Jed, there are questions floating around about whether or not you have been paid any money or compensation of any kind by IH or any of its affiliates. Do you want to clear the air and address this issue? I think not answering my inquiry might not work in your favor.
I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right
-
-
I can answer that. Jed is not being paid by IH. That has been addressed before and I guess it will be the question of the day again. Do the questions get circulated on Planet Rossi via a rotation?
-
Jed is not being paid by IH.
Thanks for answering. I don't recall seeing this specifically asked and answered before, but then again, hard to keep up with all of the posts. Can you also confirm that he has not received any money or other compensation from you or any other affiliates of IH?
-
Quote from "Axil"
I don't understand what benefit that IH derives from this line of behavior?
Nothing new at all. This is astroturfing 101, a discipline almost invented by IH PR professionals Apco Worldwide. In the TED talk below Sharyl Attkisson is describing exactly what Apco does for a living. (Apco does a lot of big pharma work). Watch it!
-
Jed, there are questions floating around about whether or not you have been paid any money or compensation of any kind by IH or any of its affiliates. Do you want to clear the air and address this issue? I think not answering my inquiry might not work in your favor.
Jed told me that he got all his IH related info in written form, that is not heysay. It would be enlightening if that information was presented in its original form and the originators of that info identified. That would go a long way in strengthening Jed's case. I judge written information with the date of reception and originator identified as compelling proof of a proposition. It is like a link to a reference of a point under discussion.
-
This discussion have derailed and we lost abd contributions.
about libelling, just not stating that it is sure IH is agent of US MIC or oil co, or that Rossi is paid by russian mafia, and asking questions raising points that can be countered by arguments, can avoid accusations.
One is protected from libelling by sincere and transparent argumentations, and by acceptation of possible mistake in analysis.
clearly the e-catfight have damaged the domain.
I just hope the million will still be available for research, but beside losing forum contributors, I know LENR research probably have lost fractions of billion, temporarily I hope.
my conclusion to people like @Dewey Weaver and many replicator here, is that we need concerted effort on LENR experiments, probably the old style PdD (à la Edmund Storms or Dennis Letts) , of five sigma academic quality, and not just of engineering grade.
-
Nothing new at all. This is astroturfing 101, a discipline almost invented by IH PR professionals Apco Worldwide. In the TED talk below Sharyl Attkisson is describing exactly what Apco does for a living. (Apco does a lot of big pharma work). Watch it!
Thank you Sifferkoll for the link to the fascinating video.
For those who don't have time to watch the entire presentation, I'd like to summarize the advice of the presenter (Sharyll Atkisson) on how to recognize "Astroturfing" (manipulation of public opinion)..1) Use of inflammatory language.
2) Claiming to "debunk" myths which are not myths at all
3) Attacking people and organizations rather than the facts
4) Reserving their public skepticism for those who expose wrong doing rather than the wrong doers.To this list I would add signs like:-
5) Passing off conjecture as if it were extablished fact.
6) Failing to provide verifiable references for "facts" quoted.
7) Deliberate distortion of facts (half truths).
8 ) Pretending to be such an authority that failure to have been made aware of evidence implies that the evidence does not exist.
9) Repeating loaded and/or inappropriate questions after such questions have already been reasonably answered.
10) Claiming without evidence that someone holding a different opinion is biased or has been bribed.
11) Spamming near identical messages on multiple sites.Maybe others can think of other Signs of Astroturfing?
-
Quote from "Hermes"
Thank you Sifferkoll for the link to the fascinating video.
Her wikipedia example is kind of interesting ...
And remember; Apco have tons of big pharma clients. They know this stuff by "heart" ...
-
we need concerted effort on LENR experiments, probably the old style PdD (à la Edmund Storms or Dennis Letts) , of five sigma academic quality, and not just of engineering grade.Well Ed Storms and Dennis Letts are both brilliant experimentalists, but I think they are working at home with limited resources. Apart from not having all the necessary instrumentation working largely alone does limit the "peer review" of having colleagues. Just discussing a lab problem at the coffee machine is really helpful. But you can't do that at home. The lone garage inventor is not likely to make much progress in a field as complicated as CMNS.
One of the main failures of CMNS over the last 27 years has been the obsession with proving F & P right, and in particular that their conjecture deuterium fusion was producing excess heat. This is not a scientific approach, however understandable it may be. If the science is to progress we need to ask scientific questions like:-
a) What are the fuels?
b) What are the ashes?
c) Why is there little or no radiation?
d) Where does the reaction take place?
e) What factors enhance / inhibit the effect?
f) Testing theory.Randomly adjusting experimental parameters in the hope of making a breakthrough is not likely to succeed. Even if an experiment successfully produces excess heat, this does not enhance our scientific understanding. This would also true of a self sustaining device, which would be good for public relations purposes rather than science. But I suspect, without verified theory / model, little progress will be made.
-
Hi Hermes.
I think even 'garage researchers' - the people I always call 'independent researchers ask themselves the questions you list above. The size of a group is no indicator of experimental rigor, as can be seen by the mistakes that drug companies make. The latest is a discovery that the much hyped malaria vaccine (works just 39% of the time) wears off after 7 years so needs regular boosters.
Big groups just cover more experimental parameters, mostly by a process of adjusting parameters. Sometimes even randomly. In fact if there were a couple of hundred replicators out there with matching equipment then we could set out a huge list of parameters and allocate testing of each one to interested 'garagistes'.
But as you say, we have no generally accepted theory, so like a blind man in a maze we struggle on. My own interest in LENR was in part stimulated by an unexpected LENR event in a completely unrelated experiment. None of the usual ingredients were involved, and the very inexpensive raw materials were not pure. But when repeating the experiment -after many failed attempts- on 2 occasions we had copious beta radiation (of short persistence) after the equipment self destructed explosively and a huge burst of IR (detected by photodiode outside the system) as well as a massive temperature rise inside a busted 10 litre tank that had been full of water/electrolyte. Very messy let me tell you!
Was it LENR? Seems possible. Was it repeatable? Only if 3 bangs in 50+ experiments counts as repeatable. Was it useful? Probably not since it is an 'all or nothing' event that can take 200 hours to occur. I ended up running 4 tanks at a time in order to look for a 'trigger' material or mechanism, and would have run 8 if possible. But now I have abandoned it as too time consuming in order to concentrate on Ni/Li/H.
So how do you suggest we proceed in practical terms? And can you help to organise it?
-
For those who might wonder about details of the experiment above these particular tanks had AC-powered field coils around them (under the colour-coded tape around each tank) and the electrolysis part was running off a 120A psu. Though only taking a couple of amps since they were wired in series. There is a single beta-probe somewhere in the middle of that lot . The Lithium Hydroxide that just happens to be in shot was just one of a number of 'trigger' materials we were trying, without success.
It was fun, but messy and took up a lot of time, at 200 hours per set of experiments. Now I am beginning to do the same thing with Model T reactors, daisy-chaining them to run 3 experiments (and 3 controls at once. The 'tank' picture btw was in a much earlier iteration of my Lab/workshop. This is what it looks like now - I really need a cleaner! ETA- the pictures show only the tidiest 1/3 of the space.
Edit -sp, add detail
-
So how do you suggest we proceed in practical terms? And can you help to organise it?
Well I'm a newbie here. But we (that means you) could start a new thread in which we could extend the list of scientific questions and propose possible experiments to answer them. Failing that we could set up some kind of international scientific committee to do so, maybe under the auspices of some non profit organization with no vested interests. I'm a bit worried that many people writing here are not scientists so we may get side tracked on non scientific issues.
Thanks for the photos of your lab! Now I understand your reaction to my "garage researchers"!!
No insult was intended. In fact, notwithstanding my previous comments about instrumentation, there are still plenty of scientific questions that, er, independent researhers can answer. The trouble is, if we start publishing proposals on the Internet, human nature being what it is, an apparently good idea will get badly copied by glory hunting garage researchers. Badly planned duplication of research simply wastes precious resources. An example of this are the frantic attempts by Rossi and followers to replicate Piantelli's pioneering work without ever publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.BTW, have you published any results? What was the half life of the beta radiation you observed? What elements were present in your set up? Were you able to identify the radio-active isotope(s)?
-
There are some good thoughts there Hermes. And no offense was taken as I am sure none was meant. Just that some of us don't have a garage! The committee idea has some merit. Biggest problem is that even those researchers in prominnet posts who believe in LENR are all very busy and also wary of tangling with 'people like us'. Jed is a notable exception but as he says himself, he is not a researcher per se. I have been thinking of organising a meeting in London in 2017, when the smoke has (hopefully) cleared a little. It might be just the place to start recruiting.
As for the 'tank bang' experiments, my colleague and I decided not to publish formally, since we had no wish to start a stampede for red herrings and get people involved in dangerous experiments. First time around my colleague nearly got a face-full of boiling electrolyte. As for analysis of the radiation itself and the by products, we worked out it had to be Betas by experimenting with Al shielding. Half-life was on the order of 10 minutes and peak above background around 4X. Since the raw materials which worked best on 3 occasions were crushed coal and laundry-grade Sodium Carbonate (washing soda in the uk) the list of impurities and involved elements was huge, and my attempts to narrow it down using purer materials went nowhere.
But I have learned a lot since then. I hope!
-
So Alan, purer materials went nowhere!
And of course coal + laundry-grade washing soda probably don't declare their impurities in any case.So the questions are:-
i) What are the expected impurities?
ii) What beta radioactive isotopes have a half life of about 10 minutes?
iii) What CMNS models (if any) predict such isotopes?This is a complicated problem! My analysis shows that there are some 1694 beta radioactive isotopes with half lives between 3 and 20 minutes (ii). As for (i), Rb is a possible candidate as a group 1 impurity in commercial washing soda. John Fisher's polyneutron theory suggests 89Rb as a possible transmutation product and this has a half life of 15.15 minutes. Provisionally your data appears to be consistent. Why don't you try again with Rubidium Carbonate?
-
Since the raw materials which worked best on 3 occasions were crushed coal and laundry-grade Sodium Carbonate
Alan, interesting that you mention crushed coal. Are you familiar with Les Case's invention back in the 1990s? He was one of the forerunners of gas-based LENR systems, and he used 'coconut shell charcoal' as a catalyst. See here for example:http://www.iccf19.com/history3.html
Somewhere I remember seeing a documentary that shows his process of looking for a catalyst. Sadly one of those free energy pioneers who met an untimely death.
I am not surprised that you have gotten excess heat results with a range of (unexpected) systems. It is definitely compatible with my hypotheses about LENR (https://goo.gl/mv7ujH). By the way, Steven Jones's presentation at ICCF-18 corroborates my view. See here for pdf of his presentation: http://goo.gl/9uzzum
See also another experiment of his: http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/950…trates_overunity_circuit/
-
Maybe others can think of other Signs of Astroturfing?
Let's see... spouting lame sarcasm to ridicule the idea that online shilling/social engineering is true?
And in the CF/LENR domain, asking a hundred questions without checking experiments/theories, to filibuster innocently?
QuoteMember since Jun 23rd 2016
kek
of course this sign could be positive or negative! -
IHFB - Jed is not being paid by anyone or any company associated with IH. He is his own man and makes his own decisions. I wish that you and others who are so curious about things IH had the intellectual honesty to reflect on Rossi at 1/10th of the pace that you question IH. He needs the accountability and that would help the LENR sector enormously. You should think about that.
-
For all you other twistoids - you're not hearing IH from on this forum. The intelligent life forms are resigned to the fact that you are never going to understand that. When IH speaks - you will hear it and it will be unmistakable.
You're also going to have to find out some very valuable and interesting information the hard way.
Fighting off drones and clones from Planet of the Rossis has become a bore.Ciao
-
Thanks joshg. I have read all of Les Case's published work - and found it very interesting. And thanks for the links to Mathis work- though here I am not so confident. I'll check out the Steve Jones link later.
@Hermes - i have an analysis for the coal somewhere- a laundry list of elements. Most significant was (from memory) Bismuth.
-
For all you other twistoids - you're not hearing IH from on this forum. The intelligent life forms are resigned to the fact that you are never going to understand that. When IH speaks - you will hear it and it will be unmistakable.
You're also going to have to find out some very valuable and interesting information the hard way.
Fighting off drones and clones from Planet of the Rossis has become a bore.Ciao
So long Dewey, it has been an honor to witness some proper hyperclass representant throw tantrums like a 5yr old because his toy is being confiscated by its inventor
There's also the possibility that you're simply an APCO troll operating under the umbrella of plausible deniability opened by IH ("don't trust anyone who pretends speaking on our behalf")
Or maybe Darden and friends were expecting that some of their close investors would meltdown and make fools of themselvesFascinating questions!
