Energy 2.0 Society to Give Public Talks on LENR

The following is an announcement from the Energy 2.0 Society.

Two public talks on the topic of LENR will be given by members of the Energy 2.0 Society in April.

On Wednesday April 15, Gary Scott, electrical engineer and one of the founding board members of the Energy 2.0 Society will address the Madison, Wisconsin chapter of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) on the subject of: “LENR: Energy 2.0”.

The meeting will include a lecture by Gary Scott, along with pizza, salad and a beverage held at Engineering Hall Room 1800, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706 at 5:00 p.m. on April 15th. Cost is $5 for IEEE chapter members, free for IEEE student members, and $10 for all others.

For more information visit: http://ieee-msn.truenym.net/newsletters/IEEE-2015-03/

On Sunday April 26, Tom Wind, president of Wind Utility Consulting in Jamaica, Iowa, and president and founding board member of the Energy 2.0 Society will speak at the EarthFest EcoFair at the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Tom Will be speaking at 2:00 p.m. on the subject of “The Advance of LENR Technology”. Admission is free. For more information about the event visit http://www.earthfestrochestermn.org/

About the Energy 2.0 Society

The Energy 2.0 Society is registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Iowa, USA. The society was formed to increase awareness about LENR technology and to promote its use with the purpose of improving quality of life for people everywhere. For more information please visit http://www.energy2point0.org

  • Bob Greenyer

    Well, a couple of points

    – there is a lot of Ni and Fe in the core – and it has been going for 4 billion years, so the rate of the reaction is not so big
    – just Fe and Ni chains are lower yield that proton plus 7Li
    – Nickel 62 is denser than 58Ni and may tend to the core due to gravity.

  • Ivan Idso

    Thank you Bachcole for your well wishes, I really appreciate it. I do promise I will report back, whether it is positive or negative : )

  • Ivan Idso

    I will let you know how it went after the event, I organized the Rochester event and invited Energy 2.0 to come speak. Tom Wind is graciously taking the day to drive 3 hours each way to speak. It could be interesting and you could be right, but I want to give people the benefit of the doubt and I am happy that Tom is willing take the time and risk to try.

    • artefact

      Will there be a video of the event?

      • ivan Idso

        It is up to Energy 2.0 whether it can be recorded and shared. It they are okay with that then I could try to make it available. I have a couple of techies helping out who can probably make it happen.

        • ecatworld

          Thanks Ivan.

          I was told that Gary Scott’s talk at IEEE in Madison on the 15th will be filmed and put on YouTube.

  • Ivan Idso

    They have been talking about Hot Fusion for decades and still haven’t shown a commercially viable product. Clean Coal has been thrown around for the last decade but there may be only one operational plant that is not commercially viable. I think the time is now to begin having this discussion publicly to begin to dispel the old “cold fusion” mindsets and begin to rethink a future without carbon that doesn’t have to rely solely on intermittent renewable energy.

  • farhad66

    look at this table and decide for yourself that you are insane enough to accept ash come from fuel.

    Fuel elements Ash elements
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    NI58 65% NI58 0.3%
    NI60 27% NI60 0.3%
    NI61 1.3% NI61 0.0%
    NI62 4.2% NI62 99.3%
    LI6 8.6% LI6 92%
    LI7 91.4% LI7 7.9%
    C high concentrations C no trace
    Ca high concentrations Ca no trace
    Cl high concentrations Cl no trace
    Fe high concentrations Fe no trace
    Mg high concentrations Mg no trace
    Mn high concentrations Mn no trace

    look like rossi salted his fuel with anything that he could find in his closet but ash is pure NI62 and pure LI6 despite that ash was producing excess heat .

    • Bob Greenyer

      Inadvertently, and without intention, I used the NNDC, Wikipedia isotopic charts and an assumption of validity of Piantellis calculated and experimentally verified theory (according to his work) and ran the equations. It explains all observations of experiments and historically leaked analysis and reports. One has to assume that the Lugano authors over estimated the temperature – the MFMP showed that they must have and the SEM of the ash in the Lugano report showed it also.

      To account for everything, you need to understand the reaction matrix, operating temperature, phases and where certain things will be at the end of the experiment given that the sample is claimed to have been taken from the centre (the ends were cooler).

      Ni, Mn, Fe end up as 62Ni

      Li/Mg end up as Si or P

      The thing is, this still relies on proton projectiles of the right energy, but Piantelli claims to have explained their existence.

      http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA

      The most credible evidence this paper was written by Cook and Rossi is that it ignores entirely the work of Piantelli (except earlier stuff that which is effectively cited by proxy in the Focardi/Rossi 2010 paper).

      • farhad66

        I hope your replication effort to be successful but I externally doubt it. whatever reaction matrix you consider it is impossible that fuel elements completely disappear from ash without trace and according to your theory when exactly that happened ? in first day or in last day of experiment ? and why ash was still producing excess heat without all those elements ? apparently you believe whatever you put in e-cat produce excess heat . another interesting thing is that all of this elements decay happens without any radiation or radioactive waste . NO bob answer to all of this apparently miracle is very simple and not accepting it just bring you fruitless hardship .

        • Bob Greenyer

          The theory is Piantellis not mine, I never expected running the equations to explain observations across multiple years and by a number of parties. It is based on standard QM – does not need exotic new physics.

          The primary claimed reaction is in Ni. Everything is in Piantelli’s original patent, linked in the sheet.

          This causes a step and iterative-wise progression of transition metals to 62Ni.

          one assumption is made, that 62Ni (the happiest nucleus in the universe) only ejects protons from failed H- captures rather than capturing them.

          Piantelli’s pre-Lugano patent extension explains most of the rest, the reaction matrix is very different – but the key secondary element is 7Li.

          Given that Al is also there, this will be burnt in preference to 7Li because it a MUCH larger target, The yield is lower though.

          So as the reaction progresses, it starts off less efficient, the more 62Ni you get, the more Protons are available to interact with Al, then Li instead of Ni. Before all the Al and Li is “burnt” essentially all the Ni isotopes should be 62Ni. Then all the Al, then the last of the Li. If Fe and Co in there, that would go first.

          The Ionic Hydride Li-Al-H is wetted to the stable nickel with nano particles of Ni in suspension. The latter component helps to “down frequency” gammas to non harmful photons via SPP and easily testable WL based radiation shielding matrix.

          The key to high yield is the LiH Ionic Hydride, and this is the last thing to be completely consumed – as per Piantelli’s theory, 6Li + Proton is not a probable reaction and so the 6Li is always there to keep the H- fed to the 62Ni proton projectile generating slingshot.

          The net effect is the size of the engine is the very stable sintered web and the fuels are the transition metals in that web (Ni, Fe, Co) which will end up as 62Ni and the Li-Al-H which should end up as 6Li.

          Because of the boiling point of Magnesium, you have to run at a lower temp first, when you see a dip (look at Lugano COP chart), this signals that the Aluminium is burnt and you can up the temp (with a higher yield, i.e. less input power to get a bigger output scaler) to then optimally burn the 7Li. A dip on the 2-day average for the 16th sample shows that the 7Li is about to run dry, This is when some of the Nickel is only covered with nearly all 6Li (with Ni nano particles in suspension) – this is the indicator that tells you the reactor is nearly burnt out.

          Rossi said 35 day charge, they ran for 32 days – It should be quite easy to calculate the fuel load needed, as per above, the reaction should have to optimal temperature ranges – both with signature dips at the end – and until the second dip, the reaction will just get better.

          I predict that if they had run for just a few more days, the COP would have collapsed – just like when a car runs out of fuel.

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty
    • Mats002

      Congratulation Frank! E-catworld referenced 2 times, if this holds all the way you should have a big journalism prize!

      • georgehants

        Mats. ECWorld has achieved more for honest open science that all the premier science comics, Wiki-rubbish, the media, etc. etc. but I will fall over if that Wonderful work for humanity is ever openly rewarded by any form of establishment science or our media or official society.
        I think that just as with Mr. Rossi the establishment are now scheming as to how they can release Cold Fusion, making out that they have been thinking all along how it will release all people from the unnecessarily slavery of the present system

        • fritz194

          How should CF free the people from slavery ?
          DIY energy ?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I like Normon Cook, I listened to his theory and the study work of his student diligently and had the opportunity of sharing a car with him at ICCF18. His models seem to explain the piezo-nuclear fission as per Carpinteri (Rock Crushing). I shall look over the paper.

      • Sanjeev

        It seems he is a psychologist and teaches informatics. So, the nuclear physics must be his part time passion. Its a fuel for skeptics anyhow.

        • justaguest

          “Is a” (insert sterdeotype; obtain limiting view)

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well – first off, unless I am confused at their intention, it is embarrassing that they keep referring to Nitrogen (N) as Nickel (Ni) especially when Nickel is a major part of the reaction.

      Pretty sure that 15Ni8 should be 15N8.

      If this is the case, I sincerely hope they don’t present this to a patent examiner!

      • Sanjeev

        On page#5
        Similar isotopic changes have also been reported by Parkhomov
        As far as I know, his fuel/ash is not yet analyzed. The reference [4] is wrong too.

        So it looks like nobody reviewed it yet. Its our chance to review it then 😉

        • Bob Greenyer

          No isotopic analysis has been published by Parkhomov.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, I was pointing out the same. Edited for clarity now.
            Another thing, Parkhomov is not peer reviewed (yet), it makes no sense to cite him. Its too early.

            • Bob Greenyer

              I do agree that the bulk of the net energy comes 7Li transmutations

            • Bob Greenyer

              The Japanese reported relative 6Li enrichment at ICCF13 – not a new discovery.

    • Bob Greenyer

      On page 6 it says

      “If the high temperature, high-pressure conditions within the E-Cat provide sufficient energy to allow Hydrogen nuclei to overcome the Coulomb barrier and to approach Lithium nuclei, then the Lithium nucleus itself may be promoted to low-lying excited states.”

      Temperature and pressure? Parkhomov had below atmospheric pressure when he reported excess heat.

      It seams (so far, I have not read it all) that there is no adequate explanation as to where the “sufficient energy…Hydrogen nuclei” come from.

      It also refers in the same paragraph to the hydrogen and Lithium interacting in the solid state, but since it is referring to the Lugano reactor, we know that the Lithium is in the Molten state…

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is disappointing on Page 8 that whilst they do not account for the way “protons of sufficient energy” occur, in their discussion of the reaction chains – they have ignored my freely published sheet that show how, through the same availability of proton projectiles, the Cobalt and Copper iterates to 62Ni. See “Explaining Nickel Transmutation (inspired by Piantellis published patent extension)”

      http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA

      It is also disappointing on page 9 that having said “Solid State” interactions proton + 7Li, they then on page 9 say that the Li is in Gas phase. Additionally, we have shown that the internal temperature was far lower than reported by Lugano and that Li is likely in the liquid phase. Further evidence for this came from our ‘Bang!’ SEMs and the equivalent Ash SEM from Lugano report as previously indicated by the MFMP.

      http://bit.ly/1FxdzLw

      Additionally, they state that Ni was in Liquid phase, again the SEMs compiled in the image above, categorically how that this is not the case (and also this evidence alone shows that the outside of the Lugano reactor was never 1410ºC incidentally)

  • Mats002

    Agree!

    • Mats002

      …with Sanjeev below that experiments is more important than spreading the Word at this point in time, with thanks to My smartphone keyboard.

  • Sanjeev

    I suggest forming your own open science LENR project. At this time experiments are more important than publicity. A successful open source experiment will massively support public awareness effort. Just discuss this with your team and see what they say.

    • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

      100% agree. Without 100% undoubtable evidence of “LENR+” all this chatter is nonsense.

      • Sanjeev

        Nonsense is too strong word :-), but all it does is evoke a mild amusement in the listener, it does not make it solid in their experience. Result is, they wander off in the vast world of tech claims and media distractions. It has even less impact than anti gravity 🙂