Cockcroft and Walton where known to me for the Cockcroft Walton multiplier. This is a High voltage generator. So far I could find on wikipedia, they did not fusion but fission.
They where the first who did real fission, using 800kV high voltage. Shooting protons and electrons on Lithium they generated Helium and other elements and got a nobelprice. I found no evidence that they invented an energy machine. Maybe the remark about energy generation is a pure scientific speculation, without evidence and blown up by the journalist. At this time they speculated if it is possible to convert mass into energy. Most scientists denied it, saying, yes it might be possible but it is also possible to take a bath in champagne. At this time nuclear fission energy was a hope of utopists just like LENR today. ----- Original Nachricht ---- Von: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> An: [email protected] Datum: 17.10.2011 19:12 Betreff: [Vo]: Changing the subject... nuclear-to-electrical, Cockcroft and Walton > I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had enough of the E-Cat fiasco > until the end of the month. > > > > I was going thru some old papers and found an s.p.f newsgroup article from > 1991. yes, I'm kind of a pack-rat when it comes to sci-tech stuff. > > > > The article was posted by Bill Goffe at the Univ of Texas, and he was > writing about an article he had seen in the NYTimes. The article was > written by Glenn Seaborg and Paul Nitze (GS shared a Nobel prize in '51, > and > Nitze was an arms control advisor to every president from Truman to > Reagan). > > > > Here is what I wanted to ask the Vort Collective to see what, if anything, > is in its consciousness about the following excerpt taken from the > Seaborg/Nitze article: > > > > "In 1932, two British scientists, John Cockcroft and Ernest T.S. Walton, > demonstrated that nuclear energy could be generated by the collision of > artificially accelerated atomic nuclei in which both the initial and > resulting nuclei were nonradioactive. Energy was released in the form of > electrically charged atoms. This opens the possibility of converting the > nuclear energy directly into electrical energy, avoiding the heat > conversion > that is common to all electric-power generating processes and that warms > the > planet." > > > > Does Mills mention these two scientists? Is this what Moray's device did? > > > > Enjoy, > > -Mark > > > >
