]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics
- 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
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
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
Two things, for one there are many uses for wood, as long as it's not burnt
why not make use of what you can rather than just burying.
And secondly the rate of pine growth varies greatly, see:
http://www.forestenterprises.co.nz/new/afi/nzplantation.htm
So location is key, as is choosing a very
On 2/17/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your position, like that dangerous
lunatic
Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus Dirty Harry who felt
lucky and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum...
No Nick, I'm probably the most safe and sane thinker on this debate.
Human achievements are significant.
Ultimately almost anything is possible, some things man has envisioned doing
in the future:
Make an elevator to geosynchronous (I assume?) orbit.
Make nano machines
Both of those may even be near future.
For the somewhat more distant future there are
On 2/17/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An accelerometer is a purely local
instrument (which, of course, can't tell the difference between gravity
and acceleration).
Actually there is a way, or technically 2 ways at least. (besides the fact
that experiments have shown that
On 2/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does this whale oil scheme sound now ?
Somehow, even crazier.
And no, not crazy like a fox.
Here is an interesting one, footage FOX showed just once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
Clearly no plane crashed there, if the plane was hit by a missile and blew
to smithereens (in which case it would still be more left than reported) it
couldn't leave a hole in the Ground, clearly
Ok, then explain. Why did they get rid of the bomb sniffing dogs after the
mysterious powerdown?
On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
And I agree that it would have been absolutely *unconscionable* for
the new owner to have allowed thousands of workers to
Ok, so this then was a lot worse, as they said nothing larger than a phone
book!
On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
Show me a single plane crash where 1: There is nothing of any size
left and not even a lot of what is left 2: Despite 1, there is a
hole
On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Makes a prima facie case for more thorough investigation of the
possibility that WTC7 had been pre-rigged to be brought down:
You mean: the building was gutted
A building does not need to be guttel to be demolished.
The
Wow, must have been a great place for showers, look at the water pressure!
On 2/20/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Test to see if this image shows up on Vo.
One of the photos which Fox removed from their official site, but not
before others had saved it.
Go here:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm
Not only is it clear it's not water, but look at WTC7 footage
You can see synched explosions just before it falls.
And in this case they can't be compression waves or anything.
On 2/20/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow
Actually it has been pointed out that there was a light (laser?) beam
visible on the building which was probably used for painting the taget, the
most likely would be a range of floors and they simply triggered the one
hit.
Go here:
http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2195
On
Again until I looked into it closer I had no issue with the idea that this
could be pulled off by any bunch of people with box cutters.
But if you really look at the evidence
On 2/21/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You left something out of this armchair analysis of the
On 2/21/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
That is my point. The building was designed to withstand
a severe _horizontal_ blow, but it was not designed to withstand
a severe _downward_ blow. The inability of the structure
to withstand a vertical
That's my point exactly.
What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with
'Bush is a twit'.
Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical
stuff, members of the intelligence community did that.
Further no one is claiming there were suicide
That's my point exactly.
What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with
'Bush is a twit'.
Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical
stuff, members of the intelligence community did that.
Further no one is claiming there were suicide
Change, 2nd edition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WsyEqKQRBY
On 2/22/07, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm, so, if there were no suicide pilots, who was flying?
On 2/21/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's my point exactly.
What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up
On 2/22/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My goodness. Since many gullible people believe this sort of thing,
Currently you simply don't have the information those people are basing
their 'Gullible' beliefs on.
Simply watch 'Loose Change 2nd Edition' (Just watched the whole of it
On 2/22/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
My goodness. Since many gullible people believe this sort of thing,
Currently you simply don't have the information those people are basing
their 'Gullible' beliefs on.
You have given me more than enough information
On 2/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh dear it's unbelievable one can believe such things. My remote
controlled live whales scheme pales in comparison :)
Oh look, your rhetoric made solid evidence disappear.
*poof*
Good job you don't have to deal with all those nasty facts.
Well aren't we the little pessimist?
Tell me, is Hitler still in power?
On 2/23/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What conspiracy fans miss is that if all their theories are correct,
it's all futile and irrelevant. How so?
Because it would mean that vast numbers of people in and
The thought that it is futile is what makes it so.
On 2/23/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zell, Chris wrote:
What conspiracy fans miss is that if all their theories are
correct, it's all futile and irrelevant. How so?
In the first hour of C to C AM last night Alex Jones of
I'm a 'we have the perfect amount of water and just an abundance of glass'
person myself.
Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the
glass or emptying it?
On 3/2/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote
From what I'm seeing Vo dominated by
time, energy, money and other resources, not a question
of believing or not (no sensible person can doubt that alternatives to huge
tokamaks are possible for abundant clean energy).
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March
On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Thomson wrote:
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you
claim ought to be possible.
don't care
and those seeking the truth don't listen.
Dave
--
*From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly
have answered any of these questions.
It seems all you do is explain the mundane.
On 3/3/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/3/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics
On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
It is the only possible model as SR is illogical
Well, that sure shoots down SR.
SR has many logical inconsistencies, you can't not be aware of this.
There are many situations where SR simply can't work though I
On 3/1/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
If any divergence between inertial and gravitational mass is
ever found, however small it may be, it will be a an enormous blow to
the validity of GR, because it will imply that gravity is /not/ a
fictitious force,
On 3/4/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
Ok, that didn't take long.
I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments
your theory is based on.
I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to
output free energy or create
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in
this mailing list after this message.
Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as it took too long to type
to be ignored.
John Berry wrote:
On 3/3/07
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
OK so far? (Note that we didn't need gamma for anything here -- I
just used the metric to find the proper distances.)
I think we can stick to thought experiments and dump equations.
Einstein said he didn't understand his theory
For several seconds
On 3/5/07, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i cant get the video to play. how long does he discharge?
electrolytic caps have a discharge cycle, if its a quick flash, theres
still some juice in there.
On 2/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Blanton
The heart of the matter is this.
Even is SR GR weren't flawed, even if there were no experiments which
showed it to be incorrect (there are quite a few) it is still a fact that
aether theory had no reason to be dropped as there is no evidence against a
fluid aether (a stationary one is illogical
On 3/8/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how about you try working through the mathematics of the
contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the
results here?
I mean, work them through using the Lorentz transforms. I'll be happy
to argue them with you, if
hmmm, I think I recall hearing they indeed they will melt such impossible
things, but won't burn your hand, and indeed that's the claim.
Doesn't seem that heat is the right word.
Here is what a quick search turned up from Decker in '99:
Hi Folks!
If you are interested in Browns gas generators,
Turn up the heater, do go for a drive in the summer and find less depressing
music and maybe environment.
Of course there is an answer to all of this, but it won't be found in your
current mindset...
Be proactive and productive, change things don't just reduce how fast you
are taking a part in
Ok, so the thermite, the squib explosions that can be plainly seen and heard
(and recorded) and which burnt people and thew them around, and went off
before the collapse and thermite detected, buildings pancaking at freefall
speeds, the people doing work on the building before 911 (an
Great, so $1360 a month, let's hope Jed doesn't get a job in government.
Personally I think that user pays is generally a poor idea, I'm more of a
flat rate all you can eat kind of guy, it is much more freeing, people don't
need to be obsessing over every mile like that.
But at the very least
On 3/13/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
Tell that to Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, etc. They
question what is going on.
Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these
others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a
On 3/13/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these
others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact --
that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about
cold fusion
John, I figured since you're active I might get your opinion on Podkletnov's
more recent experiments (admittedly not that recent, just not the old ones
you successfully replicated) accomplished by discharges from a high voltage
source.
Since that is a souped up replication of the Morton effect
Richard, did you hear the latest news?
BBC reported 20 minutes before WTC7 collapsed that it had collapsed.
But they didn't say WTC7, if they had you might have thought they got their
numbers muddled, they called it by it's full name, the Solomon Brothers
Building which they mentioned had after
On 3/14/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
A ha, so now who is an authority on pancaking skyscrapers?
No one.
As noted previously, the people at Controlled Demolition are experts
at pancaking skyscrapers. They have destroyed thousands of
structures, some as large
On 3/14/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
john herman wrote:
Either you you do not read what you write ...OR
You are reporting matters outof context
[a] In an aqueous electrolytic system the anode and the cathode are not
supposed to touch.
[b] what the Bleet Hawses
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
And if not then I guess the US will sell them WMD's, and then attack.
On 3/21/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...or WMDs?
;-)
Harry
Terry Blanton wrote:
Do they harbor life?
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/19/94112.aspx
Bill: Let's get rid of this crazy Vo: adding macro. It does not work!
- Jed
Agreed, let's make this a 'me too!' thread.
My understanding is that the person who lobbied to have it added has left
anyway.
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: [Vo]: No Vo vote
Bill: Let's get rid of this crazy Vo: adding macro. It does not work!
- Jed
Agreed, let's make this a 'me too!' thread.
My understanding
I sure hope you're trying to be funny.
On 3/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stop the ad hominem please.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Stop the ad hominem please.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l
On 3/28/07, Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Truth of the matter is, the real reason I've made these
suggestions is: It takes a dick to know another dick.
No, no it doesn't.
On 3/30/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone ever needed damning evidence that Bush is a dumbass, there it
is.
Good job that's the only evidence...
The reply-to was not vortex-L@eskimo.com as I had expected, not an attempt
at anonymity.
Never the less I believe that the Horror of Chernobyl, reports of up to 1
Million dead and continuing impact is perhaps great enough to put Nuclear
down the list a bit in terms of preferred power sources,
On 4/13/07, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up?
Because it's a stupid [EMAIL PROTECTED] script and it should be nixed. (or
fixed)
(and BIG news) for everybody.
Did you change your mind after my question?
On 4/13/07, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up
?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7
On 4/13/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HelixMultiverse: It's Friday 13th April 2007, 08.55 but I can't see any
update yet. Anyone know where the update will appear on website (I've looked
under 'News') or at what time?
HM
Steorn: We plan to put
need that
data. Nice to see that its not bad news. Several sites on the web are
expecting bigger things. Maybe I should pass this to them. Thanks I know
what to look for and when. I have time to do a few chores. Feb to August
is still quite a long testing schedule.
John Berry wrote:
rosco:I can
On 4/14/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, there is only one question I need answered from Steorn.
I know Free Energy exists in the form they claim
By that I mean energy seemingly created in a simple device including
permanent magnetic motors.
I think energy can be created
I agree with you that more attention should be paid, but I have a very
different view as to the level of Bogosity.
Indeed this annoys me as people discount things often with no reason besides
it not fitting what they currently believe, please give me 20 instances of
apparent Bogousness, and
I haven't read much in this thread, but in the end it doesn't matter if the
polluting man is doing is the cause of Global Warming.
Very few are questioning if Global Warming is happening, if it will be a
problem.
The issue of man's fault in causing it is just a blame game and unimportant,
it
It is already far warmer that it has been for an extremely long time, not
500 years.
I can't be bothered reading the rest of your ignorant post but if you don't
realize that the weather is warming up your a fool/idiot.
That warming 500-1000 years ago is a blip compared to this.
On 4/22/07, Jeff
On 4/23/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That warming 500-1000 years ago is a blip compared to this.
Numbers to support this please.
--Kyle
Watch An Inconvenient Truth, there is a chart that addresses this.
On 4/23/07, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now speaking of mammoths being frozen in Siberia.. shucks , we have
politicians in office in Texas... well.. err.. nevermind.. you wouldn't
believe it.
Richard
I hate a mystery, finish your thought.
the easiest even if the sun
is contributing.
On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The warming 500 - 1000 years ago is a blip compared to what, exactly?
P.
- Original Message
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:10:34 AM
:58 AM
Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global
warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever
and you buy it as gospel.
There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of
some
Jeff, how sure are you that GW is nonsense?
Are you pretty sure?
Is there a 10% chance it's real? 5%? 1%? one in a million??
At what point do the odds become justification for polluting out planet
more?
On 4/24/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Fink wrote:
Mercury is too close
On 4/24/07, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
*From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2007 10:12 AM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming
The problem with augments against Global
the others in this world, including Bush.
P.
- Original Message
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Balls.
The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't
based
To expand on that, notice how the last thing Philip is interested in doing
is refuting the evidence that CO2 and Temperature are linked.
Or that CO2 is rising.
The core of the argument is never argued.
On 4/24/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Balls!
On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL
On 4/23/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry (wishing he had a detachable penis)
Hell no, you'd put it down somewhere and lose it.
the most common topic of this list is
alternative energy. (not the only topic)
On 4/25/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have
I knew that Volcaino sh*t was bunk, thanks for finding the evidence.
On 4/25/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say
From the later videos he does seem to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
(waffle in an understatement)
But that seems to be largely age related.
I think he has probably got or more likely had something but I don't think
the effect is reliable as indeed most Free Energy (weather electrical
You would want it to be low distance and frequency specific so the neighbors
can't tap into your power supply.
I believe it is entirely possible because what is happening is a flow of
aether of being established between Primary and Secondary making them very
close inductively and if you do it
Look at Stubblefields wireless telephone, it was loops of wire at audio (not
radio) frequencies and IMO worked better than conventional EM would consider
possible.
The magnetic field caught a lift rather literally, indeed here are devices
that can make rather impressive magnetic beams or in one
Kind of obvious but...
Harry, a DC current in a coil will not emit and radio waves, I think you
made a mistake.
The following is reasonably accurate however.
A flat DC current creates no radiowaves at all regardless of conductor
shape.
An AC current in a straight wire will emit radio waves.
An
Ah, no.
Electrons in wires generally move far far far too slow to produce
synchrotron or cyclotron radiation at a radiofrequency and while I'm not
100% sure I believe that a uniform current in all parts of the loop would
remove this effect.
DC is still DC if pulsed and will create radiowaves.
On
So let me see if I've gotcha.
Greenies, alternate energy and hippies are evil.
And oil companies are good and only speak the truth without any hint of
anything self serving.
I bet you'd have believed the tobacco lobby too.
On 6/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the
Just a test, I'm BCC'ing this to a fake email address.
On 7/3/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Horace Heffner wrote:
The vortex-l posts started to show up with Resent to: undisclosed-
recipients: ; on June 28. I wonder who the undisclosed-
recipients: ; are?
Hey, you're back.
But no, modulation wouldn't be needed, detection is enough. (which is I
guess binary modulation)
On 8/19/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howdy folks,
I suppose I couldn't stay away for too long. Things have settled down a
bit, so maybe I will be posting
Ok, so we have the many billion dollar trades.
And a faked 'video' of Osama saying that he will nuke US cities, he just
happens to say new stuff during a 12 minute video freeze, otherwise it could
have been filmed before the Iraq war.
Bush wants to attack Iran badly but simply doesn't have the
To answer my own question:
Hans Kristensen, an expert on US nuclear forces said that the air force
keeps a computerized command and control system that traces any movement of
a nuclear weapon so that they have a complete picture of where they are at
any given time.
He also added that perhaps
Got a simple question, how densely can you modulate an AM signal?
(forgetting any issues of high Q reducing ability to read the fresh power
from the built up energy in the tuned tank, Digital wouldn't have that issue
I guess)
Can each half wave be of a different amplitude than the one before?
I think you just did...
On 9/14/07, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote..
There are ominous portents all over the landscape just now, indicating
that
something big is in the offing:
Howdy John,
Lets see.. I am 80 years old, lived during the depression in a one room
America's interests in the middle east.
Harry
On 14/9/2007 12:44 AM, John Berry wrote:
I think you just did...
On 9/14/07, *R.C.Macaulay* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote..
There are ominous portents all over the landscape just now, indicating
that
something big is in the offing
Mild exercise may or may not do much, but occasional _vigorous_
exercise, done intensely enough to get you out of breath, is certainly
worthwhile. (Your body seems to react to getting out of breath the way
it would to being chased by something large and hungry -- it tries to
adjust things
Water can with little energy (I think) be pulled from the air (big one built
in France but the figures allude me right now but a google search pulled up
this the aerial well will yield 7500 gallons of water per 900 square feet
of condensation surface), along with water recycling and efficient use
IMO there isn't an issue.
The skeptics are automatically disinteresting, just ignore them. They are
irrelevant (unless of course they are effecting employment/funding) as they
are not really in the same field (discovery).
Might as well be arguing with a short order cheif about CF.
It's a case of
detailed disclosure, everything need
to replicate.
On 10/12/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO there isn't an issue.
The skeptics are automatically disinteresting, just ignore them. They are
irrelevant (unless of course they are effecting employment/funding) as they
are not really
On 10/20/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it turned out that the inventors were measuring
30KHz frequencies with a true-RMS meter intended for below 1KHz.
Right there I can tell you there is no way Ron is doing any thing so
foolish.
Is that sarcasm?
If not and you believe in the free press then you send it to CNN.
On 10/19/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
send it to CNN.
Harry
On 18/10/2007 7:00 PM, John Berry wrote:
They have been killed not fired.
http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories
They have been killed not fired.
http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8RI68QG0.html
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/BREAKINGNEWS/70915012
Here's a list of all the Servicemen that have mysteriously and
coincidentally
died in accidents in the two
Well look at Edward Farrow (who I incidentally found more info on if your
interested, got a pdf of a news article).
He has a spark gap device that is said to produce waves that attracts things
below it and showed reduced weight on a scale. (it almost certainly
increased weight of things above it)
Have a workshop (in both senses of the word) where local friends come and
build the device together and learn about it, tape this workshop and put it
on youtube.
Then send a few of the devices to established FA/AG experimenters with
instructions to test, copy and pass on original.
On 10/21/07,
Call me a crackpot but I think you are all missing the point.
Ron's loop sticks (in which only some work) are when used properly able to
send out an EM field that does not decrease in strength with distance until
at a critical distance it collapses.
In other words the scanning coil proclaims
On 10/26/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, EnergyLab wrote:
I don't think big RF sources are common. Once you're far from the AM
tower, I doubt that there's much chance that you'll accidentally get close
to another major transmitter. So carrying your device to
101 - 200 of 975 matches
Mail list logo
