date:20220621

In reply to  Robin's message of Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:50:34 +1000:
Hi,

PS, if it goes all the way to Pb207, you get about 45 MeV in total (there are a 
few beta decays thrown in for good
measure ;).

>In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:44:38 + (UTC):
>Hi Jones,
>
>AFAIK the only Thorium isotope found in Nature is Th232, which is both an even 
>numbered element, and an even numbered
>isotope, so has no magnetic moment, hence I suspect there are no Larmor table 
>entries for it.
>IOW it doesn't preces in a magnetic field, because all the protons are paired, 
>as are all the neutrons, so their
>magnetic fields all "cancel out" - "technical term" ;^).
>U235 OTOH does, and has gyromagnetic (magnetogyric) ratio of -0.4926e7 
>radians/Tesla/sec.
>BTW, if you can get U235 to fission, you get about 200 MeV / atom. If all you 
>can trigger is alpha decay, then you get
>about 4-5 MeV / atom, for the original nucleus, plus about another 4-5 MeV for 
>any alpha decays of daughter nuclei that
>you can trigger.
[snip]
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Paul Brown's RNB

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:44:38 + (UTC):
Hi Jones,

AFAIK the only Thorium isotope found in Nature is Th232, which is both an even 
numbered element, and an even numbered
isotope, so has no magnetic moment, hence I suspect there are no Larmor table 
entries for it.
IOW it doesn't preces in a magnetic field, because all the protons are paired, 
as are all the neutrons, so their
magnetic fields all "cancel out" - "technical term" ;^).
U235 OTOH does, and has gyromagnetic (magnetogyric) ratio of -0.4926e7 
radians/Tesla/sec.
BTW, if you can get U235 to fission, you get about 200 MeV / atom. If all you 
can trigger is alpha decay, then you get
about 4-5 MeV / atom, for the original nucleus, plus about another 4-5 MeV for 
any alpha decays of daughter nuclei that
you can trigger.


> 
>
>Robin wrote:  
> 
> BTW do you have the Larmor tables for thorium in a weak field? My tables will 
> not open.
>Thorium would be a better choice than U and is available online. I suspect 
>that in a weak field the NMR resonance is going to be in the tens of MHz.
>Essentially this means that the Celani effort was inefficient at least in the 
>context of Brown. It begs to be redone using simple RF input. 
>
>Too bad Paul Brown had such a ridiculous passion for hot rod racing.
>
>
>
>
>In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 Jun 2022 14:35:12 + (UTC):Hi,
>[snip]
>
>If someone wants to see if this works, there is a small amount of Uranium in 
>granite. You could try it with a granite
>block, to see if you detect an anomaly. The magnetic field should pass 
>straight through the granite.
>Beware however that you may be exposing yourself to elevated levels of gamma 
>radiation, so a Geiger counter is
>definitely a must have.
>
>
>> Brown was not a fraud - but not shown to be correct either. He had support 
>> from experts and his detractors were often part of the "nuclear 
>> establishment" where billions were/are at stake.
>>
>>As for the tech - NMR is used all the time in other fields and that 
>>technology could be related to Brown's claims - and not too much of a 
>>stretch, since nuclear interaction is at play. The target nuclei are already 
>>wildly unstable. Larmor resonance could push some of them into decay - who 
>>knows? Maybe it is time for a relook,
>>
>>IOW the Brown claims may make sense on paper but proof or even a strong 
>>showing - is lacking.
>>
>>There was a marginally related unproved claim of radioactivity remediation 
>>(of thorium) - which is essentially what the so-called "Cincinnati group" was 
>>promoting - along with the same suspicious back story
>>... in the end... Follow the buck...
>>
>>
>>
>>    Chris Zell wrote:  
>>Could someone explain the mystery of his radioactive battery was all about? 
>>,,, Standard physics insists there is no way, no how to any convenient 
>>triggering of radioactive decay. Heat, shock, chemistry  whatever. Yet he 
>>claimed otherwise through some sort of resonance. 
>>
>>So was Brown a fraud?  
>>
>>
>> 
>>https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2114036/strange-life-and-stranger-death-paul-brown-case-another-smart-guy-doing-dumb-thing/
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>Terry Blanton wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>Paul envisioned his Nucell Resonant Nuclear Battery helping solve climate 
>>change in 1989.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please 
>>do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
>>  
>If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>  
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Paul Brown's RNB

2022-06-21 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 7:44 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Too bad Paul Brown had such a ridiculous passion for hot rod racing.
>

At least he didn't put JATOs on his Mazda.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> sounded like conspiracy theory.
>

What sounded like a conspiracy theory? What do you refer to?

As I said, not everything that sounds like a conspiracy theory, is a
conspiracy theory. Not everything that sounds implausible is false. The
Titanic disaster was caused by a whole series of unlikely events that,
taken together, sound like a third-rate pot-boiler disaster movie. Quite
unbelievable. Too much sulphur in the metal; the captain ignoring radio
warnings of ice; not enough lifeboats; a ship nearby ignoring distress
rockets and not waking up the radio operator . . . it is a long list. If
even one of the causes had been missing, no one would have died. It sounds
extremely improbable, but it happened.

> As for cold fusion -
>
>
> Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either
> pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have
> occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat measurements
> as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or controls. There
> are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are an unlikely
> explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion claims.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
>
The first sentence is correct and at the same time, idiotic. Theoretical
implausibility is never a valid reason to reject replicated, high-sigma
experimental results. That violates the scientific method. There are no
actual critiques of the excess heat measurements, but only stupid,
groundless assertions by people who do not know the difference between
power and energy, such as Morrison and Taubes. See p. 18 and p. 27:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

See also:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

That is the best -- and only -- skeptical experimental "critique" there is.
There are no others.

The second sentence is bullshit. There are no valid "reasons why known
fusion reactions are an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and
associated cold fusion claims." Not a couple. Not one. None.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone



sounded like conspiracy theory.


As for cold fusion -

Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either 
pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have 
occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat 
measurements as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or 
controls. There are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are 
an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion 
claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 01:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:



Please provide proof.

You don't need me to do that. There are many authoritative sources on 
line, at places like the FBI and the Senate Committee. If you don't 
believe them, you will not believe anything else that I provide.



The difference between a conspiracy theory and a fact is easy to spot. 
Take the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers. You can find thousands of 
pages of authoritative analyses from places like NIST, FEMA and various 
universities. These explain every detail. Or you can believe people who 
know nothing about engineering and have no proof at all. Take your pick!



It is the same situation with cold fusion. On one side we have 
distinguished experts such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Srinivasan, who 
have published peer-reviewed, definitive proof that cold fusion is real. 
They were the creme-de-la-creme of the establishment. They signed their 
papers. On the other side, we have an anonymous crew of idiots at places 
like Wikipedia, who name themselves after comic book characters and the 
like. They claim that cold fusion is not real, but they never actually 
give any science-based reason. They say only that other, unnamed 
(imaginary) people found (undescribed) errors. Errors in papers these 
people have never read and do not know anything about.



So which side do you believe? I am conservative. Establishment oriented. 
I go with established experts who publish detailed proof of what they 
say. They have credibility. The cartoon character crowd that does not 
know the difference between energy and power has no credibility. That 
crowd of hapless flakes happens to include some scientists and the 
editors at Scientific American, but that only goes to show that idiots 
sometimes manage to get high level jobs. Any experienced person knows 
that.



It may seem as if cold fusion is outside the establishment. Politically, 
it is. But from a scientific point of view, it is inside and the critics 
are out there in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> Please provide proof.
>
You don't need me to do that. There are many authoritative sources on line,
at places like the FBI and the Senate Committee. If you don't believe them,
you will not believe anything else that I provide.

The difference between a conspiracy theory and a fact is easy to spot. Take
the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers. You can find thousands of pages of
authoritative analyses from places like NIST, FEMA and various
universities. These explain every detail. Or you can believe people who
know nothing about engineering and have no proof at all. Take your pick!

It is the same situation with cold fusion. On one side we have
distinguished experts such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Srinivasan, who have
published peer-reviewed, definitive proof that cold fusion is real. They
were the creme-de-la-creme of the establishment. They signed their papers.
On the other side, we have an anonymous crew of idiots at places like
Wikipedia, who name themselves after comic book characters and the like.
They claim that cold fusion is not real, but they never actually give any
science-based reason. They say only that other, unnamed (imaginary) people
found (undescribed) errors. Errors in papers these people have never read
and do not know anything about.

So which side do you believe? I am conservative. Establishment oriented. I
go with established experts who publish detailed proof of what they say.
They have credibility. The cartoon character crowd that does not know the
difference between energy and power has no credibility. That crowd of
hapless flakes happens to include some scientists and the editors at
Scientific American, but that only goes to show that idiots sometimes
manage to get high level jobs. Any experienced person knows that.

It may seem as if cold fusion is outside the establishment. Politically, it
is. But from a scientific point of view, it is inside and the critics are
out there in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 00:49
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:

Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are themselves 
corrupt. Some work for the Russian government. . . .

Is that a conspiracy theory?

Nope. It is a fact. Well documented. Proven to a fair-thee-well.

Please provide proof.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are themselves corrupt.
>> Some work for the Russian government. . . .
>
>

> Is that a conspiracy theory?
>
Nope. It is a fact. Well documented. Proven to a fair-thee-well.

If it were a conspiracy theory, there would be authoritative experts who
say it is not true. Even if it were true, a difference of opinion would
make it a "conspiracy theory." There are no intelligence experts in the
U.S. or any of our allies who doubt that Russian agents swarm over the
internet, uploading anti-American propaganda.

Not everything that looks like a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory.

Re: [Vo]:Paul Brown's RNB

2022-06-21 Thread Jones Beene

 

Robin wrote:  
 
 BTW do you have the Larmor tables for thorium in a weak field? My tables will 
not open.
Thorium would be a better choice than U and is available online. I suspect that 
in a weak field the NMR resonance is going to be in the tens of MHz.
Essentially this means that the Celani effort was inefficient at least in the 
context of Brown. It begs to be redone using simple RF input. 

Too bad Paul Brown had such a ridiculous passion for hot rod racing.




In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 Jun 2022 14:35:12 + (UTC):Hi,
[snip]

If someone wants to see if this works, there is a small amount of Uranium in 
granite. You could try it with a granite
block, to see if you detect an anomaly. The magnetic field should pass straight 
through the granite.
Beware however that you may be exposing yourself to elevated levels of gamma 
radiation, so a Geiger counter is
definitely a must have.


> Brown was not a fraud - but not shown to be correct either. He had support 
> from experts and his detractors were often part of the "nuclear 
> establishment" where billions were/are at stake.
>
>As for the tech - NMR is used all the time in other fields and that technology 
>could be related to Brown's claims - and not too much of a stretch, since 
>nuclear interaction is at play. The target nuclei are already wildly unstable. 
>Larmor resonance could push some of them into decay - who knows? Maybe it is 
>time for a relook,
>
>IOW the Brown claims may make sense on paper but proof or even a strong 
>showing - is lacking.
>
>There was a marginally related unproved claim of radioactivity remediation (of 
>thorium) - which is essentially what the so-called "Cincinnati group" was 
>promoting - along with the same suspicious back story
>... in the end... Follow the buck...
>
>
>
>    Chris Zell wrote:  
>Could someone explain the mystery of his radioactive battery was all about? 
>,,, Standard physics insists there is no way, no how to any convenient 
>triggering of radioactive decay. Heat, shock, chemistry – whatever. Yet he 
>claimed otherwise through some sort of resonance. 
>
>So was Brown a fraud?  
>
>
> 
>https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2114036/strange-life-and-stranger-death-paul-brown-case-another-smart-guy-doing-dumb-thing/
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>Terry Blanton wrote:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>Paul envisioned his Nucell Resonant Nuclear Battery helping solve climate 
>change in 1989.
> 
>  
> 
>http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
> 
> 
> 
>CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please 
>do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
>  
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone



Jed Rothwell wrote:Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are 
themselves corrupt. Some work for the Russian government. Their purpose 
is to disrupt U.S. society and destroy our institutions. You should not 
trust everyone who tells you there is a criminal conspiracy. They may 
have ulterior motives. Some of them are extremely gullible, ignorant, or 
flat out crazy.



Is that a conspiracy theory?

If it is a conspiracy theory - which one of the options are you?





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 Jun, 22 At 20:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:53:47 -0400:
Hi,

Looking through the list I see that the highest power density is 438 kW/l. This 
is for an experimental fast neutron
reactor, which uses a 3 loop cooling system, sodium - sodium - water.
I would have thought it would make more sense to use gallium in the second 
loop. That nicely keeps the sodium and water
separate, in case of leaks, thus largely avoiding the risk of fire.
Gallium is not used in the primary loop because of its neutron absorption cross 
section.

>I wrote:
>
>
>> Regarding fission reactor power density, I finally found this, by the way:
>>
>> https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html
>>
>> I think one of the column headings is incorrect. It says:
>>
>> Average core power density [kW/kgU]
>>
>> I think it should say:
>>
>> Average Core power density [kW/l]
>>
>
>I wrote to the people at the IAEA. They confirmed this is a mistake in the
>column heading. It should be [kW/l].
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Paul Brown's RNB

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 Jun 2022 14:35:12 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]

If someone wants to see if this works, there is a small amount of Uranium in 
granite. You could try it with a granite
block, to see if you detect an anomaly. The magnetic field should pass straight 
through the granite.
Beware however that you may be exposing yourself to elevated levels of gamma 
radiation, so a Geiger counter is
definitely a must have.


> Brown was not a fraud - but not shown to be correct either. He had support 
> from experts and his detractors were often part of the "nuclear 
> establishment" where billions were/are at stake.
>
>As for the tech - NMR is used all the time in other fields and that technology 
>could be related to Brown's claims - and not too much of a stretch, since 
>nuclear interaction is at play. The target nuclei are already wildly unstable. 
>Larmor resonance could push some of them into decay - who knows? Maybe it is 
>time for a relook,
>
>IOW the Brown claims may make sense on paper but proof or even a strong 
>showing - is lacking.
>
>There was a marginally related unproved claim of radioactivity remediation (of 
>thorium) - which is essentially what the so-called "Cincinnati group" was 
>promoting - along with the same suspicious back story
>... in the end... Follow the buck...
>
>
>
>Chris Zell wrote:  
>Could someone explain the mystery of his radioactive battery was all about? 
>,,, Standard physics insists there is no way, no how to any convenient 
>triggering of radioactive decay. Heat, shock, chemistry  whatever. Yet he 
>claimed otherwise through some sort of resonance. 
>
>So was Brown a fraud?  
>
>
> 
>https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2114036/strange-life-and-stranger-death-paul-brown-case-another-smart-guy-doing-dumb-thing/
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>Terry Blanton wrote:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>Paul envisioned his Nucell Resonant Nuclear Battery helping solve climate 
>change in 1989.
> 
>  
> 
>http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
> 
> 
> 
>CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please 
>do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
>   
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

conspiracy theories are about pattern recognition in human behaviour, and
> there are conspiracy facts -
>
> e.g.
> Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study
>
There are indeed, but they are few and far between. Just because some small
number of conspiracy theories turned out to be true, that is not a good
reason to assume that most are true, or that all are true.

The thing is, most institutions work, most of the time. They would not
survive otherwise. Over the centuries, institutions have developed various
rules, traditions and so on to guard against events like the infamous
syphilis study. Everyone knows that these rules and traditions sometimes
fail catastrophically, but we also know they work most of the time, because
if they did not, these institutions would fail. They would go extinct.
Aviation has the strongest tradition of careful engineering, checking and
double checking for problems, because flying millions of people at 30,000
feet close to the speed of sound is a difficult and dangerous thing to do.
If aviation were not hyper-careful, airplanes would often crash. No one
would fly on airplanes. Boeing and the others would go out of business. Yet
despite that, we all know there are catastrophic failures in aviation, and
even corruption and deliberate covering up of problems. See:

*Boeing Charged with 737 Max Fraud Conspiracy and Agrees to Pay over $2.5
Billion*

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/boeing-charged-737-max-fraud-conspiracy-and-agrees-pay-over-25-billion

Just because that happened once, that does not mean it happens all the time
and you can never trust Boeing or any other part of the aviation industry.
It is certain you can trust them, because airplanes seldom crash.

It is foolish to think the authorities are always right, and there is never
any corruption, cover ups, or conspiracy. It is equally foolish to think
that everything is always corrupt, and all of the conspiracy theories
bandied about are true. You have to use good judgement and logic. Of
course, you can always be wrong.

Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are themselves corrupt.
Some work for the Russian government. Their purpose is to disrupt
U.S. society and destroy our institutions. You should not trust everyone
who tells you there is a criminal conspiracy. They may have ulterior
motives. Some of them are extremely gullible, ignorant, or flat out crazy.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone



conspiracy theories are about pattern recognition in human behaviour, 
and there are conspiracy facts -


e.g.
Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study
https://www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegee-study


Bearden connected to others such as Myron Evans -
https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Myron_Evans.html


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 Jun, 22 At 16:37
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:




I think a lot of things are going to disappear.

I doubt it. I think you are repeating groundless conspiracy theories. No 
one gives a damn about Beardon's theories or disputes about relativity. 
No one would bother to censor these things or make them disappear.




It used to be - Web was open to all ideas; now its about censoring

Nothing relating to cold fusion has been censored. I would know if it 
had. A lot of information has disappeared, but I know why. Nothing to do 
with censorship. Mainly because the authors or the people maintaining 
the websites died. Also, for example, old lCCF websites are gone, 
because no one thought to preserve them. I complained about this but the 
ICCF organizers did not listen.

Re: [Vo]:Celani verifies Cincinnati Group transmutation

2022-06-21 Thread Terry Blanton

>
> Tom Valone's web site is loaded with FE and less fringy stuff:
>

https://tesla3.com/

[Vo]:Celani verifies Cincinnati Group transmutation

2022-06-21 Thread Jones Beene

Speaking of thorium (plus LENR techniques) - yet in the category of being 
"overlooked"
Here is a 24 year old paper that seems to have slipped through the cracks.

Top lab did the work - competent researchers - best of the best of Italy - 
what's not to like?

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/337674
BUT.. The results are surprising - HUGE really ... yet the tech never went 
anywhere
Go Figure

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

I wrote:


> Regarding fission reactor power density, I finally found this, by the way:
>
> https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html
>
> I think one of the column headings is incorrect. It says:
>
> Average core power density [kW/kgU]
>
> I think it should say:
>
> Average Core power density [kW/l]
>

I wrote to the people at the IAEA. They confirmed this is a mistake in the
column heading. It should be [kW/l].

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> I think a lot of things are going to disappear.
>
I doubt it. I think you are repeating groundless conspiracy theories. No
one gives a damn about Beardon's theories or disputes about relativity. No
one would bother to censor these things or make them disappear.

It used to be - Web was open to all ideas; now its about censoring
>
Nothing relating to cold fusion has been censored. I would know if it had.
A lot of information has disappeared, but I know why. Nothing to do with
censorship. Mainly because the authors or the people maintaining the
websites died. Also, for example, old lCCF websites are gone, because no
one thought to preserve them. I complained about this but the ICCF
organizers did not listen.

Re: [Vo]:Paul Brown's RNB

2022-06-21 Thread Jones Beene

Brown was not a fraud - but not shown to be correct either. He had support
from experts and his detractors were often part of the "nuclear establishment"
where billions were/are at stake.

As for the tech - NMR is used all the time in other fields and that technology
could be related to Brown's claims - and not too much of a stretch, since
nuclear interaction is at play. The target nuclei are already wildly unstable.
Larmor resonance could push some of them into decay - who knows? Maybe it is
time for a relook,

IOW the Brown claims may make sense on paper but proof or even a strong showing
- is lacking.

There was a marginally related unproved claim of radioactivity remediation (of
thorium) - which is essentially what the so-called "Cincinnati group" was
promoting - along with the same suspicious back story
... in the end... Follow the buck...

Chris Zell wrote:
Could someone explain the mystery of his radioactive battery was all about? ,,,
Standard physics insists there is no way, no how to any convenient triggering
of radioactive decay. Heat, shock, chemistry – whatever. Yet he claimed
otherwise through some sort of resonance.

So was Brown a fraud?

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2114036/strange-life-and-stranger-death-paul-brown-case-another-smart-guy-doing-dumb-thing/

Terry Blanton wrote:

Paul envisioned his Nucell Resonant Nuclear Battery helping solve climate
change in 1989.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm

CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone