NASA

This is a subpage of Widom-Larsen theory/Reactions

On New Energy Times, “Third Party References” to W-L theory include two connected with NASA, by Dennis Bushnell (2008) [slide 37] and J. M. Zawodny (2009) (slide 12, date is October 19, 2010, not 2009 as shown by Krivit).

What can be seen in the Zawodny presentation is a researcher who is not familiar with LENR evidence, overall, nor with the broad scope of existing LENR theory, but who has accepted the straw man arguments of WL theorists and Krivit, about other theories, and who treats WL theory as truth without clear verification. NASA proceeded to put about $1 million into LENR research, with no publications coming out of it, at least not associated with WL theory. They did file a patent, and that will be another story.

By 2013, all was not well in the relationship between NASA and Larsen.

To summarize, NASA appears to have spent about a million dollars looking into Widom-Larsen theory, and did not find it adequate for their purposes, nor did they develop, it seems, publishable data in support (or in disconfirmation) of the theory. In 2012, they were still bullish on the idea, but apparently out of steam. Krivit turns this into a conspiracy to deprive Lattice Energy of profit from their “proprietary technology,” which Lattice had not disclosed to NASA. I doubt there is any such technology of any significant value.

NASA’s LENR Article “Nuclear Reactor in Your Basement”

[NET linked to that article, and also to another copy. They are dead links, like many old NET links; NET has moved or removed many pages it cites, and the search function does not find them. But this page, I found with Google on phys.org. 

Now, in the Feb. 12, 2013, article, NASA suggests that it does not understand the Widom-Larsen theory well. However, Larsen spent significant time training Zawodny on it. Zawodny also understood the theory well enough to be a co-author on a chapter about the Widom-Larsen theory in the 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia. He understood it well enough to give a detailed, technical presentation on it at NASA’s Glenn Research Center on Sept. 22, 2011.

It simply does not occur to Krivit that perhaps NASA found the theory useless. Zawodny was a newcomer to LENR, it’s obvious. Krivit was managing that Wiley encyclopedia. The “technical presentation” linked contains numerous errors that someone familiar with the field would be unlikely to make — unless they were careless. For example, Pons and Fleischmann did not claim “2H + 2H -> 4He.” Zawodny notes that high electric fields will be required for electrons “heavy” enough to form neutrons, but misses that these must operate over unphysical distances, for an unphysical accumulation of energy, and misses all the observable consequences.

In general, as we can see from early reactions to WL Theory, simply to review and understand a paper like those of Widom and Larsen requires study and time, in addition to the followup work to confirm a new theory. WL theory was designed by a physicist (Widom, Larsen is not a physicist but an entrepreneur) to seem plausible on casual review.

To actually understand the theory and its viability, one needs expertise in two fields: physics and the experimental findings in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (mostly chemistry). That combination is not common. So a physicist can look at the theory papers and think, “plausible,” but not see the discrepancies, which are massive, with the experimental evidence. They will only see the “hits,” i.e., as a great example, the plot showing correspondence between WL prediction and Miley data. They will not know that (1) Miley’s results are unconfirmed (2) they will not realize that other theories might make similar predictions. Physicists may be thrilled to have a LENR theory that is “not fusion,” not noticing that WL theory actually requires higher energies than are needed for ordinary hot fusion.

Also from the page cited:

New Energy Times spoke with Larsen on Feb. 21, 2013, to learn more about what happened with NASA.

“Zawodny contacted me in mid-2008 and said he wanted to learn about the theory,” Larsen said. “He also dangled a carrot in front of me and said that NASA might be able to offer funding as well as give us their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Larsen has, for years, been attempting to position himself as a consultant on all things LENR. It wouldn’t take much to attract Larsen.

“So I tutored Zawodny for about half a year and taught him the basics. I did not teach him how to implement the theory to create heat, but I offered to teach them how to use it to make transmutations because technical information about reliable heat production is part of our proprietary know-how.

Others have claimed that Larsen is not hiding stuff. That is obviously false. What is effectively admitted here is that WL theory does not provide enough guidance to create heat, which is the main known effect in LENR, the most widely confirmed. Larsen was oh-so-quick to identify fraud with Rossi, but not fast enough — or too greedy — to consider it possible with Larsen. Larsen was claiming Lattice Energy was ready to produce practical devices for heat in 2003. He mentioned “patent pending, high-temperature electrode designs,” and “proprietary heat sources.” Here is the patent, perhaps. It does not mention heat nor any nuclear effect. Notice that if a patent does not provide adequate information to allow constructing a working device, it’s invalid. The patent referred to a prior Miley patent. first filed in 1997, which does mention transmutation. Both patents reference Patterson patents from as far back as 1990. There is another Miley patent filed in 2001 that has been assigned to Lattice.

“But then, on Jan. 22, 2009, Zawodny called me up. He said, ‘Sorry, bad news, we’re not going to be able to offer you any funding, but you’re welcome to advise us for free. We’re planning to conduct some experiments in-house in the next three to six months and publish them.’

“I asked Zawodny, ‘What are the objectives of the experiments?’ He answered, ‘We want to demonstrate excess heat.’

I remember that this is hearsay. However, it’s plausible. NASA would not be interested in transmutations, but rather has a declared interest in LENR for heat production for space missions. WL Theory made for decent cover (though it didn’t work, NASA still took flak for supporting Bad Science), but it provides no guidance — at all — for creating reliable effects. It simply attempts to “explain” known effects, in ways that create even more mysteries.

“I told Zawodny, ‘At this point, we’re not doing anything for free. I told you in the beginning that all I was going to do was teach you the basic physics and, if you wish, teach you how to make transmutations every time, but not how to design and fabricate LENR devices that would reliably make excess heat.’

And if Larsen knew how to do that, and could demonstrate it, there are investors lined up with easily a hundred million dollars to throw at it. What I’m reasonably sure of is that those investors have already looked at Lattice and concluded that there is no there there. Can Larsen show how to make transmutations every time? Maybe. That is not so difficult, though still not a slam-dunk.

“About six to nine months later, in mid-2009, Zawodny called me up and said, ‘Lew, you didn’t teach us how to implement this.’ To my amazement, he was still trying to get me to tell him how to reliably make excess heat.

See, Zawodny was interested in heat from the beginning, and the transmutation aspect of WL Theory was a side-issue. Krivit has presented WL Theory as a “non-fusion” explanation for LENR, and the interest in LENR, including Krivit’s interest, was about heat, consider the name of his blog (“New Energy”). But the WL papers hardly mention heat. Transmutations are generally a detail in LENR, the main reaction clearly makes heat and helium and very few transmuted elements by comparison. In the fourth WL paper, there is mention of heat, and in the conclusion, there is mention of “energy-producing devices.”

From a technological perspective, we note that energy must first be put into a given metallic hydride system in order to renormalize electron masses and reach the critical threshold values at which neutron production can occur.

This rules out gas-loading, where there is no input energy. This is entirely aside from the problem that neutron production requires very high energies, higher than hot fusion initiation energies.

Net excess energy, actually released and observed at the physical device level, is the result of a complex interplay between the percentage of total surface area having micron-scale E and B field strengths high enough to create neutrons and elemental isotopic composition of near-surface target nuclei exposed to local fluxes of readily captured ultra low momentum neutrons. In many respects, low temperature and pressure low energy nuclear reactions in condensed matter systems resemble r- and
s-process nucleosynthetic reactions in stars. Lastly, successful fabrication and operation of long lasting energy producing devices with high percentages of nuclear active surface areas will require nanoscale control over surface composition, geometry and local field strengths.

The situation is even worse with deuterium. This piece of the original W-L paper should have been seen as a red flag:

Since each deuterium electron capture yields two ultra low momentum neutrons, the nuclear catalytic reactions are somewhat more efficient for the case of deuterium.

The basic physics here is simple and easy to understand. Reactions can, in theory, run in reverse, and the energy that is released from fusion or fission is the same as the energy required to create the opposite effect, that’s a basic law of thermodynamics, I term “path independence.” So the energy that must be input to create a neutron from a proton and an electron is the same energy as is released from ordinary neutron decay (neutrons being unstable with a 15 minute half-life, decaying to a proton, electron, and a neutrino. Forget about the neutrino unless you want the real nitty gritty. The neutrino is not needed for the reverse reaction, apparently). 781 KeV.

Likewise, the fusion of a proton and a neutron to make a deuteron releases a prompt gamma ray at 2.22 MeV. So to fission the deuteron back to a proton and a neutron requires energy input of 2.22 MeV, and then to convert the proton to another neutron requires another 0.78 MeV, so the total energy required is 3.00 MeV. What Widom and Larsen did was neglect the binding energy of the deuteron, a basic error in basic physics, and I haven’t seen that this has been caught by anyone else. But it’s so obvious, once seen, that I’m surprised and I will be looking for it.

Bottom line, then, WL theory fails badly with pure deuterium fuel and thus is not an explanation for the FP Heat Effect, the most common and most widely confirmed LENR. Again, the word “hoax” comes to mind. Larsen went on:

I said, ‘Joe, I’m not that stupid. I told you before, I’m only going to teach you the basics, and I’m not going to teach you how to make heat. Nothing’s changed. What did you expect?’”

Maybe he expected not to be treated like a mushroom.

Larsen told New Energy Times that NASA’s stated intent to prove his theory is not consistent with its behavior since then.

Many government scientists were excited by WL Theory. As a supposed “not fusion” theory, it appeared to sidestep the mainstream objection to “cold fusion.” So, yes, NASA wanted to test the theory (“prove” is not a word used commonly by scientists), because if it could be validated, funding floodgates might open. That did not happen. NASA spent about a million dollars and came up with, apparently, practically nothing.

“Not only is there published experimental data that spans one hundred years which supports our theory,” Larsen said, “but if NASA does experiments that produce excess heat, that data will tell them nothing about our theory, but a transmutation experiment, on the other hand, will.

Ah, I will use that image from NET again:

Transmutations have been reported since very early after the FP announcement, and they reported, in fact, tritum and helium, though not convincingly. With one possible exception I will be looking at later, transmutation has never been correlated with heat. (nor has tritium, only helium has been found and confirmed to be correlated). Finding low levels of transmuted products has often gotten LENR researchers excited, but this has never been able to overcome common skepticism. Only helium, through correlation with heat, has been able to do that (when skeptics took the time to study the evidence, and most won’t.)

Finding some transmutations would not prove WL theory. First of all, it is possible that there is more than one LENR effect (and, as “effect” might be described, it is clear there is more than one). Secondly, other theories also provide transmutation pathways.

“The theory says that ultra-low-momentum neutrons are produced and captured and you make transmutation products. Although heat can be a product of transmutations, by itself it’s not a direct confirmation of our theory. But, in fact, they weren’t interested in doing transmutations; they were only interested in commercially relevant information related to heat production.

Heat is palpable, transmutations are not necessarily so. As well, the analytical work to study transmutations is expensive. Why would NASA invest money in verifying transmutation products, if not in association with heat? From the levels of transmutations found and the likely precursors, heat should be predictable. No, Larsen was looking out for his own business interests, and he can “sell” transmutation with little risk. Selling heat could be much riskier, if he doesn’t actually have a technology. Correlations would be a direct confirmation, far more powerful than the anecdotal evidence alleged. At this point, there is no experimental confirmation of WL theory, in spite of it having been published in 2005. The neutron report cited by Widom in one of his “refutations” — and he was a co-author of that report — actually contradicts WL Theory.

Of course, that report could be showing that some of the neutrons are not ultra-low momentum, and some could then escape the heavy electron patch, but the same, then, would cause prompt gammas to be detected, in addition to the other problem that is solved-by-ignoring-it: delayed gammas from radioactive transmuted isotopes. WL Theory is a house of cards that actually never stood, but it seemed like a good idea at the time! Larsen continued:

“What proves that is that NASA filed a competing patent on top of ours in March 2010, with Zawodny as the inventor.

The NASA initial patent application is clear about the underlying concept (Larsen’s) and the intentions of NASA. Line [25] from NASA’s patent application says, “Once established, SPP [surface plasmon polariton] resonance will be self-sustaining so that large power output-to-input ratios will be possible from [the] device.” This shows that the art embodied in this patent application is aimed toward securing intellectual property rights on LENR heat production.

The Zawodny patent actually is classified as a “fusion reactor.” It cites the Larsen patent described below.

See A. Windom [sic] et al. “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surface,” European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields, 46, pp. 107-112, 2006, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al. Unfortunately, such heavy electron production has only occurred in small random regions or patches of sample materials/devices. In terms of energy generation or gamma ray shielding, this limits the predictability and effectiveness of the device. Further, random-patch heavy electron production limits the amount of positive net energy that is produced to limit the efficiency of the device in an energy generation application.

They noticed. This patent is not the same as the Larsen patent. It looks like Zawodny may have invented a tweak, possibly necesssary for commercial power production.

The Larsen patent was granted in 2011, but was filed in 2006, and is for a gamma shield, which is apparently vaporware, as Larsen later admitted it couldn’t be tested.

I don’t see that Larsen has patented a heat-producing device.

“NASA is not behaving like a government agency that is trying to pursue basic science research for the public good. They’re acting like a commercial competitor,” Larsen said. “This becomes even more obvious when you consider that, in August 2012, a report surfaced revealing that NASA and Boeing were jointly looking at LENRs for space propulsion.” [See New Energy Times article “Boeing and NASA Look at LENRs for Green-Powered Aircraft.”]

I’m so reminded of Rossi’s reaction to the investment of Industrial Heat in standard LENR research in 2015. It was intolerable, allegedly supporting his “competitors.” In fact, in spite of efforts, Rossi was unable to find evidence that IH had shared Rossi secrets, and in hindsight, if Rossi actually had valuable secrets, he withheld them, violating the Agreement.

From NET coverage of the Boeing/NASA cooperation:

[Krivit had moved the page to make it accessible to subscribers only, to avoid “excessive” traffic, but the page was still available with a different URL. I archived it so that the link above won’t increase his traffic. It is a long document. If I find time, I will extract the pages of interest, PDF pages 38-40, 96-97]

The only questionable matter in the report is its mention of Leonardo Corp. and Defkalion as offering commercial LENR systems. In fact, the two companies have delivered no LENR technology. They have failed to provide any convincing scientific evidence and failed to show unambiguous demonstrations of their extraordinary claims. Click here to read New Energy Times’extensive original research and reporting on Andrea Rossi’s Leonardo Corp.

Defkalion is a Greek company that based its technology on Rossi’s claimed Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) technology . . . Because Rossi apparently has no real technology, Defkalion is unlikely to have any technology, either.

What is actually in the report:

Technology Status:
Multiple coherent theories that explain LENR exist which use the standard Quantum Electrodynamics & Quantum Chromodynamics model. The Widom-Larson(10) theory appears to have the best current understanding, but it is far from being fully validated and applied to current prototype testing. Limited testing is ongoing by NASA and private contractors of nickel-hydrogen LENR systems. Two commercial companies (Leonardo Corp. & Defkalion) are reported to be offering commercial LENR systems. Those systems are advertised to run for 6 months with a single fueling cycle. Although data exists on all of these systems, the current data in each case is lacking in either definition or 3rd party verification. Thus, the current TRL assessment is low.
In this study the SUGAR Team has assumed, for the purposes of technology planning and establishing system requirements that the LENR technology will work. We have not conducted an independent technology feasibility assessment. The technology plan contained in this section merely identifies the steps that would need to take place to develop a propulsion system for aviation that utilizes LENR technology.

This report was issued in May 2012. The description of Leonardo, Defkalion, and WL theory were appropriate for that time. At that point, there was substantial more evidence supporting heat from Leonardo and Defkalion, but no true independent verification. Defkalion vanished in a cloud of bad smell, Leonardo was found to be highly deceptive at best. And WL theory also has, as they point out, no “definition” — as to energy applications — n nor 3rd party verification.

Krivit’s articles on Rossi and Leonardo were partly based on innuendo and inference; they had little effect on investment in the Rossi technology, because of the obvious yellow-journalist slant. Industrial Heat decided that they needed to know for sure, and did what it took to become certain, investing about $20 million in the effort. They knew, full well, it was very high-risk, and considered the possibly payoff so high, and the benefits to the environment so large, as to be worth that cost, even if it turned out that Rossi was a fraud. The claims were depressing LENR investment. Because they took that risk, Woodford Fund then gave them an additional $50 million for LENR research, and much of current research has been supported by Industrial Heat. Krivit has almost entirely missed this story. As to clear evidence on Rossi, it became public with the lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden and we have extensive coverage on that here. Krivit was right that Rossi was a fraud . . . but it is very different to claim that from appearances and to actually show it with evidence.

In the Feb. 12, 2013, NASA article, the author, Silberg, said, “But solving that problem can wait until the theory is better understood.”

He quoted Zawodny, who said, “’From my perspective, this is still a physics experiment. I’m interested in understanding whether the phenomenon is real, what it’s all about. Then the next step is to develop the rules for engineering. Once you have that, I’m going to let the engineers have all the fun.’”

In the article, Silberg said that, if the Widom-Larsen theory is shown to be correct, resources to support the necessary technological breakthroughs will come flooding in.

“’All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works,’ Zawodny said. ‘As soon as you have that, everybody is going to throw their assets at it. And then I want to buy one of these things and put it in my house.’”

Actually, what everyone says is that if anyone can show a reliable heat-producing device, that is independently confirmed, investment will pour in, and that’s obvious. With or without a “correct theory.” A plausible theory was simply nice cover to support some level of preliminary research. NASA was in no way prepared to do what it would take to create those conditions. It might take a billion dollars, unless money is spent with high efficiency, and pursuing a theory that falls apart when examined in detail was not efficient, at all.  NASA was led down the rosy path by Widom and Larsen and the pretense of “standard physics.” In fact, the NASA/Boeing report was far more sophisticated, pointing out other theories:

Multiple coherent theories that explain LENR exist which use the standard Quantum Electrodynamics & Quantum Chromodynamics model

As an example, Takahashi’s TSC theory. This is actually standard physics, as well, more so than WL theory, but is incomplete. No LENR theory is complete at this time.

There is one theory, I call it a Conjecture, that in the FP Heat Effect, deuterium is being converted to helium, mechanism unknown. This has extensive confirmed experimental evidence behind it, and is being supported by further research to improve precision,. It’s well enough funded, it appears.

Back on Jan. 12, 2012, NASA published a short promotional video in which it tried to tell the public that it thought of the idea behind Larsen and Widom’s theory, but it did not mention Widom and Larsen or their theory. At the time, New Energy Times sent an e-mail to Zawodny and asked him why he did not attribute the idea to Widom and Larsen.

“The intended audience is not interested in that level of detail,” Zawodny wrote.

The video was far outside the capacity of present technology, but treats LENR as a done deal, proven to produce clean energy. That’s hype, but Krivit’s only complaint is that they did not credit Widom and Larsen for the theory used. As if they own physics. After all, if that’s standard physics . . . .

(See our articles “LENR Gold Rush Begins — at NASA” and “NASA and Widom-Larsen Theory: Inside Story” for more details.)

The Gold Rush story tells the same tale of woe, implying that NASA scientists are motivated by the pursuit of wealth, whereas, in fact, the Zawodny patent simply protects the U.S. government.

The only thing that is clear is that NASA tries to attract funding to develop LENR. So does Larsen. It has massive physical and human resources. He is a small businessman and has the trade secret. Interesting times lie ahead.

I see no sign that they are continuing to seek funding. They were funded to do limited research. They found nothing worth publishing, apparently. Now, Krivit claims that Larsen has a “trade secret.” Remember, this is about heat, not transmutations. By the standards Krivit followed with Rossi, Larsen’s technology is bullshit. Krivit became a more embarrassing flack for Larsen than Mats Lewan became for Rossi. Why did he ask Zawodny why he didn’t credit Widom and Larsen for the physics in that video? It’s obvious. He’s serving as a public relations officer for Lattice Energy. Widom is the physics front. Krivit talks about a gold rush at NASA. How about at New Energy Times and with Widom, a “member” of Lattice Energy, and a named inventor in the useless gamma shield patent.

NASA started telling the truth about the theory, that it’s not developed and unproven. Quoted on the Gold Rush page:

“Theories to explain the phenomenon have emerged,” Zawodny wrote, “but the majority have relied on flawed or new physics.

Not only did he fail to mention the Widom-Larsen theory, but he wrote that “a proven theory for the physics of LENR is required before the engineering of power systems can continue.”

Shocking. How dare they imply there is no proven theory? The other page, “Inside Story,” is highly repetitive. Given that Zadodny refused an interview, the “inside story” is told by Larsen.

In the May 23, 2012, video from NASA, Zawodny states that he and NASA are trying to perform a physics experiment to confirm the Widom-Larsen theory. He mentions nothing about the laboratory work that NASA may have performed in August 2011. Larsen told New Energy Times his opinion about this new video.

“NASA’s implication that their claimed experimental work or plans for such work might be in any way a definitive test of the Widom-Larsen theory is nonsense,” Larsen said.

It would be the first independent confirmation, if the test succeeded. Would it be “definitive”? Unlikely. That’s really difficult. Widom-Larsen theory is actually quite vague. It posits reactions that are hidden, gamma rays that are totally absorbed by transient heavy electron patches, which, by the way, would need to handle 2.2 MeV photons from the fusion of a neutron with a proton to form deuterium. But these patches are fleeting, so they can’t be tested. I have not seen specific proposed tests in WL papers. Larsen wanted them to test for transmutations, but transmutations at low levels are not definitive without much more work.  What NASA wanted to see was heat, and presumably heat correlated with nuclear products.

“The moment NASA filed a competing patent, it disqualified itself as a credible independent evaluator of the Widom-Larsen theory,” he said. “Lattice Energy is a small, privately held company in Chicago funded by insiders and two angel investors, and we have proprietary knowledge.

Not exactly. Sure, that would be a concern, except that this was a governmental patent, and was for a modification to the Larsen patent intended to create more reliable heat. Consider this: Larsen and Widom both have a financial interest in Lattice Energy, and so are not neutral parties in explaining the physics. If NASA found confirmation of LENR using a Widom-Larsen approach (I’m not sure what that would mean), it would definitely be credible! If they did not confirm, this would be quite like hundreds of negative studies in LENR. Nothing particularly new. Such never prove that an original report was wrong.

Cirillo, with Widom as co-author, claimed the detection of neutrons. Does Widom as a co-author discredit that report? To a degree, yes. (But the report did not mention Widom-Larsen theory.) Was that work supported by Lattice Energy?

“NASA offered us nothing, and now, backed by the nearly unlimited resources of the federal government, NASA is clearly eager to get into the LENR business any way it can.”

Nope. They spent about a million dollars, it appears, and filed a patent to protect that investment. There are no signs that they intend to spend more at this point.

New Energy Times asked Larsen for his thoughts about the potential outcome of any NASA experiment to test the theory, assuming details are ever released.

“NASA is behaving no differently than a private-sector commercial competitor,” Larsen said. “If NASA were a private-sector company, why would anyone believe anything that it says about a competitor?”

NASA’s behavior here does not remotely resemble a commercial actor. Notice that when NASA personnel said nice things about W-L theory, Krivit was eager to hype it. And when they merely hinted that the theory was just that, a theory, and unproven, suddenly their credibility is called into question.

Krivit is transparent.

Does he really think that if NASA found a working technology, ready to develop for their space flight applications, they would hide it because of “commercial” concerns. Ironically, the one who is openly concealing technology, if he isn’t simply lying, is Larsen. He has the right to do that, as Rossi had the right. Either one or both were lying, though. There is no gamma shield technology, but Larsen used the “proprietary” excuse to avoid disclosing evidence to Richard Garwin. And Krivit reframed that to make it appear that Garwin approved of WL Theory.

 

Explanation

This is a subpage of Widom-Larsen theory

Steve Krivit’s summary:

1. Creation of Heavy Electrons   
Electromagnetic radiation in LENR cells, along with collective effects, creates a heavy surface plasmon polariton (SPP) electron from a sea of SPP electrons.

Part of the hoax involves confusion over “heavy electrons.” The term refers to renormalization of mass, based on the behavior of electrons user some conditions which can be conceived “as if” they are heavier. There is no gain in rest mass, apparently. That “heavy electrons” can exist, in some sense or other, is not controversial. The question is “how heavy”? We will look at that. In explanations of this, proponents of W-L theory point to evidence of intense electric fields under some conditions, one figure given was 1011 volts per meter. That certainly sounds like a lot, but … that field strength exists over what distance? To transfer the energy to an electron, it would be accelerated by the field over a distance, and that would give it a “mass” of 1011 electron volts per meter, but the fields described exist only for very short distances. The lattice constant with palladium is under 4 Angstroms or 4 x 10-10 meter.  So a field of 1011 volts/meter  would give mass (energy) of under 40 electron volts per lattice constant.

Generally , this problem is denied by claiming that there is some collective effect where many electrons give up some of their energy to a single electron. This kind of energy collection is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, applying to large systems. The reverse, large energy carried by one electron being distributed to many electrons, is normal.

The energy needed to create a neutron is the same as the energy released in neutron decay, i.e., 781 Kev, which is far more than the energy needed to “overcome the Coulomb barrier.” If that energy could be collected in a single particle, then ordinary fusion would be easy to come by. However, this is not happening.

2. Creation of ULM Neutrons  
An electron and a proton combine, through inverse beta decay, into an ultra-low-momentum (ULM) neutron and a neutrino.

Neutrons have a short half-life, and undergo beta decay, as mentioned below, so they are calling this “inverse beta decay,” though the more common term is “electron capture.” What is described is a form of electron capture, of the electron by a proton. By terming the electron “heavy,” they perhaps imagine it could have an orbit closer to the nucleus, I think, and thus more susceptible to capture. But the heavy electrons are “heavy” because of their momentum, which will cause many other effects that are not observed. They are not “heavy” as muons are heavy, i.e., higher rest mass. High mass will be associated with high momentum, hence high velocity, not at all allowing electron capture.

The energy released from neutron decay is 781 KeV. So the “heavy electron” would need to collect energy across a field that large, i.e., over about 20,000 lattice constants, roughly 8 microns. Now, if you have any experience with high voltage: what would you expect would happen long before that total field would be reached? Yes. ZAAP!

Remember, these are surface phenomena being described, on the surface of a good conductor, and possibly immersed in an electrolyte, also a decent conductor. High field strength can exist, perhaps, very locally. In studies cited by Larsen, he refers to biological catalysis, which is a very, very local phenomenon where high field strength can exist for a very short distance, on the molecular scale, somewhat similar to the lattice constant for Pd, but a bit larger.

Why and how “ultra low momentum”? Because he says so? Momentum must be conserved, so what happens to the momentum of that “heavy electron?” These are questions I have that I will keep in mind as I look at explanations. In most of the explanations, such as those on New Energy Times, statements are made that avoid giving quantities, they are statements that can seem plausible, if we neglect the problems of magnitude or rate. It is with magnitude and rate that conflicts arise with “standard physics” and cold fusion. After all, even d-d fusion is not “impossible,” but is rate-limited. That is, there is an ordinary fusion rate at room temperature, but it’s very, very . . . very low — unless there are collective effects and it was the aim of Pons and Fleischmann, beginning their research, to see the effect of the condensed matter state on the Born–Oppenheimer approximation. (There are possible collective effects that do not violate the laws of thermodynamics.)

3. Capture of ULM Neutrons  
That ULM neutron is captured by a nearby nucleus, producing, through a chain of nuclear reactions, either a new, stable isotope or an isotope unstable to beta decay.

A free neutron outside of an atomic nucleus is unstable to beta decay; it has a half-life of approximately 13 minutes and decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino.

If slow neutrons are created, expecially “ultra-slow,” they will be indeed captured, neutrons are absorbed freely by nuclei, some more easily than others. If the momentum is too high, they bounce. With very slow neutrons (“ultra low momentum”) the capture cross-section becomes very high for many elements, and many such reactions will occur (essentially, in a condensed matter environment, all the neutrons generated will be absorbed. The general result is an isotope with the same atomic number as the target (same number of protons, thus the same positive  charge on the nucleus), but one atomic mass unit heavier, because of the neutron. While some of these will be stable, many will not, and they would be expected to decay, with a characteristic half-lives.

Neutron capture on protons would be expected to generate a characteristic prompt gamma photon at 2.223 MeV. Otherwise the deuterium formed is stable. That such photons are not detected is explained by an ad hoc side-theory, that the heavy electron patches are highly absorbent of the photons. Other elements may produce delayed radiation, in particular gammas and electrons.

How these delayed emissions are absorbed, I have never seen W-L theorists explain.

From the Wikipedia article on Neutron activation analysis:

[An excited state is generated by the absorption of a neutron.] This excited state is unfavourable and the compound nucleus will almost instantaneously de-excite (transmutate) into a more stable configuration through the emission of a prompt particle and one or more characteristic prompt gamma photons. In most cases, this more stable configuration yields a radioactive nucleus. The newly formed radioactive nucleus now decays by the emission of both particles and one or more characteristic delayed gamma photons. This decay process is at a much slower rate than the initial de-excitation and is dependent on the unique half-life of the radioactive nucleus. These unique half-lives are dependent upon the particular radioactive species and can range from fractions of a second to several years. Once irradiated, the sample is left for a specific decay period, then placed into a detector, which will measure the nuclear decay according to either the emitted particles, or more commonly, the emitted gamma rays.

So, there will be a characteristic prompt gamma, and then delayed gammas and other particles, such as the electrons (beta particles) mentioned. Notice that if a proton is converted to a neutron by an electron, and then the neutron is absorbed by an element with atomic number of X, and mass M, the result is an increase M of one, and it stays at this mass (approximately) with the emission of the prompt gamma. Then if it beta-decays, the mass stays the same, but the neutron becomes a proton and so the atomic number becomes X + 1. The effect is fusion, as if the reaction were the fusion of X with a proton. So making neutrons is one way to cause elements to fuse, this could be called “electron catalysis.”

Yet it’s very important to Krivit to claim that this is not “fusion.” After all, isn’t fusion impossible at low temperatures? Not with an appropriate catalyst! (Muons are the best known and accepted possibility.)

4. Beta Decay Creation of New Elements and Isotopes  
When an unstable nucleus beta-decays, a neutron inside the nucleus decays into a proton, an energetic electron and a neutrino. The energetic electron released in a beta decay exits the nucleus and is detected as a beta particle. Because the number of protons in that nucleus has gone up by one, the atomic number has increased, creating a different element and transmutation product.

That’s correct as to the effect of neutron activation. Sometimes neutrons are considered to be element zero, mass one. So neutron activation is fusion with the element of mass zero. If there is electron capture with deuterium, this would form a di-neutron, which, if ultracold, might survive long enough for direct capture. If the capture is followed by a beta decay, then the result has been deuterium fusion.

In the graphic above, step 2 is listed twice: 2a depicts a normal hydrogen reaction, 2b depicts the same reaction with heavy hydrogen. All steps except the third are weak-interaction processes. Step 3, neutron capture, is a strong interaction but not a nuclear fusion process. (See “Neutron Capture Is Not the New Cold Fusion” in this special report.)

Very important to him, since, with the appearance of W-L theory, Krivit more or less made it his career, trashing all the other theorists and many of the researchers in the field, because of their “fusion theory,” often making “fusion” equivalent to “d-d fusion,” which is probably impossible. But fusion is a much more general term. It basically means the formation of heavier elements from lighter ones, and any process which does this is legitimately a “fusion process,” even if it may also have other names.

Given that the fundamental basis for the Widom-Larsen theory is weak-interaction neutron creation and subsequent neutron-catalyzed nuclear reactions, rather than the fusing of deuterons, the Coulomb barrier problem that exists with fusion is irrelevant in this four-step process.

Now, what is the evidence for weak-interaction neutron creation? What reactions would be predicted and what evidence would be seen, quantitatively? Yes, electron catalysis, which is what this amounts to, is one of a number of ways around the Coulomb barrier. This one involves the electron being captured into an intermediate product. Most electron capture theories have a quite different problem, than the Coulomb barrier problem, that other products would be expected that are not observed, and W-L theory is not an exception.

The most unusual and by far the most significant part of the Widom-Larsen process is step 1, the creation of the heavy electrons. Whereas many researchers in the past two decades have speculated on a generalized concept of an inverse beta decay that would produce either a real or virtual neutron, Widom and Larsen propose a specific mechanism that leads to the production of real ultra-low-momentum neutrons.

It is not the creation of heavy electrons, per se, that is “unusual,” it is that they must have an energy of 781 KeV. Notice that 100 KeV is quite enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier. (I forget the actual height of the barrier, but fusion occurs by tunnelling at much lower approach velocities). This avoidance of mentioning the quantity is typical for explanations of W-L theory.

ULM neutrons would produce very observable effects, and that’s hand-waved away.

The theory also proposes that lethal photon radiation (gamma radiation), normally associated with strong interactions, is internally converted into more-benign infrared (heat) radiation by electromagnetic interactions with heavy electrons. Again, for two decades, researchers have seen little or no gamma emissions from LENR experiments.

As critique of the theory mounted, as people started noticing the obvious, the explanation got even more devious. The claim is that the “heavy electron patches” absorb the gammas, and Lattice Energy (Larsen’s company) has patented this as a “gamma shield,” but then when the easy testability of such a shield, if it could really absorb all those gammas, was mentioned (originally by Richard Garwin), Larsen first claimed that experimental evidence was “proprietary,” and then, later pointed out that they could not be detected because the  patches were transient, pointing to the flashing spots in a SPAWAR IR video, which was totally bogus. (Consider imaging gammas, which was the proposal, moving parallel to the surface, close to it. Unless the patches are in wells, below the surface, they would be captured by a patch anywhere along the surface. No, more likely: Larsen was blowing smoke, avoiding a difficult question asked by Garwin. That’s certainly what Garwin thought. Once upon a time, Krivit reported that incident straight (because he was involved in the conversation. Later he reframed it, extracting a comment from Garwin, out of context, to make it look like Garwin approved of W-L theory.

 Richard Garwin (Physicist, designer of the first hydrogen bomb) – 2007: “…I didn’t say it was wrong

The linked page shows the actual conversation. This was far, far from an approval. The “I didn’t say” was literal, and Garwin points out that reading complex papers with understanding is difficult. In the collection of comments, there are many that are based on a quick review, not a detailed critique.

Perhaps the prompt gammas would be absorbed, though I find the idea of a 2 MeV photon being absorbed by a piddly patch, like a truck being stopped by running into a motorcycle, rather weird, and I’d think some would escape around the edges or down into and through the material. But what about the delayed gammas? The patches would be gone if they flash in and out of existence.

However, IANAP. I Am Not A Physicist. I just know a few. When physics gets deep, I am more or less in “If You Say So” territory. What do physicists say? That’s a lot more to the point here than what I say or what Steve Krivit says, or, for that matter, what Lewis Larson says. Widom is the physicist, Larson is the entrepreneur and money guy, if I’m correct. His all-but-degree was in biophysics.

McKubre

abstract

Slides: ICCF21 Main McKubre

introductory summary by Ruby Carat:

Michael McKubre followed up making a plea that “condensed matter nuclear science is anomalous no more!” He echoes Tom Darden’s sentiment that CMNS must be integrated into the mainstream of science.

“I needed to see it with my own eyes to believe that it was true”, says McKubre. “At the same time, cold fusion is reproduced somewhere on the planet every day. Verification has already happened. But self-censorship is a problem in the CMNS field. Are we guarding our secrets for fear that someone else might take credit? Yes.”

Michael McKubre with The Fleischmann Pons Heat and Ancillary Effects: What Do We Know, and Why? How Might We Proceed? (copy on ColdFusionNow, 74.16 MB)

Local copy on CFC: (1:02:32)

But energy is a primary problem and you must “collaborate, cooperate, and communicate”, McKubre says to the scientists in the room.

That’s been my message for years. . . . the three C’s.

McKubre thanked Jed Rothwell and Jean-Paul Biberian for all the work on lenr.org and the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, respectively. Beyond that, the communication in the CMNS field is very poor and needs to be remedied.

He also supports a multi-laboratory approach where reproductions are conducted. Verification of this science has already occurred in the 90s, with the confirmation of tritium, and the heat-helium correlation. He believes that all the many variables must be correlated to move forward. Unfortunately, he believes the same thing he said in 1996, according to a Jed Rothwell article, that “acceptance of this field will only come about when a viable technology is achieved.”

To make progress, a procedure for replication must be codified, and a set of papers should be packaged for newbies to the field. A demonstration cell is third important effort to pursue.

Electrochemical PdD/LiOD is already proven, despite the problem with “electrochemisty”, and has not been demonstrated for >10 years. Energetics Technologies cell 64 a few years back gave 40 kJ input 1.14 MJ output, gain= 27.5 Sadly, the magic materials issue prevented replication.

“1 watt excess power is too small to convince a skeptic, and 100 Watts too hard (at least for electrochemistry)”, said McKubre. The goal is to create the heat effect at the lowest input power possible.

According to McKubre, Verification, Correlation, Replication, Demonstration, Utilization are the five marks of exploring and exploiting the FPHE.

Task for a learner/volunteer: transcribe the talk, key it to the minutes in the audio and to the slide deck.

I’m postponing major review until I have the text. I’ll have a lot to say (as he predicted!).

Beiting

DRAFT

My comments are in indented italics.

Abstract 1

Investigation of the Nickel-Hydrogen Anomalous Heat Effect

Edward J. Beiting
TrusTech, USA
(email redacted)

Experimental work was undertaken at The Aerospace Corporation to reproduce a specific
observation of the gas-phase Anomalous Heat Effect (aka LENR).[1] This task required the
production of a quantity of heat energy by a mass of material so small that the origin of the energy
cannot be attributable to a chemical process. The goal is to enhance its credibility by reproducing
results first demonstrated in Japan and later reproduced in the U.S. by a solitary investigator. The
technique heated nanometer-sized Ni:Pd particles (20:1 molar ratio) embedded in micron-sized
particles of an inert refractory of ZrO2. It was not within the purview of this work to investigate the
physical origin of the AHE effect or speculate on its source.

The goal was off from the beginning, stated as to “enhance its credibility.” That sets up an opportunity for confirmation bias. After all, engineers will keep working toward the goal until they reach it. Not speculating on the physical origin of anomalous energy, great, though speculating on possible artifacts would be completely in order, to test them and confirm or reject them.

An apparatus was built that comprised identical test and a reference heated cells. These thermally
isolated cells each contained two thermocouples and a 10 cm3 volume of ZrO2NiPd particles.

Calibration functions to infer thermal power from temperature were created by electrically heating
the filled cells with known powers when they were either evacuated or pressurized with 1 bar of N2.
During the experimental trial, the test cell was pressurized with hydrogen and the control cell was
pressurized with nitrogen.

An obvious problem: nitrogen and hydrogen have drastically different thermal conductivity. Calibration can be a major problem with hot hydrogen work. We will study how they did it. 

After conditioning the cells, both were heated to near 300°C for a period
of 1000 hours (40 days). During this period, the test cell registered 7.5% more power
(approximately 1 W) than the input power. The control cell measured approximately 0.05 W of
excess power. The error in the excess power measurement was ±0.05 W.

Time-integrating the excess power to obtain an excess energy and normalizing to the 20 gram mass
of the ZrO2NiPd sample yields a specific energy of 173 MJ/kg. Assuming that the active material is
the 5.44g of Ni+Pd yields a specific energy of 635 MJ/kg. For comparison, the highest specific
energy of a hydrocarbon fuel (methane) is 55.5 MJ/kg. The highest chemical specific energy listed
[see Energy Density in Wikipedia] is 142 MJ/kg for hydrogen compressed to 700 bar. Based on
these results, it is unlikely that the source of heat energy was chemical in origin.

So here he is speculating on the origin, or, specifically, what is not the origin. Integrating power to determine excess energy can be quite sensitive to some systematic artifact, error would accumulate. Again, there is a show of precision in the numbers. What would be a standard error calculation? In SRI presentation of the Case experiment, where integrated energy was plotted against helium measurements, the error bars grow very large as the experiment proceeds. That shows the issue. Without error calculations, based on actual data variance, the significance of the result may be unclear.

(images can be seen in the original abstract) The full report (which will be reviewed below):

[1] E. Beiting, “Investigation of the nickel-hydrogen anomalous heat effect,” Aerospace
Report No. ATR-2017-01760, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo CA, USA, May 15, 2017.

Abstract 2

Generation of High-Temperature Samples and Calorimetric Measurement of Thermal Power for the
Study of Ni/H2 Exothermic Reactions

Edward J. Beiting, Dean Romein
TrusTech, USA
(email redacted)

Instrumentation developed to measure heat power from a high-temperature reactor for experimental
trials lasting several weeks is being applied to gas-phase Ni/H2 LENR. We developed a reactor that
can maintain and record temperatures in excess of 1200o C while monitoring pressures exceeding 7
bar. This reactor is inserted into a flowing-fluid calorimeter that allows both temperature rise and
flow rate of the cooling fluid to be redundantly measured by different physical principles. A
computerized data acquisition system was written to automate the collection of more than 20
physical parameters with simultaneous numerical and dual graphical displays comprising both a
strip chart and complete history of key parameters.

Redundant measures, too often neglected. Nice.

The water inlet and outlet temperatures of the calorimeter are simultaneously measured with
thermocouple, RTD, and thermistor sensors. The water flow is passed in series through two
calorimeters and a Hall-effect flow meter. The first calorimeter houses a resistance heater of known
input power, which allows the flow rate to be inferred from the heater power and water inlet and
outlet temperature difference. Careful calibration of this system produces a nominal accuracy and
precision of ±1 W.

“Nominal accuracy and precision.” I.e., not measured. Not so nice. Was this correctly stated? The full report claims XP on the order of 1 W. 

The reactor is constructed by tightly wrapping Kanthal wire around an alumina tube, which is
embedded in ceramic-fiber insulation (see Figures 1 and 2). The length of the alumina tube is
chosen so that its unheated end remains below 100o C when the interior volume of the heated end is
1300o C. During use the internal reactor temperature is inferred from two type-N thermocouples
fixed to the outside of the reactor using a previously made calibration that employed internal
thermocouples. Using external thermocouples have advantages: the thermocouple metals cannot
react with the reactants; the thermocouples are kept at lower temperatures (usually < 1000C)
increasing the thermocouple’s life and accuracy; no high pressure/vacuum feedthrough is required;
no high temperature electrical insulation isolating the thermocouple from the reactants is necessary.

The design gives me a headache, trying to understand the implications of that drastic temperature gradient across the length of the alumina tube. The reasons all sound good, but the road to a very hot place is paved with good reasons. We’ll see how this is handled in the report.

This instrumentation is being used to study the gas-phase anomalous heat effect (aka LENR) using
nickel and light hydrogen. Tests are being undertaken using both LiAlH4 and bottled H2 as the
source of hydrogen. The results from these tests will be presented with special emphasis on the
morphology and the cleaning of the surface of the nickel particles, absorption of hydrogen by the
nickel, and excess heat or lack thereof.

All techniques and data will be presented in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility. Nothing will
be deemed proprietary. Source code and documentation of the data acquisition software resulting
from a significant development effort will be distributed on request.

Great. I think the better term would be replicability, i.e., the same techniques could be used. But will anyone actually do this? Results, then, might be reproducible. But what results? At this point my impression is that there were two runs, the second of which is described. What’s the variation or reliability of the result?

That is impossible to determine from such a small sample set. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, one theme of the conference, certainly that of Mike McKubre and myself, was correlation, that much more is needed to progress the field than Yet Another Anecdote, which, so far, this study seems to amount to. Was it a replication? 

The first abstract has the goal as “reproducing results first demonstrated in Japan and later reproduced in the U.S. by a solitary investigator.” This would be a reference to Y. Arata and Y. C. Zhang, ‘Formation of Condensed Metallic Deuterium Lattice and Nuclear Fusion,” Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B, 2002 78(Ser. B), p. 57 2, on the one hand, and, on the other,  B. Ahern, “Program on Technology Innovation: Assessment of Novel Energy Production Mechanisms in a Nanoscale Metal Lattice,” EPRI Report 1025575, Technical Update, August 2012.

Crucial to experiments in this field is the exact material. See the review here of the similar work of the Japanese collaboration, lead author Akito Takahashi.

Arata used “ZrO2, · Pd powder . . .  as metal specimens constructed with nanometer-sized individual Pd particles embedded dispersively into ZrO2, matrix, which were made by annealing amorphous Zr65Pd35 alloy.” However, the paper cited shows a 10 W result, with a “DS-cathode,” which is a technique Arata used to generate very high deuterium pressure. (Confirmed by SRI, long story). This is a very different technique, using different material.

Ahern:

While several research reports from Europe by Piantelli et al. [16] had indicated significant thermal energy output from nanotextured nickel in the presence of hydrogen gas, similar tests conducted under
this EPRI research project produced only milliwatt-scale thermal power release. Based on experimental calorimetric calibrations, the amount of thermal power being produced was estimated to be about
100 milliwatts per degree C of elevation above the value of the outer resistance thermal device (RTD).

In one experiment, researchers used 10-nm nickel powder from Quantum Sphere Corp. The inner RTD was 208o C hotter than the outer RTD (533o C versus 325o C) and represents roughly ~ 21 watts from 5 grams of nanopowder, based on the calibration. The powder maintained this rate of thermal power output for a period of five days when it was terminated for evaluation. There was no sign of degradation of the power output. Researchers, however, were not able to replicate this final experiment due to limited project funding.

Anecdote. So, perhaps Beiting was trying to replicate that high-output experiment? No. And I see this over and over in the field. Promising avenues are abandoned because they still are not good enough, and researchers, instead of nailing down and confirming what has come before, want to try something new, perhaps hoping that some miracle will cause their experiment to melt down. (and if it does, they won’t be ready for it!)

Beiting was using “Ni:Pd particles (20:1 molar ratio) embedded in micron-sized
particles of an inert refractory of ZrO2.”  But that is not all that was in the mix. From the full report:

Because it was an internally funded modest program, the goal was not to create a research effort to study its origin but to demonstrate reproducibility of previous work. If demonstration was successful and convincing, the hope was that this work would stimulate a subsequent larger effort.

To this end, a review of the gas-phase AHE results was made when this project was initiated in 2013 to find
an observation likely to be reproduced. Three criteria were considered to increase probability of achieving
this goal: a complete description of material preparation was required; a simple triggering mechanism was desirable to reduce the experimental complexity; and at least one reproduction of the manifestation of
excess heat† of non-chemical origin using the method should be documented by an independent investigator. At the time of this survey, only the work by Arata and Zhang [4] in Japan as reproduced by Ahern [5] in the United States met these three requirements.‡

Only to someone naive about the history of LENR research. Experiments which are vaguely similiar are often considered “confirmations.” There is commonly a lack of extended experimental sets with a single variable. The Takahashi ICCF-21 report barely begins to address this, in parts. Not realizing the danger, Beiting bet the farm on a new and unconfirmed approach. My emphasis:

This method employs a simple heat-triggering mechanism on a powder of micron-sized particles of ZrO2 imbedded with nanometer-sized particles of a nickel (with a small admixture of palladium). The active material used in the work presented in this report differs from that of Refs. [4] and [5] by the addition of magnetic particles. This addition was made with the desire of increasing the probability of observing excess energy, based on reports by other investigators [6] and the initial experimental trial in this work. Other than these additional particles, the material used here was identical to that used by Refs. [4] and [5].

Sounds like multiple reports, eh? No, this was one paper by one working group, a private company, led by Mitchell Swartz, using a proprietary device, the NANOR. And they did not use ground-up magnets. I’ll come back to that.

The Arata and Zhang report experiment was  not heat-triggered, and Ahern was not a replication of it. There were similarities, that’s all.

Ref 6 was  M. Swartz, G. Verner, J. Tolleson, L. Wright, R. Goldbaum, and P. Hagelstein, “Amplification and Restoration of Energy Gain Using Fractionated Magnetic Fields on ZrO2-PdD Nanostructured Components,” J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15, 66-80 (2015). Exactly what was found from the “fractionated magnetic fields” isn’t clearly presented, but the authors were obviously impressed. (Only two DC field data points with an effect are shown). Beiting did not do what they did, though! 

In this case, it was discovered that high intensity, dynamic, repeatedly fractionated magnetic fields have a major, significant and unique synchronous amplification effect on the preloaded NANOR®-type LANR device under several conditions of operation.

No details were given, only vague hints. This must be proprietary information, not surprising for a commercial effort. I have no idea what “fractionated magnetic field” means. Much Swartz language is idiosyncratic. Google finds only the JCMNS article for the term.

The Beiting experiment was one-off, not replication. That is unfortunate, because the relatively weak results cannot then be strengthened by other reports. The original goal seems to have been lost in the shuffle. 

I will continue study of the actual Beiting report, but am publishing this today as a draft, based on the abstracts and the single issue from the report about what the work was intended to confirm.

Yes, Virgina, there is a cabal

A link to this was posted here, and I didn’t see it until recently. By itself, this is only a rant of a disturbed fanatic skeptic, who is known to lie, but there are breadcrumbs, pieces that fit together over time, and this comment caused the picture to pop into view. I wrote in 2009, there is a cabal, presented evidence of de-facto coordinated editing on Wikipedia, by a faction. I did not claim that this violated policy, in itself, but the effect was a warping of Wikipedia process, and I wanted ArbComm to look at that. Unfortunately, ArbComm was infected by the cabal or the cabal point of view.

The cabal uses attack dogs to create a cloud of confusion that allows others to intervene to “prevent disruption,” blaming the target and the dogs, and the dogs don’t care, because there is an endless supply of dogs, a dog can be created from any non-blocked IP.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

From later research and evidence, this was Darryl L. Smith. The story matches information from his twin brother, Oliver D. Smith.

Takahashi and New Hydrogen Energy

Today I began and completed a review of Akito Takahashi’s presentation on behalf of a collaboration of groups, using the 55 slides made available. Eventually, I hope to see a full paper, which may resolve some ambiguities. Meanwhile, this work shows substantial promise.

This is the first substantial review of mine coming out of ICCF-21, which, I declared, the first day, would be a breakthrough conference.

I was half-way out-of-it for much of the conference, struggling with some health issues, exacerbated by the altitude. I survived. I’m stronger. Yay!

Comments and corrections are invited on the reviews, or on what will become a series of brief summaries.

The title of the presentation: Research Status of Nano-Metal Hydrogen Energy. There are 17 co-authors, affiliated with four universities (Kyushu, Tohoku, Kobe, and Nagoya), and two organizations (Technova and Nissan Motors). Funding was reportedly $1 million US, for October 2015 to October 2017.

This was a major investigation, finding substantial apparent anomalous heat in many experiments, but this work was, in my estimation, exploratory, not designed for clear confirmation of a “lab rat” protocol, which is needed. They came close, however, and, to accomplish that goal, they need do little more than what they have already done, with tighter focus. I don’t like presenting “best results,” from an extensive experimental series, it can create misleading impressions.

The best results were from experiments at elevated temperatures, which requires heating the reactor, which, with the design they used, requires substantial heating power. That is not actually a power input to the reactor, however, and if they can optimize these experiments, as seems quite possible, they appear to be generating sufficient heat to be able to maintain elevated temperature for a reactor designed to do that. (Basically, insulate the reactor and provide heating and cooling as needed, heating for startup and cooling once the reactor reaches break-even — i.e., generating enough heat to compensate for heat losses). The best result was about 25 watts, and they did not complete what I see as possible optimization.

They used differential scanning calorimetry to identify the performance of sample fuel mixtures. I’d been hoping to see this kind of study for quite some time. This work was the clearest and most interesting of the pages in the presentation; what I hope is that they will do much more of that, with many more samples. Then, I hope that they will identify a lab rat (material and protocol) and follow it identically with many trials (or sometimes with a single variation, but there should be many iterations with a single protocol.

They are looking forward to optimization for commercial usage, which I think is just slightly premature. But they are close, assuming that followup can confirm their findings and demonstrate adequate reliability.

It is not necessary that this work be fully reliable, as long as results become statistically predictable, as shown by actual variation in results with careful control of conditions.

Much of the presentation was devoted to Takahashi’s TSC theory, which is interesting in itself, but distracting, in my opinion, from what was most important about this report. The experimental work is consistent with Takahashi theory, but does not require it, and the work was not designed to deeply vet TSC predictions.

Time was wasted in letting us know that if cold fusion can be made practical, it will have a huge impact on society. As if we need to hear that for the n thousandth time. I’ve said that if I see another Rankin diagram, I’d get sick. Well, I didn’t, but be warned. I think there are two of them.

Nevertheless, this is better hot-hydrogen LENR work than I’ve seen anywhere before. I’m hoping they have helium results (I think they might,) which could validate the excess heat measures for deuterium devices.

I’m recommending against trying to scale up to higher power until reliability is nailed.

Update, July 1, 2018

There was reference to my Takahashi review on LENR Forum, placed there by Alain Coetmeur, which is appreciated. He misspelled my name. Ah, well!

Some comments from there:

Alan Smith wrote:

Abd wrote to Akito Takahashi elsewhere.

“I am especially encouraged by the appearance of a systematic approach, and want to encourage that.”

A presumptuous comment for for somebody who is not an experimenter to make to a distinguished scientist running a major project don’t you think? I think saying ‘the appearance’ really nails it. He could do so much better.

That comment was on a private mailing list, and Smith violated confidentiality by publishing it. However, no harm done — other than by his showing no respect for list rules.

I’ll point out that I was apparently banned on LENR Forum, in early December, 2016, by Alan Smith. The occasion was shown by my last post. For cause explained there, and pending resolution of the problem (massive and arbitrary deletions of posts — by Alan Smith — without notice or opportunity for recovery of content), I declared a boycott. I was immediately perma-banned, without notice to me or the readership.

There was also an attempt to reject all “referrals” to LENR Forum from this blog, which was easily defeated and was then abandoned. But it showed that the problem on LF was deeper than Alan Smith, since that took server access. Alan Coetmeur (an administrator there) expressed helplessness, which probably implicated the owner, and this may have all been wrapped in support for Andrea Rossi.

Be that as it may, I have excellent long-term communication with Dr. Takahashi. I was surprised to see, recently, that he credited me in a 2013 paper for “critical comments,” mistakenly as “Dr. Lomax”, which is a fairly common error (I notified him I have no degree at all, much less a PhD.) In that comment quoted by Smith, “appearance” was used to mean “an act of becoming visible or noticeable; an arrival,” not as Smith interpreted it. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

I did, in the review, criticize aspects of the report, but that’s my role in the community, one that I was encouraged to assume, not by myself alone, but by major researchers who realize that the field needs vigorous internal criticism and who have specifically and generously supported me to that end.

Shane D. wrote:

Abd does not have much good to say about the report, or the presentation delivery.

For those new to the discussion, this report…the result of a collaboration between Japanese universities, and business, has been discussed here under various threads since it went public. Here is a good summation: January 2018 Nikkei article about cold fusion

Overall, my fuller reaction was expressed here, on this blog post. I see that the format (blog post here, detailed review as the page linked from LF) made that less visible, so I’ll fix that. The Nikkei article is interesting, and for those interested in Wikipedia process, that would be Reliable Source for Wikipedia. Not that it matters much!

Update July 3, 2018

I did complain to a moderator of that private list, and Alan edited his comment, removing the quotation. However, what he replaced it with is worse.

I really like Akito. Wonderful man. And a great shame Abd treats his work with such disdain.

I have long promoted the work of Akito Takahashi, probably the strongest theoretician working on the physics of LENR. His experimental work has been of high importance, going back decades. It is precisely because of his position in the field that I was careful to critique his report. The overall evaluation was quite positive, so Smith’s comment is highly misleading.

Not that I’m surprised to see this from him. Smith has his own agenda, and has been a disaster as a LENR Forum moderator. While he may have stopped the arbitrary deletions, he still, obviously, edits posts without showing any notice.

This was my full comment on that private list (I can certainly quote myself!)

Thanks, Dr. Takahashi. Your report to ICCF-21 was of high interest, I have reviewed it here:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iccf-21/abstracts/review/takahashi/

I am especially encouraged by the appearance of a systematic approach, and want to encourage that.

When the full report appears, I hope to write a summary to help promote awareness of this work.

I would be honored by any corrections or comments.

Disdain? Is Smith daft?

Takahashi

Overall reaction to this presentation is in a blog post. This review goes over each slide with comments, and may seem overly critical. However, from the post:

. . . this is better hot-hydrogen LENR work than I’ve seen anywhere before. 

Abstract

Research Status of Nano-Metal Hydrogen Energy

Akito Takahashi1, Akira Kitamura16, Koh Takahashi1, Reiko Seto1, Yuki Matsuda1, Yasuhiro Iwamura4, Takehiko Itoh4, Jirohta Kasagi4, Masanori Nakamura2, Masanobu Uchimura2, Hidekazu Takahashi2,
Shunsuke Sumitomo2, Tatsumi Hioki5, Tomoyoshi Motohiro5, Yuichi Furuyama6, Masahiro Kishida3,
Hideki Matsune3
1Technova Inc., 2Nissan Motors Co., 3Kyushu University, 4Tohoku University, 5Nagoya University and
6Kobe University

Two MHE facilities at Kobe University and Tohoku University and a DSC (differential
scanning calorimetry) apparatus at Kyushu University have been used for excess-heat
generation tests with various multi-metal nano-composite samples under H(or D)-gas
charging. Members from 6 participating institutions have joined in planned 16 times
test experiments in two years (2016-2017). We have accumulated data for heat generation
and related physical quantities at room-temperature and elevated- temperature conditions,
in collaboration. Cross-checking-style data analyses were made in each party and
compared results for consistency. Used nano-metal composite samples were PS(Pd-SiO2)
-type ones and CNS(Cu-Ni-SiO2)-type ones, fabricated by wet-methods, as well as PNZ
(Pd-Ni-Zr)-type ones and CNZ(Cu-Ni-Zr)-type ones, fabricated by melt-spinning and
oxidation method. Observed heat data for room temperature were of chemical level.

Results for elevated-temperature condition: Significant level excess-heat evolution data
were obtained for PNZ-type, CNZ-type CNS-type samples at 200-400℃ of RC (reaction
chamber) temperature, while no excess heat power data were obtained for single nanometal
samples as PS-type and NZ-type. By using binary-nano-metal/ceramics-supported
samples as melt-span PNZ-type and CNZ-type and wet-fabricated CNS-type, we
observed excess heat data of maximum 26,000MJ per mol-H(D)-transferred or 85 MJ
per mol-D of total absorption in sample, which cleared much over the aimed target value
of 2MJ per mol-H(D) required by NEDO. Excess heat generation with various Pd/Ni
ratio PNZ-type samples has been also confirmed by DSC (differential scanning
calorimetry) experiments, at Kyushu University, using very small 0.04-0.1g samples at
200 to 500℃ condition to find optimum conditions for Pd/Ni ratio and temperature. We
also observed that the excess power generation was sustainable with power level of 10-
24 W for more than one month period, using PNZ6 (Pd1Ni10/ZrO2) sample of 120g at
around 300℃. Detail of DSC results will be reported separately. Summary results of
material analyses by XRD, TEM, STEM/EDS, ERDA, etc. are to be reported elsewhere.


Slides

ICCF21AkitoTakahashippt

REVIEW

  • Page 1: ResearchGate cover page
  • Page 2: Title
  • Page 3: MHE Aspect: Anomalously large heat can be generated by the
    interaction of nano-composite metals and H(D)-gas.
  • Page 4Candidate Reaction Mechanism: CCF/TSC-theory by Akito Takahashi


This is a summary of Takahashi TSC theory. Takahashi found that the rate of 3D fusion in experiments where PdD was bombarded by energetic deuterons was enhanced 10^26, as I recall, over naive plasma expectation. This led him to investigate multibody fusion. 4D, to someone accustomed to thinking of plasma fusion, may seem ridiculously unlikely; however, this is actually only two deuterium molecules. We may image two deuterium molecules approaching each other in a plasma and coming to rest at the symmetric position as they are slowed by repulsion of the electron clouds. However, this cannot result in fusion in free space, because the forces would dissociate the molecules, they would slice each other in two. However, in confinement, where the dissociating force may be balanced by surrounding electron density, it may be possible. Notable features: the Condensate that Takahashi predicts includes the electrons. Fusion then occurs by tunneling to 100% within about a femtosecond; Takahashi uses Quantum Field Theory to predict the behavior. To my knowledge, it is standard QFT, but I have never seen a detailed review by someone with adequate knowledge of the relevant physics. Notice that Takahashi does not detail how the TSC arises. We don’t know enough about the energy distribution of deuterium in PdD to do the math. Because the TSC and resulting 8Be are so transient, verifying this theory could be difficult.

Takahashi posits a halo state resulting from this fusion that allows the 8Be nucleus, with a normal half-life of around a femtosecond, to survive long enough to radiate most of the energy as a Burst of Low-Energy Photons (BOLEP), and suggests a residual energy per resulting helium nucleus of 40 – 50 KeV, which is above the Hagelstein limit, but close enough that some possibility remains. (This energy left is the mass difference of the ground state for 8Be over two 4He nuclei.)

Notice that Takahashi does not specify the nature of the confining trap that allows the TSC to arise. From experimental results, particularly where helium is found, the reaction takes place on the surface, not in the bulk, so the trap must only be found on (or very near) the surface. Unless a clear connection is shown, this theory is dicta, not really related to the meat of the presentation, experimental results.

  • Page 5: Comparison of Energy-Density for Various Sources.  We don’t need this fluff. (The energy density, if “cold fusion” is as we have found, is actually much higher, because it is a surface reaction, but density is figured for the bulk. Bulk of what? Not shown. Some LENR papers present a Rankin diagram, which is basically the same. It’s preaching to the choir; it was established long ago and is not actually controversial: if “cold fusion” is real, it could have major implications, providing practical applications can be developed, which remains unclear. What interests us (i.e., the vast majority of those at an ICCF conference) is two-fold: experimental results, rather than complex interpretations, and progress toward control and reliability.
  • Page 6: Comparison of Various Energy Resources. Please, folks, don’t afflict this on us in what is, on the face, an experimental report. What is given in this chart is to some extent obvious, to some extent speculative. We do not know the economics of practical cold fusion, because it doesn’t exist yet. When we present it, and if this is seen by a skeptic, it confirms the view that we are blinded by dreams. We aren’t. There is real science in LENR, but the more speculation we present, the more resistance we create. Facts, please!!!
  • Page 7. Applications to Society. More speculative fluff. Where’s the beef? (I don’t recall if I was present for this talk. There was at least one where I found myself in an intense struggle to stay awake, which was not helped by the habit of some speakers to speak in a monotone, with no visual or auditory cues as to what is important, and, as untrained speakers (most in the Conference, actually), no understanding of how to engage and inspire an audience. Public speaking is not part of the training of scientists, in general. Some are good at it and become famous. . . . ) (I do have a suggested solution, but will present it elsewhere.)
  • Page 8. Required Conditions to Application: COP, E-density, System-cost. More of the same. Remarkable, though: The minimum power level for a practical application shown is 1 KW. The reported present level is 5 to 20 W. Scientifically, that’s a high level, of high interest, and we are all eager to hear what they have done and found. However, practically, this is far, far from the goal. Note that low power, if reliable, can be increased simply by scaling up (either making larger reactors or making many of them; then cost may become an issue. This is all way premature, still.) By this time, if I was still in the room, I’m about to leave, afraid that I’ll actually fall asleep and start snoring. That’s a bit more frank and honest with our Japanese guest than I’d want to be. (And remember, my sense is that Takahashi theory is the strongest in the field, even if quite incomplete. Storms has the context end more or less nailed, but is weak on theory of mechanism. Hagelstein is working on many details, various trees of possible relevance, but still no forest.)

Page 9. NEDO-MHE Project, by6Parties.
Project Name: Phenomenology and Controllability of New
Exothermic Reaction between Metal and Hydrogen
Parties:Technova Inc., Nissan Motors Co., Kyushu U., Tohoku U., Nagoya U., Kobe U.
Period: October 2015 to October 2017 R. Fund:ca. 1.0 M USD
Aim :To verify existence of anomalous heat effect (AHE) in nano-metal and hydrogen-gas interaction and to seek controllability of effect
Done:New MHE-calorimetry system at Tohoku U. Collaboration experiments to verify AHE. Sample material analyses before and after runs. Study for industrial application

Yay! I’ll keep my peace for now on the “study for industrial application.” Was that part of the charge? It wasn’t mentioned.

Page 10. Major Results Obtained. 
1. Installation of new MHE calorimetry facility and collaborative tests
2. 16 collaborative test experiments to have verified the existence of AHE (Pd-Ni/ZrO2, CuNi/ZrO2)
3. generation of 10,000 times more heat than bulk-Pd H-absorption heat, AHE by Hydrogen, ca. 200 MJ/mol-D is typical case
4. Confirmation of AHE by DSC-apparatus with small samples

“Typical case” hides the variability. The expression of results in heat/moles of deuterium is meaningless without more detail. Not good. The use of differential scanning calorimetry  is of high interest.

  • Page 11. New MHE Facility at ELPH Tohoku U. (schematic) (photo)
  • Page 12. MHE Calorimetry Test System at Kobe University, since 2012 (photo)
  • Page 13. Schematics of MHE Calorimetry Test System at Kobe University, since 2012

System has 5 or 6 thermocouples (TC3 is not shown).

  • Page 14. Reaction Chamber (500 cc) and filler + sample; common for Tohoku and Kobe

Reaction chamber is the same for both test systems. It contains 4 RTDs.

  • Page 15. Melt-Spinning/Oxidation Process for Making Sample
  • Page 16Atomic composition for Pd1Ni10/ZrO2 (PNZ6, PNZ6r) and Pd1Ni7/ZrO2 (PNZ7k)
  • Page 17. 6 [sic, 16?] Collaborative Experiments. Chart showing results from 14 listed tests, 8 from Kobe, 5 from Tohoku, and listing one DSC study from Kyushu.

These were difficult to decode. Some tests were actually two tests, one at RT (Room Temperature) and another at ET (Elevated Temperature). Other than the DSC test, the samples tested were all different in some way, or were they?

  • Page 18. Typical hydrogen evolution of LM and power in PNZ6#1-1 phase at Room Temp. I have a host of questions. “LM” is loading (D/Pd*Ni), and is taken up to 3.5. Pressure?

“20% difference between the integrated values evaluated from TC2 and those
from RTDav : due to inhomogeneity of the 124.2-g sample distributed in the
ZrO2 [filler].” How do we know that? What calibrations were done? Is this test 14 from Page 17? If so, the more optimistic result was included in the table summary. The behavior is unclear.

Page 19. Using Same Samples divided(CNZ5=Cu1Ni7/ZrO2)100g, parallel tests. This would be test 4 (Kobe, CNZ5), test 6 (Tohoku, CNZ5s)

The labs are not presenting data in the same format. It is unclear what is common and what might be different. The behaviors are not the same, regardless, which is suspicious if the samples are the same and they are treated the same. The difference, then, could be in the calorimetry or other aspects of the protocol not controlled well. The input power is not given in the Kobe plot. (This is the power used to maintain elevated temperature). It is in the Tohoku plot, it is 80 W, initially, then is increased to 134 W.

“2~8W of AHE lasted for a week at Elevated Temp. (H-gas)” is technically sort-of correct for the Kobe test (i.e., between 2 and 8 watts of AHP (this is power, not energy)  started out at 8 W average and declined steadily until it reached 2 W after 3.5 days. Then it held at roughly this level for three days, then there is an unexplained additional brief period at about 4 W. The Tohoku test showed higher power, but quite erratically. After almost rising to 5 W, for almost a day, it collapsed to zero, then rose to 2 W. Then, if this is plotted correctly, the input power was increased to raise the temperature. (for an environmental temperature, which  this was intended to be, the maintenance power is actually irrelevant, it should be thermostatically controlled — and recorded, of course. Significant XP would cause a reduction in maintenance power, as a check. But if they used constant maintenance power, then we would want to know the environment temperature, which should rise with XP. But only a little in this experiment, XP being roughly 2% of heating power. At about 240 hours, the XP jumped to about 3.5 W. I have little confidence in the reliability of this data, without knowing much more than is presented.

Page 20. 14-th Coll. Test(PNZ6): Largest AHE Data 

“Wex: 20W to 10W level excess-power lasted for a month.” This is puffery, cherry-picking data from a large set to create an impressive result. Yes, we would want to know the extremes, but both extremes, and we would even more want to know what is reliable and reproducible. This work is still “exploratory,” it is not designed, so far, to develop reliability and confidence data. The results so far are erratic, indicating poor control. Instead of using one material — it would not need to be the “best” — they have run a modest number of tests with different materials. Because of unclear nomenclature, it’s hard to say how many were different. One test is singled out as being the same material in two batches. I’d be far more interested in the same material in sixteen batches, all with an effort that they be thoroughly mixed, as uniform as possible, before dividing them. Then I’d want to see the exact same protocol run, as far as possible, in the sixteen experiments. Perhaps the only difference would be the exact calorimetric setup, and I’d want to see dummy runs in both setups with “fuel” not expected to be nuclear-active.

One of the major requirements for calorimetric work, too often neglected, is to understand the behavior of the calorimeter thoroughly, across the full range of experimental conditions. This is plodding work, boring. But necessary.

  • Page 21. Excess power, Wex, integrated excess heat per metal atom, Ea (keV/a-M), and
    excess energy per hydrogen isotope atom absorbed/desorbed, ηav,j (keV/aD(H)),
    in RT and ET phases evaluated by TC2 temp. Re-calcined PNZ6.
  • Page 22. Peculiar evolution of temperature in D-PNZ6r#1-2 phase: Re-calcined PNZ6
  • Page 23. PNZ5r sample: baking (#0) followed by #1 – #3 run (Rf = 20 ccm mostly)
  • Page 24Local large heat:Pd/Ni=1/7, after re-calcination of PNZ5. Uses average of RTDs rather than flow thermocouple.
  • Page 25. Excess heat-power evolution for D and H gas: Re-calcined PNZ5.
  • Page 26. About 15 cc 100g PNZ5r powder + D2 gas generated over 100 MJ/mol-D anomalous excess heat:
    Which is 5,000 times of 0.02 MJ/mol-D by PdD formation! More fluff, that assumes there is no systematic error, distracting from the lack of a consistent experiment repeated many times, and that this is not close to commercial practicality. I was really hoping that they had moved into reliability study.
  • Page 27. Radiations and flow rate of coolant BT400; n and gamma levels are natural BG. No radiation above background.
  • Page 28. Excess Power Evolution by CNS2(Cu1Ni7/meso-silica). Appears to show four trials with that sample, from 2014, i.e., before the project period. Erratic results.
  • Page 29. Sample Holder/Temperature-Detection of DSC Apparatus Kyushu University; M. Kishida, et al. photo)
  • Page 30. DSC Measuring Conditions: Kyushu University.
    Sample Amount: 40~100 mg
    Temperature : 25 ~ 550 ℃
    Temp. Rise Rate: 5 ℃/min
    Hydrogen Flow: 70 ml/min
    Keeping Temp.: 200~550 ℃,mainly 450℃
    Keeping Period: 2 hr ~ 24 hr,mostly 2hr
    Blank Runs : He gas flow
    Foreground Runs: H2 gas flow

See Wikipedia, Differential Scanning Calorimetry. I don’t like the vague variations: “mainly,” “mostly.” But we’ll see.

  • Page 31. DSC Experiments at Kyushu University. No Anomalous Heat was observed for Ni and ZrO2 samples.
  • Page 32. DSC Experiments at Kyushu University. Anomalous Heat was observed for PNZ(Pd1Ni7/ZrO2 samples. Very nice, clear. 43 mW/gram. Consistency across different sample sizes?
  • Page 33. Results by DSC experiments: Optimum running temperature For Pd1Ni7/zirconia sample.
  • Page 34. Results by DSC experiments; Optimum Pd/Ni Ratio. If anyone doesn’t want more data before concluding that 1:7 is optimal, raise your hand. Don’t be shy! We learn fastest when we are wrong. They have a decent number of samples at low ratio, with the heat increasing with the Ni, but then only one data point above the ratio of 7. That region is of maximum interest if we want to maximize heat. One point can be off for many reasons, and, besides, where is the actual maximum? As well, the data for 7 could be the bad point. It actually looks like the outlier. Correlation! Don’t leave home without it. Gather lots of data with exact replication or a single variable . Science! Later, on P. 44, Takahashi provides a possible explanation for an optimal value somewhere around 1:7., but the existence of an “explanation” does not prove the matter.
  • Page 35. Summary Table of Integrated Data for Observed Heat at RT and ET. 15 samples. The extra one is PNZt, the first listed.
  • Page 36. Largest excess power was observed by PNZ6 (Pd1Ni10/ZrO2) 120g.  That was 25 W. This contradicts the idea that the optimal Pd/Ni ratio is 1:7, pointing to a possible flyer in the DSC data at Pd/Ni 1:7, which was used for many experiments. It is possible from the DSC data, then, that 100% Ni would have even higher power results (or 80 or 90%). Except for that single data point, power was increasing with Ni ratio, consistently and clearly. (I’d want to see a lot more data points, but that’s what appears from what was done.) This result (largest) was consistent between #1 and #2. I’m assuming that (“#”) means two identical subsamples.
  • Page 37. Largest heat per transferred-D, 270 keV/D was observed by PNZ6r (re-oxidized). This result was not consistent between #1 and #2.
  • Page 38. STEM/EDS mapping for CNS2 sample, showing that Ni and Cu atoms are included in the same pores of the mp-silica with a density ratio approximately equal to the mixing ratio.
  • Page 39. Pd-Ni nano-structure components are only partial [partial what?] (images)
  • Page 40. Obtained Knowledge. I want to review again before commenting much on this. Optimal Pd/Ni was not determined. The claim is no XE for pure Pd. I don’t see that pure Ni was tested. (I.e., PZ) Given that the highest power was seen at the highest Ni:Pd (10), that’s a major lacuna.
  • Page 41. 3. Towards Application(next-R&D).
    Issue / Subjective [Objective?] / Method
    Increase Power / Present ca. 10W to 500-1000W or more / Increase reaction rate
    ・temperature, pressure
    ・increase sample nano
    ・high density react. site
    Enhance COP / Now 1.2; to 3.0~5.0
    Control / Find factors, theory / Speculation by experiments, construct theory
    Lower cost / Low cost nanocomposites / Optimum binary, lower cost fabrication

I disagree that those are the next phase. The first phase would ideally identify and confirm a reasonably optimal experiment. That is not actually complete, so completing it would be the next phase. This completion would use DSC to more clearly and precisely identify an optimal mixture (with many trials). A single analytical protocol would be chosen and many experiments run with that single mixture and protocol. Combining this with exploration, in attempt to “improve,” except in a very limited and disciplined way, will increase confusion. The results reported already show very substantial promise. 10-25 watts, if that can be shown to be reasonably reliable and predictable, is quite enough. Higher power at this point could make the work much more complex, so keep it simple.

Higher power then, could be easy, by scaling up, and then, as well, increasing COP could be easy by insulating the reactor to reduce heat loss rate. With sufficient scale and insulation, the reaction should be able to become self-sustaining, i.e., maintaining the necessary elevated environmental temperature with its own power.

Theory of mechanism is almost completely irrelevant at this point. Once there is an identified lab rat, then there is a test bed for attempting to verify — or rule out — theories. Without that lab rat, it could take centuries. At this point, as well, low cost (i.e., cost of materials and processing) is not of high significance. It is far more important at this time to create and measure reliability. Once there is a reliable experiment, as shown by exact and single-variable replications, then there is a standard to apply in comparing variables and exploring variations, and cost trade-0ffs can be made. But with no reliable reactor, improving cost is meaningless.

This work was almost there, could have been there, if planned to complete and validate a lab rat. DSC, done just a little more thoroughly, could have strongly verified an optimal material. It is a mystery to me why the researchers settled on Pd/Ni of 7. (I’m not saying that’s wrong, but it was not adequately verified, as far as what is reported in the presentation.

Within a design that was still exploratory, it makes sense, but moving from exploration to confirmation and measuring reliability is a step that should not be skipped, or the probability is high that millions of dollars in funding could be wasted, or at least not optimally used. One step at a time wins, in the long run.

APPENDIX ON THEORETICAL MODELS

  • Page 42. Brief View of Theoretical Models, Akito Takahashi, Professor Emeritus Osaka U. For appendix of 2016-9-8 NEDO hearing. (title page)
  • Page 43. The Making of Mesoscopic Catalyst To Scope CMNR AHE on/in Nano-Composite particles.
  • Page 44. Binary-Element Metal Nano-Particle Catalyst. This shows the difference between Ni/Pd 3 and Ni/Pd 7, at the size of particle being used. An optimal ratio might vary with particle size, following this thinking. Studying this would be a job for DSC.
  • Page 45SNH will be sites for TSC-formation. To say that more generically, these would be possible Nuclear Active environment (NAE). I don’t see that “SNH” is defined, but it would seem to refer to pores in a palladium coating on a nickel nanoparticle, creating possible traps.
  • Page 46. Freedom of rotation is lost for the first trapped D2, and orthogonal coupling
    with the second trapped D2 happens because of high plus charge density localization
    of d-d pair and very dilute minus density spreading of electrons. Plausible.
  • Page 47. TSC Langevin Equation. This equation is from “Study on 4E/Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate Condensation Motion by Non-Linear Lengevin Equation,” Akito Takahashi and Norio Yabuuchi, in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, ed. Marwan and Krivit (2008) — not 2007 as shown. See also “Development status of condensed cluster
    fusion theory” Akito Takahashi, Current Science, 25 February, 2015, and Takahashi, A.. “Dynamic Mechanism of TSC Condensation Motion,” in ICCF-14, 2008.
  • Page 48. (plots showing simulations, first, oscillation of Rdd (d-d separation in pm) and Edd  (in ev), with a period of roughly 10 fs, and, second, “4D/TSC Collapse”, which takes about a femtosecond from a separation of about 50 pm to full collapse, Rdd shown as 20 fm.)
  • Page 49. Summary of Simulation Results. for various multibody configurations. (Includes muon-catalyzed fusion.)
  • Page 50.  Trapped D(H)s state in condensed cluster makes very enhanced fusion rate. “Collision Rate Formula UNDERESTIMATES fusion rate of steady molecule/cluster/” Yes, it would, i.e., using plasma collision rates.
  • Page 51. This image is a duplicate of Page 4, reproduced above.
  • Page 52. TSC Condensation Motion; by the Langevin Eq.: Condensation Time = 1.4 fs for 4D and 1.0 fs for 4H Proton Kinetic Energy INCREASES as Rpp decreases.
  • Page 53. 4H/TSC will condense and collapse under rather long time chaotic oscilation Near weak nuclear force enhanced p-e distance.
  • Page 544H/TSC Condensation Reactions. collapse to 4H, emission of electron and neutrino (?) to form 4Li*, prompt decay to 3He + p. Color me skeptical, but maybe. Radiation? 3He (easily detectable)?
  • Page 55. Principle is Radiation-Less Condensed Cluster Fusion. Predictions, see “Nuclear Products of Cold Fusion by TSC Theory,” Akito Takahashi, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015, pp 11-22).

Fake facts and true lies

This a little “relax after getting home” exploration of a corner of Planet Rossi, involving Mats Lewan — but, it turns out, only very peripherally –, Frank Acland’s interview of Andrea Rossi just the other day (June 11), and some random comments on E-Cat World, easily categorized under the time-wasting “Someone is wrong on the internet.” Continue reading “Fake facts and true lies”

ICCF-21 Detailed Agenda

IICF-21 Detailed Agenda =  (original on ICCF-21 web site)

SHORT COURSE SPEAKERS (Sunday 3 June 2018)

  • 10:00 Introduction and Issues, David Nagel
  • 10:40 Electrochemical Loading, Michael McKubre
  • 11:20 Gas Loading, Jean-Paul Biberian
  • 12:00 Lunch
  • 13:30 Calorimetry and Heat Data, Dennis Letts
  • 14:10 Transmutation Data, Mahadeve (Chino) Srinivasan
  • 14:50 Break
  • 15:10 Materials Challenges, M. Ashraf Imam
  • 15:50 Theoretical Considerations, Peter Hagelstein
  • 16:30 Commercialization, Dana Seccombe & Steve Katinsky
  • 17:00 (end)

REGULAR CONFERENCE PROGRAM

18:00 Reception

20:00 Lounge

 

Farzan

Amini-Farzan-1 POSTER Warp Drive Hydro Model For Interactions Between Hydrogen and Nickel

The effects of infinity can be studied in hyperbolic model.

Perhaps something has been missed in translation. Warp drive? Hello?

Perhaps the effects of hyperbole are infinitesimal, compared to infinity. Anything real is.

Alexandrov

Alexandrov-Dimiter-1 Experiment and Theory Th 1:52 Nuclear fusion in solids – experiments and theory

This calls itself about “low temperature nuclear reaction,” but appears to be reporting 3He and 4He from plasma interactions, I don’t find it completely clear (some is solid state, some is gas phase. “Heavy electron” theory is proposed, whereas heavy electrons would be expected to be like muons, creating the same branching ratio. It’s formatted as a wall of text, with repetitious excuses as to why this or that wasn’t seen. What, exactly *was* seen, and why should be think this is significant?

From an altitude

Thanks to the generosity of donors to Infusion Institute, I’m airborne on my way to Denver, and while I’m a dedicated skinflint, and Southwest charges $8 for in-flight internet access, I decided to pay it, and gain three hours of work on the blog. I’m reading the ICCF-21 abstracts and will make short reviews as I slog through them ah, read them with intense fascination and anticipation. I’ll be at the Conference site tomorrow, all day. Some of those with large hairpieces (hah! big wigs) will be arriving tomorrow evening. I’ll be in the Short Course on Sunday. It is being guided by the best scientists in the field, this should be Fun! Yay,Fun!

The first abstract I’ve read is:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iccf-21/abstracts/review/afanasyev/

Cold fusion: superfluidity of deuterons.
Afanasyev S.B.

Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation
The nature of cold fusion (CF) is considered. It is supposed that the reaction of deuterons merger takes place due to one deuteron, participating in the superfluidity motion, and one deuterons, not participating in the superfluidity motion, participate in the reaction. The Coulomb barrier is
overcomed due to the kinetic energy of the Bose-condensate motion is very large. The Bosecondensate forms from delocalized deuterons with taking into account that the effective mass of delocalized deuterons is smaller than the free deuterons mass.

etc.

Poster session

Just what we needed!! 28 years of theory formation has done nothing to create what the field needs. However, I consider that what the theoreticians are doing is practicing for the opportunity that will open up when we have enough data about the actual conditions of cold fusion. This paper, I categorize with Kim and Takahashi as proposing fusion through formation of a Bose-Einstein Condensate. Actually understanding the math is generally beyond my pay grade, and my big hope is that the theoreticians will start to criticize — constructively, of course — each other’s work. Until then, I’m impressed that some physicists with chops and credentials are willing to look at this and come up with ideas that, at least, use more-or-less standard physics, extending it into some unknown territory.

The standard reaction to BEC proposals is something like: You HAVE GOT to be kidding! BECs at room temperature??? The temperature argument applies to large BECS, small ones might exist under condensed matter conditions. But that is a problem for this particular theory, which, to distribute the energy and stay below the Hagelstein limit of 10 keV, requires energy distibution among well over a thousand atoms.

Nevertheless, there is this thing about the unknown. It’s unknown!  From Sherlock Holmes, when every possible explanation has been eliminated, it must be an impossible one! Or something like that. I disagree with Holmes, because the world of possible explanations is not limited, we cannot possibly have eliminated all of them. Some explanations become, with time and extensive study, relatively impossible. I.e, fraud  is always possible with a single report, and becomes exponentially less likely with multiple apparently independent reports. Systematic error remains possible until there are substantial and confirmed correlations.

 

Afanasyev

 

Afanasyev-Sergei-1 POSTER Cold fusion: superfluidity of deuterons

#
Afanasyev S.B.
Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation
Email: serg_af@list.ru
The nature of cold fusion (CF) is considered. It is supposed that the reaction of deuterons merger
takes place due to one deuteron, participating in the superfluidity motion, and one deuterons, not
participating in the superfluidity motion, participate in the reaction. The Coulomb barrier is
overcomed due to the kinetic energy of the Bose-condensate motion is very large. The Bosecondensate
forms from delocalized deuterons with taking into account that the effective mass of
delocalized deuterons is smaller than the free deuterons mass.

Review

Posits Bose-Einstein Condensate to overcome Coulomb barrier, energy is distributed among all atoms in the Condensate. Explains reaction rate and helium as product. Class with Kim and Takahashi.

 

Tritium working group

This page is being used to collect indications of interest, and will be expanded to detail a research proposal, currently under discussion on the CMNS mailing list. To indicate interest beyond simply viewing this page (which is a minimal expression of interest) please comment below. If you request that your comment not be published, it will not be published unless you have a previously approved comment (in which case it will be published automatically). Use a real email address, there will be followup directly to you. The email address is not published, and is visible only to administrators here.

Authentic Oliver on RWW

I happened to look at RW Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and found this:

RWW
I made an article on him. (font used does not copy to this blog, this was RW user Bigs) 01:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is he will probably now show up there on accounts & complain to wikia. He spends his life attacking people on his blog, but if someone merely spends 5 minutes writing something about him it’s unacceptable…Callimachus (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, what you wrote was good. I don’t think I will edit and leave it to others. You mentioned Lomax has 29 articles on RationalWiki; he has 51 on me. It’s done to abuse google traffic to my name, i.e. search my real name so the lies and smears show up on his blog.Callimachus (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind and wrote a little. Abd has been divorced 7 (!) times; not surprising is it. Callimachus (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Callimachus is admitting what was already obvious: He is Oliver D. Smith. However, it’s also misleading. I have a few pages on Oliver specifically, but my original contact was with Darryl L. Smith, his twin brother. Oliver was the original Anglo Pyramidologist, but it has been known — or claimed — since 2011 that accounts belonging to both brothers were investigated on Wikipedia under that name. I simply picked up that name for the “sock family.” I was not claiming, and do not believe, that all these were Oliver, and, very likely, the large majority were not. I have also consistently pointed to the possibility that he has been impersonated. There are certain confirmed cases where the Smiths have impersonated others, verified by checkuser, and there is a substantial series of socks impersonating me on RationalWiki. Could those, in turn, be double impersonations, i.e., someone else imitating Smiths impersonating me? It is not impossible, but it all begins to become a Rube Goldberg fantasy. There are far simpler explanations. Impersonation socking is illegal and there is a probability that this will be tested in court.

As to “lies and smears,” I have many times invited Smith to point out errors. He just keeps repeating “lies and smears.” Errors are not lies. However, simply describing what Smith has done will be considered a “smear” by him, even if done with caution and care. On the other hand, Smith and his brother routinely smear others, taking what others have written out of context and twisting it into real defamation.

Meanwhile, Oliver D. Smith’s activity on RationalWikiWiki is quite interesting. I have not complained to Wikia administration, not yet. That wiki is not nearly as damaging, as defamation, as the RationalWiki articles, because the public and some who should know better may treat RationalWiki as a serious site. Bigs is an “angsty teenager,” according to what he wrote about himself on RWW. He is a more or less typical RationalWikian: he likes the idea of rational skepticism but is far, far from actually practicing it. He believes total BS when it’s fed to him by someone he thinks is “on the right side.” That’s classic believer behavior.

To what is on RWW:

Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets

I’ve linked, but what shows now for that page is the deletion log:

00:37, May 26, 2018 Oliver D Smith (wall | contribs) deleted page Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets (moving to http://therationalarchives.wikia.com/wiki/Mikemikev_sockpuppets)
00:40, May 25, 2018 Oliver D Smith (wall | contribs) deleted page Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets (recreating to remove too many edits)

Oliver, especially, has often done this: he spills the beans, thinking he is defending himself, and then realizes and attempts to cover it up. “Recreating to remove too many edits” is BS. It is a fact that making many edits when a few would do is a Smith trait. But did he move the page where he claimed? No. He lied.

But the page was archived, so we have the content. Since the core is a list of alleged socks, taken from the Rightpedia list, with his indications of which ones were him, I reproduce it below.

Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets is a conspiracy-theory-esque article about RationalWiki filled with misinformation, written by the troll Mikemikev on the wiki Rightpedia.[1] The article lists 38 RationalWiki accounts and falsely states they are owned by Oliver D. Smith, furthermore that this is only 1% of the total… the absurd allegation is Smith owns 3800 accounts. In reality, Smith owns only a tiny fraction of the accounts; Mikemikev is known to impersonate Smith on sockpuppets and so some, or even many of these listed accounts are Mikemikev himself.
This is classic Oliver argumentation. He takes what someone has written literally and then turns it into what appears to be an absurdity. Writing to me about the accounts I had documented, he claimed that “99.9%” of them were not him, but his brother. Given how many accounts he has admitted, this would require a very large number of accounts be his brother. In a context like that, the numbers are hyperbole, not literal. When I invited him to identify which accounts were his, he declined, claiming it would be too much work. But he did that work on this page, and then deleted it. He is hiding, and in the end, in correspondence with me, claimed he had been lying about the brother since 2011, that “there is no brother,” and my conclusion is that this is simply One More Lie, which should not be surprising with someone who says he’s been lying to everyone for years, including Tim Farley, an apparent ally and possible supporter of his brother.
In May 2018 Smith contacted Mikemikev on Gab requesting him to remove the ridiculous article; Mikemikev said he isn’t interested in fact-checking who owns all these accounts and admitted to mistakes and lying; he also didn’t deny impersonating Smith, but that he will still blame them all on Smith to abuse Google searches of his name.
There are plenty of examples of where Smith has misrepresented what others wrote. From Smiths’ behavior with me, I can easily imagine that Mikemikev, as an example, said something like “There may  be errors in the list, and I don’t really care if it was you or your brother. Right now, you are very visible on Google and your brother is far less visible, so you can go jump in a lake.” All of that would then be likely to be interpreted by Smith as he has. He complained to me that Michaeldsuarez also didn’t care if it was him or his brother, which I explained to him as “collective responsibility,” which arises when people act in conspiracy and mutually support each other.
I do not agree with many of the identifications on Rightpedia as being Oliver himself. Many are his brother. I do rather doubt that Mikemikev would support the listing there of his own impersonations, if such exist. However, Darryl, Oliver’s brother has listed accounts on RationalWiki as being my socks, when none of the ones listed were me (other than “Abd”), and they were almost certainly created by Darryl (who was Debunking spiritualism and who knew my actual history and behavior and would in addition know that I would not behave as those socks behaved.) Oliver and Darryl are both trolls, who assign no value to honesty and integrity. Their goal is to attack and anger and harm anyone seen as an enemy, which is quite what they think about others, it is not at all surprising.

Account list

† = Smith. ₪ = Not Smith.
Notice how no evidence is presented Smith owns any of these accounts, but in numerous cases it is easy to prove accounts aren’t his, for example Georgie Enkoom is a practising Muslim from Canada and obviously isn’t Smith.[2]
On Wikipedia, they will say, blocking a suspected sock, “see contributions for evidence.”
Georgie Enkoom is, my view, an error, but this account did engage with certain articles, so the error is understandable. As well, Darryl often supports his brother’s positions, and so can look casually like an Oliver sock. On Wikipedia, they decided not to bother with the distinction, both are blocked and they don’t really care which is which. All of the acknowledged Oliver socks above had been identified by me. I generally review the entire edit history of an account, Smith socks show certain very familiar characteristics, and accounts that merely overlap in some way, on one or a few occasions, look quite different.
I will review all this when I have more time. An interesting listing is “–san” (Misnamed above, but the contributions link is accurate.)  –san created an alternate account, “Mike V.” It is easy to see how Mikemikev might think this is Oliver.  I had already seen and suspected Mike V, and on review, concluded that if this was a Smith sock, it was a “good hand” account, with most activity not being “Oliver Obvious.” RationalWiki users are in general snarky and provocative.
So I would not claim this was Oliver. There are other accounts with very few edits; they are disruptive, generally. When I have doubt about an account, I either don’t name it, or put a question mark after it. As well, Oliver has always been welcome to correct errors. I may or may not accept his claims, and Oliver has claimed, remarkably, to have been lying to everyone since 2011, but, regardless, if he denies something I’ve reported, his denial would be reported. This is standard journalism.
Putting this list together with Oliver’s prior claims to me, I can then review identifications and start to specify “Oliver” and “Darryl” and “Possible” more clearly. I have been deprecating Darryl L. Smith for search engines, but that reserve will pass. Darryl was actually, for me and my long-term interests, far more disruptive than Oliver. For others, particular Oliver targets, the reverse is true.
Mikemikev’s has a history of creating accounts impersonating ANTIFAs, or so-called SJWs; the accounts with ANTIFA/anti-fascist/Hope Not Hate in their usernames above are easy to identify as his for his sockpuppet history,[3] while others appear to be impersonating Smith more directly.
I will review those accounts with that possibility in mind, but I already know that in some cases, Mikemikev has been impersonated by Smith socks, and the Smiths have lied about Mikemikev’s public statements. He did not “admit” as they have claimed, that all the Wikipedia socks were him, he merely referred to the Sock Puppet Investigation page there as being “my SPI page” i.e., about him. And some of those socks were indeed him, but Smith claims that all were, when it’s actually preposterous.
With very few exceptions, Smith’s real accounts (†) usually have names related to classics (Aeschylus, Callimachus, Nemean) or video games he plays (Agent 47, i.e. Hitman), but at least one account (not listed above) is an impersonation based on this.[4]
There’s unfortunately no check-user tool on RationalWiki, like on Wikipedia; this means the only way to identify someone’s account is by behaviour (e.g. editing habits[5]) and not by technical evidence such as IP checks.
Right. However, impersonators imitate behaviors. Common for the socks impersonating me on RW: they take something I have written and copy it, then spam it all over the place, and add threats to it and attacks on individual users, accusing them, for example, of being Smith socks, when, in fact, if those users are mentioned on my blog, it would be incidental or as “supporters and enablers,” which explicitly denies that they are suspected socks.
One of the suspected Smith socks actually wrote, on his user page, that it was great that RW had no checkuser tool, because he had created 700 accounts and was basically running the place. Was that an exaggeration? Maybe. Maybe if transient attack socks and short-history impersonation socks are included, it was a rough estimate.
The term for a behavioral test is the “duck test,” and Smith socks actually accused a Wikiversity sysop of being my sock because he also used the term “duck test.” These guys are either idiots or insane or vicious — or all three — they know how to create disruption and confusion, because they often succeed in it.

[redacted]ns

Smith once atypically created a throwaway account with a name unlike all his others; he edited on this account for only a single day in February 2016. Rightpedia and Abd‘s blog claim this account name [redacted]ns was an impersonation of an individual named [redacted]nn, however it clearly wasn’t as the names are visibly different, Smith never claimed to be anyone else and even had no prior communication with the person he was supposed to have impersonated; Rightpedia/Abd are either lying or have a reading comprehension problem.
Smith made that argument to me. The names are visibly different, that’s true (though a casual reader might overlook the difference) but that does not show that the intention here was not impersonation or trolling. Further, not addressed is why Oliver keeps “retiring” but then creating new accounts. The practice is attempting to conceal long-term behavior. This would be blocked on Wikipedia, when it can be shown (i.e., within the checkuser window, assuming that open proxies or TOR nodes are not being used, and even then sometimes Wikipedia will conclude account identity, and the default there is that this is not legitimate, if the topic areas overlap.
When Oliver’s BS is not accepted, and the rejection is reported, Oliver then claims “lying” or “reading comprehension problem.” In fact, I have clearly acknowledged the argument, and rejected it. The effect of what he did was impersonation, and others have pointed to that account as connected with [redacted]nn, the real person. Darryl and Oliver believed that this person was a supporter of the extreme right. In fact, for a time, he was, but later admitted that he had been, let’s call it, “temporarily insane.” At that point, when he created the account, Oliver would have known him as right-wing and thus as a perfect name to use for trolling the right wing, and creating possible hostilities within it.
Other than this, I do not know any examples of “Oliver Smith” claiming to be someone else. (A claim with a small twist that then makes it plausibly deniable is still intended to deceive or troll). There are examples of blatant impersonations, but these may have been from Darryl, the brother, and I do know that Darryl claimed to be [redacted], and this is not deniable.
As well, an account recently appeared on Wikipedia claiming to be Emil Kirkegaard and another on RationalWiki with the same name. This was blatant impersonation in both places. Was it Mikemikev? I find it unlikely. The behavior is long-term Smith: wave a red flag saying “I am so-and-so,” be directly and obviously disruptive, and watch the fireworks as users assume the disclosure is honest.
On Wikipedia, the primary goal of sock puppet identification is deciding to block or not, and they would block an account either way if it claims to be a block evader, someone considered banned. So they often won’t bother with checkuser, and many of these get tagged with the wrong sock master, and that isn’t cleaned up even when later evidence appears that is far more clear.
The Smiths take full advantage of that sloppiness, and then claim that those socks were the target, proving how disruptive the person is, to sock so much. But there is no doubt that the Smiths have created at the very least hundreds of socks. The Encyclopedia Dramatica socks of Oliver have sometimes been several per day. Attack socks often appear as many, in rapid succession. They did on Wikiversity and the WMF meta wiki, they were attempting to intimidate WMF users, and these were all tagged by stewards as the same user (and then, through two accidentally caught Oliver accounts, were traced by me (and another) to RationalWiki and his account there, Welliver. Notice that the list of socks, alphabetical, does not get to Welliver.

Notes & References

  1.  http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_D._Smith_sockpuppets
  2.  See user page.
  3.  List of Mikemikev (banned) socks
  4.  Raider Fan, see also the information about the impersonation on Wrongpedia.
  5.  However this is clearly a problem when someone is impersonated!

Providing links to current version of originals, as distinct from archive.is pages:

  1. http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Georgie_Enkoom (this is only evidence of what the user claims about [him]self, but I agree that Enkoom is unlikely to be a Smith sock.)
  3. The link is to a single Krom (Oliver) claim (i.e., Oliver). A link to an archive of the whole list, which I will show below) This list was removed as disruptive by an RW sysop. This was common for Oliver: he would start to experience blowback for his obessions from other users, and he would then retire the account and start a new one, to create confusion. (That is not considered a violation on RW, unless the account is a mob target). Note 3 does not support the claim in the text, at least not without extensive further research.
  4. This amounts to an admission that Oliver is active on Wrongpedia, a blatant attack site, in this case attacking Wyatt. The RW account is “RaiderFan,” not “Raider Fan.” Smith socks have been very active on RW attacking Merkel (“Wyatt”). The current active Oliver account on RW being Callimachus (acknowledged), who was blocked for harassing Merkel, while Debunking spiritualism (Darryl Smith) unblocked him and blocked Merkel, in a period when, they claim, the DS account was hacked, and Oliver claimed it was me. And that DS account attempted to hide many open admissions of identity, and also blocked old alleged impersonation accounts. It’s completely bonkers. More on RaiderFan below.
  5. Yes. RationalWiki has some level of pretense to be a serious site, but, in fact, the community is focused on “lulz,” they call it “snark,” or SPOV, a play on the usage of that term on Wikipedia, where it means an oxymoron, “Scientific Point of View” but on RW the S stands for “Snarky.” They really don’t care about any RW target, and targets are routinely blocked when they object, in spite of RW inviting criticism. Blatant attack socks are common blocked and blamed on a target, when the behavior is not target behavior, but Smith behavior. Or a very sophisticated and long-term dedicated impersonator. I know the world of major Smith “enemies,” and none are reasonable suspects for that level of impersonation. Occasional impersonation is not impossible. And then Smith will point to it, if he can show it, and claim that’s the whole show.

Oliver’s list of Mikemikev socks from 2015

See above. This begins with a list of IPs, all claimed to be Korean. At that point, Mikemikev was living in Korea, and I had already, studying possible sock puppetry in RW articles, noticed the Korean IPs and considered them very likely Mikemikev. It is possible, however, using open proxies, to select a Korean open proxy, so this is not absolute proof. However, it’s likely, and the abundance of these actually shows Mikemikev not routinely using open proxies, but rather, readily available local IP. The list is long. This is not account socking, and would not be impersonation without clearer evidence. I’m not looking at them. These are the accounts alleged, in addition to Mikemikev:

Mikemikev1
Kevin
FrankDickman
Sam Rainbow
Philphilpot
Social Justice Warrior
Social Justice Internet Scientist
Michael C

There’s plenty more that can be added to the list. He easily has 20+ more accounts. Krom (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That’s a short list to cover years of activity. When users are blocked on RatWiki, they are sometimes told it’s not a big deal, and that one can always create a sock. From the extensive IP editing, as well, it looks like Mikemikev didn’t bother to do this very much. Remember, the supposed point of this is to show impersonation socking, and impersonation implies someone impersonated, who should be reasonably obvious from the name or from behavior. What do we see here?

Mikemikev1 is plainly claiming to be Mikemikev. Oliver is claiming this also. The account has two edits, this is basically irrelevant. The account was blocked, however, a year after the last edit, 14 November 2014. Weird. Not impersonation.

Kevin edited with apparent Mikemikev POV. See this version. Not impersonation.

FrankDickman Possible Mikemikev POV. No evidence of impersonation, certainly not of Oliver. This account resembles the next, and if not Mikemikev, could be the same user. Contrary to Oliver opinion, Mikemikev is not the only “race realist” active on the internet.

Sam Rainbow All contributions hidden. Disruptive user, revert warring. Not blocked! Contributions were hidden 2 May 2018 by Debunking spiritualism (Darryl Smith)  (in his deletion rampage,the whole page was deleted). Possible impersonation of Mikemikev ? but this was Mikemikev POV. Not impersonation of someone else.

PhilPhilpot (mispelled above, but link correct) Single edit No evidence this is Mikemikev other than POV, which for one edit, is generally inadequate. That edit linked to this display. Mikemikev (apparently) linked to the same display previously. This is about human biodiversity, and the apparent “race realists” participating on that RW discussion were making cogent arguments, faced with ad hominem arguments coming back, for the most part. (If we consider, on the matter of intelligence, hereditarianism and enviromentalism as extremes, I’m well toward the environmentalist side, but it is also obvious that there are genetic variations and it is possible that these could be associated with population genetics, sometimes called “race.” In any case, not impersonation.

Social_Justice_Warrior claims or pretends to be a Social Justice Warrior, but also attacks the term. It is true that the extreme right wing uses SJW as an epithet. I see nothing, however, to confirm that this account is Mikemikev. The five edits before being blocked amounted to a very small amount of text. (The user then reverted a removal of that text, and made a trolling comment on the talk page of that article), and was short-blocked. Then one edit to his own User talk page. That discussion ends with

Social Justice Warrior is Mikemikev, he has no life. He’s been creating these socks impersonating for years and is the clown.Arcticos (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior was then blocked as Mikemikev, not just once, but three times, and with no additional evidence. This is very much RW commonplace. Who was Arcticos? The user has only nine edits, in two sessions, 13 July 2015 (the above was his first edit — so why was he trusted?) and then 1-2 November 2016. From my list of RationalWiki AP socks already published, I had written “extremely likely.” With more careful review of the edits, many evidences, I am now completely convinced, Articos was Oliver, not his brother Darryl, and repeating the story of Mikemikev “impersonating,” so far not actually confirmed (even if SJW was a Mikemikev sock, this was ordinary trolling, not impersonation. But SJW doesn’t smell like Mikemikev. Not an impersonation (impersonation refers to actually creating the impression of being another specific person, not pretending a point of view, though that can also be offensive sometimes. Smith has been claiming that Mikemikev impersonated him, not some random SJW.

Social_Justice_Internet_Scientist  block log. How is it that a user with 7 edits, all within little more than an hour, 15 May 2015, is blocked three times, the last by Darryl Smith, on his rampage May 3, 2018? The first block was by WatcherIntheDark, 15 May 015. SJIS was unblocked by a regular as the  block was obviously excessive. Three months later, Krom accused SJIS of being Mikemikev and blocked. (See the next edit after SJIS’s first edit). Reviewing all the edits, I see no sign that SJIS was Mikemikev and quite a bit to contrary.  While WatcherIntheDark has some interest overlap, the user is very unlikely to be an AP sock. Not an impersonation.

Michael_C is a real-name account (i.e., with real name last initial. 2 edits, 6 September 2015. Plausible as Mikemikev. Not an impersonation.

I see several possible Mikemikev accounts, but most, probably not. Perhaps Mikemikev will have something to say about this. In any case, Oliver’s claims are not substantiated by what he cited, and, in fact, this shows Smith brother reactivity and obsession with Mikemikev.

Other Oliver D. Smith RWW articles

I will review these on separate pages.

Mikemikev_sockpuppets impressive list, but I see some accounts included that were likely Darryl Smith. Maybe many.

Oliver_D._Smith lies straightaway about no longer being active on RW. Uh, Callimachus? To be sure, Callimachus “retired” after his comments on the talk page of my article. So 4 days, no edits on RW, AFAIK, but furious activity on RWW.

Rome_Viharo Rome actually tangled with Darryl first

Abd Obviously Oliver’s first priority. (started by Bigs) (as of latest Oliver edit).

Mikemikev  of course.

http://therationalarchives.wikia.com/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard

The common thread: Smith writes about those who were attacked by him or his brother and who fought back by telling the truth about what had happened. That doesn’t mean that they never made mistakes, they did. But the story of the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory,” so intensely ridiculed on RationalWiki, was fundamentally true, there is no longer any reasonable doubt, no matter how furiously Oliver and Darryl have been trying to cover it up.

 

 

 

 

Posters

List of apparent poster abstracts. Some authors who are scheduled to speak may be missing from this list because of how it was compiled.

Afanasyev-Sergei-1 Cold fusion: superfluidity of deuterons
Amini-Farzan-1 Warp Drive Hydro Model For Interactions Between Hydrogen and Nickel
Anderson-Paul-1 The SAFIRE Project – An overview
Barot-Shriji-1 Flow Calorimetry Design for Elevated Temperature Experiments witih Deuterium
Beiting-Edward-2 Generation of High-Temperature Samples and Calorimetric Measurement of Therma
Bergschneider-Matthew-1 Study of a Calorimety Apparatus utilizing Radiation based Heat Transfer
Blake-Russ-2 Further Foundations of Fusion
Bowen-NL-1 A Simple Calculation of the Inter-Nucleon Up-to-Down Quark Bond and its Implications for Nuclear Binding
Egely-George-1 Electric Energy Generation by LENR
Fomitchev-Zamilov-Max-2 Reliable Neutron and Gamma Radiation Detection
fredericks-keith-1 Elliptical tracks and magnetic monopoles
Gibson-Martin-1 A Geometric Understanding of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in the Palladium-Deuterium Lattice
Gordon-Frank-1 Real-time Instrumentation and Digital Processing for LENR Characterization
Grimshaw-Thomas-1 Documentation and Archives of 29 Years of LENR Research by Dr. Edmund Storms
Gutzmann-Emma-GWU-1 Parametric experimental studies of Ni-H electrochemical cells
Hagelstein-Peter-3 Phonon-nuclear coupling matrix element for the low energy E1 transition in Ta-181 and applications
Kaal-Edo-1 The Structured Atom Model – SAM
Kornilova-Alla-1 Stimulation of LENR in Hydroborate Minerals Under the Action of Distant High-Frequency Thermal Waves
Lomax-Abd-ulRahman-1 Correlation and cold fusion
Meyer-Jacob-1 On the Oxidation of Palladium
Miles-Melvin-2 Calorimetric Insights From Fleschmann Letters
Miles-Melvin-3 No Steady State For Open Isoperibolic Calorimetry
Mosier-Boss-Pamela-2 Overview of Pd/D Co-deposition
Olafsson-Sveinn-2 Adler-Bill-Jakiw anomaly in electroweak interactions, the 3p+  3L* process and links to spontaneous UHD decay and transmutation process
Olafsson-Sveinn-3 Volcanism in Iceland, Cold fusion and Rydberg matter
Olafsson-Sveinn-4 Conductivity of Rydberg matter
Olafsson-Sveinn-5 Rydberg matter experimental setup in Iceland
Papadatos-Gabriel-GWU-1 Electrical, thermal and chemical simulations of Ni-H electrochemical cells
Plekhanov-VG-1 A possible signature of neutron quarks – lepton interaction in solids
Prevenslik-Thomas-2 X-ray emission in LENR by Zero Point Energy or simple QED?
Ruer-Jacques-1 Chemical Heat Generation in LENR
Scholkmann-Felix-GWU-1 Complex current fluctuations in Ni-H electrochemical experiments: Characterization using non-liner signal analysis
Storms-Edmund-3 The strange behavior of catalysts made from Pd or Pt applied to Al2O3
Stringham-Roger-2 A Deuteron Plasma Driven to Neutrality and 4He
Tarassenko-Gennadiy-1 The Mechanism of Formation of LENR in Earth’s Crust
Vysotskii-Vladimir-3 Generation and Registration of Undamped Temperature Waves at Large Distance in LENR Related Experiments
Vysotskii-Vladimir-4 Controlled transmutation of Na, P and Mn to Fe isotopes in D2O and H2O during growth of yeast Saccharomyces cerevesiae
Whitehouse-Harper-1 Electrochemical Immittance and Transfer-function Spectroscopy applied to LENR
Zeiner-Gundersen-Sindre-2 Distance dependency of spontaneous decay signal from ultra dense hydrogen source
Zeiner-Gundersen-Sindre-3 Pulse shape and PMT stabilization period from spontaneous signal from a ultra dense hydrogen source
Zhang-Hang-1 Experimental on hydrogen carrying metal glow discharge
Ziehm-Erik-1 Detecting Charged Particles in LENR Applications using CR-39
Zuppero-Anthony-1 Electron Quasiparticle Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions

Review

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

This page will collect reviews of the ICCF-21 abstracts. The intention is to support study and preparation for talks and poster sessions, as well as to prioritize attendee time.

The abstracts display a wide range of quality and usefulness. Those two characteristics are personal assessments, not fact. Comments are welcome.

My intention is to update reviews during the conference, and to later integrate what is studied here with actual published papers, where those appear.

My intention is to create a page for each title. The title here will link to the review page for the author (if a link is shown)

(If a reader wants to comment on a presentation that is not linked, request a page be created with a comment below. These requests will be deleted when actioned.)

Afanasyev-Sergei-1 POSTER Cold fusion: superfluidity of deuterons
Alexandrov-Dimiter-1 Experiment and Theory Th 1:52 Nuclear fusion in solids – experiments and theory
Amini-Farzan-1 POSTER Warp Drive Hydro Model For Interactions Between Hydrogen and Nickel
Anderson-Paul-1 POSTER The SAFIRE Project – An overview
Barot-Shriji-1 POSTER Flow Calorimetry Design for Elevated Temperature Experiments with Deuterium
Beiting-Edward-1 Diverse Experiments Th 8:00 Investigation of the Nickel-Hydrogen Anomalous Heat Effect
Beiting-Edward-2 POSTER Generation of High-Temperature Samples and Calorimetric Measurement of Therma
Bergschneider-Matthew-1 POSTER Study of a Calorimety Apparatus utilizing Radiation based Heat Transfer
Biberian-Jean-Paul-1 Transmutations Tu 10:30 Anomalous Isotopic Composition of Silver in a Palladium Electrode
Blake-Russ-1 Theory Th 3:30 Understanding LENR Using QST
Blake-Russ-2 POSTER Further Foundations of Fusion
Bowen-NL-1 POSTER A Simple Calculation of the Inter-Nucleon Up-to-Down Quark Bond and its Implications for Nuclear Binding
Brink-Simon-1 Experiment and Theory Th 2:37 LENR Catalyst Identification Model
Celani-Francesco-1 Heat Measurements Tu 8:48 Steps to identification of main parameters for AHE generation in submicrometric materials: measurements by isoperibolic and air-flow calorimetry
Cook-Norman-1 Theory M 4:30 The “Renaissance” in Nuclear Physics: Low-energy nuclear reactions and transmutations
Czerski-Konrad-1 Ion Beams – Rydberg Matter Tu 1:30 Influence of Crystal Lattice Defects and the Threshiold Resonance on the Deuteron-Deuteron Reaction Rates at Room Temperature
Daggett-David_1 Heat Measurements Tu: 9:36 Positive Result of a Laser-Induced LENR Experiment
David-Fabrice-1 Instrumentation Th 11:37 Alternatives to Calorimetry
Dong-ZM-1 Diverse Experiments Th 8:48 Temperature Dependence of Excess Heat in Gas-Loading Experiments
Dubinko-Vladimir-1 Theory Tu 4:37 Chemical and Nuclear Catalysis Mediated by the Energy Localization in Hydrogenated Crytals and Quasicrystals
Egely-George-1 POSTER Electric Energy Generation by LENR
Egely-George-2 Old and New Experiments W 10:30 Changes of Isotope Ratios in Transmutations
Fomitchev-Zamilov-Max-1 Transmutations Tu 10:52 Synthesis of Lanthanides on Nickel Anode
Fomitchev-Zamilov-Max-2 POSTER Reliable Neutron and Gamma Radiation Detection
Forsley-Lawrence-1 Applications and Close F 10:52 Space Applications of a Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor
Fowler-Malcolm-1 Instrumentation Th 10:30 Development of a Sensitive Detection system for the Measurement of Trace Amounts of He4 in Deuterium or Hydrogen
fredericks-keith-1 POSTER Elliptical tracks and magnetic monopoles
Gibson-Martin-1 POSTER A Geometric Understanding of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in the Palladium-Deuterium Lattice
Gordon-Frank-1 POSTER Real-time Instrumentation and Digital Processing for LENR Characterization
Grimshaw-Thomas-1 POSTER Documentation and Archives of 29 Years of LENR Research by Dr. Edmund Storms
Gutzmann-Emma-GWU-1 POSTER Parametric experimental studies of Ni-H electrochemical cells
Hagelstein-Peter-1 Theory M 3:30 Statistical mechanics models for the PdH, and PdD, phase diagram with both O-site and T-site occupation
Hagelstein-Peter-2 Materials W 8:48 Phonon-mediated excitation transfer involving nuclear excitation
Hagelstein-Peter-3 POSTER Phonon-nuclear coupling matrix element for the low energy E1 transition in Ta-181 and applications
Hatt-Philippe-1 Theory Th 3:52 Cold Nuclear Transmutations Light Atomic Nuclei Binding Energy
Higgins-Bob-1 Instrumentation Th 10:52 Modeling and Simulation of a Gas Discharge LENR Prototype
Hioki_Tatsumi-1 Heat from NanoMaterials M 2:30 XRD and XAFS Analyses for Metal Nanocomposites Used in Anomalous Heat Effect Experiments
Imam-Ashraf-1 Materials W 9:12 Fabrication, Characterization, and Evaluation of Palladium-Born Alloys Use in LENR Experiments
Iwamura-Yasuhiro-1 Heat from NanoMaterials M 2:00 Anomalous Heat Effects Induced by Metal Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Gas
Kaal-Edo-1 POSTER The Structured Atom Model – SAM
Kasagi-Jiro-1 Instrumentation Th 11:15 Search for γ-ray radiation in NiCuZr nano-metals and H2 gas system generating large excess heat.
Katinsky-Steven-1 Introduction M 8:30 LEAP: The LENRIA Experiment and Analysis Program
Kitagawa-Yuta-1 Diverse Experiments Th 9:12 Direct Joule Heating of D-Loaded Bulk Pd Plates in Vaccum
Kornilova-Alla-1 POSTER Stimulation of LENR in Hydroborate Minerals Under the Action of Distant High-Frequency Thermal Waves
Kovacs-Andras-1 Experiment and Theory Th 2:15 Electron mediated nuclear chain reactions
Letts-Dennis-1 Heat Measurements M 10:30 Building and Testing a High Temperature Seebeck Calorimeter
Li-XZ-1 Theory Tu 3:30 Resonant Surface Capture Model
Lomax-Abd-ulRahman-1 POSTER Correlation and cold fusion
Lu-Gongxuan-1 Transmutations Tu 11:15 Photocatalytic hydrogen evolution and induced transmutation of potassium to calcium via low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) driven by visible light.
McCarthy-William-1 Old and New Experiments W 11:15 Light Hydrogen LENR in Copper Alloys
McKubre-Michael-1 Technical Perspective M 9:30 The Fleischmann-Pons heat and ancillary effects. What do we know, and why? How might we proceed?
Metzler-Florian-1 Old and New Experiments W 10:52 Observation of non-exponential decay of x-ray and γ lines from Co-57 on steel plates
Meulenberg-Andrew-1 Applications and Close F 11:15 Nuclear-waste remediation with femto-atoms and femto-molecules
Meyer-Jacob-1 POSTER On the Oxidation of Palladium
Miles-Melvin-1 Materials W 9:36 Excess Power Measurements For Palladium-Boron Cathodes
Miles-Melvin-2 POSTER Calorimetric Insights From Fleschmann Letters
Miles-Melvin-3 POSTER No Steady State For Open Isoperibolic Calorimetry
Miley-George-1 Heat Measurements M 11:30 Progress in Cluster Enabled LENR
Mizuno-Tadahiko-1 Heat Measurements M 11:00 Excess heat generation by simple treatment of reaction metal in hydrogen gas
Mosier-Boss-Pamela-1 Applications and Close F 10:30 Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor Using Pd/D Codeposition
Mosier-Boss-Pamela-2 POSTER Overview of Pd/D Co-deposition
Nee-Han-1 Materials W 8:24 Lattice Confinement of Hydrogen in FCC Metals for Fusion Reaction
Nikitin-Aleksander-1 Transmutations Tu 11:37 Impact of Effective Microorganisms on the Activity of 137Cs in Soil from the Exclusion Zone of Chernobyl NPP
Olafsson-Sveinn-1 Ion Beams – Rydberg Matter Tu 1:52 What is Rydberg Matter and Ultra-Dense Hydrogen?
Olafsson-Sveinn-2 POSTER Adler-Bill-Jakiw anomaly in electroweak interactions, the 3p+  3L* process and links to spontaneous UHD decay and transmutation process
Olafsson-Sveinn-3 POSTER Volcanism in Iceland, Cold fusion and Rydberg matter
Olafsson-Sveinn-4 POSTER Conductivity of Rydberg matter
Olafsson-Sveinn-5 POSTER Rydberg matter experimental setup in Iceland
Paillet-Jean Luc-1 Theory Tu 3:52 On highly relativistic deep electrons
Papadatos-Gabriel-GWU-1 POSTER Electrical, thermal and chemical simulations of Ni-H electrochemical cells
Plekhanov-VG-1 POSTER A possible signature of neutron quarks – lepton interaction in solids
Prevenslik-Thomas-2 POSTER X-ray emission in LENR by Zero Point Energy or simple QED?
Ramarao-Prahlada-1 Diverse Experiments Th 8:24 Observation of Excess Heat in Nickel – LAH System
Roarty-Brian-1 Old and New Experiments W 11:37 A Method to Initiate an LENR Reaction in an Aqueous Solution
Ruer-Jacques-1 POSTER Chemical Heat Generation in LENR
Scholkmann-Felix-GWU-1 POSTER Complex current fluctuations in Ni-H electrochemical experiments: Characterization using non-liner signal analysis
Seccombe-Dana-1 Experiences F 9:30 Experience with Semiconductor Technology Development Potentially Relevant to LENR
Staker-Michael-1 Heat Measurements Tu 9:12 Coupled Calorimetry and Resistivity Measurements, in Conjunction with an Emended and More Complete Phase Diagram of the Palladium – Isotopic Hydrogen System
Stevenson-Cheryl-1 Theory Tu 4:15 Isotope Effects beyond the Electromagnetic Force: 1H and 2H in Palladium Exhibiting LENR
Storms-Edmund-1 Experiences F 8:00 The enthalpy of formation of PdH as a function of H/Pd atom ratio and treatment
Storms-Edmund-2 Materials W 8:00 The Loading and Deloading Behavior of Palladium Hydride
Storms-Edmund-3 POSTER The strange behavior of catalysts made from Pd or Pt applied to Al2O3
Stringham-Roger-1 Diverse Experiments Th 9:36 Investigation of Cavitation Effects Related to LENR
Stringham-Roger-2 POSTER A Deuteron Plasma Driven to Neutrality and 4He
Swartz-Mitchell-1 Heat Measurements Tu 8:24 Aqueous and Nanostructured CF/LANR Systems Each Have Two Electrically Driven Modes
Swartz-Mitchell-2 Experiences F 9:00 Excess Heat is Linked to Deuterium Loss in an Aqueous Nickel CF/LANR System
Takahashi-Akito-1 Heat from NanoMaterials M 1:30 Research Status of Nano-Metal Hydrogen Energy
Tanabe-Katsuaki-1 Theory Th 4:15 Plasmonic Field Enhancement on Planar Metal Surfaces
Tanzella-Fran-1 Heat Measurements Tu 8:00 Nanosecond Pulse Stimulation in the Ni-H2 System.
Tarassenko-Gennadiy-1 POSTER The Mechanism of Formation of LENR in Earth’s Crust
Vysotskii-Vladimir-1 Experiment and Theory Th 1:30 Using the Method of Coherent Correlated States for Realization of Nuclear Interaction of Slow Particles with Crystals and Molecules
Vysotskii-Vladimir-2 Theory M 3:50 Effective LENR in Weakly Ionized Gas Under the Action of Optimal Pulsed Magnetic Fields and Lightning (Theory and Experiments)
Vysotskii-Vladimir-3 POSTER Generation and Registration of Undamped Temperature Waves at Large Distance in LENR Related Experiments
Vysotskii-Vladimir-4 POSTER Controlled transmutation of Na, P and Mn to Fe isotopes in D2O and H2O during growth of yeast Saccharomyces cerevesiae
Whitehouse-Harper-1 POSTER Electrochemical Immittance and Transfer-function Spectroscopy applied to LENR
Wood-Ryan Ion Beams – Rydberg Matter Tu 12:37 Joseph Papp Nobel Gas Engine Shows Early LENR?
Yoshimura-Toshihiko-1 Theory Th 4:37 Estimation of bubble fusion requirements during high-pressure, high-temperature cavitation
Zeiner-Gundersen-Sindre-1 Ion Beams – Rydberg Matter Tu 12:15 Hydrogen reactor for Rydberg Matter and Ultra Dense Hydrogen, a replication of Leif Holmid
Zeiner-Gundersen-Sindre-2 POSTER Distance dependency of spontaneous decay signal from ultra dense hydrogen source
Zeiner-Gundersen-Sindre-3 POSTER Pulse shape and PMT stabilization period from spontaneous signal from a ultra dense hydrogen source
Zhang-Hang-1 POSTER Experimental on hydrogen carrying metal glow discharge
Ziehm-Erik-1 POSTER Detecting Charged Particles in LENR Applications using CR-39
Zuppero-Anthony-1 POSTER Electron Quasiparticle Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions
Zuppero-Anthony-2 Theory M 4:10 Transmutations by Heavy Electron Catalysis

 

Schedule

This is a schedule of events at ICCF-21. The original schedule as published is here. 

Below are titles of submitted abstracts from authors speaking, best guess (since some speakers have more than one abstract and there are other ambiguities.) Times are estimated by dividing session time by the number of speakers in a session.

This schedule was prepared from information available before the Conference. The actual schedule was different in some ways.

Links are to the abstract. See the List of Abstracts.

MONDAY  
8:30 OPENING  
8:30 Katinsky K-1 INTRODUCTION LEAP: The LENRIA Experiment and Analysis Program
9:00 Darden   KEYNOTE Industrial Heat
9:30 McKubre M-1 TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE The Fleischmann-Pons heat and ancillary effects. What do we know, and why? How might we proceed?
10:00 BREAK  
10:30 HEAT MSURMENTS  
10:30 Letts L-1 Building and Testing a High Temperature Seebeck Calorimeter
11:00 Mizuno M-1 Excess heat generation by simple treatment of reaction metal in hydrogen gas
11:30 Miley M-1 Progress in Cluster Enabled LENR
12:00 LUNCH  
1:30 HEAT FROM NANOMAT  
1:30 Takahashi T-1 Research Status of Nano-Metal Hydrogen Energy
2:00 Iwamura I-1 Anomalous Heat Effects Induced by Metal Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Gas
2:30 Hioki H-1 XRD and XAFS Analyses for Metal Nanocomposites Used in Anomalous Heat Effect Experiments
3:00 BREAK  
THEORY  
3:30 Hagelstein H-1 Statistical mechanics models for the PdH, and PdD, phase diagram with both O-site and T-site occupation
3:50 Vysotskii V-2 Effective LENR in Weakly Ionized Gas Under the Action of Optimal Pulsed Magnetic Fields and Lightning (Theory and Experiments)
4:10 Zuppero Z-1 Electron Quasiparticle Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions
4:30 Cook C-1 The “Renaissance” in Nuclear Physics: Low-energy nuclear reactions and transmutations
5:00 POSTERS  
 
  TUESDAY  
8:00 HEAT MSURMENTS  
8:00 Tanzella T-1 Nanosecond Pulse Stimulation in the Ni-H2 System.
8:24 Swartz S-1 Aqueous and Nanostructured CF/LANR Systems Each Have Two Electrically Driven Modes
8:48 Celani C-1 Steps to identification of main parameters for AHE generation in submicrometric materials: measurements by isoperibolic and air-flow calorimetry
9:12 Staker S-1 Coupled Calorimetry and Resistivity Measurements, in Conjunction with an Emended and More Complete Phase Diagram of the Palladium – Isotopic Hydrogen System
9:36 Dagget D_1 Positive Result of a Laser-Induced LENR Experiment
10:00 BREAK  
10:30 TRANSMUTATIONS  
10:30 Biberian B-1 Anomalous Isotopic Composition of Silver in a Palladium Electrode
10:52 Fomitchev F-1 Synthesis of Lanthanides on Nickel Anode
11:15 Lu L-1 Photocatalytic hydrogen evolution and induced transmutation of potassium to calcium via low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) driven by visible light.
11:37 Nikitin N-1 Impact of Effective Microorganisms on the Activity of 137Cs in Soil from the Exclusion Zone of Chernobyl NPP
12:00 LUNCH  
1:30 ION BEAMS&RYDBRG  
1:30 Czerski C-1 Influence of Crystal Lattice Defects and the Threshiold Resonance on the Deuteron-Deuteron Reaction Rates at Room Temperature
1:52 Olafsson O-1 What is Rydberg Matter and Ultra-Dense Hydrogen?
12:15 Zeiner-Gundersen Z-1 Hydrogen reactor for Rydberg Matter and Ultra Dense Hydrogen, a replication of Leif Holmid
12:37 Wood W Joseph Papp Nobel Gas Engine Shows Early LENR?
3:00 BREAK  
3:30 THEORY  
3:30 Li L-1 Resonant Surface Capture Model
3:52 Pallet P-1 On highly relativistic deep electrons
4:15 Stevenson S-1 Isotope Effects beyond the Electromagnetic Force: 1H and 2H in Palladium Exhibiting LENR
4:37 Dubinko D-1 Chemical and Nuclear Catalysis Mediated by the Energy Localization in Hydrogenated Crytals and Quasicrystals
5:00 POSTERS/ICMNS  
 
WEDNESDAY  
8:00 MATERIALS  
8:00 Storms S-2 The Loading and Deloading Behavior of Palladium Hydride
8:24 Nee N-1 Lattice Confinement of Hydrogen in FCC Metals for Fusion Reaction
8:48 Hagelstein H-2 Phonon-mediated excitation transfer involving nuclear excitation
9:12 Imam I-1 Fabrication, Characterization, and Evaluation of Palladium-Born Alloys Use in LENR Experiments
9:36 Miles M-1 Excess Power Measurements For Palladium-Boron Cathodes
10:00 BREAK  
10:30 OLD & NEW EXPRMNTS  
10:30 Egely E-2 Changes of Isotope Ratios in Transmutations
10:52 Metzler M-1 Observation of non-exponential decay of x-ray and γ lines from Co-57 on steel plates
11:15 McCarthy M-1 Light Hydrogen LENR in Copper Alloys
11:37 Roarty R-1 A Method to Initiate an LENR Reaction in an Aqueous Solution
12:00 LUNCH  
1:30 EXCURSION  
 
THURSDAY  
8:00 DIVERSE EXPRMNTS  
8:00 Beiting B-1 Investigation of the Nickel-Hydrogen Anomalous Heat Effect
8:24 Ramarao R-1 Observation of Excess Heat in Nickel – LAH System
8:48 Dong D-1 Temperature Dependence of Excess Heat in Gas-Loading Experiments
9:12 Kitagawa K-1 Direct Joule Heating of D-Loaded Bulk Pd Plates in Vaccum
9:36 Stringham S-1 Investigation of Cavitation Effects Related to LENR
10:00 BREAK  
10:30 INSTRUMENTATION  
10:30 Fowler F-1 Development of a Sensitive Detection system for the Measurement of Trace Amounts of He4 in Deuterium or Hydrogen
10:52 Higgins H-1 Modeling and Simulation of a Gas Discharge LENR Prototype
11:15 Kasagi K-1 Search for γ-ray radiation in NiCuZr nano-metals and H2 gas system generating large excess heat.
11:37 David D-1 Alternatives to Calorimetry
12:00 LUNCH  
1:30 EXPRMNT & THEORY  
1:30 Vysotskii V-1 Using the Method of Coherent Correlated States for Realization of Nuclear Interaction of Slow Particles with Crystals and Molecules
1:52 Alexandrov A-1 Nuclear fusion in solids – experiments and theory
2:15 Kovacs K-1 Electron mediated nuclear chain reactions
2:37 Brink B-1 LENR Catalyst Identification Model
3:00 BREAK  
3:30 THEORY  
3:30 Blake B-1 Understanding LENR Using QST
3:52 Hatt H-1 Cold Nuclear Transmutations Light Atomic Nuclei Binding Energy
4:15 Tanabe Ti-1 Plasmonic Field Enhancement on Planar Metal Surfaces
4:37 Yoshimura Y-1 Estimation of bubble fusion requirements during high-pressure, high-temperature cavitation
5:00 POSTERS  
7:00 BANQUET  
 
FRIDAY  
8:00 EXPERIENCES  
8:00 Storms  
8:30 Biberian  
9:00 Swartz  
9:30 Seccombe S-1 Experience with Semiconductor Technology Development Potentially Relevant to LENR
10:00 BREAK  
10:30 APPS & CLOSE  
10:30 Mosier-Boss M-1 Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor Using Pd/D Codeposition
10:52 Forsley F-1 Space Applications of a Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor
11:15 Meulenberg M-1 Nuclear-waste remediation with femto-atoms and femto-molecules
11:37 Nagel K-1 LEAP: The LENRIA Experiment and Analysis Program

Abstracts

ICCF-21 dropbox

The table lists all abstracts, with the time of presentation or “poster.” Times are approximate, and the assignment of title is a best guess. My intention is to create a page for each title. As slides, notes, papers, and other documents or media become available, they will be shown on a page linked through the title.

Afanasyev-Sergei-1 POSTER Cold fusion: superfluidity of deuterons
Alexandrov-Dimiter-1 Experiment and Theory Th 1:52 Nuclear fusion in solids – experiments and theory
Amini-Farzan-1 POSTER Warp Drive Hydro Model For Interactions Between Hydrogen and Nickel
Anderson-Paul-1 POSTER The SAFIRE Project – An overview
Barot-Shriji-1 POSTER Flow Calorimetry Design for Elevated Temperature Experiments with Deuterium
Beiting-Edward-1 Diverse Experiments Th 8:00 Investigation of the Nickel-Hydrogen Anomalous Heat Effect
Beiting-Edward-2 POSTER Generation of High-Temperature Samples and Calorimetric Measurement of Therma
Bergschneider-Matthew-1 POSTER Study of a Calorimety Apparatus utilizing Radiation based Heat Transfer
Biberian-Jean-Paul-1 Transmutations Tu 10:30 Anomalous Isotopic Composition of Silver in a Palladium Electrode
Blake-Russ-1 Theory Th 3:30 Understanding LENR Using QST
Blake-Russ-2 POSTER Further Foundations of Fusion
Bowen-NL-1 POSTER A Simple Calculation of the Inter-Nucleon Up-to-Down Quark Bond and its Implications for Nuclear Binding
Brink-Simon-1 Experiment and Theory Th 2:37 LENR Catalyst Identification Model
Celani-Francesco-1 Heat Measurements Tu 8:48 Steps to identification of main parameters for AHE generation in submicrometric materials: measurements by isoperibolic and air-flow calorimetry
Cook-Norman-1 Theory M 4:30 The “Renaissance” in Nuclear Physics: Low-energy nuclear reactions and transmutations
Czerski-Konrad-1 Ion Beams – Rydberg Matter Tu 1:30 Influence of Crystal Lattice Defects and the Threshiold Resonance on the Deuteron-Deuteron Reaction Rates at Room Temperature
Daggett-David_1 Heat Measurements Tu: 9:36 Positive Result of a Laser-Induced LENR Experiment
David-Fabrice-1 Instrumentation Th 11:37 Alternatives to Calorimetry
Dong-ZM-1 Diverse Experiments Th 8:48 Temperature Dependence of Excess Heat in Gas-Loading Experiments
Dubinko-Vladimir-1 Theory Tu 4:37 Chemical and Nuclear Catalysis Mediated by the Energy Localization in Hydrogenated Crytals and Quasicrystals
Egely-George-1 POSTER Electric Energy Generation by LENR
Egely-George-2 Old and New Experiments W 10:30 Changes of Isotope Ratios in Transmutations
Fomitchev-Zamilov-Max-1 Transmutations Tu 10:52 Synthesis of Lanthanides on Nickel Anode
Fomitchev-Zamilov-Max-2 POSTER Reliable Neutron and Gamma Radiation Detection
Forsley-Lawrence-1 Applications and Close F 10:52 Space Applications of a Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor
Fowler-Malcolm-1 Instrumentation Th 10:30 Development of a Sensitive Detection system for the Measurement of Trace Amounts of He4 in Deuterium or Hydrogen
fredericks-keith-1 POSTER Elliptical tracks and magnetic monopoles
Gibson-Martin-1 POSTER A Geometric Understanding of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in the Palladium-Deuterium Lattice
Gordon-Frank-1 POSTER Real-time Instrumentation and Digital Processing for LENR Characterization
Grimshaw-Thomas-1 POSTER Documentation and Archives of 29 Years of LENR Research by Dr. Edmund Storms
Gutzmann-Emma-GWU-1 POSTER Parametric experimental studies of Ni-H electrochemical cells
Hagelstein-Peter-1 Theory M 3:30 Statistical mechanics models for the PdH, and PdD, phase diagram with both O-site and T-site occupation
Hagelstein-Peter-2 Materials W 8:48 Phonon-mediated excitation transfer involving nuclear excitation
Hagelstein-Peter-3 POSTER Phonon-nuclear coupling matrix element for the low energy E1 transition in Ta-181 and applications
Hatt-Philippe-1 Theory Th 3:52 Cold Nuclear Transmutations Light Atomic Nuclei Binding Energy
Higgins-Bob-1 Instrumentation Th 10:52 Modeling and Simulation of a Gas Discharge LENR Prototype
Hioki_Tatsumi-1 Heat from NanoMaterials M 2:30 XRD and XAFS Analyses for Metal Nanocomposites Used in Anomalous Heat Effect Experiments
Imam-Ashraf-1 Materials W 9:12 Fabrication, Characterization, and Evaluation of Palladium-Born Alloys Use in LENR Experiments
Iwamura-Yasuhiro-1 Heat from NanoMaterials M 2:00 Anomalous Heat Effects Induced by Metal Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Gas
Kaal-Edo-1 POSTER The Structured Atom Model – SAM
Kasagi-Jiro-1 Instrumentation Th 11:15 Search for γ-ray radiation in NiCuZr nano-metals and H2 gas system generating large excess heat.
Katinsky-Steven-1 Introduction M 8:30 LEAP: The LENRIA Experiment and Analysis Program
Kitagawa-Yuta-1 Diverse Experiments Th 9:12 Direct Joule Heating of D-Loaded Bulk Pd Plates in Vaccum
Kornilova-Alla-1 POSTER Stimulation of LENR in Hydroborate Minerals Under the Action of Distant High-Frequency Thermal Waves
Kovacs-Andras-1 Experiment and Theory Th 2:15 Electron mediated nuclear chain reactions
Letts-Dennis-1 Heat Measurements M 10:30 Building and Testing a High Temperature Seebeck Calorimeter
Li-XZ-1 Theory Tu 3:30 Resonant Surface Capture Model
Lomax-Abd-ulRahman-1 POSTER Correlation and cold fusion
Lu-Gongxuan-1 Transmutations Tu 11:15 Photocatalytic hydrogen evolution and induced transmutation of potassium to calcium via low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) driven by visible light.
McCarthy-William-1 Old and New Experiments W 11:15 Light Hydrogen LENR in Copper Alloys
McKubre-Michael-1 Technical Perspective M 9:30 The Fleischmann-Pons heat and ancillary effects. What do we know, and why? How might we proceed?
Metzler-Florian-1 Old and New Experiments W 10:52 Observation of non-exponential decay of x-ray and γ lines from Co-57 on steel plates
Meulenberg-Andrew-1 Applications and Close F 11:15 Nuclear-waste remediation with femto-atoms and femto-molecules
Meyer-Jacob-1 POSTER On the Oxidation of Palladium
Miles-Melvin-1 Materials W 9:36 Excess Power Measurements For Palladium-Boron Cathodes
Miles-Melvin-2 POSTER Calorimetric Insights From Fleischmann Letters
Miles-Melvin-3 POSTER No Steady State For Open Isoperibolic Calorimetry
Miley-George-1 Heat Measurements M 11:30 Progress in Cluster Enabled LENR
Mizuno-Tadahiko-1 Heat Measurements M 11:00 Excess heat generation by simple treatment of reaction metal in hydrogen gas
Mosier-Boss-Pamela-1 Applications and Close F 10:30 Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor Using Pd/D Codeposition
Mosier-Boss-Pamela-2 POSTER Overview of Pd/D Co-deposition
Nee-Han-1 Materials W 8:24 Lattice Confinement of Hydrogen in FCC Metals for Fusion Reaction
Nikitin-Aleksander-1 Transmutations Tu 11:37 Impact of Effective Microorganisms on the Activity of 137Cs in Soil from the Exclusion Zone of Chernobyl NPP
Olafsson-Sveinn-1 Ion Beams – Rydberg Matter Tu 1:52 What is Rydberg Matter and Ultra-Dense Hydrogen?
Olafsson-Sveinn-2 POSTER Adler-Bill-Jakiw anomaly in electroweak interactions, the 3p+  3L* process and links to spontaneous UHD decay and transmutation process
Olafsson-Sveinn-3 POSTER Volcanism in Iceland, Cold fusion and Rydberg matter
Olafsson-Sveinn-4 POSTER Conductivity of Rydberg matter
Olafsson-Sveinn-5 POSTER Rydberg matter experimental setup in Iceland
Paillet-Jean Luc-1 Theory Tu 3:52 On highly relativistic deep electrons
Papadatos-Gabriel-GWU-1 POSTER Electrical, thermal and chemical simulations of Ni-H electrochemical cells
Plekhanov-VG-1 POSTER A possible signature of neutron quarks – lepton interaction in solids
Prevenslik-Thomas-2 POSTER X-ray emission in LENR by Zero Point Energy or simple QED?
Ramarao-Prahlada-1 Diverse Experiments Th 8:24 Observation of Excess Heat in Nickel – LAH System
Roarty-Brian-1 Old and New Experiments W 11:37 A Method to Initiate an LENR Reaction in an Aqueous Solution
Ruer-Jacques-1 POSTER Chemical Heat Generation in LENR
Scholkmann-Felix-GWU-1 POSTER Complex current fluctuations in Ni-H electrochemical experiments: Characterization using non-liner signal analysis
Seccombe-Dana-1 Experiences F 9:30 Experience with Semiconductor Technology Development Potentially Relevant to LENR
Staker-Michael-1 Heat Measurements Tu 9:12 Coupled Calorimetry and Resistivity Measurements, in Conjunction with an Emended and More Complete Phase Diagram of the Palladium – Isotopic Hydrogen System
Stevenson-Cheryl-1 Theory Tu 4:15 Isotope Effects beyond the Electromagnetic Force: 1H and 2H in Palladium Exhibiting LENR
Storms-Edmund-1 Experiences F 8:00 The enthalpy of formation of PdH as a function of H/Pd atom ratio and treatment
Storms-Edmund-2 Materials W 8:00 The Loading and Deloading Behavior of Palladium Hydride
Storms-Edmund-3 POSTER The strange behavior of catalysts made from Pd or Pt applied to Al2O3
Stringham-Roger-1 Diverse Experiments Th 9:36 Investigation of Cavitation Effects Related to LENR
Stringham-Roger-2 POSTER A Deuteron Plasma Driven to Neutrality and 4He
Swartz-Mitchell-1 Heat Measurements Tu 8:24 Aqueous and Nanostructured CF/LANR Systems Each Have Two Electrically Driven Modes
Swartz-Mitchell-2 Experiences F 9:00 Excess Heat is Linked to Deuterium Loss in an Aqueous Nickel CF/LANR System
Takahashi-Akito-1 Heat from NanoMaterials M 1:30 Research Status of Nano-Metal Hydrogen Energy
Tanabe-Katsuaki-1 Theory Th 4:15 Plasmonic Field Enhancement on Planar Metal Surfaces
Tanzella-Fran-1 Heat Measurements Tu 8:00 Nanosecond Pulse Stimulation in the Ni-H2 System.
Tarassenko-Gennadiy-1 POSTER The Mechanism of Formation of LENR in Earth’s Crust
Vysotskii-Vladimir-1 Experiment and Theory Th 1:30 Using the Method of Coherent Correlated States for Realization of Nuclear Interaction of Slow Particles with Crystals and Molecules
Vysotskii-Vladimir-2 Theory M 3:50 Effective LENR in Weakly Ionized Gas Under the Action of Optimal Pulsed Magnetic Fields and Lightning (Theory and Experiments)
Vysotskii-Vladimir-3 POSTER Generation and Registration of Undamped Temperature Waves at Large Distance in LENR Related Experiments
Vysotskii-Vladimir-4 POSTER Controlled transmutation of Na, P and Mn to Fe isotopes in D2O and H2O during growth of yeast Saccharomyces cerevesiae
Whitehouse-Harper-1 POSTER Electrochemical Immittance and Transfer-function Spectroscopy applied to LENR
Wood-Ryan Ion Beams – Rydberg Matter Tu 12:37 Joseph Papp Nobel Gas Engine Shows Early LENR?
Yoshimura-Toshihiko-1 Theory Th 4:37 Estimation of bubble fusion requirements during high-pressure, high-temperature cavitation
Zeiner-Gundersen-Sindre-1 Ion Beams – Rydberg Matter Tu 12:15 Hydrogen reactor for Rydberg Matter and Ultra Dense Hydrogen, a replication of Leif Holmid
Zeiner-Gundersen-Sindre-2 POSTER Distance dependency of spontaneous decay signal from ultra dense hydrogen source
Zeiner-Gundersen-Sindre-3 POSTER Pulse shape and PMT stabilization period from spontaneous signal from a ultra dense hydrogen source
Zhang-Hang-1 POSTER Experimental on hydrogen carrying metal glow discharge
Ziehm-Erik-1 POSTER Detecting Charged Particles in LENR Applications using CR-39
Zuppero-Anthony-1 POSTER Electron Quasiparticle Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions
Zuppero-Anthony-2 Theory M 4:10 Transmutations by Heavy Electron Catalysis