yes that is a capacity I developed with LENR. Admit I need more data, and need suspend my judgement.
I wish all people that support DGT with more confidence to be right. I have heard some possibilities/excuses... Bad degasing is one possibility for the reactor not to work well... if not an measurement error, it may be a last chance trick to avoid a pathetic failed demo... What i cannot understand is not answering Luca's questions... For that point I have report of possible justifications... basically, I cannot rule-out it works a little, and why not , really... I have contacted them and they answered like their web site... working on the reactor, news this summer... Given the scandal, if they have something that work, the best idea would be to be antifragile, enjoy the buzz tempest and quickly prove it works with a real 3rd party test, taking the risk to lose IP before their reputation is ruined. 2014-05-13 17:57 GMT+02:00 Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com>: > I agree Alain. No one needs to pity Dr. Kim, I'm sure he (and others) > have measured "something" of relevance, just nothing commercially viable. > In regards to another point being stated explicitly or eluded to by others > on vortex since this story dropped, I think it is rather premature to call > "fraud" on DGT. That is a rather reactionary stance to take despite the > shadow of a doubt this new report casts on DGT. As you've just said, I have > a hard time believing all the data accumulated and/or publicized has been > fraudulent, but rather over-sold, which is different. If we all just begin > to villainize DGT this prematurely in a reactionary fashion, how are we any > better than fundamentalist skeptics? We have to be careful. I'm not saying > we need to be apologists for DGT by any stretch, but let's not get > indignant either. Rather lets give this a few months to play out and let > DGT respond before everyone goes crazy with accusations and innuendo. Just > my thoughts. > > --- John > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> whether they just have a modest COP and don't want to admit it because >> they sold huge COP before is one thing... >> having nothing seems hard to imagine, but pretending 10x more is possible >> for desperate startup... >> >> the claims of magnetic field seems exaggerated, but why claiming pure >> imagined phenomenon? >> >> anyway it is tragic for serious LENr actors, even if later Defkalion >> prove his reactor. >> >> >> 2014-05-13 15:43 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>: >> >>> *From:* Blaze Spinnaker >>> >>> I feel very bad for Dr. Kim, however. >>> >>> >>> >>> You shouldn’t. Kim and others may not have been completely duped, and we >>> must assume that although DGT could not show the type of gain which would >>> allow massive funding, they still very likely have found an energy anomaly >>> in the range of COP between 1 and 2. Everything Kim says could apply to a >>> lower gain device, which is still beyond the Laws of Physics. >>> >>> >>> >>> This range of overunity gain has been seen for 25 years, going back to >>> Thermacore, and even at NASA (see the Niedra report) and MIT (by Haldeman, >>> never acknowledged by the University). Yet with the advent of Rossi, it is >>> no longer of interest to many funders. >>> >>> >>> >>> The reality of the funding situation, given the large number of >>> claimants in the LENR field is that a COP of greater than 1 but less than 2 >>> is not going to generate A million dollar check, which was part of the >>> flawed DGT business plan. In fact, they want $50 million per license LOL. >>> >>> >>> >>> The open issue wrt DGT, and it is a huge technical issue which needs to >>> be addressed, hopefully by Dr. Kim - is the large magnetic field, reported >>> by DGT. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jones >>> >> >> >
