Atom-Ecology

  • There is absolutely no reason to exclusively satisfy some anonymous Forum posters with presenting them gold+ new knowledge.


    Conceptually, is little difference between posting information online and presenting it at a conference. As travel become more and more expensive in terms of cost and carbon, the two will merge. The issue of anonymity is mostly a red herring.


    If Russ's work shall be accepted as outstanding, we should allow him to repeat his experiments as often as needed, until he can throughly exclude, that any side-effects are spoiling his measurements.


    Outstanding or not, I agree. One of my previous comments has been misconstrued to fit someone's viewpoint.


    Here is a question though. It is the one I asked earlier -- What happens after Russ George et al have thoroughly excluded any side effect that might spoil their measurements? Do they forthwith publish their results so as to allow replication? Or do they hold on and wait until they have developed a useful heater? I think that the latter move is a common sinkhole for researchers in lenr. Having the mirage of a useful system before them researchers spin on and on developing their systems and never publishing the crucial data that may confirm or disconfirm for the world that they ever had anything in the first place.

  • Bruce__H You are in danger of creating a myth about us an our methods and intentions. I'm 73, I don't have years to f**k around in. Or unlimited money. So I don't recognise what you describe. Every conventional route -and some unconventional ones - to producing and commercialising LENR effects has so far failed. So we are trying something different, doing things our own way.

  • Bruce__H You are in danger of creating a myth about us an our methods and intentions. I'm 73, I don't have years to f**k around in. Or unlimited money. So I don't recognise what you describe. Every conventional route -and some unconventional ones - to producing and commercialising LENR effects has so far failed. So we are trying something different, doing things our own way.


    In recent comments I have asked you your intentions. I don't believe I have imputed any to you.

  • Alan: Do you really think, that by showing lab you can really change the world? Just few lines like these are enough. If one can't believe, not mine problem. But for everybody else that really want LENR to materialize, this is good beginning.


    JF,


    Your first post as a member, was to complain about Alan and Russ not getting enough information out. You argued that "open science" was the only way for them to go. Then you claimed you had a better equipped lab than Alan. In return, he asked to see what you have. Reasonable request. After all, you advocate for Open Science, and in OS 101 class, you are taught you have to show photos. Yet now, after 2 months of stalling, you say "if one can not believe (me), not mine problem". In other words, you refuse to provide the photo of your lab, and want us to trust that you have one, and that it is well equipped.


    Sounds like a case of "do as I say, not as I do". You expect Alan to be open, as in Open Science, but he, nor the rest of us, should expect that of you. Sorry, but it is hard for me to take you seriously now.

  • Having the mirage of a useful system before them researchers spin on and on developing their systems and never publishing the crucial data that may confirm or disconfirm for the world that they ever had anything in the first place.

    Yes, that has often happened. Which is not to say that is where Smith is headed.


    I'm 73, I don't have years to f**k around in. Or unlimited money. So I don't recognise what you describe. Every conventional route -and some unconventional ones - to producing and commercialising LENR effects has so far failed.

    LENR effects have not been commercialized because none of them could be commercialized. No one has produced a controlled reaction that can be scaled up or used for any practical purpose.


    If you are trying to make something that can be commercialized, I think you are making a grave mistake, and I expect you will fail. That goal is too ambitious. You should aim for something that will convince several engineers and scientists that you can reproduce the effect often (say 20% of the time at least) at a high enough power level that it can be measured easily, with great confidence (~5 W, or better). That's all you need to do to get the ball rolling. Scientists and engineers who have far more money, resources and staff at places like the Aerospace Corporation will then take over and finish the job for you, and you will get the credit.


    You do not need to convince all scientists. Or even thousands of them. Thirty or 40 would be enough, and I know several candidates.


    If you try to develop a practical prototype, you will probably die of old age before you get anywhere. You would be like the Wright brothers trying to make a practical airplane. They never did that. They worked from 1901 to 1908 in isolation, without revealing their secrets -- and people ignored their 1906 patent. Their 1908 airplane was barely functional, and extremely dangerous. When they flew with one of the first passengers in history, Lt. Selfridge, the airplane crashed and killed Selfridge and nearly killed Orville. If they had continued to work in isolation, they would not have made a practical airplane in 20 more years. They were more or less out of ideas.

  • You should aim for something that will convince several engineers and scientists that you can reproduce the effect often (say 20% of the time at least) at a high enough power level that it can be measured easily, with great confidence (~5 W, or better). That's all you need to do to get the ball rolling. S

    IMPO, the keys to the kingdom of LENR, is the ability to produce the LENR fuel. It beleive that this fuel obtains the ultra dense matter that is the active agent in the LENR reaction. It is devilishly difficult to produce this fuel. LION openly give his fuel preparation method to LookingForHeat and to MFMP but this experts in the LENR arts were unable to replicate LION's fuel preparation method. A person or organization that can produce LENR active fuel might advance LENR science by manufacturing this fuel and distributing it to LENR researchers. It seems to be near impossible for a rookie LENR experimenter to form this fuel given only written instructions.


    Holmlid's replicator needed 3 years to produce ultra dense hydrogen and he had Holmlid's help doing it.

  • LENR effects have not been commercialized because none of them could be commercialized. No one has produced a controlled reaction that can be scaled up or used for any practical purpose.


    That's just an engineering problem that can be overcome with enough work and money.


    But, I do agree with the rest of the post about convincing more scientists and engineers. Which, I think Alan and Russ are doing day by day.

  • For all their confidence and experience, there is always the chance Russ and Alan have missed something. Alan would probably agree with that; Russ...probably not. :) One thing I have absolutely no doubt of though, is their motivation. As Russ said..Save the Planet first, then try to make some money next. Alan I know, has turned down large sums of money for his Al recycling/H production start up.


    These guys are in it for the right reasons IMO.

  • For all their confidence and experience, there is always the chance Russ and Alan have missed something. Alan would probably agree with that; Russ...probably not. :) One thing I have absolutely no doubt of though, is their motivation. As Russ said..Save the Planet first, then try to make some money next. Alan I know, has turned down large sums of money for his Al recycling/H production start up.


    These guys are in it for the right reasons IMO.

    I feel that anyone who can produce LENR fuel is among the nobility of LENR experimenters. It seems that Russ et al likes being the princes of LENR research and after all these long lonely years, those guys deserve that princely recognition and homage.

  • I feel that anyone who can produce LENR fuel is among the nobility of LENR experimenters. It seems that Russ et al likes being the princes of LENR research and after all these long lonely years, those guys deserve that princely recognition and homage.


    Axil,


    Know the recipe, rule the kingdom. I am still trying to see how many have rule. Stay tuned. That said, it is only a few granules, so that rules out chemical.

  • That's just an engineering problem that can be overcome with enough work and money.

    I doubt that. There is no scientific theory explaining how the reaction works. No one knows where to begin to overcome the control problem. They resemble people who tried to make semiconductors from the 1920s up to 1949. They had no theory and they made virtually no progress. Once Shockley developed the right theory, the engineers could take over and progress was swift.


    Without scientific understanding, the only way to make progress is by trial and error. That is very slow and expensive, and there is no telling whether it will work or not.


    But, I do agree with the rest of the post about convincing more scientists and engineers. Which, I think Alan and Russ are doing day by day.

    The data published here is intriguing but it will not convince any scientists. If this is all they have published, they have not yet begun trying to convince scientists.

  • Without scientific understanding, the only way to make progress is by trial and error. That is very slow and expensive, and there is no telling whether it will work or not.

    Well, Alan Smith and Russ George have figured out how to make the process work. And, from what I gather it's pretty cheap too. So, let's hope they disclose their recipe for others to replicate their work.


    The data published here is intriguing but it will not convince any scientists. If this is all they have published, they have not yet begun trying to convince scientists.

    Perhaps they've convinced themselves, given that they are scientists also and/or engineers. They've already seen the future that will arise out of their studies, could be a profound experience.

  • Well, we have a very serious hard-nose Physicist here today, going through the data and looking at the hardware in operation.

    No doubt this person will see far more data than you have published here. So perhaps it will be convincing. I said "The data published here is intriguing but it will not convince any scientists." That does not mean you don't have the data or that you will not show it to this person. It means only you have not published it here.


    It will be interesting to see if we can make a dent in his skepticism about our work.

    Yes. Dent or no dent, it will be good practice trying to convince someone. Like going to a physics conference.


    If you do not make a dent, perhaps you need to present more data or improve the presentation. The work itself may be good enough, but the presentation may be lacking. I have seen that situation before. I have also seen work that was not convincing, no matter how well presented.

  • No doubt this person will see far more data than you have published here. So perhaps it will be convincing.


    Convincing within the lab, yes. But still not persuasive for the world. What would be persuasive for the world is replication by several independent labs.


    It is wise to bear in mind that a substantial fraction of the results published by hard-nosed scientists in peer-reviewed journals cannot be replicated. It turns out that being hard-nosed and careful does not guarantee that results are real.

  • I'm 73, I don't have years to f**k around in. Or unlimited money.


    Well given your results right now, which have attracted interest, the fastest way to proceed would be to publish every detail of your methods immediately. I understand that there are lots of reasons not to do this and I think some of those reasons are understandable. But if you are only interested in speed, then immediate and complete information release would be fastest.

  • As we are currently only 14 weeks into this work, it would be premature to publish, even if we were ready. And given the timeline of most journals, it would not his print for another 12 months even if we submitted now. So perhaps not the way to do it. We are looking at other channels to disseminate information before we contemplate the kind of 'full disclosure' that you are urging us to do.

  • As we are currently only 14 weeks into this work, it would be premature to publish, even if we were ready. And given the timeline of most journals, it would not his print for another 12 months even if we submitted now. So perhaps not the way to do it. We are looking at other channels to disseminate information before we contemplate the kind of 'full disclosure' that you are urging us to do.


    By "publish" I mean to make publicly accessible. So the other channels you mention could well fit the bill. Publishing on this site would fit the bill.


    I am not urging you to immediately and fully disclose everything you have. I am saying that that is the fastest way to proceed. I haven't been urging you to do anything in my comments of today and yesterday. If you think that I have then you ought to go back and read more carefully.

  • By "publish" I mean to make publicly accessible. So the other channels you mention could well fit the bill. Publishing on this site would fit the bill.


    I am not urging you to immediately and fully disclose everything you have. I am saying that that is the fastest way to proceed. I haven't been urging you to do anything in my comments of today and yesterday. If you think that I have then you ought to go back and read more carefully.

    I would encourage talking to Bob Higgins or Magicsound. I believe Alan (not sure about Russ) are familiar with these qualified gentlemen and I believe their proven history has showed capability and trustworthiness. If they could independently replicate on their equipment using supplied instructions by Alan, this would be a major milestone. Not only would it validate your own hard work and experimental results, but it would then give the replication basis for a major institution to really become involved.


    I understand that one wants to be sure themselves before taking the next step and Alan is correct that they are still in a very early stage. Actually quite remarkable.

    So another month or so before another party replication attempt is certainly not unreasonable. Very likely a wise decision! But perhaps preliminary discussion could be taking place now, so once that time arrives, both parties are in agreement with the details and the third party can start prepping as much as possible now.


    I believe what is causing some of this "question" is the huge difference in status of the tests that has been communicated. One is giving "end of the fossil fuel age within months" and the other "possibly a decade". This really is causing some eye brow raising and a bit of a basis for doubt. Remember, many have been burned and burned often with grandiose promises. I do not know of a single person who has complained about Bob Higgins, Magicsound or even Alan's communications of tests. (Except reporting on demos!) "O day" and other seemingly odd proclamations do cause a bit of indigestion now.


    Best wishes on your endeavors. Again, I urge working with Bob H. or Magicsound.

  • As we are currently only 14 weeks into this work, it would be premature to publish, even if we were ready. And given the timeline of most journals, it would not his print for another 12 months even if we submitted now.

    I do not think there is any chance a journal would publish this. JCMNS might, but it takes a long time. Many months and lots of painful peer-review. Not to mention copy editing by me, unless the author objects.


    When you are ready to publish, I suggest you write a report and circulate it. I will upload it to LENR-CANR.org if you like.


    I do not think it is a good idea to upload the report here, and only here, because it is difficult to find documents here. It is difficult to find anything here. Put it on your own website and circulate the URL. Don't put it exclusively on Facebook, either. Many people have no access to that.

  • Convincing within the lab, yes. But still not persuasive for the world. What would be persuasive for the world is replication by several independent labs.

    One step at a time. First make it convincing within the lab to a visiting physicist. That will facilitate other steps such as having it independently replicated. It is not likely people will try to replicate it as things now stand, with no report and no response (yet) from this visiting physicist.


    Steps 2, 3, 4 etc. should not take long if each one goes smoothly. A few days or weeks each. The most time consuming one would be to write a report. It doesn't have to be a huge report. I think 8 or 10 pages should be enough. Showing the experiment to the visiting physicist will help them write the report. They should jot down the questions the physicist asks, and the concerns he raises, and then address them in the paper. That's what I did when I presented Mizuno's results at ICCF21. I had letters and notes from some visitors, and Mizuno's responses to them (in Japanese), so I simply reported the conversation. Easy-peasy for me.

  • I believe what is causing some of this "question" is the huge difference in status of the tests that has been communicated. One is giving "end of the fossil fuel age within months" and the other "possibly a decade". This really is causing some eye brow raising and a bit of a basis for doubt


    There is no disjunct. All this has been explained elsewhere in this thread. Try post 911, but to clarify for the idle and weak minded it might take $500M and ten years producing (multiple) MW) but very much less than that -with luck and a fair wind - to make a system that produces several hundred watts. Russ and I were talking about two completely different things. We do that, there is no 'party line'.


    As for MagicSound Russ and I are in regular communication with him, a fine chap who I have met face to face a couple of times. BobG currently has no lab AFAIK and a slim technical background (though he is learning fast) so despite being much nearer and having a standing invite to visit is not in a position to do much more than cheerlead (or not). Bob and I have also met (I have put him up a few times) and correspond now and then,

  • Quote

    avatar-default.svg

    Bruce__H wrote:


    Convincing within the lab, yes. But still not persuasive for the world. What would be persuasive for the world is replication by several independent labs.


    What would be persuasive for the world is a COTS LENR product on sale and making lots of money for the company that is selling that product.

  • Higgins works for IH now. I hate to say it, but there are walls built. Unfortunately, I do not see any chance of them coming down. Yes, I know the planet's well being hangs in the balance, but that is the way it is as I see it. If I could change that, I would.