Randy Davis Patents/Marathon, and New Energy Power Systems

  • and (name removed) built and successfully tested multiple powder based "hot and dry" reactors using a mix of fuel elements. They produced low level gamma, excess heat, and in some cases other anomalies.


    Strictly my opinion; "name removed's" attention has shifted back to focus on Ocean seeding to save the planet. Those "lovely gammas", must not be as attractive as the allure, and potential of the sea:


    https://russgeorge.net/

  • attention has shifted back to focus on Ocean seeding to save the planet

    Russ is a man for all climates?

    There is accumulating evidence that iron deficiency + PH decrease due to CO2 absorption is damaging plankton.


    Acidification reduces iron uptake in plankton. Iron is a iimiting factor for plankton growth

    Plankton growth encourages cloud formation and rain.

    Less cloud cover causes the oceans to warm.


    Our climate-changing carbon footprint may be much deeper via the ocean than directly on the atmosphere..


    In the case of Australia..less plankton..may mean more fires..

    perhaps all those megatonnes of iron Australia exports to China

    may be more productive exported to the Indian ocean..


    They might help atone for its huge coal and LPG exports..

    Meantime research effort here is focussed on carbon sequestration..to justify coal exports..

    Europe has ITER... Australia has carbon sequestration..

    http://www.co2crc.com.au/key-p…-clean-hydrogen-to-japan/

  • Concurrence or coincidence?

    think local ,act local,

    be global ..in places hard to pronounce

    ... temporally spatially and spectrally

    biopharmaceutically and seismically

    environmentally, indigenously ...greenenergetically


    You see Shane.. its possible to have multiple foci..

    for Renaissance men..

  • Nice find Ahlfors. So as not to confuse our non-English speakers; it appears this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread (IH/Woodford).


    Good stuff nonetheless. The way I read it (and Ahlfors), is that a group of retired researchers worked under New Energy Power Systems, a subsidiary of Randy Davis' Marathon Systems, Inc. of Fairfax, Va. They developed an advanced, easily modified LENR reactor, with a sophisticated control system capable of handling up to 200kW's. Their purpose in developing was to bridge the gap between lab/market.


    All they need now is a reliable LENR reaction to fire that baby up, and they can get on to the business of saving the planet! Anyone have one of those available? If so, LENR Cars could use it also.


    The "retired researchers" are seeking funding now for more R/D, with an eye towards commercialization. After Ahlfors s rekindled interest in this, we were contacted by one of the players today, asking for your input/ideas, with the added intent of getting the word out to potential investors.


    Not sure what to think of them myself actually, but open to finding out more. LF is not endorsing NEPS in any way, nor have they asked us to promote them. This is strictly an LENR public service on our part. So if you have a question, do not ask me. Our contact is now a member, and I would assume the rest of their small group of scientists are monitoring also.


    This is new BTW:


    http://www.newenergypowersystems.org/


    "Your participation now at this important time in history is vital for continued success of this work. It is to the point where both a large amount of financial support and the involvement of many scientists, engineers and US industries are required to take the next important steps. This will involve assembly of the components into a system prototype and testing the prototype in a way that is well-engineered and safe for the operators. It will require financial support from local government and utilities who are concerned about the effects of the environment on their local areas. It will require in-kind participation of individuals interested in the technology who have strong scientific and engineering backgrounds, and also by US industries with appropriate supporting technologies that they would like to contribute."


  • Finding it hard to know what to make of them too. More transparency and detail would go a long way though, I would think? Even basic things like biographies of the team, do they have a controllable reaction etc?

  • Finding it hard to know what to make of them too. More transparency and detail would go a long way though, I would think? Even basic things like biographies of the team, do they have a controllable reaction etc?


    They contacted Alan and I, along with 3 other members. We asked exactly that, but did not get an answer. Surprised they have not voluntarily provided the basic information any investor, or government lab would want to know before digging deeper.


    That info would come quickly with a due diligence of course, so hopefully any interested party would not be discouraged by the lack of transparency so far. It may even be attractive to those who like working quietly out of the public spotlight.

  • They contacted Alan and I, along with 3 other members. We asked exactly that, but did not get an answer. Surprised they have not voluntarily provided the basic information any investor, or government lab would want to know before digging deeper.


    That info would come quickly with a due diligence of course, so hopefully any interested party would not be discouraged by the lack of transparency so far. It may even be attractive to those who like working quietly out of the public spotlight.


    Your point about due diligence is a good one. I think that the danger is that some potential investors would move on quickly without engaging formally with the team. Any serious investor is going to be looking at a slate of things at any particular moment, and they're going to be winnowing their opportunity set as quickly as possible using a set of relatively straight forward heuristics. The management of deal flow is not necessarily about forming a sophisticated and complete opinion about each thing that passes over an investors desk.


    For a pre-revenue company seeking funding for further R&D, the calibre of the team is going to be one of the first, and maybe most important, hurdles. Given how controversial the space is, if the team is opaque, I would expect that some people would just walk away. The team may well be willing to open up in due diligence but they still have to convince people to engage with them.


    Three of the most impressive technology investments of the 20th century; by David Marquardt (in Microsoft), Fayez Sarofim (in Teledyne) and Joe Rosenfield (in Intel) were predicated almost completely on the strength of the founders. It was an assessment of the individual. A lot of the art is in assessing the people.


    It's worth noting that the competition for an investment is the universe of other opportunities available to an investor. Private and public. Frankly, it's a vast and compelling universe. Why go down an inscrutable technical rabbit hole with an opaque counterparty when you could just move on to something else that's equally as compelling, far more comprehensible and less likely to result in sunk costs of time and bandwidth?


    There are definitely people who like and seek complex, opaque, early stage venture capital investments. But why limit yourself to them when you could take a page out of somebody like Brillouin's book and build the kind of public face that helps to acquaint, orient and reassure a wider spectrum of potential investors?

  • Thank you for sharing your business vision. The accounting method puzzles me a little though- you seem to be showing a 7% profit each year. How is this figure derived - especially in the early years when you can only sell hope?

  • In addition to costs for personnel and materials, a company will also have to endure general and administrative (G&A) expenses and will need to make a profit. Various factors are allowed in calculating G&A and profit, and these turn out to vary relative to each other (higher G&A rate for lower profit, etc.). Values in the plan shown as #6 on http://www.newenergypowersystems.co are believed to be typical for R&D companies in the US, but will differ from one company to the next.