Posts by Shane D.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.