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<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 ________________________________ From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 6:54:07 AM To: [email protected] 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. ...
