Frank Grimer wrote:
>
> Sounds plausible. For example, it would be difficult for
> someone to invent the following since it is unlikely they
> would understand the concept of negative energy.
> someone to invent the following since it is unlikely they
> would understand the concept of negative energy.
>
> That statement sounds as though it comes from a "garage"
> experimentalist who is not inhibited by conventional
> theory and does not realise the what he is doing is
> supposed to be impossible.
>
> The idea of using cold as an energy source reminds one of a
> Stirling engine running on ice.
>
> experimentalist who is not inhibited by conventional
> theory and does not realise the what he is doing is
> supposed to be impossible.
>
> The idea of using cold as an energy source reminds one of a
> Stirling engine running on ice.
>
Take it a step further, Frank.
The predominant factor as seen in most OU effects is the
transient exposure of atoms-molecules to low pressure "soft vacuum".
Vortices, Orgone, MAHG, Cavitation Bubbles, Exploding Lightbulbs,
and so on.
Almost as though "soft vacuum" exposure allows the Casimir Force
to collapse the electron clouds closer into the nuclei. WIMPS?
Or conversely, the electron clouds expand outwardly from the
nuclei by ZPE pumping and they collapse into the normal "ambient/ground state"
when exposed to a triggering energy.
All of our pet agenda explanations go out the door, along with our concept
of Enthalpy-Entropy /"Thermodynamics". :-)
Fred
