You wanted credit for a promising development. You seem to want me and others to take it seriously when Russ describes dancing gamma girls. That's kinda sweet, and it is typical Russ, but it isn't science. It tells us nothing. You have told us nothing about your project.
You possibly missed the presentation on methods I gave at the last Greccio conference. Go read and you will know a little more.
You possibly missed the presentation on methods I gave at the last Greccio conference. Go read and you will know a little more.
Reactor Design and build Greccio.pdf
You are right! I did miss that, and it is pretty good. This is short, but as good as most ICCF poster sessions. So, I would say you now have more credibility than you had before this presentation.
I think this would be enhanced with sample data.
. . . It may be that most of the details in this presentation was previously posted here. I don't know about that. However, this is better because the information is in one document with a URL that can be bookmarked. And because the information is organized, rather than scattered through different messages. That may seem like a small thing, but it makes a difference. I have seen cases at LENR-CANR where good results are ignored because the presentation was difficult to follow, or badly organized, or there were spelling mistakes. Few people download the paper. When the paper is improved, many people download it. The same results attract more attention because they are presented better. It seems a little unfair to judge a book by its cover and to dismiss an author because he makes spelling mistakes, or because he is not a native speaker of English and he makes grammatical errors. Unfair or not, readers do dismiss such authors. Or they never read them in the first place.
I think this would be enhanced with sample data.
There's always room for more - we have been accumulating solid data since then of course. Maybe ICCF this year we will present that too. Remeber, our whole lab build, comission and the start of work only dates back one year - in business terms we are still a 'new born'.
BTW- from memory this is the 3rd time I have posted this data into the forum.
BTW- from memory this is the 3rd time I have posted this data into the forum.
I missed that. The problem is, I and others do not always read every message here, especially when messages drop off the "most recent" list. Posting the data here in messages is like writing in the sand at the beach. That is the case in most discussion groups, but I think the message system here is particularly bad. It is also difficult to find old messages.
For those reasons, I recommend you post this set of slides at your own website.
For those reasons, I recommend you post this set of slides at your own website.
That would be hard- we don't have one at the moment. But if we did I would do so.
-publishing your results might certainly support W's patent - has anyone tried engineering his nanowell idea where he proposes the rotatoral collapses could be occurring? Its the only recent patent that is conceivable.
Russian (Rusetskii) and Italian(Celani) perspective-- a few months old- maybe ELI25
maybe its been posted before
