<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Le plus &#231;a change&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.inatthedeepend.org/2007/09/19/le-plus-a-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.inatthedeepend.org/2007/09/19/le-plus-a-change/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress blog</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daddybean</title>
		<link>http://www.inatthedeepend.org/2007/09/19/le-plus-a-change/#comment-9473</link>
		<dc:creator>Daddybean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.inatthedeepend.org/2007/09/19/le-plus-a-change/#comment-9473</guid>
		<description>And it has that old staple 'previously unrecognised source of energy, stored at a sub-atomic level within the hydrogen atoms in water'. good ol' hydrogen, it' always seems handy for a bit of secret energy storage.

I take your general point here Bob, but really can't take this seroiusly :-) another 'cold fusion' I imagine.

And as for the independent scientists (York were paid 15 grand for the tests) checking it this is what Jim Lyons has to say about himself:

http://www.scimednet.org/testimonies.htm

And they don't seem to have got far since 2003

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And it has that old staple &#8216;previously unrecognised source of energy, stored at a sub-atomic level within the hydrogen atoms in water&#8217;. good ol&#8217; hydrogen, it&#8217; always seems handy for a bit of secret energy storage.</p>
<p>I take your general point here Bob, but really can&#8217;t take this seroiusly <img src='http://www.inatthedeepend.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> another &#8216;cold fusion&#8217; I imagine.</p>
<p>And as for the independent scientists (York were paid 15 grand for the tests) checking it this is what Jim Lyons has to say about himself:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scimednet.org/testimonies.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.scimednet.org/testimonies.htm</a></p>
<p>And they don&#8217;t seem to have got far since 2003</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://www.inatthedeepend.org/2007/09/19/le-plus-a-change/#comment-9468</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.inatthedeepend.org/2007/09/19/le-plus-a-change/#comment-9468</guid>
		<description>I agree it sounds too good to be true, but to be fair they say it turns electricity into more heat.

In order to do the chaining together that you suggest you'd need to convert the heat produced by step X back into electricity to use as the power for step X+1.  The conversion of heat to power won't be even 100% efficient (unless there's another miracle device somewhere ;) ) in which case at best you're likely to break even i.e. you can add extra steps with no loss of power, rather than adding extra steps increases power.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree it sounds too good to be true, but to be fair they say it turns electricity into more heat.</p>
<p>In order to do the chaining together that you suggest you&#8217;d need to convert the heat produced by step X back into electricity to use as the power for step X+1.  The conversion of heat to power won&#8217;t be even 100% efficient (unless there&#8217;s another miracle device somewhere <img src='http://www.inatthedeepend.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> ) in which case at best you&#8217;re likely to break even i.e. you can add extra steps with no loss of power, rather than adding extra steps increases power.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.inatthedeepend.org/2007/09/19/le-plus-a-change/#comment-9467</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.inatthedeepend.org/2007/09/19/le-plus-a-change/#comment-9467</guid>
		<description>Okay, this thing puts out "up to" (I so love that little piece of meaninglessness) twice the energy put in. And, oh look, it has a "secret catalyst". Probably runs on Kentucky Fried Chicken then.

If it works, then the answer is to build a bloody great big one and attach it at the power station end, so that the power station can pump out twice as much power, and then attach another one and so on. That way we will only need one power station and since energy will cost nearly nothing to produce, there won't be any point us spending out on buying these devices for our homes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, this thing puts out &#8220;up to&#8221; (I so love that little piece of meaninglessness) twice the energy put in. And, oh look, it has a &#8220;secret catalyst&#8221;. Probably runs on Kentucky Fried Chicken then.</p>
<p>If it works, then the answer is to build a bloody great big one and attach it at the power station end, so that the power station can pump out twice as much power, and then attach another one and so on. That way we will only need one power station and since energy will cost nearly nothing to produce, there won&#8217;t be any point us spending out on buying these devices for our homes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
