Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

Yes, if they put the whole thing in a calorimeter, they could measure the
input power at the wall.  I could be convinced by that kind of a setup.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:18 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Good point, they would have been smart to place everything in a large
> calorimeter box like the one Earth-tech designed.
>
> Why not?
>
> MOAC Overview - Earth Tech
> 
>
> MOAC Overview - Earth Tech
>
> 
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > If the waveform generator itself consumes a lot of power, that does make
> it difficult to account for input power. Perhaps the generator itself could
> be placed in an air-flow calorimeter, like Mizuno's.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jones Beene]

 Good point, they would have been smart to place everything in a large 
calorimeter box like the one Earth-tech designed.
Why not?

MOAC Overview - Earth Tech

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
MOAC Overview - Earth Tech


 |

 |

 |


   Jed Rothwell wrote:  
 > If the waveform generator itself consumes a lot of power, that does make it 
 > difficult to account for input power. Perhaps the generator itself could be 
 > placed in an air-flow calorimeter, like Mizuno's. 



  
  
  

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the
> discussion about accurate meters could be premature.
>
> From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if
> anyone were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup
> - versus the effective power of the complex single waveform which is
> generated and going into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE -
> as high as 90%.
>

My first thought was to run the waveform output through a joule heater
submerged in water, as a calibration. I suppose that might not produce the
same profile as the waveform generator attached to the gadget.

It is not a simple problem. If the waveform generator itself consumes a lot
of power, that does make it difficult to account for input power. Perhaps
the generator itself could be placed in an air-flow calorimeter, like
Mizuno's. That is a large plastic box with reflective padded aluminum
insulation around it, and air flowing through it. See:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf

For that matter, put the waveform generator and the gadget in the box.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

There can be non-malicious reasons for not reporting that data as Jones
notes.  I would add self-deception to that list, which I think is likely in
this case.  Everyone close to the matter believes Godes couldn't have made
a mistake on the input power measurement.  While understandable, it is
likely the Achilles heal of the whole thing.

Ultimately, if you can't get more power out than you put in from the wall,
it is useless, and is most probably an error.  To prove it isn't, you have
to do a lot more convincing experiments than have been presented by Godes
et. al. so far.  You have to answer every skeptical question that is
reasonable with data and/or explanation.  They have not even come close to
doing this, but instead try to rely on the authority of the inventor /
tester.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:21 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> To be fair, the pulse creation of Godes (as well as all of the other
> Dardik spin-off techniques for superwaves) would be expected to be
> extremely lossy, especially if one tries to superimpose waves from multiple
> signal generators, all of which carry their own losses.
>
> No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the
> discussion about accurate meters could be premature.
>
> From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if
> anyone were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup
> - versus the effective power of the complex single waveform which is
> generated and going into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE -
> as high as 90%.
>
> Thus - it is no secret why that kind of data would not be available. It
> does not accurately reflect the true power balance. Neither does ignoring
> the losses, as they are presently doing. It is likely that the inventor did
> not want SRI to include that information since - having a high apparent COP
> is what funders want to see.
>
> There is an obvious solution to this situation. A custom circuit could be
> constructed to create a known waveform which works to enhance the energy
> localization effect - and which is designed from the start to efficiently
> generate the exact waveform. Was this done? This solution provides almost
> no flexibility, so maybe it was not done. With a dedicated circuit driven
> by a DC source, which is easily measured, the losses would be expected to
> be much less - and that situation would then accurately reflect the true
> thermodynamic balance. A DC source eliminates the need to rectify wall
> power at the start for one thing. One can imagine that Godes did not do
> this yet (or did he?) since perhaps he is not certain that he knows the
> most efficient waveform. He would not want to get locked in and perhaps he
> is still searching for more.
>
> Ideally, this kind of information should have been more fully covered in
> the report, or better yet - some of the money used to build the most
> efficient superwave generator possible, assuming that the waveform can be
> static as opposed to dependent of feedback and constant hand tuning.
>
> We would all like to know more. Especially the Dardik connection and the
> similarities with what was going on with Duncan, at the University of
> Missouri moving to Texas Tech along with staff some of whom had been with
> Dardik long ago, and who is almost never mentioned any more.
>
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell
> checking :-)
>
>
> To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be
> accurate in this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right?
>
> You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is
> not too high for a $20 meter.
>
> This one has good reviews:
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jones Beene]

 To be fair, the pulse creation of Godes (as well as all of the other Dardik 
spin-off techniques for superwaves) would be expected to be extremely lossy, 
especially if one tries to superimpose waves from multiple signal generators, 
all of which carry their own losses. 

No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the discussion 
about accurate meters could be premature.
 From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if anyone 
were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup - versus 
the effective power of the complex single waveform which is generated and going 
into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE - as high as 90%. 

Thus - it is no secret why that kind of data would not be available. It does 
not accurately reflect the true power balance. Neither does ignoring the 
losses, as they are presently doing. It is likely that the inventor did not 
want SRI to include that information since - having a high apparent COP is what 
funders want to see. 

There is an obvious solution to this situation. A custom circuit could be 
constructed to create a known waveform which works to enhance the energy 
localization effect - and which is designed from the start to efficiently 
generate the exact waveform. Was this done? This solution provides almost no 
flexibility, so maybe it was not done. With a dedicated circuit driven by a DC 
source, which is easily measured, the losses would be expected to be much less 
- and that situation would then accurately reflect the true thermodynamic 
balance. A DC source eliminates the need to rectify wall power at the start for 
one thing. One can imagine that Godes did not do this yet (or did he?) since 
perhaps he is not certain that he knows the most efficient waveform. He would 
not want to get locked in and perhaps he is still searching for more. 

Ideally, this kind of information should have been more fully covered in the 
report, or better yet - some of the money used to build the most efficient 
superwave generator possible, assuming that the waveform can be static as 
opposed to dependent of feedback and constant hand tuning.
We would all like to know more. Especially the Dardik connection and the 
similarities with what was going on with Duncan, at the University of Missouri 
moving to Texas Tech along with staff some of whom had been with Dardik long 
ago, and who is almost never mentioned any more.


Jed Rothwell wrote: 
 
 Jones Beene wrote:


 A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell checking 
:-)


To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be accurate in 
this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right?
You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is not 
too high for a $20 meter.
This one has good reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T


  
  

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell
> checking :-)
>

To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be
accurate in this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right?

You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is
not too high for a $20 meter.

This one has good reviews:

https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Brian Ahern]

The failure to measure, record and discuss wall power baseline measurements is 
the hallmark f a fraudulent effort.


From: Terry Blanton 
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 3:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast



On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:59 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Thereforw to answer your question specifically, anyone can buy a simple AC 
wattmeter from Amazon for 20 bucks to do the job of ascertaining real input 
power from the grid. It is beyond belief to suggest that this was not done.

Most of those puppies measure KW and not KVA.

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Terry Blanton]

Hmmm.

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 3:33 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell
> checking :-)
>
>
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/presion-Intelligent-Digital-correction-multimeter/dp/B073TVGCMQ/
>
> $199.00
> High presion 3 phase Intelligent TRMS Digital clamp Meter power factor c...
>
> High presion 3 phase Intelligent TRMS Digital clamp Meter power factor
> correction multimeter for V/A/W/VA/kVA/KV...
>
> 
>
> Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>
> Therefore to answer your question specifically, anyone can buy a simple AC
> wattmeter from Amazon...
>
>
> Most of those puppies measure KW and not KVA.
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jones Beene]

 A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell checking 
:-)
 
  
https://www.amazon.com/presion-Intelligent-Digital-correction-multimeter/dp/B073TVGCMQ/

| 
| 
| 
| $199.00 |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
High presion 3 phase Intelligent TRMS Digital clamp Meter power factor c...

High presion 3 phase Intelligent TRMS Digital clamp Meter power factor 
correction multimeter for V/A/W/VA/kVA/KV...
 |

 |

 |


Terry Blanton wrote:  

Therefore to answer your question specifically, anyone can buy a simple AC 
wattmeter from Amazon...


Most of those puppies measure KW and not KVA.   

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:59 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Thereforw to answer your question specifically, anyone can buy a simple AC
> wattmeter from Amazon for 20 bucks to do the job of ascertaining real input
> power from the grid. It is beyond belief to suggest that this was not done.
>

Most of those puppies measure KW and not KVA.

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jones Beene]

bobcook wrote:
> You say it is easy to measure pulsed power at the wall of the Godes reactor 
> and suggest the measurements were accomplished, but covered up... You should 
> suggest a method to do this “easy” measurement. 

Bob, 

Apparently my main underlying assumption - which is apparently reversed from 
yours - is that the energy expended to create the special pulses MUST BE 
included as part of the input - even if it is much higher than what is actually 
contained in the pulses when they appear at the reactor. There is no free lunch 
obtainable from comparing low grade power (heat) to extremely high grade power 
(pulsed charges).
For instance if pulse creation expends 50% more energy than grid AC - but is 
absolutely required for success, then one cannot logically ignore the loss and 
claim OU when much or all of the gain is required to make the pulses initially. 
IOW - one cannot assert that the net energy of producing a complex waveform 
should not also include all of the losses.
High grade power is special - very special, and the losses have to included to 
calculate net gain.

Thereforw to answer your question specifically, anyone can buy a simple AC 
wattmeter from Amazon for 20 bucks to do the job of ascertaining real input 
power from the grid. It is beyond belief to suggest that this was not done.
 


  

RE: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

You say it is easy to measure pulsed power at the wall of the Godes reactor and 
suggest the measurements were accomplished, but covered up.

You should suggest a method to do this “easy” measurement.  I can believe it is 
difficult to get an integrated measure of energy transfer across the entire 
surface of the reactor in small increments of time associated with the EM pulse 
time duration and its dynamic characteristics.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 6:54:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

Jack,

You are right-on about the input power having never been measured (or at least 
not reported) at the wall... which situation is all the more problematic since 
the input power is the one key feature - the defining feature of Godes' 
technique and "Q-pulse" IP, just as with all the other prior off-shoots of the 
"super-wave" of Dardik.

Funny that most observers ignore Dardik and the crew at Mizzou -  who further 
pioneered the pulsed input technique - and who importantly observed slight gain 
in the range of COP of 1.5. That slight gain is a big deal in itself if and 
when it can be validated.

The crux of the matter: Since going from the wall to any kind of cell using 
structured electrical pulses is inherently lossy (as it means AC > DC > 
structured pulses), there is surely lower net gain from the wall than 
reported... but is it zero gain or does it confirm Dardik?

And worst of all, since it is easy and obvious to measure power at the wall - 
this situation effectively means that real input was known and covered up by 
Godes - most likely to placate funders. IOW - one implication is that his 
continuing funding level depends on higher COP than say 1.5 - and he is not 
there.

Yet from the standpoint of science - if there is any rock-solid net gain at all 
- it is important to know this. Slight gain would validate the superwave, if 
nothing else and refine our understanding of the limits of the LoT. There is a 
convincing level of validation for low gain in the literature - but WHY is it 
there and why is it strangely limited to ~ COP = 1.5 which turns up often to 
the extent that it appears to be a real limit? Coincidence or systemic error?

As of now, no one can say for sure if there is some real gain or not from 
Godes, despite the competence of SRI and what is claimed to be a positive 
report, but which is really incomplete. SRI did not "replicate" or validate the 
experiment as many on the "fan boy" news-groups contend and were well-paid in 
the range of several million by Godes' funders to validate prior measurements 
by him, using his equipment.

Thus, there is a bit of conflict of interest in the whole episode. And Dardik's 
superwave is still out there, as a mystery.



Jack Cole wrote:

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

 Jed Rothwell  wrote::

https://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/

I was disappointed in this presentation. I think it is misguided. Godes' 
business strategy makes no sense. ...

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jones Beene]

 Addendum: what is specifrically involved in a generalized "superwave" 
mechanism?
The answer probably involves "energy localization" as a first step in a two 
step process. 

There are two kinds of energy localization, one operating at the nano-scale and 
one at the astro-scale. Obviously we are focusing on the nano. Brian Ahern is a 
main proponent of this mechanism.

Energy localization is not net-gainful in itself - without a second step, 
however, whether it be LENR or dense hydrogen, etc. 

The premise is this. Many random processes can result in arbitrarily large 
deviations from the mean - the so-called "rogue wave" modality, which is a 
"Boltzmann's tail" on steroids. With photon emission, as opposed to phonon 
vibration, this kind of massive excursion is called "super-radiance". 
Fermi-Ulam acceleration is similar. 

Typically with photons, there must exist a sub-radiance area in other parts of 
the system to balance out the anomalous peak, but there is another chance 
possibility - such that when benefiting from a second step, the peak itself 
will bootstrap into a follow-on anomaly, such as a nuclear reaction.

As for a proper name - and due to the other usage in Physics for this 
phenomenon (which for large scale phenomena) I prefer to call the mechanism 
DPSR instead of energy-localization. DPSR is short for 
Dicke-Preparata-Super-Radiance and it derives from the early days of cold 
fusion when Dickie and Preparata - now neglected great thinkers - probably got 
it almost right back then, almost 30 years ago

In conclusion, it is during a local energy excursion, when a rogue wave is 
created, and following that a secondary reaction can occur,which can violate 
conservation of energy to the extent it is nuclear or involves redundant ground 
states (for those who believe in the Mills explanation). The Dardik super wave 
is exactly that type of energy excursion as a first stage, but it is engineered 
to be such - as opposed to being random.
--

  Jack,
You are right-on about the input power having never been measured (or at least 
not reported) at the wall... which situation is all the more problematic since 
the input power is the one key feature - the defining feature of Godes' 
technique and "Q-pulse" IP, just as with all the other prior off-shoots of the 
"super-wave" of Dardik. 

Funny that most observers ignore Dardik and the crew at Mizzou -  who further 
pioneered the pulsed input technique - and who importantly observed slight gain 
in the range of COP of 1.5. That slight gain is a big deal in itself if and 
when it can be validated.

The crux of the matter: Since going from the wall to any kind of cell using 
structured electrical pulses is inherently lossy (as it means AC > DC > 
structured pulses), there is surely lower net gain from the wall than 
reported... but is it zero gain or does it confirm Dardik? 

And worst of all, since it is easy and obvious to measure power at the wall - 
this situation effectively means that real input was known and covered up by 
Godes - most likely to placate funders. IOW - one implication is that his 
continuing funding level depends on higher COP than say 1.5 - and he is not 
there. 

Yet from the standpoint of science - if there is any rock-solid net gain at all 
- it is important to know this. Slight gain would validate the superwave, if 
nothing else and refine our understanding of the limits of the LoT. There is a 
convincing level of validation for low gain in the literature - but WHY is it 
there and why is it strangely limited to ~ COP = 1.5 which turns up often to 
the extent that it appears to be a real limit? Coincidence or systemic error? 

As of now, no one can say for sure if there is some real gain or not from 
Godes, despite the competence of SRI and what is claimed to be a positive 
report, but which is really incomplete. SRI did not "replicate" or validate the 
experiment as many on the "fan boy" news-groups contend and were well-paid in 
the range of several million by Godes' funders to validate prior measurements 
by him, using his equipment. 

Thus, there is a bit of conflict of interest in the whole episode. And Dardik's 
superwave is still out there, as a mystery.



Jack Cole wrote:  
 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 

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jones Beene]

 Jack,
You are right-on about the input power having never been measured (or at least 
not reported) at the wall... which situation is all the more problematic since 
the input power is the one key feature - the defining feature of Godes' 
technique and "Q-pulse" IP, just as with all the other prior off-shoots of the 
"super-wave" of Dardik. 

Funny that most observers ignore Dardik and the crew at Mizzou -  who further 
pioneered the pulsed input technique - and who importantly observed slight gain 
in the range of COP of 1.5. That slight gain is a big deal in itself if and 
when it can be validated.

The crux of the matter: Since going from the wall to any kind of cell using 
structured electrical pulses is inherently lossy (as it means AC > DC > 
structured pulses), there is surely lower net gain from the wall than 
reported... but is it zero gain or does it confirm Dardik? 

And worst of all, since it is easy and obvious to measure power at the wall - 
this situation effectively means that real input was known and covered up by 
Godes - most likely to placate funders. IOW - one implication is that his 
continuing funding level depends on higher COP than say 1.5 - and he is not 
there. 

Yet from the standpoint of science - if there is any rock-solid net gain at all 
- it is important to know this. Slight gain would validate the superwave, if 
nothing else and refine our understanding of the limits of the LoT. There is a 
convincing level of validation for low gain in the literature - but WHY is it 
there and why is it strangely limited to ~ COP = 1.5 which turns up often to 
the extent that it appears to be a real limit? Coincidence or systemic error? 

As of now, no one can say for sure if there is some real gain or not from 
Godes, despite the competence of SRI and what is claimed to be a positive 
report, but which is really incomplete. SRI did not "replicate" or validate the 
experiment as many on the "fan boy" news-groups contend and were well-paid in 
the range of several million by Godes' funders to validate prior measurements 
by him, using his equipment. 

Thus, there is a bit of conflict of interest in the whole episode. And Dardik's 
superwave is still out there, as a mystery.



Jack Cole wrote:  
 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
 Jed Rothwell  wrote::

https://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/

I was disappointed in this presentation. I think it is misguided. Godes' 
business strategy makes no sense. ...
  

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

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  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.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Esa Ruoho]

Hi Jed, did you also listen to the previous podcast episode, which was
released 4 days ago, where Ruby Carat was interviewing Dr. Edmund Storms?
"2019/01/13 e019 Edmund Storms, Nuclear chemist with Kiva Labs and former
Los Alamos National Laboratory rocket scientist. There, his work involved
basic research in the field of high temperature chemistry as applied to
materials used in nuclear power and propulsion reactors, including studies
of cold fusion since 1989. Experimental work included finding tritium
generated from Fleischmann-Pons cells and discovering many properties of
the reaction, such as high-loading is not necessary to generate or sustain
a reaction. Dr. Storms is the author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear
Reaction, a survey of the experiments and theories of the field through
2007, and, The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, A Comprehensive
Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion, describing some
of the main models of LENR, as well as a new idea based on hydrogen-filled
nano-spaces as the nuclear active environment."

same URL, as always.

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 22:02, Jed Rothwell  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.
>
>

-- 
http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho //
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
+358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage
esaru...@gmail.com //
http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com //
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //

[Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jed Rothwell]

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.