penswrite Member
  • Male
  • Member since Apr 16th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by penswrite

    The decay of protons and neutrons produce a number of strange mesons(mesons composed of strange quark(s)) from which pions and muons are generated as decay products. The pions are external but the distance of reaction is constrained by their decay time. Pions might need to be very close to the affected proton. Pion decay is probabilistic and maybe only the longest lived pions enter the proton.

    Ah, Axil, What a wondrous and seductive conception.

    Thanks, Bob, MFMP, and others who roll up their sleeves, and then freely put themselves and their experiments' results out there--warts and all.

    Wonderful, really, to witness the internet mastication of LENR experimental raw meat. Perimeter grazer-geezers, like me, get a brainfood snack, while hoping that humanity will get a feast. Yum.

    Cheers, Penswrite


    Tickety-boo, to you too!

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    A person CAN have a strong belief and not belittle others. One CAN be convinced of an evident truth but still consider new evidence or theory. After a while, one's vocal proclamations, when of such a derogatory nature, will not allow them to change or reconsider. It walls them in to a view point that cannot be altered as it has become a core part of themselves. To deny it would be to deny their inner core. The "view" has become more important than the truth or the search for truth!


    Isn't it great we are all equally entitled to our own searches for truth?

    I delight in my searches, and I presume you do too. If that makes me a Solipsist, well, I suppose so be it. That said, I doubt LENR cares very much what I believe of its truth.

    Best wishes, Penswrite

    What shock me the most is the notion of "breakthrough".

    For me, the breakthrough is the non-equivocal language of this U.S. taxpayer funded report. I call your attention to one of the report's conclusions, which I quoted earlier in another thread:

    from p. 87 of the report (conclusion)


    The Pd/D co-deposition technique, pioneered by SSC-Pacific, is a robust, reliable and reproducible means of generating LENR in the Pd lattice. Heat effects using Pd/D co-deposition have been reproduced by Miles10 as well as Cravens and Letts.10,56 Bockris et al. reproduced the tritium results.69 Besides SRI, the CR-39 results have been replicated by Dr. Winthrop Williams of the University of Berkeley, Dr. Ludwik Kowalski of Montclair University; Mr. Pierre Carbonnelle, l'Université catholique de Louvain and three groups of undergraduates from UCSD as part of their senior projects...

    (darn, in spite of Abd's earlier advice, I couldn't get the quote function to work quite right two times in a row!)



    My fascination is, for the most part, not about LENR or Rossi. My interest is in how it comes about that people believe stories like Rossi's. My interest is in how even large investment funds screw the pooch enough to invest in such obviously absurd and fraudulent deceptive schemes without doing due diligence. Abd thinks he can explain it (they made money on it) but I fail to see how one makes money by being sued for $90M and having to try recouping $11.5M paid to a crook for a fraud. Anyway, I have a passing interest in LENR and I hope some of the claims are true but I know none of the claims, thus far, for high power have been properly demonstrated and/or proven. My interest, again, is in how and why people believe scammers when they are so obvious and have been obvious for so long.

    Where did you see that? I have serious doubts that it exists and I have not seen conclusive and credible proof that it does. But at low power levels, claims are hard to judge so I allow for the possibility that some low level effects attributable to LENR are real. That's not the same as "conced(ing) that LENR/cold fusion exists." And I have maintained since at least November 2011 that Defkalion and Rossi are clearly frauds and now, I am pretty sure, though with much less evidence, that Brillouin is either a mistake or a deception.

    Mary, with respect, you are simply equivocating. You would like to allow the existence of LENR while impugning its relevance.

    Not an easy razor to balance upon.

    Regards, Penswrite

    Mary, it was gracious of you to reply with this candor.

    I, for one, am generally interested in news. Because of the internet, reports of news are abundantly available. I am not preoccupied with scams, scammers, or scammed. These are abundantly proven and mundane. However, when news includes reference(s) to immediately readable scientific reports, as first or second sources like the one I began this thread with Jed's reference to, I especially enjoy internet news.

    LENR, a.k.a. cold fusion, is a subject of considerable curiosity to me because it combines physics with potentially useful technologies. LENR's trajectory could resemble vacuum tubes to transistors, transistors to semiconductors. Which enabled personal computers. Which facilitate this discussion. Which, alas, is apt to have very little impact on the development of LENR, but engages you and I on these pages.

    You (almost?) concede that LENR/cold fusion exists. If so, isn't it likely that deuterium/palladium fusion-like effects can be obtained in other ways and engineered to scale into great utility to us all?

    Regards, Penswrite

    alien life is almost infinitely more likely to exist than LENR (which is why we have something on the scale of SETI on one hand and something like MFMP on the other).

    Since Mary likes this. I guess it is safe to infer that Mary, like Joni, thinks it unlikely that ETs will pay a visit anytime soon--and less likely that LENR in any so-far convincingly demonstrated form actually exists. Despite that, Mary has now posted 1033 comments to this LENR forum.

    Come on, Mary, can't you confess you are hooked on the possibility that low energy nuclear reactions have been proven, despite your apparent reluctance to acknowledge experimental evidence that invites a contrary conclusion to yours?

    Cheers, Penswrite

    Thanks, ABD and Jed, for your bolstering thoughts. I'm glad to see we can all agree about some things.

    LENR does not violate laws of physics. Just accepted wisdom of what those laws are.

    Aspects of our puny understanding of those laws, though, ABD's metaphorical "pebbles on a vast shore" so to speak, experience periodic tsunamis. I, for one, am delighted to witness tsunamis of understanding in physics, and other sciences. Paradigm shifts are awesome to me, if nobody gets physically hurt. Planet nine, anybody? Quantum physics? Dark energy? Fun.

    It also seems likely to me that ABD's pictured "pebbles on a vast shore" are subject to less dramatic wave actions. This, I confidently suppose, is why we share this common interest and prattle on, on these pages.

    Regards, Penswrite

    Quoted from above post:

    "I won’t go as far as to say that all of this is impossible, but it is extraordinarily unlikely that any of this will pan out to be a part of our reality. The reason is that there are known, established physical laws that are not only obeyed, but that are a fundamental part of our understanding of the Universe."

    My facile reply to this argument: Few scientists I've known would mind seeing a "law" of physics broken.

    Fun happens, when scientists confront experimental evidence that contravenes current laws of physics. Parties start. Money flows. And, occasionally, laws get changed. (Amen.)


    Gentle people,

    As I commented previously, whatever physical phenomena comprise LENR are unchanged by what anyone may think, speculate, posit--or even observe and report--about the topic. Physics will prevail. Indifferently.

    From an anthropocentric perspective, published reputable reports of reproducible LENR, like the one this thread began by discussing, serve to legitimize and invigorate further research into both the engineering and the physics of LENR.

    Can we agree about that?

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax,

    As in much else in engineering, the devil is clearly in the details; clearly, also, we would all like to see a convincing explication of LENR physics.

    Can engineering outrun physics to yield market products? It has already been 27 years, and counting, since Pons and Fleischman, and it doesn't seem like engineering is doing so well in the absence of an understanding of the physics of LENR.

    WOW is relative and subjective. IF seems proven. When/what holds my interest.


    " Taking all the data together, we have compelling evidence that nuclear reactions are stimulated by electro-chemical processes. To date, these observations have been published in 20 peer-reviewed journal papers and one peerreviewed symposium book. Two additional papers have been accepted for publication later this year."

    page 97

    Sure, they might be wrong, but they aren't equivocating!

    Eric, I appreciate that.

    Notwithstanding, after reading the number of pre-release sign-offs at the back of the many months old paper which was only de-classified in the past few days, I expect that this will advance the investigation of LENR, as a fruitful subject. The legitimization for further research and the addition of further gravitas.

    WOW could easily be an understatement.