On Jan 31, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
On Jan 31, 2010, at 1:12 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
I'm encouraged to see that debate concerning the pros and cons of the
controversial Widom Larsen theory has started opening up. I expect
The RD in the reference below is almost a decade old and comes from the
mainstream of physics - (and courtesy of your tax dollars and NIST) and . it
can relate to LENR in an unintended way, via the route of what has been
called:
1) Temporal or temporary BEC
2) Virtual BEC
3) Quasi
At 11:21 AM 2/1/2010, Jones Beene wrote:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htmhttp://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm
Hmm
. No, it does not mention fusion as a
possibility, but what about the half the
original atoms seem to have vanished ?
Well the good folks at NIST
Steorn's official January 30th video Proving OverUnity:
part 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Q3Klq5dxM
part 2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7i7P63IByY
Harry
__
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
... the only problem is the question of whether or not a condensate will
form ...
Here are citations from Mitchell Swartz, which are not found on the LENR
site, in which he finds evidence of BEC formation:
Swartz, M.R., Survey of the
On 02/01/2010 01:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Unless it's fusion. With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any
fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the condensate,
immediately. Energetic particles could be created that would, indeed,
escape the trap, but it might be
Jones Beene said on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:23:13 -0800
[snip]
“The main leap of faith is that a process which is proved to happen in very
cold conditions, can happen less frequently in a temporal or QM situation -
since coldness can be mimicked by other restraints - including time
On Feb 1, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
ZPE is looking more and more like an “energy sink” instead of an
“energy source” …
… but do not fear vorticians – perhaps it can be both.
Particle physicists know well the vacuum acts as both a mass/energy
source and sink - even at GeV
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Isn't that endothermic? We way past iron here.
I tried to make it very clear that this article, which is quoted in the
original posting does not go there - not in any remote way.
The article is simply of interest for both the focus on
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/business/global/01ebike.html
Remember, you read it here first!
Also, somewhat off topic, here is a hysterical video from an
Australian comedy team, about an actual incident -- an oil spill.
The Front Fell Off, which it actually did:
On 02/01/2010 02:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Isn't that endothermic? We way past iron here.
I tried to make it very clear that this article, which is quoted in the
original posting does not go there - not in any remote way.
Right
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
That juxtaposition of fusion, generate energy, and rubidium 85
doesn't sound right.
That's quite true - including the little problem of rubidium not being a
boson.
OTOH - many things that don't sound right today are merely awaiting a
I'm correcting this comment as to the Violante
data using more accurate numbers as provided by
Violante and inferred from that. The substance of this remains the same.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/345revisions.shtml
We have learned, through a better understanding
of their paper,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'm correcting this comment as to the Violante data using more
accurate numbers as provided by Violante and inferred from that.
Provided where? When? To you in private correspondence, or did you
find the data elsewhere?
I can poke around and see if I have some
re http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/343inexplicableclaims.shtml
You report that Violante wrote:
For the three points in the plot, we have:
0.35E+16, very close to 0.1E+16 (not well drawn
in the plot) and 0.50 E+16 atoms respectively
He had answered your question, but you asked
holocene Clovis culture impact disaster? expert Vance T Holliday talk 5:30 pm
Monday Feb 1 $ 12 at Hotel Santa Fe, Paseo de Peralta at Cerrillos Road -- many
impact air bursts near Odessa crater: Rich Murray 2010.02.01
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm
Monday, February 1, 2010
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Nevertheless, the paper does show reasonable agreement with what
would be expected from d-d fusion, except for the obvious fact that
simple d-d fusion is hardly considered a reasonable hypothesis by
anyone. What is more to the point is a hypothesis that the fuel for
I smell a scam. Compute compute Eye Kearumba. The one way to prove over
unity is to get rid of the battery. Replace the battery with a capacitor
to supply a few seconds of storage if necessary and close the loop.
Frank Z
At 06:59 PM 2/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Nevertheless, the paper does show reasonable agreement with what
would be expected from d-d fusion, except for the obvious fact that
simple d-d fusion is hardly considered a reasonable hypothesis by
anyone. What is more to
On 02/01/2010 04:25 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
That juxtaposition of fusion, generate energy, and rubidium 85
doesn't sound right.
That's quite true - including the little problem of rubidium not being a
boson.
OTOH - many things
If this is what I think it is, it's very cool, and also moderately well
documented and reasonably well known (at least in some circles).
If I haven't got this mixed up with something else, this is the event
which is believed (by some) to have reset the carbon 14 clocks in a
lot of material in
E-mail from Stephen Lawrence, edited letter from Lomax and correction
posted last night to NET blog comments:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=113#comments
At 02:25 PM 2/1/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/01/2010 01:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Unless it's fusion. With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any
fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the condensate,
immediately. Energetic particles could be created that
At 07:11 PM 2/1/2010, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
I smell a scam. Compute compute Eye Kearumba. The one way to prove
over unity is to get rid of the battery. Replace the battery with a
capacitor to supply a few seconds of storage if necessary and close the loop.
Ah, but they will respond
http://www.roaldhoffmann.com/pn/modules/Downloads/docs/
An_Unusual_State_of_Matter.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/ykmwoxe
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
25 matches
Mail list logo
