News about Woodford and Industrial Heat

    whatever, Jed. You miss the point completely. My opinion is irrelevant. What I had been saying about Rossi since 2011 was point on in virtually every detail and that didn't stop people from giving him millions. My opinion is only relevant to the few people over the years who asked me about LENR and also about a few other tech claims... and just for the record, with respect to LENR proposals, I never told them not to invest, even in Rossi. What I contributed was what to insist upon for testing. So your rant, as it applies to me, is entirely useless.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    whatever, Jed. You miss the point completely.


    Oh, I get your point. Loud and clear. You have said time after time that if this were real, Gates and others would be throwing money at it. You miss two things:


    1. Gates is, in fact, throwing money at it. So is Google. It is conceivable that some of the Google team members have it in for cold fusion and want to squash it, but others I know for a fact want to succeed.


    2. Gates and other people put on their pants one leg at a time. They do not have super-powers. They cannot know things by ESP. When they read something in Nature or Scientific American, they are inclined to believe it. So am I. I accept most information from such sources. They are usually authoritative. Unfortunately, everything about cold fusion published in the mass media, and in Nature in particular, is an outrageous falsehood, as you see in the recent editorials. Nature is a credible source about most things, but not this. It is unfortunate.


    So, there is no way your average mogul with a zillion dollars is going to find out that cold fusion is real. He will consult with high muckety muck physicists who know nothing more about cold fusion than the cop on the corner or a hairdresser knows. Unfortunately, they think they know. So they give Mr. Mogul cock-and-bull misinformation. They are like you: they refuse to read anything or learn anything, and when you ask for proof they give you the same nonsense you spout about how society supposedly works and how science never makes mistakes. Nonsense which tells me you not only refuse to read anything about cold fusion, but you have not read the history of technology, science or business. Fortunately for Mr. Gates, his science adviser is Leonard Wood who knows a terrific amount about cold fusion. Gates has the facts. Other moguls I wouldn't know about.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    My opinion is only relevant to the few people over the years who asked me about LENR and also about a few other tech claims...


    Your opinion about LENR is about as relevant as my opinion of the New York Metropolitan Opera's performance of Le Nozze di Figaro. Since I am pretty much tone deaf, I probably could not tell the difference between that and Yankee Doodle Dandy. I gather it is in Italian, which I do not understand. If anyone asks your opinion, you should be honest with them. Tell them you have read nothing, you don't understand the first thing about the subject, you have no idea what "signal to noise" ratio means, or how calorimeters work, or why the laws of thermodynamics supposedly prove that cold fusion is real. Tell them you don't know what it means when a few grams of metal produce more heat than a gallon of gasoline. Tell them that, even if you do know what all that means. Because you have said here time after time that you don't know, and the technical issues don't matter, and your opinion is not based on them, and your opinion does not matter anyway. You use those reasons to bug out and refuse to answer any critiques of your claims about the experiments -- such as your claim that they have not been demonstrated credibly. You want to have it both ways. You make bold technical assertions, and then as soon as anyone asks for proof -- or evidence -- or even a hint! -- you shift gears and say, oh what I say doesn't count. Ignore little old me.


    You: Were it possible to demonstrate the claims credibly . . .


    Me: You have no basis for saying that.


    You: What I say is irrelevant!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It wouldn't be the first time. Some large, well funded programs were run by people who despised cold fusion, and who apparently did all they could to prevent the experiments from working. The NEDO program for example. It cost over $10 million. I don't recall how much. The researchers complained about it and tried to get out. After years of effort, some of the cells that Mel Miles were running began producing heat.


    Having said all that, let me acknowledge that many of the researchers in the NEDO program were good scientists, and sincere, and they wanted to succeed. They did a very good job in many experiments. Mel Miles had a high opinion of his co-workers there. I don't think they made much progress, but it is a tough business. I would never fault someone for failing to make progress in cold fusion.


    It is possible that some people in the Google project are opposed to cold fusion and want to kill it once and for all. I get a sense that might be the case based on the tone of the Nature paper. But I do not know that. Maybe that was just the Nature editors? I am sure that many of the people in the Google project are sincerely trying to make progress. I have met them. They are smart, capable, and they know much more than I do about every aspect of the science. I do not know what they did, and I am certainly not going to assume it was badly done. It might be excellent work. Maybe they are close to success. I hope so. If they publish some details, I might be able to judge.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (1) LENR is currently fringe science

    This is THHuxleynew opinion only... parroting Nature journalese.

    Show me the poll if you think its more than that,

    The attempt to corral science into the mainstream sheep and the fringe goats is really silly.

    Science is not about popularity.

    If I look at two papers ..

    one by Lu/Hagelstein about accelerated decay of Co57 to Fe57 ( funded by IH)

    the other by Cheng et al about accelerated decay of Nb93m back to Nb93( funded by China) published in Nature.


    they both use similar techniques... the measurement of Kalpha,Kbeta emissions from the inner electrons

    they are both technically intricate

    Which one is the sheep ... which one the goat?

    Of course the Co57/Fe57 paper is in the LENR domain.. but then so is the Nb93m/Nb93 one

    They are both in the science domain. LENR is in the science domain.

    Fringe is perception only... THHuxleynew fringe.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep36144

    Observations on the long-lived Mossbauer effects of 93mNb

    Yao Cheng et al,2016

    https://iscmns.org/2018/11/jcmnsv27/

    Observation of Non-exponential Decay in X-ray and γ Emission Lines from Co-57
    Florian Metzler, Peter Hagelstein and Siyuan Lu ,2018

    https://markets.businessinside…al-heat-2019-6-1028280316


    Brad Pitt, Steve Jobs' widow, and Britain's fallen star investor reportedly backed a startup betting on 'cold fusion' — an idea scientists scoff at


    It's tougher to understand why Neil Woodford, who managed billions on behalf of mostly unsophisticated investors, would put so much financial support behind such an obscure start-up pursuing a wildly far-fetched, even discredited, idea.


    Woodford acknowledged "skepticism that has surrounded the theory and history of this branch of science" in one of his funds' latest annual report. However, "The potential disruptive implications of a new, substantially more efficient source of energy deem the various fields of neglected energy science worthy of further investigation," he added.


    His "further investigation" was hefty: Woodford Patient Capital Trust marked up the estimated value of its stake by more than 350% to $113 million last year, valuing Industrial Heat at $918 million, the Financial Times said

    Quote

    His "further investigation" was hefty: Woodford Patient Capital Trust marked up the estimated value of its stake by more than 350% to $113 million last year, valuing Industrial Heat at $918 million, the Financial Times said

    Some say based on what people were willing to pay. I say based on pure fantasy.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I say based on pure fantasy.

    How do you know? Have you attended meetings with IH and Woodford? Have you met with the IH researchers, or attended the ICCF conferences where they presented? If you have not, then your opinion is pure fantasy.


    I do not know what the IH valuation is based on because I have not attended meetings and I don't know much about such things. It might be fantasy. I don't know, but unlike you, I don't pontificate or pretend to know.

    For example.. many LENR publications are based on years of intricate, painstaking and expensive lab work

    and Nature dismisses that work as fringe groups..


    example Dr Michael Staker, Loyola University, Maryland 2013 -2018

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

    • Official Post
    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Some say based on what people were willing to pay. I say based on pure fantasy.


    So what do you...or Financial Times for that matter, care where, and on what cause these people invest their money? Most are loaded with money, and looking for some worthy cause to put it to good use. Some choose to fund social, or more traditional environmental projects in poor countries, while thankfully some choose to aim higher and support LENR research.


    All of course are worthy causes, and attack the worlds problems from different angles. None however, would have near the global benefit to humanity as LENR...if it becomes a reality. We should be thankful they throw a few crumbs our way, not shame them as you and the FT's are doing. Anyways, when they die, what they have left is going to be divvied up by inefficient government, and spoiled children...otherwise go to waste, so let them waste it the way they want when alive.


    Patient Capital (Neil Woodford) is a little different than IH, in that he invests other peoples money. Even then, his investors knew his strategy involved long term, high risk ventures, and accepted that when they invested. It worked very well for a time, all were happy, and Neil was their hero for making them money. Now things are not working so well, and the sharks are circling. As far as I am concerned, that is life in the fast lane, and I have no sympathy. All I care about is that they not drag LENR into this, and make IH the scapegoat...which it appears this article, and you are trying to do.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I have no way of knowing, but it would not surprise me to learn that one or more of the authors deliberately set this up to be a hatchet job, to kill off cold fusion once and for all.


    If these guys are the so called enemies of the field, then we do not have to worry about their impact. The real problem is that the well organized oil, military.. - mafia is taking over all communication including wikipedia.

    But...

    Nobody can kill LENR as it is the true way nature works. Hot fusion is man made, fictional nonsense based on fringe SM science.

    Hot fusion “man made” doesn’t exist (yet), that’s true. But the current mainstream physics understanding says (or claims) that hot fusion has been out there since the Big Bang. If someone knows better, he should fight for and publish his theory..

    Journalists, politicians, and financial talking heads are all queueing up to attack Woodford like a giant pinata filled with money (well not as much money as was hoped for).

    At some point legislative bodies will probably start to get involved, shutting the stable door, as usual, long after the horse has made a mess in the kitchen.


    As I said earlier, the super star has been made into a pantomime villain.

    Polarisation is how the media works, grey areas are boring lets go straight from one extreme to the other.

    All these people are looking for any information or story to use as a weapon.

    Unfortunately because LENR is so controversial it makes a great angle to attack Woodford as being delusional.


    After the Rossi fiasco IH tried to keep a low profile (apart from Dewey of course ;)), I would guess in part because they are dealing with proprietary research belonging to various parties that they need to keep confidential.

    But also because of the skepticism and even maliciousness (Jed's word) that would be unleashed against IH.

    So this whole Woodford toxic bun fight is risky for IH. I imagine they do not want to be dragged into it.


    [Hmmm my metaphors are a bit weekendy; "toxic bun fight"; I might have to think about editing that.]



    It is unfortunate that you did not read my reply to your previous (similar) comment above. You state that I am fringe here. Well, yes. Just as LENR would be fringe on a mainstream physics site. in your heart I'm sure you know this. Popularity, or acceptance, id no guarantor of truth. But, if you want to seek truth, you should assess it dispassionately, not try to push one side of a debate.


    re your comparison.


    The first (Nature) paper is providing a theoretical explanation of a well attested (multiple groups, replicable experiments) experimental observation made elsewhere. The experimental data is strong (a given rate of decay).


    The second (ICMNS) paper details an experiment made to check a possible LENR-related theory. The expected result was not found. However, they note a small anomaly in the shape of the decay graphs, dependent on the mechanical condition of the specimen, and not predicted before the experiment.


    On May 20, 2017, we started a series of experiments with the goal of observing vibrationally induced excitation transfer of the
    14.4 keV nuclear state from excited Fe-57 to ground state Fe-57 nuclei. A steel plate with a Co-57 substrate on the front surface
    was vibrated by a piezoelectric transducer near 2.21 MHz; and emission in the X-ray region was recorded with an Amptek X-123
    detector on the front side, a scintillator/photomultiplier detector on the back side, and a Geiger counter on the back side. The
    experiments provided a negative result for the originally sought ultrasonically induced excitation transfer effect, but instead showed
    non-exponential time histories for photon counts on all three detectors. Specifically, increased emission of the 14.4 keV gamma,
    Fe Kα and Kβ X-rays was observed at early time. This enhancement was present at the start of the experiments at about 19%
    above expected levels for the 14.4 keV gamma, and about 17% for the Fe K-alpha, with the enhancement decaying away with a
    time constant of about 2.5 days. Emission on the Sn Kα was consistent with the expected exponential decay of Co-57 at the 1%
    level. Non-exponential decay with an enhancement at early time was also seen for the weak Fe Kα escape peak, and in the backside Geiger counter data; and a reduction at early times was seen on the higher energy channels of the scintillator/photomultiplier
    detector counter both looking at the back side. The observed non-exponential decay is connected with the tightening of bolts
    on wooden clamps on the corners of the steel plate, which apply mechanical stress to the sample. Candidate interpretations are
    considered, in which the stress induced in the steel results in scattering and generation of THz phonons by dislocations, and in
    which phonon–nuclear coupling mediated by THz phonons leads to the transfer of nuclear excitation to other nuclei ("excitation
    transfer"), which can cause spatial delocalization of the source and angular anisotropy of the photon emission.

    They are both science. However the first one is a new and plausible theoretical explanation for known otherwise unexplained clear data. The second one is a failure to discover data that would validate a novel theoretical mechanism, together with some slightly (low level) anomalous data that was not previously predicted, and for which a few candidate explanations are given. However the data is weak, the explanations are speculative, and other (also speculative) explanations for this type of small departure from an exact exponential might exist.


    So I don't see the second as LENR: unless you count the primary negative LENR result. And its relatively weak publication is explained by the fact that it is a negative result on a fringe theory.


    The other results in the second paper are very weak and would probably not merit publication without further investigation of the possible anomalous non-exponential decay. If everyone who discovered slight deviations from expected results in experiments thereby thought that LENR existed we would indeed have mainstream acceptance of LENR. Still, this is the type of anomaly that IF REAL can be further investigated and sharpened until it is something that carries higher rate. Or, for example, an LENR theory that explains it could be checked via some independent different experiment that might corroborate the theory.


    THH


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    They are both science.

    The two papers are both science

    and neither is fringe... whatever fringe means,

    One of those nebulous terms that politicians use,I guess ,

    such as the far right or the centre left.


    Lu's2018 work reports an anomaly. with Co57 decay.

    Cheng's work follows upon an anomaly identified over a decade ago with Rhodium 103.

    He moved to Niobium 93 because Nb93m has a long halflife of >16 days

    He has written about six papers since then. I have read four of them

    His phonon wave particle explanation is not generally accepted.

    Lu is at the same stage as Cheng was ..around 2006.

    Perhaps Lu will go on to examine the effect of workhardening on other metastable isotopes

    in a similar vein to Cheng. Cheng has moved on to nanomotors,


    The main question is" What is the alternative channel for decay of these metastable states?

    in Rh103, Nb93, Co57??????

    These metastable states and correlated decay may well operate in LENR,


    The terms fringe and mainstream are useless to answer this question.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.