[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Jones Beene]

Stephen,

 

I’m not sure the E field is static. It could look more like electronic noise. 
The inventor – Kumar - also has other patent apps which indicate the way he is 
going.

 

20150108851 Photovoltaic systems with shaped high frequency electric pulses

At least one photovoltaic (PV) cell comprising a semiconductor material having 
p-n junctions formed therein, and configured to generate a PV output voltage in 
response to light; and a pulse generator coupled to receive a PV output voltage 
and generate electric output pulses therefrom.

 

20150107644 Photovoltaic efficiency using high frequency electric pulses

A system can include at least one solar cell comprising a semiconductor 
material having p-n junctions formed therein; and a pulse generator 
electrically coupled to the solar cell and configured to apply electric pulses 
to dynamically alter a band gap of the semiconductor material as photons are 
received 

 

From: Stephen A. Lawrence 

 

Sounds sort of reasonable.

But something comes to mind -- the E field they apply, as described, doesn't do 
any work, as far as I can tell.  It just biases the cell.  IOW it's a static E 
field.

In particular, since there's no path for the charge to leave the "plates" 
(front and back coatings) there's certainly no way for the charge to do any 
work.

But that means it also consumes no energy.  Consequently, all you'd need are 
conductive coatings on the front and back of the cell, and you could charge 
them from anything at all, including a voltage multiplier driven by the cell's 
own output.  In essence, you stick the cell into the middle of a charged 
capacitor.

It's not hard to believe this would affect the solar cell, and might very well 
improve its efficiency.  OTOH if that's correct, then the "pyrolytic film" 
seems like unnecessary decoration on the basic idea.

Jones Beene wrote:

 

Here is the patent application – or one of them

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120216847

 

Abstract

A method to increase the efficiency of a solar cell comprises applying one of a 
transparent pyroelectric film and a plurality of films in a stack on a front 
surface of the solar cell and applying one of an opaque pyroelectric film and 
plurality of films in a stack on another surface of the solar cell. An 
electromotive force is generated to bias the solar cell such that an open 
circuit voltage is created.

 

 

Terry,

 

They seem to contradict themselves: elsewhere they claim “the Efficoat 
technology” provides 15-20% improvement in power production from ordinary solar 
panels over the course of a typical day.” This would lead one to believe that 
the panels are coated.  

 

If the coating is not on the panels but contained in a remote box, then why not 
sell the box to Tesla and let the cars get 20% more out of the battery pack ? 
Who needs the solar panels? 

 

Hmmm … do we know that Tesla doesn’t do this already ?

 

From: Terry Blanton 


Is there a better description of their tech?  Say, a patent app?  'Cuz I don't 
get the impression that they do anything to the solar cell itself.  From the 
FAQ:

Is the Pyroelectric coating on the panel directly?

No, the Pyroelectric glass and coating reside inside the sealed Ultrasolar 
QuantunBoost™ device. There are no user serviceable parts in the device that 
need to be accessed by the user or field technician.

How does Pyroelectric help increase the power of a solar cell?

We create electric field from a coating of pyroelectric material on glass. The 
field is applied on the solar cell using the electrodes of the solar cell. The 
applied electric field removes electrons and holes from traps and accelerates 
them towards the electrodes. This increases the current resulting in increase 
of DC power from the panel.

 

So, er, has anyone tried substituting a battery for the solar cells?  After 
all, as Monty Python says, "Every electron is special."  So the origin should 
not matter.  (It was 'electron', right?)

 

Okay, I'll stop.  Bollocks!

 

RE: [Vo]:CBCNews Canada: Why the controversial science of cold fusion is getting hot again

[Jones Beene]

Two slime jobs in New Scientist in response to this

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/

 

 

 

From: Alain Sepeda



An article on LENR, relative to  U.S. House of Representatives committee on 
armed services  with reference to rossi, Larsen, open skepticism, open 
curiosity...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/congress-cold-fusion-briefing-1.3772873

 

 

I launched a post for debate on lenr-forum

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3827-CBCNews-Canada/

 

I seen an occasion to spread informations

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Bob Higgins]

>From their video, it looks like they were trying to find a way to eliminate
electron recombination in the silicon lattice to improve efficiency.  They
may be planning to do that with fields created with the pyroelectric
films.  Since the typical delta T from front to back in the panel is 26C,
there is the opportunity to have a pyroelectric film to generate a field
for use in their function.  In the mean time, they may be applying the bias
with an electrical circuit to model the effects of the pyroelectric film on
the panel efficiency (in the manner they developed to eliminate the
electron recombination).

It is interesting technology.  If they are able to simulate, what would
keep them from deploying the electronic method?

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Stephen,
>
>
>
> I’m not sure the E field is static. It could look more like electronic
> noise. The inventor – Kumar - also has other patent apps which indicate the
> way he is going.
>
>
>
> 20150108851 *Photovoltaic systems with shaped high frequency electric
> pulses*
>
> At least one photovoltaic (PV) cell comprising a semiconductor material
> having p-n junctions formed therein, and configured to generate a PV output
> voltage in response to light; and a pulse generator coupled to receive a PV
> output voltage and generate electric output pulses therefrom.
>
>
>
> 20150107644 *Photovoltaic efficiency using high frequency electric pulses*
>
> A system can include at least one solar cell comprising a semiconductor
> material having p-n junctions formed therein; and a pulse generator
> electrically coupled to the solar cell and configured to apply electric
> pulses to dynamically alter a band gap of the semiconductor material as
> photons are received
>

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Unified field theory achieved: Unification of gravitation and electromagnetism 
Dr C Y Lo July 2016

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Unified field theory achieved: Unification of gravitation and electromagnet...
 On the test of Newton's inverse square law and the unification of gravitation 
with electromagnetism Dr C Y L...  |   |

  |

  |

 
Dr C Y LO picks up from history of dissent with relativity from such people 
as-- 

Stephen Crothers- 

Steve Crothers: General Relativity -- A Case in Numerology | EU2015

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Steve Crothers: General Relativity -- A Case in Numerology | EU2015
 JOIN US for the EU2016 Conference: Elegant Simplicity//June 
17-19//https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/12/30/e...  |   |

  |

  |

 
Prof Myron Evans-
http://www.aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle=Myron_Evans


i.e. modern physics is f**ked





On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 21:55, ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:
 

 very bad idiots.
one math error "they" make is highlighted  at following link with lecturer 
still teaching it in lecture to students- 

Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
||  
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
 Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and 
showing the contradiction in the mat...  |   |

  |

  |

 
long history of dissent with relativity picked up from such sources as:  
Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity TheoriesBy Al 
Kelly
where Kelly picked up by Vigier p 259

History of unified field theory quest by Einstein - picked up by David Bohm, 
and then Prof Vigier picked up from Bohm
Problem that has delayed unified field theory is - replacement for existing 
quantum mechanics from Bohm to Vigier et al goes by names like: Stochastic 
interpretation
while relativity is full of silly mistakes.

Physics papers dealing with this are presented at Vigier Conferences. see 
Vigier 9

  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
Vigier 9
   |   |

  |

  |

 




Unification thus achieved by DR C Y LO in lecture going on internet soon











On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 21:27, Stephen A. Lawrence 
 wrote:
 

  Do you honestly believe that modern relativity theory takes Einstein's 
conclusions from his original papers and just blindly uses them?  What kind of 
idiots do you take physicists to be, anyway?
 
 The modern version of SR is based on tensor calculus with little or no 
connection with Einstein's original algebraic work.  His GR papers still look 
quite modern, but even there all of his work has been redone, rederived, many 
times over.
 
 You can pick at his 1905 paper from now 'til the cows come home, or go waste 
your time on something else, it makes no difference.  Whether there are errors 
in the derivations in that paper or not, seriously, nobody cares.
 
 (Sorry, everybody, in years past I wasted a lot of time in arguments in the 
relativity news groups.  Some people just don't understand the math of SR and 
will never believe that it works.)
 
 
 On 09/22/2016 04:15 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
  
  
 
 
 
 

   

   

Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Sounds sort of reasonable.

But something comes to mind -- the E field they apply, as described, 
doesn't do any work, as far as I can tell.  It /just/ biases the cell.  
IOW it's a static E field.


In particular, since there's no path for the charge to leave the 
"plates" (front and back coatings) there's certainly no way for the 
charge to do any work.


But that means it also consumes no energy.  Consequently, all you'd need 
are conductive coatings on the front and back of the cell, and you could 
charge them from anything at all, including a voltage multiplier driven 
by the cell's own output.  In essence, you stick the cell into the 
middle of a charged capacitor.


It's not hard to believe this would affect the solar cell, and might 
very well improve its efficiency.  OTOH if that's correct, then the 
"pyrolytic film" seems like unnecessary decoration on the basic idea.


On 09/22/2016 04:55 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


Here is the patent application – or one of them

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120216847

Abstract

A method to increase the efficiency of a solar cell comprises applying 
one of a transparent pyroelectric film and a plurality of films in a 
stack on a front surface of the solar cell and applying one of an 
opaque pyroelectric film and plurality of films in a stack on another 
surface of the solar cell. An electromotive force is generated to bias 
the solar cell such that an open circuit voltage is created.


**

Terry,

They seem to contradict themselves: elsewhere they claim “the Efficoat 
technology” provides 15-20% improvement in power production from 
ordinary solar panels over the course of a typical day.” This would 
lead one to believe that the panels are coated.


If the coating is not on the panels but contained in a remote box, 
then why not sell the box to Tesla and let the cars get 20% more out 
of the battery pack ? Who needs the solar panels?


Hmmm … do we know that Tesla doesn’t do this already ?

*From:*Terry Blanton


Is there a better description of their tech?  Say, a patent app?  'Cuz 
I don't get the impression that they do anything to the solar cell 
itself.  From the FAQ:


*Is the Pyroelectric coating on the panel directly?*

/No, the Pyroelectric glass and coating reside inside the sealed 
Ultrasolar QuantunBoost™ device. There are no user serviceable parts 
in the device that need to be accessed by the user or field technician./


*How does Pyroelectric help increase the power of a solar cell?*

/We create electric field from a coating of pyroelectric material on 
glass. The field is applied on the solar cell using the electrodes of 
the solar cell. The applied electric field removes electrons and holes 
from traps and accelerates them towards the electrodes. This increases 
the current resulting in increase of DC power from the panel./


So, er, has anyone tried substituting a battery for the solar cells?  
After all, as Monty Python says, "Every electron is special."  So the 
origin should not matter.  (It was 'electron', right?)


Okay, I'll stop.  Bollocks!

[Vo]:Record low price . . . because it is in Abu Dubai

[Jed Rothwell]

The title of this discussion has a problem . . .

Anyway, the article is here:

http://rameznaam.com/2016/09/21/new-record-low-solar-price-in-abu-dhabi-costs-plunging-faster-than-expected/

It says:

The solar bid in Abu Dhabi is not just the cheapest solar power contract
ever signed – it’s the cheapest contract for electricity ever signed,
anywhere on planet earth, using any technology.


It is 2.42 cents/kwh. Anyway, obviously, one reason it is cheap is because
they have lots of sunlight at Abu Dubai. This is like building a
hydroelectric dam in Niagara, NY. I am not criticizing! This is exactly the
right way to implement a new technology. Look for low hanging fruit. Use
the technology in the places and situations where it works best, and gives
you the best return on investment. You gain experience, make a profit,
lower the price, expand the market, and eventually move into less promising
markets such as solar PV in Chicago. Or Nome, AK.

This is why I have no objection to Tesla automobiles targeted to the luxury
market. The company is not yet contributing measurably to reducing gasoline
consumption, but it is building up experience and establishing a base of
technology that might eventually have a huge impact. Letting wealthy people
pay for this development is a great idea.

This is described in the book "The Innovator's Dilemma," which I highly
recommend.

- Jed

[Vo]:CBCNews Canada: Why the controversial science of cold fusion is getting hot again

[Alain Sepeda]

An article on LENR, relative to  U.S. House of Representatives committee on
armed services  with reference to rossi, Larsen, open skepticism, open
curiosity...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/congress-cold-fusion-briefing-1.3772873


I launched a post for debate on lenr-forum
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3827-CBCNews-Canada/

I seen an occasion to spread informations

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[a.ashfield]

Axil,
I find that to vague to able to draw any conclusions.  I'm sure you 
recall many people complaining if all sorts of things because they lived 
within a ten mile radius of a nuclear power plant.
It not at all clear precisely what the experimental set up was. 
Presumably quite different from what Rossi is doing.

AA

On 9/21/2016 6:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

see

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-Can-we-talk-about-Homlid/?postID=35868#post35868


On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:11 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Axil
I don't consider a link to the thread" Can we talk about Homlid?"
any sort of reference what so ever.
Rossi has stated on his blog that not only is he well but,
repeatedly, that the E-Cat does not produce significant
radiation.  If it had  presumably he would be a sick man by now.
AA


On 9/21/2016 5:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

See eros posts in


https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-Can-we-talk-about-Homlid/



For Rossi, see his blog.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Axil wrote:  "Both both Rossi and eros has suffered serious
health issues when in close contact with their reactors."
References please
AA

On 9/20/2016 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi now joins the chorus of LENR developers who recognise
the dangers inherent in high power output LENR reactors.
Rossi joins ME356 and eros in advising caution based on
their observation of LENR performance characteristics. Both
both Rossi and eros has suffered serious health issues when
in close contact with their reactors.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Axil,  I doubt the QuarkX is that dangerous.  It is not
like it could cause a nuclear explosion.
Rossi seems to think The QuarkX is the future and the
real problem is him being tied up in a legal battle.
In answer to a comment on anther thread, suggesting that
because IH claimed they had tried and failed, consider
that MIT and Caltech concluded that Fleischmann & Pons
could not be replicated 0  and we now know it can be.
I don't see IH giving up without getting their hands on
the Quark technology.
AA


On 9/20/2016 4:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Norman
September 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Update of the work on the QuarkX?
Cheers,
Norman

Andrea Rossi
September 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Norman:
Still in very good standing, but also still
dangerous. Working mainly on safety issues now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

If seems that LENR reactors are not as inherently
safe as we all once thought. But the safe deployment
of LENR technology could still be accommodated into
the current power infrastructure.

The development of ocean deployment of huge wind
turbines will serve LENR reactor deployment well. A
safe method of LENR deployment will entail the use
of those floating platforms located just off shore.

The technical feasibility of deepwater floating LENR
platforms will not be questioned, as the long-term
survivability of floating structures has been
successfully demonstrated by the marine and offshore
oil industries over many decades. However, the
economics that allowed the deployment of thousands
of offshore oil rigs have yet to be demonstrated for
floating LENR reactor platforms. For deepwater wind
turbines, a floating structure will replace
pile-driven monopoles or conventional concrete bases
that are commonly used as foundations for shallow
water and land-based reactors. The floating
structure must provide enough buoyancy to support
the weight of the reactor as a function of its size
and power production rating and to restrain pitch,
roll and heave motions within acceptable limits.

Since muon shielding is so problematic, distance
from any population is the one dependable risk
mitigation method.

The distance of LENR deployment offshore would be 

[Vo]:the essence of the 1MW, 1year test

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-22-2016-lenr-finding-essence-of-1mw.html

quite good info..

peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> This brings to mind a local company (SF Bay) with an add-on product for
solar cells which they claim increases the power and efficiency. The
technology uses a pyroelectric coating for the cells and a feedback
mechanism.
>
>
>
> The company is UltraSolar.


Is there a better description of their tech?  Say, a patent app?  'Cuz I
don't get the impression that they do anything to the solar cell itself.
>From the FAQ:

*Is the Pyroelectric coating on the panel directly?*

*No, the Pyroelectric glass and coating reside inside the sealed Ultrasolar
QuantunBoost™ device. There are no user serviceable parts in the device
that need to be accessed by the user or field technician.*

*How does Pyroelectric help increase the power of a solar cell?*

*We create electric field from a coating of pyroelectric material on glass.
The field is applied on the solar cell using the electrodes of the solar
cell. The applied electric field removes electrons and holes from traps and
accelerates them towards the electrodes. This increases the current
resulting in increase of DC power from the panel.*

So, er, has anyone tried substituting a battery for the solar cells?  After
all, as Monty Python says, "Every electron is special."  So the origin
should not matter.  (It was 'electron', right?)

Okay, I'll stop.  Bollocks!

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Axil Axil]

To get an idea about how far the muon bubble extends away from the LENR
reaction, the zone of electrical interference would be the only currently
known method of detection.

ME356: "Emissions (RF, electrons and UV) during the test were so strong
that my control circuit was absolutely crazy even that it was 3 meters away
- it is unusable."

The muon bubble must extend out beyond 3 meters.

DGT said that the EMI interference disabled their phone system. How wide
spread that system was is not known.

A EMI detector is a way that the muon bubble might
be unambiguously characterized.

A Spy Camera & Audio Bug Detector might pick up EMI interference

or a EMI detector could be build from scratch if the R budget is an issue.

see "Build Your Own Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Detector"

popularmechanics.com/home/how-…ference-detector-8831727/


On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> I find that to vague to able to draw any conclusions.  I'm sure you recall
> many people complaining if all sorts of things because they lived within a
> ten mile radius of a nuclear power plant.
> It not at all clear precisely what the experimental set up was.
> Presumably quite different from what Rossi is doing.
> AA
>
>
> On 9/21/2016 6:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> see
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-
> Can-we-talk-about-Homlid/?postID=35868#post35868
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:11 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil
>> I don't consider a link to the thread" Can we talk about Homlid?" any
>> sort of reference what so ever.
>> Rossi has stated on his blog that not only is he well but, repeatedly,
>> that the E-Cat does not produce significant radiation.  If it had
>> presumably he would be a sick man by now.
>> AA
>>
>>
>> On 9/21/2016 5:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> See eros posts in
>>
>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-Can-
>> we-talk-about-Homlid/
>>
>> For Rossi, see his blog.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Axil wrote:  "Both both Rossi and eros has suffered serious health
>>> issues when in close contact with their reactors."
>>> References please
>>> AA
>>>
>>> On 9/20/2016 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> Rossi now joins the chorus of LENR developers who recognise the dangers
>>> inherent in high power output LENR reactors. Rossi joins ME356 and eros in
>>> advising caution based on their observation of LENR performance
>>> characteristics. Both both Rossi and eros has suffered serious health
>>> issues when in close contact with their reactors.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Axil,  I doubt the QuarkX is that dangerous.  It is not like it could
 cause a nuclear explosion.
 Rossi seems to think The QuarkX is the future and the real problem is
 him being tied up in a legal battle.
 In answer to a comment on anther thread, suggesting that because IH
 claimed they had tried and failed, consider that MIT and Caltech concluded
 that Fleischmann & Pons could not be replicated 0  and we now know it can
 be.
 I don't see IH giving up without getting their hands on the Quark
 technology.
 AA


 On 9/20/2016 4:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

> Norman
> September 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM
> Dear Andrea Rossi:
> Update of the work on the QuarkX?
> Cheers,
> Norman
>
> Andrea Rossi
> September 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM
> Norman:
> Still in very good standing, but also still dangerous. Working mainly
> on safety issues now.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> If seems that LENR reactors are not as inherently safe as we all once
> thought. But the safe deployment of LENR technology could still be
> accommodated into the current power infrastructure.
>
> The development of ocean deployment of huge wind turbines will serve
> LENR reactor deployment well. A safe method of LENR deployment will entail
> the use of those floating platforms located just off shore.
>
> The technical feasibility of deepwater floating LENR platforms will
> not be questioned, as the long-term survivability of floating structures
> has been successfully demonstrated by the marine and offshore oil
> industries over many decades. However, the economics that allowed the
> deployment of thousands of offshore oil rigs have yet to be demonstrated
> for floating LENR reactor platforms. For deepwater wind turbines, a
> floating structure will replace pile-driven monopoles or conventional
> concrete bases that are commonly used as foundations for shallow water and
> land-based reactors. The floating structure must provide enough buoyancy 
> to
> support 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Bob Higgins]

It looks like an interesting technology.  However, the real metric is not
in panel efficiency or system efficiency, it is total$/kWh.  This has to
include the longevity of the panel.  The total cost/kWh over the life of
the panel is its installed cost (+maintenance costs) amortized over the
life of the panel divided by the total kWh produced during its lifetime.
Most solar installations on Earth are not limited by available area, they
are chosen based on the cost per kWh produced.

This shows up, for example, in comparison of poly-crystalline panels to
thin film panels.  Thin film are much cheaper per kW, but their lifetime is
less than half that of the poly panels, making their total cost per kWh
higher.

It will be interesting to see if this technology has a business case in the
end.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This brings to mind a local company (SF Bay) with an add-on product for
> solar cells which they claim increases the power and efficiency. The
> technology uses a pyroelectric coating for the cells and a feedback
> mechanism.
>
>
>
> The company is UltraSolar. It has been mentioned before here, but it may
> not yet be ready for prime time as initial products received complaints.
>
>
>
> http://www.ultrasolar.com/files/Videos/QB%20Demo%20Video.ogv
>
>
>
> http://www.ultrasolar.com/technology.html
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Blaze Spinnaker
>
>
>
> http://rameznaam.com/2016/09/21/new-record-low-solar-price-
> in-abu-dhabi-costs-plunging-faster-than-expected/
>

Re: [Vo]:the essence of the 1MW, 1year test

[Craig Haynie]

"

*Please try to be logically consistent and if you contradict the story of
above, give proofs, not suppositions. OK?"The burden of proof is on Rossi.
He's the one making a bold assertion, and must therefore prove it. To date,
we have seen nothing that would prove this effect; though I think the
Lugano test provides quite a bit of evidence. *

*Craig*

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-22-2016-lenr-
> finding-essence-of-1mw.html
>
> quite good info..
>
> peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

One trivial point -- if you're in free fall I don't think there is any 
Rindler boundary.  You're following a geodesic, and not "really" 
accelerating.


You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating 
mass and get the right answer.  In fact, while you certainly /can/ apply 
SR in an accelerated frame (with some care), you can't really apply it 
at all in non-flat space.  The math of SR assumes a fixed metric, which 
you haven't got in a gravitational field.   In general, while I don't 
_think_ there is, I have no idea how you'd go about determining for sure 
whether there's an event horizon due to acceleration when free-falling 
in a gravitational field.


On 09/22/2016 12:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.

However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave 
phenomena that doesn't seem to match up with his theory. In his 
theory, he drops out wavelengths of EM background radiation that would 
be filtered in the frequency domain due to the Rindler boundary which 
moves closer to the object depending on acceleration.  However, in the 
time domain these waves would have to propagate the distances to the 
discontinuity and back before any cancellations could occur. The 
boundaries in question are huge distances away.  For example, for a 
free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be 
changed to 10 light years away.  The change in inertial mass induced 
by an acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the 
time to the discontinuity.  That would mean that the object being 
accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 should not know of the boundary for at least 
20 years.  If the object instantaneously experienced a change in 
inertial mass, it would seem to violate causality by this theory.


I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this 
understanding.  Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?


On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole > wrote:



http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh-radiation-confirmed.html

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating mass and 
>>get the right answer.

ah relativity "they" have done the math wrong
see: Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
 Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and 
showing the contradiction in the mat...  |   |

  |

  |

 
 
I'm putting together unified field theory website now at: 

http://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/

THISWEBSITE IS DEVOTED TO TALKS GIVEN ON UNIFIED FIELD THEORY AND RELATED 
PHYSICSUSUALLY GIVEN AT VIGIER CONFERENCES. HISTORY IS: EINSTEIN AFTER SAYING 
"GODDOES NOT PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE" WAS SIDELINED BY MAINSTREAM 
PHYSICSCOMMUNITY, BECAUSE BY THAT REMARK HE WAS DISAGREEING WITH THE DIRECTION 
THATPHYSICS WAS TAKING IN QUANTUM MECHANICS. HOWEVER, THERE WERE SCIENTISTS 
THATTOOK UP EINSTEIN'S QUEST FOR UNIFIED FIELD THEORY SUCH AS BOHM AND THEN 
LATERVIGIER; THE NAME OF THESE CONFERENCES INVESTIGATING UNIFIED FIELD THEORY 
(ANDRELATED ISSUES) BEING NAMED AFTER VIGIER, IN HIS HONOUR. I TRACE UNIFIED 
FIELDTHEORY AS GOING BACK TO BOSCOVICH. NOW DR C Y LO SAYS HE HAS DONE THE 
EXPERIMENTSAND HAS THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. ON THE ISSUE IS EINSTEIN WRONG? 
DURINGINVESTIGATIONS ON THIS WE FIND THAT EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT SOME THINGS 
ANDRIGHT ABOUT OTHER THINGS. THE USUAL VIEW PROMOTED IS THAT EINSTEIN WAS 
RIGHTABOUT RELATIVITY AND WRONG ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS. HOWEVER, WE FIND IT 
THEOTHER WAY ROUND - EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS (I.E. THAT IT 
HAD MANY PROBLEMS) AND HAD SEVERAL THINGS WRONG IN RELATIVITY.  SOME OF THESE 
IMPORTANT TALKS ARE PRESENTEDHERE, AND THE PAPERS ARE BEING PREPARED FOR THE 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE VIGIERCONFERENCE. PRESENTED HERE IS INSIGHT INTO  - THE 
DIRECTION THAT PHYSICS SHOULD HAVETAKEN. 





On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 20:40, Stephen A. Lawrence 
 wrote:
 

  One trivial point -- if you're in free fall I don't think there is any 
Rindler boundary.  You're following a geodesic, and not "really" accelerating.
 
 You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating mass and 
get the right answer.  In fact, while you certainly can apply SR in an 
accelerated frame (with some care), you can't really apply it at all in 
non-flat space.  The math of SR assumes a fixed metric, which you haven't got 
in a gravitational field.   In general, while I don't think there is, I have no 
idea how you'd go about determining for sure whether there's an event horizon 
due to acceleration when free-falling in a gravitational field.
 
 On 09/22/2016 12:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
  
  I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.  
 
 However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave phenomena 
that doesn't seem to match up with his theory.  In his theory, he drops out 
wavelengths of EM background radiation that would be filtered in the frequency 
domain due to the Rindler boundary which moves closer to the object depending 
on acceleration.  However, in the time domain these waves would have to 
propagate the distances to the discontinuity and back before any cancellations 
could occur.  The boundaries in question are huge distances away.  For example, 
for a free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be 
changed to 10 light years away.  The change in inertial mass induced by an 
acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the time to the 
discontinuity.  That would mean that the object being accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 
should not know of the boundary for at least 20 years.  If the object 
instantaneously experienced a change in inertial mass, it would seem to violate 
causality by this theory.
 
  I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this understanding. 
 Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?
  
 On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
 
  http://physicsfromtheedge. blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh- 
radiation-confirmed.html
   
  
  
 
 

   

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Do you honestly believe that modern relativity theory takes Einstein's 
conclusions from his original papers and just blindly uses them?  What 
kind of idiots do you take physicists to be, anyway?


The modern version of SR is based on tensor calculus with little or no 
connection with Einstein's original algebraic work.  His GR papers still 
look quite modern, but even there all of his work has been redone, 
rederived, many times over.


You can pick at his 1905 paper from now 'til the cows come home, or go 
waste your time on something else, it makes no difference. Whether there 
are errors in the derivations in that paper or not, seriously, /nobody 
cares/.


(Sorry, everybody, in years past I wasted a lot of time in arguments in 
the relativity news groups.  Some people just don't understand the math 
of SR and will never believe that it works.)



On 09/22/2016 04:15 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:

[Vo]:Morrison paper

[Jed Rothwell]

I found a paper copy of this, and converted it.

Morrison, D.R.O. *Review of Cold Fusion.* in *8th World Hydrogen Energy
Conf*. 1990. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, 2540 Dole St.,
Holmes Hall 246, Honolulu, HI 96822

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MorrisonDRreviewofco.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Morrison paper

[Jed Rothwell]

If someone would like to proofread this to check for OCR errors, I would
appreciate it. I will send you the image file.

- Jed

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Jones Beene]

Terry,

 

They seem to contradict themselves: elsewhere they claim “the Efficoat 
technology” provides 15-20% improvement in power production from ordinary solar 
panels over the course of a typical day.” This would lead one to believe that 
the panels are coated.  

 

If the coating is not on the panels but contained in a remote box, then why not 
sell the box to Tesla and let the cars get 20% more out of the battery pack ? 
Who needs the solar panels? 

 

Hmmm … do we know that Tesla doesn’t do this already ?

 

From: Terry Blanton 


Is there a better description of their tech?  Say, a patent app?  'Cuz I don't 
get the impression that they do anything to the solar cell itself.  From the 
FAQ:

Is the Pyroelectric coating on the panel directly?

No, the Pyroelectric glass and coating reside inside the sealed Ultrasolar 
QuantunBoost™ device. There are no user serviceable parts in the device that 
need to be accessed by the user or field technician.

How does Pyroelectric help increase the power of a solar cell?

We create electric field from a coating of pyroelectric material on glass. The 
field is applied on the solar cell using the electrodes of the solar cell. The 
applied electric field removes electrons and holes from traps and accelerates 
them towards the electrodes. This increases the current resulting in increase 
of DC power from the panel.

 

So, er, has anyone tried substituting a battery for the solar cells?  After 
all, as Monty Python says, "Every electron is special."  So the origin should 
not matter.  (It was 'electron', right?)

 

Okay, I'll stop.  Bollocks!

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

very bad idiots.
one math error "they" make is highlighted  at following link with lecturer 
still teaching it in lecture to students- 

Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
 Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and 
showing the contradiction in the mat...  |   |

  |

  |

 
long history of dissent with relativity picked up from such sources as:  
Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity TheoriesBy Al 
Kelly
where Kelly picked up by Vigier p 259

History of unified field theory quest by Einstein - picked up by David Bohm, 
and then Prof Vigier picked up from Bohm
Problem that has delayed unified field theory is - replacement for existing 
quantum mechanics from Bohm to Vigier et al goes by names like: Stochastic 
interpretation
while relativity is full of silly mistakes.

Physics papers dealing with this are presented at Vigier Conferences. see 
Vigier 9

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Vigier 9
   |   |

  |

  |

 




Unification thus achieved by DR C Y LO in lecture going on internet soon











On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 21:27, Stephen A. Lawrence 
 wrote:
 

  Do you honestly believe that modern relativity theory takes Einstein's 
conclusions from his original papers and just blindly uses them?  What kind of 
idiots do you take physicists to be, anyway?
 
 The modern version of SR is based on tensor calculus with little or no 
connection with Einstein's original algebraic work.  His GR papers still look 
quite modern, but even there all of his work has been redone, rederived, many 
times over.
 
 You can pick at his 1905 paper from now 'til the cows come home, or go waste 
your time on something else, it makes no difference.  Whether there are errors 
in the derivations in that paper or not, seriously, nobody cares.
 
 (Sorry, everybody, in years past I wasted a lot of time in arguments in the 
relativity news groups.  Some people just don't understand the math of SR and 
will never believe that it works.)
 
 
 On 09/22/2016 04:15 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
  
  
 
 
 
 

   

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Jones Beene]

 

Here is the patent application – or one of them

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120216847

 

Abstract

A method to increase the efficiency of a solar cell comprises applying one of a 
transparent pyroelectric film and a plurality of films in a stack on a front 
surface of the solar cell and applying one of an opaque pyroelectric film and 
plurality of films in a stack on another surface of the solar cell. An 
electromotive force is generated to bias the solar cell such that an open 
circuit voltage is created.

 

 

Terry,

 

They seem to contradict themselves: elsewhere they claim “the Efficoat 
technology” provides 15-20% improvement in power production from ordinary solar 
panels over the course of a typical day.” This would lead one to believe that 
the panels are coated.  

 

If the coating is not on the panels but contained in a remote box, then why not 
sell the box to Tesla and let the cars get 20% more out of the battery pack ? 
Who needs the solar panels? 

 

Hmmm … do we know that Tesla doesn’t do this already ?

 

From: Terry Blanton 


Is there a better description of their tech?  Say, a patent app?  'Cuz I don't 
get the impression that they do anything to the solar cell itself.  From the 
FAQ:

Is the Pyroelectric coating on the panel directly?

No, the Pyroelectric glass and coating reside inside the sealed Ultrasolar 
QuantunBoost™ device. There are no user serviceable parts in the device that 
need to be accessed by the user or field technician.

How does Pyroelectric help increase the power of a solar cell?

We create electric field from a coating of pyroelectric material on glass. The 
field is applied on the solar cell using the electrodes of the solar cell. The 
applied electric field removes electrons and holes from traps and accelerates 
them towards the electrodes. This increases the current resulting in increase 
of DC power from the panel.

 

So, er, has anyone tried substituting a battery for the solar cells?  After 
all, as Monty Python says, "Every electron is special."  So the origin should 
not matter.  (It was 'electron', right?)

 

Okay, I'll stop.  Bollocks!

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Bob Higgins]

I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.

However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave
phenomena that doesn't seem to match up with his theory.  In his theory, he
drops out wavelengths of EM background radiation that would be filtered in
the frequency domain due to the Rindler boundary which moves closer to the
object depending on acceleration.  However, in the time domain these waves
would have to propagate the distances to the discontinuity and back before
any cancellations could occur.  The boundaries in question are huge
distances away.  For example, for a free fall acceleration on the Earth
(9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be changed to 10 light years away.  The
change in inertial mass induced by an acceleration will not know of the
discontinuity until twice the time to the discontinuity.  That would mean
that the object being accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 should not know of the
boundary for at least 20 years.  If the object instantaneously experienced
a change in inertial mass, it would seem to violate causality by this
theory.

I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this
understanding.  Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh-
> radiation-confirmed.html
>

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Jones Beene]

This brings to mind a local company (SF Bay) with an add-on product for solar 
cells which they claim increases the power and efficiency. The technology uses 
a pyroelectric coating for the cells and a feedback mechanism.

 

The company is UltraSolar. It has been mentioned before here, but it may not 
yet be ready for prime time as initial products received complaints.

 

http://www.ultrasolar.com/files/Videos/QB%20Demo%20Video.ogv

 

http://www.ultrasolar.com/technology.html

 

 

From: Blaze Spinnaker 

 

http://rameznaam.com/2016/09/21/new-record-low-solar-price-in-abu-dhabi-costs-plunging-faster-than-expected/