Note, a post detailing the effect/device is coming, might take a bit before
it's complete...

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kyle Mcallister <kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com
> wrote:

>
> --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Chris Zell <chrisrz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Chris Zell <chrisrz...@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:On Topic
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 7:15 PM
> > OK, I'm interested in the
> > anomalies you mentioned, particularly the conditioning of
> > space.
> > The whole no ether thing never made sense to me
> > because the characteristic impedance of space is about 328
> > ohms and is a real factor in antenna design.
> >
> > No Ether?  What's impeding the RF?
>
> My question as well. If empty space is just that, what determines G, e0,
> u0, Z0, and all those other nice little things that cause 'empty' space to
> factor in as far less than empty when trying to radiate energy into it. What
> is 'carrying' a magnetic field? If space can curve, as the current
> interpretation of General Relativity says it does, what is curving?
>
> > Did Laithwaite really make a spinning device that
> > weighed less while being lifted in a 30 degree spiral?
> > Sounds very Schaubergerish to me.
>
> As far as I know, no he didn't. He does suggest some interesting
> experiments, and a thought provoking similarity between electromagnetism and
> the actions of spinning flywheels. He suggested that the rotation of a
> flywheel may have a sort or relation to what we call inductance. That is, a
> resistor obeys Ohm's law just fine; add an inductor and use AC, things get
> strange, until you extend the theory a bit more. He suggests that straight
> line motion and acceleration is 'resistive', where rotational motion is
> 'inductive.'
>
> If you build a large, fast flywheel, and play around with it in many
> different ways, you start to get confused by it. The conventional math works
> for the most part, but there is a feeling of something more to it than just
> that. Laithwaite was condemned for chasing it.
>
> --Kyle
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to