Clearance Items




  • What can be the advantage of coating the dogbone with zirconium oxide paint ?

    It beats me ! But I am open to any suggestion.


    Could it be that the construction of the dogone started with a tube where the heating coils where wound on ?

    And that this then was coated with the zirconium oxide paint to settle the heating coils and preventing possible shorts due to movement of the heating element due to temperature changes.

    And that as a final step the rest of the dogbone was casted on this with an alumina casting ?


    Remember that the Lugano testers took a sample of the outside of the dogbone and analyzed it and reported that it was more then 99 % alumina.

    So where was the zirconium oxide ?


    The above possible construction also explains the possible extension of the heater coil under the end-caps (And thereby the flatter temperature profile compared to the MFMP dogbone)


    Maybe Dewey has some more details to share ?

  • LDM ,

    From testing, it seems that the emissivity would be increased (somewhat) from that of Durapot 810 by using either zirconia or alumina paint. The Durapot 810 takes on a somewhat dingy appearance after strong heating, with dark, probably pyrolusite, stains forming near cooler areas. The Durapot ends up looking more like concrete than alumina. The paint might have been used more as a dress-up than a fudge factor. It could hide some small flaws, like cracks, pinholes, etc. The ugly casting of course could not be fixed that way. (Compare to the beautiful job by Allan G.)

  • Rossi did lie many times and constnatly. This is documented in the Doral Court documents and if you will take your time to browse through his diaries on JONP and compare what he said a few years ago or couple of months ago in later statements, it is pretty clear.

  • Now we have Dr. Muelenberg's "deep orbital electrons" theory on overcoming the coulomb barrier. He claims it covers all aspects of the known LENR effects. Is that competition for Charge Clusters?


    But what interested me the most starts at minute 08:50. Here he takes off his lab coat, and puts on his business suit to start with what sounds to me like a sales pitch, NDA, proprietary, etc. He knows something no one else knows, with some experiments to back it up. Not definitive *yet* mind you, but it could be definitive with some....


    hmm, where have I heard that before? He obviously wants to go commercial, and looking for seed money. Hey, that is fine by me. I love capitalism. Best system ever invented. Unfortunately, LENR and capitalism have a very poor track record together. So far, no one except the douche-bag, has made anything off of it. My guess is that we have another candidate poised to take his "save the planet" secrets to the grave.

  • guy looks like David Feherty from the

    Golf Channel?

  • Exciting news! Adrian has joined the ranks of all the folks throughout the years who have secret info (nudge nudge, wink wink) about Rossi. It must be great to be part of the in crowd.

    More fake news fro interested observer.

    There seems to be some disagreement about what constitutes a "fact". According to some people, apparently anything that Rossi says qualifies. Others have a different opinion.

    There is no disagreement, I don't know of anybody that thinks everything Rossi says is a fact. Yet more fake news from interested observer.

  • If you are not going to support claims you make, you will be ignored, plain and simple. If you do not mind that you are ignored, there is no further issue.



    I encourage you to double-check the neutron-electron mass ratio calculation and determine for yourself whether it falls outside of the CO-DATA value and error bounds; and, if so, to conclude what you will from this detail about the accuracy of Mills's theoretical apparatus.


    (1) i asked a question. i did not receive a response. allow me to repeat the question. what is my REWARD for aiding and assisting people in their research into Mill's background vis-a-vis "NMR"?


    (2) i have made no claims. please do not put words into my mouth. i have provided people with some background and insight which helped *me* to understand where Mills is coming from.


    also, there is something that you need to understand about me:


    (1) i am not permitted to change other people's belief. i have ethical rules that i am ABSOLUTELY honour-bound to follow, with severe consequences for me should i ignore them. these ethical rules are not up for negotiation, regardless of threats of "consequences".


    (2) a "threat" of "being ignored plain and simple" only works "against" me if i have anything to lose by such a threat. what will i "lose" by quotes being ignored quotes? please provide me with a list so that i can assess the "damage" and make an informed decision.



    regarding your second statement: i notice that you have made a logical reasoning flaw, which i believe falls into the "correlation is not causation" category (or similar) at the very least, you claim that "Because One Hypothesis Is Wrong THE ENTIRE 1700 PAGE DOCUMENT OF WORK MUST BE FLAWED".


    you've been here a while: you're a senior member. you *know* that's horsepoo, so please take a moment to reflect on that, ok? right now, senior member or not, you're severely decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of this thread. as a senior member with a reputation here (i.e. lots of people who respect and follow you), you may not *like* the fact that i am making you aware of that, so, again, i invite you to reflect on that - carefully - before responding further.

  • i wrote a reply... it appears not to have been posted. i REALLY hope that this was a mistake on my part rather than censorship by LENR.


    If you are not going to support claims you make, you will be ignored, plain and simple. If you do not mind that you are ignored, there is no further issue.



    I encourage you to double-check the neutron-electron mass ratio calculation and determine for yourself whether it falls outside of the CO-DATA value and error bounds; and, if so, to conclude what you will from this detail about the accuracy of Mills's theoretical apparatus.


    let me try to keep it brief (because it took a long time the first time, and the signal-to-noise ratio is being rapidly degraded having to deal with you, eric, and is taking up a lot of my time).


    you are completely misunderstanding my motivation, eric. you are also not answering my questions, which are not rhetorical. this has not gone unnoticed. i have a goal, it is a "third person" desire: the "threat" you raise that "i will be ignored plain and simple" holds a zero weighting in the decision-making matrix by which i make informed assessments.


    the second paragraph: you may be a senior member but that does not exempt you from making cognitively-dissonant assessments. looking at the electron theoretically-derived figures: they're accurate to within current CODATA (12dp). looking at the neutron theoretically derived figures: they're not accurate to within current CODATA. all that we should conclude from this is: the hypothesis about what is going on inside the neutron is wrong. that's all


    however you do not QUALIFY your statement, you make the BLANKET statement that is interpreted as ALL of "Mill's theoretical apparatus" is bogus.


    clearly this is false, and, as a senior member, i am fairly certain that you know it's false.


    so we may logically conclude that, despite you being a senior member you are deliberately out to cause trouble, wasting both my time, your time, and the time of everyone whom you are forcing to read and correct you. the only reason i'm answering rather than hitting "ignore" is because you ought to know better. however if you continue down this path, it's quite likely that you'll be the one that's ignored. given your longer standing on this forum that may hold a much larger weight for you than it would for anyone else, so i leave you to think about that, ok?

  • Your reply was moved to the "Clearance Items."


    right. so you're now enacting censorship, is that correct? being unable to answer, and having had your inability to logically reason pointed out to you, publicly, you choose to CENSOR?


    you know what the consequences of going down that road, are, don't you.

  • I'm having a hard time having a normal discussion with you, lkcl . The reason I have not replied to your posts is because I have disengaged. It is proving difficult to establish basic points and to rely on earlier remarks having been understood and their implications grasped. But more importantly I urge you to change your tone.


    (This is not censorship, as people can see your posts and judge for themselves why they were moved.)

  • Ok Director, I am sorry for being a naughty boy. But your description was a bit meager. I was looking for a plurality of gigantic objects. The thing that you can see through the tube is only singular. If it is gigantic or not could of course be a matter of opinion. To me it isn't.


    As for Alan's recommendation to catch up on my background reading I must say that I have done enough of that to be as certain as certain can be that there is no nuclear fusion in Ross's little plasma lamp. If it were, Rossi had been long dead. To grasp how anybody can believe this requires background studies in an entirely different science than physics, I think.


    Alan, are you sure that I am the troll here? Maybe you should look in a different Direction? Perhaps I am no troll but a lonely little candle trying to spread a minimum of light in the darkness?