The thing is Dave, whatever you want to call it, the vacuum/ZPF/quantum foam/Dirac Sea exists… when, how and why it might interact with matter and cause an *apparent* violation of COE is anyone’s guess at this time… I know Fran says it is constantly interacting, and Puthoff has published that it’s the reason the electron doesn’t spiral into the nucleus, but that would be equilibrium conditions. I think there are non-eq conditions where a massive coupling of E from the vacuum to matter can happen, albeit, only under very specific and rare conditions.
How can one definitively say that they have a closed system? If you can’t measure ALL possible sources of E, then all you can justify is a probabilistic answer; you have to leave the COE door open a crack because of the vacuum! Ok, ok… I’m stepping down off the Dime Box now… besides, those Perfect Manhattans I put in the freezer should be just about right by now... ya’ll have a gr8 weekend. -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 6:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration That is a good thought to keep in mind. We need to ensure that our chosen system is adequate to handle the problem at hand. Dave -----Original Message----- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 8:56 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration RE: COE… Start here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg57015.html COE begins with the phrase, "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, ..." For sci-drones this phrase didn’t seem to stick! All they remember is the other half of the law… The second half of the law cannot be applied defensibly without the first half. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg66744.html -mark iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?> ] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least nearly correct. Perhaps that is my hang up! If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be using the principle to power their space craft? I refer to the ones that are drifting in space, not launch. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration This brings up an interesting side issue. All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit. If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial. Couldn't have been more than a milligram. This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device. Americium perhaps? Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most important ingredient? -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton > There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked had > a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine. Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also: http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm T
