Good find Lou!
Definitely beats paying the journal Nature for info which was funded by my
tax dollars!
-mark
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Electrons
There is no technical reason why CSP cannot become competitive with other
technologies, especially if you factor in the cost in lives, health, and
global warming from the alternatives such as coal and natural gas from
fracking. Of course it is not competitive now. If I had a cold fusion
Tried to send several FYIs yesterday eve, but they kept bouncing. here is
one more.
Majorana modes materialize.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/486195a.html
-Mark
When I lived in SoCal I visited Dr. Rueda several times to discuss his work
on inertia and the electromagnetic zero-point field. their seminal paper
came out in 1994. Dr. Rueda did the math in that paper, which is way
above my pay-grade! I now see that they've been applying their work to
Hello group,
I was skimming through several recent links on LENR-related news
entries/blog posts, when I found this on PESN:
http://pesn.com/2012/06/06/9602103_Why_doesnt_Utah_media_cover_latest_cold_fusion_developments/
I'm referring to this excerpt in particular:
Exhibit 4
Defkalion, of
UA Biomedical Engineers Find New Test for Effectiveness of Baking Soda
Cancer Therapy
Prof. Mark Marty Pagel has received a 2M$ grant from NIH.
http://www.engineering.arizona.edu/news/story.php?id=429
mic
Mark,
Nice choice of citations, I believe Haisch and Rueda got it
right but the connection drawn by Nickisch and Mollere (2002): zero-point
fluctuations give rise to spacetime micro-curvature effects yielding the origin
of inertia could, in fact should have gone
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.
This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better than
uranium fission or coal, when you
I wrote:
This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel.
I do not know how much coal a 1,600 acre strip mine would produce, but I am
sure it
I meant to say I am sure a 1,600 acre strip mine would NOT produce 110 MW
continuously for a century. I did a rough estimate here which bears that
out. The strip mine will last 10 to 30 years at best.
After the strip mine is closed down it will be a toxic wasteland, whereas
after the CPS is
On Friday, June 15, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.
This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power
1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.
This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
for the mines
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel.
That is terrible power density.
No, it isn't. As I
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than a
conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm there
is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column . . .
Yes, thorium does have higher
Hi Fran.
What I like about their work, especially the recent stuff, is that it is
based on a physical model.. a physical reality, and not just abstract math.
Clarification please, you wrote:
.such that the effects of the equal and opposite zones are prevented from
cancelling.
R U
Details, details, details…
There are some fundamental political as well as technical problems with the
LFTR that take some of the luster off your high opinion of this technology.
One of the most insidious is the desire of the LFTR advocacy crowd to
require the use of 19.75% enriched U235 to
Interesting, can you point me to any sources that discuss those issues?
On 15 June 2012 21:11, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Details, details, details…
There are some fundamental political as well as technical problems with
the LFTR that take some of the luster off your high opinion of
Start off with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
if you need more just ask.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
Interesting, can you point me to any sources that discuss those issues?
On 15 June 2012 21:11, Axil Axil
Neutrons escaping to a parallel world?
In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the
existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of
neutrons observed experimentally. The existence of such mirror matter
had been suggested in various scientific contexts some
What drives such theory making is the need to uphold CoE.
Harry
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Neutrons escaping to a parallel world?
In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the
existence of mirror particles to explain the
Good find - and the implications are a bit convoluted. The curious thing is
that mirror matter neutrons (or deep hydrinos) will explain anomalous heat
loss quite nicely.
As you may remember, Ahern reported that some of his Arata-style samples
demonstrated anomalous heat LOSS (more of the samples
This could only happen in the Internet Age:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/neverseconds-shut-down/
More power to her. I wish the cold fusion researchers were 0.1% as media
savvy as she is.
- Jed
22 matches
Mail list logo
