Clearance Items

  • The key differences are that we are not particularly secretive, entertain and explain to visitors almost weekly, have no current interest in patenting anything and finally, we are not VC's.


    Apart from that our means, motives, methods and attitudes are exactly the same.


    Have you or RG presented at ICCF's? Has Rossi? IH has. You infer that IH is secretive. Are they more so than others? You imply something that does not seem founded. They even supported ICCFs.


    How do you know that IH does not allow visitations? Please provide what brought you to this conclusion.... that they do not post here on this forum? Is that a requirement? What about your collaborator.... thread gone... no data here...pretty secretive to me it seems and a history of it.


    "finally, we are not VC's."

    Ah.... here is the true basis. Political ideology at it's best! They are VC's and therefore "Bad". Well that is only an opinion and not fact that VC's are "bad". An opinion you certainly are entitled to and I appreciate it when you state it openly. That is honest. I disagree, but that is opinion as well.


    Fact is they are supporting legitimate LENR research. Fact is that they are a legitimate company and conduct business in legitimate and lawful ways. (Unlike Rossi)

    They want to make money, but that does not make them "bad".


    Who is most likely to bring LENR to the world? Rossi? Your collaborator? You? IH and their field of legitimate scientist? Hopefully someone does, but my bets are on the IH team.


    It would be regrettable if some might be so entrenched in their social political view that they would rather see IH fail because they are a VC than bring LENR to the world. Here in the States, this has become rampant..... Liberals and Conservatives alike will not stand to see the other side succeed.

    Has this political ideology crept into the LENR arena as well?

  • When was the last technical statement made by selfstyled engineer B2.

    I would be interested to hear some of that car expertise w/o the

    Industrial heat


    I was replying to a non-technical comment in the non-technical Clearance thread.

    (Alan, I originally posted in Clearance and it seems the post was moved to the IH/Woodford. Not sure what is happening)


    RB -

    Again, you can give only personal insulting retort to those you do not agree.... "what is the last technical statement"....:sleeping:


    Can you not comprehend that the clearance thread is just that... a clearance for any subject, technical or not?

    Is "technical comment" the only thing in your mind worth of discussion? While it is very likely that you have education in

    certain areas far above mine, I am 100% sure there are things that I have achieved and can do that you cannot touch! That is

    the way with everyone. Yet I (and others) do not try to belittle you in your areas of lacking! It is your attitude of pride

    that will cause your fall..... (hint to one who constantly refers to scripture but does not seem to follow it. Meditate on Cor. 1:13)


    I will also call you on your egotistic "selfstyled" comment. What do you mean, selfstyled? I am an engineer and have been for many years.

    Do you know of my accomplishments? Do you know anything about me? NO. I simply make posts that you do not agree with and you

    cannot defend with fact or data..... so you through juvenile insult! That is truly professional! ;)


    Do you mean to say I am lying about my engineer credentials? I have never claimed to be an expert at math, chemistry or nuclear physics.

    I am an engineer and ask you to provide fact that I am not.

    I claim to be nothing else, but I also do not throw personal insult to people because I disagree with them and have no other backing to defend with.


    If you do not agree with me... try posting some actual facts about what I post. Not hand waiving and insult.


    Otherwise "sticks and stones may break my bones" but "selfstyled engineer" will never hurt me! :)

    If you can only post personalized and childish insult in your defense, it truly shows your maturity! :rolleyes:


    Have a good day!


    P.S.

    "I would be interested to hear some of that car expertise w/o the Industrial heat"


    What are you talking about??? This makes no sense.:/


  • God Bless you too B2


    I was interested in your technical opinion on whether laminar flow has a flat velocity profile

    Perhaps you did some heat transfer studies on car exhausts or catalytic converters?


    I have no technical opinion on laminar flow velocity profile. I have never worked in fluid dynamics and have only basic education in it.

    (I am a mechanical engineer) I have not commented on flow characteristics here or elsewhere either.


    I still fail to see what ""I would be interested to hear some of that car expertise w/o the Industrial heat"" means or what it has to do with laminar flow for that matter/

    I would ask what your opinion on proper scientific investigation, review and respsone is. For instance, when approaching a novel and unknown phenomena, should one approach from the view that all artifact and possible error be closely analyzed and discounted before claiming a new and very unusual physical property?


    Should one look at the data as though there is hidden/unknown error or should one approach the subject with the foregone conclusion that the new and unusual phenomena is proven and only look at the data that supports that conclusion?


    Does peer review start with an acceptance of the conclusion or does it start with "lets eliminate all possible error and artifact" before concluding the new phenomena is real and confirmed?


    My training (and indeed my opinion of) is that one should try to disprove any theory, test result or finding. If it is real and true, it will with stand the scrutiny and one can rest assured that the conclusion will stand muster.


    If one is offended by valid questions or possible suggestion of error (even if the suggestion is not correct but honestly presented) then one must have insecurity in the proposal. One should welcome the hard questions and suggestions. It will only make the case stronger if answered!


    Being offended by reasonable and honest skepticism and replying with insult does nothing but cast a bad shadow on the presenter.


    This is how Rossi acts. He is not open nor will answer questions. His way or the highway! That is not how it should be.

    Sometimes that same attitude is clearly presented here. It should not be. Hard questions should be welcomed and simply answered with fact.

    If insult is returned, then something is amiss.


    You state what technical comment have I made. I state that I have made very distinct and answerable questions several times here and yet no answers are given.

    I do not see you harping about that! No it is a very one way street it seems at times!:thumbup:

  • I am a mechanical engineer)


    I thought you were industrial persona ..B2.. not just mechanical


    Wow .. for an engineer you sure write some

    such writing expertise is admirable


    almost as much as THH2


    Do you have any affiliation or even ..even an alma mater or padrone in common?


    BTW .. fluid mechanics is a fairly standard part of Mechanical Engineering in UNSW

    it has been like that for decades..


    https://www.handbook.unsw.edu.…e/courses/2019/MMAN2600/#



  • OK RB you win!


    I admit it! YOU are omnipotent and ALL KNOWING. Like the shadow, you know the hearts and mind of all! None can escape your all seeing insight! :)


    OR


    I graduated 38 years ago! As I SAID, I had basic fluid mechanics. Did you not read above? However, I have not used it in my work since. YOUR ALL KNOWING crystal ball states that fluid mechanics is a "fairly standard part" of ME curriculum. WHERE did I say it was not? I did say that I made no comment on the subject and you thought I should have evidently. I know, however, when not to speak about things I am not qualified to discuss. You brought it up, not me.


    Yet your insinuation is quite clear that I am not an engineer. Is Your all knowing eye surely correct? :rolleyes:


    No matter, I can and will, simply ignore you in the future if all you can do is insinuate and insult. If you decide to have a mature conversation about

    the topic at hand, perhaps...... I like a good discussion that is on topic.... technical or not! :thumbup:

  • OK RB you win!

    I am not wise or interested in winning..

    In the end no victory is ours.

    and the words of the wise are refreshing to me


    "The words of the wise are like cattle prods—painful but helpful. Their collected sayings are like a nail-studded stick with which a shepherd drives the sheep."

    I graduated 38 years ago

    Me ...39 years ago ( in engineering) ... Auckland . Chemical and Materials Engineering

  • Quote

    Not considering any of Rossi's technology - which he will never allow to be verified one way or the other - the most impressive and perhaps advanced player in this field that's moving towards commercialization is Brilliant Light Power via their utilization of the negative resistance regime to produce a massive rate enhancement of "hydrino" production. I'd go so far as to say that compared to Mizuno's system, Brilliant Light Power's Suncell is literally light years ahead with numerous advantages. For a company the size of Google with billions of dollars to spend, I can't help but think that a project composed of a series of experiments to investigate the potential of the complex space charge or "macro-EVO' that MUST form (this is in mainstream literature) during a negative resistance - to power the circuit while the voltage and current relationship is reversed - should be conducted.

    How can anyone be so wrong?

  • If the Mizuno experiment can be replicated and it produces the kind of results he saw with R19, with good control over the reaction and 40 to 100 W of heat, there will be no point to doing any other cold fusion experiment. All other approaches will be abandoned. This one will be improved in various ways, such as the ones Ed Storms has in mind. This will be the starting point for all future research.


    Well, we hope that this is an airworthy biplane, but other types may fly better, faster, and more economically. I think you are being a bit too dogmatic about the possibility of progress.

  • Someone for the love of God please explain to me why replicate an experiment that makes "40 to 100W" while the newest claim from the same experimenter is a reactor that sits quietly in his fireplace, making 3kW from a 300W input? That makes sense to someone? Let's choose the slowest runner to represent our country next time we pick an Olympic team?


    Alan Smith If the above claim (3000W/300W) is true, you can bet there will be progress and very fast. That alone, after safety and practicality testing is already a product!

  • Well, we hope that this is an airworthy biplane, but other types may fly better, faster, and more economically. I think you are being a bit too dogmatic about the possibility of progress.


    That is a good analogy. Maybe not the way you meant it. There were many different approaches to building airplanes circa 1900, such as A. G. Bell, and Maxim and Lilienthal. Those were smart people. Their ideas deserved respect, although the efforts did not make much progress. However, in 1906 the Wright patent was issued. All successful airplanes after that have been based on their discovery, which was 3-axis control. Also, all of them have wings with chambers similar to this, and similar length to width ratios. These are very different from Lilienthal and other early attempts. The Wrights were superb engineers and they had rigorous proof these were the best chambers and ratios, at the low speed their airplane was designed for.


    In other words, every airplane after 1906 is a descendant evolved from this design, and all other precursor designs are extinct.


    Needless to say, there has been tremendous progress in aviation! There was tremendous progress between 1908 and 1914. By 1914, there were airplanes that could fly 6 passengers for hours, going thousands of miles. Outwardly, they looked completely different from the pusher design of the Wrights, with the elevator in front. But from the engineering physics point of view, they were similar. They owed the Wrights royalties for the patent.


    If the Mizuno design actually works and it is widely replicated, it will probably be the starting point for all future designs, just as the 1906 Wright patent design was. But there will be tremendous progress. Future designs may look very different outwardly, but the microscopic details of surface where the reaction occurs will probably be similar. It is likely there is fundamentally only one effective design, just as there is only one way to control an airplane (with 3-axis control).

  • Someone for the love of God please explain to me why replicate an experiment that makes "40 to 100W" while the newest claim from the same experimenter is a reactor that sits quietly in his fireplace, making 3kW from a 300W input?


    If people skilled in the art trying to replicate get ~10 W the first time around, it will be a triumph. It will prove that Mizuno is right.


    If they keep at it for a year or two, I expect they will get kilowatts for that mass of reactant (~54 g). More likely they will want to work with a smaller mass of reactant at lower power, at a similar temperature and power density. It is much easier to work with 10 to 100 W than kilowatts. It is easier to measure that accurately. That reactor is so big, it is unwieldy. It is big because Mizuno thinks a large mass of reactant is more likely to work, and because if it only works at a small power density he can still detect it. Last year he was getting ~12 W out of that much reactant, which was close to the margin to measure.


    The kilowatt scale reactions are probably mainly due to the improved design. That is the only design we described and illustrated in the paper. So that is the only one people will try to replicate. That does not mean it will work. Even if it does work, that does not mean it will work as well as this reactor did. That would be a miracle, not a replication. That never happens the first time around in experimental science. There may be large variations in Pd-on-Ni reactant performance. The high power may be partly a matter of luck. Mizuno himself might not see it with the next batch of reactants. That is hard to predict. After a few years and several hundred million dollars of R&D, people will probably figure out how to make the reactant more consistently. A few years after that, and a few billion dollars later, they will have far better reactants and better control. I suppose the reactors will look quite different as well.

  • Shane D. That is why it took 30 years and still there. We need to restart this thread and not allow usual innuendo which constitutes 80 percent of the posts on this forum.

  • That is why it took 30 years and still there.


    I think it took 30 years because it is difficult, there was no funding, and there was tremendous opposition. I do not think differences of opinion slowed things down much. Experts usually disagree with one another. Ask any question to three physicists and you will get five different answers.


    Regarding the question: What are the best three experiments? Anyone can hazard a guess. Some of us are probably more qualified than others. But you would have to be omniscient and able to see into the future to know for sure. The only way to find out anything in experimental physics is to do experiments. Until you do them, you don't know.


    For all anyone knows, some obscure experiment such as Ohmori's gold cathode experiments might be the best approach. No one has even tried to replicate that, as far as I know.


    It is not possible for people to reach a consensus about this. There are too many candidate experiments. No one knows enough to judge which is best. If Prof. A or Prof. B knew what works, they would have done an experiment proving they knew. At best, we are like the blind men trying to describe the elephant. If we happen to be lucky and we touch the right parts, our description will be more useful and a better prediction than others. If we happen to touch the wrong part of the beast, and we conclude it is a hard, cold object (the tusk) our recommendations will be useless.

  • yes, i confim too it's a good analogy, classicism before daring like Lenr field since 30 years ?

    Airplanes need to fly a relative wind created by the movement. Now, if you blow above wings you will get the same effect but more effective. Then you can remove wings if you blow above the central body. you see now that current sky masters as Boeing or Airbus aren't so exciting as expected, they are just some followers of brothers "W right" ..

    Let's see channel wings concept from Willard Custer.


    http://www.rexresearch.com/custer/custer.htm



    Now, i hope that last Mizuno"s experiment is also an airplane without wings :)