Posts by LCC

    SoT calling people dumb and gullible again...

    Here are the latest news I got from Firshein in September.

    They are building/have built two new calorimetry set-ups, a "mass-flow" one (for see-it-across-the-room purposes) and an SID one (on the basis of the methodology put forward by Team Google). This has taken precedence over raising the COP and will be/is being used for demonstrations to potential investors.

    I'll probably get an update from BEC at the beginning of December and let you know if there is anything new.

    I’ll point out that, as evidenced in Tanzella’s abstract for ICCF, Brillouin is doing exactly what I believe should be done to use the opportunity offered by Google’s initiative, i.e. using the calorimetry set-up proposed by Berlinguette and alii as a standard. I do not believe I need to explain the massive repercussions if this calorimetry set-up gives the same results as the ones Tanzella has obtained up to now.

    Only if you have not applied for a patent. If you have applied for a patent, assuming this is a real discovery and it is a valid application, you will be widely replicated after the application is made public. That happens before the patent is granted (if ever). So you might as well help people replicate now. There are benefits to having people replicate. They confirm your claims. There is a problem, too. They may start intensive research and find ways to improve the device before you do. But you will not lose the original intellectual property.

    Sure but it does not always work that way, and most of the time, if it is possible, you go for a combination of patent and trade secret. You have a patent with the bare minimum in it, and you keep the rest under wrap as a trade secret. This is exactly what Brillouin is doing, as they have obtained patents in all major jurisdictions outside of the US but the content of those patents is not sufficient to allow replication.

    I am not asking them to give away their secret, just that they provide enough for independent validation. That would further their position to gain funding for developing a product.

    Validation of the results is of course the goal. But validation through total replication seems dangerous from a business standpoint.

    I wish BEC would publish some protocol that others sould replicate. All the LENR company's have the same problem, they claim much, but show nothing. And in the case of BEC I have no doubts they have something, but their reluctance to let others replicate is tiresome.

    There are two ways to finance research: either public funds, in which case the protocols and results belong to the public, or private funds, in which case the protocols and results belong to the individuals who financed the research. It's as simple as that, and BEC is a private company trying to create a product that will reap profits for those who have invested their own money. To say that its reluctance to scander most of its value by making trade secrets public is tiresome is as nonsensical as saying that the reluctance of Apple to donate all its profits to charity rather than to its shareholders is tiresome.

    That's reassuring to me if you feel that way! I hope it is the way it pans out. I see your point but I still think that designing experiments around calorimetry designed by "mainstream" scientists could be a way to avoid criticism on that specific point.

    Congratulations on your work Jed (and congratulations to Sir Mizuno), I hope it is replicated elsewhere and cracks the can open.

    My only concern is that this is once again an experimental set-up which relies on a different calorimetry method, which risks getting everything bogged down into endless measurement discussions. Say what you want about the Nature/Google article, they identified clearly that this is one of the reasons the field is so fractured, and that the community should first agree on how to measure results prior to worry about how to produce results. Without a consensus on measurements, it is all too easy for sceptics to dismiss results that do not mesh with their own prejudices as simple errors.

    To go back to Brillouin, I had a few exchanges with Firshein and I'll share the technical part (something is happening on the funding side, but the funding side is confidential up to the point it is not).

    Mostly, as Tanzella said at ICCF21, they are working on a new mass-flow calorimetry set-up that they believe would produce results that would be much harder to dismiss than the current complex isoperibolic set-up. It is moving forward and has taken precedence over the isoperibolic set-up, hence the lack of COP announcements.