Thorium Cold Fusion Report and Video (in French)

Thanks for ECW reader Sanjeev for uncovering an interesting article from a French site, Le Blog info de l’innovation, which reports about a cold fusion reactor built by a person identified as Julian S. in a room in an unidentified location.

According to a poor Google translation, a container contains “water enriched with deuterium oxide” into which is injected an electrical current “via a tungsten electrode made ​​with 2% Thorium 230″. The result is described as follows.

The atomic structure of the trap Thorium deuterium atoms which move under the influence of electricity. Can not escape, they merge. “Suddenly the white light intensity doubles while boiling liquid drops a bunch of splashing. ” That’s the cold fusion!”, hoarse scientist.

The article includes the video below which, although I am not able to understand the French commentary, appears to show a white hot reaction taking place, along with the display of an ammeter showing very little input. This is certainly a more spectacular demonstration than some we have seen, and it looks like it could be potentially quite dangerous.

I know we have a number of French speaking readers here on ECW, and I know many of us would be most grateful for a more accurate translation of this report and video.

UPDATE: Just after I wrote the above, we received a the following comment from “Sylvie” with a translation of the video commentary — thanks so much, Sylvie!

I’m French, but I’m not a professionnal translator, so there might be mistakes. This is a translation of what is being said in the video.

“So here you see little bubbles.
Ok.
You you want me to cut… to close the window? You’ll see a litte bit better.
Ok, yes.
So here you see little bubbles.
Yes.
These little bubbles are hydrogen. That’s evacuated.
Yes.
In frequency we are at 0.17. There is no current.
Here I up the current. We’re at 100 volts now. We are at 100 volts.
This is going away, I have to fix it.
And we are at 55 degrees (////celsius probably///).
I go up. You can see lightnings (electrical discharges) that are being created inside the gear.
Here what’s interesting is the amperage. It should go down.
Here we go. We are at the beginning but we don’t have real fusion yet. It’s the atoms’ cores that go to the thorium. Here we’re at 61 degrees, 62 degrees approximately. It accumulates more and more.
The more it accumulates, the more the amperage goes down and the more the amperage goes dow, the more we make energy. This is when we see a nuclear reaction. The amperage will go down. And that’s againt the laws of chemistry, the electrical laws. When we increase the current, the current is supposed to increase, and not the opposite, not decrease.
Heeeere we go. The process (reaction) is beginning, guys. It is only when the needle goes below 2 amperes that we’ll have a real reaction.
The only danger of this reactor is the emission of x rays. You see a very white light that can emit.
So we have this little device, a dosimeter, and if we look here… through sun light. Look. You look. It should not go over 0. So this should be checked every once in a while. I put this always just right here.
So now the reaction (process) is there. We’re going down.We’re going down.We’re going down.We’re going down.We’re going down.
We are at, we are at … 91.8 degrees. And we are in the “going down” phase. At this moment, we are producing. We’re at a little more than 1 ampere.
??? for such a reaction
??? product ??? It goes here inside. ???
Hydrogen is lighter than air so it will go away first, before vapor. Vapor is much heavier than air.
The needle goes below 1 ampere. Approximately 0.8 ampere. And we are at 95 degrees.
In magnetic emission we are at 0.69. 0.70. There is no problem. There is no problem.
Here we are at 108 degrees. 107 108 you see.
Yes I see I see. Yes yes yes.
So, here if I put a network of copper pipes with water inside, here you can feel the hotness
yes
So, if I put a network of copper pipes with water inside, the water will boil. That means I can make work a valve, I can make work an alternator. We go back to the vapor era.
Here we are at 55, that’s good.
We go back to the vapor era of course.
You create vapor very fast.
Very very fast.
With less power than usual.
120 watts.
And here we are at far less than 1 ampere. You can see. So we are at 240 volts. You can see it, you can see it also on the device.
I flush a little. ??? under pressure. Sometimes you got to flush. So here we have the process.
It overflows a little.
Yes yes yes. ???
And if it touches you, is it radioactive?
No, you can touch it, but it’s very hot. It can burn you but it’s not radioactive.
So here we are at 120 degrees approximatively.
Now I stop everything.
Oh yea, it is “one button” to stop it.
Ohhhhh…(somebody enters the room)… How are you?”

Sorry I couldn’t hear everything well.
“???” means I didn’t understand.

UPDATE 2:

A translation of the article is available at the LENRforum.eu

  • Rene Vega

    That was a fun video to watch. I like the sizzle, buzz, then brilliant white light emanating from the beaker. Unfortunately, it looks like sloppy science something this field does not need. At the very least I expected to see followup text of the energy inputs and temperature readings.

    BTW, thorium mantles are used in kerosene or propane lights to yield that trademark brilliant white light glow. Example: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17f4ex48ur0l8jpg/original.jpg

  • LittleKangaroo

    Everybody needs to sign this petition for investment into LENR research and development.

    It barely takes 5 minutes!

    Heavily invest in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) for energy independence, clean energy, and to stimulate economy
    Much like the west was a frontier holding riches, resources, and dreams for brave pioneers in the mid 1800’s, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) holds much the same potential for today’s and future generations. LENR is key to the future for our nation.

    We are rapidly falling behind in research and development for this “new” form of clean zero pollution, zero waste, cheap, and abundant energy.

    Foreign oil dependence would vanish. Automobile fuel efficiency standards would be as arcane as mounted cavalry. It would not take weeks or months for people to get power and heat back from damaged infrastructure due to catastrophic natural disasters.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/heavily-invest-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-lenr-energy-independence-clean-energy-and-stimulate/QrX5lW7Q

    The depth, breadth, and reach of LENR is boundless.

    Please heavily invest in R&D for LENR. Every future generation will thank you.

    Created: Nov 15, 2012
    Issues: Energy, Innovation, Science and Space Policy
    Learn about Petition Thresholds

  • Chris

    @Linda

    Having seen more than one of your posts, I’ll put in one single reply here:

    I agree that the article about Julian S. is no more than amateur journalism, but my judgement is based on other considerations. I disagree with your trollish attitude; it is far more worthless than the article you are criticizing.

    Raising standards? Seriously? I sometimes try to do so (and many of these posts are still awaiting moderation) but it seems to me that you are only lowering them. For one, c’mon, the fact that you don’t understand French is a point on which to criticize this article? There are more serious issues I find with it. If you truly want to raise standards, make a better effort.

    Those claims involving something proprietary are certainly not publicly funded research, as usually appears in peer reviewed articles. This doesn’t make it alchemy, it only means it is private R&D which is a slightly distinct thing from science; it is often called technology. Unfortunately, it means that Rossi will be delivering to very few trusted customers under NDA, because it will be hard for him to avoid his secret getting out in any case. His only hope is to trust a competent professional to get his patent application straight, in alternative to keeping secrets.

    Still, the fact that each of these things has shortcomings doesn’t automatically make it false of consequence. Get your epistemology straight. I have doubts about Julian S. saying one part of the apparatus reaches 1750 °C while submerged in the boiling water; he isn’t getting his details straight and I can’t go by his word about power measurements, but this doesn’t rule out that something is happening. It just gives me plenty of doubts. But Celani is a far more serious case and my doubts about Rossi have been decreasing too. When I was a lot less certain about him, I was criticizing many lame (and often less than competent) arguments that prejudiced folks were makijng against him; they of course would assume that I was a True Believer.

  • georgehants

    Good report from Cold Fusion Now.
    This is a report of the technology presented at ICCF-17 but released in the spring of 2012 following demonstrations held at MIT over January 30-31, 2012. I personally attended those demonstrations and can confirm that the graphic outputs referenced below and in the ICCF-17 presentation of Dr Peter Hagelstein were in fact generated on that occasion. This may be the technology that demonstrates Cold Fusion in a way that can be observed by anyone around the world.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/conclusively-demonstrating-the-new-energy-effect-of-cold-fusion/

  • georgehants

    What Happens IF Cold Fusion Does Become Reality?
    By. James Burgess of Oilprice.com
    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/What-Happens-IF-Cold-Fusion-Does-Become-Reality.html

    • Peter_Roe

      Based on previous articles, I would have expected rather better of James Burgess than an uncritical rehash of the Gibbs article. Maybe he just had a deadline to meet and this was the easy option.

      Edit: Moderated for some reason.

    • Chris

      It basically relays what Mark Gibbs had already wrote (hardly competent or informed) and links to stuff about Proia with a usual Gooooooooogle translation. I clicked the link hoping for a bit more.

  • georgehants
  • georgehants

    It one wishes to unmask a trouble maker on page one simply has to ask them a simple question.
    If that question forces them to give a straight answer against their strange beliefs, or would expose their trouble making, they will totally refuse to answer the question.
    Do not get caught in circular technical discussions that they use to hide their debunking.
    I have asked such question below, let us see how they respond, but they usually try to ignore them at all costs, or the answer will be nothing to do with the question.
    I explained to Paul at ECN a year ago that this is the way to identify unpleasant trouble makers but he, I think, missed the point and now we have seen the result of a Website taken over by imitation scientists and irrationals.

  • Pedro

    @Linda: tried to reply to your reply to my post but that seems not to work. Therefor I try it as a new post instead…
    There is a step-by-step description for replicators at http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/diycfr/index.htm
    On the home page (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/) there are many links to documents and videos, one of them to a replication done by CNAM, the French Nuclear institute.
    Should be enough information for those who want to try it themselves.

    • Peter_Roe

      Pedro:

      Good links, but I don’t think that our new ‘contributor’ is really interested in replicating anything. His/her pattern of posting indicates an assigned disinfo shill tasked with disrupting and diverting any discussion of what may be a ‘hot’ topic (plasma reactors).

  • Max S

    there is another e-cat information event announced by the German licencee for Dec8, 2012 in Kassel, Germany.
    http://ecat-deutschland.org/index.php/kongress-und-videos/info-veranstaltung-kassel

    • Pedro

      The invitation is a bit confusing. There are 2 subjects…
      1) current situation of the eCat technology.
      2) introduction and live demonstration of a new heating technology.
      They also say “experts from the German producer are present”.
      I have the feeling that the whole event is NOT about eCat and LENR, but some other heating system. There is a new company Nobletec that is also involved, but their website http://www.nobletec.de contains the same information, no further details.

    • Gerald

      * top2 vorstellung und live-vorführung einer neuen heizung technologie.

      translation to English: imagination and live demonstration of a new heating technology

      This is what google said. German is not my native laguage, but after reading the announcement I had to be sure and translated it.

      Lets wait and see.

      • artefact

        it is “Introduction (or presentation) and live demonstration..”

  • Filip48

    Yes, please raise the standards.
    Also it seems some individuals are taking over this site replying over 20 times per day about b_llsh_t isues like: the pranormal, hollow-planets, anti-gravity, homeopathy, etc.
    yek, yek, can’t wait for replies.
    Come on give it.

    • Karl

      Frank has succeeded to establish a discussion forum for people who like CF/LENR or related potential energy solutions to be fairly treated with an open mind. It is more or less a haven for us that share these ideas but I think this is also valuable site which help bring the new kind of energy solutions forward. I speak for myself but I think I share this view with most people contributing to the discussion here. As such this site is mostly free from poisonous insinuations along the line you try to tweak it too. The kind of issues you speak about makes it clear that you are nothing but a Troll. My advice is that you try to find the forum where the pseudo sceptic views of yours can be shared.

    • Ged

      I think you may be overexaggerating a bit.

      • Filip48

        I am not talking about MFMP!

    • georgehants

      Filip48.
      You said —
      “about b_llsh_t isues like: the pranormal, hollow-planets, anti-gravity, homeopathy, etc.”
      —Please explain, as science with Cold Fusion has denied and debunked the subject for 24 years delaying research and possibly harming millions of people, why do you believe that raising other like subjects, that science, in it’s completely incompetent and Dogma following way is also denying and debunking regardless of the Evidence.
      —Please justify your comment b_llsh_t, without any given Evidence, or is that just your opinion the same as most of sciences opinion about Cold Fusion.

      —Are you, as you seem to be demonstrating, closed minded and unwilling to discuss subjects deemed as unsuitable by the scientific religion of Dogma.
      — Do you believe that only open, unbiased Evidence and research can find the Truth.
      — Do you think that science should be allowed to deny and debunk subjects outside of the establishments religious beliefs.

      • Gerrit

        George, I tend agree with you, but I also very much understand the sentiment that others like Filip48 and Linda are voicing, I think they make a valid point.

        We have to face the fact that most of the mainstream still thinks that CF/LENR is crackpot. Why do they think that ? Because they haven’t looked into the subject themselves and are ignorant.

        I would like to see these people start looking into the matter for themselves, like a few journalists have started to do recently (with mixed results)

        However, when some of those (ignorant) people visit this site and will look at the videos linked in this article, they will most liked get reassured that “the whole thing” is bad science and crackpot. It seems to me that Filip48 and Linda are afraid of that too, at least I read their comments like that.

        We cannot expect the ignorants to change their mind when we present them with such a video. Only those who already “understand” the topic are able to correctly put the video in the right place of their personal picture.

        Some of us see this site as a community to discuss “why mainstream science dogma fails” and some of us see this site as “an entry point for LENR ignorants who want to see for themselves”. I think that both views are valid.

        So IMHO it is a good thing when articles about topics with “less scientific rigour” get some comments that state exactly that.

        • georgehants

          Gerrit, thank you for an excellent reply.
          My only confusion is that you seem to be agreeing with me totally and yet say you also say “but I also very much understand the sentiment that others like Filip48 and Linda are voicing,”.
          My view that you endorse, is complete openness and research of subjects like Cold Fusion, UFO’s etc.
          Cold Fusion is the tool that shows the complete incompetence of science in many areas and it is letting down the Wonderful Cold Fusion Rebels to not make sure that we all demand that science changes from closed-minded incompetents to open-minded scientists.

          • Gerrit

            when cold fusion has reached the consciousness of the average house owner as a viable solution for heating and power supply, the time has come to look at its history and how cold fusion was neglected over years and compare it to other neglected topics and pinpoint the weaknesses of science dogma.

            I think that we’re not there yet.

            I also think that mainstream science will simply argue that _they_ were not to blame for the years of neglect, but that the CF scientists are to blame for not producing “indisputable” evidence earlier.

            Scientists are like politicians, some of them are in it only for there own benefit. Well, who would have thought that humans behave like humans ?

        • http://www.lenrforum.eu/ AlainCo

          +1

          better point to Celani at NIWeek, Celani at CERN,
          with CEA Grenobles results, Nasa gas permeation experiments, ENEA report 41 and others similar

          more risky with industrialists like Defkalion.
          forget about this video (which might/should work , but who knows for sure), and forget about Rossi (who might not lie on all he says)

          about good proofs david frenceh made recently a good article on nanor :
          http://coldfusionnow.org/conclusively-demonstrating-the-new-energy-effect-of-cold-fusion/

          that could be a good “convincing” tool.

      • AstralProjectee

        I agree with georgehants. The suppression of Cold fusion is related to these other fields, since they all show a systemic suppression by the same methods that the scientific community is using. Not only the same methods, but the same status quo or dogma too. These other fields require some of the same lines of out of the box thinking as cold fusion pioneers have perhaps.

        Science seems best at saying what is true rather than say what is not true. Since some of the things that are supposedly debunked don’t get a enough funding usually to truly debunk them in the first place. I am not saying that we should just start believing debunked theories, and devices that have been debunked, but certainly we should not vehemently and systemically deny and suppress them. In 1989 many of those scientists were determined to disprove it before cold fusion had a chance. This is partly because the reality of cold fusion is that it was very sensitive, and only had a seemingly subtle effect. In other words it was not BAM in your face enough for them to believe. My point is is that the these other things like the paranormal probably are just too subtle for our current mainstream scientists to admit too.

        BTW we do have one really really good study about premonition published in a mainstream scientific journal. It’s results were well above statistical chance.

        Anyways hopefully once cold fusion is prove to the mainstream, there will be less harsh criticism of other things scientists call junk science.

        Peace.

  • Thomas

    Mixing water-in-the-tank engines, perpetuum mobiles and unrelated subjects with LENR is not helping. It may be interesting to mention, but with care… The comments so far made that clear.

  • Avi

    jinlabs.online.fr/cfr/
    Previous French replications

  • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

    Bad science, or no science at all discredits this field. Yet I get moderated for demanding basic rigour, while comments amounting to prayers for peace fly up to heaven without any moderation at all.

    Anyone care to comment on that, at risk of possibly upsetting a few blind believers?

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      So what brings you here? Are you just slumming, or are you on duty tonight?

      • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

        Just trying to raise the standards… If there’s anything to this LENR stuff, we are only going to know that if we can get verifiable, repeatable results.

        If you want hope, join a church. Otherwise, let’s do some science here. :)

        • Jeff

          I often have similar feelings and have been automod’ed to death on this site. Yet I cannot help asking: Linda, do you have a relative named Mary?

          • Peter_Roe

            More a question of ‘multiple personalities’ I think. With ECN dead in the water (one down…) we may be in for a wholesale (attempted) migration of tro11s using new IDs. It will be interesting to compare comments here from these people with those archived on ECN in order to look for similar idiom and phrases that will reveal their former identities.

            • GreenWin

              Peter, there is a tiny place in California called LonaLinda… it’s a quiet, lonely spot looking for attention. It’s rumored people live in thickets under the bridge spanning the stream running through town. A bit like Cotswold Broadway. LonaLindians are easy to identify, aside from the pointy ears, they repeat themselves over and again. Whilst raising the bar.

        • Jim

          Here’s some science: http://www.quantumheat.org/

          Though it sounds like you would prefer to be someplace that’s hopeless.

        • Ryan

          Alas, if you were capable of doing science you would perhaps already be investigating it yourself. This is not a forum for scientists. This is a forum to discuss a particular technology, and perhaps related topics, between people that are peripherally interested in the topic and want to learn more with the small hope that it may make a difference in society. Here’s the thing, petulantly demanding proof from people (Rossi, Celani, Brilloun, et all) that you have no actual involvment with either personally or finanically is pointless. This area is pretty much binary. Either there will be something of real value that will come to the fore and potentially make life better for a great many or there is nothing useful here. Given that I don’t feel you have any input or understanding of the research going on, save for a bias believing that we understand more about reality than we do (in actuality all we have are models of reality that are working well enough currently to give us some nice toys)leaning towards an unwarranted philosophy that anything that falls out of our current understanding must be bunk, makes your opinion on the subject just that, an opinion. Since you can’t seem to find or read the research that has been done on this subject perhaps you can find a better venue for your opinions. Such as it is I don’t believe there are many here that are not of the mindset of simply watching and waiting for a potentially good outcome, no matter how much you feel you are saving them from some nebulous threat that you percieve. And to finalize, these thoughts are coming from an atheist that finds religious thought to be rather ridiculous and based on the imaginations of primitives that had little to no ability or tools to understand the world as it really is so they made things up. Granted, that doesn’t mean we are vastly superior. We in turn make assumptions based on the tools and perceptions of our limitations today. As better tools and minds arise they will likely toss aside many of the myriad limitations our society calls iron clad. Thus making my position of simply watching and waiting for decisive proof one way or the other the logical position.

        • Ged

          The entire point of the MFMP project is to -replicate- scientific work that has already been done. Yet you seem to miss that entire premise completely. Not just to replicate, but their aim is to make kits for anyone to use to replicate the effect. So, what “standards” are you trying to raise? Standards of ignorance and speech bordering on bigotry with no facts or substance? If so, good job.

        • georgehants

          Linda, Liking to raise the standards is excellent, what is your view please on the denial and incompetence of main-line science on the subject of Cold Fusion.

    • James

      Linda, I agree. A poor video from an anonymous person at an anonymous location is not rigorous science to me either. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing an alien autopsy or a child suffering harlequin disease being peddled as an alien mutant hybrid. All rubbish of course. I do expect some integrity here. Come on everyone, have a go at me! Show me your advanced intellect.

      • georgehants

        Hello James, do you believe the overall Evidence for Cold Fusion.
        Thank you.

    • Andrew Macleod

      Although this holds no weight scientifically but with somemore digging we might find out more about this person/people. Why do you got to be so uptight. No one is saying that this is proof (except guy on video) of anything. The information is just being passed on. Just like a magazine if you don’t want to read the articles flip the page.

    • Ged

      This is not a site for publishing scientific journals, this is a news site. You are using random hyperbole; where is the rigor and fact checking in your own speech?

    • http://www.lenrforum.eu/ AlainCo

      what strawman are youe beating ?

      This experiment is a classic well replicated Mizuno-style plasma electrolysis. Mizuno proved anomalous heat, yet it was hard. CNAM in France provend it too…

      This experiment proves nothing, but try to replicate.
      Athanor/Hydrobetatron too, like one Vancouver high school try to…

      At the end (and I agree i miss it too), it is said that this experience will be moved in an engineering school (in france it is MsC level , not mechanic school), where better measure will be done.
      All experts of LENr says that it is a hard job, and that MFMP takes a better approach with Celani wire.

      note that even if Celani says it is not constantan wires treated in a way subjected to patent protection, but virgin frog hairs…
      If it produce heat, it is science, and it will be proven that what Celani have provided (constant or frog hairs, of adamantium fiber), works.

      It is a blackbox test of the wires.

      more generally.

      about replication, don’t ask higher replication than one find in early development of any new technology. Celani wires are much better than early LENR at F&P time, but it is known that early transistors were less reliable than F&P LENR, yet in production phase. 30% of success is success in science.

      2 experiments with 5 sigma results, are enough to establish a fact.
      hundreds or thousands, and 50sigma are just bonus.
      In tha case any critics have to be raise with credible and validated prof of artifact. not just words and conspiracy-like hypothesis….

      for now as you can read on lenrforum we have a mainstream community who claim that science is settled on LENr as an error/fraud, based on 2 missed experiments, with proved weak calorimetry, one proved tweak of the data, and provend bad assumtion.
      all of that is facing thousands of experiences, hundreds of papers, replication by many including national instrument contracted labs…

      this stay so because as proven, Nature refuse to reevaluate those failed experiments, refuse to publish good papers (report41), and magazine like SciAm refuse to read the papers, even if peer reviewed (because if CF is accepted in a magazine, that magazine became fringe… see naturwissenschaften).

      http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=886
      http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=451
      http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=467
      http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=179
      and many others

      about MFMP, it is a complex initiative with scientist AND business man, who are fed up of that clown show and want to go forward.

      now I agree that plasma experiment is just another glow discharge cold fusion experiment…
      If things continue, there is no interest in making any measure since they will be ignored, rejected, criticized with conspiracy-like unverified arguments…

      Funny, or sad, to see mainstream pretended scientists to behave like those fringe conspiracy-fan. Anyway Cold fusion too attract conspiracy-fan, and lazy scientists. because Conspiracy theories, wild-cards unverified experimental artifacts, or new physics are the lazy solution to explain what you don’t understand and/or refuse to accept, what does not fit into ones locked reduced mindset.

      Despite hope, I’m afraid that even MFMP protocol will not succeed. there have bee so much insult, so blatant misbehaviors, bad reasoning, that the mainstream fraudsters will never admit what they did, and will use all their influence to convince uninformed politicians and media, that LENR is fraud.

    • clovis

      Hi, Linda,
      You must be new here, if so please abstain from using foul comments, and you will get along fine, there are no bad science here, there is only good conversation, and you are welcome to ride the lenr train to the new futher , but i well warn you not to engage your mouth before your brain, there is room for all here, but you must keep it civil, please—clovis

  • Jackob

    I encourage and appreciate any effort and time spend in that research field.
    I don’t know why the new generation peapole missing love and do fighting and discourage any sucessful person.
    Sure that is the result of Atheism’s production bad people.

  • Pedro

    If you google “LENR plasma electrolysis” you find similar demonstrations, including a link to the CFR website which seems to offer a full (PDF) documentation on how to reproduce the effect in your own garage or bedroom.
    I hope Linda reports back on her findings when she replicates the effect in a scientific way.

    • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

      Can you post a specific link please? Because people are claiming such scientifically valid documentation exists, but strangely, no one posts any links.

      It has to be reproducible by any scientist, no matter how sceptical. It cannot require “secret knowledge” or faith, or belief.

      • http://lenrplans.wordpress.com/ Owen

        Why do readers of this blog have to do your research? They don’t owe you anything. Besides, researching stuff is really fun. You should be able to turn up numerous good results within 5 minutes.

  • clovis

    Hi,Guys
    Lets not forget the garage mechanic, is very important in the discovery of new devices, so please use constructive criticism, and try and be a help to these guys and don’t dismiss their ideas out of hand, they just might have a credible device, when some with the experience takes a hard look at such things.
    Study these thing and see if something could be tweaked a little,in order
    for it to be workable,most good ideas come from people that take the time
    and cares enough to search, and disrupt the usual way of doing things.

    • Kim G. Patterson

      I agree 1000%

      Respect
      Kim

  • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

    This is really interesting but it’s not science.

    Science requires replicability, which means anyone should be able to repeat the experiment and get the same results.

    In order for that to happen, we have to know precisely, step by step what the experimenter did.

    We can’t repeat this experiment, based on one fairly poor quality video in French. The same thing applies to the Celini stuff. “New Fire” are you serious?

    Magic powders, murky liquids, proprietary filaments, this is alchemy. Is it really such a mystery why the press refuses to report on this?

    It’s a waste of time, basically, following this stuff if people refuse to give even a nod to the scientific method. We should start rejecting material in this forum on THAT basis, before even discussing whether or not it’s a hoax, or a rediscovery of some other process. All we need to say is, “Not Reproducible”, end of discussion.

    Please, let’s raise the bar here. This is getting ridiculous. Somebody please go back to these French experimenters and demand that they publish their method properly.

    • edog

      not sure how the quantumheat guys got wrapped up in your rant?

      • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

        Where’s their experimental procedure documented? I would like to repeat their results.

        No more voodoo.

        • Ged

          Their entire site documents the methods. It isn’t even hard to read. Celani’s paper documents his methods so it can be reproduced. Arguing something isn’t reproducible from a point of ignorance isn’t a valid way of “raising the bar”, but very much the opposite.

    • Adam Lepczak

      “Linda”
      The “New Fire” team has been very forthcoming in terms of sharing the data, and answering doubts about calibration and methodology. They are available to answer your specific questions on their web site. They have also carefully explained many aspects of the experiment on multiple videos.
      So, if you are saying that their methodology equals to alchemy, the conclusion is that the problem is on your side rather than on the “new fire” side…
      If you have a specific issue with the replication, go and ask them, like NOW (?)

      • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

        Where is the experimental procedure so that I can repeat it myself without any special secret sauce, or propriety stuff?

        • Adam Lepczak

          Go to
          http://www.quantumheat.org, click on the “Follow” or “Discuss” links. Make sure to watch all of the videos FIRST…
          It is not THAT hard, whats wrong with you?

          • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

            No, that’s not how science works. That’s how voodoo works…

            “Stand there, shake this, say that, wait for magic to happen. What, no magic? You must have missed a video, or a comment, or a conference where that was explained.”

            How do you not know how science works? Did you do physics in high school? Did you never read and follow a procedure?

            The steps must be clear and complete, and in one place, so that anyone can do them. If it doesn’t work then it means the hypothesis was wrong, not the experimenter.

            What is the matter with YOU that this has to be explained?

            • Tx

              Linda, I admit that I consider the French video for nothing more than a stupid teenage prank/hoax, and agree with you that without proper documentation we cannot talk about any science (same goes for Rossi and other similar suspects).

              But perhaps you did not look enough closely at the MFMP experiment. Or perhaps I did not. But as far as I could see, they document everything perfectly, and do so to the smallest detail, and go even further than the waste majority of scientist usually would go – they make all their proceedings and data perfectly transparent and available in real-time live on the web. The only thing they could not describe is the preparation of the wire. For simple reason – they do not know how it was made.

              However, it does not make them unscientific. The wire and the effect it produces are THE objects of their study. Calling them names is a disgrace of their honesty, and it is equivalent of telling that anyone studying an unknown subject is a charlatan. So egyptologists are crooks because they can’t document how pyramids were built, LHC researchers are impostors because they cannot document how Higgs boson was created, astronomers are unscientific because they can’t document where all the black matter comes from, etc. etc. Is this what you really think? If so, then you perhaps do not quite understand what a scientific method is neither, I am afraid.

            • Jim

              So, how about some credentials, Linda, other than ample evidence that you are pseudo-skeptic troll?

              If you would like to do a survey on your own behavior, you can start here:

              http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/

            • Jim

              So, how about some credentials, Linda, other than ample evidence that you are pseudo-skeptic troll?

              If you would like to do a survey on your own behavior, you can start here:

              http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/

            • Jim

              (deleted)

            • Ged

              Did you even read it? This is how science works, which I can say as a published scientist. All the materials are right there. The glass types and specifications, the wires and materials (even scanning EM images of the wire), the gasses and pressures, the measurement equipment. Everything you could possibly need.

              Point -specifically- to something you are lacking, don’t make up false claims of “voodoo”. That is not how science or discussion works — these ambiguities you throw around as if they have meaning. Facts and specifics, bring them, no more hyperbole. If there is something missing, we should be able to ask the MFMP guys for further details.

    • Dickyaesta

      @Linda,

      He seems to have a lot of fun doing his thing and it is that spirit, that will help C.F. or so you will LENR along, so let him be and if you don’t like it don’t watch the video and don’t participate in this particular discussion.

      There are surely many discussions more scientific(!) that will interest you, don’t make things bitter leave the light-heartedness of this blog and more people will get along in the ride and maybe, maybe in all this mishmash there is a true genius idea hidden that somebody needs for the ultimate piece of the puzzle, that is the real true science, working thinking and speaking about a certain idea to expand it for us all.

      All the rest is THAT ‘science’, which has supressed new ideas over the last fifty years, because they were not following the so called scientific rules. This man is learning securely more and faster about CF than somebody sitting in his chair critizising him.

      If you want to replicate go to the MFMP site and try to duplicate that and learn from others , by listening and reading about their ideas, to expand your own thinking.

      Saludos from Spain

    • georgehants

      Linda, what do you mean by the “scientific method”, do you mean hide and debunk anything beyond the reductionist religion of science as is apparently happening with Cold Fusion.

  • Redford

    It’s worth noting a school has offered him weekly access to their lab for further research.

  • Camille

    Here is your translation. Best, C

    Cold Fusion In An Apartment
    Posté par innov24 ⋅ novembre 9, 2012 ⋅ 11 commentaires
    Classé dans Energie

    NUCLEAR FUSION IN AN APARTMENT

    Julien S., 24, has just finished a homemade “cold” nuclear fusion reactor (room temperature) to produce energy. He wants to now convince the scientific community.

    The beginning of the reaction
    It’s by gleaning information on the Web that Julien S., age 24, trained himself to pursue cold fusion research. Namely, a branch of research neglected by the scientific community, which sees it as quackery. The main idea: forcing two atomic nuclei to fuse at room temperature rather than at 150 million ° C (a process similar to experiments performed at Cadarache in the context of the ITER project). All in order to produce a gigantic amount of energy using a small amount of electricity input … “Tomorrow, you shave for free,” quips a CNRS researcher specializing in the atom, who prefers to remain anonymous. However, in part of his apartment turned into a laboratory, Julien claims to have built a miniature nuclear plant, modeled on this principle. “Cold fusion works! Here is the proof, “exclaims the self-taught inventor. With an air of conviction, he triggers a switch. With a roar, the reaction starts (see our video).
    An intense white light. On the table, a bunch of wires and pipes includes a test tube. Inside, water enriched with deuterium oxide, a derivative of hydrogen, starts to boil. “The vessel is heated by the electric current of the home,” says Julien S. with a loud voice to cover the deafening noise of the device. “I inject electricity into the liquid using a tungsten electrode made with 2% Thorium 230 [Radioactive material, Ed]. I bought this equipment … on eBay! “Soon, a fireball appears in the container. Then an intense white light appears along the fireball. “The atomic structure of the Thorium traps deuterium atoms which move under the influence of electricity. Since they can’t escape, they merge. “Suddenly, the white light doubles in intensity while the boiling liquid splashes suddenly. “This cold fusion! “yells the scientist.

    The artisanal laboratory of the cold fusion researcher . ©TCA-innov24
    Unexplained production of heat. At the risk of scalding himself, Julien plunges a thermometer in the test tube. Result: 108 ° C. Nothing very impressive? Yet, inside of the container, Thorium starts to crackle and begins to melt. It’s a sign that the internal temperature has just exceeded 1750 ° C! “With the little bit of electricity that I inject [125 Watts, Ed], it is theoretically possible to produce as much heat,” says the young researcher. “The reaction is not only power. “According to him, neither is it purely chemical. The nuclear option remains. “It is the fusion of deuterium atoms that generates extra energy” he says. But to prove it, the self-taught researcher lack money. But not for long: the laboratory of an important engineering school has allegedly committed to open its doors to him once a week. There, Julien will attempt to validate his conclusions. Stay tuned, which could be “Pschitt” (nothing, Ed) or “Boom!”

    A 10 time more powerful system envisioned. “Cold fusion is just a trick to trap two atoms and force them to merge,” says Julien S. The young researcher is currently “tinkering” a transformer. The device is designed to recover the water vapor from the high heat generated by the reaction. The goal: to turn a turbine to produce electricity. “It goes back to steam,” he laughs. Next step, multiply by 10 the current power installation. “I intend to power that way all the appliances in my residence,” he states.

  • Chris

    But why does Julian not give his full surname? It doesn’t make sense.

  • barty

    Celani Cell #1 is now going up to 1.30 Watts. It seems now stable around 1 Watt excess Heat, and is slowly growing ;)

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      The variance is now smaller than before the break. If they didn’t change anything in the setup, the conclusion is near that the variations are due to LENR. In that case the LENR output has been larger than what the energy budget indicates.

      • daniel maris

        Great news.

      • Lu

        While the roughly 1Watt excess looks very promising, there are too many uncertainties to make any claims of actual excess energy, IMO. For example, they are using calibration to derive the excess energy but actual operating conditions are sufficiently removed that without additional analysis we cannot really know for sure what is going on. I will agree that something interesting is going on.

        Remember that Celani gained something like 40% excess energy while this experiment is gaining something like 2-3% (1Watt Excess/48Watt Input) so I am expecting more before I get really excited.

        In the meantime, they are getting closer and have learned a lot about the process and their cell. I have high hopes that the European run (and future runs from Minnesota, US will demonstrate conclusively LENR from the Celani wires.

        • Ged

          Indeed, a larger effect is really necessary. The replication efforts are promising, but far from complete.

    • barty

      Now it’s falling back to < 1 Watt :(

  • http://www.replication-meyer.be.ma/ Stanislas Bauer

    This experience is not serious at all ! The bright light is obtained by combustion of H and O obtained by electrolysis. This flame light up the Thorium ( Thorium was previously used to make the cuff of the domestic gaz lighting ( like “lumogaz” (TM) ). The author makes absolutely no comparison with the heat dissipation of a power equivalent normal heating of a resistor. The ratio high temperature/power is quite normal: what do you think happen in a gas discharge bulb ?

    • Peter_Roe

      Electrolysing water causes hydrogen and oxygen to be produced separately at the cathode and anode. Therefore the gases could not mix and ignite ‘underwater’ as is clearly happening in this cell, even if some means of ignition was present, which it does not seem to be.

      Your comment about thorium gas mantles is completely specious. The light from a gas mantle is produced when the minerals in the mantle incandesce when heated in a gas flame, and is only possible in that configuration. A solid piece of thorium-loaded tungsten alloy submerged in electrolyte could never act in this way.

      Your comment regarding resistance heating fails to address the obvious fact that activity within the reactor actually increases, while the power flowing to the reactor falls from 5A to less than 1A. The only question is whether the amount of power out exceeds the amount of power in, which cannot be determined at this point due to lack of information and insufficient controls within the experiment.

      To be honest, I am deeply suspicious of your motives for producing this pseudoscientific bunk ‘explanation’of the experiment shown in the video.

      • buffalo

        lol peter roe.i am deeply suspicious of the chemical combustion of tungsten metal at elevated temps.it reacts directly with water liberating our favorite,H2 gas

      • http://www.replication-meyer.be.ma/ Stanislas Bauer

        Sorry, what you say is true when you use a good electrolyzer. In that case, the electrodes are in vertical aligment. This means that the gazes are mixed. Anyway, this guy didn’t publish convincing measurements. Do it yourself if you wish: the tunsten/thorium electrodes are easy to find and cheap. I don’t know wher he gets the deuterium oxyde.

        • Peter_Roe

          The gases might mix above the surface of the electrolyte, where an explosion could be triggered if a source of ignition was present. That isn’t what is happening here – the light and heat are coming from under the electrodes under electrolyte surface.

          There is insufficient information to replicate this particular apparatus (as I said elsewhere) so obviously ‘doing it myself’ is not an option, even if I had the time and could obtain the materials. This is one of many demonstrations available online of plasma formation within an electrolytrolyte, but it remains simply an interesting phenomenon until a replication is made using MFMP standards of measurement.

          Silly ‘explanations’ will not change that fact, but the fact that discussion of this instance seems to have triggered the sudden appearance on this blog of other aggressive shills I find very interesting. On that basis alone I will be looking much more carefully at Naudin’s work and other similar experiments!

  • http://www.liberationtechnology.co.uk Dave Lawton

    “There is a lot of it about” Plasma cold fusion.The problem with this method is not stable and eats the electrodes.The Nickel powder method is the way forward. It is similar to the development of the transistor.ie The Point contact transistor ,unreliable and difficult to manufacture and the junction transistor which is reliable.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

      Agreed – no ‘wet’ cell designs are likely to be useful for power production, for several reasons. However the plasma systems are still worth studying as it may be possible to initiate a plasma CF process in some kind of dry arc-type reactor, which could potentially lead to a viable power system.

  • MK

    Has similarities with Athanor / Betahydroton.
    Thorated tungsten electrodes are available for TIG-welding.

  • buffalo

    bear in mind that hot tungsten will react exothermicaly with neutral and especially alkaline water W+3H2O= WO3 +3H2 +energy

  • Sergio

    This appears to be the replication of this experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFvzohuVew

    But I’m not convinced that this is related to cold fusion, or LENR that Rossi has.

  • Peter Poulsen

    There are similar videos like this:

    Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V3XMZay75Q&feature=plcp
    Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEmd_2LXj98&feature=plcp
    Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zw7rdGuVYw&feature=relmfu
    Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DV1cVWLkLE&feature=relmfu
    Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlJ7wDxcpv0&feature=plcp

    None of them show any kind of evidence to back it up, so if the guy is serious about it, why only show bad videos of his invention.

    • B

      It is definately a cool video, thats for sure.

      Personally I feel that even if someone put a workin LENR device in front of my nose I would have no way of knowing that it works or lack the background to understand the data.

      What is interesting to see is that the interest for green technologies is spreading and that people are working on them at home.

      How often do you get something right on the first try?
      Im sure something good will come out of these “amateur” home experiments eventually if they have not already.

      I am replicating the Renzo electrolysis cf reactor from Youtube.
      He has a lot of experiments, I am not sure what I see in the video or if it really is cf. How ever… I need to start somewhere …
      If anyone has a good suggestion for anode/cathode material and how to make that work, I would like to hear that.
      In the videos he is using t.ex tungsten and stainless steal and gets “trasmutations”… I think it does not go together with other data I have collected from websites but It will be my first project.

      • Peter_Roe

        Good luck with your project B. MG said earlier that TIG electrodes are available as ‘thorated’ tungsten. That might be a good starting point, although the Pirelli device electrodes are pure tungsten I think (also available in the form of TIG welding rods or wire).

        • Peter_Roe

          Correction: MK not MG

  • buffalo

    yes this has been done before.just google:Naudin tungsten,and u will see j.naudin,s detailed analysis of this experiment with videos.

  • barty

    It would be interesting to get direct contact to this guy.
    Maybe he is also open minded like Celani and give some instructions to the MFMP guys as well?

    A second independent device with completely different design would be nice.

  • daniel maris

    I saw a v. similar demo on video a while but don’t remember thorium being mentioned.

    As a non-scientist I am not sure how one squares this v. violent reaction with the painful snail’s pace energy production of the MFMP project. You would think this violent reaction could lead directly to commercialisation… so one is a little sceptical. Why isn’t this French innovation leading directly to big commercial interest?

    • Ryan

      Could be that different materials have differing reactions or at least differing reaction speeds, sort of like magnesium with water in a oxygen environment. Then again, since we don’t know a whole lot about what this guy is doing there may be some other process they are using to get the quick and violent process.

    • Peter_Roe

      The same question might be asked about the Pirelli devices, and J L Naudin’s experiments. I think the answer must be that although this is a phenomenon that can be replicated apparently quite easily, no-one has yet applied the necessary accuracy of power measurement, calorimetry etc. to confirm without doubt anomalous energy production (in this case, EMR output needs measuring along with heat).

      I think that can only be a matter of time (MFMP – do you have room for another project??).