Dear Vortex,
I have not been following vortex for some time and now receive the
vortex digest.
The beginning of one is 'cut and pasted' below.
I read well and rapidly, but type very slowly.
AND at present my keyboard is a little crunchy and sometimes
does not put
the spaces
Of course there is energy stored in those gases John, exactly the same amount
that was put in their dissociation. Here is a transcript of what I posted on
August 16, 2006 to our restricted list of CMNS researchers on the subject (it
was for H2O electrolysis mind you, figures are slightly
Harry Veeder wrote:-
It is more like the difference between burning gasoline as a liquid vs
gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the
gasoline, the COP is still much bigger
No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an
accelerator
I disagree Nick, even the old timers in Cold Fusion can learn from newbies, as
surprising as it may seem. A few recent examples taken from this newbie's one
year experience in the field:
1/ Only last year I taught Michael McKubre how to derive simply the
thermo-neutral voltage in H2O
BlankHowdy Vorts,
Takeover specialists have plans to take TXU Dallas private in what may be the
largest buyout ever. TXU is the largest electric power producer in Texas and is
connected to the ERCOT which co-ordinates the entire Texas power grid.
As demand for electric power increases in the
Hi Esa,
hi so what do you lot think of vladimir b ginzburg?
seems to be slightly touched in the head about vortices!
Interesting comment to be made on a list called vortex-l.
I have corresponded with him and have one of his books. Unlike my work,
which is completely dimension based
Hi Paul,
You just don't get it. Can you Aether theory even predict the single
electron double slit experiment?
Apparently, you still cannot understand a simple concept. The Aether
Physics Model is about structure, not mechanics. If you can require a
structural theory to explain mechanics,
Hi Thomas,
Does one of you have a website about the Aether?
I have a web site on the Aether Physics Model at www.16pi2.com
A white paper gives the foundations of the theory at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Dave
i didnt mean touched in the head as in whacked out - i just thought maybe
there'd be some people who have studied what he has published regards vortex
theories and spirals, and then wouldve, you know, ended that mib
conversation.
he seemed to be a nice person :)
and i loved that properly
back onlist:
On 14/03/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and i loved that properly referenced history-list that he had in one
of his books, obviously my own interest in that wouldve been to see lots on
walter russell and viktor schauberger, but the rest of the list seemed to be
Hi Esa
i did try to give ginzburg some stuff on walter schauberger (who took
great pains to take viktor's realizations back into mathematics and physics
and, well, science), lets see what happens. after all, walter schauberger
did publish quite a bit on the hyperbolic open-path geometry that
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
On 14/03/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Esa
i did try to give ginzburg some stuff on walter schauberger (who took
great pains to take viktor's realizations back into mathematics and physics
and, well, science), lets see what happens. after all, walter schauberger
did publish
It seems only right to shed some light given Dave talks a lot about quantum
aspects. Here are a few quotes from Dave's website --
---
This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics Model
not only describes quantum structure, *BUT CAN ALSO DESCRIBE QUANTUM
Hi Paul,
Quote from www.16pi2.com
the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, but can
also describe quantum mechanics
For the benefit of others who would like to see this quote in context, it
actually reads, BREAKING NEWS: We have succeeded in developing the electron
binding
Hi Paul,
Thanks for posting that fine list of comments from 16pi2. Too bad you
didn't take the time to actually read what these excellent topics are about.
Although, I would be delighted to expand on any of them should anybody with
interest request me to.
As for answering your question about
David Thomson wrote:
Thanks for posting that fine list of comments from 16pi2. Too bad you
didn't take the time to actually read what these excellent topics are about.
Although, I would be delighted to expand on any of them should anybody with
interest request me to.
No problem brother. I
The original version of this mail got lost a few days ago. (I tried to
attach the PDFs) Here are some studies dealing with O6, from our fancy
library:
http://www.newalexandria.org/images/O6_studies.zip
Perhaps Richard, or someone else in Dime Box Texas, will have time to
pull out something
Nick Palmer wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:-
It is more like the difference between burning gasoline as a liquid vs
gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the
gasoline, the COP is still much bigger
No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out
Nick Palmer wrote:
I don't know how long you have been
around, but Jed and I and Ed Storms and Terry Blanton have been commenting
and arguing about this subject since the news broke in 1989.
FYI. I've been following CF on and off since 1989, when I was 24.
Harry
Hi Esa,
Thanks for the excellent links. You seem to have spent a lot of time
investigating Schauberger's work.
Some of the technological applications being purveyed by the Schauberger
family first appeared to me as charlatan in nature. The seemingly static
vortex coils, for example,
Harry Veeder wrote:
I interpret heat after death as evidence of a self-powered system,
i.e. a portion of the heat produced is being consumed by the system
to maintain the production of excess heat.
I do not think any power is consumed in heat after death, and I do
not think that power is
Zachary Jones wrote:
The original version of this mail got lost a few days ago. (I tried to
attach the PDFs) Here are some studies dealing with O6, from our fancy
library:
http://www.newalexandria.org/images/O6_studies.zip
Perhaps Richard, or someone else in Dime Box Texas, will have time to
On 14/03/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Esa,
Thanks for the excellent links. You seem to have spent a lot of time
investigating Schauberger's work.
Some of the technological applications being purveyed by the Schauberger
family first appeared to me as charlatan in nature.
Hi Paul,
Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free?
Yes, electronically. There are countless sites that freely and gladly
allow people place their research. I use Peswiki.com.
Err, funny you would say that...
http://dhglobalentllc.com/projects/pmrm/
Hi Esa,
the main thing of interest for those who wish to look at the Pöpel report
is the report of negative friction - i.e. that the pipes, through which
the water flowed, were shaped in such a way as to actually accelerate the
flow of water, and to negate friction.
Yes, that is
In yet another attempt to close this discussion I'll try and keep my comments to
a minimum.
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Paul,
Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free?
Yes, electronically. There are countless sites that freely and gladly
allow people place their
Hi Paul,
I for example offer all my research, free of charge.
I'm sure there is a good reason for it and it isn't because of your
magnanimous personality.
And it seems obvious all those usenet posts begging
scientists to give David Thomson a Nobel Prize was merely you
masquerading under a
David Thomson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=David+Thomson+nobelqt_s=Search
Just keep showing us the stuff you are made of Paul.
I make a real effort to back up as many statements as possible, as in my above
example I provided the link. Take your above statement. You
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
Zac wrote..
Here are some studies dealing with O6, from our fancy
library:
http://www.newalexandria.org/images/O6_studies.zip
Perhaps Richard, or someone else in Dime Box Texas, will have time to
pull out something useful from them. I only searched Elsevier briefly,
there are more
Blank
Howdy Eso and David,
More links on some of the implosion theme.
http://www.ultralightamerica.com/edav.htm
http://www.evert.de/indefte.htm
Richard
Blank Bkgrd.gif
Description: GIF image
John Berry writes:
All other buildings destroyed by this method, on purpose or by
accident, have fallen at freefall speeds.
Show me the report.
See any video or documentary from Controlled Demolition.
floor down. After ten floors collapse you have 10 floors worth of
additional mass
Richard,
In case you missed it, the one paper dealt with aspects of O6 structure
and formation that seemed somewhat independent of environment.
Admittedly, the papers are tiny pieces of the bigger puzzle...
Have you ever talked with any of the TExas AM boy working on NASA's
vortex phase
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
I interpret heat after death as evidence of a self-powered system,
i.e. a portion of the heat produced is being consumed by the system
to maintain the production of excess heat.
I do not think any power is consumed in heat after death, and I do
Zac Wrote..
Have you ever talked with any of the TExas AM boy working on NASA's
vortex phase separator?
No I have not. Tell me something about it or the people involved.
thanks for the EDAV link, it's cute.
Kim's EDAV has some ideas.. not to be discounted.. he has some people that
he
Do you still not see it Ed?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same
38 matches
Mail list logo
