Posts by TheGomp

    In my opinion Rossi's new tactic of "seeking customers" offers a PERFECT opportunity for a philanthropist, like Bill Gates or any of many. many others to move past our current world of wonderment and hope, How much would it cost to contract with Rossi for heat in an operation somewhere and MAKE THE ONGOING RESULTS PUBLIC. If Rossi insists on "non-disclosure" agreements I think that is adequate proof he is a fraud. If he is seeking customers, what better way than to show the ongoing success of an installation? Otherwise, for what would amount to a very minimal risk it would be possible to validate at least that Rossi can sell hot water more cheaply than anyone else can, and unless he wants to burn the money he has made a career out of defrauding, the truth will soon appear. I wish I had a plant in need of a lot of heat, I'd do it!

    Shane D. wrote:

    "Maybe someone actually took them up on their offer to test their device, and they did not really want that? Hardly anything on their website now like you said. There goes another hopeful as far as I am concerned. The commercial side of LENR seems chock full of these type companies. Like a desert mirage; they look so enticing from afar, but disappear when you get close enough for a good look."

    A unifying perspective may well be that in some manner these projects "enticing from afar" may well be convinced to "disappear" in some manner, by some coherent agency. Paranoid, yes. It is easy to speculate on the nature of such agencies from the mundane (CIA, Oil Companies) to the bizarre (NWO, Aliens, Time Travelers.) or even "ultra-bizarre with Bob Greenyer's posited "consciousness" or "spirit" in the effect itself. The hypothetical reasons also for this inhibition span the entire range of possibilities. One factor may well be that that they are being convinced rather than coerced. Not many of these Lenr "mushroom" companies vanish in the night.

    All of us Lenr groupies swoon over the positively incredible benefits inherent in a realization of the Lenr potential, but I still fail to see very much examination of the possible unintended consequences. Like Axil Axil's theory of a reduction of matter to a quark soup. In my opinion, the unintended consequences, if this is correct, are heart stopping. Lenr is squirming to get out of the bag, it is perpetually inching toward that goal and yet, like in a bad dream Zeno's hare of breakthrough never quite catches up with the tortoise of conformity. Could be a chimera, I suppose, a mass delusion, or possibly the bag itself refuses to be opened!

    Steven Strogatz and Arthur Winfree have done significant mathematical work on Nonlinear dynamics and chaos in 3 dimensional fields. Describing spheromaks as toroidal plasmoids is probably a good first approximation, but it is likely that the dynamics of such objects is far more complex, and that may have a large bearing on better understand their nature and behavior. Have a look at this book by Strogatz, at least note the cover illustration. The self replicating systems analyzed are fascinating and offer many more possibilities than simple toroids.…HfqD01Q4dckU&cuid=2168707

    Regards and thanks for the thoughts. I am interested in the external POV, not internal. Obviously the spaceman would notice no change re. Einstein. Regardless of how "flat" it would be a non zero thickness at Black Hole advent. From an OUTSIDE observer, the object, at some point would have sufficient mass to result in Black Hole gravity. This is NOT an easy problem. To an "inside" observer, you never arrive at the event threshold in a conventional Black Hole either - time slows to a standstill and you never quite make it. In the high velocity "Black Hole" to an external observer, BEFORE the speed of light is reached, the object becomes a black hole, does it not?

    I have an off topic thought (question?) for anyone one this forum better versed in gravity maths. A black hole results from the collapse of a star to the point that the concentration of matter creates a gravitational field so strong that "light cannot escape."

    Consider this thought experiment. As an object is accelerated closer and closer to the speed of light, its mass (rest mass + energy mass) increases. At some point then, quite close to, but still below, the speed of light would it not also become a "black hole?" If this is "possible" it would also be inevitable. What effect would this have on the object inside (space traveller)? Could this induce tunneling? If an em-drive propulsion device was used to accelerate to this threshold, could it not reverse thrust and thus stop being a black hole? Thanks for your thoughts, and apologies to the moderators for this abuse of the blog.

    Seems to me that BG should be marketing Hollywood blockbusters. While the argument that public funding means marketing has some merit, there is a tradeoff between sensationalism and broken promises which, in this case, is an unfortunate fact of Bob's record. While the advent of a new age of unimaginable new technologies is a worthy headline, selling it tabloid style only results in serious people rolling their eyes and in fact can only serve to delay the scientific and technological revolution he wishes to promote. Please, Bob look back at the original intention of MFMP, that being the creation and dissemination of a easy and direct proof of concept for LENR or EVO's or whatever it is called at this moment. Perhaps you are close to that, and I am thrilled and wish you every success, but "O" please stop treating me (us) like a mob of panting adolescents and stick to task. Thank you.

    Why doesn't one of the properly trained members here use Mills's published formulas on some molecules not included in his paper? Shouldn't be that difficult. If the accuracy continues to be in the same range as his published result, do some more. If his formulas continue to outperform QM, then track backward from the formulas and see if any other predictions can be made from his paradigm. If such predictions can be made, can they be checked? Nature does not give a HOOT about theories, but if one theory outperforms another in a significant way in predicting empirical results it surely is worth serious consideration.

    My reading of this article: Pure water in a glass jar, hit with a pulsed laser results in no water movement. Adding gold nano particles causes changes in the glass surface where the beam strikes. The changes are on the water side, caused by the interaction of the laser on the suspended gold resulting in changes to the inner surface of the glass. After some time, the water begins to stream away from the point of incidence of the laser beam (which is still being pulsed). They then remove the water containing the gold nano particles, and refill the glass container with pure water. Once again the laser is pulsed at the same area of the glass container. Once again after some time the water flows away from the point of incidence of the pulsed laser. The laser is being pulsed during this phase also. The energy needed to move the water comes from the laser by the two processes they describe.

    There is no "mysterious", left over energy. There is no LENR.

    Thanks Axil: I have been following your remarkable efforts to explore some of the most recent and incompletely understood concepts developing in physics. In fact I am once again attempting to grasp modern mathematical quantum and string theories. Not an easy task without a proper teacher, but even the faint glimmers of understanding are immensely rewarding. I completely agree with Rigel. You are not in the slightest a pretender, and seem to have time to follow cutting edge experimental results, we can only deeply thank you for pointing these amazing advances out. Since modern physics can be framed almost completely using various symmetries, any breaking of a symmetry, especially one which is not merely in the realm of extreme conditions, could possibly lead to most remarkable technologies. In one year (and excluding LENR) we have seen: the em drive, solid state lithium batteries, inconsistent behaviour of the heavier leptons, algae which produce clean fuel, and verification of the potential in quantum computing. I sometimes wonder how we can be on the verge of mind blowing technologies which all seem to stall or just kind of fade away to nothing. But, in the end they will not all fade away because robust explorers like you are excited by the anomalies and not frightened by them!

    This type of public equity offerings is not common for scam artist's since the pitch to potential investors is subject to the laws and penalties of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is NOT merely aprivate contract as in the case of AR and IH which is litigated in civil court. Intentional lying in presenting their proposal to potential investors is a criminal deed on the face of it.

    It seems that the rumblings of incipient LENR companies is growing, and between Brilliant Light, Brillouin, Rossi, the Japanese Auto companies, ME356, and other leads of MFMP not to mention SPAWAR, AirBus, Nissan and who knows who all else, we might well see a break in the ice quite soon - a matter of a year or two in my opinion. They all have reason to stall, and also growing reason to be the first out of the chute. It is all too easy to get optimistic and I constantly have to remind myself that there is STILL no solid science under all this. Could still be the new "Tulip Bulbs."

    No matter what the result of this, MFMP seems to be reading too much SciFi. Around the edges of LENR has always been the promise (or threat) of a Science Fiction ending. In all sincerity I hope Bob is OK, and I, for one took the RedPill long ago.

    Having said that I do hope he is with friends and loved ones because his affect is not encouraging.

    The fearful note in this theatrical crap, is that Mr. Greenyear sounds more and more like Rossi-light.

    Bob. if you have such a demonstration, get to it. This is a serious search for an energy source to basically save the world, and you precious strutting and teasing is actually very disheartening to me. MFMP has at least some credibility , and this looks to me likely to be the second false cry of "Eureka!" GTFU. You sound like a megalomaniac.

    For all the bluster this discussion has not advanced much. For all the innocent out there: do NOT invest in either Mills or Rossi. For MY: Your technique is to always discredit the longshot. Works time after time and when it doesn't, well, you were only wrong once. Not a very risky strategy. For Frankwtu: just advance the arguments and NOT the argument.

    I like to think like a movie maker. If Mills and "Brilliant LIght" is a simple, intentional scam it is quite remarkable, lasting 20 years, and involving several credentialed players who are either "in on it" or "duped by it."
    The sets are elaborate and the "take" on gullible investors is .. what? close to $100M - probably the biggest scam of all time, in duration, cast of perps and size of payoff! Can you imagine! Running one, single solitary scam for an entire career and bagging a hundred mil? In all that time, with all that money has no one taken them to court? Come on MY you can at least give some kind of "ig-noble" prize to Mills for the sheer scope and audacity of his con!

    Well. to me it is more likely that: he believes his presentation and so do the various "witnesses." Now, clearly, MY, no one could ever accuse him of being un-intelligent: managing a scam of this scope, for this long is no easy matter. He could be wrong, hydrino's and all, but, the simplest explanation, that he is a conniving crook, who has never run for the exit with a bag of money, just seems like a doltish perception of how things go. Twenty years, many millions of dollars and NO slipping away in the night? It just doesn't add up, MY, does it?

    I am 72 years old now, and I accept that I will leave this Earth with many mysteries unresolved. But these things, the behavior of Mills (and Rossi) over many years are the ones I would plead, at the golden gate, for a simple answer. Why would a con man continue to expose himself to growing threat of exposure when any sensible exit strategy would have them long gone YEARS ago, considering the payoff already in hand? Answer me that, MY!

    me356: The one thing that I sincerely hope is that you have (or will ASAP) created a foolproof method of broadcasting you methods to the world in the event that anything happened to you. I am sincere in saying that if I had your knowledge and discoveries I would: Never, ever "create excitement" on blogs such as this!; Insure a massive and rapid distribution of the knowledge if anything should happen to you. I think Anubis is quite right in recommending a blockchain contract (See thread: IP protection and publication of discovery) It is unimaginable to me that you have at your fingertips, such an earth shattering discovery and how you proceed is very precarious. It is clear that you are thinking about such matters, and perhaps better than listening to any advice found here, you find someone of impeccable honesty and insight to help guide you. The pope or the Dahli Lama - I don't know. Just ,please, be sure that no one can sweep you away without a trace, your process lost for more precious time. Thank you!

    Me356: If your goal is to keep others from patenting and controlling this phenomenon, publish in complete detail, and as widely as possible the physics involved, that is the experimental description of the physical properties involved and any theoretical explanation. At the same time, publish in complete detail, and as widely as possible any and all instantiations of using this physical force. In this case be as general as possible describing any and every way you can think of to generate or utilize the energy produced. Invite other like minded researchers to follow the same protocol as quickly as possible. Public domain knowledge, and any prior art will be large barriers to basic patents. Specific designs and improvements will still be patentable, so nothing is perfect. You can still patent improvements or specific designs for steam engines, but not steam engines as a class of device. The sooner you do this, the more impact it will have. I know that laws can be and are peculiar and no simple formula is foolproof, but this formula will basically let the genie out of the bottle. Other than freeing it completely, like this, you can attempt to control it completely by getting very basic patents and then issuing free licenses to any and all comers. SInce you appear to really have made this breakthrough, ANY WASTE OF TIME increase the chances that the decisions will be taken out of your hands entirely. It's as simple as that, and I ask any brighter and more experienced folks on this site to offer a better formula for achieving your stated goals.

    To all the new members: If you had watched Rossi for the last six years, as some of us have, you might have a deffenent perspective on his "vital" information. Perhaps there is a way to get a recapitulation of the amazing snakes and ladders and teasers from Mr. R. A huge waste of time, and distraction from real developments in the LENR field. I have now mostly moved on, and check in here and a few other sites from time to time, and it is the same as it ever was. Rossi blah blah Rossi blah blah blah. In MANY years not a single shred of substance.

    Yes. Single Rossi Thread at most. One exception being any significant news which transcends the long history of meaningless teases. Until some concrete and substantial evidence is produced, he is nothing more than an attention junky and distraction. Rossi has become a detriment to the field!

    Mr. Ekstron, The point is NOT that Sternglass was right, (although that is still not clear) but that Einstein did not take the expedient course of chanting dogma, but encouraged him to be stubborn and pursue his research. He even acknowledged a theoretical basis upon which the proton generation could be based. Simply put he encouraged out of the box research and understood that the standard model was in no way complete or even necessary. Your "certainty" regarding any number of phenomenon is not at all the same, and that does in fact inhibit certain avenues of research. I would be far happier with your comments if they were delivered in a more open minded manner, at least accepting that the LENR results are at the least enticing and worthy of further work even if, in the end, that is futile.

    In the playground!!! I will dump a little nugget of my own. I think that ME356 is as phoney as the skeptics who spew out endless attacks on courageous researchers taking on the LENR windmill, to the length of "War and Peace" every year. Perhaps Hank Mills can stop begging him, and like Rossi, ignore them until they produce a steamer or get of the pot.

    And yes Mr. Ekstrom is like every dogmatic physicist who think that their disagreeing with someone is an invitation to intimidate them into stopping.

    Read this:, Mr. Ekstrom. If Albert Einstein can consider the possibility of unexpected properties and reactions in the atomic and nuclear realm, so to, could you!