Ergo the pipe has to be minimum 200 mm.
200 mm = five times x 40 mm. In that case it was quite a mistake to have identified the pipe as DN40 in Exhibit 5.
Eric Walker
Verified User
- from Loveland, Colorado
- Member since Oct 5th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Eric Walker
-
-
As a layman bystander, I have never in several years found the case for academic malfeasance against the MIT team even remotely persuasive, even if they were to have shifted the baseline and done other processing of the data. This situation calls to mind the various re-interpretations of the SRI M4-series data which Steven Krivit made such a fuss about, but which upon closer inspection seemed fine if a little opaque in how and why they were done. A team such as the one from MIT is allowed broad lattitude in their interpretation of their own data, and if they're clearly wrong about something another group can call them out. And their arranging of the data in the most sensible manner in their eyes will not have been obvious malfeasance.
-
Your shifting of the blame from Rossi to IH strains credulity. Why are you here, IHFB?
-
They have
fundedco-opted several researchers at a time when there is almost no money in the field. FTFY. Do you think they are friends of the MFMP? If so, think again.What is your basis for claiming that IH have co-opted several researchers? Or is this just speculation? How are IH not friends of MFMP? What information do you have about the relationship between IH and MFMP, beyond what we've been hearing from Bob Greenyer?
-
Try as you may, you will not succeed in establishing that Dewey and Jed are speaking on behalf of IH without further evidence, except with people who are already convinced that this is the case.
I worked as a contractor for HP when I was younger. Nothing I said at that time represented HP's position on this or that. You'll need more evidence to show that Dewey and Jed are being directed by IH to run some kind of PR campaign.
-
You keep on trying to tie all of the discussion here back to IH, calling people here its "surrogates" and so on. This is presumably to counterbalance the obvious lies and misinformation that Rossi has been handing out for years. But I'll just point out once more that IH have been admirably quiet all of this time and have only communicated with the court in the context of a lawsuit that was filed against them. There is no "pulling one over" if they haven't said anything to us beyond those vague PR statements, which they haven't.
It is quite easy to judge them on their behavior within the LENR field, however. They have funded several researchers at a time when there is almost no money available for research. My assessment of that: IH are doing a great job. This is the forest you would have us see that you think is obscured by trees.
-
How is saying that "Regarding pipe size - what does it matter if the system had possibility of phase change?" retreating from a position about the DN40 pipe sizing? I say many things during the course of the day, some of which are inaccurate. When someone calls into question something I've said and I also begin to doubt it, I am not "retreating". I am acknowledging that I might have been wrong or that there are some unknowns.
There are people here who have insisted that the pipe sizing was DN40. They would be retreating to admit that it might have been something different should further information come to light. But I do not recall Dewey being one of them.
-
So, you are now backtracking on the pipe size.
Where did Dewey Weaver insist on a certain pipe sizing?
-
I think the implicit criticism is spot on: it's 100 percent surreal experience to observe you, a voluble chatterer, criticizing Alan, who is actually doing something. But I also reject the underlying premise of your criticism of people who are not doing experiments. Not everyone who is interested in LENR is cut out to do experiments or should be doing them. And there is value for many (if perhaps not for the researchers themselves) in following developments and analyzing them.
That you reject an argument that shows your hypocrisy does not invalidate it.
-
Why this experiment wasn't replicated by anyone for twenty years? Well, just because of it.
You have identified an experiment you believe can be replicated. And you have identified a problem you believe to exist within the broader community of LENR watchers, that of idle talk. Now perhaps with this understanding of things you will step away from LENR Forum, replicate this experiment and report the results somewhere?
-
In my experience, talk of conspiracy theories is generally better an indicator of the state of mind of the person suggesting them than a basis for understanding the situation the person is attempting to explain. It would be nigh impossible for the CIA to control knowledge about LENR, even if it had its hands on a working device.
-
-
Lack of detailed write-ups makes McKubre's work of less use for people who are not a priori convinced that this effect exists and is nuclear in origin.
See TR-107843-V1 for detailed descriptions of some of SRI's calorimetry and helium measurement work under McKubre's direction, c. 1998 (there is also a TR-107843-V2, looking at nuclear signatures, which I haven't read; both PDFs can be downloaded for free, without providing any information). In the TR-107843-V1 studies they use mass flow calorimetry. According to the report, the calorimetric results were not as impressive as were seen in earlier work. But the report gives a sense of the methodology and cross checks that were used by McKubre et al.
-
According to the news story, the target date for sale of the BrLP device is next spring. Anyone keeping track of dates that would like to add this one to their calendar?
-
-
The one case where defined spots were observed came from the Indian group in Bhabba.
Karabut et al. [1], Vysotskii et al. [2] and Montereali et al. [3] have seen x-ray film exposures that are not exactly diffuse. I believe others have as well. (I suppose if we want to continue this discussion, we should stop being rude guests and move it to new thread.)
[1] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KarabutABexperimenta.pdf
[2] http://iccf18.research.missour…iles/Poster/Vysotskii.pdf
[3] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Monterealianovellifb.pdf
-
Technically speaking, if one were witness to an early demonstration of a nuclear explosion, e.g., the Trinity test, one would be likely to have said things to other people about the possibilities for death and destruction that sounded strange and that strained credulity. But in this instance one must weigh the likelihood that Egely would have been able to demonstrate something of such gravity.
-
Worth pointing out that hot tungsten wires dissociate H2, as will copper, magnesium, and perhaps cobalt/iron.
I find the interaction of heated tungsten with hydrogen interesting for reasons that go beyond dissociation of hydrogen; I wonder whether tungsten can be induced to fission or to decay by way of alpha decay, as it is quite heavy and already has an isotope that is a natural alpha emitter.
-
This is P when it comes to photos: video.
-
Well I wouldn't worry too much about the knee-jerk reactions from some people in venues like this one! Polite skeptics are welcome here indefinitely, with the understanding that their starting premises may be challenged from time to time from certain quarters. But we're trying to keep this a friendly place for people of all understandings and hopefully keep the discussions free of ad hom and other distractions.
