Cloxxi you keep stating “replications” but I’m not seeing any evidence of that? The video you posted is Malcolm bendall team so not a replication? I’m all for embracing new discoveries but The title of thread is not accurate. APologies if I missed something.
Hi Jim,
(Long rant, may delete later to keep this thread clean for when more informed people join in)
Are the people in Australia with the "garage" build, Bendall's people? Honest question, as I don't know.
I'm not sure the Martin Fleischman Memorial Project volunteers all identify as "on the Bendall team"?
Which of them do, to your knowledge? I am also still catching up, a lot has been put out there in the past weeks and months. Their enthusiasm as renowned LENR-focused researchers I think can be excused, and at the same time their professionalism assumed intact. I've not heard them declare it's 100% clear and all work to validate and understand has been done.
I've not attempted to make a concise list of replications, not just due to laziness, but also that nagging feeling that whatever is shown, it will never be enough for "the internet", let alone academia and the media. People get retrospectively held to higher standards after they've done something. You do a replication, and you become "Bendall's people", and lose your objectivity.
Academia will state its expectactions for a convincing replication only after a group has spent their whole budget on it. And even if they'd state expectations it beforehand, it would be unreasonably long a road and beyond anyone's collective budgets. I'd love to be proven wrong.
This technology was being worked on in relative silence, and Randall Carlson who's a great researcher mostly for geology and archaeology, ran his mouth in enthusiasm whenhe had a stage of millions of listeners. Got a huge flack for it, "peddling a hoax". But it's open source... Most people yelling "hoax" don't even know what open source is.
I'm no physicist (no diploma above high school and English is not a native or local language to me) but I could tell Randall Carlson was a bit in over his head explaining the technology. Even if he could, I've never seen him get the time he needs to express himself and what he knows. The simple matter of Atlantis takes him dozens of hours of presenting other people's work and how it relates and might be interpreted. Physics...I love the guy (not so much his politics or I'd request to be adopted) and it's great he got alternative physics on the scope of millions of generally curious and optimistic minds. It just was a bit early, Bendall wanted to be further along with data logging and documentation before going public.
This may not be everyone's favourite appraoch to open source, some will want to see it from the very first vague idea all the way to realization. That way, it would be subject to ridicule from clueless peers and resistant academia and by extension media and politics, every step of the way. Because that worked so well for Nikola Tesla? It's open source, but developing documentation everyone can understand while making sure what you have is what you think it is, puts a great demand on resources. Name 10 physicists that were able to unlock new categories of physics, document it so all could understand, and then be the media darling one needs to be to get it anywhere. We can't hold anyone to that standard, let alone retrospectively.
From my observation of videos, we are presented with a retrofit that is relatively low tech, makes carbon disappear from the tailpipe and radically cool down exhaust piping. Oxygen is seen where you don't expect it: the final exhaust of an engine system seemingly running well enough on hydrocarbons and air.
In my opinion, the seeming LENR effect (whether real or misunderstood or false readings) has been replicated.
I intentionally don't use the verb "validated". I've seen more videos of multimeters "showing" overunity can I could count. It's one thing to "see" oxygen. I want it to be used to oxidize a proven no-oxygen source. Say, iron dust as a cloud in a balloon with exhaust gas, and a good spark. Compare to exhaust without retrofit, and compare to ambient air.
I don't agree with modern academia on a lot of things, but we can take some tricks from old academia and make a little more sure before hurting ourselves in our silly victory dance. Carbon to oxygen is a bit "meh" to me unless we save a fortune on gas perhaps, but if this is like the first ever slice of pizza...it's pretty darn cool, and their might be more bases, crusts, toppings to have a go at.
Intuitively, I want to know what can be done with white sand (SiliconDioxide) which seems cheaper to mine than anything but water. Atom number 14. Brings its own oxygen even. If I had access to a shop to weld up pipes and spheres and measuring equipment, I'd be going wild with such a thing now, and seeing what Bendall's "out there" theories might suggest for relative dimensions and flows.
First things first: validate and understand the carbon to oxygen, nominate Bendall for a Nobel's (there seem to have been lesser men who have gotten theirs) and come to grips with what parts of the theories matter and which don't.
“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”
"What can existing replicators do to convince us, make us believe this time it's different?"
-> What can this forum do for credible validation and if real, furthering the works in an open source manner?Ramset alludes that we have access to some high end certified equipment to analyse gasses and inspect materials that have been exposed to these gas flows. If we can't find gaseous carbon when there "should" be loads assuming the retrofit doesn't do anything...we need to find solid carbon deposits, or theorize other physics for it to have evaded our detection. Disbelief is not a valid theory. A scam become less likely when groups of people can do a one day build and get the predicted but outragous results. Carbon to oxygen, regardless of fuel efficiency in turning a crank.
