There is a long way to go yet. Dr. Szilard patented the nuclear reaction
back in the 1930s. These was a lot to do after that point in nuclear energy
development.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> If Kim et al have now explained CF then there is nothing left for me to
> say o
If Kim et al have now explained CF then there is nothing left for me to say
on this subject.
Harry
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
> What I have understood is that momentum conservation is a shortcut,
> uncounscious to "free space" physicists. It mean "gamma" as one particle
What I have understood is that momentum conservation is a shortcut,
uncounscious to "free space" physicists. It mean "gamma" as one particle to
compensate momentum.
In lattice, momentum can be dissipated in many way, moreover particles are
so bound to other particle that the allowed change/excitat
In the standard model, E=MC2, and the neutrino account for the Energy and
momentum conservation.
The same rules apply for LENR. If something does not add up, just add a new
field like the Higgs or the Higgs boson. Or maybe super-symmetric particles
might be required. Maybe LENR will require the di
Another thing I find puzzling is why Kim appends the phrase "in free space"
to momentum conservation.
I thought conservation of momentum was a universal law, which
means it suppose to apply everywhere under any circumstances.
For example James Clerk Maxwell made sure his theory of
electromagnetism
ah... pet theories...
(most french knowing english, and reciprocal should die of laughing).
(fr:pet= en:fart)
2013/6/8 Alan Fletcher
> > From: "Alain Sepeda"
> > Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2013 12:46:32 PM
>
> > 3- you should find linear tracks of cows running to take-off
>
> Bull feathers!
>
>
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
The third section is titled "Concealed nuclear products". Notice he says
> concealed rather than non-existent which suggests to me he is considering
> the possibility, however improbable, that the products are present but have
> been disguised,
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
>
>> It seems to me if he was certain they were impossible he would
>> have explicitly mentioned violation of conservation of momentum/energy
>> since
>> modern physics considers that imp
> From: "Alain Sepeda"
> Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2013 12:46:32 PM
> 3- you should find linear tracks of cows running to take-off
Bull feathers!
3A : Cows just blow up with Methane and float away like a balloon.
3B : Cows fill with methane (as in 3A) .. but it is expelled through their rear
en
Ah ah 8-)
sorry I'm only an engineer...
by the good example of how patho-skeptics deny critics !
2013/6/8 Roger Bird
> No cow ever shits bull shit. They always shit cow shit. Therefore your
> reasoning is flawed.
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>> Those miracles
No cow ever shits bull shit. They always shit cow shit. Therefore your
reasoning is flawed.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
> Those miracles could be translated in Cowboy language :
>
> People who have seen animal in the sky are drunk because
>
> 1- no cow have wing
> 2- e
Those miracles could be translated in Cowboy language :
People who have seen animal in the sky are drunk because
1- no cow have wing
2- even with wings flying cows would dump bullshit and you will find some
on the roofs
3- you should find linear tracks of cows running to take-off
This what cowbo
Quantum Mechanics allows for things to happen that are contrary to every
viewpoint of reality and common sense.
What happens inside an NI/H reactor is not of this universe. It is
understandable that people living in this universe to rejects the LENR
universe.
Even outstanding true believer scient
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Does he classify them as miracles because he considers them impossible
> or extremely improbable?
>
My impression only, but he seems to use the term "miracle" to highlight
what is in his view fanciful thinking on the part of the researchers
of
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> Thanks. Take your time, but it would be nice to read the source.
>>
>
> The headings that set out the three "miracles" in his book are (pp.
> 111-13):
>
>1. Fusion-rate miracle
>
I wrote:
For (2), he's talking about how you'd have to significantly decrease the
> rate of the d+d→3He+p and d+d→t+n branches, which are normally ~50 percent
> each
>
Typo -- that should read, "d+d→3He+n and d+d→t+p branches."
Eric
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Thanks. Take your time, but it would be nice to read the source.
>
The headings that set out the three "miracles" in his book are (pp. 111-13):
1. Fusion-rate miracle
2. Branching-ratio miracle
3. Concealed-nuclear-products miracle
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
If He took off by itself, how fast would it be moving?
>
> Detecting and measuring the speed of He particles
> would be a way checking for a conservation of momentum violation.
>
As an amateur following the field, this is my favorite working hy
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> > From: "Harry Veeder"
> > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:29:30 PM
>
> > Somebody with a copy of Huizenga's book could this settle this issue
> > quickly.
>
> I have an early edition (he revised it later) but it's in my office
> and I wo
If He took off by itself, how fast would it be moving?
Detecting and measuring the speed of He particles
would be a way checking for a conservation of momentum violation.
harry
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM, wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:15:46 -0400:
> H
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:15:46 -0400:
Hi,
If particle emission doesn't relieve the excited nucleus of its energy (#2),
then some other means is required. If that is not gamma emission (and the gammas
are clearly absent), then the assumption appears to be that the 4
> From: "Harry Veeder"
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:29:30 PM
> Somebody with a copy of Huizenga's book could this settle this issue
> quickly.
I have an early edition (he revised it later) but it's in my office and I
won't be there until early next week.
Either Kim incorrectly quotes Huizenga's book or the second ( and more
popular?)
version misrepresents Huizenga's three miracles.
Somebody with a copy of Huizenga's book could this settle this issue
quickly.
Harry
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> Probbably Huizenga himsel
Yes.
From: Roarty, Francis X
Does Rydberg redundancy explanation (redundant electron ground state) = IRH?
Fran
From: Jones Beene
In contrast, the only miracle required for a version of the Rydberg redundancy
explanation (redundant electron ground state) is that it happens at
Jones
Does Rydberg redundancy explanation (redundant electron ground
state) = IRH?
Fran
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
In
In contrast, the only miracle required for a version of the Rydberg redundancy
explanation (redundant electron ground state) is that it happens at all… since
everything else is standard physics.
… or stated another way – it would be a miracle in itself if the experimental
proof offered (pred
Probbably Huizenga himself has used different variants,
this is like folklore. I confees I have not read the Huizenga
and Taubes books, have seen them when visting at Gene Mallove's
office in 1998 but I was not too interested- they were discussed over and
over.
Peter
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:15 P
are'nt gamma the way to compensate momentum ?
and neutron the expected nuclear products?
by the way I appreciate the way yeong kim explain why lattice is not free
space :
"even though I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering
theory at positive energies cannot directly be appli
Peter,
Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are:
(1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * *
(2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.)
(3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space
In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like th
Yeong is a great scientist and he is very generous and friendly. And he
has great courage and takes responsibilty- he is an authority in two fields
of physics and even more. You can now find all his papers at the iste of
his University mentioned in the Interview.. His presenation at ICCF-18 will
be
Great interview Peter (and response to Mary). Thank you for sharing with us. As
i started learning about the LENR field Dr. Kim's papers were some of the first
I ever came across and as an amateur I did not fully comprehend a majority of
what i read but never the less enjoyed reading them all th
Thanks for the clarification.
-mi
From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:42 PM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
No dear Mark, this is a modest blog, an average of 150 views per day
I don't wa
es; Lewan Mats; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Mobberley;
> Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steven Krivit; Sunwon Park;
> Tsirlin, Mark; vlad; VORTEX
> *Subject:* [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
>
> ** **
>
> *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a vete
Unfortunately, even though Y E Kim engaged with me in the past, he seems to
have chosen not to engage on this particular subject, wherein his theory is
given a leg up.
Kevin O'Malley
May 27 (10 days ago)
to Yeong
Hello Dr. Kim:
It would seem that your BEC theory has gotten yet another leg up. I
; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko
Lietz; jeff aries; Lewan Mats; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Mobberley; Pierre
Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steven Krivit; Sunwon Park; Tsirlin,
Mark; vlad; VORTEX
Subject: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed
> From: "Peter Gluck"
> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:14:45 PM
>
> Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed : a veteran finally gets optimistic
> following a technological breakthrough.
> Please see:
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html
A great interview ... and excellent news a
*Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following
a technological breakthrough.
Please see:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
37 matches
Mail list logo
