Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics
Hate to agree with Michel for once, but unless you are quite high that is exactly what will happen. Indeed a negative sphere can attract another negative sphere as long as one is at a higher potential according to experiments others have preformed, and I think the math would agree. On 2/16/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fred the applet works fine I guess, but to use it you need to know how the charges are distributed on the Earth's surface, which you don't, and that's what will prevent your device flying to the moon I am afraid (people will call me a skeptic again :). As several of us pointed out, same sign earth charge will crawl away from your charged device, and opposite sign charge -image charge- will remain on the ground below your device, forming an earth-device capacitor attracting your device downwards. To simulate what would really happen you must look for an applet in which you would define conductors and total charge and which would work out charge distribution for you, this may exist. Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics If you have the patience, this CalTech Electric Field Applet can be used to set up a simulation of the charged apparatus, the ion charges and the putative excess negative charge of the earth and the positive ionosphere. http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/EField/EField.html My rough calculations before embarking on flying the 1.5 kg VDG plus a 2 kg 12 volt battery pack plus a 0.5 kg inverter and 0.5 kg heavy gauge aluminum foil atop a well isolated 10 kg capacity digital scale, indicates that a lift of 3 kg can be attained with a potential of 1.5 million volts on a device with the negative charge pumped from the inner sphere to the surrounding outer sphere by the VDG. But don't bet on it. :-) Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 2/15/2007 3:34:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics - Original Message - From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics You can calculate i*d/2E-4 (i current in A, d gap in m) for yourself can't you? Well that's the ion wind's contribution to the thrust in N. Measure more thrust than that in a device, and then you'll have found evidence of something else contributing, until then you're an idiot ion wind skeptic :) I haven't really done any lifter experiments (not one light enough to take off anyway) and math isn't my strong suit, It doesn't have to take off, you can measure the decrease in apparent weight. As for the maths, it boils down to: Ion wind contributed thrust in grams = 0.5*i*d with i in mA and d in mm Is this simple enough for you? I'm basing the statement on something I read about a NASA (Nasa Ain't a Space Agency, or Not A Space Agency) mathematician, I believe it was saying that ion wind was not sufficient to account for the thrust, and honestly when you look at the different things that have been done to reduce or apparently rule out ion wind, well they paint a far more convincing picture, especially since as I said ion wind doesn't account for other embodiments of Brown's work hardly at all. Hearsay, beliefs, you'd better see for yourself. Whatever the device, Why when there is more evidence for a real effect do you choose to brush it aside in preference of a less likely mundane explanation, just consider the implications of such technology if it can be made effective. In fact if you think there is even a chance that there might be something in it you should realize it is too valuable to dismiss. Unless of course you are in reality a skeptic No, I speak of experience, I have done experiments and measurements at all kinds of voltages and currents. As I said, you're the ion wind skeptic: skep·tic also scep·tic n. 1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions in which case what are you doing here? Wasting my time on someone who doesn't have a clue. ... Beware though that high voltages (25kV for a typical computer screen power supply) at any sizeable current (more than a few mA) can be lethal, and hurt a lot in the very least (feels a bit like having your arm caught in a meat chopper I was told). Actually the only thing you feel is a pin point burn and the smell of burning skin, plus a buzzing. If it wasn't for the burn it's not painful though possibly irritating. The friend who made that description of the pain plays with high voltages at the kW level, do you? :) No, not kW levels, in fact you can get what I described from
Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Ok, so what do you think the cost per tonne of carbon dioxide removed by your method would be? Obviously it's going to have to be better than $15USD per tonne to be worth while. Though I don't suspect you aren't far enough along for a cost analysis yet? On 2/16/07, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michel Jullian wrote. Charring works I agree but it retains only 50 percent of the biomass carbon. Right the pyrolysis creates CO + H2 + pyroligneous acids etc that reacts with the atmospheric O2 which I found with my early biomass work was enough to self-power a unit that augered biomass through a stainless steel tube heated to 1200-1400 F with the off gas and acids wet scrubbed. Half-charred idea: how about pressing the micro-algae for their oil and then charring the press-cake to make charcoal? If pressing retains 60% of the carbon, the whole process could sequester 80% of the captured carbon! Vacuum or inert gas (N2) pyrolysis can do that. BTW, are we set on high yield salt water micro-algae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture for the CO2 capture? It's hard to grow seaweed in livestock watering tanks, and water evaporation (about 12,000-15,000 gallons/acre-day) makes large desert algae ponds rather impractical It seems less fuss than macro-algae (seaweeds), and can be grown anywhere on the ocean surface not just in shallow areas. The use of floated seine ponds in fresh or sea water would make large scale harvesting more practical. No? As I said if it turned out to be more economical we could also harvest the open sea phytoplankton (which we could re-seed to help natural reproduction), using floating multi-km2 fine-mesh nets . Wouldn't it be nice if a self-powered harvesting/processing supertanker departing empty from a middle east port could arrive full at a US port? :) Lets get Nick Palmer across the Chunnel from you to ask Sir Richard Branson that question. Fred . Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize I see your point Nick, harvesting algae using a floating horizontal fine-mesh seine as an algae pond to sequester atmospheric CO2 followed by charring the algae is a seine idea. Since Michel is closer to the Seine and you are closer to Branson. :-) The millions of acres in the US that are in set aside acreage that are brush-hogged so the farmer can collect up to $30.00/acre (or are brush-hogged to keep the place looking good) that oxidize releasing CO2, could be covered with a fiberglass mat or such to generate slash-and-char bio-char in situ. Fred http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-555 16.html Slash-and-burn, which is commonly used in many parts of the world to prepare fields for crops, releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Slash-and-char, on the other hand, actually reduces greenhouse gases, Lehmann said, by sequestering huge amounts of carbon for thousands of years and substantially reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions from soils. The result is that about 50 percent of the biomass carbon is retained, Lehmann said. By sequestering huge amounts of carbon, this technique constitutes a much longer and significant sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide than most other sequestration options, making it a powerful tool for long-term mitigation of climate change. In fact we have calculated that up to 12 percent of the carbon emissions produced by human activity could be offset annually if slash-and-burn were replaced by slash-and-char. In addition, many biofuel production methods, such as generating bioenergy from agricultural, fish and forestry waste, produce bio-char as a byproduct. The global importance of a bio-char sequestration as a byproduct of the conversion of biomass to bio-fuels is difficult to predict but is potentially very large, he added. Nick Palmer wrote: Here's three more websites (particularly the first one) that extol the apparently huge benefits of bio-char charcoal in soils. If the char was created from pyrolysed algae that was fattened on fossil fuel sourced CO2, we could be on our way to a share of $25 million! Can anyone do some numbers? http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-555 16.html http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/05947/EGU05-J-05947.pdf
Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox
Twin paradox solved by a universal static aether adjustment to SR ;) SR is totally broken. And no inertial acceleration doesn't solve it, the twin at home is undergoing plenty of acceleration around the earth, around the sun, thermal and sound vibrations. Also the acceleration to light speed can be arbitrarily steep for a thought experiment so the accelerating, decelerating part of the trip could be no more than 1 sec total by anyones watch. You could also have two (very long) parallel trains with windows and clocks, this way you can see the rate of time of the other train as you might have left that carriage you started opposite a long way behind but a synchronized clock is always in view. Or what of the case of a near light speed orbit, you are always in view of the stationary mass you are orbiting and it can always see you with out any Doppler related time effects. It has never made sense and never will. Many experiments and observations show that the speed of light isn't always constant either, it's all bunk and obviously so once you see the holes. On 2/16/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: I'm going to go shovel the snow off my ~100 ft long driveway. I wonder if it will have important future implications for quantum computers? --Kyle No way. You need to be shovelling sh*t to have that affect. ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Two things, for one there are many uses for wood, as long as it's not burnt why not make use of what you can rather than just burying. And secondly the rate of pine growth varies greatly, see: http://www.forestenterprises.co.nz/new/afi/nzplantation.htm So location is key, as is choosing a very fast growing tree. Also Corella and other micro seaweeds are incredibly good as a natural supplement. So a bit of both, also the micro seaweed can be used to fertilize the land as discussed.
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
On 2/17/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your position, like that dangerous lunatic Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus Dirty Harry who felt lucky and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum... No Nick, I'm probably the most safe and sane thinker on this debate. Instead of looking only at the present time I beg to differ. You don't know for a fact that it will lead to what you envision, nor do you know if the consequences will be worth it to human, animal or vegetable. (mineral should be fine ;) What species won't survive the violent changes? Which ones won't survive their new environment? And you are proposing to help the earth by massive pollution! Also there is the very real possibility that in all those millions of years something has changed and the earth can't be reset. There is a fringe theory that says that there used to be a canopy or rings of water/ice that caused the floods (on coming down) which are universally present in pretty much all peoples history. (Atlantis, Genesis as well as most/all native legends and even some assorted scientific oddities) So all things considered I don't think you can really be assured it even could work if it is desirable which it is most likely not. , I'm looking ahead at multiple generations of humans. If we don't start focusing heavily on survival, future generations simply will not survive. Climate change is inevitable That's a theory not a fact. , and it would occur whether humans tried bringing the carbon back into the biosphere, or not. Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish. Granted if it was naturally going to happen it might take some significant intervention, but it is possible to reverse it not that we know that it's going to happen anyway.
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Human achievements are significant. Ultimately almost anything is possible, some things man has envisioned doing in the future: Make an elevator to geosynchronous (I assume?) orbit. Make nano machines Both of those may even be near future. For the somewhat more distant future there are thoughts such a traveling to distant stars and beyond. Dyson spheres. Tippler time travel by rotating a stack of neutron stars and other stellar engineering. And of course terraforming other planets. So obviously it IS possible, it is within man's grasp to either correct the current greenhouse gas problem and or stop any adverse global weather condition. How easy or difficult depends on how such a goal is achieved, how subtle and sophisticated or ingenious the techniques used are, for instance I believe in cloud busting and other such environmental engineering by the subtle energies of nature that I suspect many in here would reject, needless to say it could be achieved more easily this way than by a brute force method but either way it plainly IS possible. On 2/17/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John, Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish. Obviously it cannot be stopped. It has already happened a dozen times in the past 120,000 years. What makes you think we are special and climate change was not going to happen to us? Dave
Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox
On 2/17/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An accelerometer is a purely local instrument (which, of course, can't tell the difference between gravity and acceleration). Actually there is a way, or technically 2 ways at least. (besides the fact that experiments have shown that things don't all drop at the same speed meaning that there is a difference between inertial force and gravity) One way is to measure the difference at the floor and ceiling (typically this thought experiment takes place in an elevator).and measure the difference as gravity is of course going to be stronger at the bottom, where a constant acceleration will be equal at each end. The other way is to measures the curvature of the gravity field (measure it's convergence/divergence). But the more important hole is that in real world experiments it is found that things can drop at very different speeds, for instance an iron sphere and a carbon sphere both of the same weight, the carbon sphere will fall faster despite being much larger hence having greater drag. In another case Don A. Kelly, a Free Energy researcher made a device which consisted of a bread board with a bunch of magnets layed out somehow, this would drop something like 1/3rd slower that it should. On 2/17/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But enough bickering. Talking about centrifugal force, you do know that by running around a bucket of water you incurve the water as if it was centrifuged don't you? :) Ok, I just tried it, I ran really really fast and you are wrong ;) Funny, now I know your a girl I feel bad about stuff I previously said ;) There are far far too few female interested in science, physics especially and alt science most of all.
Re: [Vo]: RC'd CO2 harvesting whale herds (was: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize)
On 2/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does this whale oil scheme sound now ? Somehow, even crazier. And no, not crazy like a fox.
Re: [Vo]: OT: Whoa, Fido....
Here is an interesting one, footage FOX showed just once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc Clearly no plane crashed there, if the plane was hit by a missile and blew to smithereens (in which case it would still be more left than reported) it couldn't leave a hole in the Ground, clearly it's just a missile hit the ground. Until now I doubted the claim that it was a missile that hit the pentagon but not anymore. Of course flashes can be seen before each of the planes hit the Trade center. And a guy was burnt by an explosion that went off early in the basement. Freefall of a building like that without explosives is not possible. And how come building 7 went down too? On 2/19/07, DonW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following clips are also interesting: 9/11 Truth: Scott Forbes describes power-downs in WTC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfomode=relatedsearch= 9/11 Truth: What Happened to WTC Building 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DoibU5njEM 9/11 Truth: David Ray Griffin Speaks @ Santa Rosa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a9vLJIR69Amode=relatedsearch= NORAD Stand-Down on 9/11: Not Just Simple Incompetence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5q2DO7ofnQmode=relatedsearch= -DonW- -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: OT: Whoa, Fido Is this Sirius [sic]? or sickly serious...? Either this guy in the vid is a good actor, or you-know-who is in deep dog-poo, so to speak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpOsUmp-9wNR I suspect that if these allegations were even remotely true, then the interested party, the group iconically represented by a jackass, would have delayed its release until summer 2008 ... for maximum effect on the voting public. Or else 'impeachement' is the name-of-the-game (inevitable retribution for the excess of Monica-gate? We do not need impeachment, and all the disharmony that process entails at this critical time in World events - and with all the other bad news coming out of DC, if that is the purpose of these allegation. Doghouse evaluation: Even this political cynic is hoping that this clip is some kind of elaborate hoax. BTW the name of the philosopical school which evolved into the concept and 'meme' of cynicism - goes way beyond negativism, but is literally the doghouse g i.e. it is derived from the building in Athens, Greece called 'Cynosarges,' which was the earliest home of the school, being derived from the Greek word for dog, cyno The ancient Cynics, and even the more modern variety, have little problem in taking the dog as their symbol. Arf-arf. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007 4:35 PM
Re: [Vo]: Re: OT: Whoa, Fido....
Ok, then explain. Why did they get rid of the bomb sniffing dogs after the mysterious powerdown? On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones Beene wrote: And I agree that it would have been absolutely *unconscionable* for the new owner to have allowed thousands of workers to continue to work there, for the 3-4 years afterwards - in ignorance of this ! if the buildings had already been fitted with the thermite - which is what others are saying. That is preposterous. Modern demolition with explosives has been done for over 50 years, mainly by Controlled Demolition, Inc., (CDI) the Loizeaux family. (http://www.controlled-demolition.com) Their methods are well documented. I have read a book about them, and seen television documentaries. In all cases -- ABSOLUTELY ALL CASES -- the explosives are set in buildings in the last stage after everything that can be removed from the building has been removed, and the main support beams have been chopped. If the weight of furniture and people were still in the building in the last stage, after they cut the main supports, it would collapse without explosives. The explosives add little energy to the process -- not enough to topple an intact building. To put it another way, setting off the explosives without cutting the main supports would not destroy it. There is not a single explosive or fuse on-site or in preparation until the building has been completely gutted and is all but ready to topple over on its own. Nobody goes around stuffing explosives into buildings before they begin demolition. No permit would be issued for such a thing, and if they saw you in New York City with explosives you would be arrested immediately. I doubt they allow this technique in New York City. CDI also does forensic investigations of accidental explosions. The chances that anyone could fool them while destroying the Twin Towers are probably zero to five significant places. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Grisly air crashes
Ok, so this then was a lot worse, as they said nothing larger than a phone book! On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: Show me a single plane crash where 1: There is nothing of any size left and not even a lot of what is left 2: Despite 1, there is a hole in the ground. I will show you two, both well known and well documented: 1. The second Lockheed Electra crash, 1960, which produced a hole with nothing but fragments in it. 2. The DC10 crash in 1974, in France. Lots of small fragments, characteristic of a high-speed impact. Quote: I have seen many aircraft impacts. I have seen some aircraft torn up as much as this one, but I must say I have never seen any airplane torn up as much as this over such a large area. The pieces were extremely small, very fragmented, and it was scattered over an area half a mile long by 120 yards or so wide. Charles Miller, Director of Aviation Safety, NTSB. Photos bear this out. It looks like a large pile of junk with few pieces larger than a person. Regarding the people, there were 346 on board. Six were sucked out of airplane before the crash, when the door flew off. 34 others were more or less in one piece. The others were shredded into approximately 18,000 fragments. (P. Eddy, et al., Destination Disaster, NYT Books, p. 248) - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: OT: Whoa, Fido....
On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Makes a prima facie case for more thorough investigation of the possibility that WTC7 had been pre-rigged to be brought down: You mean: the building was gutted A building does not need to be guttel to be demolished. The evidence? The twin towers and building 7. over several weeks prior to 9/11, all of the heavy objects were removed, the main beams were cut Some most likely were, there were lots of people working on it. , and hundreds of pounds of explosives were put into the building Yes , but nobody noticed. They did notice. They are saying how odd it was. Not looking is not the same as no one reporting it, you can't always wait for this stuff to hit fox Jed. That's what you mean. It is physically impossible to pre-rig a building to collapse, otherwise. You would have to trigger a massive explosion that would also destroy much of the surroundings And send beams into nearby buildings as happened with the WTC? That is exactly what happened. , like what happened when bombs fell on buildings during World War II. Or you would have to ignite hundreds of gallons of the most energy intense chemical -- petroleum. Yes, and the last people out would be burnt by the explosions. Buildings collapse from smaller fires all the time, including steel frame buildings. Funny, you seem to be the only person that knows this. Please give something a little bit more solid because i have seen stuff about how buildings have been on fire and not far more violent that the mysterious fire if WTC 7. What was used to burn the buildings? How did their construction compare? If you pre-rigged with such a small amount of explosives no one even heard the bang Except for the fireman saying they heard the bangs, but other than those that did no one. Plus people would see explosive ejections, like the explosive ejections that are plainly visible. see: http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm But you won't will you, you clearly don't research the other side of this stuff because you have deemed it impossible from the outset. , there is no chance that would be sufficient to make an intact building collapse. Funny, you go from saying that a building which had supports cut would just collapse on it's own, to the claim that explosives couldn't takje out the supports. There is no middle ground? weaken the supports enough to leave them vulnerable to the explosive charges. Buildings are way stronger than that. And yet weak enough to collpase due to fire, and so weak they they will readily pancake at freefall speeds! Meaning No Resistance! Conventional explosives have little energy compared to petroleum fuel, flour, dust, and other sources of large explosions that often destroy buildings. For that matter, when the CDI brings down a building, even though they use the smallest amount of explosives they can, the noise of the explosions is quite loud, and unmistakable. Explosions were heard. Seen. Burnt people. And there is plenty of shrapnel (metal and bone) that has never occurred with building deliberately imploded. Also look at WTC 7, you can see the crim as the central support column has been turned to dust it implodes in. To be honest there is far far more evidence but what is the point, you are simply not open to this regardless of the evidence.
Re: [Vo]:
Wow, must have been a great place for showers, look at the water pressure! On 2/20/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Test to see if this image shows up on Vo. One of the photos which Fox removed from their official site, but not before others had saved it. Perhaps it is a water pipe bursting from vibrations caused by the upper structure collapsing onto the lower structure. Harry
Re: [Vo]:
Go here: http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm Not only is it clear it's not water, but look at WTC7 footage You can see synched explosions just before it falls. And in this case they can't be compression waves or anything. On 2/20/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, must have been a great place for showers, look at the water pressure! On 2/20/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Test to see if this image shows up on Vo. One of the photos which Fox removed from their official site, but not before others had saved it. Perhaps it is a water pipe bursting from vibrations caused by the upper structure collapsing onto the lower structure. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Actually it has been pointed out that there was a light (laser?) beam visible on the building which was probably used for painting the taget, the most likely would be a range of floors and they simply triggered the one hit. Go here: http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2195 On 2/21/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ? I meant what floor the airplane is going to hit. Sorry about that. Err, I haven't followed the debate closely (many points escape me) but Jed's question makes sense technically, any thermite causing the collapse would have had to be installed at the floor where the collapse initiated, i.e. where the airplane hit, but how could they know which floor it was going to be? Did they plant all floors? Or did the pilots aim at a given range of planted floors? Michel (not taking sides, nor trying to revive the heated debate, just wondering what's the theory on this)
Re: [Vo]:
Again until I looked into it closer I had no issue with the idea that this could be pulled off by any bunch of people with box cutters. But if you really look at the evidence On 2/21/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You left something out of this armchair analysis of the psyche of those who want to believe it was an inside job: Bigotry. If it was an inside job then it was Americans who destroyed our own buildings. That's obviously possible -- evil wicked mean and nasty, but possible. What Americans build, Americans are certainly capable of destroying. On the other hand, if it wasn't an inside job, then it was a small group of low-tech undereducated fundamentalist Muslim Arabs who did it, despite all that the United States government could do to stop them. That's a big lump to swallow! At the very least, the Arabs _must_ have had the tacit assistance of the Bush administration, which certainly _must_ have intentionally looked the other way while the Arabs were coming -- otherwise such a group of mere Arabs could certainly never have pulled something like that off; we'd have caught them at it and stopped them. Sure, that's it, we obviously /must/ have just _let_ them do it... Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: As predicted, once again there have been a lot of vocal opinions expressed on what were the ultimate causes for falling of the WTCs. There appears to be the need to include pre-fired missiles, or thermite explosives strategically placed within the support structures, all to explain the ultimate collapse of the WTCs, the rationale being, the passenger jets themselves just couldn't be held responsible all by themselves. And so, where to lay the real blame. It would seem that many in the Vort collective are by nature a contrarian group of individuals, myself included. I know I have made it a personal life-task to, more often than not, reject the prevailing party opinion without first looking into the matter myself. While it has not been easy, it has occasionally served me well too look under the rug. Despite my desire to remain an irritating contrarian SOB I continue to feel that the amount of thermal energy released from the fully loaded fuel tanks of passenger jets, along with the jet's combined kinetic energy to be a plausible explanation. Nevertheless, a vocal group can not accept these explanations as plausible. For them, it would seem that there MUST be additional more sinister explanations, that missiles and/or strategically positioned chemical explosives had to have been used as well. Why? I think it's fair to say that events happen in our lives that seem to suggest the disquieting fact that we aren't always in control of our destinies. How do we deal with this conundrum? Psychologically speaking, there is an all-too-often tendency for many of us to externalize our personal discomforts, to lay-blame in the nefarious actions of others or events. We see this happen all the time in the political and international arenas. People and societies find all sorts of scapegoats to rationalize the problems experienced at home: The Jews are the reason our society is all messed up; or America, the Great Satan, is the reason why our society is suffering; or Secular Humanism is the reason for the high rates of juvenile delinquencies and high rates of pregnancies in our society; The Bush Dynasty is behind the orchestrated war against terrorism - and to prop up oil profits; missiles and strategically placed explosives were the real reasons why the WTCs vertically slid into oblivion, all within a matter of seconds. Admitting to myself that I'm an irritating contrarian SOB also means facing up to my own personal demons. I have had many to wrestle with in my short 54 years of life. It's also been my experience that personal demons when given a chance prefer to remain externalized, most likely as a way to protect myself from portions of myself I'm not comfortable owning up to. S%#T happens. It is only human to F%#K up. S%#T happens in the world as well, most likely because we humans have a tendency to occasionally misinterpret human events, and as a result F%#K things up. It was a S#%TTY, horrible thing to witness two towers fall from the sky, complements of a band of terrorists who remained faithful to their instant deaths and ultimate rewards in heaven, convinced that god was on their side - as if a massive invisible divine hand had simply chosen to squash the two buildings in the middle of a beautiful September autumn morning. WHY? How could this happen? There had to be a reason! WHOSE TO BLAME? ...For something this horrible to have transpired there MUST have been a methodical nefarious plan in place. It's just too horrible to believe otherwise. Am I implying that a need to believe in missiles and strategically implanted thermite explosives are just attempts to externalize a horrible event too S%#tty to believe could have
Re: [Vo]: Re: OT: Whoa, Fido....
On 2/21/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: That is my point. The building was designed to withstand a severe _horizontal_ blow, but it was not designed to withstand a severe _downward_ blow. The inability of the structure to withstand a vertical shock would make its future demolition a breeze. The top portion of each tower hit the ground a little faster than if they were dropped in freefall because there isn't the head on air resistance. If you took two such tower top pieces and dropped one in free fall and one on a building, we would expect the one dropped on the building to drop slower than freefall because it has to do work, quite a bit of it to turn the building below into dust. This actually brings the subject back on topic, Free Energy! It's the only way to explain it, it was definitely giving energy to the structure below, but it didn't lose any KE! Along the same lines, having the airplanes fire missiles into the building before they struck would be ridiculous. The energy release from a missile is trivial compared to the kinetic energy from an airplane, and that kinetic energy is far smaller than the energy release from the burning jet fuel. The fuel has enough potential energy to drive the aircraft for hours at close to the speed of sound! Firing a missile first would be like hitting someone with a pillow first and then hitting him with a Mack Truck going at 60 mph. Why bother with the pillow? A missile is effective that it can be guided to the target and it causes intense damage to the machine it strikes. - Jed Harry
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. It's only a theory if there isn't absolute proof. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely reliable) suicide bombers - when explosives would do a better job. More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely reliable) suicide bombers - when explosives would do a better job. More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Well I must say at first I didn't believe it, but when you look at the evidence the planes were clearly switched. It starts off with the boarding of some of the flights, there were oddities with different gates and such, very confusing, the details of one of the planes was given, it was boarding at 2 different gates, the one it usually boarded at and another one. http://911wideopen.com/mirror/twin11-1/twin-11-mod.htm There were also reports of two of the planes landing safely at an airport, yes really. (according to the Mayor anyway: http://www.rense.com/general68/says.htm) The transponder signals were turned off over an airport and turned back on, but it would not have been possible for the plane to have pulled off the flying required for it to be where the signal turns back on. Then there is the fact that people at the commercial airport would likely have noticed the modifications (the pod which is clearly visible in all shots all on the same side). And then people saw not an airline plane but what they described as a cargo plane, with no windows, painted up to look like the right flights only not. Then there is the fact that at least one of the planes meant to have crashed was found to still be in service. (If I looked hard enough I could find that article no doubt) The fact that the crash sites at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania simply didn't fit, there wasn't a Boeing's wreckage, however there were wreckage parts that could not have come from a Boeing. (A turbine that some say is the Honeywell APU but Honeywell says isn't) The building shows no damage from the wings, jet engines or tail. People at the Pentagon say they could smell Cordite. Witnesses reported that debris rain down for minutes after the crash. Care to calculate how high (and how directly upwards) metal debris would need to be thrust upwards to rain down for minutes, the photos indeed show an increase of Debris in latter photos, were Debris being sprinkled from above? (is the idea that debris can be so high as to take minutes to fall any less absurd?) Yes, there were eye witnesses that say a plane hit the Pentagon, but there were also video cameras which were immediately taken from the hotel across the road and other locations never to be seen again, there were also other eye witnesses that gave other accounts. The employees at the hotel were told never to discuss what they had seen. (Employees watched the film several times in shock and horror before the tape was confiscated) There were ham radio operators that did pick up a transmitter from the WTC that day which ended after the hits, it was seemingly being used as a navigation aid, also the infra red laser (not seen by people but picked up by cameras) is plainly visible, it even projects on the smoke, why else would someone be projecting an infra red laser normally used for painting targets at the building?). They have previously flown large aircraft of such size by wire with no one on board, successful landings and takeoffs. Eye witnesses at Pennsylvania say they saw a small white jet hit low objects before going over a hill followed by the crash. The pilot of one the of the planes had taken part in a mock attack on the WTC in the 80's by the Pentagon, quite the co-incidence. BTW no Arabs were on the flight manifest on the plane that was meant to hit the pentagon, the autopsy report doesn't bother to invent any either. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm The families of those on the flights indeed reacted differently to other victims families, for one they don't question the official report, even though many of the other victims families do, along with at this point in time a majority of people according to Zogby polls. Also it is well established that they couldn't have made the calls that were meant to be have made. (people had experimented and confirmed it) Watch Loose Change, 2nd edition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WsyEqKQRBY On 2/22/07, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm, so, if there were no suicide pilots, who was flying? On 2/21/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely
[Vo]: Challenge for Jed, and any other unsure.
On 2/22/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My goodness. Since many gullible people believe this sort of thing, Currently you simply don't have the information those people are basing their 'Gullible' beliefs on. Simply watch 'Loose Change 2nd Edition' (Just watched the whole of it and it is excellent) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WsyEqKQRBY And watch Mysteries Demolitions 9/11 Mysteries Part 1 (of 9) Demolitions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8ax_4AdWOU Or the other 8 also if you want. But before you watch, ask yourself what if would take to change your mind, what evidence would be enough, I suspect none could ever be. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, political orientations, it has to do with fact.
Re: [Vo]: Challenge for Jed, and any other unsure.
On 2/22/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: My goodness. Since many gullible people believe this sort of thing, Currently you simply don't have the information those people are basing their 'Gullible' beliefs on. You have given me more than enough information to evaluate these claims! I am sure you represented them accurately. Wrong. I hadn't even seen loose change (or more that a piece of it) before that email. (Just heard good things about it) It counters the points you made about experts. (they changed their stories, and those who didn't were fired) Sure enough, you don't take up the challenge! What are you afraid of?
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
On 2/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh dear it's unbelievable one can believe such things. My remote controlled live whales scheme pales in comparison :) Oh look, your rhetoric made solid evidence disappear. *poof* Good job you don't have to deal with all those nasty facts.
Re: [Vo]: Challenge for Jed, and any other unsure.
Well aren't we the little pessimist? Tell me, is Hitler still in power? On 2/23/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What conspiracy fans miss is that if all their theories are correct, it's all futile and irrelevant. How so? Because it would mean that vast numbers of people in and out of government are utter traitors and sociopaths - and that they are little more than obsequious thralls to a nearly all powerful military-industrial complex. The only people wise enough to see the plots are clever internet bloggers and fringe investigators. Anybody old enough to remember None Dare Call It Conspiracy? How we would all live in a fascist USA thanks to Nixon? Yes, from sacks of thermite ( Conspirator: what do mean, we can't use the elevator !?) to switched planes ( Dammit, Fred, you lost the luggage and the explosives?) - it's all hopeless and we're doomed. It's out of our control and we are powerless - in the face of such clockwork like precision and coordination among men who conspire with such amazing cohesion. We're just screwed - and thank God someone has exposed it all.
Re: [Vo]: Challenge for Jed, and any other unsure.
The thought that it is futile is what makes it so. On 2/23/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zell, Chris wrote: What conspiracy fans miss is that if all their theories are correct, it's all futile and irrelevant. How so? In the first hour of C to C AM last night Alex Jones of infowars and prisonplanet.com was interviewed. I didn't notice any of the conspiracy thread mentioning the bombing of the Murrah building, but it's another fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. You're right Chris, if what people like Alex say is true you might as well kiss your liberties goodbye. I think that G-d confounds their plans, for the time being. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
I'm a 'we have the perfect amount of water and just an abundance of glass' person myself. Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the glass or emptying it? On 3/2/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote From what I'm seeing Vo dominated by Glass half empty people? I've always found Glass half full people to have much farther foresight. It's amazing how skeptics and debunkers cannot see the obvious. It's highly unlikely a person will accomplish something they disbelieve. IMHO, it's better to take into consideration the whole truth, warts and all. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly) that it is possible to have a simple electrical device (actually an aetheric electrical device) that generates any desired level of energy, most here don't. (so why are they here?) The energy being probably created (there is simply no reason to believe that energy can't be created, nor would it be true to say that apparent energy production has ever been observed, nor would it be true to assert that energy creation is illogical or unsupported my the equations, the opposite it true - doubters, I invite you to challenge me on that) or possibly liberated from some near infinite storehouse of energy. There is ample evidence of course and all the 'needles' are pointing in the same direction creating a coherent picture as to how this works. Most of the rest of Vortex seems more interested in arm chair stuff regarding various forms of nuclear energy, and math to prove what can't be done. (only to ignore math that proves it can be done) IMO there are only 2 things that are of any use in this area, #1 is researching as many devices as possible (difference there is you and many others may assume many are 'defective' without reason) to get an understanding of what is going on. Let the correlations, the anomalies and clues paint a picture, resist projecting an image of how they work and just let the data speak to you. 2# Experiment, though IMO to be likely to experiment successfully (unless you just have the knack as some do) you should take what you have learned from #1. Also unless you have some idea, some understanding of how it works (not theory but observation of phenomena and inescapable conclusions) and some interest in learning more you aren't creating a new branch of physics, just a curious device. The problem is there is much that most ignore due to limits they assume exist and if these more spooky things did exist they assume couldn't be understood or engineered. I believe in a fluid aether (actually of the 3 possibilities: SR, static aether and dynamic aether only the last one is logical or sensible, SR is impossible and a static aether little better) which is the key to Antigravity and Free Energy. The interesting thing about that is I was strongly opposed on both counts (any link between FE AG and the existence of a fluid aether) but the evidence when you really honestly look is overwhelming and inescapable. We don't need to be looking more selectively, we need to be looking from a greater distance to get the overall picture. Just look at all the evidence, only you may not see the connections you expected, I didn't. You can't get to new land by using old maps, you can't use old physics based on impossibilities to do what it considers impossible. What I'm saying isn't crazy at all, simply follow the evidence and remember it doesn't have to make sense to you, it just has to make sense. Realize that the limits man has placed have always been in error, indeed the beliefs of every age are shown to be wrong so put less weight in the limits of your thinking and the current consensus and more on the evidence. (and go find interesting evidence) Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't possible trumps the evidence I'll never know. /rant On 3/2/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent reasoning John :) Talking about glasses, what we need _now_ IMHO is good glasses allowing us to see through the haystack of defective designs/proposals, so we can concentrate on the few needles that may hide in there. It's a question of not wasting scarce time, energy, money and other resources, not a question of believing or not (no sensible person can doubt that alternatives to huge tokamaks are possible for abundant clean energy). Michel - Original Message - From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty ... Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the glass or emptying it? ...
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Thomson wrote: Hi John, You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim ought to be possible. http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf You believe matter can be created? http://www.16pi2.com/files/APM-Construction-of-Universe.pdf You want mathematical proof that the Aether Physics Model is correct? Theories can only be disproven, not proven, as all on this list should be well aware. Evidence may support a theory, but can't prove it correct ... Agreed, but here I'd like to point out something. I know a fluid aether exists, it's a fact not a theory. For instance how electricity works is a theory, how magnets work is a theory, how gravity works is a theory. But that something we call electricity exists is not a theory, that magnetism exists is not a theory, that gravity exists is not a theory. There is a difference between recognizing the existence of a force and theorizing what it is and how it works. BTW another thing that is not a theory is that matter can entrain space time, and generally such a model is termed a dynamic aether model, generally modeled as a fluid. It is the only possible model as SR is illogical as is a Universally static aether when galaxies are speeding away from each other at superluminal velocities.. and mathematics, alone, can't prove anything about reality. Evidence alone may, on the other hand, prove a theory incorrect. Any number of examples can't prove a theorem, but a single counterexample can disprove it. When you say Aether Physics model, do you mean aether as in luminiferous aether, the hypothetical medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate? If so, how you do you account for the results of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments in your model? These two brought down the classical aether theories, along with the ballistic theory. (Or do you deny that MMX actually got a null result?) Oh boy, do your own research. I asked Grimer how he dealt with the MMX results, and he never replied ... for whatever that's worth. But maybe he just overlooked the post. Maybe it's because the results weren't null, maybe it's because the only sensible model is one where the aether is mostly entrained by the earth which would mean it would give only a small result at higher altitudes and almost no result in basements as indeed was found, maybe it's because the experiment was highly flawed. Maybe it's because many far far better experiments (and observations) do show a drift.
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
On 3/3/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John, You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim ought to be possible. Not quite sure what I'm meant to be guilty of, this is the first I have heard of your theory. But what good is a theory? What experimental evidence is it based on and how does it help us develop this tech? (don't answer too soon I'm going to take a quick look over your pdf's. (evil format btw) http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf You believe matter can be created? http://www.16pi2.com/files/APM-Construction-of-Universe.pdf You want mathematical proof that the Aether Physics Model is correct? http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_binding_energy_equation.pdf What more do you need? Do you expect me to single handedly answer every question anybody could ask about physics? Do you expect me to design and build every possible free energy device and make it available through Wal-mart? There is only so much a person can do, especially when they are dirt poor. I don't get involved with the discussions because the cynics don't care and those seeking the truth don't listen. Dave -- *From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly) that it is possible to have a simple electrical device (actually an aetheric electrical device) that generates any desired level of energy, most here don't. (so why are they here?) The energy being probably created (there is simply no reason to believe that energy can't be created, nor would it be true to say that apparent energy production has ever been observed, nor would it be true to assert that energy creation is illogical or unsupported my the equations, the opposite it true - doubters, I invite you to challenge me on that) or possibly liberated from some near infinite storehouse of energy. There is ample evidence of course and all the 'needles' are pointing in the same direction creating a coherent picture as to how this works. Most of the rest of Vortex seems more interested in arm chair stuff regarding various forms of nuclear energy, and math to prove what can't be done. (only to ignore math that proves it can be done) IMO there are only 2 things that are of any use in this area, #1 is researching as many devices as possible (difference there is you and many others may assume many are 'defective' without reason) to get an understanding of what is going on. Let the correlations, the anomalies and clues paint a picture, resist projecting an image of how they work and just let the data speak to you. 2# Experiment, though IMO to be likely to experiment successfully (unless you just have the knack as some do) you should take what you have learned from #1. Also unless you have some idea, some understanding of how it works (not theory but observation of phenomena and inescapable conclusions) and some interest in learning more you aren't creating a new branch of physics, just a curious device. The problem is there is much that most ignore due to limits they assume exist and if these more spooky things did exist they assume couldn't be understood or engineered. I believe in a fluid aether (actually of the 3 possibilities: SR, static aether and dynamic aether only the last one is logical or sensible, SR is impossible and a static aether little better) which is the key to Antigravity and Free Energy. The interesting thing about that is I was strongly opposed on both counts (any link between FE AG and the existence of a fluid aether) but the evidence when you really honestly look is overwhelming and inescapable. We don't need to be looking more selectively, we need to be looking from a greater distance to get the overall picture. Just look at all the evidence, only you may not see the connections you expected, I didn't. You can't get to new land by using old maps, you can't use old physics based on impossibilities to do what it considers impossible. What I'm saying isn't crazy at all, simply follow the evidence and remember it doesn't have to make sense to you, it just has to make sense. Realize that the limits man has placed have always been in error, indeed the beliefs of every age are shown to be wrong so put less weight in the limits of your thinking and the current consensus and more on the evidence. (and go find interesting evidence) Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't possible trumps the evidence I'll never know. /rant On 3/2/07, *Michel Jullian *[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent reasoning John :) Talking about glasses, what we need _now_ IMHO is good glasses allowing us to see through the haystack of defective designs/proposals, so we can concentrate on the few needles that may hide
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Ok, that didn't take long. I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments your theory is based on. I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to output free energy or create (so-called) antigravity. Does it explain the vast majority, or at least a number of the FE and AG devices to numerous to list? Is your aether largely entrained by matter? Assuming it is how can it be motivated to flow through matter? If it is what effects will occur, will spins be aligned? Will fields (magnetic, electric, spins/torsion) of the matter be carried on the aether. If the aether is compressed what will happen? (many experiments indicate antigravity results) And how could the aether be compressed? Is acceleration/deceleration relative to the aether the source of inertia? Can matters coupling to the aether be changed? I seriously don't think you have answered any of these questions. It seems all you do is explain the mundane. On 3/3/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/3/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John, You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim ought to be possible. Not quite sure what I'm meant to be guilty of, this is the first I have heard of your theory. But what good is a theory? What experimental evidence is it based on and how does it help us develop this tech? (don't answer too soon I'm going to take a quick look over your pdf's. (evil format btw) http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf You believe matter can be created? http://www.16pi2.com/files/APM-Construction-of-Universe.pdf You want mathematical proof that the Aether Physics Model is correct? http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_binding_energy_equation.pdf What more do you need? Do you expect me to single handedly answer every question anybody could ask about physics? Do you expect me to design and build every possible free energy device and make it available through Wal-mart? There is only so much a person can do, especially when they are dirt poor. I don't get involved with the discussions because the cynics don't care and those seeking the truth don't listen. Dave -- *From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly) that it is possible to have a simple electrical device (actually an aetheric electrical device) that generates any desired level of energy, most here don't. (so why are they here?) The energy being probably created (there is simply no reason to believe that energy can't be created, nor would it be true to say that apparent energy production has ever been observed, nor would it be true to assert that energy creation is illogical or unsupported my the equations, the opposite it true - doubters, I invite you to challenge me on that) or possibly liberated from some near infinite storehouse of energy. There is ample evidence of course and all the 'needles' are pointing in the same direction creating a coherent picture as to how this works. Most of the rest of Vortex seems more interested in arm chair stuff regarding various forms of nuclear energy, and math to prove what can't be done. (only to ignore math that proves it can be done) IMO there are only 2 things that are of any use in this area, #1 is researching as many devices as possible (difference there is you and many others may assume many are 'defective' without reason) to get an understanding of what is going on. Let the correlations, the anomalies and clues paint a picture, resist projecting an image of how they work and just let the data speak to you. 2# Experiment, though IMO to be likely to experiment successfully (unless you just have the knack as some do) you should take what you have learned from #1. Also unless you have some idea, some understanding of how it works (not theory but observation of phenomena and inescapable conclusions) and some interest in learning more you aren't creating a new branch of physics, just a curious device. The problem is there is much that most ignore due to limits they assume exist and if these more spooky things did exist they assume couldn't be understood or engineered. I believe in a fluid aether (actually of the 3 possibilities: SR, static aether and dynamic aether only the last one is logical or sensible, SR is impossible and a static aether little better) which is the key to Antigravity and Free Energy. The interesting thing about that is I was strongly opposed on both counts (any link between FE AG and the existence of a fluid aether) but the evidence when you really honestly look is overwhelming and inescapable. We don't need to be looking more selectively, we
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: It is the only possible model as SR is illogical Well, that sure shoots down SR. SR has many logical inconsistencies, you can't not be aware of this. There are many situations where SR simply can't work though I can't think of anything less fun than discussing these issues with someone who seemingly has no interest is the subject because if you did you would agree rather than quip. If so, how you do you account for the results of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments in your model? These two brought down the classical aether theories, along with the ballistic theory. (Or do you deny that MMX actually got a null result?) Oh boy, do your own research. OK, I guess that answers the question. I guess you didn't read the next part where I did in fact go over the reasons why the MMX in no way disproves an entrained aether. You seem to be more interested in cheap shots than science or truth.
Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame
On 3/1/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: If any divergence between inertial and gravitational mass is ever found, however small it may be, it will be a an enormous blow to the validity of GR, because it will imply that gravity is /not/ a fictitious force, after all. Many experiments have shown differences. Magnets in repulsion drop slower. Some materials fall at different rates. Bismuth was one IIRC, Carbon is another, for instance a carbon sphere and an iron sphere of equal mass will fall at different rates in an atmosphere, the carbon one will fall faster despite being less aerodynamic due to the much larger size! Gyroscopes fall at a different rate. But the largest effect is magnets in (I think always) repulsion which many have shown to fall much slower, as much as 1/3rd slower. I think I also recall mass under compression falls at a different rate.
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
On 3/4/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John, Ok, that didn't take long. I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments your theory is based on. I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to output free energy or create (so-called) antigravity. Does it explain the vast majority, or at least a number of the FE and AG devices to numerous to list? Is your aether largely entrained by matter? Assuming it is how can it be motivated to flow through matter? If it is what effects will occur, will spins be aligned? Will fields (magnetic, electric, spins/torsion) of the matter be carried on the aether. If the aether is compressed what will happen? (many experiments indicate antigravity results) And how could the aether be compressed? Is acceleration/deceleration relative to the aether the source of inertia? Can matters coupling to the aether be changed? I seriously don't think you have answered any of these questions. It seems all you do is explain the mundane. Sorry, John, I have been through this a hundred times already and am not interested in your particular attitude. First off, I quantified exactly what it is you already believe, and now you plan to play me into explaining everything to you in detail. Many of your questions above were answered in the paper, A New Foundation for Physics. I'll take another look but it seemed very abstract and mathematical, not my kind of thing. If there is some way you could answer some of the questions above, the ones with simple yes or no's or simply tell me what page I of which paper I should consult. As I have been investigating aether from a different angle for a decade now (numerous observations of it clearly functioning in various devices) it is quite possible we could have insights that could be valuable to one another and each come out of it with a better understanding. I have a list of Yes/No questions at the bottom if you could please take 1 minute to answer them. We agree that there is a fluid aether which is matter entrained and apparently on some other points too, I have the experimental side, you have the model covered so let's make an effort as we might both come out of it better off. BTW I am aware also of the beta atmosphere theory, did you find it had significant agreement with your model? The paper was written because people had asked me for a synopsis of the theory. Twenty seven pages was the shortest I could write a basic synopsis. If the synopsis does not interest you, then too bad. Just go on ignoring my work. Well if your work doesn't simply explain the mundane but give real experimental 'how to' with regard to Antigravity and Free Energy then I am very interested, does it? I have a book that goes into much more detail, but I don't want to next be accused of trying to sell books. This theory is far more developed than you can pick up by speed-reading a twenty seven page paper, which is itself just an introductory paper. It would be just as unfair for me to judge modern physics based upon a speed-read of a high school general science book. I'm already into the design and construction phase of various related experiments and being invited to speak before qualified scientists. I make myself available to seriously interested persons, but I don't do the poodle jumping through the flaming hoop act anymore. If you are not seriously interested in studying the Aether Physics Model, then it is you who can remain with the mundane and insane physics you so despise. I am seriously interested but I'm going to have a hard time getting anything practical out of your paper it would seem, it appears to be written to convince academics but I'll give it another shot, still I'd love the crib notes version or simply the answers to the questions I asked, here is a list of yes/no questions that shouldn't take to long, ones you have already answered are omitted: Does it explain the vast majority, or at least a number of the FE and AG devices to numerous to list? Y/N Can the aether be motivated to flow through matter by: Being entrained by moving magnetic field? Y/N Being entrained by moving electric fields? Y/N Does anything special happen if aether flows at 90 dgrees to other aether flows? Y/N If it is made to move through matter will spins be aligned? Y/N Will fields (magnetic, electric, spins/torsion) of the matter be carried on the aether? Y/N Can the aether be compressed? Y/N If the aether is compressed in an object will an antigravity type force or a reduction in weight result? Y/N Is acceleration/deceleration relative to the matter entrained aether the source of inertia? Y/N Can matters coupling to the aether be varied for instance by having a capacitor charged or uncharged? Y/N If aether is made to move through matter in an accelerating manner (perhaps as a beam shot out of a device) would a gravity like impulse be felt? Y/N (Morton, Podkletnov,
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in this mailing list after this message. Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as it took too long to type to be ignored. John Berry wrote: On 3/3/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: It is the only possible model as SR is illogical Well, that sure shoots down SR. SR has many logical inconsistencies snip To learn relativity is to understand it, and if you did that, then you would see that it's not internally inconsistent. However, that takes a lot more effort than just calling it illogical. I spent years learning it, believed it, looked for holes and failed to find any. Then when I saw them I was shocked at how obvious they were. Here is a simple one, it's called the twin paradox for a reason. If you have 2 twins and one stays on earth and the other one travels to a distant star and returns then SR states that the traveling twin still has youthful good looks while the other has long been pushing up daises after dying of old age. Now what if these twins had some form of instantaneous communication between them, then we could easily measure the different rates of time each twin experiences, we could even find the stationary reference frame. Of course SR says that you can't have instantaneous communication and relies on the doppler effect which will effect any light based communication attempts, but doppler time shift is not time dilation but a separate effect, you could very well calculate the doppler effect and reconstruct the real rate of passage of time the other twin is experiencing. SR then says 'no no no, it's not the velocity difference it is the acceleration one twin faces that makes the difference'. And yes the twin who stays home may easily go under more acceleration by being on s spinning body orbiting a star, driving everywhere. Also the thing about thought experiments is they aren't limited to what is comfortable or practical only what is technically possible in order to exaggerate something to make a point. So the traveling twin may accelerate based on either twins clocks to the final velocity (let's say .99c) in a mere fraction of a second. Furthermore there are a number of ways to have instantaneous communication. (or near instantaneous communication that has no Doppler time shift) One way is to have two parallel almost infinatly long trains in space, they start of stationary with the twins in opposite carriages, but first a few details. Each cabin has a clock (which as designed to be easily read by those of the other train even at relativistic speeds), it is generally accepted that there are many ways by which a number of observes at a distance in the same reference frame may synchronize their watches Also each cabin how it's own propulsion unit and again it is able to reach near lightspeeds in under a second by any observers watch. Now one of the twins accelerates, each can keep an eye on the rate of time the other train is observing, if they each sees the other as experiencing time slower then themselves then when the trains are stopped each will have different expectations, they simply can't match. There is another way however, you can have one twin stay of earth and the other twin orbit the earth at near light speed. You see the twin paradox always assume the twins are moving away from each other but in the case of orbit where they can constantly communicate or for that matter merely flying by where they get a moment to observe the rate of time the other experience and communicate without Doppler distortion. There are yet more problems. Let's say we now have 3 parallel close trains with open beds, we'd better put them on earth so no one suffocates. We will have 2 flash bulbs of each train, each a set distance apart and an observees on each train positioned in the middle of the 2 flash bulbs, if the bulbs go off at the same time the short sharp photon pulse reach the observes and he sees a single bright flash. Now let the middle train not move, let the bulbs flash at 12:00 and at 12:01 (it's slow light ok ;) the observer on that train see a bright flash from each bulb simultaneously. However at 12:00 as the bulbs go off the train to the right was moving down the track, at that exact moment the observer on the right train passes the observer on the middle stationary train. The observer on the right train expects to see the bulbs flashes simultaneously because he was in the middle when they went off (and if there were a bunch of censors along the right train they would demand to see the pulses from each bulb advance from detector detector and hence must meet in the middle). Furthermore in case you are unsure you could have (different colour?) bulbs on the moving right train that go off simultaneously and right next to the bulbs on the middle train
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip OK so far? (Note that we didn't need gamma for anything here -- I just used the metric to find the proper distances.) I think we can stick to thought experiments and dump equations. Einstein said he didn't understand his theory once the mathematicians were done with it. To really understand the issues you can't use equations which are there to shortcut real comprehension. If you introduce FTL communication you also must introduce a preferred reference frame. Yup, and that's NOT SR! You are dancing around the problem by pointing out difficulties with the model of a train (among various other side issues), yet you could easily choose to not have each cabin mechanically connected to each other. I can easily counter all of your argument but it will be pointless and long. So let's get to the heart of the twin paradox. Basically SR states that the faster you travel the more time slows down, and yet it tries to do this without specifying 'Relative to what', because that's why it's called Relativity of course, all frames are equal, it's relative to each observer. This is of course impossible because each observer demands a different reality, but SR basically says 'Prove it'. Because communicating in real time between 2 different frames can seem challenging it might seem there is a point, however this is just an illusion. First it's not really about communicating, but rather knowing the rate that time flows for a different reference frame and instantaneous communication is merely something that would allow gaining such knowledge which is admitted to destroy SR if possible, if you can observe what the true rate of time is in the other reference frames and they can know your true rate of time then you will either see that time does not slow down or both will agree as to which frame time is moving the fastest (which frame is the most preferred or 'still'). Neither of these results would agree with SR, so the issue comes down to just how possible it might be to measure the rate of time in another reference frame. Now it is actually very easy and straight forward to measure the rate of time in another frame, the only thing that can seem to make it difficult is the Doppler effect, each moment each twin is further apart (or closer together on the return) causing the viewer to observe that time is moving more slowly or faster on the other ship than their own time. There are a few ways around this, one is that the moving twin could instead by orbiting the other twin (or simply spinning really fast while standing next to the other twin, or vibrating). Another is that the moving twin could be doing a flyby, this give a chance to measure both sides of the Doppler effect and a moment where they can share true instantaneous communication right as they pass. However the simplest way is to simply to have one twin hop in a space ship, accelerate to full speed in the blink of an eye and hold radio communications between the twins. Sure these communications will be strained by the Doppler effect, but if each twin tells the other twin the apparent rate of time (based on the transmission) relative to their own then they can compare numbers, if both see the other as say 23% slower (or 23% faster) then obviously neither are undergoing time dilation, it is all Doppler effect. (this could also be calculated and be found equal to the expected Doppler shift) If however they get different values then they can establish which twin is in the more preferred or still frame. SR couldn't really accept either event because is is based on ignorance of the rate of time in another frame. SR simply can't work because there is no way to truly stop someone from knowing the rate of time in another frame. Ok, now I'll answer some of your objections. You have big, big problems in this scenario, which you have not fully worked out. Work out all the details and the timekeeping problems go away, but the details are a mess. First of all a long object cannot accelerate simultaneously along its length, Incorrect, it is trivial to sychronize the clocks and each cabin has it's own means of propulsion as I said, the only thing you could claim would be that it would break into sections so naturally each cabin would be either unconnected or connected with something that can strech as required. The interesting problem you will have then is that if in a millisecond the entire train accelerates to .999 C then if you were in such a train you would notice the front of the train and the and caboose get further away because as far as you are concerned your cabin didn't shrink but rather gaps just appeared between cabins because the the who train stretched out at faster than C. because as soon as it starts to accelerate its parts (stretched out along its length) no longer share a single inertial frame. Furthermore, the whole thing must shrink due to Fitzgerald contraction,
Re: [Vo]: Hysteria over Window Motor
For several seconds On 3/5/07, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i cant get the video to play. how long does he discharge? electrolytic caps have a discharge cycle, if its a quick flash, theres still some juice in there. On 2/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 2/17/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time will tell. But unlike the Steorn shenanigans and carefully inflicted drama, this time we will likely have a pretty good answer by next week. It looks like a Bendini variant. Reading the thread, the experimenter admits that the motor stops eventually when he removes the power. Mike's device runs on its ***OWN*** power. Mike has stated many times the motor runs until he deliberately stops the motor, which is usually several hours. One time Mike left the motor running over night to awaken to a broken motor. That 47,000 uF cap will keep it going for quite a while. If you would look at the video you would see Mike discharges the cap, gives a slight twist on the motor to get it going. You can clearly see the motor continues to accelerate significantly faster after Mike lets go. This is clearly the Smoking Gun ***UNLESS*** Mike is being deceitful. Only time will tell which is the case. Paul -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
The heart of the matter is this. Even is SR GR weren't flawed, even if there were no experiments which showed it to be incorrect (there are quite a few) it is still a fact that aether theory had no reason to be dropped as there is no evidence against a fluid aether (a stationary one is illogical at the outset as galixies are flying apart and is well disproven) and even Einstein said there was one. Funny that, the MMX shows the result that M M expected which was that there is an aether drift, Enstein submitted a theory that allowed one to look at this without an aether and then went on to say that only a fool wouldn't think there is an aether and that's the basis of it being cast aside??? isn't that a tad curious? And yet you basically consider that anyone who believe in it or questions SR/GR to be a crank. I consider anyone willing to cast aside the best most logical and evidence supported theory (which has no evidence against it unlike SR) without even giving it consideration a crank, On 3/7/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Thomson wrote: Hi Stephen, [ ... ] You called me a crank in two different posts, now. Sigh... OK, you're right, at the very least I insinuated it pretty strongly... I shouldn't have done that. I'm sorry I called you a crank, and if you don't assert that my religion must be SR if I don't immediately grasp your arguments, I promise I won't do it again.
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
On 3/8/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So how about you try working through the mathematics of the contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the results here? I mean, work them through using the Lorentz transforms. I'll be happy to argue them with you, if you'll actually work through the math rather than just blowing off the calculations and calling it all bunk. Here's the thing though. I'm not attacking the equations as self contradictory, I'm bypassing all of that by pointing out that there is no way for them to be correct because it is well known that SR functions based on the idea that you can not assess the rate of time in another frame without distortion. The reason that instantaneous communication is said to break down SR is not that it is instantaneous but that it presupposes no distortion by effects such as the Doppler effect. The methods I have given allow observers in 2 different frames to observe each others rate of time and agree fully. This can be achieved by observing travel towards and away and working out the Doppler effect as I have laid out*, or by communication during a flyby, if the flyby is incredibly distant then even a flyby at .99c could last a while, if very close it may be fleeting but could pretty much fit the bill for being practically instantaneous too. The 3 different ways are either: 1:Use a computer to work out the level of Doppler distortion,2: Communicate to the other frame it's apparent time rate as you observe it and visa versa, if both is you get the same score then there is no time dilation only Doppler effects. 3: And finally have 2 positions A B in the same reference frame measure the apparent rate of time of a vehicle moving from one to the other, the Doppler effect is positive for A and negative for B so they can be added together to remove the Doppler component. Basically any way you slice it, there is no way to stop an accurate observation of the time rate another frame is experiencing which means that if any time dilation is present it is observable and agreed on by both parties, it is absolute.
Re: [Vo]: Brown's Gas burns hotter than the sun?
hmmm, I think I recall hearing they indeed they will melt such impossible things, but won't burn your hand, and indeed that's the claim. Doesn't seem that heat is the right word. Here is what a quick search turned up from Decker in '99: Hi Folks! If you are interested in Browns gas generators, an email came in to sell 3 of them; Well, its interesting...I call it a molecular zipper since it implodes and literally zips molecules together in totally unique ways. I've tinkered with the one that the Tesla society used to have, it is interesting to play the flame across your hand, it doesn't burn and water pours off...then with that same flame, I cut a soda canI understand it will weld brick to glass, metal to brick, all kinds of objects... Unfortunately the new agers have gotten into the act making all kinds of outrageous claims including free energy...I don't KNOW that any of those are true, only what I have seen myself... The following is an email I received saying they want to sell their Browns Gas generators, please respond to them directly if you are interested; I am writing on behalf of Alvin Crosby. Alvin is used to manufacture hydrox label (brown gas) in the early 90. We have three machines for sale. Below is a specification of the machines: Two of HSX 5000 Not working, need re-plumbing otherwise complete. price US$ 500.00/each and FOB. Performance specification * 5000 litres/hour or 177 cubic/hour * power requirements 50-60 hz * 3 O, voltage 200/400 * VA max 8000 * Dimension H x W x D = 1100 x 725 x 960 * Weight: 1000 pound One of HSX 2000 Not working, nevertheless in a good order and low hours. Price US$ 1000.00 and FOB Performance specification * 2000 litres/hour or 71 cubic/hour * power requirements 50-60 hz * 3 O, voltage 200/400 * VA max 10,000. * Dimension H x W x D = 1100 x 630 x 775 * Weight: 620 pound The above machines are ideal for the series researcher. Please reply this Email after you receive this message. Kind regards Cindy Alvin R. Crosby P.O.Box 89 141 Torbay Auckland 1310 New Zealand [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.keelynet.com/interact/archive/1670.htm On 3/8/07, Philip Winestone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All I know is that a few years ago I stood beside a Brown's Gas Generator and watched in awe as a colourless flame MELTED a firebrick in just a few seconds. Not sure about its applicability in an internal combustion engine, but it may be applicable in a new form of external combustion engine. P. At 02:09 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote: http://www.dailybeat.net/media/706/The-water-fueled-car.html yet another example of shoddy reporting. -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Turn up the heater, do go for a drive in the summer and find less depressing music and maybe environment. Of course there is an answer to all of this, but it won't be found in your current mindset... Be proactive and productive, change things don't just reduce how fast you are taking a part in destroying the world, be a force for good not a smaller force for bad. On 3/10/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Outrage !! I do not know whether highway taxes are more likely to invite corruption than other kinds, but I think we should have them. I seldom drive, and I know people in cities who never drive. I honestly don't know if this is a bad idea or a good idea, I don't know. However, I do find it amusing that here in Vortexland (and everywhere else for the most part) any suggestion for changing something having to do with hitting us up for more money to drive generally has the qualifier this doesn't apply to me though... or some such derivation. I drive a long way each day to work and back, compared to many, and probably a long way in your opinion. About 40 miles round trip. I have no choice, the economy here is devastated and will only get worse. You can do nothing here without permits for this and regulations for that, and so everything is gone. This was once a big steel area...now all the steel here is from damned China. We have to fight to make a living. Heating bills here in this frozen wasteland are enormous. We are taxed out of our homes here, literally. Those taxes are largely wasted on pork projects and the lazy. I do not want help from these corrupt people, but even if I did, I couldn't get it for a few reasons: 1., I work and make too much money, 2., I am the wrong race. That isn't racism either, its simple fact of observation. I've been with friends who try as hard as they can, and needed some help during the coldest parts of winter, as they went for assistance downtown. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were not eligible due to income (too much of it, so called) and due to not being a minority. To tax us further, without something giving somewhere, will destroy us more. I'm just a lowly mechanic (by day anyways) and make very little. I imagine many of you high minded dreamers here on Vortex make far more and could handle this. What do you say to us? If we go, who will fix your cars? I'd like to see some of you try to fix a modern electronicized, over-emissionized, plastic-and-aluminum, engine shoehorned into the tiny engine bay car with the Bible sized wiring diagram. You will quite simply be screwed over royally. Try doing this on a hybrid, and you are adding even more difficulty. We can barely do it at our shop, as the crooks at Toyota will not sell us the tools we need. Want to change your own transmission fluid in your Mercedes-Benz? Good luck without your blue-collar mechanic's shop... Mercedes-Benz sells you the car without a dipstick! MB WORKSHOP ONLY printed in nice friendly letters on the transaxle dipstick handle with no dipstick connected to it. If you just guess, and overfill the transmission, oopsfoaming of the fluid and the transmission is done. To go futher on about this issue of taxes and regulations, did you know that all new cars will soon be required to have sensors in the wheels to alert you of low tire pressure? I have to go to a meeting on my own time, and which I am not paid for, on March 27th to be taught how to use the new tire valves and how to reset the sensors and such should we need to plug a nail hole in a tire. Gone bye-bye are the days of punching the plug into the tire, fill 'er with air and drive off into the sunset...now it is all computerized. We need a damned SILICON tax! Who is going to pay for this crap? You are. And me, eventually, when all the old cars are gone and I have to buy something post-1995. No one needs tire pressure sensors. What people need is a working brain to get off their lazy, stupid, computer-jockey asses and learn how to make sure 32psi is in their tires. (That's PSI too...no bloody kilopascals, thanks much) New York also has the NYVIP joke as well... New York Vehicle Inspection Program. It is a computer that scans the barcode of your registration sticker so that you can do an inspection on the vehicle in question. When the computer works, of course. The Empire state, with its vast wealth and variety of resources bought the cheapest computers and peripherals they could find, and cobbled it together with ape-level intelligence. Then requires us to buy this thing at $3500, or sorry, we can't do inspections anymore. If your car is older than 1996, you are lucky. If 1996 or newer, you get the OBDII connector plugged into the DLC port under the dashboard, and the computer (hopefully) communicates with your vehicle's ECM, and sees if
[Vo]: New Challenge to Jed
Ok, so the thermite, the squib explosions that can be plainly seen and heard (and recorded) and which burnt people and thew them around, and went off before the collapse and thermite detected, buildings pancaking at freefall speeds, the people doing work on the building before 911 (an unprecedented power down) and removing the bomb sniffing dogs there after, the pod (or a never before seen optical illususion on a plane?), the flash in all videos of both planes just before they hit, the total lack of evidence of a plane crash at Pennsylvania, everyone smelling cordite at the Pentagon, the calls that couldn't have been made (and the unreal conversations claimed: This is your son, Mark Bingham, You Believe me don't you? (that's how every phone conversation goes with my mother) The fact that the FBI admitted that the hijacker's ID were stolen and Arabs weren't involed and the (many identified) were still alive. (There were also no Arab names on the manifest, Autopsies showed no Arabs) The plane the Mayor claim landed, everyone was told to evacuate the airport (had to walk) and the flights either weren't scheduled or were at the wrong gates to begin with. (and the pilot of one of the planes just happened to be involved with a simulation of just such an event! What are the odds!) The patently fake Osama that looks nothing like Osama and uses the wrong hand to eat. (Osama is a lefty) Ok, so none of this is able to even warrant you looking into the evidence (as you show abundant ignorance of the position you are fighting against), well just look at this video: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/ You can plainly see WTC7 (the Solomon Brother Building) in the background as they report it has fallen, they were 20 minutes early!!! This is not the first time, one of the well known JFK facts is that New Zealand newspapers reported stuff they couldn't have possibly known yet, again we see the media ahead of the game. The result of a presidential election was printed beforehand too once. No, obviously this won't convince you, indeed I had asked and you admitted that no evidence possibly could, at least don't pretend you position is supported by logic or evidence. This isn't something I want to believe, this isn't a political statement and it says nothing about what one expects of the future, it has nothing to do with what is easy to believe or comfortable, it has nothing to do with patriotism (well I'm a kiwi so obviously not) or what someone thinks of right .vs left or capitalist .vs communist or any other issue that may be brought up, it's about one thing, the evidence. You can't brush it aside by giving anecdotes about cold fusion, Japan or politicians. You are welcome to close your eyes, cover your ears and hum if you wish though...
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Great, so $1360 a month, let's hope Jed doesn't get a job in government. Personally I think that user pays is generally a poor idea, I'm more of a flat rate all you can eat kind of guy, it is much more freeing, people don't need to be obsessing over every mile like that. But at the very least Jed's figures are 10 times too high at least, possible s much as 100 times too high. On 3/10/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I drive a long way each day to work and back, compared to many, and probably a long way in your opinion. About 40 miles round trip. The average commute in Atlanta is 34 miles one way. I personally do 23 miles one way. We have many who commute from South Carolina every day. I have a co worker who commutes from Chattanooga. T
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
On 3/13/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: Tell that to Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, etc. They question what is going on. Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact -- that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have made another logical error. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority would you?
Re: [Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
On 3/13/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact -- that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have made another logical error. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority would you? No, I never do. Oh really, so no matter what the physical incontrovertible evidence that exists you know that 911 was not an inside job and the building wasn't outfitted with explosives because some experts (that for all you know may have been used to pull off such a job or scared off or simply wrong being outside their experience) said so (you stated as much), no not all experts just some of them. And that's not an appeal to authority? I don't need to read your referenced authority to know what an appeal to authority is. I had excellent teachers and I learned to avoid all of the common logical errors of this type. I often point to experts, and I defer to their authority, but this is NOT an appeal to authority. There is a great deal of confusion about this, so I suggest you read the Nizkor site definition carefully. To simplify, an appeal to authority fallacy should more properly called an appeal to false authority. That is, a citation of a person who thinks he is an authority, or claims he is, but who actually is not. For example, suppose we are discussing electrochemistry and you cite an opinion or statement by Bockris. You have made a good point, because Bockris understands electrochemistry and his pronouncements on the subject carry weight. If I try to counter you by citing statements by Gary Taubes (from his book), that would be an appeal to authority fallacy because even though Taubes claims he knows this subject, he does not. Not only should the person in question be an actual authority, he should offer a cogent explanation for his views. If Bockris were to say, I'm right and I do not need to tell you why he would be abusing his authority. (He would never do that, but some other experts do.) Quoting Nizkor: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. A ha, so now who is an authority on pancaking skyscrapers? No one. Plus you insist that if the authority is valid then no further claim need be investigated because no matter the evidence the authority can not be wrong. The error is that you are making the authority flawless, has valid authorities ever been wrong before? Should we place the opinion of an authority however valid above incontrovertible fact? Apparently yes! More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. So if someone has always carried out demolitions in a certain way because that's the standard way to do it, and then they witness something which is either a covert demolition or an accident, forgetting that they may be in on it (You would need experts on demolition) or under threat, forgetting that the subject may have some emotionalism for them or finally scared to speak such a controversial truth they still are not experts on covert demolitions or unusual accidents or pancake collapses. Therefore they are not authorities in such a case. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. If the claim came without any evidence. If there is evidence however then everything changes because evidence speaks louder and more truthfully that all experts put together. . . . Nizkor make other important clarifications, such as: Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. . . . I suggest you read this carefully. Indeed, your experts are not experts in this case. Please note that logical errors of this type are well established. Most were discovered and named by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. There is no point to making mistakes such as An Appeal To Authority (or Ad Verecundiam as they said in Ancient Rome ), Slippery Slope or Appeal to Tradition in a scientific discussion. It is like making an elementary arithmetic error. You can easily avoid these things with a little practice. But if you are biased against a certain conclusion you will hold on to an appeal
[Vo]: Podkletnov and more...
John, I figured since you're active I might get your opinion on Podkletnov's more recent experiments (admittedly not that recent, just not the old ones you successfully replicated) accomplished by discharges from a high voltage source. Since that is a souped up replication of the Morton effect which of course didn't involve SC's and rather similar to ATGroups Telos experiment which was sometimes observed to move pieces of paper or bend a laser beam. (even if all replications couldn't replicate all these effects, many failed to replicate the origonal Podkletnov effect which I assume you have little if any doubt about the reality there of) So as all of these devices though different have a very similar form and identical function, and as expensive (and complex) superconducting materials are not required it would seem a promising area for experimentation. I was wondering what your opinion of the impulse Podkletnov effect is and if you had any interest in further research. signed, the other John
Re: [Vo]: Re: OT: Clairvoyant Talking Head
Richard, did you hear the latest news? BBC reported 20 minutes before WTC7 collapsed that it had collapsed. But they didn't say WTC7, if they had you might have thought they got their numbers muddled, they called it by it's full name, the Solomon Brothers Building which they mentioned had after the north and south tower, it's clearly visible in the background as still standing as the reporter talks about it's collapse. Take a look at the video: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/ This is not the first time, one of the well known JFK facts is that New Zealand newspapers reported stuff they couldn't have possibly known yet unless it was planned, again we see the media ahead of the game. The result of a presidential election was printed beforehand too once. Here's the rest of the email in which I first mentioned it, got no replies so maybe it didn't get through (it is to Jed): Ok, so the squib explosions that can be plainly seen and heard (and sounds recorded) and which burnt people and thew them around, and went off before the collapse and thermite detected and plainly visible before WTC7 begins to collapse, buildings pancaking at freefall speeds!, the people doing work on the building before 911 (an unprecedented power down) and removing the bomb sniffing dogs there after, the pod (or a never before seen optical illusion on a plane?), the flash in all videos of both planes just before they hit (another optical illusion?), the total lack of evidence of a plane crash at Pennsylvania or even a drop of blood, everyone smelling cordite at the Pentagon, the calls that couldn't have been made (and the unreal conversations claimed: Hello mom, this is your son, Mark Bingham, You Believe me don't you? (that's how every phone conversation goes with my mother) The fact that the FBI admitted that the hijacker's ID were stolen and Arabs weren't involved and the (many identified) were still alive. (There were also no Arab names on the manifest, Autopsies showed no Arabs) The plane the Mayor claim landed, everyone was told to evacuate the airport (had to walk) and the flights either weren't scheduled or were at the wrong gates to begin with. (and the pilot of one of the planes just happened to be involved with a simulation of just such an event! What are the odds!) The patently fake Osama that looks nothing like Osama and uses the wrong hand to eat. (Osama is a lefty) And he already denied it! Ok, so none of this is able to even warrant you to looking into the evidence (as you show abundant ignorance of the position you are fighting against), well just look at this video: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/ You can plainly see WTC7 (the Solomon Brothers Building) in the background as they report it has fallen, they were 20 minutes early!!! This is not the first time, one of the well known JFK facts is that New Zealand newspapers reported stuff they couldn't have possibly known yet, again we see the media ahead of the game. The result of a presidential election was printed beforehand too once. No, obviously this won't convince you, indeed I had asked and you admitted that no evidence possibly could, at least don't pretend you position is supported by logic or evidence. This isn't something I want to believe (Indeed I despise those that want to believe in such a horrific crime), this isn't a political statement and it says nothing about what one expects of the future, it has nothing to do with what is easy to believe or comfortable, it has nothing to do with patriotism (well I'm a kiwi so obviously not) or what someone thinks of right .vs left or capitalist .vs communist or any other issue that may be brought up, it's about one thing, the evidence. You can't brush it aside by giving anecdotes about cold fusion, Japan or politicians. You are welcome to close your eyes, cover your ears and hum if you wish though.. On 3/13/07, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Jones, The three views of happenings at 911 have been solidified. One view believes conspiracy One view believes the government report One view cannot decide. Beer drinkers at the Dime Box saloon don't care what happened. They can buy a tale of a 110 floor building pancaking down in 8-10 seconds. After enough beers some can buy TWO 110 floor buildings pancaking... but all the beer in the world ain't gonna convince 'em that THREE buildings did a Humpty Dumpty when the third building didn't even get hit with a Boeing jet. Course, drunks just like to argue and they don't matter to politicos but even a drunk, like a blind hog, can root up an acorn on occasion. For certain.. Halliburton announced today that they are moving their headquarters to Dubai from Houston.. Hmmm. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
On 3/14/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: A ha, so now who is an authority on pancaking skyscrapers? No one. As noted previously, the people at Controlled Demolition are experts at pancaking skyscrapers. They have destroyed thousands of structures, some as large as municipal stadiums. A stadium is nothing like a high rise. You say they are experts of pancaking buildings and yet you don't cite a single case where they have pulled a single floor (in an otherwise unweakened building) and had it pancake at freefall speeds. (extra points if the pulled floor or floors are pulled by heat failure from a fire) Or for that matter I challenge you to show me at least where they did a pancaking demolition instead of the classic implosion even if it doesn't match the specs of as otherwise undamaged building. Also, the people at NIST are world class experts on building failures. Again, they have studied thousands of examples, and devoted thousands of man-years to experimental research into this kind of thing. There is no chance you could fool such people, or hide the fact that the building was actually destroyed by demolition, and there is not the slightest chance these people would participate in a conspiracy or cover-up. You're a fool. You won't look at the evidence, you just insist the experts are right, well the ones that you agree with. The NIST has not studied such collapses. Also despite your insistence that metal buildings fail due to fire there is no skyscraper that has failed due to fire before, only the 3 in that one day. In the others far greater heats for much longer times exposing steel, not a few hours of a black smoke fire. (not a very hot fire) But all of that is pointless because you can see the squibs, in the case of WTC7 before it begins to collapse. And the charges in the towers are plainly visible and huge, they burnt people. You can't counter any of the evidence, not a single piece of it so you just ignore the evidence and cite a few supposed experts who are ever so sure it wasn't covert demolition. But all the experts in the world can't undo proof. Your appeal to authority is flawed regardless of the validity of these experts the fact that it is to the exclusion of actual physical evidence, hard evidence you can't and haven't even tried to counter, but opinions of supposed authorities are so much more solid huh? It's not even up for debate, there is no other way to interpret the evidence, the fact is if all the experts told you anything that obviously wasn't true you would believe it because they are experts, I'm sorry but that makes me sick.
Re: [Vo]: to Jed
On 3/14/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: john herman wrote: Either you you do not read what you write ...OR You are reporting matters outof context [a] In an aqueous electrolytic system the anode and the cathode are not supposed to touch. [b] what the Bleet Hawses are you trying to communicate...??? Just what I said: the anode and cathode cannot touch. I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. Wow, you must have some creative reading ability to get that from what I just quoted above! They must be separated by the aqueous solution. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
On 3/15/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: Ahuh, and yet no details are ever availible. That is incorrect. NIST has published thousands of pages of data. Please do not dispute matters of fact. I'm not questioning if when a floor is pulled if further floors worth of destruction will occur, obviously it will. The question is in a building such as the twin towers or other tall conventional buildings if a floor near the top is pulled if the entire thing will collapse at near freefall speeds. All other buildings destroyed by this method, on purpose or by accident, have fallen at freefall speeds. Show me the report. I would expect in the case of the WTC that a lot of it would collapse, but I would think it might stop 2/3rds of the way down . . . You have that backward. When the floor near the top has enough energy to break the next one down, that adds one floor to the mass of falling material, increasing the total mass that strikes the next floor down. After ten floors collapse you have 10 floors worth of additional mass falling down. But falling from what height? Each new floor falls a total of one floor and it must break the walls in doing so before it has to help take out the next floor, overall each floor should slow the descent. Free fall speeds means 0 resistance, and yet no one can deny the work done. You are also ignoring the far better evidence, such as explosions heard and caught on tape, squibs clearly visible and undeniable, the glass broken on the ground floor when the firemen arrived, and indeed seismographs recorded events before the first plane hit which agrees with what those in the buildings report of bombs in the basement. People thrown about and burnt by explosions. Tiny pieces of bone found on roofs of distant buildings, how can such tiny pieces of bone be flung so far by a collapses under gravity? You are ignoring building number 7 where squibs are plainly visible before the building collapses, and the BBC talk about it's demise with it standing in the background 22 minutes before hand, and this is only some of the building related evidence of explosions. This is not quite true, because some of the material falls out the sides and straight down, but most of it joins the total mass of falling material, and adds to the force of the reaction. It's not weight that is important, it is the KE and there is no way it can fall at freefall speed as it needs to constantly do work to destroy the floors below, new floors being added to the falling mass start out with no KE. Show me a video or at least a report of a tall building with the top 3rd falling through the rest of the building at freefall speeds without the building being otherwise weakened Two-thirds down you have *far* greater force striking each additional floor, and much greater damage. If anything, it should go faster. , and at the very least to occur far more slowly than freefall speeds which means that the building offered 0 resistance which is at odds with the conservation of energy. As Stephen A. Lawrence already pointed out on this forum, the breaking reaction occurs at the speed of sound. A floor either breaks or it does not break within a fraction of a second. The energy absorbed by the breaking is absorbed in that fraction of a second and the reaction continues nearly as quickly as it would in free fall. Energy is absorbed, the KE of the upper portion of the building is absorbed as it impacts with the floors below as you stated, and yet it can't still have the same KE it would have had if it had indeed been in freefall, and yet somehow it does. You can see from the 9/11 photos -- and from the photos of other buildings deliberately destroyed by this method -- that the speed is a little slower than free fall. Material thrown out the side hits the ground a little sooner than the falling bulk of the building. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Caves of Mars
And if not then I guess the US will sell them WMD's, and then attack. On 3/21/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...or WMDs? ;-) Harry Terry Blanton wrote: Do they harbor life? http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/19/94112.aspx
[Vo]: No Vo vote
Bill: Let's get rid of this crazy Vo: adding macro. It does not work! - Jed Agreed, let's make this a 'me too!' thread. My understanding is that the person who lobbied to have it added has left anyway.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Your post made my point.
It added Re: which because it is after the {Vo} isn't grouped by subject.
Even worse sometimes a second re: gets added as in: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
or even [VO]:Re:[VO] .. Schauberger
But mainly subject deletion which is really bad.
If Mark S Bilk's fix works all the better, but for those who want to create
a filter for vortex posts they can just use the To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway I thought you might have toned down the condescending attitude but it
seems not.
On 3/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only in your dreams John :)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: [Vo]: No Vo vote
Bill: Let's get rid of this crazy Vo: adding macro. It does not work!
- Jed
Agreed, let's make this a 'me too!' thread.
My understanding is that the person who lobbied to have it added has
left
anyway.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
I sure hope you're trying to be funny.
On 3/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stop the ad hominem please.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Your post made my point.
It added Re: which because it is after the {Vo} isn't grouped by
subject.
Even worse sometimes a second re: gets added as in: [Vo]: Re: Re:
Di-Ozone
or even [VO]:Re:[VO] .. Schauberger
But mainly subject deletion which is really bad.
If Mark S Bilk's fix works all the better, but for those who want to
create
a filter for vortex posts they can just use the To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway I thought you might have toned down the condescending attitude
but it
seems not.
On 3/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only in your dreams John :)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: [Vo]: No Vo vote
Bill: Let's get rid of this crazy Vo: adding macro. It does not
work!
- Jed
Agreed, let's make this a 'me too!' thread.
My understanding is that the person who lobbied to have it added has
left
anyway.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
You must know you're not fooling anyone, including yourself.
So all you are doing is making a self parody, it's amusing but kinda sad.
On 3/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stop the ad hominem David.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Actually, John's assessment is correct and there were no ad hominem
remarks
made by him. You still seem not to have toned down your smug attitude
and
continue to incite negative responses.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Stop the ad hominem please.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Your post made my point.
It added Re: which because it is after the {Vo} isn't grouped by
subject.
Even worse sometimes a second re: gets added as in: [Vo]: Re: Re:
Di-Ozone
or even [VO]:Re:[VO] .. Schauberger
But mainly subject deletion which is really bad.
If Mark S Bilk's fix works all the better, but for those who want to
create
a filter for vortex posts they can just use the To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway I thought you might have toned down the condescending attitude
but
it
seems not.
On 3/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only in your dreams John :)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: [Vo]: No Vo vote
Bill: Let's get rid of this crazy Vo: adding macro. It does not
work!
- Jed
Agreed, let's make this a 'me too!' thread.
My understanding is that the person who lobbied to have it added has
left
anyway.
Re: [Vo]: Michel Jullian, and the critic within us all
On 3/28/07, Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Truth of the matter is, the real reason I've made these suggestions is: It takes a dick to know another dick. No, no it doesn't.
Re: [Vo]: Re:
On 3/30/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If anyone ever needed damning evidence that Bush is a dumbass, there it is. Good job that's the only evidence...
Re: [Vo]: Nuclear power plant scandals in Japan
The reply-to was not vortex-L@eskimo.com as I had expected, not an attempt at anonymity. Never the less I believe that the Horror of Chernobyl, reports of up to 1 Million dead and continuing impact is perhaps great enough to put Nuclear down the list a bit in terms of preferred power sources, Coal is never so devastating as that, coal is only worse if you assume Nuclear goes without a hitch. It's not a cost effective source of power either, it requires government subsidies last I heard. I'm not here to defend coal and oil, they are awful. (And indeed if man made CO2 from fossil fuels are indeed responsible for global warming then I must agree it it worse especially when in theory Nuclear can be safer than it currently is) But there is Hydro, Ocean (Tide, Wave and temperature differential), Solar and Wind, each of which could solely be used to power the world if fully tapped and in the case of Hydro engineered. (and if the energy was stored and transmitted efficiently to where these sources were not available) However on a more practical note I believe that Free Energy is possible with solid state electrical equipment where the energy is either created or tapped from a vast unseen reservoir. Oh, of course I agree that Fossil fuel funds terrorism, but we may disagree on which oil funded men commit Terrorism, but let's not go back there. On 4/3/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of my correspondents, who may wish to remain anonymous, wrote to me: I was always uncomfortable whenever conventional Nuclear energy was proposed as clean and safe. The accidents and close calls and contaminations happen everywhere there is Nuclear power, it isn't safe. I would like to share my response. Naturally, I have mixed feelings about nuclear power. I think everyone on Vortex does -- this is a technically knowledgable group and we all know that a large machine can be dangerous, and there are always pros and cons. Having said that, I have to ask: It isn't safe compared to what? It is lot safer than coal, which spews millions of tons of radioactive garbage, and is probably destroying the world with global warming. It is safer than oil, which pays for terrorism. Okay, it is a more dangerous than wind power, but unfortunately there is not enough wind in Georgia or Japan to make a significant contribution. I feel angry at these Japanese managers and technicians partly because they have betrayed their profession -- they have betrayed us, and people like Mizuno, who trained in nuclear technology. They may even have destroyed the future of nuclear power in Japan, which is bad news for global warming. Engineers are supposed to tell the truth! And if only they *had* honored the truth, and openly reported the problem the first time, the following accidents would not have happened. Suppose the first time those rods fell out of the stack and into the bottom of the containment vessel they told the regulators, told the public, and most important, warned the other operators with the same kind of reactor. The problem would have been fixed instead of re-occuring time after time, and being covered up. The sequence of events that destroyed the Three Mile Island reactor happened twice before at other plants made by the same company. Twice before the valve jammed open and there was no sensor to properly warn the operators. In both cases the problem was discovered before it led to serious consequences. A low-level NRL regulator took notice, wrote it up, and tried to have the equipment and control board modified to keep it from happening again. But no one listened, and the third time the problem went all the way and melted about a third of the core. If only the information had been brought into the light, and taken seriously, the accident never would have happened. It could have been avoided easily, with some simple modifications. Keeping these kinds of secrets is a violation of ethics of engineering and scientific research, and a horribly stupid thing to do. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: Steorn Public Demonstration
On 4/13/07, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up? Because it's a stupid [EMAIL PROTECTED] script and it should be nixed. (or fixed)
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steorn Public Demonstration
HelixMultiverse: It's Friday 13th April 2007, 08.55 but I can't see any update yet. Anyone know where the update will appear on website (I've looked under 'News') or at what time? HM Steorn: We plan to put the update up after lunch (for the video, text update at 6pm). I will also point out that there is no 'big' news here at all, as I stated many times over the last few months. Its a quick update on what has happen since last August, primarily designed for those who do not spend hours everyday on this forum! Regular forum members will see little that is new, its pretty much all been said in here. Suomipoika:I'm not sure I'm following. Are you going to release the detailed technical specifications to the public as you promised or not? Seconded. Is there going to be a text update with these specs alongside the video update? Steorn: Yes, this will go up later in the day, around 6 PM GMT (the video update will go up around lunchtime). Suomipoika:: Excellent! Thanks for the answer! You said there's not gonna be anything new we forum members didn't already knew. Why did you say so? Now you ARE going to release detailed technical specs, and that's definitely new information (and BIG news) for everybody. Did you change your mind after my question? On 4/13/07, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up? Because it's a stupid [EMAIL PROTECTED] script and it should be nixed. (or fixed) Yep. Thats what I thought. What's the old saying about watched pots they never boils. I'm watching the Steorn website for any action but its only 10 am in Dublin so I'm a little early. An every things Ok post would not take any time at all. Anything major should be later in the day. They will need time for a morning coffee, briefing and preparation, checking the server etc, then blame or fizz depending on the situation. A launch on Friday means the shouting match happens while the stock market is closed. That way they can't be accused of playing the market. That's just a guess but that's the accusation they face.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steorn Public Demonstration
rosco:I can see a misconception storm gathering. By tech specs i think Sean has made it pretty clear on many occasions that he means power generation details and nothing more. (i think) Yep, rosco is right - see the Sean quote reference point thread: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 On 4/13/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HelixMultiverse: It's Friday 13th April 2007, 08.55 but I can't see any update yet. Anyone know where the update will appear on website (I've looked under 'News') or at what time? HM Steorn: We plan to put the update up after lunch (for the video, text update at 6pm). I will also point out that there is no 'big' news here at all, as I stated many times over the last few months. Its a quick update on what has happen since last August, primarily designed for those who do not spend hours everyday on this forum! Regular forum members will see little that is new, its pretty much all been said in here. Suomipoika:I'm not sure I'm following. Are you going to release the detailed technical specifications to the public as you promised or not? Seconded. Is there going to be a text update with these specs alongside the video update? Steorn: Yes, this will go up later in the day, around 6 PM GMT (the video update will go up around lunchtime). Suomipoika:: Excellent! Thanks for the answer! You said there's not gonna be anything new we forum members didn't already knew. Why did you say so? Now you ARE going to release detailed technical specs, and that's definitely new information (and BIG news) for everybody. Did you change your mind after my question? On 4/13/07, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up? Because it's a stupid [EMAIL PROTECTED] script and it should be nixed. (or fixed) Yep. Thats what I thought. What's the old saying about watched pots they never boils. I'm watching the Steorn website for any action but its only 10 am in Dublin so I'm a little early. An every things Ok post would not take any time at all. Anything major should be later in the day. They will need time for a morning coffee, briefing and preparation, checking the server etc, then blame or fizz depending on the situation. A launch on Friday means the shouting match happens while the stock market is closed. That way they can't be accused of playing the market. That's just a guess but that's the accusation they face.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steorn Public Demonstration
Ok, there is only one question I need answered from Steorn. I know Free Energy exists in the form they claim, I have not the slightest doubt. However when it comes to their device I have never heard a straight answer to 'Does it run closed loop' I'd ask on the forum but I can't post yet. So maybe you could Wesley, on my behalf, simply put can Steorn or failing that one of the witnesses give a solid answer to: Has the loop been closed? Has it been run with no input power beyond an initial impulse to get it started and done useful work continuously? (or run under any other fair closed loop (no input) type conditions) If the answer to this is a yes no Jury is needed, and if the answer to that is 'No' a Jury with positive findings might even fail to utterly convince me. On 4/13/07, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok that's good its still useful information. I and others need that data. Nice to see that its not bad news. Several sites on the web are expecting bigger things. Maybe I should pass this to them. Thanks I know what to look for and when. I have time to do a few chores. Feb to August is still quite a long testing schedule. John Berry wrote: rosco:I can see a misconception storm gathering. By tech specs i think Sean has made it pretty clear on many occasions that he means power generation details and nothing more. (i think) Yep, rosco is right - see the Sean quote reference point thread: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 On 4/13/07, *John Berry* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HelixMultiverse: It's Friday 13th April 2007, 08.55 but I can't see any update yet. Anyone know where the update will appear on website (I've looked under 'News') or at what time? HM Steorn: We plan to put the update up after lunch (for the video, text update at 6pm). I will also point out that there is no 'big' news here at all, as I stated many times over the last few months. Its a quick update on what has happen since last August, primarily designed for those who do not spend hours everyday on this forum! Regular forum members will see little that is new, its pretty much all been said in here. Suomipoika:I'm not sure I'm following. Are you going to release the detailed technical specifications to the public as you promised or not? Seconded. Is there going to be a text update with these specs alongside the video update? Steorn: Yes, this will go up later in the day, around 6 PM GMT (the video update will go up around lunchtime). Suomipoika:: Excellent! Thanks for the answer! You said there's not gonna be anything new we forum members didn't already knew. Why did you say so? Now you ARE going to release detailed technical specs, and that's definitely new information (and BIG news) for everybody. Did you change your mind after my question? On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up? Because it's a stupid [EMAIL PROTECTED] script and it should be nixed. (or fixed) Yep. Thats what I thought. What's the old saying about watched pots they never boils. I'm watching the Steorn website for any action but its only 10 am in Dublin so I'm a little early. An every things Ok post would not take any time at all. Anything major should be later in the day. They will need time for a morning coffee, briefing and preparation, checking the server etc, then blame or fizz depending on the situation. A launch on Friday means the shouting match happens while the stock market is closed. That way they can't be accused of playing the market. That's just a guess but that's the accusation they face.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steorn Public Demonstration
On 4/14/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, there is only one question I need answered from Steorn. I know Free Energy exists in the form they claim By that I mean energy seemingly created in a simple device including permanent magnetic motors. I think energy can be created but don't really care if energy is created or taken from some unseen infinite storehouse of energy, at that point it's an issue of faith in c of e or in abundance and creation. In my opinion energy can be created by using the aether in specific ways to unbalance energy equations, this is permissible because the aether is not energy but the medium in which all energy rides and energy follows the aether's 'rules' and by manipulating the aether you can change these rules - aether is the 'board' on which the game of energy is played - I can also explain how manipulating the aether in various ways leads to energy generation.. To expand on that there is no other word for thesaurus in a thesaurus, and phonetic is not spelt phonetically. If there are gravitons the only thing that by necessity couldn't react to them would be gravitons. , I have not the slightest doubt. However when it comes to their device I have never heard a straight answer to 'Does it run closed loop' I'd ask on the forum but I can't post yet. So maybe you could Wesley, on my behalf, simply put can Steorn or failing that one of the witnesses give a solid answer to: Has the loop been closed? Has it been run with no input power beyond an initial impulse to get it started and done useful work continuously? (or run under any other fair closed loop (no input) type conditions) If the answer to this is a yes no Jury is needed, and if the answer to that is 'No' a Jury with positive findings might even fail to utterly convince me. On 4/13/07, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok that's good its still useful information. I and others need that data. Nice to see that its not bad news. Several sites on the web are expecting bigger things. Maybe I should pass this to them. Thanks I know what to look for and when. I have time to do a few chores. Feb to August is still quite a long testing schedule. John Berry wrote: rosco:I can see a misconception storm gathering. By tech specs i think Sean has made it pretty clear on many occasions that he means power generation details and nothing more. (i think) Yep, rosco is right - see the Sean quote reference point thread: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 On 4/13/07, *John Berry* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HelixMultiverse: It's Friday 13th April 2007, 08.55 but I can't see any update yet. Anyone know where the update will appear on website (I've looked under 'News') or at what time? HM Steorn: We plan to put the update up after lunch (for the video, text update at 6pm). I will also point out that there is no 'big' news here at all, as I stated many times over the last few months. Its a quick update on what has happen since last August, primarily designed for those who do not spend hours everyday on this forum! Regular forum members will see little that is new, its pretty much all been said in here. Suomipoika:I'm not sure I'm following. Are you going to release the detailed technical specifications to the public as you promised or not? Seconded. Is there going to be a text update with these specs alongside the video update? Steorn: Yes, this will go up later in the day, around 6 PM GMT (the video update will go up around lunchtime). Suomipoika:: Excellent! Thanks for the answer! You said there's not gonna be anything new we forum members didn't already knew. Why did you say so? Now you ARE going to release detailed technical specs, and that's definitely new information (and BIG news) for everybody. Did you change your mind after my question? On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up? Because it's a stupid [EMAIL PROTECTED] script and it should be nixed. (or fixed) Yep. Thats what I thought. What's the old saying about watched pots they never boils. I'm watching the Steorn website for any action but its only 10 am in Dublin so I'm a little early. An every things Ok post
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Bogodynamics
I agree with you that more attention should be paid, but I have a very different view as to the level of Bogosity. Indeed this annoys me as people discount things often with no reason besides it not fitting what they currently believe, please give me 20 instances of apparent Bogousness, and we'll see if we can hit on some to discuss. Don't pick all ones which are extremely bogus or already disproven, just a nice average mix. On 4/20/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The term bogon is computer hacker jargon, where it is defined as the quantum of bogosity, which itself is the property of being bogus. Bogus in this case refers as much to point of origin as to ultimate truthfulness. Many seemingly bogus facts turn out to be true. We can equate the value of certain information with its origin, however, at least for the purpose of convenience in the overload of the information age - and this saves a lot of time without too many oversights - usually. For instance, 98-99% of everything MIT sez about physics is either true, arguably true, or not-yet-disproven (or generally innocuous). When they blow it, they really blow it. Even the pompous turkey - Bob Park, hated as he may be in a few circles (LENR and alternative nutrition/ healing) is correct at least 90% of the time. As long as he is belittling someone else's scared cow, let him enjoy his soap-box and petty-pomposity. He does provide another filter of sorts ... yet we all need to have our own personal bogon filters, rather than rely on the park-people. On Vo, we probably have to filter out more bogosity than any other forum. Not ironically, alternative-energy attracts bogosity like an NIB magnet attracts iron. Apparent Bogosity however, is not all bad, in one sense. It may have uncredentialed origins, and it may chafe at the halter of mainstream control (and funding) but its 'rarity of factuality' is balanced firmly by the extreme value of the small truth which goes against the grain. That is the problem. In computerese - the Bogon is an informal name for an IP packet on the Internet which claims to be from the IP address space which is reserved, but not yet allocated by the net-cops (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) to an accountable entity. IOW: the bogon is not credentialed. The areas of unallocated address space are called bogon space but that can be temporary, pending a $mall $um, and you emptor, so to speak - must constantly recheck for crednetials. There is a direct corollary to this part of information science and other pursuits. All science is ultimately information science. Take so-called free energy for instance. 99% of everything which claims to be free energy is bogus, and its point of origin is usually a tell. No problemo ... almost. We are all aware of certain tells like the lab was raided and the machine confiscated. Yet it is the 1% which will eventually make any tiresome pursuit worthwhile, even wading through tons of huckster-smuckster - and this slim glimmer of ultimate value is why we tune into to forums like this one (and some of much higher average-bogosity). In the meantime, we must make do with heavy filtering, but the biggest problem overall is that lack of funding for the all important *1%* which is the uncredentialed information which is either true or pointing in that direction, but anti-mainstream. This hidden truth is the very spark and impetus of advancing civilization - the forbidden fruit - the one percent. If we must fund the whole bogus 99% it is still worthwhile, but this can only be done when we are not funding war. That is where the gift economy can come in. Free enterprise without a gift economy stinks. More on that later. After all, when you look for the only things in life that matter - it's all about information. Dis-information is not always malicious, and it is not always spam (or even an annoyance) and it is not always counter-productive. Consider it as humor, if you like. Like most everything in life - bogosity is a ultimately an ongoing balance of pluses and minuses. The cutting edge easily becomes the bleeding edge with a single misstep. As Kurt Vonnegut was wont to say - So it goes Jones (if you were thinking Linda Ellerby, you should be reading more and watching less TV)
Re: [VO]:Global warning caused by humanity-- now factually based.
I haven't read much in this thread, but in the end it doesn't matter if the polluting man is doing is the cause of Global Warming. Very few are questioning if Global Warming is happening, if it will be a problem. The issue of man's fault in causing it is just a blame game and unimportant, it doesn't change the fact that it's happening. The other undeniable issue is that man can fix it and has the response-ability to do so for our own good. The only issue that need be under discussion is how we should go about this. Oh, wait I just read the post before mine and it says the same thing, oh well... On 4/22/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should aim all the fire-hoses on earth at the sun, then say ready! set! go! (The element of surprise is so important.). P. - Original Message From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 12:08:54 PM Subject: Re: [VO]:Global warning caused by humanity-- now factually based. Indeed Paul, whether you and Dr Brenda and the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/are right is irrelevant. The real question is, can humanity remediate global warming, and how, we should be practical about this. Thomas suggested some drives as propulsion means for space parasols, but it seems to me that since the parasols will be submitted to photon pressure anyway, it would be great if they could be entirely sustented this way (solar sails). Indeed, whatever the mass and reflective area of the parasol, there must exist a spot on the Sun-Earth line where it will be in equilibrium between solar attraction, centrifugal force and photon pressure, comments/criticisms welcome on this. Michel - Original Message - From: Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [VO]:Global warning caused by humanity-- now factually based. Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: [snip Should we try to cut emissions of bad gases? Sure, why not, but not at the detriment of the basis of our society, that is, the working class. Maybe anyone in an environmentalist organization should be given a severe tax increase to support a changeover to something else, or to be used to buy those dandy carbon credits. Call is the practice what you preach tax. No more or less stupid than the how many congressmen does it take to change a lightbulb thing, or however that little gem of bovine waste product was worded. I agree more people should focus on this issue. When so many climate scientists now agree with recent* data that smog, etc. etc. etc are indeed causing appreciable damage then who should care that the Sun is having a bad cycle? I mean, we can't change the Sun, but the effects caused by modern society are real and undeniable. We should try to improve. It seems the major debate in this thread is what's the major cause of global warming-- humanity or the Sun. Really, who cares if humanity is 51% of the cause and the Sun is 49%, LOL. So what? We shouldn't care. Fact still remains that humanity is a big cause, period. Therefore I would agree with Kyle's post. Lets focus on how we can improve things. Lets try to encourage more minds focusing on this issue. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:Global Warning
It is already far warmer that it has been for an extremely long time, not 500 years. I can't be bothered reading the rest of your ignorant post but if you don't realize that the weather is warming up your a fool/idiot. That warming 500-1000 years ago is a blip compared to this. On 4/22/07, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The headline in my newspaper of Saturday Feb. 3, 2007 said, GLOBAL WARNING- If nothing is done to combat greenhouse gases, extreme weather could kill 1 million people by 2100… I am greatly concerned about the global warming hysteria that is being foisted upon the public. I recall a news caster six weeks before saying that Europe had just experienced the warmest autumn in 500 years. Do you realize what that means? It means that 500 years ago it was warmer, and that human activity had nothing to do with it! It is well known to some historians that the period from 900 to 1100 AD was also warmer than today by about three degrees, and human activity had nothing to do with that either! Mars is even heating up. I can't wait to be told what part of my lifestyle is causing the Martian heat wave! There are mammoths frozen in the Siberian tundra with flesh still intact, and tropical vegetation in their mouths. When discovered in the 1800's, the meat was still edible! The stuff in my freezer isn't fit to eat after five years. So, how old can these animals be? Clearly, Siberia was a tropical climate in the recent past. That warm period cannot possibly be the fault of the human race. Scientists know these things, but they are being threatened to shut up about it. There are many scientists who disagree with the hypothesis that we are causing global warming, but they are becoming less vocal as they consider the loss of funding and loss of career if they continue to say what they really believe. Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel recently said that any weather person who did not believe in global warming should be fired! The coercion continues! In the late 70's the media was scaring us with predictions from reputable researchers about the coming ice age. These scientists were not idiots. Why has the story turned 180 degrees in the past 20 yrs? Is there some kind of agenda here? There sure is! With our public school children forced to watch Al Gore's movie over and over again, and his recent rant before Congress, he has herded the US leadership and general population into a vulnerable position. He can now, with his established business enterprises, corral billions of dollars from gullible people by selling them bogus carbon credits! We are being told that we must reduce our production of greenhouse gases, including CO2. Plants and trees love CO2. They must have it to survive. They would grow much faster if CO2 levels were two or three times higher. Nursery people know this and they inject CO2 into their green houses to dramatically increase growth rates. CO2 is the natural byproduct of combustion. It is a direct measure of a civilization's prosperity; the more controlled per capita production of CO2, the higher the standard of living. For us to significantly reduce CO2 emissions by conservation, we must dramatically reduce our quality of life. The resulting downward spiral of the world economy could ultimately cause more death and destruction than global warming. Through the ages the sun heats up, the sun cools down, and there is nothing we can do about it. If the sun burps, we burn; if the sun sneezes, we freeze. We are presently in a natural warming trend. It is arrogance to think we are causing it. If we are too puny to cause it, then we are definitely too puny to fix it. We shouldn't live in fear. As long as God has His hand on the sun's thermostat, we will be alright. But, we live in an age where much of the world's leadership and this forum believe that we ourselves are all the god we have, and all the god we need. We cannot save civilization by dismantling civilization. When humans endeavor to solve god sized problems by our own inadequate efforts, we can only expect to create for ourselves a hell on earth. As the global warming issue finds its way into the legislative process we are on the verge of making some really bad laws that will hurt all of us. Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for conservation, alternate energy, and getting off of oil dependency. I have spent thousands of my own dollars on PAGD and cavitation experiments, trying to discover something that will help. But, let's not be stupid by making crippling decisions that will cause the human race to lose its hold on civilization. We will only have the resources to solve our problems while working from a position of prosperity, not poverty. Jeffrey L Fink, B.S. Aerospace Engineering VA Tech No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM
Re: [Vo]:Global Warning
On 4/23/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That warming 500-1000 years ago is a blip compared to this. Numbers to support this please. --Kyle Watch An Inconvenient Truth, there is a chart that addresses this.
Re: [VO]:Re: Global warming
On 4/23/07, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now speaking of mammoths being frozen in Siberia.. shucks , we have politicians in office in Texas... well.. err.. nevermind.. you wouldn't believe it. Richard I hate a mystery, finish your thought.
Re: [Vo]:Global Warning
http://journal.copernicus.org/en/images/stories/film_reviews/ice_age2/ipcc_temp_past1000years2.jpghotter than the last 1,000 years http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/2.jpg co2 and temperature linked http://cosmicvariance.com/wp-images/CO2.png CO2 waaay up You can't rule out data because it is a year old, otherwise there would be no reason to pay attention to any data since it will be old someday, but hey it's historical data it's meant to be old ;) CO2 is a cause of global warming and it is ome we can easily do something about, we have other things we can do but that's the easiest even if the sun is contributing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The warming 500 - 1000 years ago is a blip compared to what, exactly? P. - Original Message From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:10:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Global Warning On 4/23/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That warming 500-1000 years ago is a blip compared to this. Numbers to support this please. --Kyle Watch An Inconvenient Truth, there is a chart that addresses this.
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. - Original Message From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband. I saw it on display outside at Disneyland around 1995. It was located right next to the lake near Adventure Land . Those of you who get to Disneyland may still be able to see it if it hasn't rotted away by now. There are many things about this planet's history that don't line up with present day thinking. Let us not be duped into making big expensive mistakes by selectively ignoring certain historical data. Again I wonder. What happened to the ice age we were threatened with in the late 70's. It's ironic that many global warming events this past season were cancelled due to extreme winter conditions. Jeff P.S. John. This is only my third post in over a year. I read your stuff, and you post almost everyday. You could give me the courtesy of reading all of what I said before you publicly call me an idiot, and perhaps point out specific errors in my writings so that I may be enlightened. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM
Re: [VO]:Global warning caused by humanity is NOW 'Unequivocal'
Jeff, how sure are you that GW is nonsense? Are you pretty sure? Is there a 10% chance it's real? 5%? 1%? one in a million?? At what point do the odds become justification for polluting out planet more? On 4/24/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff Fink wrote: Mercury is too close to the sun Indeed, and if the sun is radiating X% more radiation then Mercury should be hotter. Are you suggesting Mercury is always in front or behind the Sun so we can't measuring it's blackbody radiation??? I'm curious where you get such information, or are you just thinking out loud? the other planets are cloud shrouded, That doesn't matter. Planets are not transparent to blackbody radiation. If the planet receives more radiation from the Sun then they'll heat up and radiate that much more. and everything else is likely too small to get a good reading. I doubt that given such blackbody radiation is easily focused and measurable. But, you are right. We should see the same effect of elevated temps on the moon if solar activity is increasing. Indeed, and it seems likely given the significance and attention global warming is drawing that the few global warming skeptic climate scientists would use such Moon temperature data as further evidence, but I don't see mention of any such data in articles. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming
On 4/24/07, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- *From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2007 10:12 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming The problem with augments against Global Warming is they lack pragmatism. There are in the end 2 types of arguments against GW, one is that either it's cyclical or not (primarily) our fault or not happening 'yet', the other is that pollution is good, these again are of 2 types, helping nature with a carbon sink to help the fishes and plants (Which points out a good side of pollution but doesn't negate GW) and another that hopes to so severely fuck with the weather as to cause GW to stop an impending theorized ice age. Though it is a seriously bad idea to monkey with nature normally so I find it very foolhardy but at least the latter makes sense in a way. (And better ways exist) But the first type of argument fails to consider that the evidence of GW may be correct, and I haven't noted a refutation of the data that shows temperature in lockstep with CO2 nor a refutation that we are increasing CO2. The theories may be that something else is the cause of global warming such as the suns output (funnily enough meters show less sunlight getting to the ground not more) or a natural source of CO2 outgunning us. So, on the one hand, there is less solar energy getting to the ground, but on the other hand, Mars is heating up. Mars has little atmosphere, no clouds, and no discernable recent volcanic activity. Its reflectivity is constant. That means that the Martian temperature rise is a good indicator of increased solar output. The Earth's reflectivity is changeable based on the extent of cloud cover. If the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has decreased, as you say, despite increased solar infusion, then we can conclude that it is caused by significantly increased cloud cover. That makes sense since higher surface temperatures will cause higher evaporation rates, and thus a more expansive cloud cover. What we have demonstrated then is that the Earth has a very effective self regulating mechanism to control temperature. The operation fits standard control system theory. It's the same for everything from fly ball governors to op amps. The control system must first detect an error before it can implement a correction. The zone in which the correction is made is called the control band. There is a high control band and a low control band. Between them is the dead band where no control is required or generated. Control systems that are modestly damped will have overshoot, which is to say that operation will rarely stay within the ideal confines of the dead band. In Earth's case it will alternate between cold and hot. There is a specific oscillation period for a control system which does not become apparent if the system is critically damped. The Earth is not critically damped in its thermal control system, and it exhibits a period of approximately 500 years. If, indeed, human activity has nudged the average temperature higher, the control system will generate all the more force clouds to bring it back down. You and others may be willing to argue that our activity has broken the control system. But, so far, there is no indication of that other than the speculation that pent up methanes and hydrides could over tax the control system. So we should pollute until we get a signal which is totally undeniable? The scare tactics (which you mention later) aren't from those concerned with Global Warming, they say that it is fixable. There are scare tactics about but it's phony Terrorism not GW. But these theories still don't propose that we should pump CO2 into the atmosphere to increase the temperature on earth and indeed most seem to think there is a problem but it's mainly caused by something else. But that doesn't invalidate it at all. The theory that there is no harm (yet) again doesn't try to show that there couldn't be, it simply argues that we aren't yet fucked, that's a pretty irresponsible argument. Unless timetravel is developed science will never be able to prove beyond a doubt what the future will bring, we can not really know what happened in the past either. There are sure to be scientists and evidence that disagree. But the case has been made very well and it is irresponsible to ignore it by throwing up a smoke screen, Does Al Gore gaining literal or political currency out of this invalidates it? And do you really expect me to hate Gore and side with Bush, are you high? Bush is not making my day in several areas. Several areas? Ok so you are a Republican. Would you really want to side with oil Execs interested in money over Green's interested in the planet and all it's inhabitants, you want me to believe the Greens are the bad guys, are you stupid? I thought you finally read my first post. I said I want us off oil
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Balls! On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always starts with balls. Something Newtonian I guess. CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes growth in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens. Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How he does this, I haven't a clue, but there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and I) does this. Personally I don't think you can discuss depth and exposing real feelings (whatever that means) while you're on a balls rant. You'd never hear the Dalai Lama saying balls. Is that because he's hiding his real feelings? Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the others in this world, including Bush. P. - Original Message From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. - Original Message From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband. I saw it on display outside at Disneyland around 1995. It was located right next to the lake near Adventure Land . Those of you who get to Disneyland may still be able to see it if it hasn't rotted away by now. There are many things about this planet's history that don't line up with present day thinking. Let
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
To expand on that, notice how the last thing Philip is interested in doing is refuting the evidence that CO2 and Temperature are linked. Or that CO2 is rising. The core of the argument is never argued. On 4/24/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Balls! On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always starts with balls. Something Newtonian I guess. CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes growth in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens. Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How he does this, I haven't a clue, but there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and I) does this. Personally I don't think you can discuss depth and exposing real feelings (whatever that means) while you're on a balls rant. You'd never hear the Dalai Lama saying balls. Is that because he's hiding his real feelings? Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the others in this world, including Bush. P. - Original Message From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. - Original Message From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one
Re: [VO]:Global warning caused by humanity-- now factually based.
On 4/23/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry (wishing he had a detachable penis) Hell no, you'd put it down somewhere and lose it.
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Thomas, so what? Are you saying you have no doubt that man can pollute unchecked and be assured no impact on the climate? Even if you did why should pollution and oil be supported, even in your right wing view of the world shouldn't Oil be given up for an alternative energy? Are you trying to support those evil Arab terrorists who hate your freedom and want to kill you? Am I 100% convinced by conventional GW, no. But there is a very real chance and I don't believe in fucking with nature for the sake of it and I believe in supporting alternative energy. And despite what someone said the most common topic of this list is alternative energy. (not the only topic) On 4/25/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. Please clarify. You claim that was stated in An Inconvenient Truth narrated by Al Gore? Among other things, the video says that climate scientists who question man made GW do so at the risk of their career. It mentions volcanic produced gas, it contends that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in ocean temperature. It doesn't mention undersea volcanos, and do we know how many of them there are. In increase in under sea volcanos would cause the deep oceans to warm up. The video does mention that an increase in ocean temperature reduces it's ability to hold CO2. You really should watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
I knew that Volcaino sh*t was bunk, thanks for finding the evidence. On 4/25/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. Please clarify. You claim that was stated in An Inconvenient Truth narrated by Al Gore? Among other things, the video says that climate scientists who question man made GW do so at the risk of their career. It mentions volcanic produced gas, it contends that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in ocean temperature. It doesn't mention undersea volcanos, and do we know how many of them there are. In increase in under sea volcanos would cause the deep oceans to warm up. The video does mention that an increase in ocean temperature reduces it's ability to hold CO2. You really should watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU You are greatly twisting and misinterpreting information. After some research it turns out you're terribly incorrect. Volcanoes spew out more *pollutants* such as SO2 than humans, but volcanoes do ***NOT*** create any where near as much CO2 as humans. In 2003 humans created ~140 times more CO2 than all the volcanoes on the entire planet combined, including all the volcanoes under water, and it's probably higher in 2007.. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html Scroll down to Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html Here's Al Gores Global Warming speech: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2565436963450479963q=%22An+Inconvenient+Truth%22+al+gore+duration%3Alonghl=en Scroll to 27:12 minutes to see the CO2 temperature chart spanning the past 400,000 years that includes present humanity. See all of the ice age cycles, but when it hits modern time the CO2 spikes to ~5 times the maximum of any ice age!!! Here's an image of the chart -- http://www.indorphyn.com/images/al_gore-co2-temp-slide.jpg Notice how CO2, yellow line at the right, suddenly increases by ~5 times the max of any ice age when modern humanity arrives. That is Global Warming!!! It is *NOT* caused by volcanoes. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
From the later videos he does seem to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic. (waffle in an understatement) But that seems to be largely age related. I think he has probably got or more likely had something but I don't think the effect is reliable as indeed most Free Energy (weather electrical or cold fusion seldom is), also he likely has little understanding of some of the basics of Physics (which helps when doing the impossible) but is likely being deceptive even if to himself most of all. I probably give more FE/AG devices the benefit of the doubt than most posting to this list but his demos seem really poor. (If it wasn't for somewhat similar principles working elsewhere including JLN's replication of Newman and as reported confirmations from scientists testing it I would be calling him an all out scam) He's just chasing ghosts... On 5/19/07, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: You seem to be running a very nice scam, Joseph :-) You're a great showman in any case, so spectators aren't entirely robbed. Michel - Original Message - From: JNPCo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 AM Subject: [Vo]:***VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman 5/17/07 A NEW SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE IS DEMONSTRATED IN MOBILE, ALABAMA! The video.google.com link below features a new demonstration of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine technology and fulfills the promise made by Joseph Newman in April 2007. The amazing results of this new energy technology as shown in the video speak for themselves! Contact Joe Nolfe at (205) 835-9022 for further details about the energy machine technology. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6157958993884349118q=joseph+newman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.josephnewman.com It's not a scam but man can that man woffle. All Newman needs is a hair cut and a public relations spacialist with a wip to keep him on topic and people will find he has made a few interesting discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Tesla Revisted
You would want it to be low distance and frequency specific so the neighbors can't tap into your power supply. I believe it is entirely possible because what is happening is a flow of aether of being established between Primary and Secondary making them very close inductively and if you do it right it's a one way effect. (The magnetic field is carried by a flow of aether as has been observed in many devices) This can be seen in many free energy devices and ground or super radio receivers. On 6/9/07, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:00:21 -0500: Hi, [snip] I can't explain it with em theory, but it behaves like a simple pendulum. Ignoring friction, once the pendulum is set in motion it will keep swinging with the same amplitude until the pendulum is used to power a clock or some other device. Precisely, so if no power is drawn, then none is transmitted (theoretically). The trick is that the inductance of the transmitting coil remains high until a resonant load is attached. Since most things in the environment are out of resonance the impedance stays high, and the transmitter itself appears as a high impendence to its own power source. Essentially it's a transformer primary winding with an open secondary winding. BTW this implies that losses can be reduced even further by increasing the Q factor of both transmitter and receiver. The effect of which is to narrow the bandwidth, ensuring that even less spurious receivers are to be found in the environment, and consequently less loss. Of course the flip side is that it's harder to match the resonant frequency of the receiver to that of the transmitter. Harry On 8/6/2007 11:27 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Maybe it would be possible for the emitter/primary to know there is a receiver/secondary around drawing power from it, if none it could turn off, and turn on for a brief time every few seconds to check of it's needed. Maybe it could even modulate its output power to fit the needs? On the how it works side, has anybody understood the difference between this MHz resonant magnetic coupling device and a radio emitter with a tuned receiver? They say energy is not radiated away if it's not used by a receiver, I can't really see why. I suspect that the receiver is within a wavelength of the transmitter, so that this is a near field effect, which would imply that greater distances could be achieved by using lower frequencies, though I suspect that one of the corollaries of Murphy's law says that as the frequency drops, so does the energy transfer efficiency. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Tesla Revisted
Look at Stubblefields wireless telephone, it was loops of wire at audio (not radio) frequencies and IMO worked better than conventional EM would consider possible. The magnetic field caught a lift rather literally, indeed here are devices that can make rather impressive magnetic beams or in one case where a magnetic field was carried by the aetheric output of a Tesla Coil and conducted through the experimenters body. (This is how Tesla's transmission technology really worked) The same effect is seen with ground radio where is seems the EM gets a lift on subterranean currents. (Borderlands has some good experiments) R. Stiffler found the same effect where a pickup coil latched on to the transmitter and remained at the same strength even when drawing the pickup coil further away. You need very specific designs to make this work but it can be seen in most of the solid state FE devices, the are one way transformers where the primary is unaware the secondary is drawing power due to the distance (loose coupling) but due to the magnetic field from the primary getting a unidirectional lift on a stream of aether energy is induced in the secondary. Note: There are only 3 possibilities, a universal static aether/reference frame (quite impossible), Special Relativity which is illogical and experiments have contradicted and even Einstein rejected after proposing it when he said you're a fool if you don't believe in an aether and finally a dynamic aether which matter largely entrains. Resonance can help in creating an aetheric bridge between primary and secondary but if you want it to be Overunity you need the bridge to be unidirectional. Look into Earl Ammann if your interested in distant transmission of electrical energy. On 6/10/07, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Jeff Fink's message of Sat, 9 Jun 2007 07:00:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] So, why can't people living within a few hundred feet of high voltage transmission lines tap useful free power with a 60 Hz receiver circuit? [snip] Are you sure they can't? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Tesla Revisted
Kind of obvious but... Harry, a DC current in a coil will not emit and radio waves, I think you made a mistake. The following is reasonably accurate however. A flat DC current creates no radiowaves at all regardless of conductor shape. An AC current in a straight wire will emit radio waves. An AC current in a coil will emit negligible radiowaves with little powrer Pulsed DC is as good as AC for creating radiowaves. On 6/10/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A DC current in a straight wire won't emit radio waves. A DC current in a coiled wire will emit radio waves, but with little power. Harry On 9/6/2007 6:14 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Essentially it's a transformer primary winding with an open secondary winding. Indeed a primary with an open secondary behaves like a pure inductor, so it's a purely reactive load, so current in it can be made to oscillate non dissipatively (assuming resistance of the coil is negligible). In terms of transformer it makes perfect sense. But in terms of antenna, how could the open air coil antenna help emitting radio waves (which requires power) towards infinity? Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tesla Revisted In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:00:21 -0500: Hi, [snip] I can't explain it with em theory, but it behaves like a simple pendulum. Ignoring friction, once the pendulum is set in motion it will keep swinging with the same amplitude until the pendulum is used to power a clock or some other device. Precisely, so if no power is drawn, then none is transmitted (theoretically). The trick is that the inductance of the transmitting coil remains high until a resonant load is attached. Since most things in the environment are out of resonance the impedance stays high, and the transmitter itself appears as a high impendence to its own power source. Essentially it's a transformer primary winding with an open secondary winding. BTW this implies that losses can be reduced even further by increasing the Q factor of both transmitter and receiver. The effect of which is to narrow the bandwidth, ensuring that even less spurious receivers are to be found in the environment, and consequently less loss. Of course the flip side is that it's harder to match the resonant frequency of the receiver to that of the transmitter. Harry On 8/6/2007 11:27 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Maybe it would be possible for the emitter/primary to know there is a receiver/secondary around drawing power from it, if none it could turn off, and turn on for a brief time every few seconds to check of it's needed. Maybe it could even modulate its output power to fit the needs? On the how it works side, has anybody understood the difference between this MHz resonant magnetic coupling device and a radio emitter with a tuned receiver? They say energy is not radiated away if it's not used by a receiver, I can't really see why. I suspect that the receiver is within a wavelength of the transmitter, so that this is a near field effect, which would imply that greater distances could be achieved by using lower frequencies, though I suspect that one of the corollaries of Murphy's law says that as the frequency drops, so does the energy transfer efficiency. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Witricity scheme (was Re:Tesla Revisted)
Ah, no. Electrons in wires generally move far far far too slow to produce synchrotron or cyclotron radiation at a radiofrequency and while I'm not 100% sure I believe that a uniform current in all parts of the loop would remove this effect. DC is still DC if pulsed and will create radiowaves. On 6/10/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The article doesn't appear to contain the term AC. It only speaks of an electrical current although it describes the magnetic field as oscillating at MHz frequencies. Perhaps this is inaccurate. Perhaps it is more correct to say the oscillation starts only when both the power supply (sender) and a power user (receiver) are in the same room. Regarding DC current and radio waves, I was basing my claim on the fact than electrons made to move in a circle radiate radio waves. harry On 9/6/2007 12:26 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: Whatever the shape of the wire a DC current can't emit radio waves AFAIK. The witricity experimental device uses AC at MHz frequencies (cf the link I provided, here it is again http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/MIT_WiTricity_Press_Release.pdf ) Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tesla Revisted A DC current in a straight wire won't emit radio waves. A DC current in a coiled wire will emit radio waves, but with little power. Harry On 9/6/2007 6:14 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Essentially it's a transformer primary winding with an open secondary winding. Indeed a primary with an open secondary behaves like a pure inductor, so it's a purely reactive load, so current in it can be made to oscillate non dissipatively (assuming resistance of the coil is negligible). In terms of transformer it makes perfect sense. But in terms of antenna, how could the open air coil antenna help emitting radio waves (which requires power) towards infinity? Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tesla Revisted In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:00:21 -0500: Hi, [snip] I can't explain it with em theory, but it behaves like a simple pendulum. Ignoring friction, once the pendulum is set in motion it will keep swinging with the same amplitude until the pendulum is used to power a clock or some other device. Precisely, so if no power is drawn, then none is transmitted (theoretically). The trick is that the inductance of the transmitting coil remains high until a resonant load is attached. Since most things in the environment are out of resonance the impedance stays high, and the transmitter itself appears as a high impendence to its own power source. Essentially it's a transformer primary winding with an open secondary winding. BTW this implies that losses can be reduced even further by increasing the Q factor of both transmitter and receiver. The effect of which is to narrow the bandwidth, ensuring that even less spurious receivers are to be found in the environment, and consequently less loss. Of course the flip side is that it's harder to match the resonant frequency of the receiver to that of the transmitter. Harry On 8/6/2007 11:27 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Maybe it would be possible for the emitter/primary to know there is a receiver/secondary around drawing power from it, if none it could turn off, and turn on for a brief time every few seconds to check of it's needed. Maybe it could even modulate its output power to fit the needs? On the how it works side, has anybody understood the difference between this MHz resonant magnetic coupling device and a radio emitter with a tuned receiver? They say energy is not radiated away if it's not used by a receiver, I can't really see why. I suspect that the receiver is within a wavelength of the transmitter, so that this is a near field effect, which would imply that greater distances could be achieved by using lower frequencies, though I suspect that one of the corollaries of Murphy's law says that as the frequency drops, so does the energy transfer efficiency. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real
So let me see if I've gotcha. Greenies, alternate energy and hippies are evil. And oil companies are good and only speak the truth without any hint of anything self serving. I bet you'd have believed the tobacco lobby too. On 6/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the rational minds at Vortex start to buy into the mythology/religion of man-made global warming, we're in deep trouble... except for those of us who make a lot of money from the field. There was an interesting article today in The National Post (Canada), written by a physicist, in which, among other things, he asked the question, How does one measure global temperature? P. - Original Message From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:52:51 PM Subject: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real The ultra-conservative National Review now admits that global warming is real. We have truly turned a corner! See: http://nrd.nationalreview.com/ *COVER STORY *It is no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures; what remains in dispute is the precise magnitude of the human impact. Conservatives should accept this reality and move on to the question of what we should do about it. This would put us in a much better position to prevent a massive, counterproductive intervention in the U.S. economy. *By Jim Manzi *Now if we can just persuade the world that cold fusion is real, we might actually fix the problem. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:vort messages Resent to: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Just a test, I'm BCC'ing this to a fake email address. On 7/3/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Horace Heffner wrote: The vortex-l posts started to show up with Resent to: undisclosed- recipients: ; on June 28. I wonder who the undisclosed- recipients: ; are? Which messages? Not this one (for example.) My own incoming vortex-L message stream has no resent-to line at all. And the word undisclosed only ever appeared in one place: the subject line of these particular messages. Usually undisclosed recipients refers to the BCC: line of a message: blind CC, with hidden addresses. Maybe your own ISP is adding it, or it's part of your email program spam filters? Is anyone besides Horace seeing a line for resent-to in the headers for incoming vortex-L messages? (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:I have returned
Hey, you're back. But no, modulation wouldn't be needed, detection is enough. (which is I guess binary modulation) On 8/19/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy folks, I suppose I couldn't stay away for too long. Things have settled down a bit, so maybe I will be posting again. In any case, I waded through a few hundred emails from the group, finally going back into my account. About the Nimtz FTL thing...here's a link that has some interesting things to say (or not say, depends on your point of view): http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070816-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-no-i-dont-think-so.html I love this quote: The second question is interesting because the speed of light is not defined in a way that is intuitive to non-physicists. Suffice it to say that, for the evanescent wave, the speed of light is zero, and therefore any measurable speed is faster than the speed of light. Am I the only one that finds the statement (not) intuitive to non-physicists a little alarming? Since when is V = D/t so bad a definition for velocity? If its bad, we better quit saying meters/second. It is almost as if some people want things called by such oddball names and defined in such weird ways simply so no one who is not educated (maybe better term would be, indoctrinated) can't understand it. Carl Sagan was hated for popularizing science by many of his fellow scientists. I guess this may offend some of the more religiously inclined, if it does, please don't take it the wrong way... but... Am I the only one seeing a strong similarity between the main stream scientific community and the main stream Christian church? In both cases, everything is hidden in terminology and dogma; if something makes a part of the theory/belief look odd, we just move the goal posts or redefine things; and only (especially with Roman Catholicism) the 'ordained' can understand anything. A big no-no for the little people to try and interpret things. That said...who here wants to make a shitload of plastic or wax blocks, cut them with a chopsaw, and make a gunn-receiever and yank the guts out of a 900W Sears microwave oven, and do this the the right way? Hell, they said efficiency of tunneling drops off drastically with distance. So, f**k efficiency. Lets do it the 1960's General Motors way, and throw more power across it. If we get a combined gap of say 10 meters or so, and can actuate circuits before a light beam can, well, that is information transfer to me. Any takers? I suppose we would need to modulate the microwaves in some way as well. Yes, I have done quantum tunneling on the desktop. Used two beeswax prisms. The effect is very weird. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Re: [OT] Bin Laden Trades
Ok, so we have the many billion dollar trades. And a faked 'video' of Osama saying that he will nuke US cities, he just happens to say new stuff during a 12 minute video freeze, otherwise it could have been filmed before the Iraq war. Bush wants to attack Iran badly but simply doesn't have the troops as even the national guard are illegally in Iraq, it can only happen with Nukes but they can't be used as first strike weapons, what's a fuckwit to do? Then we have the B52 with nukes loaded on the wings, can only happen with orders. The majority of people believe that the Bush administration either pulled off 911 or had a damn sight more to do with it than Saddam then I guess only one conclusion can be come to. That right now the Bush administration doesn't have Plausible Deniability even to a nuke attack of America! And since the nuke flight we have a highly connected missing aviator, but don't worry the military is helping search for him. Come again, the military? Nevada Guard Aids Search for Missing Pilot Fossetthttp://www.blackanthem.com/News/U_S_Military_19/Nevada_Guard_Aids_Search_for_Missing_Pilot_Fossett9908.shtml Air Force units assist in search for adventurer Steve Fossetthttp://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123066968 When is the last time the military helped search for a civilian lost in the US? Naturally his GPS isn't working. Or are they looking for that 6th nuke? At the bottom I have pasted info regarding the position of the General conducting this search, just read it and tell me if he is more suited to looking for a missing person or a missing nuke. It doesn't take 6 hours to fly from Minot to Barksdale. Oh, and where do you put Nukes if you are just transporting them, do you mount them on the wing if you don't mean to launch them? Or do you put them in the cargo bay, not sure but sounds off. This from a forum posting: -- We were TOLD these weapons were being moved to be decommissioned. THAT IS NOT TRUE! This current USAF doc says the missiles are being 'refitted' to extend their service life until fiscal year 2030! These are state of the art weapons. The service plan even includes upgrading the W-80 warheads to keep them IN SERVICE. -- If you read the first sentence below, you will see how the USAF decribes these weapons as designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within any enemy's territory. Humm... What sort of operation would require such ordanance? -- We have only 38 of these weapons, so 5 of them is a large chunk of the inventory to move at once. -- It is MY OPINION that some 'patriot' leaked the info about these weapons movements. A warning? -- It is also my opinion these weapons were being moved for some other reason, to *Barksdale*, and then possibly on to Diego Garcia, for obvious reasons. IT IS TIME TO BE VERY AFRAID! The UK intercepted 8 Russian bombers yesterday, which has not happened in about 15 years. Syria fired on 4 or 5 Israeli aircraft that violated that violated Syrian airspace and dropped fuel tanks in the desert... Dr. Strangelove is alive and well... Description/Justification Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book FY 2008/2009 Budget Estimates http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-07... (snip} AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) is a low-observable air-launched strategic missile with significant improvements over the Air Launched Cruise Missile B version (ALCM-B) in range, accuracy and survivability. Armed with a W-80 warhead, it is designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within any enemy's territory. The ACM is designed for B-52H external carriage and there are currently 394 ACM in the inventory. The ACM fleet design service life expires between the years 2003 and 2008. A Service Life Extension Plan (SLEP) was developed to meet an AF Long Range Plan requirement to extend ACM Service Life to FY30. Range Commanders Council (RCC) test range safety requirements (RCC-319) and Department of Energy's (DOE) redesign of the Joint Test Assembly (JTA) is driving modification of existing Joint Test Instrumentation Kit (JTIK) test doors. Newly modified JTIK test doors will incorporate Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking capability and components removed from the redesigned JTA package. Without modified JTIK doors, the ACM cannot maintain its DOE nuclear certification, support the W-80 warhead Life Extension Program (LEP) or conduct flight testing used to collect weapon system reliability data. The requirement exists to provide modified Test Instrumentation Kits (TIKs) to support Functional Ground Test (FGT). FGT will provide a critical capability to the Air Force and provide a means of testing the ACM without the loss of an asset. These tests will provide important reliability data for Service Life Extension analysis. Kit modification and unique spare components will be procured to
Re: [Vo]:Re: [OT] Bin Laden Trades
To answer my own question: Hans Kristensen, an expert on US nuclear forces said that the air force keeps a computerized command and control system that traces any movement of a nuclear weapon so that they have a complete picture of where they are at any given time. He also added that perhaps what is most worrisome about this particular incident is that apparently an individual who had command authority about moving these weapons around decided to do so. Nuclear weapons are normally transferred on cargo planes, never on the wings of bombers, Kristensen said. Bomber flights with live nuclear weapons were ended in the late 1960s after accidents in Spain in 1966 and in Greenland in 1968.
[Vo]:Modulation, do you agree?
Got a simple question, how densely can you modulate an AM signal? (forgetting any issues of high Q reducing ability to read the fresh power from the built up energy in the tuned tank, Digital wouldn't have that issue I guess) Can each half wave be of a different amplitude than the one before? Could you have one peak be high amplitude with the next trough be low amplitude, the next peak slightly lower than the last the next through slightly higher than the last basically creating a separate wave. (so you basically have offset or bias modulation not amplitude modulation or to put it another way 2 frequencies superimposed on the same transmitter, say 2 mhz and 10khz currents in the same antenna) If an increase over half a wave didn't lead to an increase of reception then it wouldn't occur at all, it can't know that while the current peak is higher in amplitude the coming trough is going to be lower in amplitude not higher as with amplitude modulation. If anyone wants to give a straightforward answer I'll be interested, please no algebra. Thanks.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Probably nothing but...
I think you just did... On 9/14/07, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote.. There are ominous portents all over the landscape just now, indicating that something big is in the offing: Howdy John, Lets see.. I am 80 years old, lived during the depression in a one room shack, single mom with 4 children, served in the US Navy WW2, Korean war US Army. Been in business since 1957. lost relatives in ever war since 1776. Please describe ominous. Richard
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Probably nothing but...
Well yes, I mentioned that. But at the same time they have done it once and are unlikely to just let people forget there is something to be scared about. On 9/14/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All this buzz is great for the Bush administration which relies on fear to further America's interests in the middle east. Harry On 14/9/2007 12:44 AM, John Berry wrote: I think you just did... On 9/14/07, *R.C.Macaulay* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote.. There are ominous portents all over the landscape just now, indicating that something big is in the offing: Howdy John, Lets see.. I am 80 years old, lived during the depression in a one room shack, single mom with 4 children, served in the US Navy WW2, Korean war US Army. Been in business since 1957. lost relatives in ever war since 1776. Please describe ominous. Richard
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Taubes is at it again
Mild exercise may or may not do much, but occasional _vigorous_ exercise, done intensely enough to get you out of breath, is certainly worthwhile. (Your body seems to react to getting out of breath the way it would to being chased by something large and hungry -- it tries to adjust things so you can run away more effectively next time. If you don't get out of breath, though, your body seems to think the danger couldn't have been imminent, and the gosh we need to be able to run faster switch doesn't get thrown.) Very true. But normal exersize as comes from manual labor is not effective, or do builders etc... look different in the US? ;) It is only short bursts of vigorous exercise that is effective, HIIT. It's very good, should get back to it myself. But Bush isn't borderline looneytoons. On 9/26/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: This guy is amazing! Almost as stupid as Mark Mills. See his latest here: The Scientist and the Stairmaster Why most of us believe that exercise makes us thinner -- and why we're wrong. http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/ His hypothesis is that you always eat more to compensate for exercise. Apparently he has never met manual laborers. Or men in the military subject to forced marches. But in any case it's almost irrelevant, IMHO. Exercise has major benefits that have nothing to do with losing weight, and besides, as every famine victim knows, losing weight can be done without exercising. Mild exercise may or may not do much, but occasional _vigorous_ exercise, done intensely enough to get you out of breath, is certainly worthwhile. (Your body seems to react to getting out of breath the way it would to being chased by something large and hungry -- it tries to adjust things so you can run away more effectively next time. If you don't get out of breath, though, your body seems to think the danger couldn't have been imminent, and the gosh we need to be able to run faster switch doesn't get thrown.) * Reduces intraocular pressure (it's good for preventing or helping treat glaucoma). Exercise alone, sans drugs, can drop intraocular pressure by ~ 10%. * Can reduce, relieve, or prevent migraine attacks. * Relieves depression. (Short term effect -- but isn't everything?) * Reduces anger, helps with interpersonal relations. * Reduces inflammation in general. The number of inflammatory diseases is too long to list and they probably all benefit, to some extent, from occasionally revving up your endorphin system. * Leg exercises followed by stretching can help relieve RLS, without the occasionally disastrous side effects of the drugs which are sometimes used. (10% of users of one common RLS drug turned into compulsive gamblers ... drugs which play games with your dopamine and serotonin systems should not be treated lightly. Can't recall the drug name off hand -- if anyone cares, I can dig up more information on this one.) George Bush and Vladamir Putin are both exercise fanatics, and, IMHO, they're both borderline looneytoons as well. This is not coincidence: It's regular vigorous exercise that helps them keep it together. If exercise can keep someone as whacked out as George Bush on a sufficiently even keel to function as President, think what it can do for someone who's just got the normal run of the mill set of issues...
Re: [Vo]:Yet another crisis to come
Water can with little energy (I think) be pulled from the air (big one built in France but the figures allude me right now but a google search pulled up this the aerial well will yield 7500 gallons of water per 900 square feet of condensation surface), along with water recycling and efficient use such as pipes dripping water of roots I think relatively little energy would be required. On 9/29/07, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:28:38 -0400: Hi, [snip] The Israelis have pioneered subsurface irrigation which reduces consumption by about 2/3rds. Subsurface irrigation means laying pipes etc. which can be expensive. There is a much cheaper method, which should be almost as effective, and may well help considerably, particularly in the developing world. It is night time irrigation through surface channels. Channels on the surface have been used to irrigate fields for millennia. If the water is applied to the channel system after the ground has cooled, say around midnight to 2 AM, and all of it soaks into the ground, then it will all be subsurface anyway, before the Sun rises the next day. The trick is to ensure that not too much is applied. All of it needs to soak in. If any is left on the surface, then it will be subject to evaporation during the day. Even so, the surface is going to remain moist, and this small amount will be lost to evaporation, which makes the method a little less efficient than true subsurface irrigation. Getting the applied amount right, will be a learning experience for individual farmers, but well worth the effort in the long run. Needless to say automatic dispensing systems can be developed, which even though expensive for a poor farmer, would still be a much smaller investment than a whole pipe network. Those too poor to afford even this, can always do it manually. Of course covering the ground with litter also helps, as water falls through between the matter, but sunlight is prevented from reaching moist ground underneath. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR
IMO there isn't an issue. The skeptics are automatically disinteresting, just ignore them. They are irrelevant (unless of course they are effecting employment/funding) as they are not really in the same field (discovery). Might as well be arguing with a short order cheif about CF. It's a case of going back to the drawing board and getting it to work well enough and practically enough that it's worth making to save money on heating/power. (at that point skeptics will be hard to find) Arguing with skeptics (excepting above exception) is just scientific masturbation. Just figure out what is required for proper operation, easier said than done but until then there is nothing worth arguing about really. I don't think most people who are logically/scientifically dishonest (consciously or otherwise) can change. (Not by mean of discussion at any rate, utterly pointless) On 10/12/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um... The scientific/rational side of me says What? The non-rational (intuitive) side of me says, What.? Two different whats. So there's your answer. P. - Original Message From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:13:28 PM Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR Philip wrote.. In fact we all do it; when we meet someone, we know almost immediately who or what we're dealing with, although we more often than not deny what we're seeing or hide from it. Human stuff. Howdy Philip and Bill, Been an interesting and revealing thread. Remember I was born three generations back. Let me add a thought that touches on the third rail and can get me in all kinds of trouble... women in the work place and positions of authority. Background.. it has only been this generation that has experienced a situation where women are in leadership positions in business, law and government. Has this resulted in a change in the dynamic of interaction between men in the scientific realm for the better or worse? Richard
Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR
Unadulterated brutal observation of clues and correlations without any assumptions or prejuduce as to how things are working. (Avoiding theory for repeated empirical observations) Basically let the evidence speak for it's self and strain to listen. The other Leg in the Tripod IMO is full detailed disclosure, everything need to replicate. On 10/12/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO there isn't an issue. The skeptics are automatically disinteresting, just ignore them. They are irrelevant (unless of course they are effecting employment/funding) as they are not really in the same field (discovery). Might as well be arguing with a short order cheif about CF. It's a case of going back to the drawing board and getting it to work well enough and practically enough that it's worth making to save money on heating/power. (at that point skeptics will be hard to find) Arguing with skeptics (excepting above exception) is just scientific masturbation. Just figure out what is required for proper operation, easier said than done but until then there is nothing worth arguing about really. I don't think most people who are logically/scientifically dishonest (consciously or otherwise) can change. (Not by mean of discussion at any rate, utterly pointless) On 10/12/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um... The scientific/rational side of me says What? The non-rational (intuitive) side of me says, What.? Two different whats. So there's your answer. P. - Original Message From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:13:28 PM Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR Philip wrote.. In fact we all do it; when we meet someone, we know almost immediately who or what we're dealing with, although we more often than not deny what we're seeing or hide from it. Human stuff. Howdy Philip and Bill, Been an interesting and revealing thread. Remember I was born three generations back. Let me add a thought that touches on the third rail and can get me in all kinds of trouble... women in the work place and positions of authority. Background.. it has only been this generation that has experienced a situation where women are in leadership positions in business, law and government. Has this resulted in a change in the dynamic of interaction between men in the scientific realm for the better or worse? Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity, I'm confused...
On 10/20/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it turned out that the inventors were measuring 30KHz frequencies with a true-RMS meter intended for below 1KHz. Right there I can tell you there is no way Ron is doing any thing so foolish.
Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes
Is that sarcasm? If not and you believe in the free press then you send it to CNN. On 10/19/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: send it to CNN. Harry On 18/10/2007 7:00 PM, John Berry wrote: They have been killed not fired. http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8RI68QG0.html http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/BREAKINGNEWS/70915012 Here's a list of all the Servicemen that have mysteriously and coincidentally died in accidents in the two weeks following their involvement with the impossible accidental transport of nuclear warheads on a combat a*[url removed]* in combat ready position: Todd Blue Airman First Class 20 Minot AFB, ND September 12: while on leave Monday visiting with family members in Virginia. Adam Barrs Airman 20 Minot AFB, ND was a passenger in a vehicle that failed to negotiate a curve, hit an approach, hit a tree and started on fire late Tuesday night. Stephen Garrett Airman 20 Minot AFB, ND driving the vehicle that failed to negotiate a curve, hit an approach, hit a tree and started on fire late Tuesday night. 1st Lt. Weston Kissel Pilot - 23rd Bomb Wing 28 Minot AFB, ND killed in a motorcycle crash in Tennessee while on leave, the base said. Clint Huff Senior Airman 29 Barksdale AFB, LA was driving a 2007 Harley Davidson motorcycle with his wife, Linda Huff, as a passenger. Š attempted to pass (a) van on the left in a no passing zone and they collided. Capt. John Frueh Air Force Captain 33 Minot AFB, ND September 9: The body of a missing Air Force captain from Florida has been found near Badger Peak in northeast Skamania County, Wash. On 10/19/07, *Terry Blanton* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Followup on the five, er six nukes from Minot: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/18/loose.nukes/index.html
Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes
They have been killed not fired. http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8RI68QG0.html http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/BREAKINGNEWS/70915012 Here's a list of all the Servicemen that have mysteriously and coincidentally died in accidents in the two weeks following their involvement with the impossible accidental transport of nuclear warheads on a combat a*[url removed]* in combat ready position: Todd Blue Airman First Class 20 Minot AFB, ND September 12: while on leave Monday visiting with family members in Virginia. Adam Barrs Airman 20 Minot AFB, ND was a passenger in a vehicle that failed to negotiate a curve, hit an approach, hit a tree and started on fire late Tuesday night. Stephen Garrett Airman 20 Minot AFB, ND driving the vehicle that failed to negotiate a curve, hit an approach, hit a tree and started on fire late Tuesday night. 1st Lt. Weston Kissel Pilot - 23rd Bomb Wing 28 Minot AFB, ND killed in a motorcycle crash in Tennessee while on leave, the base said. Clint Huff Senior Airman 29 Barksdale AFB, LA was driving a 2007 Harley Davidson motorcycle with his wife, Linda Huff, as a passenger. … attempted to pass (a) van on the left in a no passing zone and they collided. Capt. John Frueh Air Force Captain 33 Minot AFB, ND September 9: The body of a missing Air Force captain from Florida has been found near Badger Peak in northeast Skamania County, Wash. On 10/19/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Followup on the five, er six nukes from Minot: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/18/loose.nukes/index.html
Re: [Vo]:Borderlands sciences: vacuum bulb
Well look at Edward Farrow (who I incidentally found more info on if your interested, got a pdf of a news article). He has a spark gap device that is said to produce waves that attracts things below it and showed reduced weight on a scale. (it almost certainly increased weight of things above it) Basically the same force and I have more correlations if you are interested of just such a thing. On 10/21/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jones Beene wrote: Maybe it was a mistake to ever use the cold terminology (legacy of Tesla?)... but what description works better? Not Tesla, but Borderlands Sciences. Eric Dollard and crew. Peter Lindeman. Here's an excellent weird video of their's from 1988? Tesla's Longitudinal Electricity, 1 hr http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461713170757457294 Or if you don't want the 1-hr version, here's a short clip from youtube Tractor Beam, 6min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57o13ADadg This tractor beam video is stunning for me. I've been trying to figure out how to put a synchronously pulsed x-ray generator on top of a Tesla coil, a quick and dirty test. Having an x-ray source floating at extreme high voltage AC should make it act as a rectifier, pulse-ionizing the air and putting out DC at extreme high voltage. It should produce weird electrostatic forces, perhaps moving the air and solving the problem of how to make an efficient lifter aircraft. I've become convinced that this is how Tesla's rumored antigravity probably worked, see some illustrations: Tesla's ion ray technology http://amasci.com/tesla/tesray1.html So then I stumbled across their video... and they've already done this! They somehow found a small incandescent bulb which contains hard vacuum. Stick it on a Tesla Coil circuit so the whole bulb sits at high AC voltage, but also the filament lights up. And what do they observe? Weird inexplicable forces! But they wrongly assume that they've discovered something totally outside of physics, when I'm pretty sure that they've just duplicated Tesla's single-electrode x-ray generator (and used it to change their Tesla coil into a VandeGraaff.) AC to DC, plus fierce x-rays too, so if I'm right, the lightbulb experiment above should make a geiger counter go crazy. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity
Have a workshop (in both senses of the word) where local friends come and build the device together and learn about it, tape this workshop and put it on youtube. Then send a few of the devices to established FA/AG experimenters with instructions to test, copy and pass on original. On 10/21/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jeff Fink wrote: Please get copies or kits into the hands of reputable experimenters ASAP so that this technology is not lost to civilization all over again. I once thought that kits were a good idea, but Greg Watson tried it with the SMOT device, and he never got the copies to work. Because they weren't free, many decided it was a scam to sell non-working kits (which weren't delivered anyhow.) A fiasco. Today I think informal outside testing is much better; help local friends build copies, or better yet build ONE copy and send it to someone who owns some test equipment. Avoid any exchange of money, so things stay impeccably clean. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity
Call me a crackpot but I think you are all missing the point. Ron's loop sticks (in which only some work) are when used properly able to send out an EM field that does not decrease in strength with distance until at a critical distance it collapses. In other words the scanning coil proclaims that the magnetic field does not get weaker with distance. And that agrees perfectly with so many other Free Energy devices, if fact most designs make perfect sense when looked at in such a light. I don't think the way you are looking at this can possibly bring anything other than a mess of confusion, if you want me to expand on the many other examples of such effects I will but somehow (as with the tractor beam Spark/Edward Farrow effect offer) I think all I will hear is crickets. You should not all be skeptics in a debunking frenzy but it seems more like that than people who accept the reality of Free Energy and want to put the puzzle together (while remaining objective). On 10/26/07, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, John Winterflood wrote: thomas malloy wrote: As Jed pointed out, a pair of heavy iron frying pans might make a superb Faraday cage. Yes, and they solve the problem of shielding low-freq magnetism. For example, to well shield the magnetic component of 60Hz you'd need many inches thick of copper. Just 1/8 mu-metal or the iron frying pan will shunt the magnetic fields around the device under test. Without a magnetic shield, it would be easy to couple a 60Hz magnetic field into the inductors inside, and it would be quite efficient. Try holding a magnetic tape degausser nearby to see how much power could couple inside. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity
On 10/26/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, EnergyLab wrote: I don't think big RF sources are common. Once you're far from the AM tower, I doubt that there's much chance that you'll accidentally get close to another major transmitter. So carrying your device to a wall plug faceplate-ground at a distant McDonalds or Burger King is a fairly good test. If it still works, then most of my doubts are erased. In fact, if it still works while in a distant location I'd be totally stunned, because finally this is fairly good evidence that your discovery is real. Months ago when this device was in a more basic form Stiffler sent me a ferrite loop stick and I couldn't get it to lock on to the frequency that he could. I don't believe for a second however that it couldn't work here, my experience was simply (sadly) not up to scratch (as possibly my equipment) but he did inform me of someone else (In Italy IIRC, which I very well may not) who had replicated the effect and that is the same basic device here. So it has worked in at least 2 locations. I think it's critical to verify that your device works when connected to ground. So far you've only connected it to ground in your lab. Actually I have studied many different (and yet I believe similar) Free Energy devices and not a single one has a ground, indeed some go to lengths not to have a ground. It is quite likely that grounding the circuit or having it coupled too closely to the ground will kill the effect. (unless you mean ground the shield, I would also add that it may well require as part of it's function connecting to various sources of energy that may be blocked by any shielding) Sometimes it pays not to squeeze everything to death especially when you don't know how it works and instead go with the weight of evidence and probabilities which in this case is for something decidedly unusual occurring. (I'm not saying that it shouldn't be scrutinized, just that it should be in balance with how little is known of this mysterious energy) Though yes driving it to a different location is a good idea.
