Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by barfbag

  1. I'm still shy of understanding your needs here. Now it sounds like you want your own Spider to track a few websites content. Something like http://download.cnet.com/Internet-Spider-Download/3000-12512_4-10300592.html maybe?
  2. I think of God in more Scientific / Walter Russell type views / terms. I think every soul is a part of God. I think the physical world is meant for us to experience. If God never created Mankind (in his image), then God could not enjoy GTA5, or Pizza. You cannot have good without bad. Just being Blissful sounds a bit boring. God also experiences the Pain and starves to death daily. Experiences is our purpose
  3. Wow Alainco!!! Those were impressivelly written and intelligent comments. You seem to at least keep current on your science, but these guys wanted to trash the LENR thread. No skin off my nose, I won't look like an idiot when they finally accept LENR here. @ Endy 0816, You say, No. People lose debates by being idiots. I commented on a thread I found searching the term LENR as I keep up with the papers, books, and conventions of this topic. Within a short time frame someone came by that selected a few key phrases from my post and twisted the words to make them sound different from their meaning. The person took this phrase, . and totally twisted my words out of context. Does the above Paragraph look like I think Gamma Rays cannot be detected? No. I am clear in that paragraph. Yet the person twisting my words wrote Now if someone cannot comprehend English enough to distinguish this then they have little business calling themselves educated. Now instead of an apology from this person they have now challenged The Widom Larsen Theory as if I wrote it. IT IS NOT MY THEORY. LOOK IT UP ON GOOGLE. However let's look at your last post... At least this person acknowledged there is progress in this field. LENR is real and it is funny some moderator thought speculations was the place for this. No reading for the educated I guess. However: The Widom Larsen Theory does NOT require new physics. There are other Theories. THE QUANTUM RING THEORY by W. Guglinsky http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=462 is a more radical idea for handling The Coulomb Barrier. NOTE: This also is not MY Theory. There are many floating around. All they know for sure is excess heat is being measured. So my words were twisted and thrown back in a troll post suggesting I thought Gamma Rays were undetectable when any Grade School child can tell you it is possible. Of course I am going to take offense. The other reason I took offense is the Title of this thread. The Moderator does not understand the term "Hijack Thread" so totally made a mistake by suggesting this thread was Hijacked. Click on the link http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60356-cold-fusion-demonstration-definitely-a-hoax-or-merely-almost-definitely-a-hoax/ This was the Thread I alledgedly Hijacked, and yet it deals with THE EXACT TOPIC (ECAT/ROSSI) of that thread. So Endy 0816, Maybe you like people twisting your words backwards and implying you are an idiot. Maybe you want to be accused of Hijacking a thread when you were the only person on the thread on topic. I saw the first one as a typical Troll, and the second one is just lack of understanding. Maybe Hypervalent Iodine is English Second Language. I cannot imagine anybody that behind on LENR research or that does not understand term "Hijack" coming from an English country. So ... I care more about sticking up for what's right than I care about them. Now.. @ Swansont, You said, I will compliment you for actually discussing the topic instead of Trolling this time. Maybe this NASA patent will help you understand your above statement better. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20110255645 or http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35913widomlarsen.shtml http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml As for, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2005/2005WidomA-UltraLowMomentum.pdf should cover it... @ Swansont still, You also commented that fraudsters try to raise money for fraud. Rossi has denied many fundraising opprtunities and has not sold shares in Leonardo to the public (I'd have bought a few). You did not read the Opening Post at all did you? Maybe I should copy/paste it here. NASA is not fundraising their LENR project. It is likely not a scam scenario. Mitsubishi is not fundraising with their LENR device. It is likely not a scam scenario. Rossi funded 5+ years and hired staff (i.e. Focardi) to help aifd this project out of his own pocket. He could make minimum $100k a year working for anyone and has many defense contracts, etc. Peter Hagelstein at MIT is not fundraising for his device, and teaches cold Fusion 101 every year for free. George Miley got LENR off of Patterson Cell, but now has his own LENR device, but his is now complete and for sale. I could go on HUGE LIST. If you want to be anti-LENR or Anti-Rossi look no further than Newenergytimes.website. Steven Krivit stands to lose his LENR book trade and website if LENR comes to fruition so he likes to dig up dirt and false allegations against Rossi. I am unsure why The Moderator (Hypervalent Iodine) thinks LENR is speculation. I suppose it fits here in some respects as no Theory is yet agreed upon, but it really shows a lack of education (which should be ongoing) in this field of study. That moderator among any others on fence over this should read ... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-hijack-split/?p=810307 Note to Alainco, I believe I have seen you commenting in Ecat World, I am new here myself.
  4. @ Tar, Nice story. The "letting people down" part I found key to my success. I also noticed I could push off morning cigarette until late afternoon but then needed to smoke after that one for rest of day, even if mildly. I suppose my method would let you buy another pack and cheat. Driving was always a trigger and My job has me driving to various locals and land registries. My kids were young last time I smoked. I used to take my son to McDonalds play centre and go outside of it where I could see him and the two exits and smoke at angle he could not see. None of my kids have ever seen me put a cigarette to my lips. Good Luck with you. If you do give in, do it privately and don't throw the towel. Just recognize it as a next stage. One or two cigarettes a day is much easier to quit from.
  5. I'd shorten that to read, "How has Scientific Method affected Science". The "Scientific Method" is a well documented process for helping in establishing scientific fact. See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Advances in all science (especially chemistry) now had a foothold into structure and gives our science roots. Elements of it include: Forming a question, hypothesis, predictions, testing, observation. I think to disagree with above poster as The Scientific Method did not exist (to our knowledge) whenever the wheel was developed. The scientific Method is the outline of an experiment. First Part: You form a question... Today we wonder if plants produce oxygen with sunlight. Second Part: We Hypothesize... Maybe plants don't need sunlight to create oxygen. Third Part: Predictions... We predict oxygen will come from a plant kept in dark with no sun. fourth part: Testing... We place plant in airtight container with no access to light and we measure the Oxygen levels constantly. Fifth Part: Analysis... The plant failed to produce oxygen while in the dark. This experiment failed using the Scientific Method. Results must be repeatable. So.... Anyways. I had to say this, hope it helps. Pick almost any experiments of the past 100 years as your topics
  6. I program and have several websites, but saving a webpage in searchable format could be done simply with Copy/Paste into Word or PDF. There must be search features in those. Having read previous posts I still am having trouble grasping what you want from servers, it seems like website info you seek. I don't know.
  7. I responded to the Thread moved category via report button to Moderators, but I want to be clear to any and all that I only responded to a "Science News Thread" concerning LENR and Andrea Rossi. Someone seemed to think that my ON TOPIC POSTS were Hijacking the thread and moved it to speculations even though someone else started the thread back in 2011. The term "Hijacked Thread" in the title of this is misleading and false. If anyone had the originalk thread link they would see I am onew of the few who discusses LENR and Andrea Rossi. Maybe the moderators here do not know the term Hijack, or its meaning. Its normal meaning is when someone goes off topic enough to alter the subject. I stayed totally on topic. The link to former thread is http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60356-cold-fusion-demonstration-definitely-a-hoax-or-merely-almost-definitely-a-hoax/ Anyone familiar with websites, Forums, Threads, might think that posts regarding Andrea Rossi and his Ecat when the OP by schrodingers Hat back in 2011 specifically address the Ecat in first link might realize that I was one of the few in that thread who was on topic. It just sucks to have a moderator who doesn't know the difference and accuses people wrongly. C'est la vie. Is this a website that kicks members who stand up for themselves? I could care less about the LENR being moved, it is speculative. I object to the fact the moderator said I hijacked the thread. That's just moronic. @ SwansonT, Saying, I would agree with. But you AGAIN twisted my words out of context (Check last Edit Time). I had said... Which is acceptable English in my country, and means precisely what I said it does. Furthermore this sentence was wrapped in a paragraph that lent further meaning. Does it make even more sense in context? I don't even support LENR. I am just better informed by choice apparently. Okay I am beginning to think there is something to it, but this website has offered nothing but trolls so far. Also... we all teach in our own styles. I think trying to get an average reader to differentiate between Neutrinos and Photons is too advanced for many here, and is information overload. Anybody with access to a Search Engine (Try Google) might be able to find a published paper on it. From what I can see, these are moderator blunders here. Wow! One twists words so it sounds like I'm saying Gamma Rays are undetectable, and another moderator thinks I hijacked a thread for staying on a topic that was from the OP (opening Post of other thread) in the very first link. Dang. This is like my 9th post here and already moderation seems off. I am surprised you did not comment on the term "Heavy Electrons" as it seems to alude to a size change. It is referring to the slowness in momentum.
  8. This method worked for me twice from over a pack a day. I told everyone I quit and then quit. Then I started sneaking some. I'd drive out for lunch. Smoke with windows down on way home and took lots of "Halls" coughdrops and scope. I was still determined to quit and my secret smoking was at least a lot less than my normal habit. After a month or so of closet smoking which got me down to 4-5 cigarettes a day quitting became easier and I could spend the entire day with my family without sneaking off. Quitting from there was easier, and I stopped smoking entirely within the following month. It is deceptive and weird, but it worked awesome.
  9. @ imatfaal So your position is that Dennis Bushnell, The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley is lying when he states, (link was given in last post if you read it) That is a popular stance. Many seem to think their judgements and abilities are greater than The Chief Research Scientist at NASA. NOTE: I did not say LENR is proven. I said I have come to think it is likely based on common sense and the fact over 20 reputable organizations are highly involved with LENR. You said, Yet NASA tells us (This quote was on NASA site), You said experiments were lacking, yet everday I look at these organizations they are experimenting, replicating, and I would bet a few of the experiments involved measurements. You say, Here is just one of those people you just described as "Farcical" I am sure he would be delighted you think of his work as "Farcical", however as i said, I was correct and someone (Imatfaal) does question their abilities. I am sure he would understand though as he was head of The Swedish Skeptics society. You said, Is that how it works? When speaking of inventions, most information is kept mum until patents are protecting the work. Demonstrations mainly serve to attract investors/funding. However: Celani and Hagelstein are at least two who are happy to give free demonstrations of LENR, just visit MIT and ask to see it. Despite the fact that Decades of experiments prove LENR is real (according to papers/patents/books). This is not 2011. This is not one inventor or invention. This is an entire class of technology being done by unrelated labs worlwide. You said, If LENR works then how is The Theory not holding up? How is empirical evidence lacking? Most of what we see in this field in Empirical. It is the lab notes and data from many of the LENR organizations (Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Defkalion, MIT, NASA, etc.) that we are not seeing except as patents hit the market. i.e. NASA patent ... http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110255645&RS=DN/20110255645 or recent Mitsubishi Patent... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYnuclidetra.pdf I think that anyone who cannot see Experiments, Demonstrations, and objective measurements are clearly not interested in this possibility to look. This has the potential to be one of the greater scientific breakthroughs of our time. If that does not make you curious enough to at least look at the Data then the problem is with the readers for lack of scientific curiousity. The only way this could be a scam scenario is if over 20 reputable companies all decided to scam the public with the same concept at the same time. It might make sense to a 4 year old. @ swansont, You said, If you re-read what I said you may notice i also wrote, In regards to the section you are picking upon. If you want to try and explain The Widom Larsen Theory so that it makes sense to some of the lesser educated here go ahead. I tried. I also do not think of Hydrides as a Sponge either. I was trying to simplify it. I suppose maybe they would understand it more if I said, "An electron and a proton combine, through inverse beta decay, into an ultra-low-momentum (ULM) neutron and a neutrino. You also picked up on the sentence, to imply I do not think Gamma Rays are detectable as if I made the error. Can you measure the Gamma Rays from your toaster? No. Well maybe the toaster is not a reactor. People say the Ecat must be a toaster because it does not Emit Gamma Rays. My point was that (note I use same sentence again...) just because nobody can detect Gamma Rays from this reactor does not mean the process is not nuclear. I have linked the Mitsubishi patent where they use LENR to capture Gamma Rays before they can reach detectors. (here it is again...) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYnuclidetra.pdf ALL LENR is NOTED TO HAVE LOW GAMMA RAY OUTPUT. THIS HAS CONFUSED MANY TO SAY THE REACTION CANNOT BE NUCLEAR. SEE ABOVE PATENT WHERE LENR IS USED TO FILTER GAMMA. Your interpretation of the sentence was flawed, not it's meaning. Of course Gamma Rays can be detected. I am an Engineer, not a preschooler. So when you say, then you are making errors yourself. If you want the official Widom/Larsen Theory try using a search engine, not all of them are dumbed down to the point of comparing neutrinos to photons. Or was that entire post meant as a troll. I am not often sure, especially when my words are twisted.
  10. Hi. I am new to this Forum, but have followed this and similar stories. Cold Fusion is now called Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) among other terms. This is because instead of fusing two items (which is reported to occur mildly), several atoms give off parts which then fuse into a third unstable atom which then Beta Decays into IR heat. I know it will take a ruler upside most of the heads here before anyone will look at this seriously but this thread was started in 2011 and a lot more information is now available. The claims of Andrea Rossi in 2011 were so alarming that a lot of CF research was redirected towards Nickel/Hydrogen variations with much success. i.e. Toyota and Mitsubishi are both confirmed to be highly involved in LENR research and Mitsubishi is patenting LENR devices for their ability to pick up stray Gammas from Waste. http://indico.cern.ch/event/177379/material/slides/5 (That presentation occurred at CERN in 2012) The link above shows it, but Toyota used all of their own equipment and supplies to verify Mitsubishi findings. NASA also does budget LENR research (Actually in NASA budget, not rogue employees). Here is a slideshow and a few videos from NASA... http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20110922NASA-Zawodny-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtHR1NCzeKU Dennis Bushnell is The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley. HE SAYS LENR IS REAL..... http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/2012/201205NASA-Dennis-Bushnell-Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions-the-Realism-and-the-Outlook.pdf I understand the skepticism. The Coulomb Barrier does not allow this to make sense except with Thw Widom Larsen Theory. Widom Larsen Theory is ... Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) is based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Do not be fooled by the term "Weak Nuclear Reaction", as any nuclear reaction can be millions of times more powerful than a chemical process. There is more than enough energy produced to replace all of our current electrical systems easily. A weak nuclear reaction is any reaction that emits or absorbs a Neutrino. Neutrinos are photons similar to visible light that does not interact with visible matter. LENRS Emit Neutrinos. Collective effects: weak nuclear reaction is one that either emits or absorbs a neutrino, a neutrino is a photon kind of like visible light. neutrinos don't interact much with visible matter. LENR emit neutrinos. You have 2 separate plus charges in these nuclei coulumb barrier weak interactions does not have a columb barrier. you can add up a bunch of energy over a large number of particles. run a current through like battery loading hydrogen into a palladium lattice like a dry sponge getting saturated surface droplets. Certain metals that readily absorb hydrogen (hydrides), can be saturated with Hydrogen (for simplicity I'm leaving out Deuterium,etc.). This "loading" can be enhanced by running electrolysis (electrolytic cells) or having a vacuum chamber. If you imagined the Nickel as a sponge being filled with water, once the sponge reached its storage capacity, small droplets would build up on the surface of the sponge. This seems to be true of Nickel containing hydrogen. Small pools of theses surface patches (30 microns/pinheads) of the saturated protons (not mentioning deuterons either). Now also there's a film of electrons on the surface of metals that all oscillate together called surface plasmons. This means the protons which weigh a lot more than the electrons through the electromagnetic field grab the electrons and shake them back and forth. This occurs directly above the little pinhead sized pools of protons previously mentioned. This reaction creates a big neutron from the interaction between a proton and an electron. An "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron". This term is used a lot, and that is how it is created. This is because they obviously lack the energy seen in other nuclear processes. the neutron is absorbed by nearby nuclei and you won't see it. Subsequent decays release significant energy. Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and convert them to infra red, and LENR is often associated with low Gamma Ray emissions. Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical. THAT IS JUST ONE THEORY NOT REQUIRING NEW PHYSICS (Dumbed down a bit on purpose). Let's discuss Andrea Rossi again. If you want to see him as a fraud you need look no further than Steven Krivit's "New Energy Times" website. He goes into great stories about how Andrea Rossi was the greatest Fraud of all time in Italy, but a main problem with his critiques are that his website is obviously biassed because he sells LENR books for $170.00/per and his website will become defunct if LENR is realized. - Andrea Rossi was very rich before worth $30 million USD. He did not run to hawaii (his Visa handed to him by The President of the United States), he continued environmental science. If his only concern was money he could have retired rich in his 30's. - When Italys mafia took his waste management business by making his storage illegal (Apparently "The Mafia" reaches as far as Italy (who knew?), and they apparently like to control waste management in many countries) Andrea Rossi faced and beat all his Environment charges, when he could have hid in the U.S.A. (remember the VISA the President Carter gave him.). - All of Andrea Rossi science is common theme of environmental science. - Many scam corporations think to raise money (scam) by selling shares. This scam was common with mining companies. Tell everyone you found a rich vein then sell shares then pay yourself a million in salary and go broke. Andrea Rossi has not sold or tried to sell any shares in Leonardo corporation. This would be easiest scam opportunity. - Andrea Rossi is immigrating to the US where anti fraud laws are extremely tough. - Andrea Rossi funded the first 5 years of this from his own pocket including hiring Focardi. Scammers have a history of using other peoples money for scams, and Andrea Rossi has used his own. Since Andrea Rossi made the Nickel/Hydrogen version of LENR popular in 2011, we have seen many unrelated labs confirm this is indeed possible and very effective. So he is on the right track according to many. These separate and unrelated entities all claim THEY have a working LENR device. Why would so many reputable corporations claim this? Toyota, NASA, Brillouin, George Miley, Patterson cell, Honda, Mitsubishi, Peter Hagelstein, Celani, MFMP, Defkalion, The Athanor creators. That is a dozen just off the top of my head that does not include the ecat device. - He seems to be logically progressing. His best demo was 18 hours on an unstable product and Defkalion bailed on him because he could not do a 48 hour run, but now he is running (confirmed) at much higher temperatuires for longer. If this was fake why did he not fake a 48 hour run with Defkalion or when he was demonstrating in 2011. Are skeptics suggesting he has advanced his fakery in this time? - He has demonstrated publicly in front of many skeptics and geniuses many times during 2011. - He did allow this recent team to evaluate the ecats with very impressive results, and DC input has also been ruled out. We must EITHER think there is criminal conspiracy among very impressive verifying team of scholars with reputations at stake, or accept the reality of the ecat. - Andrea Rossi did publish a paper on this (see his website) in 2010 but it was basically ignored, and all patents for anything suggestive of Cold Fusion have been banned. How would a normal person proceed? -He cannot get patents on this because of ban , but also has secret catalyst that is his advantage in market. How would anyone protect it? Rossi has never been poor. He could have gone to Margaritaville 20 years ago if he wanted to. As Forbes Magazine Mark gibbs says,"This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history it looks like the world may well be about to change." WHO KNEW THIS? Andrea Rossi has always been an achiever. As a teen he held the world record for distance running for two years in a row. Who here did not know Andrea Rossi was a world champion runner for 2 consecutive years in a competition that required perseverance (24 hour runs). He is likely imho to go down in history as one of the men responsible for clean energy and will save millions of lives. I say we go easy on the guy. Everything bad you read about him will likely be from "NewEnergyTimes". BUT HE IS NOT ON HIS OWN. Yes this thread has continued on over the years and some verification was given on The Rossi device. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 NOTE: Because we all know CF is Pathological Junk Science then we know all the professors and participants in that third party verification must all be: a) part of fraud b) Stupid c) mistaken. So Verifications have no validity unless the Verifying team is believed, but who among us would even bother to look at the credentials of those involved in the testing... for example Hanno EssénFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.[1] Hanno Essén received his Ph.D; at Stockholm University in 1979. The thesis was titled Topics in Molecular Mechanics and touched the approximate separations of nuclear and electron motion and the vibrational and rotational motion of molecules. He continued his research as a postdoc at Oxford University, England, for one year, and then two years at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. After some years as a temporary lecturer at the Physics Department at Stockholm University and at the Quantum Chemistry, Uppsala University, Essen got permanent employment as a lecturer at the Mechanics dept at the Royal Institute of Technology in 1988. Since 1990 he has been Director of undergraduate studies (Studierektor) at the Department of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology. He is member of the Editorial Board of European Journal of Physics since September 2006 and was Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society for three years (from 19 April 2008 to 2 April 2011). Like Dr. Roland Peterson among others involved in that verification. They say they tested it and it gives unexplainable heat, yet I am sure people here might (will) argue their integrity and abilities. M.I.T. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) has been teaching "Cold Fusion 101" for free at M.I.T. for the past three years demonstrating their LENR device under Peter Hagelstein. There is more that Mitsubishi, Honda, Toyota, MIT, NASA, Rossi that claim to have working LENR devices, Defkalion, Blacklight Power, and many others (over 20 manufacturers) all claim to be doing LENR. We also know that R&D has an iceburg quality in that for every company we know is actively researching something, there are many others researching in private (i.e. Piantelli). The Ecat (Rossi device) is now being verified again with results coming within a few months (July predicted), but will anybody look at those results? Given the fact that over 20 reputable agencies are now behind the same product. Given the fact that all involved seem far from normal scam scenarios (selling shares in propped up companies, etcx.). Given the fact many reputable people say it is real (Dennis Bushnell, Chief Research Scientist at Nasa Langley). I think it is worth examining. However science was still saying The Wright Brothers goal was impossible 4 years after they attained flight. Anyways. I have a lot more information on this as it is a hobby interest. I am a Soil Engineer with science interests. I think it would be foolish to simply dismiss this though as it has picked up momentum since this thread was created. LENR is real imho.
  11. Sounds like a Thesis opportunity for some Chemistry student... @ Studiot, I agree this could apply to many chemical and nuclear processes if possible. This is merely a curiousity to me, but could have realworld applications if the effects are present. I think experimental data might be required to solve this because I have not been able to find much reading on this except to now know someone has suggested something similar in the past. I hope I can find the research.
  12. @ Studiot, Despite being a Soil Engineer. I am mostly a glorified driver heading from property to property or have others do it. I am not a gas or sound expert, and am more than a few years out of University. You said So my question to that is, could the start volume of the gas be separated into smaller areas by using standing sound waves. It seems like consensus is it would not be worth effort to try, but it is one of those experiments I'd love to try someday.
  13. Thank you for replies. I saw this helping in several ways. I thought a smaller amount of fuel might spread out and explode more efficiently if coupled with sound wave compressions. I hoped it would affect the speed in which a chamber could be filled with gas, and also hoped an explosions efficiencies could be altered in this way.. It is just a concept that is bothering me. I have wondered about the use of Cymatics coupled with various science pursuits, and another area I could see this is in the recent return of "Cold fusion/LENR" The Widom/Larsen Theory of it describes the Nickel absorbing so much Hydrogen in advance that it forms droplets in a similar manner a soaked sponge might have drops form on its surface. I wonder if Cymatics could help improve the outputs. Forgive the quick reference to Cold Fusion/LENR. I follow the updates on it with interest though. I know many here would consider that Junk Science, but this thread is about Cymatics/Sound.
  14. Hello. Before I discuss. If anyone is not familiar with "cymatic". Sound waves cause shapes in vibrating boards altering by pitch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtiSCBXbHAg Now imagine a fuel injection system where less fuel was used in combination with sound frequencies most conducive to spreading the misty fuels. So instead of the sand/salt in video on a 2D surface, we are discussing fuel particles spreading by sound waves in a 3D plane. If this idea works it could be a billion dollar one, but I have other pursuits. How is it faulted? Has there been publishings on effects of sound on gasses? This idea seems to make sense to me. I am thinking the explosions could be designed for efficiency. Perhaps this sound wave helps direct the explosions by shaping its fuel. I am interested in knowing if any research has been done in this area, or any insights. I am a Soil Engineer, but would love to try this if nobody else does.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.