Thanks, Jones...Danzik was what I was trying to remember, along with the
Earth Engine.
How do you do that with the neurons you have left?
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 4:33 PM Jones Beene wrote:
> Very similar to the Dennis Danzig "Earth Engine" scam of a few years back.
>
> ... or Steorn.
>
>
>
>
There is huge pent-up demand for cheap and carbon-free electrical power these
days, and gullible investors are constantly being fooled. PT Barnum
underestimated.
Holcomb Energy's technical claims may be unsophisticated to the point of being
laughable but they will find a few suckers. Holcomb
Photons are the universal = most basic form of energy. With photons you
can transport energy over any distance. So here the equivalence relation
E = mc^2 is obvious. Same for the Pointing power vector for a radiation
field.
But if you write E = mc^2 and e.g. m is 4-He then the equation simply
In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:16:20 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>The guy's claiming that induced B in 'electrical steel' climbs to 500% of
>applied H.
Think of little magnets arranged end to end. NSNSNS etc. Not only do they
attract but the field is cumulative, and as it
get
The guy's claiming that induced B in 'electrical steel' climbs to 500% of
applied H.
He's basically claiming runaway self-induction, apparently as an inherent
property of this material.
So what to make of it? Applying an H field induces a B field, giving their
combined field density M, or net
Here's some interesting and colorful background on the principal
"inventor" Dr Roberet Ray Holcomb:
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-holcomb-health-care-services
On 4/25/2022 2:47 PM, Robin wrote:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:32:24 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
Very
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:17:01 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Classic misunderstanding ... the bomb energy comes from E=dmc^2 .
>
>
>J.W.
That was assumed anyway. I.e. the change in mass is where the energy comes
from. Are you saying that E=mc^2 is not the
total energy of
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:32:24 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
> Very similar to the Dennis Danzig "Earth Engine" scam of a few years back.
>
>... or Steorn.
>
>
He appears to confuse magnetic field strength with energy. However, that said,
perhaps it works in a similar
I think I have posted this before, but Einstein was also able to derive E=mc^2
without recourse to his theory of special relativity. Max Born presented
this alternate derivation in his book Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Here
is the proof:
Harry - perhaps you should have a look at the work and patents of Haisch and
Moddel on the Lamb shift mechanism using hydrogen or helium in Casimir
cavities.
The dynamical Casimir effect can be either positive or negative and Lamb shift
photons would be cold. IIRC there was a measured
I was thinking about LASERS (Light amplification by Stimulated Emission of
Radiation) and it occurred to me that the notion of cooling radiation is
already present in quantum theory, but it is disguised as "stimulated
emission" in order to respect the mid 19th century doctrine that cooling
Very similar to the Dennis Danzig "Earth Engine" scam of a few years back.
... or Steorn.
Terry Blanton wrote:
So does anyone know about these folks? They make me think of Steorn but with
credentials.
https://holcombenergysystems.com/about-us/the-team/
THE TECHNOLOGY
The HES utilizes
Classic misunderstanding ... the bomb energy comes from E=dmc^2 .
J.W.
On 25.04.2022 21:23, Robin wrote:
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear powers, and
explain to them why
Andrew,
I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that
most of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics
based on wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
Jurg,
Thank you for the comments. It helps
Reminds me of "The Electric Universe Theory" including the *Safire Project*
.
There is a small earth to air current. Very weak but measurable. There were
attempts to gather this current with balloons covered with spikes, hundreds of
feet up. So, I guess the earth is negative.
From: H LV
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 3:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A
So does anyone know about these folks? They make me think of Steorn but
with credentials.
https://holcombenergysystems.com/about-us/the-team/
THE TECHNOLOGY
The HES utilizes the natural energy produced by the electron spin in the
iron atom, converting it into usable electricity. Through a total
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear powers, and
explain to them why their bombs don't
work. ;)
>Andrew,
>
>
>I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
What do you mean by the Earth's relative charge?
Does it have net positive or negative charge relative to deep space?
Harry
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:50 AM Chris Zell wrote:
> Could there be a way to generate energy by ‘transmitting away’ the earth’s
> relative charge into neutral space? Using
Jurg,
Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
Comments below
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
> itself
Andrew,
I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of
the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no
clue of physics.
The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed
For cooling a building you can use highly reflective (99.8%) paint. Such
a building can stay 3C below ambient without addition al cooling.
Search for "Full Daytime Sub-ambient Radiative Cooling with High Figure
of Merit in Commercial-like Paints"
J.W.
On 25.04.2022 15:50, Chris Zell
Jurg,
I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the
deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit"
results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic
effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.
Andrew
_ _
Could there be a way to generate energy by ‘transmitting away’ the earth’s
relative charge into neutral space? Using something similar to this method?
From: H LV
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Update...
I haven't done any
24 matches
Mail list logo
