Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hi, On 9-2-2013 1:19, Edmund Storms wrote: On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on. So Rob, you think Andre has proven his claims in many minds. You say that you believe him, but I do not get the impression that this is the general opinion. In my case, I think he has shown that he can make excess energy on occasion, but that does not seem to be a general opinion. Ed, I see what you mean and I agree with your impression; I should have said that almost nobody believes Andrea, because most people don't seem to understand what is going on. In my opinion is what Andrea has discovered to good to be true and therefore most people won't accept Andrea's findings, even when it bites them in their noses. However, I have seen there are sometimes those little gems that are indeed to good to be true and I think this is one of those. The issue here is not what causes the reaction, but whether the claims for a commercial product are justified. The Miley claim, which started this discussion, is based on a commercial generator of heat. The question was whether anyone should believe and support this claim. I still think that what causes the reaction is an important factor that is overlooked by almost everybody. And yes, I agree we should support Miley's claim; that's why I also voted for his claim. And yes, I think we need this type of commercial generator. It's sad that Andrea is not pushing his systems and knowledge of how the system is build-up more to the people. I think that if he isn't going to do this soon, someone else might beat him; and that's what he is afraid of, because he or someone else wants to see some money. I think Andrea could better sell his knowledge for a small fee to the people, which I think may result in higher revenues in the long run than his current scenario. Could it be that Andrea has advisers who are not open enough for this knowledge scenario and advise him to go for the large bucks, while he himself is in a zweispalt about this??? As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material is available. It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature. How do you propose the frequency be measured? It's the temperature that produces a useful result, so why ignore it? Yes, the temperature is needed to heat up for example water or generate electricity, but in my opinion it is not the driving force for the mechanism. Therefore people at the ITER project should focus more on the frequency of the plasma i.s.o. of gaining a high temperature as in the Sun. And on the current large scale, it seems to me this process is not self-sustaining, as you can not keep it sufficiently under control during a longer period. I.s.o. of building a large system I think they should downsize the system so they can control the process much better. As sometimes is said less is more. This is also in my opinion the reason why Andrea's reactor vessels seem to work. Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
On Feb 9, 2013, at 3:58 AM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Hi, On 9-2-2013 1:19, Edmund Storms wrote: On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on. So Rob, you think Andre has proven his claims in many minds. You say that you believe him, but I do not get the impression that this is the general opinion. In my case, I think he has shown that he can make excess energy on occasion, but that does not seem to be a general opinion. Ed, I see what you mean and I agree with your impression; I should have said that almost nobody believes Andrea, because most people don't seem to understand what is going on. In my opinion is what Andrea has discovered to good to be true and therefore most people won't accept Andrea's findings, even when it bites them in their noses. However, I have seen there are sometimes those little gems that are indeed to good to be true and I think this is one of those. I agree Rob, and Piantelli showed that the phenomenon is real. Rossi only showed that it worked better using powder. The issue here is not what causes the reaction, but whether the claims for a commercial product are justified. The Miley claim, which started this discussion, is based on a commercial generator of heat. The question was whether anyone should believe and support this claim. I still think that what causes the reaction is an important factor that is overlooked by almost everybody. I agree, but that is not what Miley is showing. He is claiming a working generator. If this idea is based on pure PR or it fails, your vote will look foolish. I think we agree, knowing how and whether the fusion process works should proceed claiming a working generator. Miley has not done this. He has a theory that makes no sense and claims for heat production that have not been replicated or checked by anyone. Are we seeing another Rossi in the making? And yes, I agree we should support Miley's claim; that's why I also voted for his claim. And yes, I think we need this type of commercial generator. It's sad that Andrea is not pushing his systems and knowledge of how the system is build-up more to the people. I think that if he isn't going to do this soon, someone else might beat him; and that's what he is afraid of, because he or someone else wants to see some money. I think Andrea could better sell his knowledge for a small fee to the people, which I think may result in higher revenues in the long run than his current scenario. Could it be that Andrea has advisers who are not open enough for this knowledge scenario and advise him to go for the large bucks, while he himself is in a zweispalt about this??? As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material is available. It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature. How do you propose the frequency be measured? It's the temperature that produces a useful result, so why ignore it? Yes, the temperature is needed to heat up for example water or generate electricity, but in my opinion it is not the driving force for the mechanism. Therefore people at the ITER project should focus more on the frequency of the plasma i.s.o. of gaining a high temperature as in the Sun. But how is this frequency measured or even affected? Regards, Ed And on the current large scale, it seems to me this process is not self-sustaining, as you can not keep it sufficiently under control during a longer period. I.s.o. of building a large system I think they should downsize the system so they can control the process much better. As sometimes is said less is more. This is also in my opinion the reason why Andrea's reactor vessels seem to work. Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: In my opinion is what Andrea has discovered to good to be true and therefore most people won't accept Andrea's findings, even when it bites them in their noses. I disagree. Many people would believe him without reservations if he would only do a proper test. His results are not surprising to someone familiar with this field. His device is qualitatively the same as the others, albeit quantitatively better. All cold fusion experiments are too good to be true. I discussed this in my book, on p. 10, starting: Some skeptics feel that cold fusion must be too good to be true. They suspect that cold fusion researchers are guilty of wishful thinking. They should remember Michael Faraday’s dictum: 'Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.' Mankind has discovered countless wonderful things that ancient people would have thought miraculous. . . . - Jed
[Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hi, Thanks for the info, it can never be mentioned often enough :-) . Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
George Miley tries the Way of Technology, excellent! Peter On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Hi, Thanks for the info, it can never be mentioned often enough :-) . Kind regards, Rob -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about this in advance! What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility / public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time over other projects with 1500+ votes. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Akira, the votes are coming in fairly quick now, just 4 hours ago the counter was at 18, now we're past 80. If anything this will show the LENR supporters across the internet forums what we are capable of. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.**ultralightstartups.com/**campaign/detail/861http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about this in advance! What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility / public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time over other projects with 1500+ votes. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
You do not have to use Linked In for this vote. Enter you name at the bottom and the bot will send you an e-mail. As Akira said, it is a shame they did not publicize this earlier. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes. It does, however, help. Selection is by ARPA-E committee.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
OK, guys, what is #($*#$ is going on here? If Miley has what he claims to have -- a system that consistently produces power with no input power -- isn't it GAME OVER regarding Norman Ramsey's statement in the preamble of the DoE's cold fusion report that stated: Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*.- Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. Moreover, isn't it also GAME OVER regarding Gibbs's demand for a system that not only demonstrates the effect but has market potential? On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes. It does, however, help. Selection is by ARPA-E committee.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Well said James. We have three other companies claiming to have commercial generators of power. Each of these claims is based on dubious demonstrations. What is the Miley claim based on? Can we expect his claim to be debated and examined in the way the Rossi claim has experienced? Just where does the Miley claim fall in the process of competing claims for a practical device. What reason does anyone have to vote for his claim? I think these questions must be examined before we all get excited. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:25 AM, James Bowery wrote: OK, guys, what is #($*#$ is going on here? If Miley has what he claims to have -- a system that consistently produces power with no input power -- isn't it GAME OVER regarding Norman Ramsey's statement in the preamble of the DoE's cold fusion report that stated: Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary.- Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. Moreover, isn't it also GAME OVER regarding Gibbs's demand for a system that not only demonstrates the effect but has market potential? On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes. It does, however, help. Selection is by ARPA-E committee.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
we are above 100 , at this speed it is victory... I've networked via linked-in, via office, via mail... the only needed number of vote is 380... 2013/2/8 Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com Akira, the votes are coming in fairly quick now, just 4 hours ago the counter was at 18, now we're past 80. If anything this will show the LENR supporters across the internet forums what we are capable of. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.**ultralightstartups.com/**campaign/detail/861http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about this in advance! What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility / public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time over other projects with 1500+ votes. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hey Moab, thanks for the update. i'll post it up and let's get this guy some votes! Ruby On 2/8/13 2:49 AM, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: We have three other companies claiming to have commercial generators of power. Each of these claims is based on dubious demonstrations. What is the Miley claim based on? Not even a dubious demonstration, as far as I know. No demonstration at all. Still, I say more power to him! Heck, fund him. It is a better bet than ITER, or clean coal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? May a spokesman for CF support any idea regardless of its demonstrated lack of reality? Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: We have three other companies claiming to have commercial generators of power. Each of these claims is based on dubious demonstrations. What is the Miley claim based on? Not even a dubious demonstration, as far as I know. No demonstration at all. Still, I say more power to him! Heck, fund him. It is a better bet than ITER, or clean coal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. I am glad someone recognizes it as such. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored. It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a chance to present at a conference. I sincerely believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. I am glad someone recognizes it as such. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored. It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a chance to present at a conference. I sincerely believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Edmund, why not pitch your proposed research program so we can vote with a clear conscience? https://ultralight.wufoo.com/forms/future-energy-application-form/ On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. I am glad someone recognizes it as such. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored. It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a chance to present at a conference. I sincerely believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Good idea. However I think I have a better chance of getting support from private sources. My only concern is how the field presents its claims to the world. This submission is one of the ways. I think it is useless as a source of funding but it is going to be noticed. Many different ideas have been proposed and would like funding. The Miley proposal is the only one we as a field can vote on, thereby showing our agreement that this is a worthy idea. My question is, Is this a worthy idea? How do we know? Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:42 PM, James Bowery wrote: Edmund, why not pitch your proposed research program so we can vote with a clear conscience? https://ultralight.wufoo.com/forms/future-energy-application-form/ On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. I am glad someone recognizes it as such. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored. It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a chance to present at a conference. I sincerely believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. If Rossi wants to join this Future Energy Campaign and pitch his ideas, I will endorse him with as much enthusiasm than I felt for George Miley. Maybe more. I would figure that if Rossi wants to speak, maybe he is also willing to do a proper test and present credible information. I would support any credible cold fusion scientist who signs up for this opportunity. I do not believe many of the claims, but I figure they deserve this as much as the other applicants do. Here are the others: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/ I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. It sure would be a good idea! I am 100% in favor of Miley doing the same kind of public demonstrations as Rossi did, only without Rossi's idiotic mistakes and what I assume is deliberate obfuscation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
I feel those relative skepticism a bit strange and unjustified. If you read all the project they are mainstream but very risky/uncertain. The project of Miley is not interesting because of LENR... it is the less uncertain part, and if Miley cannot make his technology work he can ask DGT, Rossi, Piantelli, celani, Brillouin... of course the problem will be to manage the fee and the ego of each... It is interesting because of usin TEG, and integrated fan cooling , to build a home CHP I'm always surprised how many people are so doubtful about the commercial claims, while there are honest business evidences, corporate CV. of course not absolutely solid, but nothing is rock-solid in innovation. I am much more concerned about some mainstream technologies, based on classic and known theories, but that will probably never be effective in reality. why do we put such a crazy level of evidence on LENR, while we are so loose with evidences in usual technologies... nothing is certain, but few facts are more certains than LENR, and few bleeding edge technologies are validated by so much business evidences than LENR. not because it is easy, but because every body expect all in LENR to be fraud, and if you see someone investing, communicating, in LENR, you know that he is thousand times more careful than if investing in fashion technology... If I have to accuse some evidence to be loose, some technology to be uncertain, I won't take LENR, and I won't put even Rossi as the first candidate for risky business. Aldo Proia have reduced his risk position with Prometeon. loose business are very very popular... good theory, good models, trust, consensus, and frauded evidences, with delusion and politically correct collective denial. the reason to vote for Miley, beside that he deserve a chance more than for yet another useless fashion energy source, is that his project is different from Rossi/DGT, and it can give a big momentum onto LENR technology... today the LENr companies should not even be competing, but cooperating, because there is more rooms for them than they can occupy for the next 5 years. and about skepticsm we should more focus on fashion mainstream science.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hi, On 8-2-2013 22:38, Edmund Storms wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on. In my opinion it all has to do with the vibration with the right frequency of the Nickel granulate were the Hydrogen is flowing across. Possibly the research of Frank Znidarsic can enlighten us. Nobody was sofar able to look inside the vessel during operation (I think neither Andrea was able to see this), but could it no be true that a plasma is created due to the vibration? And when this happens the hydrogen protons are most likely fused with the Nickel resulting in Copper and a massive amount of energy is released and therefore the process is also partially self-sustaining. This also explains why Andrea had no other option than to downsize the first reactor vessels to the current modular smaller size, to keep it controllable. Otherwise you might get a reactor vessel that in the very long run could end up with temperatures as high as inside the Sun! And besides what about the equipment that Andrea had operational but didn't focus on during the presentations that generated the obscure frequencies? In principle this is in my opinion the same mechanism that causes hot fusion to take place. As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material is available. It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature. Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Hi, On 8-2-2013 22:38, Edmund Storms wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on. So Rob, you think Andre has proven his claims in many minds. You say that you believe him, but I do not get the impression that this is the general opinion. In my case, I think he has shown that he can make excess energy on occasion, but that does not seem to be a general opinion. In my opinion it all has to do with the vibration with the right frequency of the Nickel granulate were the Hydrogen is flowing across. Possibly the research of Frank Znidarsic can enlighten us. Nobody was sofar able to look inside the vessel during operation (I think neither Andrea was able to see this), but could it no be true that a plasma is created due to the vibration? And when this happens the hydrogen protons are most likely fused with the Nickel resulting in Copper and a massive amount of energy is released and therefore the process is also partially self- sustaining. This also explains why Andrea had no other option than to downsize the first reactor vessels to the current modular smaller size, to keep it controllable. Otherwise you might get a reactor vessel that in the very long run could end up with temperatures as high as inside the Sun! And besides what about the equipment that Andrea had operational but didn't focus on during the presentations that generated the obscure frequencies? The issue here is not what causes the reaction, but whether the claims for a commercial product are justified. The Miley claim, which started this discussion, is based on a commercial generator of heat. The question was whether anyone should believe and support this claim. In principle this is in my opinion the same mechanism that causes hot fusion to take place. This conclusion is not justified by what is observed. I suggest you read my paper where this issue is discussed. As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material is available. It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature. How do you propose the frequency be measured? It's the temperature that produces a useful result, so why ignore it? Regards, Ed Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
