*Celani is conducting experiments openly, but there are still undisclosed details*
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429203/room-temperature-superconductivity-found-in/ Here on vortex, we have discussed how room temperature superconductivity is found in water soaked graphite grains. There will be a rush of large numbers of experimenters who will now try to characterize this effect. These workers will attempt to use this or similar methods to pave the way for a new generation of superconducting devices with unexpected benefits for society." This effect is an important component of the gas phase Ni/H cold fusion reaction as witnessed by the appearance of superconductivity when heat is produced during some recent LENR experiments. We must be watchful on this subject because of this little know conjunction between superconductivity and cold fusion. These condensed matter physicists will be doing a lot of our leg work for the field of cold fusion until they accidentally see excess heat coming from the superconductive cables that they will eventually fabricate. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 10:53 AM 9/13/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > >> See http://QuantumHeat.org for updates on the Celani cold fusion >>> replication kit project Nicolas is spearheading. >>> >> > One of the reasons that this whole affair has dragged out so long is that > both sides are crazy. > > The physics community is crazy because they should know what the > scientific method is, and they abandoned it in 1989-1990, and firmly > adhered, most of them, to that abandonment, becoming impervious to > evidence, based on poorly-understood and poorly-applied theory. > > The pro-cold-fusion community is crazy because too many people jump to > conclusions, going way beyond what is actually known and confirmed. > > This is from http://www.quantumheat.org/ > > There are a bunch of various recipes now that can produce massive amounts >> of energy without using anything nasty or expensive and without producing >> harmful residue or emissions. There have been many pet names given, but we >> think this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since it >> essentially replaces fire, we call it the New Fire. >> > > Problem is, the "massive amounts of energy" haven't been confirmed, if by > "massive" we mean "commercial level," which is the implication. This > student is enthusiastic, but I would hope that he'd understand the > difference between hope and knowledge. > > We can hope that Rossi is not as fraudulent as he looks. But it's very > clear that there is still only the shadowiest of independent confirmations > of Rossi's claims. For example, a writer, active on this list, has claimed > that the "certification" established power levels for the 1 MW E-cat. He > claimed that this was clear proof. However, those levels would almost > certainly be simply what the inventor claimed, they were not the result of > tests. The device was being certified to be able to handle "up to" 200 KW > input, and 1 MW output. That was in no way a confirmation of a COP of 5. > > But once people believe something, they tend to continue with that belief, > and every new piece of evidence is fit into that picture, it "confirms" it. > > The student has: > > http://www.quantumheat.org/**index.php/replicate<http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/replicate> > > With appropriate funding, we will show you the whole story, show you the >> tests being carried out and the results published live, we want to leave no >> shadow of doubt in peoples mind that they are right to get behind this >> revolution and clamour for it to deliver its benefits. >> > > I.e., give us some money and we will prove cold fusion to the world. I > would not recommending giving anything to people who don't know how to > distinguish what is known from what is not known, and what is confirmed and > solidly established, from what is rumor and report. This "student" has no > doubt that there are real, almost-ready technologies, he gives us a list: > > * > <https://www.youtube.com/**watch?v=HN4VK82Mngc<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN4VK82Mngc>>Celani's >> Wire Reactor, Can clearly show that the active component produces way more >> energy than can be explained by conventional means, it is economical to >> reproduce the equipment and has scaleability and wide areas for improvement >> and further study, things that <https://www.youtube.com/** >> watch?v=gHpYuUykWw0 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHpYuUykWw0>>Celani >> himself welcomes. >> * >> <http://world.std.com/%7Emica/**jet.html<http://world.std.com/%7Emica/jet.html>>Jet >> Energy NANOR, Using different technology, this can show large energy gains >> in a small package, is easy to transport and to run long term standardised >> tests. >> * <http://www.brillouinenergy.**com/ >> <http://www.brillouinenergy.com/>>Brillouin >> Energy Boiler, They could provide a number of small test configurations for >> replication. >> * <http://www.ecat.com/>Leonardo Corporations' E-Cat, A number of >> these could be distributed to qualified testing bodies. >> >> There are other potential candidates such as < >> http://www.defkalion-energy.**com/ >> <http://www.defkalion-energy.com/>>Defkalion >> Green Technologies, however the experiments need to be supplied easily and >> reliably run for over two weeks. >> > > None of these have been confirmed. Jet's NANOR is the most open product > mentioned. Commercial feasibility for the NANOR has not been established. > It's a research tool, using the well-known PdD approach. > > The others are all NiH, which has not been adequately confirmed. Celani is > conducting experiments openly, but there are still undisclosed details, if > I'm correct. > > If we could raise enough money, and had not achieved our primary aim by >> using another candidate, we would be keen to purchase a Leonardo >> Corporation 1MW gas initiated unit as these are ready for purchase and >> place it in say a war veterans hydrotherapy based rehabilitation centre. >> > > If E-Cats are available commercially, it's all over. They will either work > or not work. If they work, there is no need for some additional > demonstration. If they don't work, what then? This student assumes that the > product works and is reliable. Reliability, especially, is precisely what > has not been demonstrated. > > However, the other side: > > >> We have 3 aims >> >> >> >> * Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy source we >> call the New Fire >> * Once shown, help develop peoples understanding of what the New Fire >> is >> * Help promote the development and uptake of the New Fire in all its >> various guises >> >> We must first facilitate a series of standardised tests of one or more of >> the >> <https://www.youtube.com/**watch?v=KwwPYKBsswY<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwwPYKBsswY>>exact >> same configuration of the New Fire so that once and for all the world can >> see we have a bright, clean, safe and secure future. >> > > Great. It's been done, but not with any of the technologies identified. It > was done with the SuperWave approach of Energetics Technologies, replicated > at ENEA and by SRI. *The effect is real,* though the SuperWave approach was > not necessarily verified through controlled experiment. Most cells showed > heat, some quite significant heat. But that's the whole banana for > commercial application! Reliability is necessary for commercial application. > > Until we have reliability, what we need is real scientific research. We do > need confirmation of reported results. But how about one, before we do a > whole series? There is a *ton* of work out there, reported, interesting, > and with no reported attempts to replicate. Sometimes there have been > replication attempts that are never published because nothing was seen. > That does not mean that the original report was wrong, it is simply, from > this example, not confirmed. > > I've argued that it would greatly benefit the field if *all* experimental > work was reported. Notice: the plan above is not "scientific." It's > political. It's an attempt to prove an already believed idea. That's the > opposite of science, which attempts to discover reality, not to prove that > reality is something already known. >
