Engineer48 Member
  • Member since Oct 13th 2014

Posts by Engineer48

  • Parkhomov Paper 2015 03 26 English.pdf

    Quote from AlainCo

    result is not so convincing...


    Nickel/Chromium is the only anomaly that seems interesting.


    Here is Excel spreadsheet of pre/post fuel element analysis to play with. Have sorted by pre % Atmo & % Mass.


    His pre fuel may not be well mixed nor clean (read he used mortar/pestle to mix), so small size samples may vary depending on where in the pre/post fuel mix total volumn it was taken. No Lithium in pre fuel sure looks strange but it shows up in post ash, so maybe variable depending on where in total volume of fuel the samples were taken.


    Fuel analysis sorted by per/post atom & mass.

  • Parkhomov Paper 2015 03 26 English.pdf


    Is from photograph taken at ICCF19.
    https://www.facebook.com/Marti…3/959227510774615/?type=1


    Looks like something created via Excel. No lab name, dates, run numbers, etc nor other identifying marks.


    No Lithium in before sample. Amounts variations could be explained on where samples were taken in the total volume of the pre and post fuel. Why no isotopic shift analysis? Which would prove nuclear like reaction had taken place.

  • Sifferkoll: Why are Pomp, Eriksson, Ekström and Håkansson Making Fools out of Themselves in Ny Teknik?


    On Vortex, an expert in this kind of indirect temperature measurement (measures rocket exhaust plume temps, etc) said instruments used and setup was OK. With respect to McKubre, AFAIK, he has no expertise in this type of temperature measurement, so why the negative comment? I do note McKubre is working with Brillouin on their 100 COP LENR water boiler.
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/F…9:10#Brillouin_.7E100x_OU
    Seems both IH and Brillouin are in the same low temp LENR heat market. Wish them both all the best.


    Would also comment on the reddish colour of the ECat reactor. We do not know when that photo was taken, so unless the team give us a time stamp, it is pointless to try to work out the reactor temp from the displayed colour. I have no doubt, there are red herrings in the report, to send deniers onto false trails, to stop replicators and to try to protect IH IP before patents are obtained. It would seem to be very much in the favour of IH for the report to be thrown into the rubbish bin as then they can continue on to ECat commercialisation without serious replication actions.


    In that way Pomp, etc may be aiding IH commercialisation efforts.

  • Sifferkoll: Why are Pomp, Eriksson, Ekström and Håkansson Making Fools out of Themselves in Ny Teknik?

    Different Dog, Same Leg Action:


    I asked Stephen Pomp to critique the work and reported results of excess heat, transmutations, He4, Trituim etc production of McKubre and others. Was told if the results were not reported in Nature, etc he was not interested.


    Seems ECat results don't need to be reported in Nature, etc for Pomp to do a critique.


    I suggest that if Pomp is OK to critique the latest ECat results, without them being published in Nature etc, then it should be OK for him to critique McKubre and other major LENR researchers.


    Papers can be found here: www.lenr-canr.org.


    Simple logic here. Either ALL of the reports of excess heat, transmutations, He4 & Tritium production are false or there is something happening that may require a new chapter to be written in the book of existing physics understandings.


    So please Stephen Pomp widen your LENR results report base and provide the same high level of critique to ALL the other major LENR results as you have done with the latest ECat test report.

  • Sifferkoll: Why are Pomp, Eriksson, Ekström and Håkansson Making Fools out of Themselves in Ny Teknik?

    Why don't Pomp & co do their own LENR experiment or discuss results with other LENR researchers such as Mike McKubre?


    The truth is out there and today it is not that hard for someone as determined as Pomp & co are to prove LENR is BS, to check facts with other LENR researchers.


    All I see are 4 guys who refuse to look through Galileo's telescope.


    Quote

    [Vo]:Failure to fulfil the Galileo test Ian Walker Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:54:17 -0700


    Hi all


    If you refuse to look through the telescope then you have failed the
    Galileo test; you have stopped being a scientist and practising a religion.

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg98898.html

  • Where is the Gamma Radiation? (Profchuck)

    Despite the clear denier fraud committed by Pomp and other who dare to call themselves physists & scientists, this test adds to the already impressive data base of successful LENR results, each of which helps to point the way to the development of "Why it is so".


    In the meantime IH continues to develop the capability to add ECat rods into the boilers of existing thermoelectric power plants, which I'm sure care little about what Pomp, etc think or not.

  • Where is the Gamma Radiation? (Profchuck)

    Superconductivity is good example of new to old physics effect that took a long time to develop theory of how it worked.


    Yet even with very significant and wide spread replications of excess heat, transmutations, He & Tritium production, main stream physics fights to deny the evidence. Claiming as this is outside known physics, it must be fraud. Fraud it is but not by the LENR researchers. The fraud is committed by those who deny the validity of the evidence and refuse to allow LENR researchers to be accepted as valid research and part of the growing understanding and evolution of physics.


    Their crime is beyond fraud. It go to the denial of the progress of the human understanding of our universe and the advancement of the rights of all humans to a sustainable way of life.