Posts by Longview

    Hold on, please. There are surely great differences. ICOs allow anonymity and non-traceability at various stages in the process. Kickstarter has inherent accountability. The difference is profound from the standpoint of potential fraud. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency flotations are "not going to end well" to quote Warren Buffet. With cryptocurrencies you are investing far more in the currency itself, rather than in the claimed target entrepreneurial development.

    Another particularly important feature of the reported near room temperature conductivity in this article by Thapa and Pandey, is that the "fall back" relatively high conventional conductivity of this material. Many, if not most, superconductors become substantially electrically resistant in a failure of say refrigeration or if they happen to exceed an ambient or self-induced threshold magnetic field strength.

    I see that toward the end of the article by Thapa and Pandey:


    showing superconductive gold / silver "colloid", there IS indeed claimed evidence of the Meissner effect:

    "Further, we observed that pellets of suchsamples are significantly diamagnetic (Chi sub nu = minus 0.037) under ambient conditions

    (Figure 4d), consistent with the existence of a superconducting state at room temperatures"

    [However, "Figure 4d", is unfortuantely not apparent in this transcript]

    It's very clear that many many of the current giants of technology started in garages. Of course many many many failures and frauds also started in garages. It is not the sole defining characteristic of a technology success, but is a frequent concomitant. And certainly not a necessity.

    So, IMHO, garage is not a defining issue either way.

    interesting story of Invitrogen. I used their products extensively during the era (early 1990s) when they were a stand alone entity, probably right through the time that they were "acquired" by Life Technologies, and a bit before Thermo Fisher vacuumed them and many others up, (early 2000s).

    Agree here with Max. Be very cautious, the "horsepower" there is quite evidently weighted toward public relations, business law, cryptocurrency and blockchain IP, only one player is really claiming to bring physics to their team, that is Sergey Tsvetkov. So evaluate his record to see what is likely to come about. I wish them well, if they are really about doing something with LENR. So far it looks like a big "hook" and little else of merit. Admittedly I have not studied Tsvetkov's work, although I have read something of him. I would welcome some exposition of Tsvetkov's earlier or ongoing efforts.

    Deneum team has successfully concluded the first stage of the ICO private round having raised $ 1M.

    I hope all will be aware of the acronym "ICO". Initial Coin Offering, in the US anyway, is a quite unregulated form of funding intimately tied to cryptocurrencies. Unlike IPO, Initial Public Offering, which at least have to meet regulatory framework enforced by the Securities Exchange Commission. Anyone thinking that cryptocurrencies are a benign form of currency, best reconsider. They are ideal for criminal fraud, since there are none of the usual means to track the source and / or sink for funds generated in this way.

    JohnyFive : If it is possible under the physical constraints for your system, why not do some basic research on the nature of the particles that appear to be registering in the pancake? For example, set electrostatic fields in place that might divert the particles' trajectories. And/or a permanent magnet, looking for similar diversions of path. I am reminded of an interesting talk at this past Pittcon in Orlando, where a significant electrically charged entity was detected via a quadrapole mass spec and a electrometer (I recall correctly) was then used to measure/integrate the charge accumulation. Chemical reactions can produce ions that might escape a reaction milieu, even protons (muons?) especially when they are shielded by hydration or other structures spreading their charge density (normally nearly infinite for a "naked" proton, for example)-- can escape especially from a liquid surface. There is no reason to belittle such results as "mere chemistry". At the very least a source of noise or artifact can be suitably identified. And at best, a whole new fundamental phenomenon might be understood.

    I have not looked for a couple of years, but I think you will find that square waves are used in at least some of the alternating impressed voltages. Also there may be a disclosed or undisclosed positive DC bias superimposed on the alternating target biases.

    To me the alternating bias is an indication of a less than simple mechanism at the "landing site". It is certainly worth spending time to understand the Lipinski results.... and with an open mind, rather than a prescriptive view. But if you (Wyttenbach, or others) have a comprehensive understanding that explains all of their results, I'm glad to yield to your communicated understanding.

    They cheated the gamma line they measured with a wrong (impossible element) label...

    More specifics please. That is which gamma line and where can we see this? Is the following quote the essence of what you state?

    Wyttenbach wrote:

    "The problem is that Ekstrom assumed the reaction would be 7Li +p --> 8Be what is wrong. It is 7Li + H* --> 8Li (intermediate). All radiation for this is clearly documented in the patent!"


    Lipinski(s) experiment is the wrong sample: They see the highest possible gamma, proton,electron & alpha radiation rate that is possible in a collision like reaction.

    A very experienced "collisional physicist" (Peter Ekstrom) once pointed out here on the LENR Forum, that there is an important expected gamma missing in the Lipinski results. Since I have no horse in that race, I am just here to report that this was convincingly stated here, I recall, over two years back. I believe that missing MeV gamma, likely represents the missing spoils of the activation energy that would have been required in a conventional "overcoming coulomb" collisional proton to lithium result ala Herb 1938, which the Lipinskis reprise in great detail in their WIPO application. They appear to get to their result without this energetic photon.

    From Zephir_AWT deep in the first link above: [now at about 10 hours back]

    "From thermodynamical perspective the lack of radiation is the dual part of overcoming of Coulombic barrier....."

    Let's properly credit Zephir_AWT with the point that was made. I was only quoting Zephir, some 5 hours back. I find the point a good one that otherwise knowledgeable folks seem to be often neglecting. It is one phenomenon consistently seen in reported CF / LENR, that is a lack of expected photons in a Lipinski style reaction, the lack of radionuclides in some FP type electrolytic reports. The problem is consistently and adversely 'admired' by what I like to refer to as experts in "collisional" physics.

    From Zephir_AWT deep in the first link above:

    "From thermodynamical perspective the lack of radiation is the dual part of overcoming of Coulombic barrier. You may imagine the role of catalyst like the agent, which removes the hill on the road connecting the villages - because the cars aren't required to climb on it, they also aren't required to brake after it. The long lines of nickel atoms serve as a 1D catalyst in similar way, like the surface of platinum serves as a 2D catalyst for oxidation of hydrogen at room temperature for example. Not only the activation barrier for oxidation gets greatly lowered with it, but also the resulting temperature is much lower, because the resulting heat gets diluted with catalyst in the same way, like the activation barrier. The lack of radiation during cold fusion is just extreme example of this effect. Once we can admit, that the nuclear reaction can be initiated just by heating, then we shouldn't be surprised, its resulting energy will be also released in form of heat - because this is how every catalysis is behaving."

    Very fine analogy, and very appropriate. It shows that catalysis can explain both the enthalpy (delta H) production and the reduced or absent production of "classical canonical" radioisotopic or highly energetic photonic co-products. That is those deduced from the historical results of high energy collisional experiments.

    could conduct electricity perfectly at temperatures as warm as 110 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Sorry, you need to look more carefully at the article cited. While very remarkable and potentially very useful, the reported superconductivity is still "instrument limited" to a value, near or less than, 10 ^ minus 4 ohm. That is not yet necessarily "perfect" electrical conductivity. The definitive demonstration of the Meissner effect is yet to be reported by Thapa and Pandey .

    But even if it were, the transition temperature range reported lies between 236 K and 243 K, this equates to a range of about minus 37 to minus 30 degrees C, which is about minus 34.6 degrees F to minus 22 degrees F. Needless to emphasize, a long thermal distance from plus 110 degrees F (which equals plus 43.33 degrees C).

    Most money for LENR is spent by former military people (like Lipinskis)

    Where do you find that the Lipinskis are "former military people". They are definitely former IT people. I would be curious if they were associated with DARPA. Cite some references please. I imagine that their access to National Accelerator facilities might indicate such connections. I attribute their influence to money alone, and to connections that relate to the same IT entrepreneur background. As far as I know they are no more "military" than Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates or any other IT billionaires. Hence, I ask for your citations there Wyttenbach. Thanks.