I've been thinking on potential fields again myself. So odd to think an
electrostatic scalar field could travel instantaneously, but there's some
argument for it, and seemingly some experimental evidence, and potentials
are WEIRD. Just look at Ahranov-Bohm Effect.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM,
Has been pretty busy for a while now...I think it's OK to have it slow down
a bit, no? Forums aren't the healthiest of outlets sometimes...
2014-11-12 14:46 GMT-05:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com:
... everybody except me
LOL. That brings me quite a bit of satisfaction actually...what a useful
expenditure of the public coffers...
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings Vortex-L
Higggs and the Gone Particle:
Wow. TYVM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:37 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Energy is not conserved
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
quote
I like to think that, if I were not a professional cosmologist, I would
still find it hard to
I enjoy the general spirit of this tangent, and encourage it, but I think
comparisons w/ Rossi don't make any real sense beyond the fact both topics
are still considered fringe.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
Its a slow day... why not talk top secret
Right James. I think his work is very interesting. I'm interested to know
when someone finally digs into it w/ some technical background and can see
what is good, and what is bad, about it.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A particularly intriguing notion
) and common sense. Still, he's not far off the
track because of the close connection between the speed of light and the
ultimate discrete motion -- the imaginary logic value or oscillation, which
is a simple case of complex.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com
I'd wager this isn't a terribly important critique, considering it's on a
guys blog and at-a-glance not even approaching the authority of a white
paper. If I had to guess, I'd gamble this has been either implicitly or
explicitly covered elsewhere somewhere in the literature. The thing about
, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd wager this isn't a terribly important critique, considering it's on a
guys blog and at-a-glance not even approaching the authority of a white
paper. If I had to guess, I'd gamble this has been either implicitly or
explicitly covered elsewhere somewhere
*Correction: Not ELFORSK, EPRI
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years
ago in the old ELFORSK report, we already know that might be an ambiguous
result, and what does it have to do
Thanks for the clarification Jed. Easy to misunderstand the 3%.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years
ago in the old [EPRI] report, we already
I don't believe that so much money is being dumped into Rossi/Cold
Fusion that we should compare it to the parasitism of the hot fusion
industry. Lockheed is an established,
billion-dollar-a-year military-industrial-complex mainstay -- how can you
possibly compare/conflate the two? Yeah let's
Pretty sick...bless this neo-liberal free market nightmare we find
ourselves enmeshed in.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yup. This has often been in the Japanese news. The
This is sort of a microcosm of 89' all of again in terms of skepticism. The
excess heat is almost undoubtedly real, but let's make it about the
integrity of nuclear product measurements. Pomp is doing the same red
herring shit that Hueizenga, Close, Parker, etc. engaged in.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014
Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our
collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes
on this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts
is actually a big deal and necessary I think.
John
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014
Can't wait to not read Krivit's laser-sharp analysis.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/10/12/rossi-handles-samples-in-alleged-independent-test-of-his-device/
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least
impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a
nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty
obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a
sure-thing. If
and know it's likely true to a point.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least
impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a
nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding
wrote:
http://coldfusionnow.org/transmutation-of-nuclear-waste-lenr-spawar-navy-patent/
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
*Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.*
It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because
we've never, ever
bother?
I think there are good reasons to be bullish now, but I agree some
skepticism is always warranted.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the link, but again, I'm not really arguing over the patent,
that's beside the point. I'm just saying
Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was
open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between
the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have
avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much
Axil -- I don't think it's fair to keep pointing at Storms as the only one
who discounts transmutation as the mechanism -- he's only
the most vocal. There are many non-vocal, well-qualified people in the
community who don't believe it either. It's the main reason so many people
reject Widom-Larsen
developed.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Axil -- I don't think it's fair to keep pointing at Storms as the only
one who discounts transmutation as the mechanism -- he's only
the most vocal. There are many non-vocal, well-qualified people in the
community
they published this report. They were under no obligation to do
so. We are beggars and beggars cannot be choosers.*
I get you. I agree.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being
believe DGT is now well
funded. Yes as exceptional scientists and system engineers they have
developed a tool for transmutation analysis. And when DGT soon emerges from
the dark, they will take away Rossi's candy both theoretically and
commensally...so sad.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Foks0904
I find it funny that anonymous GoatGuy is literally one of the best-read
skeptics out there and get's so much play, but in my view he deserves it
because he's pretty good and the skeptical community generally sucks.
Still don't think his objections discredit the report, but I wouldn't mind
seeing
Thanks Harry.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:44 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
A statement about the report in Swedish and English on the Elforsk website:
http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/
Harry
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
I'll second your opinion Alan.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html
* Without a decent hypothesis at least, a paper is not scientific. *I
strongly disagree with that. It's
It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here.
COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and
Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed
significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated
by
Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi,
Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to
me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside
job?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote
Aha. Thanks torulf.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:43 AM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote:
Levi, Essen, and company have made the chalorimetry, look down in the
paper, there are more reports made by other people.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:34:19 -0400, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also
Yeah exactly...that's going to be the pseudo-skeptical talking-point that
get's hammered home till we all want to puke.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
not 6 month... the longitudinal hair cutters will say Rossi lied !
moreover it was done by LEVI,
of a
lithium neutron transfer has been seen with another host, one which could
lead to this result – and it will carry the day - but that could take a few
weeks.
Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved.
*From:* Foks0904
Also wasn't this supposed to have been
What does that indicate about the reaction to you Bob?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
The report cites the fuel as a combination of LiAlH4 and Ni + Fe. It
appears the Ni is treated with an Fe catalyst as I surmised - this is the
powder I have
?
_
From: Jones Beene
From: Foks0904
This is probably not going to be the
instant
bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent
scientists that we had
are not required to sustain the reaction.
Bob Higgins
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
What does that indicate about the reaction to you Bob?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
The report cites the fuel as a combination
– and it will carry the day - but that could take a few
weeks.
Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved.
*From:* Foks0904
Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi,
Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters
Is this in reference to the test where Rossi drove the E-Cat to Sweden and
the core casing was cracked? They glued it back together best they could,
it came unglued halfway through, and they figured there was no
reaction/excess heat as a result, but they checked the ash to be sure. If
this is the
While I am hopeful and optimistic about the report, I am sometimes
pessimistic about its potential impact on the outsider public. For
example, hasn't Mills' gotten a fair amount of
independent/quasi-independent verification on certain aspects of his theory
(certainly the excess heat), yet no real
of 6, but either can be engineered as closed-loop, or infinite COP.
Yes that is something I've been curious about for awhile. You have added to
that understanding.
John
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Foks0904
I would be much happier if David
What's also strange about Steve Jones is that he has been at the center of
the 9-11 debate over thermite being used to bring down buildings. It
seems he's both status quo on cold fusion, but insanely anti-status quo on
9-11 Truth. Bizarre? Or am I crazy one? I draw no conclusions about any of
Jones, interesting, what's your interpretation of this?
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*Of interest: *
*BRIEF HISTORY OF COLD FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY Secondary title:
*
*PIEZONUCLEAR FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY *
*By BYU
That would be awesome.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones, interesting, what's your interpretation of this?
Jeeze, 904, don't you get it: Steve Jones . . . Jones Beane
I appreciate respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will
reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on
a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the
same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium
thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear
physics - is that the helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons
to helium-4.
Jones
*From:* Foks0904
I appreciate respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will
reveal something of real value moving forward
away from the faith-based nonsense you are
spouting here, the only thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear
physics - is that the helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons
to helium-4.
Jones
*From:* Foks0904
I appreciate respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new
and be
condescending if you so choose.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Foks0904
And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you
shill for Mill's work)
You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what you
Are you serious? What a joke. Get a thicker skin Axil.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.
From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own
reality tunnels
-and-fourths, and that means I'm on some mission to perform hatchet
jobs on each and every one of you? You are delusional at best.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.
From: Foks0904 on me - Even
It's findings like this that have lead some people to the same conclusion:
Multiple reaction pathways are taking place in one system (a cocktail of
sorts). As a result, we see perpetual conflation of the FP Heat Effect
(aka radiationless cold fusion) w/ whatever unusual hot fusion effect is
being
Jones -- Posting private correspondences is a quasi-childish thing to do,
something Krivit specializes in. You're not blowing the lid off some
amazing story. I'm pretty sure that's also how Krivit rationalized every
distasteful decision he's made.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene
Thanks for posting Jones. Very interesting. I would indeed enjoy more
exploration of COP, which is both misunderstood or misapplied, which I too
am guilty of. I've heard David French's explanation for why certain
criteria need to be met to meet commercial viability, but your thinking
process
Interestingly, David French stated at the ICCF18 synthesis panel that the
requirements for a viable commercial product are as follows: (1) COP 6-10
~ (2) Temperatures exceeding 200F and preferably achieving 600F + to
produce economically viable electricity. Any thoughts?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at
It appears to me cosmological speculations are getting more more
pseudoscientific. I can't imagine I'm the only one here who believes so.
Also, why would we trust the speculations/projections of Stephen Hawking
necessarily? He has proven himself to be a horrible futurist/oracle in the
past. He
LeClair's experiments produce all sorts of nasty radiation. All he's doing
is achieving hot fusion at room temperature with laser-induced
cavitation. There is some suggestion that jet-ejecting bubbles near the
surface, in certain contexts, can act as a cold fusion catalyst of sorts,
but they are
in spark discharge.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
LeClair's experiments produce all sorts of nasty radiation. All he's
doing is achieving hot fusion at room temperature with laser-induced
cavitation. There is some suggestion that jet-ejecting bubbles near
There seems to be a lot of focus on McKubre without any reference to
Miles-Bush @ China-Lake U of Texas, DeNino @ ENEA, Arata -- amongst
around a dozen others. The SRI, China Lake, ENEA work is the most
extensive/thorough. Are there possible holes in the SRI work? Sure. But the
broad body of
as a predictable reaction on the milliwatt
level, then how does one explain that when the experimenter tries to go
robust with the gain, as in the recent case of Mizuno’s incredible demo –
the helium disappears?
*From:* Foks0904
There seems to be a lot of focus on McKubre without any
I think you should have talked more about how Ed Storms is wrong and how
you are right.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's get right down to the study of antennas and *Antenna Basics*.
Suppose one day you're walking down the street and a kind but
but with a little adjustment
Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent
voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then
others may follow.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
And you seem to have some
and reputation. Whatever Ed says about me does not stick.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Axil -- You're all over the place. Seriously. Ed's theory has been
peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white
paper at ICCF-18. I'd
] into the environment along a plane perpendicular to
the direction of flow.
Vortex is the wacky overunity devices study group. I did not expect such
things to become a personal hobby, or to take such pleasure in some of the
doodads.
Eric
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com
to
the direction of flow.
Vortex is the wacky overunity devices study group. I did not expect such
things to become a personal hobby, or to take such pleasure in some of the
doodads.
Eric
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38
, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT
colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with
MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough
for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt
of superferromagnetism
and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same phenomenon.
He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement error -
noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment.
*From:* Alan Fletcher
Foks0904 wrote:
I'm sure many of you
in
Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree
with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash
at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree
with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements
from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot
of respect for his views
the
way as an inappropriate analogy.
The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which
results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs
mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of
material.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904
with the sedimentation of
material.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I
see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity
electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate
with the sedimentation of
material.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I
see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity
electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate
happens during a spark discharge, there is no slit
involved unless you use this as an analogy for the production of
nano-particles.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing
it elsewhere
27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
*it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent
structures can become stable *
There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended
I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT
colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with
MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough
for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous
I can't comment too much on the technical side, but personally I think the
work is quite interesting if not a little obscure. I think it's appreciated
by certain people in the field for its novel creation of x-ray like
emissions, and I think it does likely provide an important piece to the
puzzle.
There is some evidence for it, not all of it altogether unambiguous but
interestingly suggestive. I think theorists have long anticipated some
solution to DM, mostly involving WIMPS, so I suppose there would atleast be
some fertile ground for the idea of a dark ground state to grow. In that
case
, then it lends
credibility to his theory that the down-conversion of high energy photons to
lattice phonons (fractionalization) can occur as he predicts with his
theory.
Bob H.
Foks0904 wrote:
I think Hagelstein draws on Karabuts work as well
What parameter is limiting the downshift exactly? Ahern has speculated
that ferromagnetic collective modes, first explored by Ulam, are at play in
LENR. These systems tend to amplify the vibratory modes of a system and
then tend to localize energy in a coherent fashion -- seemingly in
violation of
Wasn't Graneau basically using acoustic principles to time his pulses and
engineer their intensity to break atomic bonds -- thereby producing his
exploding water?
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley
Axil -- What about systems that don't make use of a cold plasma that
generate excess heat? Are these illusory?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Chemical effects to modify the spin of hydrogen is a doorway through which
the LENR reaction must pass before
for
proton emissions..
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Axil -- What about systems that don't make use of a cold plasma that
generate excess heat? Are these illusory?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Chemical effects
direction the community embarks on
for the next decade.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, interesting. I'm glad to see you have put forward some testable
predictions. Ed's theory also puts forward some testable predictions, which
is important. I think
as far as I'm concerned, even Mills' -- except that it
produces excess heat.
Regards.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: Foks0904
I'm glad to see you have put forward some testable
predictions. Ed's theory also puts
, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Foks0904
As you're alluding to, the tritium production is miniscule. Tritium is
produced in an alternative reaction pathway in Ed's model, not the main,
and it can't be produced by the same reaction producing neutrons (which Ed
...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Foks0904 .
…But in many cases, under the umbrella of a general process, such as
traditional nuclear reactions, despite the difference, the different
isotopes all tend to follow the same general script in terms of how a
reaction path progresses and generates
explain away these problems. Please give be a shot at that.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
OK...you sort of lost me. What are you getting at exactly? It doesn't
contradict what I wrote in the slightest. Yeah, fermions bosons play
different roles in nuclear
of vortex posters like to imply.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Foks0904
OK...you sort of lost me. What are you getting at exactly? It doesn't
contradict what I wrote in the slightest. Yeah, fermions bosons play
different roles in nuclear process
there will be
during the big reveal. But no one is willing to take that path. I want more
target so I am not the only one. Any volunteers?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
I know you can explain them away. That's not much of an accomplishment.
Are you going to take
.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for a bit about your background, I appreciate that. But you still
have two more to go before the toll is paid I'm afraid.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I will pay your price so
of leaps of
faith assumptions that I don't think are yet born out by experiment.
I could help you go through those many experiments one at a time.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Axil, don't misunderstand, I have definitely read reference material
Thanks for the comment Jojo. I think you make a fair point(s).
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a
nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle, a
nano-this and
by interstellar
dust as the substrate that is 10 parsecs in diameter.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the comment Jojo. I think you make a fair point(s).
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote
the magnetic field is weak, virtual particle production catalyzed by
the magnetic field will cause alpha particle ejection from the material in
the reaction zone of the magnetic field.
I have references for all this stuff if you need to be convinced.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Foks0904
of RF interference with their
test equipment and computers. This is caused by nuclear magnetic resanance
active elements that convert magnetic energy to very intense radio waves.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Axil -- How is a plasmon condensate
OK, so these papers are basically saying hot fusion/fission is occurring in
these nano-plasmon environments, right? Now the trick of course is proving
that a coherent BEC state, that links together a phase-coherent
quantum-system (aka soliton) then dissipates all that mass energy through
systemic
mechanical blockade that makes sure no
one NAE get more energy than the others.
When there is no BEC formed, a gamma is produced by the sole NAE and the
NAE is destroyed. A LENR system that produces gamma is eating itself up and
will soon fail.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Foks0904 . foks0
as viewed by a infrared camera shows that a BEC has not formed. I has
seen this video. If no hot spots are seen in the lattice of the reactor,
then a BEC has formed.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so these papers are basically saying hot fusion
to the nano strutures.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Axil -- this sounds a bit similar to Widom-Larsen's magic gamma shield.
Maybe there is evidence for energy distribution in a BEC polariton system
-- but these are observed only outside LENR systems
. In a hot system, the BEC dissipates after the reactions have
stopped so it will still protect against after life gamma's. When Rossi ran
his systems cold with little dipole electron production, he did see gammas
at shutdown.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
How
-death. If true, this would certainly have revolutionary
implications for the next generation of radiation shielding, right? How can
you experimentally prove such a thing?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
So this how can we experimentally prove this hypothesis
the same temperature, they have the same energy, they are the some particle.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
You lost me there. It must be because, like Jones said, I don't
understand QM.
As far as I was aware, if we are talking about the same experiment
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
