All those folks working away and nobody can produce a device with a combination of power, COP, reproducibility, consistency and duration, compared to size and mass, which is practical for anything. And that includes demonstrating the concept to industry, mainline science, and entrepreneurs. After thirty years of work and millions of dollars, that is pretty strange.

    ***That is actually an excellent point, and it should be extended to the CHF boys. After 60 years and hundreds of $Billions, they don't even have ignition nor break-even. Let's extend that harsh viewpoint to them, shall we? Then you can go around and find all KINDS of scams to throw people in jail, since y'all are in such a huff about it. And it's your tax dollars being pissed down this rathole, not just private funds.

    Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck than Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF).

    Cold fusion is way better than that - just consider the lack of neutrons, gamma rays which are destroying wall of reactors and make the radioactive. Also the heat released is in spectrum of energies which can be utilized more effectively.

    That would be in the 'bang' term of the bang-for-the-buck expression. We would need some kind of average figure for #of Neutrons above background for Cold Fusion vs. Controlled Hot Fusion. And since this is an undesirable trait, the #Neutrons would be in the denominator. You want (Lotsa stuff we like/not lotsa stuff we dislike).

    I don't think that such information is all that accessible. But I like where you're going with this.

    I suppose you could use an expression akin to "Number of dead grad students". Or just, number of dead. But it would have to be (1+Number of dead) because you can't divide by zero and you want the smallest number possible & put it in the denominator. For grins, we could count Hiroshima and Nagasaki against them (even though it's a logical fallacy -- it's not like they would figure it out!) so we could count something like 100k +150k for HF vs. 1 for CF.

    That would add 5 orders of magnitude to the difference...

    Nice! Can i have your role and start threatening everybody connected to Para? Bring in some hired nasty looking Israelis and APCO? I think i am also pretty good in making some false threats..not sure if i can hit your quotum though....Glad you are still around DW! Thinks are heating up again, right?



    His threats have been kinda lame lately. Maybe you could give him a few pointers? I'd say more, but this is not a Rossi thread.

    Dewey Weaver

    Yeah, well, I'd recommend that you have Brillouin's results checked by a truly capable and completely independent source before you or IH commits to more money. And I'd not use any of the "usual suspects" as a consultant. Perhaps use an organization like Earth Tech or a university nuclear engineering department where the final opinion is "officially from the department" and not from a single professor. A renown testing lab like Sandia would also be good (but probably expensive). I'd task the consultant(s) to make sure Brillouin's calorimetry is not "sketchy" regardless of assurances from mmckubre , Tanzella and JedRothwell !

    Nota bene that the entire Rossi vs IH debacle was caused entirely by a failure to follow the above generic advice which was all over the internet when IH signed on to Rossi's project.

    So, a company named Industrial Heat wouldn't be good at measuring... ahhhh.... industrial heat?

    And 7 independent skeptical scientists, among whom was the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, couldn't be counted on to be.... uhhh...skeptical? They couldn't measure Power In (Watts) and Heat Out (Watts)?

    I think what would be acceptable is a relatively standard testing lab attended by guys who are familiar with magic tricks, like James Randi. Of course, the Swedish Skeptics were supposed to have their Fraud Detector Kit or something like that, and it appears to have failed completely if we listen to the skeptopaths around here.

    Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck than Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF).

    side by side:

    cold fusion

    2 * 3600 seconds average * 1/2* 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications /

    $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$

    Hot fusion

    0.5 seconds*10^-9 average * 1/2* 17.3K joules (max) * 20 replications /

    $2 Billion average = 0.0000000000000000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$

    That is now 25 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.

    So... we should fund fusion research dollars on the basis of how many MJouleSamples/$ bang-for-the-buck. There is likely to be a "special consideration" that those hot fusion boys are also researching nukular weapons that bill blow the hell out of our enemies. That's worth ... uhh.... something. Maybe grant them 5 orders of magnitude?


    Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

    Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

    Kevin O'Malley Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:24:59 -0800

    I need to update these figures. I realized I have been comparing OverUnity

    Apples to UnderUnity Oranges. Up until this week, Controlled Hot Fusion

    (CHF) experiments haven't even broken overunity, let alone ignition.

    *Nuclear fusion hits energy


    "The final reaction took place in a tiny "hot spot" about half the width of

    a human hair over about a ten thousandth of a millionth of a second. It

    released 17.3 kilojoules - almost double the amount absorbed by the fuel."

    look again at the two side by side:

    cold fusion

    2 * 3600 seconds average * 1/2* 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications /

    $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$

    Hot fusion

    0.5 seconds*10^-9 average * 1/2* 17.3KK joules (max) * 20 replications /

    $2 Billion average = 0.0000000000000000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$

    That is now 25 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.

    On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote:


    > It does not make sense to compare AVErage to MAXimum, anyways, because it

    > depends upon having access to so much data that one can take the average of

    > it. So I'm going to revise this aspect of the Bang4TheBuck calculation

    > into 1/2 the maximum. One half of 300MJ is 150MJ. One half of 6MJ is

    > 3MJ. Until we hear otherwise and need to revise it, shaving off an order

    > of magnitude here or there. That doesn't change the fact that LENR is 12

    > orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion.


    > look at the two side by side:

    > cold fusion

    > 2 * 3600 seconds average * 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k

    > average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$


    > Hot fusion

    > 0.5 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion

    > average = 0.00000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$

    > That is now 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.




    > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:


    >> Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote:


    >> Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained

    >>> periods.



    >> Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6

    >> s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I

    >> am not sure.



    >> ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred

    >>> megajoules for several hours and costs maybe $300k.



    >> No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a

    >> few have generated 10 to 300 MJ.


    >> - Jed





    Blocking that individual is quite effective. Of course, if everyone does it, it would leave him talking to himself, which I suspect he would find quite acceptable.

    If Interested Observer would have blocked me, he never would have learned enough to change his position on the 153 replications of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Effect by the top~100 electrochemists of the day.

    Now if we could only get him to rescind his position his comments not being intended to further science...

    Now that we have some new blood in moderators, can we revisit the sudden trend of certain posters who post scores of times a day, all which basically contain insults? It was kind of fun with Adrian calling everyone babblers, because it didn't seem so mean spirited. The new blood of posters attacking this forum have a really nasty tone in a majority of the posts, and strangely mostly from one individual who has become unreadable. At the very least limit the number of posts per day, or per week? If you can guess right away who I am talking about, that already indicates a problem. I hate censorship over opinion, but over rudeness is another issue.

    Duhh, just block the person.

    For a while I was the only one defending Rossi, and I never led off with insults, I was responding insult-for-insult. That tells you a lot about the state of the forum, that personal insults were extremely prevalent from one side of the debate so much so that a person defending in the same manner really stood out. You're proud of that?

    Tork - your mind clearly doesn't process clarity very well. Perhaps you'll have some time to think about that one day.

    My mind processes the clarity of adam henry detection with premium quality. I can spot them from a mile away. One classic example is they forget how much of an adam henry they are, they start out a post with an insult like calling the person perhaps a homonym like HeweyDeweyLewzie , and then the rest of the post was serious, intended to be taken seriously, to be thoughtfully considered. And they're SURPRISED that the other person is still responding to them as if they're an Adam Henry. Speaking of processing clarity, it's clear for everyone here that you're the one who starts this stuff. Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin. That classic line from the classic movie MIB was spoken to an intergalactic cockroach. Maybe your mind should process THAT clarity.

    That is an observation. As I said before, you cannot prove an observation will always hold. That would be like trying to prove there are no black swans because you have never seen one. Only a widely-accepted theory can prove it.

    What many people don't seem to realize is that scientific laws are merely a series of observations. Usually pretty strong or rigorous observations, but observations nonetheless. People seem to think that when it's termed a LAW, that future observations have to OBEY that law. It is a poor choice of verbiage to be using the word "law" for "rigorous observations".

    The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] Each scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the Universe.

    Maybe some day we'll call this observation "Jed's Law of Missing Ionized LENR Radiation"...

    I think he has "supported his own assertion", but you may have missed it?

    ***No. There were 18 points. 15 points of fact, 3 points of surmision. He claimed "almost all" of this was in my own head.

    His "point by point he just threw out there, and you disproved of" BTW, is your opinion.

    ***It is a valid opinion, looking at the point-by-point and his dismissive handwaving. Keep in mind that he started in on this discussion upthread with a Humpty Dumpty re-definition of terms like "real" and "fact".

    Like I said, Para knows this story better than anyone here.

    ***Then he should show more of what he knows and less of what he HumpteyDumpteys.

    He has proved that many times over.

    ***Fair enough. He just hasn't done that on this subthread.

    You just have to be willing to listen to what he has to say,

    ***Do you agree with his Humpty Dumpty approach to the word "real" upthread?

    and not only listen to yourself.

    ***I'm listening to him, and I'm disagreeing with him. Disagreeing is NOT:"only listening to one's self".

    15 unsupported assertions maybe.

    ***Feel free to point them out. They're just sitting there, waiting for you to jump on them.

    You still fail


    to show that Rossi made an offer on his blog

    ***That was agreed upon by both sides of the debate AT the TIME. *Fact* I need not show anything further. *Fact and surmision*

    or that anyone here noted it disappearing

    ***Just read the thread. It was unchallenged AT the TIME.*Fact*

    (among other assertions).

    ***Then SHOW them. DUHHHH