clean planet started the product of power gererstor by themselves by hiring the engineer of plant design, but I do not think it is a good direction. I think Miura should design the power gererstor.
Clean planet is a group of academic researchers thus, they do not have the capability to design the tool by themselves.
It is normal to have proof-of-concept products before commercialisation.
It will be fascinating to see when CP come up with their POC what it is.
It is normal to have proof-of-concept products before commercialisation.
It will be fascinating to see when CP come up with their POC what it is.
But not so fascinating that you will actually look at the POC. They have a 350 W version and a 2.8 kW version. They described this in their ICCF24 presentation, which of course you have not seen. I uploaded the slide from this presentation several times, but of course you did not look.
Here it is again, for your non-viewing pleasure:
I think Mitsubishi must design the production tool of power generator because they are good at design and production of power generator.
Why did clean planet decide to design by themselves???????
I do not think they plan to design it themselves. Where did you see that? Their plan (which I just uploaded) says "partnering with one company per industry." Partnering means they will not design it themselves.
I agree it would be foolish to design it themselves. Others have made this mistake. I think Brillouin is trying to design too many things by themselves.
But not so fascinating that you will actually look at the POC. They have a 350 W version and a 2.8 kW version. They described this in their ICCF24 presentation, which of course you have not seen. I uploaded the slide from this presentation several times, but of course you did not look.
Here it is again, for your non-viewing pleasure:
I see that they made one 350 W module, and a prototype to hold 8 of them.
But not so fascinating that you will actually look at the POC. They have a 350 W version and a 2.8 kW version. They described this in their ICCF24 presentation, which of course you have not seen. I uploaded the slide from this presentation several times, but of course you did not look.
Here it is again, for your non-viewing pleasure:
Jed - as always you see things as black and white. And, as always you are wrong about what I did. I did indeed look.
They say:
Given their thing is enhancing the heat output from a H2 burning boiler - it is for example not clear what percentage of the 350W, or 1kW, or, 2.8kW output is H2 burning, and what %age is LENR, even if it does work (which they have not said on that graphic). I guess everything they say is true, but none of these reactors behave significantly different from what would be expected burning H2. I am guessing because we do not know.
As always the devil is in the detail. The only details from CF are very, very, far from a working LENR 350W or 1kW or 2.8kW reactor.
I will happily bet £1000 on this if we can set terms, find a good faith arbitration method, escrow, etc, etc. It is quite complex to do such a thing but not impossible. My point is they might have a reactor that outputs 1kW and has H2 as input. I do not believe they have much less H2 input than expected for the output because nowhere have they shown POC evidence of that. If they had it would be world headline news - few companies could resist such positive publicity. Fleischmann could not resist it even when as a scientist he should have. Commercial companies have no such limits.
I may be wrong, but my feeling based on what they don't say is that they do not yet have anything except a hydrogen-burning boiler and some interesting lab anomalies.
I see that they made one 350 W module, and a prototype to hold 8 of them.
Good catch P. So the question is - where are the test results on the 350W version that show it works?
You'd expect them at least to say: we measured 350W out for calorific content H2 in of only 50W and electricity in of only 50W. Or whatever.
If they did not want competitors to know they had anything - they would not be at ICCF24!
Given their thing is enhancing the heat output from a H2 burning boiler
That is completely incorrect, and has been pointed out to you previously.
Your entire post is wrong.
And yet you have the hubris to proffer a gauche £1000 bet.
Words fail.
They have built a 350W version. They do not show its test results, or say it works some quantifiable amount via LENR
It is a corporation. They are not going to tell you anything. It is surprising they even mentioned it.
Given their thing is enhancing the heat output from a H2 burning boiler - it is for example not clear what percentage of the 350W, or 1kW, or, 2.8kW output is H2 burning,
Hold on a minute. Do you seriously, really believe this thing is burning hydrogen? As in combustion? Okay, tell us:
1. Where does the oxygen come from? There is none in the reactor.
2. Pretend there is oxygen. How long would it burn, given that these devices are very low pressure. Like, 30 seconds? Nope. Actually, it would explode.
(Of course you will not answer. This is another throw away nonsensical claim.)
I may be wrong, but my feeling based on what they don't say is that they do not yet have anything except a hydrogen-burning boiler and some interesting lab anomalies.
You are saying that experts in the largest boiler company in Japan cannot tell the difference between a nuclear reaction and combustion, and they do not recognize that heat lasting a few seconds is from fire.
Do you seriously believe that??? I doubt it.
Do you seriously, really believe this thing is burning hydrogen? As in combustion?
THH made this claim previously here:
and here:
And I pointed out to him it was incorrect here:
THH made this claim previously here:
Yes. He always repeats his absurd claims. No matter how many times you and others point out that he is wrong, or that I point out that you cannot have fire without oxygen, he will keep coming back and saying the same damn nonsense. I suppose he does this to sow doubt in the minds of new readers.
He is hoping that readers will not notice he is claiming hydrogen will burn without oxygen. Which is a strange thing to hope for in a science forum.
THHuxleynew refuses to even acknowedge the possibility that the simple flow of Hydrogen through a nano layered metal of Ni and Cu can produce heat in excess of the heating needed to allow the flow of gas through the metal layers.
Yet, this is the kind of phenomena that Gus Fralick observed in 1989 while trying to get neutrons from pushing Deuterium through the wall of a PdAg tubing, but all he got was excess heat. The obsession with getting neutrons because it is what is expected by theory is the main mind blockage to overcome to accept the heat that is being produced. The exact same 1989 experiment was reproduced multiple times by Fralick et al themselves with the same setup, but has been also confirmed in analog D flow through Pd set ups by other teams (most notoriously Liu in 2007, and several replications by a team of Chinese scientists between 2011 and 2015). Ni H is the same principle.
Good catch P. So the question is - where are the test results on the 350W version that show it works?
You'd expect them at least to say: we measured 350W out for calorific content H2 in of only 50W and electricity in of only 50W. Or whatever.
If they did not want competitors to know they had anything - they would not be at ICCF24!
Meh. I suspect this is something to revisit in a year to 18 months or so.
Its called "muddying the water"
amateur stuff and solo..
but the Russian propagandists are more sophisticated
That is an interesting discussion of Russian propaganda. As it says, the methods have been recalibrated for the new era in internet communication.
In Creationism debates, this method is known as the Gish Gallop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop (much as I hate to cite Wikipedia)
This is what THH does. One nonsensical claim after another, repeated ad nauseum. When challenged, he never responds. Recombination 40 times too small? So what? Say it again. Combustion in a reactor with no oxygen. Wait, that impossible. No one noticed, so say it again. And again. And again. The tritium level is small. Oh, it isn't? Just say small, small, small. Small compared to what? Measured how? None of that matters: it's small, small, small. No replications. Oh, there are hundreds? So what, just say their aren't any. When people point out mistakes, he ignores them and repeats the same nonsense a few days later, hoping that we will be sick of responding and he will have the last word.
Hold on a minute. Do you seriously, really believe this thing is burning hydrogen? As in combustion? Okay, tell us:
1. Where does the oxygen come from? There is none in the reactor.2. Pretend there is oxygen. How long would it burn, given that these devices are very low pressure. Like, 30 seconds? Nope. Actually, it would explode.
I cannot answer any of these questions: nor can you make any assumptions about what it does or does not do (e.g. that it has no available oxygen). You certainly cannot say that reactors which burn H2 to generate power are impossible to make. Nor can you with any certainty say that it works.
That is because we have no information. As you said - they do not have to provide it.
But most companies, when claiming an extraordinary technological breakthrough in clean energy, would provide enough detail for this to be widely believed if they could. It gives you better choice of partners, and higher equity prices when using equity to fund development, as well as great interest in products. The only exception is when for commercial reasons they want not to be believed. In that case they would say nothing, publish nothing, not go to ICCF24.
This is what THH does. One nonsensical claim after another, repeated ad nauseum. When challenged, he never responds
Jed, you know that is not true.
However. It is one lie about me too much.
This site has lost its tame skeptic for the rest of this calendar year at least.
I am willing to be the only person here arguing a given (reasonable) case, and therefore to get flak.
When it extends to repeated accusations of lack of integrity, which incorporate falsehoods (I often respond - but the sheer volume of challenges, and the fact that in order to respond sensibly to something I have not looked at I may need several hours at least of research, prevents my always responding). Also, I like Jed, though he has an overly certain view of the world. I am not interested in causing him such irritation - nor I am sure would he want to do the same to me.
Jed: and mods. You have successfully chased me off this site until such time as the overall tone changes. I can't say I hope it improves your PR - because I don't rate internet sites like this as PR vehicles to promote causes.
I will of course come back, with great interest, should there be any credible evidence of LENR here.
I will also (not LENR but fascinating) look at the info on LEC. Without posting.
THH
Jed: and mods. You have successfully chased me off this site until such time as the overall tone changes.
For the record I want to say that no one has ever attempted to chase you off the site, and efforts to keep antagonic dissenting voices against your participation have been made (even resulting in some temporal bans). I think we engaged in a heated argument that I also think we managed to keep as polite as possible at all times.
I cannot answer any of these questions: nor can you make any assumptions about what it does or does not do (e.g. that it has no available oxygen).
It is a cold fusion reactor. It has no oxygen in the reactor. If there were any oxygen, it would explode. The metal acts as a catalyst.
You certainly cannot say that reactors which burn H2 to generate power are impossible to make. Nor can you with any certainty say that it works.
I can say with absolute certainty there is never any oxygen in a cold fusion reactor. It is true I cannot say that this one works, but I am sure it would explode if there were oxygen. Furthermore, there is only small amount of hydrogen in these reactors. Not enough to produce significant heat from combustion. It would only last a moment.
That is because we have no information. As you said - they do not have to provide it.
Miura does not have to provide information. Clean Planet has described their reactors in enough detail. We know what they are made from. We know they do not burn hydrogen.
Miura also described a conventional hydrogen combustion reactor. (Or perhaps it was a fuel cell? A chemical reaction, anyway.) That has nothing to do with their collaboration with Clean Planet. Apparently you have mixed up these two unrelated projects.
It is okay for you to get things mixed up. I do that all the time! But after someone tells you: "those are two different, unrelated R&D projects" you should say: "Oh! I got them confused. I see now there is no combustion in the cold fusion device." You should admit you were wrong. Instead of admitting that, you repeat this claim, and then you get angry when we point it out again. You double down by claiming we do not know what is in the Clean Planet reactor. But we do know that, and you would know it too, if you would read what Clean Planet published. In my opinion, this is unacceptable behavior.
Jed: and mods. You have successfully chased me off this site until such time as the overall tone changes. I can't say I hope it improves your PR - because I don't rate internet sites like this as PR vehicles to promote causes.
No one chased you away. You just started encountering stiffer push-back, and are too sensitive to it. Except for one member who will be back in a few days, I did not see any outward hostility directed at you. You even got a back-handed compliment from Jed, bragging about what a good foil you are. I agree.
Not sure what you are expecting? As mentioned before, LF is a meeting place largely for believers, which now include the likes of NASA, US Navy/Army, Carl Page, and multiple independent private, and university labs throughout the world. With a rich history going back over 100 years, it is no surprise it's proponents are willing to fight back against the standard litany list of misconceptions and criticisms...repeated ad nauseum.
Now get back that old "Bristish stiff upper lip" and jump back in the fray.
Miura also described a conventional hydrogen combustion reactor. (Or perhaps it was a fuel cell? A chemical reaction, anyway.) That has nothing to do with their collaboration with Clean Planet. Apparently you have mixed up these two unrelated projects.
Miura already manufacture and sell 4.2kW hydrogen fuel cells in conjunction with Ceres Power, a UK R&D company. They also sell 1kW propane/air fuel cells which they sell by the thousand in rural Japan - they produce 500W of electricity and the waste heat runs a 500W hot water storage system..
I am willing to be the only person here arguing a given (reasonable) case, and therefore to get flak.
When it extends to repeated accusations of lack of integrity, which incorporate falsehoods
Perhaps these are falsehoods. I cannot distinguish falsehoods from Peculiar Notions, or ignorance. I suggest you answer my question:
You said: "Given their thing is enhancing the heat output from a H2 burning boiler . . ." "Their thing" is the Clean Planet reactor. You are saying they have a combined cold fusion/combustion boiler. You said this before.
Do you actually, sincerely believe Miura is making a cold fusion reactor that uses combustion?
If you are sincere, I find that disturbing. Everyone reading this forum knows what the Clean Planet reactor is and how it works. Everyone knows it cannot be combined with a combustion reactor. You have some knowledge of science, so how can you believe such a fantastic notion??
