Interview with Professor YEONG E. KIM
It is a self-assumed task of this blog(ger) to provide young LENR researchers with the best information available regarding the field. Till now they have received mainly technological principles and managerial best practice due to my own limitations, but now I am appealing to a good friend- who is a world class specialist and authority in those branches of physics that are bound the very core of LENR, nuclear physics and solid state physics... Professor Yeong E. Kim from the
has generously accepted to
help, first with the following interview. Purdue University
Yeong Kim got his diploma in physics in 1959, the same year when I became a chemical engineer. 30 years later when he was already an internationally known theoretical physicist and I was a very locally known technologist, we have reacted very similarly to the advent of Cold Fusion. The risks were much greater for him but he remained faithful to this cause till today
Q1: Dear Yeong, can you please tell us about your moments of awakening, illumination, scientific revelations to the truth of cold fusion?
As you know, John Huizenga dismissed the Fleischmann-Pons effect (F-P effect) as the scientific fiasco of the century [John R. Huizenga, Cold Fusion: the Scientific Fiasco of the Century, U. Rochester Press (1992)]. He claimed that three miracles were needed to explain the F-P effect:
(1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) (Miracle #1),
(2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (Miracle #2), and
(3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space (Miracle #3).
The above three violations are known as “three miracles of cold fusion”.
My first moment of awakening happened when Fleischmann and Pons announced their experimental results in news media. Initially, my feeling of disbelief dominated about this discovery as a practicing theoretical nuclear physicist, as most of my professional colleagues did. As I was searching a possible theoretical explanation for the claimed discovery, I realized that the conventional nuclear theory could not be applied to deuteron fusion in metal. However, at the same time, I did not know how to formulate a theory for deuteron fusion in metal, even though I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.
When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature. Furthermore, I did not have slightest ideas for explaining the miracles #2 and #3. However my theoretical curiosity on the miracle #1 did kept my intellectual interests on the subject.
My second awakening happened in 1996-1997 when our theory group at Purdue developed the optical theorem approach for low-energy nuclear reactions. Purdue nuclear theory group at that time consists of four members (Y. E. Kim, group leader; A. L. Zubarev, senior scientist; Y. J. Kim, visiting professor; and J. - H. Yoon, graduate student). Our results were published in a publication entitled “Optical Theorem Formulation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” (OTF-LENRs) [Physical Review C 55, 801 (1997)].
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml Our optical theorem formulation is rigorous. My second awakening came in 1997 with realization that our theoretical result for the OTF-LENRs can be used to develop a generalized theory which is appropriate for describing deuteron fusion in a metal.
My third awakening and illumination happened when I and Zubarev developed a theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) for deuteron fusion in a metal. The results were published in 2000 [“Nuclear fusion for Bose nuclei confined in ion traps,” Fusion Technology 37, 151 (2000); “Ultra low-energy nuclear fusion of Bose nuclei in nano-scale ion traps,” Italian Physical Society Conference Proceedings 70, 375 (2000)].
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml My third awakening came in 2000 with realization that the BECNF theory is capable of explaining the F- P effect and all of Huizenga’s three miracles.
My fourth awakening is currently evolving ever since I met John Hadjichristos of Defkalion at the NI Week in August 2012. I was very pleasantly surprised when he told me at the NI Week that he quoted our OTF-LENRs paper in his paper submitted to ICCF-17. This was the first time someone in the LENR community was quoting this paper! My second surprise was to hear from him about the even-isotope effect which he observed in his experiments and which was reported in his ICCF-17 paper. The observed even isotope effect is consistent with the theory of BECNF! More detailed theoretical analysis of reaction mechanisms for his experimental results is currently in progress
Q2: 24 years have elapsed; hundreds of successful experiments were made proofs of the reality of the phenomena. Unfortunately the experiments were not sufficiently successful to provide the necessary understanding of what happens and the conditions to enhance the heat release to useful levels?
What were your thoughts re the evolution of the experimental situation in the field?
Experiments with electrolysis and gas loading involve very complex measurements with many parameters. Unfortunately, even when useful positive results were observed, it had been very difficult to reproduce the results. The absence of reproducibility of positive experimental results has been a major road block in the field.
We needed desperately a break-through in experimental procedures and techniques to achieve the reproducibility. Unfortunately lack of research funding prevented intense and concentrated experimental works based on fresh new ideas, especially from younger generation.
Q3: You have published over 200 papers re Physics http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml and over 50 regarding LENR. (An opportunity to thank you for the many fine papers of you have sent me by classic mail and later electronic mail). As a theorist it is said you do not belong to any school, you “are” a school. I could understand this for LENR from your very first note re Cluster Fusion in 1989 till http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/PhysRevC.55.801.pdf the Kim paper I know; may I ask how your theoretical ideas have evolved?
Peter, this was actually answered – for your first question.
I will ask the nice readers to study these two relevant documents: “Critical Review of Theoretical Models (1994)” and “Message to the Colleagues 2012” http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml
Many of my papers are also posted in the above web site. I hope to publish very important new ones soon.
Q4: Why the way to truth and to value was so long, why LENR still has so many problems? On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your degree of discontent with the global situation of LENR?
This is more a philosophical question and I am a physicist. Perhaps CF was not discovered in the best place; perhaps it is a historical bad chance that two electrochemist geniuses have discovered it.
And surely I am highly discontented with the experimental situation - weak signals and poor reproducibility – if and when they come, lack of conceptual unity, vision. The theory part was not much better, however I am happy that now becomes obvious - our theory is a part of a greater vision, and it is a critical part.
Q5: Recently some non-conformist newcomers, as for example Defkalion Green Technologies Global (DGTG) came with the idea that actually what we call LENR is something much more complex than we have thought and the solution is to radically re-design the components – hydrogen, metal, reaction vessel and environment to make it productive and controllable. What do you think about this New Wave idea? New paradigm?
Recently, I had an opportunity to observe experimental runs of DGTG’s R-5 reactor carried out by their group of scientists in
. The results were
positive. More importantly the results are reproducible, since there had been
many positive runs with other observers so far in addition to my observation.
This is very significant historically since we have now a device which yields
reproducible results for the first time.
It is a break-through which we have been waiting for. Vancouver
The break-through is accomplished by new comers, new breed of scientists and engineers lead by a mathematician who became an excellent scientist. This is a new wave and new paradigm change.
Q6: Prediction is an intellectual activity superior even to wisdom. Please tell my readers what are your predictions for the future of the field! Are you looking to the present and then great chances are you are pessimist, or do you have the vision of a bright future?
Recently I became very optimist. At
I witnessed a
protocoled successful test with results leaving no doubt about plenty of
heat in excess and good control of the device. I am an optimist regarding the
principles, but also for discovering and or creating the details which I plan
to work on very hard in collaboration with my DGTG friends. Vancouver
Thank you Peter and thank you Yeong.ReplyDelete
The great merit belongs to the DGT scientists andDelete
Thank you for sharing that with us, Peter.ReplyDelete
DGT shows great promise. The control aspect of their R5 reactor and the way they are engaging 3rd parties to participate in R&D will lead their way to success.ReplyDelete
I see a bright future powered by LENR+
Dr. Kim is singular among nuclear physicists. He has a mind open enough to recognize a Perl of great value when he sees it. Such is the mark of the great men in history, the men who lead the way in which others follow in his footsteps.ReplyDelete
LENR is like a treasure of great value hidden in a field. Unlike all the others of his science, this man knew full well its value and that it was there for the taking. And like the other great trailbreakers in science, has tried for years to uncover its secrets. Now that his quest is nearing its end, he can rest satisfied to have rendered a great legacy unto all of us to the latest generation.
Interesting! Did Dr. Kim come away with any data regarding the performance of the reactor? How about something about the methods for measuring it and the ways they controlled and calibrated and blanked the measurements?
Also: Does Dr. Kim (or anyone) have any idea why Defkalion has not obtained a public and independent test of their claims?
independent (double bonus for this one)
When can we expect stand-alone operation? - meaning no external input power with finite and continuous output power?ReplyDelete
Take care please with your question, technically speaking.
This one demonstrates that you have not read their NIWeek 2012 or ICCF-17 papers or my interview re their technological principles.
And what signifies "finite" in this context?
Please do not e so predictable!
Yes prof Kim has lots of data and will have more and more
but not for you, now. Some of them will be presented at
ICCF-18.He will contribute to the scientific basis of this technology
Cui prodest- why should Defkalion organize an open and independent test just to convince you that the generators work? I don't want to be personal, but whom are you representing?
Till you demonstrate the contrary you are just a curious amateur
with a high dosis of ill-will.
Defkalion presented last year. They showed no device, gave no proper experimental data and repeated extravagant claims to high power outputs and long duration experiments which have never been verified. I imagine that they will do the same this year and we will know no more about their veracity than we do now.Delete
Peter, please note: claims are not data!
Dear Mary, I amDelete
moved by your care however please do not worry.
You have indeed not verified those claims, other people
had and you will get their reports at proper time. I very well know that claims are not data. You have once told
that I am as stupid as Hanno Essen perhaps true but I now a few things about technology. RE what I call LENR+ you are in deep error, exactly as Ateve Krivit who has publiahed a false, hypocrite and megalomanic Open Letter today. Be a bit smarter. Tell me in a private message what is your IQ value?
Claim by athrirpart twho bashed Rossi for loosed demo and lack of independence during tests, is to be considered...Delete
but of course like many you are blind to data who don't match your prejudice.
Nelson not only report a COP>>1, but report cooperation and freedom to test, and he report that to Gibbs.
But I sure that Nelson, like Proia, like Truchard, like Concezzi, like Focardi, like Yeong kim, like Rossi, like Xanthoulis, like Charichristos, like Essen, is part of the alien conspiracy of LENR... or freemasons ? Illuminati ?
of course I miss the hundreds of scientist over the planet who participated that conspiracy, from japan to france, russia, us, china... all conspiracy...
there is a moment when you are farther than ridicule.
Peter, I reject any claim regarding Lenr from people who do not adhere to the scientific process. Or do not provide with a convincing demonstration that exclude any possibility of fraud. DGT have claimed to possess a working Lenr reactor for more than two years but still there is no proof. They did offer licenses for 40 mio per country (regardless of the size of that country). How long will you trust in DGT without solid proof? Another year? Two years? Three years? When have they reached your limit?Delete
Some of your staements are not exact: they adhere to the scientific process but combining it with technology (see my writings(, they have made very convincing demonstration to many partners see e.g. prof Kim, the value of a Hyperion factory is much greater than 40 mio $
I am trustibg them due tio solid proof not because I am stupid or credulous, you will see my friend.
The situation is this: Rossi has excess heat, DGT has both
excess heat and smart control. If you do not believe me
it is your personal problem, it's a free world.
by the way F&P have been replicated exactly by Longchamps at CEA Grenoble.
if you respect scientific method , please surrender.
and please, don't prostitute science.
I could cite much more evidence, but one pair is enough.
Peter, I did not make the number of 40 mio euro per country, DGT did it himself. And I never said you are stupid.Delete
Alain, as far as I am aware, no Lenr experiment has been replicated reliably. So that everyone that does the same experiment get's the same results. In case you do know of such an experiment I suggest you contact the MFMP. They are trying to build such an experiment.
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
as far I know, you should read more.Delete
by the way, read what I repeat again and again.
I don't hope you read, but just that people who see you understand that you don't read anything that oppose your view.
you will also for sure find bad reason not to accept, not to read..
as usual and there is no point in continuing...
The work of Longchampt cannot convince you, yet it is the most exact replication of F&P... hundreds of other experiments were more creative replication that you will deny... hundreds of other were testing different factors, like He4, tritium, neutrons, gamma, transmutation, and won't convince you...
dozens of teams over the planet won't convince you either.
that National instruments, Concezzi, Truchard are convinced, that Xanthoulis change job from economist to startup boss, does not convince you.
That Aldo Proia change job from solar energy project manager to LENR startup, does not convince you...
I can just suspect that people reading that understand who is the delusioned here.
if you were just saying that it still have few % of being a fake, an error, we could discuss and exchange risk estimation...
but if you claim it is all false, I can only laugh.
and it is not by laughing louder than me that you will convince people who can read...
just home illiterate and lazy to follow comfortably your "reference opinion leaders".
Professor Kim's work is consistent and amazing. And, he took the time to communicate with me as a neophyte on this area. I have been thinking ahead to the implications if LENR for energy policy.ReplyDelete
I am a strong advocate if a supergrid, and the argument for a supergrid certainly weakens in the face of LENR wide area deployment...but it does not disappear. LENR-based generators are still heat engines, and they produce waste heat. One risk is that a future dominated by LENR could see a lot more waste heat. A remedy for that could be deployment of LENR cogeneration, linked through the grid so that which generators are dispatched depends mainly on the local demand for heat. A supergrid helps a lot there.
I hope you will have opportunities to discuss this idea
with the strategists. Will you go to ICCF-18? NI Week?
A question that would be good to ask Dr. Kim:ReplyDelete
Do Dr. Kim's various theories allow him to make any testable predictions for a cold fusion reactor? Anything that would point to a better way to maximize the cold fusion effect?
Which cold fusion reactor are you considering?Delete
Have you read for example what I wrote about Pd?
About a million years from now when the human race strides boldly between the stars, in their great moment of triumph, the name of Defkalion and Dr. Kim will shine again...ReplyDelete
like a beacon throughout the galaxy.
Fear not Mary Yugo, your legacy will also endure in the history of humankind. Your memory will yet persist as a miscreant shadow in the radiant memory of Dr. Kims accomplishments, for every great triumph is accompanied by a unfortunate mischievous counterpoint.
Axil, you're so silly, you make me grin and chuckle.Delete
Some people crave the attention of enduring fame that persists throughout history into the dark unknown recesses of the most distant and obscure future. Where others of lesser talent will fade from this memory of man, your name will endure. You have struggled to the top of your miscreant profession and as such your name will ring clearly into the future as the ultimate example of your kind. It is too bad for your enduring posterity that this name of infamy is not your real one.Delete
And George "Mary Yugo" Hody you provide so much fun for us by hosting Mary Bingo.Delete
I again admire your persistence and that you keep up such good encouragement in the face of some very heavy skepticism.
On the strength of your efforts I remain optimistic about progress in the field and in particular from DGTG.
As suggested to you by email, I would greatly appreciate any explanation of how DGTG's HENI differs from what most of us understand of LENR+
I believe you have the contacts to assemble any such report and it would help many people understand how DGTG diverged from the better grasped LENR/LENR+ techniques.
Dr. Kim certainly has the credentials and theoretical physics mastered. I'm curious though, does a theoretical physicist actually perform any experiments? You know, hands on, measure the energy and reaction times and stuff? He "proposes" a number of experiments in his papers but does he or has he ever actually performed them?ReplyDelete
I was just thinking that rather than a theoretical practitioner one might want an more implementation type of witness. Even a practicing electrician might be a better witness to the valid testing of a heating device. A couple of electricians and maybe a few lawyers from the DOJ might be a more practical set of witnesses than a theoretical physicist.
I think all the back and forth is getting totally irrelevant at this point.ReplyDelete
It's put up or shut up time.
If they don't wow the world soon, they are all frauds in my books.
So, let's all stop doing the rah-rah and the naye-naye. It's all pointless.
Just show us the money.
That's not how fraud is perpetrated. It's this elusive, last final piece that is always just one step away that draws us all along that is the key to maintaining the fraud. The secret must be maintained - at all costs. Any final confrontation to prove, once in for all, with all previous pretenses dropped, the efficacy of the device in question CANNOT be undertaken. That would spoil the show, reveal the ruse, uncover the con.Delete
A showdown is the last thing on Defkalion's and Rossi's agenda. In fact, with the recent hoopla regarding 'independent testing' causing so much light to be shined through the cracks I would expect both the Greeks and Italians to fade back into the dark recesses from whence they came.
I don't know who you are but you are going quite well from the premises (yours) to the conclusions.Delete
Peter wrote: " Tell me in a private message what is your IQ value? "ReplyDelete
Have you made an IQ test at the specialist psychologist andDelete
what has he/she told you? Internet tests areless reliable. I am just asking because you told I am stupid and this was my personal secret; now I want to see if you are really smarter
and how much. In many professions EQ is more important than IQ so don't worry- just tell your IQ to Uncle Peter- I will not tell it to anybody.
Peter, you know better than this. Our resident cross dressing troll, George "Mary Yugo" Hody is a used calorimeter sales(wo)man. (S)he has got nothing better to do.Delete
Yes, indeed there are some problems with Mary. I would not adopt her.Delete
However, and I would emphasize this I have absolutely nothing against the used calorimeters sales(wo)men, some of them were my quite good friends.
Thanks for posting this PeterReplyDelete
Mats Lewan just wrote this addendum in his blog:ReplyDelete
"UPDATE: I have been in contact with a representative of PCE Instruments UK Ltd who has confirmed that the PCE-830 cannot detect DC tension."
Vortex does not seem to be aware of this-- maybe you can tell them.
By the way, Peter, I *never* said you are stupid or have a low IQ. I said you are GULLIBLE. You are too ready to trust what people say. That's not the same thing.
Be convinced that my colleagues on Vortex are reading everythingReplyDelete
connected with this test and this limitation of the instrument was already discussed before. The same instrument is also unable to make measurements on the Scoville Heat Scale, but this does not worry anybody.
Mary, gullibility has to be seen in context, for example see this fine book: http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/
You are also gullible believing in weird conspiracies hidden electric power, perverse finacial schemas -when the things are simple- Rossi's Ecats make a lot of excess heat but still have some problems of control. Negative gullibilty vs positive gulliblity. It is obvious that Rossi's secrecy can be very annoying but he wants to keep his IP. I am very curious how will you react when the coming events will destroy your position in
this affair. You still have success and influence and this is
a great help for Rossi- less business intelligence, less competition, less industrial espionage etc. Very useful for him.
Your role in a realistic context.
"It is obvious that Rossi's secrecy can be very annoying but he wants to keep his IP. I am very curious how will you react when the coming events will destroy your position inDelete
If Rossi really could demonstrate that his machine works, he could get a patent. It makes no sense that he will sell machines (or as he claims he has already sold megawatt reactors) and has not jeopardized his so-called "IP". What would stop a customer, if there were one which I doubt, from simply taking apart one of the 50+ ecats which make up Rossi's mythical megawatt plant?
"A is a fraud, because if A was true than B would also have to be true. However, B is obviously wrong because it depends on C, which depends on A - and we all know that A is a fraud."Delete
Also known as Mary's tautologic proof of fraud.
By the way Peter,ReplyDelete
could you ask Mr Yeong Kim to explain the key ideas of his theory, without mathematical formulas... for people having basic QM culture but no professional competence in it?
what have been the results of the cooperation with NI?
I like the word NO but I use it with care when it is about good friends like you. I am very deeply interested bot in the new form of theory but especially in the experimental results that are fundamental for the understanding of LENR and I have decided to Not disturb my friend only in extremis.Delete
At ICCF-18 you will get the theory much improved and extended
and then it can be raised the question of a popular interpretation. Theory without mathematics is like...cannot find a decent analogy.
Whose collaboration with NI?
NI last year presented slides with reference to simulation of his theoryDelete
about theory and math, let us say it is like a business plan, without numbers. anyway, sometime complex theory (like BCS) can be explained with drawings and words (yet not proven so I agree).
Thank you, I forgot about this. I have noticed the problem and when there will be an opportunity, I will ask himDelete
"Whose collaboration with NI?"Delete
I am going to guess that the question is about Defkalion. It's a good question. I very much doubt that Defkalion will demonstrate a running high power (kilowatts) reactor instrumented properly by NI at NI week. They will find some excuse or pretense not to-- that is my psychic prediction.
Peter do you think that Rossi could have fooled everybody with a hidden wire trick after all we've seen?ReplyDelete
I haven't followed lately but am interested in your perspective.
I'm also interested in what Peter thinks about this. But it is not just a "hidden wire" trick. There are issues about the use of three phase power which, for 360 watts in, is completely unnecessary. It serves to separate the instrument power supply from the ecat power supply. There is the issue of what the power analyzer actually showed. There are issues of how the power analyzer was programmed -- it has a number of hidden menus and options. And because the power was supplied by Rossi, there is also the issue of a high frequency component-- high enough to bypass the power meter's harmonic analyzer but not high enough to screw up measuring instruments and ordinary radios.Delete
The theory of the skeptics is that, having used bad power output measurements in the past, Rossi is now allowing adequate measurement of output and is cheating, somehow, with the power input. All the more reason for testing which does not involve Rossi's lab.
So do you think Rossi is completely full of BS and there is no LENR or LENR+ device that exists.Delete
The use of 3phase power is absolutely logic for a 1MW reactor, which will benefir from balancing power on the 3 phase. moreover the 380V, reduce the current, thus the losses on the wires (allow smaller jauge... not much anyway).Delete
balancing 200-300kW peak , over 3 phase is nearly mandatory.
Rossi seems simply to have decided to use the existing controller makde for the final machine.
"So do you think Rossi is completely full of BS and there is no LENR or LENR+ device that exists."Delete
That's two very different questions. Yes, I think Rossi *and* Defkalion are *proven* consistent liars and as such, I do not trust them or anything they say. I hope you had a chance to read Defkalion's *ridiculous* claims on their internet forum before they deleted it!
Whether the many experiments which claim to show very small excess heat or tritium or neutrons are valid, I have no way of knowing. I have no opinion on them but I must tell you that the more I read about it, and the more I listen to the proponents of these claims like McKubre and Miley (not to mention Brillouin and Nanospire)-- the more I read, the less I think the claims are valid. Just my opinion. I can't prove it.
you pretend that you beliefs are true, but they are not, neither proven, nor probable, not even coherent.
of course you need unbiased mind and psychology to see that.
neither rossi, nor defkalion have the behavior of scam artists...
they have probably problems, failures, change in strategy, fear of competitors, hubris, megalomania, paranoia... all which is normal in their situation.
you use heavily the well knowh fallacy "absence of evidence is evidence of pbsencs", and "possibility of fraud, is sure a fraud".
and you forget to use psychology and statistics to realize that your hypothesis are simply conspiracy theories.
when will you understand that...
sure the swedish test have a hole, because they forgot a check.
but I have a more subtle logic engine than you, base on theory of belief and game theory, plus some fuzzy logic.
the fraud was excluded when the tester were allowed to play alone with the e-cat.
The DC fraud was excluded when Rossi allowed them to be alone with the plug, the socket, the wires... even plugged, a DC voltmeter could be used.
peopl wanting to understand your logic, should read that wikipedia article (rejected by you &clone)
we find your logic and the answers...
and about rossi, why are you assuming all is faken, while the science is clear and real, the heat have been huge.
see for example the results at Uni Missouri
some COP get at 30... what rossi claim is in a way modest...
you make me think about the boss of Enron who kept his equity , sure to win, while desperately hiding his losses...
the fall will be hard.
The longest answer possible: No!ReplyDelete
Anonymous with whom you are speaking here, with Mary or me?ReplyDelete
I have told clearly what I believe, yes Rossi has enhanced excess heat and some control problems to be solved.Do not worry for LENR+