Main problem for Randy is not if world recognizes hydrino it is good old heat exchanger problem.
Max Nozin
UA/RU SPECIALIST & MOD
- Male
- Member since Jun 20th 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by Max Nozin
-
-
Ok, instead of just "telling the world", can they pick just one of these 8 ways to confirm it, help a reputable lab or university replicate and confirm it? Who are they working with now? Which is the most foolproof? I like the EUV spectroscopy.
Let's see working genset and then we can look into hydrino existence out of curiosity
-
Than what happens to ' no moving parts low maintenance' claim when you drop the turbine in?
-
All finance calculations seem unrealistic. They take lowest cost of equipment plust maintenance and the use energy numbers from locales with highest prices like Hawaii.
So far looks more like activism than serious talk.
-
Rossi is through another sell(fraud) cycle. Now it is 2 weeks soak period for potential victim after no pressure breakthrough announcement
-
About the Russian vaccine, the bolded text is exactly what I thought.
Sputnik, vodka, balalaika. Now again. Sputnik....
-
Some pics indeed show Klimovs PVR reactor (>10 years old) and Klimov himself even that the caption says 'reactor in our lab', The AKM-2 prototype painfully resembles Bazhutov's electrodes in the jar Erzion reactor.
-
They are putting me back on medication so the inventor-me will be away for a while
-
Same here I was raised vegan, currently am lacto/ovo vegetarian and things like hard margarine and some the fad *important ingredient*-free "healthy". As an american I will say conveniance I guess.
That is the conveniece. Cheez Wizz is too hard to extract from the jar
-
My take on this: In case you have symptoms, and you don't have access to HCQ or are worried about side effects, eat 500g onions
and stay home
-
Always wondered why American consumers prefer food made of anything but the food iteself like Cheez-wheez
-
JedRothwell Shane D. Without going into much details into your recent post to this thread, I can tell you one thing. If i was your censor you both will be in trouble for writing way too verbose. I am really sorry.
-
For example, Ptolemy's model of the solar system with the earth in the center is wrong, but it was still used for navigation in the 1940s. (I don't know about now.) Guy Murchie taught celestial navigation during World War II, and he pointed out that Ptolemy’s astronomy is still valid, and still “right” for practical purposes: “Ptolemy had almost no idea where or what or how big the sun is. Yet his basic calculations are the most convenient ever devised for navigation. . . . [I]t is still true (relatively speaking) that all the celestial bodies revolve around the earth. To a practical navigator remaining on the earth, it is a lot easier to let it go at that and keep the old simple earth view . . .” – G. Murchie, Song of the Sky, (The Riverside Press, 1954).
would you board a spaceship built by a flat earther?
I am not claiming censorship system as it is now is effective and not corrupt. But is is absolutely essential. Things like 'emegrence of gravity from uncertanty principle' do not worth space on the cloud storage they take along with many other theories.
-
Did you mean to say with censorship? There is censorship in academic science, but it does not help. It only hurts. There is no censorship in some other technical disciplines such as programming. Anyone can say or publish anything, or any program, or code snippet. There is complete freedom. It never hurts. To be sure, there are official standards and things like Linux with a controlling board that decides what gets into the language, but you are free to invent your own language anytime.
Some people are mistaken, but most are right. Even when their views conflict. That just means some are more right than others. Most theories and models are sort of right, sort of wrong, and always incomplete. They are a work in progress. Even ones that we have known for centuries are "wrong" are still sort of right, in some contexts. As long as it is useful and gives the correct answer, it is right enough. For example, Ptolemy's model of the solar system with the earth in the center is wrong, but it was still used for navigation in the 1940s. (I don't know about now.) Guy Murchie taught celestial navigation during World War II, and he pointed out that Ptolemy’s astronomy is still valid, and still “right” for practical purposes: “Ptolemy had almost no idea where or what or how big the sun is. Yet his basic calculations are the most convenient ever devised for navigation. . . . [I]t is still true (relatively speaking) that all the celestial bodies revolve around the earth. To a practical navigator remaini
Yes I meant 'with censorship'. These days the cost of making false claims is very low. If may find it easier to operate in the environment where contradicting claims are also can be right at the same time i don't know how you can engineer anything practical in such conditions.
I agree everybody has a right to invent nitsace scientific theories but outside of mainstream scientist field on their own dollar.
-
Question is can everyone be right. And how science supposed to move in the right direction without censorship?
Ether, aether, sterile neutrinos, wimps, information etc. Somebody must be mistaken here.
-
Parkhomov success coinsides with him inventing his own methodology of measuring excess heat. I do know know of many people, in Russian lenr circles, who are excited about his results.
-
miles I don't remember seeing free energy claims from Naser. Did you see them or just assumed because they have many things in common, like both are on youtube?
-
This is Russian startup which claims to have developed quantum generator based on known physical principles.
External Content youtu.beContent 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.While being interesting on their own, raises interesting issue of what are the odds the effect they demonstrate can contribute to excess heat effect.
Is there people who might be knowingly utilizing such?
-
attempt to scientifically explain case of Dottore supporters https://www.lefigaro.fr/intern…ion-scientifique-20200703
-
it is ironic that Dottore is being bested by another psycho crook. I mean the one who allegedly got convinced in his tech by the amount of negative reactions. I just can't imagine any sane investor who would do that.