Valone USPTO Hearing Transcript
http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2004Valone-USPTO-Hearing.pdf 240 pages (double-spaced)
Re: Valone USPTO Hearing Transcript
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 places it is absolutely hilarious as well. For example, = THE ARBITRATOR: Commissioner Godici, what was his area of specialization as a patent examiner? MR. WAY: He said he changed -- THE ARBITRATOR: I know. I know. But what -- MR. ROBERTSON: Fish hooks and mousetraps. == When I got to that bit I nearly fell off my chair, laughing. 8-) I better get back to the rest of the transcript. Frank
Re: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons
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: http://www.earthtech.org/publications/2005%20-%20Levi-Civita%20Effect%20in%20PV.pdf " LeviCivita effect" " Soon after Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, the Italian mathematical physicist Tullio LeviCivita considered the possibility of the creation of an artificial gravitational field via generation of a static uniform magnetic or electric 1 In [1] it is shown that the modified velocity of light derives from underlying changes in vacuum permittivity and permeability å0 . å = Kå0, µ0 . µ = Kµ0, hence c(= 1/vµ0å0) . c/K(= 1/vµå). LeviCivita effect in the polarizable vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity 485 field (see Appendix B for a detailed description) [11, 12]. In the context of the modern investigation of the theory of traversable wormholes [13] it was originally thought by one of us (Maccone) that the LeviCivita spacetime metric would be considered a magnetic or electric field induced wormhole, and examined its implications for interstellar travel and communication [14, 15]. However, it was later proved [16, 17], that the LeviCivita spacetime metric actually describes a spatial hypercylinder with a position dependent gravitational potential, and possessing none of the required characteristics of a traversable wormhole (see Appendix B). The geometry is nonetheless interesting from the standpoint that it describes a unique cylindrically shaped "trapped" space."
Vortex Lunatics?
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 is very controversial and the list is comprised of both believers and skeptics. Feel free to post updates of stuff going on, but also consider responding to just the poster of a message if the rest of the subscribers wouldn't be interested. As of 7/7/02 the list has over 500 subscribers (mostly lurkers) There is a very active free energy list called vortex for people who don't mind 50 messages a day (many from lunatics). If you want to post something (doesn't matter if you lean towards belief or skepticism), go ahead to (but please limit no more than 4 a week): [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may be interested to see some recent posts from : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/archives Eric maintains a skeptical list of the history of free energy claimants at: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html Thanks, The List Owner ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Vortex Lunatics?
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 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 is very controversial and the list is comprised of both believers and skeptics. Feel free to post updates of stuff going on, but also consider responding to just the poster of a message if the rest of the subscribers wouldn't be interested. As of 7/7/02 the list has over 500 subscribers (mostly lurkers) There is a very active free energy list called vortex for people who don't mind 50 messages a day (many from lunatics). If you want to post something (doesn't matter if you lean towards belief or skepticism), go ahead to (but please limit no more than 4 a week): [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may be interested to see some recent posts from : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/archives Eric maintains a skeptical list of the history of free energy claimants at: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html Thanks, The List Owner ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons
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 to his theories and ran some experiments. :-) The evacuated hollow field-free vertical drift tube should allow the electrons to fall upward at 9.8 meters/sec^2. I think they can be timed and their charge collected at the top. Designing experiments to test theories is not easy, you seem to be good at this. Strictly Thought Experiments, Michel :-) Fred Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons A 2 meter tall evacuated vertical tube sitting atop or connected to the sphere of a small Van De Graaff, might allow measurement of an upward gravity force on electrons if they can be detected without error, perhaps?
Re: Naudin's Coanda Effect UFO
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 years old omens (besides the AvroCar): ...is 2006-7 the time for the long-awaited AI to appear as really intelligent, in a Gibsonesque way: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06002/631149.stm 1955 First McDonalds restaurant opens in Des Plains, Illinois - how can you ever top that? ...er... even with special sauce? 1955 Argentine Military Ousts Peron ... and all we have is Madonna 1955 Lockheed presents the CIA with the U-2 - and in 2006 the CIA has secretly managed to get a carnivore-helper designed into every new computer ... Here is the civilian version which got some folks in Northern Virgina very steamed up when it came out: Perfect Keylogger is a new generation keylogger which is absolutely undetectable. It was created as an alternative to very expensive commercial products like iSpyNow, Spector Keylogger or E-Blaster. It has the same functionality, but is significantly easier to use. Complex internal mechanisms are hidden from the user behind the friendly interface. You can install Keylogger and immediately use it without changing of its settings. Perfect Keylogger is an extremely compact, award-winning tool. It is translated into 20 languages and is increasingly popular around the world! It lets you record all keystrokes, the time they were made and the application where they were entered. It works in the absolutely stealth mode. Stealth mode means that no button or icon is present in the Task Bar, and no process title is visible in the Task Manager list. Also, Perfect Keylogger can carry out visual surveillance. It periodically makes screenshots in invisible mode and stores the compressed images on the disk so you can review them later. Our keylogger has unique remote installation feature. You can attach keylogger to any other program and send it by e-mail to install on the remote PC in the stealth mode. Then it will send keystrokes, screenshots and websites visited to you by e-mail or FTP. You don't have to worry about the firewall alerts - now our keylogger can be invisible for the firewall program. Our keylogger supports remote installation, update and removal - no physical access required!
RE: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons
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 have gathered that from the posting. All that despite Fred not having received a Nobel prize, which shows I suppose that we must have been guilty as charged by [EMAIL PROTECTED], or perhaps we don't need to believe in something to try it... Speaking of Frank Stenger, he did a few experiments based on Fred's hypocharge speculations, including some stuff with pulsing transmission lines as Fred was talking about earlier. How about posting some of Franks experimental results??? K. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons Fred Sparber 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 to his theories and ran some experiments. :-) His theories of relativity you mean. Yes, indeed. The evacuated hollow field-free vertical drift tube should allow the electrons to fall upward at 9.8 meters/sec^2. I think they can be timed and their charge collected at the top. How? Designing experiments to test theories is not easy, you seem to be good at this. Strictly Thought Experiments, Michel :-) You are too modest Fred, when I subscribed here you were running experiments on electroniums with TV CRTs weren't you? Designing a real experiment requires thought experiments anyway. Michel Fred Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons A 2 meter tall evacuated vertical tube sitting atop or connected to the sphere of a small Van De Graaff, might allow measurement of an upward gravity force on electrons if they can be detected without error, perhaps?
Re: Naudin's Coanda Effect UFO
-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): http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights .html http://tinyurl.com/auyjl Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
moving vs stationary weights
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 weigh less when you are moving than when you are stationary. The idea is your motion reduces your gravitational mass ( independently of your inertial mass) while gravitational acceleration remains unchanged. While this theory is probably wrong, it would be easy to test in practice. See my 40k pdf file for an illustration of the theory. http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/dynamics/testing_weight.pdf Another test would be to take a bathroom scale on a plane or a train and weigh oneself. Has anyone done this by chance? Harry
RE: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons
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 rainfall scrubs out the water-soluble air pollutants, until it dries out and they re-evaporate. Too many smokes for too long and breathing the lead and solder flux from a lot of cable-connector fabrication in the late 50s Cold War era. Non-emphysema COPD. 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 have gathered that from the posting. Frank got a free 12 volt portable TV and a lot of hands -on TV technology experience out of the deal. But the seeds of the Electronium (*e-) possible existence have been planted with the folks looking at the Positronium Negative Ion and the strange three-photon emission of positron-electron annihilation along with Sandia's anomalous 170 KeV (2 million.degree) Z-pinch gammas. All that despite Fred not having received a Nobel prize, which shows I suppose that we must have been guilty as charged by [EMAIL PROTECTED], or perhaps we don't need to believe in something to try it... Beats believing in a theory and not doing anything about it. Speaking of Frank Stenger, he did a few experiments based on Fred's hypocharge speculations, Wrong Keith. That experiment conducted by Frank for sweat equity in a few $K in the fall of 2001 was a pulsed current loop experiment which predated the Hypocharge theory by 4 years. Which is along the lines of High E Field/Charge-Density using Vacuum Spherical or Cylindrical Capacitors which by a happy coincidence falls in line with Hal Puthoff's Polarizable Vacuum (PV) Theory. How about posting some of Franks experimental results??? Frank did a video in late 2001, that got wiped out by my inquisitive grandson who never could figure out how Frank ate so fast, when Frank would announce on the tape that he was breaking for lunch, and two seconds later would say I'm back Fred. . Fred K.
Re: moving vs stationary weights
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 time for the plank to deform andbreak when subjected to a weight.However, consider for a moment an alternative and naive(?) explanation: itbecause you weigh less when you are moving than when you are stationary. The idea is your motion reduces your gravitational mass ( independently of yourinertial mass) while gravitational acceleration remains unchanged.While this theory is probably wrong, it would be easy to test in practice. See my 40k pdf file for an illustration of the theory.http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/dynamics/testing_weight.pdfAnother test would be to take a bathroom scale on a plane or a train and weigh oneself. Has anyone done this by chance?Harry-- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to writeVoltaire
Re: moving vs stationary weights
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 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 weigh less when you are moving than when you are stationary. The idea is your motion reduces your gravitational mass ( independently of your inertial mass) while gravitational acceleration remains unchanged. While this theory is probably wrong, it would be easy to test in practice. See my 40k pdf file for an illustration of the theory. http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/dynamics/testing_weight.pdf Another test would be to take a bathroom scale on a plane or a train and weigh oneself. Has anyone done this by chance? Harry
Re: moving vs stationary weights
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 the change in time at higher speeds. On 4/12/06, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 you are bicycling fast enough you can cross a wooden plank spanning ditchbefore the plank breaks.Normally we say this is because it takes time for the plank to deform andbreak when subjected to a weight. However, consider for a moment an alternative and naive(?) explanation: itbecause you weigh less when you are moving than when you are stationary. The idea is your motion reduces your gravitational mass ( independently of your inertial mass) while gravitational acceleration remains unchanged.While this theory is probably wrong, it would be easy to test in practice. See my 40k pdf file for an illustration of the theory. http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/dynamics/testing_weight.pdfAnother test would be to take a bathroom scale on a plane or a train and weigh oneself. Has anyone done this by chance?Harry -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to writeVoltaire
RE: moving vs stationary weights
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 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: moving vs stationary weights 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 weigh less when you are moving than when you are stationary. The idea is your motion reduces your gravitational mass ( independently of your inertial mass) while gravitational acceleration remains unchanged. While this theory is probably wrong, it would be easy to test in practice. See my 40k pdf file for an illustration of the theory. http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/dynamics/testing_weight.pdf Another test would be to take a bathroom scale on a plane or a train and weigh oneself. Has anyone done this by chance? Harry
Re: moving vs stationary weights
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 over at different speeds. sr71, i believe, at the same time as they did the atomic clock testing, showing the change in time at higher speeds. On 4/12/06, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 weigh less when you are moving than when you are stationary. The idea is your motion reduces your gravitational mass ( independently of your inertial mass) while gravitational acceleration remains unchanged. While this theory is probably wrong, it would be easy to test in practice. See my 40k pdf file for an illustration of the theory. http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/dynamics/testing_weight.pdf Another test would be to take a bathroom scale on a plane or a train and weigh oneself. Has anyone done this by chance? Harry
Paper by Kozyrev
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, pp 1-49] Part 1. Theoretical Concepts Time is the most important and most enigmatic property of nature. The concept of time surpasses our imagination. The recondite attempts to understand the nature of time by the philosophers of antiquity, the scholars in the Middle Ages, and the modern scientist, possesing a knowledge of sciences and the experience of their history, have proven fruitless. Probably this occurs because time involves the most profound and completely unknown properties of the world which can scarcely bne envisaged by the bravest flight of human fancy. Past these properties of the world there passes the thiumphal procession of modern science and technical progress. In reality, the exact sciences negate the existence in time of any other qualities other than the simplest quality of duration or time intervals, the measurement of which is realized in hours. This quality of time is similar to the spatial interval. The theory of relativity by Einstein made this analogy more profound, considering time intervals and space as compo- nents of a four-dimensional interval of a Minkowski universe. Only the pseudo-Euclidian nature of the geometry of the Minkowski universe differentiates the time interval from the space interval. Under such a conception, time is scalar ( scalar = weight ) and quite passive. It only supplements the spatial arena, against which the events of the universe are played out. Owing to one scalarity of time, in the equations of theoretical mechanics the future is not separated from the past; hence the causes are not separated from the results. In the result, classical mechanics brings to the universe a strictly deterministic, but deprived, causality. At the same time, causality comprises the most important quality of the real world. The concept of causality is the basis of natural science. The natural scientist is convinced that the question why? is a legitimate one, that a question can be found for it. However, the content of the exact sciences is much more impoverished. In the precise sciences, the legitimate question is only how?. i.e., in what manner a given chain of occurrences takes place. Therefore, the precise sciences are descriptive. The description is made in a four-dimensional world, which signifies the possibility of predicting events. This possibility prediction is the key to the power of the precise sciences. The fascination of this power is so great that it often compels one to forget the basic, incomplete nature of their basis. It is therefore probable that the philosophical concept of Mach, derived strictly logically from the bases of the exact sciences, attracted great attention, in spite of its nonconformity to our knowlege concerning the universe and daily experience. The natural desire arises to introduce into the exact sciences the principles of natural sciences. In other words, the tendency is to attempt to introduce into theoretical mechanics the principle of causality and directivity of time. Such a mechanics can be called causal or asymetrical mechanics. In such mechanics, there should be be realizable experience, indicating where the cause is and where the result is. It can be demonstrated that in statistical mechanics there is a directivity of time and that it satisfies our desires. In reality, statistical mechanics constructs a certain bridge between natural and theoretical mechanics. In the statistical grouping, an asymmetrical state in time can develop, owing to unlikely initial conditions caused by the intervention of a proponent of the system, the effect of which is causal. If, subsequently, the system will be isolated, in conformity with the second law of thermodynamics, its entropy will increase, and the directivity of time will be associated with this trend in the variation of entropy. As a result, the system will lead to the most likely condition; it will prove to be in equilibrium, but then the fluctuations in the entropy of vaious signs will be encountered with equal frequency. Therefore, even in the statistical mechanics of an isol- ated system, under the most probable condition, the directivity of time will not exist. It is quite natural that in statistical mechanics, based on the conventional mechanics of a point , the direction of time does not appear as a quality of time itself but originates only as a property of the state of the system. If the directivity of time and other possible qualities are objective, they should enter the system of elementary mechanics of isolated processes. However, the statistical generalization of such mechanics can lead to a conclusion concerning the
Re: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons
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, that's the way science should be done. I am still curious about how one can measure gravitational pull (or push) on electrons with a fieldless tube :) Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 6:52 PM Subject: RE: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons 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 rainfall scrubs out the water-soluble air pollutants, until it dries out and they re-evaporate. Too many smokes for too long and breathing the lead and solder flux from a lot of cable-connector fabrication in the late 50s Cold War era. Non-emphysema COPD. 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 have gathered that from the posting. Frank got a free 12 volt portable TV and a lot of hands -on TV technology experience out of the deal. But the seeds of the Electronium (*e-) possible existence have been planted with the folks looking at the Positronium Negative Ion and the strange three-photon emission of positron-electron annihilation along with Sandia's anomalous 170 KeV (2 million.degree) Z-pinch gammas. All that despite Fred not having received a Nobel prize, which shows I suppose that we must have been guilty as charged by [EMAIL PROTECTED], or perhaps we don't need to believe in something to try it... Beats believing in a theory and not doing anything about it. Speaking of Frank Stenger, he did a few experiments based on Fred's hypocharge speculations, Wrong Keith. That experiment conducted by Frank for sweat equity in a few $K in the fall of 2001 was a pulsed current loop experiment which predated the Hypocharge theory by 4 years. Which is along the lines of High E Field/Charge-Density using Vacuum Spherical or Cylindrical Capacitors which by a happy coincidence falls in line with Hal Puthoff's Polarizable Vacuum (PV) Theory. How about posting some of Franks experimental results??? Frank did a video in late 2001, that got wiped out by my inquisitive grandson who never could figure out how Frank ate so fast, when Frank would announce on the tape that he was breaking for lunch, and two seconds later would say I'm back Fred. . Fred K.
Re: moving vs stationary weights
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
Photos of Seebeck calorimeters
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 images to your disk, or any image at LENR-CANR.) Note also the two papers that describe the calorimeters in detail. - Jed
