Re: [Vo]:GM and EPA dispute Volt's MPG rating
There are better descriptions here: http://www.greencar.com/features/volt-facts/ Being a serial hybrid, the volt *could* be battery only for short ranges. Terry On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:31:08 -0400: Hi, [snip] Somehow it doesn't seem surprising that they're not very friendly toward moves in the direction of fully electric cars. [snip] Bingo! :) Clearly the EPA needs a new category for PLUG-IN hybrids, as opposed to ordinary hybrids. (The volt is NOT an electric car. It IS a plug-in hybrid). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:air turbine
I like this quote from the airturbineengine page: The air we breathe is the same air that drives the AATE; no wind required. This is not a perpetual motion machine. It runs forever with no fuel or energy input, using air but without requiring wind (or, by implication, a temperature differential) but it's not a perpetual motion machine. And the difference is what, exactly...? Sure, sure, everybody knows perpmo is impossible, and this is anything but that, so it can't be a perpmo machine. Ho, hum. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting R C Macaulay Howdy Thomas, Notice the Rockwell turbine company is registered in Las Vegas, Nevada. I haven't been able to sell a single share of their stock to the drunks at the Dime Box Saloon, Vortexians; For Leaking Pen, and anyone else who missed it. I sent the following to Hal Puthoff. I assume that you've heard of Viktor Schauberger and his Respine. These people claim to have replicated it http://www.airturbineengine.com/ . Hum, I assume from the tone of your message that you don't think their air turbine will work. Their plan is to have it independentaly verified. In general when someone builds a motor -- which supposedly works -- and then they say they're going to have someone independently verify it, you should be on your guard. If it works, what's to verify? Build it, sell it, put it in your car, hook it to a generator and heat your house with it. Close the loop and invite a few friends over to look for the trick, let them go talk about it to their friends. (We're all within six friends of each other, so word gets around fast.) If you don't think there's a market for emergency generators which don't require keeping 500 gallons of gasoline on the premises to actually be of any value, you haven't looked around much -- and you wouldn't need to sell many of the things to start ramping up your business. Lots of mo-gens are installed by handyman-type guys, independent operators, and do-it-yourselfers, any of whom might be willing to have a go at something like this. Hey, sell kits! If it works (big if) there is a market for it, no independent verification required. On the other hand, if it doesn't work, then an independent verification is a great opportunity to exercise lots of cleverness and fool one observer into thinking they saw something they didn't see. Oh, look, the Statue of Liberty really did vanish! There were witnesses, that proves it. And once you've had it verified you can suck in investors, who will be happy to give you money in exchange for nothing more than little pieces of paper. This is in sharp contrast to the do-it-yourself mo-gen market, where if someone gives you money, you have to give them a functional hunk of hardware in exchange.
Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether
Possibly you are speaking of the Aspden Effect? Terry On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Benjamin Rozanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering whether the effects of a spinning mass could be playing a part. Bruce DePalma found that a spinning mass apperently gains energy. Could the Bedini Effect tie into this? (spinning mass). Are they the same? There was something about entrainment of aether but I can't recall who described it. Something about spinning-up a an electric motor, letting it come to a stop, then re-starting it immediately took less energy to get it to speed than the first time. Is there a connection?
Re: [Vo]:Thixotrophy and the Aether
thomas malloy wrote: Harold Aspden showed that a gyroscope composed of a magnet, when spun up, and then stopped, it can be returned to it's previous motion with way less energy than was required to set it in motion the first time. This is the Aspden Effect. Harold Aspden is an astounding person who does elegant experiments and writes good papers. More attention should be paid to him. His web site is here, for those unfamiliar with his work: http://www.energyscience.org.uk/ His discussion of whacko inventors here is one of the best, funniest and saddest I have seen: http://www.energyscience.org.uk/keynote1.htm The Repression of Invention Quote: One Friday afternoon the company [IBM] received a two-line telegram which read 'If you do not send 5,000 pounds by return, I will not tell you my invention'. It was from Ireland, but a little while later there was a communication just as humorous from Australia about an idea for electrocuting rabbits. I remember it because it had no proper address. It was mailed to England addressed to 'The Company that made the Canberra'. That was the name of a bomber aircraft back in those days. The gist of the invention was the idea that when a rabbit popped up from a rabbit hole it would interrupt a light beam, causing a photocell to sense the presence of the rabbit and thereby cause a bell to ring. That would frighten the rabbit which would then withdraw and seek to escape by running to another exit hole. The electrocution device located at that hole was then to be triggered with a delay set according to the distance to the other hole and the known speed of travel of the rabbit, so that the rabbit would be duly killed. It was asserted that our engineers would have the technical skills needed to design such a device. Now, on the face of it, this communication was not intended as a joke, but you will agree that it ranks as one of the many inventions that does warrant 'repression'. - Jed
[VO]: Nobel Physics prize
Howdy Vorts, I would have preferred the descriptive wording of this press release be more scientific. When dealing with theoritical physics it is always best to describe most sub-atomic theory as theoritical imagination since science has NOT been able to confirm the explanations as claimed in the article. This is more artistic liscense than pure science. LENR science has been roasted on the spit for better science and theory. Richard http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27057042 The spontaneous broken symmetries that Nambu studied, differ from the broken symmetries described by Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa, the academy said. These spontaneous occurrences seem to have existed in nature since the very beginning of the universe and came as a complete surprise when they first appeared in particle experiments in 1964. The academy added that it was only in recent years that scientists have been able to confirm the explanations that Kobayashi and Maskawa proffered in 1972. These predicted, hypothetical new quarks have recently appeared in physics experiments. As late as 2001, the two particle detectors BaBar at Stanford ... and Belle at Tsukuba, Japan, both detected broken symmetries independently of each other. The results were exactly as Kobayashi and Maskawa had predicted almost three decades earlier, the citation said.
Re: [Vo]:the air turbine
Howdy Robin, In Lost Wages, as we call Las Vegas, the Roulette wheel is the money maker. The air turbine is only a minor competitor. This turbine idea has been around for years. First clue to the fantasy is the 30,000 RPM speed of the turbine. They enclose the blades in a acrylic housing to view the rotation. I don't want to be in the same casino when this device is running at that speed. There is enough danger hanging around the Dime Box saloon watching rednecks play mumbly peg with Bowie knives and drinking mescal. Save your money and invest in Goldie Sucks stock. Richard In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:53:45 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] I posted Hum, I assume from the tone of your message that you don't think their air turbine will work. Their plan is to have it independently verified. I'd like to see it heat water. and Robin van Spaandonk replies I would be happy with accurate frequency x torque measurements combined with temperature, pressure and volume measurements of in and out flowing air. I would also like to know if the humidity of the air passing through it makes a difference. You're asking for way more than me. If my friend can help, my plan is to see and test the machine. It's in Las Vegas, so the humidity is low. I'd like to place a piece of X Ray film in close proximity to the machine. It would be factory sealed so if when developed, if it is fogged, then Frank Germano 's observations about X Ray emissions from the Respine are correct. I'm wondering about imaging, perhaps I might be able to find an X Ray camera. I'm assuming that the area emitting the X Rays will be triangular. I suggest placing a key between the machine and the film, against the outside of the film pack. That way, if there are X-rays coming from the machine, you will get a key shadow on the film. Otherwise, you won't know if the machine caused any eventual fogging, or something else. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1711 - Release Date: 10/6/2008 5:37 PM
Re: [Vo]:Solar panels going tubular, mon
Meant to include the press release too:
http://www.solyndra.com/News/Press-Release-01
This is a company that is only three years old and is ramping-up manufacturing
to produce thin film PV *tubes* -- of a composition not unlike the better known
Nanosolar.
I believe it is yet another spin-off of Cypress Semiconductor, which insiders
claim is in stealth mode but is by far the dominant player in solar energy,
despite not seeking much PR. Apparently something like 80% of all solar panels
being shipped worldwide (as opposed to being talked about) are made by one of
the many subsidiaries of Cypress (which was itself a spinoff of AMD founded by
the genius but controversial inventor JT Rogers ('Nun of the Above' g i.e.
the champion of the meritocracy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._J._Rodgers
Solyndra already has more than $1.2
billion of contracts with customers in Europe and the USA and is shipping now!
Contrast that with the Nanosolar hype. Are they even shipping yet? Company says
yes, customers say no.
- Original Message
http://www.solyndra.com/Products/More-Electricity
Re: [Vo]:Thixotrophy and the Aether
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Harold Aspden showed that a gyroscope composed of a magnet, when spun up, and then stopped, it can be returned to it's previous motion with way less energy than was required to set it in motion the first time. This is the Aspden Effect. Harold Aspden is an astounding person who does elegant experiments and writes good papers. More attention should be paid to him. His web site is here, for those unfamiliar with his work: http://www.energyscience.org.uk/ It appears to be rather large. He appears to believe in an aether. Jed (or anyone), do you know of anyplace on his site where he explains how he resolves his aether theory with the results of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments? I did not see such a discussion in a quick perusal. If he assumes an aether, but doesn't discuss those two experiments, it's going to be a little difficult to take the rest of what he says terribly seriously. Of course, you can never prove a theory, but you sure can disprove one, and most aether theories fail in the face of the null MMX result and the non-null Sagnac result. (Claiming the MMX result wasn't really null is not a reasonable option, it's been repeated a zillion times, it's been back-analyzed to death, and if it got a positive signal it was certainly not far enough above the noise floor to allow classical aether theories to wiggle past. What's more it was done by observers who started out biased in favor of a *positive* result, so lying experimenter covering up the results doesn't work, either.) Lorentz's (final) aether theory flies neatly between those results but it has the drawback of making exactly the same predictions as special relativity, so there's no particular reason to use it in place of relativity. Unless Aspden has found a new way to model an aether (different from that discovered by Lorentz), such that it fits with experimental results *and* produces predictions which differ from SR in some way, well, it's hard to see much value in it. Sorry, Jed, if I sound dismissing, I know you said you like his experimental results.
[Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six predictions made in advance and born out): http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf or here it is made tiny (but note that this is a PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a correct prediction if we just look at the popular vote. The model consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is very surprising. Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the opposition will win: = [begin quote] The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
we can check key 11, and MAYBE key four. wow. On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six predictions made in advance and born out): http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf or here it is made tiny (but note that this is a PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a correct prediction if we just look at the popular vote. The model consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is very surprising. Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the opposition will win: = [begin quote] The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six predictions made in advance and born out): http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf or here it is made tiny (but note that this is a PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a correct prediction if we just look at the popular vote. The model consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is very surprising. Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the opposition will win: = [begin quote] Well, let's play a game. Here are my answers. I get 2 assertions that are true. Looks like the Republicans are going down big-time. Ed The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. No, the incumbent party lost seats. KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. No, there was a serious contest KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. No KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. Yes, there is no serious challenge. KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. No, the economy is in recession KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. No, the real growth is less. KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Yes, very major changes are effected. KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. No, there is unrest. KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. No, the incumbent has lots of scandal. KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. No, there have been major failures. KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. No, no major success has been achieved. KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Mixed, a national hero, yes; charismatic, no KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Mixed, charismatic, yes; a national hero, no
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
ohh, point, major changes. so three, becuase its an OR on the last two. On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six predictions made in advance and born out): http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf or here it is made tiny (but note that this is a PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a correct prediction if we just look at the popular vote. The model consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is very surprising. Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the opposition will win: = [begin quote] Well, let's play a game. Here are my answers. I get 2 assertions that are true. Looks like the Republicans are going down big-time. Ed The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. No, the incumbent party lost seats. KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. No, there was a serious contest KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. No KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. Yes, there is no serious challenge. KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. No, the economy is in recession KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. No, the real growth is less. KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Yes, very major changes are effected. KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. No, there is unrest. KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. No, the incumbent has lots of scandal. KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. No, there have been major failures. KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. No, no major success has been achieved. KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Mixed, a national hero, yes; charismatic, no KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Mixed, charismatic, yes; a national hero, no
Re: [Vo]:Thixotrophy and the Aether
- Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence http://www.energyscience.org.uk/ It appears to be rather large [Aspden effect]. He appears to believe in an aether. ... as well he should- but his effect is not large. Jed (or anyone), do you know of anyplace on his site where he explains how he resolves his aether theory with the results of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments? I did not see such a discussion in a quick perusal. What is there to resolve? All those experiments which you mention can possibly prove (if they really prove anything at all) is that aether in our local 3-space is not the medium of travel for light. They were so poorly done that they may not have even proved that, but if they do - then so what? It is quite logical that the aether is primarily a higher dimensional field or medium anyway, and that light does not use it - but instead probably does require the local 3-space gravitational field - and ironically may use gravity in somewhat the same way that naysayers suggested aether could have been used ... if it were measureable in our 3-space (i.e. from the perspective of photons, gravity provides a kind of virtual 'traction'). IOW it appears to me that the aether-naysayers were both scientists who did not try to extend their limited findings, but with a vocal contingent of a few who were (historically) activist-atheists who were offended by the inherent mystery of an aether, or by the theological implications of higher dimensions; and these few had a personal agenda going beyond science. Why else would they be so vocal about such a poorly constructed experiment? IOW a few of the more active in this argument were against any spatial dimension or medium which could transfer information from afar - and they pretty much got away for decades with a personal agenda by constructing and disproving a purely 'straw man argument'. If light photons use the gravity field as a propulsion medium, for instance, and that may be inherent in some of the theories of electrogravity, then the speed of light would always be relative to the local gravity field, regardless of how fast the local gravitational field is moving through a static aether in the next larger frame (which itself would be a higher dimension). BTW - this might also imply that if light from other galaxies enters areas of zero local gravity, it may exceed c in those spaces or even be mirrored back. It might also imply that photons, in fact maybe all bosons do not feel an aether- but fermions could feel it- at least feel the dimensional interface of it (which is where the thixotropy, and the Aspden effect, would come in). The near-null results of various poorly performed, so-called aether-non-detection experiments like Michelson-Morley can be explained away in no time by the fact that those devices were stationary in the Earth's local gravity field which itself is almost certainly not stationary in an aether (which itself is not required for photons to propagate). Jones
Re: [Vo]:air turbine
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:47:49 -0400: Hi, [snip] I like this quote from the airturbineengine page: The air we breathe is the same air that drives the AATE; no wind required. This is not a perpetual motion machine. It runs forever with no fuel or energy input, using air but without requiring wind (or, by implication, a temperature differential) but it's not a perpetual motion machine. And the difference is what, exactly...? Sure, sure, everybody knows perpmo is impossible, and this is anything but that, so it can't be a perpmo machine. Ho, hum. [snip] That's what I initially thought too, however it wouldn't be a perpmo machine if it obtained energy from the air. That is available in two (possibly 3) forms:- 1) thermal energy 2) nuclear energy (fusion) 3) Hydrino energy (from the Hydrogen in water vapour) The second (and possibly the third) would likely produce ionizing radiation sufficient to fog a photographic plate. Another possibility is that it taps into the energy available in the lower van Allen belt (cyclotron radiation) at about 200-300 Hz = 12000-18000 rpm. Rotating at around 3 rpm it could be on a second or third harmonic (due to the extent of the belt, and the variation in strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the frequency is somewhat spread). Air passing through the device could leave internal components with a static charge, and this rotating static charge could synchronize with rotating charge in the belt. (See work previously reported in the press and discussed on this list regarding wireless resonant transmission of power). 200-300 Hz has a wavelength of 1500-1000 km which puts at least part of the lower belt within a single wavelength, which in turn meets the requirement for resonant transmission. (The lower belt is the one where the protons are trapped, and it's the protons that carry the lions share of the kinetic energy available from the solar wind). If this is how it works, it would certainly be able to at least meet all our transportation energy requirements, and the power density could probably be improved upon by deliberately increasing the static charge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thixotrophy and the Aether
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence http://www.energyscience.org.uk/ It appears to be rather large [Aspden effect]. He appears to believe in an aether. ... as well he should- but his effect is not large. Jed (or anyone), do you know of anyplace on his site where he explains how he resolves his aether theory with the results of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments? I did not see such a discussion in a quick perusal. What is there to resolve? Anyone interested in the issue might do well to start by looking at Wiki's page on MMX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment As always, Wiki tries hard to be an encyclopedia, not a journal and not a forum, so what you'll get there is just the mainstream science point of view. None the less it's a reasonable place to start, and in this case they do a pretty clear job of outlining the experiment, the history surrounding it, and a sketch of subsequent replications, of which there have been many. For me, the main thing that seemed to be lacking on that page was more complete information regarding Lorentz's aether theory. I believe he developed a version which *was* consistent with the MMX but Wiki doesn't seem to mention it on that page. (Or perhaps I overlooked it.)
Re: [Vo]:Thixotrophy and the Aether
Stephen If I can judge by Jones's rather strong denial of the validity of these classic experiments Whoa. I am not denying their validity for the limited scope which they encompass- but why extend that further ? They do have historical meaning and purpose, but it can be easily exaggerated. This is more of a case of semantics and broadened perspectives, or maybe semantics plus a personal agenda. That goes both ways of course g but the definition of 'aether' has moved clearly away (possibly due to these experiments) from a medium which photons 'must have' in order to propagate - to something more akin to the epo field of Dirac/Wheeler etc. as best explained by Don Hotson. There may never be a firm definition which can be agreed-to by everyone. IOW - photons may require some sort of a 'medium' - true, but that may end up being simply gravity, or gravity in conjunction with an epo field. Similarly, if we go back to Maxwell's paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' - magnetic lines of force can be reinterpreted in an analogous way - with rotating electron-positron dipoles as the hidden structure. These dipoles will comprise of an electron and a positron in mutual orbit - and in an underlying dimension which may correspond to Dirac's reciprocal space, and from which 'quantum foam' was imagined - which is what Wheeler thought that space-time would reduce-to on the Planck scale. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Thixotrophy and the Aether
Jones Beene wrote: Stephen If I can judge by Jones's rather strong denial of the validity of these classic experiments Whoa. I am not denying their validity for the limited scope which they encompass- but why extend that further ? They do have historical meaning and purpose, but it can be easily exaggerated. g OK, sorry, I tend to come on a little strong sometimes. The comments about the Wiki article still stand, tho; it can be helpful in obtaining a clear historical perspective on the MMX. This is more of a case of semantics and broadened perspectives, or maybe semantics plus a personal agenda. That goes both ways of course g but the definition of 'aether' has moved clearly away (possibly due to these experiments) from a medium which photons 'must have' in order to propagate - to something more akin to the epo field of Dirac/Wheeler etc. as best explained by Don Hotson. There may never be a firm definition which can be agreed-to by everyone. IOW - photons may require some sort of a 'medium' - true, but that may end up being simply gravity, or gravity in conjunction with an epo field. Similarly, if we go back to Maxwell's paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' - magnetic lines of force can be reinterpreted in an analogous way - with rotating electron-positron dipoles as the hidden structure. These dipoles will comprise of an electron and a positron in mutual orbit - and in an underlying dimension which may correspond to Dirac's reciprocal space, and from which 'quantum foam' was imagined - which is what Wheeler thought that space-time would reduce-to on the Planck scale. Jones
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
From another list. Harry An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested againstevery Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctlypredicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six predictions made in advance and born out): http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf or here it is made tiny (but note that this is a PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a correct prediction if we just look at the popular vote. The model consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is very surprising. Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plussome clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the opposition will win: = [begin quote] The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
Sorry I meant to pass on Stephen's link to another list. Harry - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 9:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections From another list. Harry
[Vo]:Fusor patent app
United States Patent Application 20080226010 Sesselmann; Steven Arnold September 18, 2008 Reactor For Producing Controlled Nuclear Fusion Abstract Method and apparatus for producing controlled steady state nuclear fusion with isotopes of low atomic numbers being the most useful reactants, such as Deuterium, Tritium and Helium3. The apparatus consists of a high voltage power supply and a high voltage spherical capacitor, constructed in such a way, that the outer shell is the anode and contained centrally within it, a hollow cathode, into which positive ions of the reactant gases can be injected through dielectric tubes and confined electrostatically within the cathode, until such high temperatures are reached, as to allow nuclear fusion to take place. The interior chamber of the cathode forms part of a hermetically sealed fuel circuit running through the capacitor, a turbo molecular pump is also connected in line with the fuel circuit, to drive the reactant gas through the reaction chamber The fusion product, which is mainly high energy Neutrons, Protons and alpha particles, is consequently converted to heat in the dielectric medium contained within the space between the anode and the cathode, this heat can easily be extracted and converted into useful energy using known methods. -Mark PS: get the f'ing political opinions out of this forum! Wait a minute... Here's my $.02. Anyone who thinks that the Prez (regardless of party affiliation) is responsible for the economic conditions of this country, needs to go back to jr. high school and learn that the House and Senate draft and pass laws, not the executive branch. Okay, now get them out of this forum! :-) No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1711 - Release Date: 10/6/2008 5:37 PM
Re: [Vo]:Thixotrophy and the Aether
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Stephen If I can judge by Jones's rather strong denial of the validity of these classic experiments Whoa. I am not denying their validity for the limited scope which they encompass- but why extend that further ? They do have historical meaning and purpose, but it can be easily exaggerated. g OK, sorry, I tend to come on a little strong sometimes. The comments about the Wiki article still stand, tho; it can be helpful in obtaining a clear historical perspective on the MMX. This is more of a case of semantics and broadened perspectives, or maybe semantics plus a personal agenda. That goes both ways of course g but the definition of 'aether' has moved clearly away (possibly due to these experiments) from a medium which photons 'must have' in order to propagate - to something more akin to the epo field of Dirac/Wheeler etc. as best explained by Don Hotson. There may never be a firm definition which can be agreed-to by everyone. IOW - photons may require some sort of a 'medium' - true, but that may end up being simply gravity, or gravity in conjunction with an epo field. Similarly, if we go back to Maxwell's paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' - magnetic lines of force can be reinterpreted in an analogous way - with rotating electron-positron dipoles as the hidden structure. These dipoles will comprise of an electron and a positron in mutual orbit - and in an underlying dimension which may correspond to Dirac's reciprocal space, and from which 'quantum foam' was imagined - which is what Wheeler thought that space-time would reduce-to on the Planck scale. Jones So, DePalma spin experimental results; Bedini results; any other results (like Explorer series spinning satellites get no attention. Ok. Got it.
