The following announcement from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has been posted on its Facebook page and Quantumheat.org website.
I do find it interesting that before a crowd of venture capitalist (VC) that such an announcement
Open source and no IP rights being announced before a crowd of VC investors is quite much telling
such investors to stay away from LENR and not invest money because those in LENR are going the open IP rights road.
A great announcement, and having a university on board will do HEAPS in terms of the scientific community respecting LENR. And with such resources, then this aids in progressing LENR.
However, this kind of announcement and message is the last thing that a room full of VC’s would
want to hear.
Regardless – congratulations are in order.
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Bill Gate’s approach is to lobby hard for breakthrough energy patents to have a longer than 20 year from priority shelf life. My point was that they’ll be a 1000+ years of LENR patents beyond the patents that have expired or will never be – VCs need to ask themselves if they want to help start the core opportunity or try and control the uncontrollable – the world is moving to platforms that are driven socially. We have found a win win with Aarhus, there are win wins for traditional VCs.
Congratulations, Bob and all of the MFMP team!
I am not surprised UCSC was not there to help. They tend to be behind the curve on things.
There are stages when actors want to get involved
Universities when there is undeniably something going on and it will not be embarrassing or affect other funding (that is why the cooperation with Aarhus is so unusual)
VCs when it is a pretty darn good bet with a 100X + return
Industrialists when they are sure the hard research has been done (never interested if it is “early stage”)
Banks when it is dead certain return on a 3 year horizon
The only choices for early stage primary research is the bold individual (or their exclusively controlled enterprises), the crowd by voluntary action or the crowd via government legislated redistribution of earnings (tax)
Sometimes a company will “invest” to destroy or tie up a potentially competing technology.
Bob, I am extremely happy with this cooperation!. Working together with the academic world is the key to disclosier of the LENR phenomenon! The professor Kim Daasbjerg should get an award for leading his faculty into this, very brave. I hope many crowd funders like priestie’s below join!
The courage of Dr. Kim Daasbjerg is something few can muster – thanks for all your support Gerard.
I am mindful.
That is why, after meeting an eastern European industrial group this afternoon and after MFMP group meetings later today, I will be finishing part 2 video and preparing part 3. I hope to record Part 2 on Thursday – I want to get it out of the door before I even set foot on campus.
We have a categorical understanding with the University that our experiments will be live.
We announce what we have and based on conservative interpretation with guarded language and the data which it is based upon, which was broadcast live and cannot be post manipulated, is there for others to judge. We have not had an effective challenge to the “signal” in GS5.2 or the thermal neutrons in GS5.3 – both shown live, to date. We have had a lot of interest though.
Brian Albiston also saw an increase in counts with his less-sensitive detector in the closest replication we know of to our GS 5.2 experiment when he was changing H2 pressures at temperature.
Moreover, when we showed that we had repeatedly and controllably seen gamma in a Celani wire apparatus in 2013, it was replicated within 24 hours of our announcement by Jean-Paul Biberian and we also received a flood of other scientists evidence that they had seen similar in their work.
We hope that the work we will do in the 6-12 months will provide sufficient direction for anyone wishing to understand this phenomenon.
We are stoked. Dr. Daasbjerg should be lauded for getting ahead of the EUs ambitions to open up research and its data across the continent and we are honoured that we can play a role.
It is conceivable that your employer is already a partner of the University – please see the partner list on page 5 of the presentation. If not, then your offer is exactly the kind of outcome that would please the University since it has an aim to develop technologies to reduce carbon emissions.
I think we should arrange a preliminary meeting with yourself to manage expectations and understand motivations. I will be in Aarhus from 30th. You can reach me via the contact on the header of our Facebook page. I am happy to meet in the evening if that suits you better.
Off topic: LENR competition plus a whack on nuklear power in UK, for our Brit friends
If they call ‘energy storage’ the Holy Grail , what would they call a proven LENR device ? ………maybe ‘God’ ?
If Academic Denialism in the US keeps up, we’ll be left in the dust. Will they even have the grace to wonder how they could have gotten it so wrong?
One must not forget that at least the University of Missouri and Texas A&M have active LENR research facilities – but given the academic excellence clearly in evidence it is a shame that more institutions do not at least tinker on the edges … or perhaps they do?
Wonderful News BOB, well done, may it be a long and fruitful relationship.
Thanks but really, the credit is due to all those people that have contributed their time, energy, intellect and resources along the way.
Perhaps this collaboration can inspire more western universities to start considering research in this field and in other fields in the LOS way. Of course, we know universities in Russia, China and Japan take this seriously.
Peter Gluck had the following on his blog
Ego Out August 18.
Do you know about it.
A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POWDER FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. APPLICATIONS
This super nano nickel powder is Rossi’s powder as shown in the Lugano demo. It is about 100 times better than the Ni carbonyl powder that MFMP uses.
The specific surface area values using BET method show that the chemically processed Ni powders have a very high specific surface area (> 60 m2/g), which recommend them for electrical applications, especially for electrode applications. For Ni carbonyl powder the specific surface area was found 0.68 m2/g.
The evaluation of the chemisorption characteristics by using hydrogen selective adsorption method shows that the modified Ni powder exhibits high power of hydrogen adsorption (600µgH2/g), which recommend them as catalysts in hydrogen addition reaction.
The google link was truncated. The full link should be as follows:
Yes, but where is the evidence that the pronouncement that it *IS* the nickel used?
It looks like a certainty based on conjecture.
If you see +ve signals as you claim, why don’t you let the two US universities verify it. You are not in it for money, you are not protecting any IP. Just solid proof of the LENR effect even at nW level will win you a Nobel. Even if the effect is not repeatable, if they find evidence of the effect even in 1 in a 100 experiments, that will be earth shaking by itself. So why beat around the bush with all these plans?
If I remember correctly, Texas stole some Nobel winners from MIT sometime ago with promises of generous funding and new labs. They would love to humble MIT and the other high priests.
Well UOM did start a replication, but it was not a replication, it was an interpretation, housed in a brick cave, no null side and no radiation monitoring.
You never know what the U.S. has behind closed doors.
A few weeks ago there was a discussion about who gets credit for describing nano particles within the last dozen years or so.
I’ve read of Government black projects working with nano particles, nano materials, etc “Their terms” in the late 50’s. Also they were researching LENR 30 years before P&F.
Aside from the Billion$ completely off the books, you don’t really think they pay Boeing 400M$ a copy for F-35’s do you. That’s more then double the price of the more advanced, complex and sophisticated F-22’s.
Yeh, If only our US government was ‘ by the people, for the people ‘ … oh wait a minute ! ………….nah, never mind ( sorry for proposing such an old outmoded thought )
‘By the banks, for the kleptocracy’
There, fixed it for you.
This is incredably awesome. With university (and a prestigious one at that) funding, space, equipment and labor backing, MFMP will be able to do so much more of what they have been striving for.
I am also surprised and encouraged that the university wants to make Live Open Science a model for their research, and see it as valuable for their research investments. Hopefully this idea continues to spread so that science can function as it has always been intended to–open to all.
We are working on other significant relationships and hope to get these to a point where we can be confident in them moving forward. In the case of Aarhus, they had already decided that they were going to try Open Science approaches in their research from this September and when they were looking into what it takes, they came across our humble community effort. Ged, you are part of that effort, so you can rightly pat yourself on the back!
Congratulations on this great start. I think the Open Science approach will accelerate the development of LENR.
I recently heard a talk by one of the researchers at Google about their “open” approach to deep learning neural networks. His point is that with the traditional approach, it would be months from a technical advance to publications after delays for reviewers, etc. Now people publish a result on Arxiv, and other groups are advancing the technology within days.
Thanks and Yes.