tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post7247223992185198558..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: DEFKALION: THE BIG BAD PROBLEM IS DEFINITION OF LENR.Georgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-39604574151313969952012-08-16T00:13:59.831-07:002012-08-16T00:13:59.831-07:00AlainCo, In case they don't want to show, why ...AlainCo, In case they don't want to show, why don't they keep silent? They know their own NDA's. And The scientific community demands more then I do. Bettingmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-37919358033433082842012-08-15T08:43:46.034-07:002012-08-15T08:43:46.034-07:00it is possible they do it, but NDA of clients may ...it is possible they do it, but NDA of clients may forbid it.<br />Another thing is that we are not so important. Clearly DGT give mark of respect to the research community at ICCF17, but for layman like us... Anyway reopening the forum on 20 is a mark of attention.<br /><br />In a way it is done, since the paper is signed by someone of NTUA, the third author.<br />Problem also is that a "credible organization" might accept to commit only with full data to defend their position, otherwise they would be accused of voodoo science.<br /><br />For what I've learn today, corporate know the facts, and keep silent as usual, preparing to take advantage or block then capture, depending on their challenger or incumbent status.<br /><br />Alain_Cohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08352476615242858677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-55269808241219007922012-08-15T04:00:55.499-07:002012-08-15T04:00:55.499-07:00AlainCo, The least that DGT could do is to name at...AlainCo, The least that DGT could do is to name at least one independent, reliable entity that could at least confirm that there was a COP in the range of 8 (or perhaps even 20). They promised to release third party test result no later then August. DGT calls for cooperation (I agree on that) but first we have to rule out the possibility of false claims. Bettingmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-91510970237357962232012-08-14T14:19:33.078-07:002012-08-14T14:19:33.078-07:00About rossi, don't forget that he start to mak...About rossi, don't forget that he start to make open demo, and finally gat accused of fraud.<br /><br />there is no solution, mainstream is in Hypercritical Rhetoric. Any opepening lead to greater critic and questioning. when asked data is given they are not believed and more is demanded. when independent result are given, the independent source is assumed as corrupted...<br />It is Conspiracy theory.<br /><br />the reason is simply that the truths is clear since long, that there is a great coherent network of data that can support 99% of claims...<br />And the collective delusion, that even the believers share unconsciously, make people focus on the 1% of discrepancies, errors, and frauds. Reality is in light Grey, but in normal like you can bu sure and take rational decision without seeing yourself independent test and 6sigma results, and without checking lab photos about numbers.<br />You trust people because of their competence, the risk they take, their business profile, the trust they inspire to competent relations...<br /><br />There can be surprise, but it will be classic for business story... unexpected delays, NDA, strategy changes, small mistakes...<br />anyway how can you imagine that all the engineer cannot detect a COP of even 8, and not differentiate 22 from 1? You imagine that someone working in a university can kill his career accepting to put his name on a faked report?<br /><br />The fraudsters are mainstream since 1989, and the mechanism is well known, and they will never be punished because they did what everybody was asking them to do. the worst is that even long time LENR researcher have absorbed that delusion and doubt about results that CERN would publish without question, if not about LENR.<br /><br />Sorry I'm fed up of that Stockholm Syndrome in LENR. If there are data to check it is not in LENR, but in many fashion subject and industry, where crazy claims can be accepted without any substance nor risk.<br /><br />Alain_Cohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08352476615242858677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-42931673094991686272012-08-14T12:00:01.836-07:002012-08-14T12:00:01.836-07:00>they have a marketing problem and are facing e...<i>>they have a marketing problem and are facing even more obstacles due to their planned manufacture and selling of a product with a functionality and potential risks- still unknown- in part.</i><br /><br />Their only problem is that nobody believes that they are able to do what they claimed. This is the first point. Other considerations are secondary. Do you think it's suffice to cut the "N" letter in the LENR acronym to convince people that DGT is producing something real?<br /><br /><i>>An example, if a theorist has decided that what happens in the Pd-D system is D + D, than he extends this to the Ni-H system, it is surely H + H- it must be so. Defkalion’s results show that this is not true, or it is a side-reaction</i><br /><br />But Defkalion results of what? What results are you talking about. Did you ever see some result by Defkalion? Are they able to start a Ni-H reaction with some Watt of power? And in this case, it lasts for how many minutes? Are they able to get more power than the input power?<br />Maybe theorists will be convinced by Defkalion's principle of theory if someone will show them some result.<br />You should understand that if you want to change the way of thinking, even inside the CF/LENR community, you have to show yourself, your work and first of all the results you get with your work.<br />If a theorist is thinking that what happens in Pd-D systems can be extended to NI-H systems is because until now no one has showed them that it isn't true.<br /><br />Another way of doing things is Rossi's way: everything is a secret, no independent verification is required, the market will decide, <br />and at this point would be better if DGT should do the same. But at least Rossi has the coherence to not direct to the scientific community and to attend to scientific conference, and the same should do Defkalion.<br /><br /><i>>OK, let’s the theory of LENR theories for other occasions and try to not forget an other very fundamental issue: bureaucracy: the definition of LENR has to be standardized and legally accepted.</i><br /><br />The way of doing this is to show that LENR is REAL. If someone has the power, he _MUST_ do it.<br />Show to the world that LENR is real and important for the resolution of many mankind's problems, then it will be standardized and legally accepted with a proper path. Until then you can stay here to talk for years, even decades, nothing will happen. <br /><br /><i>>We think that a new International Independent Institution,...<br />This could play a serious role against using Nuclear/Atomic agencies for licensing LENR products, which are not nuclear (following the old definitions) but related with energy from nuclei interactions. An Organization, with similar structure as IAEA, ...</i><br /><br />Here again, what are they talking about? It seems that someone has to build an atomic bomb based on LENR technology.<br />I have to remember that Brian Ahern claims that <i>"the energy is real, repeatable and of useful output. I will also state that it IS NOT OF A NUCLEAR ORIGIN. I will say that it is a manifestation of asymmetric magnetism."</i><br />At the moment his statement has the same value of Defkalion's statements.<br />Do you have to worry about an asymmetric magnetism? Does it really needs a kind of IAEA agencies for licensing LENR products based on asymmetric magnetism?<br /><br />So, who is right, Defkalion or Ahern? At the moment we don't know because nobody has showed to the world neither a little result nor that the approach to the market is already possible.<br /><br />Peter, I'm very disappointed by Defkalion, they talk and behavior like leaders but now they have demonstrated that have nothing in their hands. A working prototype is still a long way off, probably years.<br />They are trying to find their way of doing money with licenses like hundreds of companies BLP, STEORN, ROSSI etc.<br />Celani and Ahern claim few Watts but at least the are not selling licenses.<br /><br />Franco.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-23604427663082885562012-08-14T11:38:40.926-07:002012-08-14T11:38:40.926-07:00DGT used XRF for anylysis. This is the wrong tool....DGT used XRF for anylysis. This is the wrong tool. They need time0-of-flight Mas Spec.<br /><br />There is a first class theory for Superconductivity, but less than 5 people in the world know of its existence. It completely explains SC in PdH-PdD, but it offers little enlightenment on the LENR aspect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-49465704114431692362012-08-14T10:44:49.465-07:002012-08-14T10:44:49.465-07:00Those slides and also their paper presented on ICC...Those slides and also their paper presented on ICCF 17, which is also available, are sadly inconclusive. They just add confusion to the mass.<br /><br />I asked someone to ask defkalion people if they had done isotope analysis and to ask what were the light elements.<br /><br />They said they did no isotope analysis, yet they said there was no transmutation of Ni. I don't know how could they conclude that.<br /><br />Also, they did not find Triton, He3 or He4 among the light elements. They found lithium, beryllium and boron, though. <br /><br />So, they claim things completely different from any group before them. They are sloppy and illogical . I am completely confused. Maybe they do not have good intentions, after all?<br /><br />Considering only the paper presented in the conference, it is not clear to me if they used isotopic ratio mass spectroscopy, which means, it seems did not try to determine the isotopes, they just plotted the variation of the mass of the samples with great accuracy. It's not possible to figure out if the samples were contaminated. <br /><br />It seems they used this:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductively_coupled_plasma_mass_spectrometry <br /><br />When they should have also used:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope-ratio_mass_spectrometry<br /><br />Their data on small mass elements is still crazy, just with the crude method. This is unlike anything that was seen before, as far as I know.Daniel de França MTd2https://www.blogger.com/profile/01281817409696805377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-9398241139917295442012-08-14T10:13:16.820-07:002012-08-14T10:13:16.820-07:00I stand ready to take back my criticism of DGT. Th...I stand ready to take back my criticism of DGT. Their data on slides 31 and 32 are problematic is that:<br />1. The key figures are out of focus.<br />2. the COP is written backwars and it too is hard to discern the number.<br /><br />Their COP definition is : Input power/output power = 1:8 - 1:22<br /><br />This means their COP is between 8 and 22. Why do they change the universal notation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com