There are claims (from multiple unrelated sources) of matter which 'stops existing' and yet the energy from that is not what you might assume. (not explosive in the least)
Not to say that a matter antimatter reaction would not be as powerful as imagined, but I don't think that conventional science has the big picture. So to assume that the experience of one condition involving nuclear reactions will be the same as different conditions might be wholly incorrect, for instance there is evidence that life can cause transmutation of matter. And yet this is not under the same set of conditions as that in an Nuclear Reactor/Weapon and the chicken fed Potassium is not radioactive and does not explode when it makes Calcium. 'Scientists' know the 'normal rules' of the game, but what about when the rules of the game are changed, suppose for example that it were possible to the energy of the vacuum in some way, would things still act as expected? Consider that light can be made to slow down and stop if some exotic experiments are to be believed, even the weirdness found and admitted by conventional Physicists shows that under unusual conditions we don't know much. So what if it is causing Transmutation and yet getting it's energy from somewhere else, Chickens do (If you believe Kervran). Now I'm not saying I believe this is the case, really I view that this device is largely mostly. But you might want to avoid too quickly applying conventional assumptions to devices that don't make conventional sense. On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > My definition of a nuclear reaction states that if transmutation is found > then it must be nuclear. > > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:28 AM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What if it works and the energy source isn't Nuclear? >> >> Or possibly that it in Nuclear but it is an entirely different to what we >> know? >> >> IMO that it is anomalous and makes no sense makes it more likely to be >> real. >> >> >> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The multi-H reaction could be producing vast amounts of nickel because >>> of its magic number. But no one can really tell how much nickel >>> participates in the reaction including Rossi. >>> >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> Axil >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:53 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 13 May 2011 18:49:11 -0400: >>>> Hi, >>>> [snip] >>>> >I believe that the Ni-H theory that Rossi advertizes is invalid and I >>>> hold >>>> >that fusion of multi H is occurring. >>>> >>>> There is no reason why this would result in Copper, but it would make >>>> sense for >>>> it to result in Nickel, but perhaps not to the exclusion of all else. >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Robin van Spaandonk >>>> >>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
