Re: [Vo]: Re: weight and charge
Yes that is true, but I am positing a slight weight loss when travelling horizontally and while remaining in contact with the ground. The assertion that weight is zero at a horizontal speed of 17,000 mph was computed with standard physics. However, after some initial efforts to quantity my concept of weight, I would say weight will approach zero asymptotically with increasing horizontal speed, but will never actually equal zero. (With speed on the x-axis and weight on the y-axis the curve is bell-shaped). Harry Frederick Sparber wrote: No need to do 17,000 mph to get into weightlessness, a well designed speed bump will do it for you (parabolic trajectory) at 30 mph more or less. Personally I prefer electro-dynamic braking better than treadmills built into the highway to save gas and maintenance costs, Harry. Fred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness " So clearly it is possible to experience zero-g without going into space. Any aircraft can do this by pushing it over into a parabolic arc. Even any car that hits a bump fast enough to leave the ground will experience zero-g for the time that the wheels are not in contact with the road."
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:37:45 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> Obviouslybut then again >> maybe free electrons and protons have no weight. > [snip] > The Solar corona (no to mention the Sun itself) is largely free electrons and > protons, yet they are kept "attached" to the Sun by their weightor are > they > kept there by their electric field...or are they the same thing? :) > > When a charged particle tries to leave a neutral plasma, it leaves behind a > particle of the opposite charge. That results in an attractive force between > the > plasma and the charged particle. If this force is summed over all particles, > do > we end up with "gravity"? (Just a "what if" - please all feel free to pounce > at > once. ;) > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk Here is another speculation: Maybe only neutrons have gravity. Harry
[Vo]: does centripetal vortex create a "free electron" in vortexed water?
hello, does anyone have any data as to how vortexing could create a free electron (or, free up an electron) in the molecular structure of water? came across this quote (first was speaking with an old man about water's energy levels and he asked if my vortexeralso frees up an electron in the water) "The great scientist Viktor Schauberger was the first to demonstrate what happens to water when we pump it through pipes under pressure. Coming out of the ground, Schauberger said, water is "living." It contains an extra electron in the outer ring, and it is the vortex of naturally moving water that creates this structure. But when pushed through a pipe, although it wants to move in a vortex (as we can easily demonstrate for ourselves), water is forced into a circular motion, and this circular movement strips the outer electrons off the water molecule, creating what's called "unstructured" water. It's still hydrogen and oxygen, but it lacks a specific electrical charge." this from http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/dec3/editor.htm but honestly.. anyone have any more leads? -- http://www.lackluster.org/ http://www.lackluster.org/shop/
Re: [Vo]: BioMimicry, the old way
half a gallon of the 60 percent blue bottle of green yellow black algaecide with clarifier, enough of acid or base to bring to normative, and enough chlorine shock to bring your ppm up to 4. then, brush the dead algae every couple of hours, vaccuum, and backwash. easy peasey lemon squeezy. (dealt with several this summer. massvie amounts of trees plus blowing dust. kills the chlorine. for acid rain, try a salt water chlorinator. adds some base, is more self stabilized. ) On 11/29/06, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/29/06, leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > well, i like my pool. but then, in arizona, its a little more of a > neccessitya nd less a luxury Yes, er, well, I live downwind from several coal fired gen plants. I don't have a problem until late July or August. At that time, the acid rain falls. If you miss adjusting the total alkalinity just one day, you have an algae bloom. You ever have an algae bloom? Very expensive and time consuming. Terry -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Sprain motor
- Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Sprain motor > On 11/29/06, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Terry wrote: >> >> > ... others have confirmed >> > the measurements since your conjecture. >> >> Hi Terry, have the splendid overunity COPs you mentioned in recent posts >> been confirmed by the same expert who measured a COP of 0.25 on an earlier >> version? > > No. A potential licensee visited recently and brought his technical > advisor who had a BSEE and a PhD in physics. He first said that the > idea was "hogwash" and asked if he could perform his own measurements. > Of course, Paul consented. > > After several minutes of taking measurements, the good doktor placed > his finger on the electromagnet and found it cool. He then placed his > finger on the light bulb being used as a load and burned his finger. What's the implication of the temp difference? Anyway, the guy can have a BSEE and a PhD in physics and can still have made gross errors in his measurements, especially if he's had only a few minutes to perform them. What did he measure and with what instruments, and what was his conclusion? > Paul said the man had a moment of what appeared to be cognitive > dissonance; then, he went and whispered in the ear of the licensee. > At that point the licensee told the President of M Int'l that they > needed to go offsite and talk. > >> Didn't Sprain already think he had overunity when he bought that analysis in >> 2002 BTW? > > No. There have been 16 iterations of the Magmo. He did not claim OU > until the spring of this year. Ah? Then why did he spend money for that analysis, couldn't he measure the 0.25 COP himself at the time? Anyway Sprain's own recent measurements, which I saw in June of this year and which were supposed to support his OU claims, pointed to a COP of the same order as the 2002 value (well below unity) once I had corrected the current for the large error factor I found. > Just be patient. The new magnet is under construction. It is > segmented in such a way that the torque will be linear instead of > ramped sinusoidal as shown in the test you referenced. The sinusoidal > torque is due to the use of rectangular magnets. The simulations by > the magnet manufacturer show a near linear torque curve. Well, whether linear or sinusoidal, I view this device more and more as a perfectly ordinary electric motor so I won't hold my breath until it becomes overunity. However I can see you're an indefectible believer so I'll wish you the best of lucks :) Michel > > Terry >
Re: [Vo]: BioMimicry, the old way
On 11/29/06, leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: well, i like my pool. but then, in arizona, its a little more of a neccessitya nd less a luxury Yes, er, well, I live downwind from several coal fired gen plants. I don't have a problem until late July or August. At that time, the acid rain falls. If you miss adjusting the total alkalinity just one day, you have an algae bloom. You ever have an algae bloom? Very expensive and time consuming. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Sprain motor
On 11/29/06, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Terry wrote: > ... others have confirmed > the measurements since your conjecture. Hi Terry, have the splendid overunity COPs you mentioned in recent posts been confirmed by the same expert who measured a COP of 0.25 on an earlier version? No. A potential licensee visited recently and brought his technical advisor who had a BSEE and a PhD in physics. He first said that the idea was "hogwash" and asked if he could perform his own measurements. Of course, Paul consented. After several minutes of taking measurements, the good doktor placed his finger on the electromagnet and found it cool. He then placed his finger on the light bulb being used as a load and burned his finger. Paul said the man had a moment of what appeared to be cognitive dissonance; then, he went and whispered in the ear of the licensee. At that point the licensee told the President of M Int'l that they needed to go offsite and talk. Didn't Sprain already think he had overunity when he bought that analysis in 2002 BTW? No. There have been 16 iterations of the Magmo. He did not claim OU until the spring of this year. Just be patient. The new magnet is under construction. It is segmented in such a way that the torque will be linear instead of ramped sinusoidal as shown in the test you referenced. The sinusoidal torque is due to the use of rectangular magnets. The simulations by the magnet manufacturer show a near linear torque curve. Terry
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, That first link was most interesting, thanks kindly. I will need to study a bit more about what is meant by the Zemach radius and the magnetic radius. I do think that the whole concept of a "billiard ball" particle falls apart on close inspection, rather like the old Bohr model. Yet, we can still use these lumped parameter analysis to good effect. As regards the capacity, I should point out that my experience with this is pretty much all on the macro scale. Capacity is a geometric phenomena, if you can define the shape of the object and it's relation to the ground plane, and you know the permittivity of the medium in between, you can determine the capacity. As Fred pointed out in his post, in the case of the electron the radius is determined by the following equation. r = q^2/[4(pi)eo* mc^2] and you can see the energy term is "hidden" in there. But no matter how we determine the radius, we still end up with something in units of length. Now, it is an experimentally known fact ( hey, I designed plenty of HV capacitors using this formula, so it works for me at least ) that the capacity of a sphere in space is given by the following equ. C = 4*pi*e0*r So given those two things, that was my result. It confuses me as well as to how we end up with different numbers. I think we can both agree that the energy in a capacitor is 1/2*C*V^2. But as I said I'm not using that relationship at all to calculate my capacity, it being a purely geometric property. Perhaps what all this is really saying is that, if we use your derivation from energy considerations, that the resulting shape in not spherical? In which case, I would need to use some other formula to calculate the capacity... I don't know. If I get some free time I'll look over your derivation more closely, and see if I get any insights. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Thank you again Keith. The 3 db point on the proton is about 1.2 Fermi's. The max extent is about 1.4 Fermi. http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0405118 http://www.infim.ro/rrp/2005_57_4/17-795-799.pdf I don't understand where the .8 Fermi radius come from. Is it a half amplitude point? My universe is 1/2 yours because I state that the energy of a capacitor is Energy=1/2 CVV You use, energy = CVV where did the 1/2 go? I am baffled. Frank z
Re: [Vo]: Hidden Wealth
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:11:58 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] > >--- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> Same explanation. The 16O is produced preferentially >> during photosynthesis ... it can >> more easily attain escape velocity > >Then the average ratio on earth should be the same as >what has escaped (0.18 %) How can you read and understand what I wrote, then come to exactly the opposite conclusion, based on it? What I said was that 16O preferentially escapes from massive bodies, leaving a higher concentration of 18O behind. However if this were the case, then one might expect the O in rocks (particularly the quartzes) to be nearer the interstellar ratio as this O is less likely to take part in atmospheric exchange. The O taking part in atmospheric exchange would primarily be in the air and water of the Earth. IOW the "ratio on Earth" would depend on who measured it, and exactly where they got the O from that they measured. BTW Google revealed a few interesting things: http://presolar.wustl.edu/~fjs/publications/p062abs.html http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/259/5102/1733 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/94JA02936.shtml http://astro.nmsu.edu/~bwebber/high.html http://isotope.web.psi.ch/back.htm etc. >but it is NOT and in fact is >far different - that is the whole point ! > >The 18O/16O ratio in the interstellar region is >presumably what should have been the ratio found 4.5 >billion years ago on earth, and that has been measured >as 0.18%, however the actual planetary ratio is nearly > twice that level (0.3 %) which indicates that >somehow, in the earth environment, probably in the >ionosphere, substantial 16O has been converted to 18O >AFTER it got here from the sun ! Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
[Vo]: Sprain motor
Terry wrote: > ... others have confirmed > the measurements since your conjecture. Hi Terry, have the splendid overunity COPs you mentioned in recent posts been confirmed by the same expert who measured a COP of 0.25 on an earlier version? (*) Michel (*) It was Arkansas Power Electronics International, Inc. I just dug out their emilie_analysis_coil2_webversion.pdf report you pointed us to earlier this year, here is what it said: --- This report outlines the test results of the new coil and core and illustrates comparisons to the original coil and core when appropriate. Overall, there is a measured improvement in performance when compared to the first coil and core, but the efficiency range of ~25% is still low in comparison with industry electric motors. -- Didn't Sprain already think he had overunity when he bought that analysis in 2002 BTW? - Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn > On 11/28/06, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Indeed it does. >> >> Hi Terry, for another opinion Stephen could have a look at the controversy >> you and I had about this some time ago, I had found what looked very much >> like a large error in input current measurement by analysing the Mosfet's >> voltage waveform and applying Ohm's low to it knowing it's ON resistance >> (search for Sprain in the list archive). > > Of course he may do so if he wishes; however, others have confirmed > the measurements since your conjecture. In addition, the modification > to a four magnet rotor showed the anticipated effect on COP. Face it > mon ami, a magnetic gradient can do real work. > > Did you read the paper on spin consciousness that I posted on earlier? > > Terry >
Re: [Vo]: BioMimicry, the old way
well, i like my pool. but then, in arizona, its a little more of a neccessitya nd less a luxury On 11/29/06, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/28/06, leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i take it youve never heard of watermellon snow? > > http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plaug98.htm This particular algae also causes a pink slime in swimming pools. With which I will no longer have to deal since I have divested myself of the house with the IG pool. I had always thought I wanted one until I had one. Take my advice, go to the Y. Terry -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: BioMimicry, the old way
Terry Blanton wrote: This particular algae also causes a pink slime in swimming pools. With which I will no longer have to deal since I have divested myself of the house with the IG pool. I had always thought I wanted one until I had one. Take my advice, go to the Y. That reminds me of my father's definition of a boat: a hole in the water into which you pour money. My grandfather lived in Freeport, Long Island, and he had a boat. He sold it to someone, and my dad delivered it on September 20, 1938. He recommended the guy put it in dry dock because the weather seemed iffy. The guy said no, and the next day the worst nor'easterner in history hit. There wasn't a stick left of the boat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: BioMimicry, the old way
On 11/28/06, leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: i take it youve never heard of watermellon snow? http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plaug98.htm This particular algae also causes a pink slime in swimming pools. With which I will no longer have to deal since I have divested myself of the house with the IG pool. I had always thought I wanted one until I had one. Take my advice, go to the Y. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn
On 11/28/06, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indeed it does. Hi Terry, for another opinion Stephen could have a look at the controversy you and I had about this some time ago, I had found what looked very much like a large error in input current measurement by analysing the Mosfet's voltage waveform and applying Ohm's low to it knowing it's ON resistance (search for Sprain in the list archive). Of course he may do so if he wishes; however, others have confirmed the measurements since your conjecture. In addition, the modification to a four magnet rotor showed the anticipated effect on COP. Face it mon ami, a magnetic gradient can do real work. Did you read the paper on spin consciousness that I posted on earlier? Terry
