See: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf
Let me quote from it: "In April 2013, I met the officers and employees of Defkalion Green Technologies. I approached that meeting with mixed feelings. While driving to their laboratory at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, I knew that afterward I would enter a virtual no-win zone if I wrote publicly about my trip. Unless it could give the world new technical data about the operation of Defkalion’s product Hyperion, any report would be a magnet for scorn. And providing that new data was not the purpose of this visit. Instead, it was an introductory meeting arranged by a mutual friend, retired industrial chemist Dr. Peter Gluck, at a time when the DGT officers were too busy to allow media interviews. Adding to my apprehension, I arrived in the company of engineers whose insights I would not be able to quote in my writings, due to sensitivity regarding their employer and their signed non-disclosure agreements. . . . Of course, the technically savvy readers of Infinite Energy want specific data from instrument readings—from longer duration testing conducted according to scientific protocol. At the DGT lab I was told that independent scientists, from respected institutions, who conducted months of third-party testing of DGT’s Hyperion have written a paper. So you can expect to receive such data soon. . . ." END QUOTE I do not approve of this kind of reporting, or the presentations given by Defkalion, because I am one of those people who wants specific data from instrument readings. I don't need to hear trade secrets, but when I read Manning: "Afterwards it was explained to me that the tested apparatus so far produces 5 kilowatts . . ." I was annoyed. You do not *tell* someone the machine is producing 5 kilowatts; you *demonstrate* it. You show proof. Let me explain this by analogy -- Someone described blank verse as like playing tennis without a net. I wouldn't mind watching that. The players would still be challenged. It would still take skill. However, I would not want to see people playing tennis without a ball. A presentation without facts or figures is like tennis without the ball. There is no scientific content to it. It is not an appropriate presentation for an academic scientific conference. Here is something else I find off-putting. Manning wrote: "The DGT strategy was to properly 'disguise' the proton from the hydrogen nucleus so that other nuclei wouldn’t recognize it. It still was a proton, but for a very short time, something like 10E-13 of a second, it looks like a neutron due to the stretched (elliptical) orbit of the accompanying electron in clusters." They have made similar claims on their web site. I cannot follow this kind of theory. I cannot judge it. While I have no objection whatever to claims based on theory, and no objection to exotic theory, I think such assertions should be backed up by 1, 2 or 3 methods: 1. Show that this theory is conventional. Reference a textbook. This does not sound conventional to me. 2. Show that someone has performed experiments that back up the theory. 3. Publish a theory paper, like one of Hagelstein's, with equations to back up the theory. In other words, show that it works on first principles. Absent one or more of these three, "elliptical orbits of electrons in clusters" might as well be phlogiston or fairy dust. Subatomic physics experiments are not easy to understand, and they are often controversial. Before experts can judge these claims, they will need to see the experiments or the theory paper. If you can't provide these things, you should not make the claim in the first place. It is bad form. - Jed
