Richard Garwin of the Jasons was brought in to evaluate the experiment. He
said there is a problem because it uses K-type thermocouples which are
susceptible to errors from exposure to hydrogen. Beiting pointed out three
problems with this hypothesis:
1. The thermocouples were shielded.
2.
Glad and hopeful... rmfor...@gmail.com
blog rmforall.blogspot.com
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 5:01 PM Jed Rothwell wrote:
> This was marvelous:
>
> E. Beiting, “Investigation of the nickel-hydrogen anomalous heat effect,”
> Aerospace Report No. ATR-2017-01760, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo
Overall, I would say the people selected to give oral presentations have
upped their game. The quality is better than most previous conferences.
Several other experimental papers impressed me. I will list them below.
Here are all the abstracts:
This was marvelous:
E. Beiting, “Investigation of the nickel-hydrogen anomalous heat effect,”
Aerospace Report No. ATR-2017-01760, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo
CA, USA, May 15, 2017.
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Beiting-Edward-1.pdf
In my opinion, this is
Here is Veritasium doing his own version Eric Laithwaite's demonstration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo
There might be something special about rotational motion but I think
conventional physics explains this particular situtation quite well.
In my own research I noticed something
As a Gedanken experiment, is it possible that inertia could be have a free
energy aspect to it, if it is slightly more persistent than thought?
Say you have a rotor that absorbs energy when accelerated and sheds it during
deacceleration ( as loaded then) – if you quickly switch between these
The concept of inertia was new physics when it was first proposed. It
eventually supplanted the concept of impetus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_impetus
Harry
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> Sorry if i've been unclear - i've already done it. It's done. No New
>
Hi John
No, i don't have physical device, or even a physical experiment - not a
great start, one would quite reasonably presume! So, what do i have, and
why am i so excited about it?
It's just a poxy simulation. Nothing more. Just an interaction between
some masses - some forces are applied,
>
> I don't think so. The earth has experienced an unbalanced attraction to 2
> Kg masses in free-fall near its surface - so it will have accelerated
> upwards slightly to meet these masses (just as it accelerates upwards to
> meet the moon when the moon is overhead).
Precisely! If we cycle
Vibrator, do you have a machine that generates energy, a device that powers
itself?
If so, then yes it is beyond question that you have done it, call me
captain obvious.
Then it is a question of if you are honest, personally I would be willing
to consider that is possible as I believe that CoE
Short answer - i'm explicitly claiming an effective CoE violation. Your
incredulity is entirely appropriate. It sounds like complete heresy. I'm
saying it's meticulously measured and a direct consequence of CoM and CoE
holding precisely as they're supposed to, beyond any possibility of error.
At any rate, I think you can agree that some thought experiments, seemingly
applying the laws of physics as we understand them lead to some
possibilities for breaking the laws or physics as we understand them.
And if software than could calculate all of that was run and predicted some
violation,
On 5/06/2018 1:51 PM, John Berry wrote:
Actually, I have another one...
Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop
experiences a pushing outwards.
Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor plates.
No we energize a current through our broken
And a 4th thought experiment, this time it's the CoE under attack.
So, this requires only a thought experiment but we need some idea
conditions to make the case perfect.
The idea is that you have an extremely light object that is moving at
relativistic speeds that greatly resists compression, we
14 matches
Mail list logo
