Posts by StephenC

    I would definitely agree Mizuno’s equipment is the best option at this time.

    It seems resonant to me that the opportunity to test this comes up just at the tine we have the details of the set up for a test released from Mizuno.

    We also have the ideal interface with Jed. His contact with Mizuno, his long history in LENR and his ability to speak Japanese. It’s a really good opportunity that just opens at this time. A perfect match you might say. Maybe too good to miss.

    I would like to see Mizuno’s method verified. (We should bare in mind it might not be easy to do right off the bat but certainly worth pursuing)

    It maybe the work and approach with this could establish trust between the team and the community about aims, motives which would be fair I think.

    The need to verify the technology out weighs many things in my opinion. Not for business opportunity or positive belief or skeptical proof reasons. But simply because if there is any chance for a positive result the world could really be helped by it. For that in these times, we should never stop searching.

    I would also like to see:

    Holmlid work verified (I suppose this might be difficult but I wonder if Zeiner’s work with one of Mizuno’s prototype’s can give an opening there?)

    Russ and Alan’s work verified when ready. (But I wonder if he is already getting verification by other groups?)

    Mizuno’s work looks like the best first opportunity but I wonder if it is also worth making a priority list of follow ups including others?

    To get in the frame. I would suggest they see a working prototype before starting. I wonder if that would be possible.

    I would also suggest verification of other potential LENR related aspects than just thermal. Perhaps different particle measurement methods, radiation and apparent transmutations, isotopic ratio changes of fuel, presence of helium and other gases, magnetic fields and charges etc. but I suppose thermal must still be the highest priority.

    Just to clarify was the woodpecker previously operated in the room where the Gieger is currently being measured?

    Or was that also in a different room?


    It would be interesting to check with another unused Geiger in the same location to check if active agents or some other effect on the Geiger itself are stimulated by the static or something. if Radon then both should be affected.

    Also maybe to check with the same tests in a different location in the near locality but distant from the current air flow. I suppose Radon progeny should be similar in both locations... but if something else is the cause such as other nano particles or activated constructs then it might be just local to the original test environment.

    This has been really interesting.

    It’s also kind of ironic that high static may be linked to LENR in some ways and perhaps plays a role at producing particles that may decay or activate it may also result in collecting Radon Daughters collecting on the equipment some how.

    Which ever it is it’s good this process is being done and people like Can are looking and checking.

    Although Radon looks like a likely cause in such cases I get the impression we are curious if this or other potential sources are the cause. I wish Can could get hold of a spectrometer but if not I wonder if there is a way to verify this with out a spectrometer.

    Would putting the equipment inside a grounded or insulated help?

    It does seem similar to muon type signatures In Holmlids experiments.

    I wouldn’t want to touch too much a working device before it’s well characterized. Still lots to do there I guess.

    But I do wonder if distance increases or decreases the signal or if it shows 1/r^2 decay.

    I wonder if Replacing the foil in paper with some unused writable cd discs would show something akin to what Bob is searching for.

    Also curious if just copper, zinc or Nickel shows similar sustaining behavior or if it requires the mixture. I suppose that’s something for later.

    It’s been fascinating seeing the progress of this test here

    I wouldn’t want to over load suggestions and I’m sure there are many good candidates.

    But on a Technical level I would really like to hear:

    An interview with Wyttenbach about SO (4) theory. I find his approach really fascinating.

    An interview with Bob Greenyer about strange radiation tracks on surfaces materials. He has found and collated some really interesting information and data there. It’s getting pretty hard to ignore what he is finding in his current OHMA project.

    Ruby is One if the stars of LENR.

    Just made a donation. I’m really intrigued what she will come up with.

    I wonder if as part of her interview archive if it would interesting to interview some of the others that have supported LENR in the none technical but also important areas such as publications and media. I’m

    thinking Frank Acland , Jed Rothwell, Peter Gluck, the administrators of the LENR Forum, Amongst others. It would be fascinating hearing their history what first got them interested in LENR what motivated them to start their work and sites and their most interesting insights in the many years they have done this work.

    robert bryant thanks if for those links.

    Both links are interesting

    Dr Dimiter Alexandrov’s work looks really intriguing. It’s in close resonance with some other ideas around i really feel there is convergence happening.

    It’s interesting that He3 He4 increased with heating...

    I think he proposes a heavy electron + deutron or proton generating slow neutrons

    I wonder though if this occurs during the process if merger if these dense Hydrogen constructs themselves rather than spontaneously externally to that process perhaps reconciling the balance of states in the process allows this with out radiation... although I’m not sure how you would do with out a neutrino. Unless that’s somehow reconciled by its initially multi body aspect.

    It’s interesting that it requires external heating. Normal fusion of light elements is of course exothermic. But here we have two processes an endothermic aspect of generating a neutron at the same time as merging the nuclei. So it’s not typical fusion or even exothermic neutron capture but something a bit more exotic. The net energy could be endothermic.

    It would be interesting to understand what the implications are at net entropy level. Is a heavier more stable nuclei generated in this process more entropically favorable than input heat?

    Also if the input heat is a direct thermal effect or indirect such as increasing pressure.

    Of course we are only speculating with limited data but this kind of experiment could provide that data to support this or other explanations.... if well studied and supported. The field needs that level of support with out prejudice stigma or phobia in order to clarify what we see or not.

    I do think it would be fascinating if we found different He3 to He4 ratios in LENR experiments than we expected naturally. Actually any He3 production with no associated Tritium, or Lithium for example. It would be interesting. It would imply another source maybe. We could speculate wildly what that might be... condensed matter... compound nuclei of another process involving their assimilation in nuclei. But perhaps the signature might give sue clues towards a mechanism. Eg He3 like Spectrum but not quite (due to slight differences in reduced mass)... etc.

    Since it is a light element it should be able to be measured from its optical spectrum.

    I see models as much like tinted glasses they highlight some aspects and hide others. But In doing so give us useful information we would not otherwise be aware of so long as we don’t assume they explain the whole reality and In doing so add complexity to try and fit actual reality. For me this is OK and can be useful.

    Once in a while something different comes along a pair of glasses that instead of tints brings things inti new and clear focus. Typically these are Eureka moments or E=mc^2 moments usually distinguished by their simple elegance once understood. And usually considering things in a new and elegant space.

    I think Wyttenbach is on the track if one moments. Other not fully correct models are still incredibly useful though and give useful insight when applied in the scope they were originally conceived and sometimes beyond that.

    JedRothwell you and Ruby are right. I was initially hopeful about this. I’m normally an optimist or at least try to be and I wanted it to be good. But the language is not what you expect from respectful paper in a professional journal. You are right to mention it.

    I’m astonished they claim to repeat experiments but did not even think to contact you and others.

    If people want to do good they need to do better. At least they should talk to the people who can help before publishing something like this.

    We’ve had 30 years of negativity and even hostility towards the subject it’s enough! The last thing we need is an article that propagates another 30 years of the same attitudes. For goodness sake.

    It’s not about positive or negative results it’s about attitudes and words about a field that deserves study and clarity without negative bias. Saying something deserves study but dressing the words with negative nuances to appeal to a base is cheep behavior in my opinion.

    I’m with you in this one Jed I’m saddened and very disappointed.

    I’m sorry to see this. I hope for better.

    I get Ruby’s point about the articles. It’s a pity. I think Google intent is genuine. I get the impression Nature have used words to subverted the message from its message of potential to reinforce their negative view and meme. But there is the acknowledgement that the work should proceed at least.

    I get the impression iI is a new team probably very talented but there is decades of knowledge to assimilate digest and understand by very talented experts in the field. To learn and repeat that is not going to be easy. They need to talk to those who can.

    I’m a bit surprised they didn’t contact Jed.

    I wonder if the were constrained by NDA until this point?

    Right now they should be picking up the phone and talking to Jed as well as Alan and Russ. Amongst all the others who have seen success.

    It’s also here:…sit-cold-case-fusion.html

    It could generate interest I think. Good to be prepared.

    It could be the best opportunity in a very long time to get the effect it self proven and more widely accepted over the fence.

    LENR proof could be a whole set of things exothermic, endothermic, transmutation etc. gamma and neutrons mesons and muons etc but I hope something exothermic could be proven to them.

    Maybe it’s time to build bridges.

    I hope they contact people who can help.

    There’s a whole parallel thread to the LENR story going all the way back to the 90’s to now that I somehow missed or at least didn’t fully grasp. It does put some things in to context. There is a lot of hurt and sadness perhaps on all sides from the very beginning to now.

    The best all round is for LENR to be shown. And contributors recognized.

    JedRothwell Ahh I see. There is some complicated history there. I’m sorry to see that Jed. and for Gene too. I maybe naïf but I do wish disputes were resolved more simply with respect that each side is human with all the feelings and pressure, failings and complex thoughts that that entails. It’s always a shame when it gets out of hand. I try to stay technology focused but it’s sad that thing go like that from time to time.

    This story though triggered me to look back in history in these blogs and it’s amazing. I’ve just realized though how far back some ideas we discuss now go and how much they were discussed in these forums. It amazes me that they become increasingly relevant in these days.

    I hope some day everyone gets past differences even though that’s hard and focuses on just how truely amazing the technology history is.

    Perhaps that diversity of sources and it’s complexity is all part of its story perhaps in a way all though painful for some it’s part of what gets us here today.

    Yup I did wonder how he would achieve it without neutrinos

    I’m definitely inclined to Wyttenbach’s models. I may misunderstand some parts of of his SO(4) theory but I can certainly see they are elegant and to me that’s a big indicator he is in the right track. But if something is happening to generate neutrons then it’s also definitely curious. Sometimes different even incomplete models can give useful insights. But they do need to be backed by data.

    Interesting and good point about Deuterium.

    But on a higher level it’s also very interesting the more general coincidences I think.

    This is an interesting article I think in many levels.…se-of-cards/#142833637346

    Ethan Siegel is asking some interesting questions these days.

    This one and his earlier one about relic neutrinos.

    It’s hard to let go of preconceptions but this article is at least leading that way.

    I wonder if he will soon be ready to see more about LENR and the huge effort against all odds in the community in the pursuit of understanding it.

    I hope he does as although there are somethings I don’t agree with (which is normal I guess with these kinds of articles) but I like his writing style.

    Wow 50 micro arc seconds.

    Would be interesting if they could make an observation someday during a rocky planetary body conjunction. (I guess it’s out of plane though)

    I wonder what the rotational velocity is of the accretion disk compared to line broadening etc. It’s polarisation properties and what that says about its magnetic field. it’s radiance etc lots to digest there I guess.

    Is the disc dispersed or also dense?

    Well for me Wyttenbach is right on track and ahead of all of us. He deserves credit for what he is pursuing and for doing the hard work of putting the maths in to context. The field benefits hugely from his works theoretical support.

    The discussion here between Wyttenbach and Robert Bryant and the others is definitely inspiring.

    4D spin geometry seems to be the bridge that pulls everything together between EM space and the nucleus . The Clifford Torus is also the simplest and most elegant expression of space time.