On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 8:32 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Neat.
Do you think water could be parted using similar techniques?
Sure. Just apply like polarities to the two beakers.
I tried this experiment long ago, but it didn't work. I'm pretty sure
that
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:
Nice stuff... But kind of circular...
Nah, it's more like martial arts technique. :)
See what needs doing, see from all angles simultaneously, then go knock
heads together as needed.
I've gone through the stages of: 1. being an
asshole who attacks
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This version of history will never be corrected unless we win the debate.
There's also the Tesla timeline: keep your integrity, lose the fight,
yet become an underground hero many decades after death. If Tesla had
been a real asshole, I doubt he'd have
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Jed Rothwell wrote:
By the same token, since we cannot read minds, we cannot rule out the
possibility that some skeptics are malevolent jerks.
Ah, but then other rules come into play: argue with an idiot and they'll
drag you down to their level, then beat you through
William Beaty wrote:
By the same token, since we cannot read minds, we cannot rule out the
possibility that some skeptics are malevolent jerks.
Ah, but then other rules come into play: argue with an idiot and they'll
drag you down to their level, then beat you through experience.
I agree,
I like your approach. (Incidentally I've been a martial arts person for
countless years.)
But I must say that the chances of cleaning out the psychogical crap are
essentially nil. But we can begin to see who or what has this psychological
crap not that there's anything wrong with having
Philip wrote..
In fact we all do it; when we meet someone, we know almost immediately who or
what we're dealing with, although we more often than not deny what we're
seeing or hide from it.
Human stuff.
Howdy Philip and Bill,
Been an interesting and revealing thread. Remember I was born
Um... The scientific/rational side of me says What?
The non-rational (intuitive) side of me says, What.?
Two different whats. So there's your answer.
P.
- Original Message
From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:13:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJvFd3pYBnM
Cool video ;-)
Do you happen to know -- did the earlier videos in the series say,
perhaps -- what frequency this is operating at? He says the signal
generator is putting out 2 v p-p, less than a mA; he also says it's
going through a 10 K resistor which kind of suggests it's putting out a
--- Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Cool video ;-)
Do you happen to know -- did the earlier videos in
the series say, perhaps -- what frequency this is
operating at?
The key frequency is 3.58 MHz and the 4th harmonic
He says the signal generator is putting out 2 v p-p,
less than a mA; he
BTW - Barium ferrite has a long history in the lore of
overunity as being able to ring for extended
periods...
... it is used for RF antennas for this reason, and
thus far, this device does not appear to have been
shielded from RF, but Dr. Stiffler is a careful
experimenter and there is little
I've heard of cold electricity before, that there has been tantalizing
evidence of this phenomenon witnessed over the years from various
experimental labs. However, my knowledge of what cold electricity
implies is a bit foggy. Can someone give a quick description?
Does it imply a kind of reverse
Jones Beene wrote:
Not much, but this would appear to be OU at first
blush, and perhaps robustly so, but more info is
needed, and no doubt the key issue is will it scale
up?
The issue is, is it obeying Kirchoff's laws, and if not, why not?
Whether it scales is secondary. He's claiming
14 matches
Mail list logo
