I have yet to see a major achivement blog-published [or ICCF-published].
News about Woodford and Industrial Heat
-
-
What I mean is I am not forcing belief on you at all. Or anybody else.
After all I'm not the Messiah either
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
Say what you like about Rossi, but he has a point with “in market veritas” (apologies to any Latin scholars out there).
...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 think you can compare algorithmic trading with science. The reason science is normally (not exclusively) open is that it is difficult, and when breaking new ground validation from independent others is the only way to get things right.
Now, were LENR something that actually worked, it would still need to be proved safe and that means science. No-one is going to believe a lone inventor who claims new physics with nuclear level energy density is safe.
Given that it does not yet work (in any sense that could be useful and so sold for real) it needs science just to find something working. No-one is required to do that open, but long experience shows that without sharing ideas, and critiques, it is easy for single groups to go down rabbit holes never to emerge.
-
Given that it does not yet work (in any sense that could be useful and so sold for real) it needs science just to find something working.
What do you mean? Working systems have been shown to 'science' many times over decades. Generally they pretend they never saw it.
-
What I mean is I am not forcing belief on you at all. Or anybody else.
Of course not. But you seem a little upset that I and others do not believe you. You seem to want credit for an assignment you have not turned in. Russ George was terribly upset because we don't believe him. I have known him for a long time, and I know that's how he is. He craves respect, and he wants everyone to believe what he claims without a description or data. Or with meaningless data. He uploaded a graph here with no numbers on one axis and no indication of what it represented, and he expected the readers to read something into it and take it seriously.
That's Russ. You, I don't know, so perhaps I am misreading your reaction.
- Jed
-
But you seem a little upset that I and others do not believe you.
I expect I'll get over it. However, there is neutral non-belief, which, for example) about sums up my relationship with religion (fine if you like it but I really can't get enthused) and what might be called antagonistic non-belief (which sums up my old Ma's attitude towards all religion). Under the circumstances I see little need for the latter, since attendance at prayers is not a requirement.
-
From what I can understand it looks like its time for you and Russ to obtain IP protection for your novel fuel mix (if possible given all the previously patented stuff) that would then allow you to talk more freely about the advances made in your work? I'm still putting my money on a Ti Fe Ni mix for a deuterium-fuelled base reactor but its just inspired guesswork. Be nice to know if there's a better transition metal fuel mix.
-
From what I can understand it looks like its time for you and Russ to obtain IP protection for your novel fuel mix (if possible given all the previously patented stuff) that would then allow you to talk more freely about the advances made in your work?
We could do that , but we could not (at the moment) afford to defend it from the patent trolls who are making their presence felt in this field. And since they haven't yet stumbled on the fuel mix we use, we have no wish to give them ideas. We'll work it out somehow. I should make it clear btw that the intellectual input that created this particular fuel came from Russ in the first instance, though quite a few of them were already in the lab and on my own list of candidates. My contribution (and colleague Martin's) is designing and developing the reactor, testing, measurement, calibration and data-logging systems that create the right environment for studying the phenomenon.
-
I expect I'll get over it. However, there is neutral non-belief,
Neutral non-belief is my attitude toward your claims. I don't care about your claims, frankly. I doubt anything will come of them because I have heard countless claims over the years that came to nothing. I hope that does not bother you. I hope I am wrong.
I am neutral toward your claims, but I am irritated by Russ George's attitude that I should respect your claims without evidence. He of all people should know that I never do that. As I said, I sense that you may also want me to respect your claims. Maybe I am wrong about that. Maybe I misread you. Perhaps you realize that's not how science works.
Okay, I guess I lean slightly negative rather than 0.0 neutral. When I know nothing about a claim and it seems to be quite different from any other, my default assumption is that it is probably a mistake. That is also the default assumption made by pseudo-skeptics such as Robert Park. There are two important differences between Park and me:
1. He assumes that any new claim is fraud and lunacy. I suppose it may well be a mistake, but I can't tell. It is just a guess.
2. When the researcher shows proof that the claim is true after all, and is then replicated, I change my mind and agree it is real, whereas Park goes on attacking it as fraud and lunacy.
-
We'ii just have to wait and see then - be nice to steal a lead on the multi-million dollar-funded competition though!
-
https://woodfordfunds.com/words/blog/weif-portfolio-update/
"As we said on 1 March, our long-term intention is to not have any exposure to unquoted holdings in WEIF. Instead, the fund’s exposure to the unquoted asset class will come through listed investment vehicles, such as WPCT. This process is already underway and the fund’s exposure to unquoted securities (including those listed on less well-known exchanges where there is little or no trading activity) will decline over the remainder of this year to below 10%.
In some respects, this will naturally decline because many of the largest, less liquid holdings in WEIF are in businesses that we have been nurturing for many years (for example, I first invested in Oxford Nanopore almost a decade ago), and some of these businesses are maturing into companies that are ready for a full stock market listing. Some others are approaching inflection points where new investors are coming onto the register (for example, large overseas institutional investors) and these afford liquidity opportunities that we will be able to take advantage of where appropriate. It is also the case that some of the smaller early-stage companies in the fund have developed so quickly that they will, over the next few months, be launching full IPO processes (typically on Nasdaq)."
-
Huxley:
“I don't think you can compare algorithmic trading with science. The reason science is normally (not exclusively) open is that it is difficult, and when breaking new ground validation from independent others is the only way to get things right.“
Why bring “science” into this? It’s for chin-strokers who see some benefit to being first in a list of authors (Some might say). It’s different from the art of “making things”. No one accused the Wright brothers, or many other innovators, of being scientists, so why try and frame other endeavours that way?
Given enough trades, its fairly easy to quantify whether a trading algorithm works, and whether newer code iterations have improved its performance.
It’s also fairly easy to measure the temperature of a tube.
Self-proclaimed Scientists (the criteria for professional accredition are very loose - there are no academic requirements, for instance), will no doubt spend a disproportionate number of their presumably frequent coffee breaks* coming up with endless tenuous reasons as to why it’s difficult to measure a variation in temperature: Shanahan’s magic broken-then-unbroken thermocouple springs to mind here.
This degree of navel gazing is likely the reason why a large proportion of world-changing inventions come out of some person’s shed/workshop/kitchen. (With
computers,plastics, nuclearbombs, and bioscience being honourable exceptions).* As measured by post count?
-
Display More
Huxley:
“I don't think you can compare algorithmic trading with science. The reason science is normally (not exclusively) open is that it is difficult, and when breaking new ground validation from independent others is the only way to get things right.“
Why bring “science” into this? It’s for chin-strokers who see some benefit to being first in a list of authors (Some might say). It’s different from the art of “making things”. No one accused the Wright brothers, or many other innovators, of being scientists, so why try and frame other endeavours that way?
It’s also fairly easy to measure the temperature of a tube.
Even measuring the temperature of a tube has been got wrong in the LENR field (Lugano) and not picked up until somone from outside LENR queried it!
And it is not unknown for unprotected TCs to be used in reducing atmospheres leading to a baseline shift that would be indistinguishable from a continuous LENR reaction.
The list of potential artifacts is long, and the protection from them - a reproducible independent test that can be instrumebted multiple ways to eliminate artifacts - does not to my knowledge exist. Alan - you think the Ni-H ceramic tube people have this? If so where is the evidence?
But this is a good comparison: as you say, some things are easy to measure, other things less easy.
Results using calorimetry from repeatable lab rat experiments can easily be checked and believed by all. Results from calorimetry that seem good but cannot be repeated?
The historic series of measurements - the best - are singularly unconvincing as the fingerprint of a high energy density reaction. and are no way commercial.
That is not comparable with performance of algorithmic trading which anyone can test.
-
And it is not unknown for unprotected TCs to be used in reducing atmospheres leading to a baseline shift that would be indistinguishable from a continuous LENR reaction.
Why do you go on repeating this fact (hydrogen embrittlement) as if it was causing TC's to read high, it is a canard you are too fond of feeding. Hydrogen embrittlement and chemical attack by almost other means has in my experience -and in the literature- NEVER led to a TC reading high. If it was to do so, we would be on our way to creating a whole new kind of thermo-electric generator. Unless subject to leakage currents from faulty electronics that are misinterpreted as genuine output (and that source of error is easy to spot) TC's never ever fail high. Here's what one of the major TC manufacturers has to say on the topic.
"Attempts have been made to protect the thermocouple wires by using other, seemingly “simple” methods. None has been successful in Claus reactors or incinerators. One of these “simple” designs was originally developed for measuring gas temperatures in military gas turbines. Basically it uses an “absorber” to shield the thermocouple from hydrogen. The “absorber” has limited capacity and is quickly overcome by the copious amounts of hydrogen to be absorbed in a Claus thermal reactor application. A downwards calibration drift then begins, accuracy is poor, and complete failure occurs soon thereafter."
-
....Some others are approaching inflection points where new investors are coming onto the register (for example, large overseas institutional investors) and these afford liquidity opportunities that we will be able to take advantage of where appropriate. It is also the case that some of the smaller early-stage companies in the fund have developed so quickly that they will, over the next few months, be launching full IPO processes (typically on Nasdaq)."
So what (if anything) does this post from Neil Woodford's blod suggest to you?
-
Even measuring the temperature of a tube has been got wrong in the LENR field (Lugano) and not picked up until somone from outside LENR queried it!
That’s hardly a good example, as for *some reason* a pointlessly convoluted method of measurement was chosen, and then not calibrated properly. Most normal people would have used a thermocouple. In fact a thermocouple was used for control loop feedback in the Lugano Ecat.
So what (if anything) does this post from Neil Woodford's blod suggest to you?
Are you suggesting that Dewey has gone quiet to avoid 'doing a Musk' in the face of an Industrial Heat IPO? (Or why he's 'very busy', as he put it).
Is this the "managed news event" hinted at previously?
Might explain all the patent leaks, at least.
If it is, I have grave concerns for Hody... Somebody had better break it very gently to him, as if his reaction to the Brillouin video was anything to go by, this news will probably finish him off.
-
Security clearance problem for IH applications 62/560767 and 62/568090.
-
So what (if anything) does this post from Neil Woodford's blod suggest to you?
It is not being too speculative to think he may be referring to IH when he says this:
"It is also the case that some of the smaller early-stage companies in the fund have developed so quickly that they will, over the next few months, be launching full IPO processes (typically on Nasdaq)."
Hard to know for sure based on that though. But throw in Dewey being so giddy lately, and those rumblings floating around in LENR circles...could be.
-
...
-
Regarding those new IH documents Ahlfors provided; looks like they are establishing the investors pecking order for future profits/losses. From what I read, that is normal after a Venture company makes an investment. As you may recall, the "Laurene Powers Jobs Trust" (Steve Jobs widow) invested in IH last fall.
