http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2004Valone-USPTO-Hearing.pdf
240 pages (double-spaced)
At 11:29 pm 11/04/2006 -0700, Steven wrote:
http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2004Valone-USPTO-Hearing.pdf
240 pages (double-spaced)
I'm part way through reading this document and I felt
I just had to post my preliminary impressions 8-)
Not only is it fascinating informative -
but in
Hal Puthoff's relevant papers on the subject:
Apparently they haven't kept up on Electrogravity Experiments.
http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf
Polarizable Vacuum:
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PV_Found_of_Physics.pdf
Effects:
Here is the greeting message from the free_energy list on Yahoo:
Hello,
Welcome to the Free Energy email list.
To unsubscribe from this list or change to digest mode (recommended),
go to the control page from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy
Please don't flame people. This subject
Nah he must have meant another Vortex list ;)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Vortex Lunatics?
Here is the greeting message from the free_energy list on Yahoo:
Hello,
Welcome to the Free
Michel Jullian wrote.
Why/how Fred? (just curious on how one can measure any gravity effect at
all, upward or downward, on an electron)
A theory without an experiment to test it isn't worth much. Einstein won
his Nobel for
the photoelectric effect. Then after this Deification
they listened
Who says history doesn't run in cycles:
The 50+ year old Avrocar:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/mufonontario/avro/avrocar.html
BTW, these cycles of 50-60 years are well documented in
economics... and... for the real prophet, there is aways the
Yobel cycle
Jones
... some other ~50
Hi Michel,
Actually, Fred has some difficulties that make it hard for
him to do experiments ( much like the space shuttle, he
runs on LOX ). Back in the day, several of us did implement
some of Freds ideas, most notably Frank Stenger. Frank
did the TV experiment for Fred, although you might not
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
Perfect Keylogger is a new generation keylogger which is absolutely
undetectable.
Not for long:
http://www.spywareguide.com/product_show.php?id=588
but this one knocked my socks off (Bad Sony, Bad):
If you are bicycling fast enough you can cross a wooden plank spanning ditch
before the plank breaks.
Normally we say this is because it takes time for the plank to deform and
break when subjected to a weight.
However, consider for a moment an alternative and naive(?) explanation: it
because you
Keith wrote:
Hi Michel,
Actually, Fred has some difficulties that make it hard for
him to do experiments ( much like the space shuttle, he
runs on LOX ).
Yep, about 130 pounds/week as 4 liter/minute O2 gas at this 5,456 ft
altitude
since Nov 2,000 except on the rare days that a heavy
actually, its opposite. its been shown that as velocity increases, the objects mass increases as well.
On 4/12/06, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are bicycling fast enough you can cross a wooden plank spanning ditchbefore the plank breaks.
Normally we say this is because it takes
Title: Re: moving vs stationary weights
Those tests focus on inertial mass instead of gravitational mass.
Harry
leaking pen wrote:
actually, its opposite. its been shown that as velocity increases, the objects mass increases as well.
On 4/12/06, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If
actually, there have been tests done showing theres no difference between the two. a steel ball deflection test in which they measured the change in deflection from a large aircraft passing over at different speeds. sr71, i believe, at the same time as they did the atomic clock testing, showing
I believe you should check out Kozyrev ( sp?) on this subject. He
claimed that motion could change mass ( at non relativistic speeds).
Rex research might have one or more of his papers.
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1:26
Title: Re: moving vs stationary weights
This test is not like those tests.
Harry
leaking pen wrote:
actually, there have been tests done showing theres no difference between the two. a steel ball deflection test in which they measured the change in deflection from a large aircraft passing
http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt
POSSIBILITY OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PROPERTIES OF TIME
[Unpublished article by N. A. Kozyrev: English title as
above; Pulkovo, O VOZMOZHNOSTI EKSPERIMENTAL'NGO
ISSLEDOVANIYA SVOYSTV VREMENI, Russian, September 1967,
Ok I understand your allusion to thought experiments Fred (thanks Keith).
Your theories and the experiments you design to test them seem fun in any
case, and I quite understand people performing them for their own
enlightenment and to possibly participate in a major scientific
breakthrough,
Zell, Chris wrote:
I believe you should check out Kozyrev ( sp?) on this subject. He
claimed that motion could change mass ( at non relativistic speeds).
Rex research might have one or more of his papers.
Ok thanks for the suggestion.
Harry
Here are some photos from Edmund Storms showing Seebeck calorimeters:
http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#SeebeckCalorimeters
Note the third and fourth pictures that say Click for a larger
image. Click on these to see high-resolution versions, 2280 by 1712
pixels. (Right-click to save the
20 matches
Mail list logo
