I underlined the "not" statement, in case it is missed...
Thank you for your clarifying comments. I see now that in my initial; reading I misinterpreted what you wrote, including logical inversions and mistaking queries for assertions. My apologies for the ill-considered and brusque manner of my initial reactive response. Your questions deserve much deeper consideration than that. I will review all that you have put forward more carefully now.
... the simulation results, where I tuned the parasitic elements and discharge tube characteristics to sort-of-match reality:
... Surely I did not model electron emission via fusion and consequent electrical interactions, catalyzed by condensed-plasmoids!
... So can anybody spot any indication of energy being added to the system through these waveforms?
... the replication waveforms and effects are matching George Egely's, right?
What kind of joke is this? You are explicitly modeling an oscillator with feedback through voltage sources B1 and B2 and the CMD node. The threshold triggers are all clearly spelled out in the conditional logic for those source definitions, and correspond directly to the circuit behavior shown in the output plot. You are not modeling any physical ;phenomenon here at all, just watching a toy. What is your motivation here?
This latest evaluation is really great news!
I'm still confused about the continued need for thermal calorimetry though. What is preventing the use of rectification and filtering of the output pulses into a DC output? Advanced silicon rectifiers have reverse recovery times of <40nS at many kilovolts with just a few picofarads of junction capacitance.
Does an excess of reactive impedance in the load quench the reactor output? If so, has a threshold of this sensitivity to reactance been characterized? Surely there is circuitry that can be applied to harvest this energy without thermalization. Since the output waveform seems to follow a well-characterizable form, perhaps a dynamic impedance response could be applied to present an optimized load impedance to the reactor output stage if necessary. The length of single-ended wiring in the output stage of earlier demonstrations suggests a tolerance for nontrivial levels of inductance at least.
... the presentation had clearly drifted into classic Apophenia territory
I'm sorry, but although there may be some useful data inside that 500 hour video archive, it will probably be impossible to filter out all the extraneous and irrelevant material surrounding it.
You are not alone in your conclusions about these presentations. When I saw Bob Greenyer at the recent IWAHLM-15 workshop, I encouraged him to write up a concise summary of his reviews of these phenomena, as I found his mountains of videos impassable. He replied that he wanted to keep his work hidden amongst this forest of verbiage on purpose, to screen out the people whom he didn't want to have access to his findings. I wasn't able to get further clarification on this point before his attention was drawn elsewhere, as it so often is. It's quite a shame, because he has made extensive review of some very interesting and important observations and research that isn't otherwise well-documented, and I believe that a readable summary would be of distinct value to many other interested people.
I had a brief conversation with Larry Forsley about the LEC. He was thinking that the conduction channels are being opened by thermionic emissions. Has this notion been explored yet?
I spoke with Jean-Paul Biberian at lunch today about his observations of this device. He said he was able to observe it producing over unity electricity with at least some degree of confidence, but at power levels closer to the range of watts rather than kilowatts. He estimated the prototype's COP as somewhere in a 3-10 range, with net output presently of perhaps a few tens of watts, if I interpreted his handwaving correctly. The kilowatt-class figures mentioned in the presentation sound purely aspirational thus far. I don't know how to account for the discrepancy between the claimed figures of 6KW measured versus what Jean-Paul described.
The presentation video shows Egely holding an operating prototype in his bare hands. The rendered 36KW system concept design doesn't seem to show any thermal management considerations. I wonder if they've really got a handle on how much waste heat a fully scaled, multi-kilowatt-level device would create. In reviewing the gaia website (http://www.gaiaenergynz.com/) for the first time this evening, I'm really struck by how poorly their clearly-overstated claims reflect on this project. I hope they get their feet on the ground and start describing what they actually have so far much more carefully. Even at a modest output, this apparatus looks to have good potential. There is no need for a shady sales pitch like this.
From the appearance of the 'controls' on the panel it looks like an NI LabVIEW application
I asked their CEO, Robert George, what software they used, or if it was a full custom application, and he said it was custom. He might not be familiar with the distinction though, so a fully-customized LabView panel could be what he meant. I didn't see any distinguishing logos or whatnot, so I dunno. Based on looking at it, I would say it could be either one. I haven't worked directly with LabView in over a decade, and I'm not familiar with the fine details of their UI rendering.
(comments copied from EVO thread:)
This new device sounds far too good to be true, on initial review. I would likely not pay much attention to these claims if they weren't coming from a person with as much credibility in this field as George Egely has earned. I've met him several times, and read many of his articles and papers. He has always come across as quite earnest, thoughtful, insightful and sincere to me. Jean-Paul Biberian's qualified initial positive assessment was mentioned to me by David Nagel shortly before Egely's presentation, which prompted me to pay particular attention to it despite the incredible claims being made. I'm still agog at the thought of kilowatts of direct electricity being generated without appreciable heat in a handheld device such as he was holding. I sure hope he manages to develop this, and does not get delayed or stranded by IP considerations in the process. I also hope he figures out how to share meaningful details about measured system performance capabilities.in the near future.
This thread is to contain discussions about George Egely's newly announced energy amplification device that apparently uses plasma discharges containing condensed plasmoids (aka EVOs?) to produce multiple kilowatts of electricity directly, without appreciable thermalization or optical conversion as an intermediate step.
My thoughts are that this topic deserves its own thread. I don't know anything about Gaia except what I learned from the funky video clip full of outrageous claims about the envisioned initial commercial embodiment of Egely's invention that awkwardly prefaced Egely's own presentation. I believe that George Egely warrants a very serious and careful consideration though - this invention might be the real deal. If it is, then it's an incredible and profound gift to the world.
it did occur to me that Egely's polariton 'necklaces' are EVO's. A word he never used.
He was calling them condensed plasmoids, IIRC.
This new device sounds far too good to be true, on initial review. I would likely not pay much attention to these claims if they weren't coming from a person with as much credibility in this field as George Egely has earned. I've met him several times, and read many of his articles and papers. He has always come across as quite earnest, thoughtful, insightful and sincere to me. Jean-Paul Biberian's qualified initial positive assessment was mentioned to me by David Nagel shortly before Egely's presentation, which prompted me to pay particular attention to it despite the incredible claims being made. I'm still agog at the thought of kilowatts of direct electricity being generated without appreciable heat in a handheld device such as he was holding. I sure hope he manages to develop this, and does not get delayed or stranded by IP considerations in the process. I also hope he figures out how to share meaningful details about measured system performance capabilities.in the near future.
I hope Brillouin's demonstration will eliminate deniability
I doubt it will come anywhere close to eliminating deniability, but it is a nice apparatus that should help to build further confidence in BEC's credibility. Here's a couple of snapshots of their setup. The control panel software is full-custom and looks great.
Fantastic news!
Update 2/9/2020 from Lyons-Weiler at: 2019-nCov Vaccine Recommended Readings :
UPDATE – 2/9/2020 – IPAK HAS CONDUCTED FURTHER, IN-DEPTH STUDIES OF THE GENOMIC AN PROTEIN SEQUENCES OF THE 2019-nCoV CORONAVIRUSES AND THEIR RELATIVES AND HAVE COMPELLING RESULTS OF A KEY SIGNATURE USEFUL FOR IDENTIFYING A PARTICULARLY PATHOGENIC CORONAVIRUSES LINEAGE. GIVEN THAT WE HAVE FOUND THIS SIGNATURE, A FUNCTIONAL MOTIF FINGERPRINT, PRESENT IN THE HK-3 CoV FROM 2005, WE BELIEVE THIS EXONERATES RECOMBINATION IN THE LAB AS A SOURCE OF THE VIRUS. THIS DOES NOT EXONERATE ACCIDENTAL RELEASE, HOWEVER. WE ARE WORKING TO PUBLISH OUR FINDINGS.
IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARITY, WE ARE KEEPING THE ARTICLE BELOW AS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED FOR POSTERITY AND PROVENANCE. – JLW
It looks like the primary evidence supporting an engineered virus argument is now gone.
That's a bit of a relief to know.
Lanthanum and Cerium are both commonly available as alloys of Tungsten in commercial welding electrodes. They modify the arc properties in ways that are poorly understood by science but plainly noted by practicing welders. Their presence in the mass spec results could be as contamination rather than reaction products. Even if the experiment was using a "pure" Tungsten electrode, I would suspect contamination unless a careful analysis of the electrodes ruled out the presence of trace La and Ce from the manufacturing process.
Nickel Mesh after Pd handling, thanks to my friend JV !
Can you tell us any more about what the mesh has been subjected to so far? Sand paper in multiple grades, then burnished?
Small quibble - Norront's work is not in the solid state, and if they pursue the muon-based fusion path they are doing 'hot' fusion and will need to deal with the neutron activation issues. Still far better than ITER, fission or coal though!
Wow, amazing job with your notes, Ruby! I can't believe how quickly you were able to make such detailed information available. You've got really impressive skills!
I'm in Assisi now, looking forward to hearing about the latest progress. Hopefully we'll hear about some Mizuno replication progress, even though most of the work couldn't make the submission deadline.
A new video by YouTube vlogger Joe Scott was recently released. It's mostly a reiteration of the standard cold fusion history as told by an avowed mainstream-consensus-science follower, but with a subtly shifted narrative away from an absolute conclusion regarding cold fusion being pseudoscience. It has echoes of the narrative subtext presented by the recent Google Nature article, a subtlety which I find interesting.
