NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator

  • It's puzzling events like this which don't seem to make sense which make it difficult to take Mizuno seriously.

    I spoke with Mizuno when he was here visiting I.H. Just to say hello. I do not know exactly how long he stayed, but I did get the impression things were rushed. I do not think he was in charge of the timing. Perhaps this should make it difficult for you to take I.H. seriously, rather than doubting Mizuno.


    But, if I were you, I would reserve judgement and not try to suss out what happened based on fragments of information and rumors. It is hard enough understanding these experiments when you have full access to all the data, you can ask the author anything you like, and you devote weeks to the assessment. Jumping to conclusions based a few internet messages will get you nowhere.


    I know a lot about these tests. But I still do not know enough to judge what happened, or whether time pressure was factor, or how close they came to replicating. If I.H. decides to tell me a lot about what happened, I might be able to reach a conclusion. Maybe not, if I have difficulty understanding. Not knowing does not bother me. Being puzzled and not being able to make sense of events I know little about does not bother me. I feel no urge to speculate about them. Perhaps I have a higher tolerance for ambiguity than you do.

  • It's a little bit strange to accuse me of screaming, and then fill your post with ANGRY CAPS, à la fellow mouth-foamer, "Mary Yugo".


    And qualification assassination? This has more the appearance of qualification suicide, if you ask me.


    I did say I was trying to seewhat placing a ‘hot object’ in said bucket would do,


    No you're not. Your doing the opposite: Starting off with high numbers (60 C), in order to explain abnormal evaporation rates - without being able to justify a number that high.


    Then... when this is pointed out to you, your response is always a long, obfuscating post that addresses every sentence, but somehow avoids answering the main point that your wild guess of 60 C* is nowhere near what's predicted by basic science (broken thermocouple/over-heated reactor or not), and this leads to the collapse of your model.


    * Or is it now 75 C? - Again, you need to publish your sums, instead of forcing me to reverse-engineer them: More "unscientific" behaviour from yourself. Although at this stage, you are possibly just defiling the corpse - to continue the metaphor.

  • ... "is getting boring. Must you lot fill every thread with arguments about a bucket of water?"


    Not necessarily


    "EVIDENCE OF THE ELECTRON-SCREENED OPPENHEIMER PHILLIPS REACTIONS 162Er(d,n)163Tm OR 162Er(p,γ)163Tm IN DEUTERATED MATERIALS

    SUBJECTED TO A LOW-ENERGY PHOTON BEAM"


    ... "This paper describes the theory behind the proposed reactions, the experiments conducted at GRC, and the experimental evidence of the suspected creation of the 163Tm isotope."

  • Ahlfors,


    Is that something new? Could not see a date. Trying to put their papers, and patent apps, in chronological order to see if there is some progression of their work towards this 10kW hybrid space generator, or their transmutation efforts. Right now though, it appears to me to be all over the place. In other words, I am confused where, and how this ties in?


    One thing obvious...these people are very active. No letting up for them, and for good reason.

  • Ermm, what on earth are you talking about? Not intentionally, if I did.

    the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth.


    The phrasing of the second quote is insulting and implies you disbelieve my assertions of:


    Yes. As I reported I worked for 8 years in a nuclear facility with pure tritium. The air hoods I operated in were massive and had a 3300 cfm flow rate associated with them, but all this air was drawn through several long slits near knee-level and I calculated the flowrate there to be ~17 mph, which I then used as my upper limit in flowrates in my exploration of what ventilation rates would do to evaporation rates, which you refuse to acknowledge I did.



    CWatters

    Gosh this forum is getting boring. Must you lot fill every thread with arguments about a bucket of water?


    I 'liked' your comment because I too am bored of these continuous character assassination attempts from JR and Z. I remind all that JR started this one once again by repeating his lie about what I said:


    You go around claiming that a bucket of water will evaporate overnight in room temperature conditions,


    in what had been a semi-reasonable discussion up to that point.


    (I should note that JR is just following the example of his heroes, who wrote that JEM paper he keeps quoting, wherein they misrepresent what I wrote, defeat their misrepresentation, and then claim victory.)


    I suggest the mods take all the posts from this thread that respond to JR's post noted above (including that one and this one) and move them to the Mizuno bucket thread...

  • No you're not. Your doing the opposite: Starting off with high numbers (60 C), in order to explain abnormal evaporation rates - without being able to justify a number that high.


    So, when JR, writing in his 8-page intro that he repeatedly quotes, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf, writes:


    "April 22, 1991. Electrolysis stopped.
    April 25. Mizuno and Akimoto note that temperature is elevated. It has produced 1.2 H 107 joules
    since April 22, in heat-after-death. The cell is removed from the underground lab and transferred to Mizuno’s lab. Cell temperature is >100 deg C.

    April 26. Cell temperature has not declined. ...


    May 7. The cell is finally cool"


    that means that using any temperature over 30C inacurrately represents a possible scenario for the situation? I think you are the one who is unqualified and delusional on top of that! You know that 1000C is '>100C' right? As is 1,000,000C. , etc. etc. Given that highly accurate reporting, I was highly reasonable to use temps of <100C.


    Then... when this is pointed out to you, your response is always a long, obfuscating post that addresses every sentence, but somehow avoids answering the main point that your wild guess of 60 C* is nowhere near what's predicted by basic science (broken thermocouple/over-heated reactor or not), and this leads to the collapse of your model.


    Do you finally understand that JR says the bucket was at 100C or greater for around 15 days? (Why? Because if the cell was at >100C continuously, the water in the bucket would be heated up to some level much higher that what would be obtained by simply dunking an ~100C 'hot object' in the water. But if at 100C, it would have been boiling right? The water might not be at 100C, because maybe there was some heat loss large enough to give some unknown amount of cooling. (Thermo 101). )


    * Or is it now 75 C? - Again, you need to publish your sums, instead of forcing me to reverse-engineer them: More "unscientific" behaviour from yourself. Although at this stage, you are possibly just defiling the corpse - to continue the metaphor.


    As I have repeatedly reported, I actually used both 60 and 75C in 'my sums'. And you have already reverse-engineered what I did and posted your spreadsheet of it. So what are you complaining about???


    All you are actually doing is proving you are deliberately trying to convince people I am wrong when I'm not.