Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

I have been hearing about the 'electrical universe' since long time. Hannes
> Alfven was a Swedish scientist and an entertaining person and this
> 'gravity' is so not  intuitive to me.
>

There's an interesting section in the Wikipedia article about him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n#Research

Apparently he was treated as a maverick of sorts and found it difficult to
publish his papers, even after being given the Nobel prize.

Eric

RE: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Jones Beene]

On further examination, Ken may be on to an important insight here which is 
relevant to LENR. Here is another reference with more detail.

 

“Single-Atom Catalysts: A New Frontier in Heterogeneous Catalysis”

YANG, et al.

 

When read in the context of the recently mentioned Szpak interview, where we 
see the highly credible report of 3 out of 10 meltdown events, using only plain 
water but with palladium chloride in the electrolyte – this makes me think that 
the magnetic field facilitated single atom palladium to first densify and 
accumulate, and then after 3-4 days to react in bulk.

 

From: Ken Deboer 

 

… most recently JM Thomas (Nature 17 Sept 2015) showed that single atoms, of Pd 
especially, make better catalysts than nanoparticles. super catalysts, in fact.

 

 

Now that you mention it – if you look back at Pd-D cold fusion, one of the most 
effective techniques is “co-dep” or co-deposition.

 

In co-dep, palladium chloride is in the electrolyte, which means essentially 
that individual ions of palladium are present.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Axil Axil]

As posted before, water absorbs UV light about 100,000,000 times better
than infrared light. This makes it a poor partner with any noble metal at
producing polaritons at UV frequencies.


However, when chlorine is added to the palladium solution to form  palladium
chloride in the electrolyte, the absorption of UV light is greatly reduced.
This favors polariton formation using UV light.

See:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/229233040_Speciation_of_aqueous_palladium(II)_chloride_solutions_using_optical_spectroscopies
adium(


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> On further examination, Ken may be on to an important insight here which
> is relevant to LENR. Here is another reference with more detail.
>
>
>
> “Single-Atom Catalysts: A New Frontier in Heterogeneous Catalysis”
>
> YANG, et al.
>
>
>
> When read in the context of the recently mentioned Szpak interview, where
> we see the highly credible report of 3 out of 10 meltdown events, using
> only plain water but with palladium chloride in the electrolyte – this
> makes me think that the magnetic field facilitated single atom palladium to
> first densify and accumulate, and then after 3-4 days to react in bulk.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Deboer
>
>
>
> … most recently JM Thomas (Nature 17 Sept 2015) showed that single atoms,
> of Pd especially, make better catalysts than nanoparticles. super
> catalysts, in fact.
>
>
>
>
>
> Now that you mention it – if you look back at Pd-D cold fusion, one of the
> most effective techniques is “co-dep” or co-deposition.
>
>
>
> In co-dep, palladium chloride is in the electrolyte, which means
> essentially that individual ions of palladium are present.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

[Jones Beene]

Honda is introducing its first hydrogen-fueled FCEV in Japan: the Honda
Clarity, which uses an advanced Fuel Cell and stores hydrogen as compressed
gas. It uses hydrogen and air to create electricity, leaving water vapor as
the exhaust; but it also has ample batteries and a high cost - about $ 60k
expected.

Deliveries are to start in Japan next spring and California soon after,
which is developing infrastructure. There are currently a few hydrogen
stations in the SF Bay area, and more are promised - but Tesla is not
impressed with this threat. and is a bit indignant, it would seem.

Elon Musk had some choice words to share when asked about FCEVs:

"They're mind-bogglingly stupid. You can't even have a sensible debate."

"Consider the whole fuel cell system against a Model S. It's far worse
in volume and mass terms, and far, far, worse in cost. And I haven't even
talked about hydrogen being so hard to handle."

"Success is simply not possible."

My prediction is that Elon, genius that he is, will eat crow on this one.
There is room for both, and success in probably guaranteed for FCEVs in
places like Japan.

The actual environmental footprint, according to experts not employed by
Tesla is smaller for FCEVs than EVs. At least when both electricity and
hydrogen are made from natural gas, the FCEV will release 20% less CO2 for
the same amount of miles driven. (this includes distribution losses).

In fact, Elon is mind-bogglingly stupid if he fails to realize that a large
proportion of his customer base are in fact idealists who demand the lowest
environmental footprint no matter what. They do not buy Teslas to save money
and many will prefer a 3 minute hydrogen refill to the 8 hour recharge.
which means swapping the EV for more Clarity. Elon is no fool, of course.
His remarks are within a time frame, based on  favorable assumptions..

. which of course, is rooftop solar power with battery storage. This will
change emission realities in favor of the EV. and in fact, Elon is probably
hoping that by getting into home solar power in a big way, he can maintain
the high road wrt the ecology, and with EVs being a fringe benefit. But in
the end, there is still room for both the EV and the FCEV.

Moreover, the long-shot which is LENR could shift the eco-dynamics the other
way, and many here have appreciated the functional similarity between FC and
LENR reactor. An LENR enhanced fuel cell would split water in situ in a
closed cycle . or else with direct conversion to electricity, would
eliminate water splitting entirely - but how many years out is that, if
ever?

In the meantime, we need Clarity.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Don't be trapped by dogma - Steve Jobs

[Alain Sepeda]

in Software engineering, stealing is called "reuse", and is a good thing.

Like in research, the requirement is to be clear who you copied and pay him
what he deserve (copyright, citation, credits).

Big problems, are caused by the NIH syndrome (not invented here), and by
scientists not replicating, not considering, not using others research.

Note that when you talk of innovation you realize that the technology is a
tiny part of the story, and should not be a cash cow.
Telcos should not be cash cows or it will kill the revolution of usage that
is the real INNOVATION.

typically building a cash cow with technology is the best way to maintain
the current usage of technologies, and prevent new usage.

if mobile telcos were selling IP data at the old price, people will seldon
use it for high value transaction like checking timetable, and not al all
for applications like Waze, Uber, and simply Wikipedia.

What did innovators in silicon valley from Palo Alto innovations, is
exploit them to make them popular.
that is the real meaning of innovation.


there is an article that I cite in this post
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2285-Uberization-Teslaization-models-of-disruption/
about the two axis of innovation, by technology (teslaization) or by market
(uberization).
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2285-Uberization-Teslaization-models-of-disruption/

in france, Philippe Silberzahn have very interesting articles.
http://philippesilberzahn.com/
maybe you can also find english article he refers to.


All of that to say that the problem is not copying, it is good, but payback
model.



2015-11-17 20:52 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> Jobs and Bill Gates stole everything they ever did. Rossi beware.
>>
>
> Please. We don't call it "stealing" in science. We call it "research."
>
> Plagiarize
> Let no one else's work evade your eyes
> Remember why the good Lord made your eyes
> So don't shade your eyes
> But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize
> Only be sure always to call it please "research"
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXlfXirQF3A
>
> http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/lobachev.htm
>
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:Heating Mechanism Could Make Materials Hotter Than Sun: How This Could Impact Energy Production

[Mark Jurich]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/107119/20151118/heating-mechanism-could-make-materials-hotter-than-sun-how-this-could-impact-energy-production.htm

Ultrafast collisional ion heating by electrostatic shocks:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151113/ncomms9905/full/ncomms9905.html
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151113/ncomms9905/pdf/ncomms9905.pdf 

RE: [Vo]:Heating Mechanism Could Make Materials Hotter Than Sun: How This Could Impact Energy Production

[Jones Beene]

Mark,

Looks like you have been passing the time, as the stick glows on and on,
doing some reading. From the perspective of SPP, this article indicates that
electrostatic charge could be increasing availability of plasmons. This is
expected.

As for the glow-stick, it looks like there is an ~8 degree difference
between the hot side and null side. Any further comment on the relevance of
that?

-Original Message-
From: Mark Jurich 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/107119/20151118/heating-mechanism-could-ma
ke-materials-hotter-than-sun-how-this-could-impact-energy-production.htm

Ultrafast collisional ion heating by electrostatic shocks:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151113/ncomms9905/full/ncomms9905.html
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151113/ncomms9905/pdf/ncomms9905.pdf 

Re: [Vo]:Georgia Institute of Technology report on Hydrodynamics gadget

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> As there was no apparent way for science to explain the tiny amount of 
> anomalous
> energy from the pump . . .
>
It was not tiny. Normally, the system transfers ~80% of input power into
the water that circulates through it. (That is, the COP is 80% -- and for
once this is the correct term.)  The rest comes out of the electric motor
and the "pump" itself. Both machines are far too hot to touch. You would be
severely burned by them.

In the tests described in this report, the first test produced a COP of
75%, which is exactly what you expect from a system producing no anomalous
heat. The second test produced 100%. Since the electric motor and the pump
were too hot to touch, and radiating kilowatts of heat into the room, that
was roughly 30% excess heat. They would have to be stone cold to transfer
100% to the water, which is absurd and obviously impossible.

Later tests with improved calorimetry that I observed produced COPs ranging
from 80% (no heat) up to 115 to 120%. The latter is 40% excess heat, which
is not tiny at all.

Customer site tests also yielded similar results. An error seems unlikely
to me.

It is an interesting video, and I think the company is still in business.
>
Yes, but they never talk about the excess heat.

http://hydrodynamics.com/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

[Terry Blanton]

Transport of H2 is a major problem.  Embrittlement of pipelines is problematic.

RE: [Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

 

Is this hydrogen derived from splitting water, or from hydrocarbons?  

 

 

Almost all commercial hydrogen is derived from the highly efficient “steam 
reforming” reaction aka the water-gas shift reaction (WGSR). It is one of the 
most efficient reactions in all of petro-chemistry, especially when the steam 
is cogenerated.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming

 

Re: [Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

[Bob Higgins]

It is interesting how the whole electric car business and solar
installations play together in the changing solar power economy.  There is
a solar war waging with the big utilities.  The big utilities claim that
the grid-tie solar systems on people's roofs are driving them out of
business and they are waging a war to eliminate all incentives including
net metering ... AND ... charge an extra fee if you have rooftop solar
because the customer would not be buying enough retail electricity to give
the utility enough profit.  Once net metering is gone, people will need a
way to manage their rooftop solar power into some useful purpose other than
getting half price for electricity pumped into the grid.  It would be
better to divert that spare solar power into a car.  BUT, will the car be
at home when solar output is peaking ... or will the car be at work?  If
the car is there only at night, then you need some other storage at home to
divert the spare solar output coming during the day.  This could be a
household battery pack (Musk also pursuing this); a spare/swap-out battery
for the car that could be charged at home and swapped at night (very
difficult given that these batteries are water cooled - spare car probably
more practical); or even a hydrogen generator to produce and store hydrogen
for a fuel cell vehicle.

The war between the rooftop solar homeowners and the utilities is about to
get bloody.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Honda is introducing its first hydrogen-fueled FCEV in Japan: the Honda
> Clarity, which uses an advanced Fuel Cell and stores hydrogen as
> compressed gas. It uses hydrogen and air to create electricity, leaving
> water vapor as the exhaust; but it also has ample batteries and a high
> cost – about $ 60k expected.
>
> Deliveries are to start in Japan next spring and California soon after,
> which is developing infrastructure. There are currently a few hydrogen 
> stations
> in the SF Bay area, and more are promised - but Tesla is not impressed
> with this threat… and is a bit indignant, it would seem.
>
> Elon Musk had some choice words to share when asked about FCEVs:
>
> “They’re mind-bogglingly stupid. You can’t even have a sensible
> debate.”
>
> “Consider the whole fuel cell system against a Model S. It’s far worse
> in volume and mass terms, and far, far, worse in cost. And I haven’t even
> talked about hydrogen being so hard to handle.”
>
> “Success is simply not possible.”
>
> My prediction is that Elon, genius that he is, will eat crow on this one. 
> There
> is room for both, and success in probably guaranteed for FCEVs in places
> like Japan.
>
> The actual environmental footprint, according to experts not employed by
> Tesla is smaller for FCEVs than EVs. At least when both electricity and
> hydrogen are made from natural gas, the FCEV will release 20% less CO2 for
> the same amount of miles driven. (this includes distribution losses).
>
> In fact, Elon is mind-bogglingly stupid if he fails to realize that a
> large proportion of his customer base are in fact idealists who demand
> the lowest environmental footprint no matter what. They do not buy Teslas
> to save money and many will prefer a 3 minute hydrogen refill to the 8 hour
> recharge… which means swapping the EV for more Clarity. Elon is no fool,
> of course. His remarks are within a time frame, based on  favorable
> assumptions….
>
> … which of course, is rooftop solar power with battery storage. This will
> change emission realities in favor of the EV… and in fact, Elon is
> probably hoping that by getting into home solar power in a big way, he
> can maintain the high road wrt the ecology, and with EVs being a fringe
> benefit. But in the end, there is still room for both the EV and the FCEV.
>
> Moreover, the long-shot which is LENR could shift the eco-dynamics the
> other way, and many here have appreciated the functional similarity
> between FC and LENR reactor. An LENR enhanced fuel cell would split water
> in situ in a closed cycle … or else with direct conversion to electricity,
> would eliminate water splitting entirely - but how many years out is that,
> if ever?
>
> In the meantime, we need Clarity.
>
> Jones
>
>

[Vo]:Georgia Institute of Technology report on Hydrodynamics gadget

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is an old document scanned from my paper files. This is a report on
the Hydrodynamics gadget made by James Griggs:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6qvuFUMAp9HQ3VuMHFiZDhlREE/view?usp=sharing

The conclusions on p. 8 show an astounding lack of scientific curiosity.
The authors make up excuses to ignore the data. I do not see how the
instrument quality could produce large variations. In any case, the final
instrument configuration was designed by an expert at Georgia Tech, the
former Dean of Mechanical Engineering, and it showed even higher levels of
excess heat.

When you read history, you may wonder why people in ancient times did not
examine nature in a scientific manner. Why they did not discover things
that in retrospect were right before their eyes, such as evolution?This
report illustrates the answer. People are inherently incurious. They do not
welcome new knowledge or new things. Most of them actively oppose
knowledge. Even people at places such as Georgia Tech are like this. I
suppose this is instinct. It is fear of the unknown.

- Jed

[Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Jed Rothwell]

November 18, 2015

CONGRESS VIEWS BRILLOUIN ENERGY’S LENR WET™ AND HHT™ BOILER REACTOR SYSTEMS
FOR GENERATING THERMAL ENERGY

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/456-Brillouin-Energy-Meets-Congress-News-Release-18-11-15-1-pdf/

Among other things this says:

The LENR process is neither fission nor fusion, but like fusion, it does
convert hydrogen into helium releasing the tiny mass difference as large
amounts of heat.

If it converts hydrogen into helium, that makes it fusion, by definition.

This is probably not a wise thing to say.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Axil Axil]

It is alway wise to tell the truth.


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> November 18, 2015
>
> CONGRESS VIEWS BRILLOUIN ENERGY’S LENR WET™ AND HHT™ BOILER REACTOR
> SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING THERMAL ENERGY
>
>
> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/456-Brillouin-Energy-Meets-Congress-News-Release-18-11-15-1-pdf/
>
> Among other things this says:
>
> The LENR process is neither fission nor fusion, but like fusion, it does
> convert hydrogen into helium releasing the tiny mass difference as large
> amounts of heat.
>
> If it converts hydrogen into helium, that makes it fusion, by definition.
>
> This is probably not a wise thing to say.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Honda is introducing its first hydrogen-fueled FCEV in Japan: the Honda
> Clarity, which uses an advanced Fuel Cell and stores hydrogen as compressed
> gas. It uses hydrogen and air to create electricity, leaving water vapor as
> the exhaust; but it also has ample batteries and a high cost – about $ 60k
> expected.


Is this hydrogen derived from splitting water, or from hydrocarbons?  Often
hydrogen is little more than a form of storage of energy obtained
elsewhere.  If that is the case here, then you would have something like:

Hydrocarbons * efficiency producing electricity -> electrical energy *
efficiency producing hydrogen -> hydrogen energy * efficiency in an ICE

versus, for an electric car,

Hydrocarbons * efficiency producing electricity -> electrical energy *
battery efficiency -> battery energy * efficiency of the electric motor

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Georgia Institute of Technology report on Hydrodynamics gadget

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

*   Here is an old document scanned from my paper files. This is a report 
on the Hydrodynamics gadget made by James Griggs:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6qvuFUMAp9HQ3VuMHFiZDhlREE/view?usp=sharing

*   The conclusions on p. 8 show an astounding lack of scientific 
curiosity. The authors make up excuses to ignore the data. I do not see how the 
instrument quality could produce large variations. In any case, the final 
instrument configuration was designed by an expert at Georgia Tech, the former 
Dean of Mechanical Engineering, and it showed even higher levels of excess heat.


This lack of curiosity can be explained as hubris combined with the mistaken 
belief that mainstream science has almost everything figured out… essentially 
they are saying “why waste my time?” 

As there was no apparent way for science to explain the tiny amount of 
anomalous energy from the pump, if it was there, the experts were willing to 
drop the inquiry without further ado. After all, these are just country boys 
from rural Georgia and up against the renowned experts from Georgia Tech.

Yesterday, on Amazon prime, I stumbled on the old video narrated by Arthur C 
Clarke where they went up to Rome with a video crew to see the pump. That is my 
excuse for the long comment.

It is an interesting video, and I think the company is still in business. All 
things considered, the most reasonable conclusion is that it did/does produce 
anomalous heat, but at a low level.

As fate would have it, in another vortex thread - on single-atom super 
catalysis, we could find another possible way that an energy anomaly can be 
seen in this kind of pumping. That would be another way besides cavitation, or 
in addition to cavitation, or in using cavitation in a synergetic way. 

Let’s admit that cavitation of pure water is unlikely to be gainful without a 
nuclear reaction, and no measureable nuclear reaction is happening. And agree 
that the Griggs (and the Russian counterpart) sometimes work and other times do 
not and some water seemed to work better than others. And if we agree that 
catalysis alone cannot be gainful – then the obvious thing to do… is not to 
move on… but to investigate the middle ground.

The middle ground would be a newly invented field which we can call 
“cavitation-catalysis” using single-atom catalysts. In the report, test #2 is 
the most interesting. It indicates that the pump is 100% efficient. In other 
words, the pump transfers all of the motor’s electrical energy into heat. A 
standard 15 HP motor is only 89% efficient in converting electrical energy into 
shaft work, and there are lots of thermal losses. At best the COP is in the 
range of 1.15-1.2 but… to actually prove that scientifically, it would be 
expensive.

Admittedly, if gain is there, and it probably is - then a putative violation of 
the 2nd Law is happening. But the 2nd Law has so many workarounds and 
exceptions that it really is “the 2nd Generalization of Thermodynamics” and not 
much more. Personally, I believe that low level gain can derive from 
catalysis-plus, which is catalysis plus something else like cavitation. Maybe 
it is time to revisit the cavitation pump in the context of single-atom 
catalysis. Iron oxide comes to mind as a catalyst.

BTW – if slight gain is found, it would probably exploit the gap between the 
potential which needed to split water, which is as low as 1.23 volts, and the 
energy of recombination which can be slightly higher. Catalysis can happen on 
both the splitting and recombination for a small net gain. There is not much 
cushion there… and no huge commercial market for the low gain, if there is gain 
at all.

RE: [Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

> Transport of H2 is a major problem.  Embrittlement of pipelines is 
> problematic.

True, and hydrogen embrittlement of steel makes one wonder if dense hydrogen is 
somehow involved. Ideally, hydrogen would be made at the filling station itself 
from NG in a compact system, but that is not ready for prime time. Elon is not 
in panic mode.

To answer Eric's  question: Electrical energy is not required to make hydrogen 
from natural gas (only heat). When using steam reforming, the steam itself can 
be raised by burning the remnant CO. Solar heat has been used as well.
CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3 H2
In effect one molecule of methane is efficiently converted into 3 molecules of 
hydrogen, leaving CO which is burned as fuel to make the steam. Most of the net 
efficiency comes from the fuel cell using the hydrogen, which produces 
electricity at higher efficiency than the grid plant, despite being small. 

From: Eric Walker 

Am I correct in understanding, then, that the conversion process is something 
like this?

hydrocarbons * efficiency to electricity -> electrical input * efficiency to 
heat -> heat input * efficiency to steam -> steam reforming * efficiency to 
hydrogen -> hydrogen burning * efficiency of hydrogen in an ICE 

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Almost all commercial hydrogen is derived from the highly efficient “steam
> reforming” reaction aka the water-gas shift reaction (WGSR). It is one of
> the most efficient reactions in all of petro-chemistry, especially when the
> steam is cogenerated.


Am I correct in understanding, then, that the conversion process is
something like this?

hydrocarbons * efficiency to electricity -> electrical input * efficiency
to heat -> heat input * efficiency to steam -> steam reforming * efficiency
to hydrogen -> hydrogen burning * efficiency of hydrogen in an ICE


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Lennart Thornros]

You are correct Eric.
He was a maverick with humor and self irony.
I think we need many of that kind.
Still want to know what is not logical in the 'electrical universe'. I know
I am in over my paygrade so I am Ok to take a hit or two. Just curious why
the idea has not become more accepted. So let me have it.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
> I have been hearing about the 'electrical universe' since long time.
>> Hannes Alfven was a Swedish scientist and an entertaining person and this
>> 'gravity' is so not  intuitive to me.
>>
>
> There's an interesting section in the Wikipedia article about him:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n#Research
>
> Apparently he was treated as a maverick of sorts and found it difficult to
> publish his papers, even after being given the Nobel prize.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Esa J. Ruoho]

Axil, is there some context to this rather short sentence in light of that 
Brillouin press-release?

Sent from some iDevice. Written by Esa.

> On 18 Nov 2015, at 23:59, Axil Axil  wrote:
> 
> It is alway wise to tell the truth.
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> November 18, 2015
>> 
>> CONGRESS VIEWS BRILLOUIN ENERGY’S LENR WET™ AND HHT™ BOILER REACTOR SYSTEMS 
>> FOR GENERATING THERMAL ENERGY
>> 
>> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/456-Brillouin-Energy-Meets-Congress-News-Release-18-11-15-1-pdf/
>> 
>> Among other things this says:
>> 
>> The LENR process is neither fission nor fusion, but like fusion, it does 
>> convert hydrogen into helium releasing the tiny mass difference as large 
>> amounts of heat.
>> 
>> If it converts hydrogen into helium, that makes it fusion, by definition.
>> 
>> This is probably not a wise thing to say.
>> 
>> - Jed
>