Quote from JedRothwell

Wait a bit. I think he is writing an organized recipe paper. You can upload that paper here, and I can upload it to LENR-CANR.org. That's better than fragmented discussions here or the speaker comments from the PowerPoint slides. The discussion here are also valuable, but you want to give people an organized, single reference to start with.

The recipe paper can be revised and improved in response to questions and discussions. It does not need to be static.

Thanks. We were looking for ways to capitalize on this opportunity, but looks like you and Frank are way ahead of us.

Quote from Eric Walker

My thoughts weren't an attempt to explain all anomalous effects in one go, e.g., in thin film experiments, or ones using molybdenum. My assumptions are as follows:

1. Some of the experiments are poorly controlled and mistake artifact for something unknown
2. Of the remaining experiments, there may be related but different phenomena (induced beta decay in one case, induced alpha decay in another, etc.)
3. Within a single category of phenomenon, there may be different materials involved (platinum in this case, another element/isotope in another case, etc.)

So the details of specific experiments matter a lot. I can relate to the desire to generalize. But first I think it's important to handle each combination of parameters (experiment type, materials used, observables, etc.) on its own terms. In this context, whether platinum is being electroplated onto the active surface that Frank Gordon is reporting on is an important variable to understand, explore, and control for. If the platinum is taken away, does Gordon still see the ionizing radiation? Different answers lead to different avenues for further exploration.

Frank Gordon came here to pass on his knowledge in the hope of spurring on replication attempts, not to be lectured. How about we trust he has thought these things out, and take it from there? After all, he has been at this 30+ years.

Now, on to the replications...if anyone is interested. I am thinking this is so important it may be worthy of an email blast to get the communities attention. Potential lab rats don't come around very often, and I would hate to see this opportunity pass us by. Especially when we have the main author here, and willing to help guide volunteers through the process.

So...any takers?

Quote from JedRothwell

This thread seems to be split, even though the title is same for both parts. I'll bet there is something wrong with the hosting software.

I moved the posts from the split-off thread to here...the main thread. Will see if that works.

Well, maybe green tech can produce jobs: https://cleantechnica.com/2021…s-coal-in-crossover-year/

"Wind power has been growing in Texas for years. Now, for the first time, wind power has beaten coal power in the Lone Star State. In 2020, Texas received 22% of its electricity from wind and only 18% from coal. In contrast, in 2010, coal made up 40% of the grid’s power."

"Wind power is not only bringing cheaper electricity; it is bringing jobs too — as many as 26,000 jobs in 2019 in Texas alone. For comparison, in the entire United States, there are under 45,000 jobs in the coal mining industry."

Quote from Eric Walker

While waiting on the new thread to be split off from this one,

Awaiting a little more interest before doing that. It will happen IMO. Frank Gordon's proposed lab rat experiment has lit some fires. Understandably so, as the potential...if confirmed by many others, is huge as all would have to agree.

If I give that one a I will look heartless for the lost jobs in the hydrocarbon industry. Give it a and it might be construed as me being against alternative energy progress.

Sooo... will just say it is a good article. Hurts me to admit it, but good of CNN to take notice.

Quote from Frank Gordon

I want to thank everyone for their interest and comments. Anyone who has been working on "cold fusion" for more than 30 years has to have both a sense of humor and a thick skin so it's hard to imagine that any of your comments could be worse. With regard to our experimental results, we have learned some things and in the process, have learned that there are a lot more things that we don't understand. That said, we know that something is ionizing the gas. We don't know exactly how the gas is being ionized or the nature of the ionization that is produced.

I am aware that some of you would like to conduct similar experiments so I will list some of the things that have worked for us so that those of you who are "skilled in the art" can conduct experiments to replicate our results as well as trying your own "improvements:" These are not detailed directions that would be required by a novice. We ask that you let us know what you achieved and what "improvements" you made.

The cutaway drawing of the LEC cell shown in our presentation (vg # 5) lists the parts that we used. The epoxy that we used to seal one end of the cell (#6) is J-B Weld Original Formula Steel reinforced that is advertised to work at temperatures between 250 - 300C. I have found that a thin layer of this epoxy also works in lieu of the O-rings that were #7 on the drawing. The 5/16 - 24 thread was selected because that closely matched the id of the 1/8 inch nipple.

We have used codeposition of the Pd-H for the preparation of the working electrodes. The plating protocol doesn't seem to be too sensitive to the details as long as a reasonable plating is produced. We have observed that plating a layer of Pd-H and then removing the electrode from the plating bath and letting it dry before codepositing another layer of Pd-H helps. Also, after it has dried we have found that heating the electrode to 250 to 300 C between plating layers also helps. When you think that the electrode is ready, remove it from the plating bath, let it dry for a few minutes and slide it in a pipe. Connect a voltmeter to see if any voltage is being produced. If not, plate another layer. If yes, assemble the cell, pull a vacuum, and refill with hydrogen gas. As shown in our presentation, heating the cell greatly increases the output.

Please let us know your results and any techniques that you have used. These will be helpful in documenting the processes so that this could become the lab rat for people who are less skilled.

Display More

Thank you for being such a good sport! Most here already know of your extensive 30 year experience in the field, and those unaware know now.

I see you are offering your assistance to those attempting a replication. Many of our members know their way around a lab (some are your colleagues from the "old guard"), and may very well take on the challenge.

If so, would you mind if we dedicated a thread expressly for that purpose? Only of course if people raise their hands to volunteer. If none do, we can keep it on this thread for now.

Quote from AlainCo

Mainstream article on LENR in Howstuffworks

Is the Dream of Cold Fusion Still a Possibility?

https://science.howstuffworks.…al/energy/cold-fusion.htm

Cites Google and Hermes...

From the article. Good to see some of Team Google still interested:

"Several years ago, for example, Google funded a multi-year investigation of cold fusion that included researchers from several universities and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory as well. The researchers ultimately published a 2019 Nature article in which they revealed that their efforts "have yet to yield any evidence of such an effect."

"Nuclear fusion is a potential energy source that could provide a vast amount of power without harmful byproducts," Jeremy Munday, one of the participants in the Google research, explains in an email. He's a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of California, Davis. "For fusion to occur, the nuclei of atoms, which are positively charged, need to get close enough to fuse (join) together. If this happens, energy is released. The difficulty is that the positively charged nuclei repel each other. If there are a lot of nuclei close together — high density — and they have a lot of kinetic energy (high temperature), this reaction can happen. In nature, the sun is powered by fusion, but the temperatures and densities necessary to sustain those reactions are very difficult on Earth. Cold fusion is the idea that fusion could occur at much lower temperatures, making it feasible as an energy source on earth.

"It's really hard to rule a phenomenon out, which is one of the reasons these concepts have been floating around for so long," Munday adds. "We didn't find any evidence of cold fusion, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist."

"Scientists Stanley Pons (left) and Martin Fleischmann testify to their cold fusion breakthrough before the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology in 1989. Diana Walker/Getty Images

To a layperson, it might seem as if investigating and re-investigating to find evidence of cold fusion would be a waste of time and resources. But scientists don't see it that way, because as they search, they gather other sorts of knowledge and pioneer technological innovations."

"The spinoffs are perhaps one of the biggest impacts that our research in this area has had," Munday says. "Through the Google collaboration, we have collectively published more than 20 papers in high impact journals such as Nature, Nature Materials, Nature Catalysis, various American Chemical Society journals, etc. and have been granted two patents to-date. In addition to papers directly about lower energy fusion processes, we've had papers about the interesting materials physics and optical properties of metal-hydrides as well as their uses in sensors and for catalysts."

Quote from AlainCo

Mainstream article on LENR in Howstuffworks

Is the Dream of Cold Fusion Still a Possibility?

https://science.howstuffworks.…al/energy/cold-fusion.htm

Cites Google and Hermes...

Good article with some comments from HERMES. Not sure I like the part in BOLD though:

"In Europe, a multinational team of scientists recently embarked upon yet another cold fusion investigation, the HERMES project, which will employ more advanced scientific techniques and tools developed in recent years.

"The purpose is to try to look for an experiment that would reproducibly produce some anomalous effects," says Pekka Peljo, in an email. He's the project's coordinator, and an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering at the University of Turku in Finland. "We are revisiting some of the previous experiments. Also, we are going to study electrochemistry of palladium-hydrogen and palladium-deuterium systems in detail, utilizing well-controlled model systems such as palladium single crystals. So shortly, HERMES is a combination of fundamental studies on palladium-hydrogen system, repetition of some promising earlier experiments, and development of new approaches. For example, we are going to look at reactions at higher temperatures utilizing proton conductive solid oxides."

Even so, the researchers aren't necessarily expecting to find evidence of cold fusion.

"The majority of the scientific field think it was most likely experimental artifact, i.e., it is not real," Peljo explains. "Basically, when palladium metal is loaded with high amounts of deuterium, it seems that most of the time nothing unusual happens. But sometimes, for reasons not well understood, it seems that something strange can happen. Originally, Pons and Fleischmann observed excess heat, but there are reports of other anomalous effects, such as neutron radiation or helium production. But there are a lot of reproducibility issues. Most likely, these reactions are not actually fusion, but instead some other nuclear reactions taking place in the metal lattice."

Quote from Eric Walker

I have been away for a while. Anyone up for attempting a brief overview of the interesting news since around 2017? I know a lot may have happened (or not happened). Just curious if anything stands out.

Hello stranger. We seem to be stuck in the same pattern LENR has been in for 30 years now. Spotty reports of success. Those with credibility like Mizuno then get bogged down for years trying to get their results independently verified. The garage tinkerers usually make the biggest splash, but then quietly slip away after being asked too many questions.

Most promising IMO are still the Japanese working with the powders, Larry Forsley and his team over at NASA, and the new kids on the block Safire/Aureon Energy. Will have to see if Frank Gordon is on to something before adding him to list. And then there are BLP and BEC still in the picture.

So in answer to your question; nothing much is new since you left. Same old, same old.

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. The epidemic itself is not Trump's fault. However, the fact that the epidemic sickened and killed 10 to 100 times more people per capita in the U.S. than in other countries such as Japan and Canada is Donald Trump's fault.

~360,000 more people died than should have. The economy was destroyed, and children lost a year of school. All because Trump and his administration were incompetent and did nothing to address the disaster. They did not even know how many doses of vaccine were available! They lack the most basic information.

If "Group Think Red" means you do nothing in response to a disaster, then yes, that is the problem. The Republican party has not traditionally done nothing in response to disasters. It started off responding to the Civil War, the worst disaster in U.S. history.

Of course that is what I am saying! Anyone can see that is the problem. I don't "desperately want to believe it." Any sane person connected to reality will know that when an administration has zero plans to distribute vaccines, and it does not even know how many doses are on hand, that can only lead to disaster.

Display More

You are given more leeway than others to speak your mind, and when you use it to express your political opinions, which are often quite extreme, it puts the staff in the difficult position of enforcing a double standard.

We have been getting complaints about this...understandably so IMO, so please do us a favor and tone it down a bit.

Quote from oldguy

I think I will ignore the forum for a while until I get my LENR COP above 3.

No way you are you leaving without telling us what COP you are at now? We are here for LENR info after all. COVID, while important, is a side show until we save the planet.

Quote from RobertBryant

• In late December 2020, Beijing ratified a 2017 deal with Ankara to see people with criminal charges extradited to China.
• Turkey is yet to ratify it, and opposition politicians in the country raised concerns that Beijing was withholding the shipments of COVID-19 vaccines from the Chinese firm Sinovac until Ankara agreed.

https://www.businessinsider.co…-vaccine-2021-1?r=US&IR=T

China is probably doing Turkey a favor....Sinovac is only 50% effective according to the Brazilians.

Quote from JedRothwell

Those arguments are mistaken. Tens of thousands of COVID vaccines were administered before approval, in the largest medical studies in history. No evidence for harm was found. Millions of COVID vaccines have been administered already. There is no sign of significant danger.

I am not stating my position on the COVID vaccine, just answering your question from yesterday: "Why should we allow this here" when referring to some article about an old lady dying after getting the vaccine.

It is a new vaccine, and came out quick. Never hurts under those circumstances to question the "official" version of it's efficacy, and safety. Keeps the system honest...right? Anyway, if we always accepted establishment science's word, few us would even be here pursuing our interest in LENR.

There is a time and place though where moderation of minority, extreme views might be necessary. Ivermectin/HCQ are good examples of that. The science is in, and maybe we should shut off any crazy talk that they do not work?

All that said; I will take the vaccine as soon as it becomes available. Right now in my area, it is hard to get.

Quote from JedRothwell

Anti-vaccine people are self-appointed authorities who will do anything to prevent other people from being safe, happy, and independent

I distinguish between those advocating that all vaccines are bad, versus those arguing specifically about these new COVID vaccines. The former as far as I am concerned, is a largely settled science and tend to tune out much of the discussion as a result, while there is still much we do not know about the COVID vaccines.

Up to 60% of health care workers are refusing the vaccine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/t…-vaccine/?sh=4212c7f33c96

Those are front line workers. Many are doctors, nurses and well educated specialists. Are they anti-vaxers? I don't think so, so we should not lump them into the same group as the anti-vax movement. Same goes for this discussion.

I missed this 10 year anniversary, but good of Frank to take notice:

https://e-catworld.com/2021/01…duced-10-years-ago-today/

I will never forget it. Reignited my interest about CF. Before that, I knew about it (CF), but with so little news to follow, had gone on to other promising green developments. Then came Rossi.

Quote from Rends

https://covexit.com/nih-updates-its-position-on-ivermectin/

From the article:

“As such, the Panel has determined that there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”

For a goverment bureaucracy, that is as good as giving the thumbs up, or at least making the first step towards...while covering their arse at the same time. Be interesting to see if the FDA reads this, and sees enough political cover to back off their stance against Ivermectin's use?

Quote from JedRothwell

It is just an inept attempt by the anti-science anti-vaccine death cults to sow doubts. This will kill people. Why should we allow that here?

I don't think those promoting their anti-vax opinions here rise to the level of "anti-science", Their arguments are very sophisticated, and well informed. What I have read has been informative, and good to know info...although none of their arguments have come close to swaying me from my strong belief that vaccines are overwhelmingly positive for humanity.

Everyone here is very educated, and I would think they can decide for themselves what to believe, without us trying to influence their decision through moderation. Most would consider it an insult if we tried, and I would not blame them.

Quote from Shane D.

In fact, I know of one locally doing just that, and has been prescribing HCQ. Not sure how he is getting prescriptions filled, as local Pharmacists still have orders not to fill those intended for COVID.

Surprisingly, or maybe not so , today I ran across that local Physician prescribing HCQ for COVID. Asked him how he got his prescriptions filled, and he said he does not list a diagnosis. Said: "I am not stupid".

Quote from JedRothwell

How many negative studies are there? How many patients were enrolled in both?

I can't judge. I would have to look at the 253 studies and see if they have merit, and I am not qualified. There is a great deal of junk science in this world, so it is plausible these are all wrong.

We have been through this before. Look back and you will find that you backed off when presented with those 253 HCQ studies. It was only a short time ago.