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

Posts by Shane D.

    Well, the elevated background continuum wasn't really convincing to me, but the animated gif on their web site started to tickle my confidence. And now, with Bob Greenyer making jazz hands just when the "huge" signal hits, it's truly undeniable. No one can maintain skepticism against *that* presentation. I'm a puddle of admiration.



    A little sarcasm, perhaps even some jealousy in your post JC? Cheap shot about the "jazz hands" by the way. I thought BG did a fantastic job. I wave my hands more talking with my neighbors. Maybe it was the cast that attracted your attention?


    I do detect a little stepping back from your hyper-skep stance elsewhere. If so...is it due minute 33 of the video, where BG tells of the French Nuclear Agency *confirming* MFMPs suspicions about the nature of the "burst"?


    Or the part about the Oct. 6 2011 test you so convincingly cast doubt upon over the years? I think your theory was that the mass within was designed to store the heat for nefarious reasons, and not to absorb the gammas? Somewhere today I also read someone else saying the same.

    MY did not say it was never tested. But that it was never tested independently by genuine uni personel. Obviously, Rossi controlled testing is not the same, whether done in a uni lab or not.


    Tom,


    LOLs, Guess he did! Mary worded that wager so vaguely no one ever would have collected, as what he defines as a "proper test", is in the eyes of the beholder.


    I really haven't paid much attention to Mary on this, as the issue was discussed several years ago and resolved to my satisfaction. The document I remember seeing at the time showed the test being done at the university. End of story to me, but MY and Gary Wright wouldn't let it go. I believe Wright even claimed to have been told by someone, that they had shipped 27 or so cheap Russian made TEs to Rossi, or LTI, and those were the ones Rossi sent to the DOE.


    Anyways, I tend to block out Mary at times, and don't fully read his ramblings, but here is what "Marysays" a couple weeks ago:


    "The document does NOT show (and neither do any of the ones Gary Wright recovered) that a thermoelectric device was tested by any capable person at or by U of NH and that the result was high power and efficiency. There is still nothing to suggest such a test took place and nothing to suggest any high efficiency prototype ever worked."

    A couple weeks ago Mary Yugo (now banned here) received the FOIA he had requested. This is the same FOIA he claimed would prove the TEs, that Rossi (Leonardo Corp, Leonardo Technologies Inc.) provided the DOE (Dept of Energy), were in fact *never* tested. Proving he and Gary Wrights accusation, that Rossi scammed the U.S. government. Mary has allowed my posting it here:


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwb9AudbPldSWjYwSVBlRWZub3M/view?pref=2&pli=1


    I will let everyone decide for themselves. Keep in mind as you read, that Mary offered serious bets that this document would prove his claims against Rossi.

    An old military saying: "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way" may be applicable here. Obviously skeps don't fit the description of leader or follower, and fall into the "get the heck out of the way" category.


    Nothing wrong with being a skep by the way, as LENR lends itself to skepticism, nor does it does it mean they should stop participating. Afterall, *some* (JC for instance), have provided some valuable feedback that may end up helping the cause. So I would hope going forward they could/would still play a *constructive* role. And finding error is constructive.


    But it is one thing to peer review, quite another to try and discourage further discovery, or undermine the enthusiasm, and motivation necessary for the LENR "leadership" to do such time consuming *volunteer* work. Unfortunately, I am starting to see that creep in here.


    I wouldn't think skeps would want this particular effort, or others for that matter at some of the new research institutes, to come to an end? Or maybe they do? If not, I would think they would encourage the efforts underway, however little they think the chances of anything useful resulting. Quite the balancing act I know, to take pot shots at the data analysis, and somehow not demoralize those involved, but I think they can handle it. :)

    This from MFMPs QuantumHeat site, seems to be the heart of the matter:


    Speculations (presuming no error):


    Broad spectrum seems to rule out direct gamma emission from nuclear transition or decay.


    High energy of the signal photons rules out known chemical or physical effects.


    Transient nature of the effect suggests it is probably not a nuclear decay (but still could be) due to the short time of the emission.


    Continuous nature of the spectrum suggests possible Bremsstrahlung radiation.


    Bremsstrahlung normally requires a light particle hitting a heavy nucleus, so it probably is a high energy electron.


    Bremsstrahlung normally has a sharp cutoff at the energy of the electron; but since this spectrum has no sharp cutoff, it must come from electrons with a statistical distribution of energy as might be seen with β- decay emission where the electron’s energy is randomly shared with a neutrino.


    Very few isotopes decay with a β- emission of high enough energy to account for the high energy seen in the spectrum. However, one such isotope is 66Cu having a high β- emission energy of 2640 keV max and 1111 keV average with a half life of 5.12 minutes. 66Cu could potentially have come from 66Ni by β- emission with an energy of 227 keV max and 65 keV average with a half life of 54.6 hours (seems too long for this case).


    Could a branch of Piantelli’s reaction that reportedly ejects MeV class protons sometimes eject MeV class electrons – perhaps with a continuous random exchange of energy between protons and electrons? The high energy electrons would not have been seen in his cloud chamber.

    Celani measured a transient outburst of radiation at one of Rossi’s demonstrations while Rossi was starting his reactor in another room.


    Rossi has stated that he incorporates thick lead shields around his reactor core to thermalise gammas emissions and that these are the source of the E-Cat heat.


    How could neutron or poly-neutron fluxes be responsible for the other reports of gamma emission detected? Would Rossi’s lead stop a neutron flux?

    I am not a fan of secrets, so here is the e-mail to the donors:


    During ICCF-17 in South Korea, shortly following the sad death of Dr. Martin Fleischmann, it became abundantly clear to a group of fresh attendees that the old approach to science, combined with the ostracisation of the great minds that had worked in the face of ridicule, was not delivering on the promise of of what we immediately called, “The New Fire”.


    It also was clear that there was something to investigate and we were morally bound to do it.


    We said that people would not believe, until they could experience it as if they were doing themselves and so the idea of Live Open Science was born. That was not enough, it had to be an effort that was free from commercial or government interests and that result and so it had to be conducted by the people, for the people. Our journey was made possible by the courage of Francesco Celani and we thank him profusely.


    Your donations played a critical role in realising this vision, but you know that, what we know you will want to hear is what we have to share tomorrow.


    We have been running and analysing an experiment live over the past Month. First for us in this experiment were:


    - Parkhomov Baking of Ni(correctly done)


    - Pre Hydrogenation of Ni


    - Proper baking out of cell under vacuum


    - Parkhomov pressure


    - Piantelli de-oxygenation


    - Piantelli 'loading' + proper dwell times


    - Piantelli capture analogue


    - Use of free Lithium


    - Use of calibrated NaI


    - Cycles attempting to create nano Ni distillates (inspired by “Bang!” discovery of dissolved Ni)


    - Long Run


    You can see that there are steps in there that came about only because of activities that were made possible by donations. The critical visits to Piantelli and Parkhomov.


    Around the beginning of the month we saw what appeared to be up to a COP of 1.2, not earth shattering, but sustained and robust and in line with both observations by others and the Lugano report when adjusted for correct emissivity. Over the next weeks we tried various bookend calibrations which supported this finding.


    We have said that only two paths would satisfy us:


    Statistically significant Isotopic or elemental shifts from Fuel to Ash
    Statistically significant emissions commensurate, correlating, or anti correlating to excess heat
    We are happy to tell you that we believe we have satisfied our condition 2, yet of course we’d like to replicate ourselves. Actually, though, it goes much further than that. What we will share is that the way in which we discovered it and the journey of analysis that makes it virtually impossible to say that Rossi does not have what he claims. It also shows that, whilst he may have been optimistic in how fast this would play out, he has been telling the truth, quite openly for years. Not only that, nature itself has been telling the same story and it told us too.


    By the 16/02/2016 we had given up trying to destroy the *GlowStick* 5.2, part of a long lineage of []=[lexicon]Project Dog Bone[/lexicon]=[] experiments. After the reactor was turned off, Alan shared the remainder of the data files from the NaI scintillator kindly donated by a project follower called Stephen (Thankyou Stephen, really).


    Project follower and open science legend, Ecco, first took a look at the data and found some anomalies - one SO striking that we thought there had been an equipment failure. We did not know the time that the anomalies occurred and had to wait until Alan woke to explain the time stamps so we could correlate it with the thermal and power data published live to HUGNet (Thankyou Ryan and Paul Hunt).


    To our extreme surprise, the onset of excess heat followed the massive anomaly in emissions and the minor anomalies were during and only during excess heat.


    This led us on a path of discovery, the sequence of which explains:


    The massive count signal discovered by Francesco Celani during Rossi’s first public demo
    How Rossi knew his reactor had started
    How the E-Cat generates excess heat
    How it self sustains
    How it can scale easily
    That it is safe
    It also showed us how replicators can know they have succeeded in triggering the New Fire and how to enhance the excess heat.


    Subsequent to this, we found out Rossi had travelled the same design journey and had publicly shared it in the past.


    The irony is - this was all being conducted live in the open, including discussions and graphing, whilst people were distracted with news of the end of the 1MW 1 year test. Same day…


    In the past week we have been checking, cross checking to verify and this morning we cleared our last serious doubt, again live, with shared data. Because this is already in the open we want people to know so that they can start replicating based on what works, moreover, the insight will allow people to immediately start improving on our results.


    Thank you for making this possible


    We did it


    We lit the New Fire Together!


    © 2016 Microsoft
    Terms
    Privacy & cookies
    Developers
    English (United States)

    Dear Donor,


    During ICCF-17 in South Korea, shortly following the sad death of Dr. Martin Fleischmann, it became abundantly clear to a group of fresh attendees that the old approach to science, combined with the ostracisation of the great minds that had worked in the face of ridicule, was not delivering on the promise of of what we immediately called, “The New Fire”.


    It also was clear that there was something to investigate and we were morally bound to do it.


    We said that people would not believe, until they could experience it as if they were doing themselves and so the idea of Live Open Science was born. That was not enough, it had to be an effort that was free from commercial or government interests and that result and so it had to be conducted by the people, for the people. Our journey was made possible by the courage of Francesco Celani and we thank him profusely.


    Your donations played a critical role in realising this vision, but you know that, what we know you will want to hear is what we have to share tomorrow.


    We have been running and analysing an experiment live over the past Month. First for us in this experiment were:


    - Parkhomov Baking of Ni(correctly done)


    - Pre Hydrogenation of Ni


    - Proper baking out of cell under vacuum


    - Parkhomov pressure


    - Piantelli de-oxygenation


    - Piantelli 'loading' + proper dwell times


    - Piantelli capture analogue


    - Use of free Lithium


    - Use of calibrated NaI


    - Cycles attempting to create nano Ni distillates (inspired by “Bang!” discovery of dissolved Ni)


    - Long Run


    You can see that there are steps in there that came about only because of activities that were made possible by donations. The critical visits to Piantelli and Parkhomov.


    Around the beginning of the month we saw what appeared to be up to a COP of 1.2, not earth shattering, but sustained and robust and in line with both observations by others and the Lugano report when adjusted for correct emissivity. Over the next weeks we tried various bookend calibrations which supported this finding.


    We have said that only two paths would satisfy us:


    Statistically significant Isotopic or elemental shifts from Fuel to Ash
    Statistically significant emissions commensurate, correlating, or anti correlating to excess heat
    We are happy to tell you that we believe we have satisfied our condition 2, yet of course we’d like to replicate ourselves. Actually, though, it goes much further than that. What we will share is that the way in which we discovered it and the journey of analysis that makes it virtually impossible to say that Rossi does not have what he claims. It also shows that, whilst he may have been optimistic in how fast this would play out, he has been telling the truth, quite openly for years. Not only that, nature itself has been telling the same story and it told us too.


    By the 16/02/2016 we had given up trying to destroy the *GlowStick* 5.2, part of a long lineage of []=[lexicon]Project Dog Bone[/lexicon]=[] experiments. After the reactor was turned off, Alan shared the remainder of the data files from the NaI scintillator kindly donated by a project follower called Stephen (Thankyou Stephen, really).


    Project follower and open science legend, Ecco, first took a look at the data and found some anomalies - one SO striking that we thought there had been an equipment failure. We did not know the time that the anomalies occurred and had to wait until Alan woke to explain the time stamps so we could correlate it with the thermal and power data published live to HUGNet (Thankyou Ryan and Paul Hunt).


    To our extreme surprise, the onset of excess heat followed the massive anomaly in emissions and the minor anomalies were during and only during excess heat.


    This led us on a path of discovery, the sequence of which explains:


    The massive count signal discovered by Francesco Celani during Rossi’s first public demo
    How Rossi knew his reactor had started
    How the E-Cat generates excess heat
    How it self sustains
    How it can scale easily
    That it is safe
    It also showed us how replicators can know they have succeeded in triggering the New Fire and how to enhance the excess heat.


    Subsequent to this, we found out Rossi had travelled the same design journey and had publicly shared it in the past.


    The irony is - this was all being conducted live in the open, including discussions and graphing, whilst people were distracted with news of the end of the 1MW 1 year test. Same day…


    In the past week we have been checking, cross checking to verify and this morning we cleared our last serious doubt, again live, with shared data. Because this is already in the open we want people to know so that they can start replicating based on what works, moreover, the insight will allow people to immediately start improving on our results.


    Thank you for making this possible


    We did it


    We lit the New Fire Together!

    That's fine Kirk. I was wondering how you could be so flippant to admit such a thing, and it turns out you were just explaining that you DO have the skills to do the work. In my book that makes you qualified to "respectfully" critique the field. The other parts...time, money, the will, makes sense to me.


    I actually think you, Josh and Thomas make some good points. Should this turn out to be a pseudoscience, it will probably be due a mix of all those reasons. The one I think most likely in that case, would be the siege, or circle-the-wagon mentality brought on by the hostile environment LENR was born into. A safety zone so to speak, where true peer review breaks, and simple errors compound over the field, becoming systemic.


    But I also believe Ed has some good ideas too. I also liked Erics one comment about skeps focusing on "marginal", or small effects, and instead should be looking for signals well above the noise level, how ever small the signal may be. This is accomplished of course, only through very tight calorimetry . That comes only from, and by those, spending a lot of time in the lab (lab rats), and have the funding for the right equipment to accomplish. One good example would be SRI, which has perfected their methods for many, many years. Even Garwin couldn't find a flaw with their apparatus way back in 1993, and since then, they have improved it even more. I think they convened a group about 5 years ago, to iron out a standard LENR calorimetry protocol for others to follow.


    Which is one of the reasons I believe in those like FPs, Storms, Miles, McKubre, SKINR, BARC, NRL, Los Alamos, ENEA, and on and on. These guys live in labs. They are good at what they do. Not only the science aspect, but...I always remember early on Rothwell mentioning how there is an art to running calorimetry...and they have that too. It is not easy to get accepted in the first place to these institutions, let alone be allowed to stay on if they don't do professional work. So they are smart, and capable in a lab.


    And keep in mind, most of the LENRists initially made their discovery as the head of a team. Research teams generally play a good cop bad cop routine, where I would think/hope?, one will play Dr. Shanahan, ;) another Dr. Miley, and argue the set-up, protocol, operation, data analysis...minimizing chances of an error mode creeping into the process.


    So am I really biased? Or following the metadata as I read it...applying a good dose of common sense along the way? So I believe, because I trust the people doing the work. That simple.


    I just don't feel it reasonable to believe that this many are each, in their own way, with their own approach -or duplicating others, could be screwing it up this bad. I mean, what are the odds of that? Some yeah obviously, but all!


    Take care

    I am under the impression that Ed's LENR is living in the cracks. So how does it work? At first a crack opens, creating a micro accelerator that causes a micro fusion explosion and why not some X rays too. But this is not the real LENR, you say. Then the real LENR must come later, but how does that happen? Now the crack is just like any old crack, it has had its nanosecond as a sun. What more can a little crack ask for?



    Well, H-G, that cracked me up! :)

    They cited a marine press statement, where it is claimed, that the new submarines will have no need to undergo the costly fuel changes of a classical nuclear reactor...



    Interesting. Just recently, Mats Lewan mentioned on his webinar that he has: "reason to believe the US military is using the Ecat technology in some way". The reason he said that was due the Oct 2011 "1MW military acceptance test", for which the military supposedly signed off for purchase, after deeming the test a success, took command and shipped it somewhere.


    Only problem though was that the 1MW "shipped", was photographed still in Rossi's Ferrara garage some months later! LOLs. The whole bit was so cheesy...like a cheap amateur stage production show, that most of us dismissed the sorry affair as a "Rossisays" thing. Some became downright skeptical, understandably, of Rossi after that.


    Anyways, since I already had my tinfoil hat on for the vote on MFMPs "signal", thought I would throw that in. :)

    "personal and corporate safety,no money, no time, not my job, no desire, confidence in mathematics, understanding chemistry, better things to do"


    Kirk,


    Oystla asked the question "why is not Shanahan getting his hands dirty and prove his own hypothesis?".


    Your answer I quote above is basically that; you are too lazy, and lack the math and chemistry skills to prove your hypothesis. I can't believe that was your response. Did I really read that right?


    If so, may I ask why anyone in the LENR community should give you, and your hypothesis any more attention than they already have? Afterall, most of those you have dogged all these years, including Ed, have skills in everything you confess to lack, although they generally have one thing in common with you...lack of money.

    I don't know why so many in LENR play this: "I have a secret...na na"? Haven't we had enough of that from Rossi, Brillouin, Piantelli and the like? Now MFMP...sheesh. This isn't their first time either, but after catching flack the last time, I am hopeful this time it is real?


    Anyways Bob Higgins...a member here, posted on Vortex that MFMP would start using the isotope NI62 (Eric was onto the same thing) in their fuel (very expensive stuff). So it is possible the big secret (the Cookbook) to be unveiled is that. But they haven't even bought the stuff yet according to Bob H., so maybe not.


    There has been periodic speculation that Rossi doped his fuel with NI62, and that it was Rossi's "secret sauce". But then again, I think half the periodic table has been speculated at one time or another.


    So here we sit, and wait.

    Paradigmnoia,


    In the Lugano report the authors say this about the two Optris cameras used:


    The cameras used were two Optris PI 160 Thermal Imagers, one provided with a 30° × 23° lens and 160 ×
    120 pixel UFPA sensors, capable of reading temperatures up to 900°C, the other with a 48° ×37° lens,
    capable of measuring temperatures up to 1500°C. The spectral range for both cameras is from 7.5 to 13 μm

    Although many more qualified than myself wondered, there was never an adequate explanation of what differences, other than lens size, there may be in Optris' "factory settings" of their high, versus low temp models? If so, could that factor into this debate?


    When Dr. Clark first put his Lugano rebuttal out, I searched the Optris operating manual and couldn't find anything about it.


    You wouldn't know the answer to this, but I always wondered also if the testers were told beforehand that they were getting an alumina body Hotcat. At Ferrara (TPR1) the Hotcat they tested was composed of ceramic enveloping an internal steel sleeve, and painted with an aeronautical paint. If expecting the same type body, but getting something much different, did they call Optris and have them provide a non-blackbody specific camera...if there is such a thing? Or if they knew in advance it was alumina, not ceramic/steel, did they tell Optris to send a camera specifically suited for alumina?


    I am guessing not, because both high/low temp cameras read in the 7-15uM range. Yes, I know also that e is manually inputted by the end user, and the testers put in an incorrect value, so it may not matter anyways. You never know for sure though until you ask.


    Anyways, if you have any thoughts on the matter I would appreciate them. Like I said, I've seen this mentioned by others -probably too embarrassed to take it any further.