Rossi says presentation soon.
I believe he will have one. In the past, whenever he said he would do a demo, he followed through with it. Thanks for keeping us updated.
Posts by Shane D.
-
-
On second thought, maybe he should go back to sea: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00393-x
-
Display More
MFMP via Bob Greenyer has access to experimental LENR reactor data and active materials and has identified that the EVO is the active agent in the LENR reaction. Bob is in the process of characterizing the EVO. Bob has found that EVOs are carried in Ohmasa gas. If you can get access to some of this gas, you can see EVOs in action. Contact Bob Greenyer for help. He has a large volume of material on this subject. Look on YouTube for videos from Bob whose subject concerns the LION reactor. A sample is shown below with some EVO characterizations near the end of that video. If you can overlook the condemnations of Bob's work that are sure to come here, you will be facilitated by the EVO information that Bob has accumulated.
Also, strange radiation is produced by EVOs. There is information on this subject here on this site, Search on key "strange radiation"
magicsound from MFMP is a member here. He might be able to directly connect you with Bob.
YouTube Search key LION MFMP
Thanks Axil. I have been following BG's comments on ECW, and it appears we are near the long awaited "O'Day" revelation. Looking forward to seeing what he has come up with these last 3-4 years, although I may need some help in trying to understand it all.
-
Display MoreTakahashi et al considered the possibility of heat from the reduction of oxides in the calcined powder.
They found that the heat evolved remained constant whether the powder was calcined 1,2 or 3 times
If the heat generation by PNZ6 at RT is from reduction of calcined sample (namely from formation of D2O water by D2 + O reactions),we should have observed very increased integrated heat and “apparent” increase of loading ratio values.
Evidently, it is not the case. We can conclude that reduction process is negligibly small for D (H) absorption runs of PNZtype samples.
Since specific reaction energies are observed as almost same values (0.55 eV/D in average),
microscopic reaction mechanism seems common in three samples.
We regard that D-absorption is into Ni nano-cores mostly because of 1/10 minor Pd content.
About 0.55 eV/D for nickel is considerably large exothermic value at RT.
Article · May 2019
Thanks for posting this. Many do not realize you frequently communicate (go straight to the source) with the Japanese researchers. Maybe there is a lesson here for skeptics: ask first before inserting foot in mouth?
Yes, it does appear from your post that Takahashi and team, did in fact take into consideration all possibilities before concluding AHE. Including the hot debate item introduced by Ascoli in this thread.
-
"An apparent neutron count increase (green in lower right display) looks
correlating to the excess temperature rise of RTD1, 2, although neutron yield is closeto natural background level."
The wording makes it sound as if they were hesitant about putting this in the report.
-
-
Everyone else is basically saying of Ascoli65, 'No, no, no, no, no. How dare he! He should be thrown off this site that liar!' Not much there to convince me that Ascoli65 is wrong.
Maybe you should ask Ascoli why it is we distrust his motives? If asked, I believe he will answer you honestly. He is not some newcomer to the LENR scene as you seem to think, who we just arbitrarily decided to "threaten" for no reason.
We welcome skeptics, as is obvious from our membership. Very few forums dedicated to a "fringe" science, are so tolerant of those opposed to their core beliefs IMO. In return, we only ask everyone abide by a basic decorum, show some professional respect, and avoid accusations...no matter their opinions on LENR.
-
Shane, you are completely off base here. As a moderator, what you have written sounds to me like a threat.
Ascoli65 has introduced a rational point regarding the interpretation of the Takahashi et al results. It is the sort of thing that can be addressed by counterarguments rather than threats. Contributions like that should be welcomed here.
My impression was that the wet theory was implausible, and thrown out there to be disruptive. Was I wrong? The forum acts as an informal peer review system. It heavily depends on trusting those such as yourself to be honest in their assessments, with the good intent of finding legitimate errors that would appreciably affect the results. When someone betrays that trust -even one time, his motives thereafter always have to be suspect.
Do you trust Ascoli65 's intent? If you do, then you will feel protective of him, and assume everything he says is a legitimate critique as you are doing now. If not, like most of us, you will be very suspicious, and IMO it is his job to change our impressions of him. It is not our responsibility to carte blanche accept he is here for good purpose. He has to prove his opinion, and intent, is worthy of our considerations. If not, well then he is not going to get a good reception, and if it continues, he will not be here much longer.
In this particular case...the Takahashi report, the authors have spent literally 1000's of hours over the years working in the lab, communicating with each other, meetings, conferences, thinking in bed at night, living these experiments. And along comes ascoli, who with a few sentences about wet powders being the culprit, negates all their hard work. What an insult! At the least, if someone is going to act as a peer reviewer, they owe it to the authors to be a little more circumspect, do their homework, and be respectful of their abilities. Not just throw a grenade into the discussion, and walk away.
The forum also has a responsibility to the various teams whose reports we review here, to ensure they are treated respectfully.
-
At the beginning of the test, the powder is very wet, so the heating rate is slower. As temperature rises above the boiling point, the water evaporates starting from the bottom of the RC, where the cartridge heater is located. Subsequently, the dry powder heats at a higher rate.
You have to do better than this. Speculating that a fuel sample is wet, without proof of that in the report, is reckless and very unfair to the authors.
Perhaps you should reconsider whether you are being useful, or purposely annoying? I could make a good argument that originally you served some positive purpose here, but lately you have decided that annoying suits you better.
-
That sounds encouraging. Appreciate the colour.
Sorry to say that I have been informed it did not work out. All I can say is DF, and I did our part in bringing 2 well funded, talented teams together. We were hoping they could work something out for the good of humanity. One side with acceptance of mainstream science, the other with the PNZ formula/know-how that I was told worked almost 100% of the time. Seemed like the perfect match to finally carry LENR across the finish line.
Both parties were certainly interested, and seemed enthusiastic about meeting, so lack of an agreement must have had something to do with IP, legalities, or logistics constraints. Maybe next time.
-
What are the odds of someone like Google or NASA choosing to replicate the work and then publishing?
Slim?
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.
-
I am brand new to the forum so am not sure exactly who Alan is?
He is the all seeing, all knowing Alan Smith .
-
Does anyone know how to obtain a copy, in any format, of Ken's book, "EV: A Tale of Discovery"?
Alan "temporarily" put it somewhere on the forum. Not sure if it is still here though. I read it myself...or at least the non-technical parts, and truly a fascinating story. Ken was quite the genius, and it amazes me he was not taken more seriously by the establishment.
-
Different Murray.
-
Sorry no play
ARPA has been a friend of CF for many years. I do not think this one exclusion from funding requests, in favor of Hot Fusion means anything.
-
Are you sure you flew airplanes? Maybe it was just a delusion based on hallucinations and you were in an institution the whole time!
I was released from the institute a few years back, so it could not have been I was "in an institution the whole time". At best, maybe a few years...give or take.
-
Responding to serious posts with snarkiness is a common tactic of pseudo-skepticals with purposeful agendas.
Do not fall for the "did you pass the Rorschash test" question. I failed a bunch of them, and they still let me fly airplanes.
-
And in general, I am not sure that being as quick to be gullible as Frank Acland is an important achievement.
It takes me a little longer than Frank to get suckered in, so give me some credit.
-
Not true. It was posted here same day it appeared on brlo site. But almost everyone here is a microbiology expert today.
You are right Max. I see now that LeBob was on top of it.
-
Members...we are getting lazy! ECW scooped us on the latest BLP news...again. How embarrassing. Anyway, they do have another validation, and a new business plan out.
