RE: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcdid not catch the signifast

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

I agree with you.  I did not catch the meaning of the “wall” in your discussion 
 with Jack.  I agree that it should be easy to measure electrical AC energy 
consumed by  the pulse generator.

I was focusing on the question of energy into the reactor introduced by the 
pulse  for comparison with  energy out, over and above that coming out.

I also find it hard to believe that the folks funding the testing did not 
understand the losses of energy  in the pulse generator, which were not 
contributing to stimulation of the reactor   to release potential energy 
whatever that source might be.

Bob Cook




From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 3:48:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

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

[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 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. ...

[Vo]:U.S. coal consumption in 2018 expected to be the lowest in 39 years

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37692

Worldwide, demand for coal rose slightly in 2017. 2018 data is probably not
available yet. See:

https://www.iea.org/coal2018/

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 SRI

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.
>
>