The real problem is that NiH/D LENR really works and nobody can tell whether A.R. once, by mistake, had some effect...
Sorry, but this does not make sense to me. To say that certainly "Rossi has nothing", you must first dismiss the reality of "NiH LENR"!
Piantelli and Focardi and, later, Rossi and Focardi surely were the precursors of "Ni-H reactions" in gas-metal reactors.
https://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/piantelli-5/#comment-16430
Oh, yes!!!
Steorn Orbo Cube Selfcharging USB Mobile Phone Charger free energy device.
Here is a leaked photo of ecat SKL robotic factory, churning out the internal power units. There are 3 stacked per SKL unit, inside the blue 10cm square cube, with redundancy for individual failures. Power output is delivered via standard USB cabeling. Simple yet effective.
I understand, but what's over my head is this: how, on earth, is it possible that you need more than 11000 posts to say essentially that "Rossi has nothing" ?
Your post is the #11,517th in this thread only!
Why this story has not ended 8 years ago ?
https://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/ff-e-infn/#comment-49930
From something I posted several days ago on ECW.
These conditions are not sufficient. You need also a signed validation of an expert illusionist/magician as James Randi.
So, you believe in scientific consensus,
At least, are you fully aware what does imply NOT believing in scientific consensus?
You are implicitly stating that tens (if not hundreds) of billions of both taxpayers and private dollars are being wasted in obsolete technologies and in experiments based on obsolete theories! This also implies that ALL mainstream (scientific and not) journals do not care a cent of a potential revolutionary technology that can easily solve the climate change problem and pollution !
Why the world-wide known little-girl Greta has not said a single word on LENR ?
Listen to the scientists
http://www.theguardian.com/env…berg-tells-congress-video
What's the difference between not believing in scientific consensus and believing in conspiracy theories?
T here are many things that are stranger than fiction Maybe you should send out for some of them? Meanwhile I have a question for you. Do you think LENR is possible?
I don't know, but I am sure that more than 99% of scientific community consider LENR impossible, while more than 0.9% consider LENR "fringe" science. Consequently much less than 0.1% consider LENR a proven fact! You can prove this by yourself, just ask to some randomly chosen physicists from academic institutions, excluding the so-called "independent researchers"!
To explain LENR you must resolve the "three cold fusion miracles" problem.
"Tre miracoli in serie, come si può vedere, quindi particolarmente improbabili. Se ciò non bastasse, si può anche osservare che le teorie ad hoc non rappresentano un modo corretto di fare scienza"
Walter Pegeto = you can only define velocity if you can define time. Who knows what governs time in the sub-atomic world?
Do you mean that in the "picturesque" Wyttenbach's sub-atomic world, time is replaced by a fourth spacial dimension ?
This is even more difficult to imagine! AFAIK, not even in science-fiction literature there are time-less "beings"
String theory starts at 11 dimensions. SM owns crippled 8 dimensions....
If exists a fourth dimension, is it possible to escape or enter in a closed environment (as in science fiction stories) ?
Is the distance between two points in this 4d space euclidean (d=sqrt(x2+y2+z2+w2)) ?
How do you define the simple concept of speed ? Is c the maximum speed only in the old 3 dim universe ?
I'm lost...
"Dense matter starts at 4 rotations flux interaction and it includes a magneto static solution."
Does this mean that your model needs "only" the existence of an "hypothetical" fourth dimension ?
Does this mean that your model needs also the existence of a an "hypothetical" magnetic monopole ?
"Coronium = Hydrinos?"
"Zitterbewegung", "tresinos" and "quatrinos" at old White House [pag. 19 and 22].
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.06322.pdf
"Zitterbewegung, as it was originally described by Schroedinger, is an unphysical, non-observable effect."
There’s where I see a similarity between Wyttenbach ‘s model and this Italian proposal in development, beyond the mere toroidal idea. Wyttenbach’s idea is much more robust, due to its predictive accuracy. But there are some similarities, at least in the surface.
if Wyttenbach’s idea has predictive accuracy there is no reason not to be published in an high ranking scientific magazine as Nature.
There isn't any significant trace of his ideas on Google Scholar
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Pseudo-scientific_study
Ted Goertzel on pseudoscience and mental health
“The logic of the conspiracy meme is to question everything the ‘establishment’ — be it government or scientists — says or does... Conspiracy theories can be useful for scientists who are so far out of the mainstream in their field that they seek to appeal to alternative funding sources or publication outlets. They also might occasionally surface when a scientist's mental health deteriorates to the point that he or she loses touch with reality.”
5.1. Electron spin and coherent systems
"In the proposed model, the electron, in presence of an external magnetic field, is subjected to Larmor precession and its spin value ±ħ/2 is interpreted as the intrinsic angular momentum component parallel to the magnetic field."
The spin is just a quantum number not a component of the electron angular momentum.
In quantum mechanics does not exist such a thing as an "electron structure".
These guys ignore the very basic concepts of quantum mechanics!
Nobel Laureates, are not omniscient nor infalible, did you know?
So You Wanna Be a Mad Scientist?
"Il presidente della Repubblica, come un vero e proprio “Papa laico” in difesa del mondialismo filosofico-scientifico, afferma di situarsi: «in un’epoca nella quale emergono sconsiderati scetticismi, quando non inaccettabili opposizioni, ai risultati offerti dal metodo scientifico».E ancora, il 24 ottobre al Quirinale alla manifestazione “I giorni della ricerca” il presidente dichiara: «La rapida circolazione di informazioni paradossalmente può provocare nuove sacche di disinformazione o addirittura la diffusione di credenze anti-scientifiche, di paure irrazionali che vanno contrastate perché possono aprire pericolose falle in questo sforzo collettivo».
Sempre il 24 ottobre, a Bergamo, all’evento “Molte fedi sotto lo stesso cielo” e “Bergamo scienza” parla ai ragazzi, che avevano lamentato la proliferazione sui social network di fake news e pseudoscienze, e criticato anche la classe dirigente, la quale “a volte ignora dati scientifici”. Mattarella dichiara: «Siamo, talvolta, preda della malattia della “opinabilità”, che riduce i fatti ad opinioni, contro ogni evidenza». Egli, dunque, auspica che «nel confronto tra cultura scientifica e culture pseudoscientifiche, a prevalere sul pregiudizio e sul sospetto, talvolta fanatici, devono essere i risultati della ricerca sperimentale, indirizzati al bene delle persone»."
"The President of the Republic, as a true" secular Pope "in defense of philosophical-scientific globalism, claims to be situated:" in an age in which skepticism emerges, if not unacceptable opposition, to the results offered by the scientific method " . And again, on October 24th at the Quirinale at the event "The days of research" the president declares: "The rapid circulation of information paradoxically can provoke new pockets of disinformation or even the spread of anti-scientific beliefs, irrational fears that must be fought. because they can open dangerous leaks in this collective effort. "Also on 24 October, in Bergamo, at the event" Many faiths under the same sky "and" Bergamo science "speaks to the boys, who had complained about the proliferation of fake news on social networks and pseudosciences, and also criticized the ruling class, which "sometimes ignores scientific data". ara: "We are, sometimes, prey to the disease of" debatable ", which reduces the facts to opinions, against all evidence". He therefore hopes that "in the confrontation between scientific culture and pseudoscientific cultures, the results of experimental research aimed at the good of the people must prevail over prejudice and suspicion, sometimes fanatics".
If I understand correctly, in very simple terms, the rotating charge is massless and the electron mass comes from the circular motion of the charge.
The origin of mass has been already explained by a Nobel laureate!
Is there anyone so crazy to think he know more than a Nobel laureate?
Wish there was translation, that was beautiful and simple still... As someone who believes in more than what we can comprehend, I think that the development of technology should be for our practical benifit based on experimental results regardless of if it fits into our view of the next steps for humanity. I would be completely overjoyed if all we found was hydrino like superchemical reaction power densities, and low energy practical transmutation, both with many potential spinoff possibilities. They want time/interdementional travel, pocket universes, and truly infinite energy. People want what is only possible to an infinite entity independant from the laws of physics. I understand "magic" is just technology from the perspective we don't understand it yet and am happy what we are heading to could be so transformative it will seem supernatural to those who are uninitiated. Would posit even the angels follow the laws of physics, "magic" level tech is under the law, all but the Godhead. Rant over, with love.
it's a world of magick!
Has one asked what the power rating is for the base module, 10cm a side version. Personally I'm trying to figure out the company/'s to take serious, who is gonna bring an effective release in 2020?
Mills is the most realistic intuitively along with Holmid's work and SAFIRE, but Rossi may just have something. I realised Safire researchers may have some agendas due to a connection with Gaia, Hal Putoff's parapsychology background and more spiritualist/paranormal interpretations of scientific results.. These things, I notice, often coincide with the ZPE over unity crowd. They are hesitant to say ZPE isn't involved in their experiments. Mills, Holmid, Wyttenbach, Rossi and others interpret that their results have nothing to do with such debatably metaphysical phenomena. Am not saying that every name I mentioned is the eptom of transparent science though.
... "We hypothesized that the titanium-deuterium reaction is a low probability process that is influence by crack formation."
http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogaut…nt-page-1/#comment-185819
"Lei ha ragione, fratturando certi cristalli in certe condizioni si ottengono neutroni da fusione. Ma i dati si sanno spiegare benissimo."
Pulse-Controlled LENR - The Technology of Magnetic Miles LLC - An Interim Report
Application of Magnetic Miles Impulse Control Technology to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
wikipedia page on "Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies" ECE theory
"Evans' claims are not accepted by the mainstream physics community. In an editorial note in Foundations of Physics the Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft discussed the "revolutionary paradigm switch in theoretical physics" promised by ECE theory. He concluded that activities in the subject "have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals".[11]
Several of the published contributions in this theory have been shown to be mathematically incorrect.[7][8][9][10] In response to these demonstrations, 't Hooft's editorial note concludes, "Taking into account the findings of Bruhn, Hehl and Obukhhov, the discussion of ECE theory in the journal Foundations of Physics will be concluded herewith unless very good arguments are presented to resume the matter."[11]"
The real question is
who is behind all this Rossi propaganda ?
Summary of Andrea Rossi's E cat The Mother Of All Black Swan Events
Freie Energie: CERN-Lobbyisten streuen gezielt Desinformationen über E-Cat & Kalte Fusion (Video)
Unknown energy source with enormous potential?
