I read it the opposite, in addition to what I wrote in the other message.
Didn't you notice how they made his work sound so promising?
They did not have to do that.
At 12:22 PM 6/20/2006, you wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
This doesn't exactly sound good for Taleyarkhan.
When the
This doesn't exactly sound good for Taleyarkhan.
When the executive summary of the report is that the researcher in
question behaved in an exemplary fashion and no further questions about
the quality of the research remain people do not say they will conduct
any further action as an
Howdy Harry and Colin,
Here is a link to the smoke gun blaster fun. Watch carefully as one smoke
ring intercepts another, Some of the rings destruct ,some bounce and some
encircle and enhance by encircling the first torus ring and accelerate.
At 08:38 pm 20/06/2006 -0400, Terry wrote:
Gnorts, Vorts!
...
See:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/
for the public data.
...
Any takers?
Terry
Michel has written,
My conclusion from 1/ and 2/ is that the
Sprain
-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian
(should be _Harry_ Paul Sprain according to the US 6954019 patent
document, not
Henry, I have corrected the subject line and added overunity disputed
to make
the thread look more appealing to our fellow Vorts)
TB: Ackshully Hairy would be
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
Could the reverse happen? Could seismic activity alter the weather?
I say this because last year I noticed a curious coincidence. We had a
small
quake ( hardly noticeable) in our area at around 8pm or 9pm. The next
day we
got good weather instead
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
New look for Newton's bucket 12 May 2006
What remarkable synchronicity as I am presently reading
The fabric of the cosmos: space, time, and the texture of reality
by Greene, Brian R.,
which offers an incredible discussion on Newton, Mach and
-Original Message-
From: Steven Krivit
The issues were largely personal, not scientific.
As Mr. Beene has pointed out here and elsewhere, the claims by the
opposition were preposterous.
Terry
Terry wrote:
As Mr. Beene has pointed out here and elsewhere, the claims by the
opposition were preposterous.
That is why I find the outcome troubling. A proper enquiry would have
dismissed the charges and published a definitive statement clearing
Taleyarkhan of all charges. That is what
(changed hairy to possibly even more appropriate airy)
What you do not understand is that we repealed Ohm's law here in
Georgia in 1966.
Ah, that's why reactive currents don't heat up the wires there :) (sorry I
couldn't resist ;-)
More seriously, as you know from our private discussion I
Blank
- Original Message -
From: RC Macaulay
Here is a link to the smoke gun blaster fun. Watch carefully as
one smoke ring intercepts another, Some of the rings destruct ,
some bounce and some encircle and enhance by encircling the first
torus ring and accelerate.
As Mr. Beene has pointed out here and elsewhere, the claims by
the
opposition were preposterous.
Terry
Let me clarify that the only preposterous claim was the one made
by Putterman's graduate assistant - where he stated that the
spectrum 'looked like 251-Californium's or something to
-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian
I would appreciate if other electronics-literate Vorts, preferably less
involved
personally with the inventor, could examine and comment/criticize my
objections.
I would love to be proven wrong, really.
No one else here is involved with the
Terry, Michael, Vo,
Here are some edited comments from a member of the MPI engineering team that
might be of interest. Comments that would reveal proprietary information
have been omitted.
The PDF details a properly done analysis of True Power input, and actual
torque output. Sprain does
Mark Goldes wrote:
Comments that would reveal proprietary information have been omitted.
The PDF details a properly done analysis of True Power input, and
actual torque output. Sprain does not seem to capture BEMF, but
still this carefully, and independently measured performance is a
mere
-Original Message-
From: Mark Goldes
Terry, Michael, Vo,
Here are some edited comments from a member of the MPI engineering team
that might be of interest. Comments that would reveal proprietary
information have been omitted.
The PDF details a properly done analysis of True
If you have the time and a broadband connection ... [and perhaps
you should make time, if you are interested in the full range of
alternative-energy options], then courtesy of Google video (beta
software) and Sterling Allan, there is a new crop of videos mostly
from Oz, purporting to show
-Original Message-
From: Grimer
Let's hope he's wrong - but if he isn't then I think
the Finsrud machine is the best bet for proving a
point of principle. The solution is more elegant than
the Sprain in the cunning way it achieves the different
advance and retreat speed in relation to
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
Otherwise, there can be little in the way of self-deception in such
circumstances - as the engine, fueled with treated water, is running
for extended periods - consequently either we have pure, senseless
fraud -or else this is the makings of the
Terry wrote:
What amazes me, Grimer, is that I can't seem to get anyone to even
go see it. A few people will discuss it; but, I have yet to
convince anyone to go with me and help verify the measurements.
I would love to go see it, but I am not qualified to verify the
measurements. I
I wrote:
Actually, the results from Galileo's telescope were ambiguous and
required expert observation, training and patience.
It may seem a little odd to talk about expert training for a brand
new instrument type, such as the telescope. What I mean is you had to
be an expert astronomer. A
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suppose I built one but did not want to use my Scion for
experimentation, how could I test the water so to speak?
Terry
I am planning on trying to prove/disprove that part of the
equation (pretreatment) soon. A simple but meaningful
Terry wrote:
What amazes me, Grimer, is that I can't seem to get anyone to even go
see it. A few people will discuss it; but, I have yet to convince
anyone to go with me and help verify the measurements.
Terry,
Several months ago, I watched a car crash of discussion threads evolve on
the
Let me extend this comparison a little more. I wrote:
It is a shame [Tycho Brahe] he never got a chance to use a
telescope. If he had, he would have known instantly what he was
seeing despite the problems with the early instruments.
Furthermore, if Tycho had seen Galileo's initial setup, he
Jed Rothwell wrote:
By the way, Galileo's proof that all bodies fall in the gravitational
field with the same acceleration was not experimental. He never
dropped anything off the Tower of Pisa. It was a pure thought
experiment, like Einstein's early work in special relativity. He
asked a
Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
Actually, the results from Galileo's telescope were ambiguous and
required expert observation, training and patience.
It may seem a little odd to talk about expert training for a brand
new instrument type, such as the telescope. What I mean is you had to
be
Jones wrote..
...of course, one wonders if Richard isn't thinking about trying to do
something similar in liquid, intead of a gas perhaps by rapdily moving
his vortex stirrer up and down in the orthogonal vector. Methings the tank
could not take that kind of stress however. Howdy
Patrick Vessey wrote:
Terry wrote:
What amazes me, Grimer, is that I can't seem to get anyone to even
go see it. A few people will discuss it; but, I have yet to
convince anyone to go with me and help verify the measurements.
Terry,
Several months ago, I watched a car crash of
At 01:33 pm 21/06/2006 -0400, Terry wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Grimer
Let's hope he's wrong - but if he isn't then I think
the Finsrud machine is the best bet for proving a
point of principle. The solution is more elegant than
the Sprain in the cunning way it achieves the different
Harry Veeder wrote:
Also PF were hoping to see something that could be called cold
fusion before they built a cell.
Yes, they were. Fleischmann have been thinking about it on and off
for decades. I do not think he was expecting to see quite what he found.
It is likely Galileo was hoping
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Vessey
Now, things may have changed since then. However, at that time, he was
confident in it (effectively) self running. If that still stands, it
would
make verifing his claims somewhat simpler...
Indeed it would!
The problem has been
-Original Message-
From: Grimer
I doesn't amaze me. I've had 40 years of it -
so I'm quite used to the fact that people
avoid cognitive dissonance like the plague.
But it only hurts for a short time then you feel better than you did
before. :-)
Terry
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Michel Jullian
I would appreciate if other electronics-literate Vorts,
preferably less involved personally with the inventor, could
examine and comment/criticize my objections. I would love to be
proven wrong, really.
I hope
Terry wrote:
Now, things may have changed since then. However, at that time, he was
confident in it (effectively) self running. If that still stands, it would
make verifing his claims somewhat simpler...
Indeed it would!
The problem has been finding a low speed efficient generator.
In the
If it does self-run, you'll see it on CNN! Do you get CNN in the UK?
If we stay up late enough, we're treated on (terrestrial) TV to something
like 'ABC World News'. However, the 'world' bit means the same as in 'World
Series', as opposed to 'World Cup' :-(
--
No virus found in this outgoing
-Original Message-
From: RC Macaulay
Terry mentioned focus the two magetrons.
No, not exactly focus; but, create interference patterns between the
two sources. Unfortunately this doesn't work unless the two sources
are in sync. :-(
Terry
At 04:44 pm 21/06/2006 -0400, you wrote:
Terry wrote:
Now, things may have changed since then. However, at that time, he was
confident in it (effectively) self running. If that still stands, it would
make verifing his claims somewhat simpler...
Indeed it would!
The problem has been finding a
Patrick Vessey wrote:
Stephen wrote:
This is a very strange statement.
Why would it self-run for 3 hours? Why would it not run until the
bearings wore out? Why would an observer who was not satisfied in 3
hours have to remain unsatisfied (which is the implication here)?
I'm sorry, I know
Terry mentioned " focus" the two
magetrons.No, not
exactly focus; but, create interference patterns between the two
sources. Unfortunately this doesn't work unless the two sources are in
sync. :-(Terry
Howdy Terry,
Magnetrons.. oops my spelling... Give us a suggestion on how you
imagine
Michel Jullian wrote:
(should be _Harry_ Paul Sprain according to the US 6954019 folders you gave us
a link to:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/
I visited this website, I was hoping for a diagram of the proposed
motor, but I failed to notice one. Having seen many proposals for
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm
Randy
41 matches
Mail list logo
