LENR Future Hopeless Until Looking for Heat 2.0 Emerges

http://www.enapcoenergy.com/patents.htm

If you go to the above site and read the patent you will see they are producing an effect that is very similar to the SK and BLP's Suncell.

The negative resistance zone of the arc discharge is the key. Although I think that some reactions can take place in glow discharge and pure arc discharge, the negative resistance zone produces oscillations that maximally increase the number of nuclear reactions. Once again, water, hydrogen, and argon are mentioned. I think the output can be increased even further with the addition of lithium.

What really saddens me is that for someone with a lab and who already has the equipment, the cost of building systems such as these and doing the experiments would be somewhat minimal.

Quote from Alan Smith

The costs of running a laboratory are eye-watering, I should know. If you put 4 people 'skilled in the art' to work on this project for a short time- say 10 weeks, this is a rough estimate of what it might cost. The wages alone including pension contribution, and.healthcare of (say 2 senior and 2 junior) staff is $100k over that period or more. Then add the general overhead of a modest size lab (rent, taxes, utiiities, admin, repairs) and you are looking at another $30k, and if they spend $70k on dedicated equipment (since you almost never have the equipment you need or it may need to be built especially) to build the kit do the tests then you are looking at a total cost of $200k. Which assumes they had no other work to do btw so doesn't include 'lost opportunity cost' ..... You can't call that minimial.

I know someone who is no longer interested in alternative energy technologies who already had probably most of all the equipment required (electronics and fabrication) and who previously spent months of his own time working on another alternative energy technology (without success) who could build and test one of these systems in no time flat. If you go the super formal route and formally hire folks (which sadly is often required because there aren't many volunteers in this world), buy all the equipment (because you had none to start off with), paid for various parts to be fabricated, and so forth the price could be high. However, I think the right team of volunteers would not need to spend anywhere near the figures you provide for a QX/SK replication. I still will stick to my previous statement that if someone already had access to a lab, would donate their labor for free, had some of the high dollar equipment (oscilloscopes), was skilled enough to perform fabrication on their own, and so forth, the cost would be minimal - depending on how long their project continued and how much money they spent making alterations.

I sense a new meme being portrayed by those who claim to support LENR that the cost for proper research is extremely high and hence the absolute requirement to gain access to relatively large quantities of research funding. Depending on the scale of the project, what must be purchased from the start, and if people are going to be formally hired, a significant quantity of funding could be required. But a lot of LENR research over the last thirty years has been performed on a shoe string budget. Moreover, I've seen people online build amazing, highly sophisticated non-LENR devices (such as powerful Tesla coils and even more sophisticated pieces of equipment such as SEMs) in tiny spaces. Really neat stuff can be done relatively cheaply - especially if you have one or more volunteers who are obsessive compulsive about a project.

I'm not a director of anything. It's just a username. I couldn't think of anything better. No one would want me to help with their project (even if they needed someone to mop the floors, serve coffee, run errands) because as soon as the open source project started going dark I'd complain.

That is a question that deserves a very nuanced answer.

If an LENR project is open source at the start it should stay open source. What I despise more than anything is a project that claims to be one thing but then turns into something else due to the possibility of profits. Maybe they have the right to change their goals - if there is not some sort of contractual agreement in place that specifies their commitment to be open source - but it is still shady and wrong in my opinion.

If an LENR project isn't open source and is specifically for-profit from the start, then they have the right to do whatever they want. But I think for the sake of the planet such projects should be completely open until they are able to convince the world that their technology is real. Then, afterwards, they can be as secretive as they want. I have no problem with secrecy AFTER the world has accepted that LENR is a reality.

When it comes to farmers and so forth, there's a big difference between providing something that everyone knows already exists and proving the reality of LENR to the world. Right now, we live in a totally insane world in which despite all the evidence 99% of mainstream scientists think that LENR is a fantasy. If humanity is going to survive for another hundred years, this needs to change. I personally think that all LENR researchers have a moral duty to share their know how and help others replicate up and until the point that LENR technology is accepted by the world as real.

However, showing others how to replicate is not "giving away" a technology. All technologies that are patented MUST be explained well enough so that someone skilled in the art can replicate them. Every mainstream technological advance is patented and papers are written. LENR researchers seem to think that their technology is different to protect it they must use a different route.