Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:43:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories From: [email protected] To: [email protected]
DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote: Congratulations on getting "them" to consider a demo when I could not solicit a response.Actually, they have not responded to me yet, either, but informally in conversation they said they would. You need to give them another chance, for the sake of the field. Well I am glad to know it is not just me. However, as I said, it is too late to field anything now. Experiments and demos, especially, are not easy. As you know, reproducibility is still a problem. I would have had to start back in November to be sure of something suitable for July. It normally takes many tries to get just one that works. Perhaps, if I was working full time on the one item, but that is not the case.Besides, I am sure we can stretch the deadline a day or two. Again it is not so much the deadline as the time between now and July. I could have made it if I knew it would have been permitted and I had the Thanksgiving, Christmas and Spring breaks to work on it. Now- no. I have signed up for summer teaching. The window of opportunity has passed for a July demo without heroic effort. If you are capable of doing this, I suggest you stop making excuses about your writing abilities and deadlines, and just do it. If you do a demonstration you do not need to write a paper or presentation. Let the demo speak for itself. After the conference I will write a comprehensive description of it. There was certainly no need to even work for 9 months to do a demo if it would not be permited or even a request responded to. It was you that complained about my lack of writing ability. Also, it was you that in times past (a few years back) said that demos where not important- that it was papers in journals that counted. After all I had a demo running 3 days in Monte Carlo but nothing became of that. But the bottom line is that I doubt I am "capable", as you termed it, to have a demo within the remaining time even if they somehow suddenly decide to permit them at this late date. Right now I am struggling to learn how to use “lost wax” casting of Pd +23%Ag alloys for making a toroid. The geometry is similar to that from my poster presentation in Boston. I will likely melt down all my "scrap" Pd that has accumulated over the years. Only the active region will contain the Pd alloy the rest will be Ag. I am working on a “solid state tokamak” configuration to induce electro-migration around a ring. It is consuming a lot of my “extra” time. After all this is just a “hobby” not my real job. The toroid will be electrochemically loaded and a “random” frequency current around the ring will be induced like a secondary of a transformer (1/f source to primary).That is an odd explanation, but it looks an abstract to me. I would prefer something shorter describing an excess heat demo, but if you wish to talk about lost wax instead, submit this. The demo I had proposed was side by side sample/controls on Peltiers, a common heat sink, current in series and matched resistance for identical voltages. The toroid system is something based, in part, on my patent which will be out in a month or so. However, the one I mentioned above uses electrochemical loading instead of gas and metal in ceramic. It is for a higher power unit that is still in development. It needs a lot of work and running before anything can be written up about it. These things don't appear overnight and magically produce a paper. It takes a year or two to be sure of things and check of errors (unless you are Rossi). - Jed
