Posts by Curbina

Let us know how that goes. Cold beer fusion.

Well, I already have the book, but I celebrate the initiative, and I will be waiting the 2nd edition

Pomp lacks both the curiousity and the humility that takes to be a great scientist. If he would not have rejected the invitation to form part of the team I would have a different opinion, but by doing so, he proved he is not worth the time spent writing this otherwise very well thought leter. You will probably, if any, get a very arrogant response from him.

It was brought up to our attention that what seems to be the heater coil is shining through the alumina in the image of the dummy reactor (image of the calibration). This would mean that this coil is wound much more loosely than what seems to be the shadows of the coil in the reactor that lately received the charge. But it would also mean that the alumina is effectively transparent to some IR rediation. Were the researchers aware of this difference in the coild winding and also of the shine through of the coil?

<p>I second the first part of <a class="userLink" href="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/451-joshg/?" id="wcf4" rel="author">joshg </a>questions. The exact extent of Rossi's involvement is not really a concern IMHO, but every single accuser of this being a Hoax insists that Rossi had the chance of performing some sort of swap or trick at that moment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The indication of OL in the instrument display is also of interest to be commented, perhaps is nothing, but I was not aware of it, and would be good to know if the experimenters are aware of it.</p>

<p>I have read the report thoroughly and feel that most issues are well explained besides the overall sources of error are taken on the coservative side so the possibilities of errors in the energy balance is not a concern, at least for me. The allegation of a sophisticated pulsed power source being used rely only in the idea that this is impossible, so for me are not even to be taken seriously, but if the team would give their opinion about this so called &quot;argument&quot; it could put the issue to rest.&nbsp;</p>

<p>My main concer is that the report creates much more questions than answers (by far the most intriguing at least for me is: Why no radiation?). So I would like to know if the team is considering further research on their own and/or with collaboration of IH or others for further elucidation of the mechanisms behind, and if they have some ide of what coudl be happening here, or if they have some working hypothesis.</p>

<p>Finally, if they can give their personal point of view about how puzzled and or intrigued by the results they are, it could also be of use, at least for me.</p>

Edit to add: The question of Jed Rothwell is also interesting. I understood that this thermocouple was part of the control system and as such I thought it was not connected to the data register. But the logged readings of this, if available, would cast more light on the already impressive results.

I knew that I had seen Continuum Energy Technologies before and that the Heiress affair was related to them, hehe, at one point one does have so much data in the buffer that starts to get a bit messy.

Well, this is more confirmation of NASA's ongoing interest in LENR.

You provide a very good analysis Alain, thanks a lot of information in one place, and proving Kuhn and Feyerabend right.

Indeed Alain, I don't think Feyerabend was polemic by himself, but the reaction to him pointing the obvious was of outrage, in his days, and still is, if you ask most "rationalist skeptics" about him, just watch their reactions.

The Greek Canadian Duck, LOL!!!!

Anyway, after years of being interested in topics that are outside the current paradigm, I have come to understand that honest skepticism never remains skeptic aftert getting involved hands on, and that those who refuse to get involved are not skeptics, but pseudoskeptics, only they have not been notified of the huge difference.

I recently discovered, in a facebook forum on the E-cat subject, someone that pointed out to a name I had never heard before: Feyerabend. After looking up information about him, I found he was a very polemic Philosopher of Sciences, that went far beyond Kuhn denouncing that there is not really such a thing as a Scientific Method. Really interesting and fitting to the whole LENR conundrum.

I've been really busy lately, and coming to find such a very good news is really a relief of all the stress I've been currently undergoing.

I was rather intrigued by this article as I was not able to get what was the phenomena that the researchers found so unexplainable. That said, I completely agree with Alain. There are systems that are simple enough and yet tremendously complex to model mathematically, that only through experimentation they can be properly understood. It comes to my mind the Milkovic double oscillator. Unfortunately, it's become a norm to quicly try to explain everything observed with a mathematical model, and after that, thinking that the mathematical model is reality. I've developed a taste for science history, after observing the slow LENR travel from "bunk science" to controversial science. Much of the current thinking was developed after a lot of experimentation, and yet the originators of these equations were never sure of being right. I miss that in most current scientists.

Thanks Rends! I hope to be able to devote some time to put some main news translated to Spanish, to see If I can raise some awareness in the Spanish Speaking world.

Thanks Barty, It's an honor, and I will do my best. Regards!!!

Thanks for the offer Barty, I'm honored and if you think is ok then please make me moderator of this section. For the record, I'm not Spanish, I'm Chilean, but I can serve to cover all potential Spanish talking countries.

Thanks for the Spanish inclusion. However, I find myself very alone in the Spanish parlant world talking about LENR.

Well, we have been waiting for so long that a bit more would not hurt, but I also think that waiting too much could be missing the boat. I certainly hope something grounbreaking is in the short term future, but then it could also bee too late to think in entering this from the commercial point of view. IMHO the Levi report is more than enough to get high risk money involved.

Anyway, Defkalion is the last in my list of possible sources of something interesting. I wish I were wrong, but I doubt it.

Quote from AlainCo

I don't think Wells is unaware of anything.

However this subject is very sensible, and either he is competing, or not wanting to be "contaminated" by some controversies.

What shock me the most is the fact that it does not refers to Boeing/NASA SUGAR works, not even to acknowledge this seedling takes different position (as barty explain well, his project is different from Sugar and Zawodny).

Zawodny documents are not very rich in "data", unlike SUGAR LENR chapter, which gives numerical requirement on the technologies. Zawodny is more doing promotional work, but as we see at the end of Wells slides it is part of the job...

Display More

Intriguing anyway, perhaps as you say internal competition, or trying to take distance from controversy. I wonder if Wells would be prone to answer e.mails from a Chilean LENR enthusiast...

Oh, just missed you reply Alain. But you really think Well is unaware of Zawodny's work?

Thanks for the welcome Alain and Barty. I am really interested in LENR so I hope to be an active member. I recently sent a proposal for a Chilean agency to get a small grant for exploring the licensing possibilities with LENR to the Chilean market focused in large applications. It got rejected because "the innovative character of the proposal was not clearly enough explained". I have been sending and obtaining funds for all my career and this is the first time I get a rejection with such a dull explanation. I will keep applying, anyway, and eventually will succeed.