iPoni sent dis message. Esa Ruoho wrote it.
On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
At 05:45 PM 1/13/2010, Terry Blanton . He claims that the energy
output is greater than the input, but he says that again and again
without showing a measurement of
iPoni sent dis message. Esa Ruoho wrote it.
On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEU
The set of videos is too long for me to watch now. But my immediate
impression.
Tl;dw is a great way to
I understand that Hotson published his third article last year in the
July/August IE mag:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
I don't suppose anyone has this to share?
Terry
From Abd:
...
Okay, I kept watching. Questioner asked why they weren't using
capacitors instead of a battery, for all the reasons we discussed.
And the answer was essentially to first give a bullshit answer, that
a capacitor couldn't supply the instantaneous current needed. Put
enough
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:11 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
Steorn deserves to give its audience a more thorough explanation. I hope it
is forth coming.
I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that
the capacitor was too slow in
new animation http://www.byzipp.com/scenic.swf
with
new article
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-will-2010-be-year-zero-point-energy-29148.html
Fran
On 01/12/2010 10:49 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/12/2010 06:29 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
The field of a permanent magnet must be either anchored in the magnet's
material, or knotted around part of the
From Terry:
Steorn deserves to give its audience a more thorough explanation
[in regards to why Steorn used a battery instead of a capacitor.]
I hope it is forth coming.
I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that
the capacitor was too slow in current delivery.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:57:17 -0600
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately for the rest of us who are
languishing in the peanut gallery, I fear we will have to wait very
VERY long time before anything of substance is revealed.
McCarthy says that calorimetry
Fran,
Nice effort.
Gradually you are helping to open up wider appreciation for another (and more
accurate) perspective – which when applied to LENR would be this: that there is
a predecessor state for these kinds of nuclear reactions, which is based on
geometry and surface effects and
Abd wrote:
And the answer was essentially to first give a bullshit answer, that a
capacitor couldn't supply
the instantaneous current needed. Put enough capacitance in there and you
could vaporize the
conductors if you shorted it.
According to Sean, its not a matter of having enough
I have stayed away from the Steorn discussion, but I have now looked a
Naudin's device and looked at the presentation on YouTube. I have also spent
time with the Newumann machine cotroversy, and dug deeply into the Correa
PAGD device and looked at the Testatika publications, including hearing a
On 01/14/2010 11:46 AM, Mark Iverson wrote:
Abd wrote:
And the answer was essentially to first give a bullshit answer, that a
capacitor couldn't supply
the instantaneous current needed. Put enough capacitance in there and you
could vaporize the
conductors if you shorted it.
At 03:07 AM 1/14/2010, Esa Ruoho wrote:
At 05:45 PM 1/13/2010, Terry Blanton . He claims that the energy
output is greater than the input, but he says that again and again
without showing a measurement of this. Next week, he says.
So, Abd, do you even know what happens next week? They open it
At 03:11 AM 1/14/2010, Esa Ruoho wrote:
On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEUhttp://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEU
The set of videos is too long
From Abd:
Tl;dw is a great way to go. I give you a WTG for this one,
possibly followed by a few other acronyms, which I dislike,
such as LOL and OMG Even I had the time to watch
the live presentation, and I can't finish most documentaries
or even a song.
The writer here violated his
The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the
motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than
electrical energy it consumes.
Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work,
eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a
Terry Blanton wrote:
Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work,
eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack
of understanding of this fact.
Or, they understand it perfectly well but they don't want to do that
because they are in the
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:19:24 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
From Terry:
The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree.
In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting
more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes.
Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor
perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But
On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the
motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than
electrical energy it consumes.
Not exactly -- not the way the term has been used to describe the Steorn
motor.
The Correa's gold leaf electroscope claims were brought to my
attention by Ed Storms, who exchanged a series of messages with the
Correas about this years ago. As I mentioned, the claim was that the
extended leaves are doing work. They are not, since they do not move,
and the fact that the
Ed Storms -- who Oracle-likes sometimes reads but does not respond to
Vortex these days -- pointed out that I am wrong about clocks. They
do have moving parts:
All machines that measure time MUST have moving parts. In a digital
watch, the moving part is the vibration of a quartz crystal. In
On 01/14/2010 05:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Ed Storms -- who Oracle-likes sometimes reads but does not respond to
Vortex these days -- pointed out that I am wrong about clocks. They do
have moving parts:
All machines that measure time MUST have moving parts. In a digital
watch, the moving
Soylent?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:58 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:19:24 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
No, it does some mechanical work, it's spinning. It is overcoming
bearing friction and wind friction. No doubt it is performing
mechanical work. But to be OU, it must perform more mechanical work
than electrical input. But the freakin' motor would not work without
magnetic floating bearings.
- Original Message
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 10:31:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of
steorn talk#2 demo-rig
From Terry:
Steorn deserves
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 4:10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of
steorn talk#2 demo-rig
On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
At 01:03 PM 1/14/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Nevertheless, you state at the very beginning that you didn't have
enough time to watch the show in its entirety. Let me reiterate: It is
in fact the first thing you tell your readers.
While, in a sense, you are taking advantage of
29 matches
Mail list logo
