L-F Poll: Best LENR science news of 2018

  • 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.

  • Paradigmnoia,


    It is important the LENR community recognize the achievements of those doing the R/D, whether they be lone researchers self financing their work, or companies tapping into the investment community. This is one way of accomplishing that. The winner will be rewarded for their work with recognition for a job well done. Recognition is a great motivator. That is what the Nobel, and other science awards are all about..to Incentivize science to new heights.

  • You have 2 more days to embarrass your fellow LF members who refuse to vote, by voting. Your vote counts! And even a skeptic can cast a vote for what they consider the best LENR news (if true), without compromising their principles.

  • Love your polls LENR-forum! So what if they are reflective of your group here, and the few votes enticed from elsewhere... This is still an arcane area of science. If it isn't, "where are the hordes of tourists?"?


    I'd say relish this time to yourselves, but I honestly wish we'd get breakthrough ASAP.

    Still, to increase participation, perhaps starting a poll in early December would get those who otherwise have holiday plans.

    Also, were you to keep the results secret and have an end-of-the-year announcement of a Winner, would be suspenseful, create debate, and people would vote on their own ideas, and not in response to others votes.


  • Thank you for the support Ruby. As far as I know, this is the first "best of" LENR poll conducted. We are proud of that, and personally, I feel even though the % of votes was low, it still represents a consensus among our most active, informed members, who believe in LENR. I suspect this will be the start of an annual tradition.


    Some things we can improve on, and after the dust settles, we can all talk about it.

  • Quote

    it still represents a consensus among our most active, informed members, who believe in LENR.


    That sounds strange to me. One doesn't "believe in" a scientific proposition. One concludes that something has been proved beyond doubt or not and presents the evidence. "Believing in" is most often reserved for religious or metaphysical convictions.