My reports is that Luca is far from being a newcomer or a carpetbagger in
the domain.
I let people knowing who he is report the precise facts to support what
have been reported to me. Luca have a past, a good past.
this is painful to me, but the credibility of DGT compared to Luca was much
lower
Axil,
I agree but leave open the door for hybrid systems like Arata used to
pressurize an inner reactor and cause h2 bubbles to treat the lattice like a
membrane. I don’t want to give up on wet cell or at least submerged reactors
for the inherent safety and thermal transfer rate they provide.
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
I have heard rumors that Gamberale is a thief and a liar.
Well, in that case he isn't very good at being a thief and a liar, is he?
When he and his colleagues found a problem, they immediately informed their
customers and closed down the company. That is not
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Your assessment may vary, but the pluses of
[the Cravens experiment] are: that it is simple, understated, essentially
unpowered, solid state,
robust, long-running, well-constructed, and the error possibilities are
greatly reduced.
IOW it is elegant
Not a good liar. No one was able to answer my questions concerning the
inconsistencies of the report I pointed out on CMNS.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
From: Jed Rothwell
Your assessment may vary, but the pluses of [the Cravens
experiment] are: that it is simple, understated, essentially unpowered,
solid state, robust, long-running, well-constructed, and the error
possibilities are greatly
One thought provoking question, since the Cravens concept may be moving
towards commercialization as a space heater, faster than anyone suspects -
and he is using “half-and-half” - what is the realistic cost of 50/50 HD
water?
Heavy water is expensive (and controlled) but going to “reactor grade”
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Jed and Jones--
Such an MO would fit with Ed Storm’s idea of a non-nuclear source of energy.
The old physics boys may accept it. However, it
An open Craven's experiment for ~ $1000?
This is incredible news Jones and Dennis.
By self-powered, you mean room temperature (no hot plate required?)
One sphere hotter than the control?
Experimenters can change ingredients/parameters to tune the effect?
The science would really accelerate if
There is only one open question: Was this a stupid mistake, or was it
deliberate fraud? It is hard to judge, but I do not think it makes much
difference. Either way, a person would be crazy to deal with the company.
There could be another complication involved in the testing of the NiH
Brad,
This experiment is based on an alternative interpretation of the Cravens'
NI-Week demo and the availability of a low cost hydrogen storage system, a
large dose of optimism, and little more.
One hypothetical way to achieve thermal gain would be recycling through an
exothermic
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Not a good liar. No one was able to answer my questions concerning the
inconsistencies of the report I pointed out on CMNS.
I do not recall these questions, but you are not one who needs questions
answered. Defkalion needs to explain why Gamberale is
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
It is likely that Gamberale was not away of this *idiocynrocy implicate *in
the NiH reactor and his test was flawed because of it.
No, that would not apply during the calibration phase. Gamberale reported
spurious excess heat during calibration with the
Why do they need answer anything? I can see what's wrong, and there's no
need for DGT answer anything. This is what I posted:
Dear Abd,
I cannot see significant mistakes in the demo, but I can see that the
report was really awful in explaining the compatibility with the demo. And
I agree with
Note, it's been almost a month an no one answere. There is no need to DGT
clarify anything since Gambarelli did a piss poor report. They should
clarify that first.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
*Regarding the report, the first problem was that it measured with neutral
Ar and then with H2 and both yield the same high power measure. In the
demo, they had different power measures, the one with Ar, was low*
*This is a good point.*
*In the demo that I watched, I saw the neutral Ar test
I am going from memory here which could be misapplied. Anyway, DGT remarks
associated with the ICCF-18 demo regarding EMF interference leads me to the
conclusion that during the demo, DGT first became fully aware of the full
extent of the problems caused by the disruptive power that LENR related
Refreshing my memory as follows:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/topics/584
Snip
Additional information was provided, that Defkalion had seen
disruption of electronic equipment by the device, such as their phone
system being shut down; the measurements reported were
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Additional information was provided, that Defkalion had seen
disruption of electronic equipment by the device, such as their phone
system being shut down; the measurements reported were with all
shielding removed; normally, they operate the Hyperion with
more...
When the NiH reactor produces more magnetic field force than the biggest
and most powerful black hole or neutron star, we should expect some RF
interference. Testing such a device is not going to be easy.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is
This sounds like there was something wrong with the equipment and/of the
test setup. Fix the equipment and/or test setup and rerun the test.
Running a test with this anomaly ongoing puts the test result in question.
Since DGT did not rum the test, they cannot be blamed for the malfunction.
Am I
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds like there was something wrong with the equipment and/of the
test setup.
Correct.
Fix the equipment and/or test setup and rerun the test.
Yes, they should have done that, but they never did. As far as anyone
knows, they never fixed the
You can't be referring to the test I saw on the internet. To advance my
understanding and my memory, that test is still available for reference.
Can you point to where this problem is seen on the video? I don't remember
such a problem showing up.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't be referring to the test I saw on the internet.
There is only one test as far as I know. It was conducted during the ICCF
conference. It shows Hadjichristos blathering while in the background the
flow meter data shows that the test is not working.
That demo looked good to me but I am no expert. I still don't trust people
is the LENR business because you all have vested interests.
All the tests and demos run by Ross must also have been invalid because of
RF interference. One of the major challenges in the NiH reactor business is
running
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Knowledge
I found this in a comment in the New York Times, QUOTE:
As an academic, I shed no tears for publishers. In the sciences,
publishers add little to no value, passing on all the work from writing,
refereeing, editing and even typesetting to
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:25:22 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The key parameters in this exercise are the volume of the hydrogen envelope
and the maximum pressure of hydrogen in that envelope. If we were to assume
that the hydride replenished the envelope as the pressure
If anyone wants to suffer through it, it remains available:
http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US
Yes indeed, thank you Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l
In a system that uses only temperature as a control mechanism(Rossi), what
the hydrogen system needs is negative feedback in the hydrogen system to
counteract reactor meltdown. This might be provided through the use of a
small internally sealed hydrogen storage tank controlled with a smart valve
The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: / /An Examination of the
Relationship between Observation and Explanation/ by Edmund Storms
See http://lenrexplained.com/
***So why is this book being greeted by indifference yawning by
Vorticians?
I'm still waiting to receive my copy. I'll have more to say then. I'm
guessing most haven't gotten around to it either. But generally speaking it
deserves some in-depth analysis for sure.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
wrote:
The Explanation of Low Energy
Some appetizers to hold you over
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2896450/posts
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still waiting to receive my copy. I'll have more to say then. I'm
guessing most haven't gotten around to it either. But generally
Well I suppose it couldn't hurt to start a conversation on Ed's theory in
general, as I'm sure some of us know a bit about it. He posits the hydroton
polymer-like cluster that slowly dissipates energy through
resonance-induced photon emission. The hydrogen chain forms in the
Nuclear Active
I just received my copy of Ed's new book and I am reading it now. Too early
to review, but it is hard to stop reading.
On Jul 14, 2014 8:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: / /An Examination of the
Relationship between Observation and
Dear Foks0904
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave
The Whispering gallery wave is the quantum mechanical mechanism that builds
Surface Plasmon Polaritons by absorbing all manner of electrons and photons
of light from infrared to gamma and blends them together through FANO
36 matches
Mail list logo
