http://www.gn0sis.com/component/option,com_joomlaboard/Itemid,33/func,showcat/catid,12/
also seems to have at least some work on EVGray. and why wouldnt norman
wootan answer questions regards evgray?
On 28/02/07, Esa Ruoho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i recommend hunting down this.. it used to be
Nick Palmer wrote:
Paul wrote:-
You should read about different types of noise --
http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm
Well, I read this webpage. Maybe you misunderstand. When they say
The thermal noise of a resistor is equal to:
Vt = SQRT(4kTBR)
where:
Vt =
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Palmer wrote:
Paul wrote:-
You should read about different types of noise --
http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm
Well, I read this webpage. Maybe you misunderstand. When they say
The thermal noise of a resistor is equal to:
Vt =
The E.V. Gray case is strange indeed, but again my PI work revealed the free
energy community is flooded with so-called people I refer to as thugs that
have a hidden agenda in the free energy community.
Anyhow, Gray demonstrated his motors ran cold. I was trying to find some
detailed
I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude as usual.
Anyway I don't think that rectifying the hot resistor noise with a diode breaks
2LoT. Does a photovoltaic cell (which is a diode too) break 2LoT when
converting the thermal energy radiated by a 6000°C black body to
Michel Jullian wrote:
I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude as usual.
That's just your interpretation according to a POV of common social behavior.
That's a result of being programmed by society. What you refer to as rudeness I
refer to as bluntness with very
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude as
usual.
That's just your interpretation according
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude
as usual.
That's just your interpretation according to a POV of common social
behavior. That's a result of being programmed by society. What you
refer to as rudeness I
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude as
usual.
That's just your interpretation
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
And how much electrical noise energy is the cell converting back into
radiation, eh? If everything's at the same temperature you'll most
likely find the amount of radiation the cell is generating, as a result
of running backwards, is equal to the amount of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
And how much electrical noise energy is the cell converting back into
radiation, eh? If everything's at the same temperature you'll most
likely find the amount of radiation the cell is generating, as a result
of running
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
You think that unlike other materials in the room, it radiates less than
it absorbs under those conditions. I'm saying I'm not so sure.
Experiment can't give the answer at this time, of course -- or, rather,
any real experiment using real solar cells will support
I have a question for both Michel Jullian and Stephen A. Lawrence. Could you
please state if you are presently working on so-called Free Energy technology?
My definition of Free Energy obviously would not include the initial cost or
cost of maintenance.
If you are working on such
This sounds very inquisitive, are we excommunicated if we are not? :)
My involvement in new energy is non-public, and concerns principally the
electrical and chemical aspects of determining a system's energy balance.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
thomas malloy wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Doing calculations in an accelerating frame makes me sick I am afraid
;-) But I guess it would be the same force, since it's not a
ficticious one like e.g.
the centrifugal force.
Hum; ficticious force? Isn't the force that
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:10:46 +1100:
Hi,
[snip]
region below it. The difference in air pressure is multiplied by the entire
area
of the craft (Pi x r^2) to calculate the lifting force. By analogy we are
adding
wings to an aircraft, and pointing the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
When you are actually _in_ a rotating frame, such as a car going around
a corner, you naturally think about the situation from the POV of that
frame, and in that frame, the centrifugal force -- and the Coriolis
force -- are both quite real, even though they are
Indeed in an inertial frame the fictitious force vanishes (from the analysis)
as a force, but it also magically reappears as mass times acceleration, simply
going from the left hand side to the right hand side of F=ma while changing
sign, so the equations remain the same mathematically.
For
In response to Paul and Michel and Steven I will only repeat what I wrote.
Obviously you did not understand what I said. Read it again without your
knee-jerk prejudices. Besides, in order do work by extracting energy from
ambient heat with no heat sink, Paul's diodes would need to rectify a
Gentlemen! ...to paraphrase Strangelove, you can't fight in here! This
is ... well not the war room, but the war-on-oil room.
Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
When you are actually _in_ a rotating frame, such as a car going around
a corner, you naturally think about the situation from the POV of that
frame, and in that frame, the centrifugal force -- and the Coriolis
force -- are both quite real, even
Nick Palmer wrote:
In response to Paul and Michel and Steven I will only repeat what I
wrote. Obviously you did not understand what I said. Read it again
without your knee-jerk prejudices.
If you're including me in the knee-jerk crowd who didn't understand what
you wrote, I take issue with
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:29:58 -0500:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:11:03 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Michel Jullian wrote:
The tube doesn't oscillate because the process Robin described is
In reply to Zell, Chris's message of Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:59:23 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
I realize that completely eliminating all contamination is difficult but
if protons can be popped out of the vacuum by an arc discharge, then I
think we need
to take another look at the Steady State theory of the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
When you are actually _in_ a rotating frame, such as a car going around
a corner, you naturally think about the situation from the POV of that
frame, and in that frame, the centrifugal force -- and the Coriolis
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
When you are actually _in_ a rotating frame, such as a car going around
a corner, you naturally think about the situation from the POV of that
frame, and in that frame, the centrifugal force -- and the Coriolis
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:49:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
In any case there's also thermal noise in the diode, as I believe I also
pointed out (though I didn't phrase it that way), and that is surely
where you should be hunting for the flaw in the design.
[snip]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:29:58 -0500:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:11:03 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Michel Jullian wrote:
The tube doesn't oscillate because
Vortexians;
As a result of the Ev Gray link I went on a wild web chase. I ended up
linking to this site. It would be marvelous if it worked, but I can't
help thinking about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
http://www.waterengine.com.au/How.htm
--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html -
29 matches
Mail list logo
