You have done a pretty good job of beating this horse Jed. Unless the power
being delivered by the pump changes depending upon some parameter that varies
with time it should be true that the heat due to the pump is constant
throughout the duration of the experiment and balances out. I assume t
Fran, it is OK to disagree with me and I have been wrong more than enough times
to justify your feelings. There may well be some process such as you are
considering and hopefully one day it will be brought into the light.
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation tha
Let me finish beating this subject to death.
In the data Mizuno provided yesterday, you see that after 1.5 hours the
system reaches the terminal temperature of 0.5 deg C above ambient. It can
never climb higher than that, because losses equal the 0.2 W input from the
pump. In other words, at this
Die kalte Fusion - Wunsch oder Wirklichkeit?
http://www.spektrum.de/wissen/die-kalte-fusion-wunsch-oder-wirklichkeit/1315962
Reasonably good treatment, though sticking to the politically correct
theory of Widom-Larson.
Dave, I disagree but I like that you utilize the local observer becoming the
remote observer because I think Shawyer's claim of a relativistic component is
correct. Think SR, time dilation and Lorentzian contraction via vacuum
engineering instead of near C velocity. Even if the modification is o
Hi,
About Lugano test I have heard an interesting argument about the emissivity
controversy.
Someone said simply that what the IR cam measure is the IR radiation, and
that whatever is the emissivity from the IR cam result you have an estimate
of the radiated heat...
then the error in emissivity
I uploaded the slides from McKubre's presentation in Oslo:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusione.pdf
It seems to me that the reactionless type of drive does seem to violate common
sense. By this statement I mean that if we assume that internal energy is
converted into kinetic energy by using the drive then the mass of the spaceship
would appear to be different according to different observers
Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> My guess is that he plays it safe. If he supports LENR, it will be very
> quietly until the results are simply undeniable.
>
That sounds plausible. That is what I would do if I were in his place.
> With your scenario in mind, the most likely outcome is that he drops
A Trip to Norway
Michael C.H. McKubre
November 12, 2014
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue119/norway.html
Harry
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:18 PM, wrote:
> In reply to H Veeder's message of Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:27:00 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >> ?Newton's laws of motion are effectively violated unless the reaction of
> >these virtual particles can be observed in another way.
>
> ...it just means you are pushin
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM, H Veeder wrote:
>
>
>
> At least the Church never questioned Galileo's intelligence.
> Heretic yes. Moron no.
>
>
> Harry
>
> ***Sure they did. From Wikipedia:
> In 1616, an Inquisitorial commiss
Again, nice citation! I am absolutely on the same page with this author! He put
so much more eloquently my analogy of physical matter being just persistent
virtual particles that get stuck in the etheric waterfall we call our 3D plane.
He also supported the concept of vacuum engineering and a pe
Thanks Jones, very nice citations, not the OU discount of molecular bond
disassociation threshold I was suggesting but I think we both got the DCE
right! I am not sure about the Haisch-Moddel patent as prior art, their
"cavities" were .1u drilled holes and I don't believe they even mentioned
hy
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM, H Veeder wrote:
At least the Church never questioned Galileo's intelligence.
Heretic yes. Moron no.
Harry
***Sure they did. From Wikipedia:
In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosoph
15 matches
Mail list logo
