Leaving aside for the moment that he was working with the controversial
Randall Mills, a professor from University of Illinois has affixed his good
name to evidence that non-chemistry-based heat is produced when a copper
hydroxide/copper bromide mixture is heated to 300C in a differential
scanning
Well, the professor should be questioned, if not chided - about what is not
seen and not reported, instead of what is seen and glossed over. This is
substandard, at best.
It is an interesting experiment BUT it is one that looks more like the Rossi
effect than Mills.
Heat is added to
Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing
support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based
on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising
that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon
It would have been interesting to see a assay of the elements present in
the sample before an after the experiment. This is a means to find out if
any transmutation resulted from the experiment. Did the gas pressure inside
the test cell increase? Was helium produced?
It would be interesting to
Perhaps the initial response was too harsh … as this could be important – but
Mills has a long history of trying to “buy” academic support for his theory, in
various subtle ways like this – with the result being that at least one
Professor was fired for not disclosing the personal contacts and
FWIW if you take a look at Dr Glumac's faculty directory page he does list
himself as a consultant for Blacklight Power. That seems to be an
out-in-the-open disclosure of contact. This guy might turn out to be a
valuable ally, would be interesting to hear from him.
Steve High
On Sun, May 25,
http://mechanical.illinois.edu/directory/faculty/glumac
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Carl High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW if you take a look at Dr Glumac's faculty directory page he does list
himself as a consultant for Blacklight Power. That seems to be an
out-in-the-open
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Was helium produced?
I do not think you could detect this, even with the best mass spectrometer
and a tightly sealed cell. Helium is ubiquitous and after strenuous efforts
to remove it, the background would probably be far higher than the amount
produced in
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I do not think you could detect this, even with the best mass spectrometer
and a tightly sealed cell. Helium is ubiquitous and after strenuous efforts
to remove it, the background would probably be far higher than the
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Just curious -- are your comments in the context of detecting helium in an
NiH experiment, or in general?
Ni-H may not even produce helium. I wouldn't know. I meant any nuclear
reaction that produces helium. The amount is tens of millions of times
Anything said or sponsored by BLP is automatically BS. There are no hydrinos.
Anyone who would entertain such an idea is ignorant of the most basic physics.
-drl
---
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin
I just read through Piantelli's recent EU patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/EP2368252B1?cl=en
It was an interesting read. The publication date on the patent is January
16, 2013, and it was given priority on November 24, 2008. I don't know
whether you'd refer to it as Piantelli's 2008 EU
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics - enough said. I don't know
which is more irritating, that mainstream people ignore the transparent reports
of telescopes and thermometers, or that self-serving narcissists invent their
own worlds and push them on those who have lost their
Soa presumably capable researcher puts hydroxy nickel in a sealed crucible,
matches it with an equal mass of indium, heats the crucibles to 300 degrees and
measures an elevated heat signature from the active crucible. This result is
invalidated because there are no hydrinos? I would prefer
A patent disclosure that, in its preferred embodiment, does not make
beneficial use practical to those skilled in the art is no patent
disclosure at all.
Attempting to define skilled in the art so narrowly that such skill can
practically be treated as a trade secret, vitiates the patent.
On
I wrote:
There is a detail in the middle of the description that was unclear -- the
patent seems to be saying that there is an energy release through mass
defect *before* the proton is ejected, as though the electrons in the H-
ion are somehow being consumed. I'm not sure what Piantelli has
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 25 May 2014 14:43:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
The application is encumbered by Piantelli's theory of H- ion orbital
capture by the substrate atoms. Here is where the application resolves the
question raised above: there are two interactions that Piantelli
From the year 852 to the present. See:
http://www.skygod.com/quotes/predictions.html
People knew a lot more than we give them credit for, and some of them were
bold indeed. We are not such visionaries making predictions about cold
fusion.
Here are a few of my favorites.
First, by the
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
This is a waste of time. The fast protons lose most of their energy ionizing
surrounding atoms. Only one in thousands will undergo a further nuclear
reaction.
Thus the original reaction must be seen as the primary energy generating
19 matches
Mail list logo
