Posts by Dsjm1

(tried to post this as a reply to an Abd post but I see there is no link to it
The post I am wanting to reply to was posted about 20 hrs ago and starts
off with a ref to a point from Shane D.)

This is a very well worded and reasoned post. Classic Abd.

Very clear and up-to-date assessment of the reality of the Rossi/IH situation.

I do remind us all that it is a jury trial and as such, strange things happen in these in the US.
The jury at best might be able to make sense of the contract details but it is clearly and logically
obvious that the question of Rossi's LENR working as claimed by Rossi is beyond a jury and judge.
In fact, that question 'seems to be' near impossible to get an answer to. And, the reasons for that
can vary from a) it doesn't work, to 2) it might work, but Rossi's personality and his actions prevent
him from letting anyone prove it.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to put out such a rational and informative assessment.

Doug Marker (DSM)

Jed,

Having worked for IBM for a very long time and been responsible for a variety of technology press releases in Asia Pacific for part of that time, I am wondering how you concocted your "IBM used to say ..." story.

It flies in the face of my real experience at the company.

Doug Marker

I am in principle against bans - what I would like to ban is any words that use crude, vulgar or offensive language in describing either part and or their activities or the persons involved.

But, human nature being what it is and personal agendas being what they are, I don't hold out much hope this could be achieved.

Doug Marker

Shayne,
Be very very careful about the rather wild claims of IH's version of the ERV.

Note very carefully how Chinese whyispers are seemingly spinning the story out of control.

Note particularly how those (i.e. Yugo & Clarke) are suddenly 'in love' with IH and
acting as their surrogate press agents. Only a few weeks ago IH were their enemies.

Just beware of the 'spin'.

Cheers Doug Marker

me356 (SORRY for duplicate post - my earlier one didn't show after several hours - then appeared immediatly after I posted this one ?)

Thankyou for having the courage to post your very interesting experiments here for us to read about.

I am delighted that you are being treated respectfully and the questions are all thus far sensible and supportive. The value of positive support can never be underestimated.

I have questions that you may or may not be willing to answer and that is fully understood. But if you are willing to cover any aspect please do. It relates to your activation of the excess heat and any details will be welcome.

Q1) The question is do you trigger the excess heat by pulsing the heater current for set bursts at any particular frequency and with any modified current wave form.
Q2 A) Are you able to de-active when you want (am assuming you have already said this can be done). Is that achieved by varying the current to the heater coil rapidly downward for a period of time, or by a burst of current using a different wave-form.

Again, thanks for your openness.

Doug Marker (DSM).

Me356

Thankyou for publishing your observations. While I am ok if you won't answer, but am interested to know if you 'switching' technique involves pulsing the heater current for a set period at particular frequencies and with a modified waveform.

It is great to hear you have had one of these unit s working for 6 or so months.

thanks Doug Marker

Having seen 'independent ecat news' degenerate into a cesspit of insult, put-downs, 'pack-mentality' gang attacks and downright intimidation, I hope that doesn't happen here.

I am aware that late last year some residents of ecat news suggested moving here because that place had become so poisoned that it had become boring.

I don't necessarily disagree with many of the points and logic that get expressed there but do find the venom so many of the resident 'pseudo-skeptics' resort to, to be too much. The converse is the random drive by 'shooters' who are LENR fanatics who pop up there seeking revenge attacks.

So, for me, it has been how long will it take that mob to destroty this forum.

If particular members get banned, I can assure you that they are highly likely to have been banned over the years, from many other forums. It is in their DNA.

Doug Marker DSM

IMHO This announcement has the potential to be a watershed in the advancement of LENR.

Tactical reasons for this are (ignoring individual emotional opinions & reactions to who where & why)

1) That SRI and McKubre were willing and able to issue the statement they did at the venue they did.

2) Brillouin have been consistent in their development efforts and great promise (apparently now fulfilled)
was evident when SRI partnered with Brillouin some years ago, to investigate their prototype boiler and its
control system and to help design a scaleable boiler reactor.

3) Robert Godes is consistent. He has avoided a circus/charade as has been going on with Andrea Rossi

4) The Brillouin explanation of all aspects of the design and control has been and remains credible. In particular
is their claim to have effective control over the LENR process for effective and quick start-up and shut-down of
a system. That ability appears to have eluded some other players.

5) The statement from McKubre as to the COP is significant.

Doug Marker

Axil, re Quantum computing. This is a special topic to myself and have been tracking developments for the past couple of years with the help of a smart friend who works in the QIP world.

While this particular issue is not exactly LENR, it is a follow-on from the original post. What can be said of QIP and QC is that the advances are occurring so fast that most news or web articles on the topic, are likely to be obsolete.

DWave have progressed through 3 generations of device and now run in excess of 1000 qubits. It is Google who are devising tests that have been run on the DWave device as it appears their own direct QC progress lags quite a bit.

The issue of error correction in a QC relates to the time-to-decoherence experienced between entangles pairs of particles built into any QC. AFAICT this is where various researchers are out of sync in what they are claiming. Some are months (if not years) behind others in improving the stability of the entanglement. One has to be very careful with what one comes up with on the web, on this topic, as there is a very high probability of reading obsolete reports. Also, the source of the reports needs careful weighting as to validity and usefulness. This same issue applies to reading pro and con arguments about the success or disputed success of the many tests conducted in the name of Bell's inequality testing. Reports published this year claim that the final 'loophole' (that some scientists always seem to conjure up) have been laid to rest (but we can be sure yet another claimed 'loophole' will be produced. The real issue re Bell's inequality testing is that each new and more rigorous test using ever more advanced testing techniques, repeatedly shows Bell's theorem is violated and confirms the non-locality case (without hidden variables).

But back to QC. My own understanding is that DWave have been able to demonstrate substantial advances in the use of their newest model and that while 'quantum annealing' might not be the same as conventional software computing with simple bit manipulation, it is working.

Cheers DSM