Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/nanoph.2015.4.issue-1/nanoph-2014-0003/nanoph-2014-0003.xml Low-loss, infrared and terahertz nanophotonics using surface phonon polaritons Polaritons can be pumped using terahertz pumping. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > But, I think you missed the point (maybe). Achieving an XH stimulation > with such weak lasers, and in particularly at a required resonance in > difference frequency in the THz range, is a key probe of the effect. Yes, > you might be able to generate some enhancement by brute force, but it would > cloud the probe of the nature of the effect. The efficiency will be low > for conversion of the small power laser signal pair to a THz difference > signal, so it means that the THz signal at the surface was extremely weak. > Yet at the THz resonance, it had a very significant effect on the XH. The > THz signal was extremely weak compared to the XH that was stimulated and > was clearly non-ionizing. That THz-to-XH gain at such a low level is a key > evidence of phonon involvement IMHO. > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> >> >> One interpretation of the input parameters and the use of very weak >> lasers by L/C (comparatively) is that for them to see any anomalous thermal >> effect, they had to hit a special resonance frequency in order to get >> results. >> >> >> >> OTOH if a far more powerful laser is available and is employed – then a >> brute force approach negates the need to achieve an exact resonance. >> >> >> >> Thus a “special THz range” could be red herring... >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Bob Higgins >> >> >> >> Jones, >> >> >> >> I don't think the Letts-Cravens experiment is similar to Holmlid at all. >> They used two calibrated wavelength lasers superimposed on the cathode. >> They found that when the lasers were separated by a specific frequency >> difference in the 10-20 THz range, there was a peaking in the XP. For >> there to be a frequency difference effect, there must be a nonlinearity - >> likely a surface plasmon at the cathode surface - that allows the >> difference frequency to form. The difference frequency of 10-20 THz where >> there was a peak in XP is VERY suggestive of phonon stimulation, something >> compeletely different than Holmlid's experiment. >> >> >> >> *From: *Jed Rothwell >> >> I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. >> >> JB: There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some >> of which was presented. You may not think the evidence is credible, but you >> are not a nuclear engineer >> >> >> >>- People who are nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists don't think >>so either. >> >> >> >> Some do, some don’t. George Miley for instance, who has far stronger >> credentials than most critics of Holmlid, was actually a co-author with him. >> >> >> >> >> >>- The main reason I know of is that if there were lots of muons, they >>would cause harm, and there is no sign of harm. >> >> >> >> There is not much sign of harm for airline crews who spend many hours at >> altitude where muons are present in high flux. Furthermore, Holmlid has >> suffered a health issue recently which could have been aggravated by >> exposure to muons. The jury is out on this issue. >> >> >> >> In fact, muons are weakly interacting with light elements like carbon so >> health issues are not expected but no one knows. The Curie’s health >> problems, for instance, is a situation where they were exposed to muons, in >> addition to gamma radiation, but no one has revisited the old cases to >> estimate relative risks. >> >> >> >> Actually, there are stronger arguments against muons than health issues >> but what is needed is a stronger independent replication. >> >> >> >> Since the so-called “Letts-Cravens effect” is similar to Holmlid’s >> technique and has been replicated by others, it is conceivable that some >> kind of hybrid experiment will emerge… sooner rather than later, it is >> hoped. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
RE: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Interesting… This cited work with photonic crystals would be even more relevant if palladium hydride is a photonic crystal. Is it? It could be … but I cannot find a direct reference for that. Yet palladium as an element is photoactive, and it turns up often in a search of photonic crystals but not as hydride. Here is the type of article that turns up but it is not on point. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3690085 Still – the photonic crystal as a feature of the Letts/Cravens effect, has explanatory appeal and would be important with a bit more evidence – plus -- the Holmlid effect is using a different substrate – basically hematite modified as a styrene (spillover) catalyst. Hematite itself does have photonic properties and, as it turns out, hematite works as a spillover catalyst when it is thermally activated with potassium. Potassium is photoactive, particularly as an ionic crystal. Thus, a few of the details fit into place as an emerging MO … a common denominator between the two experiments. It may be a stretch, but there seems to be a valid case for the proposition that the Letts/Cravens effect is related to photon coherence, via the beat wave of two lasers which are being tuned to the resonance of a photonic crystal which is a hydride in which the resonance level is in the THz range. As of now, there is no available coherent photon source for THz - but these lasers are on the way as they have military significance. The resonance for iron ferrite may correspondingly be in the visible range (yellow-green) OR the brute force effect of a more powerful light source overwhelms the need for an exact resonance. There is no need to invoke Hawking radiation. We simply have one coherent light source (a laser) stimulating photonic crystal in a high Q mutual feedback arrangement. Conservation of miracles, you know 😊 Of course, for this possibility to get any traction - it is imperative that a muon detector be used in a Letts/Cravens experiment … From: Axil Axil An experiment similar to Letts-Cravens. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-4484/26/23/234002 Experimental observation of anomalous thermal radiation from a three-dimensional metallic photonic crystal Abstract We report some striking results on thermal radiation properties of a resonantly coupled cavity photonic crystal (PhC) at elevated temperatures (T = 400–900 K). We experimentally found that at resonant wavelengths, λ = 1.1, 1.64, 2.85 μm, the PhC emission is spectrally selective, quasi-coherent, directional, and shows significant deviation from Planck's blackbody law at equilibrium. The presence of non-equilibrium effects, driven by strong thermal excitation and cavity resonance, may be the major cause for our experimental observation. Sooner or later, science would stumble over some sort of LENR reaction. thermal radiation coming off this photonic crystal (PhC) is up to 50 times stronger than blackbody radiation at certain frequencies. That radiation is coherent, directional, and focused. This finding has the researchers puzzled. I speculated that the coupled cavities in this crystal form a polariton Bose condensate that emits hawking radiation at specific thermal frequencies. There also may be some overunity here: more energy out than in... Near infrared is resonant with the size of the optical cavity. Bob Higgins wrote: Jones, I don't think the Letts-Cravens experiment is similar to Holmlid at all. They used two calibrated wavelength lasers superimposed on the cathode. They found that when the lasers were separated by a specific frequency difference in the 10-20 THz range, there was a peaking in the XP. For there to be a frequency difference effect, there must be a nonlinearity - likely a surface plasmon at the cathode surface - that allows the difference frequency to form. The difference frequency of 10-20 THz where there was a peak in XP is VERY suggestive of phonon stimulation, something compeletely different than Holmlid's experiment.
[Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
But, I think you missed the point (maybe). Achieving an XH stimulation with such weak lasers, and in particularly at a required resonance in difference frequency in the THz range, is a key probe of the effect. Yes, you might be able to generate some enhancement by brute force, but it would cloud the probe of the nature of the effect. The efficiency will be low for conversion of the small power laser signal pair to a THz difference signal, so it means that the THz signal at the surface was extremely weak. Yet at the THz resonance, it had a very significant effect on the XH. The THz signal was extremely weak compared to the XH that was stimulated and was clearly non-ionizing. That THz-to-XH gain at such a low level is a key evidence of phonon involvement IMHO. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Bob, > > > > One interpretation of the input parameters and the use of very weak lasers > by L/C (comparatively) is that for them to see any anomalous thermal > effect, they had to hit a special resonance frequency in order to get > results. > > > > OTOH if a far more powerful laser is available and is employed – then a > brute force approach negates the need to achieve an exact resonance. > > > > Thus a “special THz range” could be red herring... > > > > > > *From: *Bob Higgins > > > > Jones, > > > > I don't think the Letts-Cravens experiment is similar to Holmlid at all. > They used two calibrated wavelength lasers superimposed on the cathode. > They found that when the lasers were separated by a specific frequency > difference in the 10-20 THz range, there was a peaking in the XP. For > there to be a frequency difference effect, there must be a nonlinearity - > likely a surface plasmon at the cathode surface - that allows the > difference frequency to form. The difference frequency of 10-20 THz where > there was a peak in XP is VERY suggestive of phonon stimulation, something > compeletely different than Holmlid's experiment. > > > > *From: *Jed Rothwell > > I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. > > JB: There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some of > which was presented. You may not think the evidence is credible, but you > are not a nuclear engineer > > > >- People who are nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists don't think >so either. > > > > Some do, some don’t. George Miley for instance, who has far stronger > credentials than most critics of Holmlid, was actually a co-author with him. > > > > > >- The main reason I know of is that if there were lots of muons, they >would cause harm, and there is no sign of harm. > > > > There is not much sign of harm for airline crews who spend many hours at > altitude where muons are present in high flux. Furthermore, Holmlid has > suffered a health issue recently which could have been aggravated by > exposure to muons. The jury is out on this issue. > > > > In fact, muons are weakly interacting with light elements like carbon so > health issues are not expected but no one knows. The Curie’s health > problems, for instance, is a situation where they were exposed to muons, in > addition to gamma radiation, but no one has revisited the old cases to > estimate relative risks. > > > > Actually, there are stronger arguments against muons than health issues > but what is needed is a stronger independent replication. > > > > Since the so-called “Letts-Cravens effect” is similar to Holmlid’s > technique and has been replicated by others, it is conceivable that some > kind of hybrid experiment will emerge… sooner rather than later, it is > hoped. > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
An experiment similar to Letts-Cravens. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-4484/26/23/234002 Experimental observation of anomalous thermal radiation from a three-dimensional metallic photonic crystal Abstract We report some striking results on thermal radiation properties of a resonantly coupled cavity photonic crystal (PhC) at elevated temperatures (T = 400–900 K). We experimentally found that at resonant wavelengths, λ = 1.1, 1.64, 2.85 μm, the PhC emission is spectrally selective, quasi-coherent, directional, and shows significant deviation from Planck's blackbody law at equilibrium. The presence of non-equilibrium effects, driven by strong thermal excitation and cavity resonance, may be the major cause for our experimental observation. Sooner or later, science would stumble over some sort of LENR reaction. thermal radiation coming off this photonic crystal (PhC) is up to 50 times stronger than blackbody radiation at certain frequencies. That radiation is coherent, directional, and focused. This finding has the researchers puzzled. I speculated that the coupled cavities in this crystal form a polariton Bose condensate that emits hawking radiation at specific thermal frequencies. There also may be some overunity here: more energy out than in... Near infrared is resonant with the size of the optical cavity. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Jones, > > I don't think the Letts-Cravens experiment is similar to Holmlid at all. > They used two calibrated wavelength lasers superimposed on the cathode. > They found that when the lasers were separated by a specific frequency > difference in the 10-20 THz range, there was a peaking in the XP. For > there to be a frequency difference effect, there must be a nonlinearity - > likely a surface plasmon at the cathode surface - that allows the > difference frequency to form. The difference frequency of 10-20 THz where > there was a peak in XP is VERY suggestive of phonon stimulation, something > compeletely different than Holmlid's experiment. > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> >> >> *From: *Jed Rothwell >> >> I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. >> >> JB: There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some >> of which was presented. You may not think the evidence is credible, but you >> are not a nuclear engineer >> >> >> >>- People who are nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists don't think >>so either. >> >> >> >> Some do, some don’t. George Miley for instance, who has far stronger >> credentials than most critics of Holmlid, was actually a co-author with him. >> >> >> >> >> >>- The main reason I know of is that if there were lots of muons, they >>would cause harm, and there is no sign of harm. >> >> >> >> There is not much sign of harm for airline crews who spend many hours at >> altitude where muons are present in high flux. Furthermore, Holmlid has >> suffered a health issue recently which could have been aggravated by >> exposure to muons. The jury is out on this issue. >> >> >> >> In fact, muons are weakly interacting with light elements like carbon so >> health issues are not expected but no one knows. The Curie’s health >> problems, for instance, is a situation where they were exposed to muons, in >> addition to gamma radiation, but no one has revisited the old cases to >> estimate relative risks. >> >> >> >> Actually, there are stronger arguments against muons than health issues >> but what is needed is a stronger independent replication. >> >> >> >> Since the so-called “Letts-Cravens effect” is similar to Holmlid’s >> technique and has been replicated by others, it is conceivable that some >> kind of hybrid experiment will emerge… sooner rather than later, it is >> hoped. >> >> >> >> >> > >
RE: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Bob, One interpretation of the input parameters and the use of very weak lasers by L/C (comparatively) is that for them to see any anomalous thermal effect, they had to hit a special resonance frequency in order to get results. OTOH if a far more powerful laser is available and is employed – then a brute force approach negates the need to achieve an exact resonance. Thus a “special THz range” could be red herring... From: Bob Higgins Jones, I don't think the Letts-Cravens experiment is similar to Holmlid at all. They used two calibrated wavelength lasers superimposed on the cathode. They found that when the lasers were separated by a specific frequency difference in the 10-20 THz range, there was a peaking in the XP. For there to be a frequency difference effect, there must be a nonlinearity - likely a surface plasmon at the cathode surface - that allows the difference frequency to form. The difference frequency of 10-20 THz where there was a peak in XP is VERY suggestive of phonon stimulation, something compeletely different than Holmlid's experiment. From: Jed Rothwell I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. JB: There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some of which was presented. You may not think the evidence is credible, but you are not a nuclear engineer • People who are nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists don't think so either. Some do, some don’t. George Miley for instance, who has far stronger credentials than most critics of Holmlid, was actually a co-author with him. • The main reason I know of is that if there were lots of muons, they would cause harm, and there is no sign of harm. There is not much sign of harm for airline crews who spend many hours at altitude where muons are present in high flux. Furthermore, Holmlid has suffered a health issue recently which could have been aggravated by exposure to muons. The jury is out on this issue. In fact, muons are weakly interacting with light elements like carbon so health issues are not expected but no one knows. The Curie’s health problems, for instance, is a situation where they were exposed to muons, in addition to gamma radiation, but no one has revisited the old cases to estimate relative risks. Actually, there are stronger arguments against muons than health issues but what is needed is a stronger independent replication. Since the so-called “Letts-Cravens effect” is similar to Holmlid’s technique and has been replicated by others, it is conceivable that some kind of hybrid experiment will emerge… sooner rather than later, it is hoped.
Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Jones, I don't think the Letts-Cravens experiment is similar to Holmlid at all. They used two calibrated wavelength lasers superimposed on the cathode. They found that when the lasers were separated by a specific frequency difference in the 10-20 THz range, there was a peaking in the XP. For there to be a frequency difference effect, there must be a nonlinearity - likely a surface plasmon at the cathode surface - that allows the difference frequency to form. The difference frequency of 10-20 THz where there was a peak in XP is VERY suggestive of phonon stimulation, something compeletely different than Holmlid's experiment. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > *From: *Jed Rothwell > > I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. > > JB: There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some of > which was presented. You may not think the evidence is credible, but you > are not a nuclear engineer > > > >- People who are nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists don't think >so either. > > > > Some do, some don’t. George Miley for instance, who has far stronger > credentials than most critics of Holmlid, was actually a co-author with him. > > > > > >- The main reason I know of is that if there were lots of muons, they >would cause harm, and there is no sign of harm. > > > > There is not much sign of harm for airline crews who spend many hours at > altitude where muons are present in high flux. Furthermore, Holmlid has > suffered a health issue recently which could have been aggravated by > exposure to muons. The jury is out on this issue. > > > > In fact, muons are weakly interacting with light elements like carbon so > health issues are not expected but no one knows. The Curie’s health > problems, for instance, is a situation where they were exposed to muons, in > addition to gamma radiation, but no one has revisited the old cases to > estimate relative risks. > > > > Actually, there are stronger arguments against muons than health issues > but what is needed is a stronger independent replication. > > > > Since the so-called “Letts-Cravens effect” is similar to Holmlid’s > technique and has been replicated by others, it is conceivable that some > kind of hybrid experiment will emerge… sooner rather than later, it is > hoped. > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
From: Jed Rothwell I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. JB: There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some of which was presented. You may not think the evidence is credible, but you are not a nuclear engineer ➢ People who are nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists don't think so either. Some do, some don’t. George Miley for instance, who has far stronger credentials than most critics of Holmlid, was actually a co-author with him. ➢ The main reason I know of is that if there were lots of muons, they would cause harm, and there is no sign of harm. There is not much sign of harm for airline crews who spend many hours at altitude where muons are present in high flux. Furthermore, Holmlid has suffered a health issue recently which could have been aggravated by exposure to muons. The jury is out on this issue. In fact, muons are weakly interacting with light elements like carbon so health issues are not expected but no one knows. The Curie’s health problems, for instance, is a situation where they were exposed to muons, in addition to gamma radiation, but no one has revisited the old cases to estimate relative risks. Actually, there are stronger arguments against muons than health issues but what is needed is a stronger independent replication. Since the so-called “Letts-Cravens effect” is similar to Holmlid’s technique and has been replicated by others, it is conceivable that some kind of hybrid experiment will emerge… sooner rather than later, it is hoped.
Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Jones Beene wrote: > >- I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. > > > > > > > > There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some of > which was presented. > > > > You may not think the evidence is credible, but you are not a nuclear > engineer > People who are nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists don't think so either. The main reason I know of is that if there were lots of muons, they would cause harm, and there is no sign of harm. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
From: Jed Rothwell ➢ I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some of which was presented. You may not think the evidence is credible, but you are not a nuclear engineer -- and senior nuclear engineers from Sweden (Gothenberg University – one of the top Universities in Europe) have said it is credible and recommended the instrumentation which was used. To be fair, other nuclear engineers from Sweden and elsewhere have expressed doubt. It is easy to see why there is widespread incredulity – given the sheer number of muons per laser pulse, the lack of replication in the USA, and the fact that it does not fit into any cold fusion paradigm or any other paradigm for that matter. BTW – Sweden gets more electrical power from fission (as a % of total usage than the USA and also more from renewables than we do). They are very close to dropping carbon altogether. If Holmlid is correct that goal (carbon free) may happen soon, since they have funding and an enlightened population (despite the Rossi fiasco at Upsala). Jones
Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Jones Beene wrote: > Most LENR proponents do not want to talk about fission. Actually they see > it as a deal-killer, so to speak instead of a killer-app … > I have never heard they don't want to talk about this. There were two papers about it at ICCF-21: Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor Using Pd/D Codeposition Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Lawrence P. Forsley Patrick J. McDaniel Space Application of a Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor Lawrence P. Forsley, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Here is an opinion which almost no one who is not Swedish shares, as of now. The opinion is that the bottom line for LENR (being relevant for the future) and for this being the “best” conference in a while, really boils down to one detail: muons. Nothing else which has happened in almost 30 years of the (occasionally inspired) research effort starting in 1989 matters very much if indeed the Holmlid technique for muons is real and we figure out the best use for them. The Swedes (OK this category should include Iceland and Norway too) who were at the conference are measuring “something” which they believe are copious levels of muon production. These particles could be some other mystery particle, but many specialists think it is muons. No one has ever had a source of ultracheap muons before so therefore no one realizes what can be done with them – other than that they are particularly absorbed by a few heavy elements, especially by the fissile isotope of uranium. The Swedes realize that there is a basic problem in finding the so-called “killer app” for ultracheap muons since they do not react easily and in fact are poorly understood. No one else seems to give this basic problem much thought since they are not fully aware of how cheaply the muons can be produced, and unfortunately, Holmlid has suffered recent health problems. Fortunately for the World, the research has been funded by a startup incubator group “GU Ventures AB”, the holding company linked to the University of Gothenburg which is named “UltraFusion Nuclear Power AB”, and which has actually been in business for several years. The goal is new type of nuclear reactor. The actual type of reactor chosen will be the “killer app” and it may not be what you are thinking – which is something like cold fusion, or even hot fusion. There are several avenues to proceed in finding the best application for cheap muons but the most likely one to be profitable – which is also the least likely to be enthusiastically talked about – is simply a way to massively enhance nuclear fission. In effect, it should be possible to substitute muons for free neutrons, to a large extent and thereby to achieve critical mass in a fuel which is far, far from critical without said muons operating as a trigger. Most LENR proponents do not want to talk about fission. Actually they see it as a deal-killer, so to speak instead of a killer-app … yet consider this. The US military has designed and produced a small modular reactor for many years, going back to the USS Nautilus in 1958. The fuel is enriched Uranium and expensive. However, in mass production with cheap fuel everything changes, especially when you have a reactor design already in place which is known to work well and is pf a size which can be of civilian interest. Which is to say -- if and when a modular, mass-produced, small and inherently safe fission reactor, with no real proliferation risk - comes along which can employ unenriched fuel (natural uranium or thorium) and is itself subcritical – then the World becomes a different place in the context of cheap and abundant energy. That may not be ideal, as there is still waste to deal with - but unlike hot fusion or cold fusion, we are not far from finding out the limitations - since so much of the background technology is already in place and works very well.
Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Axil Axil wrote: Paul Anderson > Ah, it is here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sp71necll4mfv2w/AABLXuUL0v3NrkY7BPYPKDA_a?dl=0&preview=Anderson-Paul-1.pdf It is not in the printed book, where I made my notes. I have no opinion, but people who understand astrophysics say the authors are wrong, and the temperature anomalies in the sun can be explained. (I know about these anomalies but I cannot judge whether they call for new physics or not.)
Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Paul Anderson On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> How did the SAFIRE project presentation go...anything interesting? >> > > Which author was that? I have lost track. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Axil Axil wrote: > How did the SAFIRE project presentation go...anything interesting? > Which author was that? I have lost track. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
How did the SAFIRE project presentation go...anything interesting? On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Here is something I wrote at lenr-forum.com: > > In my opinion, this was the best ICCF conference in a long time. The > number of participants was up. The number of young researchers was up. The > number of experiments was up, compared to past meetings dominated by > theorizing and rehashing old experiments. What brought this partial > renaissance about? The magic ingredient is money. M-o-n-e-y. The present > experiments are far better than any previous ones. Modern, precision > instruments are being used. Things like helium detection are better than > they used to be. The work is being done in first-class facilities, with > superb instruments operated by full-time experts. See, for example: > > http://www.aerospace.org/ > > People are no longer trying to accomplish a miracle on a shoestring, with > 1960s equipment. The money is coming from I.H. and two other sources. It > isn't a huge amount. It is nowhere near enough, in my opinion. But it is > far better than nothing, and it has had an impact. > > I think it is likely that if we had been funded decades ago, there would > be cold fusion automobiles by now. > > It will take many billions of dollars to make cold fusion into a practical > source of energy. Heck, it took a billion just to develop the Prius, which > is a minor incremental improvement to existing technology compared to cold > fusion. But, for the first steps, such as finding effective catalysts, the > money now coming in may be enough, whereas what we had before was certain > failure. > >
[Vo]:I think this was the best ICCF conference in a while
Here is something I wrote at lenr-forum.com: In my opinion, this was the best ICCF conference in a long time. The number of participants was up. The number of young researchers was up. The number of experiments was up, compared to past meetings dominated by theorizing and rehashing old experiments. What brought this partial renaissance about? The magic ingredient is money. M-o-n-e-y. The present experiments are far better than any previous ones. Modern, precision instruments are being used. Things like helium detection are better than they used to be. The work is being done in first-class facilities, with superb instruments operated by full-time experts. See, for example: http://www.aerospace.org/ People are no longer trying to accomplish a miracle on a shoestring, with 1960s equipment. The money is coming from I.H. and two other sources. It isn't a huge amount. It is nowhere near enough, in my opinion. But it is far better than nothing, and it has had an impact. I think it is likely that if we had been funded decades ago, there would be cold fusion automobiles by now. It will take many billions of dollars to make cold fusion into a practical source of energy. Heck, it took a billion just to develop the Prius, which is a minor incremental improvement to existing technology compared to cold fusion. But, for the first steps, such as finding effective catalysts, the money now coming in may be enough, whereas what we had before was certain failure.
