Anti Gravity Acheived And Confirmed

page: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Lol. So now some independent sources have acheived transmutation of elements thru cavitation
and I had acheived this feat 2 years ago.




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


You know, usually it's expected that you provide some sort of reference so others can know what you're on about. Do you mean this?



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Lol. So now some independent sources have acheived transmutation of elements thru cavitation
and I had acheived this feat 2 years ago.


Pfftt...newcomer - the Nazi's did it on their moonbase 70 years ago!



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Lol Beep.... Yes prolly with their nazi bell



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Cant open your link, but someone brought this up in the 1 mega watt test of the e cat thread



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


It's a PDF file of a paper written by Cardone, et al. Could you provide a link to what you're talking about?
edit on 3-4-2012 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


It's a PDF file of a paper written by Cardone, et al. Could you provide a link to what you're talking about?
edit on 3-4-2012 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)

Thanks.
Try googling cavitation transmutations, quite a few sites there



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Thanks.
Try googling cavitation transmutations, quite a few sites there


You know, this is your thread, not mine. The onus is on you to provide the research and prove your hypothesis. So far you've given nothing.

Anyway, as for cavitation. I did look it up and this was the main body of research I found.

Going back to this. Firstly, you'll note the date was 2004 - so much for you being the first to come up with the idea, huh.

It has since been republished by Cardone, et al.:

www.sciencedirect.com...

Their main point, found in the abstract, is summarised by the following.


We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 104 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do.


This was then rebutted by Ericsson, et al.:

www.sciencedirect.com...

And by Kowalski:

www.sciencedirect.com...

In this, both claim that the results concluded by Cardone were done so on the basis of poor experimental controls and completely bias interpretation of the data.

The first reply, which was issued by Ericsson, states the following in their introduction:


In view of the body of knowledge in nuclear physics that has been collected over the past 100 years, this claim is extraordinary and would have rather exciting consequences for the whole field of nuclear physics and its applications. Such an extraordinary claim should, however, be substantiated by extraordinary evidence. We find that such evidence is missing in this paper and it even seems that methodological mistakes have been made.

Since we should, nevertheless, stay open to honest new and potentially revolutionary discoveries, we suggest additional test that the authors can do in order to test their claim.


And so they did. In the end, they were forced to conclude that the entire premise was pure speculation and the data inconclusive on account of the fact that the data presented by the author was statistically invalid and the experimental setup sub par.

The reply by Kowalski more or less came to the same conclusion. They suggested that even were the results not the victim of faulty experiential paramters, that they could quite easily be attributed to the fact that caviation produces reactive oxygen species which would lead to


progressive accumulation of thorium on available surfaces, such as inner walls of the glass container, or the cavitator.


And


If this were to happen then the solution removed from the vessel, after the treatment, would indeed be less concentrated than the solution before the treatment.


Trivial stuff and is perfectly logical, yet Cardone didn't even bother to check it out. They then corroborated concerns about missing procedural information, missing information on certain experimental parameters, an absence of various explanations of statements used as fact to support their conclusions and an absense of equipment information. This is all standard stuff when publishing in science and it's honestly a wonder how it managed to get published at all.


To be continued...
edit on 7-4-2012 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
The rebuttals were then rebutted upon:

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...

They claimed that Ericsson's reply ignored their many references that set precedence for piezonuclear reactions and go on to clarify that:


In short, piezonuclear reactions are nuclear reactions (of a new kind) induced in liquids by ultrasound cavitation [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8] and in solids by mechanical pressing and consequent brittle failure [9]. Such processes give rise to transformations of elements [3], [4] and [5] and to emission of neutrons [7], [9] and [15], without significant emission of gamma radiation. Moreover, piezonuclear reactions are characterized by a marked threshold behaviour in the supplied energy, and occur in stable elements. Therefore, they do not belong to the research stream aimed at inducing usual nuclear reactions in unstable elements or deuterated compounds [16], [17], [18] and [19] by means of pressure waves (in particular ultrasounds and cavitation), but constitute new phenomena involving the nucleus. A possible theoretical interpretation of such new processes and of their features (in terms of a spacetime deformation) has been given in Refs. [6] and [8].


They also state that the comments on statistical analysis do are unfounded, since the methods Ericsson used to counter their conclusions did not take into account normal provisions taken for small sample numbers. They agreed that further experiments were required for corroboration and seemed to cherry pick a few of the problems with the experimental set up and claimed that it was simply a mistake in the writing they and the reviewers overlooked.
Finally, the rebuttal of the rebuttal was rebutted upon with a full publication, again by Ericsson, et al.:
www.sciencedirect.com...

They state that:

In a previous Comment [4] we outlined some of the findings from our investigation of the material presented in [1] and put forward a few suggestions to improve the work. In a Reply [5] to our Comment, Cardone et al. address some but not the most important points raised by us. In fact, instead of clarifying the situation, the Reply by Cardone et al. raises further, very severe questions about the experimental work and data analysis methods used.


Ericsson made a number of detailed observations that my post limit unfortunately does not allow me to go into. I'll summarise it by giving their conclusion:


To summarize, we have shown that the claim by Cardone et al. of accelerated (and since the Reply even gamma-less) “transfor- mation” of thorium due to cavitation is not substantiated by the experimental evidence presented. We have also shown that the ex- perimental procedures and the treatment of data are below the standards normally accepted by the physics community. Further- more, we have even discovered serious errors and shortcomings in the presented data. Under these circumstances we must conclude that the claims made in papers [1] and [5] should be considered as mere speculation on the part of the authors.


Angelic Resurrection, I went and researched all of that not because I particularly felt like spending my 5am on a Sunday reading bunk physics – I get enough of that already on other sites where I staff. I did it to show you what you should be doing. That is to say, you should be doing some real research without the assumption that you must be correct. It’s simply bad science to be anything but objective when performing experiments and analysing results.

Now, you haven’t given a single good explanation for your hypothesis in this entire thread, save that it’s a ‘chemical process’. Well, I’m a chemist, so how about you explain it to me?
edit on 7-4-2012 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Nice to know that you are a chemist. I still have a smaple of the water and a piece of steel and I can
send it to you to perform your own tests. The only hitch is that I am at work and currently in Iran.
But you may team up with me if you like



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Nice to know that you are a chemist. I still have a smaple of the water and a piece of steel and I can
send it to you to perform your own tests. The only hitch is that I am at work and currently in Iran.
But you may team up with me if you like



That's not an answer to my question.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


I don't believe you... hardy har har....



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


I don't believe you... hardy har har....


What do you not believe, all the visible proof is there



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Its not like 2 or more chemicals reacting.
Its nuclear restructuring



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
Nice to know that you are a chemist. I still have a smaple of the water and a piece of steel


I too enjoy a smaple of water now and again, but not when I am having a snifter of bourbon however. A piece of steel to nibble on always goes well, too.

I did jump a few pages after the first one was an inaccurate depiction of the topic I had entered, and see that it is still in negotiations as to who should be googling what.

I gather the Anti Gravity device is powered by spinning heads, with the enormous amount of energy it consumes!



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 


Lol, I like your sense of humour. Welcome to the thread.
Googlings galore, nvm, there are all sorts of armchair wikipedia/internet scientists
and chemists on the ats.
Energy is of little consequence, if you manage to tap into the ZPE.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Its not like 2 or more chemicals reacting.
Its nuclear restructuring



Still not an answer to my question. Quit with the layman talk, explain to me your concept and give me your proof. Pretty simple request.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by mainidh
 


Lol, I like your sense of humour. Welcome to the thread.
Googlings galore, nvm, there are all sorts of armchair wikipedia/internet scientists
and chemists on the ats.
Energy is of little consequence, if you manage to tap into the ZPE.



... was messin around and just happened to tap into ZPE eh? I suppose that was googled as well.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Enough non layman info is there on the link, besides my world changing technology is
no longer merely a concept but a fully working technology with all the visible proof so quit
harping about proof like you are some govt agent



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
[
... was messin around and just happened to tap into ZPE eh? I suppose that was googled as well.


What exactly are you on about, messin around and managed zpe.amd googling and obraining zpe? eh.....
try it yourself and post your results if you succeed at all. Lol





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join