Different from Fred's flying fluorescent:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/ufoplasmaengine.htm
It would be marvelous if it worked, eh? I've heard lots of people
claiming to have a machine that works on a Schauberger vortex, talk
talk, talk talk.
The author obviously gets most of his
thomas malloy wrote:
BTW, what's the final story on the funnel. was there one above the
area of gas emission or not?
No, there was not.
- Jed
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:49 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having
energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go
up, and ionization to occur with a
"Iconoclastic" -
Adj. Characterized by attack on the established belief structureor
the institutions which uphold it.
How cana nearby spiral galaxy contain a quasar whose light spectrum
indicates that it is billions of light years away?
It cannot if the normal, and almost universally held,
But Robin, that's exactly the point. Unless you reduce the potassium ions to
metal, at least temporarily, you will achieve no concentration of potassium
ions at the cathode any higher than that of the whole of the electrolyte.
Otherwise, as far as I can see, no manipulation of voltage,
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 04:29:47PM +1100, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
When H[n=1/3 (or more)] is formed from H, a total of 108.8 eV
is liberated. Of this, 54.4 eV goes to the catalyst, leaving
54.4 eV either in the form of UV, or as kinetic energy of the
hydrino.
I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang
theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation?
Harry
The Globe and Mail
Cosmic oddity casts doubt on theory of universe
By DAN FALK
UPDATED AT 2:50 PM EST Saturday, Jan 29, 2005
A new analysis of the echo of the Big Bang has left cosmologists
scratching their heads and could throw a monkey wrench into efforts to
understand how the
Peter, I have been receiving your messages. I have sent several to you in
the last week.
Mike
Harry,
are there any non-big bang theories which predict the
observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation?
Many. You mention the fringes of one theory, which is just
now emerging, in your second post. To the contrary of what
they state in that piece, there is adequate if not
convincing reason to
Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System shows it as a necessary consequence, as
well as
gamma ray bursts and cosmic rays:
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/index.htm
http://www.rstheory.com/
No big bang.
No black holes.
No gravity waves.
No magnetic monopoles.
Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, I think I've found answers to some of my questions, but
not others, and I've got some new ones, too.
Choosing a Mills paper at random -- Formation of a Hydrogen
Plasma from an Incandescently Heated Hydrogen-Catalyst Gas
Mixture with an Anomalous Afterglow
Harry Veeder wrote:
I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang
theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation?
Harry
Actually, the prediction of the the big bang theory was a 25K background, but
what's a 20-odd K discrepancy between
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:05:41 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Nuclear weapons produce so much radiation that all molecules near the
device are decomposed into atoms and ions, which occupy a much larger
volume. In addition, the energy density is huge.
[snip]
Precisely.
So
Michael Foster at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang
theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation?
Harry
Actually, the prediction of the the big bang theory was a 25K
Thanks for the link. I had not heard of Dewey Larson.
Harry
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System shows it as a necessary consequence, as
well as
gamma ray bursts and cosmic rays:
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/index.htm
This guy must be a blast at parties... if you can look past all the
blathering, there are some rather interesting/valuable links. Always nice
to see Schauberger's work represented
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/vsimplosion.htm
-john
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
In reply to Mark S Bilk's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:15:53 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
This still leaves the questions of:
1. How are deeper hydrino level transitions catalyzed, since
chemical catalysts can't absorb hundreds or thousands of ev,
and many-body collisions are too improbable?
The same
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:52:57 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
U.S. and European scientists analyzed the distribution of hot and cold
regions -- areas that are putting out greater or less amounts of energy than
the average -- of the cosmic microwave background radiation (the
In reply to Michael Foster's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:02:54 -0500:
Hi Michael,
[snip]
But Robin, that's exactly the point. Unless you reduce the potassium ions to
metal, at least temporarily, you will achieve no concentration of potassium
ions at the cathode any higher than that of the
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:59:07 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Iconoclastic -
Adj. Characterized by attack on the established belief structure or the
institutions which uphold it.
How can a nearby spiral galaxy contain a quasar whose light spectrum indicates
that it is
In reply to Grimer's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:15:50 +:
Hi,
[snip]
Some few observers (outside the mainstream) might consider this finding to
make a 'prima facie case' that red-shift is NOT an accurate measure of
distance, and that there is a very strong gravitational component to
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:44:27 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang
theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation?
Harry
IMO the 2.7 K is simply degraded starlight. After all, what
- Original Message -
From: Mark S Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Question Re Energy Released Per Hydrino Level Increment
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.. . . snip
If it's hydrinos catalyzing other hydrinos, does this
Do these other theories imply the size of the observable universe
is different as well?
Harry
Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harry,
are there any non-big bang theories which predict the
observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation?
Many. You mention the fringes of one theory,
25 matches
Mail list logo
