Aftenposten: 1 glass vann = energi til Hamar i et helt år? (Robert Godes interview...)

  • New article on LENR in Aftenposten. It starts with a review of latest events (E-cat patent, Rossi's claims).
    Main content is a Brillouin CEO (Robert Godes: @BEC ) interview.
    http://www.aftenposten.no/fakt…i-et-helt-ar-8160528.html (translated by google)


    There are few interesting numbers cited. Brillouin was funded at 65 million NOK (9.6mn USD), and today Robert godes announce that he need funding for material research, to find material that allow efficient LENR, maybe 4 million NOK but up to 20 million may be needed.
    there is also moderate skeptical section, with answer by Robert Godes.
    The seminar organised but TEKNA and NTVA is reported, as evidence of some researchers interest.


    there is an interesting reference to a Norwegian company called Black Swan Innovation, and to Ronny Korsberg , who try to get investor for BEC.


    this article is reasonably cautious, with skeptical points taken, but quite positive globally.




    Here is what says Ronny Korsberg, CEO of Blackswan Innovation write on his Linkedin account on Black Swan Innovation AS:

  • The article did not specify the units on the money raised. We received a response to the post from the author today with a slight update stating
    "
    The number is 69 mill NOK, which is around 9,2 million USD ( a little less in USD, but the conversion rate has changed since we talked, so it´s difficult to get an exact number), so this should be all right. There´s nothing in the article saying this number is in dollars - on the contrary it explicitly says that it is stated in Norwegian kroner.Unfortunately, it´s a massive undertaking to translate this entire piece to English and I can´t do that. But you may find most of what you´re wondering about through Google Translate, as you suggest. The article has´t reached our front page on the Internet yet, but it has been published here: http://www.aftenposten.no/fakt…i-et-helt-ar-8160528.html
    Regards,
    Per Kristian
    "
    Those new funds that have come in are already being used to build new evolution of cores and reactors.

  • This article/interview is the same 'ol, same 'ol believer vs. skeptic, and serves little to those who have read it hundreds of times. Same discussion, different people. So what else is new?


    Well, here's an "inexplicable" phenomenon that Dr. Peter Graneau introduced in the mid '90's, and he will be the first to say he cannot explain it. Dr. Graneau is a classically trained Physicist, who spent many years as a Physics professor @ Northeastern University. He worked on this perplexing, yet extraordinarily simple, experiment for so long that his son, who spent time in Peter's lab during the summer as a high school student, eventually became a Physics professor at Oxford University (yes, THE Oxford University in England.) It was there that Peter's son had access to an extremely high speed camera, which made the experiment even more perplexing. Here's the experiment.


    Take a small cylinder with a spark plug at one end and open at the other, add some water but not quite full, put an object of known weight on top. Carefully measure the temperature of the water and the amount of DC current applied to the spark plug. Apply the electricity to the spark plug and an "explosion" will occur sending the weighted object up against the force of gravity. Measure the distance the weight travels up and you know the amount of work accomplished (the output). Measure the amount of electricity applied to the spark plug and you have the input. The first time I heard Dr. Graneau give a talk on this presentation he said that the output exceeded the input usually about 5X. OK, all you skeptics, try this simple experiment. It *APPEARS* to violate the known laws of Physics you learned in school, at least at first glance.


    Aha, you will say. I know the answer. It is very simple - phase change. The spark boils the water instantly turning it to steam and that's that. End of discussion. There's only one little detail that is somewhat difficult to explain with this solution. The water temperature rises only 1 degree centigrade. It does not nano-boil.


    Until Peter's son was able to photograph the experiment with his sophisticated equipment at Oxford, Peter believed that, indeed, the process was one of steam, but there was this one temperature detail he could not explain. Please note, we're not talking about some uneducated kids here. These are two very well versed Physics professors at two very well respected universities who had the simplest of experiments, the results of which they could not explain.


    However, the high speed photography lent some insight into the explosion event, even though they still did not have a definitive answer for a phenomenon that *APPEARED* to violate the laws of Physics as they had learned in school, and that they taught as professors. Upon close inspection under the high speed photography, that saw that the water in the tube "broke" into many droplets of water, but it did NOT turn to steam. It remained water in liquid form. And, of course, the temperature remained nearly ambient room temperature.


    It was as if the water "fractured" into many discrete water droplets, instead of turning to steam and condensing so quickly, which would most likely be the knee-jerk reaction of the skeptic mentioned in the article, who would be satisfied with his answer, proud of himself that he had solved yet another foolish claim by well-intentioned, but not very well informed Physicists, not attempt to repeat the experiment, and would pay no more attention to the subject, knowing that once again, the (theoretical) Laws of Physics as they are taught are inviolate and all is right with the world and he or she is correct. The Graneaus are simply are wrong, making the same mistake somewhere along the line, albeit for 15 or 20 years. What's for dinner?


    As I see it, there's not much different here between the skeptic in the article who says cold fusion cannot be, therefore he (or she) need not waste their time on an experiment they know is foolish. They don't believe in voodoo or bad science. It can't be; therefore, it isn't. What's for dinner?


    Peter's only guess, and he was very, very clear in saying he had no proof for this was that the spark, in some way or another caused the molecules of water in the original form of a single entity, MAY somehow have broken into many, very small droplets of water because the spark in some unknown way released the binding energy that held the original, single entity of water together. As indicated above, the energy in the explosion generally amounted to 5X more output than input.


    Enter a metallic crystal lattice of a metal that the hydrogen of the deuterium "loads" by completing the crystalline structure in the corners. Viola, you have a crystal that can (now) shatter, but, in this case the crystal is a metal and has a continuous electrical charge on it.


    According to the late Ken Shoulders, it's a simple matter of a localized region of the crystalline metal hitting a harmonic and shattering, and the spark from that shattering expels extremely energetic, yet extremely short lived bundles of electrons compressed beyond the Coulomb Barrier by Casimir forces. These "condensed charged clusters" as they are most commonly called, interact with the atoms surrounding the (limited size) region of crystalline structure of the metal (here's where the purity of the refining process comes in) that has hit a harmonic and shattered thus impacting the surrounding atoms and transmuting them into "globs" of other metals both on and below the surface. Was that minuscule release of binding energy that converted one metal into another (remember, this is not water, although it is occurring in water) the very definition of "table-top fusion?"


    Peter Graneau will most adamantly say, "Absolutely NOT!!!!" and become very angry that someone might even think of making a connection between his work and cold fusion. Peter is a serious, serious skeptic. What's for dinner?

  • &"According to the late Ken Shoulders"


    Yes, Ken Shoulders had interesting ideas about electron clusters. I remember some discussions at dinnertime after an afternoon of flying gyrocopters.


    When light is emitted from these experiments it would be interesting to use a spectrum analyzer for wavelength analysis. Helium would indicate that hydrogen nanoscale fusion has occurred.

  • &"Peter Graneau will most adamantly say, "Absolutely NOT!!!!" and become very angry that someone might even think of making a connection between his work and cold fusion. Peter is a serious, serious skeptic."


    Then he would qualify as a pathoskeptic,
    Absolutely NOT!!!" would never be used by a scientist. Not fair putting these words in his mouth when he's not here to defend himself. Wonder if his opinion has changed? Too bad he can't communicate.