Jones, it seems that Bastiaan has stopped hosting the site.
I'll see what I can do to bring the site up again.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Brad Lowe
I will add this one to my LENR patent database at
or just new?:
Temperature- and Pressure- Dependent Hydrogen Concentration in Supported
PdHx Nanoparticles by Pd K-edge X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy
*http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp500734p
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp500734p*
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
I agree high voltage or magnetic field is part of it like Tesla’s effort to
solidify the ether but IMHO it will take 2 independent fields interacting with
a carrier of some sort – hydrogen or photons – to give ZPE a path into our
dimension. I suspect the fields will individually segregate the
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Xbi-VJkFA
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
wrote:
I agree high voltage or magnetic field is part of it like Tesla’s effort
to solidify the ether but IMHO it will take 2 independent fields
interacting with a carrier of some
So what if you synthesized Lead Acetate substituting deuterium and tritium
for the hydrogen, melted it (280C), poured it into a sphere and subjected
it to sonoluminescence?
More brane leakage from the other side...
http://inspirehep.net/record/811530/plots
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Eric Walker* eric.wal...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, April 28, 2014
Subject: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014
More speculatively, one could use Uranium Boride at its melting point
of 2430C if hydrogen were at all soluble. The density is 12 so it would
produce much better inertial confinement of the p+B11 plasma.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:42 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
So what if you
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:45 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
More brane leakage from the other side...
You'll love this one:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/27/halos_and_arcs_optical_effects_photographed_by_g_ran_strand.html
Thanks, I had looked at that one. Conventional physics will tell you it is
all done from hexagonal ice crystals. They don't necessarily tell you how
they all form/align to create the beautiful gravitational lensing patterns.
They ALSO MAGNIFY
Amazingly these two ice halos beautifully match the
Radiation Jets= condensed vapor on the wings of 2 air planes. ( or if you
refer the long tail from the sun to W, mutilple reflections within the lens
until hit the photon detector)
W= lens flare, specifially, Glory,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(optical_phenomenon) , more
specifially,
This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape, which is
not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
From the words of the physicist/halo expert (he has a great website):
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/opod.htm
*The arcs are unexplained. We need more observations to establish their
full extent and dependence on solar altitude. The only two known
observations were both at the same sun height of
Right, it is not an arc, it is a cusp of vacuum energy, gravitationally
aligned with our solar brane.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape, which is
not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky.
*highly flattened pyramidal plate crystals similar to those invoked for
elliptical halos*, so ascribing that former picture for a camera is a not
bad hypothesis. But also, the sun occupies 1/2 degree on the sky, so, it
should be around 1%... although the sun is sky is too bright in comparison
to
And also aligned with the photographer...
2014-04-29 17:31 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com:
Right, it is not an arc, it is a cusp of vacuum energy, gravitationally
aligned with our solar brane.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
This is
Are you saying the camera lense created the phenom and that the
photographer did not see it with his own eyes first?
The physicist is even saying he cannot recreate the scene with his optical
halo program using flattened pyramidal crystals
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Rocha
Maybe, why not? These days we can film while watching the final image.
Besides, he says there were 2 pictures known. So, we also could also
consider that he did not see while not watching with his eyes first. As for
the physicist, it seems that while not reproducing exactly, it was good
enough.
Funny, his words are different then your interpretation (
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/opod.htm): To me he is saying they are not
convincing. Excuse the weird font, I pasted from his site.
However, ray tracings using them are not convincing. ..
They would require different simulation approaches
Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing because
he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to that, think
it is good enough.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good enough
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing because
he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to that, think
Do you think we have vacuum in our atmosphere ?
If yes, do think it is smooth and isotopic ?
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good enough
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha
Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes,
sure, but that is potential energy. It can be set to 0. But, there is the
vacuum for GR, the lambda. Which is small... really small...
2014-04-29 18:38 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com:
Do you think we have
Isotropic?
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes,
sure, but that is potential energy. It can be set to 0. But, there is the
vacuum for GR, the lambda. Which is small... really small...
Yes, isotropic.
2014-04-29 18:44 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com:
Isotropic?
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes,
sure, but that is potential energy. It can be set to 0.
Ok, cool. That is where we differ.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, isotropic.
2014-04-29 18:44 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart
cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com');
:
Isotropic?
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha
25 matches
Mail list logo
