L-F Poll: Best LENR science news of 2018

  • What is the best LENR science news of 2018? You have 3 votes ! 31

    1. Atom Ecology Ecalox - gammas/excess heat (16) 52%
    2. Brillouin Energy Corp (BEC) - Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT) replicated by Stanford Research Institute (Tanzella's team) (13) 42%
    3. A. Takahashi lead (Technova/Nissan & Tohoku/Kobe/Kyushu/Nagoya Universities) NEDO funded, collaborative study -Significant level excess-heat evolution data were obtained for PNZ-type, CNZ-type CNS-type samples at 200-400℃ (12) 39%
    4. Safire - finds transmutations, and architectural changes in their Languir Tungsten probe (9) 29%
    5. Brilliant Light Power (BLP) - Thermal Suncell 10 minute continuous ignition (8) 26%
    6. Beiting (Aerospace One) - replicates Arata (5) 16%
    7. Global Energy Corp (GEC)/NASA - partnership to develop 10kW LENR/fission Hybrid space generator (4) 13%
    8. Staker (Loyola University) - replicates FP's and has 2 run aways (3) 10%
    9. Industrial Heat (Letts/Cravens) - regularly get 5W's XH in their high temperature Seebeck calorimeter (3) 10%

    .

  • Wow, I am back again!


    I have voted this time for Brillouin, BLP, and Takahashi, who is really representing the multiple groups in Japan that are not only making heat regularly, but doing brilliant work in transmutations, too.


    Replications, using the same samples divided and distributed and then getting similar profiles - all this makes LENR look just like normal science! LENR is sneaking in, still undetected by the mainstream.


    I skipped the GEC/NASA story because that is "going to be" a future project, and not actual science yet. That might have been one of the good news "stories" of 2018 (referring to the last poll).


    I had no trouble choosing three buttons.

  • Takahashi&al sure is best for me.

    Brillouin is very different style of news, but breatest on the biz axis.

    For me Staker is minor as a result, but his analysis based on metallurgy, SAV/Fukai phase, is maybe a theoretical breakthrough.

    Not enough votes for other experumental works, from Beiting to Ecalox...

    I would need more synthetic data on GEC, Ecalox/AE, Safire, as it was spread over many posts... something like the Takahashi report. (easy to ask, har to implement), sorry.

  • Putting a plug in for Beiting; he was reported here to have had the best (most impressive) presentation at ICCF21. That is subjective, and could have more to do with speaking style than substance, but something to consider along with everything else. I think he is still at it with his own company "Trustech".

  • After following this for a few years now my original expectations of LENR as a science story that just awaited some significant publications in the scientific journals is clearly rubbish.

    In fact it is as largely about business and money and chicanery.


    My expectations now are based on noise and money;

    1. Those who make the most noise likely have the least. Those who make the least noise likely have something to hide. Of course there are outliers such as Atom Ecology who have been very open but at some point they may want/need to partner with an organization, at which point things may go very quiet.


    2. Smart money vs silly money.

    When IH invested in Rossi that looked like smart money. At the end of the story it became obvious it was silly money, they got nothing.

    When individuals buy into bitcoin investments for Russian LENR that looks to me like silly money. These are average Joes investing in something they have no proven information on.

    If Bill Gates has invested in Seashore then I would presume he is a man to do his homework and therefore class that as smart money till we know more.


    It does look like Rossi is correct in one thing, it may be the market rather than science that decides on the veracity of LENR.


    Addendum:-

    Of course there are no easy ways to judge this. Scientific veracity is still important.

    There may yet be a scientific breakthrough/paper from out of Japan.

    BEC work with SRI does give them some credibility.


    Hopefully 2019 will bring clarity to this whole thing.

  • There have been 70 members log-in recently, yet in 24 hours we have only had 19 cast their votes on this all important poll! Hopefully, you are giving it some consideration, and not ignoring?


    Think of it this way: with a click of the finger, you can do your small part to help save the planet. Yes, sounds dramatic, but for those doing the LENR research that will hopefully save the planet one day, your opinion matters.

  • I'm deliberately not voting. The best LENR science news would be a simple experiment that produced clear results and wouldn't require months/years to be reproduced, hocus pocus mystic stuff, or being bound to under-the-table IP NDA BS agreements.

  • I'm deliberately not voting. The best LENR science news would be a simple experiment that produced clear results and wouldn't require months/years to be reproduced, hocus pocus mystic stuff, or being bound to under-the-table IP NDA BS agreements.


    You are overthinking this.

  • Shane D.

    I tried to provide an explanation as for why I might have not voted. I have not ignored the poll. My vote is "no vote": you could think it as a protest vote.


    Can,


    I am confused, but if that is what you feel is best for LENR, then so be it. You have some standing within the community, and all I can do is hope no others follow your lead.


    Honestly, I do not see what it accomplishes.

  • To clarify, I'm not asking you to agree with my choice, nor asking others to follow my lead. I should have probably left those thoughts personal, but I guess in the end this will have at least served as a reminder that people might have more reasons for not voting than laziness, and that such reasons might not necessarily be pleasant to read.

  • The best LENR science news would be a simple experiment that produced clear results and wouldn't require months/years to be reproduced, hocus pocus mystic stuff, or being bound to under-the-table IP NDA BS agreements.


    Do you think that is realistic? When I look at the photos of BEC and BLP's HHT/Suncell, Norronts apparatus, or read IH's (Letts) patent applications, Takahasi's NEDO funded report, I see this LENR stuff is not so simple as the criteria you lay out for you to vote would suggest.


    And were it so easy; to then take what elegantly simple device you have, and turn it into a marketable product, with all the expensive, time consuming, engineering and regulatory hurdles...well, that takes money. And to get money you need investors. Investors will first need an NDA. No NDA=no money, no money= no LENR product gets to market, = another secret taken to the grave.

  • Shane D.

    Obviously an affordable, easily reproducible experiment designed to scientifically demonstrate the effect(s) wouldn't have to be a product, only to be able to run "loud and clear" enough, without being constrained by practicality, long-term reliability, safety, and so on. If it can also effectively perform useful work that would be a nice bonus, but not required.


    Investors, regulations, NDAs, products and the like are terms related to marketing, and it's where the poll gets weird. If the various entities presented have a vested interest in obfuscating the process behind how to make the reaction work, either they shouldn't have been listed or the poll shouldn't have been defined as being about the science.


    Just my 2c, though.

  • Those still considering their choices, may want to read this new article out about BEC https://www.nextbigfuture.com/…/2018brillouinenergy.html , and discussed here Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.


    In addition, there will be a new, semi-independent, confirmatory report, put out soon on an earlier testing period. That will no doubt trigger more positive media coverage for BEC, and LENR in general.


    Just something else to think about.

  • Can,


    The A. Takahashi Team (2 companies & 4 universities) seem to be everything you consider ideal. They are open source, and have literally laid out the path for others to follow. They held back no secrets AFAIK. I am sure you could call them today, and they would be happy to answer any of your questions.


    Their work was as simple as they could make it, but still make it reliable enough so as to be transportable to each others labs, and then replicated independently. Good, solid, grinding, meticulous LENR science work at it's finest. IMO, if one can not cast a vote for someone like them, we may as well throw our hands up in the air, and forget all this LENR nonsense.


    I am sure they would like feedback knowing that their approach, and efforts are at least appreciated by others doing the work. A vote for them would do that.

  • After following this for a few years now my original expectations of LENR as a science story that just awaited some significant publications in the scientific journals is clearly rubbish.

    My expectations now are based on noise and money;

    1. Those who make the most noise likely have the least. Those who make the least noise likely have something to hide.


    There is something to this, but how much we don't know. Funding is not ubiquitous. There was a time 2012-2016 there was a bump in funding activity. (The Rossi Wave). The bump has gone down. New people to the field always think, well, let's get this going and figure it out. When the difficult reality of LENR materials hits them, they ask, hmm, how much more am I willing to dump into this? And funding is lower now. (I speculate - but don't know for sure)


    Now, people who need funding are touting their achievements to attract more. If you've got funding, then you don't need to (and in actuality can't) shout about your advances.


    Japanese groups just finished up a two-year collaboration that has tremendous implications because of their ability to Replicate results. They are making noise because they need more funding to continue. I believe something will come their way and one of the big reasons is that they are able to Replicate. That is real, normal science when that happens, and when that replication goes on at yet another lab, we are in business.


    To me, E. Beiting's presentation was good mostly because he is a "normal" scientist who was curious, and followed the data to its conclusion, without strong support from his corporate employer. His laboratory results were not so impressive, but, he did a good experiment with mainstream resources.


    E.J. Beiting represents the continued defection of mainstream scientists away from the doctrines that prevent open discussion about LENR. I don't know what he is doing now, but I bet he is going to continue LENR some way some how. Once it gets under your skin, well, everyone here knows what happens...


    Publications are still rejecting anything that smells of cold fusion/LENR. Melvin Miles is on a mission to publish a paper in a mainstream journal and has been rejected over and over for the last year. SPAWAR has published the most by using a sanitized vocabulary. PREDICTION: There will be experimental breakthrough and announcements on LENR-forum and Cold Fusion Now! before anything is published in mainstream science journals - unless - it comes from something like Texas Tech. That lab could change the world in a day if they wanted to, and I am not sure they do want to.


    Hey my post number is rising!

    Ruby

  • There may be another way, plant seed's of information as a nobody all over the place, if he turn out not be just another nobody, maybe they will look. ya never know~


    DnG,


    Not that I ever thought you were a nobody, but would the person you talk of be you? I always felt you were holding something back.

  • School has been brutal over the years an a diploma puts you under scrutiny"to trash".. Like when Dr Greer called for anyone with tech to help humanity and what happen to them. I know from learning, not to use the tools provided.

  • before anything is published in mainstream science journals


    Ruby..I agree with your prediction that mainstream journals will only publish

    after announcements on forums..and follow the flow.

    Mosier-Boss has documented the opaqueness and nonaccountability of the

    peer review(PR) process.. a whole lot of things are wrong with mainstream science..


    My PR experience was OK with my nonparadigm shifting report but the biases

    of the reviewers were extremely evident.and I adapted my report accordingly.

    I can see how likely it is that reviewer bias could kill a paradigm shifting report


    Forums such as LENR forum have flaws but their PR (sometimes jeer review ) process

    can be a lot more transparent and quicker than in the mainstream journals


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…mns/v12/1_JCMNS-Vol12.pdf

    The good news is that they (MB and Forsley) have worked around the difficulties

    to get some funding for their deuterium-U238 space reactor.


  • Do you think that is realistic? When I look at the photos of BEC and BLP's HHT/Suncell, Norronts apparatus, or read IH's (Letts) patent applications, Takahasi's NEDO funded report, I see this LENR stuff is not so simple as the criteria you lay out for you to vote would suggest.


    And were it so easy; to then take what elegantly simple device you have, and turn it into a marketable product, with all the expensive, time consuming, engineering and regulatory hurdles...well, that takes money. And to get money you need investors. Investors will first need an NDA. No NDA=no money, no money= no LENR product gets to market, = another secret taken to the grave.



    I think it is absolutely realistic. There are multiple LENR or cold fusion concepts that could be released and replicated by individuals or small teams around the world. Specifically, I think the QX is such a device and without extreme effort or vast sums of money could be replicated by a small team in a modest laboratory. There are also other devices that could be replicated at even lower cost (although I don't think they hold the same potential as the QX). The Atom Ecology approach seems very simple and straightforward, and if Russ George were to ever release a specific recipe the results could be pretty easily duplicated. I also think that Ni-H systems could be built without much trouble if additional sources of atomic hydrogen were utilized. This is something that most replicators DO NOT UTILIZE. They either depend on H2 dissociating into H on the surface of the nickel or occasionally utilize spillover catalysts. A radio frequency generator to produce the atomic hydrogen is something that very few people, other than Andrea Rossi, have utilized.

  • This poll was simply intended to give members an opportunity to vote on their choice of "Best LENR Science News of 2018". It was not intended for protests, proselytism, grandstanding, negotiating, and politicking for their cause within a cause, but alas..that is what it seems to have come to.


    Still early though, and those that understand the purpose of this poll, and the importance of voting, have plenty of time to pick their favorites. It will be up for a while.