ICCF-24 updates and other Anthropocene/ARPA-E news

Solid state fusion, as a term for cold fusion, dates back decades.

Team Google in attendance it seems they have not abandoned the field. Neither has Matt Trevithick in my opinion.

Will future conferences have a Solid State Energy Summit? How was this one decided upon? Is it an ICCF creation or other?

There is already a watered down version of this ICCF with this video participation proposal..

Even if Carl Page remains the organizer, one can wonder about his real and future motivation ( Trevithick leaving).

Finally, I don't expect to see again Russians because difficulties they will have in obtaining their customs papers in the future.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Solid state fusion, as a term for cold fusion, dates back decades.

Team Google in attendance it seems they have not abandoned the field. Neither has Matt Trevithick in my opinion.

Will future conferences have a Solid State Energy Summit? How was this one decided upon? Is it an ICCF creation or other?

Whatever is going on with the former TG, IMO having this ICCF in Silicon Valley is a milestone, and a very promising development. Something Page probably had in mind when going through the trouble to make this happen. And something we should keep in mind as the conference approaches.

I did a little search on LENR-CANR and it appears this is the first ICCF in the innovation capital of the world. It will attract some attention from the right people. An added bonus is that SV is also an area rich with investors looking for their next green venture.

Quote from Cydonia

There is already a watered down version of this ICCF with this video participation proposal..

Even if Carl Page remains the organizer, one can wonder about his real and future motivation ( Trevithick leaving).

Finally, I don't expect to see again Russians because difficulties they will have in obtaining their customs papers in the future.

... the main thing is to let the Kazakhs into the states is not prohibited, like ...

Please, while it is understandable to want to talk about it, especially for our Eastern European members, LF is not the place to discuss this.

Some have speculated that Carl is angling for a beneficial position for brillouin. I don’t agree. Anyone who has any experience with the VC business model they don’t back one horse and then try to throw the race. They diversify their risk. For every $100 they invest $70 will be lost $20 will be so so and one will will be a unicorn. The 70% loss is built in to the business model. Carl is doing the right thing for humanity and as a good VC. You don’t understand how billionaires think. There is a lot of green capital that are looking for investing risk capital to buy some lottery tickets with.

Quote from Daniel_G

Some have speculated that Carl is angling for a beneficial position for brillouin. I don’t agree. Anyone who has any experience with the VC business model they don’t back one horse and then try to throw the race. They diversify their risk. For every $100 they invest $70 will be lost $20 will be so so and one will will be a unicorn. The 70% loss is built in to the business model. Carl is doing the right thing for humanity and as a good VC. You don’t understand how billionaires think. There is a lot of green capital that are looking for investing risk capital to buy some lottery tickets with.

The fact that Clean Planet is a co-sponsor clearly shows that this is not a pro-Brillouin event.

Would it make sense to incorporate some kind of primer / crash course - perhaps as an article on the site and / or a presentation - into the conference / website?

Even something like Krivit’s paper on the history of LENR could go a ways to orienting people to the history of the field?

A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research

This paper presents a new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research, a field that has developed from one of the most controversial subjects in science,…

pubs.rsc.org

Or the 60 minutes special with Duncan et al.

If I’m an intellectually open but otherwise uninformed person, how do I get from 0 to 1? Where do I go to figure out whether this is worth my time? If I Google Cold Fusion, I get all sorts of conflicting information. How do I parse it?

Investors seem to go for their gut feelings when gambling on a prospect like in the old Yukon days of gold-mining. Now we have bitcoin, investors can suddenly invest in all sorts of imaginative silicon valley devices, without questioning the science. So my advice is simple if a deal sounds like its too good to be true, err on the side of CAUTION! AND ONLY GAMBLE WITH $$$$ YOU ARE AS AN INDIVIDUAL ARE PREPARED TO LOSE!

Quote from Dr Richard*

Investors seem to go for their gut feelings when gambling on a prospect like in the old Yukon days of gold-mining. Now we have bitcoin, investors can suddenly invest in all sorts of imaginative silicon valley devices, without questioning the science. So my advice is simple if a deal sounds like its too good to be true, err on the side of CAUTION! AND ONLY GAMBLE WITH $$$$ YOU ARE AS AN INDIVIDUAL ARE PREPARED TO LOSE!

Dr. Richard from the viewpoint of someone who is trying to get funds to move this technology forward, I have to beg to differ. This investment will have a high risk but also potentially high returns. It should only be done by professional investors who are prepared to lose all of their investment. There is nothing nefarious in this inherent risk. Nobody should be investing their retirement funds in CF. (Sorry I want to bring back the term cold fusion. I think we have good enough evidence to withstand the scrutiny!)

The potential market is so massive, it dwarfs any other business opportunity in human history. There’s plenty of room for multiple players.

The investors we talk to are risk seeking not risk avoiding. I think that distinction has to be made.

OK - so what do we need the money for? Testing out an endless series of Mizuno-type reactors? Or is all the money being spent on patent lawyers and endless projections that begin with What if? What if Cold Fusion is Real?

Quote from Alan Smith

But I don't think investing in two different cold fusion projects is diversification, looks more like 'double or quits' investing to me.

The good old ‘Texas hedge’.

It seems that I saw them here, can you tell me ...

Quote from Alan Smith

I agree that investors, particularly investors in high-risk/high return technologies want to spread their risk, Carl Page for example is a big supporter of conventional nuclear power plants. But I don't think investing in two different cold fusion projects is diversification, looks more like 'double or quits' investing to me.

They do it all the time. I think we should keep an open mind. A forum has to keep some resemblance of equity or it becomes a circular self satisfaction party.

Quote from Dr Richard*

OK - so what do we need the money for? Testing out an endless series of Mizuno-type reactors? Or is all the money being spent on patent lawyers and endless projections that begin with What if? What if Cold Fusion is Real?

I hope this is a joke. Anyway investors don’t risk their money on something they don’t feel is worth it. Good IP lawyers are $1000/hr and are worth it. Good investors love to invest in barriers to entry. The what-if part goes away when you do real demonstrations and work with credible institutions. Somehow you insinuate that the act of raising money is somehow nefarious. Something as difficult as fusion (hot or cold) needs risk capital to hire people, buy equipment, pay rent and utility bills, accounts and lawyers etc. ITER is the predecessor to DEMO which will actually produce electricity (ITER will not) yet people have no problem spending $30-40b on this. With respect to your beloved COP, we are over 1.5 and ITER will be about 0.67 if all goes according to plan. We are at least three decades from net positive power from hot fusion. Some very green think tanks are saying that nuclear is the only currently available power source that can save the Earth. So it’s no wonder that Carl Page supports nuclear. New Gen nukes are a back up plan for humanity. Even I despise fission technology, still agree with the strategy that we need a solid back up plan.

I hope this clears up the issues you raised

Yes of course I was joking! Seriously your answer satisfies my curiosity. But will curiosity kill the E-cat?

Or is the E-cat just another 'bad experiment' conducted by a 'bad robot'? Re-booting all of Rossi's E-cats at once might produce the incontrovertible evidence we all need to demonstrate (DEMO) that CF is real. But then again it might not! That is the trouble we are all facing, the closer we analyse and conjecture the further away the goal of free energy appears. Sure, small fission reactors on nuclear submarines can supply local towns with electricity, and so therefore small fission-fusion reactors will be able to do the same thing. So there is nothing here to argue about! Raise as much cash as possible for this nuclear future!