Is there something new about it since 2016?
Etiam Oy announced their closing in 2017. They also announced that their IP was sold to the highest bidder.
Announcement was on their etiam.fi site, which has been offline for years now.
Is there something new about it since 2016?
Etiam Oy announced their closing in 2017. They also announced that their IP was sold to the highest bidder.
Announcement was on their etiam.fi site, which has been offline for years now.
Unfortunately it appears Desireless is another replicator that has discovered the high thermal conductivity of Hydrogen/Deuterium and confused it as excess heat. Desireless is measuring external reactor temperature with and without Deuterium for a constant input power and is interpreting increased external reactor temperature when Deuterium is introduced as excess heat. What it appears they are observing is just the high thermal conductivity of the Deuterium increasing the heat conduction to their measurement location. You need a calorimeter for these experiments or at the very least you have to be as meticulous as magicsound.
Here is what Desireless responded on ECW:
"Of course there was calibration performed. Actually there were multiple calibrations, including with very same deuterium pressure. Actually multiple pressures to make sure I can run with the mesh at a different pressures.
Later on after excess heat results were clear the mesh was removed to re-run calibration. And it is matching with the original calibration. And of course there were measurements from all sides of the reactor. This work was done in a half year or so.
Interestingly internal pressure is not playing that important role, since surface temperature is different only by not more than 5C in pressure range from 0.001 - 0.1 Bar. Moreover behavior you can see at the plot can't be reproduced without activated mesh. You will not see temperature bump followed by a slow decrease."
Looking at Matt's graph, it seems to me that hydrogen was inserted before the "baseline" got stabilized... Doesn't that just void the whole experiment?
Or was there a distinct control run to get the baseline?
A wild hypothesis:
In-flight lithium batteries are more prone to combustion!
Could it be that the air pressure changes inside the plane could somehow contribute to battery combustion?
Or could the increased cosmic radiation be another possible cause here?
Could there be any other factors that might be in play here?
Could this unproven hypothesis have anything to do with LENR?
Some links related to the hypothesis:
https://www.reuters.com/articl…ted-idUSBRE90F1N820130118
https://www.reuters.com/articl…350-idUSBRE91E07V20130215
https://www.businessinsider.co…-million-2013-4?r=US&IR=T
https://www.cnet.com/news/burn…lights-emergency-landing/
https://www.soyacincau.com/201…re-royal-brunei-airlines/
http://blog.ravpower.com/2017/…e-batteries-rule-changes/
Problem is the excess heat is low and with 10% excess heat even if the calorimetry is impecable this kind of results are mostly ignored by mainstream.
According to Parkhomov's measurements and the graph below, the excess heat is varying somewhere between 60 - 80% from December to February.
Why isn't anyone promoting this Parkhomov experiment for Google:
Nickel-hydrogen heat generator continuously working for 7 months
Much more simple experiment than Mizuno's.
No palladium nor deuterium needed.
John Littlemist :- Did some digging, you were correct. Alterations underway to master document - thank you.
I did some digging too. Etiam Oy announced their closure and the sale of their IP in 2017. The announcement was on their web page etiam.fi which became inactive pretty soon after the announcement.
According to Sifferkoll, Etiam originated IP belongs to Industrial Heat now:
Etiam Oy / Ultrafusion / Norront Fusion: Finland. ACTIVE
Etiam Oy is inactive.
AFAIK Etiam Oy never had any link to Ultrafusion/Norront Fusion.
Etiam Oy was from Finland.
Ultrafusion from Sweden was merged to Norront Fusion from Norway.
TC didn't seem to be bothered when his web page address was posted to ECN:
Regarding the message that “revealed information about another forum member with mischevious intent”, Sifferkoll was not the first one in LENR blogosphere to publish a link to TC's web page.
This document containing TC's web page address has been available for weeks:
https://thenewfire.files.wordp…2016/05/lenr_ecat_fog.pdf
That document has been noticed at least in ECW and Vortex-l. I'm not sure whether it has been noted also here in lenr-forum.
<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1198-John-Littlemist/"> john Littlemist</a>: possible.
What do you think are the 2 steps most replicators do wrong, which are described in the etiam patents?
Right now only one thing comes to my mind:
Replicators are ignoring the excitation.
Me356 is simply a troll who has made huge claims and doesn't want to share any information with us.
I'm still waiting on my account to be deleted.
me356 told Frank that there are easier methods than Parkhomov's to get positive results:
"Already published reports, that are not based on the work of Mr. Parkhomov. Unfortunately completely ignored. No one I know about tried to replicate it."
I think that Etiam Inc. patent application might be one of those completely ignored methods:
Etiam Inc. patent application in a nutshell
Hank Mills why are you not excited about the Etiam revelations that have been public for 3 years already?
I completed another test last night. The test used 2g Nickel and 0.3g solid Lithium in a Nickel foil capsule. The reactor was made out of 316 stainless steele with Swagelok fittings on each end. COP was measured in my Lead jacket conduction…
Hi Brian,
according to Etiam Inc. patent application, your reactor should contain a dielectric material. LENR excitation (polarization of a dielectric material) is also missing.