It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cold Fusion - Step by step instructions - Aladdin's FUSION lamp.

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by binomialtheorem
 
:-)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I am curious. So what is being fused? How can gold reflect heat? I had the understanding that it conducted it.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
A "minor" correction: The Sun it's NOT a ball of METAL!! It's Hidrogen (and some Helium)!!!!
In the sun, nuclear reactions occur.
In your experiment chemical reactions occur.

There's no fusion nor fission involved. Elements may "regroup". There's no nucleosynthesis of sorts here, i think...

I'm not sure exactly what is it that this devices does.

Interesting read, though.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
First of all as far as I know you can't plate aluminum with gold. In electroplating the object to be plated is usually plated first with another element such as copper or silver e.g. Secondly lead free solder is not just tin but also contains silver. This in no way is to be considered as informed, educated or professional critique of your experiment. I am glad you have said that you do not wish to profit by this experiment as I have stated in other posts on other threads that I believe that the success of a free energy device depends on the intent of the inventor. The inventor should as you have post a clear simple explanation that anyone can follow to build their own device. If peer review or informed critique is involved no attention should be paid by the inventor as the proof will be supplied by anyone who follows the directions and succeeds. There weren't any scientists or organizations around when the first human to build a campfire did so and taught others. I will of course warn anyone who wishes to build any device to use common sense. Operate it in a well ventilated area. Use other safety techniques such as protective clothing and eyewear. Foremost, as soon as you try to profit from the invention such as patenting it you will fail and the device will be confiscated, hidden and banned from public use. You will be derided and critiqued etc. Success depends on truly altrustic motives. It also depends on exposing it en masse in public to as many people who can also build and operate it successfully.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I'm inclined to believe it's a thermite reaction. The dry earth is full of iron oxide which can react with aluminum and produce a ton of heat. You said you don't think it's that because you weighed it before and after, but the reaction is Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat, so there's no reason to think that a significant mass would be liberated as gas or otherwise. The weighing doesn't disprove the thermite explanation.

Also, what's the phosphorus component? Are you saying it's produced, or consumed?

Have you measured the temperate throughout heating and burning? Does it get hotter than whatever temperature it is exposed to initially? When you weigh it before and after, are you using a gram scale? Is there any change? Can you repeat the process for an infinite number of cycles or just a couple?

The best way to rule out the thermite explanation would be to replace the dirt with clay.

If I understand correctly, you're claiming nuclear fusion involving lead. What do you suppose the lead is turning into and what is it fusing with? Also, if you run it under a cover, like an inverted glass jar, does it fizzle out? In other words, does it consume oxygen? If you submerge it in water, does the reaction cease?

Cold fusion is hard because fusion doesn't occur unless the atoms involved are in highly energetic states. How do you suppose the strong nuclear force is overcome at oven temperatures?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
How do you suppose the strong nuclear force is overcome at oven temperatures?
I suppose it's not, which is why I asked if he was able to measure any neutrons as claimed. He said he didn't measure them but someone else did. If there's proof of someone else measuring the neutrons please share it, but if not, and none have been measured, I don't think we can assume there are neutrons being emitted as a result of this experiment.

On the contrary, the emissions of neutrons is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. So far the evidence we have is hearsay that someone else measured them but no further details, which may as well be no evidence at all, really.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I've been following this thread and I have to say (this is to help the OP).

Your claim would be more credible if you put it in a scientific paper format, instead of a step-by-step guide on how you created this thing. Maybe you should have waited a bit longer before releasing this. A proper paper would explain fundamentals about the project which are purveyed poorly in the OP.

I'm not saying you're wrong, so there's no need to defend your ego. I'm just saying that a better format would be helpful for us and would help you catch any flaws you may have missed before.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by michial
First of all as far as I know you can't plate aluminum with gold.


No, it needs Zincate then Nickel.


In electroplating the object to be plated is usually plated first with another element such as copper or silver e.g.


See above.


Secondly lead free solder is not just tin but also contains silver.


I beg to differ, I have some Lead free solder here that is 99% TIN.


This in no way is to be considered as informed, educated or professional critique of your experiment. I am glad you have said that you do not wish to profit by this experiment as I have stated in other posts on other threads that I believe that the success of a free energy device depends on the intent of the inventor.


Yes, how can TPTB take something given for free.


The inventor should as you have post a clear simple explanation that anyone can follow to build their own device.


I have given this


If peer review or informed critique is involved no attention should be paid by the inventor as the proof will be supplied by anyone who follows the directions and succeeds.


Yes, exactly.


There weren't any scientists or organizations around when the first human to build a campfire did so and taught others. I will of course warn anyone who wishes to build any device to use common sense.


I have tried to do the same.


Operate it in a well ventilated area. Use other safety techniques such as protective clothing and eyewear. Foremost, as soon as you try to profit from the invention such as patenting it you will fail and the device will be confiscated, hidden and banned from public use.


I will continue to try and give it away free, I would oppose anyone who tried to patent it.


You will be derided and critiqued etc.


Of this I do not care.


Success depends on truly altrustic motives. It also depends on exposing it en masse in public to as many people who can also build and operate it successfully.


This is what I am trying, and slowly, managing to do.

At least 2 others are now doing this. It will not be long before it is duplicated.

It only took me 4 or 5 attempt to get a working "torch".

Thank you for your post, it was most enlightening for other readers.
edit on 13-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: Spelling, Quote errors etc.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
I'm inclined to believe it's a thermite reaction.


I am listening, I will be checking on the reaction you quote.


The dry earth is full of iron oxide which can react with aluminum and produce a ton of heat. You said you don't think it's that because you weighed it before and after, but the reaction is Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat, so there's no reason to think that a significant mass would be liberated as gas or otherwise. The weighing doesn't disprove the thermite explanation.


You remember, this is dry earth, I see no IRON Oxide in it, I see IRON afterwards.


Also, what's the phosphorus component?


It is the next step up the table from Silicon


Are you saying it's produced, or consumed?


Both but produced is the wrong word.


Have you measured the temperate throughout heating and burning?


The oven has a guage, it sits, or I attempt to keep it at 300-350 C.


Does it get hotter than whatever temperature it is exposed to initially?


I keep trying to put this simple bit over;

The can has a surface area of 150cm2, it is 300C in the oven, the surface area of the Lead is only about 1.5cm2, that is 100 times smaller. The Tin is 400 Times Smaller, the Silicon is 1600 times smaller by surface area.

300C @ 150cm2 into 0.15cm2?

Doesn't take a genius to work out it is going to be VERY hot round the SILICON.

The HEAT can only go into the centre of the can, it is coming from all direction, like a magnifying glass.

Enough time and that 300C become 3000C and more, at the centre of the can, and will continue increasing as more energy is put into the can, the hotter the Lead becomes, the hotter it want to become.

The heat travels up the can, forced into a smaller space, into the TIN, this keeps going the tin is only 4g, it's TINY, etc. on to the SILICON.



When you weigh it before and after, are you using a gram scale?


I have a Jewlers scale, it goes in 0.001g steps, it is quite accurate.


Is there any change?


A 4g drop in the mass of the Lead.


Can you repeat the process for an infinite number of cycles or just a couple?


The can starts to disintegrate after a coule of uses. Opening and closing the flaps to refill it crack the casing of the can.


The best way to rule out the thermite explanation would be to replace the dirt with clay.


I think STONE would be the best, but that is currently beyond me.



If I understand correctly, you're claiming nuclear fusion involving lead.


Yes, caused by massive heat "amplification" by surface area.


What do you suppose the lead is turning into and what is it fusing with?


Tin & Silicon, at the end of the Reaction the Lead will have released 7 Neutrons, 3 Protons & 3 Electrons into the Tin, which in turn releases the above into the Silicon.

The Lead becomes Gold, The Tin Antimony and the Silicon Phospherous.


Also, if you run it under a cover, like an inverted glass jar, does it fizzle out?


I have not tried, it is a good experiment I will try.
I had not considered removing the Oxygen from the equation, it is burning Phospherous if I am correct. I do not know if it will burn with or without the oxygen. Nice. See Questions are good.


In other words, does it consume oxygen?


We will see.


If you submerge it in water, does the reaction cease?


The can is difficult to make, though I have used the water method to cool the can down, it usually ends up with holes in it, water gets in, makes the Dry Earth wet. An Enormous cloud of Steam, lots of bubbling etc. 20 mins later, it is cold.


Cold fusion is hard because fusion doesn't occur unless the atoms involved are in highly energetic states. How do you suppose the strong nuclear force is overcome at oven temperatures?


It is only the OVEN at that temperature, it is MUCH hotter in the CAN.
edit on 13-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   


How do you suppose the strong nuclear force is overcome at oven temperatures?


Did I answer this above, the temperature is much hotter in the can than the oven.


I suppose it's not, which is why I asked if he was able to measure any neutrons as claimed.


This is being done as we speak.


He said he didn't measure them but someone else did.


Is doing.


If there's proof of someone else measuring the neutrons please share it, but if not, and none have been measured, I don't think we can assume there are neutrons being emitted as a result of this experiment.


Soon, I am affraid I do not have access to such a device.


On the contrary, the emissions of neutrons is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence


Agreed.


So far the evidence we have is hearsay that someone else measured them but no further details, which may as well be no evidence at all, really.


Please read, I have not said that they HAVE been measured, I said that it is being done.
edit on 13-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by prepared4truth
I've been following this thread and I have to say (this is to help the OP).


Thank you, it is appreciated.


Your claim would be more credible if you put it in a scientific paper format, instead of a step-by-step guide on how you created this thing. Maybe you should have waited a bit longer before releasing this. A proper paper would explain fundamentals about the project which are purveyed poorly in the OP.


I am unfortunately not from a Scientific background, I do not have access to the technical equipment to do what you say.

If I worked at a Lab then sure, easy. But I do not.


I'm not saying you're wrong, so there's no need to defend your ego. I'm just saying that a better format would be helpful for us and would help you catch any flaws you may have missed before.


I agree, but what did you have in mind?

I have no Lab?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Here is a Picture of the Eye Of Horus, showing the fractional representation:




This is how I came to the materials / figures via the Periodic Table and the 2000+ year old "Eye Of Horus" fractions:

You have to note the R shape within the Eye of horus for the reactants.

Fraction Mass Size / Diameter Radius Element / Material
1 130g 130mm NA Dry Earth 1g/cm3
1/2 (R) 16g 65mm 32.5mm Lead - 10.x g/cm3 (+/- Solid / Liquid density)
1/4 (R) 4g 32.5mm 16.25mm Tin - 5.x g/cm3 x (+/- Solid / Liquid density)
1/8 (R) 2g 16.25mm NA Aluminium
1/16 (R) 0.5g 8.125mm 8.75mm Silicon 2.5g/cm3 (+/- Solid / Liquid density)
1/32 DARK wood
1/64 LIGHT wood

The Missing from 63/64
1/64 Tiny Plated NA GOLD 20g/cm3 (+/- depending on Liquid / Solid)

I did not guess.

The Light / Dark is for regulating the "device".

Do you think the above works out by chance?

I would love to hear the thoughts on that?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by aoi3610


The dry earth is full of iron oxide which can react with aluminum and produce a ton of heat. You said you don't think it's that because you weighed it before and after, but the reaction is Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat, so there's no reason to think that a significant mass would be liberated as gas or otherwise. The weighing doesn't disprove the thermite explanation.


You remember, this is dry earth, I see no IRON Oxide in it, I see IRON afterwards.


As you may know, iron oxidizes naturally; the process is commonly known as rusting. If the dirt is from the ground and hasn't been protected or processed in some way, one would expect a substantial portion of its iron content to have oxidized naturally over time. The iron you find afterwards is consistent with the equation above, as the iron oxide is converted into pure iron during the reaction.

Presumably, if you perform a few runs with the same sample of dirt and the process is in fact a thermite reaction, much of the iron oxide will have reacted. Thus, little to no iron oxide would be availible for additional runs. If you perform to reaction a number times and replenish the other components but reuse the dry earth, one would expect that the reaction would not take place because the iron oxide component would be depleted. Can you try several runs with the same dry earth and see if the effect persists?



The can has a surface area of 150cm2, it is 300C in the oven, the surface area of the Lead is only about 1.5cm2, that is 100 times smaller. The Tin is 400 Times Smaller, the Silicon is 1600 times smaller by surface area.

300C @ 150cm2 into 0.15cm2?

Doesn't take a genius to work out it is going to be VERY hot round the SILICON.

The HEAT can only go into the centre of the can, it is coming from all direction, like a magnifying glass.

Enough time and that 300C become 3000C and more, at the centre of the can, and will continue increasing as more energy is put into the can, the hotter the Lead becomes, the hotter it want to become.


This is the part that is inconsistent with the underlying physics. Nuclear fussion requires, at a minimum, that the reacting atoms be at tens of millions of degrees kelvin. Even in cold fussion this is the case. The defining feature of cold fusion is that a larger system is cold but there are very small pockets that reach the necessary temperatures. At least, this is the case with fussion that has been acheived in the laboratory as well as theoretical fussion methods that are consistent with the underlying forces involved. The nuclei of atoms are stabilized by the strongest force in the universe - the strong nuclear force - and it's inconceivable to me that an oven can deliver the energy necessary to overcome this force.

Established theory is totally incompatable with what your proposing; either you're right or mainstream physics is right. That's not to say that your results should be ignored, on the contrary they need to be explained, just be aware that your making some bold claims and skepticism towards those claims has a strong basis in widely accepted and experimentally supported mainstream theory. It's certainly the case that alternative explanations are much more likely than your explanation, but I appreciate your efforts none the less.



If I understand correctly, you're claiming nuclear fusion involving lead.


Yes, caused by massive heat "amplification" by surface area.


What do you suppose the lead is turning into and what is it fusing with?


Tin & Silicon, at the end of the Reaction the Lead will have released 7 Neutrons, 3 Protons & 3 Electrons into the Tin, which in turn releases the above into the Silicon.

The Lead becomes Gold, The Tin Antimony and the Silicon Phospherous.


Have you been able to measure a greater mass of gold at the end of the run than the amount you started with?



Fraction Mass Size / Diameter Radius Element / Material
1 130g 130mm NA Dry Earth 1g/cm3
1/2 (R) 16g 65mm 32.5mm Lead - 10.x g/cm3 (+/- Solid / Liquid density)
1/4 (R) 4g 32.5mm 16.25mm Tin - 5.x g/cm3 x (+/- Solid / Liquid density)
1/8 (R) 2g 16.25mm NA Aluminium
1/16 (R) 0.5g 8.125mm 8.75mm Silicon 2.5g/cm3 (+/- Solid / Liquid density)
1/32 DARK wood
1/64 LIGHT wood

The Missing from 63/64
1/64 Tiny Plated NA GOLD 20g/cm3 (+/- depending on Liquid / Solid)


The more data the better. I know it's time consuming and tedious to constantly measure and record, but it will be worth it if you're serious about this. The table above is useful as it defines the intent quantities of your materials. It would be extremely valuable if you could provide similar tables containing the exact actual amounts used in a run, as well as the amount present at the end. Ideally such tables could be provided for a number of runs, in addition to the other measurable parameters for each run such as oven temperature, reaction vessel temperature before and after, and time intervals associated with each measurement. It would also be worth including qualitative observational data for these runs. This way we could get a better picture of the energetics of the process, which could then be assessed for similarity to what would be expected from a thermite reaction and from a nuclear reaction.

On a separate note, I'm unfamiliar with this interpretation of the Eye of Horus. I see the image you have linked, but how do you associate the ratios therein with specific elements and compounds? i.e. Why does the eyebrow represent Aluminium? And how do you know how to assemble them and what to do next?

Then, just to be clear about a couple things:

The system contains no (P)hosphorus initially as far as you can tell?
Then, after the reaction, you find some amount of P present? How much?
How can you tell it's P?

Likewise, you don't believe there is any Sb(Antimony) present initially?
Yet you find it at the end? How much?
How do you know it's Sb?

My understanding of your proposed reaction is as follows:
1) 1Pb + Heat → 7n(as radiation/heat) + 3e- + 3p+ + Au
2) 3e- + 3p+ + (3?)Sn → (1?)Sb + 2e- + 2p+
3) 2e- + 2p+ + (2?)Si → (2?)P

I'm not sure that's right. I would appreciate if you would provide something similar with your intended values.

This is an interesting project, I'm glad you've decided to share it with us. Good luck. I await your reply.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 




As you may know, iron oxidizes naturally; the process is commonly known as rusting.


I live in the UK, we all know what rust is! ;-)


If the dirt is from the ground and hasn't been protected or processed in some way, one would expect a substantial portion of its iron content to have oxidized naturally over time.


It was dried at 400 degrees for about 3 hours.


The iron you find afterwards is consistent with the equation above, as the iron oxide is converted into pure iron during the reaction.


To be fairit is Earth when it goes in. But it does obviously contain IRON and nickel.


Presumably, if you perform a few runs with the same sample of dirt and the process is in fact a thermite reaction, much of the iron oxide will have reacted. Thus, little to no iron oxide would be availible for additional runs.


A good point, I am going to shortly do an experiment to show if it requires "oxygen" to burn.


If you perform to reaction a number times and replenish the other components but reuse the dry earth, one would expect that the reaction would not take place because the iron oxide component would be depleted. Can you try several runs with the same dry earth and see if the effect persists?


I have run it twice in the same Can, but the can desintegrates after that, I will however save the contents if possible to reuse. There is always a possibility of contamination then, however, it is worth the risk.


This is the part that is inconsistent with the underlying physics. Nuclear fussion requires, at a minimum, that the reacting atoms be at tens of millions of degrees kelvin.


Rememebr the Surface Area principal and tiny amount of Lead, Tin & Silicon in relation to the Heat input.

150cm2 at 300C into 1.5 cm2?
= 45,000 degrees C

This is Magnifying the Heat to the centre of the can, just like a magnifying glass.

The Heat keeps coming too.


Even in cold fussion this is the case. The defining feature of cold fusion is that a larger system is cold but there are very small pockets that reach the necessary temperatures.


See above?


At least, this is the case with fussion that has been acheived in the laboratory as well as theoretical fussion methods that are consistent with the underlying forces involved. The nuclei of atoms are stabilized by the strongest force in the universe - the strong nuclear force - and it's inconceivable to me that an oven can deliver the energy necessary to overcome this force.


I agree, without amplification.


Established theory is totally incompatable with what your proposing;


I say it follows established theory perfectly.


either you're right or mainstream physics is right.


I agree it is. (I hope so or this cannot work)


That's not to say that your results should be ignored, on the contrary they need to be explained, just be aware that your making some bold claims and skepticism towards those claims has a strong basis in widely accepted and experimentally supported mainstream theory.


I want people to do this, it is a really really simple experiment, all I am missing is a Radiation sensor?


It's certainly the case that alternative explanations are much more likely than your explanation, but I appreciate your efforts none the less.


Not sure on that one. but my hears are open.


Have you been able to measure a greater mass of gold at the end of the run than the amount you started with?


No, I believe the whole point is to plate the Can in gold for the reflective properties, I can tell you that in an earlier experiment the Gold that came out, (which was too large a chunk, 0.5g) was NOT gold anymore. It looked like Lead.


The more data the better. I know it's time consuming and tedious to constantly measure and record, but it will be worth it if you're serious about this.


I was hoping that I would not be the only 1.


The table above is useful as it defines the intent quantities of your materials.


Which was the point.


It would be extremely valuable if you could provide similar tables containing the exact actual amounts used in a run, as well as the amount present at the end.


I will provide the 2nd set later, but the initial values are in this thread.


Ideally such tables could be provided for a number of runs, in addition to the other measurable parameters for each run such as oven temperature, reaction vessel temperature before and after, and time intervals associated with each measurement.


I will, but it would be nice for it too not just be me.


It would also be worth including qualitative observational data for these runs. This way we could get a better picture of the energetics of the process, which could then be assessed for similarity to what would be expected from a thermite reaction and from a nuclear reaction.


It would be nice to have "someone" else repeat the experiment.


On a separate note, I'm unfamiliar with this interpretation of the Eye of Horus. I see the image you have linked, but how do you associate the ratios therein with specific elements and compounds?


It is the only way they fit by Mass.


i.e. Why does the eyebrow represent Aluminium? And how do you know how to assemble them and what to do next?


The Periodic table provides Aluminium as the only Suitable source that fits the Table of Values.


Then, just to be clear about a couple things:

The system contains no (P)hosphorus initially as far as you can tell?


No, none unless I have contaminated the "elements" in the beginning, but I do not see how I could have.


Then, after the reaction, you find some amount of P present? How much?


It only has 0.5g of Silicon to start with, It is in a pot of "Dry Earth", it has been impossible to discerne anything other than the remaining Gold, Lead & Tin.

The Silicon ends up as a very small ball of glass. (Or a big blob if you put too much in)


How can you tell it's P?


I am extrapolating from the Periodic table, it is NEXT up.


Likewise, you don't believe there is any Sb(Antimony) present initially?


Given I had not even heard of ANTIMONY before I started this, I doubt it.
The name is very co-incidental though?


Yet you find it at the end? How much?


The Mass of Tin does not alter.


How do you know it's Sb?


It is a good question, however, the experiment needs to be run full term with a Gold plated pot to evaluate the remaining "elements" in all fairness.


My understanding of your proposed reaction is as follows:
1) 1Pb + Heat → 7n(as radiation/heat) + 3e- + 3p+ + Au
2) 3e- + 3p+ + (3?)Sn → (1?)Sb + 2e- + 2p+
3) 2e- + 2p+ + (2?)Si → (2?)P

I'm not sure that's right. I would appreciate if you would provide something similar with your intended values.


I will provide what I see in the format you have used shortly. It will require a little time to calculate.


This is an interesting project, I'm glad you've decided to share it with us. Good luck. I await your reply.


Thank you for you non-opinionated questions.

Thank you a lot.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 

This is How I see it. (I think)

Pb x 16g (1/2)
Sn x 4g (1/4)
Si x 0.5g (1/16)

1) 4Pb + Heat → 28n + 12e + 12p (Au 79p / 79e / 118n Remains from the Lead)
2) 12e + 12p + 28n → Sn = 1Sb + 11p- + 11e + 7n (Sb 51p / 51e / 71n Remains from the Tin)
3) 11p + 11e + 7n → Si = P + 10p + 10e + 6n (P 15p /15e / 16n Remains from the Silicon)

10p, 10e & 6n liberated from the Lead as Energy. The Phosperous gets Burnt.
(Heat & Light + Radiation that I have not measured)

It has Magnetised my Rayburn though?
It is exhibiting some "odd" magnetic properties now.

Hope I got that correct.


edit on 13-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: Spelling

edit on 13-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by aoi3610
 


Just wanted to say I am loving the to and fro on this thread.

I do not think that I can contribute anything being scientifically useless.

A small question though: Does changing the holding receptacle alter the experiment? Granted you probably haven't had an opportunity to try an alternative, but would a thinly tapered neck clay pot be able to replace the tin can? Maybe a two piece thing so you could take the top off when cool to access the gubbins inside for results.

Please ignore my suggestion if it is blindingly stupid. Otherwise really enjoying the thread, cheers OP.
edit on 13-1-2011 by spacedonk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I posted two questions previously and ended answering one of them from reading your associated thread. I am still unsure how you can say gold reflects 98% of heat when it is an excellent conductor. It makes sense that it is 98% reflective of light, though I may be mistaken so correct me please if I am wrong. As far as Iron being contained in soil, it can be deposited by water draining through a particular stratum but by the description of the soil you used in your experiment is primarily silicate based because you described as a sand and in all likelihood does not contain a high enough iron content to sustain a thermite reaction(before you ask I am a geotechnical engineer so I have some technical knowledge of soil composition).

I have lurked long enough on this site to know that if you present a method for creating an energy source such as cold fusion you should probably have explained the science behind it first. What I have observed is that you present evidence based on very shaky ground (i.e. stating tin becomes antimony and silicon become phosphorous by simply stating because that is what is next in the periodic table). I don't mean to attack you however your credibility is in serious doubt because how the information was presented. You have a physics degree but IMO you have not conducted yourself becoming of a physicist.
edit on 13-1-2011 by xmattx16 because: clarifying



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmattx16
You have a physics degree but IMO you have not conducted yourself becoming of a physicist.
edit on 13-1-2011 by xmattx16 because: clarifying


Where does he say that? From what I've deduced from reading his posts, I don't find anything that suggests he has a physics degree.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xmattx16
 
To be fair I never had any intention of "developing" a Fusion device, my background in it is not shall we say, INDUSTRIAL.

I am more of a Solar PV guy myself.
However, if you have read the other thread, then there is so much more to just the eye that leads towards fusion.
I have answered at least 5 of the worlds mysteries using the 1/2 - 1/4 - 1/16 principle.

If you've properly read the thread, then you should understand.

EVERY action has it's EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction.

I make that point particularly with reference to the DOME of THE ROCK.
But there are at least 4 other ancient structures I have decoded.

The Egyptians were clever people and all of this has happened to me in a set order, in a set way.
I am telling you, it WORKS exactly as I say it does.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrong
 

A fair question has been raised here: Does the OP possess a Physics degree, or does he not?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join