From
http://iopscience.iop.org/0960-1317/14/5/009/pdf/jmm4_5_009.pdf
last figure is effeciency.
Table 1. Physical characteristics of power conversion devices.
Efficiency η
Reference Technology k2 Q fn (kHz) from (9)
Goldfarb and Stack 0.581 1.63 39 0.531
Celanovic [16]
Ivensky et al Bulk 0.029 10
Hi
Could someone help?
I have steel wires, or any other suitable material, that I repeatedly heat
and cool down. Thermal expansion makes the wires shorter and longer. I use
the elongation and contraction to extract mechanical energy. How efficient
can this process be?
Even if it is relatively lo
From: Roarty, Francis X
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:30 AM
To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com'
Cc: 'jedrothw...@gmail.com'
Subject: [Vo]:David Bushnell promotes W-L theory
It sounds like Bushnell is making a savvy political move in promoting the W-L
theory. The theory is purportedly based on a bedrock o
>From Francis,
> It sounds like Bushnell is making a savvy political move in promoting the
> W-L theory. The theory is purportedly based on a bedrock of classical
> physics and any experiments based on this theory are likely to provide a
> better understanding of the underlying cause. More importa
from the book -
A good read.
Harry
from the book -
Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress
by Hasok Chang
Oxford University Press 2004
---
Chapter 6.
Complementary Science — History and Philosophy of
Science as a Continuation of Science by
The hypothesis of enhancing a "QM probability field" within the LENR, which
can positively alter end results has been mentioned here before, but is
given little more than passing notice by most experimenters... probably
because it has not reached a threshold of "meme" entanglement yet. But it is
me
Jones Beene wrote:
Seems to be the same article you quoted from a few months ago
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38925.html
I was hoping that some of those questions had been addressed
Ah, yes. I thought it sounded familiar. Well, the
news is that this article is being c
In reply to Nabil Lawandy's message of Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:32:21 -0400:
Dear Professor,
>Hello Robin,
>
>Thank you for reading the paper. I am not sure I understand your question?..I
>am guessing you are talking about a situation where there is heavy water ?
Not necessarily water.
>...the pap
Interesting. Injecting known reality into "yet to be determined"
influences YTBD to support an expected observation makes it more real?
Or am I missing something?
T
Actually, this reminds me of the gate of a transistor.
You could be onto something quite wonderful.
T
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Interesting. Injecting known reality into "yet to be determined"
> influences YTBD to support an expected observation makes it more real?
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Actually, this reminds me of the gate of a transistor.
>
> You could be onto something quite wonderful.
>
> T
Influencing entanglement without observation?
T
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
> Actually, this reminds me of the gate of a transistor.
>
> You could be onto something quite wonderful.
>
> T
Influencing entanglement without observation?
T
Or moving the observer back/forward in time, so to speak. This also relates
to expandin
12 matches
Mail list logo
