Search

Create an account	Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10

	Mission Statement Modules · Home · Forum · LATEST COMMENTS · Special Sections · SUPPORT ZPEnergy · Advertising · AvantGo · Books · Downloads · Events · Feedback · Link to us · Private Messages · Search · Stories Archive · Submit News · Surveys · Top 10 · Topics · Web Links · Your Account Who's Online There are currently, 288 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online. You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here Events Hot Links Aetherometry American Antigravity Closeminded Science EarthTech ECW E-Cat World Innoplaza Integrity Research Institute New Energy Movement New Energy Times Panacea-BOCAF RexResearch Science Hobbyist T. Bearden Mirror Site USPTO Want to Know Other Info-Sources NE News Sites AER_Network E-Cat World NexusNewsfeed ZPE NE Discussion Groups Energetic Forum EMediaPress Energy Science Forum Free_Energy FB Group The KeelyNet Blog OverUnity Research Sarfatti_Physics Tesla Science Foundation (FB) Vortex (old Interact) Magazine Sites Electrifying Times (FB) ExtraOrdinary Technology IE Magazine New Energy Times Interesting Links		Combining best of competing theories Posted on Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 10:02:16 UTC by vlad fran writes: Cold Fusion is an inappropriate term, as accurately described by Steven Krivit in a recent article “ Cold Fusion is Neither” cold or fusion.  He provides  the background history and ongoing research before throwing his support solely behind the Widom Larsen theory (2006). I also believe the Widom Larsen theory has strong merit but not to the exclusion of other theories or a likely combination of processes based on these other theories. Mills has evidence of excess heat based on chemistry, The Haisch - Moddel patent is based on Casimir effect, Pam Mosier-Boss at SPAWAR provides evidence for Low energy nuclear reactions and Jan Naudt’s proposal of a relativistic environment for hydrogen. There is no reason to think these related phenomena are all exclusive and the difficulty in matching data to theory up to this point may be due to contributions and interactions between these different processes. The environment is certainly unique but that does not limit the methods to exploit it. full article at http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32158/combining-mills-chemistry-with-haich-moddel-insulatted-layers-of-open-catalyst-cells/   Login Nickname Password Security Code: Type Security Code Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. Related Links · More about Science · News by vlad Most read story about Science: 100 miles on 4 ounces of water? Article Rating Average Score: 0 Votes: 0 Please take a second and vote for this article: Options   Printer Friendly "Combining best of competing theories" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register Re: Combining best of competing theories (Score: 1) by WGUGLINSKI on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 16:40:48 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) fram, Cold Fusion is NOT an inappropriate term. Steven Krivit and many others claim that it is inappropriate because the community of physicists have a strong preconception against the term "cold fusion". So, Krivit hopes that, if he stops to call the phenomenon by "cold fusion", the community of physicists will accept the experiments.  Actually is an ingenuous hope. Cold fusion is cold fusion YES.  And trying to change its name will not change the preconception os the community of physics against cold fusion. Re: Combining best of competing theories (Score: 1) by WGUGLINSKI on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 16:55:17 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) fram, the Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment emits neutrons with 10MeV. But the energy available for the deuterium to emit neutrons is only 2MeV. Where the excess of 8MeV comes from ? Any theory with the preintention to explain cold fusion must be able to explain this fact:  from where the excess energy comes from ? In the link "the difference between cold fusion and cold fusion" Steven Krivit was argued by Mitch, who asked him to show a theory able to explain the excess of energy in cold fusion experiments. http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0 Steven Krivit DID NOT QUOTE any theory capable to explain the excess energy The excess energy can be explained only by considering the energy of the electron's zitterbewegung, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment ] Re: Combining best of competing theories (Score: 1) by Fran (froarty572@comcast.net) on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 10:19:10 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.byzipp.com/animaTime.htm WGUGLINSKI, I agree the Zitterbewegung is the energy source - It reflects the HUP and results in the random motion of gas atoms. This force reverses the normal chemical reaction when two fractional hydrogen atoms form a fractional hydrogen molecule. This energy is chaotic and in our normally isotropic energy density simply moves both the atoms and molecules around in a random manner without opposition. When h2 is pressed through a membrane the covalent bond opposes this motion and dissassociates the molecule with energy provided by the physical pressure being applied into h1 atoms. Likewise the covalent bond opposes the change of fractional h2 to  fractional h1 and in a similar way disassociates the h2 but unlike a physical membrane it  is the normally chaotic motion that becomes organized (your Zitterbewegung) to oppose the random motion of gas. The individual fractional atoms need for their orbitals to translate but they are prevented from scaleing  properly while bonded together, therefore either the molecule will be repelled away from zones with different energy density or the covalent bond will break to let the atoms translate to the new energy density. I think this is difficult to achieve since you need casimir geometry to first effect a gradient of changing energy densities and then you also need a control loop to keep the gas near the disassociation point so that some h1 penetrates into the cavities and then translates and cools to form fractional h2 (h2/x). It can then accumulate opposition to this covalent bond based on changes in energy density untill it disassociates -reversing the normal chemical reaction which can then immediately reform since the atoms are now translated to the new fractional value ..say h1/5 to form h2/5 which releases the energy gained from random motion. I include the other theories as secondary events that are fueled by this reversible reaction to explain the conflicting data  like nuclear artifacts without dead doctoral students and energy gains inconsistent with the theories applied. Fran ]

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice. Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.