News about Woodford and Industrial Heat

  • last ones

    Is it news to have explicitly reference to "that produce heat" as justification for the usefulness of the claims? It seems they claim that "producing heat" for some hydride is just a fact, and improving that fact is useful?

  • where can I find a description of you system?


    You can find a very complete descriptions of the reactors we use and how to build them in the attached document. We have actually published a lot of what might be described as process knowledge. However since all the know-how involved in making extraordinary things happen took a combined 40+ years of labour and learning (a good part of it unpaid) and has cost a lot of dollars (ongoing) over the last 2 years to make real I'm afraid that - very unreasonably - we aren't going to tell you exactly what the fuel is. But you would be welcome to visit and see how we test ourselves and our systems.

    Reactor Design and build final.pdf

  • In the real world, unless things are so simple the research is all done, understanding things is done best by writing them up as though you were going to publish. It does take a lot of effort, I agree. But even if you never publish trying to put your arguments into a form that can be evaluated by another unbiassed person is very valuable.

    In my experience, you do not understand it yourself until you put it into a rigorous presentation. Not just for "another unbiased person" -- you yourself need this. Your biased self. You need to stand back and evaluate the work.


    As THH said, since you have to go all that trouble, you might as well publish it. Unless you want to keep it secret. Russ George says he wants to keep this secret.

  • You can find a very complete descriptions of the reactors we use and how to build them in the attached document.

    That tells us nothing about the calorimetry or the results. No one can evaluate your work based on this. If you don't want anyone to evaluate it, that's fine. That is your prerogative. But you should not imply that you have somehow revealed your work with this presentation, or that you have gained any credibility. At this stage, there is no reason why anyone should either believe you or disbelieve you.

  • That tells us nothing about the calorimetry

    yes, I see nothing that says much about how the measurements are done or anything like that. You might want to write it up with just running a few control samples and presenting it as a calorimetry device with details about your procedures and protocols. You don't have to "give away" your "secret formulas" but you might get people to take you a little more seriously if you discuss you calorimetry you are using. sensitivity, repeatability, variation between you devices in your array using the same control sample, etc.


    As it is, I see little to thing you are serious with your measurements.

  • At this stage, there is no reason why anyone should either believe you or disbelieve you.


    Well, as I'm an honest guy operating on my own dollar they should believe me. But if people don't want to they can do so. I'm not seeking validation from anybody here, just sharing some information.


    As it is, I see little to thing you are serious with your measurements.


    And I invited you to visit. That's serious, inconvenient maybe, but serious.

  • Well, as I'm an honest guy operating on my own dollar they should believe me.

    It doesn't work that way. This is science. It is impersonal. The only way to judge a claim is to look at the experiment. You could be Julian Schwinger and Martin Fleischmann rolled together and reincarnated, but I would not believe a word you say until I see the data.


    No one gets a free pass.

  • Meanwhile - back on topic- from the Times today. IH shares up for sale it would appear.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/art…us-of-investors-dlzwhl3xm


    The beleaguered fund manager Neil Woodford has vowed to sell all the unquoted investments in his £4.3bn Woodford Equity Income fund following a Money investigation that revealed the extent of its exposure to start-ups and early-stage biotech firms.

    In March, Money revealed that 36 of the fund’s holdings were in unquoted businesses, including the Russian developer Raven Property and Theravance Biopharma, a biotech firm with just one approved drug.

    Meanwhile, the proportion of the fund invested in FTSE 100 firms had dropped from 53% at its launch in 2014 to just 16%.

    Despite this, Woodford stuck to his guns, insisting his approach would reap longer-term rewards.

    However, in a dramatic U-turn, the fund manager has now promised to reduce the proportion of the fund directly…

    Want to read more?

  • "Peer-review game" is wrong. If true, republic of researchers must know - internet blogging don't fit the job.

    Academia is a variable bouillabaisse - it appears you taste from the wrong side of the dish. From Max Planck to Heitler, to London, to Feynman...

    In the real world, unless things are so simple the research is all done, understanding things is done best by writing them up as though you were going to publish... ...BTW 80% of LENR write-ups do not reach this standard, and therefore do not provide that help.


    Sorry, back off-topic, for one post at least...


    There’s a new paradigm offered by the internet, and it should be taken advantage of. Whilst it’s maybe too soon for such a provactive comparison, I don’t see many papers by Edison in the academic corpus.


    Say what you like about Rossi, but he has a point with “in market veritas” (apologies to any Latin scholars out there).


    Whilst it’s abviously true that academia has achieved some great things, there’s also some truth to the aphorism “Those who can, do... And those that can’t, teach.”

    (And those that can’t teach, teach Phys. Ed.).


    ...In a field that I’m interested in (algorithmic trading) the majority of people don’t publish their ideas. Why should they, it (theoretically) breeds competition and dilutes our edge. I don’t see why this should differ from any other competitive field, and anyway, why bother typing up several pages of text, when your limited time is likely better spent coding a new trading strategy.

    (Ideally the font size would match the previous paragraphs);)



    As for Woodford, it’s only because his unlisted investments are doing so well that he finds himself in this position.

  • Well, as I'm an honest guy operating on my own dollar they should believe me. But if people don't want to they can do so. I'm not seeking validation from anybody here, just sharing some information.



    And I invited you to visit. That's serious, inconvenient maybe, but serious.


    You are in the UK, right?

    Will you be going to ICCF22, perhaps I will track you down there and we can have lunch or something.

  • Quote

    Brillouin's verified XSH claims at least

    Verification means different things to different people. So, verified XSH how?


    Quote

    Well, we have periods where the COP is infinite - heat out and no power in. That's hard to beat.

    That is certainly encouraging but it can't be evaluated as to how impressive it really is without amount of heat vs time and vs the mass of the apparatus. The amount of heating (power and time) before the power is turned off is obviously also of interest.

  • OK Jed. You got it.

    Maybe you don't got it. If you meant that sarcastically then, frankly, you are clueless. No one gets a free pass means no one get credit for homework he does not turn in. I do not have ESP so I cannot possibly know whether your work is wonderful or garbage. I have seen good scientists do lousy work and make big mistakes. I knew that Martin Fleischmann was brilliant and he had a long track record of accomplishments, but I also know he made mistakes. So I would not assume he was right about a claim he had not published yet, or a claim that has not been replicated.


    Furthermore, I know nothing about you at all. I have no idea what you have done in your career. So I cannot even hazard a guess about the quality of your work. I do know something about Russ George. I have not been impressed by his work. He has often been wrong.


    That does not mean I assume you are wrong. Until you two publish, I have no way to know anything, positive or negative, and I never guess about technical subjects. "Gut feelings" and trusting people are the antithesis of science.

  • ...In a field that I’m interested in (algorithmic trading) the majority of people don’t publish their ideas. Why should they, it (theoretically) breeds competition and dilutes our edge. I don’t see why this should differ from any other competitive field, and anyway, why bother typing up several pages of text, when your limited time is likely better spent coding a new trading strategy.

    Coding is the human language of software. Writing a program is like writing a detailed scientific paper laying out all of your procedures and results. It is actually better and more rigorous by far, because the computer tests your idea with an inhuman level of rigor that no editor or peer-reviewer can match. If the program works, that proves you are right.


    This principle applies to other fields as well. In fine arts, you do not win over your audience by talking or publishing a paper. You paint a picture. That's how you communicate. As Edward Hopper said, "if you could say it in words, there would be no reason to paint."

  • That does not mean I assume you are wrong. Until you two publish, I have no way to know anything, positive or negative, and I never guess about technical subjects. "Gut feelings" and trusting people are the antithesis of science.


    What I mean is I am not forcing belief on you at all. Or anybody else.