Video of Tom Wind’s Univ. of Northen Iowa Lecture on LENR Posted

I’m glad to learn that the video of Iowa consulting electrical engineer Tom Wind’s lecture on LENR at the University of Northern Iowa has now been made available. I was able to attend the lecture on March 10th, and meet Tom and others in my state who are interested in LENR, and enjoyed the experience very much.

The complete lecture lasted about an hour and a half, and it has been edited into five sections. I notice that they did not include the Q & A period at the end.

Introduction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeCvW1H4014
 

Part 1 Origins of LENR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n09kNQ3GoA

 

Part 2 Rossi’s LENR Technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_wJ4Hg0io

 

Part 3 Descriptions and Affirmations of LENR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiwINU2_KvY

 

Part 4 Other LENR Examples and Comparison to Hot Fusion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7qBv-9awYQ

 

Part 5 Challenges and Future Uses of LENR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6FjkwIYN2s

  • Barry8

    TW states a researcher found the catalyst that Rossi is probably using- “nickel coated with iron oxide.”

  • Ophelia Rump

    I read that great deposits of methane hydrates were gassing out already, If I am not mistaken if that develops into a runaway event, it is one of the horsemen of the ecological apocalypse. We may yet wish that we had burned it slowly. Managed use of unstable resources might be preferable to spontaneous release.

    Methane release ‘looks stronger’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8437703.stm

  • BroKeeper

    Agreed Roger, God does work through all his creation. I was being facetious of course to emphasize some irrational thinking when considering the physical only.

  • BroKeeper

    How dare he invoke this human discovery as a gift from God? Scientists-of-the-world attack and discredit Tom Wind quickly for such religious superstitious and unscientific lunacy. Spread the word of infinite unseen dark energy and matter, and infinite bubble universes giving birth to other universes when their brane-boundaries collide.

  • GreenWin

    A nice talk. Bold for a heartland university. One quibble; Ms Pat Higby UNI’s Energy Educator claims to have been a physics major in “the early seventies when cold fusion first hit the airwaves.” We should remind Ms Higby that P&F did not announce cold fusion until 1989. Prior to that there is little of record about cold fusion or experiments in low temperature fusion. It is important to get the timeline straight… before one begins educating.

  • Gerrit

    Admin, the videos have been relocated to this Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg2CnlyLH4chZUHdvOf91xw

    Kindly update the links.

  • gregha

    BLP unleashed another batch of announcements today, regarding water > plasma > PV conversion at stupendous energy density.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Nice talk. I just disagree with one thing. I think the March 23rd 1989 announcement was a good thing. Not everyone was able to reproduce F&P’s experiment but many people did. The first transistor experiments weren’t always reproducible but announcing the discovery of the
    transistor before it was reproducible was never thought of as a bad thing.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      As Beaudette explains there were bad things in the announces, but it was quite classic.

      There was not yet internet to exchange and it would have helped.

      Beaudette explain also that US Nuclear Physicist were se well secure in their long programs, huge budgets, stable career that they did not understand what it was to be a chemist battling for next 2 years of budget, like a chemistry department or a mid-west university…

      about transistors, they were produced in mass while 95%+ broken…
      at that time science was less broken.

      about high temperature superconduction this article

      http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf

      explains how the positive results were hidden asfootnote, because when proposed as paper they were rejected upfront like Celani tested

      http://www.iccf17.org/popup/bio_5.htm

  • bachcole

    The juggernaut roles on.

    • Fortyniner

      “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Schopenhauer

      We have stage 2 to go through yet. So far the opposition has limited itself to ridicule and denial from online shills, but incontrovertible proof and public awareness will render these tactics useless. They may well then step things up a notch or two (most probably by playing the ‘nuclear’ card and using false ‘safety concerns’ to justify LENR-controlling legislation by pocketed politicians).

      • Omega Z

        Peter. You need to revise Stage 3

        News from The ITER project– There was a Large Explosion Today..
        For some unknown reason, All the Scientist Spontaneously Exploded!

      • Alan DeAngelis

        LENR will cause carbon dioxide levels to fall too low. This will cause the extinction of C3 plants that will not be able to compete with C4 carbon fixating plants for CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
        This will be an ecological disaster! This must be offset by burning more coal.

        • bachcole

          Seriously, and I mean seriously, I agree. But with the tightest of real pollution scrubbing. SO2, NO2, particulates, and etc. must be completely scrubbed. Let 1,000 CO2 sources spew CO2, but not one of them spew pollution.

          I hope that this comment does not cause any AGW advocates to have apoplexy.

        • Fortyniner

          I’ll be doing my bit by continuing to run my woodstoves and regularly disposing of garden waste and burnable packaging in large bonfires.

          Slightly more seriously, I agree with Roger about pollution associated with burning coal and oil, and hope to see a move towards burning only natural gas (not fracked), methane hydrates from coastal shelves, and synthetic alcohol fuels, the latter two mined or made using CF power sources.

      • GreenWin

        It will be fascinating to see how academia confronts their strident denial of CF and buffoonish adoption of AGW. The silence of these academic lambs suggests atypical human behavior. So atypical as to suggest they are the actions of poorly programmed automatons and not carbon-based human beings.

        • bachcole

          Outstanding!!!!

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          no it is classic human behavior, seen many times the same, from Enron to AGW

          http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

          the worst is that in a way it is absolutely sincere, yet abusing of unethical practice, to hide fraud, yet being sure to be right.

          the boss of Enron did fire the man who detected his fraud, but instead of fleeing from Enron selling his shares at good price, he kept his shares sure he was right, hiding he was wrong…

          another point I have observed is that most of our knowledge is based on the trust we have on previous knowledge, on prejudices…

          It is a kind of bayesian network.

          physicist denying cold fusion experiments simply are sure to be right about nuclear physics, then observing rationally any calorimetry experiment they see that there is an artifact since there is no other alternative. if no artifact possible like with tritium evidences , they conclude a fraud, because no other alternative.

          a chemist wouls respect the same logic but seeing evidence of heat from calorimetry, sure calorimetry is right, he will conclude nuclear physics is to be improved.

          Me as aware of groupthink in finance, in politics, economics, religions, alter-medicines, aware of lattice quantum physics in semiconductors, superconductors, nanotech, seing calorimetry and physics, i will simply quickly and comfortably conclude :
          – that physicist are in groupthink, with wikipedia and journalists, as i observe every day.
          – that it is lattice quantum physics based on unusual quantum objects, probably 2D,1D,0D, or fractals, but sure classic blackswan as I see every few years.

          what look like a blackswan, an improbable or impossible event, is simply an expected surprise for someone else.

          • GreenWin

            True, groupthink explains some, but not the robotic, goose-step ignorance of these “people.” To get unilateral silence you need clunky AI or “The Truman Show” habitat. One or the other. Possibly both.

            • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

              sadly the groupthink theory of Mutual Assured Delusion explain apparent blindness, stupidity, harassment against dissenters, terror against dissidents…

          • Ophelia Rump

            I sometimes wonder if it could all be as simple as some people like surprises and others loath them? Sometimes people just do not realize what simple mechanisms we are. Our limited minds see ourselves as vastly complex because we can only handle an extremely limited view.

            We may not be so complex that we are incomprehensible, we may be so simple that we cannot even comprehend that simplicity, the bad monkey people of Earth had better clean up their act, if we kill this planet no alien race will want us in their neighborhood. That could end badly.