At 04:20 am 30/04/2006 -0600, Fred wrote: >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. >> >> 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. >>
> 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? Absolutely. 8-) In my language is a case of Beta-atmosphere condensation when the Beta-atmosphere pressure drops - a process very analogous to Alpha atmosphere condensation when the A-atm pressure drops. It seems more than likely that Bo-Ein. explanation for CF is just an unnecessarily complicated way of saying the same thing. One can imagine people explaining water condensation in an equally redundant fashion. > 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". :-) Well, I suppose it's a bit like Ohm's Law going out the window when alternating current became popular. Ohms Law wasn't wrong. It was just restricted to a particular boundary case of alternating current with zero frequency. Frank
