LENR, Rossi and the ECAT Thread pt 2 (merged)

[Rune]

A Student's Guide To Cold Fusion (pdf) by Dr. Edmund Storms

Updated April 2012

SUMMARY
Two assumptions are made: All LENR occurs in the same environment and by the same mechanism, and the environment and mechanism must not conflict with known chemical behavior or each other. Elimination of all environments that conflict with these assumptions and identification of the only environment common to all methods for producing LENR results in the following conclusions:
1. A special environment is required for LENR to occur and this is not a material such as PdD or NiH, regardless of its purity, dimension, or hydrogen content.
2. A closed crack, void or gap of critical size and shape is the only condition potentially common to all methods for causing LENR. This gap may have the form of a nanotube made from various materials including carbon.
3. The mechanism for lowering the Coulomb barrier involves a single electron that is absorbed by the fusion process and remains for a short time in the resulting product, after which it is emitted as a weak beta.
4. The fusion process results from resonance, which releases the resulting energy as X-rays over a short period of time.
5. All isotopes of hydrogen can produce LENR, which results in fusion and transmutation.
6. Heat is mostly generated by D+D+e fusion to give He4+e when deuterium is used and H+H+e fusion to give stable deuterium when normal hydrogen is used. When both isotopes are present, tritium is formed by the D+H+e fusion reaction.
7. LENR occasionally involves addition of hydrogen isotopes to heavy nuclei, resulting in transmutation at an active site. This reaction does not absorb an electron.
8. Detectable radiation and radioactive isotopes are occasionally produced, but are not common.
9. Several nuclear mechanisms besides LENR can operate within solid materials. These are sensitive to the chemical conditions, including hot fusion-type reactions when applied energy is low.
10. Successful theory requires a marriage between physics and chemistry, and a compatible relationship between the NAE and the mechanism operating within the NAE.
11. Unreasonable skepticism and rejection of competent observation has severely handicapped the field and delayed understanding and application.

Some of these conclusions are significantly different from conventional beliefs in the field and are well outside of what conventional physics can presently explain or justify. As a student, your job is to decide which assumptions and conclusions are correct based on past and future studies. The conclusions are offered as a guide to future studies.

[Rune]

A Student's Guide To Cold Fusion (pdf) by Dr. Edmund Storms

Updated April 2012

COMMENT
Science has been successful because certain rules of evidence were adopted centuries ago, the so-called Scientific Method. These rules require that many people using different devices duplicate all novel observations. Such replications reduce the human tendency to deceive and to be deceived. In addition, the behavior observed in these various studies must show similar patterns, i.e. important variables must have the same effect in all studies, regardless of the equipment used.

Having an explanation for a strange behavior is NOT initially necessary, although eventual discovery of an explanation is important. This is a good method and has served mankind well when it is faithfully applied. Science fails when these rules are ignored. They can be ignored several different ways, the most obvious being premature acceptance. Some scientists think premature acceptance is so damaging that they base their careers on protecting Science from such a violation. A less obvious problem occurs when evidence is ignored because a scientist does not WANT to believe results that conflict with a favorite theory.

Initially, cold fusion was rejected for the former reason. Now rejection is based on the latter. The first rejection was valid and consistent with the Scientific Method. The present rejection is not. Skepticism, when carried to extreme, is as damaging as naive acceptance. At the present time, many people respect the skeptic for guarding the high ideals of science. Unfortunately, skeptics frequently cause much more harm by stopping progress, stifling originality, and turning creative people away from science altogether. Although many examples of this injury can be cited from many fields of science, the continued rejection of LENR is particularly egregious because of its vehement nature and the importance of the discovery.

I ask you, the reader, to use good judgment and a responsible attitude in evaluating the novel claims described in this Guide. Remember that new and strange claims do not have to be blindly accepted or blindly rejected, but only explored with an
open mind. Important new ideas always conflict with conventional understanding. Such conflict should not be used as a basis for outright rejection before the possibilities have been carefully examined. Skeptics often point to failures as a way to reject the process. Actually a failure in one laboratory seldom casts doubt on work in another, unless the two use exactly the same instruments and techniques, which is seldom the case. Failure has many fathers besides the claim being false.

Can't argue with THAT! Amen.

[Rune]

A Student's Guide To Cold Fusion (pdf) by Dr. Edmund Storms

Updated April 2012

REFERENCES

1. Jones, S.E., et al., Observation of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter. Nature (London), 1989. 338: p.737.
2. Santandrea, R.P. and R.G. Behrens, A review of the thermodynamics and phase relationships in the palladium- hydrogen, palladium-deuterium and palladium-tritium systems. High Temperature Materials and Processes, 1986. 7: p. 149.
3. Storms, E. Excess power production from platinum cathodes using the Pons-Fleischmann effect. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 55-61.
4. Warner, J., J. Dash, and S. Frantz. Electrolysis of D2O with titanium cathodes: enhancement of excess heat and further evidence of possible transmutation. in The Ninth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2002.
   Beijing, China: Tsinghua University: Tsinghua University. p. 404.
5. Bush, R.T. and R.D. Eagleton. Calorimetric studies for several light water electrolytic cells with nickel fibrex cathodes and electrolytes with alkali salts of potassium, rubidium, and cesium. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. p. 13.
6. Mills, R.L. and P. Kneizys, Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 65.
7. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118.
8. Lonchampt, G., et al. Excess heat measurement with Pons and Fleischmann Type cells. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 202.
9. Mengoli, G., et al., Calorimetry close to the boiling temperature of the D2O/Pd electrolytic system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1998. 444: p. 155.
10. Bockris, J.O.M., et al., Triggering of heat and sub-surface changes in Pd-D systems. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(#4T): p. 267.
11. Letts, D. and D. Cravens. Laser stimulation of deuterated palladium: past and present. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: World Scientific Publishing Co. p. 159.
12. Violante, V., et al. Progress in excess power production by laser triggering. Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, ICCF-12. 2005. Yokohama, Japan: World Scientific. p. 55
    Nassisi, V., Transmutation of elements in saturated palladium hydrides by an XeCl excimer laser. Fusion Technol., 1998. 33: p. 468.
13. Castellano, et al. Nuclear transmutation in deutered Pd films irradiated by an UV laser. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 287.
14. Mizuno, T., et al., Production of heat during plasma electrolysis. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2000. 39: p. 6055.
15. Ohmori, T. and T. Mizuno, Nuclear transmutation reaction caused by light water electrolysis on tungsten cathode under incandescent conditions. Infinite Energy, 1999. 5(27): p. 34.
16. Ransford, H.E., Non-Stellar nucleosynthesis: Transition metal production by DC plasma-discharge electrolysis using carbon electrodes in a non-metallic cell. Infinite Energy, 1999. 4(23): p. 16.
17. Sundaresan, R. and J.O.M. Bockris, Anomalous reactions during arcing between carbon rods in water. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26: p. 261.
18. Miley, G. and P. Shrestha, Transmutation reactions and associated low-energy nuclear reactions effects in solids, in ACS Symposium Series 998, Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, J. Marwan and S.B.
    Krivit, Editors. 2008, American Chemical Society: Washington, DC. p. 173-218.
19. Lipson, A.G., et al. In-situ charged particles and X-ray detection in Pd thin film-cathodes during electrolysis in Li2SO4/H2O. in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.
    2002. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ. Press. p. 218.
20. Storms, E., Ways to initiate a nuclear reaction in solid environments. Infinite Energy, 2002. 8(45): p. 45.
21. Arata, Y. and Y.-C. Zhang, The basics of nuclear fusion reactor using solid pycnodeuterium as nuclear fuel. High Temp. Soc, Japan, 2003. 29: p. 1.
22. Case, L.C. Catalytic fusion of deuterium into helium-4. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 48.
23. McKubre, M.C.H., et al. The emergence of a coherent explanation for anomalies observed in D/Pd and H/Pd system: evidence for 4He and 3He production. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 3-10.
24. Iwamura, Y., et al., Observation of Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation through Multilayer Pd and CaO thin Film. J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2011. 4: p. 132-144.
25. Liu, B., et al. "Excess heat" induced by deuterium flux in palladium film. in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, ICCF-12. 2005. Yokohama, Japan: World Scientific. p. 75.
26. Biberian, J.-P. and N. Armanet. Excess heat during diffusion of deuterium through palladium. International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science , ICCF-13. 2007. Sochi, Russia:
    Tsiolkovsky Moscow Technical University. p. 170.
27. Claytor, T.N., et al. Tritium production from palladium alloys. in The Seventh International Conference on
    Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 88-93.
28. Dufour, J., et al., Interaction of palladium/hydrogen and palladium/deuterium to measure the excess energy per atom for each isotope. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 198.
29. Mizuno, T., et al., Anomalous heat evolution from a solid-state electrolyte under alternating current in hightemperature
    D2 gas. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 385.
30. Oriani, R.A., An investigation of anomalous thermal power generation from a proton-conducting oxide. Fusion Technol., 1996. 30: p. 281.
31. Biberian, J.-P., et al. Electrolysis of LaAlO3 single crystals and ceramics in a deuteriated atmosphere. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, Botta, E., et al. Search for 4He production from Pd/D2 systems in gas phase. in 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1995. Monte-Carlo, Monaco: IMRA Europe, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France. p. 233-240.
32. Celani, F., et al., The effect of phase on H(D)/Pd overloading. 1998, Laboratori Nazionalidi Frascati.
    Bartolomeo, C., et al. Alfred Coehn and after: The alpha, beta and gamma of the palladium-hydrogen system. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute
    3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. p. 19.
33. Stringham, R. Sono Cold Fusion Produces Tritium That Decays to Helium Three. in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009. Rome, Italy: ENEA, Italy. p. 57-60.
34. Jorné, J., Ultrasonic irradiation of deuterium-loaded palladium particles suspended in heavy water. Fusion
    Technol., 1996. 29: p. 83.
35. Lipson, A.G., et al., The generation of nuclear fusion products by a combination of cavitation action and
    electrolysis at the titanioum surface in deuterated electrolyte. Zh. Tekh. Fiz., 1993. 63(7): p. 187 (in
    Russian).
36. Petrucci, A., R. Mignani, and F. Cardone. Comparison Between Piezonuclear Reactions and CMNS Phenomenology. in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009. Rome, Italy:ENEA, Italy. p. 246-250.
37. Griggs, J.L. A brief introduction to the hydrosonic pump and the associated "excess energy" phenomenon. Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. p. 43.

Obviously, a bunch more papers listed here in Dr. Storm's Student Guide.

There is no proof pro or contra LENR yet.

Actually, it's pretty strongly established that the LENR heat phenomenon exists and is real in the laboratory.

That's a pure lie. Give me one independent paper.
There is none.

"Give me one independent paper. There is none". Can you see just how completely ignorant that statement is now?

[johndoe]

You sure it's Rune not PRUNE?
Either way, you have a dreadful case of diarrhoea.
Biggest outpouring of shit I ever came across

[Keith_McClary]

You can search this LENR-CANR stuff like this:
http://google.com/search?q=site%3Alenr- ... +reproduce

I found:

The War Against Cold Fusion
What's really behind it?
Hal Plotkin, Special to SF Gate
Monday, May 17, 1999
...
Since writing my first report on McKubre's work two months ago, I've become convinced that the federal Department of Energy is responsible for a massive failure to serve the public interest.
Rather than budget the funds needed to explore this new, emerging science, our top national energy science officials have adopted what might be called, at best, a policy of benign neglect.
At worst, it's a policy of fraud and deceit.
How could this be happening?
The stakes in the debate about cold fusion are enormous. In this case, an unholy alliance seems to have come together. The principle players are the fossil fuel industry, which has no interest in seeing itself eclipsed by a new, non-polluting source of energy, and the mainstream physics community, which wants to protect, seemingly at all costs, the federal funding it relies on to continue its massively expensive hot fusion experiments.
I've seen how squirrelly even good people can get when a few of their bucks are in jeopardy. So it's not surprising that when several trillion dollars are on the table, there are signs of skullduggery.

If these CF/LENR guys could just make available test tubes with their special electrodes that worked 10% of the time in other peoples' labs, they would get the Nobel Prize and all the funding they wanted.

I'm anticipating the 2014 Silver Anniversary Conference.

[Ferretlover]

Text deleted.

[Rune]

If these CF/LENR guys could just make available test tubes with their special electrodes that worked 10% of the time in other peoples' labs, they would get the Nobel Prize and all the funding they wanted.

That's why this thread exists - to follow this quickly unfolding story.

We have Defkalion claiming an operational prototype to be unveiled in July/august of this year. We also have Rossi claiming the same thing for sometime towards the end of the year of the first part of 2013.

In the meantime, there are scientific conferences, presentations, interviews, videos, and unexpected developments.

I can't imagine why anyone would try to argue AGAINST following this story in a forum thread on a site that supposedly is interested in all things related to energy. After all, that can be your ONLY argument - arguing against the thread's existence.

I have repeatedly said that I am confident that the LENR effect is real but it remains to be publicly proven that this effect is capable of supplying useful, cheap, green energy. Nevertheless, I have no opinion on Defkalion or Rossi or Brillioun or any of the other companies who are making noises about commercialization of a LENR device until such time that their claims are borne out.

I await results of independent testing. I await the unveiling of operational prototypes. And I continue to follow developments in LENR. I honestly don't know why anyone would object to this.

Why don't you want the thread to exist? If you don't want to read about LENR, don't click on the thread! It's that simple. Why is this so difficult for you?

Do you send nasty, stupid, uninformed emails to Tom Whipple for doing the same thing?
The peak oil crisis: the quantum fusion hypothesis

This situation however seems to be changing following a lengthy interview with a fellow out in Berkeley, California by the name of Robert Godes of Brillouin Energy. He has been working in this field for the last ten years and says that he not only has a reliable heat-producing device, but also understands the physics behind it – which he calls the Quantum Fusion Hypothesis. He says that this theory of just how low-energy nuclear reactions work has allowed the development of a device which produces heat immediately and reliably. Most interestingly, Godes says he has shared his insights with scientists at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratories and SRI International, one of the leading US laboratories investigating the phenomenon. He says that both have verified that his theory does indeed work and that they can now produce heat from hydrogen every time they try.
...
If all this pans out as claimed, it could be one of the most important secrets of nature that has ever been discovered, for our energy problems are over.

[Alcassin]

Yeah, Dr. Storms needs to read "Fundamentals Of Nuclear Physics" too.

It's a good guide. Free for download, up-to-date and designed for someone who has not studied nuclear physics but who wants to understand current thinking on LENR and the underlying processes that may be at work.

Sure, another argument from authority.
Dr Storms is highly involved in conspiracy beliefs.

Another quite usual "professionals" claim to have something and they are only summoned when they talk about cold fusion and nothing else. They are now "cold fusion specialists", like dr Louis Turi ( http://www.drturi.com/ ) who is an "astrologist professional". By the way dr Storms tries to look into cold fuison as a retired scientists who works on that in his own laboratory in his home.
Well, I see no shielding is needed because no nuclear reaction is there. He gave presentations, sure I can give a presentation after working in cryptozoology by myself.
He didn't published papers in peer review. And we go to the old peer review conspiracy. Scientists who doesn't follow basics of scientific method - and the main one is verification by reproducible results made by third party are not scientists anymore, they become priests.

Science doesn't work anymore like that, you work within teams. Those teams are huge, one thing I see is proliferation of some kind of "mad scientist" myth who like dr Frankenstein works only by himself. It could work that way over half century ago, now things have changed.

Oh, and again Tom Whipple is a retired CIA guy who now has a hobby to look into various things, just like cold fusion. And yes, he is in need to go to the fundamentals of nuclear physics.

Done, give me more.

I have repeatedly said that I am confident that the LENR effect is real

Blessed are those who didn't see but yet believed.

[Rune]

Sure, another argument from authority.

You just sound silly. What does cryptozoology have to do with anything?

What do you mean "argument from authority"? What the hell else are you going to argue from - your own advanced nuclear physics knowledge and the results of your own LENR lab experiments? Come on!

The scientists and researchers involved in LENR or those who are prominent, qualified critics of it are the ONLY authorities on the subject. You cannot argue using any other source except by using the work of those who actually look at empirical evidence, provide experimental results, or who demonstrate actual working LENR devices.

I provided some 40 scientific papers published on the subject by researchers all over the world. It's not a complete list.

[Ferretlover]

Text deleted.

[Ferretlover]

Text deleted: Foul language, ad homs, trolling, etc.

[Ferretlover]

Text deleted.

[Ferretlover]

Text deleted.

[Keith_McClary]

That's why this thread exists - to follow this quickly unfolding story.

The thread exists for US to DISCUSS the CF/LENR phenomenon, not just for you to cut'n'paste stuff from the E-Cat website factory and other such CF/LENR places.

In particular the longstanding (near quarter century) reproducibility issue. I am referring to the academic scientists (as distinct from the commercial projects which, of course, want to keep proprietary secrets). It's understandable that experiments are "a bit of an art" in the first few years, but by now we should have a recipe that experimentalists can use to reliably demonstrate the effect. Strangely, this does not seem to be the top priority.

[johndoe]

If you don't want to read about LENR, don't click on the thread! It's that simple. Why is this so difficult for you?

Don't you mean "If you don't want to accept that COLD FUSION is real, stay away"

Were you in the debating society at reform school?

[Rune]

Don't you mean "If you don't want to accept that COLD FUSION is real, stay away"

Look, Silly, I am following an energy drama that is compelling to a whole lot of people all over the world. Plain and simple.

If i knew how it ended, I wouldn't follow it, would I?

[SeaGypsy]

Can we please refrain from swearing at each other? That would be nice. Thanks in advance.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I am following an energy drama that is compelling to a whole lot of people all over the world. Plain and simple.

It is rather comedy, not a drama.

Charismatic inventor with criminal past defeating known laws of physics, kettle converted into nuclear reactor, philosophical stone, phantom companies and corporations located in residential area, virtual nanofactories, phantom customers, real scientists-converts and some odd fool from American Congress who believes in all of that...

Idiotocracy is coming...

[johndoe]

LENR and DESTINY.
“In retrospect, all surprises are causal”

This is a very wise statement, I created it for a presentation of the influential book “Black Swan” and I understand it only, say, 85%.
At my age it is not surprising that
- I am not more shocked by surprises;
- I well know that surprises are vital for both victory and creativity; humor is a pleasant form of surprise;
- I have accepted that a form of Pareto’s Law governs surprises, 80% of them are bad and 20% neutral or good;
- Surprises have a splendid mathematical theory by Itti and Baldi, see: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8009003256
- In essence surprises happen only when Nature acts faster than we can think; therefore Scouts and good researchers are instructed to practice anticipative thinking, to be prepared.

The tortuous ways of our scientific field - see again my “Metaphor history of LENR” - were full with surprises, more negative than Pareto predicts. However, a rather rational geography of LENR was developed and symposia, including ICCF’s were organized mainly by the greatest contributors.
The great surprise is that the dream of technology oriented LENR-ists like me, will become reality first in Greece a country absent from the LENR world map a year ago.
Geography is destiny- in retrospect this can be easily explained. Greece is a country of genius, the cradle of the European civilization. The ancient Greeks had perhaps the last friendly religion; their Gods were hybridizable with humans of both sexes (and even more) and were not completely immune to a bit of corruption. Greece was a place where surprising inventions were made, please see e.g.:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... essor.html
It is regrettable that that the ancient Greeks have not used the opportunity to generalize their findings, to formulate the Scientific Method and to build a world based on technology. After a world of light the Dark Ages came and who knows when will they end completely?!
Thanks to Goddess Athena- at least technology is again free and flourishing. The descendants of the ancient Greeks had plenty of time, more than 2500 years to be excellent technologists and engineers- and Fast Company Defkalion Green Technologies has surprised us all. A very pleasant surprise, reading about their techno-deeds converts chronos in kairos.

Perhaps it's the gamma rays?
Seems to fry the brain

[diemos]

That's why this thread exists - to follow this quickly unfolding story.

This story will be "unfolding" for the rest of your life.

Year after year of putterers going to their own conferences admiring each others fusion cells with no actual device ever put into production.

Year after year of prototypes and demonstrations that will be here "any day now".

Year after year of companies looking for investors without ever bothering to hook a device up to the grid to get paid for their free energy.

Enjoy the circus. It will keep you occupied indefinitely.