On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>wrote:
> > > John Berry wrote: > > I have been on vortex for, well not as long as some but I guess, hmmm, > > might be over a decade now though, lurking more often than not. > > > > Anyway it seems that on topic posts are kinda rare, especially if you > > assume that the topic is not just alternative sources of energy but IMO > > things the "skeptics" would have issues which, physics they would > > consider impossible, not just greener forms of energy. > > > > So as I believe it was originally envisioned this meant: > > Perpetual Motion (not technical perpetual motion, rather creation of > energy) > > Energy from unknown sources. > > Negative entropy > > Cold Fusion > > Antigravity > > Other anomalous physics. > > > > These subjects have with the exception of cold fusion (thanks to Jed) > > composed I believe a minority of posts for a long time now. > > > > Personally my interest is in the aether and I have much evidence for a > > model I have developed which explains most everything and roughly how to > > do almost anything, but I can not imagine trying to wade into that > > subject here. > > > > But there is one bit of my research that we could get into, it is a Free > > Energy device that is well replicated and has been replicated by a > > previous list member, it can be assembled with off the shelf components. > > It seems able to produce useful levels of power far greater than the > input. > > And it also has a secondary quality that "proves" that something very > > novel is occurring. > > > > In theory manufacture of these could be accomplished very realistically. > > > > If anyone is genuinely interested I am happy to expand as time permits. > > Sure, I'd be very interested, and I imagine a lot of other folks would > be, too. > > Of course, if it's a "replicated" "free energy" device then the first > question to ask is whether the loop has been closed, and the next > question may very well be "why not?" and there should be a good answer > to that if the thing is to be interesting. Closing the loop is extremely important for a demo, and you know what I believe the loop was closed by one who worked on this effect. But I am not demonstrating a ready to go free energy machine, rather I am offering up an avenue for research. > > > (But if you post details I will also be happy to post a theoretical > deconstruction, if it seems appropriate; just so you know... and if it's > a magmo you'd better have something more convincing than a lost > videotape to support the claim that it works! (cf SMOT)) > > > > > Also is anyone here genuinely interested in orgne > > Orgone? Interesting to read about but my suspension of disbelief gets > strained if I try to think about it too much. While that was my opinion too a long time ago and indeed I hated the concept of a new agey sounding aether the reality of all of this is something I can't deny, however I have no will to try and convince someone of something they would be strained to accept, at least not with words and not yet. > > > > > /torsion > > Dunno, not sure what it is. You mean torsion gravity? No > > > > > /aether > > Sure, if your theory predicts the null result observed in the MM > experiments *and* predicts the exact fringe shift observed in the Sagnac > experiments, *and* if it actually produces predictions which differ from > LET somewhere down the line. While I have not studied Sagnac the answer to the rest is yes, but really it's not a theory it is an observation, and somewhat pure reductive logic. I have no interest in discussion for an aether model on theoretical grounds as that is just a waste of time, rather I am interested in sharing an understanding of how some extraordinary things can be made possible preferably incorporated into experiments. > > > Proposing an aether theory which doesn't meet these requirements does > seem a little like an attempt at an attempt at resurrecting the > phlogiston theory. > > OTOH if the math is identical to LET, which is mathematically identical > to SR, then the interest level is a bit reduced, as the aether becomes > an undetectable ghost in that case which must be taken on faith. There isn't even any math, actually the only way I might be interested in communicating it would be if someone could figure out the math. > > etc..? > > "etc" is always good. > > > > The evidence that it is the very conditioning of space that is key to > > these more extraordinary technologies and events (ball lightening for > > instance) > > Isn't there a reasonably coherent explanation of ball lightning in the > mainstream literature at this point? IMO no, not given some of the more interesting observed effects. I thought I read somewhere that > there is, with some experimental results to back it up. But I'm not > sure, need to go digging, if it ever becomes and issue. > > > > is overwhelming and they actually with nothing but observation > > produce an extremely coherant picture, but in a decade online I have not > > found really anyone interested in such. > Ok, on to the main subject on offer, I am not looking for anyone to merely try and debunk this as I am decently confident the effect is genuine, at least 99.99% sure, that's pretty sure, if someone wants to talk about the technical issues or experiment then I'll share. Oh, BTW it's solid state, and it is not based on principles of electromagnetism (ie. not an OU transformer). I see there are other replies and I'll gauge them for interest.
