e weight has been shot into the
> air. Determine how much electrical energy was drawn from the capacitor bank
> and compare it to the potential energy acquired by the weight.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Eric Walker
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Th
I very much would like to see this become a success.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
We are working to recovery this technology in an opensource effort involving
fusion and unintended consequences
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has been
replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the same level
of proof for the Papp devices?
Nothing
> same level of proof for the Papp devices?
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:11 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
>
> To my best knowledge, the Papp engine is
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I know I sounds like the typical cold fusion denier, but cold fusion has
> been replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the
> same level of proof for the Papp devices?
>
Nothing solid, but there's an interesting video
, but cold fusion has been
replicated and can be demonstrated currently. Why not require the same level
of proof for the Papp devices?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 12:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
far I am not convinced.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 4:14 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
>
> Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy pro
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 4:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Cold fusion and unintended consequences
Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production.
Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of
Axil Axil wrote:
> Wrong in that over unity power production cannot be engineered without
> significant environmental downsides.
>
Yeah, I agree with that. But I do not think Gibbs is saying that downsides
are inevitable. He is saying they are possible, especially if people use
the energy carel
Wrong in that over unity power production cannot be engineered without
significant environmental downsides.
Axil
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. . .
>> .
>>
> Wrong about what?
>
>
Axil Axil wrote:
> Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production. . . .
>
Wrong about what?
I do not think anyone has conclusively demonstrated a practical device yet.
Even assuming Rossi is correct, I would not call his reactors "practical."
They are about as impractical
Gibbs is wrong. There are many roads to over unity energy production.
Eventually the top over unity performers will win out. The production of
heat from LENR is the least desirable, efficient and resource intensive of
those various over unity energy production methods.
As a superior engineering ap
I should welcome Gibbs to the Reality Based community for these comments:
". . . it seems there may well be a real effect producing anomalous heat in
experimental setups.
The experimental stuff is all well and good but so far no one has managed
to definitively demonstrate that whatever the effect
Gibbs published a new article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/11/20/cold-fusion-and-unintended-consequences/
For once I have no objection! He says nothing unreasonable.
I posted the following response:
Gibbs is correct. The problems he describes may occur with cold fusion.
These pr
14 matches
Mail list logo
