Should the things that are subject to “zitterbewegung” of electrons be not certifiable, then nothing in this world could be certified, because electrons are part of every product existing in the world.
Rossi then added, "Last, but not least: we obtained the safety certification."
So it appears that hurdle has been overcome.
Alan Smith Quite correct. Paul Horwood's image on the left, and Jay Raney's on the right, if memory serves.
There is quite a bit more information out there, but nothing past 2003 as far as I know. Specifications, materials and anomalous effects can still be found here: http://www.rexresearch.com/hollingshead/hollingshead.htm
More on Hollingshead can also be found at the revived website American Antigravity:
https://www.americanantigravit…sheads-antigravity-device
And the podcast:
The experimentalists who have tried to generate gravity-like fields by subjecting ferromagnetic materials such as alpha iron or ferrofluids to pulsing magnetic fields include Hollingshead, Searle, Godin and Murad and others. Although partial success has been reported, most admit that full replications have been unsuccessful. However, it was Hollingshead who reported a strong gravitational effect accompanied with a release of energy and beta radiation due to “pushing protons into becoming neutrons”, the only experimenter suggesting a nuclear basis. He also reported a diminishing effect over time. This suggests an isotopic shift similar to LENR. However, he never reported generating useful power from the device.
In November of 2002 Hollingshead reported effects when he spun three pairs of counter-rotating rings composed of electromagnet stubs (looking like inward-pointing stud collars) around a central soft iron reference point (RP) stator. The RP stator was configured as a sphere, wrapped in a dielectric and surrounded by another layer of metal, thus acting as a capacitor when electrically charged. When the rings were spun synchronously gravity-like effects were reported at least four orders of magnitude higher (literally lifting boulders and crushing work benches) than M. Tajmar's micro-g experiments prior to 2006. Hollingshead also reported that when the device was stationery and spun up a dramatic drop in temperature surrounding the RP occurred.
Hollingshead made no claims regarding the pairing of electrons, as did Wallace, but like Wallace suggested that nucleonic mechanisms were in play.
Both Searle and Hollingshead reported creation of an ionized halo around their stationary devices, even though Hollingshead claimed he had never heard of Searl before developing his device. Both reported the generation of a vacuum around the devices as air was pushed outward. Wallace also hypothesized the generation of a shield effect, while Hollingshead claimed actual generation of a shield... and reported bouncing small objects off of it.
In a 2006 article in New Scientist, Tajmar similarly discussed the potential ability to create a "shield" with such a gravity effect. He said, “Levitating cars, zero-g playgrounds, tractor beams to pull objects towards you, glass-less windows that use repulsive fields to prevent things passing through. Let your imagination run riot: a gravitomagnetic device that works by changing the acceleration and orientation of a superconductor would be the basis for a general purpose force field."
When I asked Tajmar back in 2010 about Hollingshead, Tajmar replied that he did not think that effect (if true) was related to his research.
Alan Smith can tell you more (if you ask him nicely) about the chapter with Hollingshead, which still remains open.
Parkhomov did not present at ICCF last week.
Correct, but the R&D made by Parkhomov was presented by HuangC. ("Temperature Dependence of Maximum Excess Power in 3 New Experiments (Letts, Parkhomov, & Mizuno)") and a presentation and poster by Greenyer. Perhaps that is the source of the confusion.
Hi Ruby,
Great job!
During breaks could you look at the poster sessions and report on what you see?
I’m interested in how Cydonia’s poster on the E-Cat is being received.
Thanks!
QuoteSimon Brink also used Clifford algebra.-> Simon Brink's website
As did Cohl Furey: http://theoryofeverything.org/theToE/2019/02/03/mathematica-analysis-of-cohl-fureys-octonion-and-clifford-group-theoretic-ℂ⊗o-assignments-to-standard-model-particles/
Jed, are you going to try getting it published in Nature, just to test to see if Google broken down their acceptance barrier a bit?
Alan, may I use the list in an upcoming presentation? Happy to cite you and lenr-forum.
I am, thanks for asking. Question: Why is Leonardo Corp not part of the listing? Only their licensee in Sweden and Rossi as an experimenter/theorist.
Thanks!
Hi Alan. FYI, Richard Oriani, Professor Emeritus, Univ of Minnesota passed away a few years ago. I think you might want to put a note next to his name.
Dear authors,
Your summary states that the reaction was primed by heating and some electro-magnetic stimulation. It appears that the electro-magnetic stimulation mentioned was due to the current flow supplied to the system and not induced separately. Is that correct?
Secondly, what do you surmise is the suggested role (if any) that electro-magnetic stimulation alone might play in this process?
More importantly... where will it appear? Nature? Elforsk? Arxiv.org?
