Right, this is Paul's paradox (he does make sense occasionally ;), so it seems
only the second and third way of looking at things (potential energy and work
of forces) are equivalent in all cases.
Maybe the paradox comes from electric and gravitational fields being static in
nature whereas
On 2/1/07, Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my last comment on this thread as I for sure live in a different
world than the rest of you.
Wanna bet? :-)
PV's Oh yes if you want a 35 year recover, unless you will settle for 10-20%
energy offset which can be wiped out in
On 2/1/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jed, you strike me as the perfect person to have a crack at this..
Jed addresses this in his book:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
Terry
If Nanosolar and EEstor, or any companies with similar products, succeed, this
planet might indeed become a cooler place to live. Speaking of global warming,
the latest IPCC report has just come out:
Feb. 2, 2007, 6:23AM
Global warming man-made, will continue
By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science
The link to the actual report (Summary for Policymakers in fact) in the article
is wrong, here is the correct one:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:21 PM
Michel Jullian wrote:
Right, this is Paul's paradox (he does make sense occasionally ;), so
it seems only the second and third way of looking at things
(potential energy and work of forces) are equivalent in all cases.
Maybe the paradox comes from electric and gravitational fields being
So it would be a property of dipoles in fact, interesting indeed, keep us tuned!
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question
Michel Jullian wrote:
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
Mega tax dollars being spent on superstring theory and the like is
perhaps the largest 21st century violation of separation of church and
state that exists. No one seems to know if the thing can be proven or
disproven at all, its a big argument. This is not science,
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul,
1/ If you think the potential vs potential energy remark was just
humor, you are showing great ignorance. Look up the definition of
voltage = electric potential:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential
Electric potential is the potential energy per
Michel Jullian wrote:
so it seems only the second and third way of looking at things
(potential energy and work of forces) are equivalent in all cases.
Bingo!
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul, Paul, Paul you missed my point again, never mind :)
To go back to your
Ref: The two patents of Wm. Barker
U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,880 Electrostatic Voltage Excitation Process and
Apparatus issued to William Barker in 1990 discloses an apparatus for
utilizing electrostatic charge, in long-term irradiation, to accelerate
the decay rate of some radioisotopes.
U.S.
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems
promising, which is why they are
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems
promising,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems
promising, which is why they are spending so much time and money
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul,
1/ If you think the potential vs potential energy remark was just
humor, you are showing great ignorance. Look up the definition of
voltage = electric potential:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential
Electric potential is
Harry Veeder wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems
promising, which is why they are spending so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed
Harry Veeder wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul,
1/ If you think the potential vs potential energy remark was just
humor, you are showing great ignorance. Look up the definition of
voltage = electric potential:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential
-Forwarded Message-from Akira Kawasaki
From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Feb 2, 2007 12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 2, 2007
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 2 Feb 07Washington, DC
1. THE LIMITS OF GROWTH: IT'S TIME
I'm trying to figure out how a couple of guys who are clearly
better educated, and probably a lot smarter than I, can have
gone so far wrong.
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frederick Sparber wrote:
Posted earlier:
This Field Line Applet is cheaper than buying more VDGs.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:54 PM
Subject: [Vo]: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics
...
Therefore, an object with a strong negative charge will charge
the earth locally positive by induction and your
I wrote:
There is a fundamental problem with this idea. While the earth
has a net negative charge of say, one megajoule, the tiny
fraction of a joule per square meter just won't supply the
repulsive force you need unless your Van de Graaff spacecraft
is very large and already elevated.
Michel Jullian wrote:
In spite of, or rather thanks to the ion fan out feature, this design has
beaten as I had expected all other lifter designs in terms of thrust per unit
area, by a comfortable margin (3 times that of a standard lifter e.g.
Naudin's, 1.5 times that of a flat grid De
Michael Foster wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how a couple of guys who are clearly
better educated, and probably a lot smarter than I, can have
gone so far wrong.
OK it's time to point out something trivial.
divergence(E) = 4 pi rho (in cgs units)
E is the real electric field (not the
Harry Veeder wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
In spite of, or rather thanks to the ion fan out feature, this design has
beaten as I had expected all other lifter designs in terms of thrust per unit
area, by a comfortable margin (3 times that of a standard lifter e.g.
Naudin's, 1.5 times that of
25 matches
Mail list logo
