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 wrote:
> I am
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 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
> 24/11/2008) grant
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 the
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 t
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 201
Peter Gluck 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 Zichini? I have never
Peter Gluck 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 around.
Rossi is the f
should be considered
a major improvement to the original concept.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:45 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
the affair is explained the best at Steve Kri
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 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 me with the impress
Okay, I found the problem. This is the Cerron-Zeballos paper, but the
co-author Zichichi was spelled wrong in my EndNote database.
- Jed
Peter Gluck 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 over
Mills.
Neithe
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:09 AM, David Roberson 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 isomers of, for example
process would
most definitely fall into the category of unlikely! It would be exciting to
find out that he is correct.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 p
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson 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 create a
device t
Eric Walker 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" to this, which s
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:09:37 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
>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 rev
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:08:43 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've
>gotten this right or missed something important? Can anyone (Robin?)
>comment on which parts are controversial and which are accepted physics?
Is it related to the theory proposed in that report
http://webbshop.cm.se/System/TemplateView.aspx?p=Energimyndigheten&view=default&id=6d5bbc764d4942c89612bc9c5a9c4990
it seems different, but the orbiting of 2 nucleus together seems a common
point
2013/1/22
> In reply to David Roberson's mess
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:08:56 +1100:
Hi,
[snip]
>In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:08:43 -0800:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've
>>gotten this right or missed something important? C
-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 9:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:08:56 +1100:
Hi,
[snip]
>In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 0
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:43:10 +1100:
Hi,
[snip]
I may be double counting the electron masses, since I calculated the original
1.9 MeV based on the mass of whole atoms, and there is already a difference of
two electrons between them.
>>Apparently a double
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:56:41 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
It looks like our emails crossed. :)
>Robin,
>
>
>Why would you be able to add the masses of the 2 electrons to that of the
>nickel? They would need to be regenerated every time a reaction was required
>or eve
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote:
i.e. adding another 1 MeV, thus neatly accounting for
> the 3 MeV that Piantelli reports as his maximum.
>
I couldn't find offhand any numbers in Piantelli's patent. I mentioned
offhand at one point that there have been 1-3 MeV protons seen in some
CR-39
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:47 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Thanks for the clarification.
>On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote:
>
>i.e. adding another 1 MeV, thus neatly accounting for
>> the 3 MeV that Piantelli reports as his maximum.
>>
>
>I couldn't find offhand any
*At this point things won't go any further unless a second energy threshold
(2) is exceeded through one of a large number of means (mechanical shock,
electric current, x-rays, etc.).*
What is behing this stimulation?
Cheers:Axil
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
> At th
27 matches
Mail list logo
