Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Traktion

Defkalion Lenr Article

Recommended Posts

Here is an update on where we are with the LENR technology.

Assuming the technology is genuine, this sort of thing will be a complete game changer.

Ultimately, there are hundreds of applications that will benefit from this technology, potentially even including portable devices, making cords and batteries unnecessary. Alex thinks that is five years away, while his scientists think it could be sooner.

"We're not selling products, we sell technology," Alex said. They let the professionals in the industry work out the details of fitting the technology to the myriad of applications out there.

However, there are a couple of slight exceptions to that rule. Being from Greece originally, where shipping is a major industry, Defkalion is taking on that application themselves. A large cargo ship (18,000 to 20,000 tons) can go through $20,000 worth of fuel each day, but with Defkalion's technology, those costs would go down to $500/day -- a 40-fold reduction in price. Imagine what that alone could do to the price of goods worldwide. Similar savings are expected in other applications as well, though the shipping will probably be the most dramatic.

With shipping, not only is there a savings on fuel costs, but also the time required for refueling, as well as the space and weight on board for the fuel, as well as no more danger from the fuel and problems of spills in the case of an accident.

Alex expects that the price for a retrofitted nuclear plant will be 12 times lower than what they presently operate at. They expect to be able to produce power for around 0.35 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Once these units are available for home heat and electricity, the energy cost is expected to be less than $300 for six months, for a 550 square meter (6000 ft2) home. Heat alone costs that much per month in the winter in many of the colder climates. Then think of the robustness of having your heat and electricity both independent of the grid. No longer would natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes effect thousands or even millions of people for days on end. Your power simple doesn't even go off at all, unless your house is hit directly by the disaster.

The minimum amount of time the reactor is expected to run without any changing of the reactor cartridges is six months. One of their modules has been running for 8 months, continuously.

More at the link below:

http://pesn.com/2013/04/04/9602290_Defkalion-laying-low-preparing-to-make-a-big-splash/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you assume this is genuine?

It is almost certainly genuine, even NASA is researching it, what has to be seen is how big the COP will be in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost certainly genuine, even NASA is researching it, what has to be seen is how big the COP will be in practice.

Is this the 'nuclear reactor' that produces 500kW of power when connected to a 500kW petrol generator, or am I confusing it with something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost certainly genuine, even NASA is researching it, what has to be seen is how big the COP will be in practice.

There's just no convincing scientific basis for this at all. It's just another con-man selling another cold-fusion scam. Go look up zero-point energy and the scams about this for comparison.

Shame on NASA for even giving them the time of day.

Invest much money in this "game changer"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA has to be involved, if it did turn out too be genuine NOT being involved would be disastrous.

I hope its true, and am following with interest....but history says it'll be a scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just no convincing scientific basis for this at all. It's just another con-man selling another cold-fusion scam. Go look up zero-point energy and the scams about this for comparison.

Shame on NASA for even giving them the time of day.

Invest much money in this "game changer"?

and yet Brian Josephson, who won the Nobel prize for superconductor physics, is a believer?

Read his lecture on pathological science and LENR Cambridge University lecture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA has to be involved, if it did turn out too be genuine NOT being involved would be disastrous.

That's the same poor logic used to persuade people to believe in sky-fairies. "You must subscribe to our faith or you will burn in hell" etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yet Brian Josephson, who won the Nobel prize for superconductor physics, is a believer?

Read his lecture on pathological science and LENR Cambridge University lecture

"Believer" being the important word. In your reference he also defends water memory - a cornerstone of homoeopathy.

No doubt the reason why we don't have commercial cold-fusion reactors in every home and conventional medicine hasn't been replaced by impregnated sugar-pills is all to do with a military-industrial complex cover-up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson

Nobel prize winner he may be but he believes in Parapsychology! He clearly has a few screws loose.

Where's the face-plant emoticon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you all have partial data of what is happening.

Rossi demo where loose, at least not bullet proof for the usual "it is impossible so I will look for any reason not to believe" kind of lurker.

Today he claim to have independent team preparing a report... like did the Wright brothers in the past he is very competent in looking more stupid than he is. I even suspect that he read their story and replicate their smart method.

You can look for a Wrkshop where Millis of NASA reminded that to avoid being overtaken on the market, the first reports should be minimal, and that real performance should be visible only when the product is ready.

Now Rossi is only a small corner in LENR landscape.

in short, LENr is proven since long, and it is also proven since long that it is not a rational cause that prevent mainstream to accept the scientific evidence.

The story of ENEA Deninno report 41 is clear enough, like is the paper of Oriani, like Spawar results, like NASA Fralick original and replication in 2008, like are tsinghua replication... like is iwamura at mitsubishi replicated by toyota... all those word mean nothing to you, and it would take a dozen of pages to tell you all that make the situation clear and doubtless. I've tried with an openleter on lenrnews.eu and nobody read the link.

All the data are lost in old thread on lenr-forum.com, where I'm a tech-watcher since early 2012. the site of Jed Rothwell lenr-canr.org contains many public papers. a review by edmund Storms in Naturwissenschaften in 2010 is a good start about LENR science situation and current challenge.

the recent breakthrough is the Nickel Hydrogen reaction in hot dry phase seems much more useful than wet PdD reaction... Palladium and deuterium was a dead end, because it requires electrolysis.

Today evidence are numerous and of good quality. National Instruments have included conference about cold fusion research and cold fusion industrial projects, last august for NIWeek2012.

Before, the boss of the "big physics" department of NI,stefano concezzi, remind us that they themselves found about 180 experimental papers, peer reviewed and clearlyshowing evidence of LENR... (he make few conferences, one in brussel probably linked to a EU report on material science, where cold fusion research was a chapter- supported by ENEA).

currently there is a battle for industrialization, that take longer time than expected (experts in innovation usually give 5 years at normal time to innovate, and the story started in 2011). defkalion have a report by Nelson that is clearly ignored, yet confirmed by Gibbs a skeptical journalist (now less skeptic but uncertain). After an enthusiastic period where they were talking much, now they talk few, just to say they have partners and will communicate later... a demo at NIWeek 2013, and one of their partner should present a product mid-2014... their approach seems rational, yet all is risky in that domain.

Few month ago I've made an executive summary that was dedicated to someone interested for decision, and that I updated for publication.

http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/

If you don't wan't to consider that because of science, I've written an article reminding why LENR, mostly in palladium and deuterium, is a scientific fact without no reasonable doubt.

http://lenrnews.eu/evidences-that-lenr-is-real-beyond-any-reasonable-doubt

It took me time to says "without any reasonable doubt", but as a techwatcher I've analysed the various evidences and stories since my interest get triggered late 2011... There is a moment when you have to stop playing the shy virgin in front of the bed and say, YES, I'm SURE.

many officially "settled" subject are thousand time less experimentally confirmed than LENR.

Only question today is classic question that to ask to a company : do you have a stable final industrial prototypes, or just a lab device that work with efforts.

From the behavioral data it is now clear that there is still work to make it industrial, but it is no more research...

The next question, is who will win the market, if big companies will kill these startups, swallow them, or miss the revolution.

Note that if the old never-updated-since-1989 critics are today ridiculous, there are not less ridiculous fans of exotic energies that support LENR as evidence of their beliefs.

Independently the common problem of mainstream and LENR scientists is that they focus too much on theoretical question, and not enough on experimental results.

the experiments let no doubt, and the theories don't work.

We have educated a batch of unscientific physicists that are too much focused on theory, and that is out dramatic problem, not only in physics. Today models and theory replace the facts, and when they disagree, the facts have to surrender to theory and models.

It works, it is becoming industrial, it is safe, and nobody know why it works.

Now things that work can fail because of human factors, like hurting incumbent operators and lobbies, being blocked by governments, battling instead of developping. At least in western countries... in Asia, not a chance they miss the revolution.

best regards.

AlainCo

the tech watcher of lenr-forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the 'nuclear reactor' that produces 500kW of power when connected to a 500kW petrol generator, or am I confusing it with something else?

Yes. This is the same system.

It is almost certainly genuine, even NASA is researching it, what has to be seen is how big the COP will be in practice.

It's a bit strong to say that NASA are researching it. A NASA scientist has been investigating Cold fusion reports as a bit of a hobby/personal interest component of his research job. He's certainly written some reports and given some talks for NASA managers and other scientists, which have subsequently been published as required by US law, but it's far from clear whether this is an officially sponsored research project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you all have partial data of what is happening.

Snip to remove gobbledygook.

AlainCo - we already have enough nutters posting here. Please take your crazy elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you all have partial data of what is happening.

Rossi demo where loose, at least not bullet proof for the usual "it is impossible so I will look for any reason not to believe" kind of lurker.

Today he claim to have independent team preparing a report... like did the Wright brothers in the past he is very competent in looking more stupid than he is. I even suspect that he read their story and replicate their smart method.

You can look for a Wrkshop where Millis of NASA reminded that to avoid being overtaken on the market, the first reports should be minimal, and that real performance should be visible only when the product is ready.

Now Rossi is only a small corner in LENR landscape.

in short, LENr is proven since long, and it is also proven since long that it is not a rational cause that prevent mainstream to accept the scientific evidence.

The story of ENEA Deninno report 41 is clear enough, like is the paper of Oriani, like Spawar results, like NASA Fralick original and replication in 2008, like are tsinghua replication... like is iwamura at mitsubishi replicated by toyota... all those word mean nothing to you, and it would take a dozen of pages to tell you all that make the situation clear and doubtless. I've tried with an openleter on lenrnews.eu and nobody read the link.

All the data are lost in old thread on lenr-forum.com, where I'm a tech-watcher since early 2012. the site of Jed Rothwell lenr-canr.org contains many public papers. a review by edmund Storms in Naturwissenschaften in 2010 is a good start about LENR science situation and current challenge.

the recent breakthrough is the Nickel Hydrogen reaction in hot dry phase seems much more useful than wet PdD reaction... Palladium and deuterium was a dead end, because it requires electrolysis.

Today evidence are numerous and of good quality. National Instruments have included conference about cold fusion research and cold fusion industrial projects, last august for NIWeek2012.

Before, the boss of the "big physics" department of NI,stefano concezzi, remind us that they themselves found about 180 experimental papers, peer reviewed and clearlyshowing evidence of LENR... (he make few conferences, one in brussel probably linked to a EU report on material science, where cold fusion research was a chapter- supported by ENEA).

currently there is a battle for industrialization, that take longer time than expected (experts in innovation usually give 5 years at normal time to innovate, and the story started in 2011). defkalion have a report by Nelson that is clearly ignored, yet confirmed by Gibbs a skeptical journalist (now less skeptic but uncertain). After an enthusiastic period where they were talking much, now they talk few, just to say they have partners and will communicate later... a demo at NIWeek 2013, and one of their partner should present a product mid-2014... their approach seems rational, yet all is risky in that domain.

Few month ago I've made an executive summary that was dedicated to someone interested for decision, and that I updated for publication.

http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/

If you don't wan't to consider that because of science, I've written an article reminding why LENR, mostly in palladium and deuterium, is a scientific fact without no reasonable doubt.

http://lenrnews.eu/evidences-that-lenr-is-real-beyond-any-reasonable-doubt

It took me time to says "without any reasonable doubt", but as a techwatcher I've analysed the various evidences and stories since my interest get triggered late 2011... There is a moment when you have to stop playing the shy virgin in front of the bed and say, YES, I'm SURE.

many officially "settled" subject are thousand time less experimentally confirmed than LENR.

Only question today is classic question that to ask to a company : do you have a stable final industrial prototypes, or just a lab device that work with efforts.

From the behavioral data it is now clear that there is still work to make it industrial, but it is no more research...

The next question, is who will win the market, if big companies will kill these startups, swallow them, or miss the revolution.

Note that if the old never-updated-since-1989 critics are today ridiculous, there are not less ridiculous fans of exotic energies that support LENR as evidence of their beliefs.

Independently the common problem of mainstream and LENR scientists is that they focus too much on theoretical question, and not enough on experimental results.

the experiments let no doubt, and the theories don't work.

We have educated a batch of unscientific physicists that are too much focused on theory, and that is out dramatic problem, not only in physics. Today models and theory replace the facts, and when they disagree, the facts have to surrender to theory and models.

It works, it is becoming industrial, it is safe, and nobody know why it works.

Now things that work can fail because of human factors, like hurting incumbent operators and lobbies, being blocked by governments, battling instead of developping. At least in western countries... in Asia, not a chance they miss the revolution.

best regards.

AlainCo

the tech watcher of lenr-forum.

Thanks for the good post.

I've been watching/reading developments in LENR for a couple of now and it is good to read an educated summary on the subject.

As someone said, it is the COP which is in question now, not whether the reaction occurs - the later has been proven many times, in peer reviewed papers.

For all those sceptics who mock the science, why waste your words? Wait until August 2013 for the promised demo/presentation from Defkalion. Alternatively, wait for the imminent 3rd party investigation into Rossi's technology.

I suspect many a sceptic will not be convinced until they have one in their hands, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snip to remove gobbledygook.

AlainCo - we already have enough nutters posting here. Please take your crazy elsewhere.

Since when did you become the voice of the forum? I welcome input from someone who has actually done some research, rather than others who just spout FUD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did you become the voice of the forum? I welcome input from someone who has actually done some research, rather than others who just spout FUD.

You have a funny idea of the meaning of the word 'research'.

Not a FUD spouter, just a rationalist.

I get this pseudo science occasionally in my line of work where people try to sell magnetic equipment for water scale prevention.

So, if this is such a good idea, why don't you invest every penny you have - you'll make a fortune!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect many a sceptic will not be convinced until they have one in their hands, though.

And if the technology works, it shouldn't be too difficult to provide that level of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the technology works, it shouldn't be too difficult to provide that level of evidence.

Trouble is Dorkins, the 'believers' think they have already done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a funny idea of the meaning of the word 'research'.

Not a FUD spouter, just a rationalist.

I get this pseudo science occasionally in my line of work where people try to sell magnetic equipment for water scale prevention.

So, if this is such a good idea, why don't you invest every penny you have - you'll make a fortune!

The science has been confirmed by peer reviewed papers. Excess energy is produced via LENR. Do you dispute this?

Whether Defkalion or Rossi (or the others) have a commercial solution, capable of creating KW of power remains to be seen. However, I understand the Canadian government has got involved with Defkalion and there are some other big names doing their own research (such as Mitsubishi).

I find it odd that there is so much hostility to the idea that what has been proven in the lab at the small scale, may have been scaled up to the commercial scale. It's hardly beyond the bounds of believability.

BTW, I don't need to invest. I just need to wait for some usable devices to come out in order to benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the technology works, it shouldn't be too difficult to provide that level of evidence.

"Wait until NI-Week in August", has been Defkalion's standard reply to most media that has contacted them, which is when they plan to be demonstrating a module in operation for the public, along with giving a scientific presentation about their technology.

Until they have something to sell, I don't blame them for keeping it under wraps. It makes good business sense, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The science has been confirmed by peer reviewed papers.

Peer review is not the same thing as independently reproduced experimental results. It just means somebody else read the manuscript and said it looked good enough for publication in whichever journal it was submitted to.

The gold standard is reproducibility, not peer review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gold standard is reproducibility, not peer review.

And this is the point. Peer review will not spot any of the following:

Poor experimental skills or careless experimental practice (i.e. where what was actually done differs from what was written was done)

Selective reporting of results and discarding of experimental data

Deliberate fraud or fabrication of results

Tampering with experimental equipment (deliberate or not).

The purpose of peer-review is to ensure that obvious time-wasters and incompetent experimenters get filtered out, so that readers of the journal reliably find interesting reports that are likely to be legitimate. Different journals, have different views on what constitutes an appropriately interesting report, and what level of competence has to be demonstrated.

The reviewers only get the text of the report, so they have to base their assessment on that. If the text shows that the experimental method used is nonsense (e.g. the wrong type of equipment used, wrong statistical methods) then the reviewers can see that the authors don't know what they are doing, and can tell them to come back when they've used appropriate methods. If, however, the methods look legit, then the reviewers have to take them at face value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review is not the same thing as independently reproduced experimental results. It just means somebody else read the manuscript and said it looked good enough for publication in whichever journal it was submitted to.

The gold standard is reproducibility, not peer review.

AFAIK, different scientists have reproduced the same results: http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cold_Fusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review is not the same thing as independently reproduced experimental results. It just means somebody else read the manuscript and said it looked good enough for publication in whichever journal it was submitted to.

The gold standard is reproducibility, not peer review.

iwamura have meen replicated by toyota.

Fleischman by CEA Grenoble...

and many others...

nothing can convince, like you cannot convince the Pope that the Virgin was not virgin...

I'm a rationalist and ther is no rational possibility that LENR is not real.

there are very few chance that the companies , seeing their behavior and partners, are not simply classic startup, with working prototypes and many problems to solve before reaching the market. most of the problem being of psychiatric cause, like collective delusion, as Roland Benabou describe it.

since it is a forum on housing problems, I would quote that small article, that vulgarize Benabou model

http://arizonaenergy.org/News_09/News_Mar09/Denial,%20Collective%20Housing%20Delusions.htm

the basic paper that apply is this one

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf

and the examples

you will notice that according to that theory, people stay in delusion, but don't enter in it if they have no incentive.

subordinate follow their hierachy.

in real world there is no interest to see the truth if you cannot take advantage of it, or if it make you realize you have lost much...

Physicist organization , after all horror that have been said and written wikipedia too, sci am, cannot change their position of will look stupid for reason that any student can understand (I explain it in the articles...claiming LENR is impossible is as stupid as claiming heavier than air cannot fly. both have been said by mainstream scientists, by newspapers, by SciAm).

Whetehr they would have simply stay doubtful ans respectful, they would have accepted it as a reality like hans Gerisher in 1991.

Today note that the next cold fusion conference ICCF18 will be organized at University Of Missouri because Robert Duncan have been hired bu CNBC for 60 minutes to debung the cold fusion claims of Energetics Technologies. Instead of debunking any fraud, he now support LENR research, organized ICCF18.

According to Benabou theory, new commer with no incentive cannot get into dellusion.

beside the direct evidence one can read in the numerous papers, this is an indirect evidence that groupthink is a matter of mainstream, not of LENR (except for pet theories where individual physicists fall in love with their ideas). people like Dawn Dominguez , Celani, started as debunker volonteer.

note that unlike what is said, all that story is very classic.

it happens for motorized flight, for tectonic, for LASER, for DNA, for quantum physics, for relativity...

you don't know it because the story have been rewritten by accademic to avoid looking stupid, and recognizing that garage inventors have made the real innovations, and not academic.

it is well explained in the book "antifragile" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

and the fact normally will be accepted by sciAm & al, 2 years after industrial sale, like for wright brothers.

It is not the only delusion in process. I see many, but I won't aggress more.

note that I've worked in Internet Bubble, a little in hedging and securitization bubble, I practice many pseudo-science like bikelane, and observe many other more or less mainstream lies like ... sorry guess yourself 90% of the population believe in on pseudo-science...

One is the theory that Cold Fusion did not work, break physics laws, is not replicated, not powerful enough, not scalable ( see http://www.lenrnews.eu/evidences-that-lenr-is-real-beyond-any-reasonable-doubt/ for details why it is not scientific)...

anyway I agree that to have an opinion it takes month of article reading, it took me 3 month to make my coming-out on linkedin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they have something to sell, I don't blame them for keeping it under wraps. It makes good business sense, in fact.

There's this thing called 'a patent', where you publish details of your invention and the government gives you a monopoly on it. Patenting makes good business sense for people who are inventng new technology, becuase then people can't copy it the instant they tell everyone how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, different scientists have reproduced the same results: http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cold_Fusion

What am I supposed to do with such a confusing link? You might as well post a link to a Google search for "cold fusion".

If you have a clear example of one group assembling an apparatus which demonstrates a LENR effect, and another group using information from the first group to assemble a similar apparatus which produces the same effect, please post it in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.