

Discover more from Remote View
As discussed in part one of ‘Tree of life’, Yull Brown claimed in the press in 1988 to have observed the production of largely carbon, regardless of the stability of the element isotope he exposed to his ‘Brown gas’.
In this presentation, we will compare observations of Takaaki Matsumoto in his Lead electrode in electrolyte experiments from 1997 to MFMP analysis of Ohmasa Gas treated metals in 2019 and Slobodan Stankovic’s treatment of graphite in that same year.
I addition to looking at part one of ‘Tree of life’, it is advised that people review the following videos to get the most out of the live stream.
In the video below, I highlight again the observation of ejection/rejection of fermionic isotopes 1H (Piantelli), 3H (Claytor), 61Ni & 207Pb (Hutchison/Greenyer)
On Wednesday the 26th May 2021, Irina Savvatimova previewed her ICCF-23 conference presentation where she used corona discharge similar to that used by Tom Claytor (formerly of Los Alamos National Laboratory) to produce tritium.
As I had observed in a Hutchison sample and discussed in my ICCF-22 poster presentations, she also found that she produced an increase in the relative ratio of 61Ni over natural Ni isotope ratios.
And for decayed Pb isotopes, she saw a relative increase in 207Pb over natural Pb.
Savvatimova’s observations support my understanding that ultrasonics, corona discharges, water gasses and Hutchison Effect produce EVOs that are in part coherent matter leading to the same processes with the same, but broad family of outcomes.
Slides for the above presentation can be downloaded from here.
Slides for the above presentation can be downloaded from here.
The above two videos should be seen in context with this VEGA data and discussion.
Tree of life - part 2
Hi Bob, I would like to help with the RFP. Let me know if I can help. I am a semi-retired senior project manager from EG&G/URS. I have written multiple RFPs for nuclear waste remediation and the destruction of chemical weapons. I have also have written complex plans and schedules for the same. Uberzeitgeist @ Gmail.com. Best regards, Steve W
Now that I have read the RFP multiple time and highlighted the requirements, this is more of a technology survey than an RFP. RFP responses are usually much more complex. Since this is a survey, this should be no problem to respond before the deadline. I am currently turning each requirement into a question that we need to answer.
I should have this ready by tomorrow.
Since the readers of our RFP have probably never heard about the technology, I will also add questions that I am guessing they will ask.