Jed wrote:
> Mike Carrell wrote: > > >joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say > >100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By > >comparison, batteries look pretty good. > . . . > >You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built > >is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe > >flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. > > If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has > been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the > years. It is a terrible shame. > > Message to Mike: Why can't you & Jeff get together and iron this out? > > Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? > > Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, "practically speaking" a > replication is impossible unless "Paulo participates in an active way, > which he will not." That is the worst shame of all. A patent is supposed to disclose how to practice a new discovery to those "skilled in the art". The Correa patents are the most densly technical I have seen, they are virtual theses. There is lots and lots of information tucked into the text and references. I even went to the NY public library to check up on an earl;y reference given in one of the Correa patents. As with CF there are lots of things to go wrong. Alexandra Correa is a technical glassblower who made many of the cells that were tested. The one that appears in videos and some illustrations is rather straightforward, apparently, but there are stipulations on the materials to be used by alloy number. Nothing I saw in there was trivial and I read and re-read and dug and asked questions. If Keith's "practically speaking" means the Correas instructing one in all the necessary arts --perhaps like how to clean electrode surfaces -- then the casual 'replicator' is asking too much unless a license fee is paid. Even with all that, there are certain conditions of voltage and pressure that have to exist, which are indicated in the patents, which the experimenter has to discover for himself once he has done the rest of the work. Just producing the effect does not carry one into product development. There is lots of work to be done, once one realizes that this is new physics, that PAGD is an aether energy "transducer". > > Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming > the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, > so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding > other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and > Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and > knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably > would have been lost. Note that Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles are accomplished experimental scientists who did not need much more than knowledge of what F&P found to do likewise. Many did not realize the importance of the Pd cathode metallurgy, or adequate calorimetry, etc. and etc. Similarly, to do PAGD one has be knowledgeable about glow discharge phenomena and related matters that may not converge in the head of someone without adequate study. The notion that PAGD is "obscure" is primarily a matter of not taking it seriously enough to devote adequate study, or dismissing the notion that it is an aether energy transducer and "must" be "really" something else. Same deal with CF, as we all painfully know. > > "Replication" is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully > replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* > replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the > effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are > making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They > may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. > You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a > clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human > event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. This is very well stated by Jed, a guy who has been in the trenches for years. Scott Little at Earth Tech has made attempts to verify various OU claims through the years. I've seen his shop, talked to him, he's an honest man. When some effect is defined well enough that he can produce it, it is perhaps ready for prime time, but with his facilities he could not make a transistor from scratch. Mike Carrell
