Posts by Walker

Hi all

MEI should I think be more correctly be MPEI Moscow Power Engineering Institute the specific body within MEI

Then these names are there:
Yuri Malakhov (Юрием Малаховым ) is a scientific officer of the MPEI and Principal Senior Project Manager at the ISTC

As for Nguyen Quoc Chi (Нгуеном Куок Ши) is a professor and a scientific supervisor to the laboratory of plasma physics at MPEI

His name is perhaps translated by Google wrongly I think and should be Nguyen Kwok, not surprising as it is a Google translation of a Russian phonetic translation of a Vietnamese name.
They have written several papers together here are some:
http://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/ITEE/MAWSON INSTITUTE/APCPST Proceedings_Monday 1st Sept.pdf

In the case of Igor Stepanov (Игорем Степановым) it is harder though there are a couple of visiting scientists from Belarus and Latvia who show up as I. Stepanov.

But I think it maybe this person listed as Dr. Igor Stepanov, RESC PI, Nuclear Physics Institute, Russia here:
https://www.crdfglobal.org/doc…report-september-2010.pdf

Kind Regards walker

Consider if you are making company affecting decision based on information that is not broadly known, you may open yourself to being sued by an investor who sold their shares in your product because they were not aware of your market position.

Being able to plead ignorance and that the decision you made were because of other camouflaging factors protects you.

So if you are one of the companies currently shorting oil at record levels, being able to say LENR is a surprise and any decision you made were due to other factors and the massive profits you made was pure coincidence is great camouflage. Consider that Goldman Sachs made billions off the 2008 crash by taking out massive insurance that bankrupted their insurer, pure chance of course

Follow the money! Look at who is investing and where they are investing that is what tells the truth big companies do not waste billions on bets that fail.

Kind Regards walker

Hi all

The Fuelled Reactor has been around 100 degrees hotter throughout much of experiment. This may be down to just having more solids in the reactor. However the Fuelled reactor seems to be a lot hotter along its whole central length and begins to sag. Action happens at around -2:14 onwards. Significant heat shimmer has been visible for some time above the fuelled reactor it is also expanding and sagging along a considerable length. The reactor then shorts and reaches very high temperatures but this is normal in an electrical short. The fuelled reactor sensor, which dictates current, then goes and power is consequently cut off. The Control/dummy reactor then cools as per expectation while the Fuelled reactor remains hot for a considerable time, going on the continued heat shimmer as there is no longer a sensor as it has been melted.

I would suggest two boiling water systems be optioned to take off heat.

Also a fill of fuel minus Li Al H in the dummy to give a closer match on latent heat capacity of the fill in the fuelled reactor.

Kind Regards walker

Hi all

Science 101 the data is what counts.

It is when theory takes precedence over experimental data that science becomes pathological.

When someone refuses to look at the experimental data, because "THE BOOK" of theory does not say it is possible or because the data has not been presented in a publication of the Church of high impact factor, a metric which incidentally has been thoroughly refuted; that is when a person stops being a scientist and becomes a priest.

The Galileo test is will you put your eye to the telescope?

In science we have theory because we know, there is no book! It is a theory because we recognise it can be refuted by data.

Some questions to ask any one who raises the pseudo metric of impact factor as an excuse not to look at the data.

Are you aware that impact factor:

1) Does not work across academic boundaries?
2) That it has been shown to be gamed by publications, so as to produce false results?
3) That the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee told the Higher Education Funding Council and their Research Exercise panels, to stop using Impact Factor, as it is flawed?
4) That it has lead to a reduction in real research, as reviews score more highly in this skewed metric?
5) That the European Association of Science Editors put out an official statement saying it cannot be used in the way many pseudo sceptics use it?
6) That the International Council for Science wants to penalise those scientists that over rely on this measure to game publications and this measure?
7) That the National Science Foundation (US) and the Research Assessment Exercise (UK) and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft have all downgraded this metric and has lead the American Society for Cell Biology to create The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) precisely to end the use of Impact Factor?

I remind you also once again that one has to put ones eye to the telescope to call ones self a scientist.

Kind Regards walker

Hi all

We need to test the theory against past experiments both successes and failures, such as the MFMP glow stick experiment.

We then need to use the theory to refine existing failed or partially successful experiments with the knowledge the theory imparts in order to test the theory further and find out and refine its limitations and exceptions; this after all is the scientific method.

The MFMP tests that produced low gamma are a predicted factor of the theory, they could be refined to examine this aspect.

Kind Regards walker

Quote from AlainCo

There is few direction to improve the replication.
The first is using Parkhomov samples of powder.
Another is keeping the pressure lower as Parkhomov did... this mean probably putting less LiAlH4 (about 10 times less, since pressure was 10 times higher)

Hi all

Agreeing with Alain.

The scientific discovery process is one of trial and error and learning from each error, perfecting the experiment until either the desired results are achieved or comprehensively dis-proven.

One test does not scientific discovery make.

Taking what Alain and others have already said and adding a few things off the top of my head, on things learned and putting it in a list:

Negatives:
Too much LiAlH4 increases the pressure too high.
You need higher power than single phase to reach the required temperature.
You need more computing power to log data better
They need better logging software to output the data to those watching
They need tighter formal processes for getting the data to the audience.
They should try the purer AP nickel powder to get better loading without the impurities that may cause problems in poisoning or blocking the reaction initiation.
Logging temperature from two external censors makes the core temperature a calculated guess, not ideal, but in truth not needed to verify anomalous heat.
They need to log wattage!

Positives:
They saw the stepwise reduction of pressure commensurate with H loading into nickel.
They confirmed the two phase output of hydrogen from LiAlH4.
They confirmed the integrity of the reactor design at higher pressure than the Parkhomov data says they need to get to.
They understand the loading process better.
They have rehearsed the process.
Others can learn from what they have done.

Kind Regards walker

Hi all

All in reply to AlainCo.

I think I should have stuck an "Or" in there , so that the above text read more clearly:

Quote

...At a guess the "G" probably stands for group, banding together to form a conglomerate so as to be big enough to take advantage early of what is likely to be the biggest business in the world, what some in business call a "Land Grab" strategy

OR (Post script, inserted to clarify my poor grammar)

They may also be looking to control aspects of the market and gain an entrenched position, in order to exclude others entering the market...

As I was pointing out in the subsequent section I wanting to make clear we are at a stage in the emergent LENR business where different strategies are more obvious and the players have had little time to hide their tracks.

Kind Regards walker

Hi all

At a guess the "G" probably stands for group, banding together to form a conglomerate so as to be big enough to take advantage early of what is likely to be the biggest business in the world, what some in business call a "Land Grab" strategy https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AKIBR970yogC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=business+strategy+%22Land+Grab%22&source=bl&ots=5TZS8Buads&sig=QDjdg2cl3WOM-PouAxATHtllRWk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yt7QVLOdIKrD7gbe44D4DA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=business strategy %22Land Grab%22&f=false

They may also be looking to control aspects of the market and gain an entrenched position, in order to exclude others entering the market.

There will be a lot of this over the next few years as well as patent wars, and attempts to exploit new markets in reply to those who gain entrenched positions so you gain a new market centre point from which to topple those in a fixed entrenched position.

Kind Regards walker