At one time, I had high hopes for Godes. The more I followed him, it became more evident that he and everyone else were enamored with his skills and credentials as an EE. Neither he, nor others, are skeptical enough of his results to figure out what he has done wrong. It probably wouldn't be that hard to disprove--simply measure input power at the wall before his generation of high voltage / frequency AC waveform. Both he and others have assumed that he is such a good electrical engineer that he never could have made a mistake at measuring that power. In the meantime, millions of dollars have potentially been wasted. I remain happy to apologize and stand corrected should Godes or Tanzella of SRI say, "Look here, we measured input power at the wall." He supposedly had this electrolysis system years ago that could give you a COP of 2 years ago and could turn LENR on at will. But in all this time, input power at the wall has never been reported.
Jack On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > See: > > https://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ > > I was disappointed in this presentation. I think it is misguided. Godes' > business strategy makes no sense. He makes absurd assertions such as: he > must produce a finished product, and he has to reach a manufacturing level > where fewer than 1% of the production line output fails and must be > scrapped. This is like the Wright brothers claiming they cannot sell > airplanes until they perfect a retractable landing gear. He says he is > having trouble getting funded. Assuming the reactors work as claimed, if he > would put five of them in the right hands, the skies would open up and > billions of dollars would fall into his lap. This would happen even if the > excess heat is only 10%. It would happen even if 99% of the reactors fail. > For some types of transistors in the 1950s the failure rate was above 90%. > That did not slow down the development of transistors. It just meant they > were expensive for a while. (Some of them cost ~$16 where a vacuum tube for > the same purpose cost $0.25, but there was a niche market for them despite > this.) > > The present practicality of this device, and the engineering details that > must be ironed out before it can be mass produced, are completely > irrelevant. > > I do not understand the physics discussed in this podcast. I have not > looked closely at the calorimetry, so I cannot judge whether the claims > have merit. > >
