Posts by Shane D.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

To whom or what or how was this money lost please?

Melich died a short time ago.

Quote from Dr Richard

we needed to present TG with the true one and only 100% accurate satellite-verified road map to the final destination of fully understanding cold fusion before they will advance any further, having already invested $10 million in what turned out to be a negative result.

While we did not achieve the objective Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" there has already been some good come from trying. So it was very much worth the effort.

Quote from Dr Richard

They say they may take it further but who knows?

Team Google made it clear they *are* taking it further.

Outstanding work Ruby! You did the work of a team today...all by yourself. Honestly, I do not know how you managed it all, but thank goodness you did. So nice to be able to sit back, and read your almost simultaneous recap of the days events. Dynamite stuff too.

For the other LF members attending, we ask that you please do not hold back from reporting on your own personal observations, just because Ruby is doing such a great job of it. Important you get your thoughts out while still fresh in the memory. If too sensitive to post it yourself, pass it on to me, or any of the other staffers. We will take the information, sanitize it, and get the word out to others.

He must keep a Magic 8-Ball next to his computer.

We can use this thread for the science, and people news coming from the conference.

And this other thread for those attending, who need to instantly communicate with each other: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6094-leave-a-comment-in-this-thread-if-you-are-visiting-iccf22/?postID=119440#post119440

This will be the best reported on ICCF in my (short) memory. We have many of our members attending, and many other Guests tuning in to LF for updates. Scuttlebutt, gossip, rumors, inside info, opinions on presentations/posters are welcome, and encouraged. Remember...secrets can't save the planet!

rubycarat went prepared with gear stuffed bags, and will be keeping us well informed as events happen. Followed up when she has time, with video interviews of some of the VIP's, players, and event organizers. Hopefully we also get some attention by the local news media. If so, post it here.

Good timing for Biberian to publish (Aug 2019) his JCMNS ICCF21 overview. Also gives me an excuse to bring this thread back up as a refresher for those attending ICCF22:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf

https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf

The author Drgenek has this to say:

"In this pending patent I derive the theory for weak force states which superposition over the hydrogen atom, I call them w-waves. I have proven a type reaction for the above common conditions for SAFIRE, SUNCELL and E-CAT SK. The type reaction occurs when oxygen is also present. The proofs are via mass balance, stoichiometry, thermodynamics and chemical kinetics. Rather than a nuclear explosion, one gets a fuel, one with enough potential energy to produce antimatter. In two minutes enough mass disappeared that if it was converted to energy, that energy would have been about 1/10 the size of bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That is an amount of energy way too extreme to wave off as an error. All of the above proofs are way above the error range. If one believes in the conservation of mass and energy, one must ask what happened to such an enormous amount of energy?

A rational energy balance suggests a mass is form from that energy which mass has with equal amounts of matter and antimatter. I prefer to call the fuel or fuels IAM, immobilized antimatter. It is also reasonable that the type reaction has been occurring in thunderclouds over the earth for a very long time. The extreme potential of this fuel and its likely presence in the atmosphere might be causing EV and ball lightening.

So, energy wouldn’t come from nothing (zero-point) rather from an unquantified unknown fuel in the atmosphere. We don’t need to suggest muons, when a simpler explanation presents an alternative nuclear catalyst. The spectra predicted to be emitted by SUNCELL are reported by Mills to be present in the sun. These are same frequencies which are required to form theses weak force states. That is far more that co-incidence.

If this form of fusion happens on the sun’s surface and the fuel converts back to energy as a function of temperature as predicted by kinetics, then the temperature would rise from the sun surface outward, which of course it does.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone was paying attention? Can you imagine what the data seems to say? We could do fusion as show above and then introduce the fuel produced by it into a high temperature plasma and thus finally have achieved the promise of abundant nuclear power."

Can you check the link Director?

Quote from ElderingG

Like: http://www.convectron.eu/en/home.html ?

Established in 1983.

Lots of good info on their website. Surprised they are still around. Anyone know anything more about? From the website:

The origin of the idea
The idea of Dr Dijk­huis for the ex­pla­na­ti­on of the phe­no­me­non ball lightning and cir­cuit brea­ker fire­ball dates back to 1978. In 1980 his first ar­ti­cle on ball lightning ap­pe­a­red in the sci­en­ce ma­ga­zi­ne Na­tu­re, and this fact was also re­por­ted by the New York Times.

Establishment of plc Convectron and issue of shares

With two part­ners, he foun­ded in 1983 the pu­blic li­mi­ted com­pa­ny Con­vec­tron N.V. Two tal­ked-about share is­sues in 1983 and 1986 were rea­so­na­bly suc­ces­sful and pro­vi­ded the com­pa­ny with funds to va­li­da­te the sci­en­ti­fic model. Par­ti­cu­lar­ly due to the op­po­si­ti­on from the Dutch fu­si­on com­mu­ni­ty, the re­ve­nue from the is­sues was howe­ver below the nee­ded bud­get. The aim was de­vel­op­ment of a pro­to­ty­pe of a small-sca­le nu­clear fu­si­on re­ac­tor.

Experiments with submarine propulsion batteries
Two da­ring test pro­grams were pur­sued by the Pre­de­ces­sor of the cur­rent Com­pa­ny. The first with two sub­ma­ri­ne propul­si­on bat­te­ries in Rot­ter­dam Waal­ha­ven, re­sul­ting in fire­ball ge­ne­ra­ti­on re­cor­ded on high-speed film.

Breakdown tests at KEMA High-Power Lab
Sub­se­quent­ly tests were car­ried out at the KEMA High-Po­wer La­bo­ra­to­ry in Arn­hem, The Ne­ther­lands, under high-vol­ta­ge break­down con­di­ti­ons in rapid gas flow mixed with fuel for the fu­si­on pro­cess.

Experiments broken off due to exhaustion of funds
In the cru­ci­al ex­pe­ri­ments at KEMA, me­a­sure­ments in­di­ca­ted pre­sen­ce of fu­si­on re­ac­ti­ons. But the tests had to be bro­ken off when funds ran out in 1987 be­fo­re con­fir­ma­ti­on of the ini­ti­al pro­mi­s­ing re­sults was pos­si­ble.

Substantial advancement of scientific underpinning

Me­an­w­hi­le the model has gai­ned sub­stan­ti­al fur­ther ri­gour and broa­de­ned its sci­en­ti­fic basis. As well a new, third ig­ni­ti­on me­thod has been iden­ti­fied. These facts mo­ti­va­te fresh ef­forts for de­mon­stra­ting a small-sca­le fu­si­on re­ac­tor as via­ble tech­no­lo­gy.

Unless something has changed since I last checked into this, EndOfPetroleum is not BLP. They are not the official spokesman for, nor affiliated with them any way. When you address Navid, you are not talking to BLP.

Until the past few days, EOP was an obscure website owned by Navid. With the addition of the high profile Davies to the organization, and the recent spurt of posting activity here and at ECW, it appears something has changed. Maybe Navid can explain what that is, and what his intentions are? Monetary, humanitarian, both? Nothing wrong with whatever it is, but I think the forum has a right to be fully informed.

In the meantime, I will check around.

Thanks go to Max for finding this video from the Bath conference. Surprised no one has said anything about it yet. If you have the time, this is a very good watch. These guys are good to say the least. Anyone know if any of them are attending the ICCF next week?

Quote from can

I think one post got inadvertently moved into the wrong place (this thread) for some reason.

Yes. That is what happens when I Moderate and watch football at the same time. I moved Dr. Richards post over to the Holmlid thread.

This thread began with a challenge by Matt Trevithick (Google Research Program Manager) to answer 2 questions:

1. "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"
2. "What would convince you that the experiment has been run well, such that you will accept the results... whatever they might be?"

With the condition that our recommendations: "Be well formulated so that they are actionable". These were the same questions Matt asked the audience at ICCF18 in 2013.

Matt and his colleagues spun up an effort in 2015 to independently evaluate LENR, which resulted in this Nature Perspective that was published on May 27, 2019.

The Nature Perspective reported a null result: "So far, we have found no evidence of anomalous effects claimed by proponents of cold fusion that cannot otherwise be explained prosaically."

However, this was qualified with: “This result leaves open the possibility that the debunking of cold fusion in 1989 was perhaps premature because the relevant physical and material conditions had not (and indeed have not yet) been credibly realized and thoroughly investigated. Should the phenomenon happen to be real (itself an open question), there may be good technical reasons why proponents of cold fusion have struggled to detect anomalous effects reliably and reproducibly. Continued scepticism of cold fusion is justified, but we contend that additional investigation of the relevant conditions is required before the phenomenon can be ruled out entirely."

It also struck an optimistic tone: "We have also learned that studying cold fusion can impact other areas of science and technology. For example, the absorption of hydrogen into palladium is an active area for exploring how metal–solute interactions affect properties relevant to energy storage, catalysis and sensing. We believe that there is exciting new science to be done within the parameter space of cold fusion experiments, and that this is an area worthy of engagement from the broader scientific community, even if the discovery of cold fusion at high enough rates for energy applications does not materialize."

TG made an argument for further research, and they are now planning for it. I connected with Matt, and he invited our opinion. On July 12, 2019, the LENR community by way of LENR Forum, started this thread to help the cause.

The original question posed to us (What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?), soon morphed into a more general question (What 3 experiments will most likely help TG validate LENR?). Since IMO, this “revised” question was in the spirit of the original, a consensus on one could be construed to be a consensus on the other, so the debate continued on without interruption. I mention this only because TG’s goal is much more expansive, and does not deserve to be so narrowly defined as *validating* anything, much less LENR.

Soon after the thread opened, it became apparent that no matter how the question was worded, we would be unable to form a consensus via the main forum. Thus began a private effort on my part to manage the process, by assembling a small team under “Conversations”. Unfortunately, this small team encountered the same frustrations as the main forum, and within a few weeks, our committee was disbanded.

Now, 7 weeks later and after more than 900 replies and 38k views, it is apparent to me the LENR Forum was unable to provide a satisfactory answer to Matt’s questions. Some will dispute this (some already have) and feel there was a rough conclusion, with some experiments mentioned more than others. I will leave that up to Matt and his team to decide. But, from my perspective, a clear consensus did not emerge, so we will leave it as is...inconclusive.

However, IMO we did accomplish some good, so this was not an exercise in futility. The general discussion of many experiments, their pros and cons, was useful. We certainly provided TG food for thought.

Also, from my vantage point, I think the debate exposed a weakness within the community that needs to be addressed. Many times we have heard it said that LENR is “proven”, as evidenced by the many “replicable experiments”. However, when those experiments were held up to closer examination, there were always caveats; too many to justify the claim that LENR is a proven science. I think there needs to be some clarification as to what “replicable" and "proven” mean, when applied to LENR.

Last but not least; this was fun. That always makes it worthwhile. We are here to talk after all, and that is just what we did. And you never know what good comes from discussions like this until the last chapter is written, and Google has not written it yet.

Thanks go to all members who provided their informed opinions, those researchers in the field who contributed “by proxy”, our resident skeptics, and my “TG committee”.

In particular, I would like to thank Matt Trevithick and his team for giving us this great opportunity. This has indeed been a unique “experiment”, unlike any other in LENR history.

Good luck TG…the planet is counting on you!

Quote from Cydonia

In 1 the Japanese powders: I think you will meet all their teams at the next ICCF to get an full idea.

On the French side, my Renault /Nissan friend gave PZT powders at Biberian, he obtained, like other teams, a COP 2.

I always have access to these powders so it could be, for you, a first quick way to answer to one of the 3requested experiments.

Great post Cydonia . Very informative and covers areas I have not seen covered yet. This quote of yours though, most sticks out to me. Very generous of you to offer to provide TG some of this Japanese powder I have heard whispered about before. I would like to note -again, that Biberian was also kind enough to offer TG a sample of his FP's electrode.

Quote from Ahlfors

Nasa paper is JUST submitted

What do you mean by "just submitted"?

Quote from Shane D.

This thread has run it's course, so will be shut down. LF thanks MT for the opportunity, and to all members who contributed their opinions. Best of luck TG; we are counting on you!

The closing date for this thread has now been extended until Friday due to popular demand, and feedback. What you say will be carefully read, so here is your last chance to make your case to TG. Trevithick believes this has been a very worthwhile effort, and is very appreciative of the expressed opinions.

On Friday I will do a closing statement, close the thread out permanently, so speak your mind while you can.

Kirk,

I was not being a smart arse, or showing favoritism. You asked me how to respond and I did. Seriously, use your wit with the one, and fire back at the second. Hopefully that is not what is running you off?

Quote from kirkshanahan

@Shane So Shane, how should I respond 'politely' to this?

If someone dishes it out, they better be able to take it.

Quote from kirkshanahan

@Shane

So Shane, how should I respond to this 'politely'?

Use your wit.