- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics
On 2/5/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It won't rise but some of the ions will go round or even
On 2/15/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics
On 2/5/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It
- 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
On 2/15/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, not kW levels, in fact you can get what I described from a 12w
flyback
that powers a plasma globe.
How cute, is this what you tried to fly your lifter with?
Of course not.
Charring works I agree but it retains only 50 percent of the biomass carbon.
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
I'm not so sure that in situ slash and char of scrub on a large scale would
be totally beneficial environmentally! - did you ever see a charcoal burner's
mound smoking? That's why the in vessel pyrolysers, which have acid gas
scrubbing and NOx removal, are favourite. Algae seemed better because
Michel wrote:-
Half-charred idea: how about pressing the micro-algae for their oil and
then charring the press-cake to make charcoal?
Excellent idea - carbon neutral (ish) fuel plus regenerated higher
fertility, lower input agriculture plus sequestered stable carbon. Looks
like a
John,
I could roll out tens of kilometers of properly-designed 10 meter wide floating
Algae seine
from a barge on the Red Sea and roll it back up to squeeze out the algae and
saline water several months later, while you are taking a stroll across the
ocean to
reach the proverbial promised
Algal blooms happen naturally in rivers and at sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom often near estuarine areas which
discharge agricultural nitrogenous leachate and nitrate and phosphate rich
substances from such products as detergents and clothes washing powder.
Biochemical oxygen
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/pde.htm
[ ]´s Galva
- did you ever see a charcoal burner's mound smoking?
Yes. Nick In the mid 1960s they were all over eastern Oklahoma and western
Arkansas.
And also for days smoldering cow dung and horse biscuits after burning off
my fields as well as the smoke from the burn-off of hundreds of acres of straws
Other minds are on this. Look at the first comment (from mbmurphy) below this
article on Branson's prize.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/duncan/17524/
Sure, other minds have been thinking about this even before the Branson prize I
am sure. We haven't got a solution yet, next step will be to do some
calculations.
Must be off.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Vortex-L
BlankHowdy Vorts,
Great ideas for bio themes in aerobics but anerobics can also play in the great
game.
The story behind the Medina culture which is produced by the firm in Medina
Texas for a bio-growth enhancer .. seems that back in the 1930's, an ole time
railroad brakeman that worked the
Harry Veeder wrote:
Gotta love those probabilities.
With them you can save relativity from obscurity.
Harry
Professor Resolves Einstein's Twin Paradox
Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/ — Subhash Kak, Delaune
Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
This is not a paradox, and the paradoxical nature of the problem was
in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago. The traveling
twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not; thus, the symmetry is
broken.
That works in SR, but the solution is
And, I suppose, Gate's foundation is also cheap advertising and Buffet's
ante is conscience salve? At this juncture, we need all the initiatives we
can get and I think it counter-productive to diss them. Branson's wealth is
minor league compared to Gates and Buffet, but it is in the right
Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
This is not a paradox, and the paradoxical nature of the problem was
in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago. The traveling
twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not; thus, the symmetry is
broken.
That works in SR, but
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox
...
This is not a paradox, and the paradoxical nature of the problem was
in fact resolved something on
Robin from Oz wrote:-
I wouldn't get too hung up on this prize. It looks more like Branson
buying
cheap advertising.
Right, of course. A true solution would still be good value at $1 billion
dollars or maybe even $1 trillion
- Original Message -
From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:43:03 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I solved the paradox by
Well then rather than acting as the almighty arbitor of what is true (OU) and
what is not, such labs (there could be any number of them) could simply provide
an uncommitted reference evaluation of your experiment's input and output
energies. Measured joules in, measured joules out, surely there
Distant stars are not out of sight fortunately :) Nothing wrong with the
concept, except it is not needed to solve the problem at hand, so the alledged
discovery is caput mortuum.
Laplace : Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis
--
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Kyle R.
All,
As far as the lifters go, I can say this: I have worked with these little
gizmos quite a bit in the past, particularly several years ago when
Transdimensional and all started the hype. I don't know what NASA has to
say about them, nor do I particularly care, given their (NASA's) rather
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox
Distant stars are not out of sight fortunately :)
Depends on how close to the rather light pollutive city of
Easy:
Hot Shots! Part Deux
A few of your points below I don't agree with (see below)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:29 AM
Subject: [Vo]: Lifters
All,
As far as the lifters go, I can
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February
15, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox ...
This is not a paradox, and the paradoxical nature of the problem
was in fact
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
This is not a paradox, and the paradoxical nature of the problem was
in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago. The traveling
twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not; thus, the symmetry
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
Hi Kyle,
1. They do not work in hard vacuum. This has been tested many times,
Blazelabs has tested this, I have tested it, others have as well. It is
pretty well determined that they do not function in hard vacuum. In very
soft vacuums they do work, as there is still air to push around, of
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
Some have just
covered one electrode or the other, or had the lifter lift inside a
stationary box. This proves nothing.
Did they place the box (with lifter inside) on a scale?
The weight should not change if it is ion wind.
Harry
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
Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
This is not a paradox, and the paradoxical nature of the problem was
in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago. The traveling
twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not;
39 matches
Mail list logo
