RE: [Vo]: Is Big brother watching?
Hi Harry, These days I am more concerned with Big Sister than Big Brother. Why is that? Dave
RE: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
Hi Steven, OTOH it's my understanding that time dilation has been confirmed. Extremely brief half-life's of certain sub atomic particles that are speeding close to C have been detected to decay within a slowed down time period reference from our perspective. At least, that's my understanding. Time dilation, as I have stated earlier, was quantified by Lorentz based upon the MMX. It doesn't surprise me then, that the effect has been observed in decaying muons. The discussion is about whether the dimension of mass is equal or equivalent to the unit of energy and whether this equivalence explains the physical world. Dave
[Vo]: Spooky Radar
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2027227,00.html US defence contractor looks for quantum leap in radar research David Adam Tuesday March 6, 2007 The Guardian They designed an exploding cigar to kill Fidel Castro and hired fortune-tellers to fight the cold war. Now the US military is taking its war on terror where even Albert Einstein feared to tread - into the baffling world of quantum mechanics. Lockheed Martin, a main US defence contractor, thinks it can exploit research on the fringes of theoretical physics to build the ultimate radar, which could see through anything, from buildings to solid earth. more
RE: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
Hi Dave, Aspects of SR have always intrigued me, perhaps for its Alice-in-Wunderland spatial analysis qualities. With that qualification in mind... ... Another false prediction of SR is that it doesn't matter which object is moving [at] what velocity, since it is believed there is no fixed reference frame. Yet, when cosmic rays come streaming through the Earth, the Earth's mass does not approach infinity, either. In fact, there is no reference frame that exhibits infinite mass increase. Dave This is an interesting observation, one that wanders precariously into the realms of exotic philosophy and unsolvable Zen koans, rather than hard-core physics. My response to the alleged contradiction would be that it only matters (no pun intended) in regards to the point-of-view being taken at the time the personal observation is being made, which inevitably raises the question as to whose perception of the universe is the correct one. IMHO, we will only succeed in tying ourselves into unsolvable knots similar to religious fanaticism if we insist there MUST exist an ABSOLUTE frame of reference. SR, would seem to suggest there ain't no such animal and never was - period. I guess I should make a confession here and state for the record that those kinds paradoxical observations have always appealed to my new-agey POV. In more prosaic terms it depends on which frame of reference point is being assumed in order to EXPERIENCE THE OBSERVATION. If the observer assumes the relative speed of the speeding cosmic ray then the Earthly atom collided with magically becomes the culprit possessing the extra mass. A very subtle point I think that is missed here is that the observation only makes sense in regards to the TWO ATOMIC NUCLEI that interact/collide with each other. The observation does not make any practical sense if extrapolated to include all the rest of the Earthly atoms that have not been interacted with, even though that might seem to be a natural conclusion to draw. OTOH, if we are at rest with all the rest of the atoms on planet Earth we can assume that the extra mass resides in the speeding cosmic ray being interacted with. This suggests that it is incorrect to assume that extra mass exists in all other speeding earthly atoms, as referenced from the point of view of the speeding cosmic ray). Likewise, it is incorrect to assume that other cosmic rays that may be flying around (but have NOT been collided with) possess extra mass either. Bottom line: It's only whom you're having the brief torrid affair with that counts. Everyone else are just innocent bystanders in which there is only the potential to have a brief torrid affair with. Such Zen koan-like observations invariably raise the legitimate question as to HOW is it that this extra mass can behave in such a fickle manner. After all - WHO REALLY POSSESSES THE EXTRA MASS IMHO, the extra mass really doesn't exist per-say, but rather the extra mass is simply being used as an expedient vehicle in order to make the SR equations make sense. But perhaps I have exceeded my area of expertise on the matter. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
[Vo]: BEV vs FCEV
I saw a cute statement in this argument: It's easier to deliver an electron than a proton. Of course, with H2 you get both. :-)
RE: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
Hi Terry, IMHO, we will only succeed in tying ourselves into unsolvable knots similar to religious fanaticism if we insist there MUST exist an ABSOLUTE frame of reference. SR, would seem to suggest there ain't no such animal and never was - period. Ah, but that is the key. SR is not based upon physical observations, but assumptions. It's claim that there can be no absolute frame of reference is therefore just as much a religious fanaticism as any other unfounded assumption. OTOH, the Aether Physics Model specifically claims that each subatomic particle MUST exist in an ABSOLUTE frame of reference ONLY with the quantum of Aether unit in which it resides. To put it another way, matter does not move through space-time, but rather matter is encapsulated by space-time and space-time moves relative to space-time. Sounds kind of strange at first, until you realize that that is exactly how the rest of the fluid Universe works. A leaf on a calm day merely rests peacefully upon the surface of a river, yet the river flows and carries the leaf with it. The Gulf Stream is a body of water within the Atlantic Ocean, which moves relative to the Sargasso Sea and carries all sorts of particles within its fluid. Dust particles float aimlessly within the atmosphere, as it flows fluid-like around the planet relative to other regions of atmosphere. Is it any surprise that matter would also float within the sea of Aether, each subatomic particle encapsulated by its own quantum of space-time? Here we get both absolute frames of reference and relativity ala Lorentz. Can't ask for better than that. There's a little to please everyone, and it is all based upon empirical constants and data. The observation does not make any practical sense if extrapolated to include all the rest of the Earthly atoms that have not been interacted with, even though that might seem to be a natural conclusion to draw. Yet, that is exactly what SR claims. Each particle is its own observer. Although, I have often pointed this out as another error in SR theory. If 40 people watch a collision, does the collision then have 40 times the energy it otherwise would have had if there were only one observer? Obviously not. As you correctly deduce, the only observer of importance is the one involved in a collision with the moving particle. But even still, if a single aluminum nucleus were traveling at the speed of light, and its mass approached infinity, according to E=mc^2 the amount of energy in the collision would also be near infinite. This has not been observed. Such Zen koan-like observations invariably raise the legitimate question as to HOW is it that this extra mass can behave in such a fickle manner. After all - WHO REALLY POSSESSES THE EXTRA MASS IMHO, the extra mass really doesn't exist per-say, but rather the extra mass is simply being used as an expedient vehicle in order to make the SR equations make sense. But perhaps I have exceeded my area of expertise on the matter. ;-) The concept of extra mass is meaningless. Mass is merely a dimension. Mass is not a substance that can increase or decrease in value of itself. As an analogy, if we join two ten feet long pipes together, we get twenty feet of pipe, not twenty feet of length. The dimension of length did not increase, but the overall value of the pipes' length increased. This will be a sticking point for many people, but if you are interested in the subtleties of Zen Buddhism, you should have no difficulty grasping the difference between the dimension of length and the thing it measures. The same goes for mass. There is the dimension of mass, and when it is given a value, it becomes the measurement of inertia. Dave
[Vo]: Outrage !!
This is the Petrocracy at works, folks: http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/local_news/1021491.txt
[Vo]: Re: Outrage !!
Outrageous indeed! There is a related case here in France where they want to charge a farmer who's been selling vegetable oil as a fuel a tax called the TIPP, where the PP initials mean produits petroliers, which is even more outrageous than this story since the product he sells isn't petroleum based! Extract of the article you linked us to: -- I think it's inappropriate of state dollars to send two people to Mr. Wetzel's home to do this. They could have done with a more friendly approach. It could have been done on the phone. To use an intimidation factor on this - who is he harming? Two revenue agents. You'd think there's a better use of their time, Watson said. -- Not to mention the CO2 emissions, the cherry on the cake! Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: [Vo]: Outrage !! This is the Petrocracy at works, folks: http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/local_news/1021491.txt
Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
David Thomson wrote: I think I'm getting tired of trying to show people the Aether Physics Model. I'm ready to just turn within and work on my own development and let people discover the answers to physics for themselves. Sorry to jump in, as my time only permits me to follow my own threads at Vo. I'm not taking sides with anyone, but had a few pennies to toss in. I'm not a QM specialist, but I know something about QM. In QM the vacuum or empty space is not empty. This is very clear in quantum physics. This is called the vacuum energy, which is the lowest possible energy, the ground state. In QM there are violations in the conservation of energy, but such violations occurs only for brief moment in time. Some may refer to such quantum fluctuations as Aether, which is fine. Although most physicists have a problem with that since there were so many flavors of Aether theories over time. Personally I think it would be respectful to title quantum space as Aether. Also in QM there are virtual particles, which would interest Aether theorists, since such virtual particles are the cause for the coulomb force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, spontaneous emission of photons, Casimir effect, van der Waals force, Vacuum polarization, Lamb shift, and Hawking radiation. Theories are great, but a theory usually receives death ears from the science community until such a theory can correctly predict all known effects and experiments such as -- * Single electron double slit experiment. * Single photon double slit experiment. * Delayed choice experiment. * Van der Waals' forces. * Zel'dovich radiation. * Cherenkov radiation. * Hawking radiation. * Quantum tunnelling. * Casimir effect. * Unruh effect. * Quantum Hall Effect. * Quantum Zeno effect. * Quantum confinement effect. * Aharonov-Bohm effect. * Compton effect. * Photoelectric effect. * Primakoff effect. * Scharnhorst effect. * Zeeman effect. * Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. * Schottky effect. * Peltier-Seebeck effect. * Mössbauer effect. * Meissner effect. * Leidenfrost effect. * Kaye effect. * Josephson effect. * Ferroelectric effect. * Faraday effect. * Biefeld-Brown effect, also known as electrohydrodynamics (EHD). Furthermore, the theory must use an accurate and stable method of predicting such theories such as mathematics or computer software. Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hi Paul, Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. I have written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper, I cover several of the observations listed below, and several others could be easily derived as they are logically implied. The theory I present is mathematically correct and is modeled in MathCAD. So you are saying, write the paper and they will read it. You haven't read it, apparently. I have presented a completely new foundation for physics, which explains many things not explained in the Standard Model, including a mathematically correct unification of the forces, an electron binding energy equation, a correction in the dimensions of charge used in units, as well as the discovery of a second type of charge. I have discovered the final force law for the strong force, which is identical in structure to Newton's and Coulomb's laws. I have quantified exactly how the physical Universe arose from non-material cause, exceeding the Big Bang theory in scope. Modern physicists get into the news for predicting the Higgs Boson, which has never been observed and never will be. Scientists get Nobel prizes for theories involving imaginary Pions and Gluons. Scientists are thrilled that their physics is confused as to whether quantum existence is a wave or a particle, and they are ecstatic to claim that quantum existence is nothing more than a probability function. Somebody comes along, uses the empirical data and constants to derive a discrete model of physics, which answers many of the questions sought by modern science, and instead of being welcomed, he is told to go back to his cave until he has solved every possible problem in physics. What kind of response is that? What justification do you have to tell me that I have to single handedly rewrite all of physics before my theories can be accepted, when I present many unique discoveries and no other scientist has ever been told to do similar? Dave Theories are great, but a theory usually receives death ears from the science community until such a theory can correctly predict all known effects and experiments such as -- * Single electron double slit experiment. * Single photon double slit experiment. * Delayed choice experiment. * Van der Waals' forces. * Zel'dovich radiation. * Cherenkov radiation. * Hawking radiation. * Quantum tunnelling. * Casimir effect. * Unruh effect. * Quantum Hall Effect. * Quantum Zeno effect. * Quantum confinement effect. * Aharonov-Bohm effect. * Compton effect. * Photoelectric effect. * Primakoff effect. * Scharnhorst effect. * Zeeman effect. * Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. * Schottky effect. * Peltier-Seebeck effect. * Mössbauer effect. * Meissner effect. * Leidenfrost effect. * Kaye effect. * Josephson effect. * Ferroelectric effect. * Faraday effect. * Biefeld-Brown effect, also known as electrohydrodynamics (EHD). Furthermore, the theory must use an accurate and stable method of predicting such theories such as mathematics or computer software. Regards, Paul Lowrance
[Vo]: Szpak electron capture model
Fly-in-the-ointment? http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSfurtherevi.pdf There is a bit of a turf-war brewing here, as I had sensed. Szpak et al. sez: A model from a chemist’s perspective that is consistent with the state of the system, imposed constraints and the nature of the electron—nucleus reaction rather than on arbitrarily assumed set of approximations, is proposed. However, from a physicist’s point of view, the theoretical arguments offered in this communication are pure speculation. That is about as carefully phrased as one will ever see such a major turf-war put-down in a peer-reviewed paper. Unfortunately for the electochemists, they may be prematurely puffing their collective chests (no offense, Pam) as their theory is pretty much a crock (at least from the physicist's, and even the armchair vortexians, POV). They continue: Within the reaction volume, the concentration of energetic electrons ... is sufficiently large so that ... electron capture can be described as a chemical reaction ... with the neutrino escaping the reaction volume. The reaction (e-) + (D+) -- 2n is the source of low energy neutrons (Szpak, unpublished data), which are the product of the energetically weak reaction Oops... stop here. There are almost zero independent studies or results which show neutrons produced anywhere near to commensurate with the excess energy seen (4 orders of magnitude, say) -- yet -- they want to introduce these unpublished results to justify this bizarre ... sorry... make that 'almost physically impossible' theory. They continue This model states that the transmutation reactions, X(n,r)Y, determine the excess power and it specifies the mechanism by which a chemical reaction can trigger a nuclear response. Maybe ... but excuse me... if the excess power is the result of neutrons, then why are no neutrons sufficient to achieve these high levels of excess energy ever seen in this kind of reaction - EXCEPT in the aforementioned (Szpak, unpublished data) category ? Did they expect to casually pass this small detail off without raising a few eyebrows? And on top of everything else they admit that electrons necessary to pull this off would need be in the range of 800,000 eV ... from which the secondary gammas which will surely stand-out like a sore thumb, no? Where is the gamma spectroscopy ? Are we to believe everything, based on CR-39 ? This latest chapter in the quest for LENR respectability is looking less and less certain ... I kinda wish they had just stuck with the film results, and let others (even the dreaded fizzix professionals) make the necessary leap of faith into a justifiable model. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
Michel Jullian wrote: COP is the ratio of output power to input power. Harry Same thing actually: Eout/Ein = Pout*t / Pin*t = Pout/Pin Jed's COP=1.2 example was given in terms of energy (1200 joules out / 1000 joules in), my COP=4 example was in terms of power (1000 watts out / 250 watts in). Michel The practical significance of the two ratios is very different. Eout/Ein says nothing about the rate at which energy needs to be supplied to the system to maintain the ratio. e.g. 1000 joules in per second and 1200 joules out per minute is not the same as 1000 watts in and 1200 watts out. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
You're right Harry it's more rigorous to define the COP as the ratio of output power to input power. Note that for heat pumps it is often used even more rigorously to describe the ratio of output (moved) thermal power to input mechanical power, i.e. taking the motor or engine's efficiency out of the equation. IMHO one can use both definitions provided one defines clearly the _system_ under study (heat pump alone, or motor+ heat pump combination, commercially called heat pump) Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy Michel Jullian wrote: COP is the ratio of output power to input power. Harry Same thing actually: Eout/Ein = Pout*t / Pin*t = Pout/Pin Jed's COP=1.2 example was given in terms of energy (1200 joules out / 1000 joules in), my COP=4 example was in terms of power (1000 watts out / 250 watts in). Michel The practical significance of the two ratios is very different. Eout/Ein says nothing about the rate at which energy needs to be supplied to the system to maintain the ratio. e.g. 1000 joules in per second and 1200 joules out per minute is not the same as 1000 watts in and 1200 watts out. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
David Thomson wrote: Hi Harry, Is y = xa^2 not an equation? Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2. Of course, it is an equation. All the variables are truly variables and have the same dimension of one. Do you really think that E=mc^2 is the equation of a straight line with slope c^2? Are you implying that because y=xa^2 is an equation that p=ac^2 is an equation where p is pressure, a is acceleration, and c is the speed of light? No, because a variable with a mass dimension is missing from the right side of the equation. Besides, I was only addressing your remark about it not being an equation. When you arbitrarily change variables to constants and assign specific dimensions to other variables, you end up with completely different expressions. Of course, but there is no such problem with E = mc^2. In the case where y and x are given specific dimensions, those dimensions have specific implied values, depending upon the system of units used. For example, in the MKS system of units: joule = kilogram * (meter/second)^2 You cannot then arbitrarily change the unit values for meters per second to a different value and still have an equality. Once you assign a constant to one of the variables, which is not consistent with the system of units being used, but the dimension of c^2 is consistent with energy units. the other variables cannot maintain their dimensions within the equation. You end up with: y = xc^2 You cannot reference y as energy or x as mass. Since c was arbitrarily chosen, x and y are now also arbitrary. You would need a system of units where v^2 = c^2, such as in the Aether Physics Model's quantum measurements units, in order have a dimensional equation involving c^2. True, there are many situations that will work as though x is mass and y is energy, but it is not a mathematical certainty. Therefore, it is possible for many applications of E=mc^2 to appear to be valid, but there are also applications for where it is not. ? Sorry, I just don't see what you see. harry
Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. Hi, I'll point out the difference. Einstein's paper was aimed at one thing, The Photoelectric Effect. I provided you with a list in my previous email; e.g., Quantum tunneling. Most physicists would agree that a paper on the Photoelectric effect does not need to address Quantum tunneling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your Aether theory is broad -- http://www.16pi2.com and includes topics such as, quoting -- --- Unified Force Theory, Structure of the Aether Structure of subatomic particles Dark matter Consciousness Origin of neutrinos Geometry of space-resonance Two manifestations of charges Geometry of charges many other physics topics. --- I have written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper, I cover several of the observations listed below, and several others could be easily derived as they are logically implied. The theory I present is mathematically correct and is modeled in MathCAD. So you are saying, write the paper and they will read it. You haven't read it, apparently. You left out a key ingredient. Your Aether theory appears very broad. Physicists therefore *need* to hear you claim that your theory predicts the aforementioned list in addition to many other effects, experiments, etc. etc. I'll add to that list * Davisson-Germer experiment * Stern–Gerlach experiment * EPR paradox · Schrodinger's Cat I have presented a completely new foundation for physics, which explains many things not explained in the Standard Model, including a mathematically correct unification of the forces, an electron binding energy equation, a correction in the dimensions of charge used in units, as well as the discovery of a second type of charge. I have discovered the final force law for the strong force, which is identical in structure to Newton's and Coulomb's laws. I have quantified exactly how the physical Universe arose from non-material cause, exceeding the Big Bang theory in scope. No offense intended, but to save time may I ask if you are well versed in the following Quantum Physics -- * Quantum field theory * Quantum electrodynamics * Quantum chromodynamics * Quantum gravity I'm thinking that most physicists specializing in quantum physics would disagree with you. Modern physicists get into the news for predicting the Higgs Boson, which has never been observed and never will be. Scientists get Nobel prizes for theories involving imaginary Pions and Gluons. I thought charged pions were verified in 1947, and the neutral pion was verified in 1950. Furthermore I thought gluons were verified in 1979. We cannot lump all scientists in the one basket since it's a vast field. Scientists are thrilled that their physics is confused as to whether quantum existence is a wave or a particle, and they are ecstatic to claim that quantum existence is nothing more than a probability function. One thing I know, a lot of people get such an impression when listening to t.v. documentaries and about QM because the public is only interested in what is called an Interpreation of a theory. As far as I know, there is nothing confusing about the quantum wavefunction mathematics in regards to being a particle or wave. Somebody comes along, uses the empirical data and constants to derive a discrete model of physics, which answers many of the questions sought by modern science, and instead of being welcomed, he is told to go back to his cave until he has solved every possible problem in physics. What kind of response is that? It's a real response because -- 1. They value their time. 2. They already have a theory that predicts my aforementioned list, and a whole lot more. QED for example is presently verified to an accuracy of 10^-12, which is merely a limitation to experimental error. You cannot reasonably ask them to spend the time to go through your theory until at least you yourself verify your theory accurately predicts what QM predicts and then some. I hope you accept this. What justification do you have to tell me that I have to single handedly rewrite all of physics before my theories can be accepted, I'm not. Each person has their own free will, and therefore if you can find people to help you then great, but you cannot expect most physicists to do what you want. How long would it take you to go over the aforementioned list to at least verify their theory works? If it were my theory then I would be very excited to go through each item to see if the theory worked. when I present many unique discoveries and no other scientist has ever been told to do similar? Now that's not true. Most physicists work on a specific area. You are
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
Michel Jullian wrote: --- You're right Harry it's more rigorous to define the COP as the ratio of output power to input power. Note that for heat pumps it is often used even more rigorously to describe the ratio of output (moved) thermal power to input mechanical power, i.e. taking the motor or engine's efficiency out of the equation. IMHO one can use both definitions provided one defines clearly the _system_ under study (heat pump alone, or motor+ heat pump combination, commercially called heat pump) --- I'm wondering if Tom Bearden's usage of COP is correct, or does Tom use a different COP term? [snip] Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
Hello again, Dave, Nuclear fission, regardless of what isotope is involved, results in the unbinding of nuclei and hence should absorb energy and convert it to matter. This is not the case. It is not the case because nuclei heavier than iron tend to be inherently unstable. But I am no expert in nuclear physics. These two comments expressed by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Veeder appear to reveal a major bone of contention, an issue I gather that has been thrashed about for some time now. Let me approach the on-going controversy from a different perspective: Why is it always being argued that fusing atomic particles MUST always release energy no matter where we are on the atomic number scale, at least according to Einstein's E=MC^2 equation? Likewise, why is it always being argued that splitting atomic particles MUST my default always absorb energy no matter where we are on the atomic number scale, according to E=MC^2. Why? Why is it always being argued that, according to Einstein's E=MC^2, these two conditions MUST occur in ONLY this way? I don't get why this seems to be such an absolute constant in your argument. We all agree on the fact that energy is observed being released when fusing atomic nuclei, when dealing with elements under the atomic number of Fe, iron. Likewise we all agree on the fact that energy is also observed being released when atomic nuclei are split apart, when dealing with elements greater than the atomic number of Fe. In both cases, regardless of whether we are approaching Fe from above or below this magic atomic number, mass is reduced as measured by the remaining subatomic particles within the nuclei. Perhaps I should ask this vexing question from a different POV: How does the Aether theory explain the apparent loss of mass in fission interactions? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
I'm afraid their ordeal might not be over. The Feds will be next. This will become a problem for Tesla and with BEVs in general. This is also why the Gov't needs to sell a fuel . . . some kind of fuel. Highways are maintained by the federal excise tax on fuel. If you're not selling fuel, you have no $$ for highways and the corruption that goes with it. BTW, Tesla is rumored to have cut a deal with Ford for Fusion Coasters. What's a coaster? you might say. Well, a coaster is a automobile without a drive train. No need to waste the $$ on buying the unnecessary IC Engine (my new name . . . ICE is too cool a name for those stinkers) or tranny. Just pop in your Bettery and your Torque machine and awwaay you go! Terry On 3/9/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the Petrocracy at works, folks: http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/local_news/1021491.txt
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
Sorry if he is a friend of yours, but maybe his particular definition for COP can be guessed by reading this page... http://www.randi.org/jr/051702.html (in which Naudin is mistakenly taken for a scientist BTW, Randi even calls him Dr Naudin :) ...or any of the 1 others Google finds when you search: tom bearden fraud Michel - Original Message - From: Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy Michel Jullian wrote: --- You're right Harry it's more rigorous to define the COP as the ratio of output power to input power. Note that for heat pumps it is often used even more rigorously to describe the ratio of output (moved) thermal power to input mechanical power, i.e. taking the motor or engine's efficiency out of the equation. IMHO one can use both definitions provided one defines clearly the _system_ under study (heat pump alone, or motor+ heat pump combination, commercially called heat pump) --- I'm wondering if Tom Bearden's usage of COP is correct, or does Tom use a different COP term? [snip] Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
OOps! Now I am. On 3/9/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Terry, waves and looks around I'm not in this thread. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
On 3/9/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Terry, waves and looks around I'm not in this thread. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
Michel Jullian wrote:
Sorry if he is a friend of yours, but maybe his particular definition for COP
can be guessed by reading this page...
http://www.randi.org/jr/051702.html
(in which Naudin is mistakenly taken for a scientist BTW, Randi even calls
him Dr Naudin :)
...or any of the 1 others Google finds when you search:
tom bearden fraud
Sorry, IMHO James Randi is one of the most unintelligent individuals I know of.
I would be more than happy to read just about any other source. A google
search on {tom bearden fraud} is not exactly what I had in mind as information.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Terry Blanton wrote: This will become a problem for Tesla and with BEVs in general. This is also why the Gov't needs to sell a fuel . . . some kind of fuel. Highways are maintained by the federal excise tax on fuel. If you're not selling fuel, you have no $$ for highways and the corruption that goes with it. I do not think this would be a problem for the government. If cars run on electricity, they can easily tax electricity. If they run on cold fusion, the government can almost as easily tax mileage based on odometer readings, using some sort of digital odometer. The government can begin doing this after about a million people switch over to the new fuel, when the lost revenue becomes significant. I do not know whether highway taxes are more likely to invite corruption than other kinds, but I think we should have them. I seldom drive, and I know people in cities who never drive. It is unfair to ask us to pay for the highways we do not use. Of course it is okay to ask us to pay for part of them, but heavy drivers should pay much more, and trucks even more, since heavy vehicles wear out roads more quickly. I favor wider use of road tolls, using automatic detection devices rather than toll booths, so that noone has to slow down. Perhaps on-board GPS units would do the job. I think we should charge automobile drivers $1 per mile, and make public transport such as buses and trains free. Automobile drivers cause much more environmental harm than people riding on MARTA trains. - Jed
[Vo]: Fw: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday March 9, 2007
-Forwarded Message-from Akira Kawasaki From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mar 9, 2007 1:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday March 9, 2007 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 9 Mar 07 Washington, DC 1. GLOBAL CLIMATE: ARE THOSE WHITE URSINE CARNIVORES ENDANGERED? The Alaskan division of the Fish and Wildlife Service circulated a memo instructing biologists not discuss global warming or polar bears unless they have been designated to do so. Hmmm. A year ago NASA's top climate scientist, physicist James Hansen, was being pressured by a White House appointee to cool it on global warming http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn021006.html . NASA chief Michael Griffin put a stop to that, issuing a policy that allows scientists to speak their minds if they give their boss notice. Science owes its success to a culture of openness in which Nature is The Decider. Anything else is just religion. 2. CHRISTIAN CLIMATE: EVANGELICAL CLIMATE INITIATIVE OPPOSED. Conservative Christian sounds like an oxymoron to me, but there is a split between the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) which has expanded its agenda to include climate change and human rights, and really conservative groups. These would include James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer's Coalitions for America and Tony Perkins' Family Research Council. Note: Real conservatives aren't interested in conservation. The Christian right wants to get back to fighting the real enemy sex. Sex and drugs were the downfall of Ted Haggard, who was the President of the NAE http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn110306.html . 3. OPENNESS: THE MARCH MEETING OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY. The commitment of physicists to the principle of openness was tested this very morning in Denver at the APS March meeting, as it has been every year for 108 years. Roy Masters, author of God Science and Free Energy from Gravity, was to deliver Electricity from Gravity at 9:36 a.m. Anyone can deliver a paper at the March Meeting. What if Masters actually succeeded in using up our gravity to keep the lights on? Not to worry. 4. ENERGY: YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT WHAT BUSH IS DOING IN BRAZIL. Even as Roy Masters was talking about generating energy from gravity, George W. Bush was cutting a deal with President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil to use ethanol. It made about as much sense. We've been through this before: Brazil makes ethanol from sugar cane. We grown corn. Corn is food. The diversion of food to fuel, even at today's trivial level, has already inflated the price of corn in Mexico, sending Mexicans north for better paying jobs. Toxic waste from fermentation of sugar cane is dumped in the Amazon. We don't have an Amazon. Because the energy balance is precarious, sugar cane must be harvested in Brazil by hand. That condemns vast numbers of laborers to serfdom. We don't have serfs - yet. What we do have is lots of people who are capable of running the numbers for the President to see if ethanol is any kind of a solution. None of these people seem to be in the White House. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org What's New is moving to a different listserver and our subscription process has changed. To change your subscription status please visit this link: http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bobparks-whatsnewA=1
Re: [Vo]: Is Big brother watching?
David Thomson wrote: Hi Harry, These days I am more concerned with Big Sister than Big Brother. Why is that? Dave Big Sister is hard at work making the sexes equal. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Spooky Radar
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:38:40 -0500: Hi, [snip] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2027227,00.html US defence contractor looks for quantum leap in radar research David Adam Tuesday March 6, 2007 The Guardian They designed an exploding cigar to kill Fidel Castro and hired fortune-tellers to fight the cold war. Now the US military is taking its war on terror where even Albert Einstein feared to tread - into the baffling world of quantum mechanics. Lockheed Martin, a main US defence contractor, thinks it can exploit research on the fringes of theoretical physics to build the ultimate radar, which could see through anything, from buildings to solid earth. more ..it will even find the WMD you don't have..;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Outrage !! I do not know whether highway taxes are more likely to invite corruption than other kinds, but I think we should have them. I seldom drive, and I know people in cities who never drive. I honestly don't know if this is a bad idea or a good idea, I don't know. However, I do find it amusing that here in Vortexland (and everywhere else for the most part) any suggestion for changing something having to do with hitting us up for more money to drive generally has the qualifier this doesn't apply to me though... or some such derivation. I drive a long way each day to work and back, compared to many, and probably a long way in your opinion. About 40 miles round trip. I have no choice, the economy here is devastated and will only get worse. You can do nothing here without permits for this and regulations for that, and so everything is gone. This was once a big steel area...now all the steel here is from damned China. We have to fight to make a living. Heating bills here in this frozen wasteland are enormous. We are taxed out of our homes here, literally. Those taxes are largely wasted on pork projects and the lazy. I do not want help from these corrupt people, but even if I did, I couldn't get it for a few reasons: 1., I work and make too much money, 2., I am the wrong race. That isn't racism either, its simple fact of observation. I've been with friends who try as hard as they can, and needed some help during the coldest parts of winter, as they went for assistance downtown. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were not eligible due to income (too much of it, so called) and due to not being a minority. To tax us further, without something giving somewhere, will destroy us more. I'm just a lowly mechanic (by day anyways) and make very little. I imagine many of you high minded dreamers here on Vortex make far more and could handle this. What do you say to us? If we go, who will fix your cars? I'd like to see some of you try to fix a modern electronicized, over-emissionized, plastic-and-aluminum, engine shoehorned into the tiny engine bay car with the Bible sized wiring diagram. You will quite simply be screwed over royally. Try doing this on a hybrid, and you are adding even more difficulty. We can barely do it at our shop, as the crooks at Toyota will not sell us the tools we need. Want to change your own transmission fluid in your Mercedes-Benz? Good luck without your blue-collar mechanic's shop... Mercedes-Benz sells you the car without a dipstick! MB WORKSHOP ONLY printed in nice friendly letters on the transaxle dipstick handle with no dipstick connected to it. If you just guess, and overfill the transmission, oopsfoaming of the fluid and the transmission is done. To go futher on about this issue of taxes and regulations, did you know that all new cars will soon be required to have sensors in the wheels to alert you of low tire pressure? I have to go to a meeting on my own time, and which I am not paid for, on March 27th to be taught how to use the new tire valves and how to reset the sensors and such should we need to plug a nail hole in a tire. Gone bye-bye are the days of punching the plug into the tire, fill 'er with air and drive off into the sunset...now it is all computerized. We need a damned SILICON tax! Who is going to pay for this crap? You are. And me, eventually, when all the old cars are gone and I have to buy something post-1995. No one needs tire pressure sensors. What people need is a working brain to get off their lazy, stupid, computer-jockey asses and learn how to make sure 32psi is in their tires. (That's PSI too...no bloody kilopascals, thanks much) New York also has the NYVIP joke as well... New York Vehicle Inspection Program. It is a computer that scans the barcode of your registration sticker so that you can do an inspection on the vehicle in question. When the computer works, of course. The Empire state, with its vast wealth and variety of resources bought the cheapest computers and peripherals they could find, and cobbled it together with ape-level intelligence. Then requires us to buy this thing at $3500, or sorry, we can't do inspections anymore. If your car is older than 1996, you are lucky. If 1996 or newer, you get the OBDII connector plugged into the DLC port under the dashboard, and the computer (hopefully) communicates with your vehicle's ECM, and sees if the emissions are kosher. If not, you fail inspection. Butits not necessarily if your emissions are excessive. If your Service Engine Soon or Check Engine light is on for any reason, the computer will fail the car. You will be charged too, we can't cancel the inspection and just let you leave without getting the inspection done and get it fixed (or fix it
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Turn up the heater, do go for a drive in the summer and find less depressing music and maybe environment. Of course there is an answer to all of this, but it won't be found in your current mindset... Be proactive and productive, change things don't just reduce how fast you are taking a part in destroying the world, be a force for good not a smaller force for bad. On 3/10/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Outrage !! I do not know whether highway taxes are more likely to invite corruption than other kinds, but I think we should have them. I seldom drive, and I know people in cities who never drive. I honestly don't know if this is a bad idea or a good idea, I don't know. However, I do find it amusing that here in Vortexland (and everywhere else for the most part) any suggestion for changing something having to do with hitting us up for more money to drive generally has the qualifier this doesn't apply to me though... or some such derivation. I drive a long way each day to work and back, compared to many, and probably a long way in your opinion. About 40 miles round trip. I have no choice, the economy here is devastated and will only get worse. You can do nothing here without permits for this and regulations for that, and so everything is gone. This was once a big steel area...now all the steel here is from damned China. We have to fight to make a living. Heating bills here in this frozen wasteland are enormous. We are taxed out of our homes here, literally. Those taxes are largely wasted on pork projects and the lazy. I do not want help from these corrupt people, but even if I did, I couldn't get it for a few reasons: 1., I work and make too much money, 2., I am the wrong race. That isn't racism either, its simple fact of observation. I've been with friends who try as hard as they can, and needed some help during the coldest parts of winter, as they went for assistance downtown. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were not eligible due to income (too much of it, so called) and due to not being a minority. To tax us further, without something giving somewhere, will destroy us more. I'm just a lowly mechanic (by day anyways) and make very little. I imagine many of you high minded dreamers here on Vortex make far more and could handle this. What do you say to us? If we go, who will fix your cars? I'd like to see some of you try to fix a modern electronicized, over-emissionized, plastic-and-aluminum, engine shoehorned into the tiny engine bay car with the Bible sized wiring diagram. You will quite simply be screwed over royally. Try doing this on a hybrid, and you are adding even more difficulty. We can barely do it at our shop, as the crooks at Toyota will not sell us the tools we need. Want to change your own transmission fluid in your Mercedes-Benz? Good luck without your blue-collar mechanic's shop... Mercedes-Benz sells you the car without a dipstick! MB WORKSHOP ONLY printed in nice friendly letters on the transaxle dipstick handle with no dipstick connected to it. If you just guess, and overfill the transmission, oopsfoaming of the fluid and the transmission is done. To go futher on about this issue of taxes and regulations, did you know that all new cars will soon be required to have sensors in the wheels to alert you of low tire pressure? I have to go to a meeting on my own time, and which I am not paid for, on March 27th to be taught how to use the new tire valves and how to reset the sensors and such should we need to plug a nail hole in a tire. Gone bye-bye are the days of punching the plug into the tire, fill 'er with air and drive off into the sunset...now it is all computerized. We need a damned SILICON tax! Who is going to pay for this crap? You are. And me, eventually, when all the old cars are gone and I have to buy something post-1995. No one needs tire pressure sensors. What people need is a working brain to get off their lazy, stupid, computer-jockey asses and learn how to make sure 32psi is in their tires. (That's PSI too...no bloody kilopascals, thanks much) New York also has the NYVIP joke as well... New York Vehicle Inspection Program. It is a computer that scans the barcode of your registration sticker so that you can do an inspection on the vehicle in question. When the computer works, of course. The Empire state, with its vast wealth and variety of resources bought the cheapest computers and peripherals they could find, and cobbled it together with ape-level intelligence. Then requires us to buy this thing at $3500, or sorry, we can't do inspections anymore. If your car is older than 1996, you are lucky. If 1996 or newer, you get the OBDII connector plugged into the DLC port under the dashboard, and the computer (hopefully) communicates with your vehicle's ECM, and sees if
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
On 3/9/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I drive a long way each day to work and back, compared to many, and probably a long way in your opinion. About 40 miles round trip. The average commute in Atlanta is 34 miles one way. I personally do 23 miles one way. We have many who commute from South Carolina every day. I have a co worker who commutes from Chattanooga. T
[Vo]: New Challenge to Jed
Ok, so the thermite, the squib explosions that can be plainly seen and heard (and recorded) and which burnt people and thew them around, and went off before the collapse and thermite detected, buildings pancaking at freefall speeds, the people doing work on the building before 911 (an unprecedented power down) and removing the bomb sniffing dogs there after, the pod (or a never before seen optical illususion on a plane?), the flash in all videos of both planes just before they hit, the total lack of evidence of a plane crash at Pennsylvania, everyone smelling cordite at the Pentagon, the calls that couldn't have been made (and the unreal conversations claimed: This is your son, Mark Bingham, You Believe me don't you? (that's how every phone conversation goes with my mother) The fact that the FBI admitted that the hijacker's ID were stolen and Arabs weren't involed and the (many identified) were still alive. (There were also no Arab names on the manifest, Autopsies showed no Arabs) The plane the Mayor claim landed, everyone was told to evacuate the airport (had to walk) and the flights either weren't scheduled or were at the wrong gates to begin with. (and the pilot of one of the planes just happened to be involved with a simulation of just such an event! What are the odds!) The patently fake Osama that looks nothing like Osama and uses the wrong hand to eat. (Osama is a lefty) Ok, so none of this is able to even warrant you looking into the evidence (as you show abundant ignorance of the position you are fighting against), well just look at this video: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/ You can plainly see WTC7 (the Solomon Brother Building) in the background as they report it has fallen, they were 20 minutes early!!! This is not the first time, one of the well known JFK facts is that New Zealand newspapers reported stuff they couldn't have possibly known yet, again we see the media ahead of the game. The result of a presidential election was printed beforehand too once. No, obviously this won't convince you, indeed I had asked and you admitted that no evidence possibly could, at least don't pretend you position is supported by logic or evidence. This isn't something I want to believe, this isn't a political statement and it says nothing about what one expects of the future, it has nothing to do with what is easy to believe or comfortable, it has nothing to do with patriotism (well I'm a kiwi so obviously not) or what someone thinks of right .vs left or capitalist .vs communist or any other issue that may be brought up, it's about one thing, the evidence. You can't brush it aside by giving anecdotes about cold fusion, Japan or politicians. You are welcome to close your eyes, cover your ears and hum if you wish though...
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Great, so $1360 a month, let's hope Jed doesn't get a job in government. Personally I think that user pays is generally a poor idea, I'm more of a flat rate all you can eat kind of guy, it is much more freeing, people don't need to be obsessing over every mile like that. But at the very least Jed's figures are 10 times too high at least, possible s much as 100 times too high. On 3/10/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I drive a long way each day to work and back, compared to many, and probably a long way in your opinion. About 40 miles round trip. The average commute in Atlanta is 34 miles one way. I personally do 23 miles one way. We have many who commute from South Carolina every day. I have a co worker who commutes from Chattanooga. T
[Vo]: Beardem
Michael Jullian wrote; \ Sorry if he is a friend of yours, but maybe his particular definition for COP can be guessed by reading this page... http://www.randi.org/jr/051702.html (in which Naudin is mistakenly taken for a scientist BTW, Randi even calls him Dr Naudin :) ...or any of the 1 others Google finds when you search: tom bearden fraud Ha, Dr. Tom Bearden and fraud, yes, I would expect at least 10,000 hits. OTOH, I'd love to see them take Randi's money. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
