Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing
context.
There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer
reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer
reviewed scientists and someone who has not.
Unfortunately, looking at
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing
context.
There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on
I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as
this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this
without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I
apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as
of yet that I
Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who
follow this?
Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are
considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive
replication is in essence positive.
Further, so far I haven't seen any
I didn't say it was a negative development. You are clearly purposely
misunderstanding my statements because you take an attack on this as an
attack on you. You're just like a pseudo skeptic, only on the flip side.
You're being a crank.
My % evaluation is only silly because I'm the only one
As to the significance of the replication, it really
depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the
tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the
results.
This is not how I do my analysis. Anyone can write reports and fudge
numbers
To be even more clear, I'm waiting for MFMP to release their results.
You can read through all their reports and see their reputation of
falsification. They've done it *over and over again*, a perfect example of
bayesian analysis where the priors will provide all the confidence we need
to
BTW, Too the few souls in the world who follow this? is total crap. Bill
Gates, the richest man in the world, himself is obviously following this
with interest.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
To be even more clear, I'm waiting for MFMP to
From: Bob Cook
* It seems to me that there must be a separate cooling mechanism
happening to remove or redistribute the heat within the reactor.
Well, if you are assuming that the net gain derives from 1/10th gram of
hydride fuel, which starts off as a powder, then it is possible that
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, Too the few souls in the world who follow this? is total crap. Bill
Gates, the richest man in the world, himself is obviously following this
with interest.
Lots of people follow cold fusion. I can see that by the traffic statistics
at
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of
yet that I could find.
The lack of a control run is frightening in itself.
It is frightening and also imaginary. As you see in Peter's translation
they did control runs.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
Parkhomov's publication record seems to be impressive and relevant. He has
jointly published articles with researchers at Stanford and Purdue. He has
AG Parkhomov seems credible to me. But there is a more famous scientist by that
name (VA Parkhomov) … they may be family related (not sure).
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
AG Parkhomov has been
He has never been primary author on a paper in a real journal. Being a
tertiary author isn't that hard.
What you say is heartening but I don't think you are turning a critical eye
on this. The chemistry here is very simplistic. Heating up powdered
nickel and lithium hydride? Why hasn't this
I looked for the cotroll run. Do you mean the one at lower temperature?
It is frightening and also imaginary. As you see in Peter's translation
they did control runs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride
The melting (decomposition) point of LiAlH4 is 150C.
This means that after the first heating, the 2 moles of H2 are liberated as
gas for every mole of LiAlH4.
Presumably the LiAl forms an amalgam.
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jed
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
I looked for the cotroll run. Do you mean the one at lower temperature?
My mistake. Peter says the author only described the Lugano calibration.
Details about a calibration during this test have not been given, yet.
- Jed
So do you average the COPs for a final COP? I wonder how fast in
succession he ran the tests over the same fuel.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride
The melting (decomposition) point of LiAlH4 is
: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 8:15 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
From: Bob Cook
* It seems to me that there must be a separate cooling mechanism
happening to remove or redistribute the heat
See:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
From: Jed Rothwell:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/
Of interest is the temperature chart:
http://i.imgur.com/gWF7z9y.png
Where the reactor temperature remains elevated
Table translated here:
http://i.imgur.com/rYpgEm4.png
Since this is a boil-off reactor setup, the likelihood of accuracy is much
higher than the Lugano thermometry.
Sadly - there appears to be no radiation data.
An analysis of the ash will be most important in furthering our understanding
of what is going on.
It is still not ruled
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Of interest is the temperature chart:
http://i.imgur.com/gWF7z9y.png
Where the reactor temperature remains elevated for 8 minutes after power
is cut.
Heat after death! Notice how quickly the temperature falls after the heat
stops. That sure
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Since this is a boil-off reactor setup, the likelihood of accuracy is much
higher than the Lugano thermometry.
I agree. I am surprised the rapid heat loss did not quench the reaction
(assuming there is a reaction). I guess the cell is well insulated.
Jones, it is radiation data it cleally says no more than background
I am just translating the paper. NIX radiation, fine
Peter
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Since this is a boil-off reactor setup, the likelihood of accuracy is much
higher than the
From: Peter Gluck
Jones, it is radiation data it cleally says no more than background
From: Jed Rothwell
. . . On the same diagram shows the count rate Geiger counter SI-8B. this
counter responsive to alpha, beta, gamma and X-rays. It is seen that all during
heating, the radiation
replicating hot-cat excess heat
From: Peter Gluck
Jones, it is radiation data it cleally says no more than background
From: Jed Rothwell
. . . On the same diagram shows the count rate Geiger counter SI-8B. this
counter responsive to alpha, beta, gamma and X-rays. It is seen
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The main missing detail is a control run with no “fuel”; and then
isotopic mass analysis of the ash.
Yes -- the first is pretty much a must-have. The second would definitely
be nice.
Does anyone have information on the
29 matches
Mail list logo
