From: "thomas malloy" > I attempted to start a thread several weeks ago. Two physicists claim > that they have developed a laser stimulation method which is isotope > specific.
Are you sure they are physicists? I know it is supposed to come off as a spontaneous interview, but there are a number of such obvious errors that no high school physics student would make. They sound more like snake oil salesmen than physicists. That turned me off initially to the extent that, as my grandmother used to say, "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything..." But you asked why, and you deserve an answer. These are not scientists. >The particular frequency charges the atoms. When two > solutions of charged atoms are combined, the atoms combine. By > selecting the proper atoms, one should be able to produce what ever > element you want. I can think of one particular element, the > production of which would allow me to finance what ever research > tickled my fancy. I can't express in words how ridiculous this sounds on its surface. Coming from one (me) who is never shy about throwing out outlandish ideas, and doesn't mind well-directed criticism, those two should consider this assessment of their work to be especially damning... unless, of course, it is just semantic problems. Some of the better physicits are poor writers and even poorer speakers. Are there any real experiments that they can show? These don't lie. Without some basis in experiment, why waste our time? > I was hoping to get some of you to read the article and tell me what > you think of what they say. I'm wondering how quantum state, which I > assume corresponds to the charge on the electrons correlates with a > specific isotope. Thomas, quantum mechanics is fairly complicated material and it wouldn't do it justice to try to explain it in a quick post. > Given the 35% efficiency of conventional > electric generating plants, that's very good. I noted with interest > that this technology appears to produces 10 times the input energy > which is also good. Any decent flux of charged particles will be poised to give very high efficiency, because if you think about it, the moving charges are just like electrical cuurent anyway, so all one needs to do is to separate them. > There's nothing like electrical production to give a no B S > indication of energy output. On that not you are exactly correct!! This undoubtedly is the future direction for LENR researchers who want to avoid the calorimetry quicksand. Jones
