- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Quoting Ed Storms:
It is not necessary for the breakthrough to lead
directly to a practical device.
I agree with Ed about this, but it should be noted that other people such
as Mike Melich feel that theory is somewhat
Mike Carrell wrote:
The phase shifting means is proprietary. Melich could be correct
that its formulation was empirical, but it was well withing
established knowledge.
He was discussing the materials used to make the components, not the
electronics. The materials were tested and improved
On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23
-0600:
Hi Ed,
[snip]
Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be
operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without
neutrons. Perhaps, the same
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:41:57 +:
Hi Jack,
[snip]
I have chosen a different approach. Make a guess at the
mechanism, and assume it is correct. Then optimize a design
based upon the guess. Build the design. If the guess was
correct, it will pay off. If not,
Hope this works Jed, or at least makes people aware.
Ed
On Sep 25, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html
I submitted an application to this project. Not expecting a
response, but anyway, I have covered this.
In the application form field
People should vote for me next year. I will remind everyone -- if I
remember. Quote from:
http://www.project10tothe100.com/how_it_works.html
How it works
Project 10^100 (pronounced Project 10 to the 100th) is a call for
ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible.
Here's
Hi Jed,
Very well put and thanks for submitting it. I hope they get the message.
Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
See:
http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html
I submitted an application to this project. Not
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:00:51 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that
cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly
$300 million to $600 million, which is what it cost to develop
similar surface effect,
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that
cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly
$300 million to $600 million . . .
[snip]
If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the
current CF reactors, and
Looks like a new energy bubble forming...
This time those in the field must maintain transparency. 'scalled peer
review.
On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that
cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly
$300 million to $600 million . . .
[snip]
If my device works, it could be thousands of times
Edmund Storms wrote:
At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away
from a practical device. . . .
No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is
understood.
Well, I think the gist of the NRL guy's comment was that Pam Boss's
neutrons or something like
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:20:27 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that
cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly
$300 million to $600 million . . .
[snip]
If my device works,
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:33:40 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is
understood. Simply replicating a process that works is only the first
step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process
that
I've seen a repeated posting with fantastical ideas about aether and
parallel universes. Now really, come on!
Whether it is private or public money you need to have projects with clear
objectives backed up with some testable theory or suppositions.
The way they work these things is bit by bit
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:48:07 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Frankly, even $100 million cannot guarantee clear thinking or a breakthrough.
[snip]
There is no such thing as a perfect guarantee.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a
practical device.
No, that's precisely the difference. CF as it stands rarely yields
an excess of
more than a few percent (and when it does, no one understands why).
That's incorrect on two counts:
On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away
from a practical device. . . .
No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is
understood.
Well, I think the gist of the NRL guy's
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Everyone has their hopes and dreams. Next, a person needs to get other
people to follow their lead, which is not easy to do even under the
best of circumstances. This process will take years. Meanwhile enjoy
Edmund Storms wrote:
I wish the Boss work were a breakthrough. Unfortunately, the process
that makes apparent neutron emission during co-deposition cannot be
operating in a heat-producing cell.
Well, that means it is not practical breakthrough but it still might
illuminate the mechanism as I
Of course the project name is not innocent, 10^100 is also known as 1
googol, whose misspelling as google is claimed to be the origin of
the name of the company :)
Michel
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:01:45 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a
practical device.
No, that's precisely the difference. CF as it stands rarely yields
an excess of
more than a few
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23 -0600:
Hi Ed,
[snip]
Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be
operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without
neutrons. Perhaps, the same mechanism makes neutrons without tritium.
[snip]
I find this
23 matches
Mail list logo
