Yes. I assume that you refer to drive for an operating ECAT compared to a
dummy model. Is this what you are pointing out? The numbers speak for
themselves. An inactive ECAT dummy will have a COP of 1 and this has no
bearing upon what happens to an active one driven high enough to generate
That is not true. My analysis applies to any waveform at the wall socket. The
diode just causes DC and harmonics to flow. They do not influence the final
outcome. Take time to do the calculation yourself and you will realize that
what I am saying is true. Why the endless repetitions?
No separate DC power source is necessary if Duncan's diode fudge is used.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:09 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power
measurments
On
The thermal scanning adjusts calculated temperature based on emissivity. You
can't adjust it twice, that is what Motil did. That is nonsense. It was also
tested (emissivity that is) and it wasn't similar to a metal. You were right
to ignore the output side. By even suggesting it Motil and
Wouldn't harmonics show on the power analyzer?
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info wrote:
With chopped DC, a clamp on ammeter will show the AC component. So if you
had 0 to 1 amp chopped, the ammeter would show 0.5 amps peak AC. So you get
a partial reading,
No. Good grief. You seem to have a Ph.D. in furious misunderstanding.
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes. I assume that you refer to drive for an
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
No separate DC power source is necessary if Duncan's diode fudge is used.
Yes, but the point is that you'd need to intentionally tamper with the
mains to pull it off, i.e., it implies fraud, if I'm understanding the
diode
Come on Andrew. You need to research your old books on control theory. Where
are you mounting that fixed voltage output thermocouple you speak of? The last
time I checked the output depended upon the temperature to which it is
subjected.
Since your thermocouple will change readings as the
You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm
willing to buy that, because they do spend some time in the report on its
characterisation. Nevertheless, my point, theoretical though it may be, still
stands.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Randy Wuller
No, this is wrong. It's not so simple.
The imager measures power and converts to temperature using the emissivity.
Then to convert to power, you use the emissivity again, so in a first
approximation, it's a wash.
The reason it's not a wash in the 2 examples in the paper (e = .8 and e =
.95)
I guess the concept of a temperature-compensated reference voltage is a brand
spanking new idea for you, old chum.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature
The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on converting
radiance into a corresponding temperature and that camera has a setting
for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher temperature.
Levi the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most
You are back to the scam by DC supply trick. Of course, that is different than
the other diode issue that has been shown to be in error.
I do not want to take up any more of the vortex bandwidth explaining these to
you. I beg forgiveness of the vortex members for making so many posts and
A lower emissivity setting gives a higher temperature, yes, but then on
calculating power, the lower emissivity gives lower power. This should be a
wash, except for corrections to the limited wavelength range that the
camera measures. Whether this correction favors higher power or not is far
from
Yes Berke. The power meter will show the harmonics and include them as part of
the RMS current reading. The pf figure effectively neglects them and
concentrates upon the fundamental component which is the important one when
calculating input power.
Dave
-Original Message-
From:
You are correct Eric. For some reason the skeptics amoung us do not want to
understand this issue. I suspect that it is some form of game they are playing.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 3:38
Thanks Jones. Good to know that I had it right all along. I was the first here
to assert that Motl had it backwards. So, apparently, does Ekstrom.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:44 PM
Subject: RE:
Who would have known the metronomes are bosons and that they could form a
BEC?
Eric
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
And in more complex systems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs
Does this apply to items of current
I'm putting the Optris calculations into a spreadsheet -- the following is
documentation of the formulae used in readable form
From the Optris IR Basics documentation (Page 7)
There are 3 cases:
1. Pulse ON state, 35% of the time. COP=1 during this time
2. Pulse OFF state, 65% of the time. COP 1 during this time
3. Dummy, power ON 100% of the time. COP = 1.
#1 implies that behaviour is per dummy (i.e. just like a resistor), even for an
active device under power.
Yes, Hall effect clamps are readily available, I am not disputing that.
They used to suffer from drift problems, but these problems have pretty
much been solved. The one that you show has a 3% accuracy and 8 digits
of drift - not bad.
The only info I have about Rossi came from a single post
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Who would have known the metronomes are bosons and that they could form a
BEC?
Note the one, second row right, 180 degrees out of phase when all
others are synced. Eventually forced into phase.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check
out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know
how it
OK, I will tackle this problem head-on using the Socratic method in stages.
First, consider a wire carrying 100 amps of direct current, plus one amp
of pure sinusoidal AC current at 60Hz. What is the AC component of the
current?
Duncan
P.S. Don't worry, we will get to the diode later.
On
Keep in mind the possibility that the value of n depends on the wavelength,
and therefore presumably on the final calculated temperature, and so an
iterative procedure may be needed. In other words, the comparison will not
be between 2 emissivities for the same n, but for different n's, and the
See:
http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/criticism-praise-and-comments-on-the-swedish-italian-e-cat-report/
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on
converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has
a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher
temperature.
** **
Levi the
Although it is true that the DC component of voltage is 0, the DC
component of current is not. Since the current is non-sinusoidal, it is
not possible to analyze it using only the fundamental frequency. This is
the whole issue of power supply design.
Consider an old-school power supply using
Andrew,
It is worth of comment. You haven’t been paying attention apparently… probably
due to an imbalance of the ratio between posting vs. listening.
There is a common phenomenon in LENR known as temperature ratcheting. Other
names are used.
And yes, the “magic” does seem to occur
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy.
Check out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
There are 3 cases:
1. Pulse ON state, 35% of the time. COP=1 during this time
No, it is probably higher, but it cannot be measured with certainty because
we do not know the recovery rate. (This is not a calorimeter.)
2. Pulse OFF state, 65% of the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on
converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has
a setting for blackbody emissivity,
If you do not understand what I have already written then it is not going to
help to go over it again. I leave this discussion by asking you one pertinent
question. Where do you think the power comes from that ends up in the
resistor? There is only one source and it is the AC mains. Power
Yes, I noticed that too Terry. Right most column, 2nd row.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 1:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Synchronization
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always
positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given
quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at lower
emissivity like 0.2.
This is an
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm
willing to buy that . . .
Then you completely misunderstand. In the first test, the number is
*not*trustworthy. It is arbitrary. It is set to the lowest possible
value.
In the second
On May 27, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
And in more complex systems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs
Does this apply to items of current interest?
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
Yes, I noticed that too Terry. Right most column, 2nd row.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
Eric Walker wrote:
Who would have known the metronomes are bosons and that they could
form a BEC?
Note the one, second row right, 180
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e
(emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
[2]. The lower value would
obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1.
He has this
Andrew, remember the cop is a conservative estimate so it is just a
coincidence that the numbers happen to have those ratios.
Harry
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon
which nobody else
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the
e (emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
The emissivity for stainless steel
Jed:
More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!!
Answer:
- he did not read the report, or just skimmed it.
- on the emissivity point, he borrowed the basis of the argument from
someone else
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a
coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3,
but constant feeding would yield COP=1?
No, it is not a coincidence. The red curve is normalized to fit the graph.
An interesting point worth pursuing, at some point - is what nickel alloy has a
Curie point in the range of the HotCat core, and is also known to be active
with hydrogen? Is there a high temperature alloy with high CP which is also
hexavalent?
The common alloys for high temperature Curie
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always
positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given
quantitatively. The paper does not
Why this hangup about fundamental components? I can extract current from
an AC waveform any way I want. Switched mode power supplies usually do
this at 20kHz or so, even though the fundamental component is 60Hz.
But you are right about one thing - we may as well end this discussion.
It is
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 06:58:29 -0600:
Hi Ed,
[snip]
It apparently
results from D+H+e fusion, which was proposed as early as 1996 based
on the effect of the D/H ratio.
Could you explain how the effect of D/H ratio proves that this is the mechanism?
Regards,
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
ae Tc Tk P
area 18 1.00E-100.8 564.1 837.1
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Jed:
More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!!
Since it's painted, it doesn't make any difference what was painted.
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM
And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
a e Tc Tk P
area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 === lower e OVER-estimates the power
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e
(emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
[2]. The lower value would
obviously yield
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM
And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
a e Tc Tk P
Hi,
On 27-5-2013 20:44, Andrew wrote:
The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by
specifying 3-phase input to the control box. Normal single-phase
input would suffice here, given the power levels.
Not necessarily, if all three phases have a balanced load, then the
current
Jed:
There are really 2 issues regarding the emissivity. When the Thermal Scanner
takes a reading it is imaging from the object. In order to convert that image
to temperature one must know the emissivity. The scanner has a formula based
on the emissivity. You are absolutely right that by
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM
And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2.
Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an
emissivity of 0.2
So Josh,
Why do you *ignore* the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the
emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant???
Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called 'experts'
who make such an obvious mistake???
RE: unknown emissivity of the paint in the December
Check out these 2 videos. It's a clear demonstration of how full power can
be transferred to a resistive load without registering current on either
clamp-on or in-line ammeters. I don't know how it's done but I suspect high
frequency, but the point is that just because I can't explain it, doesn't
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint
for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake???
Confirmation bias. ;)
Eric
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02:02 PM
I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used.
I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint,
nor it's dependence on wavelength.
Then forget about the December test.
Robin, the amount of tritium produced is sensitive to the D/H ratio,
increasing to a maximum rate as the ratio approaches 1. The maximum
rate does not occur when the ratio is exactly unity in the gas because
the reaction is controlled by the ratio in the NAE. The ratio in the
NAE is
From: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:13:36 PM
The bottom line using a different emissivity in the 2 estimates
(calculations) would be crazy and in actuality for all intents they
most likely offset each other.
See my post on the P = a . e . T^4 calculation.
2nd test it's trustworthy was the meaning
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
You're saying that the measured emissivity
I got it right first, and today, briefly, I believed Ekstrom. Then I returned
to sanity
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For people not following the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute zero.
***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM
And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2.
Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
So Josh,
Why do you **ignore** the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the
emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant???
Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
‘experts’
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a
Power from an AC source can only be extracted by the fundamental component of
that source, period.
An uneducated and completely incorrect statement like that disqualifies you, in
my view, from making any further comments about the EE aspects of this
experiment. If you do, I urge anyone
Mark,
Just to comment on your comments to the Bulk.
it obviously is quite different than the bulk, or else there would be a
big hole in the earth,instead of the tabletop!
We do get lots of large holes in the bulk, we call them sinkholes some
are very large and strange. I have been tracking
Are we talking about the bulk of theoretical physics? If so, then it's simply
everything that's not on the brane. I like to conceptualise it as an embedding
space of higher dimension than the brane we inhabit.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: ChemE Stewart
To:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
This document stands as its own rebuttal.
I think that overstates things. After reading through the comments,
Ekstrom brings up a number of details that could plausibly be remedied in
any followup test. I think we have
The report included a couple of graphs on page 27. One was power out per
their measurement, the other power in. The mere fact that the power out versus
time is clearly modulated proves that the input is not constant. The duty
cycle can also be determined from that chart. I am not sure
http://www.universetoday.com/102398/cold-fusion-experiment-maybe-holds-promise-possibly-hang-on-a-sec/
A tentative thumbs-up from the Fleischmann Memorial website. And as usual, the
comments are also interesting.
Andrew
I am not sure what Mark is referring to but I believe the core of the Earth
is a Black Brane (most likely 5 dimensions curled up), her magnetic fields
are connected 1-1 Branes(strings), our quantum gravity field contains 1-2
Branes with the Sun, which is also a larger black brane at her core.
Andrew, I tried very hard to teach you about this subject and failed miserably.
If you do not understand it after my extreme effort, then it must be beyond
your level of knowledge.
Even though I failed, you can run a spice program and see for yourself. I did
this for proof. Do you want to
ChemE and Andrew:
If you read the entire thread, you'll see my statement:
If this sort of thing is happening in or around the NAE,
whatever they turn out to be, then it could very well explain how the
Coulomb barrier is overcome...
You should both be quite familiar with the term, NAE, coined
Josh questions:
I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its
dependence on wavelength.
You could just as easily do a 30 second search and FIND THE ANSWER!
Emissivity of various materials:
Greetings Vortex-L
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/
Understandable..it will keep him safer.
Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for
emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any
range lead to an over estimation of power?
Joshua's position is that in the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings Vortex-L
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/
SPAWAR?
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is
implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in
assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation),
people are neglecting to see what
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
SPAWAR?
Emphatically not.
I do not know who it is but I am sure it isn't them.
- Jed
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
SPAWAR?
Emphatically not.
SAIC?
Probably his wife...
2013/5/27 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com
Greetings Vortex-L
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/
Understandable..it will keep him safer.
Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a BEC
forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have proposed but
not demonstrated.
Ed Storms
On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Probably his wife...
His wife has always been in charge of the business. Seriously. Assuming
this report is true, I suppose it means someone else now is.
- Jed
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
His wife has always been in charge of the business. Seriously. Assuming this
report is true, I suppose it means someone else now is.
It would be nice if it was LockMart. I have friends there.
But knowing that Rossi attaches himself to silly details, it means that the
research part of his business went to his wife, formally.
2013/5/27 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Probably his wife...
His wife has always been in charge of the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a BEC
forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have proposed but not
demonstrated.
Ed Storms
***That's because it would be difficult and
*Necessity and Incentives*
*Opening the Space Frontier*
Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space
by James Bowery, Chairman
Coalition for Science and Commerce
July 31, 1991
*Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:*
I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition
This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will
cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N
numbers of atoms.
***So if one assumes a gamma ray is emitted by a BEC cold fusion event,
eventually one could go backwards and measure the frequency
On May 27, 2013, at 7:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a
BEC forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have
proposed but not demonstrated.
What I take from this is that perhaps Rossi has finally allowed himself to
be sequestered within a business model where his exceptional talents within
the RA field will continue to be valued while simultaneously removed from
where his eccentricities and propensity to micromanage every aspect of a
Ah yes; Ni! I think I've identified the secret ingredient here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIV4poUZAQo
-- a shrubbery.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window,
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
The essential question is, Does a BEC form in any material?
***Yes, according to the 2 links I posted.
Various applications of this concept have been applied, but not to hydron
atoms.
***We both already agreed to
The polariton is a PHOTON with a negative electric Charge. The polariton is
a boson with spin = 1.
The polariton forms the BEC, it concentrates negative electric charge, and
all this has all been experimentally demonstrated.
And the polariton generates the LENR reaction.
On Mon, May
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 16:33:01 -0600:
Hi Ed,
Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
101 - 200 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
