I am reading through Piantelli, Bergomi and Tiziano's 2013 EP2368252B1
patent [1], trying to understand the basic mechanism that is thought to be
the source of the heat they're generating. Here I will attempt to
reproduce their description in my own words -- I do not know anything about
its
I address some of this in the following treads:
[Vo]:An ionization chain reaction
[Vo]:noble gase cluster explosion
What happens in the Papp reaction also happens in the NiH reaction, just
with a different cluster type.
Cheers: Axil
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Eric Walker
Christos Stremmenos on Piantelli Patent
I was very much surprised, upon reading the “Description of Prior Art”
in the publication of European Patent EP 2368 252 B1 (Jan 16th 2013,
priority 24/11/2008) granted to inventor Francesco Piantelli, to find
out that the inventor was said to have been
I have comented there
Peter
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:55 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:
Christos Stremmenos on Piantelli Patent
I was very much surprised, upon reading the “Description of Prior Art” in
the publication of European Patent EP 2368 252 B1 (Jan 16th 2013, priority
Eric, the theory as you describe it is quite unusual. I understand energy
release of this nature as being due to an isomer transition within the nucleus.
Is that what is being proposed? We should review the charts and see if there
are know isomers of nickel which might be contributing to
Stremmenos refers to the work of Zichini:
Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no
mention was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento
(Vol. 102, No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of
Bologna, where I also was teaching at the
the affair is explained the best at Steve Krivit's NET site.
Piantelli has told me that Zichichi has not collaborated with him, has not
followed his advices and knew anything better than him..
All the stories Stremmenos tell are not relevant-
the patent authority has decided that Piantelli's
WO
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
the affair is explained the best at Steve Krivit's NET site.
Unfortunately that is now behind a pay wall.
Piantelli has told me that Zichichi has not collaborated with him, has not
followed his advices and knew anything better than him..
Who is
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR.
If Ni-H cold fusion is real, Mills is the real father. Fleischmann was the
first to suggest the use of Ni, but Mills was the first to do it, as far as
I know.
There is plenty of credit to go
Peter, I consider the use of nano sized powders as different than using wires
even if the wire has nano sized structures on its surface. By using the
powder, Rossi and others of a like mind are acknowledging that the surface area
is the important variable. Anyone that relies upon wire most
Jed please try:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
see Nos 12 and 13- let me know if it works for you.
Piantelli has discovered the effect H-Ni on Aug 16, 1989 and published it
in a local univ. journal
Have you read what I wrote about Piantelli starting with the Piantelli
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed please try:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
see Nos 12 and 13- let me know if it works for you.
I found the passage below significant because a fairly recent
discussion on vortex-l left
Amen.
ken deboer
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
Sunday Sermon
** **
To all of you researchers and mad scientists pouring your best blood,
sweat tears into unraveling the mysteries behind the LENR process, please
Ever want to drop a glowing red hot ball of Ni into water? Well,
someone beat you to it. Is that the real sound or an overdub?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qSEfcIfYbw
Okay, I found the problem. This is the Cerron-Zeballos paper, but the
co-author Zichichi was spelled wrong in my EndNote database.
- Jed
REALLY? According to the research I have read the magnetic modeling and
simulation of the Earth's inner core is having a hard time accounting for
it's magnetic field and tail, etc. Also I guess the gold and all that
other stuff the geologists believe is there just SUNK THERE according to
your
I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html
I have a sinking feeling that the link you gave does not work. Give it another
try and let me know how to follow it.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 2:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not
OK, this time I got it. False alarm.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 2:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational
I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.
I agree and my link worked.
I believe we have an entropic, LENR reactor for a core. I did a
calculation on my site and I believe it is just a few meters in diameter.
The earth is just one of those nodal points on the universal neural
network of dark matter that is unfolding around us at
What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking
at the center of the earth?
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html
Hi Jack,
Your posts are always enlightening - only wish the syntax
existed for you to communicate from a common foundation instead of fabricating
everything from the ground up as seems necessary for the not yet birthed
science of vacuum engineering.. You and I are both going in
From You
Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
work
From Me:
1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
established to date
Both of these contradict your statement
It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
so it can be compacted.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
From You
Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
work
From Me:
1) The
I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
condensate or something similar?
*Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the
Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
condensate or something
The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is considered
to extend from the center to about 20–25% of the solar
radius.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47It
has a density of up to
150 g/cm3[47]
I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with enough
entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.
Could you run that calc for me?
On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
Plasma can be squeezed to
The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with enough
entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.
Works for me, I never said it was iron
On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
I have not calculated it yet, but
In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
This to show that you can have iron at the core of earth with higher
density that what iron has at atmospheric pressure. The density is
determined by the pressure and temperature not just the type of material.
When we quote densities of materials most
Daniel,
This is some nice info about magnetization in asteroids:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Vallee2/Vallee2.html
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
This to show that you can
Last time I checked most solids and liquids were
mostly non-compressible, at least in our macro world. Liquid Water
density changes only 4% over a wide range
On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
This to show that you can have iron
These are plasmas, the electrons are taken away from the atoms and they are
mixed with bare nuclei. You can compress a plasma to degenerate levels when
quantum mechanics exclusion principle takes over. These densities are even
more enormous.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, ChemE
Iron at the core of the earth is a plasma, so the hydrogen and helium at
the core of the sun.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
These are plasmas, the electrons are taken away from the atoms and they
are mixed with bare nuclei. You can
Funny,
Last I read they think the inner core is solid...
The *inner core* of the Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, its
innermost part, is a primarily solid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_(mathematics) with a radius of
about 1,220 km (760 mi),
Sorry, you say plasma, I say black hole
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Funny,
Last I read they think the inner core is solid...
The *inner core* of the Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, its
innermost part, is a primarily solid
There is a outer core that is molten and the inner core that is solid.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Funny,
Last I read they think the inner core is solid...
The *inner core* of the Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, its
innermost
Chem, also noting that the core of the Earth is at more than 5000 K, while
the melting temperature of iron at atmospheric pressure is 1800K.
At this temperature and pressure iron is not behaving as a normal solid.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
Geologists say liquid not plasma so you are bucking the trend, I admire that
The *outer core* of the Earth http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth is a
liquid layer about 2,266 km (1,408 mi) thick composed of
ironhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
and nickel http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Piantelli has discovered the effect H-Ni on Aug 16, 1989 and published it
in a local univ. journal
Have you read what I wrote about Piantelli starting with the Piantelli
Taxonomy?
Well, if he really published that early, I guess he gets priority
I say entropic black hole suffering from indigestion
On Monday, January 21, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Geologists say liquid not plasma so you are bucking the trend, I admire
that
The *outer core* of the Earth http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth is a
liquid layer about 2,266 km (1,408 mi)
Good discussion guys!
Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you've been able to
avoid getting personal. excellent!
Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references. much
appreciated.
My only issue so far is with Giovanni's statement:
The core
Chem,
Maybe by use of plasma is not perfectly precise but for all purposes iron
at that temperature is a plasma because it is extremely ionized. Yes, the
usual idea of a plasma is that is a sort of gas but the main property
really is that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus this is the
You can see here that you can have solid plasma:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/30536/
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
Chem,
Maybe by use of plasma is not perfectly precise but for all purposes
iron at that temperature is a
Cool,
My theory explains Earth's magnetic fields, magnetotail, coronal discharge
jets and transmuted elements and the accretion of matter we live in.
Can you explain all that?
On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
You can see here that you can have solid plasma:
Mark,
Everything we do in science is based on models. In fact, most of our
rational understanding of the world is a model.
When you say tomorrow the sun will come up from the horizon again, you are
basing this statement on a model, maybe based on several previous
observations but still you are
Can you send me a paper with your theory explained in details, with
calculations and simulations?
A story telling in a blog using some nonsensical words would not make it.
Thanks,
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Cool,
My theory explains
This is a good paper that describe a possible model for the outer core, not
quite a plasma but a metallic liquid with unusual properties:
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbdxa/pubblicazioni/nat.pdf
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:10:02 -0600
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you send me a paper with your theory explained in details, with
calculations and simulations?
A story telling in a blog using some nonsensical words would not make it.
Thanks,
I can not speak for Chem of
Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.
The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy currents, an
induction effect.
Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its
core.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Fe, without it's electrons, is not
Obama emphasized energy again in the Inauguration Address. Saying, for
example:
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure
to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still
deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the
The only good news is that Chu is leaving. He is on record denigrating cold
fusion, not long ago. I don't recall when.
The next guy will probably be just a bad. Sigh . . .
- Jed
Jed, I do not believe cold fusion will get any support from the
government until it can be explained by an accepted and demonstrated
theory, and until a material can be made by anyone to cause the
effect. Neither condition exists and I see no ability of people in the
field to achieve these
I agree, but we have been hoping for 23 years and counting. But as you
say, hope is all we have left, and Rossi. :-) We need a wealthy
person who is wise and smart to donate enough money to a study of the
subject that is designed to answer the critical questions.
Unfortunately, people in
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Your silence regarding Defkalion? You know something we don't? ;)]
I do not know anything that hasn't been published. I think it has been
published? Didn't someone upload their ICCF17 presentation?
I was disappointed by their ICCF17 presentation. There
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not know anything that hasn't been published. I think it has been
published? Didn't someone upload their ICCF17 presentation?
Yes, along with a paper describing their geometry. One thing in there
which I think has
That seems like a pretty good statement Terry. I wonder if anyone has been
able to actually run an experiment to prove it?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not
Is eddy currents the proper description to use in this case? It would seem
that a system that is self sustaining due to some form of feedback would be
more of a generator instead of a loss mechanism as eddy currents are generally
considered.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Giovanni
I'm sorry, it was a Cu foam substrate:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66384.html
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not know anything that hasn't been
I assume he can not be worse. We need a solid public demonstration device
ASAP. This year should be the one.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, it was a Cu foam substrate:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66384.html
Here was the question posed to me:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66538.html
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, it was a Cu foam substrate:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66384.html
Here was the question posed to me:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
That seems like a pretty good statement Terry. I wonder if anyone has been
able to actually run an experiment to prove it?
Well, I think that it's the spin orientation of the electrons which
make Fe magnetic. Or
Jed and Ed!
Like I have pointed out earlier, you will get plasma fusion budget for cold
fusion research in no time using crowd-funding. It is easy to get few million
dollars to finance initial experiments and if there is any positive or even
suggestive results to be published, crowd funding
Hey, I was just asking a question like a lawyer. That is my understanding as
well, but sometimes the theory might not be the whole story.
I was curious as to whether or not anyone had come up with an experiment to
verify the theory. A lot of times this happens, and it might not be too
In My Model Earth Recharges its Core Battery through black hole
coalescence.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1338
Only about 3% of the entropy gets annihilated and gets shot out the auroras
In other words our weather systems are recharging our Earth's core battery
and cooling the core slightly as it
I think also the economical crisis could be explained by black hole
coalescence of entropical annihilating forces of gravitational interstellar
currents.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
In My Model Earth Recharges its Core Battery through
Recently I have been exploring magnetic concepts. I have been seeing so many
references to magnetic motors that I believe are not possible, but they keep
coming so I decided to perform some thought experiments. Let me present one
that is somewhat associated with the motor concepts.
All I
Cool, you are coming around then
On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
I think also the economical crisis could be explained by black hole
coalescence of entropical annihilating forces of gravitational interstellar
currents.
Giovanni
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM,
Yes, I'm seeing the light that made it out of the event horizon...
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:32 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Cool, you are coming around then
On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
I think also the economical crisis could be explained by
Cheme, one day you will be drawn into one of those black holes and become a
surface feature.
-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational
Cool, you are coming
Close, we are all just holographic projections on the surface of black
holes, see Verlinde's entropic theory of gravity
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde
:)
On Monday, January 21, 2013, David Roberson wrote:
Cheme, one day you will be drawn into one of those black holes and become
From Ed Storms,
I agree, but we have been hoping for 23 years and counting.
But as you say, hope is all we have left, and Rossi. :-)
I realize this was said somewhat in jest. However, considering the recent
Pop Sci article on Mr. Rossi... particularly the part where NASA invited
Rossi
On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:44 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
From Ed Storms,
I agree, but we have been hoping for 23 years and counting.
But as you say, hope is all we have left, and Rossi. :-)
I realize this was said somewhat in jest. However, considering the
recent Pop Sci
The Peak Oil crowd has carefully analyzed the oil industry data, and
fracking is going nowhere in the long run. Short run? Sure we'll have a
few years of lower natgas prices -getting them right now- but the
prognosis is bleak.
Basically, the wells are very expensive, and the depletion rate
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I understand energy release of this nature as being due to an isomer
transition within the nucleus. Is that what is being proposed?
That is the term I was looking for -- isomeric transitions. There are
metastable
David,
The following paper presents (literally) a toy example of extracting
energy from a static magnetic field:
A Magnetic Linear Accelerator
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/lin_accel.pdf
It provides a simple formula illustrating conversion of magnetic field
energy to
I would be surprised if such a group of isomers were available but not
discovered until the present. It is possible, but some of the nickel isotopes
are known to exhibit them and it would be strange for the researchers to have
overlooked ones associated with other isotopes. Obviously, the
Thanks Lou, that is a fascinating toy. It supports my thoughts that the energy
of the initial field is reduced when more iron is brought into contact with a
permanent magnet. Until I realized that the COE would force the external field
to eventually go away, I was actually considering that
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
How confident are you that this is the reaction that he considers valid for
his patent?
Not confident at all. It could be something entirely different.
One question I have is about patent law. If you file a patent and
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
One question I have is about patent law. If you file a patent and create
a device that someone knowledgeable in the art can reproduce, but your
theory about how it worked was incorrect, can the patent still be defended?
I think David French said no
83 matches
Mail list logo
