So we will not publish. We finally will sell a product. The only exception is the same I tell since 2018. We publish all stuff that others would like to patent...
A revealing, informative answer. Thanks!
Bruce__H
Member
- Member since Jul 22nd 2017
- Last Activity:
Posts by Bruce__H
-
-
... Before I visited London I made a large and a short list of so called magnetic lines I expected to see in the highly energetic powders we had.
Some isotopes have the ability to internally downscale a high gamma level excitation to the final phonon level. This has been known since long time...
So most experiments (> 10 different ones) did show the expected behavior and gave us a set of so called magnetic lines.
For the sceptics: I did not know what was inside a fuel. Every time I did see a line or a cascade I did ask whether it was in. The answer always was yes. So we can say that we, to a great extent, understand how LENR works.
You are saying that you have a theory that addresses Storm's point number 5. Moreover you are saying that the theory is predictive and that you have seen the predictions borne out in a sort of blinded procedure whereby you could state from a fuel's a gamma spectrum what was in it even before being told.
Fine. That is a great procedure. So publish!
And more than that, publish in such a way that other people can do what you did, i.e., make active fuels and then give them to someone else who would then use gamma spectral analysis to determine their makeup without knowing ahead of time. Results like that, widely replicated, would be very persuasive that you actually have something here. But without replication, the work of your whole group deserves skepticism.
-
Yes, when time allows.
Great!
I think that it is difficult to conduct effective experiments. And difficult to write them up. And even more difficult to publish after responding to the comments of expert peer reviewers. It all takes time. I have no problem with that.
-
Wyttenbach has been publishing on Researchgate. I have also published a couple of papers since then on LENR-canr. So I have not been altogether idle. What about yourself?
In the chain of posts leading to the answer quoted here, you led me to believe that you would soon be co-publishing with Wyttenbach a research paper describing gamma emissions from fuel prepared by someone other than Russ George. Is this still your expectation?
-
... you will see a paper published by Jurg and me later this years or early 2022. So you might say we collaborate.
Since you posted this comment in Fall of 2022, I think you must have meant early 2023.
Can you update us on this? Do you still believe that a paper by yourself and Jurg Wyttenbach will emerge some time this year?
-
We can produce gamma rays with a minimal element mixture even at room temperature as already seen in London.
Great! Where can one read about the evidence for this?
-
... [Wyttenbach's] model ... I think has already bear experimental fruits.
I hear this from time to time. No one here understands Wyttenbach's SO(4) model, but it is said to have successfully predicted some sort of experimental results and that therefore it must have something to it even if few can understand it.
So ... why do you think this? What experimental fruits do you have in mind?
-
Wyttenbach has claimed to have experimental results to back up his theory. If I remember correctly, we haven't seen them yet. Maybe sometime soon we will?
It is difficult wresting sensible answers from Wyttenbach, but I think he has indicated that some of the material he posted in Dec 2021 on ResearchGate (here) contains experimental confirmation of predictions from his SO(4) theories. In the manuscript, which also bears Russ George's name, he presents gamma spectra taken from fuel said to be undergoing LENR. He says that his theories predict the spectral lines that are observed.
The manuscript is poorly written. What is claimed in the text often does not match what is shown in the tables and badly prepared figures. In the manuscript Wyttenbach claims to be able to specifically detect his predicted lines, yet the spectral resolution of the gamma detector he uses is far below what would be needed to make this argument work. Moreover, the spectra are heavily affected by Poisson noise because of low count numbers in the detectors. Yet in all this Wyttenbach takes no steps to assure the reader that his analysis is doing anything other than seeing what he wants to see in what is a very busy spectrum. These things could all be addressed but Wyttenbach seems sometimes unaware, and sometimes uncaring about them.
So, yes, I think we have already seen an attempt by Wyttenbach to claim that his SO(4) theories has made successful predictions of lab results. But no, this one wasn't successful. No one can yet rely on a claim that Wyttenbach's theory has empirical support from the lab.
-
Do not expect that everything of importance gets published.
I won't.
It would be nice, however, if you posted enough information for people to replicate your work. Since that manuscript depends on an empirical gamma spectrum emanating from a fuel whose identity has never been published, it is fundamentally nonreplicable. Your work is doomed to obscurity unless you change this.
-
We did run dozen of experiments and most visible lines have been from magnetic states.
On reading your manuscript, I was unable to understand how you assured yourself that the lines you identified selectively corresponded to your predictions.
The spectrum was very crowded. It seemed to me that many different sets of pre-identified lines, perhaps even random sets, could likewise be found in that same spectrum. I don't see your work as confirmation of your theories unless you can demonstrate that competing predictions would fail.
-
The first prediction of SO(4) physics was made prior to the London experiments where I arrived with list of magnetic lines we expected to see in our experiment. The second prediction concerned the "neutron wave lines". Of course both confirmed.
You say "both confirmed". Is the confirmation what you are describing in the manuscript titled "A new experimental path to nucleosynthesis", that you posted on Researchgate?
-
-
And some people think that these kind of 'integrity' problems are unique to LENR ...
Who thinks this? Not me. I guarantee it will not be THH either.
If by "some people" you mean some of the skeptical commentors on this site, then I believe you are wrong. You should think carefully about that. Perhaps it will remove part of the sense of grievance that distorts the LENR field. The skeptics here who have academic science backgrounds are doing nothing more than taking the lessons of a lifetime in research and saying 'OK how do my experiences in other fields apply to this research'. I have made the point before that what TTH does here is pretty darn ordinary activity in other parts of science. Not sure why it is seen as something exotic here.
There are similar 'integrity' problems across all science. I recognize in my own past research projects that it sometimes took a long time to overcome assumptions I was making about how things were supposed to be. Everyone how has experience in basic research knows this phenomenon.
-
to who?
To the USPTO examiner. On multiple grounds. See her Non-Final Rejection letter of 05/03/2019 (here).
It is also intuitively obvious. And, as well, I think that Wyttenbach is saying it too.
-
I know people who have been round this track more times than you can imagine. The USPTO is not interested in looking at inventions, that only happens in comic books and movies, they have made that clear on several occasions including to an established researcher at MIT.
The USPTO does not send inspectors out to labs. But it is interested in knowing if working prototypes exist.
Once again, from page 13 of the Final Rejection notice for USPTO application 15/444,580 ...
"The absence of working examples indicates one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled to make the claimed invention."
-
That is not a USPTO requirement.
A working prototype would have helped Wyttenbach's patent application. It would be partial evidence that the patent discloses sufficient information to create a working system.
From page 13 of the Final Rejection notice for USPTO application 15/444,580 (available here) ...
"At best, the instant specification sets forth a theoretical mechanism by which low energy nuclear reactions could occur. However, there is no disclosure of a device or method that is actually capable of operating according to this theory to achieve low energy nuclear reactions. The specification is entirely devoid of any enabling technical details that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use an invention that could achieve low energy nuclear reactions."
-
So my goal now is just to deliver a working prototype.
Great idea!
Maybe your 2018 patent application would have been successful if there was a working prototype.
-
I still think the underlying science is important, much more important than the patent which was seen as an alternative to your favourite peer-reviewed publishing route..
One would have hoped it would lead to something then. Did it?
I think Wyttenbach can respond himself to this, but I recommended that you read his patent in order to assist you in your request for enlightenment about SO4.
There is no SO(4) stuff in the patent application.
-
I am not aware of anybody doing fundamental research in the LENR field (as distinct from people trying to sell vapourware or raise cash for investment funds who might be involved in what is called 'astroturfing') who mistake patents for practical realities.
I am. My recollection is that when Wyttenbach's USPTO grant application was published in 2018 (publication US 2018 / 0247719 A1), you posted a ink to it and recommended to me that I should read it as a major advance in LENR. At the time you mistakenly thought that the patent had already been granted.
-
There is a difference between:
(1) There is no possibility of LENR (prob LENR = 0%)
(2) LENR ( => more nuclear reactions happening that the rest of the world believes) is certain. (Prob LENR = 100%)
Am I the only person on this site able to see that we do not know whether (1) or (2) is true?
No. I see it too. But when you participate on this site you find yourself in the land of the zealots and there is not a lot of appetite for anything in between (1) and (2).
