Daniel_G Member
  • Male
  • Member since Apr 10th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Daniel_G

    The best flow calorimeter I have seen is that of Jaques Ruer design and used in JP Biberian's lab. This transpiration calorimeter recovers more than 99% of the heat input, practically eliminating calibration error in the heat recovery step.

    A 5 or 10% XSH result in such a calorimeter would meet the gold standard for a positive XSH experiment.

    Running such an experiment for a period of time as to eliminate all possible chemical energy sources would bolster the nuclear source hypothesis.

    Ruer (2).pdf

    My comment was more about the transferability of NOLs from one entity to another.

    That would depend on whether the current structure would allow for consolidated financial filings.

    This is normally established by the amount of control the parent company has over the subsidiary. Since we don't know the terms of the investment by Mitsubishi or other corporate entities it's hard to say. It would be a strategy for a large parent company to set it up so that they can claim ongoing losses as a tax offset but somehow I doubt that Yoshino would give up that level of control to achieve that but as everything is rather ambiguous in Japan its hard to say.

    I don’t know how it works in Japan, but in the US there are severe restrictions on how net operating loss carry forwards can be used and transferred.

    In Japan, corporations can carry forward losses for 9 or 10 years depending on the date the losses were incurred as there was a law change in 1 APR, 2018.

    Each of us running commercial LENR companies face a different set of problems to solve. Calorimetry of CP seems to be a weak link for them. For us, cooperation with other labs with excellent calorimetry has removed that burden from us. Each entrepreneur has a different approach to PR and funding. Mizuno and I tend to prefer the low-key approach and laser targeted honest communication with investors of the mindset that fits the company's mission.

    CP with their large corporate backing faces a different set of challenges. I am by no means making excuses for them not meeting their targets but as companies go through successive rounds of funding, experienced entrepreneurs know that with each round where stated targets are not met, the ability to raise additional capital with good terms reduced exponentially so I personally am very much with the "promise less, deliver more" line of strategic thinking. But for us, again the parameters are very different than CP.

    It's also very hard to know what happens behind the curtain. Speaking from experience, some very silly or trivial issues can be devastating to research progress some which we have control over and some which are external and we don't (like EU customs ruining a couple of our reactors en route to validation labs).

    Running an under-funded development project means making very difficult decisions everyday. We could get a lot more progress done with 10+ calorimeters running in parallel and a materials research lab to support our fuel development but you gotta do what you can with the limited resources you have.

    So I guess my point is that one can come up with valid arguments positive or negative about CP, their apparent lack of progress, or not meeting certain public targets but its hard to draw any specific conclusions one way or another without knowing the full context of what is going on and that is very hard to get for outsiders. Only time will tell. In any case, I do believe the competition is heating up (pun intended) for LENR in general so let's hope more companies are getting more successes because the potential industry that we would create is certainly big enough to support multiple companies vying for different niches.

    If I was putting together a document for a $120m offer for institutional offers, with the extensive team they claim to have, I would think that they had enough proof readers not to make so many very basic mistakes.

    This sentence:
    "ENG8 has reached this point as it has been independently verified to produce a Q factor value of 2.4 thermal or 5 electrical, validated by Underwriters Laboratories."

    Seems they also had a freudian slip in 2021 "valuation" instead of validation. Oops. In 2023 they included the Q factor but didn't bother to write the all important power output.

    I think you are right. This operation is just masquerading as a scam - but it isn't following the usual scam playbook. I'm guessing that is because it is meant to be "rumbled" and exposed as a scam.

    It is a hit job.

    Just look at the "useful references" page of the presentation. There is the potential for a large amount of collateral damage to the wider field (including this forum).

    "ICCF-25 MIT" some scammers put this together for sure...

    That was my impression as well. They use UL as proof of their power validation. I have been struggling to get the LENR industry leading researchers to do an independent validation study for us and it’s not easy. Very few labs are qualified to do this with full credibility.

    The lab they cite in the UK certainly seems highly credible on its face, but I find it strange that they just pop up without any interaction with our community. That is certainly not impossible but my spider senses are telling me to investigate further.

    I got this ppt from a VC who asked me about it and he said it was already public.

    I have my first set of 68 patents ready for the database. The meta data is in an excel file and the patent copies in a google drive. Anyone care to help put this where it would be useful?

    My team is working on compiling a database of LENR patents which we intend to make public on Google Drive. Anyone else interested in cooperating? Also, perhaps Jed is interested in creating a patent section on LENR-CANR.org with all the fancy ChatGPT functions? Please PM me if anyone is interested in cooperating.

    What is the full reference of the paper you cited? I’m interested to read the entire paper.

    I didn’t actually cite the old paper. I cited the IEEE 2014 paper based in the reanalysis of the original data using modern data processing systems. The paper is very good science from a very credible organization.

    Hello Jurge,

    I wish we could have more meaningful debates and conversations. I don't make it a habit to state things that are false, as what drives me is truth and objectivity. We can disagree with each other and show our work and sometimes we may learn from each other. I actually respect you and your work very much. Let's say its been influential for me.

    The IEEE paper published in 2014 shows that NIMBUS data was able to be used to derive earlier sea ice extent data and the results show that the minimum in 1966 was 15.9m km2. Whenever you look at any data set relating to climate over the years I have learned to check the time periods covered as most likely these are cherry picked periods used to make data fit a narrative.

    The best policy and path forward for humanity is logically fully dependent upon the best unbiased data and currently the pendulum is swinging too far. My only goal is objectivity and diversity in opinions serves to bolster scientific objectivity. So I am happy to discuss these issues with you openly. I might post something that seems strange simply because I have three day jobs and don't have time to show my work. I am happy to share my sources with you so we can discuss.



    Anomalous Variability in Antarctic Sea Ice Extents

    During the 1960s With the Use of Nimbus Data David W. Gallaher, G. Garrett Campbell, and Walter N. Meier

    Abstract—The Nimbus I, II, and III satellites provide a new op- portunity for climate studies in the 1960s. The rescue of the visible and infrared imager data resulted in the utilization of the early Nimbus data to determine sea ice extent. A qualitative analysis of the early NASA Nimbus missions has revealed Antarctic sea ice extents that are signi¿cant larger and smaller than the his- toric 1979–2012 passive microwave record. The September 1964 ice mean area is 19.7x10 km ± 0.3x10 km . This is more the 250,000 km greater than the 19.44x10 km seen in the new 2012 historic maximum. However, in August 1966 the maximum sea ice extent fell to 15.9x10 km ± 0.3x10 km . This is more than 1.5x10 km below the passive microwave record of 17.5x10 km set in September of 1986. This variation between 1964 and 1966 represents a change of maximum sea ice of over 3x10 km in just two years. These inter-annual variations while large, are small when compared to the Antarctic seasonal cycle.

    Weather is not climate. The Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic explosion increased total atmospheric water vapor by 10%. That’s a helluva lot of a GHG that is 10x more potent than CO2. This came at a most inopportune time as a rare three plus year La Niña preceding this. The usual suspects are claiming Antarctica has hit record lows this in sea ice extent but despite nasa noaa and corporate media repeating this claim, I looked up the actual data. In 1966 the Antarctic sea ice extent was 16m km2 and yet now they are claiming that the current 17.1m km2 is a “record low”. I’m all in for finding a replacement for fossil fuels but the extremism on this issue does much more harm than good.