Posts by me356

Whatever happened MFMP performed very good test. The point of the test was to check if there is an excess heat or other interesting artefacts. And we were prepared for both cases. Yet no report from the test was published as far as I know. If you are more clever, you should help with the next test.

JedRothwell: Get the copies of my emails so you can see if it was or wasn't clear enough. Please do not speculate. Feel free to paste the email content here.

Where did you get information I was claiming COP of 10?

Why would you do the test knowing from the start it is likely to fail? It was not likely at all. I tried to do my best to make it working but very important thing was not possible to do in time. I have thought it will be possible to finish it better, but there were other issues that nobody can't really expect.

If all members were already very close, why should I not allow them to test the reactor as there was chance it will work (and they want to do the test in any way)?

Did you asked for copy of my emails?

Well, there is a big difference between you and me, obviously

It is very interesting how you can know more about the test than me.

Can you tell me why anybody should apologize for true?

JedRothwell: I dont know how to say it more clearly, but it is evident that you do not understand what I have written earlier.

Each your post is constructed on your assumption which are sometime exactly opposite of the reality.

Many statements that are allegedly my are completely nonsense and were never claimed by me.

So maybe it must be stated even more clearly in points (you can ask for any point to Bob Greenyer for confirmation):

1. Tested device was far from ready and MFMP was informed about it weeks ago.
   
2. Tested device was the only device that was possible to test as this was the only one "prepared" for public testing. For Jed: No, preparation of other reactor will take much longer than one we were able to test.
   
3. I was not the person who made a schedule of the test.
   
4. I have never said that it is ready for testing.
   
5. I have clearly stated (for a few times) prior to 14th may that once I will be prepared for testing, I will inform about it. This time not occured yet.
   
6. The first time I was informed about the test was 14th may 2017 (verified with my mail box right now) from a forum member - at this day I have sent a message to Bob G. that it is not good to schedule without me. Also I have stated for a few times in the mail that day, that it is really not ready. At this time the tickets were already billed.
   
7. I have stated that I can pay for everything, no donations are needed for the test.
   
8. Prior the test I wanted to meet with Bob (this plan was known for longer time) so he can check everything personally first. But only once I will be ready. This was not realized as I was not ready.
   
9. I was appealing to carefull cooperation before any test will begin to prevent hurry plans and condition when anything will be missing, not working, etc.
   
10. I have never claimed any specific COP, especially not for the actual device.
    
11. I was informing Bob about particular issues of the reactor and what is the progress.
    
12. Before the test I have stated that the result can be whatever as there was no time to test the device.
    
13. I have agreed to perform the test to not waste money and effort of MFMP as they were very close whatever I will say.
    
14. I am glad for the test and especially for great proffesionality of all MFMP members. We have both learned usefull info.

Each point is nothing else but true, so I am describing the facts. Again, you can verify it.

Please tell me which point is not clear?

JedRothwell: Maybe I should write it again - please read all my posts in this thread. Then you will get answers to your questions. If you don't believe, why you are asking then?

I have informed Bob relatively precisely about what is wrong with the reactor and what must be done and that it was far from ready from my side.

But over it, we have agread to do the test. What is wrong about it?

If Bob will agree, he can give you all our communication from the last year (of course with censoring some confidential info that he know about). I have no problem with that.

Unfortunately I can't loose more time. Sorry.

First from all, I am not attacking absolutely anyone. I am stating how it was and it was clear at least weeks before that testing conditions will be not optimal, since it was not ready. If you want to make sure how it was, ask all involved people. I believe that there is no problem with that.

There were and are serious issues that we are investigating and will be resolved in the following weeks.

JedRothwell: Your questions are already answered in my previous posts. Once you will read it all, I believe there will be no more questions like this.

In any way you are free to make any conclusion.

Thank you for the comments.

Unfortunately it looks like the people that are writing here are absolutely ignoring what I have written (Especially JedRothwell). Please stop speculating about something that is not true for sure. I highly recommend to read all my posts in this thread.

It is also good to note, that I have never claimed COP of 10 for this particular reactor. Basically everything you are talking about was already responded and is perfectly clear from the beginning.

Thank you Alan for the support!

axil: I am afraid, but in this case the problem is very simple as I have described before. The reactor was just completely untested including the heating element. The element was manufactured by external company and without prior testing it was unable to me to determine that it will work differently (incorrectly) than previous elements.

So without a proper control anything like this will melt (in both cases with or without excess heat).

The system should be stable and able to perform for very long time if all the components will be flawless.

You can't be angry for a car just because it has broken tires. Thus also you can't conclude from this that other cars will be broken in the same way too.

PeterMetz: a) b) When it is ready from my side.

For months I am not doing any estimations because it always lead to a problems. So for some time I am always saying that when it will be ready, I will tell you.

David Nygren: The equipment is the calorimetry. It is needed to interface it with my system so I can readout required values. I dont know how fast I will be able to use it since the focus will be on the sorting issues of the control box primarily (and then of the reactor) but it is very good and will be used in next MFMP tests for sure.

Otherwise we have same power analyser and optris so this will be practically unchanged.

No, I dont intend to connect it online nor I have the DAQ that was used for this.

For this and few gifted things I have to express again big thanks to MFMP.

Henry: If you are really very busy year will pass very quickly.

How do you think your work will look like, if you know that for doing it you need few months but you have time only few weeks? Maybe if you will be in the same situation, you will know.

Yes, it was quite ready, but it changed completely due to complications of longer runs. I do not feel need to convince people for all costs.

I am fine with if you will think I have no real device and just spending money because of long days

From tommorow I will be very likely unable to respond for long time. So I wish you will find what you are searching for.

JedRothwell: I was not referring to excess heat. I was referring to the things that we were able to manage in such short time and altough it was uneasy it was at least possible to perform the test in given timeframe. If nothing was done, then this is really fail. But even with some delay of few days it happened. In my experience each failure is leading to a great success.

For sure there will be new reactor very soon, actually much more of them. There were many plans from my side what should be done before the test will happen.

Especially I was insisting on carefull cooperation before any test will happen to prevent any speculations like these and to provide only facts and verified data - this plan was expressed by me maybe months ago. But at the end timing does not allowed it.

There is and was another reactor that should be running and available for the tests, but we were unfortunately unable to finish it soon enough as the concentration was given to finishing the prototypes of the control box (which is needed for the second reactor as well) and the cover and parts for the wide production. The second reactor has also some incompatible that must be changed too.

Now we know that some parts are not good and must be replaced for others in any way. This is how it works and is not unexpected for me.

I am not frustrated at all, I just like to give missing data how the things are in reality, which in my point is important. Because people are constructing lies on such imprecisions which is understandable.

Sometimes it is not good if all the important things are told by other persons, but if you get full response directly from the source. Unfortunately I am extremely busy and it was unusefull to answer the questions. But if there are doubts about my credibility I gladly describe everything and prove what is right.

It was honor that MFMP was here and I have enjoyed it very much, especially because they are really great team. Each member have unique skills that they are really mastering. We have found what must be sorted and where the things are not strong and must be updated. So I am sure usefull for both.

Regarding positive or negative result of the test - personally for me it was positive in many ways. What appeared that can't work worked at the end. There were many obstacles that were bypassed in nearly notime and worked for the test.

Still there are lot of data to process so lets make MFMP their work without guess work.

Can: Overally it is OK, there are some things that were based on unkown things by writer so only guesses which is also mentioned there. But there are also some false data that I was pointing out, because were not mentioned by me. So they are also guesses. But it is not that important. The problem is, when others are using these data and offend that it was told by me.

For this reason I wished that anything that is related to me is consulted with me to prevent some wrong interpretation. It is maybe hard to work with me, because I can't give full response for obvious reasons and sometime it takes too long. But I still think that only facts should be provided in all cases whatever it is. Information without a proper context can be completely false.

Nothing wrong is there, except that 14th may is of course typo (4th is correct).

If Bob said I am ready, then he meant I am ready to accept them for testing as I have described above.

For sure you can get confirmation for everything I have written from other side too.

I recommend to not speculate without knowing how it really was.

MFMP did their work very well and everything was done with a great caution.

The only problem with this test was, that it was scheduled without me being prepared for the test. So the first time I was aware of the test was on 14th May where all bills were already bought and accomodation arranged.

To not waste the great effort that MFMP did I simply agreed for the test, but in conditions of knowing that the result can be of any result since there were serious issues due completely untested things (where some of them were still there during the testing). But nothing else was in the condition that allowed testing publicly.

So there is nothing strange and everything has good explanation.

Argon: No, the situation was very different.

THHuxleynew: Indeed it is very important for the future to very clearly state when it is ready from both sides.

I give full permission to MFMP to share details or better cite me what I have written in advance about the problems.

But I have given my best to make it work even with these issues.

In any way MFMP members were very helpfull and tried to help with them/investigate to allow the operation.

Specially I have to thank to Mr. Alan.

Thank you for the comments. It was another great day.

As I have written in other place, the reactor was very far from ready condition and had a serious issues due to very new build and completely untested components. Today it looked like it will be unable to work anymore due to the heater shortage.

Then the leak that was present from the beginning was even significantly worsened due to the partially melted core.

There were also other issues that were identified before the test was started, but not that major.

So for me it is small miracle that it was possible to run the reactor today. If it will be confirmed that the core has a breach it is useless completely.

Our heaters are made by a company specifically for the purpose, but it looks like it must be improved in several areas and especially to be really identical with same parameters.

The first one not allowed to do a proper power regulation at all thus it melted.

Regarding testing I have only one question mark - the consumed power is including pump for water input too, which in my opinion is not correct if you want to know the real COP. This is because you can replace the pump with free water fall or just a grid that can do the same job for 0 watts. While "dummy reactor" not used any of such pump.

So you have to substract the power consumption of the pump to get really correct results in my opinion.

In any way I have to thank to MFMP once again!

Dear LENR readers,

I am sorry for not responding for long time. If you want to succeed, it always costs you something. I am dedicating all of my time to allow what I think is the best.

First from all, I would like to put things right. Important key points that were written about my work or what I have said were not always true. This also happened due to lack of detailed information from my side. Secondly - there is misinterpretation in many areas.

Some claims that were written for months as my were not written by me. Fortunately major part of the claims are usually right.

Again, this problem is happening, because I am often deliberately not giving a specific and clear answers to others that are asking me - I don't want to do nor I have time to do so.

I have taken the route of not being open due to few main reasons:

• This work is not done as hobby anymore.
• One that is in the same position as I am, will not earn anything real by this, but unfortunately loose. Even if some can help, cons are significantly dominant.
• I have spend milions on the research and expecting some return reward.
• There is no insurance, that the world will get better if the knowledge will be public with no device, that can prove to be usefull. Are you able to guarantee that it can't cause any very bad scenarios sooner?
• Only competition will profit in reality from the knowledge - there is already enough competitors. Nobody else will create units for similar purpose in the mass scale.
• Theoretical papers will not help you with heating your building.

From the beginning of the research

• I have never wanted anything from anyone.
• I never wanted to convince anybody.
• I am not teasing or announcing anything.
• I have never given any specific date.

If you don't believe, you can completely ignore any related posts.

If one believe, it is enough. And one can do everything. Blessed are those who have not seen and believed.

Thank you for the support.

Charlie Tapp: Yes, one heating coil can indirectly work as stimulation too.
Mouse and cat are two internal processes and can be completely independent. But you have to feed cat with mouses.
You have to look at this from very different point of view. First it is important to find where the excess energy is coming from.
When you will find source of the energy, you will also find how to use this energy. All questions will be answered by this finding.

Regarding plasma there are more reasons why to use it. There are more utilizations. For example arcing can be used in very different way than a glow discharge. Both can boost the effect, but you can also replace it with other phenomenons. LENR can be stimulated in many ways.

David Fojt: Sometime we have to just wait for some goods and work to be done by 3rd party. In this case you can't do anything more.
I also gladly help those that are working patiently and hard, spending their time and effort to make something possible.
On the other hand, there are people that can only talk and can do nothing in real. Yet they know what is the best for everybody.

I have no reason to convince anyone at the moment. Take it or let it go.
I can reveal much more findings here, but is it usefull?