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".

Quote from me356

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.

Quote from me356

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.

Quote from me356

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.

Quote from Max Nozin

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.

Quote from axil

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!

Quote from axil

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.

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Quote from Max Nozin

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

I changed out that last line with a different one, probably at the same time you were writing your reply.

Quote from Max Nozin

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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).

Quote from axil

[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.

An example given in poor taste, I feel.

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"

Quote from me356

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.