me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • Generally accepted by who? You just made that up -- just now. You pulled it out of . . . thin air. No sensible person rates an amateur project higher than the work of professional scientists at major laboratories.


    In any case, I was talking about Rossi and his claims. You assert they are right, but as I said, you have no idea what you are talking about, because you have not read Rossi's own report. Anyone who reads it will see that Rossi is incompetent and a liar. He destroyed his own credibility with that report. Which, I suppose, is why you refuse to look at it.

    It is also generally accepted that the year long test was a political war in which truth took a back seat. Anyone who makes any judgements derived from the malarky that both sides put out is neive. When I realized that the test was a connard from early on, so I decided not to waste time on evaluating propaganda and obvious attempts to produce evidential support for a future lawsuit.


    Jed wasted so much time and energy on that test, it was sad. And the effect that the whole experience had on him was distressing. It turned an even tempered guy into a cynical fanatic much like MaryYugo to the great loss to the LENR community. I hope over time that Jed can heal himself from the stressful effects of this diabolical test.

  • For (the most of) us it is still completely in question whether LENRs exists at all.


    barty For me the question is not if LENR exists, or is real, (I think the evidence that there is a kind of effect, what ever it is, is more or less, even scientifically undisputed), the main question for me is, 'Can mankind use the LENR effect to produce energy, that can help to replace the today's problematic existing energy sources and help saving the earth climate and other man made problems?'

  • One question for me is.


    "Can the Earth support 38 billion people?"


    "Due to its dramatic impact on the human ability to grow food, the Haber process served as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to today's 7 billion. Nearly 80% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber-Bosch process.



    Cheap energy may cause a similar population increase ?

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization


    Resources in space, both in materials and energy, are enormous. The Solar System alone has, according to different estimates, enough material and energy to support anywhere from several thousand to over a billion times that of the current Earth-based human population. Outside the Solar System, 10e23 other stars in the observable universe provide opportunities for both colonization and resource collection, though travel to any of them is impossible on any practical time-scale without interstellar travel by use of generation ships or revolutionary new methods of travel. LENR will enable near light speed travel through space..


    The kuiper belt is a comet-rich area of our solar system that begins near the orbit of Neptune and continues beyond Pluto. This zone is a prime location for colonization. The belt's inner edge is about 30 astronomical units (AU) away from the Sun. Its outer edge is about 50 AU away from the Sun.


    Scientists believe there may be hundreds of dwarf planets awaiting discovery inside the kuiper belt . These planets would be a good first step in colonization.

  • For me, like Jed demonstrate well, there is no question wether LENR exists...

    It is proven and replicated in PdD, through many kind of experimenst and evidences.


    NiH is very questionable, as there is no clear reproduction, and many failures and few frauds. Anyway there are theoretical extrapolation, and few intriguing results, that let good reason to think NiH, like TiD/H WD/H is possible.

    I also have similar confidence that nanostructured material, alloys, and biological structures, can be designed to host LENR for some mainstream or niche applications. This is as reasonable as imagining that nuclear energy would have application once fission was observed and chain reaction theorized... It was hard but not uncertain.


    For me there is no serious doubt LENR will be usable as a practical and dominant energy source, even if it is only PdD. I trust the engineers.


    Where I put my doubts is in the delay to find "the Explanation of LENR".

    I'm very negative about the small budget of experimenters and greater ego of theorists. The opposition agains LENR is fierce as it is the biggest fiasco of modern Science, much more catastrophic and unacceptable than geocentric backstage battles with the Pope.


    Today in EU, in US, some research and some scientific opinion are forbidden, and this practically prevent serious research and information sharing. beside that pseudo science and fraud spread in a fakenews format, some of which is labelled as mainstream by media, and even sometime in academic space like with LENR.

    The Epistemology and sociology situation of modern science, from LENR to dark matter, from immunization to glyphosate , is beyond repairable.


    As I say with a strong leader investing 25Mn$, with mainstream experts and no physicist among, I judge it would be accessible in 5 years.


    My opinion is that it is desperate in current situation.


    Not only we don't have the resources and the organization to implement that plan, but everybody including most of the LENR community is working hard to prevent it to happen, for diverse reason.


    It remind me the book of Asimov "Foundation and Empire".


    The Empire is so sick that if some black swan hero tries to save it, the hero will be eliminated.

    Collapse of an Empire is not an accident but a self catalytic process.


    One point in this situation is also that to support this process of collapse, we are unable to see the reality of the problem, blaming those who can help us, finding innocent scapegoat to protect the guilty, blaming the solutions as problems and supporting hopeless alternatives that increase the damages and our inability to see them.


    As explained in LFH slides, only hope is from Asia.

  • NiH is very questionable, as there is no clear reproduction, and many failures and few frauds.

    The proof of NiH LENR is shown in the pictures that me356 has generously allowed us to see and analyze. It is near impossible to fake such SEM micrographs which show transmutation that is undisputable.


    It might be that you do not see what the pictures are showing, if not make an effort to understand them.

  • Thank you for the messages!


    I am also convinced that there is so many LENR materials available that it can't be denied. You are served with undeniable facts. But as you can see, even this is not enough for normal people. You need a real product to be convinced. Even after independent tests there will be doubts. But if you can buy and use it, there will be no doubt anymore.


    If time will allow, I can share also results from EDX of the SEM pictures. Transmutations are something you can't fake.

    MFMP did analysis of few fuel samples from Mr. Suhas, Parkhomov and also also few of us (yet there are still more of them to publish). There you can find structures made of elements that can't be impurities. Confirmed transmutations are probably of the highest value since it is immediately clear the process is nuclear.

  • Confirmed transmutations are probably of the highest value since it is immediately clear the process is nuclear.


    Possible transmutations can generally be open to question about contamination, and your SEM images do not rule out contamination, or even constrain the source of whatever is in the images to something your device is doing. These are interesting and suggestive images, if someone with the proper qualifications can interpret them for us. But not proof by any means.


    Earlier you remarked that you sometimes see evidence of weak radiation. If properly examined and controlled, this kind of evidence would make it clear that something at the nuclear level is going on in your device.


    It is obviously no good to wave away rigorous testing with an excuse such as "You are served with undeniable facts. But as you can see, even this is not enough for normal people," which suggests that there has been rigorous testing that has borne out your claims, which there has not been, at least not made publicly available, or that people would not be satisfied with positive results coming out of rigorous testing, when some of them would.

  • Eric Walker This confirms the words I am saying. There will be always doubts until a person will use it and see the practical results.

    All the words about conviction are meaningless since it only depends on knowledge you have or what you can understand.

    Other issue is people are close minded, thay can't just work with faith to develop it later into a reality. This is reason it takes so long.


    It was not too far when people considered earth as a plane surface. If you would tell them earth is different, they will burn you. You can't be right. There were just few that used their brains and ignored what rest is saying. Very same thing is repeating for decades with all inventions. Interestingly the people can't recognize they are doing harm for themselves and some even think they are smarter...


    You are saying that evidence can be radiation. I can produce few kinds of strong radiation with no excess heat or measurable transmutation. You can produce X-rays pretty easily.

    It is also relatively easy to put a radioactive source shielded by moving absorber to fake that something is happening inside.


    There are many people with similar attitude like yours. They can't be convinced by a papers, since there will be always some kind of a "flaw".


    axil I have tried many kinds of technologies including dusty plasma. Radiation can escape also there. It depends on many different variables including fuel processing as you have said.

    It is possible to get probably all kinds of radiation from LENR. With LENR you can also obtain fast neutrons as with conventional fission reactor. Possibilities are very wide.

    The only difficulty is to open "valve".

  • You are saying that evidence can be radiation. I can produce few kinds of strong radiation with no excess heat or measurable transmutation. You can produce X-rays pretty easily.

    It is also relatively easy to put a radioactive source shielded by moving absorber to fake that something is happening inside.


    If this is true, you have at your disposal everything you need to produce fairly convincing evidence of a subset of your claims. If you decide to make use of this opportunity to give some substance to such claims, which you have been willing to voice publicly and repeatedly, this is an option at your disposal. Whether your claims continue to remain unsubstantiated is your choice alone. It is not, for example, a function of an overly-skeptical audience that cannot be persuaded of anything.


    There are many people with similar attitude like yours. They can't be convinced by a papers, since there will be always some kind of a "flaw".


    I think you misread my attitude. I am willing to take a paper seriously that does rigorous controls and is carried out by people with recognized expertise in the measurements that are being made. There are a number of LENR papers that I take seriously, for example. I do not necessarily consider them proof positive, but very interesting nonetheless. Ironclad proof is not something I require.

  • Eric Walker in your opinion, what is reasonable amount of time and inventor should be spending replying to individual queries in proportion to the time spend advancing tech to the commercial level?

    Please provide at least one example where inventor of something significant were as open as you want them to be. I believe everybody was doing bare minimum of public information release to ensure steady flow of financing to support their research.

  • I am also convinced that there is so many LENR materials available that it can't be denied. You are served with undeniable facts. But as you can see, even this is not enough for normal people. You need a real product to be convinced. Even after independent tests there will be doubts. But if you can buy and use it, there will be no doubt anymore.


    If time will allow, I can share also results from EDX of the SEM pictures. Transmutations are something you can't fake.

    MFMP did analysis of few fuel samples from Mr. Suhas, Parkhomov and also also few of us (yet there are still more of them to publish). There you can find structures made of elements that can't be impurities. Confirmed transmutations are probably of the highest value since it is immediately clear the process is nuclear.


    This is excuse making for the fact that you have not produced a convincing demonstration of excess heating. All we have so far is just your anecdotes and a null result when one of your devices was subjected to proper calorimetry. Skeptics here and elsewhere will be convinced by properly conducted experiments and replications. You have not even produced a write-up that could be evaluated. Everyone who has tried to replicate your methods has ended up with null results. I think you are technically skilled, but you are deceiving yourself about having a working device. Do more proper tests so you can move on with your life and let this false dream go.

  • Eric Walkerin your opinion, what is reasonable amount of time and inventor should be spending replying to individual queries in proportion to the time spend advancing tech to the commercial level?

    Please provide at least one example where inventor of something significant were as open as you want them to be. I believe everybody was doing bare minimum of public information release to ensure steady flow of financing to support their research.


    Max Nozin , I don't ask that inventors give away trade secrets. I ask only that people that make claims in public venues back them up with solid evidence. And if evidence is produced that is not solid, perhaps because there's some flaw or potential flaw in the methodology, if the inventor wishes to persist in making the claim I hope they they will iterate on their approach and deal with the methodological flaw.


    If an inventor does not wish to substantiate a claim made in a public venue such as this one, especially a claim that could easily be verified, they should not make the claim. There are many startups that operate in stealth mode that are very secret about what they do. If an inventor wishes to make big claims in a public venue without being willing to substantiate them, they should not be surprised if this is called out. There is money that funders are willing to part with, and I would like those potential funders to be adequately informed as to the considerations at play before pursuing an opportunity with someone making big claims. LENR Forum is not an advertising board.


    Take any inventor in another field that has something significant. They will generally either keep quiet about it while they develop their product, or they will allow people to take a look at it, or they will have it examined by a well-established laboratory and reported on, or they will be open to criticism for potentially false advertising.

  • Jack Cole This is exactly condition I want to stay in until device is ready for market. Sadly you have not read what was written earlier.

    As I have written many times. I have no reason nor I want to convince anybody. Only people with faith can overcome this.

    This shouldn't be a reason to have a meaningless discussion.

  • It is also generally accepted that the year long test was a political war in which truth took a back seat.

    Generally accepted by who? Who gave you the authority to declare what is "generally accepted"? Speak for yourself!

    Anyone who makes any judgements derived from the malarky that both sides put out is neive.

    The only malarkey was put out by Rossi, in the Penon report and in his claims of invisible heat exchangers. You have not even read this report, so you have no idea why it is malarkey and you have no business discussing it here. People who refuse to even look at the evidence, such as you and Mary Yugo, have no business taking part in a discussion. You have no right to any opinion, positive or negative.

  • I'll give you not one example but a number of examples of people being as open as I would hope for them to be: the researchers skilled in specialized measurements who report on LENR experiments, outlining steps they took to control for possible sources of error and to carry out blank runs.

    These are not good examples since none of those researchers produced anything commercially.

    The researchers you mention have different objective - advancing research.

    Me has an objective to commercialize tech and it is completely different from researching.

    I personally wouldn't not care much what science is behind my home heater. And you will always be able to reverse engineer off the shelf device should it come out.

    This forum makes an impression that once somebody publicly updates us on the intent to develop something which might be lent, then that individual already owes everyone the proof.

    Another misconception is that every researcher should do things in a certain way to not repeat the mistakes done by predcessors. This is just a nice have.

    Do we realize that any guy who spends most of the day in the lab has a specific mindset? It is something that gives them the power to do that. This mindset not always comes with exceptional communication skills and other qualities needed to keep some hard core skeptics happy.

  • If an inventor does not wish to do substantiate a claim made in a public venue such as this one, especially a claim that could easily be verified, they should not make the claim.

    Well, they can make the claim if they want to. But no one should take these claims seriously. The claims are empty. That is to say, unsupported; without evidence.


    People such as Me356 and Rossi should not take umbrage when people dismiss empty claims. It looks like fake umbrage to me. I expect they are trying to fool people. Why else would they spend time making unsupported claims? If the claims were true, why wouldn't they provide evidence?


    I mean evidence of heat, which is the principal signature of the cold fusion reaction. Not some microphotos of who-knows-what, or claims that someone, somewhere detected transmutations. I have seen a lot of badly done mass spectroscopy. Many claims of transmutations are actually contamination and mass spec results from unqualified people.


    If the claims were real, with heat at the magnitude claimed, it would not be difficult to produce rock-solid calorimetric proof. If Me356 will not do that, I will not believe his claims. No one should believe them.

  • Me has an objective to commercialize tech and it is completely different from researching.

    That is absurd. You cannot commercialize an effect without first learning how it works in the laboratory. You may not need a full physics theory, but you need a working model.


    You have to be able to turn on the effect and modulate it (turn it up or down) to some extent. It has to as controllable as burning coal. Burning coal cannot be extinguished, but it can be controlled to some extent.


    A person who cannot reliably demonstrate the cold fusion effect at 10 W cannot scale up or commercialize. A 10 W reaction cannot accidentally produce 100 W. That would acceptable for scientific proof, but a scaled up reactor that goes out of control to that extent would explode.


    As far as I know, no one can control cold fusion to that extent. I do not think Me356 can. In fact, there is no evidence that Me356 can produce any reaction at all. He has not produced a shred of evidence to support his claims. When the MFMP people visited him, their instruments detected no sign of a reaction. Until he shows real data from reliable instruments using standard techniques, we should assume he has nothing. No claim gets a free pass. In science and technology, you never gives someone the "benefit of the doubt." A claim that is not backed up with good experimental evidence must be considered wrong. In both science and commercial R&D, you are guilty until proven innocent.

  • JedRothwell do you think da Vinchi couldn't fly his aerial screw because he could not be aware of Bernoulli work or because he did not have light materials and powerful engine with good power to weight ratio?

    It is always will be chicken and eggs dilemma what comes first theory it experiment. Modern physics increasingly moving away from the experimental roots due to the fact that mathematicians have effectively seized control of it.

  • Amazing as nobody even take the critics , the despair, i raise, beyond the anecdotes of NiH vs PdD...


    I just say LENR supportes are shelling the domain as efficiently as the APS. It is not even friendly fire, or suicide bombing, it is beyond Lebanon and Somalia civil war...


    What I say is that we are near technically, needing just 25Mn$ managed by serious guys, and that the community is shelling with irrationality what the academic have not already prevented to exist, wasting the budgets, and ridiculing the daredevil investors, when not ridiculing the science of LENR.


    This have to change, but first we have to accept it is happening.


    The only credible LENR evidence, but indeed undeniably credible, are from the 90s.

    It was painful to read Beaudette in 2001 says there was nothing really new since 96.


    in the fusionnefredda skeptic groups they explain how spawar was making research with only shoestrings.

    same in france, and Jed says it is same in japan, and in Italy even Celani lab is dismantled.

    I suspect LENR-Cities crashed partly because of the one you should not name and his clowneries, despite good prospects to do the job, and the money with it.


    Without the end of our denial of the tragic situation of the domaine, and then a governance change, there is no hope.

    We are at few years of success, but unable to advance of even one day every year.


    There is no possible way to make money with LENR without wide data sharing, and no locking of the IP.

  • You have no right to any opinion, positive or negative.

    The only persons who have control of my rights to express myself on this site is the moderators and the other site officers. If I violate those site rules, then I will be warned by the moderators. As far as I know, JedRothwell has no authority to define my rights here on this site.

  • If the claims were real, with heat at the magnitude claimed, it would not be difficult to produce rock-solid calorimetric proof. If Me356 will not do that, I will not believe his claims. No one should believe them.

    As me356 has informed us, the type of format that the LENR reactor produces can vary based on "opening the valve". It is possible that the LENR reaction can produce "No heat". The LENR reaction can produce all kinds of nuclear based radiation including sub atomic particles, high energy radiation. It is up to the designer of the LENR reactor to extract the energy produced by his reactor and apply it to meet customer needs.


    In more specific terms, the LENR reaction can produce visible and/or UV light, x-rays and gamma rays, protons and/or neutrons, infrared light (heat), shock waves meaning near light speed nuclear fragments, mesons including kaons and muons , and electrons.


    The LENR reactor designer has some ability to adjust his LENR reaction to increase production of one or more energy formates at the expense of other types of formats.


    By the way, this feature of LENR precludes fusion as the source of LENR energy.


    In conclusion, regarding the assertion: "it would not be difficult to produce rock-solid calorimetric proof", it is possible that a gainful LENR reactor will produce no heat.


    Examples of such reactors are the papp engine(shockwave) and the plasmatron(electrons).

  • [I wrote: You have no right to any opinion, positive or negative.]


    The only persons who have control of my rights to express myself on this site is the moderators and the other site officers. If I violate those site rules . . .

    You misunderstand. "A right to an opinion" is an academic expression. It means you have some knowledge or a rational basis for an opinion. It does not mean "a civil right" or "a legal right."


    Academic jargon is sometimes a little different from ordinary speech. When we say "your argument has merit" that does not mean you or your argument have done good deeds and you should be promoted to an Eagle Scout. It means your argument is valid.

  • I have to point out that me356 is a human too, that desires things and money to support a lifestyle or actualize some thought. There's some fallacy being made here if one assumes that people who have this technology must save humanity or relive the world of energy scarcity. Rossi has shown (via court proceedings) that he is an unreliable actor. Not to sounds prejudice; but, his past also is something that should be explored more for misleading claims and false claims too.


    My only hope is that me356 is able to realize commercialization as soon as possible. Utilizing MFMP as a means to validate his technology isn't a bad idea; but, there are things going on (possibly) that might be preventive this from happening soon.

  • Me356

    Quote

    I hope that those that are investigating LENR field could add something valuable. Talking about disbelief is pointless.



    1. "If time will allow, I can share also results from EDX of the SEM pictures. Transmutations are something you can't fake."


    Prosím..Please.. share these invaluable results.. when convenient.



    2. "can produce few kinds of strong radiation with no excess heat or measurable transmutation. You can produce X-rays pretty easily."


    Do you think that an examination of the current plasma catalysis in chemistry would yield useful information for the plasma catalysis of fusion?

    http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/2/4/694/pdf




    "Non-thermal plasma reactors are linked to relatively high reaction selectivity and energy efficiency due to the fact that the supplied electrical power is channeled predominately to excite electrons rather than heat the bulk volume of the plasma gas"

  • This is exactly condition I want to stay in until device is ready for market. Sadly you have not read what was written earlier.

    As I have written many times. I have no reason nor I want to convince anybody. Only people with faith can overcome this.

    This shouldn't be a reason to have a meaningless discussion.

    I have read what you wrote--I just disagree with you. You can believe and do what you want. You obviously would be ok with empirical proof that your device works or you wouldn't have allowed the visit by MFMP. What is your excuse for not allowing a test on a working device? Let me guess, you are working to hard on commercialization and/or safety concerns and don't have time, and besides skeptics won't believe anything. It is scary to face the truth that one could be wrong and have wasted so much time. It is even scarier to think about wasting years more of time and money while being wrong. Do the empirical work properly and go through the emotional pain now rather than later. You may think I am just being skeptical, but I genuinely wish to see you save yourself from that greater pain you will feel later when you discover the truth. This will be my last comment on the matter. So, carry on as you wish.