Because, if for some reason the impossible Ecat (according to consensus and the LAWS of physics) is working regardless, it should at least be regulated and forbidden for violating these laws
I've been wondering why they called them the laws and not the postulates, the assumptions etc. I believe it wasn't random. The predicted time they will need to jail people for violating the law.
A comma is sometimes used as a decimal point (e.g., in Italian): 1,777.7. But to calculate from his inputs: 25.6 / 0.0144 = 1,777.7. (I've persuaded myself that he was using English punctuation.)
Zephir_AWT it is catch 22. Nobody would invest in non-proven and non-protected tech, on the other hand, what is the interest for replicators?
That is where government-own r&d should step in and chase alternative tech. In US it should be DOE which should set aside 20-30 mils per year to burn on claims like lenr. Sort of energy skunk works.
This presidential cycle it is not possible but it might be in the future.
Why can't it be legislated that say 5 percent of government research spending MUST be burned on some alterantive ideas.
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
In short, during the work on bacterial transmutations serious flaws were identified. At the same time using knowlege obtained during this research the group was able to come up with electromagnetic ways to initiate transmutations.
At some point he claims that they are way ahead of the pack.
If you view the presentation you will see images of the lab and reactor.
He emphasized that at this point theoretical explanation of the process is not a priority.
At some point the video scrolls through the list of references where you can recognize works by Widom-larsen, Storms among some other 18 international researchers.
axil I was hoping that you would say something like - nah, half of it is BS but you seem to sand up for every concept out there embracing physics across the board with all the quirks.
axil thanks. Of course everybody can Google it but I want axil to think about that one more time. Maybe he will see something different in that this time.
Speaking of FUD, the estimable Ruby Carat brought this very good and short (23 minute) BBC program on the topic of replicating experiments to my attention.
"90% of the time, we were unable to re-produce work in published journals" (says an AMGEN whistleblower/scientist), and, those who came up with the results, were not even able to reproduce their OWN work! The reporters of this fact were threatened with hate mail, intimidation, etc.....
"Just because it's published in a top-tier journal ...... - don't believe it"
Display More
Another bigger issue raised there part 3 is 'incoherence'. Where papers in the same field with seemingly similar tittles have absolutely different content.
Another scenario. 20w output is proven beyond doubt. Sceptics will calculate energy input into mufacturing and activating a reactor and determine that quark has to continuously run for 37 days. Before that happens Rossi is still a scam.
Adamenko with his proton-21 lab comes to mind. They were so exited explaining and documenting results that commercialization must be on the bottom of the list.
Sure, market forces, trickle down economy. I've head that already so many times.
How many countries were depending solely on buggy whips sales? How many are now depending on oil market? Quite a few.
Tech gurus are flying into space and boring tunnels using tech invented during Hoover dam construction. They are happy with their ROI. What will make them to move?
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.More DetailsClose