There is one missing in the list below: Brian Ahern who has released some
patents and has joined the MFMP team.
_
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: dimanche 23 novembre 2014 03:23
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
Since Rossi says that the system
Beside what you say, there is some common error.
This is to imagine that education can help people be more rational.
In fact education is there not only to give tools and informations, but
also to structure the mind to accept those tools and information.
This is well explaine by Thomas Kuhn as
My mentor used to tell me: The best things are invented by those who don't
know it can't be done.
Bob Higgins
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:
Beside what you say, there is some common error.
This is to imagine that education can help people be more
*
Hank Mills
October 13th, 2014 at 10:22 PM
Hello Everyone,
A new article on PESN has been posted about how Dr. Brian Ahern, a scientist
and long time LENR researcher, has changed his opinion about the paper
documenting the month long test of a high temperature E-Cat. Initially, he
In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One
need to convince one at a time. Large organization mostly prepare for
changes by providing information they think people will understand and
therefore they will see the positive in changes to come. It fails almost
every time.
There are two characteristics that eliminate the vast majority of the
population from any possibility of recognizing the reality of LENR:
1) Understanding how fundamental to the veracity of scientific fact is the
distinction between experiment and argument/theory.
2) Being willing to look
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One
need to convince one at a time.
Yes. For the reasons described by James Bowery: because human nature and
education prevent the vast majority of the population from any
As for 1) I think this highlight the most important aspect of the problem.
It should be unquestioned as an obvious truth that experiment ultimately
trumps arguments and theory.
That anyone with any respect for truth, reality or logic should argue that
theory should cause experimental results to
who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long
experience of them.
Which of course makes them not new, I didn't know Machiavelli had such a
good sense of humor, I guess he saw some advantage in it.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
25 years of results that can't boil a cup of tea. Fun.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:38 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
A Trip to Norway
Michael C.H. McKubre
November 12, 2014
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue119/norway.html
Harry
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to
the local observer at least. I include the mass that
In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:30:46 -0500:
Hi Harry,
I think there might be some nuclear/chemical effects at very close range, but
that's just a guess. The range would be determined by the lifetime of the
virtual particles.
[snip]
What I was wondering is if the reaction
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
As for 1) I think this highlight the most important aspect of the problem.
It should be unquestioned as an obvious truth that experiment ultimately
trumps arguments and theory.
That anyone with any respect for truth, reality or logic should argue that
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might
not be easy, but it can be done.
The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to
be converted into energy
Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post.
On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of
people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem)
then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority
actually grasps logic
Dave I do not understand what you are talking about.
But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while
not violating the conservation of momentum or energy.
Take a spring, compress it.
As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction,
or
No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of
the
Ok, just a thought...
But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment...
If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless.
Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields?
Could they react as other materials do?
Could they
If the created particles were mesons, these particles would decay into
electrons and neutrinos. I suspect that an experiment can be prepared to
detect those electrons. Also the mesons would effect the rate of nuclear
decay of radioactive isotopes.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Berry
John Berry I agree with your conclusion.
I do not agree with that Seems like there should be a class in logic at
school then if it isn't obvious enough. On the contrary that class will
make logic even more unusual..
Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances.
However,
Dave--
If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it
is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results. The
standard conversion of energy normally happens in a measurable 3-D space the
space man knows. The other situation involves the
Axil, great observation and I agree totally, I have stated previously that this
may be observable when LENR reactors become available by placing a battery
operated reactor on one side of a beam balance scale and intentionally
unbalancing the counterweights, first with the unit off to establish
Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical
people to help make a logical improvement in logic.
Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and
control logic, then I agree.
Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books.
John.
Wait, virtual particle don't decay though, they annihilate don't they? (I
am unsure what the significant difference might be)
And annihilation of virtual particles don't create any energy since there
was none...
But this makes me wonder, what about particles that there isn't an
antimatter
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post.
Maybe it is not so depressing. The human race has always been this way, and
I suppose it will remain this way, yet we have made great progress in the
past. Maybe we can get along okay with only a
Over the weekend Dr. Mills posted the following statement out on Yahoo SCP
in response to someone who may have been getting a little impatient in his
desire to help vindicate Dr. Mill's GUT-CP theory. He wondered if there
might be another demo in December... presumably to keep skeptics and
Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is
logical.
As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it.
Yes, you can
give the theory but that is not what we talk about.
I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt?
Best Regards ,
Lennart
That is a tricky one indeed, though it is not logical proof, it is often
logical to accept an argument because of the consequences IF the answer can
not be otherwise established.
Global warming falls into this category, that is maybe a lack of
unambiguous evidence to reach a final 100% conclusion
It is a saying.
Taking things with a pinch of salt is often needed to avoid blindly
accepting something doubtful.
The block of salt is needed because if you are going to make breakthrough
despite reading old information you are going to need to use a lot of salt,
much of that information will
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson * * * *
In the meantime, for your enjoyment and potential edification I have just
published a 40 page PDF file on Blacklight Power
Nice effort. Hope springs eternal.
No problem with that concept John. Pressing the spring initially adds the
energy that is latter released. Notice that the light energy carries mass
which of course has momentum. The momentum that is imparted upon the ship is
matched by that of the light. That is a normal propulsion system.
Yes, and the faster the ship moves the lower frequency an observer in the
initial frame will see the exhaust.
I have no problem as I said in understanding how this conserves momentum
and energy.
But I have no idea what you were talking about with relative mass changes
etc...
On Mon, Nov 24,
Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem
dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive
believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is
nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why
If the particles appear and then annihilate each other so that nothing is left
then they would not carry away any momentum or energy. Normal drives require
that an amount of momentum that equals that which is imparted into the ship be
ejected in an opposite direction.
Dave
OK Bob, I tend to think outside of the box quite often, but sometimes that does
not get me to where I would like to go. I would love to find that a
reactionless drive is possible, but so far the evidence is strongly against
that concept.
You must become the spaceman inside his ship in order
There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being
produced in the vacuum by EMF.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem
dissolves. This does not appear to what
I am sorry that my thoughts are not being clearly put into writing. Perhaps as
the subject is further discussed you can determine exactly what I am thinking
and accept or reject my ideas.
My tendency is to choose an observation frame that simplifies the understanding
of a problem. In this
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the
obvious problems to offer their input.
One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in
the recent news is the EmDrive. That
I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time
interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their
The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave
source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The
problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for
its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to
him which contains all of the converted energy.
If the guy with the spaceship with the EmDrive could bend the laws of
physics for a moment and
First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular engineering,
there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear to create a
net thrust.
However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately
replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely
42 matches
Mail list logo
