I am awaiting Holmlid's test of this same experiment while using a thick walled cylinder made of gadolinium. Or indeed tests made with a variety of other interesting metals with obvious characteristics. Clearly the technological methods to improve upon this simple, yet breakthrough, experiment are obvious to many. There are more than a few technological paths to follow that offer multiplier effects. The 'coincidental' similarities with many of the lessor known 'cold fusion' works and this work are likely to result in a unification of the two fields albeit most likely in the form of a line not a point.
While Vortex had some good members it really is a 'peanut gallery' which makes it difficult at times. Ces't la vie. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:21 AM To: Vortex List Subject: [Vo]:Energy balance paper on AIP http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4928572 This is perhaps the most interesting and controversial of Holmlid's papers. He documents a measured gain above breakeven in a copper cylinder, despite systemic losses, and suggests that 20:1 gain would be possible in a more sophisticated version. Contrast that with NIF - the National Ignition Facility at Livermore - where after at least $25 billion down the tubes, they have not achieved real breakeven and probably never will unless they add a step to make UDD for the target. It is a bit of a surprise that the Holmlid paper even appears on AIP since one can imagine that the editors have received pressure to have it removed. Jones
