I don't remember seeing this :
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/another-set-of-slides-from-sept-22-nasa-lenr-innovation-forum/
Fralick Slides
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20111209NASA-Fralick-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf
Slide 14 has a nice summary of theories (transcribed
At 03:29 PM 12/20/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
Ultra-Low Momentum Neutrons (Widom and Larsen)
[ I think his title's wrong ... WEAK force capture of heavy
electron and proton, giving U-L-M-N ]
May BAD!!! That's the first few words from WL's title !
At 08:28 AM 12/8/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the
excellent http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ library.
Another link for you. It contains documents not
included in
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka
University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking
about low-energy nuclear reactions.
For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR
On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the
excellent http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ library.
Another link for you. It contains documents not included in
http://lenr-canr.org :
http://jcfrs.org/pubs.html
I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the
excellent http://lenr-canr.org
library.
These are really just bookmarks to myself of papers that are worth
reading properly. I restricted myself to about 2005+ ... mainly to
weed out first impressions.
I've tagged most of
On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the
excellent http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ library.
Good job, but I'll play the devil's advocate by saying that many of them
are not peer reviewed papers and because
In the W.L. case, I'd like to know where the value for the effective mass
of the electron, above ~2.6, is calculated to be enough for catalyzed
fusion. Also, why does breaking Born Oppenheimer approximation means that
using a perturbative expansion around the W bosons is allowed, given that
its
Something interesting regarding these papers, it is that the researchers
that propose the theories that apparently fits better the experiments
rarely cites each other. It seems there is no serious attempt to come up
with a common basis for the LENR phenomena.
2011/12/6 Daniel Rocha
At 11:47 AM 12/6/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J
Fletcher wrote:
By the way, have you checked if this archive contains things not included
in lenr-canr.org ?
http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm
I didn't have that list. There do seem to be papers not in
Jed's
lenr-canr was
At 11:47 AM 12/6/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
Good job, but I'll play the devil's advocate by saying that many of
them are not peer reviewed papers and because of this hard skeptics
would reject them at once.
I was just building a reading list (thanks anyway) ... and did a
coupla-minute skim
At the end of the day, it is quantum mechanics that is the operative
principle behind LENR.
For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even
Einstein had trouble with it.
Experimenting with QM is even more difficult. If you look at results, they
go away or become invalid.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even
Einstein had trouble with it.
Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He
was completely comfortable with how it was used to
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
For Jed Rothwell: a quick suggestion. I think it would be useful a more
detailed indexing/search system for lenr-canr.org, for example:
- Sorting the archive by the original document date (not publication date
on lenr-canr.org)
- Options for
“Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness.
He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful
predictions.”
I mean “Einstein had trouble with it” in the following sense:
Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature that QM
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
“QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in
history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as
tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood
16 matches
Mail list logo
