I don't knowhere either.
The amazing thing is that the technologies being developed by Rossi, BLP, and SAFIRE are so darned simple that any small company in the world could start work on producing their own version of the technology.
I'm not so sure about that. BLP have spent $20M+ and several decades to get somewhere we aren't sure about. Rossi must have spent $2M by now on something of a mystery. Safire have spent (AFAIK) something like $10M and around 5 years scaling up. It might not be as easy as you think. ETA- even Norront with their big team, must be spending $2M a year (at least). Sweden is a high-wage high-cost environment.
I think that machine graphic was created by somebody else, based on his description, not by MH himself, and by the time it was posted he had already (pretty much) vanished vfrom the old Yahoo AG gtoup. Nice to see it again though.
Searle's idea was (as most are) a child of it time, based on the hypotheses for geomagnetism produced by famous physicist Professor Blackett. In 1947, Blackett proposed that planetary dipole fields are an intrinsic property of rotating bodies and subsequently designed experiments that refuted the claim (Blackett, 1952).
There was much speculation at the time (2002 ish) about this. The key facts as I remember them were:-
MH had constructed a rotating magnetic/electromagnetic device which was (from his description) consisted or interlocking orbital 'shells'. Nobody but him ever saw it- certainly no-one but him ever operated it. This produced strong anti-gravity effects and other things. It reminded me very much of the 'spindizzy' space drive described by James Blish in 'Cities in flight' and other novels. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindizzy
MH eventually said that he was off to work on his project in a new secret government laboratory. And no more AFAIK was ever heard of him. For another similar tale and some background, look at this blog post about AG claims from Japan. https://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw41.html
gdaigle - thanks for posting, and also for reminding me about the ineffable Marcus Hollingshead. He was sadly another of those people (we have had similar here) who made remarkable claims and vanished like a puff of smoke. As for this forum being too narrow in its handling of overunity topics, the clue as to why is in the forum name. Of course there are connections between magnetic fields and LENR reactions, undeniably true, I have seen this happen myself, but this similarity alone provides IMHO a very tenuous connection with AG research, which is fascinating but a very different field. LENR is a broad church, embracing many phenomena and many methods of provoking and detecting them, but if wee make it too broad we risk appearing credulous - or should I say more credulous than is desirable.
Don't lets get too excited about this. The SEG is an interesting and unusual device. But unlike cold fusion phenomena, studied and replicated hundreds of times in thousands of experiments no magneto-mechanical device has ever been shown to be 'more than a mere machine'.
So keep it polite please. ETA- this is 'off topic' for LENR Forum - I hardly need remind you.
I met John Searle in Nottingham UK in the early 70's. Mad as a tree was my impression-. He was still working for the East Midlands Electricity Board at the time.
A search for IceCube events in the direction of ANITA neutrino candidates
It seems this is still a bit of a mystery, in another piece about this, the mysterious particles are said to have the same energy as a tennis ball served fast.
Submitted on 6 Jan 2020)
During the first three flights of the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) experiment, the collaboration detected several neutrino candidates. Two of these candidate events were consistent with an ultra-high-energy up-going air shower and compatible with a tau neutrino interpretation. A third neutrino candidate event was detected in a search for Askaryan radiation in the Antarctic ice, although it is also consistent with the background expectation. The inferred emergence angle of the first two events is in tension with IceCube and ANITA limits on isotropic cosmogenic neutrino fluxes. Here, we test the hypothesis that these events are astrophysical in origin, possibly caused by a point source in the reconstructed direction. Given that any ultra-high-energy tau neutrino flux traversing the Earth should be accompanied by a secondary flux in the TeV-PeV range, we search for these secondary counterparts in seven years of IceCube data using three complementary approaches. In the absence of any significant detection, we set upper limits on the neutrino flux from potential point sources. We compare these limits to ANITA's sensitivity in the same direction and show that an astrophysical explanation of these anomalous events under standard model assumptions is severely constrained regardless of source spectrum or time profile.
The Scientific Paper Is Obsolete (Note- this article presents a very particular point of view, and is mainly concerned with mathematical papers. I don't totally agree with any of it Alan)
The scientific paper—the actual form of it—was one of the enabling inventions of modernity. Before it was developed in the 1600s, results were communicated privately in letters, ephemerally in lectures, or all at once in books. There was no public forum for incremental advances. By making room for reports of single experiments or minor technical advances, journals made the chaos of science accretive. Scientists from that point forward became like the social insects: They made their progress steadily, as a buzzing mass.
I don't see any reasons for it, until Mizuno's reactor works and it can be manufactured as easily as announced.
Today (as part of the day job) I enquired how much it would cost to get a single new chemical EU approved as part of a wood preservation compound. The chemical in question is disodium borate (borax). The asnwer? Between 2.5 and 5 million Euros. Science is not cheap.
From Rob Woudenberg 's link above...
Additionally, there’s also low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which we’re working on here. We’ve got 22 years and hundreds of experiments now on low-energy nuclear reactions which indicate that this is real. Plus, we now have a theory that indicates that it’s condensed-matter nuclear physics.
So LENR appears to be collective effects, not particle physics. It seems that you can get around Coloumb barrier by forming ultra weak neutrons using heavy electrons. This not only enables you to form the neutrons, but also convert the gamma radiation from beta-decay into thermal energy so that you don’t need as much radiation protection. LENR is expected to be anywhere from 20,000 to 3 million times chemical efficiency, and if we can get that in place it will truly revolutionize space. The VASIMR is a high-thrust magnetohydrodynamic engine for spaceflight.QuoteI didn’t realize the LENR was being investigated that heavily by NASA.
Well, it’s not heavily, I mean we have a $200,000 to $300,000 a year effort. We’re also cooperating with people on this, but I can’t divulge details under cooperative agreements.
LENR purportedly also produces transmutations, which is quite interesting. For in-situ resource utilization, if LENR works, perhaps we can take elements on the planet and possibly transmute them into something we need.QuoteWhat about something like the IEC Polywell reactor that Dr Robert Bussard was working on for the Navy? Is that worth pursuing?
Yeah, I’m very familiar with the Bussard stuff. That’s aneutronic fusion, using pB¹¹ or D-³He, and it may be possible. It’s yet another of five or six very advanced energetics technologies that we need to study more heavily than we are now.QuoteI just read about the 100 Year Starship program, so hearing you discuss MHD, LENR, anti-matter and other advanced propulsion makes me wonder if NASA isn’t going back to the drawing board in some ways.
Well, if you look at space access, it’s essentially done today the way it was done in the ’50s. These are basically ICBMs — modernized versions of German V2 rockets. It’s chemical propulsion, and we’re out at the ragged edge of the performance of chemical rockets. We need something a lot better than that if we’re going to make spaceflight safe and affordable.
What we’ve realized at NASA is that if you’re going to do safe and affordable manned space exploration, then you’re going to need another whole level, another whole generation of the technology.
Back in the Bush-era space program when 100 YSS was launched, this vision was put in place with essentially conventional technology. Over the years and in many, many projects, NASA has warned that if you want revolutionary goals like humans in deep space you need revolutionary technologies. These aren’t cheap to develop, and we had to divert resources into developing them, which we’re doing.
Alan Smith, is this the Hokkaido development based on Mizuno’s work prior to his R20 results, or is this based in their recent replication?
I'm not sure- I found the link while checking out Ahlfors excellent find - the rest is down to Google translate - which is getting much better at Japanese.
By simply heating the chamber, the deuterium is converted to helium by the quantum nanosize effect, releasing heat (energy). The device on the left generates 200W of heat for a heating input of 100W.
(Higher output devices are under development)
・ Housing heating
・ Business offices, work sites, greenhouses
Power supply and warming
・ Local power generation in remote areas and remote islands
・ Large power generation as base load power supply
・ Other energy applications
③Output is more than twice the input
We support Hydrogen Technology Application Development Co., Ltd., which was founded based on the results of research at Hokkaido University.
There is no more efficient energy source than a fusion reactor, which uses the heat generated when deuterium is fused and converted to helium. A glass of seawater can produce the same energy as one barrel (about 160 liters) of oil. In addition, it is carbon dioxide free and does not emit uranium-derived radioactive materials. However, the reaction required ultra-high temperatures and high pressures, making practical use in this century difficult.
Some 23 posts about peer - review and associated topics have been moved from here to the 'Burden of Proof' thread. This was done at the request of a member and for the comfort and safety of all.
I would remind everybody to stick to the purpose of this thread and not to wonder/wander too far off topic. While many (but not all) of the points raised here are good ones,, they would be better put into the thread called 'The Burden of Proof'
We do not routinely monitor the identities of posters, I'm pretty sure we have at least 2 more moderately active members with 2 screen names., it is of little consequence if they stick to forum guidelines, perhaps they like talking to themselves. But there is a problem with people claiming good experimental results, who based on their previous behaviour are - very probably- actively misleading other members as to their results and even about the level of experiments they are carrying out. Unaware members spending good money in the pursuit of realising someone else's fantasies is not something we wish to encourage. And it may be that there are ulterior motives behind some of this, in at least one relevant case there certainly was.
We have not banned me356. He is free to post.