Thane posted a new video on dec.14.
He says he is going to install the prototype shown in an electric scooter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dme4bW2fPhQ
Harry
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
I think I've watched all of Thane's vids and from
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Thane posted a new video on dec.14.
He says he is going to install the prototype shown in an electric scooter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dme4bW2fPhQ
Installing free energy devices into vehicles instead of
MY, that is a violation worse than any Newton's law. EM do
not generally obey any Newton's law because even at low energies it is
sensitive to Lorentz invariance. So, a violation of Lenz law strongly
implies violation of the constancy of the speed of light or violation of
causality or violation of
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
MY, that is a violation worse than any Newton's law. EM do
not generally obey any Newton's law because even at low energies it is
sensitive to Lorentz invariance. So, a violation of Lenz law strongly
implies violation
About anything that claims over unity concerning violations of the EM
field.
2011/12/17 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:
MY, that is a violation worse than any Newton's law. EM do
not generally obey any Newton's law
He will need a battery for start up. Once the scooter has reached a
sufficient speed it will propel itself perpetually by self charging.
I have met Thane in person and witnessed an earlier version of his
regenerative acceleration device.
Is he scammer? No one who has met him thinks he is a
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
MY wrote:
I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a
violation would also violate COE and Newton 3. That's rather
MY wrote:
I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a violation
would also violate COE and Newton 3. That's rather unlikely, at least on any
macro scale for any appreciable time period -- or the universe would not be
the way we see it.
Are you trying to convince me or
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
MY wrote:
I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a
violation would also violate COE and Newton 3. That's rather unlikely, at
least on any macro scale for any appreciable time period -- or the
Oops. Forgot about the big bang did we? It is amazing that based on a
few 100 years of observations by one species, on one planet, on the
outer rim of one galaxy of billions in the known universe that a semi
salient entity would make that statement. Had you said that 1,000,000
years in the
Mary Yugo wrote:
So why not take some of the output heat, run it through a simple and
reliable control system, and then return the heat to the input end?
Then, Rossi could self sustain after a brief initial period of
electrical heating, for as long as he liked.
He did that! What are you
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
So why not take some of the output heat, run it through a simple and
reliable control system, and then return the heat to the input end?
Then, Rossi could self sustain after a brief initial period
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
He did that! What are you talking about?!? He has made the thing
self-sustain from internally generated heat for 4 hours.
It's not self-sustaining if you have to cycle the input power, and Rossi
has admitted that the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you notice the difference between the ecat that could self-sustain,
and the one that did not? About 70 kg more mass, and 8 kW less power. Hmmm.
Coincidence?
NO! Progress!
Mary Yugo wrote:
Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month
capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic?
Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous
heat, 4 hours proves the point as well as 40 years would.
There is nothing in any
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month
capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic?
Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous
heat, 4
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
There is nothing in any Rossi device's design that routes heat BACK from
output to input via a controller.
This make no sense. The heat is there in the reactor. There is no need to
conduct,
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
OK. Then why does it have to be reheated by a safety heater at regular
intervals?
I do not know, but there must be a reason. Nothing happen in nature without
a cause. Perhaps they will find a way to make it run without this in the
future.
In any case,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, it continues in self-sustaining mode far beyond the limits of
chemistry,
Not more than a few per cent on *this* side of the limits of chemistry.
and the energy used to reheat it is far less than the
-of-thermodynamics
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:24 -0500
To get the attention of physicists you will need to find a way to connect
the output power back to the input
]:Acceleration Under Load
From: hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Hopefully it will become free energy device.
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device
is a steady acceleration in the direction of
rotation while the coils remain shorted.
Anyway Thane Heins youtube channel has better examples because you can
hear the acceleration.
harry
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
From: hveeder
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon
2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time
constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to
electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed
w.r.t. the disk rotation,
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon
2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field
Hopefully it will become free energy device.
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device.
But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
energy,
Hopefully it will become free energy device.
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device.
But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
energy,
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device.
Steorn has never demonstrated any
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Hopefully it will become free energy device.
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
hat it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
ventually lead to a free energy device.
But even if you can't use a violation
Reminds me of Thane Heins' Regenerative Acceleration.
http://ottawaskeptics.org/local-investigations/121-in-this-town-we-obey-the-laws-of-thermodynamics
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:24 -0500
To get
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
This requirement reminds me of the skeptic's demand that Rossi's device
needs to run a generator to supply the input power and it is valid.
Actually, with Rossi, it's simpler than that. His claim is that his device
, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be
a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow
band of rotation frequency.
In the video
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
From: hveeder...@gmail.com
: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
From: hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Hopefully it will become free energy device.
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we
all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper
measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the
new year.
DVM's
I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free
energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with
the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving.
If this can not be done, then most likely there is a
34 matches
Mail list logo
