As I see it, this looks like a great opportunity, but also, in the terms it is presented, might be seen as a "harvest of ideas". Anyway, interesting and positive, absolutely positive.
This is a very good statement, I think that's why I'm going to ICCF25, I don't have money for capacitors and Elon Musk asked, but everything is useless so far, but we will fight to the end, there is nowhere to go, global climate change will force us to look for new energy and abandon oil, water, gas, because they they serve as a planet cooler, as in a motor, there is no water, the motor will stall!
Great news. Not looking a gift horse in the face, but curious who is on these committees, and where the money is coming from.
Applications will be considered on a rolling basis, and reviewed by a committee of experts in the field and adjacent fields, organized by the Anthropocene team. All funding decisions shall be at the discretion of the review committee and Anthropocene Institute and subject to the availability of funds. We are under no obligation to fund any proposal received.
According to Anthropocene, those applying must be eligible under section 501(3)(c) of the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code. Since so many of our researchers are not US citizens, I checked to see if they could qualify, and here is what it says:
a non-US group can apply for 501 © (3) status if it meets the following requirements:
The process of applying for 501 © (3) status can be complex and time-consuming. You may want to consult a tax professional or an attorney before you start. You can also find more information and resources on the IRS website1 or on other websites that provide guidance for nonprofits
I sent them a proposal. We will see how they respond. Frankly, I have very little expectation because they are interested in the amount of energy being produced. This variable has absolutely no importance when research is done. The amount of power only has to be large enough to be accurately measured by the calorimeter. Because my calorimeter is accurate to ±0.005 W, I require very little power to make the measurements. The amount of energy is determined only by how long I maintain the power, which makes this an entirely arbitrary number.
I sent them a proposal. We will see how they respond. Frankly, I have very little expectation because they are interested in the amount of energy being produced. This variable has absolutely no importance when research is done. The amount of power only has to be large enough to be accurately measured by the calorimeter. Because my calorimeter is accurate to ±0.005 W, I require very little power to make the measurements. The amount of energy is determined only by how long I maintain the power, which makes this an entirely arbitrary number.
On their site Ed, they ask applicants to provide information about their: "Expected energy output, and how that output is measured". I don't see that as setting a minimum energy output threshold in order to qualify. Do you have other information?
Shane, I'm not suggesting that energy is used as a criterion for acceptance. However, a rational question would be, "How is the excess power measured and what method is used to make excess power?" A focus on energy means they have a technological mindset. This mindset has been the death of understanding in this field.
However, a rational question would be, "How is the excess power measured and what method is used to make excess power?"
Could it be they used inaccurate terminology, and they meant power? That seems unlikely, but they made a similar statement in the first paragraph:
". . . Solid-State Fusion (SSF), which we define as a nuclear reaction in the solid phase of matter, releasing heat that is in excess of input energy."
Heat is power, not energy.
This does not inspire confidence.
Net energy output is an important factor. It demonstrates the effect is not chemical. Some of the experiments by Arata did not seem to exceed the limits of chemistry, and I wondered if they were not a chemical effect.
Frankly, I have very little expectation because they are interested in the amount of energy being produced. This variable has absolutely no importance when research is done. The amount of power only has to be large enough to be accurately measured by the calorimeter.
I strongly agree. (Unless they meant power.)
The amount of energy is determined only by how long I maintain the power, which makes this an entirely arbitrary number.
That is good, but as I said, I suspect in some experiments the heat might be chemical. I do not think Arata could maintain what he called "skirt heat." That is obviously not the case in Ed's experiments.
Heat is power, not energy.
Heat is energy.
The rate of heat transfer is power.
Heat is energy.
The rate of heat transfer is power.
I guess I am thinking of the usual American engineering description of heat as measured in BTU. Which is power. BTU/h is energy.
Anyway, they used the word "energy" in the first paragraph too.
Perhaps this document was not intended to be a strictly expressed scientific exposition.
A focus on energy means they have a technological mindset. This mindset has been the death of understanding in this field.
Amen!! First things first.
