Stack a zillion of these guys up and you might get a significant field at a distance. My take on this is that the size of the field needs to be clarified as well as the magnitude if it is real. It is too early for us to determine exactly what is occurring.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: DJ Cravens <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 12:54 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? the B field of an orbiting 1s electron about a H nucleus is about 12T at the nucleus. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:46:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Jones, Where was that claim made? did they mean uT? Stewart On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: From:Jack Cole 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis wouldseem likely to elevate the cathode temperature >179C. Could this be afactor in Godes' success? It is looking like there is nothing therewith Brillouin. Months ago, they received a very large grant for testing atSRI. It’s a pretty good bet that if anything had turned up in thattesting (and it should have turned up weeks ago if it was there) –somenews would have surfaced at ICCF, formally or informally. In fact, the local rumors are that therehas been no glimmer of success at all. The most surprising detail to come out ofthe whole conference IMHO - if it can be believed - is the report of the veryhigh magnetic field of DGT. Other prior experiments which showed awell-define trigger temperature, such as Ahern’s - showed much higher triggerthan ~180C, but he had no significant magnetic field at all. That low triggertemp could be related to the high field – if DGT are to be believed. In fact, the fact that this kind of fieldstrength is easy to document - but was not documented - casts significant doubton the entire DGT presentation. Many of us who were bullish on that demo afew days ago have shifted 180 degrees and are not skeptical simply because ofthis claim of 1.6 Tesla. It is almost preposterous. That kind of field at 20 cmfrom the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones
