe hint for replicators designing their test system?
This problem of apparent negative heat never observed remind me the critic of Wilson, that anyway Fleischmann accepted in case, showing it did not change the results.
What is amazing is that if CCS is true, why no engineer of chemis or physicists is investigating on that phenomenon that may be of critical interest in electrochemistry, in powerplant.
this phenomenon if confirmed is rewriting all pas results of calorimetry.
people don't understand that CCS is more challenging for science than LENR.
LENR is simply nuclear reaction is condensed matter.
Nuclear energy is about 80 years old, and the physics associated was stabilized in the 50s.
Condensed matter is something still very immature, probably started with semiconductors, that started to be understood in the 50s.
CCS is challenging calorimetry, based on thermodynamic and heat flow equations which are more than 120 year old.
It is clear the phenomenon is emotional/socio(il)logical not rational.
LENR is simply the less challenging answer to observations.
The problem is that it is challenging, not 120 years of lower science and engineering, but finest experts in leading edge science, the particle physicists.
Occam with his razor proposed to keep the simplest explanation, but if you estimate the simplicity to the cost of accepting it, and you integrate in the cost the sociological cost, then clearly it is simpler to imagine that engineers and chemist were wrong since centuries, and that physicists were right despite all evidence. Evidence are cheaper to deny than academic hierarchy.
I did not invent this hierarchy, it is just JP Biberian who in a conference explained the hierarchy of science.
Basically it is from purest and simplest science, to complex and dirty science: first particle physics, physics theory, then material physics, then chemistry, then electrochemistry. Lower than electrochemistry is there biochemistry and then biology...
Second hierarchy is budget, and third hierarchy is from academic to national lab then to corporate science, to finish in private labs and hobbist science.
There is also an ethnological hierarchy (call that US centrism , racism, and Morrison expressed numerously)
LENR is violating this hierarchy with such anomalies :
- lower scientist have found an anomaly in higher scientists theory
- lower scientist have reached a practical result that higher and more budgeted science have not reached
- anomaly without a theory hare reached a success that science with theory did not reach
- higher scientists did not find an explanation to what lower scientist have explained
- retired scientist have found what paid scientist cannot explain
- small science succeeded where big science failed to
- UK scientists succeeded where paid academic failed
- Utah, Texas found where California and Boston failed
- National labs replicate"d what caltech and MIT failed to
- India succeeded where US dominant labs failed (or believed thei failed, because many have succeeded)
consequence is that this cannot be true, and thus :
- higher scientist and their theory are right, and all that follow is a consequence.
- lower scientist and their experiments are wrong
- since higher scientist cannot be wronger than lowest, if lower scientists have evidence that cannot be explained by an artifact, this artifact exist, QED.
- if artifact (eg ccs) cannot exist according to lower scientist theory, this theory is wrong.
- if artifact (eg heat above chemistry) cannot exist according to higher scientist theory, then lowe scientists have done fraud.
- if higher scientist have done errors in their explanations of artifac (eg caltech), thent they are not wrong and their claims stay.(ie nature/Science don't retract)
- if higher scientist have done frauds in their experiments (eg MIT), then they are not wrong (ie nature/Science don't retract)
the same arguments stand also for ethnological and budget hierarchy.
This explains how BARC and Bockris results were ignored and insulted while Caltech failure and MIT fraud stand immaculate.
this theory match the observation.
