Posts by orsova

Matt Trevithick just tweeted this:

https://www.prnewswire.com/new…imate-tech-301077638.html

Certainly a shift in tone from Godes.

Here's the full reactor photo: https://mizunotech.com/uploads…ound-images/229484340.jpg

Do they really have a reliable and repeatable process?

IIRC, Yet-Ming Chiang also stated that their (Schenkel / Google) Claytor replication was very stable and repeatable, though only producing a small number of neutrons. Philip Ball also wrote an article suggesting that they were making preliminary measurements of other nuclear products, though this has not been published yet; assuming I understand everything correctly.

The SPAWAR team claim that the co-dep protocol is replicable.

https://www.academia.edu/38420…tions_in_Condensed_Matter

I watched this movie tonight and absolutely loved it. Thought some here might enjoy it and so thought I'd pass it on. Made in 1969 in Poland, here's the synopsis:

The protagonists of the film are two talented physicists – one of them leaves the city for the countryside and becomes a meteorologist, the other establishes a brilliant career in science. Both are bombarded by moral dilemmas regarding their choice in life.

Here's the trailer:

It's got a beautiful soundtrack; the score is mostly minimalist jazz.

Currently streaming on Mubi. They'll give you a 7 day free trial if you're willing to give them a card.

https://mubi.com/films/the-structure-of-crystal

A direct download link for anybody wanting to save a copy:

https:// <*> seed163.bitchute.com/y55ALqE79m5o/JeayYvGaOoIL.mp4

The forum software automatically wraps tags around, and embeds, the movie, so just remove the <*> to get the file.

Quantifying Defects in Thin Films using Machine Vision

Nina Taherimakhsousi, Benjamin P. MacLeod, Fraser G. L. Parlane, Thomas D. Morrissey, Edward P. Booker, Kevan E. Dettelbach, Curtis P. Berlinguette

The sensitivity of thin-film materials and devices to defects motivates extensive research into the optimization of film morphology. This research could be accelerated by automated experiments that characterize the response of film morphology to synthesis conditions. Optical imaging can resolve morphological defects in thin films and is readily integrated into automated experiments but the large volumes of images produced by such systems require automated analysis. Existing approaches to automatically analyzing film morphologies in optical images require application-specific customization by software experts and are not robust to changes in image content or imaging conditions. Here we present a versatile convolutional neural network (CNN) for thin-film image analysis which can identify and quantify the extent of a variety of defects and is applicable to multiple materials and imaging conditions. This CNN is readily adapted to new thin-film image analysis tasks and will facilitate the use of imaging in automated thin-film research systems.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04860

Strain Influences the Hydrogen Evolution Activity and Absorption Capacity of Palladium

Ryan P. Jansonius, Phil A. Schauer, David J. Dvorak, Benjamin P. MacLeod, David. K. Fork, Curtis Berlinguette

Strain‐engineering can be used to increase the activity and selectivity of an electrocatalyst. Tensile strain is known to improve the electrocatalytic activity of palladium electrodes for reduction of carbon dioxide or dioxygen, but determining how strain affects the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) is complicated by the fact that palladium can absorb hydrogen concurrently with HER. We report here a custom electrochemical cell that applies tensile strain to a flexible working electrode that enabled us to resolve how tensile strain affects hydrogen absorption and HER activity for a thin film palladium electrocatalyst. When the electrodes were subjected to mechanically‐applied tensile strain, the amount of hydrogen that absorbed into the palladium decreased, and HER electrocatalytic activity increased. This study showcases how strain can be used to modulate the hydrogen absorption capacity and HER activity of palladium.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co…bs/10.1002/anie.202005248

Quote from Bruce__H

Nuts to that. Until complete results are published, this is a rumor. Not just that, everyone who here who wants LENR to be regarded as a scientific field should be adopting exactly the same attitude as me.

Scientific naivete is a huge problem on this site.

The gulf between 'rumour' and 'published in Nature' is pretty wide. It's not a binary, even if one wished it so.

Perhaps of interest to some.

https://www.amazon.com/Unsimpl…fRID=1ZD6R8J3XK556ECN1CFV

Unsimple Truths by Sandra Mitchell.

Quote

The world is complex, but acknowledging its complexity requires an appreciation for the many roles context plays in shaping natural phenomena. In Unsimple Truths, Sandra Mitchell argues that the long-standing scientific and philosophical deference to reductive explanations founded on simple universal laws, linear causal models, and predict-and-act strategies fails to accommodate the kinds of knowledge that many contemporary sciences are providing about the world. She advocates, instead, for a new understanding that represents the rich, variegated, interdependent fabric of many levels and kinds of explanation that are integrated with one another to ground effective prediction and action.

Mitchell draws from diverse fields including psychiatry, social insect biology, and studies of climate change to defend “integrative pluralism”—a theory of scientific practices that makes sense of how many natural and social sciences represent the multi-level, multi-component, dynamic structures they study. She explains how we must, in light of the now-acknowledged complexity and contingency of biological and social systems, revise how we conceptualize the world, how we investigate the world, and how we act in the world. Ultimately Unsimple Truths argues that the very idea of what should count as legitimate science itself should change.

Quote from Shane D.

https://www.businessinsider.co…l&utm_campaign=sf-bi-main

Ms. Laurene Jobs,

Your IH/Woodford investment may not have worked out, but there are some other good LENR choices left for an environmental philanthropist like yourself to put your money into. I can't think of a more worthy cause, considering the ROEI (Return On Environmental Investment) than LENR. The upside is huge, and world changing, while there is no downside, when taking into consideration your goal of spending all of your wealth on worthy humanitarian causes.

https://www.emersoncollective.com/about-us/

Whoever is in charge of raising money at Aureon should reach out to Darden and ask for an introduction.

Director,

With respect, you're overreacting. The threads had to be consolidated and a call had to be made. It didn't break your way, but that's not evidence of malicious intent. Your opinions and thoughts are obviously welcome here. If you want to interpret the Safire work in the context of your reading and ideas in a substantive way then I'm sure the moderators would be glad to see you do so.

Safire/Aureon certainly seems to be the front runner. A very encouraging development.

Quote from Shane D.

They contacted Alan and I, along with 3 other members. We asked exactly that, but did not get an answer. Surprised they have not voluntarily provided the basic information any investor, or government lab would want to know before digging deeper.

That info would come quickly with a due diligence of course, so hopefully any interested party would not be discouraged by the lack of transparency so far. It may even be attractive to those who like working quietly out of the public spotlight.

Your point about due diligence is a good one. I think that the danger is that some potential investors would move on quickly without engaging formally with the team. Any serious investor is going to be looking at a slate of things at any particular moment, and they're going to be winnowing their opportunity set as quickly as possible using a set of relatively straight forward heuristics. The management of deal flow is not necessarily about forming a sophisticated and complete opinion about each thing that passes over an investors desk.

For a pre-revenue company seeking funding for further R&D, the calibre of the team is going to be one of the first, and maybe most important, hurdles. Given how controversial the space is, if the team is opaque, I would expect that some people would just walk away. The team may well be willing to open up in due diligence but they still have to convince people to engage with them.

Three of the most impressive technology investments of the 20th century; by David Marquardt (in Microsoft), Fayez Sarofim (in Teledyne) and Joe Rosenfield (in Intel) were predicated almost completely on the strength of the founders. It was an assessment of the individual. A lot of the art is in assessing the people.

It's worth noting that the competition for an investment is the universe of other opportunities available to an investor. Private and public. Frankly, it's a vast and compelling universe. Why go down an inscrutable technical rabbit hole with an opaque counterparty when you could just move on to something else that's equally as compelling, far more comprehensible and less likely to result in sunk costs of time and bandwidth?

There are definitely people who like and seek complex, opaque, early stage venture capital investments. But why limit yourself to them when you could take a page out of somebody like Brillouin's book and build the kind of public face that helps to acquaint, orient and reassure a wider spectrum of potential investors?

Quote from Shane D.

The "retired researchers" are seeking funding now for more R/D, with an eye towards commercialization. After Ahlfors s rekindled interest in this, we were contacted by one of the players today, asking for your input/ideas, with the added intent of getting the word out to potential investors.

Not sure what to think of them myself actually, but open to finding out more. LF is not endorsing NEPS in any way, nor have they asked us to promote them. This is strictly an LENR public service on our part. So if you have a question, do not ask me. Our contact is now a member, and I would assume the rest of their small group of scientists are monitoring also.

This is new BTW:

http://www.newenergypowersystems.org/

"Your participation now at this important time in history is vital for continued success of this work. It is to the point where both a large amount of financial support and the involvement of many scientists, engineers and US industries are required to take the next important steps. This will involve assembly of the components into a system prototype and testing the prototype in a way that is well-engineered and safe for the operators. It will require financial support from local government and utilities who are concerned about the effects of the environment on their local areas. It will require in-kind participation of individuals interested in the technology who have strong scientific and engineering backgrounds, and also by US industries with appropriate supporting technologies that they would like to contribute."

Display More

Finding it hard to know what to make of them too. More transparency and detail would go a long way though, I would think? Even basic things like biographies of the team, do they have a controllable reaction etc?

Quote from Dr Richard

I wonder if TG have actually made a working reactor system based on this patent. The nanoparticles setup described is remarkably similar to Takahashi at al's distribution of CuNi or Pd/Ni nanoparticles distributed as 'islands' on a Zirconia base so since this has been now shown repeatably to produce excess heat

there's a high probability that this TG proposed device will also work. But why no examples of this working device in the patent? Possibly the Thz EM stimulation is provided simply by heating the Takahashi samples up to 300 deg . C. Interesting that two unrelated groups are coming up with similar nanoparticles designs at the same time, throwing in some KFeO2 catalyst to increase the probability of fusion by quasi-neutron or H* formation in addition to electron screening completes the picture!

There was a publication a little while ago from Berlinguette's team, with David Fork as a co-author, that related to palladium nanoparticles and hydrogen absorption. It's of course speculation, but it certainly seems like they've made it a focus of their program?

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b02193

It's perhaps germane to note that when Matt Trevithick approached the forum to ask for suggestions about which experiment the LF forum community would most like to see performed, many people sincerely tried to answer what was a very difficult question. Ascoli repeatedly and disingenuously proposed a (to my understanding) - somewhat marginal - experiment, specifically because he thought it was likely to fail, prove that LENR wasn't real and thus dissuade Google from further research in the area. Quite aside from the fact that a single negative experiment doesn't prove anything about whether LENR is real or not, Ascoli was disingenuous about why he was suggesting the experiment. He presented the experiment as a good candidate for replication according to the criteria that were being discussed, rather than outlining his motive for advocating for the experiment. It was only later that his reasoning became clear. He repeatedly dragged the thread off-topic, and if my memory serves correctly, continued to advocate for the experiment even after he was asked, more than once, to desist.

It was incredibly frustrating to read his contributions to the thread, because it was repeatedly pointed out to him that his chosen experiment was a bad candidate for a number of reasons. Ascoli persisted because, as became clear later, he wasn't thinking about the question the same way others were. He was pushing for an experiment he thought would fail, and so the technical challenges inherent in the experiment were of no consequence to him.

In short, he repeatedly sucked the oxygen out of an important discussion by advancing a disingenuous and vandalous argument.

Quote from Shane D.

I probably should not be saying this, but one of the positive developments directly resulting from the Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" thread was that Google did take an interest. There was a high level meeting with another party to discuss common interests/goals, and explore possible ways to cooperate.

I do not know if anything came of it though, as I voluntarily opted out of the loop once the meeting was arranged, so as to ensure the privacy of the participants.

That sounds encouraging. Appreciate the colour.

What are the odds of someone like Google or NASA choosing to replicate the work and then publishing?

Slim?