+1. Thanks Peter!
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Not so fast as I wanted but here it is:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/fast-translation-of-parkhomov-paper.html
Questions and corrections to my e-mail address please, I hope to discuss
I could translate the text per se in 30 minutes, the images have created me
problems- it is fine that Nikita has done the task.
Rossi has said he agrees with the paper, it is now time for the Professors
to say something, scientific research has an etiquette. To ignore the paper
is very bad.
Peter
thanks very much peter.
I cannot see the image as it requires an account.
2014-12-28 10:44 GMT+01:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com:
I could translate the text per se in 30 minutes, the images have created
me problems- it is fine that Nikita has done the task.
Rossi has said he agrees with
Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing
context.
There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer
reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer
reviewed scientists and someone who has not.
Unfortunately, looking at
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing
context.
There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on
I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as
this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this
without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I
apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as
of yet that I
Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who
follow this?
Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are
considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive
replication is in essence positive.
Further, so far I haven't seen any
Thanks! *This method was worked out and many times verified in the
experiments led by Yu. N. Bazhutov.*
*Interesting.*
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:
thanks very much peter.
I cannot see the image as it requires an account.
2014-12-28 10:44
I didn't say it was a negative development. You are clearly purposely
misunderstanding my statements because you take an attack on this as an
attack on you. You're just like a pseudo skeptic, only on the flip side.
You're being a crank.
My % evaluation is only silly because I'm the only one
As to the significance of the replication, it really
depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the
tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the
results.
This is not how I do my analysis. Anyone can write reports and fudge
numbers
To be even more clear, I'm waiting for MFMP to release their results.
You can read through all their reports and see their reputation of
falsification. They've done it *over and over again*, a perfect example of
bayesian analysis where the priors will provide all the confidence we need
to
BTW, Too the few souls in the world who follow this? is total crap. Bill
Gates, the richest man in the world, himself is obviously following this
with interest.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
To be even more clear, I'm waiting for MFMP to
From: Bob Cook
* It seems to me that there must be a separate cooling mechanism
happening to remove or redistribute the heat within the reactor.
Well, if you are assuming that the net gain derives from 1/10th gram of
hydride fuel, which starts off as a powder, then it is possible that
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, Too the few souls in the world who follow this? is total crap. Bill
Gates, the richest man in the world, himself is obviously following this
with interest.
Lots of people follow cold fusion. I can see that by the traffic statistics
at
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as of
yet that I could find.
The lack of a control run is frightening in itself.
It is frightening and also imaginary. As you see in Peter's translation
they did control runs.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
Parkhomov's publication record seems to be impressive and relevant. He has
jointly published articles with researchers at Stanford and Purdue. He has
AG Parkhomov seems credible to me. But there is a more famous scientist by that
name (VA Parkhomov) … they may be family related (not sure).
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
AG Parkhomov has been
See:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/28/alexander-parkhomov-provides-english-translation-of-his-hot-cat-report-comments/
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf
Peter Gluck's version is here:
He has never been primary author on a paper in a real journal. Being a
tertiary author isn't that hard.
What you say is heartening but I don't think you are turning a critical eye
on this. The chemistry here is very simplistic. Heating up powdered
nickel and lithium hydride? Why hasn't this
I looked for the cotroll run. Do you mean the one at lower temperature?
It is frightening and also imaginary. As you see in Peter's translation
they did control runs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride
The melting (decomposition) point of LiAlH4 is 150C.
This means that after the first heating, the 2 moles of H2 are liberated as
gas for every mole of LiAlH4.
Presumably the LiAl forms an amalgam.
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jed
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
I looked for the cotroll run. Do you mean the one at lower temperature?
My mistake. Peter says the author only described the Lugano calibration.
Details about a calibration during this test have not been given, yet.
- Jed
Haven't received mailing posts to Vortex in my inbox. This is a test for
received mailings.https://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/16104981376/In the
beginning a blocked light is retrieved by an intermediary agency acting as an
associative agency. Here the same thing is shown in reverse.Actually
So do you average the COPs for a final COP? I wonder how fast in
succession he ran the tests over the same fuel.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride
The melting (decomposition) point of LiAlH4 is
Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature
before reaching 1C is not shown in the plot of slide #16 (does he mean
17?). Is it taken into account for the accumulated energy? If not a much
longer test is needed for estimation of the COP.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y3Bxr_aE2iosEKpGFUZiQgAcuT8AFN78RFCAlR-JqNw/edit
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature
before reaching 1C is not shown in the plot of
Also... is 2712000 the right amount for vaporization of the water? Doesn't
it have to be dry steam to reach that energy amount? Looking at his set up,
it seems like it would be pretty wet.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
If it takes 540 calories are needed to turn 1 gram (at 100 degrees
Celsius) of water to steam, than that's 540 * 1200 * .23 = 149000 joules,
right?
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also... is 2712000 the right amount for vaporization of the
We have merely to compare what can be extracted from a unenergized field 3
phase alternator in rotation; and then compare realistically the volumes of
field energy input required for that operation to be continued in further
volumes. Such a self energized field operation has been obtained by
sorry, 4.8 calories in a joule. Nvm
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
If it takes 540 calories are needed to turn 1 gram (at 100 degrees
Celsius) of water to steam, than that's 540 * 1200 * .23 = 149000 joules,
right?
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at
errr, 4.8 joules in a calorie even. Yeah science ain't my strong suit! I
should just stick to the social proof thing..
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
sorry, 4.8 calories in a joule. Nvm
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=energy+to+heat+1.2+kg+of+water+to+100+celsius
Wow, wolfram is amazing. Who needs to be a scientist! :D
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
errr, 4.8 joules in a calorie even. Yeah science ain't my strong
From page three: Level of 1000 oC was overcome
after 5 hours of heating.
But the report says heater input was 684000 joules.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=300+Watts+*+38+minutes+in+joules
Sarg might be right here. The results are interesting, but the COP is
being very optimistic, to
This thesis on SPP is long, but worth a read as it contains information on
spherical layered resonators of a special construction which coincidentally,
we have seen before:
COHERENT PLASMON COUPLING IN SPHERICAL METALLODIELECTRIC MULTILAYER
NANORESONATORS by Rohde
Jones--
Your idea is similar to the one I had in mind, however, I was thinking the
Li in the ceramic may be released as a vapor and be forced under a pressure
gradient to the interior or at least near the interior surface where it
could circulate in the porous ceramic matrix. The circulation
1. Andrei Rossi would have a commercial product.
2. Gas would be $5 a gallon.
3. Jed said something about robots? I cant remember what?
4. 2014 would be the year of cold fusion.
Tell me how badly did we get it.
Will next year be any closer?
Frank
we?
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
wrote:
1. Andrei Rossi would have a commercial product.
2. Gas would be $5 a gallon.
3. Jed said something about robots? I cant remember what?
4. 2014 would be the year of cold fusion.
Tell me how badly did we
37 matches
Mail list logo
