Shane D. Moderator
  • Male
  • from Pensacola Beach, Fl.
  • Member since Jan 26th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Shane D.

    Seems to me nothing has changed since 1989. I read the same charges leveled at FPs then, as I read now from TC/KS some 27 years later. The rebuttals the same then, as now also. The end is always the same too...both sides walk away convinced they are right.


    I think McKubre summed up the believers position well when he said something to the effect that: "You know, we electrochemists have been at this a long time and know what we are doing". Garwin presented the skeptic side with: "Well your setup may look good, but you must be doing something wrong".


    Looks like an impasse to me. LENRers will keep on producing small effects, and the mainstream will keep on ignoring them. Unless that is, someone retails an LENR+ commercial product, or produces that LENR "knock out" Thomas wants to see. If not, I can see this going on for a long, long time without a clear conclusion.


    If LENR is real, that would be bad. If not real, then hey, that will give us believers more time until the party ends! :)

    "nothing wrong with the setup." - And therein lies the problem...it's not the setup, it's the data analysis. This is the problem that strikes fear in the heart of all researchers when considering a SYSTEMATIC error. All of the experts miss it for awhile...everyone gets it wrong until the one guy finally keys in on the problem.



    Kirk,


    That my the be the case. If so it is a sad commentary on the abilities of those who have, and/or now, doing the research. Taking a wag at it, I would guess there have been hundreds, if not a round thousand...maybe more?, researchers (not including others on their "team"), spread across the globe, from the U.S. to Europe, Russia, India, China and Japan...In Government labs, Institutions, Research Parks, Colleges, and even in their garages, who have misread their results, or flubbed the "data analysis" if you are correct. Seeing LENRs where there are none. Wow...what are the odds of that many screwing up so badly so often? So yeah, you could be right, but I tend to think this many can't be that wrong.


    Many of them have also had one of those eureka moments -usually a "heat burst", resulting in either meltdowns, or unambiguous excess energy. I think it was one of the replicators here (Freenergy?) who recently experienced one. FPs had a monumental meltdown. Levi and team had one too during their first (Ferrara) test of the ceramic Hotcat. LENR literature is filled with similar events. Are they misinterpreting those results also? What could explain these episodes if they are?

    Couple of points about the MFMP Celani wire test:


    From shortly after FPs announcement, calls of poor calorimetry became the rallying cry for mainstream to dismiss the initial claim, and all those since. Instead of taking the criticism personally, the CF community early on responded by reaching out to their colleagues to prove otherwise. This culminated in 1993 with Garwin/Lewis -representing the mainstream science hierarchy, experts themselves in calorimetry, accepted an invite to SRI to study their calorimetry used, and the positive results they were seeing. Described as a “two day exhaustive review”, they reported finding nothing wrong with the setup. McKubre had an airtight calorimeter accurate to 99.7%, and the mainstream agreed with him.


    SRI’s LENR methods were so thorough, so precise, DARPA commissioned them to test new LENR claims. Of, I think, 25 such tests, they (SRI) found 6 that met their criteria. 6 proven LENR technologies judged so by one of the best in the industry, using calorimetry blessed by two prominent skeptical mainstream scientists.


    Not that SRI were the only ones within the LENR field with such skills; as NRL, Los Alamos, SPAWAR and many, many others, all of which reported LENRs of some sort, were equally as, if not more so, capable.


    Not that this stopped the mainstreams resorting still to the oh so easy to say: “must be their calorimetry”. So committed to their bias against, they just wouldn’t admit they were wrong on that. Even after their emissaries (Garwin/Lewis) found otherwise.


    Enter MFMP…There doesn’t seem to be any “College of Calorimetry” one can graduate from, or “LENR Calorimetry Handbook” to read, and afterwards be able to set up an experiment the very first time, with some degree of certainty their setup is airtight, and the results pure. Sometimes it appears to me that each time a neophyte gets involved in LENR, they have to reinvent the wheel. So there is a rather lengthy learning curve, it appears. Must be, because I have seen so much of that with the replicators.


    I wonder also if they (MFMP) aren’t barking up the wrong tree with these Celani wires? SKINR, whom are adept around a lab, well equipped, recently put a lot of their valuable time (200 days), and effort into their own Celani wires, and they had null results too:


    "In related work, the SKINR group sought to replicate results reported by Celani at previous ICCFs. They did sensitive mass flow calorimetry on eight Cu-Ni-Mn wires, six from Celani and two others from Mathieu Valet. The group employed a stainless steel cell, in contrast to the glass cell of Celani, in order to be able to perform the calorimetry. But they followed closely the set-up, operation and heating protocols that earlier gave excess heat for the Celani group. Beyond the initial protocol, they tried pulsed and highlymodulated (SuperWave) driving voltages. Neither the original nor the new protocols gave excess heat during about 200 days of testing, with a calorimetric sensitivity of less than 10 mW"

    From what I see, we are talking two people....MY and TYY. I see Thomas as an asset, not a liability to the discussions. I have been on talk forums since their inception. I have seen many slowly ruined, forcing their closure due to just a few trolls who ran everyone off. I have also seen a couple that lost their allure due to too much censorship.


    Those sites which successfully dealt with trolls without suffocating free speech, have generally banned certain types of inflammatory and accusatory language. Trolls seek the thrill of being offensive to others. It gives them a buzz...not for what they say, as they usually have little of value to say, but HOW they say it.


    Take away the tools of their trade, and problem solved.

    Business world? You mean like GE, GM or Tesla, for instance? Or Sandia, ORNL or CERN? Or maybe Google and Microsoft or one of the billionaire philanthropic organizations? Uh... no!



    My gosh MY, where have you been? You are stuck in the old DGT forum days it seems. Your canned responses no different nowadays, as back then. It seems you don't even read new developments closely...if at all, nor fully read others posts.


    In answer to your sarcastic response: Airbus, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, STMicro (sp?), Boeing, NI, ENEL, Elforsk...need more?


    As I said, business has been very open to LENR. One could even say they have embraced it. Not at all fearful of the stigma in doing so. Thank goodness too, as academia sure hasn't. Were it not for them (business), and the few government entities around the world off and on again support of LENR, and the few garage tinkerers, it might have died of neglect long ago.

    Paradignmoia


    MY unwittingly brings up a good point...if MFMP does not produce a kit with COP well above noise, would the science mainstream accept it? Or take notice at all?


    Afterall, there have been others throughout LENR history who have claimed fairly consistent, but small anomalous effects, and the science world responded with a collective yawn. Would a kit with COP 1.15 do any better?


    Maybe had a majority of replicators duplicated FPs early on -before the stigma set in (40 days), with a COP 1.15, the science community would have taken CF serious. Unfortunately, now, after the stink set in,1.15 just isn't going to do it. You could knock the Joshua types upside their heads with such a LENR kit, and they wouldn't even feel it, much less look at it. If it is LENR related, they aren't interested. Their minds are closed...end of discussion.


    Could be wrong, but I think it may take a commercial product to get them to jump onto the 2 axle, 4 wheeled :) LENR band wagon. Fortunately, the business world...unlike the collegiate academic world, has long been friendly to, and on board with LENR. Stigma be damned, if they can make a buck, and do the world good in the process, you bet they are ready to invest...as we have seen plenty evidence of lately.

    From June 2012:
    http://energycatalyzer3.com/ne…lop-prototype-lenr-device

    Professor Piantelli is so confident in his device that he is planning to sell shares in a company called Metalenergy. Metalenergy will raise money finance research at Piantelli’s existing company nicHenergy. The money will be used to fund a laboratory that will develop generators. No website for Metal Energy currently exists. nicHenergy has a very limited site up which provides no details.


    A friend of Piantelli Roy Virgilio released a statement that indicates construction on either generators or the laboratory has begun. Investors will be paid dividends based on the profit from the sale of the generators or licenses for the technology. The generators will first be sold in Europe.


    Virgilio stated that the generators will be in the 100 watt to seven kilowatt range. He didn’t specify whether this indicates watts of heat or electricity. Virgilio stated that Piantelli thinks he has mastery of the phenomenon. He also stated that Piantelli is working with unknown associates. These associates could be members of the Cold Fusion Energy Inc. consortium which also includes Peter Hagelstein at MIT and George Miey..


    Shares in Metalenergy will cost between €100 and €1000 Euros ($125.45 to $1254.5 US). Virgilio didn’t say how people could buy the shares or if non-Italians would be able to invest in the company. Piantelli would like to raise between €50,000 and €100,000 for his work although I have a feeling he’d welcome more. The nature of the shares or the powers they would give to shareholders are not specified here


    Looking on Nichenergy's new site today, 3 1/2 years later, they admit to the difficulties of developing a commercial product:


    Today it is known that the replication problem is the complexity of the phenomena, their overlapping and the high number of parameters identified so far (22); among them stand out in particular the sample composition and morphology. Multidisciplinary knowledge is needed for this research.


    So something obviously happened along their path to commercialization. My take is that they are still stuck at LENR, and LENR+, with it's subsequent commercialization, is still a ways off.

    @Shane: Nonsense as usual. if someone provides high power levels sustained long enough and the measurements are reliable and replicated by trustworthy people, virtually ANYBODY will believe it's anomalous. Celani and MFPM are miles away from those criteria.



    True to form, you left yourself plenty of room to stand by your preconceived belief that LENR just can't be real...as usual.


    Define what you mean by: "trustworthy", "replicated", "anomalous", and "sustained long enough".

    My point is that it is not a step on the way to LENR.



    Thomas,


    Well...why is it not a step on the way to LENR?


    This latest Celani wire test literally just started. It isn't even over yet. MFMP wants to run it for as long as they can, which could be another week or so. Yet, you have already concluded it a failure...or am I missing something?


    Over on the other site, you also say that "they" found the earlier Celani tests had errors that when corrected for proved artifact too, which is the first I had heard of that. So who is this: "they", and where did they say that about the older tests?


    Seems like you are going off the deep end lately. Stating pretty confidently that all of FPs positive observations were artifact, and all LENR experiments the past 27 years were artifact too. And as I recall, you have only studied a few of these peer reviewed reports? Yet you extrapolate to the other few hundred that they all must be the same.......artifact.


    Let me guess; LENR can't be real, so whatever excess heat, He, is measured MUST be artifact! LENR researchers have sure heard that one before, so you wouldn't be the first.

    Man Thomas, what a party pooper! Here we are popping the champagne bottles and you come in and turn the lights off. ;)


    Seriously, we here, as do the MFMP volunteers, understand that this is just another step towards that LENR kit. The next step may be the last, but in the meantime I see no harm in a little hooray for the home team...or is that not OK with you skeps? I mean, when you go to a soccer match, and your team scores a goal early on...do you stay silent because there is still a long ways to the end, and "patience is a virtue". Hopefully not LOLs.


    This is MFMPs replication of their earlier series of Celani wire tests. Those earlier tests were modeled off of Celani, whom had his own success with his "wires". So it seems we have a replication that has been transported, then successfully duplicated, from one lab to another...or am I wrong? And instead of the "signal" decreasing with better calorimetry, and repetition...as you and JC claim has historically plagued all other LENR experiments, we now have the opposite. A signal that stays the same with multiple runs and better calorimetry.


    Mass Flow Calorimetry that even MY should be happy with. :)

    If they didn't "post such news", it wouldn't be open science...right? By doing so, they initiate the internet peer review process that will help determine whether this is legit. It is much quicker this way, rather than suppressing the news until absolutely, 100% certain.


    What I find hopeful about this latest from MFMP, is that it is in line with their earlier Celani wire results. If this run stands up to peer scrutiny, as did those prior, and further refinements prove as predictable, and reliable, we may have our first "LENR kit"...which has always been MFMPs goal. That would be huge.


    Go MFMP! :)

    "You want the truth, you can't handle the truth!"


    Oh yeah, just noticed you said "proof", not truth. :)


    Anyways, looks like soon, real soon it appears, we will know if you can handle both the truth, and the proof. ;)

    Oh, Sterling Allan approves! That does it. Must be real.



    Don't know why you say that? Sterling sounded non-committal to me, which for him is almost an indictment against. Not that I care what he thinks, or alludes too. Weird guy, and some of the things he has "confessed" to....like I said, weird.


    That said, the way BLP handled this raises a red flag to me. Just too secretive, and controlling. Why even invite Sterling too if legit?


    Will try and reserve judgement though until some insiders have their say. Sometimes things aren't what they first appear.

    H-G,


    Thanks, I was aware of McKubres comments on Papps machine, thanks to MY and JC hammering on it for years now. In fact, had you not mentioned this, MY would have surely done so. It is one of his standard rants. ;)


    After taking into account McKubres many other accomplishments, I choose to ignore this bit of old history. We all make mistakes, if indeed he feels today it was a mistake? Had he taken the easy career road, kept to noncontroversial research, he would be well respected in electrochemistry circles. He knew the risk of taking this path, and I give him, as I do the other LENR pioneers, a lot of credit for doing what they did, and do. Probably most have something they wish they could take back.


    Until there is an LENR+ commercial product, or an LENR cell/reactor that reliably produces the effect, and also transportable to other labs with the same results, every LENR pioneers obituary will have an * mark, noting their involvement in the controversial field. It is the mark they bear for their beliefs.

    DARPA paid SRI/McKubre to test various LENR claims:


    http://energycatalyzer3.com/ne…dmits-working-for-darpa-2


    "Dr. Michael McKubre of SRI or the Stanford Research Institute; said he has tested between 12 and 15 low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technologies for the United States government. If that wasn’t enough, McKubre said his team was able to replicate at least five of those technologies."


    Mary is doing what he always does...throwing out insults with little, if any discretion.


    McKubre has impeccable credentials. His SRI lab is the "go-to" for LENR verification as the article shows. They wrote the book on LENR calorimetry. If SRI says it is LENR...then it is LENR.


    McKubre's associating himself with Brillouin means BE is legitimate, and the effect they see is real.