Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Fatal flaw: Lock mirrors in the morning for maintenance or lose power to mirror motors but the sun keeps rising, thus the focal focal point of up to 300 MW's of thermal flux moves down the tower, torching it. Enough heat to collapse a tower under the right conditions.

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Oh noes, solar power incident results in . burnt tower. This is why solar power is the solution to everything. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, ChemE Stewart wrote: > Oops, Default > > Oops, Fire > > >

RE: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Asymmetrical loading of deuterium into metals does indeed produce ‘cold fusion’ as evidenced by prodigious heat and commensurate 4He. It is most certainly NOT loading into cracks it is rather a super loading method for bulk material. Cracks do form but they are a defect not a desired condition.

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

I think sonofusion and cold fusion are the same. The bubble effect on H/D is essentially like cracks, like what Ed says. And even the same case bellow. (Cold fusion and even heat after death, for me, is caused after submitting H/D to pressures of 10^11Pa and submitted to thermal energy than

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed. "But there obviously was sufficient ventilation. Nobody died. It was a straw man. No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat. But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:" Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject. I am quite

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

a.ashfield wrote: > No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat. > > But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:" > > > Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject. I am quite > capable of calculating the air flows and

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed, Get of your high horses. You claim btter information than anyone else. You do not share data. You do not share source. You admit bias in favor o ih. Then you get upset when you don't have support for your conclusions. Your message is just a copy of ih. They might be right then you also. Let

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

I'm probably misremembering all this. I didn't look back at my old email before mouthing off and it was a long time ago. The other thing I (think I) recall about the brouhaha is that disagreement over the Correas had a lot to do with it. Replication is all, and they didn't have it. Anyhow

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

a.ashfield wrote: S V Johnson. > IH have obviously attempted to make E-Cats. Who told you that? Where did you get that information? I have not heard anything about that from I.H. Granted, they don't tell me much, but I am a little surprised you have better information

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Orgone energy OTOH was a contentious issue on and around Vortex in years > past. As I recall Jed was on the sign of "it's bogus", and some others, > including Gene Malov, were on the side of "it's revolutionary". > I did not look closely. Gene and

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

a.ashfield wrote: > But there obviously was sufficient ventilation. Nobody died. It was a > straw man. > No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat. But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time: Rossi's calorimetry shows no excess heat.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

>>>It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are living under the White House and get some hard data. Why would you want to? Craig On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence

[Vo]:LENR confronting prosophobia-fear of progress

I think I have to dedicate this issue to a plant called Sinapis alba It is about a great enemy of LENR and of Science. Of technology too however technology becomes more and more tsunami-like and cannot be stopped. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-27-2016-lenr-confronting.html peter

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed, I don't think our debate is going anywhere. Next month, with luck, more data will surface that will show if you are correct about the 1 MW plant having a COP = 1

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The assumption that there are aliens running the government also involves a > whole pile of (very improbable) secondary assumptions, and there's no > evidence beyond some old rather dubious photographs sourced by one

RE: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Decades ago I was invited to give a seminar on my evidence of making heat and helium via sonofusion at the General Atomics Tokamak project in San Diego. The tokamak had run a few days before my arrival and it had been a very good test, everyone was happy with the results. My ‘fee’ for giving my

[Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Any process has waste. So, for example, if the input is 1W and the output is 0.9W it doesn't mean there wasn't CF. The yield could be like 1mW and the remaining 0.099 wasted in other means. 1mW is a big deal. For example, if it were hot fusion, it would give a lethal dose, being close to the