Electrical / Electronic Devices > Tariel Kapanadze's Devices
Comments on the McFreey paper
ion:
Does anyone have a simple benchtop experiment that can prove the existence of these transmutations and radiation that can be simply measured?
What would be a barebones NMR experiment that can prove some of these claims. Let's try it.
yfree and PhysicsProf: any comments? This seems to be in your area of expertise.
exnihiloest:
--- Quote from: yfree on 2012-09-23, 16:22:13 ---...
In fact, McFreey's analysis considers beta decay only as a means of initiating the transmutation reactions.
...
--- End quote ---
A β- decay is the reaction: n -> p+ + e- (+ ν_e, but we don't care the antineutrino, of very low energy).
When there is β decay, of course there is always transmutations. But the proton being kept in the nucleus, the energy is carried away by the electron. The kinetic energy of the electron is the only useful energy from the reaction. It can be considerable due to relativistic speeds. It comes from the mass default between neutron and proton.
As already said, we see that the charge is conserved. The proton remaining static, McFreey supposes that the expelled electrons induce current in the output coil. The β- decay is the only way invoked by McFreey to produce energy. The transmutation is the necessary byproduct.
Grumpy:
--- Quote from: ION on 2012-10-01, 17:20:42 ---Does anyone have a simple benchtop experiment that can prove the existence of these transmutations and radiation that can be simply measured?
--- End quote ---
How about something that appears to be the radiation? No transmutation required.
Not all that simple, but you could get it running in a few days if you have the supplies and a high impedance ohmmeter.
exnihiloest:
@Grumpy
Remember that McFreey's paper is a possible explanation of the "Kapanadze's process" (and others). Presuming that it is not a scam, the "Kapanadze's process" produces energy from apparently nowhere.
Providing that we don't believe in a perpetual motion of the first kind, a nuclear reaction is the less exotic explanation and so, it must be hypothesized in the first place.
As nobody succeeded in duplicating the Kapanadze's device, nobody is today able to test the least hypothesis. The hypothesis should rather be considered as a help to duplicate the Kapanadze's device, because it is easier to build a machine when we have an idea about how it works.
Grumpy:
--- Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-03, 08:12:24 ---@Grumpy
Remember that McFreey's paper is a possible explanation of the "Kapanadze's process" (and others). Presuming that it is not a scam, the "Kapanadze's process" produces energy from apparently nowhere.
Providing that we don't believe in a perpetual motion of the first kind, a nuclear reaction is the less exotic explanation and so, it must be hypothesized in the first place.
As nobody succeeded in duplicating the Kapanadze's device, nobody is today able to test the least hypothesis. The hypothesis should rather be considered as a help to duplicate the Kapanadze's device, because it is easier to build a machine when we have an idea about how it works.
--- End quote ---
I know what is says. Since you deny the possibility of "energy creation", anything that suggests this is immediately false.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version