Robert V Duncan at TTU: 5Mn$ for hydride research in "Seashore research LLC"

  • On Cobraf they have found some data on Robert V Duncan in Texas TTU


    A company have been created, and 5Mn$ from TTU are granted
    http://www.datalog.co.uk/brows…/SEASHORE+RESEARCH,+L.L.C.


    https://www.depts.ttu.edu/irim…BoardMinutes2015_1211.pdf


    Research regarding Metal Hydrides; Duncan, Robert V, Senior Vice Président for Research, Office of the Vice President for Research, and Principal Investigator; Seashore Research, LLC $5,000,000 awarded

  • This is consistent with the work of the Center for the study of Anomalous Heat Effects.
    http://www.iccf19.com/_system/…ster/AP52_Scarborough.pdf


    One of the studies described there is into hydrides. This is not about Rossi at all.


    $5 million is a nice chunk of change. Where did it come from? Yes, it was appropriated by the University, but where did they get the money for that? General Funds? My guess is not, though it is not impossible. Duncan is the "principal investigator." Seashore Research LLC has Duncan as registered agent. What's going on?


    Let's see, do we know of a company that creates or fosters the creation of limited liability companies that can receive investment, that might be interested in "metal hydrides"?


    Tough question, I know.


    This is speculation, but it would quite consistent with what I know.


    It is possible that much more than $5 million has been invested. That was just what the University tossed into the pot. We don't know the nature of the agreement with the University. it might be a specific contract for specific investigations.

  • I was hoping to see Duncan participate at next months ICCF20, but I don't see him on the program.


    iccf20.net/contents/Program.html


    Many of the other LENR standouts still breathing will be there though. Looking forward to see if SRI's Francis Tanzella is more definitive on BE's results.


    Duncan has his finger in many pies. As to the Anomalous Heat Effect, there is a project under way, with investigators Duncan, McKubre, Violante, and Scarborough (apparently Duncan's grad student or postdoc?)


    Violante and Duncan and Scarborough are not on the program, but we do not know if they will be there or not. However, one of the two keynote speakers, with 40 minutes each, is (see the "for more information" page)


    Quote

    CMNS Research; Past, Present and Future (40) Michael McKubre (Seashore Research, USA)


    "Seashore Research" is an LLC formed in Texas. It received an award of $5 million from Texas Tech for investigations into metal hydrides. From the ICCF-19 announcement by Duncan, McKubre, Violante, and Scarborough) this is hydrides and deuterides. And a major project is the confirmation of the heat/helium ratio, repeating with increased precision and more knowledge of what to look for, previous work having been done by Miles, McKubre, Violante, and many others.


    Duncan is the registered agent for Seashore Research. I know practically nothing else about Seashore, and I haven't asked McKubre. Yet.


    The one I would most think could benefit from ICCF-20 would be Scarborough. I hope they send her. Experience counts, depth counts.


    There are many scheduled presentations of high interest. Want to know more about Brillouin? Two talks, not just one, including Tanzella:



    Yay, MFMP!!!


    Robert Duncan is on the International Advisory Committee for ICCF-20, as is Violante, and many other familiar names: http://iccf20.net/contents/Organization.html

  • A couple more Seashore Research docs - which i think are new. last page of the pdf is the most interesting.


    This contribution is of such high value that I am taking Alan off block, though if he prefers that I maintain the block so I am not normally tempted to respond to him, he can let me know.


    https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…89-Donation-Duncan-1-pdf/


    This documents a $6 million gift specifically for LENR research, with declared research goals. The gift is understood to be matched by the State of Texas, with another $6 million. This is larger in impact, then, than the Sydney Kimmel donation establishing SKINR at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Some of the work is difficult, but they have the expertise on board, and the first goal will almost certainly produce results of high import, and likely to create further financial impact when published, and this is not secret work, though it will follow ordinary confidentiality in process. People get ready, there is a train coming.


    The donor is anonymous, but this is activity that I predicted Industrial Heat would undertake (efforts designed to pull in public funding, which is where, indeed, APCO may be involved). I have some evidence as to the identity of the donor, but ... it doesn't matter.


    LENR has definitely turned the corner.


    I am slightly disappointed. The original grant document was dated October 31, 2014. This appears to include the initial budget. Their priority is the work I strongly suggested in my Current Science paper published in February, 2015. So this was already under way, I can't take credit for it! Boo hoo! However ... great minds think alike.


    I was, in fact, flogging this research for several years, mostly privately on the CMNS list, and I do know that what I found about reverse electrolysis releasing surface-trapped helium has had an influence. My point here is not to toot my own horn, but to point out what is possible for a non-scientist who decides to become informed, and who maintains skepticism while also seeing the possibilities. Those who do this can make a difference. They become a bridge to the mainstream, and funding can be attracted and defended, and cold fusion can come in out of the cold. Besides, it's fun.


    The budget included a high-resolution mass spectrometer for $500K. They are not messing around. Further, this is an ongoing project and it would be consistent with it to make analytical services available to other researchers, under appropriate conditions. That will take a sampling protocol, such as what Miles used.


    I knew this was happening, but did not have specifics. I'm cheering. Let's hear it for real science! -- and for those who support it!


    --- the original grant is documented in this public file: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/6585.PDF?CFID=47538672&CFTOKEN=88674505 page 18, and then page 39 for the amendment.



  • If they had bought that equipment used, Duncan would have had a lot more reserve cash at his disposal. Good news though.


    Maybe. However, the same argument applies to, say, cars. It is insane to buy a new car? The car loses substantial value when you drive it off the lot. However, it also comes with perks. It may have the latest and greatest technology. It may be warranteed, it may include a service contract guaranteeing uptime.


    Consider the grad student (probably) who will run that mass spec. They will be learning on the latest technology, not something years old. That enhances its value for their future. Definitely, major projects sometimes buy used. We do not, in fact, know if this is new or used. What if it is a used million-dollar mass spec? We don't know what they actually bought.


    The funding here is not "penny-pinching." They are claiming they will avoid fluff, like staff no longer needed because the work moved on. I thought that the heat/helium job could be done for $1 million, but that was a rough guess and did not really include salaries and major consulting fees. This is supporting McKubre and Violante, among others (such as two grad students and some miscellaneous consultants.)

  • The claim doesn't reference a particular system or power level. My comment applies to all the lame claims that someone has accomplished a proven LENR reaction. In any context, the idea that "LENR has turned the corner" (whatever exactly that means) is simply specious and ignorant. Regardless of which system you're referring to.


    How long has Duncan been spending Sidney Kimmel megabucks? And what does he have to show for it thus far?


    Oh... McKubre gets $1250 per day plus all expenses and Duncan gets $82,500 a year plus 32% fringe benefits for 1/4 of his time. Not bad. I wish the oil and nuclear fission companies paid me as well, not to mention lazy old APCO.

  • If they had bought that equipment used, Duncan would have had a lot more reserve cash at his disposal.


    I strongly recommend buying new laboratory equipment. I have had many unfortunate experiences with used laboratory equipment, and used and old computer equipment. Researchers such as Mizuno use a lot of equipment from the 1970s and 80s and in some cases from the 1950s. They end up doing a lot of extra work keeping these machines working. Mizuno does not mind it because as he says, "I am an analog human in a digital world." But I think younger researchers would mind.


    If you need a high-tech gadget for any purpose, I recommend buying the latest model. Analytical equipment such as SEM have made vast strides in recent years. It is much more capable, and easier to use. The difference is as great as the difference between my manual shift 1994 Geo Metro (which has zero computers and no electronic or electric anything except the fuel injection and the cigarette lighter), and a Tesla with the latest automatic driving features.

  • Though try fixing a Tesla yourself.


    No can do. I have not seen a Tesla but I own a Prius. It is like a digital watch. It is not the product of human hands. Only a robot can make make such a thing. All is modular.


    With a cheap OBD reader and access to eBay, you could fix 95% of problems in your 'Suzuki Swift'...


    True. I leave it up to a gang of 70-something mechanics at Georgetown Auto, which is located next door to the high school in the year 1965. When they retire, the car will have to go. One of them told me, "I've seen riding mowers with engines bigger than that."

  • Quote: “LENR has definitely turned the corner.”


    Highly doubtful. Tell me that in five years when you demonstrate a robust, entirely self-sustaining LENR reaction. Yah shoore.


    MY, I have to ask....
    Since Texas U is not on your list of "major universities" that I have seen you post (not saying you were posting a complete list), if they publish positive findings
    will that enable you to say "there is more to this CF story than what I have seen in the past and there may very well be room for optimism" ? Or because you have already
    determined and labeled Dr. Duncan unqualified and incapable of "true science" that the case is already closed and nothing published from them can ever change your view?


    Is it the fact that Texas U is formally willing to investigate LENR /CF that they are automatically disqualified in your mind? Please note I am not trying to "push your button" on this. Is the SKINR project at Missouri U. also in the category of "not a major university" and incapable of serious research? I seriously like to know how you view this situation.


    Please note that because 5 years has went by with little known about success, that is not a valid observation of failure. Many new technologies went as long or longer without a major break through.

  • Mary Yugo wrote:
    If this is based on Rossi's "work",


    What on earth makes you think it might be based on his work? I don't recall hearing Duncan even mention Rossi. I guess you imagine this because, as you yourself often boast, you know nothing about cold fusion.


    That's obvious. Mary has been participating in discussions about cold fusion for many years, but still does not know what the real issues are, who is doing fundamental research, and who is possibly a commercial fraud. I have explained what IH's motives for the Rossi investment were, and they did not involve "believing" him. They involved finding out. That is completely not understandable, apparently, to Mary Yugo, where knowledge appears prepackaged as ready impressions or shallow research.


    On another topic, Mary's actual practical knowledge bone was poked, and she reacted with relative expertise and little antiwoo. So it's not that she's stupid. Something has damaged her sense of balance. Maybe she needs one of those bracelets.


    [Abd ducks!)


    I was once offered some tachyon beads for a headache. By an ex-wife, actually, who was selling them. I am not responsible for what my ex-wives sell. I turned them down and she asked why. "Because it might work!"


    On the point here, there may be some investigation into nickel hydride, but this would not be based on Rossi, at all. There is no useful data on Planet Rossi, though IH might disclose what doesn't work.


    These are not stupid people.

  • There is no useful data on Planet Rossi, though IH might disclose what doesn't work.


    Abd, what IH got/tried to get was a licence to Rossi's patent(s)... I'm no patent lawyer but it seems to me that anyone boiling water with a heater containing H, Li & nano Ni (even at COP1) would be at risk of being sued by Leonardo.


    Edit: or maybe LiAlH? It's been a while since I read the patent.

  • Abd, what IH got/tried to get was a licence to Rossi's patent(s)... I'm no patent lawyer but it seems to me that anyone boiling water with a heater containing H, Li & nano Ni (even at COP1) would be at risk of being sued by Leonardo.


    Edit: or maybe LiAlH? It's been a while since I read the patent.


    What IH tried to get -- vigorously -- was the technology. A License is what justified the investment. Licenses may be worthless, but they are hedges and the way the Agreement was worded, IH got a license not only for what existed, but for whatever Rossi developed as an improvement. They got the License, they did not merely try to get it. Rossi has "cancelled it," which is legally meaningless. It sort of means "sue me," except that the suing would have to be the other way around, unless, on some future technology, IH sues for specific performance on a device that they obtain, say a QuarkX, and it works. Otherwise, not worth the paper the suit would be filed on, not to mention the cost of making the marks on it. Rossi is discovering the limits of "Rossi Says" in the real world.


    As to someone who develops new technology that might resemble the Rossi patent, if that patent disclosure is not enough to make the "water heater" useful, and the new development is enough, yes, Rossi might sue, but it would be defensible. If one has such a development in hand, the money will be available for legal fees, etc, and Rossi will be wasting his money. That assumes that the inventor is not Rossi-paranoid, which then leads to shoot-own-foot errors.


    If one has such a device, one would be well-advised to negotiate with IH. If one has a device that needs development money, and the device will pass independent testing, IH might fund further development, or knows people who might. They are disbursing large sums for pure research, with little or no demonstrated commercial readiness. One of their goals would be to be ready for commercial possibilities when they arise. Anyone who looks at how they treated Rossi would see that these are actually straight-arrow investors. They kept their agreement and probably invested millions more than we see in the agreement, but essential was manufacture of devices that would pass independent testing, and Rossi insured that this never happened. It's obvious. He may or may not have real technology, but IH secured themselves either way. He is no longer a threat blocking other approaches.


    Working with IH, there is a License for half the planet for anything Rossi, so no worries from that patent. Not only would Rossi lose at trial, the suit could probably be dismissed before that. Rossi has no contractual right to cancel the license, the Agreement did not include that, nor would IH have signed it if it did.


    I had Zeus46 blocked for what I saw as repetitive trolling, high density of useless comments. When someone replies to this user, however, I see that, and can easily check. Paradigmnoia responded. This was at least a worthwhile question, taken as that, though it was stated as a declaration. Firm declarations based on ignorance and shallow thinking are characteristic of fanatics, pseudoskeptics, and trolls. But I know that these are displayed qualities, not necessarily about the person underneath. Zeus46 is now unblocked by me. I easily press that button again. And every user has this right and power. I do generally inform users I am blocking, but that is not a "punishment," I am simply protecting myself from noise that I might react to. This forum might improve if more users took advantage of the tool. The down side is that one doesn't see the posts and cannot so easily downvote them. Tough.

  • I've heard, somewhere, that tinfoil can be folded into possibly useful hats. One can probably find some instructions on youtube. Who knows, they might catch on. Tesla? Faraday?


    Might be a business there.


    I thought I might sell tinfoil hats at ICCF-18, to help fund my costs, but I needed a Round Twit as a base, and I never got a Round Twit.

  • Oh I'm sooooooooooo pleased you unblocked me. I don't care for your long-winded meta-anaylsis of my supposed "declarations" and you need to think about how my supposed declaration is modified by saying "I'm no patent lawyer... It seems to me".


    Patents are licensed, not "technology", and the rest of your reply is just unnecessary prose. Are you bored?


    Come to think of it, your response is actually just one big flatulent "declaration". You hypocrite. Block me again.


    And tell me about it...


  • Patents are licensed, but Agreement and effort by IH was to obtain technology and a license.
    Declaration is how the future is created by human beings. Call it magic, but it is just how the brain works.
    We declare alleged fact, as one aspect, and we declare possibilities. Zeus46's post was a mixture, and the alleged fact was misinterpretation, and the possibility was a risk of lawsuit, actually not what a real inventor would be most concerned with, something not difficult to handle, compared with the big one: actually inventing and preparing to market.
    There is no hypocrisy in "declaration." Declarations are easy to recognize, once one understands the distinction. Much of what I write is declaration, so?
    As to the block, okay, that was easy, no problem.

  • Quote

    MY, I have to ask....Since Texas U is not on your list of "major universities" that I have seen you post (not saying you were posting a complete list), if they publish positive findingswill that enable you to say "there is more to this CF story than what I have seen in the past and there may very well be room for optimism" ? Or because you have already determined and labeled Dr. Duncan unqualified and incapable of "true science" that the case is already closed and nothing published from them can ever change your view?Is it the fact that Texas U is formally willing to investigate LENR /CF that they are automatically disqualified in your mind?


    Actually, it is not Texas U or University of Texas but a small research subgroup from Texas Tech or TTU. https://www.ttu.edu/ When you search their web site for LENR, there are no returns. So I don't know what they are supporting officially. If the physics department officially issued a news release that TTU scientists had verified LENR was real, I would be impressed. Whether I was convinced or not would depend as always on the reliability of the work, whether it seemed well done and whether it had been replicated. In a quick search, I did not even find the project on the TTU web site. Maybe I have the wrong Texas university or maybe I missed the reference. Anyone know? And PLEASE don't cite e-catworld.com as an authority!


    Quote

    Please note I am not trying to "push your button" on this. Is the SKINR project at Missouri U. also in the category of "not a major university" and incapable of serious research? I seriously like to know how you view this situation. Please note that because 5 years has went by with little known about success, that is not a valid observation of failure. Many new technologies went as long or longer without a major break through.


    Five years went by with no improvements, no new positive findings, and nothing to suggest any positive value in the work. Sure, other technologies took longer. So what? I do not know much about SKINR but I do know Duncan moved on. If the project had been terrific, would he not have stayed with it?


    See: http://iccf18.research.missour…s/day2/SKINR_Overview.pdf Why leave THAT if it worked out well?

  • [quote]


    Five years went by with no improvements, no new positive findings, and nothing to suggest any positive value in the work. Sure, other technologies took longer. So what? I do not know much about SKINR but I do know Duncan moved on. If the project had been terrific, would he not have stayed with it?


    See: http://iccf18.research.missour…s/day2/SKINR_Overview.pdf Why leave THAT if it worked out well?


    I do not know Duncan personally, but have a nephew who works at Missouri U where Duncan was before moving to Texas Tech. (Oddly enough, there seems to be two Robert Duncans at this university) He was very highly regarded and to my understanding moved for other reasons than his work. We, on this forum, do not know what all might be involved in other's personal decisions to move from job to another. The implication he moved because SKINR was a failure is void of fact.


    Missiouri U. is one of 24 Universities to have an working nuclear reactor on site.


    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1119836


    This lends credence to their credentials in nuclear technology. While none of this proves anything, claiming that no break through has been published in the short term proves nothing either. It is however, MUCH more of a positive than a negative. Really, there is no negative here.


    I have to state that the fact that these Universities ARE officially working with LENR deserves more than derision. Duncan was/is a chancellor of research at both. You have pointed out that several Lugano profs were associate professor's that did not have tenure nor published papers as meriting reason to doubt their work and have derided them as such. Then the opposite should then be applicable. Duncan has published, has tenure and is a chancellor. Does this not deserve at least SOME nod of approval of the endeavor? Duncan has not stated that LENR is a given. I believe he is simply following the scientific method and exploring an very intriguing possibility. I applaud him for that. Why such strong opposition?