RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

FAIL

Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too technical 
for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them mention COP 
wrt thermal feedback.

A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate metric 
in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently guiding an 
uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…

JB
Please cite any “widely replicated experimental evidence” for positive thermal 
feedback leading to increased COP

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Alenr-canr.org+positive+feedback

See especially:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMthermalbeh.pdf

The so-called "COP" in cold fusion is not actually a coefficient of production, 
and it can easily be changed. It is meaningless, in my opinion. Input power 
does not directly cause output power, and there is no fixed ratio between them. 
Input power sometimes produces the NAE and cold fusion follows. I do not know 
if a thermal pulse will improve the ratio. Except in the obvious case in which 
a thermal pulse produces heat after death, which is to say, a COP of infinity.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:

Please cite any “widely replicated experimental evidence” for positive
> thermal feedback leading to increased COP
>

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Alenr-canr.org+positive+feedback

See especially:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMthermalbeh.pdf

The so-called "COP" in cold fusion is not actually a coefficient of
production, and it can easily be changed. It is meaningless, in my
opinion. Input
power does not directly cause output power, and there is no fixed ratio
between them. Input power sometimes produces the NAE and cold fusion
follows. I do not know if a thermal pulse will improve the ratio. Except in
the obvious case in which a thermal pulse produces heat after death, which
is to say, a COP of infinity.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR in a battery?

[JonesBeene]

Strange that there is no patent number – only an application number but they 
call it a patent.

Justia has been know to screw up in the past and the Inventor: Victor M. 
Villalobos has claimed fantastical inventions before. I would love to see this 
proved with an actual experiment -  but as of now, serious doubts are raised. 
Of course, it is possible that Goodenough’s device relates to ZPE and this 
inventor could lay claim to it -- but will we ever know what is going on 
scinetifically, now that there are legal ramifications?

In the past USPTO would never grant a patent on anything to do with ZPE or cold 
fusion, but things change…

Anyway this is curious – shall we say…? 




From: Nigel Dyer
And there is this 'Zero Point Energy Magnetic Battery'
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180059704
Nigel
JonesBeene wrote:
The recent announcement from University of Texas of a far more powerful 
solid-state "glass” battery technology from John Goodenough's lab has yet to 
sink in for most of the scientific community. There is evidence of a ten-fold 
increase in energy density between charges, so long as there are rest periods. 
IOW the device seems to recharge itself when given the time to do so.
The extreme interest in this technology is due to the reputation of Goodenough, 
the inventor the Li-ion battery in several versions including the one used by 
the Tesla automobile.  Goodenough is still active in the field at 94 years of 
age and that is another miracle in this unfolding story about a device that 
seems to defy physics. Curiously, this technology is reminiscent of EESTOR 
which is just down the road and still operating (under the radar) after 
disappointing dozens of VCs with millions of dollar spent and no product. Must 
be something in the water down there in the Lone Star state, even though both 
technologies are water free.
Similarly to that EESTOR fiasco, the reaction among the “experts” in the 
battery field strong skepticism tinged with jealousy. But Goodenough and his 
reputation makes things more interesting this time around. The growing 
conclusion from published early data is  that this battery breaks the laws of 
thermodynamics and that is the most significant aspect of story from our 
perspective… but in truth the gain could be coming from ambient heat and not 
the chemicals in device – which technically is more like a self-charging 
capacitor than a redox battery. This sounds a bit like “water memory” in that 
we have mobile molecules that want to return to a earlier state even after 
giving up energy and dropping to a more stable state.
Although lithium is one of the chemicals, sodium works as well or better so 
this is apparently not anything nuclear with respect to Li, or is it? The glass 
electrolyte apparently contains lithium, even in the case of  sodium as the  
charge carrier. Nor is dense hydrogen involved (unless it is trade secret). The 
one critical material required is an alkali from Column 1, which indicates that 
the manipulation of loosely bound electrons is the key. Many here on vortex 
might remember back in the previous century there were experiments and much 
talk about self-charging capacitors. Even data. This not a new claim and in 
fact there is little doubt that there are anomalies when you get to level of 
hundreds of Farads in a small area, which is due to some kind of paradigm shit 
… but the conservative opinion remains that these are measurement problems and 
not thermodynamic violations.
Given everything that is unfolding, it is even likely that there will be a fit 
between the extreme dielectrics of EESTOR and the glass electrode of 
Goodenough. I would like to see a merger of the two. Ultra dielectrics have not 
gone away.
Bottom line: Imagine the repercussions of  an electric car with ten times less 
battery cost than the new Tesla… or even four time less. The market for crude 
oil would crash, no?
That possibility will ruffle some feathers, especially in Texas where even 
students are armed. If I were John Goodenough, I would insist on adding some 
guards around the Texas Materials Institute and more security. He has a few 
good years left, it would seem. 
The only bad news from this technology is that there will not be very much 
demand for LENR if you can produce a low cost battery which recharges itself … 
unless of course the recharging is itself a form of LENR. This is not ruled  
out.
 
 

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

Please cite any “widely replicated experimental evidence” for positive thermal 
feedback leading to increased COP

I contend that there is none but there is the possibility that you do not 
understand what positive thermal feedback means…


From: Jed Rothwell

JonesBeene  wrote:
In short the original statement “there is NO positive thermal feedback 
mechanism in LENR which can increase COP” stands…
No, widely replicated experimental evidence shows that is not the case.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:

Sorry but that uncorroborated exchange  in no way supports the possibility
> of “positive thermal feedback” which can lead to increased COP.
>

I do not know what "uncorroborated exchange" means. (I mean I do not
understand the English.)

Anyway, the fact that a positive thermal feedback exists in cold fusion has
been demonstrated repeatedly -- hundreds of times -- by Fleischmann and
Pons, Miles, McKubre, Storms and others. It is one of the few things we
know for sure about cold fusion, along with the fact that helium is
produced in a fixed ratio to Pd-D.



> It could be a relic of measurement but at best is unpredictable and cannot
> be controlled.
>

(I think you mean "artifact" rather than "relic.")

Nope. It cannot be an artifact of the system because it has been measured
with many different types of calorimeters. It is quite predictable.
Whenever there is anomalous heat in the first place, a heat pulse will
increase it. It was controlled in hundreds of boil-off experiments. Done 16
at a time, many times.



> In short the original statement “there is NO positive thermal feedback
> mechanism in LENR which can increase COP” stands…
>

No, widely replicated experimental evidence shows that is not the case.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

Sorry but that uncorroborated exchange  in no way supports the possibility of 
“positive thermal feedback” which can lead to increased COP.

It could be a relic of measurement but at best is unpredictable and cannot be 
controlled.

In short the original statement “there is NO positive thermal feedback 
mechanism in LENR which can increase COP” stands…

(slightly modified ;-}



From: Jed Rothwell

JonesBeene  wrote:
 
In short, there is NO positive thermal feedback mechanism in LENR.

That is incorrect. See Fleischmann or Miles, for example p. 16:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

The boil off events were all triggered with a heat pulse.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:


> In short, there is NO positive thermal feedback mechanism in LENR.
>

That is incorrect. See Fleischmann or Miles, for example p. 16:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

The boil off events were all triggered with a heat pulse.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR in a battery?

[Nigel Dyer]

And there is this 'Zero Point Energy Magnetic Battery'

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180059704

Nigel

On 15/03/2018 13:53, JonesBeene wrote:


The recent announcement from University of Texas of a far more 
powerful solid-state "glass” battery technology from John Goodenough's 
lab has yet to sink in for most of the scientific community. There is 
evidence of a ten-fold increase in energy density between charges, so 
long as there are rest periods. IOW the device seems to recharge 
itself when given the time to do so.


The extreme interest in this technology is due to the reputation of 
Goodenough, the inventor the Li-ion battery in several versions 
including the one used by the Tesla automobile.  Goodenough is still 
active in the field at 94 years of age and that is another miracle in 
this unfolding story about a device that seems to defy physics. 
Curiously, this technology is reminiscent of EESTOR which is just down 
the road and still operating (under the radar) after disappointing 
dozens of VCs with millions of dollar spent and no product. Must be 
something in the water down there in the Lone Star state, even though 
both technologies are water free.


Similarly to that EESTOR fiasco, the reaction among the “experts” in 
the battery field strong skepticism tinged with jealousy. But 
Goodenough and his reputation makes things more interesting this time 
around. The growing conclusion from published early data is  that this 
battery breaks the laws of thermodynamics and that is the most 
significant aspect of story from our perspective… but in truth the 
gain could be coming from ambient heat and not the chemicals in device 
– which technically is more like a self-charging capacitor than a 
redox battery. This sounds a bit like “water memory” in that we have 
mobile molecules that want to return to a earlier state even after 
giving up energy and dropping to a more stable state.


Although lithium is one of the chemicals, sodium works as well or 
better so this is apparently not anything nuclear with respect to Li, 
or is it? The glass electrolyte apparently contains lithium, even in 
the case of  sodium as the  charge carrier. Nor is dense hydrogen 
involved (unless it is trade secret). The one critical material 
required is an alkali from Column 1, which indicates that the 
manipulation of loosely bound electrons is the key. Many here on 
vortex might remember back in the previous century there were 
experiments and much talk about self-charging capacitors. Even data. 
This not a new claim and in fact there is little doubt that there are 
anomalies when you get to level of hundreds of Farads in a small area, 
which is due to some kind of paradigm shit … but the conservative 
opinion remains that these are measurement problems and not 
thermodynamic violations.


Given everything that is unfolding, it is even likely that there will 
be a fit between the extreme dielectrics of EESTOR and the glass 
electrode of Goodenough. I would like to see a merger of the two. 
Ultra dielectrics have not gone away.


Bottom line: Imagine the repercussions of  an electric car with ten 
times less battery cost than the new Tesla… or even four time less. 
The market for crude oil would crash, no?


That possibility will ruffle some feathers, especially in Texas where 
even students are armed. If I were John Goodenough, I would insist on 
adding some guards around the Texas Materials Institute and more 
security. He has a few good years left, it would seem.


The only bad news from this technology is that there will not be very 
much demand for LENR if you can produce a low cost battery which 
recharges itself … unless of course the recharging is itself a form of 
LENR. This is not ruled  out.

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

In fission reactors positive temperature feedback is a head ache.  Control is 
much harder to accomplish.  Negative temperature feedback is much safer and 
easier to achieve effective control.

That being said, some of the runaway LENR reactions reported IMHO indicate some 
systems have positive temperature feedback—i.e., a higher temperature causes 
increasing higher temperatures with greater kinetic energy releases to the 
reactants present before they are dispersed.

Bob Cook


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 7:56:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

From: Alain Sepeda

Jacques RUER have demonstrated using standard engineering that
- if you have a low COP LENr reactor proven
- if there is a positive temperature feedback then you can engineer a device 
with any desired COP.

https://www.iscmns.org/work12/RuerJpreventingtherm.pdf


True, but unfortunately for us … “if” is the longest word in the English 
language.

In short, there is NO positive thermal feedback mechanism in LENR.

We all wish that there was such a mechanism, and for a while it looked like 
there could be but it was a house of cards. The closest thing we have which is 
proved  is so-called “heat after death” but that is a short term phenomenon and 
cannot be demonstrated “on demand” so it cannot be stacked or looped. It goes 
without saying that when the gain of LENR is  converted to electricity first, 
and that COP (thermal to electric) exceeds unity then the inventor can loop the 
output and win the Nobel prize. No one has done that but obviously it would 
HUGE if and when someone can loop output and input.

As of now a COP of 1.5 is hopelessly low in the commercial sense but of great 
scientific interest. A thermal gain at modest temperatures requires at COP of 
about 4 – in order  to loop output with input. There is indeed strong evidence 
for COP of 1.5 at 50 watt output but no way to get the COP higher since 
positive thermal feedback is a myth that crashed with Rossigate.

To be fair, Mitchell Swartz consistently demonstrates high COP levels in 
subwatt experiments,  but there is no independent evidence that an array of 
subwatt devices can be stacked to bring the output up to the tens of watts 
level over an extended period and self-power. Ahern and myself keep telling 
Mitchell that the Nobel prize is his when he can hand over such a looped device 
to be tested independently. The same recognition would be true of Brillouin or 
anyone else.

You know all this, Alain, so please excuse the cut-and-past -  but unless all 
sides of the COP argument appear in the same thread, the message will be 
misinterpreted by those who want LENR to be something which it is not. Again, 
that situation can change overnight with independent proof of self-power.

RE: [Vo]:Re: LENR is occurring in SAFIRE

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

QUESTIONS:

  1.  What are the anode and cathode made of?  I bet the anode is a Ni alloy.
  2.  What are the ions in the plasma  double layer—particularly the positive 
ions?
  3.  What is the photo spectrum of the positive ion zones of the double layers?
  4.  What happens if D is substituted for the H in the pressurized anode?
  5.  What high energy spectrum is seen during the large energy releases?
  6.  Are the isotopes of the elements seen during mass spec work normal or are 
there certain isotopes seen for the various elements being detected?
  7.  Why do they not identify the papers on LENR that Toyota etal., have put 
out?
  8.  How did they measure the effect of gravity being zero?



They should have the answers to all these questions, given their apparent 
scientific expertise onboard.
The angular momentum associated with the various spherical double layers should 
be determined.

The double layers of the plasma seem like they are a separate coherent system 
coupled by a magnetic field via the intrinsic spin of the electrons and the 
various positive ions, whatever they are—probably hydrogen.

Since the double layers form with both hollow and solid anodes, I would bet the 
Ni alloy is loaded with hydrogen to start.  The hollow anodes can be 
replenished with H a it leaks into the plasma and the inside of the reactor.

IMHO it sounds like LENR.

Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: LENR is occurring in SAFIRE


Why is this not a glorified Farnsworth Fusor?

The basic configuration, voltage and electrode placement is similar, as are the 
outputs including production of He3 and neutrons.

Did they even credit Farnsworth? He invented the desktop electric plasma 
machine with spherical plasma and self-focusing. These guys added some nice 
computer controls and a wealth of self-promotion - but is there a fundamental 
improvement in operation ?



From: Axil Axil


http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safireproject.com%2FewExternalFiles%2FSAFIRE-Project-Report.pdf%3A32XLsBM3uurpRXHUMnmHfcZ4JQk=2168707



Here is the written report that accompanies the SAFIRE video presentation.


On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Axil Axil 
> wrote:

The SAFIRE project got kicked in the teeth with LENR. These professional 
scientists really don't know what is going on. Just like in the SunCell, 
tungsten vaporizes in nanoseconds. Like the Hutchison effect, tungsten turns 
into powder. This video is long but if you are interested in LENR, it is worth 
the time. The LENR stuff starts at 33:00, but if you don't know what SAFIRE is, 
watch it from the beginning. If you are interested in the weird stuff that MFMP 
is finding, you will find more of it in this video. At 1:03:18, there is a 
large power discharge that the presenter did not want to talk about, but in 
past presentations, the output form these energy bursts was up to 20,000,000 
watts and He3 was found, I have a felling that the SAFIRE project is in the 
process of patenting the fusion effects. The researchers may be going dark on 
this process. SAFIRE has opened the door to a new way to do plasma fusion 
without radiation and neutrons.



[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJAQIWEyzY[/media]

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR is occurring in SAFIRE

[Axil Axil]

As far as I know there is no neutrons. Where did you find that neutron
reference?

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:10 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> Why is this not a glorified Farnsworth Fusor?
>
>
>
> The basic configuration, voltage and electrode placement is similar, as
> are the outputs including production of He3 and neutrons.
>
>
>
> Did they even credit Farnsworth? He invented the desktop electric plasma
> machine with spherical plasma and self-focusing. These guys added some nice
> computer controls and a wealth of self-promotion - but is there a
> fundamental improvement in operation ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Axil Axil 
>
>
>
> http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safireproject.com%
> 2FewExternalFiles%2FSAFIRE-Project-Report.pdf%
> 3A32XLsBM3uurpRXHUMnmHfcZ4JQk=2168707
>
>
>
> Here is the written report that accompanies the SAFIRE video presentation.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> The SAFIRE project got kicked in the teeth with LENR. These professional
> scientists really don't know what is going on. Just like in the SunCell,
> tungsten vaporizes in nanoseconds. Like the Hutchison effect, tungsten
> turns into powder. This video is long but if you are interested in LENR, it
> is worth the time. The LENR stuff starts at 33:00, but if you don't know
> what SAFIRE is, watch it from the beginning. If you are interested in the
> weird stuff that MFMP is finding, you will find more of it in this video.
> At 1:03:18, there is a large power discharge that the presenter did not
> want to talk about, but in past presentations, the output form these energy
> bursts was up to 20,000,000 watts and He3 was found, I have a felling that
> the SAFIRE project is in the process of patenting the fusion effects. The
> researchers may be going dark on this process. SAFIRE has opened the door
> to a new way to do plasma fusion without radiation and neutrons.
>
>
>
> [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJAQIWEyzY[/media]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: LENR is occurring in SAFIRE

[JonesBeene]

Why is this not a glorified Farnsworth Fusor? 

The basic configuration, voltage and electrode placement is similar, as are the 
outputs including production of He3 and neutrons.

Did they even credit Farnsworth? He invented the desktop electric plasma 
machine with spherical plasma and self-focusing. These guys added some nice 
computer controls and a wealth of self-promotion - but is there a fundamental 
improvement in operation ?



From: Axil Axil

http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safireproject.com%2FewExternalFiles%2FSAFIRE-Project-Report.pdf%3A32XLsBM3uurpRXHUMnmHfcZ4JQk=2168707

Here is the written report that accompanies the SAFIRE video presentation. 


On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
The SAFIRE project got kicked in the teeth with LENR. These professional 
scientists really don't know what is going on. Just like in the SunCell, 
tungsten vaporizes in nanoseconds. Like the Hutchison effect, tungsten turns 
into powder. This video is long but if you are interested in LENR, it is worth 
the time. The LENR stuff starts at 33:00, but if you don't know what SAFIRE is, 
watch it from the beginning. If you are interested in the weird stuff that MFMP 
is finding, you will find more of it in this video. At 1:03:18, there is a 
large power discharge that the presenter did not want to talk about, but in 
past presentations, the output form these energy bursts was up to 20,000,000 
watts and He3 was found, I have a felling that the SAFIRE project is in the 
process of patenting the fusion effects. The researchers may be going dark on 
this process. SAFIRE has opened the door to a new way to do plasma fusion 
without radiation and neutrons.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJAQIWEyzY[/media]

[Vo]:Re: LENR is occurring in SAFIRE

[Axil Axil]

http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safireproject.com%2FewExternalFiles%2FSAFIRE-Project-Report.pdf%3A32XLsBM3uurpRXHUMnmHfcZ4JQk=2168707


Here is the written report that accompanies the SAFIRE video presentation.


On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The SAFIRE project got kicked in the teeth with LENR. These professional
> scientists really don't know what is going on. Just like in the SunCell,
> tungsten vaporizes in nanoseconds. Like the Hutchison effect, tungsten
> turns into powder. This video is long but if you are interested in LENR, it
> is worth the time. The LENR stuff starts at 33:00, but if you don't know
> what SAFIRE is, watch it from the beginning. If you are interested in the
> weird stuff that MFMP is finding, you will find more of it in this video.
> At 1:03:18, there is a large power discharge that the presenter did not
> want to talk about, but in past presentations, the output form these energy
> bursts was up to 20,000,000 watts and He3 was found, I have a felling that
> the SAFIRE project is in the process of patenting the fusion effects. The
> researchers may be going dark on this process. SAFIRE has opened the door
> to a new way to do plasma fusion without radiation and neutrons.
>
>
> [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJAQIWEyzY[/media]
>
>

[Vo]:LENR is occurring in SAFIRE

[Axil Axil]

The SAFIRE project got kicked in the teeth with LENR. These professional
scientists really don't know what is going on. Just like in the SunCell,
tungsten vaporizes in nanoseconds. Like the Hutchison effect, tungsten
turns into powder. This video is long but if you are interested in LENR, it
is worth the time. The LENR stuff starts at 33:00, but if you don't know
what SAFIRE is, watch it from the beginning. If you are interested in the
weird stuff that MFMP is finding, you will find more of it in this video.
At 1:03:18, there is a large power discharge that the presenter did not
want to talk about, but in past presentations, the output form these energy
bursts was up to 20,000,000 watts and He3 was found, I have a felling that
the SAFIRE project is in the process of patenting the fusion effects. The
researchers may be going dark on this process. SAFIRE has opened the door
to a new way to do plasma fusion without radiation and neutrons.


[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJAQIWEyzY[/media]

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

From: Alain Sepeda

Jacques RUER have demonstrated using standard engineering that
- if you have a low COP LENr reactor proven
- if there is a positive temperature feedback then you can engineer a device 
with any desired COP.

https://www.iscmns.org/work12/RuerJpreventingtherm.pdf


True, but unfortunately for us … “if” is the longest word in the English 
language. 

In short, there is NO positive thermal feedback mechanism in LENR. 

We all wish that there was such a mechanism, and for a while it looked like 
there could be but it was a house of cards. The closest thing we have which is 
proved  is so-called “heat after death” but that is a short term phenomenon and 
cannot be demonstrated “on demand” so it cannot be stacked or looped. It goes 
without saying that when the gain of LENR is  converted to electricity first, 
and that COP (thermal to electric) exceeds unity then the inventor can loop the 
output and win the Nobel prize. No one has done that but obviously it would 
HUGE if and when someone can loop output and input. 

As of now a COP of 1.5 is hopelessly low in the commercial sense but of great 
scientific interest. A thermal gain at modest temperatures requires at COP of 
about 4 – in order  to loop output with input. There is indeed strong evidence 
for COP of 1.5 at 50 watt output but no way to get the COP higher since 
positive thermal feedback is a myth that crashed with Rossigate. 

To be fair, Mitchell Swartz consistently demonstrates high COP levels in 
subwatt experiments,  but there is no independent evidence that an array of 
subwatt devices can be stacked to bring the output up to the tens of watts 
level over an extended period and self-power. Ahern and myself keep telling 
Mitchell that the Nobel prize is his when he can hand over such a looped device 
to be tested independently. The same recognition would be true of Brillouin or 
anyone else.

You know all this, Alain, so please excuse the cut-and-past -  but unless all 
sides of the COP argument appear in the same thread, the message will be 
misinterpreted by those who want LENR to be something which it is not. Again, 
that situation can change overnight with independent proof of self-power.

[Vo]:Nikkei article about cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

There was an upbeat article about cold fusion in the Nikkei newspaper:

常温核融合 「ニセ」覆せ
30年越し 発熱確認相次ぐ

2018/1/14

Cold Fusion: Overturning the conclusion that it was "fake"
After 30 years, a series of confirmations

https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGKKZO25613590S8A110C1MY1000/

Most of the article is behind a paywall. If someone has a subscription and
will send me a copy, I will translate it.

- Jed