Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that
the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting
was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT
everything's clear.
If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded
Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickelFran--
The slow neutron idea is not mine, its Godes’s idea or at least as professed by
his patent application:
United States Patent Application 20150371723
Kind Code:
A1
Abstract:
A treatment of a possibly powdered, sintered, or
On this special day in LENR history, it’s time to step back and look at the
big picture. When you are trying to find your way, it's good to know what
road that you are on.
The road to LENR goes through high pressure physics. This specialized field
is a very difficult one because the means to
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-23-2016-27-years-of-lenr-history.html
The Good Years of LENR have just started, you will be amazed
by what comes... on more ways.
I bet!
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Bob, that’s an interesting theory.. wasn’t over abundant copper one of the
anomalous Rossi claims?
Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickelNi-64 + neutron =
Ni-65. Ni-65 (natural decay 2.5 hr to Cu-65 via a beta – emission.)
It only takes a regular H to react with a electron to form a slow neutron.
Analysis of Cu isotopes (before and after) is warranted relative to
Another error in an ongoing comedy. I had intended the link to be this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDAeJ7eLGGg
Harry
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
> Jones, is it not true that none of ue here at Vortex has invested in Rossi?
> If that is
Jones, is it not true that none of ue here at Vortex has invested in Rossi?
If that is true then we can hardly be even upset about what he says.
In which way do we have the right to point finger at Rossi?
Even if some of his doing and saying is incorrect and he has done that to
protect his IP or
I'm not sure about stimulate decay by Neutron spallation of these very stable
nuclei as this would require huge energies normally associated with high energy
particle collisions, (unless those energies can be reached by accumulation or
resonance somehow). I guess this is your point also.
I do
HLV: "The stimulated decay of 64Ni should be accompanied by neutrons and/or
radioactivity. If it decayed directly to 62Ni this would generate detectable
neutrons and other radioactive isotopes. On the other hand if 64Ni decayed
to 62Ni by first decaying to 63Ni, then 63Ni should be detectable
10 matches
Mail list logo