Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Challenge for Jed, and any other unsure.
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 infowars and prisonplanet.com was interviewed. I didn't notice any of the conspiracy thread mentioning the bombing of the Murrah building, but it's another fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. You're right Chris, if what people like Alex say is true you might as well kiss your liberties goodbye. I think that G-d confounds their plans, for the time being. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 2/20/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could this provide a possible explanation for why Iran may actually be interested in a civilian nuclear power generation capability? A 50 MW heavy water reactor?? Surely you jest. No jest, it was a serious question. I'm just too ignorant of the ins and outs of nuclear power to have realized it was apparently a dumb question, too. The BBC showed some footage of the nuclear facilities. What interested me the most, is the line that was producing heavy water. A heavy water reactor is a plutonium 239 generator, which is how the Canadians and Indians built their first bombs. Given the World's situation, I don't think that anyone is going to stop the Iranian either. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again) For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s) is by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the tube will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter will rise. Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the laws of physics argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the power exceeds a certain value. We could quote Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. Michel
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
No, because any net Lorentz force (due to the geomagnetic field?) would be not only very small, but at 90° from the thrust direction. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Army paper on lifters
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Army paper on lifters Ion is a Greek word isn't it? Ion means something that goes in Greek. Scientific term introduced by Faraday in his Experimental Researches in Electricity, seventh series (1834): http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14986 665. Finally, I require a term to express those bodies which can pass to the electrodes, or, as they are usually called, the poles. Substances are frequently spoken of as being electro-negative, or electro-positive, according as they go under the supposed influence of a direct attraction to the positive or negative pole. But these terms are much too significant for the use to which I should have to put them; for though the meanings are perhaps right, they are only hypothetical, and may be wrong; and then, through a very imperceptible, but still very dangerous, because continual, influence, they do great injury to science, by contracting and limiting the habitual views of those engaged in pursuing it. I propose to distinguish such bodies by calling those anions158 which go to the anode of the decomposing body; and those passing to the cathode, cations159; and when I have occasion to speak of these together, I shall call them ions. -- Michel
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Ok, now I understand the essentials of this explanation. Good. However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. Michel
[Vo]: brain operation
The author of this website was interviewed on C to C AM. He says that the human brain is full of magnetite crystals. These crystals are affected by seismic activity and might produce various exstactic states, one of which is the religious experience. the page which this link opens talks about men's willingness to die for religious causes. I was quite impressed with his theory that the interactions of the magnetite crystals produces solitons which are instrumental in consciousness. His denial of a creator god is rather novel, just because the individual components of a TV set are designed, doesn't mean that the entire assembleage is. If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, you can baffle them with bullsh-t. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/terrorism.htm --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]: Iron fertilization / whales synergy
Of course, only one or a few whales per herd would have to be equipped. Alternatively, one or a few sphepherd (whalherd?) iron dispensing ships leading large whale herds could be used. They could be unmanned for cost reduction, or on the contrary exploited for whale watching tourism in order to offset the costs. I may be wrong but it seems to me that the whale synergy could suppress most of the objections to iron fertilization listed in the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization (a model of contradictory objectivity BTW, with pro and anti arguments in orderly succession) Critics/comments/ideas? Come on Vos we've got a planet to save, let's give a chance to all proposals! Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: [Vo]: Iron dispensing whales scheme Mmm, maybe we shouldn't throw out the whales with the bath water ;-) It seems to me the iron dispensing whales scheme may have its own merits, whether or not the blubber is harvested, and whether or not it can be used to control remotely the whales itinerary. I believe it constitutes, in itself, an improvement over previously considered iron fertilization schemes for the following reasons: 1/ Lower cost (costs less than ships or planes) 2/ Probably more net CO2 removed per unit mass of iron, the CO2 being immediately converted to less volatile forms of carbon than the algae themselves: total whale biomass increase and fesces dropping to the ocean bottom 3/ The planet keeps the color we are used to, the blooms being immediately harvested 4/ It's whale-friendly Does this make sense? -- Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:53 PM Subject: [Vo]: RC'd CO2 harvesting whale herds (was: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize) Steven Krivit wrote: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain Mr. Branson. http://www.newenergytimes.com/SR/CashIn/CashonClimateChange.html So it seems iron fertilization does enhance algae growth after all, by creating more or less instantaneous blooms, and the (old) idea is not George's but Martin's like Jones said. I had no idea there was a lack of iron in the oceans, this probably means this element is the limiting factor for ocean surface algae photosynthesis. What is not clear at all if if this scheme is a net atmospheric carbon absorber in the long term, let's assume it isn't (algae re-emit GHGs when they die, so do the fish that eat them), so we still need to harvest and sequester. Ok let's pursue the whale herd idea of my earlier post for harvesting and sequestering, and let's throw in the iron fertilization factor since it works: 1/ Let's equip the whales with iron dispensers spurting iron solution around when there is sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. This way the algae will grow where and when they can be harvested :) And the whale herd will grow too. 2/ Instead of going whale hunting like in the good old days, couldn't we take advantage of the beasties' gluttony to remote control them to their oceanic pastures and back? All that would be needed would be an embarked GPS, a radio for two way communication with the whale boys in their control rooms on land, and ways to direct the iron solution spurts to where we want the whales to follow the blooms :) How does this whale oil scheme sound now ? Michel
Re: [Vo]: Challenge for Jed, and any other unsure.
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 infowars and prisonplanet.com was interviewed. I didn't notice any of the conspiracy thread mentioning the bombing of the Murrah building, but it's another fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. You're right Chris, if what people like Alex say is true you might as well kiss your liberties goodbye. I think that G-d confounds their plans, for the time being. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
The motion of the ions does not generate a magnetic field? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: No, because any net Lorentz force (due to the geomagnetic field?) would be not only very small, but at 90° from the thrust direction. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again)
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Tubular Lifter (again) For this to be plausible the tube could never be neutral. In fact, if the tube's charge were to fall below some minimum value the tube's weight will cause it to drop. Harry As long as power is supplied, it isn't neutral. Since the mass of the tube(s) is by definition less than that of the whole lifter, as power is applied, the tube will lift first, then with application of additional power, the whole lifter will rise. Yes, but how can you be certain (other than by a the laws of physics argument) that the tube is not contributing a novel lifting force when the power exceeds a certain value. We could quote Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. Michel Who is We? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
thomas malloy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 2/20/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could this provide a possible explanation for why Iran may actually be interested in a civilian nuclear power generation capability? A 50 MW heavy water reactor?? Surely you jest. No jest, it was a serious question. I'm just too ignorant of the ins and outs of nuclear power to have realized it was apparently a dumb question, too. The BBC showed some footage of the nuclear facilities. What interested me the most, is the line that was producing heavy water. A heavy water reactor is a plutonium 239 generator, which is how the Canadians and Indians built their first bombs. Given the World's situation, I don't think that anyone is going to stop the Iranian either. we built the bomb? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Harry Veeder wrote: reactor is a plutonium 239 generator, which is how the Canadians and Indians built their first bombs. Given the World's situation, I don't think that anyone is going to stop the Iranian either. we built the bomb? Sure. Why else do you think Bush has not invaded Canada? - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
On 2/23/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: reactor is a plutonium 239 generator, which is how the Canadians and Indians built their first bombs. Given the World's situation, I don't think that anyone is going to stop the Iranian either. we built the bomb? Sure. Why else do you think Bush has not invaded Canada? Heck yeah. Otherwise, we would be on Alberta like a chicken on a june bug. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands Terry
Re: [Vo]: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: reactor is a plutonium 239 generator, which is how the Canadians and Indians built their first bombs. Given the World's situation, I don't think that anyone is going to stop the Iranian either. we built the bomb? Sure. Why else do you think Bush has not invaded Canada? - Jed He doesn't like our weather. Harry
[Vo]: Hydrogen Outta Nowhere?
I realize that completely eliminating all contamination is difficult but if protons can be popped out of the vacuum by an arc discharge, then I think we need to take another look at the Steady State theory of the universe. This could be one of those little experiments with big implications. http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/02/a_history_of_dark_matter.html
Re: [Vo]: Re: Army paper on lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Army paper on lifters Ion is a Greek word isn't it? Ion means something that goes in Greek. Scientific term introduced by Faraday in his Experimental Researches in Electricity, seventh series (1834): http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14986 665. Finally, I require a term to express those bodies which can pass to the electrodes, or, as they are usually called, the poles. Substances are frequently spoken of as being electro-negative, or electro-positive, according as they go under the supposed influence of a direct attraction to the positive or negative pole. But these terms are much too significant for the use to which I should have to put them; for though the meanings are perhaps right, they are only hypothetical, and may be wrong; and then, through a very imperceptible, but still very dangerous, because continual, influence, they do great injury to science, by contracting and limiting the habitual views of those engaged in pursuing it. I propose to distinguish such bodies by calling those anions158 which go to the anode of the decomposing body; and those passing to the cathode, cations159; and when I have occasion to speak of these together, I shall call them ions. -- Michel Faraday demonstrates his own preference for the atomic hypothesis when he uses the term those bodies. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Harry Veeder wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: reactor is a plutonium 239 generator, which is how the Canadians and Indians built their first bombs. Given the World's situation, I don't think that anyone is going to stop the Iranian either. we built the bomb? Sure. Why else do you think Bush has not invaded Canada? - Jed He doesn't like our weather. Nah, that's not it. He's just not _allowed_ to. Bush has a DWI on his record, and can't become a Canadian resident as a result. Not now, not ever. We won't have him. Harry
[Vo]: Re: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Harry
The BBC showed some footage of the nuclear facilities. What interested
me the most, is the line that was producing heavy water. A heavy water
reactor is a plutonium 239 generator,
You are making an incorrect jump in logic here which leads to the direct
*opposite* conclusion.
All uranium fueled reactors -ALL- as in 100%, are plutonium generators,
and the heavy water makes zero difference in that regard. Heavy water is
actually indicative of a civilian program, unless or even if there is
concurrent thorium breeding.
You can trust the BBC on most things, more so than the US Networks -
unless the story involves so-called state secrets as this does. The
Beeeb are masters of disinformation in that regard. That is partly
because we tend to trust them more on other details. Do you think the
Blair regime is disinterested in public opinion here?
The reason that heavy water is used elsewhere is that - in intelligent
civilian programs it makes for the most efficient reactor, and cheapest
power output by far, even accounting for the high cost of D2O... IOW you
get from 10-20 times more kWhr per pound of mined Uranium (assuming a 5%
burn before refueling in either case).
Enrichment (and this is our dirty little secret) leaves so-called
depleted U which still contains 40% to nearly half of the original
fissile content. This is something the DoD has tried to hide for years.
... ergo - the advantage for civilian use is that D2O allows the burning
of natural U reactor fuel, which cannot be done in the GE design - which
must use enriched fuel (and wastes 200-400 pounds of mined U for every
pound burned, instead of about 20 pounds wasted for the 5% burn in
CANDU). Are you following me on that critical detail? - up to 400 pounds
of wasted U for every pound actually burned in a GE reactor!
Enriched fuel is extremely costly, wasteful of resources and inefficient
to burn and toxic tailings are ennormous - not only at the power plant
after refueling - but at the enrichment plant ... and it only makes
sense when you have a weapons program to share the overhead - and even
then, the US has shut down Hanford and most of Oak Ridge because we -
{and the Iranians} can buy reactor fuel from many sources. With OSHA
fully involved we might say that making it is impossible in the USA
anymore so we buy it from our former enemies.
The USA is the stupid party here, in that we decided against heavy water
early on- because of the weapons program and the greed of the General
Electric Company. They may be a bigger enemy to Joe-Public than Iran.
The effect of this was to put cheap nuclear energy out of reach of most
utilities (using standard accounting practices) and to enrich GE and
Westinghouse by hundreds of billions, since they controlled everything
early on. Gigantic tactical blunder for the average consumer. But great
for the Generals ... including the ones in 5-sided buildings.
As far as Iran goes, they could get Pu from any and all civilian
reactors, and all you need to look for - as the smoking gun - is a
reprocessing facility, but these can be hidden underground. Yes they
could get it cheaper using D2O but that is an accounting issue only.
...in fact the best weapons fuel is NOT Plutonium anyway - but is 233U
which is bred from thorium. For this you do benefit greatly by having
D2O but there is no evidence that they are breeding thorium.
BTW this is what the Indians have done - as they have lots of thorium
and hopefully they will be able to develop this civilian energy program
fully, instead of buring more coal and peat.
Jones
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Ok, now I understand the essentials of this explanation. Good. However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. Michel Is it really necessary to include the affectation 'merely'? It sounds like you are speaking on behalf of Laplace. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Jones Beene wrote: Harry You should be addressing Thomas. Harry The BBC showed some footage of the nuclear facilities. What interested me the most, is the line that was producing heavy water. A heavy water reactor is a plutonium 239 generator, You are making an incorrect jump in logic here which leads to the direct *opposite* conclusion. snip
[Vo]: Sergio Bacchi completes his translation of Cold Fusion and the Future
Sergio Bacchi has translated paper by Edmund Storms into Brazilian Portuguese. He worked for several months translating my book into Portuguese, and yesterday he finally finished. I uploaded the book in stages. It is now complete under a new file name: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJafusoafrio.pdf The old file has a notice directing the reader to the new one. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJumabrevede.pdf The index: Rothwell, J., A Fusão a Frio e o Futuro. 2006: LENR-CANR.org. The book Cold Fusion and the Future translated into Brazilian Portuguese by Sergio Bacchi. O livro A Fusão a Frio e o Futuro traduzido ao português brasileiro por Sergio Bacchi. Uma visão das aplicações possíveis da fusão a frio do hidrogênio pesado. Um livro com muita imaginação e humanidade. I finished translating the book into Japanese in December. It will be published in Japan by Kogakusha, soon, I hope. (http://www.kohgakusha.co.jp/). This company published two other books about cold fusion by Mizuno and one by Takahashi. I am waiting for them to make changes and corrections. When the book comes out I will upload a copy in Japanese to LENR-CANR.org -- with the publisher's permission. I think my original version is better than the one they are coming up with, so I will upload the original manuscript. Note that Mizuno's second book is uploaded to LENR-CANR.org with Kogakusha's permission. In Japanese only: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTjyouonkaku.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Of course it does, but nothing much, no more than a wire a few mm long carrying a few mA current. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters The motion of the ions does not generate a magnetic field? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: No, because any net Lorentz force (due to the geomagnetic field?) would be not only very small, but at 90° from the thrust direction. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Ok. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Of course it does, but nothing much, no more than a wire a few mm long carrying a few mA current. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters The motion of the ions does not generate a magnetic field? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: No, because any net Lorentz force (due to the geomagnetic field?) would be not only very small, but at 90° from the thrust direction. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: The lifter will simply rise if the force exceeds its weight, in which case its acceleration is (force - weight)/mass, as long as the aerodynamic drag remains negligible as is the case in all practical lifters. Would the lifter also have to overcome a lorenz force? Harry
[Vo]: Frolov update
In an email exchange Kiril Chukanov wrote: Such people are: Perendev (do you know somebody to see an working MEG or somebody who use these ghost generators?), Akoil (Russia), etc. Those people are charlatans (black-maiilers) and they damage the reputation of the Free Energy branch of New Energy Sources. I told Kiril that Tom Bearden's MEG was a frequent subject of discussion on Vortex-L. Then I logged on to the Russian science fiction author Alexander Frolov's website, www.faraday.ru and there was the Akoil Generator, for sale. Does anybody know what a ghost generator is? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
RE: [Vo]: Frolov update
Only a guess (maybe) but how about; Some See It and Some Don't ? -Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Frolov update In an email exchange Kiril Chukanov wrote: Such people are: Perendev (do you know somebody to see an working MEG or somebody who use these ghost generators?), Akoil (Russia), etc. Those people are charlatans (black-maiilers) and they damage the reputation of the Free Energy branch of New Energy Sources. I told Kiril that Tom Bearden's MEG was a frequent subject of discussion on Vortex-L. Then I logged on to the Russian science fiction author Alexander Frolov's website, www.faraday.ru and there was the Akoil Generator, for sale. Does anybody know what a ghost generator is? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date: 2/16/2007 2:25 PM -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date: 2/16/2007 2:25 PM
[Vo]: Fw: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 23, 2007
-Forwarded Message-from Akira Kawasaki From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Feb 23, 2007 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 23, 2007 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 23 Feb 07 Washington, DC 1. OF PANDERING AND PEOPLE: WHO WILL CAPTURE THE CREATIONISTS? Even as these words are being turned into electrons, Senator John McCain is in Seattle delivering the keynote luncheon speech to the Discovery Institute. Eighteen months ago, just as the Dover School Board trial involving intelligent design was about to start, McCain came out in favor of teaching all points of view, http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn090205.html . We have no idea what he is saying now, but it doesn't really matter; McCain is a master at the art of changing positions between breakfast and lunch. Apparently, however, he has decided, for the moment, to challenge Sam Brownback for the support of creationists. 2. POWER OF PRAYER: AUTHOR OF COLUMBIA STUDY COMMITS PLAGIARISM. More than five years ago WN called attention to a paper in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine in which researchers at Columbia claimed prayers doubled the success of in-vitro fertilization http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN01/wn100501.html . If total strangers on their knees halfway around the world could suspend the laws of nature, it would be the end of science. WN suggested we pray the study is wrong. Behold! Our prayers were answered: The lead author took his name off the paper and resigned as chair of gynecology; another author landed in prison on an unrelated fraud conviction. The editor of JRM still refused to retract the article. This week, the remaining author, a businessman who owns fertility clinics in Los Angeles and Seoul, was charged by the editor of Fertility and Sterility with plagiarizing the work of a student in Korea on a different paper. The avenging angel was Bruce Flamm, M.D., UC Irvine, who has hounded the authors, Columbia, and JRM relentlessly since the paper was published. 3. BLIND FAITH: THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF RELIGION AND MEDICINE Ironically, even as the fraudulent prayer study was going on in the Columbia medical school, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia, Richard Sloan, wrote an important book condemning those who pander to a superstitious public by claiming to show that religion is good for your health (St. Martin's Press, 2006). 4. MOONSHINE: IT GETS A BOOST FROM DR. W IN A WHITE LAB COAT. Newspapers today carried pictures of President Bush visiting a Novozymes laboratory in North Carolina, which is developing enzymes to make cellulosic ethanol. Squinting at a flask, the President exclaimed, So this is like a distillery! He seemed to acknowledge that ethanol from corn can never fill the need. 5. PASCAL'S WAGER: UK HIRED PSYCHICS TO FIND OSAMA BIN LADEN. The Daily Mail has obtained a 2002 Ministry of Defense report. Because of the high value of finding Bin Laden, MoD resorted to the use of novices when known psychics refused. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org What's New is moving to a different listserver and our subscription process has changed. To change your subscription status please visit this link: http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bobparks-whatsnewA=1
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Frolov update
Or maybe it generates ghosts? Michel - Original Message - From: Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:38 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Frolov update Only a guess (maybe) but how about; Some See It and Some Don't ? -Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Frolov update In an email exchange Kiril Chukanov wrote: Such people are: Perendev (do you know somebody to see an working MEG or somebody who use these ghost generators?), Akoil (Russia), etc. Those people are charlatans (black-maiilers) and they damage the reputation of the Free Energy branch of New Energy Sources. I told Kiril that Tom Bearden's MEG was a frequent subject of discussion on Vortex-L. Then I logged on to the Russian science fiction author Alexander Frolov's website, www.faraday.ru and there was the Akoil Generator, for sale. Does anybody know what a ghost generator is? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date: 2/16/2007 2:25 PM -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date: 2/16/2007 2:25 PM
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Did you watch the video and listen to the commentary closely? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
I understand your example and I can see how it applies to this lifter. Never mind me...I was just deluding myself. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Challenge for Jed, and any other unsure.
John Berry wrote: The thought that it is futile is what makes it so. On 2/23/07, *thomas malloy* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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? That depends on how you look at it. I see this whole mess beginning in the third chapter of Genesis. We are in bondage to sin, and cannot free ourselves. Sabbath Day Peace. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Harry Veeder wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Canadians and Indians built their first bombs. Given the World's situation, I don't think that anyone is going to stop the Iranian either. we built the bomb? Harry I think that Canada is a nuclear power, maybe not. They did however build the Candu reactor. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
thomas malloy wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Canadians and Indians built their first bombs. Given the World's situation, I don't think that anyone is going to stop the Iranian either. we built the bomb? Harry I think that Canada is a nuclear power, maybe not. They did however build the Candu reactor. As far as I know we are not. Yes we built the CANDU. I grew up along the Ottawa River, downstream from NPD, the first CANDU reactor, and up stream from two nuclear research reactors, NRU and NRX at Chalk River Laboratories. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Oil field crises in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Jones Beene wrote: Harry I Wrote: The BBC showed some footage of the nuclear facilities. What interested me the most, is the line that was producing heavy water. A heavy water reactor is a plutonium 239 generator, You are making an incorrect jump in logic here which leads to the direct *opposite* conclusion. All uranium fueled reactors -ALL- as in 100%, are plutonium generators, and the heavy water makes zero difference in that regard. Heavy water is actually indicative of a civilian program, unless or even if there is concurrent thorium breeding. I read that a light water reactor produces Pu 240 which is not fissile, it that incorrect? You can trust the BBC on most things, more so than the US Networks - unless the story involves so-called state secrets as this does. The Beeeb are masters of disinformation in that Their liberal bias is a regular subject on talk radio, but they are an organ of the British government, which clearly has it's own agenda. The reason that heavy water is used elsewhere is that - in intelligent civilian programs it makes for the most efficient reactor, and cheapest power output by far, even accounting for the high cost of D2O... IOW you get from 10-20 times more kWhr per pound of mined Uranium (assuming a 5% burn before refueling in either case). Thank you for pointing that out. Enrichment (and this is our dirty little secret) leaves so-called depleted U which still contains 40% to nearly half of the original fissile content. This is something the DoD has tried to hide for years. IMHO, it isn't necessary to put DU into projectiles either. Are you following me on that critical detail? - up to 400 pounds of wasted U for every pound actually burned in a GE reactor! The USA is the stupid party here, in that we decided against heavy water early on- because of the weapons program and the greed of the General Electric Company. They may be a I think that it's more greed than stupidity. As far as Iran goes, they could get Pu from any and all civilian reactors, and all you need to look for - as the smoking gun - is a reprocessing facility, but these can be hidden underground. Yes Or they could get assembled bombs from the Russians, it has been reported that this is the case. ...in fact the best weapons fuel is NOT Plutonium anyway - but is 233U which is bred from thorium. For this you do benefit Another interesting fact I haven't heard before. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]: Lifter electrode geometries
Michel, Reading your attachment, I noticed the derived formula for the force on the ions appears to be specific to a particular anode and cathode geometry. i.e. It says d = distance point-plane, which I take to mean the gap between a wire-like anode and the upper edge of skirt-like cathode. Since the geometry of the cathode is different in the tubular lifter wouldn't the derived formula be different too? Harry
Re: [Vo]: Lifters
Yes, a long time ago. Why? Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Did you watch the video and listen to the commentary closely? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: ??? Look, this tubular lifter has nothing special, it just has a loose skirt moving under internal forces. Think of the paddle wheel having a loose axle. The axle will jump forward, trying to leave the boat behind, when you engage the clutch in forward gear, and then will stay there as long as the boat pushes on its paddles. Very much the same, very prosaic. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters Michel Jullian wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: However, concerning the tubular lifter, I would argue that the elevated tube when the lifter is _accelerating upwards is evidence that the _internal forces_ don't add up to zero. The elevated tube is merely a deformation due to internal forces. I think it means the weight of the elevated tube has essentially disappeared (although the tube's inertia remains unchanged). In other words, the lifter's ascending weight is less than its stationary weight. Harry
