--- Jed Rothwell wrote: > >Mainstream Science will NEVER be convinced by anything less than **self-power** in a device like this, as there are just to many ways for one to deceive oneself. > I disagree. I think that with good, professional instrumentation, plus maybe five independent replications, you could convince the mainstream with an input:output ratio of ~1:2 or better.
In principal and in the perfect-world, that would be correct, Jed, but in actuality i don't see that ever happening - even if the Moller/Langmuir effect turns out to be very robust. There are simply too many interested parties and competing agendas among the candidate 'replicators' [sounds 'alien-esque', already] and some nay-sayers will employ deliberately emasculated efforts and sub-standard materials in order to justify pre-conceived notions, even if it involves modification of positive results- which were "recalibrated" after-the-fact to look negative. If MIT will do this, anyone will. Consequently, what you would end up with, even if the MAHG turns out to be far more robust that the P&F effect [and I think it will] would be something more akin to the scenario of the years following 1989, where there were some replications, some inconclusive findings and and a few but very "vocal" negative findings and immediate "at-your-throat" detractors (from the ranks of the famous and infamous), who may have even actually had better experimental results than they reported. Then come the idiot yellow journalists, trying to make the quick-buck and look holier-than-thou: Huizenga, Taubes, Close & their ilk. Then all funding dries up. A self-powered demo, in contrast, removes all doubt and actually shifts the burden-of-proof. That is a very important psychological difference. Skeptics are then left to look for hidden wires - and when they find none must either 'eat crow' and disappear into oblivion or else shift gears, jump on the band wagon and chime in, "yes, I know this would work all along." Then the check-books come out in droves. As for hidden batteries - simple - let the skeptic take the thing apart and put it back together again. There is no way to hide batteries capable of several hundred watts of continuous output in a device like the MAHG. I wish the scientific-world were so simple, honest and "up-front" that preconceived agendas would not color the picture, but the past decade has taught otherwise. Not to mention the simple fact that *eventually* you will need and want to make the device "useful" above all else - which means self-power - so my recommendation to anyone who has found a COP over 5 is simple. If the effect is robust - in the tens to hundreds of watts range: forget everything else, forget squeezing the last ounce of better efficiency, and immedeately try to go for self-power ASAP - even if it means re-financing the house and dipping into the kids college fund, etc. It is that important. There is actually an overlooked conversion methodology that can be applied with the MAHG, which would work even if you need to keep the tube cool (300 K) which seems to be the situation, but at this point - some serious money will need to be committed, as the heat-to-electric conversion device will have to be integrated into the design itself and will cost a lot more than the present tube and calorimetry setup, which I think you probably realize, has already cost far more than the casual observer would realize from looking at the Naudin page. Jones
