Apart from numerous tests on this site and a couple of others in the past.
It measures like a resistor....
It claims to slipstream the electrons, stranger still once the electrons leave the device they still have the slipstream effect, now as I pointed out on an earlier discussion regarding these devices the electrons are traveling at about 0.01mm/s and in an alternating music signal would wobble back and forth never leaving the device.
Now as JC and others have said, if the explanation on the site is a smoke screen to hide the real effect, then we have false advertising, so either way there is a fraud being committed, this is simple logic.
I think NASA's CTS has got to be the coolest name for security level, better than SC!
It measures like a resistor....
It claims to slipstream the electrons, stranger still once the electrons leave the device they still have the slipstream effect, now as I pointed out on an earlier discussion regarding these devices the electrons are traveling at about 0.01mm/s and in an alternating music signal would wobble back and forth never leaving the device.
Now as JC and others have said, if the explanation on the site is a smoke screen to hide the real effect, then we have false advertising, so either way there is a fraud being committed, this is simple logic.
I think NASA's CTS has got to be the coolest name for security level, better than SC!
It's a simple case of inflation. If too many people go around with TS clearance, you need something above that for the even secreter stuff. Et voilà: CTS is born.
And don't get me started on ATOMAL!
Jan
16 years ago??? Shirley you jest. That's three generations ago in nano time.
Current research requires a large building with ground isolation for the atomic force scopes, next gen ebeam scopes, access to a third generation synchrotron light source, some SOTA wigglers and undulators, a good cafeteria, and a nice after hours pub all on site.
Well, maybe 3 outta 4...the cafeteria is workin on it.
Sigh...It is not noiseless. The fact that the electron movement is ballistic for a length smaller than the mean free path of the nanotube is useless for noise reduction, as the electron has to end that ballistic trajectory with a collision. Vacuum tubes do the exact same thing, but their ballistic trajectory is the distance between the cathode and plate.. Is anybody claiming a vacuum tube is noiseless??
The nano guys here do enjoy the occasional laugh.
Any element in nano form must be considered extremely dangerous as the properties are different, especially the reactive properties. Even Niobium Titanium when drawn to 5 micron filaments, can be ignited by static discharge. Nanoparticles of aluminum can be very explosive.
Sigh.. Old book. The ballistic trajectory includes acceleration, which of course ends when the electron reaches the end of the tube and hits something.
I didn't ignore it. It was done with inadequate controls, in an inadequate environment.
Your circuits design was great. Unfortunately, your equipment had ground loop problems that compromised your test.
jn
The Pleiadians have a Facebook page, what a surprise and stream of links to the same list of sensationalistic articles extrapolating single particle, etc. experiments to teleportation, super-luminal travel, whatever you want to prove can exist. Of course they did not post the followup on the one with faulty GPS data.
For those who seriously think that Top Secret is the highest security clearance just ask Richard Marsh. Sorry but he is traveling or somewhere he is not reading the site, but he mentioned this fact himself. There is Top Secret and then a level above where it becomes for your eyes only. Not kidding about that, but that is very off topic.
Would somebody like to state the definition of a scientific proof, in real terms? As anything else in science a principal can be believed by the scientific community that later is found to be incorrect, but most often the underlying principals are still correct, there are just new things that will be restated or modified in nature.
Recently Steven Hawkings restated his conceptual theory about how black holes function, he did not discount that there were black holes, just some of the assumptions that he changed his mind about. If you get close enough to actually prove these assumptions you will never come back to talk to us about it.
Would somebody like to state the definition of a scientific proof, in real terms? As anything else in science a principal can be believed by the scientific community that later is found to be incorrect, but most often the underlying principals are still correct, there are just new things that will be restated or modified in nature.
Recently Steven Hawkings restated his conceptual theory about how black holes function, he did not discount that there were black holes, just some of the assumptions that he changed his mind about. If you get close enough to actually prove these assumptions you will never come back to talk to us about it.
The term 'scientific proof' is inaccurate.
Replace 'scientific proof' with 'scientific evidence', which is what I actually meant, and you may get it:
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific proof - definition of Scientific proof by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
And I hope you do so in a way which is accurate and allows for reproduceability. Your IC tests for example, were not reproduceable as a consequence of test and equipment design flaws.
That last sentence...do you mean that you're actually going to..gulp...read the instruction manual?? That offense will get you booted outta the club.
Any technical assistance you wish, just ask, I'll help where I can..
jn
I had a look at some photos of this Bybee device disassembled and it looks like it consists of an low ohm resistor placed inside of an high power resistors ceramic tube.
JC stated somewere that the resistance of the surface conductive material was 12 kohm.
To mee this looks like an output inductor shunted by an low ohm resistor that you can find in most power amplifiers output stage. Although the ohm values here are different.
JC stated somewere that the resistance of the surface conductive material was 12 kohm.
To mee this looks like an output inductor shunted by an low ohm resistor that you can find in most power amplifiers output stage. Although the ohm values here are different.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.