Max Nozin UA/RU SPECIALIST & MOD
  • Male
  • Member since Jun 20th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Max Nozin

    The test protocol (sceptics' version)

    Rossi staying on rubber mat wearing semi-transparent speedos.

    Quark x hardware and driver made of fully transparent parts taped by transparent scotch to his body.

    In one arm AA battery service as power supply.

    In second arm 10l bucket of cold water.

    Test is successful if all the water evaporates in 2h.


    Features of Google Scholar


    • Search all scholarly literature from one convenient place
    • Explore related works, citations, authors, and publications
    • Locate the complete document through your library or on the web
    • Keep up with recent developments in any area of research
    • Check who's citing your publications, create a public author profile

    Похоже что они индексируют публикации в разных источниках а потом считают количество ссылок на них.

    У меня там нет аккаунта поэтому не могу сказать можно там на прямую чего 'поставить' т.е. опубликовать или хотя бы вручную добавить ссылку для индексирования.

    Alan Smith

    These effects can be explained if you start thinking of a material physical nature of particle charge.

    What is the charge?

    If you consider charge as combined kinetic energy of sub elementary ether particles, such a as whimp, Amer, etc, involved in toroidal vortex rotating motion things are falling into place easier.

    These are the same particles constituting flow of magnetic lines from a permanent magnet. So magnetic field is no longer an abstract field but a material flow of sub atomic particles.

    So the 'special ball lightening-like state' is the state in which all vortexes representing parts of nucleus have received additional kinetic energy.

    There has to be result oriented money distribution system. Close to what soviets had.

    Huge specialized r&d facilities pounding on a very specific task like creating new type of advanced weapon. There also was artificial competition created between them. Good example SU vs MiG jet design bureaus.

    No result, no money.

    The system was also feeding significant number of theorist do they can catch up. Schools were suffering a bit but looking at totally opposite situation is US maybe it was a good thing. Nobody should spend millions chasing gravitational waves and proving for yet another time that 'Einstein was right' without even remote goal of practical application.

    Now we have science which is more like high fashion industry with skinny models walking down the podium where the real closes are steadily moving to the plus size category. Good thing that high fashion industry exists without public funding.

    Most of the pains are in the actual r&d labs. Those people oftentimes lack academic credentials and time to go and confront theorists during conferences. if they did, the obstacles are in place to prevent them from that. Teams in NASA have to fudge their own theories to explain sudden acceleration of deep space probes, correction to GPS satellites offsets and finally emdrive.

    The answer from mainstream is typically R.Fyenman style: you are certainly wrong but I can't explain you why since it requires super smarts to understand which you obviously don't have

    AlainCo

    • 'dominance of theory, model over facts, because of incredible success of QM/GR theory & math to solve practical problems in the 50-70s (transistor, nuke, GPS, IT, chemistry)'



    I 've seen some people disagree with that. Groups working in radar tech, satellites, nuclear did have to develop their own theories to explain what they observed.

    When they piled up nuclear material to achieve first fission en masse didn't look like a calculated experiment. Same goes for Russian h bomb test where they were allegedly order of magnitude off predicting power output so shock wave travelled the Earth three times.

    I agree when modern mainstream science is compared to a sect. They group around their believes and aggressively fight off any alternative views using anything else but scientific approach.

    During q&a 'Randell Mills visited my office few times.' Appearantly Peter was explaining to Mills that he was wrong.

    Peter seems to be a good scientist but how can you pitch your theory to somebody who gets solid experimental results why you are getting close to 0. That is of course assuming Mills convinced him that he had the results.

    It could be as simple as incompetence of engineering shift that day. I've hard the story that they where testing steam turbine on dub critical regimes. The test was sanctioned but it went sideways at same point. When they decided to insert graphite rods to slow down the reaction the core was so overheated already the rods could not be inserted anymore. They got runaway reactor.

    The only unanswered question what it a high energy reaction which flipped reactor cap or just a meltdown.

    Shane D.

    Bob get it bang on.

    I wish them well. Hope by the time they release ico, public is not too tired of crypto stuff.

    I believe there is not too many people who are looking for a way to invest into lenr. They need to either release 0 info and claim secret breakthrough in green tech so they can attract general public or release all details and hope they can have small number of lenr enthusiasts.

    @maryyugo IH lost the moment trial went in front of the jury.

    Charismatic engineer fighting for adoption of his Earth saving tech vs a big Corp backed by an expert who can't properly read water pump label to determine max flow.