An article on Arpa-E funding of LENR:
DOE Announces $10 Million in Funding to Projects Studying LENR
ARPA-E selects 8 projects to apply scientific and rigorous approach focused on specific type of nuclear energy
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
QuoteWhatever you choose, do it with passion and integrity. Do it from a focus on contribution. Do it with curiosity. And if you can, bring some lightness to it. And, for heaven’s sake, take vacations and try to get enough sleep.
This.
An article in NextBigFuture on Arpa-E/DoE funding LENR (to sort the controversy out)
An essay from a researcher affiliated with an MIT team that was awarded some of the ARPA funding. Gives his view of CF history. In his opinion, excess heat is not the most compelling evidence for CF. Instead, he says focus on observations that indicate nuclear reactions and pins his hopes on an "irrefutable reference experiment".
Above article is written by JonahMessinger who is a forum member. Others in the field have suggested he is too kind to Steve Jones.
An essay from a researcher affiliated with an MIT team that was awarded some of the ARPA funding. Gives his view of CF history. In his opinion, excess heat is not the most compelling evidence for CF. Instead, he says focus on observations that indicate nuclear reactions and pins his hopes on an "irrefutable reference experiment".
There has already been an irrefutable reference experiment. It just isn't well known.
The accepted accuracy for this measurement is 2 ppm by volume. So, what is really the problem?
Is it that the explanation doesn't fit the economic motives of the scientific community. Is that is can't be real if not blessed by peer publication review? Give me a valid reason that would be acceptable to a true scientist. We only find what we are willing to seek.
An essay from a researcher affiliated with an MIT team that was awarded some of the ARPA funding. Gives his view of CF history. In his opinion, excess heat is not the most compelling evidence for CF. Instead, he says focus on observations that indicate nuclear reactions and pins his hopes on an "irrefutable reference experiment".
Nice article by Jonah Messinger. Since he is one of the 8 "ARPA-E awardees", it is comforting to know that, contrary to a few opinions here, at least one of the teams is well versed in the history, and science. Like some of the other new entrants to the field, he was motivated, and inspired by the Team Google (Project Charleston) Nature paper.
Amazing IMO, that a "failed" effort has had such a positive impact on encouraging new blood to take another look at LENR. That, actually, was one of the stated goals of TG, and looks as if they succeeded. They lowered the barriers just enough, so that it is no longer career suicide to pursue.
So, to the those with the talent still sitting on the sidelines...time to follow Google/ARPA-E's lead, and jump on the band wagon. A Nobel is there waiting for those who help unravel the mystery.
Thanks for finding fractious .
To me the Google involvement remains very strange because i think they found and communicated they didn't found however.. A topic that could generate a lot of different reading.
Display MoreNice article by Jonah Messinger. Since he is one of the 8 "ARPA-E awardees", it is comforting to know that, contrary to a few opinions here, at least one of the teams is well versed in the history, and science. Like some of the other new entrants to the field, he was motivated, and inspired by the Team Google (Project Charleston) Nature paper.
Amazing IMO, that a "failed" effort has had such a positive impact on encouraging new blood to take another look at LENR. That, actually, was one of the stated goals of TG, and looks as if they succeeded. They lowered the barriers just enough, so that it is no longer career suicide to pursue.
So, to the those with the talent still sitting on the sidelines...time to follow Google/ARPA-E's lead, and jump on the band wagon. A Nobel is there waiting for those who help unravel the mystery.
Thanks for finding fractious .
To me the Google involvement remains very strange because i think they found and communicated they didn't found however.. A topic that could generate a lot of different reading.
Because of the language barrier, English speakers reading Google's Nature paper, may see Google's involvement a little less "strange" than say...a Frenchman reading it. While it is true that they clearly stated they found nothing, they also communicated in such a positive way about their "failure", many like myself felt they found something. Nothing earth shattering obviously, but at least enough of interest for them to speak so highly of their effort. Going so far as to strongly push for new blood to enter the field, and appealing to mainstream to drop their opposition so that those who opted to, would not have the dreaded "reputation trap" to consider.
I almost got the impression Google felt they had to be so negatively blunt about their results, for fear Nature would not publish if they said anything positive. That IMO, was borne out later by Schenkel's (heading up the LLBL research) follow up work, and his appearance at ICCF24 in Silcon Valley. And many of the researchers, and staff, on the other teams have continued on with their LENR work. Now that would be strange...if they truly felt their Google effort was a total failure.
Because of the language barrier, English speakers reading Google's Nature paper, may see Google's involvement a little less "strange" than say...a Frenchman reading it.
“Reading between the lines” can be practiced by non native English speakers, too. Also of note was that Nature felt the need to compensate by their scathing editorial on the same issue, just to be sure cold fusion remained cold.
Nice article by Jonah Messinger
Jonah is at the Cavendish experiencing the English weather.. for a while.
"LENR or cold fusion is, unfortunately, likely to remain a verboten topic
Its still verboten at the Cavendish judging by the recent response from a compatriot
there who put up with the weather for 50 years
After ARPA-E (research) DOE has announced more funding for "Scale-Up"
Between the 2019 and 2021 cohort, ARPA-E has awarded 17 projects with more than $167M in federal funds. The portfolio below illustrates the breadth of sectors SCALEUP is currently supporting. SCALEUP teams are developing technologies that span a range of industries from energy storage to aviation, power electronics, grid integration, and more. Additionally, through the SCALEUP’s U.S. manufacturing requirements, ARPA-E is preventing valuable IP funded by U.S. tax dollars from falling vulnerable to adoption by foreign competitors, ultimately supporting a strong domestic supply chain.
The Seeding Critical Advances for Leading Energy technologies with Untapped Potential (SCALEUP) program builds on ARPA-E’s primary research and development focus to support the scaling of high-risk and potentially disruptive new technologies across the full spectrum of energy applications.
The goal of the program is to help ARPA-E-funded technologies, past and present, transition from proof-of-concept prototypes to commercially scalable and deployable.
[ Tip-off from a Rossi sockpuppet ]
Display MoreAfter ARPA-E (research) DOE has announced more funding for "Scale-Up"
US DOE $100 Million More to Scale New Clean Energy Technology
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/…chnology.html#more-183670Between the 2019 and 2021 cohort, ARPA-E has awarded 17 projects with more than $167M in federal funds. The portfolio below illustrates the breadth of sectors SCALEUP is currently supporting. SCALEUP teams are developing technologies that span a range of industries from energy storage to aviation, power electronics, grid integration, and more. Additionally, through the SCALEUP’s U.S. manufacturing requirements, ARPA-E is preventing valuable IP funded by U.S. tax dollars from falling vulnerable to adoption by foreign competitors, ultimately supporting a strong domestic supply chain.
The Seeding Critical Advances for Leading Energy technologies with Untapped Potential (SCALEUP) program builds on ARPA-E’s primary research and development focus to support the scaling of high-risk and potentially disruptive new technologies across the full spectrum of energy applications.
The goal of the program is to help ARPA-E-funded technologies, past and present, transition from proof-of-concept prototypes to commercially scalable and deployable.
[ Tip-off from a Rossi sockpuppet ]
This would have been great if Brillouin or other LENR start up had been selected in the ARPA-E LENR Funding, because only previously ARPA -E Funded projects can apply, as the article states:
* Projects must focus on scaling-up transformative technologies that ARPA-E has previously funded and which would substantially build upon the innovations achieved under an original award;
* Applicants must own/control IP (patents, subject inventions, software, etc.) arising from ARPA-E awards; and
* Applicants must include commercial partners, such as potential customers, end-users, suppliers, etc.
James Martinez claims that about a major news is to be presented from Arpa-E in the middle of February 2023.
Around 17 minutes into this pod. (Yes, we've heard this before)
James Martinez has been involved in producing the film The belivers
Turns out Martinez predicted it right back in Jan 2022 about the upcoming ARPA-E announcement. His new video interview today on the topic of LENR is his latest. Not terribly deep, but there are more than a handful of interesting tidbits he passes along:
Martinez predicted
Whose labs? James's ? I'd like to look at everything too
TＭ12:39 back to um RFK J
he knows I've emailed him I haven't talked with him in person yet
I'm trying to arrange to do that because once he knows about this and because I'll invite him into the labs and have him take a look at everything himself and then you know his energy policy will be quite different ．
