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, 411 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		The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register Who cares whose test? It's no big deal anyway. (Score: 1) by chipotle_pickle on Sunday, July 13, 2003 @ 15:00:50 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com While external duplication adds a lot of credibility to any positive test, Chukanov's own tests are already a failure. He's self-debunking. Chukanov uses a given amount of power to create glowing plasma, and then measures luminosity. Let's assume his luminosity measurement is correct. He then compares that to the luminosity of a notoriously poor converter of energy to light, the incandescent bulb. Then he claims that since his glowing plasma is much better than incandescent bulbs, it must be tapping some other energy source. But he ought to be comparing to a sodium vapor light, which is much brighter than incandescent. If you point this out to them, they answer with theory. It's a circular argument. In order to accept that there experiment shows anything out of the ordinary, you already have to buy into their theory. Sterling has some pictures in his coverage: http://www.greaterthings.com/News/FreeEnergy/Directory/Chukanov/index.html Anyone who can talk to a lighting engineer or TV lighting director should ask them if they think these photos constitute a breakthrough in physics. Bring paper-towel and be prepared to help out with any laughter-induced messes. | Parent Re: What do we do with this light. by Doug on Sunday, July 13, 2003 @ 22:12:15 UTC

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.