You've Mastered the Ultimate LENR Technology -- Now what?

1st Official Post

    You have the ultimate LENR technology and can start mass production of homes power units tomorrow; however, it will utterly destroy the renewable energy sector overnight. What do you do? 15

    1. Mass market the technology immediately for every home and business, allowing for the decentralization of the power grid and the imminent death of solar, wind, and every other conventional renewable energy sector. Technological survival of the fittest! (5) 33%
    2. Only allow heavy industries and power generation companies to utilize the technology in order to prevent economic disruption. The renewable industries must be protected! (1) 7%
    3. Turn over the technology to the government of your nation for an extensive safety review and allow them to make the big decisions. Big brother knows best! (0) 0%
    4. Sell the technology to the highest bidder in order to become a billionaire and retire on a tropical island in a mansion. Everyone should have known you were in it for the money! (0) 0%
    5. Destroy the technology so it is never used by anyone. Humanity doesn't deserve such power! (0) 0%
    6. Form a partnership with Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation. Great minds think alike! (2) 13%
    7. Open source the technology via a joint announcment on E-Cat World, Looking For Heat, and the MFMP websites. You want to share the knowledge! (7) 47%

    Please vote!

    At least one freely usable option should be involved in this inquiry - if nothing else, it would bring more insights from outside. For example, I'd sell the LENR technology not like the ready-made product, but as a some DIY kit first. And I wouldn't definitely open source it via E-Cat World, Looking For Heat or the MFMP websites - why I should do it?

    Quote

    In main line science journals please

    This is just the catch - the main line science journals still don't publish anything related to cold fusion and they're delaying all cold fusion findings for one century already. After all, a way better evidence is the direct success of technology at the market - if it will work there, then even the most convinced skeptics would have nothing to say against it.

    Quote

    After all, a way better evidence is the direct success of technology at the market - if it will work there, then even the most convinced skeptics would have nothing to say against it.


    True but completely unnecessary. Any properly performed demonstration of high power (>100W and >10 COP) would do. Those are arbitrary numbers before anyone takes me to task about them. Nobody would refuse to consider and publish that sort of data if it were replicable by reliable test organizations. All sorts of other data sets would do. Too bad such data, for "high power" LENR clearly do not exist and too bad good data sets for intermediate power levels only exist arguably. Most claims for LENR involve HIGHLY arguable low power levels, in the milliwatts and COP<2 or whatever the higher claim is can not seem to be properly reproduced by independent replicators.


    Anyway, who cares what the "most convinced skeptics" think. This issue is another hallmark of junk science. Try convincing non-skeptical ordinary everyday scientists and technologists who can reproduce the experiments and get the same results. Why is it always the same comparatively small crowd which seems to be able to do that using equivocal methods and nobody else?


    You don't have to be able to buy a reactor at Home Depot to make LENR credible. People understand that neutrinos are real (but not superluminal) after all! Buy one of those recently?

    Mr. SS,
    Thanks for your poll. We should use polling more often as it would save time with people just taking pot shots without evidence.


    Anyway as a pollster you should consider a "none of the above" or "other". This would be just to get a good range for using a more complete sample (standard deviation).
    I am a none of the above. I am a test it, let others NDA test it. Then test it some more. If I really had it, I would not care who thought what. Also if I tried to patent any technology that had cross purposes I am sure that Uncle Sam (or Auntie May) would be coming. There is a fair amount of true knowledge that is forbidden (radar or special sensors, bio agents etc).


    P.S. maybe some ultra secret government agency ate ME356 or he is in deep testing, we should check on him.

    • Official Post

    None of the above.
    Contact all people interested in LENR, select those agreeing in sharing and collaborating, get a cross-license and cross-benefit agreement and work with them, researchers, engineers, businessmen, to make it work, work efficiently, to design, manufacture, and sell it, agreeing that even if I have something that work, even if I have the good theory, even if it is production ready, I cannot succeed alone, and thus I will earn something substantial but most of my benefit will be indirect . If I want to get rich, maybe I should just buy equities in drone corps.
    anyway that is imaginary, I cannot have anything since I only relay...

    a poll presents a series of unpalatable options, where any answer would be a drastic misrepresentation of what I would actually do, for what I'd do is not even contemplated. So how will I answer?


    I won't.


    The conditions presented in the question are preposterous, essentially impossible, as stated, so coming up with a hypothetical response to an impossible situation is of no value.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Any properly performed demonstration of high power (>100W and >10 COP) would do.


    Fleischmann and Pons published a report of hundreds of experiments at over 100 W in two major peer-reviewed journals. The results were not accepted. On the contrary, the APS, major newspapers, the Scientific American, Nature and the New Scientist attacked them, calling them liars, criminals and lunatics. They published fake versions of the data, removing the excess heat. Here is what the APS spokesman wrote in the New Scientist:


    Quote

    ". . . Sometimes the faithful don’t completely turn off their reason. They become captive to a fantasy they hear in one ear, but listen for science with the other ear. So begins a deterioration that dims the wits but leaves a zealous heart beating - the result is a cult of fervent halfwits. Some of them believe the Universe is only 6000 years old. Some sing praises to satellites. Some claim to fuse hydrogen in a jar.


    Cloistered in southern France are the cold fusion team of Martin Fleischman and B. Stanley Pons. While every result and conclusion they publish meets with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they resolutely pursue their illusion of fusing hydrogen in a mason jar. They warn of fireballs that will be hurled from closed-cell experiments. They promise to produce an energy source by the end of the year that can power a home for 10 000 years. And a few scientists, captivated by the team’s fantasy and exile, pursue cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity."


    - Slakey, F., When the lights of reason go out - Francis Slakey ponders the faces of fantasy and New Age scientists. New Scientist, 1993. 139(1890): p. 49. Slakey was the Science Policy Administrator of the American Physical Society.


    To summarize, your claim that convincing, peer-reviewed, high power results would be accepted is complete bullshit, and proven contrary to fact. On the contrary, the more convincing results have been, the more savage the attacks have been. Furthermore, the fact that you do not even realize these results have been published -- and that you will now summarily reject them! -- demonstrates why and how you are wrong. Your own words and your own willful ignorance prove that you are wrong.

    An inventor would not be free to choose any of the development plans listed in this questionnaire. That is not how things work. Not in the U.S., anyway. Suppose an inventor comes up with a viable technology. He has three choices:


    1. He can try to patent it. Let us assume he succeeds.
    2. He can try to keep it a trade secret. This would be impossible; it would quickly be reverse engineered.
    3. He could give it away to the public.


    In scenarios 2 and 3 the inventor would have no control over what happens to the technology. Industrial corporations would do whatever they pleased with it.


    In scenario 1, the inventor would have very limited control over what happens. Not enough control to follow one or more of the development paths described in the questionnaire. For any major technology, the U.S. Patent Office rules preclude that. The inventor would be forced to license the technology to a wide range of industrial corporations, and he would have to make it available to the government itself for things like military applications. Government policy forbids the use of patents to suppress or retard the development of important technology.


    Years ago, Rossi said he would forbid the use of his technology for military applications. The U.S. will not allow anyone to forbid the use of a technology by the U.S. military. If you have a patent, it will pay royalties, but it will use the technology without permission whether you like it or not.

    • Official Post

    The "patent way" to make innovation cannot work, even if patent is solid and not violated. A patent is like a rock in the middle of a flooding river... innovators get around, or use it as boat.


    what works is having a rich team that innovated faster than the others, that attract client and funding by it's quick response to demand and opportunities.
    Don't build a fortress, you have to build a commando.
    Don't block the flood, play kayak.
    It is very hard as organizing LENR people (because of mainstream opposition, disruption potential, and money at stake) is like herding cats.



    My bet is that after many pathetic failures, few inventors, industrialist will develop something, use any way you cite, it will crash, but many others will copy, innovate, exploit, develop, and a lucky group, associating incumbent and challengers, will catch a big part of the core technology, making honest benefit like Cisco do, while all the players from nanotech producers to sausage-cookers will benefit from their good old business adapted to the new context.

    Quote

    .. a way better evidence is the direct success of technology at the market - if it will work there, then even the most convinced skeptics would have nothing to say against it.
    True but completely unnecessary. Any properly performed demonstration of high power (>100W and >10 COP) would do it..    .


    Such a demonstrations were made many times. For example the Craven spheres produce heat without any heat input -> COP = ∞.
    But do you know what? Once such a demonstration emerges, the naysayers whine instead "Where we can buy it? If it would work, it would be commercialized already!!"

    Quote from Alan Smith

    but much of it concerned with the welfare of our planet and it's people.


    The problem of soil erosion and depletion can be fixed with indoor farming. This would also eliminate the fresh water crisis. The Netherlands is now the second largest agricultural exporter, after the U.S., because they use this technology. It takes less energy, and far less water and pesticides, and it eliminates the use of soil, since most food factories are hydroponic. In my book, I estimated that all of the field crops in the U.S. could be grown in an area the size of greater New York City.


    Japan and Korea are rapidly adapting this technology, and improving on it. Either of them could easily grow all of the food consumed by the human race with this, with plenty of space to spare, no erosion, and not much use of water. Of course it would not be practical to grow food in Korea and ship it to Africa. As a practical matter, you would build food factories in Africa using Dutch, Korean or Japanese technology.

    • Official Post

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-…away-selfdriving-software



    :rolleyes:

    AlainCo.


    I agree with you 100% that open competition is the way, yet my mind can not fail to recognize the well worn trope "you are googles product" or somesuch.


    We (well most of us) agree that Uncle Sam can see read and analyze all of our communication. I take it for granted now. So in a small but growing way we are all of Uncles product. To see how it can be used/abused look at China's new social rating system they are currently implementing that is mandatory. BTW, the E.U. is rightly posting the conglomerate cross use of personal data. Look we said we would not sell your information, but anyway see our updated "terms of service" it's a repeating mantra. Sadly Google/Apple/AT@T your government and mine, also your providers all share info, some will resist being compelled, but only for so long. How cynical I am sorry.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    The Netherlands is now the second largest agricultural exporter, after the U.S., because they use this technology.


    @ Jed. The Netherlands is the EU's largest grower of greenhouse crops in the EU because they have a filthy socialist government ;) who allow the gardeners/horticulturalists to have subsidised tax-free heating gas. In political circles it is known at 'The Dutch Position'. It certainly allows them to screw everyone else.


    But wouldn't it be better with LENR!

    Jed:

    Quote

    The results were not accepted.

    I don't believe that they were credible results but it doesn't matter. All they had to do was publish the method and have it replicated. For that matter, that is all anyone would need to do now. >100W COP>5? 10? LENR would be easy to prove. But nobody is doing it credibly are they?


    Instead of the paranoid BS, the promoters of LENR and cold fusion should try harder to show credible performance. The focus on skeptics and so-called pseudoskeptics (dumb term) is inane. The focus should be on convincing open minded people that it is real and replicable and high power. I don't see any of that today despite your cites. Instead what I've seen are crooks like Defkalion and Rossi and whackjobs like Nanospire and people like Swartz and Miley and Brillouin who make large claims without any evidence.


    Why in the world would it be so hard to get SOME rich people to buy into credible results? You don't think Gates, Buffet, Musk, and Bezos would be interested in credible replicable results? Dream on.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    I don't believe that they were credible results but it doesn't matter.


    How the hell would you know? You have never read them. You don't even know what papers or journals I refer to.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    All they had to do was publish the method and have it replicated.


    They were replicated by several researchers, notably by one of the commissioners on the French Atomic Energy Commission. The chief designer of the French nukes. But of course you know more about nuclear physics and engineering than he does!


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    You don't think Gates, Buffet, Musk, and Bezos would be interested in credible replicable results? Dream on.


    I am pretty sure Gates is funding the Texas Tech. cold fusion program. Someone with deep pockets is.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Years ago, Rossi said he would forbid the use of his technology for military applications. The U.S. will not allow anyone to forbid the use of a technology by the U.S. military. If you have a patent, it will pay royalties, but it will use the technology without permission whether you like it or not.


    US- military even will pay no royalty, as long as the name (classify) the product secrete! US military is the largest censorship in the world, withholding 10000's of scientific papers - a main reason for the weak position of the US industry (Except in military related technique...).
    They certainly will hinder, with all their means, any publication of important LENR findings. P&F just escaped/slipped through their mesh.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.