I would like to engage the wise counsel of the LF community to post the link to what they feel is the best LENR paper in their mind. The goal here is to critique this paper communally so that in the future we improve the chances of publishing a LENR positive result in a mainstream journal.
Daniel_G
Member
- Male
- Member since Apr 10th 2019
- Last Activity:
Posts by Daniel_G
-
-
They explain the behavior by assuming that diffusion through the deposited layer is the controlling variable, with the small particle size being important. The behavior can be equally well explained by a gap size change caused by mismatched expansion when the H content is changed. Their successful application would depend on which explanation is correct. I see no effort being made to resolve this question. Apparently, they plan to work at higher temperatures while using bigger samples, which is a typical engineering approach. I predict the approach will fail because the amount of power will slowly decrease as the material is cycled, especially when high temperatures are used. Of course, my prediction means nothing because it will be forgotten when the prediction comes true.
I agree with you. This development came after Mizuno published data showing increasing excess heat with reduced pressures which suggested that diffusion might be the important variable. I never personally believed that. The gap hypothesis makes more sense in my opinion.
Have you tried loading H first, removing it, and then loading D which could provide more gaps? It has to be something along these lines for the data to make sense.
-
AI needs a lot of energy. If anyone ever links AI with LENR, then we are in trouble.
-
Somebody call Germany and tell them quickly!
-
Japanese companies usually split investments into capital and reserve capital for tax purposes. It looks like they are burning about $2-$3m a year with 12 employees and have raised only about $20m in total but at the $1b valuation as mentioned previously.
-
I would be inclined to be circumspect about that number.
Financial data aggregation sites are hit and miss, often get things wrong, or present things inaccurately.
Certainly, given that this is not an official corporate document, I would be wary of bandying it around, lest it prove incorrect.
The data here is a matter of public record. I found additional details showing the official business department registration date and also the investment amount of about 2b yen or about $14m usd
-
No Jed the investment amount was not disclosed which is not uncommon but Mitsubishi Corp. isn’t going to invest anything under $10m I would say. Likely some multiple of that. I have some classmates in upper management of Mitsubishi and an old friend is an external auditor for them so I’m trying to find out.
Yes that link was a free peak at a paid service. We could try paying for the service also to get more details.
I’ll report back if we find out more.
-
I do not understand investment jargon. As you say, it says Mitsubishi invested, and it lists 2022 Series C for 145.7 billion yen. But does that mean someone actually bought that much stock? Or does it just mean they are hoping to sell that much? I have no idea.
If it is millions of dollars -- or a billion dollars -- then I am sure you are right and the people at Mitsubishi know something we don't know. They would not invest without some level of technical proof. Big companies sometimes do stupid things, but not that stupid! Big companies sometimes invest in poorly designed technology or dead end technology, such as IBM's OS2 operating system. But I have never heard of one that invested in nonexistent technology.
Jed the information provided doesn’t specify the investment amount but the price per share x the total number of shares gives the valuation of the company. So if they invested $50m for 5% of the company then they would be valued at $1b. One would logically think that Mitsubishi did their DD. Despite Yoshino’s dispute with Mizuno in this small and nascent industry we must cheer our competitors as well. Good that they were able to raise money from credible investors.
This is a long game though. Still many steps we have to go through to commercialization. May the best company win and Godspeed to all.
-
I have seen some of the experimental results from Clean Planet based on using various metals in ZrO2 with H2. I could not detect the depth of understanding required to create a useful source of energy. Like all efforts these days, the ability to make energy must be greatly exaggerated in order to get financial support. This worked for Rossi. Before Rossi, the hot fusion program was the grandfather of this approach. As best as I can tell, money is not very smart these days
Ed the only public data I ever saw from CP showed a COP of 20 but was only like 6mW of power. They focused on the COP 😂. Their website claims they had a 100W version in 2022 and plan a 1kW version in 2023. So I guess we don’t know what goes on behind closed doors. Evidently it was enough to convince Mitsubishi Corp to invest more at unicorn valuation.
-
Could you please provide a link?
-
I don't believe the information required to know this is public, though it strikes me as extremely unlikely. Could you please share your maths.
2022 they did a Series C with a market cap of 145.7b yen or just a tad over $1b. Source, my Japanese CFO who is also a VC. -
Ed one possible criticism of your paper is that it seems a bit too US centric. You mention ARPA-E’s $10m but the EU has also funded Clean HME, Clean Planet in Japan has a current market cap of over $1b. I’m not sure about BEC but I think a bit more of this type of information gives the whole paper a bit more gravity if you could include it.
I have jokingly created something called Daniel’s Law as a scientist entrepreneur I often observed that the realness of any given new technology is usually inversely correlated with the slickness of the messaging.
That’s half in jest but also half serious. Real LENR scientists need to get better at messaging and PR. The small tweaks I suggested above would go a long ways in creating better and broader appeal to this paper.
-
I think it’s interesting to note in our theory, we don’t dismiss any of the anomalous data. In fact we found a common thread through all the different types of LENR results. Some are much better than others.
I think Ed also has some important pieces of the puzzle as he says. It’s more than just a diplomatic answer. Each and every line of LENR research has its own nuggets of truth although many of them are misinterpreted because much of the standard model is wrong.
I would really like to know which specific papers people think are worthy of Nature publication but were refused. I think another issue is, at the risk of offending some peers, simply poor quality writing and lazy experimental design.
It will be very valuable to have competent scientists critique our work and even if it’s a JCMNS paper we should all strive to improve the quality of both our experiments and our writing. I hope that is received how it’s intended and in no way is meant to be personal or condescending. Just a general statement from my limited time in this field.
-
When you are one step ahead of the crowd you are a genius. When you are two steps ahead you are a crackpot.
Take it as a compliment Ed!
-
Don’t disagree with that statement Alan.
-
Ed's paper contained new information for me, presented in a clear and concise way and stimulated many new lines of thought and inquiry so I think its a great paper and meets the goal that he set out to achieve.
THH, if you contend that LENR needs a viable working theory on its mechanism to be accepted, I have to disagree with you. There are myriads of examples of practical developments preceding the mechanistic theory. From my perspective there is so much wrong with science today, a huge swath of science is pitched upon very shaky foundations.
I refrain from commenting more specifically on this in Ed's thread, but I for one feel its a great paper that opened my eyes. Let's keep upping our game and producing more data and better written papers.
-
This discussion was started by Alan in order to examine my paper in which I describe the methods used to produce LENR. Instead, the main focus has been on how various imagined errors can explain the behaviors and why the suggested errors are not important. Very little time was spent discussing the paper or how LENR might function. In other words, nothing of importance was achieved because the same war keeps being fought without end.
What is worse, the people who would benefit from such discussions are not participating. In fact, these people never participate in effective discussions. As a result, their beliefs never change. A new understanding is never considered. In other words, this is a dying science in spite of the efforts Shane and Alan have made. Nevertheless, I appreciate their efforts.
I have come to realize that only the published information will have any influence or value, but only after enough time has passed for the nonsense to be forgotten. Someday, a young inquisitive scientist will rediscover the published information and force the political-ecconomic system to take notice. This has proven to be how all new discoveries are eventually accepted and applied. Meanwhile, I will focus my attention on writing papers rather than on pointless discussions.
Ed, I am somewhat less cynical than you. Your paper has stimulated more constructive discussion than anything in recent memory. Any engagement, even from skeptics, is a positive result for us I believe. Your work is of much more value that you give yourself credit for.
-
Our new group is working on a new theoretical frame work that does involve the rewriting of major areas of physics. What I can say is that there are little nuggets of truth in the many "mysterious" aspects of LENR, from EVOs, to UDH/Rydberg matter, even Hydrinos (to be clear we don't think they exist but we think its a misinterpretation of empirical data), hot fusion, geology, cosmology, and yes including much of what Dr. Storms says here and about NAE and LEC as well. Wytennbach, is someone who I have had many public disagreements with but actually I agree with what he has to say about the standard model. The endless complexity, fudge factors, and non-transparency of their data very much reminds me of the epicycles the Geo-centrists developed to ad hoc maintain their planetary motion into a single model.
The symptoms we are seeing with the standard model are very much symptoms that we are moving in the wrong direction. To be clear, our goal is to develop LENR commercially not to win a Noble Prize in physics although one might be a byproduct of the other.
In the gray sea of alternative physics, our group believes we at least can see guiding principles to help us navigate our way to improved LENR catalysts and fuels as little rays of light (truths) and much of what we see ties the many aspects of the last 30 years together from multiple conflicting models to a single, simple explanation for what we see in nature from cosmological to sub-atomic scales. More to come...
As for THH, my humble personal opinion is that in many cases I can at least partially agree where he's coming from. I think any good scientist welcomes criticism much as Dr. Storms has hinted to here. Honestly, show me a paper worthy of being published in Nature with positive LENR results. In fact it would be a great exercise of mutual benefit to skeptics and LENR researchers alike to really come up with a publication that we deem worthy of Nature publication but has somehow been denied. I am no expert compared to the likes of Jed or Dr. Storms, but from the papers that I have read, this field is plagued by poor experimental design, poor writing, insufficient or wrong analysis (for example the Waseda group reporting on exothermic chemical heat at a LENR conference, etc. etc. Can anyone familiar with the best papers pick one or several papers deemed by pro-LENR scientists to be worthy of publication in a major journal?
A good open discussion about the positives and the shortcomings of the selected paper or papers would be of benefit to us all. I for one am highly confident that we are getting close to a major publication of positive LENR results.
-
If our new theoretical team’s theories are correct, then our prediction is that direct current flow will never be more than a by product of heat production in practical quantities. But this work most definitely adds to the body of data that must be considered in any new LENR theory.
Mizuno has also found current flow in many of his experiments as well.
-
69 picowatts! Sign me up
