- Industrial Heat : last news is Woodford reevaluating their hares positively... posted here. They fund some experimenters.
- Brillouin is active, have posted results (relayed here).
- Coolescence was closed
- Energetics technology patent were bought by SKINNER if I remember
- I don't know if Clean Nuclear Power is still alive , but they work with LENR Cities Suisse funded by George de Montmollin
- Gates is funding Seashore Research, which is silent but said active.
- LENR-Cities/LENRG have closed. Kresenn probably, no news.
- Airbus : JF Geneste is no more at Airbus. Not heard of Airbus in LENR since.
- There was Phononenergy, but they recently abandonned
- Nissan is new in the domaine, and participated the NEDO fundes experiment. There was an engineer of Nissan France at RNBE conferences
- Don't forget I2HMR with Nicolas Armanet (and colleagues), researcher on Hydrogen in Metals...
FP's 30 years later: how much has LENR progressed?
-
-
Thank Alain- I'll edit this great info in.
-
All those folks working away and nobody can produce a device with a combination of power, COP, reproducibility, consistency and duration, compared to size and mass, which is practical for anything.
Mary you have a mental problem with distinguishing research and business. ITER is supposed to be research. But nobody tell the people that after the research they leave behind 100000 tons of activated waste. Thus in case of ITER the research itself is already fraud.
LENR research is just fun and will certainly lead to a new understanding of physics. Even if all die Hoddies don't like research.
-
That is incorrect.
1. There have not been any huge leaps. Only incremental progress.
2. Most progress has been interrupted because the researchers were not funded, or they retired, or died. Most researchers are government employees, so they have no stake in the invention, and no case of inventor's syndrome.
That's incorrect. There have been huge leaps. Over the past hundred years, there have been inventors that have came up with amazing discoveries roughly related to what we refer to as LENR. Many of these have been in the "plasma-branch" of the LENR family instead of electrolytic or gas loading branches. But time and time again the inventor's show stunning demonstrations and even perform convincing tests only to become paranoid and secretive and greedy.
One great example of a what I consider to be at least a decent sized leap was Patterson's Power Cell. If he'd been willing to go the standard route and perform convincing tests using good equipment and proper measurement techniques (instead of intentionally performing only marginal tests in order to only interest specific parties) large, well funded companies with hundreds of engineers could have helped him produce even MORE optimal spheres to go into his reactor. Instead, his technology went no where.
I'd say that yet another leap was Chernetsky's self-generating discharge tube that used hydrogen and electrodes that would obtain sharp micro-tips after many firings at high current. Interestingly, before the above tube which was focused on electrical generation, I found a paper mentioning another experiment of his that utilized hydrogen and lithium in a plasma tube that produced a COP of around 3. If he hadn't of passed away, I think his technology could have had a huge impact.
I could give a half dozen other examples of individuals who made big leaps only to achieve nothing. But I will say that there are relatively fewer big leaps in the branch of LENR that uses electrolytic cells, wire, or powder based systems. I think this is because some of the pathways that produce LENR can occur at a higher rate in a pure plasma system than in a hydrogen loaded solid.
-
A rather oversimplified view of the situation, but at times it has been a problem.
There are other issues. Perhaps one of the most serious is that there are many parties that would like to do serious LENR research but don't have the funds to do so. However, I do think that inventor's syndrome is the number one barrier stopping radical LENR technologies from coming out of the lab into the marketplace. If it were not for inventor's syndrome, I think the world would be a far different place today.
-
I do think that inventor's syndrome is the number one barrier stopping radical LENR technologies from coming out of the lab into the marketplace.
No- the number one problem (from personal experience) is the timidity/greed of many investors who only want to invest in monopoly positions, which they see as being a necessary part of them taking on a high-risk investment. Also they have a playbook which insists they write down the value of the inventor's IP to a minimal figure -which many object to doing. Fear and greed are the culprits, and it is not entirely on one side of the debate.
-
But there are investors circling, even if their chequebooks are firmly in their pockets (as yet).
They have been doing that for 30 years. Circling, with closed chequebooks.
No- the number one problem (from personal experience) is the timidity/greed of many investors who only want to invest in monopoly positions, which they see as being a necessary part of them taking on a high-risk investment.
That's true! Like Patterson, they want a 100% market share, and they will get 100% of nothing. Patterson was a actual case of the inventor's syndrome. It does exist.
I do not understand why anyone tries to get a monopoly in a technology worth trillions of dollars. 5% would be a goldmine. 1% would be!
-
They have been doing that for 30 years. Circling, with closed chequebooks.
That's true! Like Patterson, they want a 100% market share, and they will get 100% of nothing. Patterson was a actual case of the inventor's syndrome. It does exist.
I do not understand why anyone tries to get a monopoly in a technology worth trillions of dollars. 5% would be a goldmine. 1% would be!
Why can't we crowd source an attempt at getting 5% share? I figure it would take about $10Million to get any one of these great researchers over the line into production on LENR. And by over the line, I:mean they sell enough to pay back the $10Million and have a viable chance at making maybe $100Mto $2B/year.
$10M/1000 investors is still $10k/investor, too high. It would have to go down to $1k increments at 1/10,000th. There isn't enough interest and it's probably illegal to solicit that kind of money from people in a stock transaction. That's what all those laws about IPOs protecting investors from scams are all about.
Some dude generated $20M to help build Trump's wall. I just can't help but think there's pent up demand for a chance at getting in on the ground floor of an energy revolution. An MFMP for the financial side.
EDIT:
Case
in
Point
STRATOS LENR / Low-temp plasma 3 hours ago (edited)
What is your project?
Dear Mr. North, as companies active in energy sector refuse to support development in LENR, we chose crowdfunding on IndieGoGo (as Kickstarter do not allow projects from our country). On IndieGoGo is short video on YouTube near mandatory for every campaign, so we have here short video. You may see the description of the project at IndieGoGo campaign here: https://igg.me/at/stratos-energy
Briefly: We don't want to wait 3 to 17 years for Rossi to change his mind about selling his hardware to common consumers.
Thanks for Your interest and we wish You many good comments on E-CatWorld. We also invite You at www.PressClub.World where You can write professional articles on Your preferred themes and get reward.
Best Regards, Stratos project team, Czech Republic
-
I figure it would take about $10Million to get any one of these great researchers over the line into production on LENR.
$10 million might get a useful patent that would eventually be worth billions. However, I expect this will cost more like $300 million. I base that on my informal discussions with the people from Google and the people from the U.S. Navy. To get to production will cost somewhere between $1 and $10 billion, judging by the cost of producing the Prius ($1 billion) and upcoming self-driving automobiles ($10 billion?). That includes the cost of R&D, safety testing, and setting up production lines.
-
Just a suggestion, but maybe some of the researchers should put themselves in the investors shoes for a moment. If so, they might see things a little differently.
I agree, but by the same token the investors should put themselves in the researchers shoes for a moment. Imagine spending 30 years working on something at your own expense, against enormous opposition. Imagine giving up all promotions and in many cases actually being fired from your job. The investors are risking their money. The researchers have already sacrificed most of their working lives and much of their income.
-
I agree, but by the same token the investors should put themselves in the researchers shoes for a moment. Imagine spending 30 years working on something at your own expense, against enormous opposition. Imagine giving up all promotions and in many cases actually being fired from your job. The investors are risking their money. The researchers have already sacrificed most of their working lives and much of their income.
Agree with you also. In their shoes I would feel exactly the same, but as I said... can see it from the investors perspective also. I guess that is where negotiations come in handy to sort out the two sides expectations. If an agreement cannot be reached, the inventor takes his secret to the grave, and the investor walks away unharmed having taken no risk.
The more I think about this, the more I realize how important a role investor/researcher interactions have had on the field. There must be a happy medium worked out, or nothing happens. But there is so much at play it is very difficult to reach an agreement. For every time a researcher mentions their many years investment in time and money, the investor can talk about lack of IP protection, the road traveled before by other investors filled with failure and losses. Where even governments and large corporations have failed, but this person asking for large sums claims to be able to do it out of their garage. It is not a simple situation to negotiate.
We do have investors who follow LENR-Forum other than Dewey, who are always on the lookout for opportunities. Maybe they will read this and think differently? I am tempted to start a thread focused on the topic, but investors understandably prefer to work behind the scenes.
-
$10 million might get a useful patent
Patents are probably going to be worthless as soon as the cat is out of the bag. Look at how much trouble the Wright brothers had keeping people from simply stealing their IP.
Let's take this from the perspective of a third world country like Liberia which has plenty of people, plenty of unemployment, plenty of seawater, and unfortunately, plenty of corruption. You make the big breakthrough and start selling Rossi-type boxes in Liberia so that people don't need oil to generate electricity. Let's just presume it's unsafe, and causes 2k or 3k deaths per year, about 1/10th as much as car accidents.
Liberia builds these boxes, sells them to neighbors who eventually don't want to be beholden to Liberia for their LENR boxes and they build their own. Seawater gets cheaply converted into freshwater for drinking, bathing, and agriculture, and the seaside becomes a garden. Everyone wants in on the LENR box game. And naturally, here in America, LENR boxes would be regulated out of existence for maybe a decade until the 2nd highest illegal import is LENR boxes.
Everyone sues everyone else for the rights to build LENR boxes, and the ghost-gunner approach to building LENR boxes spreads across the globe. Only the biggest multiMWatt electricity plants are the ones that HAVE to be regulated, because they are not mobile.
I just don't see that Patent Officers are going to be able to enforce Patents on 3rd world Ghost-LENR builders any better than they've been able to crack down on Nigerian scammers. It's a free-for-all at the lower KWatt scale.
-
Quote
I could give a half dozen other examples of individuals who made big leaps only to achieve nothing.
Captain Obvious says: If you achieve nothing, it's not a leap. It's not even a stumble.
Shane D. The usual collection of lame excuses and taking claims as facts. The reality is that convincing demonstrations with the help of a famous test lab would solve the issue but nobody seems to be able to make that happen. And the Patent Office can't refuse if you hand them a device which works or credible proof from independent reliable sources.
-
The usual collection of lame excuses and taking claims as facts. The reality is that convincing demonstrations with the help of a famous test lab would solve the issue but nobody seems to be able to make that happen. And the Patent Office can't refuse if you hand them a device which works or credible proof from independent reliable sources.
Seems so simple, but alas, it is not.
-
The reality is that convincing demonstrations with the help of a famous test lab would solve the issue but nobody seems to be able to make that happen.
Believe me, they are running scared of involvement in most cases. £1M might change their minds though. I know you won't believe it, but I have seen it happen twice.
-
Patents are probably going to be worthless
They are indeed. Analysis will soon show what's in the fuel. The best defence of the IP lies in 'process knowledge' which doesn't have to be included in a patent and could- for a little while at least - remain a 'trade secret'. - This means the patent might describe what the fuel contains, but not how it is prepared. Apparatus patents might help, but not for long.
-
And the Patent Office can't refuse if you hand them a device which works or credible proof from independent reliable sources.
You mean like, 7 swedish scientists doing a black box test, one of whom is chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society?
-
They are indeed. Analysis will soon show what's in the fuel. The best defence of the IP lies in 'process knowledge' which doesn't have to be included in a patent and could- for a little while at least - remain a 'trade secret'. - This means the patent might describe what the fuel contains, but not how it is prepared. Apparatus patents might help, but not for long.
I was in a class where one of the participants said his boss, in younger days, visited TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Corp) foundry, to check on how some other design was progressing onto the foundry phase. He walked past a cubicle of some designer and saw his own design right up on the board. It was unmistakeable. When you work on a design there are a dozen ways you can identify it. It was simply proof that TSMC was stealing his design in whole cloth.
He said his boss reported it upwards and the final upshot of it was a multimillion dollar payment from TSMC to the company, no agreement to move forward on the current design nor his own previous design, and a recommendation that they use another foundry.
This was a multi$Billion fabless semiconductor design company, and their secrets were being stolen wholesale. Patent protection is a joke, even for multi$Billion companies.
I sat through a different presentation where a Kodak engineer talked about his camera design in the 1970s that would have blown everyone else out of the water. But the Japanese ministrty would not grant him a patent in Japan because their engineers wanted to go into the same market but they were behind the curve on intellectual property. The company tried all kinds of things and never managed to get patent protection in Japan over this technology advance, eventually choosing a different path altogether. Patent protection is a joke, even for multi$billion companies.
