Thanks for the helpful comment :) What I meant is that experimenting with
macroscopic bouncing balls in boxes should accurately model the way we _think_
the nanoscale device would work, so that if it doesn't work it is most likely
that the nanoscale device won't work either.
The boxes could be
On 3/6/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However the main thing which may be new - or if not new, not well covered elsewhere --may
be their model of the reaction based upon electron capture, and if anyone is
up-to-speed on the details of this model, I hope that they will post their
From: John Berry
...
And yet you [Mr. Lawrence] basically consider that anyone who believe
in it or questions SR/GR to be a crank. I consider anyone willing to
cast aside the best most logical and evidence supported theory (which
has no evidence against it unlike SR) without even giving it
SUBJECT: Judge OrionWorks: Public apology to Mr. Berry
The honorable judge OrionWorks has just called an emergency session.
I must make a public apology to Mr. John Berry for accidentally confusing his
name with that of Mr. David Thompson.
Please replace Mr. Berry with Mr. Thompson with my
Hi Harry,
Is y = xa^2 not an equation?
Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2.
Of course, it is an equation. All the variables are truly variables and
have the same dimension of one. Do you really think that E=mc^2 is the
equation of a straight line with slope c^2? Are
John Berry wrote:
The heart of the matter is this.
Even is SR GR weren't flawed, even if there were no experiments which
showed it to be incorrect (there are quite a few) it is still a fact
that aether theory had no reason to be dropped as there is no evidence
against a fluid aether (a
Hi Stephen,
I don't know what your religion is. All I know is that when the discussion
veers away from the math and data, it bases upon our faith in our own
personal opinion. Such a discussion is indistinguishable from a religious
discussion. If we stay with the science then we should have no
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I don't know what your religion is. All I know is that when the discussion
veers away from the math and data, it bases upon our faith in our own
personal opinion. Such a discussion is indistinguishable from a religious
discussion. If we stay with the
Hi Stephen,
I've heard people claim he did but I have never
seen an article or quote in which Einstein actually
asserted that there must be an aether.
http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
http://www.aetherometry.com/einstein_aether_and_relativity.html
According to
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Couple quick comments/questions...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
This email will describe the simplest (as far as I know) method of
capturing and storing ambient temperature energy. Hopefully those
wanting to reply could first read the entire email
Jones Beene wrote:
Just found this on a Google News Alert for: Cold Fusion:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/?p=36faf43185bd4180b2391cb40c4031e7pi=1
This paper must be the same one, or an update of the same RD
reported by Steve Krivit in New
Energy Times recently. The long
Understood. Now, would you like to take a stab at explaining the
electron capture model ?
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Just found this on a Google News Alert for: Cold Fusion:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/?p=36faf43185bd4180b2391cb40c4031e7pi=1
This
As I said, I had written up a reply to some things you said earlier.
So, with extensive revisions, here it is.
First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the
interchangeability of mass and energy. I have been told (by someone
sort of reliable, IIRC) that there had been at
Hi Steven,
First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the
interchangeability of mass and energy.
Are you going to give me a history lesson, or are we going to discuss the
physics? Einstein clearly supported the mass/energy equivalence principle
and is widely credited
http://www.dailybeat.net/media/706/The-water-fueled-car.html
yet another example of shoddy reporting.
--
That which yields isn't always weak.
David Thomson wrote:
[irrelevant calculations of fission and fusion snipped]
The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also
ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion both
release energy.
They do not, if you're talking about the same nuclei being
To avoid the voltage drop associated with a diode, which is huge compared to
the noise signal, one could use smart auto-controled switches (fets) instead,
which would only connect the noise source to the capacitor when the source is
at a higher potential than the capacitor. This kind of
Michel Jullian wrote:
---
To avoid the voltage drop associated with a diode, which is huge compared to
the noise signal, one could use smart auto-controled switches (fets) instead,
which would only connect the noise source to the capacitor when the source is at
a higher potential than the
This might sound like I'm simply parroting Mr. Lawrence's concerns but it is
not. I sent my own message earlier but it got lost in the void. I felt strong
enough to send my query again, and hopefully this time it will get through.
From Mr. Thompson
[irrelevant calculations of fission and
Michel,
BTW your challenge/riddle beats me, can the thing be made OU after all?
If you mean in a circular way - are there specific demonstrable
physical violations of the LoT, aside from LENR; and is any example
amenable to being harnessed in a device which incorporates a heat pump?
If
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
As I said, I had written up a reply to some things you said earlier.
So, with extensive revisions, here it is.
First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the
interchangeability of mass and energy. I have been told (by someone
sort of
On 3/8/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how about you try working through the mathematics of the
contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the
results here?
I mean, work them through using the Lorentz transforms. I'll be happy
to argue them with you, if
In Max Born's book _Einstein's Theory of Relativity_ there is a
derivation of E = mc^2 without any special relativity concepts.
see p. 283-286 of the 1962 edition.
Harry
BTW, this book also provides an excellent introduction to the science
of motion known as mechanics. Great reading
Hi Steven,
The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also
ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion both
release energy.
It is irrelevant since you are not computing the fusion for making the
uranium and comparing it to the fission for turning it into
Hi,
I was asking Dr. Quantum about intrinsic electron spin, +1/2 and -1/2, in
relation to the electrons magnetic dipole moment. Dr. Quantum said
hypothetically that if all the spins suddenly reversed in a magnet then the net
magnetic field would also reverse. Great, so then I ask Dr. Quantum
There has been lively debate in regards to whether E=mc^2 is an accurate
mathematical equation to describe whether energy is actually being converted
back and forth between mass and energy. No doubt many are likely to consider
it outrageous to challenge considering who came up with the equation in
All I know is that a few years ago I stood beside a Brown's Gas
Generator and watched in awe as a colourless flame MELTED a
firebrick in just a few seconds.
Not sure about its applicability in an internal combustion engine,
but it may be applicable in a new form of external combustion engine.
hmmm, I think I recall hearing they indeed they will melt such impossible
things, but won't burn your hand, and indeed that's the claim.
Doesn't seem that heat is the right word.
Here is what a quick search turned up from Decker in '99:
Hi Folks!
If you are interested in Browns gas generators,
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:48:47 +0100
Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To avoid the voltage drop associated with a diode, which
is huge compared to the noise signal, one could use smart
auto-controled switches (fets) instead, which would only
connect the noise source to the capacitor when
29 matches
Mail list logo
