Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same
force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted.
***Would that be the Asymmetrical Thrust Capacitor proposal that I
submitted?
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM, John Berry wrote:
> I was not aware of Poher, but given t
AT THE QUANTUM CASIMIR PLASMA-BREACH BORDER: We are indeed observing
QUASI-TESSERACT shifts in nano-geometry which are profoundly
RE-CONSTRUCTING atomic structures. . . sudden seemingly paradoxical
isotopic rearrangements of atomic structures indicate this. . .
Wild card John Hutchison/Hutchison
Jack,
Take this quiz and get back to me...
http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/11/21/are-you-smarter-than-a-5th-grader-who-is-smarter-than-einstein/
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:56 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan
wrote:
> Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to
> elicite p
Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to
elicite paradox since we are simultaneously(via transtemperal Casimir
destortions) NEEDING TO CROSS CORRELATE seeming 'Through the Looking Glass'
A-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid.
*Ha* CROSS CORRELATING a hypothesized DARK ENER
On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are
QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the
same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S.
[/snip]
Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same differ
NASA's The PLASMA-BREACH Torus-Eye sub-singularity reactor is MACRO-QUANTUM
ENTANGLEMENT. NASA's 'IMPOSSIBLE SPACE DRIVE merely proves Trans-Spectrum
Einstein-Rosen TORUS EYE-BREACH bleed through from (PROVEN) AexoDarkEnergy
Parallel-Adjacent hyperspace aka THE~Quantum~BACK OF THE TAPESTRY. . .
Acc
part of the current tragedy of science is all kind of mainstream media
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4
first of all scientific journalists, then science tabloid (science, nature,
Cells), then influential mainstream media (NYT)...
don't look further, consensus is man
as the comment says, it rather says that the theory of fetta is wrong...
that fetta cannot design a reactor that don't work by changing what he
consider a key detail.
it is a theory failure, not a practical failure.
the resonance is important, and this enough let me consider something is
real, at
What a surprise : Jennifer Ouellette comes out against it
Physics Week in Review: August 2, 2014
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2014/08/02/physics-week-in-review-august-2-2014/
Perhaps your interest was piqued by the news that a Fuel-Less Space Drive with
“Q-Thruste
From: John Berry
More on the null test...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible
_space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh
They say the null test was designed to be null, and yet it
still showed thrust.
More on the null test...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible_space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Berry wrote:
> Different, but this made me think of Borbas Miklos, a simple ion free
> anomalous thrust experiment:
>
>
> http
Different, but this made me think of Borbas Miklos, a simple ion free
anomalous thrust experiment:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090902150248/http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:16 PM, John Berry wrote:
> However, apparently a dummy load produced zero thrust..
However, apparently a dummy load produced zero thrust...
And I think the other designs need to be better understood, should they
really be null?
http://i.imgur.com/daNmDty.png
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:09 PM, John Berry wrote:
> It looks like I can answer my own question.
>
> http://ntrs.nasa
It looks like I can answer my own question.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf
Thrust was observed on both test
articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the
expectation that it would not produce
thrust. Specifically, one test article conta
Alain, where did you read that the blank/dummy control drive also worked?
>From what I read it seemed to indicate that it passed (got negative result)
on that drive.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
> few bad point for the test are :
> 1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDri
few bad point for the test are :
1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive
2- the "blank" reactor works too.
the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive
the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and
that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine
time! Maybe someone would like to add
> discussions about UFOs to the list unless that is out of bounds for some
> reason. I suspect that we have many vorts that can contribute.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alain Sepeda
> To: Vortex List
&
tiny region of space and its invisible energy is stretched or moved
in some manner.
(One that remains skeptical.)
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 3:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
If a
I was not aware of Poher, but given that shouldn't Morton be considered a
further and earlier verification of this effect?
Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same
force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted.
It might also be worth noting Piggot:
http://www
n laws intact. Is this what you are suggesting Axil?
>>
>> This seems like a large stretch.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil
>> To: vortex-l
>> Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm
>> S
: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I suggested something like negative gravity. The force that NASA has stumbled
onto could be the force produced causing the expansion of the universe. If
there is
: vortex-l
> Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
>
> The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic
> fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons.
> Th
: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields.
The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons. The
microwave
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 8:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote:
>Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
They tested the Cannae version (as reported by
, Jul 31, 2014 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross
checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)
as Ed Storms says in his books, when a phenomenon survive to the cha
would eliminate many possible issues.
I will be thrilled to learn that this space drive is real but remain highly
skeptical.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: leaking pen
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 5:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' s
validates 'impossible' space drive
There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines
of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article)
and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor.
http://arxiv.org
Whithout any technical knowledge I agree with you Eric. I wonder how they
could keep the good spirit in this big organization
once Lwerner Brown and Na8sa was the same, was that how much he colored the
culture as he was certaily a contrarian.
On Jul 31, 2014 8:31 PM, "Eric Walker" wrote:
> On Thu
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with
> Poher’s device ...
I have to hand it to groups at NASA for being relatively independent of the
opinion of the physics mainstream. Apparently there is a culture of
wil
Well, since we're talking about NASA & impossible space drives...
Excerpt of heavily encrypted PDF file
Proposal by Quantum Potential Corporation in response to 2011 NASA
http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf
NASA, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force have commissioned a number of
interesting
The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic
fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons.
The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills
space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from
th
At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote:
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
They tested the Cannae version (as reported by Wired) -- 40
micronewton at 28W , but ALSO a "tapered" version, which is an
emDrive -- 91 micronewton at 17W.
See page 1 of the Nasa paper http://arc.aiaa.org/d
There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial
lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired
article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s
superconductor.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf
NASA has r
wer to generate the large
> amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the
> root of the thrust.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: leaking pen
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa
Axil,
Is there any data to backup your "prodigious RF" statement of fact?
Spectrum analyzer etc.
Ron
--On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:45 PM -0400 Axil Axil
wrote:
The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of
production could even be increased by adding NMR active materi
ortex-l
> Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
>
> Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker
> wrote:
>
>> See:
>>
&g
root of the thrust.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: leaking pen
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Wal
Of course microwave RF energy is a form of electrical power.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. Thi
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
> See:
>
>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
>
> Eric
>
>
The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of
production could even be increased by adding NMR active materials to the
structure of the reactor. This current disadvantage in Ni/H technology
might well be turned into an important feature. The Ni/H reaction could
provide a direct
See:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
Eric
41 matches
Mail list logo