[Vo]: Re: Polarizized Vacuum Between Concentric Spheres-Cylinders
Without trying to rewrite accepted physics, what I see from Doyle Buehler's charged capacitor weight change phenomena-experiments is that the electric field is changing (increasing/decreasing?) the vacuum/air dielectric constant between/near the plates,thus storing more/less energy, causing the repelling of gravity. Buehler assumed the stored energy based on Epsilon Naught (eo). Fred
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when moving in a horizontal plane. Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less you weigh. Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. Harry Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
LOL BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when moving in a horizontal plane. Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less you weigh. Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. Harry Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Glad you're finally getting through, Michel. BTW. Harry tends to lay down on the job so to speak, hence assumes what WalMart calls their entry level position. OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam if you tend to have a religious bent. Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 11/24/2006 2:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge LOL BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when moving in a horizontal plane. Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less you weigh. Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. Harry Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
[Vo]: Re: Frederick Sparber on charged spheres
Hi Keith, you wrote: C=4*pi*epsilon0*r with r=2.8179*10^-15 M and epsilon0 = 8.854*10^-12 F/M C = 3.135*10^-25 F Yes. r = q^2/[4(pi)eo* mc^2] = 2.8179 M Also since Zo = (L/C)^1/2 = 377 ohms L = 377^2* 3.135*10^-25 = 4.455*10^-20 Henry And since capacitive E = 0.5*C*V^2 and inductive E = 0.5* L* I^2 IF the energy in the Capacitance And Inductance of The Electron's Vacuum/Ether are in Phase: V = [mc^2/(*3.135*10^-25)]^1/2 = 511* 10^5 volts I = [mc^2/(4.455*10^-20)]^1/2 = 1.355*10^3 amperes OTOH 2(pi)r * uo = 2.219*10^-20 Henry, making I = 1.92*10^3 amperes and 2(pi)r * eo = 1.56*10^-25 Farad making V = 7.245*10^5 volts. If the electron energy wave is circling at speed of light c: Time, t = 2(pi)r/c = 2.81*10^-15/3*10^8 = 9.36810^-24 seconds Frequency = 1/t = 1.06*10^23 Hz. OTOH, The Compton Wavelength (h/mc) = 2.427*10^-12 M puts r at 3.86*10^-13 M Your choice? :-) Fred
Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn
--- Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Esa Ruoho they can't say why its overunity - who would believe them? that's why they went public and are picking out a row of skeptical scientists to prove once and for all if its overunity or not. Forget all that. Can you answer the single critical issue of self-power (or lack thereof) ? If a self-powered unit exists now - where is it? - regardless of any explanations/ skepticism - a self-powered unit is all the evidence which in needed by anyone, skeptic or not. Why not just call the BBC in to film it running under self-power, while those supposedly skeptical scientists are debating the underlying modality, which is probably related to ZPE/Casimir in some fashion? Is that too much to ask from a company which is seemingly struggling and dying for public recognition - and paying dearly for much of it instead of putting those resources into development ? Let me say at the outset - that magnetic overunity [or magnets with coils, pendulums, or some combination of mechanical recycling of torque with a magnetic boost] will probably be demonstrated by someone next year - 2007 ! as there are many groups who are on the verge now. MPI would be expected to have something next year and/or Sprain in Atlanta, and five or six lesser and fringier efforts which include Perendev, Minato, Torbay and Steorn etc. I would put Steorn firmly at the tail end of this list, due solely to the way they have handled the announcement - but a single self-running demo will immediately change that. Not that it matters. Proof - not PR - is all that matters. Self-running = Proof. If Steorn were not so PR-oriented - and highly desirous of every kind-word of public recognition - why else did they announce this in such an expensive way, characteristic of a PR blitz (or the Czech Dream) ? shouldn't a company which apparently has not paid their corporate licensing fees have saved the 100,000 pounds for the expensive advertising and just called up Oxford/Cambridge for a private showing? It just does not make sense - the way they have handled it, unless they have been hired to do it as a stunt of some kind. Maybe Branson or some other drama-queen is hiding in there somewhere. Apparently (or if) it is not a self-runner, then that narrows the issue considerably, as **measurement error** is very common in this type of device. Almost anyone here, especially the consultants - if that was said in a derogatory fashion - could have explained this issue of likely measurement-error to Steorn - and in great detail. That is, had Steorn not come out of nowhere --- which is yet another problem for their credulity. There is a community of creative but careful scientific people involved heavily in this field, and no one at Steorn was not part of it - prior to recently. And look at the wasted time. Steorn has wasted infinitely more precious time with mundane PR details, endless press questioning and facility tours, etc then a single BBC filming would have accomplished on day-one ---IF--- Steorn has a device which will self-run. If not - the most of us will agree that it is likely measurement error. Skeptics who want to go on record with the told you so thing should be focusing solely on that issue: is it self-running or not. If it is not, then Steorn has a monstrous problem on their hands and will probably look like fools in the end. Plus - did not someone at Steorn actually claim that they had a device self-running for an extended period, but that they could not show it for some strange reason --- like it had been disassembled to make an even better model ! Ha! Sounds very much like the English crank scientist who claimed to have invented an anti-gravity device but he cold not show it to the skeptics because his wife had inadvertently turned it on - and it blasted through the roof of his home and escaped into space ! He could show the hole, however. Suspension of disbelief has its limits. Jones (not a Steorn skeptic yet -- just stating the obvious inconsistencies with their story, and the sad way in which they have handled what could be a monumental discovery, if it could be believed) Let me repeat - This is NOT the way science - even fringe-science is handled, and that is why all the suspicion is warranted - even though Steorn does not yet have the tin cup stretched out -- as the less-sophisticated scammers like to do early-on. I have something to add. I have no idea if Steorn is legit, but personally I have seen far too many claims. We all know what has happened. Such a group claims to have completed a free energy device, and the group fades over time. Time will tell, but I have a hunch Steorn's purpose is to inflict damage on the free energy
Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn
Here's what I've been able to glean from their site. It is self-powered. There is no input. They won't do demos because, they say, they'll be put down as conmen unless a jury of reputable scientists confirms the OU. They'll announce their first products the day the jury announces its verdict. They have said they continue to file applications for patents on different implementations of the basic configuration. The basic configuration is simple. My guess is that if somebody versed in the art were to have even a cursory look at the device, he could go home and build his own. That's just a guess, but it would explain their reluctance to demo it. To put it another way, whatever good their demo did for them would be outweighed by everybody and his brother copying the device and beating them to the market. They're not struggling or dying for public recognition. The CEO says they used the economist ad and the early interviews to get scientists to take up their challenge. Now that that has been accomplished, they don't need publicity. From what I can see, they are doing nothing to seek publicity; there is almost zero media mention of them these days. They claim to have a 550bhp motor, and have tested the effect for three years. A measurement error seems very unlikely. The CEO says no device has stopped running unless a mechanical part wore out or they shut it down. They are fully funded and do not need investors to bring the device(s) to market. The CEO has said they will not accept investment money. Steorn have not 'come out of nowhere', at least in the sense of being a bona fide company, with a track record of accomplishment. That goes, too, for the CEO, who has been an engineer since 1989. They have about 20 full-time employees and several consultants. Their engineers all have university degress, some of them advanced degrees An independent observer has visited their offices, which she describes as extensive and well-guarded, seen documentation on a couple of the jurors, and confirmed that they are reputable scientists. She has seen a video of the CEO of a European manufacturing partner of Steorn's as he assembled a test device and started it running. He said, in the video, that he left it running over a weekend and when he returned it was still running. She looked him up on the internet, and found a picture of him on his company's website. It was the same man she saw in the video. You say: [**magnetic overunity [or magnets with coils, pendulums, or some combination of mechanical recycling of torque with a magnetic boost] will probably be demonstrated by someone next year - 2007 ! as there are many groups who are on the verge now. MPI would be expected to have something next year and/or Sprain in Atlanta...**] You think MPI is 'on the verge', but they've been 'on the verge' for years, and have continually asked for more money, and have demonstrated nothing. Sprain has demonstrated nothing that is OU, but promises to do so soon. I don't see how you can speak respectfully of those outfits while deprecating Steorn's claims. You complain that Steorn has demonstrated nothing, but neither has MPI or Sprain. It's almost as if you require 10 times the proof from Steorn that you do from anyone else. You also say: [**Steorn does not yet have the tin cup stretched out -- as the less-sophisticated scammers like to do early-on.**] It sounds like you are flat-out calling them scammers. Amazing Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message - From: Esa Ruoho they can't say why its overunity - who would believe them? that's why they went public and are picking out a row of skeptical scientists to prove once and for all if its overunity or not. Forget all that. Can you answer the single critical issue of self-power (or lack thereof) ? If a self-powered unit exists now - where is it? - regardless of any explanations/ skepticism - a self-powered unit is all the evidence which in needed by anyone, skeptic or not. Why not just call the BBC in to film it running under self-power, while those supposedly skeptical scientists are debating the underlying modality, which is probably related to ZPE/Casimir in some fashion? Is that too much to ask from a company which is seemingly struggling and dying for public recognition - and paying dearly for much of it instead of putting those resources into development ? Let me say at the outset - that magnetic overunity [or magnets with coils, pendulums, or some combination of mechanical recycling of torque with a magnetic boost] will probably be demonstrated by someone next year - 2007 ! as there are many groups who are on the verge now. MPI would be expected to have something next year and/or Sprain in Atlanta, and five or six lesser and fringier efforts which include Perendev, Minato, Torbay and Steorn etc. I would put Steorn firmly at the tail end of this list, due solely to the way they have handled the announcement
[Vo]: Re: A New Spin on Consciousness
- Original Message - From: Terry Blanton http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0208/0208068.pdf Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory and Its Experimental Support by Evidence of Biological, Chemical and Physical Non-local Effects ABSTRACT A novel theory of consciousness is proposed in this paper. We postulate that consciousness is intrinsically connected to quantum spin Now that is a pregnant thought ! ... or l'idée enceinte, as the case may be. This is a bit off-topic, but for those who like low budget cinema [esp. of the new spin on consciousness ilk] ... which is as off-beat, fern-filmy and weird as quantum science can be, let me recommend a fine effort which is out now, but will soon be little more than a troubling dream: The Science of Sleep (La Science des rêves) The protagonist in this film, Stéphane has a theory he calls PSR, Parallel Synchronized Randomness, meaning that he and a corresponding target, say the girl-next-door who is named Stéphanie of course, will share a common wavelength (meme pool), and understand one another at a higher level without having to share material space. Kinda like RV [remote viewing, which is also a recreational-vehicle, come to think of it] In his dreams, she's perfect. In his dreams of her dreams, he's perfect. In reality, he is pathétique ... IOW his DreamWorld is a Disasterology waiting to happen What's new, Miou-Miou? Jones
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Michel, This time I am being serious. If one begins with the postulate that that all weight is apparent weight then it is easier to understand how and why weight anomalies might arise. Gravity is the tendency of a body to accelerate. Weight is only a _measure_ of this tendency, and it is a relative measure at best. A true measure of gravity is 'g'. Weight is also used as a measure of inertia, so there is tendency to confuse inertia and weight. Mind you, in applied mechanics, one treats weight as if it were an inertial force. Einstein went further and turned the treatment into a principle of nature, and the theory of general relativity was born. Harry PS On a half serious note. The condition of of being over-weight is really the condition of possessing excess inertia. Michel Jullian wrote: I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). Michel
Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn
On 11/24/06, Rhong Dhong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sprain has demonstrated nothing that is OU, but promises to do so soon. I have personally measured his original device to have a COP of 2.4. A revised configuration, which I am not yet at liberty to discuss, has demonstrated a greater COP. Terry Blanton, BEE, PE
Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn
apologies, later found quite a few more. i think this is all. == Steorn == http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUqQKnSlPss Steorn develops free energy technology?] 5minutes3seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDV9Al0e_T0 Steorn Power on Fox News Interview] 3min35sec Steorn will launch a revolutionary free, clean, energy technology. Fox News interview, August 28, 2006. see www.steornpower.com for more up2date news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNDIWY19gqA Steorn: Sky News: Race On To Prove Free Energy Irish engineers say they have built a device that creates free and clean energy. Until now most scientists have dismissed their claims, saying that they break the most basic laws of physics. So the inventors have come up with a unique challenge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDA0oyAtNBA Steorn: Sean MacCarthy with SkyNews] This is a longer interview video of the first SkyNews clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFYRuYn__Ro AP: Steorn: Engineers Claim Machine Makes Free Energy] An Irish company is raising eyebrows with its claim that it has developed a machine that can create free and totally clean energy. (Sept. 12) On 11/24/06, Esa Ruoho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUqQKnSlPss - Steorn original intro.. 5minutes3seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDV9Al0e_T0 Steorn Power on Fox News Interview 3min35secbr have fun m8s On 11/24/06, Rhong Dhong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/24/06, Rhong Dhong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sprain has demonstrated nothing that is OU, but promises to do so soon. I have personally measured his original device to have a COP of 2.4. A revised configuration, which I am not yet at liberty to discuss, has demonstrated a greater COP. Terry Blanton, BEE, PE That's good to hear. Any idea when there will be a public demonstration? It looks like Steorn will be several months before they are ready to launch their device / products; if the Sprain motor can get to the public ahead of them, the investment money should be considerable. Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com -- http://www.lackluster.org/ http://www.lackluster.org/shop/ -- http://www.lackluster.org/ http://www.lackluster.org/shop/
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Here is an example of little speed bumps generating electricity. http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm Harry Frederick Sparber wrote: Glad you're finally getting through, Michel. BTW. Harry tends to lay down on the job so to speak, hence assumes what WalMart calls their entry level position. OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam if you tend to have a religious bent. Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 11/24/2006 2:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge LOL BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when moving in a horizontal plane. Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less you weigh. Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. Harry Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Harry Veeder wrote: Here is an example of little speed bumps generating electricity. http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm Harry follow-up the piezoelectric freeway... http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/piezo_20motorway_20(freeway) Harry
[Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Keith Nagel writes C = 3.135*10^-25 F and we seem to differ by a factor of two. BTW, this is pretty well known, are you claiming the idea??? I've not got a reference at hand, but I'm sure a little searching would turn up something... K. Thank you for you comment Keith. No, I am not claiming to have discovered the value of capacitance of a proton. r=1.4 x 10-15m. It is well known. It is sort of one of those uninteresting facts that no one cares about, except perhaps me. The field of physics is divided into two camps; Quantum and classical. The quantum regime is considered to be preeminent. The classical world falls out as large numbers of quantum events occur. I disagree with this. I believe that the quantum regime is a subset of the classical universe. I believe that there is a minimum of stray capacitance that can be experienced by a particle. This minimum of stray capacitance is a classical phenomena. It is a property of the universe. The quantum regime falls out a consequence of this classical property. I started with 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads and developed the quantum regime from this first principle. I got the same answers, however, I employed an underlying classical premise. I did not come directly to Planck's constant from this approach. I came to 1.09 megahertz-meters as a fundamental quantum constant. With a little math 1.09 meters/sec can be converted to Planck's constant. I hope you understand Keith _http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html_ (http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html) Frank Z
[Vo]: Who Kills Planet Earth? Song (lyrics)
Who Kills Planet Earth? Tune: Who Killed Davey Moore by Bob Dylan http://www.smithsonianglobalsound.org/listen2.aspx?type=previewtrackid=8434 Who Kills Planet Earth? Why an whats the blindness worth? Not I, says the oil guy Dont point your finger at me. I could save it if I cared An maybe kept it from this fate, But moneys rollin in like mad And endin that would be so sad. Too bad the planet has to go, But profit must be first, you know. It isnt me that kills us all, No, you cant blame me at all. Who Kills Planet Earth? Why an whats the blindness worth? Not us, says the lazy crowd, Whose screams will fill the air so loud Its too bad children have to die Cause the White House stoops to lie. We didnt mean for life to end Our selfish ways just would not bend. Great ignorance pervades the land, Where media promotes the bland, It cant be us that ends it all, No, you cant blame us at all. Who Kills Planet Earth? Why an whats the blindness worth? Not me, says the scientist, Who swings his dogma like a fist. I knew that airplanes couldnt fly, My textbooks illustrated why. Fusion must be hot as hell, Magnetic systems make us yell. It cant be me that kills us all, No, you cant blame me at all. Who Kills Planet Earth? Why an whats the blindness worth? Mark Goldes Aesop Institute %Magnetic Power Inc. See also BRIDGEWALK www.magneticpowerinc.com
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:40:25 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] Is it possible you are confusing weight and mass? (You're certainly confusing me ;) Michel, This time I am being serious. If one begins with the postulate that that all weight is apparent weight then it is easier to understand how and why weight anomalies might arise. Gravity is the tendency of a body to accelerate. Weight is only a _measure_ of this tendency, and it is a relative measure at best. A true measure of gravity is 'g'. Weight is also used as a measure of inertia, so there is tendency to confuse inertia and weight. Mind you, in applied mechanics, one treats weight as if it were an inertial force. Einstein went further and turned the treatment into a principle of nature, and the theory of general relativity was born. Harry PS On a half serious note. The condition of of being over-weight is really the condition of possessing excess inertia. Michel Jullian wrote: I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). Michel Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:16:15 -0500: Hi, [snip] Here is an example of little speed bumps generating electricity. http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm This device falls in the not even wrong category. Essentially it is an extremely inefficient means of converting the energy in gasoline into electric power. Note that because it makes the surface rougher, the vehicle consumes more gas. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when moving in a horizontal plane. Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less you weigh. Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. Harry Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Obviouslybut then again maybe free electrons and protons have no weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Harry Veeder wrote: Here is an example of little speed bumps generating electricity. http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm Harry The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a pothole it cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not counting the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps Potholes. with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber contribution not included) it covers it all. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will endorse it too. :-) Fred Frederick Sparber wrote: Glad you're finally getting through, Michel. BTW. Harry tends to lay down on the job so to speak, hence assumes what WalMart calls their entry level position. OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam if you tend to have a religious bent. Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 11/24/2006 2:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge LOL BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. Fred [Original Message] From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when moving in a horizontal plane. Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less you weigh. Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. Harry Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, OK, I see where we differ. I'm using this value for radius of electron. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectronRadius.html For the proton, using that capacity of sphere formula, I get... ~.9 x 10^-25 Farads using the proton radius here. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html I guess talking about the radius of either of these two particles is a bit misleading, a sort of lumped analysis where a distributed one is in order. It is remarkable to me that the voltages there particles are at range from 1/2 to 2 million volts. Freds discussion about a (sort of) distributed model had too many hands for me to comment on *grin*. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Keith Nagel writes C = 3.135*10^-25 F and we seem to differ by a factor of two. BTW, this is pretty well known, are you claiming the idea??? I've not got a reference at hand, but I'm sure a little searching would turn up something... K. Thank you for you comment Keith. No, I am not claiming to have discovered the value of capacitance of a proton. r=1.4 x 10-15m. It is well known. It is sort of one of those uninteresting facts that no one cares about, except perhaps me. The field of physics is divided into two camps; Quantum and classical. The quantum regime is considered to be preeminent. The classical world falls out as large numbers of quantum events occur. I disagree with this. I believe that the quantum regime is a subset of the classical universe. I believe that there is a minimum of stray capacitance that can be experienced by a particle. This minimum of stray capacitance is a classical phenomena. It is a property of the universe. The quantum regime falls out a consequence of this classical property. I started with 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads and developed the quantum regime from this first principle. I got the same answers, however, I employed an underlying classical premise. I did not come directly to Planck's constant from this approach. I came to 1.09 megahertz-meters as a fundamental quantum constant. With a little math 1.09 meters/sec can be converted to Planck's constant. I hope you understand Keith http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn
On 11/24/06, Rhong Dhong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's good to hear. Any idea when there will be a
public demonstration?
Well, there's already been several. Here's one vid that is still on the web:
http://overunity.com/sprain/sprain_motor_eg_show.asf
And, his test data is on this site:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/
Those more competent than I have confirmed his measurements. Recently
we were able to run an Ecosmart (neat story there) generator to power
a load at a net COP of about 3.2 including the inefficiency ('bout
50%) of the PEM gen (thanks Jones!) But, this was with a modified
version of the motor compared to the data on the sites above.
A much larger version is under construction. Oddly, the manufacturer
of the custom magnet said shipment is delayed due to inavailability
of materials. Otherwise it was due next month. A representative
from M Int'l. has been dispatched to Magnequench to see what the story
is there.
Terry
[Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs
Vorts, While spying on my neighbors about a mile away, Tournament Players Club, aka Sugarloaf Country Club, I came across this image: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8z=17ll=34.010799,-84.115362spn=0.004562,0. 007231t=kom=1 http://tinyurl.com/wclkj Now, if that is a dirigible, where's the shadow? Does Google do this for fun? Or is it a UFO? Terry
Re: [Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs
You have to click on satellite to see the dirigible. Terry On 11/24/06, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vorts, While spying on my neighbors about a mile away, Tournament Players Club, aka Sugarloaf Country Club, I came across this image: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8z=17ll=34.010799,-84.115362spn=0.004562,0. 007231t=kom=1 http://tinyurl.com/wclkj Now, if that is a dirigible, where's the shadow? Does Google do this for fun? Or is it a UFO? Terry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
I make an explicit distinction between inertial mass and gravitational mass. Lets call them m' for inertial mass and m~ for gravitational mass. If a is an acceleration due to an inertial force, and g is the acceleration due to gravity, then weight = (m~)(g) inertial force = (m')(a) See my illustration for the conjectured dependence of m~ on speed. http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/dynamics/testing_weightNOV2006.pdf Now m' is not suppose to decrease with horizontal speed. If m~ decreases with horizontal speed then m' is different from m~. Harry Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:40:25 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] Is it possible you are confusing weight and mass? (You're certainly confusing me ;) Michel, This time I am being serious. If one begins with the postulate that that all weight is apparent weight then it is easier to understand how and why weight anomalies might arise. Gravity is the tendency of a body to accelerate. Weight is only a _measure_ of this tendency, and it is a relative measure at best. A true measure of gravity is 'g'. Weight is also used as a measure of inertia, so there is tendency to confuse inertia and weight. Mind you, in applied mechanics, one treats weight as if it were an inertial force. Einstein went further and turned the treatment into a principle of nature, and the theory of general relativity was born. Harry PS On a half serious note. The condition of of being over-weight is really the condition of possessing excess inertia.
[Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn
- Original Message -
From: Terry Blanton
Recently we were able to run an Ecosmart (neat story there)
generator to power a load at a net COP of about 3.2 including
the inefficiency ('bout 50%) of the PEM gen (thanks Jones!)
OK for the record, TB is being sarcastic - yes, that generator may
have turned out to be only 50% efficient at very low speed, but is
still has very high efficiency potential - at anything above a
snail's pace - not my fault!
Terry asked me to recommend a high efficiency generator, and I
sent him the idea and info on rewinding the Ecosmart, which he
did. As have others - it is an excellent low cost generator for
home windmills etc.
This motor is made by Fisher Paykel in OZ but available here for
a fair price. At even 1000 RPM they have told me the generator
should be 95% eff. - but hey - Terry wanted to run it a less than
100 RPM ! and without gearing it up !
Bad Idea. Many motors have very high drop-offs in eff. when run
out of spec and - worst of all - it would have been relatively
easy to gear this thing up with two bicycle sprocket-pairs and
chains - if it had been done from the git-go - which they never
did. Pity because this generator coulda/shoulda been enough to
allow self-power --- if--- that is, Sprain truly does have that
much COP margin to play with (despite Terry's formidable skills, I
am not convinced of that large margin from what I've seen on the
site he has referenced).
But then again, nobody slows/tells everything...
Jones
Re: [Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs
On 11/24/06, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well spotted Terry, if you zoom in on the dirigible you can see very clearly that the photo has been faked :) Either for fun, or maybe to hide what was visible at that place on the original photo? Interesting! The people who live here own houses in the $3M+ range. So, was Nicole Kidman skinny dipping in the back yard pool? :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn
On 11/24/06, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK for the record, TB is being sarcastic - yes, that generator may have turned out to be only 50% efficient at very low speed, but is still has very high efficiency potential - at anything above a snail's pace - not my fault! Not scarcism, please! No, you misunderstand, true appreciation since we had found nothing which was comparable. (The humor is in the name Ecosmart.) http://www.ecosmart.com Terry asked me to recommend a high efficiency generator, and I sent him the idea and info on rewinding the Ecosmart, which he did. As have others - it is an excellent low cost generator for home windmills etc. This motor is made by Fisher Paykel in OZ but available here for a fair price. At even 1000 RPM they have told me the generator should be 95% eff. - but hey - Terry wanted to run it a less than 100 RPM ! and without gearing it up ! Ackshully, NZ; but, that could be OZ, too. It is directly driven at 90 RPM; and, I truly believe that it is the best that we could have achieved without a custom built gen. Bad Idea. Many motors have very high drop-offs in eff. when run out of spec and - worst of all - it would have been relatively easy to gear this thing up with two bicycle sprocket-pairs and chains - if it had been done from the git-go - which they never did. Pity because this generator coulda/shoulda been enough to allow self-power --- if--- that is, Sprain truly does have that much COP margin to play with (despite Terry's formidable skills, I am not convinced of that large margin from what I've seen on the site he has referenced). Be patient, Jones. My only challenge at this point is the inductance of the 45# custom built EM. But with only 84 mH inductance and 12 ohm resistance, the rise time is only twice the earlier EM, 7 ms. But then again, nobody slows/tells everything... Sign the NDA and you will know all. But, it might conflict with your earlier committments. Terry
Re: [Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs
On 11/24/06, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will you resist the temptation to go and have a look Terry? Who knows, she may still be there ;-) Alas, it's a gated community. :-( Terry
Re: [Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs
Will you resist the temptation to go and have a look Terry? Who knows, she may still be there ;-) Michel - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs On 11/24/06, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well spotted Terry, if you zoom in on the dirigible you can see very clearly that the photo has been faked :) Either for fun, or maybe to hide what was visible at that place on the original photo? Interesting! The people who live here own houses in the $3M+ range. So, was Nicole Kidman skinny dipping in the back yard pool? :-) Terry
[Vo]: unsubscribe
unsubscribe - Please Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Frederick Sparber wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Here is an example of little speed bumps generating electricity. http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm Harry The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a pothole it cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. I suppose it is concave, but this version, called the Electro-Kinetic Road Ramp, is slightly convex. Diagram (1.4 MB) http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg Frequently Asked Questions http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not counting the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps Potholes. with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber contribution not included) it covers it all. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will endorse it too. :-) Fred Before you jump to conclusions about the value of such devices, please read the FAQ above. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:16:15 -0500: Hi, [snip] Here is an example of little speed bumps generating electricity. http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm This device falls in the not even wrong category. Essentially it is an extremely inefficient means of converting the energy in gasoline into electric power. Note that because it makes the surface rougher, the vehicle consumes more gas. The Electro-Kinetic Road Ramp is similar system. This FAQ page explains how they can be employed without causing the vehicle to consume more gasoline. FAQ http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm Diagram (1.4 MB) http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg Harry
