Merci Citoyen. :hi:
C'est une opération de communication, et il manque des rapports technique pour soutenir, mais j'espère que ca aidera certains à s'informer plus avant.
Comme toute les théories, celle de Godes me laisse très sceptique, mais sa technologie a déjà été confirmée avant l'ICCF17 par Tanzella...
Il y a certainement de l'exaggération, mais on va dire que c'est de extrapolation 
. On est loin du fumage de moquette sur certaines technologies à la mode.
There is a film on this guy, quite supportive
http://forecaster-movie.com/en/the-story/
Quite esoteric theory?
Not inspiring trust to me.
He seems to have a huge ego, which does not inspire trust to me, beside his Legal case.
Armstrong was indicted on September 29, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for an alleged fraud, where he was claimed to have been involved in a conspiracy with employees of Republic New York bank involving Japanese investors.
In November 1999, several Japanese investors, such as the Amada Corporation, Japan’s largest manufacturer of metalworking machinery, and one of Armstrong’s clients, filed a lawsuit against Republic New York and two officers, accusing them of fraud. In the court papers filed, Amada sought recovery of at least $123 million plus punitive damages. The complaint made accusations of securities fraud against Republic New York, two subsidiaries and two officers. One officer was immediately suspended and one was replaced.
Republic New York first tried to claim that its employees, who were illegally trading in accounts belonging to Armstrong, had conspired with Armstrong to hide their losses from the Japanese. However, after it became clear that the accounts did not belong to the Japanese investors but to Armstrong, as they had simply swapped their depreciated Japanese portfolios for low yielding Princeton Notes and not involving any funds management), Republic New York plead guilty on December 17, 2001, to fraud in federal court in connection with the fraud.
His article about CEC is theoretical, so not an evidence of anything.
Anyway it is interesting that such a finance guy is interested in the subject. A warning too.
A small article on LENR (mostly theory speculation linked to Brillouin), but the author is the most interesting.
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/39366
"Armstrong Economics" , USA-Zurich.
Quote
Welcome to Armstrong Economics where our mission is to provide a public service for the average person to comprehend the global economy and for professionals to access the most sophisticated international analysis available. We provide an integrated understandable global model approach that is free of personal bias, bravado, or other nonsense, enabling you to see the inherent inner-workings of the world economy to grasp how everything is truly integrated into a single enterprise that is driven by international capital flows. Forecasting the world economy and markets becomes possible only when approached on a stoic unemotional basis from an international perspective. Trying to forecast a single market is dangerous as everything is interconnected on a global scale. Personal opinion has no place in forecasting, any more than in religion. It was personal opinion that argued for centuries that the world was flat and that everything revolved around Earth, the perceived center of the universe. Galileo served life in prison for daring to disagree with such opinions.
The key to knowledge today remains the global capital flows and comprehension of how capital rushes around the world. It is this interaction, on a global scale, that produces the real booms and busts. Bull markets ONLY take place when global capital flows target one nation focused into one particular sector (i.e. Japan 1989, 1997 SE Asia, 1998 Russia, 2000 DOT.COM, & the recent US Mortgage Bubble). Here are the capital flows for the 1987 Crash (shown in table above). Americans were the buyers and the foreigners were the sellers, because this event was driven by fear of the collapse of the dollar only and not by any domestic change in the economic output. As long as a market is rising ONLY in terms of a local currency, then foreign capital will be sellers against domestic buyers and thus there will be no sustainable trend. A real bull market is one that rises in terms of ALL currencies, not just the local currency. Learn more about how capital flows dictate the trend at our world renowned Conferences held in USA, Asia, and Europe.
I fall on that interesting article about another model of disruption, orthogonal to the famous Uberization.
http://www.merkapt.com/entrepr…admap-to-disruption-11658
Uberization is described so :
How does it develop: Powerful companies invest all their resources maintaining a form of monopoly, and extract revenues of position from a market, this market rapidly get mistreated and hurt. This usually involves a specific form of proprietary asset (or plain laws in some cases), that are used to lock customers in. In such a case, nimble and aggressive ventures have an easy time swooping in, leveraging generic platform technologies, such as mobile, geolocalization, digital payment, Google, Amazon or Facebook… to take on the incumbent and beat him on his key added value.
...
It is quite “safe” to go and try uberize an incumbent. To rephrase what I already said:
- His customers hate him and are ready to switch in a blink of an eye;
- He got bad at delivering his own added value;
- Generic platform technologies can be 80% of your back-office, if you manage to focus on user experience and bring back delight to the market.
This is why “uberization” gets so much press coverage at the moment. It feels like everyone and her grand-mother could be the next Uber. And that’s the case, to some extent.
However this is not the only model of disruption.
An orthogonal model is the Teslaization, which keep the business model unlike Uberization, but introduce really new technology unlike uberization.
Quote
How does it develop: Any company leveraging a technological asset, may be faced with a tremendously powerful competitor surging from a totally different market. This competitor will have a much better technology, initially built for an entirely different purpose. It just happens that it’s a cost effective pivot of their core business.
The also talk of "disruption" "by-the-book", which is both a business model and a technology change... The author says it is not so realist, and real case don't pile up both kind of disruption, by business model and by technology :
This is interesting in the context of LENr, as LENR have a full potential to disrupt the technology, and the market, by it's characteristics.
But maybe is it easier to disrupt one direction at a time...
By addressing old markets needs with a new technology (Teslaization) that will wash the old energy incumbent...
Then, and probably very quickly, Uberization will kill those new incumbent of LENR energy who will have abused their position...
Or maybe LENR is so easily disruptive for technology (cheap, clean,simple) and for business model (local, autonomous, dense), that the two targets may be followed at the same time? Is it Hubris to think about it?
I like the conclusion :
QuoteThe key point of all this, is that in the end, whether you are a fully developed industrial business, or the flicker of a startup idea, not taking enough risk is too much of a risk.
about the independence of the test, you are wrong it was independent, since rossi did not build the installation to test, and testers were free to do what they wanted out of the reactor. You show you bias by refusing that fact.
the emissivity is a key factor, and the physicist screwed up, in that context, not to check the tables with a good calibrations.
about the temperature assuming emissivity is 0.9, we all mostly agree, that it is around 750C.
You story about T^2.1 seems very strange for me... you seems to say that the bolometer sensitivity is strongly wavelength dependence... I imagine the documentation is referenced in your report...
My computation is based on a flat wavelength response, and is quite robust under that assumption.
Note that some state that you use the low temperature version of the Optris documentation, and I never considered that argument under my model of flat response. if response heavily depend on the bolometer array characteristics, it is a point to restudy.
About calorimetry, Ferrara test is perfectly calibrated, and fairly independent (reactor could be inspected and was inspected without opposition), so it worked.
Lugano was fully independent, abandoned alone to the testers, and unfilled by the testers (despite the misunderstanding).
I don't exclude the test was badly done, but it is very strange that Rossi did not notice his reactor was so cold. and if he was fooling the testers, this protocol was suicidal.
If a scientist used a good multiband bolometer, a thermocouple, or known emissivity dots he would have seen the problem - they even tested known emissivity dot but they fall of it seems - so Rossi did not oppose that.
Theory of fraud is impossible to support honestly.
Even the hypothesis of emissivity at 0.9 or 0.4 seems to neglect the effect of short wavelength transparency on radiation, and internal metallic reflectivity. The Dogbone are really complex for optical calorimetry, and calibration was required. I would propose that since the dogbone is fat and opaque inside, then the emissivity should not assume any effect of transparency... Fins and surface state may also change emissivity (some say it reduce reflectivity, thus increase emissivity).
It does not impact normally the temperature since alumina is opaque in Optris range.
It looks like a screw-up caused by abuse of theory, but it is not even sure.
About Isotopic measurement, Bo Hoistad say clearly that Rossi was present but did not extract the samples himself. He just controlled the quantity was minor. You show your bias by refusing that fact again.
...
, but I could not get my post through. You posted successfully. How should I do?
No idea, since you just have to put mail, url, and mail...
Maybe it is under moderation queue or spam false positive.
Maybe your mail provider is blacklisted or warned. (I'm gmail)
Maybe url are bloked/moderated
In issuu powered magazine "Plastic Rubber Asia", there is an article on Clean energy (p18-21), with a long section on LENR.
(page 21).
http://issuu.com/plasticsrubbe…educed?e=2769350/14748715
This link send you to the page:
http://issuu.com/plasticsrubbe…c-issue-reduced/c/sca3v6r
Lewis Larsen is visibly the main contact of the journalist, and I get the link through his Twitter.
He is a good lobbyist.
The research was stopped at Spawar when the boss changed, and maybe because it appeared on media.
I've also heard of some political/academic lobbying to close that activity... The kind of things done by Sylvie Coyaud in Italy and relayed by Sveriges radio agains Elforsk.
Anyway the Spawar researchers reacted.
Some continue their research in another university (I think Pamela Mosier Boss is now publishing as MIT), and some other created the startup "Global Energy Corp" trying to develop technology for an Hybrid Fission/LENR reactor "GeNiE".
Recent comment seems to propose that Spawar research are just undercover, but what I see is that the researchers are no more working for Spawar around LENR. It think Spawar surrendered to skeptics, as most do.
Michel Vandenberghe, transmitted me a small whitepaper describing their approach, in 3-4 pages.
It is quite easy to understand.
LENR-CIties Elevator Pitch V1.1-EN.pdf
What is important to understand is that LENR-Cities, and this is not so easy to understand it, is focused on supporting LENR technology development, but being aware it is a disruptive technology in a very "integrated" world.
We are not like when Edison introduced electric lighting, with a vertical integration, that started in some US cities and quietly was deployed, replicated across the planet to build what we know as the electric grid.
Today to allow LENR emergence, everybody have to quickly and synchronously move, or we will understand what really DISRUPTION mean.
As I understand, their model propose to prevent disruption, by embracing the disruption.
QuoteDisrupt your own company – Before LENR disrupts it for you
or as Jean-Francois Geneste said :
Quote
We want to shape the future, not to be shaped by it.
It seems far from technology, but if you don't find people who want to fund the research, invest money and energy in the technology development, then there is no technology.
There is so much to say on that subject, but this document is a good beginning.
on FCNP news, Tom Whipple publish another article on LENR revolution, but with a bitter vision on the future resistance, as there is for Keystone Pipeline.
http://fcnp.com/2015/11/10/the…the-next-keystone-debate/
They key vision he propose is sad:
Quote
In the case of [lexicon]low energy nuclear reactions[/lexicon], it will be easy to conjure up fears. In a matter of days after it becomes apparent that the technology is valid and could shake the economy to its core, television ads will start claiming that the technology is bad for your health, and that it should be tested for another 30 or 40 years before the public is endangered. The TV ads naturally will be accompanied by a rush of lobbyists to Capital Hill seeking to outlaw or at least mandate years of testing before it can be released to the public. It will sound a lot like the campaign against AC electricity 120 years ago.
I answered so:
I don't agree exactly on the responsibilities, even I I agree that something of this kind will happen.
First there was no blocus by oil companies and industrialist, just cowardliness.
the main opponents are and have been mostly academic, relayed by journalist, editors, and administrations transmitted to politicians.
Oil companies, defense labs, industrial private and national labs, have authorized some maverick research on LENR, provided it was making no noise.
The fear for opposition for me is not from oil, and industry.
The main fear is the great losers, the ideologies of doom, the ideologies of Malthusianism, all the NGO, green business and politician who have a budget because of pollution, CO2, fears, and dirty energy, to sell renewable energies, carbon quota.
The second group of losers will not be the industrialists, but their workforce and , because they vote, the local politicians.
In france I expect a huge opposition of the electric utilities because workforce will have to change, and maybe to move to another model of work, like selling home reactors instead of maintaining power plants.
On Cobraf that patent is discussed
http://www.google.com/patents/CN104796081A?cl=en&hl=en
QuoteDisplay MoreA kind of nickel-metal hydride lithium as a raw material self-sustaining heat method and apparatus
translated from Chinese
CN 104796081 A
ABSTRACT translated from Chinese
Nickel (such as heating, discharge, etc.) can react with hydrogen under certain conditions and produce heat, light effect the exception. Its release of light and heat may be greater than the input energy, the test in the past due to poor reproducibility did not attract our attention. The present invention uses a nickel hydrogen, lithium or three-element compound containing three elements as a raw material, prepared using a high-temperature transparent quartz glass or other transparent refractory material into the reaction chamber, the excitation current through the fuel react. This method solves the problem to reproduce the reactor to produce large amounts of heat and light, in which light energy through the concentrator photovoltaic device into electricity reflux to the reactor, the heat through the heat exchange system output. Abundant materials used throughout the system, the structure is simple and easy to implement, and efficient, environmentally friendly, for home or commercial heating provides a new solution.
CLAIMS(6) translated from Chinese
1. The fuel used in the reactor consists of nickel hydrogen, lithium three elements, or a fuel containing these three elements.
2. Nickel may be a single metal, nickel isotopes, or chemical form of the nickel, such as: nickel chloride, and the like.
3. hydrogen containing hydrogen isotopes, such as protium, deuterium, tritium, deuterium and tritium compounds represented by protium three elements of the composition.
The lithium element comprises elemental lithium metal, lithium hydride, lithium aluminum hydride and the like.
5. The reactor shell material used for the transparent quartz, may be a high temperature glass, as well as other high temperature resistant transparent material.
6. The light emitted from the reactor by the thin film photovoltaic modules into electrical energy, electric energy generated by the reactor self-sustaining heat light, can also use an external power supply, such as: external power or battery energy storage startup or auxiliary reactor reached a self-sustaining .
It seems very simple, without any details , and I suspect it cannot be replicated, because things are not so simple (or replication would be trivial).
I don't bet much on that patent. I wait for expert opinion to confirm.
I suspect that with an hybrid architecture you can even power a car with 10kW continuous, in urban trafic.
some reference
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JaeheeJoh.shtml
support even the idea that 20kW is enough for 80km/h
McKubre pretended support to papp have been more like "why not, let me test it myself"...
and Papp did not let him test. This have been addressed long ago... nothing change, it is like alien abduction theories...
the ability of skeptic to deform reality is so fascinating. Remind me 9/11 conspiracy sites.
McKubre suspend his disbelief, or at least is polite (I bet more on that).
Some should learn about that method.
about the COP of 4, the advantage claimed by Brillouin is instantaneous control.
you can start and stop at will.
anyway for E-cat application in heating, provided the good control is attained in SSM over one hour time period, E-cat is great.
However both are technology at infancy. I hope Brillouin will be able to improve his technology.
COP4 is really the minimum to produce electricity at their temperature.
May I roll over the floor reading Mary ?
skeptic just ask a tea kettle and have laughed at many scientific evidence, boiling electrolytic cells, COP around 2, transmutations.
one day you should be coherent Mary.
What you say Thomas would be rational, but you are the evidence that there is something not so rational in that story.
The competent man you are, supported the crazy inverted clamp theory before you found something mer serious with emissivity. You behave like a desperate attorney trying to save his client from the death row.
You focus on some evidence, while avoiding the annoying evidences.
In a way you behave like the theoreticians that Edmund Storms love to bash, who support their theory based on 1 or two observation, ignoring the others.
As usual in such academic denial, it have to go to the market, or at least to the mainstream application.
It worked so for Pasteur and Immunization, which is the most similar story which lasted 125 years of denial from Oliver Gordon de Aberdeen, to Pasteur , Via Oliver Wendel Holmes and Ignaz Semmelweis.Pasteur won the academic war, not because of better evidence than Semmelweis, but because he was a much better salesman, and because he immunized innocent kids in public, and demonstrated result publicly.
Pasteur behavior today would be considered unethical, criminal, and commercial, especially because unlike Pasteur he would need big funding, patents, and attorneys.
about the non linear response of bolometer it really depend if the bolometers are heavily sensible on the radiation wavelength, or as micro-bolometers should, just sensible to energy in the bandwidth.
in that case my integrations, assuming simple flat (or symmetric) response to wavelength disagree with your position...
are the nano bolometer arrays sensible to the energy in the bandwidth, or is it heavily dependent on wavelength.
Note that my result depend on that assumption only on one point, to decide the minimum possible temperature, and it seems that we agree, or that I am pessimistic.
my two recomputed temperature are 675 and 745C.
What are you computed temperatures for 800 and 900W?
the rest of the computation is independent on the optris, it is only emissivity and radiation laws.
You use a vague blacket arguments...
its is an artifact ? which one...
it is never well done... tell me what and for what.
the skeptic books about detecting conspiracy theories, and associatied manipulation methods are good to understand that kind of argument.
Lugano calorimetry may be wrong if , as we suppose , emissivity is wrong.
isotopic shift is classical measurement, and result is clear, and the intervention of rossi is ruled-out by witness.
Iwamura isotopic shift have been accused of contamination, like the He4/heat measurements, but the correlations with experimental results, and not with the instrument used, show it is a reality.
I imagine that with your blanket/wildcard arguments you will be able to deny any experiment done at CERN, any evidence of superconducting at high temperature except the levitation (and even, is it just seam effect... and you stay vague as usual).
The skeptic community have good documentations on that. I'm always surprised how skeptic arguments are good, except on few point where they apply them the opposite way.
Cargo Cult skepticism is really a plague.
Funny the way they patent "the way to measure", and not the result which is "impossible" according to USPTO.
A newcomer, positively skeptic, on LENr, E-cat...
http://nnm.me/blogs/voyager2/g…fera-ili-shag-v-budushee/
I have a question, related to Brillouin’s technology.
When a firm invented a LENR device they mostly try to get a patent first, although they have no scientific model to clarify their device. What will happen to the obtained patent when scientists…
Robert Godes may answer himself, but note that David French, expert in patents, answered clearly to that question. A faulty theory, a theory proven false afterward, or absence of theory, is not a problem with a patent, as long as the description is clear enough for someone competent enough to replicate it as said. At worst if the patent "defy current theories" and "should be impossible", then the patent examiner will ask soli evidences it works, as solid as the claim is believed impossible. On the opposite a patent based on known theory is often not verified as functional. A patent that don't work is without value, and myself I don't see why people even care to check it is real... maybe to prevent scammers to use patent as evidence... patent is not an evidence but something to divulgue knowledge in exchange of temporary protection.
#CutTheirBudget