[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/09/14/mfmp-provides-update-about-me356/']LENR replicator who goes by the name Me356 has garnered quite a bit of attention recently with claims that he has been able to see significant success in creating LENR systems that can produce significant levels of excess energy. He has also reported the production of nuclear markers such as neutrons from his systems, and […][/feedquote]
MFMP Provides Update About Me356
-
I feel that if the Rossi thing has taught us anything, independent of whether Rossi ever had something that worked, it's to require real evidence before spending a lot of time devoting attention to someone's claims. I hope that that affair will have provided a small inoculation against the kind of gold rush mentality we've seen in the past. That does not mean that LENR cannot also be investigated in a more casual, inspiration-based Edisonian approach by engineers who prefer to do things in this way. But let's also not get caught up in chains of assumptions that, when you take a moment to look at each one, go back to or are derived from claims made by someone unwilling to provide any evidence to support them. In this context, a statement like "me356 said that he's using such and such" would not provide the basis for extended discussion. It would just be noted.
If people have trade secrets to protect, let them protect them. They should remain on the down-low, then, like Bay area startups in stealth mode. This is, thankfully, what me356 seems to be doing now, so my intention is not to criticize him.
-
When we assume for a moment that me356 is the real deal, then Rossi should hurry up very soon now.
me356 is founder of a company in a similar area and has all the knowlegde and men power (marketing personal, bookkeepers, workers) and the infrastructure to get such a device very quickly into the market.
When me356 has something sellable he will not hang about.Maybe Rossi can learn how to push such an invention into the market. Right before he begins to cry because he noticed that he invested too much time and money (and chances with big partners) into improvements instead releasing an earlier less efficient ecat version.
-
If me356 isn't pulling a Rossi on us, he must think there is some way for him to profit, and that secrecy will be the means to that end. Nothing wrong with making money, or seeking fame. Question is; can a little guy like me356 make money if he successfully overcomes the reliability and upscaling issues none, so far, have overcome?
Seems to me, with all the patent apps floating around, along with some LENR, and related, patents already awarded...and the money that would flood the field upon LENR's acceptance, once me356 resurfaces with something, he will be quashed quicker than an IH subpoena.
Could be wrong, but in my reading of the history, none so far...and there have been many before me356 that thought they were on to something, have made a penny. Well, that is if you don't include Rossi. So say some intrepid garage tinkerer popped up tomorrow with the real deal...could he profit, or will he be tied up in patent infringement litigation for years to come and end up broke?
Will secrecy, and going it alone, at this point help those like me356, or hurt? Or going open source, and entering alliances be better?
-
I feel that if the Rossi thing has taught us anything, independent of whether Rossi ever had something that worked, it's to require real evidence before spending a lot of time devoting attention to someone's claims. I hope that that affair will have provided a small inoculation against the kind of gold rush mentality we've seen in the past. That does not mean that LENR cannot also be investigated in a more casual, inspiration-based Edisonian approach by engineers who prefer to do things in this way. But let's also not get caught up in chains of assumptions that, when you take a moment to look at each one, go back to or are derived from claims made by someone unwilling to provide any evidence to support them. In this context, a statement like "me356 said that he's using such and such" would not provide the basis for extended discussion. It would just be noted.
If people have trade secrets to protect, let them protect them. They should remain on the down-low, then, like Bay area startups in stealth mode. This is, thankfully, what me356 seems to be doing now, so my intention is not to criticize him.
Wrong, Rossi has shown us that LENR+ is possible(Lugano). Now 5 years later we have the first credible experimentalist(see his contributions on this forum + bob greenyer knows him personally) who claims to understand his proces and can improve from that. That's a very significant claim. He's an expert experimentalist which means there only 2 options he is lying or he's telling the truth. It will be Interesting to see where he goes from here.
-
So say some intrepid garage tinkerer popped up tomorrow with the real deal...could he profit, or will he be tied up in patent infringement litigation for years to come and end up broke?
If and when any of these guys get something to market, there will be lots of patent squabbles by other inventors claiming infringement. This site and mailing lists like Vortex, where everything under the sun has been discussed, will provide a rich mine of prior art to make things more difficult for those asserting patents (the patent lawyers will be paid in any case). But even if there is the possibility of defending against a claim of infringement, there will still be the costs of the litigation. All of this suggests that if the garage tinkerer does not get large financial backing at some point, his position will be a precarious one, even if his invention is the real thing.There is a similar challenge with startups in the US. Startups are targets of patent litigation by other tech companies and more often by patent trolls. Those that are operating on a shoe-string can be washed away if there is any litigation that is initiated against them, even if they provide a service that people like and will pay for. This is why I think (US?) patent law is broken.
But: consider the case where an inventor of a LENR device lives in a country like Russia, where international IP protection may not be strictly enforced (think sci-hub with regard to copyright), and/or the invention is reverse engineered by people all over the world, it may become impractical to enforce any patents, even if they cover the invention.
-
Seems to me, with all the patent apps floating around, along with some LENR, and related, patents already awarded...and the money that would flood the field upon LENR's acceptance, once me356 resurfaces with something, he will be quashed quicker than an IH subpoena.
If he really has something, and if he learns from what has come before, no. By the way, we only know about four IH subpoenas, of which three were quashed and one probably went through (or became moot). We only know about subpoenas where Rossi and the lawyer acting for Johnson objected. The purpose of those subpoenas may have been satisfied (i.e, suppose Rossi or Johnson supplied the necessary financial data). -
The LENR reaction emits or can emit ionizing radiations. Thus, it is not marketable the way these people believe.
The originally-found LENR basically does not emit readily detectable ionizing radiation, it is a known and reliable characteristic. I have not seen adequate confirmation on ionizing radiation from NiH. Maybe. But this certainly does not apply to all LENR. -
Wrong, Rossi has shown us that LENR+ is possible(Lugano). Now 5 years later we have the first credible experimentalist(see his contributions on this forum + bob greenyer knows him personally) who claims to understand his proces and can improve from that. That's a very significant claim. He's an expert experimentalist which means there only 2 options he is lying or he's telling the truth. It will be Interesting to see where he goes from here.
Your definitions of "show" and "credible" and "significant" are very different than mine. Yours seem to go back to some kind of faith-based reasoning. -
Even if this does not apply to """all""" of LENR, any product based on a poorly understood phenomenon that may be dangerous is not likely to remain on the market for too long after the lawmakers realize what is going on. These people are basically trying to cash in "before it is too late". It is sickening.
In the context of this thread, even me356 reports that he is "still trying to achieve [self-sustaining mode] for longer periods and increase COP without harmful radiation" and that "the neutron flux is higher if the reaction is overdriven/incorrectly driven".
Whether this is true or not, that is nice of him to think about this issue, but I would like somebody else than the me356s (or the Brilluoins, or the Rossis) of this world to take care of and study it, thanks.
First of all, harmful ionizing radiation is easily detected. Neutrons could be pernicious, but ... in the FP Heat Effect, neutrons levels are extremely, extremely low, and that is widely confirmed and, in fact, was considered for a long time as proof that the heat effect was not real.Anyone scaling up should be prepared for radiation, but by the time a product is at all ready for public release (as distinct from release for investigational purposes, accompanied by piles of warnings and disclaimers), it will have been thoroughly vetted. At that point, there will have been millions invested, and radiation assessment is cheap. Low levels of radiation are allowed in consumer products, such as the smoke detectors in my apartment, which have been sacrificed more than once for the Am-241 button in them.
This is essentially a non-issue, as to commercial application, beyond due precaution being taken in original research. In another thread, I discussed Mark Leclair's claims of massive radiation exposure. He was creating possible hot fusion conditions, on a large scale, which, if he succeeded, would neutron-irradiate him badly, given his apparent lack of precautions. He was not prepared for success. Nor did he ever truly document what happened, as far as we know. He was too busy protecting his secrets. And making wild claims.
-
STDM wrote:
Wrong, Rossi has shown us that LENR+ is possible(Lugano). Now 5 years later we have the first credible experimentalist(see his contributions on this forum + bob greenyer knows him personally) who claims to understand his proces and can improve from that. That's a very significant claim. He's an expert experimentalist which means there only 2 options he is lying or he's telling the truth. It will be Interesting to see where he goes from here.Your definitions of "show" and "credible" and "significant" are very different than mine. Yours seem to go back to some kind of faith-based reasoning.
Me356's claim may be 'credible" in some sense -- for reasons given, but anyone who thinks that Lugano shows that "Lenr+" is real has not been paying attention. As to "Lenr+" (Peter Gluck's trope) being "possible," we have thought it possible all along. That's not the issue. Was it actually demonstrated and independently confirmed?Lugano presented some attractive impressions. However, breaking it down, they become far less attractive.
1. The temperature measurement was radically off, and this was obvious once pointed out. The first thing that was pointed out was not the most obvious, but was itself a serious flaw, as noted by McKubre: lack of control experiment showing that the method used for measuring temperature, and then the method for calculating heat from that, worked with adequate accuracy. Had that been done, we think, the second problem would not have arisen, they simply would have corrected their method.
2. The most obvious was that the device at 1400 C was not white hot, bright, even painful to look at, as it should have been if it were that temperature in the open, as claimed. If the temperature reading was badly flawed, the heat results were garbage without massive recalculation and recalibration. MFMP has done a bit of this. Bottom line, nobody that has taken a clear look, since the flaws have been pointed out, has concluded that if there was heat, it was major and clear.
3. Then there are the transmutation results. Transmutation claims have a spotty history, errors are much easier than most think. The most convincing of transmutation results are those correlated with energy production. Not simply a single "before and after" set of two samples.
4. And once we know that Rossi is capable of faking tests -- and he is , it is not deniable any more -- fully independent confirmation of his claims is necessary, and Lugano was inadequately independent, for reasons that have also been explained at length. The most serious flaw was that Rossi handled the fuel, both inserting it and removing it, and that provided ample opportunity for some kind of manipulation.
There is a sanity test here: If someone wants to support Rossi, fine. But if this leads to a condition where it is impossible to understand skeptical objections, even if one does not agree with them, consensus reality has been left behind, which is extremely dangerous, it can lead to life-long obsessions, because the human mind is endlessly inventive and can develop "reasons" for any belief.
-
In the context of this thread, even me356 reports that he is "still trying to achieve [self-sustaining mode] for longer periods and increase COP without harmful radiation" and that "the neutron flux is higher if the reaction is overdriven/incorrectly driven".
It's easy to read one's preconceptions into brief comments. That implies that Me356 has measured a neutron flux. It gives us no information about how large that flux is, whether it would be dangerous or not. Storms has a paper coming out where he looks at the correlation between tritium and neutrons.My usual summary of the data (real experiments actually vary quite a bit) is that tritium is about a million times down from heat and neutrons are about a million times down from neutrons. That makes neutron radiation almost indetectable with prompt measurement techniques, accumulating detectors such as CR-39 or bubble dosimeters are used.
QuoteWhether this is true or not, that is nice of him to think about this issue, but I would like somebody else than the me356s (or the Brilluoins, or the Rossis) of this world to take care of and study it, thanks.
Brillouin is using SRI for measurements and they are going to take precautions, they have major experience. Godes is claiming neutron generation, so I'd expect them to be taking steps to see emitted neutrons (which are quite dangerous). As to Rossi, charged particle radiation seems to have been checked by Biancini, and none was found. Same with Lugano, but if there was no heat, no radiation is meaningless.It is utterly preposterous to imagine someone of any substance releasing a LENR product (withmajor heat) for public use without radiation having been thoroughly tested. I sold, however, a kit for making a few neutrons. It may work (it was tested once and the detectors were damaged. Not from radiation, something else happened to them). I expect no regulatory interference, because, if it works, the neutron levels are far, far below any harmful effects. (If that's wrong, it would be an astonishing discovery.)
Mark LeClair claims that his invention can't be for home use, because of radiation; therefore it would only be for centralized power plants which can afford the radiation protection. Maybe. But confinement could be cheap, and if there is no danger of runaway, confinement would be quite reliable. This could be overcome. He claims such reactors would be cheap. If they generate neutrons, they would not be so cheap, but it could still be done. This is not LENR, though, it's bubble fusion, basically hot fusion.
-
Quote
I feel that if the Rossi thing has taught us anything, independent of whether Rossi ever had something that worked, it's to require real evidence before spending a lot of time devoting attention to someone's claims...
You'd think so, wouldn't you? A few people learned general lessons from Rossi. They should have gotten those from Defkalion. But most enthusiasts have learned nothing. Their approach to fantastic claims is just as defective as before. Expect more LENR self deceptions, measurement errors, and scams and more wasted time, effort and investor money.
-
Quote
Question is; can a little guy like me356 make money if he successfully overcomes the reliability and upscaling issues none, so far, have overcome?
Question is - would a little guy like me365 hide the discovery of the millennium because he can't overcome reliability and upscaling issues? Maybe he doesn't want to see his face on the Time cover because he's a solitary soul. And he couldn't travel to Oslo to receive his Nobel because he doesn't like to fly so he thinks "screw it". Maybe he's rich and famous beyond our wildest dreams already. Maybe he spends his time on his own island anyway, enjoying peace and quiet unbothered by the needs and worries of the world around him - only interrupted by occasional visits of an out of work graphic designer who wants to better our lives but can't be given me356's secret process because he'd screw it up and poison himself with radiation known to kill everybody who dares mixing H and Ni without his instructions which he doesn't give anybody because, well, they're dangerous...
He IS pulling a Rossi, believe me. Mind you, he only gets paid in attention on a fringe website rather than Miami real estate - but still.
-
I do not think that Rossi or the likes of him have more reasons to hurry up more than before. The LENR reaction emits or can emit ionizing radiations. Thus, it is not marketable the way these people believe. If the usual suspects think they can it is only because it is currently in a legislative and scientific limbo due to the uncertainties involved with the understanding and acceptance of the process.
The thing the LENR marketeers fear the most is the confirmation that the process can be harmful. So me356 instead of focusing to produce a boiler should make it so that it is clear that the process is nuclear or has nuclear nature. Then finally let the real experts study the process so that this circus show can come to a conclusion.
Take a look at figure 1 on this reference
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/341erzions.html
Something strange is going on.
-
Plain nickel and hydrogen without lithium acting as both a secondary fuel and "lubricant" can create various emissions -- gammas, neutrons, etc. Focardi demonstrated this a long time ago.
However, adding lithium seems to make the engine produce far less or zero emissions. We have proof of this because Rossi is alive.
What I wouldn't suggest doing is tossing in various ingredients to see what happens, unless you have a TON of safety mechanisms in place.
-
All of this suggests that if the garage tinkerer does not get large financial backing at some point, his position will be a precarious one, even if his invention is the real thing.So need to get some customers that can keep mouth shut up and have big energy bill to reduce. Collect money, then change country etc.
Quote
But: consider the case where an inventor of a LENR device lives in a country like Russia, where international IP protection may not be strictly enforced (think sci-hub with regard to copyright), and/or the invention is reverse engineered by people all over the world, it may become impractical to enforce any patents, even if they cover the invention.If replicator have weak ip protection then I think he relase lot of public data to generate replications everywhere so he have some protection by mass and if he is fast can get enough customers to pay nice enough.
So it drops some intresting questions about how waterproof are current pat holders IP? If japanise used lithium first how public it was (pat. piantelli, then rossi) (<-if public weakens them IP lot). And there was observations arch discharge generate neutrons from fifties (may affect AR quarkx patent?). AR 50-100kv region, artifical, me365 plasma have quite sure less. And tungsten filaments XH generation papers? If rossi quarkx temp data is real then low materials that survive -> tungsten, me365 plasma tungsten+Ni..
Tungsten water plasma XH? It quite sure AR(+others) can't get tungsten IP protection or it is weak. AR (+me365) only showed that there is lot of power in tungsten arch system but can't get waterproof IP fhor that?And if me365 have company, then it is quite posible he have filed patent already. He says he hate patents. But he have not sayed that he don't patent..(?) And he give public data after patent is accepted?
-
Quote
He's an expert experimentalist which means there only 2 options he is lying or he's telling the truth. It will be Interesting to see where he goes from here.
That is the definition of religion, not science.
There is by definition more than one interpretation of anomalous data, and skilled experimentalists know it.
Of course, it is possible that me356 has cast-iron data, such as a switchable and clearly measurable neutron flux, that would validate LENR to a third party with no compromise of trade secrets. In that case the evidence is indisputable, and he would be in line for a Nobel Prize and/or large amounts of money were he willing to submit to such black box testing.
-
Hopefully Bob Greenyer does not mind me posting this comment of his from ECW. His is a good recent history of MFMP's neutron discovery, and how that has related to me356. My apologies to me356 for thinking his secrecy was only for making money (nothing wrong with that BTW), and neglecting to consider the safety aspect as Bob here explains:
I think me356s change of approach in the early part of this year needs context. And it is all to do with radiation.
When Ecco alerted me on the Night of the 16th Feb, after the last files form GS5.2 had been saved, that he has spotted something highly unusual in the scintillator data from the first days in February, published nearly 2 weeks prior - there was no way to pull that information. It was only after Alan woke up and we later established that the "signal" corresponded to the period just before apparent excess heat and the bulk of the period with apparent excess heat had lower level photon emissions did we get excited. The problem was that the GQ GMC310+ Geiger counter did not see it, and it took two days before we had confirmed that it was useless - we did this by removing the cell carefully and placing a range of check sources in the centre axis of where it was, pointing in turn at the scintillator and the GM tube. the scintillator saw the spectrum, the GM tube did not. All of this was discussed openly but everyone was focussed on the end of the 1 year 1MW test and was not paying attention.
Note, this was the second time we had seen high energy photons, we had seen them before - repeatedly and controllably in Celani wire cell in 2013, something that was replicated independently by Jean-Paul Biberian within 24 hours. This time however, the system was very different and we had a spectrum and some correlation / anti-correlation.
As a result, we announced as immediately as possible, after we were sure, the finding, in a way that was deliberately designed to maximise attention since the actual data had implication for other players claims and also possibly other crowd researchers health.
We immediately sought to improve our GM by swapping its tube with the most sensitive we could find - a LN 7317 - and got some Neutron bubble detectors - since, we could not rule anything out and we wanted to play safe.
In the first attempt at exact replication, whilst there was no convincing repeat of "signal", we did see apparent excess heat - this time supported by front and backside Optris PI160 thermal imaging in addition to thermocouples, all live. More importantly though, whilst we saw no fast neutrons above background - there was some small numbers of thermal Neutrons not during times of apparent excess heat with appearance of some recorded live on camera, one of which I saw with my own eyes directly.
This meant we had to take a step back - again, do our best to be open and honest about it - something that was uncomfortable but we had to alert all replicators to the potential risk. Moreover, we decided better neutron detection was paramount moving forward and so Bob Higgins has gone to extreme lengths to create an open source neutron detection system and he, Alan Goldwater, Brian Albiston and Aarhus will all soon have at least one unit. Mathieu Valat has got his two neutron detectors functional also.
We could not stop people learning about neutrons since it was live on camera as is our way. Since then, me356 made it known that he saw very large numbers of neutrons in some embodiments and this essentially is the reason he stopped putting stuff out as he was going and why we have urged people to not mess around with random fuel combinations and embodiments. Me356 is fortunate in that he has a remote location and his lab is located in a distant outbuilding with full start/stop remote control and means to kill switch the power - this has enabled him to me more bold in his experiments that we would recommend. But, according to his claims, some extreme events cause him to step back from being quite so open. Also, subsequently, Clean Planet have claimed in their patent that they can control neutron flux based on the tension on the high voltage drive. Neutrons are a possibility, though our data suggests that in our embodiment, they are anti-correlated with excess heat.
As I made public in my rather hasty and terrible live hangout video before going to Aarhus - I have also suspected some kind of heavy electron to perhaps muonium involvement in some embodiments. Clean Planet have recently claimed heavy electron formation being key - but the Canadian research on muonium and muonium- stuck in my mind when thinking about the Hot Cat and then later with what I saw as the ECatX (I predicted it used sapphire, but I predicted it for a specific reason) - the key for me was the use in the German patent application, that is very similar to the Clean Planet patent application, of sapphire (Al2O3) as a dielectric barrier in their discharge. Of course, Holmlid / Olafsson claim to have observed muons.
For this reason, we are now looking also to add open source muon detection to our tool chest - since this could again have health implications. Piantelli said it isn't like you expect, it is "nuclear reorganisation" one can observe what appears to be fusion, fission, transmutation, isotopic shifts and nuclear synthesis, you can even do reaction tables, as I did for 3 weeks, that predict to a large degree the ash, however it isn't quite that simple according to him. If heavy electrons, muonium or muonium- really is in play this could facilitate this spread of observed ash components.
We are going to try an experiment thread to try to add robust data aimed at helping everyone to understand the underlying process. But, as our previous experiments have shown - the more emissions detection systems we have to hand, the better chance we all have of understanding what is going on a what states in the experiment.
-
Quote from Bob
Note, this was the second time we had seen high energy photons, we had seen them before - repeatedly and controllably in Celani wire cell in 2013, something that was replicated independently by Jean-Paul Biberian within 24 hours. This time however, the system was very different and we had a spectrum and some correlation / anti-correlation.
This is what I mean. The X-ray measurements that I think Bob refers to here could be interpreted in a number of ways. What was seen was counts above typical noise level on software measuring light flashes from a scintillating crystal. The interpretation of that as X-ray photons of given energy is possible, but not unique, especially given coincidental supply glitches.
New anomalies with very different systems do not count as replication unless the specifics of the anomaly (spectral peaks, temporal behaviour, etc) show some common factors. The more precise the alignment in results between different systems the clearer the validation. Unfortunately noise and glitches in sensitive instruments is common, and amateurs are more likely to get this, and less likely to accurately diagnose it, than people who have done such measurements for many years.
QuoteIn the first attempt at exact replication, whilst there was no convincing repeat of "signal", we did see apparent excess heat - this time supported by front and backside Optris PI160 thermal imaging in addition to thermocouples, all live. More importantly though, whilst we saw no fast neutrons above background - there was some small numbers of thermal Neutrons not during times of apparent excess heat with appearance of some recorded live on camera, one of which I saw with my own eyes directly.
This is an example of phenomena that look on the face of it more likely unrelated glitches rather than the unexpected fingerprint of new science. Notice the lack of coherence (between different observations) and repeatability.Anyway high energy radiation, as a fingreprint, is good. It is much easier to get indisputable results if radiation is emitted, and more difficult to find non-nuclear mechanisms. But the results need to be replicable, otherwise equipment glitches are still the most likely cause. Also it is some 1000000X more sensitive than excess heat as an indicator of nuclear activity.
