Ask ICCF-21 Questions Here

ICCF-21-detailed-agenda/

I am taking questions for conference presenters on this page. You may request that a question be addressed to a specific speaker or presenter, and I will communicate the question and I will bring answers back to this blog. The Conference is shaping up to be a breakthrough event. There is far more major CMNS activity under way than is generally publicly announced.

Comments below may be entered anonymously. All comments from someone who has not been approved before must be approved, so be patient, and I am very, very busy with the Conferencem there are hundreds of people to listen to and talk with. If a real email address is entered, it will not be published, and I will be able to communicate directly, and intend to follow up on everything, eventually.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

20 thoughts on “Ask ICCF-21 Questions Here”

  1. Are you going to compose an article recapping on your observations and thoughts about the conference overall? What where the “highs” and “lows” so to speak. “Highs” being the most important and positive aspect and “lows” being the issues that might be greatly hindering the field or possibly revealing a state of stagnation.

    It would be appreciated.

    Sincerely,
    Bob

    1. Yes. I had some difficulties with my health and did not do evertyhing intended, but it was an amazing conference in many ways. There are many materials available from the Conference and more coming, and I’m on my way home today. Next week I will be collecting and organizing the materials and my comments. Cold fusion research is being funded. Not all of it, but much of the most important working groups appear to have what they need to move forward. At this point, there is no reliable and confirmed lab rat, but there are many candidates, many groups with results that, if confirmed, could become one or more lab rats.

  2. Is there any verified information / results from Univ. of Missouri (SKINR?) or Dr. Duncan at Texas?
    Do you know if they sent any representatives? Are both still active?

    Thanks again,
    Bob

    1. I have not seen anything yet from SKINR, I’ll look specifically at the abstracts.

      Duncan is here and I have spoken with him. I can say that his group is very much active but they are not prepared to announce anything, and from that the state of their work cannot be inferred (my impression is that good news can be likely. I will be having more conversations with him, I hope to find a way to report something. McKubre did underscore the ETI very strong result (ETI became SKINR) and lamented the lack of replication attempts focusing on that. Few replication efforts did not succumb to the “improvement” motive. As to ETI result in general, the classic problem. The palladium they were using changed their production method and replacement material didn’t function the same. There have been plenty of replications that became irreproducible because the material became unavailable.

      1. SKINR closed down? This is disappointing at two levels. One being an academic LENR research project has shut down and Two, thier previous work did n ok t warrant further investigation.

        Very disappointing from my home state University!

        1. There are other active, funded academic projects…. I would not conclude from this that “their previous work did not warrant further investigation.” The field is massively replete with reported work of significant promise that has not been investigated further. At this point, funding is limited.

  3. A somewhat simple but yet possibly profound question… “Is any reputable researcher at the conference claiming to have a reactor / process that produces a LENR type effect at will, thus reproducible?”

    We have heard Rossi’s claims… they speak for themselves.
    We have heard of “Lion” and “ME356”, but they appear not to be what they present themselves as.
    We have heard from Bob Greenyer, yet a few “world changing days” proclamations have not proven accurate.
    MFMP has not been successful at any positive replications.
    IH was unable to replicate Muzuno.
    Alan Smith / Russ George has teased, but have not came out and proclaimed success.

    So has ANY, reputable and recognized researcher at the conference claimed repeatable reactions and are willing/looking at independent replication? The only one I am aware of is Brillion and SRI, but even their “joint replication” seems to be a bit weak and seemingly nothing has proceeded from it.

    You mention an unexpected number of researchers but are any claiming success?

    Thanks!
    -Bob

    1. A somewhat simple but yet possibly profound question… “Is any reputable researcher at the conference claiming to have a reactor / process that produces a LENR type effect at will, thus reproducible?”

      The concept of a reproducible experiment has been somewhat vague. Measuring the heat/helium ratio in the FP experiment is a reproducible experiment, when we understand that this is “experiment” is a series of tests, not just one. The experiment does not require “heat at will.” However, there is ext
      ensive discussion of the possibility of a “lab rat” protocol, defined as greater than 50% incidence of significant excess heat. There are protocols that have shown that, and then the original material became unavailable — a very common problem with LENR — and what seemed to be reproducible became no longer so.

      We saw a report from Iwamura describing 16 experiments by a substantial number of labs, with consistent heat on the level of watts (some higher)– And I remember COP running at 2 – 3. And this is Day 1 of the Conference.

      We have heard Rossi’s claims… they speak for themselves.
      We have heard of “Lion” and “ME356”, but they appear not to be what they present themselves as.
      We have heard from Bob Greenyer, yet a few “world changing days” proclamations have not proven accurate.
      MFMP has not been successful at any positive replications.

      Bob, a list of insanities will not lead us to sanity.

      IH was unable to replicate Muzuno.

      Yes. “unable to replication” does not mean “not replicable.” It means that something was missing (in the original experiment or in the replication effort.) There was a new Mizuni report — and as part of it was information indicating why a replication effort may have failed). But this is not yet replicated.

      Alan Smith / Russ George has teased, but have not came out and proclaimed success.

      Bob, again, a list of irrelevancies.

      So has ANY, reputable and recognized researcher at the conference claimed repeatable reactions and are willing/looking at independent replication? The only one I am aware of is Brillion and SRI, but even their “joint replication” seems to be a bit weak and seemingly nothing has proceeded from it.

      From conversations so far, this is not the best work in process, but the best work is confidential. I’m seeking to learn about it, and there are hints, but if I do find out, I might also be unable to report it yet.

      You mention an unexpected number of researchers but are any claiming success?

      Yes. It may not be the success you expect. Success appeared first in 1991. The problem is communication.

  4. What are the experiments that should be done in order to lift the curtain on the mystery of LENR that are not yet being done?

    1. I have a similar demand, not for me, but for relaying to some people who think about making some serious research in hightech small companies labs, in local academic labs.
      I think of labs working daily in domain like nanotech, microelectronics, nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry, accumulators, hydrogen storage, engines, furnace and boilers.

      I know every LENR researcher have his vision of what may be LENR and thus which experiments should be done to find “the explanation”, required to go further and make LENR reliable then usable.

      What kind of research should be done according to the diversity of opinion…. not too diverse, not too weird if possible)
      Which industrial lab could be very fitted for some research ? Which labs could work together ?

      In fact more than answering to me (I’m not comptent, nor able), few agreeing team of scientist could publish few short papers, which propose each a coherent plan of experiments, initial bibliography, matching a coherent kind of corporate/academic labs and competences.

      Some corporate or academic team, eventually discretely, could read those proposal and start analyzing feasibility, until they contact the author to go further when they feel safe.

      1. “Is any reputable researcher at the conference claiming to have a reactor / process that produces a LENR type effect at will, thus reproducible?”

        Yes, Lawrence Forsley and Pamela Boss of GEC are reputable and make such claims. Not much reason to disbelieve them, is there? See chapter two of the review, “LENR at the NASA Glenn Research Center AEC Effort (advanced energy conversion)” at kinja.

        Quote “US Patent, 8,419,919 “System and Method Generating Particles”, that has been replicated and published in over 50 peer-reviewed papers. We have observed energetic particles during Pd/D co-deposition [1, 2] including ≥ 1.8 MeV protons (with 15 MeV protons), ≥ 7 MeV alphas, and 2.5 MeV and 14.1 MeV neutrons [3]. These neutrons are energetic enough to fission uranium as was reported in 2016 [4] with an average energy > 6 MeV.” -end quotes

        From chapter two of the review…
        NASA contract GEC LENR Reactor for Space Power and Electric Space Drive
        Scale-up Build and Test 100 kilowatt to 20 megawatt thermal
        + Umbrella Agreement – January 2018
        Quote – The initial goal is to develop and run a self-sustaining 10 kW thermal, 2 kW electric, hybrid generator for planetary space missions and planetary surface power. Such generator technology would be scalable to 100 kW at the Plum Book Facility. Larger generator designs would be built and run at appropriate offsite location. – end quote
        + Annex to the Umbrella Agreement
        + GEC presentation of the NASA GRC LENR reactor contract (ICCF21 abstracts)
        ‘Space Application of a Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor’ Lawrence P. Forsley, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss Global Energy Corporation, USA Email: Lawrence.p.forsley@nasa.gov

        JWK Corporation and Global Energy Corporation have spent the past two decades understanding and developing Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions with the US Navy and NASA. This has resulted in a US Patent, 8,419,919 “System and Method Generating Particles”, that has been replicated and published in over 50 peer-reviewed papers. We have observed energetic particles during Pd/D co-deposition [1, 2] including ≥ 1.8 MeV protons (with 15 MeV protons), ≥ 7 MeV alphas, and 2.5 MeV and 14.1 MeV neutrons [3]. These neutrons are energetic enough to fission uranium as was reported in 2016 [4] with an average energy > 6 MeV.

        Deep space missions are dependent upon 238Pu thermoelectric generators (RTG) providing less than 1 kW of electrical power. With the exception of the solar powered Juno probe, every spacecraft destined past Mars has been RTG dependent. Consequently, deep space missions are power deprived for both instrumentation and propulsion. Indeed, human travel beyond the Earth-Moon system requires nuclear electric propulsion if astronauts are to arrive healthy.

        Global Energy Corporation (GEC) began developing a non-fissile reactor core suitable for deep-space power. GEC has a second Space Act Agreement with NASA Glenn Research Center to develop a launch-compatible design, operating at the Plum Brook Station facility. Plum Brook has vacuum, acoustic and shake table systems to certify space launch capability. Various electrical power needs range from tens of kilowatts for instruments to over 20 megawatts for human space craft electric propulsion and planetary power. – end quotes

        1. Violante pointed out to me the distinction between results that have been found replicable, in some sense or other, by a reporting group, and reproducibility, where replicability is independently confirmed. Many times in this field I have seen a working group report that their results, in their own work, were consistent; however, that is a unconfirmed claim until that is actually demonstrated independently (and it also often depends on a subjective assessment of replicability). I am not seeing any claims of truly consistent results, quantitatively. Such an experiment would be the “lab rat.” I do think there are lab rats, possibly many, but the only one that I know of requires the ability to measure helium and distinguish 4He+ from D2+, which requires a special mass spectrometer. If some percentage of samples are taken periods of excess heat production, this is a confirmed result, from many groups, that does not require consistent heat, only consistent ratio of heat and helium.

          The facts cited show plans and possibilities, not realization. I will ask Pam about this specific question. A general sense that I have is that one or more of the commercial efforts have this, but they are not sharing the information. Or they don’t have it. In any case, secret techniques cannot serve as the lab rat. A product on the market, even if incorporating trade secrets, could.

    2. My stand is that “lifting the mystery” is phase III work. The priority is nailing the fundamental observations that lead to a LENR conclusion (or identifying and demonstrating artifacts). Until that has been done adequately (and “adequate” is defined by the social effect), my sense is that available funding will not be adequate for the more detailed investigations needed. Of course, any funding source may choose what to support. However, my efforts are focused on identifying and supporting very basic work confirming, with increased precision if possible, what is already reported. The original Phase I proposal was heat/helium. That is under way. Another than I have recently identified is studying heat/tritium correlations. Similar would be H/D and tritium correlation.

  5. Blessings be,

    Have a good and productive conference, I wish I could attend. Look forward to your reporting.

    You are aware of my interest in U.S. government funded LENR energy technology now entering the marketplace. The review was compiled to provide a historical perspective and a studied analysis of recent claims and NASA contracts, I hope you have found it useful. As to questions, there are many which are obvious and have most likely already arisen in your mind. I expect that many of these questions will only be resolved as events unfold over the next year or so, not through direct questioning. I would be pleased to be wrong about this. What most intrigues me, and which I am beginning to understand, is the works of Vladimir Pines and how the computer model he created is valuable for design and control of the nuclear reactive environment of LENR.
    Is this then a working theoretical model for advanced LENR engineering? Perhaps you could pose that question to the conference at large?

    Please read the material on neutron production in LENR by the SPAWAR/GEC group.

    Greg (415) 548-3735

    1. Unfortunately, there is no live broadcast. I do not yet know if there is recording of the sessions. I will be finding out. I will obtain whatever videos, recording, or documents become available.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield