Posts by Shane D.

Don't like Paypal, and couldn't find where to do a Credit Card, so did the old fashioned way and mailed a check.

Thanks to McEek on ECW for getting this update from Aureon:

Aureon Energy Update – (e-catworld.com)

Hands down, IMO Aureon is the most PR savvy LENR based company the field has ever had. At the least, they produce the coolest videos. Whether or not that translates into being the first to market remains to be seen...but we are pulling for you Aureon!

Home | Aureon Energy, Ltd.

If she admits being wrong when caught not doing her homework, we can educate her.

Quote from Daniel_G

Not sure if I can add much to this conversation but I have lived the majority of my life as a contrarian scientist and entrepreneur. Which means I have to bet big against the status quo which is a very risky proposition. I tried using the conversationally optimized ChatGPT to explore around the edges of physics where things are a bit fuzzy but I found the model to be highly biased towards "mainstream ideas" almost to the point of being annoying. Perhaps there should be a button to select mainstream bias or not because I found the exercise to be entirely futile.

Perhaps we need the meshuganon version of ChatGPT for our needs. Take a look at this exchange:

What is the evidence available now for low energy nuclear reactions or lattice confined fusion

Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and lattice confined fusion (LCF) are controversial topics in the field of nuclear physics. While some researchers claim to have observed evidence for these phenomena, there is currently no widely accepted scientific explanation for the reported observations, and many experts in the field are skeptical.

One of the most widely studied LENR phenomena is the so-called "cold fusion" reaction, which involves the fusion of deuterium atoms at room temperature. In 1989, researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed to have observed cold fusion in a laboratory experiment, but subsequent attempts to replicate their findings were largely unsuccessful. There have been occasional reports of other researchers claiming to observe cold fusion or similar phenomena, but these observations have not been widely replicated or accepted by the scientific community.

In recent years, some researchers have proposed that LENR and LCF may involve the formation of exotic particles such as "hydrinos" or "dark matter" particles. However, these proposals have not been widely accepted or supported by experimental evidence.

Overall, while there are some researchers who continue to investigate LENR and LCF, the scientific community as a whole remains skeptical of these phenomena due to the lack of widely accepted evidence and the absence of a well-established theoretical framework to explain them.

OK I understand that some of the results may be controversial but aren't there credible institutions like US Navy, US Dept. of Energy, US Army, NASA and respectable research institutions like MIT and University of Texas studying these phenomena today?
Yes, it is true that there have been some credible institutions and research groups that have investigated LENR and LCF in recent years. However, it is important to note that while these institutions and researchers are investigating these phenomena, they are not necessarily endorsing the idea that LENR and LCF are valid or proven phenomena. For example, the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) has conducted research into LENR for several years, and has reported some positive results. However, the SPAWAR researchers have stated that their findings are preliminary and require further investigation, and have not claimed that LENR is a proven or established phenomenon. Similarly, some researchers at MIT and the University of Texas have investigated LENR and reported positive results, but these findings have not been widely accepted by the scientific community, and are subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny. Overall, while it is true that some credible institutions and researchers have investigated LENR and LCF, it is important to approach these claims with skepticism and to recognize that there is currently no widely accepted scientific explanation for these phenomena.

This goes on and on in a completely unproductive circle. What is clear to me is that for exploration on the edge of human knowledge, this type of AI is entirely unhelpful unless you turn the situation on its head and your looking for a devil's advocate in your theoretical discussion it might be somewhat useful like this: What is the most convincing evidence that exists that LENR reactions occur?
The most convincing evidence for the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) is still a matter of scientific debate, and there is currently no widely accepted evidence that conclusively demonstrates the occurrence of LENR. There have been some experimental results that have been interpreted as possible evidence of LENR, but these results are not universally accepted by the scientific community, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Some of the experimental results that have been cited as evidence for LENR include: Heat production: One of the most widely studied LENR phenomena is the production of excess heat during certain types of experiments. In some experiments, researchers have reported the production of excess heat that cannot be explained by conventional chemical or nuclear reactions. However, these observations are controversial, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Nuclear product detection: Some experiments have reported the detection of nuclear products such as neutrons, tritium, and helium that cannot be explained by conventional nuclear reactions. However, these observations are also controversial, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Isotopic shifts: Some experiments have reported shifts in the isotopic ratios of elements such as palladium, which may be indicative of nuclear reactions occurring within the material. However, these observations are also subject to controversy and alternative explanations. It is worth noting that the scientific community remains divided on the question of whether LENR is a valid phenomenon. While some researchers believe that there is compelling evidence for LENR, many others are skeptical and argue that the observed phenomena can be explained by conventional chemical or nuclear reactions. Overall, more research is needed to determine whether LENR is a valid phenomenon, and to develop a theoretical framework to explain any observed effects. What are some examples of the evidence being explained by conventional nuclear reactions in a LENR experiment?
There have been several alternative explanations proposed for the experimental results that have been interpreted as evidence for low energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Some of these alternative explanations involve conventional nuclear reactions that can occur at low energies, while others involve chemical reactions or other phenomena that can produce the observed effects. Here are some examples of alternative explanations that have been proposed: Chemical reactions: Some researchers have argued that the observed excess heat production in LENR experiments can be explained by chemical reactions that take place at the surface of the material being studied. For example, some researchers have proposed that hydrogen can be adsorbed onto the surface of palladium, where it can react with oxygen to produce water and release heat. This explanation is controversial, however, and is not universally accepted. Isotope exchange: Some researchers have proposed that the observed isotopic shifts in LENR experiments can be explained by isotope exchange reactions that occur between the material being studied and the surrounding environment. For example, some researchers have proposed that hydrogen can react with the surface of palladium to produce deuterium, which can then exchange with surrounding hydrogen to produce shifts in the isotopic ratios. This explanation is also controversial and is not widely accepted. Contamination: Some researchers have argued that the observed nuclear products in LENR experiments can be explained by contamination from other sources. For example, some experiments have reported the detection of tritium, which can be produced by conventional nuclear reactions or by cosmic rays. Similarly, the detection of helium in LENR experiments can be explained by the presence of helium in the surrounding environment, or by the release of helium from the material being studied. Overall, it is important to note that the scientific community remains divided on the question of whether LENR is a valid phenomenon, and that alternative explanations have been proposed for the experimental results that have been interpreted as evidence for LENR. More research is needed to determine the validity of these alternative explanations and to develop a comprehensive understanding of any observed phenomena.

As you can see there is a deep weakness in such technology even if just to summarize what is going on at the edges of science and discovery. Perhaps its asking too much of general conversational model AI to be helpful here but as Jed mentioned, perhaps more precisely tuned version will begin to sprout like mushrooms in a forest and that's where the revenue model lies in the future.

I close with my last question in this exchange:

How long will it take to get an AI assistant similar to Iron Man's assistant, JARVIS, in the movie?
The type of AI assistant portrayed in the Iron Man movies, known as JARVIS (Just A Rather Very Intelligent System), is a highly advanced and sophisticated artificial intelligence system that can perform a wide range of tasks and interact with its user in a natural and intuitive manner. While significant progress has been made in the development of AI systems over the past few years, creating an AI assistant as advanced as JARVIS is still a long way off. There are still many technical challenges that need to be overcome, such as developing more advanced natural language processing capabilities, improving the ability of AI systems to learn and adapt to new situations, and ensuring the safety and reliability of these systems. That being said, there is ongoing research and development in the field of AI, and it is possible that in the future, we may see AI systems that are closer to the sophistication and capabilities of JARVIS. However, it is difficult to predict exactly when such systems will be developed, as progress in AI research and development can be unpredictable and subject to many different factors.

Display More

While you, I, and most here, will see this as biased, IMO someone not immersed in the science would walk away with a fairly balanced perspective of the pros/cons of the issues. It seems to be positioning itself in the middle of the debate, and not taking sides. Maybe that is how it is programed to be? If so, it may be good for LENR.

After reading the generated responses, I would think someone unfamiliar with LENR might conclude it could be real...which would be progress in our mission to educate the public.

500: We've Run Into An Issue | Mailchimp

LENR Forum Newsletter MARCH 2023 LENR-forum marks 34 years of Breakthrough Research began by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons who created the subject of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Enjoy this biography on Martin Fleischmann by David E. Williams published on the Royal Society's website. "Martin Fleischmann was an electrochemist whose work revolutionized the subject." Thanks to all the Honest Engineers and Courageous Scientists who have followed truth no matter where it leads. ARPA-e funds 8 labs in the US The US Department of Energy's arm of research ARPA-e has funded 8 labs from the U.S. with a total of $10,000,000 for LENR research. Final recipients listing here. A call for teaming partners has received a global response. Teaming partners are available to work with any of the winning participants and both veterans and new participants have been accepted. See current teaming partners list here. Deadline for partner applications appears to be April 25, 2023 by 9:30am Eastern US. Find applications for Teaming Partners here.   A new website from Clean Planet, Inc https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/ features the prototype QHe IKAROS. Based on what they call Quantum Hydrogen Energy, Clean Planet announced at the ICCF24 held last July they would be releasing a 2 kilowatt thermal hot water boiler for industrial use in 2025. LENR-forum's Alan Smith interviewed lead researcher Yasuhiro Iwamura on the plan at the recent IWAHLM 14 held September 2022 here. Author Ruby Carat previously highlighted the Clean Planet team accomplishmets as presented at ICCF24 here. A local northern California, US broadcast Humboldt Today features John Kennedy O'Connor delivering the latest happenings in rural Humboldt county. For the past couple weeks, their bookshelf has been showing the DISCOVER COLD FUSION comic scripted by Ruby Carat with art by Matt Howarth. Watch an episode and see the developing shelf here! Also, word has it DISCOVER COLD FUSION was seen in the library of CalPoly Humboldt in the Author's section. What's LENR in your local library? Post a picture at https://www.lenr-forum.com/. LENR-forum interview MEET Guido Parchi Watch Guido Parchi on Youtube. The 25th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF25 will be held this summer Sunday, August 27, 2023 - Thursday, August 31, 2023 in Szczecin, Poland. Univeristy of Szczecin Physics Professor Konrad Czerski will host the event with his research team. Join the CMNS research community as they provide updates on new science, funding and technology benchmarks. Abstract submission is due April 1, 2023. Abstract acceptance is provided by May 1. More information on accommodations and submission deadlines at https://iccf25.com/. Watch presentations from last summer's ICCF24 in Mountain View, California here. The University of Szczecin got an upgrade to their Linear Accelerator as part of the CleanHME program funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 project. Look for tours of the research facility at ICCF25! The Japanese Cold Fusion Society met this month for the JCF23  program [.pdf] at Waseda University. Updated Abstracts have been released here. Inifinite Energy #163 https://infinite-energy.com/ was released featuring an article by George Washington University researcher David J. Nagel entitled Direct Electrical Production from LENR. Read the abstract here. We're in discussion with Infinite Energy Magazine to arrange a discount for LENR-forum members. Look for more at LENR-forum.com. LENR-forum is expanding! Seeking volunteers for the LENR Forum Web Development team. If you are passionate about Open Science and have programming and web skills, we want you to help maintain and expand our online platform and presence. As a volunteer, you will have the opportunity to contribute to an exciting forum dedicated to the exploration and discussion of LENR technology. You will collaborate with like-minded people to help improve the forum's functionality, aesthetics and overall user experience. Interested? Contact David Nygren at LENR-forum.com.

Quote from Curbina

In that sense, he has been greatly succesful on keeping funds flowing to keep his personal crusade to be proven right going on. This is not fraud, just misaligning between what the investors want and what Mills want.

He did mention all the granted patents they have. Not sure if they produce a revenue stream on top of investor money. If they do bring in income, again unsure if it is used for research, or to reimburse investors.

At one point he claims $120 million has gone into getting to where he is now. If true, certainly he has been far more successful attracting funding than anyone else in the field over the last 34 years.

Quote from RobertBryant

he sure can talk the talk,,but the walk is 33 years now

It might surprise many when I say I agree with you. After 33 years promising to be months away from a commercial product launch, he deserves the disbelief and sarcasm he gets with his latest sales pitch. It is up to him, not me, to convince everyone that this time it is for real.

That said, his story still baffles me. Really, the only aspect, IMO, that points to fraud is the 33 years you mention with nothing to show for it. After that, all the elements point to a brilliant scientific mind with a new discovery, who can attract enough investment to keep the lab lights on, but incompetent at running a business.

Quote from RobertBryant

I guess BLP would not show difficult feedback..

such as "Aren't you gonna toast your PV cells?"

Was wondering about that also. At 15:45 he answers a question about whether the materials can withstand the high power produced. He says they use to melt the "infrastructure in the bottom", but found "optically getting that power out of there" (through quartz) worked, so they don't have that problem anymore. Of course, once that power is transferred out...what about the PV?

Starting at 3:15 he discusses at length the "massive advantages" optical transfer in conjunction with the concentrated PV has over thermal transfer of the generated power. It does not sound as if the PV system is a problem the way he describes it at several points. All "off the shelf" tech according to him, and well within the PV industries capabilities. Somewhere he says they are working with 2 PV companies on that.

Quote from Zeus46

His business model is beyond reproach…

32 years and counting, no?

No reason to be sarcastic about it. Most agree that he is a lousy businessman. Even some of those around him feel the same, and would agree that if he stepped aside, BLP would be the better for it.

Tell me though how he has fooled so many credible people, institutions, and his own highly qualified employees, who have validated and successfully tested his tech, or worked side by side with him developing the tech/theory, and I will be done with him.

Even a pessimist such as yourself must be curious? He has never fit the scammer profile like a Rossi to me. It may turn out that he is, but if so, his story will be different. Much more sophisticated. Truly brilliant. He would have to be to fool the likes of me.

Well...the main takeaway from this latest of 32 years (and counting) BLP/BrLP updates, is there is (if my source is correct) a prototype that should be easily testable by potential investors and buyers. That should be of some comfort to those interested. Little, if any, risk IMO in checking it out in that case. The potential return on investment of course, is huge. Not just for them, but the planet.

Quote from Alan Smith

Remarkably few shadows....though there is a shadow of the technician's legs cast by the overhead lights behind him.

Best not to look at it that closely!

New video on YouTube that shows the optical intensity of the reaction, without the photovoltaic array that will eventually be used to harness the light. I don't know how long it can run, but Mills claims the power gain is sufficient to convert the light to electricity with a substantial net electrical gain.

BLP is ready to demonstrate the prototype to potential corporate partners and investors. I am told this prototype will make it very easy for 3rd parties to do their due diligence.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I saw a recent photo of Fabiani and he looks much healthier than I have ever seen him at Rossi events, and actually happy-looking. Nice to see.

Good to hear. He must be recovering from the health issues he suffered after Doral. Maybe now he can write a book and tell us his version of the Rossi story.

Quote from orsova

I overlooked this: Rob Duncan's presentation to the ARPA-E LENR Workshop.

https://arpa-e.energy.gov/site…1LENR_workshop_Duncan.pdf

More context.

ETA: An interesting note from the presentation:

Useful for LENR, climate change research, and for new novel fission / fusion hybrid reactor designs
that we are pursuing now

Display More

IMO, Duncan has probably been one of the most secretive (quiet is probably a better description) researchers in the field since joining in the LENR search after his 60 Minutes interview. Especially after he left SKINR and took up a position at Texas Tech. I see from your post, he now admits doing LENR research at his Center of Emerging Energy Sciences (CEES) at the Texas Tech University Department he now heads up. That is new to me, so thanks. Good to know, and important news.

He also started Seashore Research LLC near the TT campus for the same purpose. It was reportedly funded by Bill Gates. Not sure where all this comes together, but with that much activity I see it as very promising. At ICCF24 last summer, he broke his silence with a very positive presence, and upbeat message with what he was seeing in the lab. Before then, most of us assumed he had failed in the lab and was quietly making his exit for the door.

Unique commercial grade electricity generator that works on the same principle of "conversion of chemical bond energy into useful work", but more efficiently, and more green say the inventors:

This New Breed of Generator Can Run on Almost Any Fuel - IEEE Spectrum

me356

I think it might help motivate further interest in your work if you could provide some proof you are in fact achieving the results you claim in your lab. You often mention *we* have done this, seen that, etc....as if others are on your team. Could one of them back up what you say? Data, pictures, independent verification, anything that might reassure others that they will not waste their time pursuing your Mizuno replication techniques?

I will say that you appear to know what you are talking about, and know things only people doing the lab work would know. But you have always come across that way, yet here we are years later and still nothing to show for all the effort.

20230201_Zinberg_FreedomWinsStateswithLessRestrictiveCOVIDPoliciesOutperformedStateswithMoreRestrictiveCOVIDPolicies_FINAL_202302091645.pdf (paragoninstitute.org)

Introduction:

The COVID-19 pandemic led to government interventions into the social and economic structures of our society that were unprecedented in their severity and duration. The fact that different states and localities took different approaches to imposing these measures created an opportunity to determine whether these interventions improved health outcomes, what economic and social side effects the interventions caused, and whether the interventions influenced people’s decisions about where to live.

This paper compares a quantitative measure of government interventions from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker—a systematic collection of information on policy measures that governments have taken to combat COVID-19—to health, economic, and educational outcome measures in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We use the Government Response Index, which is the Oxford researchers’ most comprehensive index.

Our results show that more severe government interventions, as measured by the Oxford index, did not significantly improve health outcomes (age-adjusted and pre-existing-condition adjusted COVID mortality and all-cause excess mortality) in states that imposed them relative to states that imposed less restrictive measures. But the severity of the government response was strongly correlated with worse economic (increased unemployment and decreased GDP) and educational (days of in-person schooling) outcomes and with a worse overall COVID outcomes score that equally weighted the health, economic, and educational outcomes.

We also used Census data on domestic migration to examine whether government pandemic measures affected state-to-state migration decisions. We compared the net change in migration into or out of states in the pandemic period between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2022, with the migration patterns over five pre-pandemic years. There was a substantial increase in domestic migration during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic trends. There was also a significant negative correlation between states’ government response measures and states’ net pandemic migration, suggesting that people fled states with more severe lockdowns and moved to states with less severe measures

Quote from magicsound

The web site https://mizunotech.com/index.html does not yet reflect this change.

barty usually makes changes to the website for Mizuno and Daniel as a favor. He is hard to get in touch with nowadays, so may take a while.

Quote from JedRothwell

"[Lewis] thought the heating coefficient (the calibration constant) was changing as the experiment proceeded. He thought that at the beginning of the test, 1 watt of electrochemical power caused the temperature to rise 14.0°C, and later that same power caused the temperature to rise 15.9°C, 14% higher. While it is conceivable that happened, that would mean the instruments were malfunctioning or the cell was configured wrong, so the experiment should have been done over. It is more likely that the instruments were working correctly, and the higher temperature was caused by 14% anomalous excess heat added to the electrochemical power."

Here is where he discusses that. It caught my attention while watching:

Quote from mizunotadahiko

Daniel_Gはもはやミズノテクノロジーズ株式会社で働いていません。

Translated: Daniel G, no longer works for Mizuno Technologies Corporation.

Sorry to hear that.