New LENR Film, Following Nature’s Documents (Ruby Carat)

I recieved the following message from Ruby Carat yesterday regarding a short documentary film she has produced and which will be shown at the ICCF19 conference:

The movie (18:28) looks at the method of initiating the cold fusion reaction called co-deposition. Co-deposition became the basis of Navy LENR research at SPAWAR Systems Center for over twenty-years, yielding results such as excess heat, nuclear products and transmutations.

Following Nature’s Documents is compiled from video interviews conducted in January 2015 with Dr. Stanislaw Szpak, Dr. Frank Gordon, and Dr. Melvin Miles in San Diego, California.

It will be shown at the ICCF19 conference as a short before the screening of The Believers, a movie about the early controversy of cold fusion. It is the first in a series of videos to be made profiling Navy LENR research on the West coast.

Thanks for your support, thank you Jeremy Rys for inspiring me to make movies about cold fusion, and I pray we hear some GOOD NEWS at this historic conference!


The film is below.

  • Gerrit

    All those stupid morons who chant “cold fusion was never replicated” will never ever watch this beautifully made documentary. Even if they did, they would be unable to understand how misguided they all are.

    Replication and peer reviewed papers. All the ignorants want to have is already there, but they are too sick in the head to realize.

    It makes me so furious.

    My greatest respect to the scientists who keep working the field and producing evidence and understanding of this technology.

    • LookMoo

      Actually KGB had a term for these kind of people: useful idiots

  • georgehants

    Many thanks to Ruby for her Wonderful work for Cold Fusion etc.

  • Hi all

    Science 101 the data is what counts.

    It is when theory takes precedence over experimental data that science becomes pathological. When someone refuses to look at the experimental data, because “THE BOOK” of theory does not say it is possible or because the data has not been presented in a publication of the Church of high impact factor, a metric which incidentally has been thoroughly refuted; that a person stops being a scientist and becomes a priest.

    The Galileo test is will you put your eye to telescope?

    Kind Regards walker

    • Sanjeev

      Good post.
      It is when theory takes precedence over experimental data that science becomes pathological.
      It has already happened. One can trace the problem to education systems. Most of the world nowadays has similar education systems, whose only focus is rote learning of mostly theory. Students memorize the “facts”, pass exams and seek a job as “scientist”. They have no curiosity, no spirit of adventure, they are just blind believers in what was taught to them in universities and schools. Such people, incapable of achieving anything in science, are only competent enough to occupy high chairs in the church of science. They do everything, ethical or not, to keep their positions intact and funding flowing.
      The real inventions happen in industry and garages because the needs and curiosity (and often greed and competition) drive those who have experience with reality, not theory.

    • BroKeeper

      Agreed Ian.

      Dr. Frank Gordon reminisce on the “misunderstanding and chaos” Dr. Stan Szpak mentions of the past replication experiments:
      “Whereas a lot of people set out at that time to try to replicate to what they ‘thought’ Fleischmann had done, and there is quite a difference between what they thought and what he had actually done. So a lot of people ‘impatiently’ started with a palladium rod of some unknown origin and electrolyzing it and when they didn’t see results in a matter of hours or couple days they
      thought well this is wrong and they ‘assumed’, Fleischmann made a mistake rather than instead
      of they made a mistake …….”

      This is the best summarization explaining how jumping to the false conclusion the original Cold Fusion experiment did not work. First they did not follow the exact Pons and Fleischmann processes and secondly they did not take enough time to allow the process to take effect. (It took weeks not hours or days of incubation time for the co-deposition of the Pd and D2 matrix to
      form a thick enough platting layer on the copper wire for the D2 to be absorbed for excessive heat to occur).

      Those scientists had failed, where Dr. Rossi has succeeded, observing the rules of ‘Nature’s Documents’ of experience by not assuming things and allowing for natural process times.

      • Sanjeev

        Yes, a great summary and a good lesson, because, to be fair, F&P made a big mistake of premature announcement and as a result karma happened.

        I do not know the whole story, but I could not find anything which indicates that F&P distributed the exact procedure, materials, samples or protocols to anyone. People had to struggle and wait to get the required info. F&P did not follow the usual peer process, which would have revealed that all samples do not work and could have saved us all. They instead went to MSM, a risky affair. They did not try to replicate their own experiment, they had no idea how will it perform in the “wild”. People who failed to replicate, simply used the logic that its more probable that one experiment is erroneous than a 100 experiments. From a balanced point of view, nothing unusual happened.

        Perhaps, they hurried it innocently, since this is a very big discovery, so they wanted to make the world aware of it asap, rather than indulge in long academic formalities. I do not blame them for not taking a crash course on “how to make a disrupting discovery and still stay alive”.

        • georgehants

          Sanjeev, I think that it has been established that P&F were pressured by their university to publish.
          Link below but many reports around showing this Fact.
          As a result of the actions of competitor Steven E Jones, Fleischmann and
          Pons and the University of Utah were forced into situation to publish
          many months before they were ready.

          • Sanjeev

            May be the paper was forced to publish before it was ready, but I was talking about the March 89 events. May be I do not know the exact situation.
            (Btw, that source is unreliable. Krivit has manipulated the info a lot, it cannot be trusted in general.)

          • georgehants

            Sanjeev as I explained above I just grabbed the first report.
            Perhaps this one is better.
            Published August 7, 2012 | By jennifer … Fleischmann, Pons and the University President who had pressured them to hold the conference were all eventually forced out of the University of Utah. Despite the ostracism Fleischmann and Pons ..

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks for the info GH.

          • this video is of the kind, the few, that may convince a mainstream guy.
            use it to convince…

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Even if the reaction did the following it wouldn’t convince a mainstream guy.
            “They have some hidden wires that made it do that.”

  • Twobob

    Will we have to wait for the old guard to pass on.
    Before the young apprentices get the brooms out.
    Still 20 plus years have passed away .
    When will the pot boil of it own volition.
    My breath grows short ,but I still do not hold It.
    For I believe that LENR is real.
    The wise and clever have proved it so.
    But stultified minds still in denial ignore.

  • I wonder if they have tried using electromagnetic and sonic shocks to the experiment. They had a number of runaway reactions when they briefly reversed the current. Rossi uses AC current. Electrolysis requires DC current. Maybe that is why Rossi gets more reliable, continuous results.

    The video is great and I love these guys.

  • Dr. Mike

    Many thanks to Ruby for putting together a film that summarized the LENR work that has been done at the Navy SPAWAR Systems Center for the last few decades. I believe that Dr. Szpak’s approach of “Keep it Simple” is very germane to those attempting to duplicate the Lugano results or the Parkhomov results. It should be noted that even with the simple set up of Boss and Szpak, their results could not be duplicated when a much smaller cell was used. Other parameters that certainly must have been a factor in the reproducibility of their work include the anode and cathode materials, the purity of the PdCl2 and the D2O, the material used for the cell container, and the Pd plating rate (and probably several others). So even Szpak’s “simple approach” had a multitude of parameters that needed to be carefully duplicated to achieve reproducible results.
    One bit of information in Ruby’s film that was new to me was the the fact that run-away reactions had been observed in cells in which the D2O had been replaced by H2O (in the presence of a magnetic field). I would like to see an LENR theory that could explain a run-away reaction with H2O replacing the D2O.
    Dr. Mike

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Protium and deuterium nuclei resonate at different frequencies due to their dissimilar spins and magnetic moments. Besides, protons are about 100 times more sensitive to NMR than deuterons. There are other factors which could be responsible for the observation you mention in the last paragraph, but anyway I think that a different behaviour of H and D in LENR is rather what one might expect than a surprise.

      • Dr. Mike

        You very well may be correct that it’s the proton’s sensitivity to NMR that enables an LENR reaction to to happen in the Pd-H system (light water) in the presence of a magnetic field. I can’t say that I was surprised by this result, but I had never heard of any LENR reaction in a Pd electrolytic cell without using heavy water. This is another observable that should eventually be explained by a robust LENR theory.
        Dr. Mike

    • Alan DeAngelis

      déjà vu
      At 1:09 I see
      “…0.05 M PdCL2 and 0.3 M LiCl onto a copper cathode..”.

      Could the following be happening in the light water experiment?
      Li(7) + p > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

      • Dr. Mike

        I doubt that there was even a trace amount of Li In either the D2O or H2O reactions run at SSPWAR or this detail would have probably come out in Ruby’s film. By the way, I don’t have a very positive opinion of Rossi and Cook’s “Li(7) theory” for LENR based on the Lugano results. Although I think it is quite possible they are correct that Li(7) is getting converted to He as one of several reactions in the Lugano hot-cat, their theory fails to explain the conversion of all of the Ni to Ni(62). To claim that the Ni(62) data is possiblly in error when the two measurement techniques used in the Lugano paper agree more closely for the Ni than for the Li doesn’t seem reasonable. Also, if I were reviewing the Cook-Rossi paper in a peer review mode, I would have requested that Rossi go back and take a second measurement of the Ni isotopic composition from the Lugano reactor. The Lugano reactor is surely in his possession and he has the ability to redo this analysis, rather than just state that the data probably is in error since it doesn’t fit his theory. Also, as others have already pointed out, there really isn’t a “theory” in the paper without a proposed explanation of how the Coulomb barrier is overcome for the Li(7) to capture a proton. (Perhaps Li(7) is capturing a neutron or some type of “quasi-neutron”???) Finally, as Steven Karels pointed out in a note to Rossi on 4/10/2015 on Rossi’s blog, there just isn’t enough energy available in the Li(7) and Ni(61) loaded into the reactor to account for all of the energy claimed to have been generated in the Lugano reactor. I’m still waiting for a theory that can explain the observed data.
        Dr. Mike

  • Agaricus

    ‘Cold Fusion’ might still be the best descriptor available for the ‘Rossi effect’.

    As an aside, I would quite like to see all those responsible for bomb tests like this one put on public trial for capital offences, and brought to justice.