Given that the prize details will take a long time, we have no choice but to move forward with our current fund-raising plans. In my view, rather than forking out $100m, providing a neutral and credible space for the various LENR companies to demonstrate our equipment to pre-screened bonafide investors would be something that they could work out very quickly. That is a lot more valuable to us than some vague prize that might be available in a few years...
Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec
-
-
After your presentation, with Mizuno's to follow, maybe it won't be so hard to attract investment. And what I said about the X-Prize is only my opinion. Others here may have a different take, so please base your decision on your own independent assessment.
-
My take was that he and Carl Page are very much in the "let's think about this, but not too much yet, kick it around for a year or so, then maybe do it or not, stage".
I believe it is more than a maybe. It is a definite maybe, as they say in Hollywood. They have been talking about it for months, and they have some detailed plans.
Given that the prize details will take a long time, we have no choice but to move forward with our current fund-raising plans.
From what I have heard, it might begin to take shape in a month or so, and they might start handing out money soon. This year. They are talking about $100 million but unlike some earlier prizes it will not all go to one winner. They want to award smaller prizes along the way, to help promising candidates compete.
Then again, as you say, it may take a long time. It may never happen. It is not something you should count on! For sure, you wouldn't want to change your current fund-raising plans. That would be like trying to run down the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Still . . . if you hear the prize has been established, I would urge you to apply for it. Those people move quickly when they have a mind to, and they do have the money.
I was kidding when I said you might feel caught in the horns of a dilemma. I expect you can work out a deal with the X-prize people. I am not kidding that certain other researchers -- who shall not be named -- would feel conflicted. They are so steeped in secrecy they will not allow a replication for $100 million, or even $100 billion. They will take their secrets to the grave. It is sad.
-
You can wait for a lottery, or you can make your own prizes.
Life may be like that.
-
providing a neutral and credible space for the various LENR companies to demonstrate our equipment to pre-screened bonafide investors would be something that they could work out very quickly.
That is an essential part of the prize. A device will have to be independently replicated by a prestigious lab before the prize will be awarded. I am not sure if they have a specific prestigious lab in mind. I will suggest to them that they line up two or three, in case a contestant finds he or she cannot work with Prestigious Lab #1, perhaps because it is run by Prestigious Twits. There is a superabundance of twits in academic science.
-
Well, after this ICCF, and specially your presentation, he may think LENR is going to happen anyway, and go on to something else.
I wouldn't worry about that. These people know how problematic cold fusion is, and how often people have failed to achieve their goals, despite their best efforts.
-
Well, after this ICCF, and specially your presentation, he may think LENR is going to happen anyway, and go on to something else.
That seems dangerous. I seem to recall Mallove saying it was imminent in the 90s.
-
Then again, as you say, it may take a long time. It may never happen. It is not something you should count on! For sure, you wouldn't want to change your current fund-raising plans. That would be like trying to run down the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Still . . . if you hear the prize has been established, I would urge you to apply for it. Those people move quickly when they have a mind to, and they do have the money.
Thankfully, it’s not either / or. It would be an odd shareholder who objected to a non dilutive injection of perhaps tens of millions of dollars.
-
Bruce_H, the problem is that Mizuno has developed entirely new technology since that publication due to the shortage of cash we couldn't purchase expensive Pd and Pt so Mizuno was forced to find a way to produce the reaction without using precious metals. He succeeded.
I had in mind advice relating to the information you published in your abstract. There you say .. "The physical distance between the resistance wire heating elements wrapped around the device significantly affects the variability in previous excess heat measurements. In addition, airflow calorimeters cannot support high & even temperatures which lead to difficulties in replications". Based on this, do you have specific advice for groups replicating the system described in the papers by Mizuno and Rothwell?
-
I had in mind advice relating to the information you published in your abstract. There you say .. "The physical distance between the resistance wire heating elements wrapped around the device significantly affects the variability in previous excess heat measurements. In addition, airflow calorimeters cannot support high & even temperatures which lead to difficulties in replications". Based on this, do you have specific advice for groups replicating the system described in the papers by Mizuno and Rothwell?
I would suggest switching to an incubator type calorimeter. The volume and surface area should be as small as possible. There should be a small thermal mass and high insulation. A mixing fan will reduce temperature differences within the calorimeter. Serious researchers attempting replication are welcome to contact me for assistance. If they build a good quality calorimeter and still having problems also contact me as we may offer a tested and confirmed working unit as a positive control.
-
Shall I create a new thread to speculate on Mizuno Reactors WITHOUT precious metals? An important development. I dare say.
-
nickec You are welcome to make a thread and I agree that it is a massively important advancement in terms of future economic practicality but we will not be publishing a paper on this in the foreseeable future. We are shifting strategies to offering working reactors to be validated in the labs of credible serious researchers.
-
I would suggest switching to an incubator type calorimeter. The volume and surface area should be as small as possible. There should be a small thermal mass and high insulation. A mixing fan will reduce temperature differences within the calorimeter. Serious researchers attempting replication are welcome to contact me for assistance. If they build a good quality calorimeter and still having problems also contact me as we may offer a tested and confirmed working unit as a positive control.
Sounds good!
I think that confirmation of working reactors by independent groups is a good initiative. Would you be seeking control over the release of their findings ... or would they be able to release whatever results they come up with?
-
The only answer I can give is “it depends”. Motives can go both ways. In general people should be free to disclose real results. Any false negatives can be countered with multiple credible validations.
-
... In general people should be free to disclose real results. Any false negatives can be countered with multiple credible validations.
Equally, any false positives can be countered in the validation process. Admirable!
I suggest that as the sole supplier of test reactors for validation, you are in a position to set things up in a particularly persuasive way. This would include 1) registering all validation attempts, meaning that groups accepting a reactor would agree to make public all results positive or negative, 2) a public specification, before trials are carried out, of minimal crucial conditions for success (i.e., the things you mentioned recently like incubator-style calorimeter etc) which validators would agree to attempt to achieve, 3) what to measure.
In addition, I think that LENR-Forum could play an important role in all this by first advertising for potential validators (just look back on this thread and one sees multiple competent labs who might sign on), and then by sorting out, before the results come in, what success or failure might look like. The intention would be to attempt create community agreement regarding the quality of the validation program so that sceptics and supporters alike would be forced to acknowledge the reality of the results however they turn out.
-
I would suggest switching to an incubator type calorimeter.
Do you mean a Seebeck calorimeter?
-
Incubator type like I showed at ICCF24 and prof. Muto used. We are designing and building one now and this part I think we can open source and place all the details on line. The reactor will be a black box but I don’t think this would be a problem.
-
Do you have a link to it? The "online" event was to boring to wait for 1-2 interesting sessions.
I will upload a pdf here.
-
Equally, any false positives can be countered in the validation process. Admirable!
I suggest that as the sole supplier of test reactors for validation, you are in a position to set things up in a particularly persuasive way. This would include 1) registering all validation attempts, meaning that groups accepting a reactor would agree to make public all results positive or negative, 2) a public specification, before trials are carried out, of minimal crucial conditions for success (i.e., the things you mentioned recently like incubator-style calorimeter etc) which validators would agree to attempt to achieve, 3) what to measure.
In addition, I think that LENR-Forum could play an important role in all this by first advertising for potential validators (just look back on this thread and one sees multiple competent labs who might sign on), and then by sorting out, before the results come in, what success or failure might look like. The intention would be to attempt create community agreement regarding the quality of the validation program so that sceptics and supporters alike would be forced to acknowledge the reality of the results however they turn out.
Yes generally we are thinking along these lines. We aren’t really afraid of false negatives these days like we were before when some not to be named tricky players manipulated results for nefarious reasons. There’s also stuff like just plain bad luck that Brillouin had and French customs with Jean Paul Biberian’s attempt. (BTW is he doing ok now?)
We are getting a bit better at building these things and design is evolving so hopefully we will have a reasonable number of units to send to select labs and as Bruce said just open source the whole thing.
I’m starting to like this idea so hope we can discuss more.
-
I think your route forward is a promising one., good luck with it. If you are interested I can sggest a couple of potential labs who might be able to help - contact me privately about that. I would ioffer but my schedule is too full for me to di it jstice.
J-P Biberian is fine btw- he eventually tested negative and attended the last 2 days of the conference.
