Don't forget GEC. They almost closed a deal 4 years ago with Guam to power the island with their LENR hybrid "Genie Reactor". That definitely qualifies as a "prototype", if not better.
EMDrive from perspective of dense aether model
-
-
how much output did it produce until now ?
-
Quantization of RedshiftsThe fact that measured values of redshift do not vary continuously but come in steps- certain preferred values- is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence.
@MikeFid: Solid physics is always based on (reasonably) simple theories like Maxwell's. Mills extension to Maxwell is based on the following observation:
Spacetime expands as mass is released as energy which provides the basis of absolute space and the atomic, thermodynamic, and cosmological arrows of time. The observations of the acceleration of the cosmic expansion and the absence of time dilation in redshifted quasars confirm the absolute nature of spacetime.
R.Mills theory depends on a mass estimate of the universe, which might be more exact today, but it very well describes most facts found in cosmology. The hubble constant is calculated correctly, also the background radiation etc...
Cold fusion is simply not practicable ( yet ) .
@ damn_right _man: Book a flight to Hawaii (Lanai) and visit Stringham: He can demonstrate You a COP close to 4 LENR machine... I call it the coffee pot heater...
...working Prototype. Not a single one at all, which could serve as a example, a reference device, etc... and according to some physicists this is, because cold fusion simply cannot work.@ damn_right _man: What about reading some more “relevant” papers ???
And if you make citations of "some physicists" then give us the names please. We are not a black mail forum!
-
-
Quote
@ damn_right _man: Book a flight to Hawaii (Lanai) and visit Stringham: He can demonstrate You a COP close to 4 LENR machine... I call it the coffee pot heater...
Why not ... is the detailed contact information available ? Are there Youtube videos ? Where can I find some recordings or papers, that will show reliably, that LOW Energy nuclear reactions are taking place....
QuoteAnd if you make citations of "some physicists" then give us the names please. We are not a black mail forum!
Harald Lesch.
-
I was not familiar with Harald Lesch, who I see is prominent in the field of Astrophysics and a science populariser in Germany. Mostly published in German I think. Can you give me a link to his negative comments on the possibility of LANR/CF, because I can't find any references myself?
-
He doesn't sound very 'anti' LENR if the transcript is correct.
"LENR will create more space for social and cultural development, for energy in abundance, combined with engineering and today the available global information dissemination and processing, the Humanity very quickly to travel beyond our planet. (NASA has already LENR technology for long-term missions to Mars in the program."
-
@Alan Smith: The german text below the youtube video has unfortunately absolutely no connection to the content of the video.
Lesch is generally talking about social, political and climate developments and problems human kind will face within the next 100 years.
In a part of the interview he indeed talks about nuclear fission and fusion, but not about "cold fusion" or LENR.The text below the video seems to be written by a LENR sympathizer, who tries to show how LENR could help to solve the global problems Lesch is suggesting in the video.
-
Thanks barty. My German is about as good as Mao-Tse-Tung's.
So we still lack any proof that the estimable Harald doesn't believe LENR possible. -
@max Nozin: Physics always was based on experiments (Newton..). The only philosophy that helps is the recognition of what is mathematically describable and what is just figure juggling.
Most people try to criticize Einstein, because seeing a big one failing makes more fun... But he was one of the few, which never were convinced of what they did.
@Wyttenbach I do not think that majority of Einstein critics are driven by that. I believe it is a frustration over a possibility of lost century. Dreaming about time travel (twins paradox etc.) while struggling to agree on something basic like hydrogen atom structure, nature of magnetic field and so on. Some calling it a scam I prefer calling it a tragedy. Who knows what would happened if aether wasn't discarded as mainstream theory? Maybe we could already have limitless source of cheap and clean power, anti-gravitation and a better planet as a result.
-
Like Newton's laws, though valid as far as it goes, the general theory of relativity has turned out to be an approximation of the true description of the cosmos. But that tiny bit of inaccuracy has very big implications.
-
The theory of general relativity does not deal with dark energy of dark matter but this theory is used to predict what happens to the universe as time moves forward into the distant future.What would it imply, if dark energy, dark matter, and visible matter all integrated and were connected in a continuous distribution (entangled) to the theory of cosmologies and the nature and destiny of the universe?
Visible matter, dark matter and dark energy would be continuously created into the indefinite future in about the same proportions that are observed today.
The universe would expand forever and never end, but to humanity in the far future, look about the same as it does today.
We must than ask as an engineering problem, how can we create new matter and energy from nothing?
-
Quote
Visible matter, dark matter and dark energy would be continuously created into the indefinite future in about the same proportions that are observed today.
In dense aether model the universe is steady-state, yet dynamic system. The galaxies are continuously evaporating to clouds of photons, neutrinos and dark matter, which are condensing somewhere else into a new galaxies like the giant density fluctuations of vacuum.
On the left it's is how the process really looks like from high-dimensional perspective, on the right how it looks from our anthropogenic perspective, which enhances the gradients and ignores the transitions (dark matter filaments). From sufficiently dimensional perspective our Universe resembles fractal Perlin noise or the clouds on the summer sky. But the people cannot spot the smooth gradients well - instead of it, the flat areas of space-time look expanded for us, whereas these deformed ones look shrunken for us.
The dark matter is actually way more random and widespread between galaxies, than just around filaments, but it requires the good observational technology to spot it. Recently this insight of dense aether model has been confirmed. In general therefore the interior of Universe looks like giant density fluctuations of dense gas, which can be modelled with supercritical gas. You may imagine it like the interior of dense star or black hole (but no such giant black hole actually exists in our Universe).
This is how the density fluctuations inside of dense gas look like. Their motion looks random, but it's correlated at the local space and time scales. For example, the new fluctuation is always formed at the free space between another galaxies - or the avalanche-like thickening of gas would occur. In dense aether model this is prohibited by shielding model of dark matter formation: the dark matter clouds get formed just at the places, which are most distant from already existing dark matter at the connecting lines of existing galaxies - thus emerging from/filling the voids.
The dense aether model is scale invariant, the dark matter filaments are forming dodecahedral foam, which comes in fractal way and it repeats itself at multiple scales inside the galaxies and stellar clusters. Every massive body is pervaded with dodecahedral clusters of dark matter, which contribute for example to its tectonics because are catalyzing nuclear reactions leading to heating of their core and formation of convective cells and plumes there.
-
-
You are right! I'm sorry
-
Subsequent research in Germany, 2016, produced null results when arcing was eliminated in the LN, and measurement errors accounted for
due the the EMP of the discharge,, thin film phenomenon non addressed
