Another thread discussing fringe topics with a whole load of fuzzy data? I lurk here mostly, but I hope topics like this isn't a sign of where this site is headed.
Some mighty find this interesting.Naysayers, probably not.https://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/m/35303(snip)
Or if you simply want hard information on why the e-cat reactor doesn't work as advertised go here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/258595858/USPTO-Final-Rejection-Rossi-PatentHonestly, I am still scratching my head over what changed between March when USPTO issued a "final rejection" letter to Rossi and August when they accepted the application and granted the patent, but I go do some primary research before shooting my mouth off.
Quote from: WBY1984 on 10/07/2015 02:24 pmAnother thread discussing fringe topics with a whole load of fuzzy data? I lurk here mostly, but I hope topics like this isn't a sign of where this site is headed.Tell you what, when Airbus gives their presser later this month dealing with this:http://www.scribd.com/doc/259591568/Airbus-LENR-Patent-Google-Translationwe can talk in greater detail. Fair enough?
All the Papers From Airbus LENR Conference:http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/17/all-the-papers-from-airbus-conference/
6 ConclusionWe have described the basics of the theory of some kind of games which are general enough to represent an important class of existing games. We proposed that Nature mimics such games for energy creation. We showed that such a point of view englobes all known kinds of energy today. But we also showed that this gives room for much more subtle schemes, some of which could be at stake in the experiments of cold fusion. In fact, there are so many possibilities for games, that probably, even if a small fraction of the games was playable for creating energy, we still probably have infinitely many ways to create such energy.
If it were for real, they'd have no problem producing electricity. Have a box that produces tens of kilowatts of electricity, hooked up to an electrical meter, and making money.
It's probably worth pointing out that Halem and Guillemin are partners in a company called LENR Invest, which is financially involved with Brillouin. Hardly an "independent" validation, and certainly not a "peer review".(Annoyingly, this stuff seems to happen a lot in the LENR field. We get promised independent validation by external expert researchers, but it always seems to turn out to be some combination the same dozen guys who are already committed LENR believers.)
Here's some 3rd party validation news this week on a US LENR company- Brillouin Energy.http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/12/prweb13108198.htmThese guys just testified to Congress too. They are using hydrogen and nickel in their tabletop reactors to generate heat.http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2015/11/24/congress-views-brillouin-energys-lenr-hht-bolier-reactor-system-generating-thermal-energy#axzz3tNNhepxw(...)
“Demonstrating Brillouin Energy’s latest reactor modules on Capitol Hill is a wonderful opportunity to increase awareness of our clean energy “fuel-free” technology to Congress and others among U.S. governmental and scientific representatives,” explained Robert Godes, President and CTO of Brillouin Energy Corp.
Hopefully the google translate link works: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikkei.com%2Farticle%2FDGXMZO06252800Z10C16A8000000%2F&edit-text=Tohuku University claims repeatable positive results.
Quote from: sghill on 10/07/2015 07:05 pmOr if you simply want hard information on why the e-cat reactor doesn't work as advertised go here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/258595858/USPTO-Final-Rejection-Rossi-PatentHonestly, I am still scratching my head over what changed between March when USPTO issued a "final rejection" letter to Rossi and August when they accepted the application and granted the patent, but I go do some primary research before shooting my mouth off.Different patent. The new patent does not mention LENR in any way.I want to add that while there are a lot of "notes" from respectable scientists floating around, I have yet to see a peer reviewed paper in a physics publication that actually confirms the whole thing. So far, all I see are reviews by "believers" and nothing from skeptics. You need to convince the latter and not the former in order to convince me.