The upcoming ICCF 24 Congress will be exciting. We are going to talk about serious matters, and not about castles in the air. Solid patents, competent teams of engineers and scientists, it is truly the industrial era of LENR that is on its way.
A new epoch is opening up before us.
FWIW, spillover hydrogen is known to cause a decrease in the electrical resistance of non-metal materials it migrates on. It might be worth investigating whether this can occur in a LEC cell. I stress the need to show that the voltage is observed also with absolutely no point of indirect contact between the electrodes.
The Entenmann Effect is not exactly related to the hydrogen spillover effect. Like in our atomic hydrogen production by palladium cathode (1) (which is nothing than a “Giant Hydrogen Spillover Effect”) the hydrogen spillover involves neutral species (atoms of hydrogen).
In the Entenmann/Gordon Effect, there is with no doubt ions production.
Using the powder gradient technique, the team of Charles Entenman (Keely Keene, Rebecca Kitko and others of the Biolife Team) tested increasingly less conductive semiconductors. (For the record, with John Giles, our best results at Deuo Dynamics were obtained with the palladium / aluminum nitride pair, which is a high resistivity semiconductor.)
But Charles Entenman’s team discovered something extraordinary: even with a perfectly insulating powder in the diode, such as fine sand, diatomaceous earth, cellulose, we still observe the appearance of spontaneous tension. This tension persists for several months. This effect is also achieved by separating the palladium and metal electrodes with paper or asbestos.
I admit that I did not believe in this effect, I feared an experimental error but I now admit my mistake: I was wrong.
The team assembled by Charles Entenmann, using a fog chamber, demonstrated the emission of highly energetic charged particles by fusion diodes. Note that the particles manage to pass through the plastic or metal wall of the diode. Their energy is therefore greater than the megaelectronvolt. (For the record, the beta particles emitted by phosphorus 32 have a maximum energy of 1.7 MeV, and they can pass through about 0.8 mm of plastic. Protons and helium nuclei are even less penetrating.)
Obviously, the ionization that causes fusion diodes to polarize is not due to these rare charged particles, otherwise it would require a much larger flux. We will not discuss these particles in this poster.
Please remember that the electric current flowing through an ionization chamber is extremely weak and must be strongly amplified to be detectable, including when the source is located inside the ionization chamber. To obtain such a current between electrodes of metals of different ionization potential (eg zinc and copper, or cesium and copper) would require an activity greater than one curie! (The curie is a huge unit, equivalent to the activity of one gram of radium!)
However, this effect really does exist, I checked it recently and I punlished the result during ICCF 23 and IWAHLM 14. This effect deserves with no doubt to be called the "ENTENMANN EFFECT"
I am afraid there is no copy of this great report on the net yet. You can order a copy of this report which is available from the Infinite Energy Foundation with the September / October 2021 issue of INFINITE ENERGY. This is also the opportunity to subscribe to this excellent journal.
Picture : Charles Entenmann and the late Alf Thomson at ICCF 14 Washington DC.
The Biosearch Laboratories meeting room is now named after Alf Thomson.
About the BIOSEARCH team.
Charles Entenmann is a member of the Entenmann family whose name is familiar to Americans. Entenmann’s bakeries produce very good Entenmann’s breads, cakes and donuts in many locations.
Charles Entenmann funded numerous philanthropic foundations. These include in particular the University Hospital of Sarasota, (Florida), the Roskamp Institute dedicated to research on Alzheimer's disease. Charles Entenmann took an early interest in Cold Fusion and supported the research of Alf Thomson and several researchers and journalists in the field of Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter. Charles Entenmann has developed with Alf Thomson a new type of revolutionary hemostatic and bacteriostatic dressing: “BIOSEAL”. He founded the BIOLIFE company and a factory was built in Sarasota. He also founded the BIOSEARCH company for innovative multidisciplinary research. Charles Entenmann attended the ICCF 18 meeting in Washington and immediately saw the potential of fusion diode technology.
He decided to set up a laboratory and assemble a team in the premises of the company Biosearch in Sarasota.
The team of the company Biosearch did an extremely important job: more than 1500 fusion diodes tested, with many pairs of metals and semiconductors.
The energy released was measured by both voltametry and calorimetry. Many calorimeters have been built.
Radiation measurements were carried out by many methods, in particular thanks to a fog chamber making it possible to visualize the trace of the energetic particles emitted.As you can see on this chapter of the Biosearch report, (page 7) They reproducibly observed the appearance of a spontaneous voltage and observed electric currents produced by fusion diodes. They recorded sustained tensions for more than 15 months.
They managed (briefly) to light a low-powered red light emitting diode.
The BIOSEARCH team (Sarasota) has just published a 22-page full-color report summarizing their work on the direct conversion of LENRs to electricity.
“A Study in the Direct Creation of Electricity from the interaction of Palladium with Hydrogen / Deuterium Gas”.
lenr-forum.com/attachment/19146/
Gathered by Charles Entenmann, Biosearch researchers have achieved undeniable results for almost 10 years, which are begining to be reproduced by other teams. I am very proud to have worked with them.
You can order a copy of this report which is available from the Infinite Energy Foundation with the September / October 2021 issue of INFINITE ENERGY. This is also the opportunity to subscribe to this excellent journal.
I heard Page recently privately said no patents, no investment money. Investors want and need IP protection for an ROI. It has been a problem for 32 years.
At least we now have significant government funding here in the US (NASA,US Navy, maybe now ARPA), Europe, and Japan (NEDO).
Seems based on Simon Brink 's post yesterday though, that not everyone is hamstrung for lack of money. Maybe he found a benefactor like Celani did. .
The patent of Biosearch LLC is strong, it is definitely a priority, and it is still valid in many countries.
What is the date of this conference? I am happy to see Nicolaï Samsonenko in great shape.
Display MoreOh, il était vraiment conscient de sa propre valeur ! C'était un crétin de classe mondiale. Un hypocrite désagréable et égocentrique. Il traitait Kepler comme de la saleté. Il a écrit des lettres à Kepler et à d'autres disant "nous devrions honorer la science et la vérité" et honorer Copernic (qui était mort à ce moment-là) alors qu'il attaquait lui-même publiquement le modèle héliocentrique et enseignait l'ancien. Il a également surfacturé le gouvernement pour les contrats de recherche et les télescopes.
Il faisait partie de ces génies qui exprimaient du mépris pour les gens moins intelligents que lui, ce qui était à peu près tout le monde. Il a également rejeté et ridiculisé les astronomes de l'église catholique qui ont signalé de réels problèmes avec ses instruments et ses conclusions, tels que le fait que ses télescopes étaient moche et avaient tendance à montrer des images doubles d'étoiles et de choses comme ça, que l'œil nu montrait comme des artefacts d'instruments.
Les histoires de sa persécution étaient exagérées. Principalement, il obtenait ce qui lui était venu pour faire de la politique et attaquer les critiques honnêtes de son travail. C'était le karma, comme on dit de nos jours. Il existe de nombreuses biographies qui le font ressembler à un saint. Essayez de lire entre les lignes ou consultez la biographie de Kepler par Koestler, "The Watershed".
Les bonnes choses que vous pouvez dire à son sujet sont. . . il avait plus souvent raison que tort, et il a apporté des contributions gigantesques au progrès de la science.
Isaac Newton était aussi un crétin de classe mondiale. Et le plus grand scientifique qui ait jamais vécu. Francis Bacon était un peu un poisson froid, je pense, et il aurait souffert de maniaco-dépression. Kepler était une personne malchanceuse, soumise, exploitée et bousculée par Tycho Brahe et Galileo. Parmi les plus grands scientifiques, je pense que Charles Darwin était la personne la plus gentille. Timide et réservé. Huxley et d'autres ont mené les batailles académiques en son nom. Huxley était un merveilleux éducateur, un biologiste de premier ordre et un raciste toxique, même selon les normes de son temps. Ses parents américains vivaient dans le Tennessee, si je me souviens bien, et ils étaient des confédérés enthousiastes.
Puissant est le coté obscur.
Display MoreCela dépend de votre travail. Si vous êtes un artiste ou un réalisateur, vos meilleurs jours sont peut-être devant vous. L'artiste Hokusai, qui a vécu jusqu'à 88 ans, a déclaré :
"Dès 6 ans j'ai eu la manie de dessiner les formes des choses. A 50 ans j'avais publié un univers de dessins. Mais tout ce que j'ai fait avant 70 ans ne vaut pas la peine de s'en préoccuper. A 75 ans je' J'aurai appris quelque chose du modèle de la nature, des animaux, des plantes, des arbres, des oiseaux, des poissons et des insectes. Quand j'aurai 80 ans, vous verrez de réels progrès. A 90 ans, je me serai profondément enfoncé dans le mystère de la vie elle-même . A 100 ans, je serai un artiste merveilleux."
Aucun acteur ne peut jouer le roi Lear tant qu'il n'est pas vieux. C'est ce qu'a dit Anthony Hopkins après avoir joué dans ce rôle en 2018. Probablement pas Prospero non plus. Vous ne pouvez pas simuler la vieillesse.
Dans tous les domaines, il y a des gens qui contribuent même dans la vieillesse. Même les mathématiques, qui sont un jeu de jeunes. Martin Fleischmann faisait encore un travail original dans la vieillesse. Grace Hopper a donné une conférence sur les types de données et les méthodes de vérification lorsqu'elle était très âgée. Ses idées étaient surprenantes - si créatives, originales et avancées ! Beaucoup d'entre eux n'ont toujours pas été mis en œuvre.
Yes Louis Pasteur was a good and smart researcher when he was young. But he became the great PASTEUR in his 60's.
The hypothesis of a low-energy nuclear reactions inside the Earth or inside other celestial bodies is very reasonable. I agree with Gennady. There are many mysteries in the field of geology.
In fact, there are still mysteries in all of the sciences, and that's what is cool!
This talk reminds me of the case of Methone, a surprising satellite of Saturn discovered by the Cassini probe. Methone is even stranger than Pluto, Ceres, Enceladus or Ultima Thule. You've probably never heard of it: like many scientists, astronomers prefer not to see what they can't explain.
It's a frozen ellipsoid barely 3.5x2.5 kilometers long. No crater, no visible fault : a beautiful cosmic Easter’s egg!
Obviously, this fantastic moon was shaped by the hydrostatic balance as it melted, in the form of an ocean drop of salty water orbiting above the clouds of the giant planet. But what energy could have melted such an iceberg into space?
On the other hand, if this body is made up of liquid water covered by an ice pack, the shape does not correspond to its distance from the planet Saturn. If we calculate its density, we find 0.3 kg / liter, which is impossible: there is no such light liquid. The official assumption is that it is an ellipsoid of "snowflakes" rolling over each other. This hypothesis seems incredible to me.
I think it is a block of ice that retains the "fossil" shape of a time when it was a little closer to the giant planet. At one time, the rocky core of Methone released a sufficient quantity of thermal energy to melt the ocean (or rather the "salt lake", because "ocean" is a very big word for a celestial body which contains less water than Cornell's finger lake.)(Jed’s alma mater) The small rocky asteroid under the ice of Methone could not melt all this water with the natural decay of the radioelements contained in its rocks. We have to admit a more powerful source of energy, and I see only one possible candidate: LENRs.
Then the release of energy stopped, Methone froze in its ellipsoidal form, and the moon then moved away from the planet, keeping that "fossil" shape.
Methone revolves around Saturn in 1.007 days, so tidal forces must move this satellite away from the planet, because Saturn revolves in 10 h 33 minutes. (0.448 day)
This natural movement away must be very slow, because the tidal ridge created by Methone on Saturn must be infinitesimal! Yet, considering the absence of craters, Methone's movement must have been relatively rapid (less than a million years, arguably)
The force that caused the moving of the moon was probably the release of saltwater geysers during the cooling. Water emitted at such a close distance from the planet will cause the moon to move away, the water falling on Saturn as snow. (The same principle as the Hawkins radiation, but with water vapour, it goes much faster than quantum pair generation…)
When the future Kepler 4 Kepler Aerospace space probe will take pictures of Methone up close, we will likely see fractures and fossil geysers on the tip of the egg facing the planet. There is probably also a high level of helium-3 on the ice (from the decay of tritium)
A very sensitive mass spectrometer should be part of the probe's instruments.
This phenomenon of Methone migration and freezing took place recently enough that no impact would destroy the beautiful ellipsoidal symmetry. (A few million years at most)
The question is: what source of energy was able to heat the solid core a few hundred meters wide, and why did the release of energy stop? Does this have anything to do with LENR? Has life had time to develop in the depths of the ocean of Methone? These are questions that would have pleased Arthur C. Clarke.
II have not forgotten our hikes on the Caucasus trails, in search of the mysterious dolmens of Russia. The young Natalia Bondarenko spoke perfect French. She did not become an archaeologist, but became a guide in Moscow. (La Place rouge était vide, Nathalie, mon guide…) (Famous French ballad)
The builders of the dolmens were not brutes dressed in badly sewn animal skins: they were true scholars who had a good knowledge of the sky. They send us a message trought the centuries. I have commited a few articles on dolmens, and their relation to astronomy. (I'm even talking about thermonuclear fusion triggered by meteorite impacts.)
(in French, sorry)
Several months ago, our friend ALHFORS drew our attention to the company KEPLER AEROSPACE
Not exactly "Cold Fusion", but it does a very interesting work:
It’s the birthday of our friend Guennady Tarasenko and he is posting a video about the relationship between the formation of geological concretions and LENRs.
It may sound strange, but be aware that there is no scientific consensus, for example, to explain the formation of flint. Geologists have several theories to explain the genesis of flint concretions, but none are universally accepted. Flint is, however, an extremely important material for the history of mankind, and it retains an element of mystery.
(I will need to publish an English translation of my article on Autotrophy by Crystallosynthesis.)
Micro-X-ray Sources from Flowing Gases
Very interesting paper. There is probably electrostatic micro-discharges produced by the friction of the gas and the glass.
The isotropic emission of tribo-generated x-rays from peeling adhesive tape [2020]
I remember an article in NATURE on the same subject about twenty years ago (maybe older, I don't know anymore). They didn't give an explanation at the time, but I think these x-rays are created by the "runaways electrons" produced by electrostatic discharges.
LENR to Electricity is fairly recent.
Not so recent.
a good paper about OPR:
By Alex Carlin
| August 5th, 2021
at 12:14 PM (CDT)
Climate, Environment, Featured Investigations, News
Nobody wants people to dump toxic waste into the oceans. But tragically, the very same natural micronutrients that are the most crucial for the oceans to be healthy and generate climate-restoring photosynthesis have been mislabeled by some as “toxic.”
This is a big mistake, as perhaps our best chance to properly manage the climate crisis is centered on the unique capacity of the oceans, when healthy, to generate the photosynthesis that can remove the ruinous 1 trillion tons of extra CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere.
After 12 years of investigative climate journalism, I have come to believe that Ocean Pasture Restoration, OPR, offers a uniquely realistic path to avoid climate ruin. OPR is a nature-based strategy to bring the oceans’ capacity for photosynthesis back to its historical norms in order to draw down enough CO2 from the atmosphere to give us a real chance to survive.
Nothing else comes close in terms of feasibility and practical ability to lower the damage of the CO2-caused greenhouse effect down to a liveable level. And, rather than requiring trillions of dollars from governments and donors, it can actually create profits in various enterprises including restored fisheries on a local level. It’s fast, cheap and safe — and we have no decent alternative solutions.
OPR restores the health of the oceans by replacing those natural trace nutrients, primarily iron, that have been lost in the last century due to a reduction in the amount of nutrient-rich dust blowing onto the oceans.
Unfortunately, OPR has been painted by some as the opposite of what it really is. This portrait can be summed up with one word that is repeated throughout all these misguided articles: toxic. Let’s pick out two for the purposes of illustration.
A 2010 article in the journal Nature stated that OPR will possibly cause a massive toxic plankton bloom of scary sounding creatures called pseudo-nitzschia, spreading “the neurotoxin domoic acid,” which would threaten “birds and mammals, and cause a condition called amnesic shellfish poisoning in humans.”
And, in a second example from May 2017, a Scientific American article discussing OPR furthered the same misconception about toxic algal blooms killing mammals and birds.
However, while such toxic events can happen in shoreline areas, OPR’s work is only conducted, and it only works, in the deep ocean.
OPR adds tiny amounts of mineral-rich dust to ocean pastures in the deep open ocean. Nature herself, by her dust storms and volcanoes, over time immemorial, has on many occasions added essentially this same composition of mineral-rich dust to these same deep ocean pastures, in amounts thousands to millions of times larger than what OPR envisions, and with some pretty impressive impacts on fisheries.
According to Tim Parsons, a marine biologist and former professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia, “The two biggest salmon runs that have occurred are both associated with volcanoes.” (The biggest catch of salmon in all of the recorded history of the Alaskan region is attributed to an OPR event in 2012.)
Despite many such events that have been studied for a hundred years by ocean scientists, not one report has ever surfaced about deleterious effects in the deep open ocean, or about any deleterious effects on any shoreline areas caused by such events in the deep open ocean.
In other words, Mother Nature has done the testing, and the results are in: there is no indication of danger.
I asked Professor Victor Smetacek, a leading expert in the field from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany, “Do you agree with my argument that the lack of reported cases of toxic blooms in the deep open ocean many hundreds of miles from the shoreline, despite all the volcanoes and dust storms, is a legitimate proof of the safety of OPR?” He replied this way:
Yes. The opposition against supplying iron deliberately and judiciously to ocean surface waters in specific regions to stimulate productivity is based on disinformation on how ocean ecosystems function…. Phytoplankton species that produce large amounts of noxious chemicals or even potent toxins are restricted to coastal and shelf areas by their life cycles. Since such algae cannot thrive in the open, deep ocean, opposition to productivity enhancement by iron additions is unfounded.
I posed the same question to another eminent and highly respected expert in the field, Professor Peter Wadhams, Emeritus Professor of Ocean Physics, University of Cambridge. He replied, “Yes, I am happy to endorse this.”
The Scientific American article also invokes the London Protocol on the Law of the Sea (LP), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in a way that implies that further large-scale testing of OPR would break laws and rules.
My research leads me to conclude that everything OPR is involved in is beneficial and designed to comply with all current and applicable international treaties, national and state laws, national and state regulations for implementing such laws, and any applicable agency guidance.
Researching the letter of the law, I put the question to Romany M. Webb, Senior Fellow and Associate Research Scholar for the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. She answered this way:
The parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity have adopted a resolution, which says that countries should avoid “ocean fertilization activities,” except those conducted as part of small-scale scientific research projects in coastal waters. Notably, however, the resolution is not legally binding. So, provided countries complied with other provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, they could go ahead with the (OPR) type of project.
Webb adds that the amendment to the London Protocol that relates to OPR has not “yet entered into force so, at the moment, has no legal effect.”
While the absence of legal effect is important, I would argue that both the London Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which are tasked to protect us from ocean dumping of pollutants and the preservation of biodiversity, have gotten off track by taking on OPR, since OPR does not involve toxic dumping or threaten harm to ocean life.
Edward A. (Ted) Parson, the Dan and Rae Emmett Professor of Environmental Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles, had this to say about the legality of a successful OPR action in 2012:
There’s a ruckus going on over an experiment in ocean fertilization conducted off the coast of British Columbia in July and disclosed this week. The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, an enterprise of the Haida village of Old Massett, used a large fishing vessel to spread 100 tons of iron sulfate-rich dust on the ocean surface west of Haida Gwaii (or the Queen Charlotte Islands). The aim of the release was to increase plankton growth and there promote growth of fisheries and maybe also remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Such interventions exist in a near legal vacuum. Critics of the Old Massett Haida project are claiming it violates international law, but this is simply not true.
Mainly due to vigorous lobbying by a couple of small NGOs (the same ones now outraged at the Haida project), parties to the CBD have adopted two decisions discouraging ocean fertilization, and geoengineering generally. But these are purely advisory – and are moreover so clumsily drafted that even if they were legally binding (which they are not), their operational meaning would be utterly opaque…. Nations are under no legal obligation to refrain from ocean fertilization research, nor to submit proposals to any international process.
Despite articles that argue to the contrary, OPR is legal, safe and can make a uniquely large contribution to solving the biggest problem that we face: climate ruin.
As we admire the farmer who responsibly tends his land pastures, we are now at the dawn of the era where humans will also responsibly tend their ocean pastures. We properly love the Amazon, but after all, under the ocean surface are roughly 50 Amazon-forest-equivalent pasture aggregations, and that immense scale provides the capacity via photosynthesis to draw down enough CO2 to survive. The key is to restore the ocean pastures back to their historical health.
At the end of the day, we are all fortunate that OPR is proceeding. If you are under 20 years old, you can feel optimistic about your future largely because OPR will do its part to curtail the greenhouse effect. But since time is of the essence, let’s not let misconceptions slow down our best strategy to survive this crisis.
No one can stop a good idea once it gets started.
Dr. BOB was at IWAHLM 14. (Looking at my poster)
My presentation is on RESEARCHGATE:
