...
News about Woodford and Industrial Heat
-
-
...
-
p. 10-11
-
last ones
-
-
I wish you could provide more background. There is so much that has already been provided; in this case IH patents, internal documents, court documents, etc, making it hard to tell when something is new, unless the author (you) tells us. We are literally swamped with information as it is, and when tasked to sort it out on our own, many will say "why bother".
Make it just a little easier for us please.
-
-
IH used verbatim internal reports of AR to shot a subset of patent applications during trial time. This subset has low intrinsic value and proves that AR is amateurish and void [eg 72h deuterium bubbling through
melted palladium-alumina slops, or thermite destruction of reactor secrets via Mickey Mouse photocell switches, or hand quenching of unleavened cake pieces with deuterium ice blocks] , and IH was unable to detect this [or was able, but don't worry about]. AS laboratory is well ahead, and without 11 M$ of start up money. Bad for wealthy yankee widows, worse for britton people loving Channel Islands.
Incidentally, IH "principal investigator" is the very same genius of Ferrara calorimetry, and " ... for about one year produced and tested cathodes [and only] two small inconclusive heat events was observed ...".
Then [I suppose], things have changed.
-
AS laboratory is well ahead, and without 11 M$ of start up money.
Well, thank you for that, and possibly true. I am not sure what IH have currently, but Russ and I think we are level with Brillouin's verified XSH claims at least.
-
Brillouin's claims official or unofficial, Alan ?
Because one of my friends from a big compagny, audited them, told me that there are rather Between 1,5/1,6 COP ? You should be further .
Well, thank you for that, and possibly true. I am not sure what IH have currently, but Russ and I think we are level with Brillouin's verified XSH claims at least.
-
"I am not sure what IH have currently"
None knows, but from DW vivid reaction at the "leacked applications test" is reasonable to deduce that IH good cake is already housed in a restricted area of USPTO. This insight, in turn, make it plausible the widow.
-
Well, we have periods where the COP is infinite - heat out and no power in. That's hard to beat.
-
"Russ and I think we are level with Brillouin's verified XSH claims at least"
If sure and ready from a personal and industrial viewpoint, publish it on "Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry".
X-ray [or gamma] detection is intriguing, too, and - if confirmed [think electrostatic etc] - must come first on "Physical Review Letters".
-
So sorry, Ahlfors, english isn't my native language so i can't catch always all talks when they are told by people who know how to subtly juggle with words.
thanks for your "translation" help by advance
"Je ne suis pas sûr de ce qu'IH a actuellement"
Personne ne le sait, mais il est raisonnable de penser que le bon gâteau IH est déjà hébergé dans une zone restreinte de l'USPTO, à en juger par la vive réaction de DW lors du "test des applications déclenchées". Cette idée, à son tour, rend plausible la veuve.
-
We aren't playing the 'peer-reviewed' game, there (at the moment) is honestly little point in putting in the considerable time and effort required by such distractions that will probably take a year to see daylight. You can produce as many papers as you like and they will get you nowhere except into arguments. Both papers and arguments may come later of course,
-
Translation is OK.
-
"Peer-review game" is wrong. If true, republic of researchers must know - internet blogging don't fit the job. Ask for academic help from trusted people - academic people love distractions.
Incidentally, this is not an option, but a moral must. The not sensible data [eg calorimetry], I mean, not the way.
-
Ask for academic help from trusted people - academic people love distractions.
Already ongoing. As for the 'republic of researchers'. you must know a group that I don't. Academia is a vicious business
-
Academia is a variable bouillabaisse - it appears you taste from the wrong side of the dish. From Max Planck to Heitler, to London, to Feynman, these are academic people well within academic fence, not outsiders or vicious bloggers.
-
there (at the moment) is honestly little point in putting in the considerable time and effort required by such distractions that will probably take a year to see daylight. You can produce as many papers as you like and they will get you nowhere except into arguments.
In the real world, unless things are so simple the research is all done, understanding things is done best by writing them up as though you were going to publish. It does take a lot of effort, I agree. But even if you never publish trying to put your arguments into a form that can be evaluated by another unbiassed person is very valuable. It sorts out the reality from the bullshit. Having done that, why not try to publish?
Note that even if you consider all journals (there are enormous number, all with different biasses, all interested in genuine novelty) will be against you, you will be surprised by the help you get yourself from the rigorous thinking needed to write things up properly as you would for a high quality journal. BTW 80% of LENR write-ups do not reach this standard, and therefore do not provide that help.
Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.
CLICK HERE to contact us.