Kieran Cox - Hello there! No- apparently UL made an error somewhere and are in the process of re-submitting a corrected version. That's all I know.
It's been a little bit, any update on the UL report?
Kieran Cox
Member
- Member since Nov 8th 2023
- Last Activity:
Posts by Kieran Cox
-
-
What you say is totally correct but you know that with anything with a COP less than 5 making a working device given the heat to mechanical or electrical conversion efficiencies, is a dead end.
While I can't speak to needing a COP >= 5 for a working device I can say that I need not look at that to see if a device works. The losses/efficiencies of steam turbine (Tesla or traditional) are well known and there are a multitude of designs.
I need only look at the electrical output after converting back to the energy used. No need for excessive fancy lab testing looking at all the little fun details.
The first thing that should happen is you plug your LENR up to an electricity generating steam turbine of proportional size and show me electricity coming out... consistently for some determined about of time (like hours).
You show me more than 1 watt coming out for every 1 watt going in, and an open test ran say 20 times for like 10hrs each time... then I'm interested. Then, and only then, should the challenging to measure/quantify/guarantee/control-for lab tests ensue. Anything less should be cavalierly ignored.
Really the baseline should be something like 500W going in, to change the world we need some "workable" volume of power to begin with.
If for example Eng8's claims are true, then that setup is neither hard, nor expensive to create and run....*repeatedly* and in public -
IMHO, a healthy amount of skepticism is fair. Especially considering the decades of leg pulling going on from various parties about LENR.
However,
at the end of the day "The best predictor of performance, is performance itself"
We can measure all the thermal output forever, ultimately it means nothing until converted into mechanical or namely electrical energy as that is the energy that was put in to start the reaction. So forgive me as I'm an engineer and deal with what actually does something in the world... All of these tests mean absolutely nothing until an apparatus is constructed to return energy in the manner given, then we can judge the effectiveness based on the amount of energy returned in the format given.
IE, if I put in 100W and I get out 101W or 200W or 400W then in the words of one of my favorite rappers E40, "It is what it is".
I'm confused about why "they" (Eng8 or whomever) are not focused on just making the full device.
I get there are efficiency losses in energy conversion, etc, etc. But who cares? Those losses are something we were always going to have to deal with anyways, and it's better to start looking at and optimizing the entire picture. If the losses can't be overcome to make this "work" then it doesn't work.
Seems simple enough to me. Then keep running tests bi-weekly with a slack channel or other open forum for suggestions on how to reduce the losses of conversion. -
I sent Alan a reference of all certifying contractors for IEP. The last names fit the first names are different to avoid more legal problems...
So no joke. Sad reality. The "certification " paper is worse than any Rossi scam.
[CITATION NEEDED]
-
Kieran Cox - Hello there! No- apparently UL made an error somewhere and are in the process of re-submitting a corrected version. That's all I know.
Hi! Well I guess we have a "document" from IEP...
https://eng8.energy/uoc-final-raman-report-24-7-23-2
Though the upcoming UL version means more to me (US based) -
Display More
I have no recollection of signing an NDA, and feel free to speak as I see fit anyway as I am not discussing technical matters in depth.. The UL USA COP-5 claim is for George's work only, It has nothing to do with ENG8's science team, the ENG8 gliding arc 'tornado' reactor or R&D. But I have not seen the promised UL report. According to the time-scale I have been given by Haslen Back I should get this in around 2 weeks. Until then it is all verbal. I visited George's lab at my own expense a few months back, and saw an early system running, as did Jean-Paul Biberian on another occasion. We both saw it produce an apparently positive electrical COP, shown by relative thermometry using rather sketchy calorimeters of around 2 based on their math, which has since been amended withe a 'cooling' effect - though not enough to make it totally uninteresting. .
Another replicator (I cannot say who simply because they asked me not to) with a serious lab also worked on this and re-built George's device several times- they saw nothing, but another look at the data they produced and the application of some different math saw a small positive COP. Rebuilding was required since the hand-built systems George's guys produced were not reliable because of poor build quality.
I haven't run the early version device I have here, George told me not to as the 'electrodes were no good' I was promised more, but they haven't yet arrived despite some nagging from me. Dave Nagel also visited the Aviero Portugal lab last month, but has not yet come to any firm conclusion about any of the tech.
Finally ENG8 do not currently possess a pressurised water system at all, that is at Biaco near Brighton AFAIK. ENG8 asked me to build one for them They are fighting in a London court with Biaco over trade marks and possibly more- but they do expect to get it back I suppose..
Any news on the UL report that was tentatively suggested to be a fortnight out...
