What me356 did for us.

  • Read this earlier. For one, me356 is not a legend yet as he still needs to cut his ear off. :) Seriously, if making oneself "absent" after making extraordinary claims as he has, is what constitutes a legend in LENR, then this sets a very bad precedent.

  • Me356 did share the many downsides that occurred during his experimentation. He warned about doing LENR experiments in the home. Instead, he recommended doing all experimentation remotely in a separated unmanned lab far from where anybody was living. He shared how his test equipment malfunctioned as a result of unknown interference produced by his experiments...three meters away...thermocouples, test equipment and computers failed.


    In one video produced by ME356, that showed the start of the LENR reaction when stimulated, the video momentarily flickered at the exact point of stimulation application.


    Unless Max Temple addresses these issues, his narrative is missing something very important to the experimenter.

  • IF me356 as experimenter has an efficient LENR technology, me356 as manager of an enterprise needs time to industrialize his technology and take his place to the market. Then his priorities change: inform enough to sustain interest but not to give his know-how. This explains his silent, like for any other producers.

  • I planned to write a similar summary mainly for personal use at some point, but more structured and with referencing links and/or original excerpts. I guess this saves some work!


    Seriously, if making oneself "absent" after making extraordinary claims as he has, is what constitutes a legend in LENR, then this sets a very bad precedent.


    I also recall rather odd comments along the lines of "I use expensive equipment so I can't be wrong". That's not a nice thing to reply when people ask to clarify the results at least with better documentation of protocols and measurements. It's been claimed that he's also left because of unfair treatment on this forum, but one has to consider that people here don't really want a new Rossi to idolize, and he knew that.


    I can't quite put my finger on it but I have mixed feelings about this story, to say the least. And some people know what's going on but aren't talking [writing], at least in public.

  • Alan Smith

    It's been recently revealed that me356 purchased a scanning electron microscope (SEM); photos of some of his LENR samples have been shown as well. This is an example of information about his work that's circulating but not exactly being freely divulged. Perhaps I should read through his posts or Max Temple's summary again but I don't think he's ever written about it on LENR-Forum.

  • I can hardly believe the naivete of so many on this forum, expecting that researchers should spend untold amounts of time and money on work and then bequeath it to the world out of the goodness of their heart, for the goodness of all mankind; and simply for acknowledgement. Balderdash (actually I had something bit more profane in mind), it just don't work that way in the real world. In fact I suspect that any of you so called "professionals" out there who support this myth simply haven't discovered anything with potential yet. If (and that's a big if) you ever did I have little doubt that you would clam up too and start looking for a good patent attorney. Every person alive is looking for acknowledgement, but in terms of money and lots of it. Money is what makes the world go around and always has. Fame is just the icing on the cake.

  • Rionrlty


    Thank you for your support. I assure you that for me personally, just knowing that 'it was me wot done it' and (perhaps) a Nobel would be entirely sufficient.:) In business it has always been my experience that if you 'do the right thing' the money just seems to sort itself out. People who worry about the money first and last rarely succeed in research, but do very well in banking.

  • me356 never to my knowledge showed good evidence for his claims. At one point he was summarising evidence on here and when asked for why he was so sure he had excess heat gave an uncontrolled estimate, and some indirect evidence that had other possible mechanisms.


    Sure, you can look at the other possible mechanisms (some element inside the hot reactor that must be hysteretic - e.g. a phase change that alters thermal conductivity inside and hence provides hysteresis) and reckon they are not obvious.


    But against that, if he really had what he was claiming (X2 heat generation over long periods from this system) it would be relatively easier to garner uncontrovertible direct evidence.


    I don't doubt that me356 was an assiduous and inventive experimenter, and that he learnt a lot about these systems. He showed no interest in improving calorimetry, even though he clearly had effort and resources to spare to do this, and, if he were willing to take it, good advice. That is pathological (in the sense of pathological science) because without secure accurate calorimetry the things he theorised and investigated which were evidenced by correlations between apparent excess heat and some experimental procedure could be ghosts. When you have a not understood effect you are trying to pin down the one thing you don't need is more ghosts. That uses up valuable effort and thinking capacity chasing will-o-the-wisps. You need positive facts you can be absolutely sure about. If those point to something new and extraordinary you need to validate them ever more carefully.


    From my POV, he took advantage of the inexperience of some of his audience making unsubstantiated claims that to them were highly convincing. He decided to make his claims public (I can see the temptation) but was not willing to engage in alternate hypotheses and develop secure justification for claims. A bad role model for others here. If he is still experimenting he is quite right to do so without public interaction since he clearly does not desire this, and would rather reach his own conclusions without the help of skeptics.


    It is in small an analogy for LENR in general. Do you believe that LENR is proven (though not reproducibly and independently provable) and that the various experiments with variable results are therefore more easily explained by LENR than by experimental anomalies? Even then - for example in the Lugano replication style experiments - there are experimental anomalies of comparable magnitude to the apparent results. If you want to make good hypotheses about the LENR effect that is (let us suppose) contributing you must first tie down precisely all those experimental anomalies. There is no short-cut.


    The difference between a more skeptical view, and a less skeptical view, is how much patience you are willing to have in chasing down anomalies. My point is that while LENR remains (as an apparent effect) temperamental and unreproducible except near to experimental error an infinite care with experimental anomalies and the willingness to hypothesise and investigate possible errors must be an asset, not as some think here a burden.


    If, as an experimenter, you find that type of care fruitless because in the more carefully instrumented experiments the effect goes away, whereas in experiments with more variable factors and complexity it is seen in its full glory, that is a sign that likely it does not exist.


    That can be a painful realisation, when true. But as Thomas Henry Huxley said:


    Quote

    Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing.


    That is a recipe for not following the establishment line and being willing to embrace the unexpected. It is also a command to take extra care when things don't make sense, and not jump on a single hypothesis because you are convinced it is true.


    Regards, THH

  • I can hardly believe the naivete of so many on this forum, expecting that researchers should spend untold amounts of time and money on work and then bequeath it to the world out of the goodness of their heart, for the goodness of all mankind; and simply for acknowledgement. Balderdash (actually I had something bit more profane in mind), it just don't work that way in the real world.


    Few here would expect researchers to spend untold amounts of time and money on work and then bequeath it to the world out of the goodness of their heart, for the goodness of all mankind, and simply for acknowledgement. The expectation is that there are some among the people out there looking at LENR who are hobbyists, working on a dime, without big investment, who want to share their hobby with other hobbyists, as happens with hundreds of thousands or millions of people on the Internet everyday. (Think of open source software.) And that when someone seems to be in that mode of offering information as a hobbyist, he will divulge real details rather than coquettish hints. As hobbyists do everyday in thousands of venues. Apparently that was not me356's view of the matter.


    Rossi would be an exception to this, and it is true that many people have imagined that a funded inventor would share IP-compromising information. In that context your point is a good one.


    Quote

    In fact I suspect that any of you so called "professionals" out there who support this myth simply haven't discovered anything with potential yet. If (and that's a big if) you ever did I have little doubt that you would clam up too and start looking for a good patent attorney. Every person alive is looking for acknowledgement, but in terms of money and lots of it. Money is what makes the world go around and always has. Fame is just the icing on the cake.


    Few here would claim to be a "professional"; most here, even if in a profession in another capacity, are here as a hobbyist of some sort. I am also pretty sure that some people would not clam up if they stumbled upon something; MFMP, to take one example.

  • I can hardly believe the naivete of so many on this forum, expecting that researchers should spend untold amounts of time and money on work and then bequeath it to the world out of the goodness of their heart, for the goodness of all mankind

    One of my friend had contact with me356, and as far as I know, he was exactly thinking about that.

    There was exchange about what and with whom to share research result.

  • Quote

    One of my friend had contact with me356, and as far as I know, he was exactly thinking about that.


    Of course: me356' fears about "nuclear safety" of his replicators were just a transparent evasion. But the secretiveness of greedy proponents of alternative energy is in par with greediness of "nuclear/fossil fuel lobby", which they're proclamatively fighting against and it becomes as serious obstacle for proliferation of breakthrough findings, like their organized silencing with government and private lobbies. Because the free energy spreading is primarily about free information sharing about it.


    FREE ENERGY = FREE INFORMATION.

  • Put yourself in his shoes. If me356 had (has) something, it would disrupt the economic framework of the planet. That would raise eyebrows in Washington, Tehran, Delhi, Jerusalem, Ryadh, Mexico City, London, .... fur would fly.


    If I had the answer to energy, food, clean water, weaponry, space travel, and more I'd keep my head very low.

  • Put yourself in his shoes. If me356 had (has) something, it would disrupt the economic framework of the planet. That would raise eyebrows in Washington, Tehran, Delhi, Jerusalem, Ryadh, Mexico City, London, .... fur would fly.


    If I had the answer to energy, food, clean water, weaponry, space travel, and more I'd keep my head very low.


    Give me a break. That is a cop-out/excuse, that has been used since the first proto-humans began to walk upright. Lame, really. Only thing more lame, and laughable, is me356 refraining from revealing his supposed secrets for the good of humanity.

  • Quote

    If me356 had (has) something, it would disrupt the economic framework of the planet.


    The same could be applied to at least one thousands of breakthrough energy production findings, which I maintain in my database (including many cold fusion claims).

    The contemporary society is way more conservative than one may think. Even within LENR community, the me356 results were not still attempted to replicate.

    Actually the Me356 results are least controversial from many other LENR experiments for me. He could use voltage well over 20 kVolts in his plasma discharge

    and he observed number of neutrons - i.e. his results were consistent for example with pyroelectric fusion, which has been peer-reviewed already and tested for military purposes (neutron sources for nuclear bombs).

    But from the same reason his experiments aren't suitable for domestic usage - without heavy shielding the neutrons would make all metallic parts of your home radioactive.

  • I don't know what he have in his hand, but both position are acceptable.

    He can be cautious (not fearful) to manage his (probably modest) findings that could be profitable if well exploited.

    He could just have manipulated our optimism...


    If something can be replicated, it will be good (or go silent).

    if nothing exists, we will never know.

  • Bob Greenyer is saying now that me356 has agreed to have MFMP test his set-up. 356 has promised that before, but never followed through. If it happens this time...good on him. MFMP will know in short order if he has what he claims. Maybe also, if he is really coming out from his self-exile, he could post again here on LF? Same goes for Hank Mills. They both had a lot of good things to say.

  • Personally I would prefer anyone making claims not to post here unless they are willing to follow up on them in the manner of science, open or otherwise: replications, details of experiments, etc. If me356 cannot do those things, better for him to remain in stealth mode.

  • Shane D.  

    Okay, found it :)


    Bob Greenyer wrote:

    Allan is Wrong.

    me356 has committed to me just 2 days ago that we will test his technology.


    Bob to the question when it will take place:

    Bob Greenyer wrote:

    Not March.

    Will appeal for funds in preparation. Team prepping.

  • Well, BG claims he is taking "a lot of heat" for his latest marketing promotion. Deservedly so, if you ask me. If this were the first time he has hyped something, that would be excusable, but it is not, as we all know.


    I am tired of LENR showmen. Real scientists do not do these things. You either have something, or you do not.

  • Quote

    Real scientists do not do these things. You either have something, or you do not.


    The mainstream scientists are doing it routinely, once more than trivial amount of (grant) money gets involved - the very recent examples is the superluminal neutrino or metallic hydrogen formation

    Whole the thirty years long history of WIMPs dark matter search is essentially hunt for ghosts, the existence of whose has been claimed multiple-times.

  • In BG defense this is from his post on ecatworld's thread on me365

    "

    I have made some very significant advancements in my understanding - but I don't want to cause any feeling that the MFMP is diverted from its core, step by step planned research. Unfortunately the MFMP has been unfairly criticised in the past because I am a non-linear thinker and am unafraid to put things out for public scrutiny, for better or worse.

    You will very much understand why I have separated this out and for my own protection the reveal must be a measured one. The totality will be very difficult for people to accept and the final pieces only fell into place last Saturday evening.

    I fully expect to be ridiculed when the reveal is done - however, I do not fear that. I am already taking heat.

    "

    please tell where is here 'oops he did it again' moment? And if there is what is so bad about it?

    The way our science is run is forcing scientist to become a bit of a showman. It is easier to get 100K views on youtube with dusty plasma experiments in the microwave or some homemade fusor than get 2 traditional scientists to peer-review you work so you it can get published.

    If a scientist came across an idea he believes worth attention, should he use any possible means to promote it or sit on it waiting for a stamp of approval perhaps to the point when there will be another memorial research project named after him?