I forgot to mention that the Nature Scientific Reports page of bjhuang ’s article, at the very bottom of it, has a Disqus powered comments section.
So far I have been the only one posting a comment there, but if someone feels so inclined, give it a try.
Saw this one months ago on Ben's vimeo. Pretty cool though. They have the gases blurred out but they are visible in older videos lol. They did an excellent job getting it commissioned in 2 weeks and working first try. Smart dudes.
I think they have been scrubbing the older videos out of all of these details. Anyway, this was uploaded recently on the Vimeo channel and some people received the link on an update email from Aureon, that’s why I posted this a couple of days ago, and now it was uploaded to Youtube.
Now the Safire reactor walkthrough video is available on Youtube also:
My personal view on this is that, althought Beta Voltaics have important applications in providing small levels of power for long periods, they have a niche market, and we will probably never see any Beta voltaic battery powering an electric car drive train.
I have also said that the LEC’s more direct application in it’s current form could be developed in products directly competitive with Beta Voltaic batteries.
Merged Cydonia ’s thread on this topic as having two separate threads for the same topic, that is also a non LENR related matter, is pointless.
I have not found any information about "Lutz Jatner"
Is Lutz Jaitner, a minor typo.
Here you have:
https://condensed-plasmoids.com/condensed_plasmoids_lenr.pdf
New video from Aureon, a very entertaining and much more detailed walkthrough of the SAFIRE reactor than anything we ever saw.
I remember a report of making gold from Mercury. There was a movement that was replacing mercury switches, mercury lights and etc to minimize exposure to mercury. The mercury was then converted to stable form to bury it in Canada. One of scientists came up with making gold.
The problem is that some mercury was used to mine gold. To verify if an electric arc to mercury creates gold, I first evaporated the mercury to remove the gold (the source it used was used to mine gold). Then I exposed the purified mercury as an electrode in an arc through hydrogen for period of time, then evaporated the mercury a second time. I found a flake of gold was left when the supposed purified mercury was evaporated. I was not impressed.
An arc in hydrogen can create pseudo-neutrons as a result of electrogravity. One of the isotopes of mercury can be converted to gold by pseudo-neutron absorption. It would be a difficult business to pursue.
I agree this is not commercially interesting, but in practice is an effect that is not expected and not accepted as a possible outcome, so the scientific value of such an experiment is high.
https://clipchamp.com/watch/aZ…social&utm_campaign=watch
I hope this link works OK- Clean Planet at TEDX in November '23 -
It loads ok, thanks.
I was trying to see where the 4% top popularity could be verified, and I found it here:
So it is correct (65/1646 is 3.94%).
As time passes, the popularity of this article seems to keep increasing, even after the Editor's notice was slapped onto the paper.
It is now in the top 3% of the same age articles in the journal, and the top 4% of the same age articles in all journals. I think this is good news.
Oh, my apologies. I must have been mistaken. I thought Gordon had said he has only had results with Pd?
Can you share more details and guide me to some documentation @Alan ?
This is Alan Smith 's presentation at Asisi. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…2022-lec-paper-final-pdf/
Remember also that Stevenson , following Frank G protocols with Iron plating, also quickly replicated it as shown at ICCF24.
Display MorePlauson claimed to coat his "spiky balloons" with a zinc & radium mix - presumably to help ionise the air and enhance local conductivity. Whether he actually tried it is difficult to know. He even suggested the use of polonium (!) - but the high cost of both substances might have made actual trials unaffordable.
Some of the details we now read of Plauson's work were probably distorted a bit by Hugo Gernsback's usual "poetic license", and his fanciful illustrations.
But patents certainly exist, such as this GB one for a motor:
https://worldwide.espacenet.co…GB157263A?q=pn%3DGB157263
and this US one for static conversion:
Yes, I read the rexresearch page, the addition of a substance to enhance ionization and the figure of 200 HP per pair of balloons, all of this mentioned there, but I don’t see any actual data or calculations to reach that figure. 200 HP is 150 kW, I’d be more than happy with such power available at my farm “from thin air”.
Finally, it's a similar way as cold fusion since 1989.
All of the begginning thoughts talked that breakthrough will come relatively quickly and finally not at all.
What that could mean ?
To me a strange behavior should exist but the theoretical first expectation should be fully wrong.
As for CF case the original childish expectations of D2 "compressed" enough in a metal lattice.. ahahha.. then it's so difficult in a tomawak.
I think the problem is that zenner needs to read everything available before attempting a replication. He is trying his own way before attempting a known way, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but he can’t complaint is not easy to replicate if he is not really replicating it.
Display MoreIs this the guy who quotes (without a proper reference) that available current from the atmosphere is 10 picoamps per square metre of exposed "collector"? (I suspect I saw the same video over a year ago.)
I only came upon Plauson's work in the last couple of years, while digging into research on lightning. It seems to be another one of those ideas that gets re-invented every couple of decades, or so, and then subsequently dismissed and forgotten.
Regarding atmospheric electricity, there is an interesting PhD thesis here, from 1964, which is worth looking at:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/8999/
Certainly the guy in the video I posted is generally dismissive of any outlandish “free energy” idea, however, in the video he seems to be genuinely surprised of what he observed, and also mentions Plauson’s work without naming him (but shows the drawings of the “balloon farms”) and, towards the end, wonders if not further exploring this since it was proposed, was really a good idea.
I did not know he had stated the available current at such small quantity. Plausson talks about several tens of Horse Power, but I would need to deep dive in order to find an available current figure in his published work.
Display MoreI'm looking at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50824-8.epdf - Though I understand a revision is in the works.
One grammatical change to the abstract :
Many of this research has been published formally or informally.
A grammatical change of Many to Much would (to me) imply the current author's research
I suggest
Much previous research has been published formally or informally.
or even
Much previous research on cavitation has been published formally or informally.
One can be making such changes for a long while.
Voltage is not power. How much current can you get realistically out of it?
Read Plausson’s patent, is not as simple as it could be deducted. He mentions specialmmotors built for making use of this energy source.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/df/b3/cef213c6144f62/US1540998.pdf
Independent replication about two years ago. It works, but probably expensive to build.
I am quite surprised that this is the first time I have seen this in all the years I have been looking for stuff like this. Anyway, a passive system like this is interesting but has quite some technical hurdles even if it works, specially if one intend this to be a permanent source of energy.
I used to think RG had too mucj Facebook features like those you mention now gone, but I came to like many of those to keep up with the people one follows, and now they made it not easy. Really don’t know what is going on, but I find RG is not as useful as it was.
energy that will quickly replace nuclear and as a result will obsolete their technology
application
They are focused in fracking water remediation, not nuclear waste remediation.
Also, Technological changes coming from a wider acceptance of LENR will take years to happen.
