Wasn't he the one who set up a website with a purloined photo of some gadget that had nothing to do with cold fusion? When we pointed this out, he removed it. I would not call that professional.
Daniel was busy on the science, and admittedly knew little about web design. He demonstrated professionalism when he asked us, the staff, for help to improve the site. Barty and Rends stepped forward, did some work on the layout, and improved it.
Jed, in your opinion (and anyone elses), what LENR or related technologies (evo's, strange radiation) are the most likely to be reliably replicated without needing to get materials from the original experimenter?
Will take you awhile, but read this thread first Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" ,and then ask your question again.
I don't believe that Jed has ever been a professional academic scientist. But he certainly thinks like one! It's nice to see.
I thought you would enjoy the show. We all love critiquing...that is what science is all about. But a parent to child scolding is not very productive. A respectful dialogue is though.
I suspect Daniel will not be back for awhile. Can't blame him. He and Mizuno like professional feedback...as does any scientist, but it has to be delivered in a such a way so as not to offend. Once that line is crossed, it is all over.
Hopefully when we get the Gordon "workshop" going, all members are on their best behavior.
Vortex-Theory started this thread, and generally we respect the authors right to have some say in the content. If he/she is too restrictive, the thread will die a quick death. Strike the right balance and it thrives.
If the topic is too important to fail, we all can always jump in with suggestions to keep it going.
This thread is slow, but the effort to attract replicators is not. I am aware of another replication attempt brewing, in addition to the one mentioned previously. Frank Gordon is asking the team to use the forum to interact, so that others can learn. That prevents "reinventing the wheel", as often happens in LENR, and ups the chances of success. All we can do is hope they accept.
There have already been some clarifications to the initial instructions which Gordon has mentioned privately, and I believe he will be posting those here soon. Yes...it is understandable for those who want to maintain some distance, so that their results are seen as "independent", but the quickest road to success is full open source so nothing is missed.
To that end, we continue to privately ask our qualified researchers if they will step up to the plate. If we get any takers, we are willing to fund raise in support of their work.
We are off to a good start. One replication is underway, with this newest one being planned. Both are high quality teams, and if they succeed, it will be big news.
By "incubator style calorimetry" do you mean the same insulated-box-with-flowing-air calorimetry as used by Mizuno?
When I first saw that, I looked it up and nothing popped up. Not my specialty, but will ask what that is one of these days.
This thread has resulted in an interesting collaboration. Hopefully more are to come that we can openly talk about. Secrecy, and anonymity in LENR come with the territory for good reason. Many of our members though are not as constrained by funding requirements, or organizational integrity.
Would love to hear from you.
Display MoreInfo on Germany:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/
How Germany Lost Control of the Virus
The country excelled during the first wave. What went wrong the second time around?
The article makes the assumption that comprehensive lockdowns work better than what they call "lockdown lights". That Germany got complacent after shutting everything down last spring, and by easing those restrictions they are now suffering the consequences.
Is the NYT's premise correct though...that a lockdown works better than lockdown light, or even no shutdown at all?
Thank goodness they are back to the high power levels.
As I noted in my presentation in India, Mizuno provided the cell and did most of the material preparation in the first round of experiments. That does not mean the results are suspect, but it does mean the know-how may not have been transferred. I hope Muto did most of the work this time around. I don't know what the situation is. I have not heard from them since I sent a draft of the presentation a few weeks before I gave it.
One of Muto"s grad students. Don't know if Mizuno helped him. Hopefully we will be authorized to pass on more details.
Latest on Mizuno replications, is that 2 weeks ago Muto was reporting 1kW in/3 kW out using incubator style calorimetry. Just today he is seeing 2.4 COP.
Mizuno's wife is seeking experimetal cancer treatment outside Japan...made much more difficult by travel restrictions, which understandably has made it difficult for he and his business manager to keep the LENR community informed. Their apologies.
Mark, you are going to have to go easy on the free energy stuff. You are giving us a bad name. There are other places you can talk about that.
You Ukrainians are hard to please.
Thomas "funny" Schenkel - no one world more on Google deuterium plasma/palladium neutron source.
Hot fusion pays the bills, so they can keep working on their true love...LENR.
Display MoreFor anyone coming up to speed on this topic, there was a Nature commentary in May 2019 that said that the results of the Google collaboration "have been published across 12 papers over the past 2 years: 9 in peer-reviewed journals and 3 on the arXiv preprint server."
I attempted to track down those papers by following links here and elsewhere (many thanks to Ahlfors and others). I don't think I found all 12 of the ones mentioned above, and there might be others in addition below that were not available at the time of the Nature commentary:
I think there was a study that was mentioned that sought tritium and didn't find it, perhaps with Thomas Schenkel as an author, but I didn't manage to track it down. Thomas Schenkel is at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and is one of the four (?) Google-funded principal investigators who have assembled teams. The other three principal investigators are Curtis Berlinguette, at the University of British Columbia, Yet-Ming Chiang, at MIT, and someone at the University of Maryland, perhaps Jeremy Munday. So many of the papers have one of these people as coauthors. In addition, it seems that Matthew Trevithick, David Fork, and Ross Koningstein, all at Google, are mentioned in connection with the Google project as well.
Might want to go through this thread: Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" Plenty of good info in there.
I am very busy with my own experiments and all the discussions occuring in numerous places, so I usually don't get here. However, after reading a few comments, I thought that giving my own results will clarify the situation
Thank you Jean Paul. Your post was timed perfectly, as a few hours ago we sent out the newsletter to officially start the Frank Gordon Replication (FGR) effort. We were going to put out something on this thread, but after seeing your post decided we did not want to overshadow what you said.
There is already much activity behind the scenes to get as much talent onto this as we can muster. The staff has been excited about this for at least a week, and when Frank gave our newsletter (writtenn by Curbina) the go-ahead today, we jumped right on it.
Now comes the hard part...getting people to invest the time to build, then test the device. That may seem easy, as we have so much experience represented among our members. But unfortunately, many are burned out after tackling other replications that did not go so well, and in some cases were instigated by imposters.
This is so different though, we have high hopes. Frank is as excited as we are, and has committed to assisting volunteers through the process. That is a first. Plus, the cost is minimal, and he has already been replicated by 2 other very experienced scientists.
There were some very promising things said n the demo. The one that most caught my attention was Mills saying the tech is ready right now. That if an OEM signed today, they should have something on the market in 1 year. And that the Suncell is tough and they don't know how to break it. That should be big news, but it appears so far that this demo has just created more suspicion instead.
So what is wrong?...IMO it is the BLP message. Mills has been around too may years, and those tuned in have learned to ignore him when he talks. To his credit, I think he realizes that, as he has tried to counter by bringing others along to his demos to add credibilty. This time it was Nansteel with his first hand testimonial.
It seems that may not be enough however. Were I a new potential investor, my first condition would be for him to hire a professional business team, with a PR department. Let them be the front men from now on, and keep him in the lab.
It is not unusual for someone with a great new invention to lack the talent, or personality to turn it into a successful business. I do believe there are others at BLP who feel the same.
Display MorePfizer vaccine only about 30% effective ?
https://www.infosperber.ch/ges…irksam-keine-transparenz/
What Pfizer did not tell the public and FDA only delivered on a report at the end.
A well known Swiss specialist for vaccine certification analyzed the details.
In the report we find 3410 additional sick individuals that add to the known ones. These were no counted because teh PCR test (how many cylces???) did not show a positive signal. Problem: This happens for 10 ..20% of all people delivered to a hospital.
So Pfizer did no secondary tests at all what would have been mandatory.
Thus Pfizer's 95% are blatantly wrong anything between 30..80% is real but not 95%
This does not mean that the vaccination does not work by preventing severe cases. It only tells its not a vaccine in the sense that it fully protects you.
You did not say "mafia" one time. Are you feeling okay?
I ask because I recall him saying that a meeting with them was ‘fun’, but not ‘funny’.
Is this the event you’re referring to?
That was it. This is what Schenkel had to say:
“Fun event, very nice presentations and discussions. I'd be happy to be part of follow ups if there
is interest (e. g. ideas for next experiments, cross checks, etc). Also an interesting example of a
targeted workshop in the "new normal" of no or hardly any travel, which we might be stuck in for
a while.”
Thomas Schenkel, Ph.D. (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab)
Understandable that Ahlfors interpreted "fun" as "funny". English can be tricky.
Display Moresome info here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BrilliantLightPower/
and supposedly an article being published in Nature - if it is, then that would be huge,
from what I read on that reddit link, the streaming is not public - but not sure if that is correct
Thanks. In addition to the demo supposedly coinciding with a Nature paper, according to the comments:
-Not public, but invitation only private demo. Sounds like BLP investors mostly who received invites.
-being held in a building near the White House in Washington, D.C.
-hosted by 2 investment firms
Will see if any of that holds up.
Does anyone have any information about tomorrow's (Feb 4) public demo? BLP's chiron message is a bit confusing. It says public viewing by invitation...which IMO is not really public if an invitation is required, then says it will be live streamed by popular demand.
