subpage of iccf-21/abstracts/review/
Slides: ICCF21 Main McKubre
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!).
subpage of iccf-21/abstracts/review/
My comments are in indented italics.
Investigation of the Nickel-Hydrogen Anomalous Heat Effect
Edward J. Beiting
Experimental work was undertaken at The Aerospace Corporation to reproduce a specific
observation of the gas-phase Anomalous Heat Effect (aka LENR). 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):
 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.
Generation of High-Temperature Samples and Calorimetric Measurement of Thermal Power for the
Study of Ni/H2 Exothermic Reactions
Edward J. Beiting, Dean Romein
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 < 1000o C)
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.
While several research reports from Europe by Piantelli et al.  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  in Japan as reproduced by Ahern  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.  and  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  and the initial experimental trial in this work. Other than these additional particles, the material used here was identical to that used by Refs.  and .
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!
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:
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?
subpage of iccf-21/abstracts/review/
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.
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,
1Technova Inc., 2Nissan Motors Co., 3Kyushu University, 4Tohoku University, 5Nagoya University and
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.
- 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 4: Candidate 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 16. Atomic 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 24. Local 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
・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 45. SNH 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 54. 4H/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).
I am taking questions for conference presenters on this page. You may request that a question be addressed to a specific speaker or presenter, and I will communicate the question and I will bring answers back to this blog. The Conference is shaping up to be a breakthrough event. There is far more major CMNS activity under way than is generally publicly announced.
Comments below may be entered anonymously. All comments from someone who has not been approved before must be approved, so be patient, and I am very, very busy with the Conferencem there are hundreds of people to listen to and talk with. If a real email address is entered, it will not be published, and I will be able to communicate directly, and intend to follow up on everything, eventually.
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
subpage of iccf-21/abstracts/review/
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.
subpage of iccf-21/abstracts/review/
|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?
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 s
log 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:
Cold fusion: superfluidity of deuterons.
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.
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.
subpage of iccf-21/abstracts/review/
|Afanasyev-Sergei-1||POSTER||Cold fusion: superfluidity of deuterons|
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.
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.
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|
Subpage of iccf-21/abstracts/
This page will collect reviews of ICCF-21 presentations. The intention is to support study, commentary, an review. Authors are also welcome and encouraged to issue corrections or clarifications.
The abstracts display a wide range of quality and usefulness. Those two characteristics are personal assessments, not fact. Comments are welcome.
The abstracts page has links to audio files for many presentations, and links to documents, when available.
(If a reader wants to comment on a presentation that is not listed below, request a page be created with a comment below. These requests will be deleted when actioned.)
List of review pages started:
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.
|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?|
|10:30||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|
|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|
|3:30||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|
|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|
|10:30||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|
|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?|
|3:30||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|
|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|
|10:30||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|
|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|
|10:30||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|
|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|
|3:30||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|
|9:30||Seccombe||S-1||Experience with Semiconductor Technology Development Potentially Relevant to LENR|
|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|
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.
(There is audio on Cold Fusion Now, for each day, for the speakers. The day index is at http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/iccf21/ ) I have added a link to each audio file below, where available, the direct file links being provided by Ruby Carat.)
Audio, No Abstract:
No Abstract and No Audio
Darden, KEYNOTE Industrial Heat
|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|
|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 (Paper from Celani)|
|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||Old and New Experiments W 10:30
|Electric Energy Generation by LENR|
|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 presented Thursday 8 AM
|Chemical Heat Generation in LENR renamed Considerations on Chemical Reactions and 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||POSTER||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||Theory M 3:50
|Using the Method of Coherent Correlated States for Realization of Nuclear Interaction of Slow Particles with Crystals and Molecules|
|Vysotskii-Vladimir-2||POSTER||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||Experiment and Theory Th 1:30||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||Theory M 4:10
|Electron Quasiparticle Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions|
|Transmutations by Heavy Electron Catalysis|