And I thought *I* had problems.
Terry
I felt self-pity for I had not shoes until I met the man with no feet.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:58 PM, William Beatybi...@eskimo.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Terry Blanton wrote:
Typically Asperger's Syndrome tempered with a bit of lysdexia.
Again I didn't conceal or lie by omission.
I said from the start that there is more and there was.
My reasons for not giving it all at the start makes sense and was given.
Also no results were distorted you must have misunderstood me.
Rather a means for the electrons to do what was claimed was
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
Tesla in US patent 685,958 describes how an insulated copper plate can
absorb such energetic charges from the environment (seemingly from the sun)
Build one, and you'll find that he accidentally discovered the
Photoelectric effect, where ultraviolet light
I am going to make a more complete reply, but if the only things that
existed were things I had done then this world would be a lot smaller than
it is and many things people take foregranted would not exist.
But assuming I did do all of those things where would we be? Still no where
as there are 6
1: Teslas Radiant Receiver
I did not pick up on the fact that it was a positive charge that the plate
collected, the Barbat patent suggested otherwise and it seems I didn't
notice.
Never the less he does specify that a capacitor with unusually high quality
must be used.
Of course this does not
John:
Sorry, I was NOT thinking of you when I wrote that...
-Mark
_
From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hiddink capacitor links
Again I didn't conceal or lie by omission.
I said from the start
John, doesn't Bill's great advice below make any sense to you?
don't suspect weirdness and certainly don't leap to
accept its reality unless there really is no other possible explanation.
If you do, you'll waste your life chasing the 99% crap, and never manage
to see past the illusory weirdness
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
No, none of what I present is Absolute Proof but surely we should not fail
to investigate something simply because it MAY turn out to be wrong.
If you aren't sitting at your kitchen table building some simple circuits
yourself ...then you yourself are
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
By finding a strong thread of correlation however can confirm even the most
spotty evidence.
Here's the critical question.
Which experiments have you personally performed in your own garage/kitchen?
(( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) )
On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:28 PM, William Beaty wrote:
Here's something I've been meaning to test. I expect that it's
real, and
would get the experimenter some fame: Marinov's ball-bearing motor.
http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/bbmotor.html. The othodox concensus is
that it's driven by thermal
--- On Wed, 6/24/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hiddink capacitor links
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 3:28 PM
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, John Berry
wrote:
If something interests you, then test
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hiddink capacitor links
snip
Rather a means for the electrons to do what was claimed was left out to
simplify the job of communicating the idea as the whole thing is quite large
and still not yet covered when we get to the aetheric
Oh, and I totally failed to replicate that ball bearing motor thing, but it
does work.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Kyle Mcallister
kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.comwrote:
--- On Wed, 6/24/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hiddink
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:25 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
By finding a strong thread of correlation however can confirm even the
most
spotty evidence.
Here's the critical question.
Which experiments have you personally performed in
Oops. Oh my goodness!
I just realized I inadvertently insulted Jones by suggesting that's ALL he did.
I know for a fact that is definitely not true. Jones connects dots AND does
experiments.
PS: speaking of experiments, one of the reasons I rarely post to Vo, is because
I rarely do any
One day I bet you'll be a hundredaire!
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Kyle Mcallister
kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.comwrote:
Finally we can buy GALINSTAN gallium-based liquid metal
from scitoys.com)
I'd buy some, but I am a multi-dollar industry.
--Kyle
I recalled another one, but it is a tad speculative.
Chauncy J. Britten has a patent with a lot of this current flowing along
magnetic fields thing going on.
And while there isn't any proof that he had any open circuit currents DC
currents it is worth noting that he has a battery in series with
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
It is not fun admitting that you are rubbish at something, but there you
have it.
Ah, that was the missing piece!
Welcome to vortex-L, where every single one of us is mentally damaged in
some way. Some of us are fairly good at hiding it during our day
Typically Asperger's Syndrome tempered with a bit of lysdexia.
:-)
Terry
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM, William Beatybi...@eskimo.com wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
It is not fun admitting that you are rubbish at something, but there you
have it.
Ah, that was the missing
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Colin Quinney wrote:
I calculated that in an average alt physics forum
of 1000 members, perhaps only three or four people are doing any real
experiments, at least from those who are posting. Vortex may be the
exception, but Bill is correct. I am also guilty. I have tried
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Terry Blanton wrote:
Typically Asperger's Syndrome tempered with a bit of lysdexia.
Intentionally Uberman-induced bipolar religious-visionary multiple-
personality hypo-schitzophrenia! :) These flashing lights, the Black
Flame, the sun goes down without actually moving,
I don't think this post is squarely directed at me or accusing me of such
but as it could be interpreted as an accusation I have replied as if it
were...
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Colin Quinney wrote:
I calculated that in an
Refs please.
Michel
2009/6/23 John Berry aethe...@gmail.com:
Given the evidence that both of these effects exist, both the electron being
ejected and arcs creating excess energy...
The former will take more time, but the latter have already been given.
Stiffler replication | variant
JLN Patent replication | variant
Edwin Gray
Imris Pavel
and probably Testatika
A list of course is not much use, I have however already detailed these in 2
posts so far...
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009
I meant full refs of the scientific papers, or at least links to well
documented experiments by serious experimenters. Patents have no
scientific value of course, you can claim any impossible thing and get
a patent for it.
Michel
2009/6/23 John Berry aethe...@gmail.com:
The former will take
No, you make a mistake.
You have followed the line of thought that some forms of evidence have value
and others don't but in truth all forms of evidence can have value and no
form of evidence is perfect.
Of course a patent can have scientific value bit if it has value to
scientist who are
Let me have another crack at that, I rushed and the quality of the email
paid the price.
You are making a mistake.
You have followed the line of thought that some forms of evidence have value
and others don't but in truth all forms of evidence can have value and no
form of evidence is
Of course no form of evidence is perfect, but some are less perfect
than others. From my personal experience with Naudin and Stiffler,
they have both shown that they are not capable, or not willing, to
measure an energy balance correctly, plus they refuse to engage in a
scientific debate. They are
The same could be said of many respected scientists in truth.
I believe that both JLN and Stiffler have generally good intentions, neither
are perfect.
The degree to which anyone is an expert or amateur varies greatly by both
subject and is highly relative.
To attack so broadly is in bad taste.
I gave you my honest opinion, I won't try and convert you to it.
So, what is the evidence for electron ejection?
Michel
2009/6/23 John Berry aethe...@gmail.com:
The same could be said of many respected scientists in truth.
I believe that both JLN and Stiffler have generally good intentions,
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
No it is not, there is plenty of evidence that it is not EM as an EM pulse
can't become a static charge.
A mixture of GHz e-field and ion cloud would mimic an anomalous radiation
which can charge a surface. I suggest taking this possibility *very*
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:06 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
Then I should ignore glass-enclosed plasmas which block the particles
No, the electrons can pass through insulators, although an open air arc has
some ideal qualities.
Electrons
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to John Berry's message of Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:04:05 +1200:
Also how can microwaves charge something with a static charge?
This is just a guess, but consider that most metals have an oxide coating due
to
exposure to the air. The
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
I considered that and more but IMO that moves from the realm of probability
to debunking..
Debunking is totally different than criticism. Debunkers try to stop
thought, stop experiments, and say we should drop this topic because
of X.
Critics on the
In my experience I can tend to present too much too fast giving people too
much to read not to mention the fact I can be long winded.
I do not conceal things, it is somewhat key to understanding the complete
process but it was developed after I made the initial correlation and after
Stiffler had
That is fine then, as long as it is clear that it is used not to demotivate
but to make things more rigorous.
But criticism can feel like an attack even when you aren't expecting it but
moreso when you are.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:03 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun
In reply to John Berry's message of Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:59:59 +1200:
Hi,
[snip]
Now the rest of the reason I believe it is electrons being ejected will be
explained in another email when I have the time...
[snip]
The only real problem I have with ejected electrons is the range. Even beta
First there is a note regarding a piece of evidence presented.
-
The basis of this was written almost a year ago.
Your (Bill's) objection to Stiffler was just made known to me this morning.
This does touch on a device which Stiffler did have some involvement with as
one
Bill wrote:
I suggest that it's a VERY bad idea to try distorting results by concealing
any parts of it.
Concealment is an element of deception, that's why the legal phrase says the
WHOLE truth. Such
concealment is what manipulative people do. You'd best avoid it.
Bill, you're much to
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
That was my initial objection also, I believe that *can* happen.
I also know that sometimes when a plasma is turned off the charges
(electrons anyway) can be propelled into the environment. Tesla found this
and so have most people who have played with
Yes this makes sense, John's something decidedly more instant which
can easily make it through insulators is most probably a plasma
turnoff generated EM pulse.
Michel
2009/6/22 William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
That was my initial objection also, I believe
No it is not, there is plenty of evidence that it is not EM as an EM pulse
can't become a static charge.
There IS a phenomena that is created by circuits that are abruptly switched
that projects a charge in a way that I state.
The evidence for this that I have not shared is somewhat significant
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:06 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote:
That was my initial objection also, I believe that *can* happen.
I also know that sometimes when a plasma is turned off the charges
(electrons anyway) can be propelled into the
In reply to John Berry's message of Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:04:05 +1200:
Hi,
[snip]
Also how can microwaves charge something with a static charge?
[snip]
This is just a guess, but consider that most metals have an oxide coating due to
exposure to the air. The metal-oxide boundary may sometimes form a
I considered that and more but IMO that moves from the realm of probability
to debunking..
Given the evidence that both of these effects exist, both the electron being
ejected and arcs creating excess energy it would seem to me that something
should not be ruled out simply because some improbable
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
Assuming for a moment the plasma was actually holding excess
electrons, why wouldn't they just fly to the inside of the glass
envelope, which is of course positively charged, and remain stuck on
that dielectric? This would result in a larger capacitor
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:45 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
Assuming for a moment the plasma was actually holding excess
electrons, why wouldn't they just fly to the inside of the glass
envelope, which is of course positively charged,
- Original Message -
From: John Berry aethe...@gmail.com
Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hiddink capacitor links
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:45 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com
wrote:
Metal is to plastic, as salt-water is to
ice. Saltwater
48 matches
Mail list logo
