Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
thomas malloy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 17, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: I think you missed my point. If you don't want something public then don't make it so yourself. Actually it appears you did miss something. If you are so concerned and you want your address protected from web crawlers then you should post them on your web site in a cryptic form, not out in the clear as you have on you web page. You can add obvious spaces for example. Getting Spam is a necessary evil of accessibility. My ISP has a Spam filter, which works quite well. I get about 200 per day. I know this because I have to look it over, One day I found a message from a talk show host, on another Cyril Chuckanov. I hear that all the time from friends, family, people on the Internet. My poor aunt gets a lot more. Perhaps just lucky, but after being online since the mid 1990's still I only get about a few dozen spams per day. Maybe they don't like me, LOL.
Re: [Vo]:VORTEX MODERATOR: P. Lowrance use of personal attacks
I was defending an individual, Dr. Mike. Horace should not publicly post an individuals email address on a list without permission. He should have sent the email address in private to the person requesting the email. Instead, Horace argued and argued about the topic knowing full well he was wrong. Spammers subscribe to a great deal of lists for the purpose of collecting emails. That's correct. They receive the exact unfiltered Vortex-l emails you receive. We don't know if Dr. Mike is subscribed to Vo. It appears he's not subscribed, but the point is we should first ask Dr. Mike for permission. Better yet, just send Dr. Mikes email in private to the person who requested it. Spammers prey on the ignorance of people such as Horace. I would be more than happy to be a martyr and get band for the sake of Dr. Mike! :-) I'll debate you or anyone on your claim that I'm a dick or whatever else you feel. Sorry, I can only live by truth and logic, and if it infuriates people that I'm blunt and the fact they cannot strike emotions in me then that's an issue they need to deal with. Hey folks, this may be my last post, LOL. As they say, all good things *must* eventually come to an end. If so, then it's been great keeping you all on your toes. Allow your mind to govern your emotions! Unconditional love is not an emotion, but often such emotions along with physical tears is a side effect. Unconditional love is a Soul quality. Never give up hope! Please, consider spending a few days analyzing and logging your every occurring thought, emotion, and action in extreme detail. One day you will awaken and see your true self. To Truth Logic!!! :-))) Kind Regards, Paul Lowrance William Beaty wrote: Anyone can fall into uncivil behavior during a heated debate. A civilized person catches most of their own misbehavior and apologizes to those they've insulted. But anyone who uses repeated and unapologetic personal attacks is a different problem, and I will remove such people from this forum. Wikipedia: DON'T BE A DICK http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
Re: [Vo]:Mr. Lowrance's choice of words: You people...
OrionWorks wrote: [snip] You have called the Vortex participants You people..., that we ...can't get past [our] emotions, that we ...continue to kill each other... Thanks for pointing that out. To be more accurate, this statement can't get past emotions is referring to present tense. Sorry for the lack of clarity. There is great potential in all people, which is why I also wrote, One day you will awaken and see your true self. My post was by no means directed toward any individual. The word you is used as in the plural sense, and it's directed toward nearly 7 billion people. You people... Really? Indeed, that's based on a great deal of my unbiased research in analyzing thousands people in detail. I'm still searching for that one person who exhibits a true mental state over emotional dominance over 90% of their waking life. Such people are out their, somewhere. Unfortunately I've *yet* to meet such a person.
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
OrionWorks wrote: Paul, ...whose email address is clearly displayed in all my vortex-l messages every-single-time as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Try this logic -- By my choice I submit to Vortex-l. Dr. Mike has not submitted his email to this list. People should not submit another persons email address without permission. The lack of foresight, and dim consciousness found in nearly every human being is rather frightening. It's no wonder an entire so-called civilized country of so-called humans can support a war of killing. You people can't get past your emotions, which passively dominate your consciousness. You continue to kill each other, cycle after cycle, and time after time you find what I refer to as fuzzy logic to justify your actions, referring to such wars as defense or preemptive strike. Please wake up! For someone who claims he is in pursuit of the truth, that his motivations are driven by pure logic I find it incredibly contradictory for you to express the amount of LOLing that you do when you disagree with the opinions of others. Indeed, because one needs to be light of heart to view such darkness within humanity. I've discovered that people dominated by the passive emotional ego become infuriated when they cannot strike emotions in another person who returns their emotions with a so-called smirky smile. My study reveals that people become more and more emotionally upset until they can at least spark some form of emotions in the person. ... My LOL's really bother you, don't they. All I can say is Sorry, but I'll continue being happy thank you very much. It's my firm belief you people are utterly dominated by emotions, which the east has rightfully identified and referred to as one's own self demons. It suggests on the surface a massive ego I'll be more than happy to debate with you to see if you can prove your claims that I am egotistical, but I already know your so-called logic has more holes than Swiss cheese, and IMHO you believe (more like feel) you are correct because you desire (an emotion) it to be so. Such a debate in all likelihood will bare very little fruit, accomplish next to nothing while wasting a great deal of time. After a lifetime of being correct nearly 100% of the time I can safely say that my words (not my opinions) are based on truth and are justified. If you only knew my actions, my history, and me then you would see how silly your words are. that constantly needs to reassert its personal concept of superiority by dismissing the opinions of others - by all that LOLing you constantly express directly in their face. It comes across as one gigantic bluff tactic. Who are you trying to fool? IMO, you might come across more sincerely and with greater integrity and respect if you were to tone down the amount of posturing that you tend to indulge in, particularly when in disagreement with the opinions of others. By all means, feel free to disagree with the opinions of others. We all do. I certainly do. I certainly haven't agreed with how you have been going about expressing a lot of your opinions lately. I've kept those personal opinions to myself – until now. You offer zero proof. PS: Your last concluding comment to Horace where you say: BTW, let me know when you want continue our debate on capturing ambient energy so I can educate (LOL) you on some fundamental physics. ...reveals a very shallow, petty and manipulative attitude. Very arrogant. There is little room for the pursuit of truth or the pursuit of pure logic when one allows themselves to be consumed by such behaviors. My LOL in I can educate (LOL) was between Horace and I. Horace gets it. It appears you have no clue what the LOL truly meant in this case. My LOL was a reflection of a sentence Horace has repeatedly posted recently. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
Michel, I understand you probably were not following the thread, but as Horace even pointed out that Spammers subscribe to as many email lists as possible. Therefore, when someone posts an email address then you're giving such spammers that email. Although knowing how polite and gentle Dr. Mike usually is, surely he would not mind, but there's still no excuse. Horace is not perfect, but for him to argue and argue about an obvious negative act is ... This is pure and simple logic. For the umpteenth time, you people don't need to post Dr. Mikes email and phone number when you can simply post Dr. Mikes web URL. If Dr. Mike wishes to remove or even modify his email address and/or phone number then support it. Don't hard code his email and phone number by emailing it. Don't post it to potential spammers without first obtaining his permission. Just in case that did not sink in with you people, post the URL rather than the email address phone number. If Dr. Mike changes his email and/or phone number then it will reflect on his web page. Such a change will not reflect in your email. Michel Jullian wrote: Paul, the Vortex-L web archive automatically hides addresses given in the text of messages, cf: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg20909.html Further, as Horace correctly pointed out, the particular address [EMAIL PROTECTED] you accused him of disseminating to this list's hypothetical spammers has been publicized in an unhidden form on several web pages, see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=eresrch%40eskimo.combtnG=Google+Search So kindly stop going on about this, you seem to fail to realize you're boring us all to death. Michel - Original Message - From: Paul Lowrance To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn OrionWorks wrote: Paul, ...whose email address is clearly displayed in all my vortex-l Try this logic -- By my choice I submit to Vortex-l. Dr. Mike has not submitted his email to this list. People should not submit another persons email address without permission. The lack of foresight, and dim consciousness found in nearly every human being is rather frightening. It's no wonder an entire so-called civilized country of so-called humans can support a war of killing. You people can't get past your emotions, which passively dominate your consciousness. You continue to kill each other, cycle after cycle, and time after time you find what I refer to as fuzzy logic to justify your actions, referring to such wars as defense or preemptive strike. Please wake up! For someone who claims he is in pursuit of the truth, that his motivations are driven by pure logic I find it incredibly contradictory for you to express the amount of LOLing that you do when you disagree with the opinions of others. Indeed, because one needs to be light of heart to view such darkness within humanity. I've discovered that people dominated by the passive emotional ego become infuriated when they cannot strike emotions in another person who returns their emotions with a so-called smirky smile. My study reveals that people become more and more emotionally upset until they can at least spark some form of emotions in the person. ... My LOL's really bother you, don't they. All I can say is Sorry, but I'll continue being happy thank you very much. It's my firm belief you people are utterly dominated by emotions, which the east has rightfully identified and referred to as one's own self demons. It suggests on the surface a massive ego I'll be more than happy to debate with you to see if you can prove your claims that I am egotistical, but I already know your so-called logic has more holes than Swiss cheese, and IMHO you believe (more like feel) you are correct because you desire (an emotion) it to be so. Such a debate in all likelihood will bare very little fruit, accomplish next to nothing while wasting a great deal of time. After a lifetime of being correct nearly 100% of the time I can safely say that my words (not my opinions) are based on truth and are justified. If you only knew my actions, my history, and me then you would see how silly your words are. that constantly needs to reassert its personal concept of superiority by dismissing the opinions of others - by all that LOLing you constantly express directly in their face. It comes across as one gigantic bluff tactic. Who are you trying to fool? IMO, you might come across more sincerely and with greater integrity and respect if you were to tone down the amount of posturing that you tend to indulge in, particularly when in disagreement with the opinions of others. By all means, feel free to disagree with the opinions of others. We all do. I certainly do. I certainly haven't agreed with how you have been going about expressing a lot of your opinions lately. I've kept those personal opinions to myself – until now
Re: [Vo]:Do NOT post phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or out-of-town notices
Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip lots of good stuff] So have some common sense, and refrain from posting their addresses. Send them by private e-mail, or at least disguise them by writing, for example: JohnSmith at-sign mindpring.com Very nice. Also, if the person has their contact info on a their web page then post the URL rather than post/email the person email and/or phone #. For those people who have a web page, here's a nice free online tool that creates the javascript needed to protect your email address: http://www.jottings.com/obfuscator.htm It's true that a spammer could reverse engineer this code (takes the spammer time and work to accomplish this), but there are a significant sites that use different code to encrypt such email, and therefore it would require a considerable amount of time for the spammer to reverse engineer all encryption methods. Furthermore, the spammer would have to write recognition code to know which javascript method the web site uses. This amounts to a lot of difficult work for spammers. The spammer would much rather use their web spiders to scan to internet for unprotected emails, which appears to be mass majority. BTW, referring to the above site that creates javascript code to encrypt your email, if you want your javascript to display your email address rather than a message such as email me then *please* replace -- document.write(a href='mailto:+link+;'Email me/a) with document.write(a href='mailto:+link+;'+link+/a) In the form textarea, Link text: please do *not* type your email address because that will place your email address directly in the javascript code.
Re: [Vo]:Do NOT post phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or out-of-town notices
Jed Rothwell wrote: Yo, people: Here in the Brave New World of the Internet you can cause big trouble by posting personal information on public forums such as this one. You should refrain from posting e-mail addresses, although I admit I have done that myself occasionally. I hope that I have only posted institutional addresses that are available on public servers such as university campus directories. As Michel Jullian pointed out, the Vortex-L web archive automatically hides addresses so you do not need to worry as much about your own address. I should have added to my previous email that I already mentioned that, but as Horace pointed out spammers subscribe to as many lists as possible. IOW, spammers are subscribed to this list and they receive unfiltered emails. Let me try and clarify it again. The email Horace sent that contained Dr. Mike's email address was delivered to potential spammers. The spammer's software would immediately see Dr. Mikes email address. Again, we don't know if Dr. Mike is subscribed to Vortex-l. Lets at least ask Dr. Mike for permission. Better yet people, just post Dr. Mikes web page URL that directly contains his up-to-date email address, which is exactly what I did, and was chastised for doing such, LOL. That's proper online etiquette.
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
... and I'll add that a persons email and phone # should *not* be published on the Internet without his or her permission. I'm still a little appalled that someone at Vo publishing Dr. Mike's email phone #. R.C.Macaulay wrote: As an internet group that is widely read we should refrain from mentioning someone's daughter by name. In this case she is both a professional and entitled to privacy. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
Exactly. Post his profile url, silly. People have no business posting his email phone # until you get his permission, period. That's common Internet educate. If Dr. Mike wants to remove his email from the Internet then he merely needs to delete it from his profile. How's he going to remove it from hundreds of web pages? Furthermore there's the topic of online spiders that collect email address for spamming purposes. Unbelievable, LOL Terry Blanton wrote: Dr. Mike's email is posted in his profile on Steorn. Marissa is listed as an experimentalist on Earthtech's web site: http://earthtech.org/principals/index.html Youse guys are being silly. Curmudgeon On 7/17/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... and I'll add that a persons email and phone # should *not* be published on the Internet without his or her permission. I'm still a little appalled that someone at Vo publishing Dr. Mike's email phone #. R.C.Macaulay wrote: As an internet group that is widely read we should refrain from mentioning someone's daughter by name. In this case she is both a professional and entitled to privacy. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 17, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Exactly. Post his profile url, silly. People have no business posting his email phone # until you get his permission, period. That's common Internet educate. If Dr. Mike wants to remove his email from the Internet then he merely needs to delete it from his profile. How's he going to remove it from hundreds of web pages? Furthermore there's the topic of online spiders that collect email address for spamming purposes. There are crawlers and acrchivers of web pages also. You put something on a web page and you can expect it to be around indefinitely. Ever hear of the Wayback Machine? You betcha I have! Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 17, 2007, at 6:17 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: ... and I'll add that a persons email and phone # should *not* be published on the Internet without his or her permission. I'm still a little appalled that someone at Vo publishing Dr. Mike's email phone #. It was published on his web site. It is therefor public information. Whoosh! Right over your head Horace. ;-) It's called educate. Educate is not a requirement. People don't have to be nice, just as people can grab anyone's email address and post it at all over the Internet. My email address is publish -- http://energymover.googlepages.com/ Yet it's in javascript to prevent spiders, but I certainly do *not* want people blasting my email address all over the Internet. If one must pass it on, then *please* do it privately or by some other appropriate manner.
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
Paul Lowrance wrote: There are indeed sites that post your email address, which is why I try my best to maintain minimum posting at such sites. As stated, there are sites that have poor educate. Generally smaller sites who can't afford to program proper anti-spam server code. Google is a prime example of a friendly site: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=X7urRBYJHa_jqwY19aFntqcVejzHGqZCb31EP3mTXmcXfEDh8A A person can obtain Uncle Al's email address, but a spider cannot.
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 17, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 17, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: My email address is publish -- http://energymover.googlepages.com/ Yet it's in javascript to prevent spiders, but I certainly do *not* want people blasting my email address all over the Internet. If one must pass it on, then *please* do it privately or by some other appropriate manner. That's absurd. Your email is in every reply to every email you send to vortex. Please post a Vortex-l archive URL of my email address? I didn't say anything about the vortex archive. You think there are no spammers subscribed to this list, and every other list they can get wind of? Quite a nonsensical assumption. I have no idea how many spammers are subscribed to this list, but I don't see Dr Mike here. Again you're missing the point. We're trying to deter spam. Google and other friendly sites spend a lot of money trying to deter spammers.
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 17, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: I have no idea how many spammers are subscribed to this list, but I don't see Dr Mike here. Again you're missing the point. We're trying to deter spam. Google and other friendly sites spend a lot of money trying to deter spammers. I think you missed my point. If you don't want something public then don't make it so yourself. I didn't miss anything. The moral of this story -- There will always be mindless jerk who doesn't give a rats a** about other people. Horace Heffner wrote: You think there are no spammers subscribed to this list, and every other list they can get wind of? You admit it. You posted Dr. Mikes email address to who knows how many spammers subscribed to this list. You have no morals what so ever ... surprise, surprise, LOL.
Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 17, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: I think you missed my point. If you don't want something public then don't make it so yourself. I didn't miss anything. The moral of this story -- There will always be mindless jerk who doesn't give a rats a** about other people. Actually it appears you did miss something. If you are so concerned and you want your address protected from web crawlers then you should post them on your web site in a cryptic form, not out in the clear as you have on you web page. You can add obvious spaces for example. LOL, this is hilarious. My email address on my site is and has been in cryptic form. You don't know what you're talking about. It's called javascript. You admit it. I don't think it is appropriate to cow tow to bullying trolls. It appears that in the future I should simply ignore any of your replies, but comment freely on your work, or not, as I chose. And I have zero respect for someone who acknowledges they submit an innocent persons email address to potential spammers. You posted Dr. Mikes email address to who knows how many spammers subscribed to this list. You have no morals what so ever ... surprise, surprise, LOL. I didn't post anything Dr. Mike did not put on his web site in public view. Fuzzy logic. You should get Dr. Mike's permission before posting his email address to a list of potential spammers. You could have *easily* posted Dr. Mikes URL rather than post his email. A lot of people don't know about or how to protect their email address with javascript. By posting Dr. Mikes URL you are giving Dr. Mike the option of removing or changing his email any time he wishes. Unbelievable. BTW, let me know when you want continue our debate on capturing ambient energy so I can educate (LOL) you on some fundamental physics.
Re: [Vo]:DrMikes final report
thomas malloy wrote: In his conclusion to Steorn, Dr. Mike wrote; My conclusion after going through all this is that Steorn is neither hoax nor scam. It is delusion. The reason it seems surreal is because it is surreal - we are the real part of someone elses imagination. I thank Steorn for this truely awesome opportunity to meet so many really wonderful people. I hope I get to meet you all again someday. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike IMHO, the key word is delusion. I reference my post yesterday on the The Prendev and Bedeni motors. Many inventors have spent millions of dollars on those designs. Any physicist will tell you that there is no reason for them to work. Dr. Mike's word is delusion, mine is psychosis That's one of the weakest Steorn theories to date. To believe such a theory one needs to believe Sean seriously hallucinates, as Sean clearly stated he's seen the Orbo run up to two weeks, in which case Steorn had to stop the Orbo. Those who truly believe Sean hallucinates to such a degree knows very little about human psychology. Sean's either telling the truth or he's lying.
Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
Harry Veeder wrote: On 12/7/2007 9:18 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: You should check out Google Pages: http://googlepages.com Very nice, free hosting, with Googles backbone. I just moved my site (emwiki.info) to -- No updates yet. http://energymover.googlepages.com Paul Lowrance Good idea. That way I could remove my mistakes faster. ;-) Harry Ahh shucks Harry, you make a mistake??? Never! ;-)
Re: [Vo]:DrMikes final report
Sure, I'll provide the link to his Steorn profile page so drmike can hide his email any time his wishes: http://www.steorn.com/forum/account.php?u=12932 His email is below his 1.8 MB animated image! Steven Krivit wrote: Paul, Can you please get me contact info for Dr. Mike? thx s At 07:58 PM 7/12/2007, you wrote: DrMikes final report of Steorn: http://www.eskimo.com/~eresrch/Steorn/final_report.text
Re: [Vo]:DrMikes final report
It's so fascinating studying human logic, or shall we call it emotional logic, LOL. Steorn cronies flock around drmike like he's some god. Yet drmike comes up with the most illogical theory regarding Sean. Here's a little personal debate history between drmike and I. I drmike challenged my statement, which my statement was essentially you can capture ambient energy, but after a few days I finally got drmike and various other physicists at the Steorn forum to admit that a simple resistor can light an LED to the point where a human can see it due to thermal electrical noise. Another error by drmike was when he challenged me that the human eye can see a single red 700 nm photon, LOL. Later on in the discussion drmike finally admitted that a human would most likely not be able to sense such a single photon. Another claim by drmike was that Neo magnets do not have appreciable eddy currents. What planet is drmike from because the electrical resistivity of Neo's is ~12 times that of the nickel-plating commonly found on Neo magnets. Now drmike hits us with the preposterous idea that Sean sees things that don't exist, LOL. That's called hallucination. An appreciable percentage of homeless people hallucinate, not a business and family oriented individual. Is Sean hallucinating? There's always some probability, but like I said, it's the least likely theory, by far. :-) Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: In his conclusion to Steorn, Dr. Mike wrote; My conclusion after going through all this is that Steorn is neither hoax nor scam. It is delusion. The reason it seems surreal is because it is surreal - we are the real part of someone elses imagination. I thank Steorn for this truely awesome opportunity to meet so many really wonderful people. I hope I get to meet you all again someday. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike IMHO, the key word is delusion. I reference my post yesterday on the The Prendev and Bedeni motors. Many inventors have spent millions of dollars on those designs. Any physicist will tell you that there is no reason for them to work. Dr. Mike's word is delusion, mine is psychosis That's one of the weakest Steorn theories to date. To believe such a theory one needs to believe Sean seriously hallucinates, as Sean clearly stated he's seen the Orbo run up to two weeks, in which case Steorn had to stop the Orbo. Those who truly believe Sean hallucinates to such a degree knows very little about human psychology. Sean's either telling the truth or he's lying.
Re: [Vo]:Insane people who make over-unity claims
Jed Rothwell wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: That's one of the weakest Steorn theories to date. To believe such a theory one needs to believe Sean seriously hallucinates, as Sean clearly stated he's seen the Orbo run up to two weeks, in which case Steorn had to stop the Orbo. Those who truly believe Sean hallucinates to such a degree knows very little about human psychology. I know nothing about this person Sean and I have no medical training whatever, but I have spent time with clinically insane people, as a volunteer. So I do have a little experience to draw on. In the years I have been dealing with cold fusion, I have met three people who: 1. Were convinced they had over-unity results. 2. Seemed insane to me. I mean genuinely, clinically insane. I can believe you. Personally I'm still searching for a sane person. ;-) We often toss around words like crazy and insane. Some people in cold fusion are eccentric, or highly opinionated, antisocial That's true. A genius perceives more flaws in humans than the average person. Given an individual who's awareness has reached a level of perceiving too many human flaws they may become somewhat disturbed and dissociate from society. Trust you me, it happens ... society cannot understand these people. Asking society to truly understand these people is to expect an anthropoid understand a human. or not well grounded in reality, but that is not what I am talking about. Real mental illness is much more severe, and it is recognizable. The people I am talking about made unconnected, irrational statements, or they waved simple drawings of something like a piston and cylinder, or -- in one case -- the fellow showed me a photo of an electric motor attached to a car battery, and said something like: See! It goes and goes! It is over unity! I asked what happens when you take away the battery, and the poor guy said: I haven't tried that yet. I gave up long ago trying to converse with such people. Their consciousness is far too encased in emotions.
Re: [Vo]:DrMikes final report
It's still there. Steven Krivit wrote: uh-huh...I guess it's hidden now...that doesn't help me too much... At 11:05 AM 7/13/2007, you wrote: Sure, I'll provide the link to his Steorn profile page so drmike can hide his email any time his wishes: http://www.steorn.com/forum/account.php?u=12932 His email is below his 1.8 MB animated image!
Re: [Vo]:DrMikes final report
LOL, such a funny world of funny people. Steven Krivit wrote: aha..most helpful, thx s At 02:54 PM 7/13/2007, you wrote: On Jul 13, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Steven Krivit wrote: Paul, Can you please get me contact info for Dr. Mike?
Re: [Vo]:The Preendev and Bedeni motors
thomas malloy wrote: R.C.Macaulay wrote: Paul wrote,, It sounds like it could be accelerated-- not sure. I'd be surprised if just anyone could build such a machine using any type of PM and expect free energy. After glancing at some Perendev motor designs seemed clear it used the same It sounds like... I liked the sound effects too. Varoom!, I agree. Richard. I assume that the Perendev Motor is an energy consumer, the film doesn't make that clear. I'm wondering why the rotor speed up when he pushed it in a certain way. We don't know if the motor speeds up. Sure, it may sound cool, varoom varoom Macaulay, LOL but it's worth analyzing the audio for verification. This is a simple task. View the audio amplitude vs. time on a scope or appropriate software to see if the rpm increases.
Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
Stiffler Scientific wrote: Have one of the Harbor Tool devices in hand and will disassemble it today to see if Paul and Jones are right on how they are doing it or if the wiki article is correct. Will not be hard to get an answer with a couple of pull scales and a yard stick. Will post the results and make available a picture of the guts of the thing. It just depends on the items quality. A cheap unit is a simple magnet with a leverage switch. You can test this by placing a magnet on a vice, close the vice so the PM makes contact on both sides of the vice. Then twist the vice to separate the magnet. Unless you're using some massive Neo's you should be able to separate the PM's with one finger using the vice. There's probably countless designs. Some cheap, some expensive.
Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
Harry Veeder wrote: On 12/7/2007 3:03 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 11, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Please see my naive conceptual illustration at http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/generator.html for my take on a Stiffler's imaginings. Is this system capable generating electricity, and if so if some of the electricity was used to turn the magnetic shield would it then qualify as a self-powered mobile? Or is it yet another example of wishful thinking? What say ye? Nice graphics! The net energy to displace the field with a magnetic shield, and then remove it, is more than the energy that can be extracted by the coil. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Thanks. Would it possible to arrange things such that the _net_ displacement of the field is zero? Harry You should check out Google Pages: http://googlepages.com Very nice, free hosting, with Googles backbone. I just moved my site (emwiki.info) to -- No updates yet. http://energymover.googlepages.com Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
Actually all aforementioned methods use the same principle. Just depends how cheap the unit is. The type provided in wikipedia rotates the PM rather than pulling it. Same effect, as both designs require the same amount of energy. The less expensive designs have less torque. :-) Stiffler Scientific wrote: We have done some preliminary work on this device and will within an hour post a link to some pictures. Wiki Article Won! It does indeed use Al and Fe on the On/Off Switch. The pictures are self captioned with text and I will post actual test results as soon as the unit can be reassembled. They used brass rivets and we do not have brass screws long enough to put the plate back on. Once its back together the measurement protocol is set up. One thing, it will indeed hold 40+ lbs, but it will not pull the weight to it. This may not be a problem. A :-) for the day. I called Harbor Tool when they opened this AM and wanted to be sure the item was in stock. I gave the girl on the phone only the first three digits of the part number and she said 'The Magnet Holder?, yes I said. She said they had five left as there was a rush this AM. Okay Houston, what is going on? Should I ask Harbor for a cut? -Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this Jones Beene wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: However, there will still be losses due to core and magnet heating, even if no power is drawn from the coils. Further, as soon as the coils draw power, the motion of shield is retarded because the energy from opening the flux hole is less. The so-called flux-gate is an old concept which has never come close to *replicated* OU in over 100 years of trying. There are hints and glimpses, but that is all. In effect, it can be analogized to a rotating transformer. BTW there is a technical definition for fluxgate, related to magnetomerty, which is slightly different than the free-energy usage. I'm not clear on how the effect works, Otto Schmitt built a flux gate magnetometer which he used to detect german submarines, and Ka Boom!
Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
Looks like a nice unit. Stiffler Scientific wrote: HERE IS A LINK TO THE INSIDES OF THE UNIT. www.stifflerscientific.com/magtool.asp -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:How are they doing this We have done some preliminary work on this device and will within an hour post a link to some pictures. Wiki Article Won! It does indeed use Al and Fe on the On/Off Switch. The pictures are self captioned with text and I will post actual test results as soon as the unit can be reassembled. They used brass rivets and we do not have brass screws long enough to put the plate back on. Once its back together the measurement protocol is set up. One thing, it will indeed hold 40+ lbs, but it will not pull the weight to it. This may not be a problem. A :-) for the day. I called Harbor Tool when they opened this AM and wanted to be sure the item was in stock. I gave the girl on the phone only the first three digits of the part number and she said 'The Magnet Holder?, yes I said. She said they had five left as there was a rush this AM. Okay Houston, what is going on? Should I ask Harbor for a cut? -Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this Jones Beene wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: However, there will still be losses due to core and magnet heating, even if no power is drawn from the coils. Further, as soon as the coils draw power, the motion of shield is retarded because the energy from opening the flux hole is less. The so-called flux-gate is an old concept which has never come close to *replicated* OU in over 100 years of trying. There are hints and glimpses, but that is all. In effect, it can be analogized to a rotating transformer. BTW there is a technical definition for fluxgate, related to magnetomerty, which is slightly different than the free-energy usage. I'm not clear on how the effect works, Otto Schmitt built a flux gate magnetometer which he used to detect german submarines, and Ka Boom! --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:DrMikes final report
DrMikes final report of Steorn: http://www.eskimo.com/~eresrch/Steorn/final_report.text
Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
I believe the switch merely pulls the magnet back away from the face. Stiffler Scientific wrote: The link dd not work after pasting it here, use the following item# to search for it; 93329-2NDA -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:31 PM To: Vortex-L Subject: [Vo]:How are they doing this Turn the magnetic field on and off with a slight movement of a switch, unless I am drawing a blank here this device could be interesting? Here is a link to it. http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
I don't see why such a sim would show OU unless you have a better understand of gravity that reveals some fundamental KE inherent in gravity, such as radiation. Radiation can cause a force, but theoretically you can also capture such radiation energy. Stiffler Scientific wrote: Paul, don't you have a computer simulation to run this idea? I do and do not trust it as I have been able for 9 years now to fool both the magnetic and electronics programs to show OU. From you past posts I trust you can simulate this? -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:37 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:How are they doing this Don't bite Harry, those Irish squirrels in the cage do. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this Harry Veeder wrote: By simply rotating the switch on and off you can lift the weight up and down with less energy than it takes to lift the weight by hand. A company in Ireland needs your help ASAP ...
Re: [Vo]:Why isn't this creating a stir?
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Paul wrote,, It sounds like it could be accelerated-- not sure. I'd be surprised if just anyone could build such a machine using any type of PM and expect free energy. After glancing at some Perendev motor designs seemed clear it used the same Howdy Paul, It sounds like... I liked the sound effects too. Varoom!, IOW, I do not have time to analyze the machines rpm.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
People, including a lot of physicists at Steorn forum are stating the London Orbo fiasco has all the appearance of a deliberate failure attempt. Speaking from personal experience, one good thing about such failures is that it doubles the drive to succeed in legitimate researchers. Regards, Paul Lowrance Terry Blanton wrote: freeenergytracker.blogspot.com Terry On 7/5/07, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From Terry: It looks like the Perendev Motor with magnets in repulsion. In repulsion, the magnetic domains are eventually misaligned and the magic stops. Magmos will only work with maggies in attraction where domain alignment is enforced. Terry Wish I could get a decent view of the critter. If, as you claim, it appears to be operating in repulsion mode that suggests to me that the so-called ORBO effect would work even better in attractive mode. IMO, there is every reason to speculate that the effect would work in either mode. It's just more structurally challenging to construct in attractive mode, which may be the reason why the prototype isn't. Apparently it was only meant to run for about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
OrionWorks wrote: From Paul: People, including a lot of physicists at Steorn forum are stating the London Orbo fiasco has all the appearance of a deliberate failure attempt. Speaking from personal experience, one good thing about such failures is that it doubles the drive to succeed in legitimate researchers. Regards, Paul Lowrance A ...deliberate failure attempt.??? Yeah, that's the ticket. It must be...another conspiracy! Well, I have not read anyone stating it must be anything. Hopefully this fiasco will increase the drive in a lot of legitimate researchers to succeed.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Offline
LOL Terry Blanton wrote: He keeps scratching his nose; or, he's checking to see if it's growing. ;-) Terry On 7/6/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bearings (barings) failed. Terry On 7/6/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vid of Sean 'splainin' what happened: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-410336726209552529 Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Offline
Maybe they used plastic bearings made for display. Mark S Bilk wrote: Maybe the leprechauns are holding out for a bigger cut of the profits. On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 06:53:49PM -0700, Paul Lowrance wrote: Listening to that video is frustrating. ... Damaged bearings??? From light LOL What's wrong with this story? Terry Blanton wrote: He keeps scratching his nose; or, he's checking to see if it's growing. ;-) Terry On 7/6/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bearings (barings) failed. Terry On 7/6/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vid of Sean 'splainin' what happened: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-410336726209552529 Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
I found the following statement by Sean very interesting: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8723 Quote, Steorn say that the intense heat should not affect future applications of the Orbo technology as this is just a prototype. ***The prototype was set up in the museum on Sunday and as of Tuesday night, McCarthy said it was functioning perfectly until yesterday when it froze suddenly.*** So the London Orbo was running just perfectly until it froze July 4th. Paul Lowrance Jed Rothwell wrote: Stiffler Scientific wrote: What you said makes sense, except; Unless the device is so costly and complex that you can only afford 'one' or have only managed to get 'one' to work, I would think it prudent that you have another in the wings to be rushed in for just this type of problem. That is what I had in mind when I described Charlie and the burning power supplies. Always pack a spare! Charlie in this case is honors of the two Charlies who accompanied the Wright brothers on some of their most crucial tests and public demonstrations, Charles Taylor and Charles Furnas. The Wrights experienced dozens of disastrous public demonstrations, ranging from the time the airplane did not take off in front of reporters (Dayton, OH, 1904) to the time the airplane crashed and killed the passenger (the official U.S. Army tests, Washington DC, 1908). They had dozens of other crashes and accidents. (By the way, the two Charlies were never to blame as far as I know.) If they had staked their success on a single demonstration they would have failed. On the other hand, it took only two successful demonstrations to make them the most famous people on earth in 1908. If the device is so expensive or complex and borders this close to working or not working then the public demo in my mind is only to get new money to hold off the old providers (VC's) and get new cash to keep everyone quiet for a bit longer. I disagree. Marginally functional technology can be successfully demonstrated, but you have take the right approach and say the right things, to keep the stakes low in the event of a failure. Edison, the Wrights and many others screwed up demonstrations. Edison's early incandescent lights exploded and set fire to his parlor during a demonstration to investors. His wife, who was used to such things, put out the fire while redirecting their attention to tea and snacks. Unless I have my history wrong, old Henry Ford did not present a lot highly complex auto before he sold a working one. Think is was simple at the start and grew in complexity. Actually, Ford is a counter-example. He started by building a racing car, which was a complicated and finicky thing, and he won an important race. Auto racing was in its infancy back then, so no record lasted for long, but he leveraged his short-lived fame to get investors to put money into his plans for a simpler passenger vehicle. I suppose if he had lost that race, he might have won the next one. But it was still a daring, all-or-nothing venture. There were not many races back then, and the drivers were often killed or wounded. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
I agree. From what we can see so far the London Orbo resembles the Perendev Motor. Also there's a striking resemblance to my sample mechanical motor, which I drew for the soul purpose of demonstrating my theory -- Scroll down to the black highlighted text, Mechanical motor version http://emwiki.info Regards, Paul Lowrance Terry Blanton wrote: It looks like the Perendev Motor with magnets in repulsion. In repulsion, the magnetic domains are eventually misaligned and the magic stops. Magmos will only work with maggies in attraction where domain alignment is enforced. Terry On 7/5/07, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From Paul Lowrance: I found the following statement by Sean very interesting: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8723 Quote, Steorn say that the intense heat should not affect future applications of the Orbo technology as this is just a prototype. ***The prototype was set up in the museum on Sunday and as of Tuesday night, McCarthy said it was functioning perfectly until yesterday when it froze suddenly.*** So the London Orbo was running just perfectly until it froze July 4th. Paul Lowrance Least we forget, it's Friday. And that of course means... Brace for another fine installment from the honorable Dr. Park. The trials and tribulations of STEORN's recent ORBO demo no-show at the Kinetica Museum is sure to be discussed in painful detail, with a concluding nod of assurance that this incident is just another confirmation that the sacred LoT have once again been upheld. Park's comments may soon be followed by (once assured that it really is safe to come out of hiding) a me too installment from the Amazing RANDI. After all if the APA has given RANDI one of its most prestigious awards for critical thinking, he had better live up to his reputation and pontificate some additional critical comments. Perhaps the APA is also hoping the Amazing RANDI will make the damned critter disappear down a rabbit hole as well - permanently. Ah, well, perhaps it's STEORN's LoT ...in life - pun intended. Of course I still hope STEORN may soon be able to pull their misplaced rabbit out of the hat, though perhaps a tad more awkwardly than planned. Just not on cue. The creature is probably off somewhere doing what it is that critters of that kind are inclined to do, making more orbos. All humor set aside for the moment: In the recently posted article STORN appears to claim it's a bearing problem - due to the unexpected intense heat from the lamps. I hope they are right, that it's not just a smokescreen. It would mean the magnets themselves were not affected by the heat. That was my worst fear. Fingers still crossed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
Paul Lowrance wrote: I found the following statement by Sean very interesting: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8723 Quote, Steorn say that the intense heat should not affect future applications of the Orbo technology as this is just a prototype. ***The prototype was set up in the museum on Sunday and as of Tuesday night, McCarthy said it was functioning perfectly until yesterday when it froze suddenly.*** So the London Orbo was running just perfectly until it froze July 4th. I would interpret Seans statement as Orbo ran perfectly from Sunday till July 4th. Perhaps the key words are ... and as of Tuesday night, McCarthy said it was functioning perfectly until ... Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:Why isn't this creating a stir?
Horace Heffner wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xwmode=relatedsearch= A self-running Perendev motor would create a stir.
Re: [Vo]:Why isn't this creating a stir?
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 5, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xwmode=relatedsearch= A self-running Perendev motor would create a stir. The video makes it look like the armature even accelerates when the stator is moved into place, and vice versa. It sounds like it could be accelerated-- not sure. I'd be surprised if just anyone could build such a machine using any type of PM and expect free energy. After glancing at some Perendev motor designs seemed clear it used the same method as my research shows-- magnetic attraction pulse followed by repulsion. Magnetic material choice is crucial. Even so, lets say they manage to tap into ambient energy by means of magnetic avalanche. The material will continue to drop in temperature until thermal equilibrium, which changes the magnetic characteristics to some degree. Characteristics slightly change, but does the design recalibrate? Last, but not least, during simulations I've seen the magnetic material domain structure drastically change when ambient energy is removed. When such an event occurs it can take ambient temperature appreciable time to reorganize the structure back to normal. So it's possible Sterlings Perendev motor was momentarily accelerating, but nature pulled the plug, figuratively speaking. Another possible example is a Frenchman who knows some details about Naudins self-running MEG attempts. He stated Naudin was successful, but for a short period of time. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
Paul Lowrance wrote: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8713 The above article says the Steorn Orbo will be viewable live on the Internet from 6pm this evening at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo with four webcams focused on the machine 24 hours a day. The question is, which time zone? Ah, the answers now found on Steorns home page. It says, View the online demonstration here at 6pm (Eastern Time). http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8713 The above article says the Steorn Orbo will be viewable live on the Internet from 6pm this evening at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo with four webcams focused on the machine 24 hours a day. The question is, which time zone? Regards, Paul Lowrance Esa Ruoho wrote: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0704/breaking46.htm 'Free' energy technology goes on display (ireland.com) Sean McCarthy, chief executive of Steorn, said: What we are showing basically is a very simplified version of the technology. It's virtually all-clear plastic and magnets so we are demonstrating obviously that there is no battery hidden and so on. What the system will be doing is literally lifting a weight, demonstrating work being done for free. Obviously Steorn and Sean McCarthy would never recover if there is a negative result here. But we don't see that as even an outside possibility, he said. more urls at http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/steorn/ On 04/07/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The streaming video from Kinetica is said to start at 6 pm GMT today. That would mean we should see it here at 1 pm EDT. No URL for the vid yet. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
There appears (perhaps) to be a bit of conflicting information. Steorns home page says View the online demonstration here at 6pm (Eastern Time). While Kinetica Museum says starts July 5th, details revealed 6pm tonight. Kinetica Museum is in London. Terry Blanton wrote: 6 pm ZULU according to the press release. Terry On 7/4/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8713 The above article says the Steorn Orbo will be viewable live on the Internet from 6pm this evening at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo with four webcams focused on the machine 24 hours a day. The question is, which time zone? Regards, Paul Lowrance Esa Ruoho wrote: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0704/breaking46.htm 'Free' energy technology goes on display (ireland.com) Sean McCarthy, chief executive of Steorn, said: What we are showing basically is a very simplified version of the technology. It's virtually all-clear plastic and magnets so we are demonstrating obviously that there is no battery hidden and so on. What the system will be doing is literally lifting a weight, demonstrating work being done for free. Obviously Steorn and Sean McCarthy would never recover if there is a negative result here. But we don't see that as even an outside possibility, he said. more urls at http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/steorn/ On 04/07/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The streaming video from Kinetica is said to start at 6 pm GMT today. That would mean we should see it here at 1 pm EDT. No URL for the vid yet. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
Yes, today, July 4th, could turn out to be the declared day humanity was freed from oil!! Regards, Paul Lowrance Terry Blanton wrote: LOL! Well, I'll check frequently (as I'm sure we will all do). Meanwhile, is it too early to declare Oil Independence Day? http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=b9r_Xq1ZCAw Terry On 7/4/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There appears (perhaps) to be a bit of conflicting information. Steorns home page says View the online demonstration here at 6pm (Eastern Time). While Kinetica Museum says starts July 5th, details revealed 6pm tonight. Kinetica Museum is in London. Terry Blanton wrote: 6 pm ZULU according to the press release. Terry On 7/4/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8713 The above article says the Steorn Orbo will be viewable live on the Internet from 6pm this evening at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo with four webcams focused on the machine 24 hours a day. The question is, which time zone? Regards, Paul Lowrance Esa Ruoho wrote: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0704/breaking46.htm 'Free' energy technology goes on display (ireland.com) Sean McCarthy, chief executive of Steorn, said: What we are showing basically is a very simplified version of the technology. It's virtually all-clear plastic and magnets so we are demonstrating obviously that there is no battery hidden and so on. What the system will be doing is literally lifting a weight, demonstrating work being done for free. Obviously Steorn and Sean McCarthy would never recover if there is a negative result here. But we don't see that as even an outside possibility, he said. more urls at http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/steorn/ On 04/07/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The streaming video from Kinetica is said to start at 6 pm GMT today. That would mean we should see it here at 1 pm EDT. No URL for the vid yet. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
Ah, here's the actual Steorn web address: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo/demo.html Tic ... Toc ... Paul Lowrance Terry Blanton wrote: Just posted on their main page: View the online demonstration here at 6pm (Eastern Time). Which would be 11:00 pm London time. Terry On 7/4/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6 pm ZULU according to the press release. Terry On 7/4/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8713 The above article says the Steorn Orbo will be viewable live on the Internet from 6pm this evening at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo with four webcams focused on the machine 24 hours a day. The question is, which time zone? Regards, Paul Lowrance Esa Ruoho wrote: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0704/breaking46.htm 'Free' energy technology goes on display (ireland.com) Sean McCarthy, chief executive of Steorn, said: What we are showing basically is a very simplified version of the technology. It's virtually all-clear plastic and magnets so we are demonstrating obviously that there is no battery hidden and so on. What the system will be doing is literally lifting a weight, demonstrating work being done for free. Obviously Steorn and Sean McCarthy would never recover if there is a negative result here. But we don't see that as even an outside possibility, he said. more urls at http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/steorn/ On 04/07/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The streaming video from Kinetica is said to start at 6 pm GMT today. That would mean we should see it here at 1 pm EDT. No URL for the vid yet. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo/demo.html One camera is online. Nothing to see yet. Would that be #4? Nothing happens when I click on #4. How long does it take after clicking on it?
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
Camera 4 shows nothing but Windows media with flag swirling around on the latest version of Firefox. Terry Blanton wrote: It looks like a ferris wheel on the left and it is moving. Slowly. Terry On 7/4/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now it give an image of some type of scaffolding and an audio ad for astream.com, the vid host. Terry On 7/4/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The others give an error page. Only four has a blank image. Terry On 7/4/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/demo/demo.html One camera is online. Nothing to see yet. Would that be #4? Nothing happens when I click on #4. How long does it take after clicking on it?
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
And Microsoft Internet Exploder crashes. Tested it on versions 6 and 5. Paul Lowrance wrote: Camera 4 shows nothing but Windows media with flag swirling around on the latest version of Firefox. Terry Blanton wrote: It looks like a ferris wheel on the left and it is moving. Slowly. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Online
Terry Blanton wrote: Here are two screen shots with a digital camera approximately 9 seconds apart: http://picasaweb.google.com/hohlraum/Steorn Terry Thanks a bunch! Does anyone plan on going to view this monumental display that if true will go down as one of the biggest moments in time? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Online
Kinetica Museum finally updated their website. It says, Between Shows Our Next Show : starts July 5th, world's first free-energy demonstration http://www.kinetica-museum.org/new_site/ Terry Blanton wrote: Well, uh, no. It's a view of the London Eye, a Y2K fiasco, a scaffold of sorts and a doorknob (with a door!). If it is from the Kinetica Museum, the camera is looking southwest approximately 3 km. I cannot identify the scaffold which looks to be beyond the ferrite wheel. :-) S! Some in the Steorn forum believe it's the Orbo, still. Roofie party? Pin your address to your shirt so the cabbie knows where to drop you. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Online
It appears the stream is live, as it's getting darker to the point where red lights just turned on the wheel, no? Terry Blanton wrote: Well, uh, no. It's a view of the London Eye, a Y2K fiasco, a scaffold of sorts and a doorknob (with a door!). If it is from the Kinetica Museum, the camera is looking southwest approximately 3 km. I cannot identify the scaffold which looks to be beyond the ferrite wheel. :-) S! Some in the Steorn forum believe it's the Orbo, still. Roofie party? Pin your address to your shirt so the cabbie knows where to drop you. Terry
[Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
I'm a little surprised at the total lack of attentions Steorn is getting in the alternative and Free Energy communities. For some time Sean has stated the Orbo will be demonstrated to the public the first week of July in London. Most people who follow Steorn news are nearly 100% certain such demonstration will take place at the Kinetica Museum in London, most likely July 5th. The demo might last 9 days. The Orbo will run non-stop in public display and some type of camera (webcam?). Here's a bit of interesting rumor: Quote, --- According to a commenter here: http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2007/06/orbo_at_kinetica_museum_next_week.html ...a quick call to Kinetica revealed that they've got a private exhibition starting this week, which is not curated by Kinetica. It will be open to the public from Thursday and last all the way through from the 5th to the 13th, but unfortunately they can't say anything about it. This hasn't been verified, but Kinetica is just a phone call away... 020 7392 9674. Anyone on here living in London, willing to peek in Kinetica's windows? (Or scout the sidewalk for a smoking CEO?) --- Also there's a new video of Sean McCarthy: http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/index.html Rather interesting, as this could turn out to be the biggest day in history. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 1, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: There's a lot of talk about the verbiage used in Steorns NDA. I'd bet this NDA would kill any chance of me patenting any future successful Free Energy machine. Hopefully you are aware that anything patentable that you have created and you publicly disclose, by posting here or placing on your web site for example, without first having a patent application, instantly becomes public domain in most countries, and starts a one year clock for a patent application in the US. After that one year you will be unable to obtain a valid patent in the US. At least that's the way things used to be. I haven't kept up with changes in recent years. Lets try this again. Thanks for the info! As far as I know it becomes Prior Art in the U.S., and open-source/public-domain in various other countries. My stated goal is to freely give away such a device to the world and patent it in the U.S. Furthermore I would encourage people to build such a device to personal use and/or build such units for others incapable of building such a device for free or for profit. Yes indeed. There is a huge worldwide need. If you have a patent you can stipulate such things in the license. It appears to me the only way to make inventions and their progeny freeware is to patent them and then protect the free nature through the licensing. Unlike copyright, which is automatic, there is considerable cost and diligence required up front. Unfortunately, though public disclosure on the web may disqualify the inventor from obtaining a valid patent, it may not prevent another inventor from patenting the same. Posting is a public disclosure, but not necessarily considered publication by the PTO, so there is a grey legal area now with respect to exactly what is prior art. It might be a good thing if the international patent system made available a low expense freeware or freepat registration database to establish prior art. This seems to me to be a good thing for a company like Google to attempt if they want to do something a bit altruistic, though, like Wiki, it would end up being high traffic. I think it might require some of serious funding, though, because instead of examiners there would be a need for patent writing assistants to cull over the more important inventions and give them the best protection possible. It's my impression the court merely wants proof of Prior Art. Perhaps web forums, yahoo google websites, and wikis don't count as much proof. What if I handed out a few thousand xeroxed papers to various people? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:Steorn will demonstrate the Orbo in ~ a few days
Jed Rothwell wrote: I wish people would refrain from doing these grand orchestrated introductions. Two reasons: 1. It might fail, and thereby backfire. 2. It seems like something P. T. Barnum would do, rather than science. A series of low-key, matter-of-fact demonstrations in the laboratory would be better. This is how Edison introduce the incandescent light to the public. He strung lights outside the lab, and people came to see them at night. He overcame enormous resistance from the establishment. He did not try to defeat the naysayers in a single day, but gradually, over a period of weeks. There have been a few single, grand demonstrations that instantly convinced large numbers of people, notably: Westinghouse's unplanned demonstration of the airbrake during a test run, in which the train narrowly avoided colliding with a wagon on the tracks. Wilbur Wright's flight in France on August 8, 1908, which convinced the Europeans. Orville Wright's flight of September 3, 1908, which convinced Americans and Pres. Roosevelt's son. The Americans paid no attention to the European press, which was already gaga over the Wrights. The plutonium fission bomb test of July 16, 1945, and the uranium bomb attack on August 6, 1945. The latter was more-or-less a sure thing in the minds of most physicists, but I think there were some doubts about the feasibility of implosion bombs. This is kind of history we could do without. I agree. Here's my method -- Goal: To freely spread the precise build instructions as quickly as possible: * Type a short document containing precise details how to build such a device, encouraging others to replicate such a device for personal use and/or for sale. * Xerox a few thousand copies of such document. * Hand out the documents to various people (university professors, students, etc.) * Publish the details at various wikis; e.g. wikipedia.com, peswiki.com * Publish the details at various forums; google groups, Vo, overunity.com * Send emails to interested parties. * Spend ~$200 to publish in an authorized Prior art magazine. * Obtain a provisional patent. Next step: * Spend appreciable time to significantly improve the device-- version 2. * Start a company to mass produce and sale version 2. What do you think? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:50,000kW/h 57000eur costing water vortex power plant..
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On 6/30/07, Esa Ruoho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/06/water_vortex_drives_power_plan.html The diameter of the vortex basin is 5 meters. The head - difference between the two water levels - is 1.6 meters. The turbine produced 50.000 kw/h in its first year of operation. Construction cost was 57.000 Euro Works out to about $13.48 per W capital cost. Expensive, but without the generator it is a work of art. What a beautiful thing. If the turbine were mounted only on underwater structures it would still be artful. The overhead wood structure for the generator makes it ugly. If built only for aeration then an underwater mounted set of Venturi tubes, or a slotted cone, might be artfully achieved, maybe along with some integrated sculpture. That structure with turbine is easily adapted to driving an underwater pump for water lifts for irrigation. Come on Horace, perhaps you're being a bit sensitive. Personally what I consider being civilized is seeking truth and logic. Being brief should not be an insult. I was brief because of our last encounter, in which you assumed error in my sentence. Fact is my sentence did not contain enough information to make such a determination, and therefore you should have asked. Although, I'll have you know that a well respected on full time Vo member sent me a private email stating that he believed my interpretation was correct. Furthermore, you made some other scientific statements which IMHO were clearly incorrect, but you would not address those issue even though I asked several times. Anyhow, that's all water under the bridge. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On 6/30/07, Esa Ruoho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/06/water_vortex_drives_power_plan.html The diameter of the vortex basin is 5 meters. The head - difference between the two water levels - is 1.6 meters. The turbine produced 50.000 kw/h in its first year of operation. Construction cost was 57.000 Euro Works out to about $13.48 per W capital cost. Expensive, but without the generator it is a work of art. What a beautiful thing. If the turbine were mounted only on underwater structures it would still be artful. The overhead wood structure for the generator makes it ugly. If built only for aeration then an underwater mounted set of Venturi tubes, or a slotted cone, might be artfully achieved, maybe along with some integrated sculpture. That structure with turbine is easily adapted to driving an underwater pump for water lifts for irrigation. Come on Horace, perhaps you're being a bit sensitive. Personally what I consider being civilized is seeking truth and logic. Being brief should not be an insult. I was brief because of our last encounter, in which you assumed error in my sentence. Fact is my sentence did not contain enough information to make such a determination, and therefore you should have asked. Although, I'll have you know that a well respected on full time Vo member sent me a private email stating that he believed my interpretation was correct. Furthermore, you made some other scientific statements which IMHO were clearly incorrect, but you would not address those issue even though I asked several times. Anyhow, that's all water under the bridge. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: There's a lot of talk about the verbiage used in Steorns NDA. I'd bet this NDA would kill any chance of me patenting any future successful Free Energy machine. Hopefully you are aware that anything patentable that you have created and you publicly disclose, by posting here or placing on your web site for example, without first having a patent application, instantly becomes public domain in most countries, and starts a one year clock for a patent application in the US. After that one year you will be unable to obtain a valid patent in the US. At least that's the way things used to be. I haven't kept up with changes in recent years. Lets try this again. Thanks for the info! As far as I know it becomes Prior Art in the U.S., and open-source/public-domain in various other countries. My stated goal is to freely give away such a device to the world and patent it in the U.S. Furthermore I would encourage people to build such a device to personal use and/or build such units for others incapable of building such a device for free or for profit. Anyhow, getting back to my post, people who are researching or developing any possible so-called Free Energy machine or who may one day want to do so should take caution in signing Steorns NDA. Regards, Paul Lowrnce
Re: [VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 1, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: There's a lot of talk about the verbiage used in Steorns NDA. I'd bet this NDA would kill any chance of me patenting any future successful Free Energy machine. Hopefully you are aware that anything patentable that you have created and you publicly disclose, by posting here or placing on your web site for example, without first having a patent application, instantly becomes public domain in most countries, and starts a one year clock for a patent application in the US. After that one year you will be unable to obtain a valid patent in the US. At least that's the way things used to be. I haven't kept up with changes in recent years. Lets try this again. Thanks for the info! As far as I know it becomes Prior Art in the U.S., and open-source/public-domain in various other countries. My stated goal is to freely give away such a device to the world and patent it in the U.S. Furthermore I would encourage people to build such a device to personal use and/or build such units for others incapable of building such a device for free or for profit. Yes indeed. There is a huge worldwide need. If you have a patent you can stipulate such things in the license. It appears to me the only way to make inventions and their progeny freeware is to patent them and then protect the free nature through the licensing. Unlike copyright, which is automatic, there is considerable cost and diligence required up front. Unfortunately, though public disclosure on the web may disqualify the inventor from obtaining a valid patent, it may not prevent another inventor from patenting the same. Are you saying that if the inventor freely publishes it on the web that it can actually prevent the inventor from obtaining a patent, but anyone else can obtain a patent on the invention??? If true (God help the silly government) then how about the inventor getting a family member to obtain to patent? Posting is a public disclosure, but not necessarily considered publication by the PTO, so there is a grey legal area now with respect to exactly what is prior art. It might be a good thing if the international patent system made available a low expense freeware or freepat registration database to establish prior art. This seems to me to be a good thing for a company like Google to attempt if they want to do something a bit altruistic, though, like Wiki, it would end up being high traffic. I think it might require some of serious funding, though, because instead of examiners there would be a need for patent writing assistants to cull over the more important inventions and give them the best protection possible. Paul Lowrance
Re: [VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
That's a good idea. Last time I checked the provisional fee was ~$200. Also there are companies that charge about the same, which they will publish your work in a paper magazine issue and an online magazine, which legally holds up in the U.S. court of law. Regards, Paul Lowrance Terry Blanton wrote: You should consider: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.htm Terry On 7/1/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 1, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: There's a lot of talk about the verbiage used in Steorns NDA. I'd bet this NDA would kill any chance of me patenting any future successful Free Energy machine. Hopefully you are aware that anything patentable that you have created and you publicly disclose, by posting here or placing on your web site for example, without first having a patent application, instantly becomes public domain in most countries, and starts a one year clock for a patent application in the US. After that one year you will be unable to obtain a valid patent in the US. At least that's the way things used to be. I haven't kept up with changes in recent years. Lets try this again. Thanks for the info! As far as I know it becomes Prior Art in the U.S., and open-source/public-domain in various other countries. My stated goal is to freely give away such a device to the world and patent it in the U.S. Furthermore I would encourage people to build such a device to personal use and/or build such units for others incapable of building such a device for free or for profit. Yes indeed. There is a huge worldwide need. If you have a patent you can stipulate such things in the license. It appears to me the only way to make inventions and their progeny freeware is to patent them and then protect the free nature through the licensing. Unlike copyright, which is automatic, there is considerable cost and diligence required up front. Unfortunately, though public disclosure on the web may disqualify the inventor from obtaining a valid patent, it may not prevent another inventor from patenting the same. Are you saying that if the inventor freely publishes it on the web that it can actually prevent the inventor from obtaining a patent, but anyone else can obtain a patent on the invention??? If true (God help the silly government) then how about the inventor getting a family member to obtain to patent? Posting is a public disclosure, but not necessarily considered publication by the PTO, so there is a grey legal area now with respect to exactly what is prior art. It might be a good thing if the international patent system made available a low expense freeware or freepat registration database to establish prior art. This seems to me to be a good thing for a company like Google to attempt if they want to do something a bit altruistic, though, like Wiki, it would end up being high traffic. I think it might require some of serious funding, though, because instead of examiners there would be a need for patent writing assistants to cull over the more important inventions and give them the best protection possible. Paul Lowrance
Re: [VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi, As a side note there was a major update to my research outline page. http://emwiki.info Yesterday I provided two of my Free Energy designs, one being a mechanical version. This was published in Steorn forum, which I commented on the possibility that the Steorn Orbo could use the same technique. Not long after, someone approached me asking to join the Steorn SPDC group. There's a catch though. You have to sign an NDA and disclose personal information. There's a lot of talk about the verbiage used in Steorns NDA. I'd bet this NDA would kill any chance of me patenting any future successful Free Energy machine. Hopefully you are aware that anything you publicly disclose, by posting here or placing on your web site for example, without first having a patent application, instantly becomes public domain in most countries, and starts a one year clock for a patent application in the US. AT least that's the way things used to be. I haven't kept up with changes in recent years. Prior art.
Re: [VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 30, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi, As a side note there was a major update to my research outline page. http://emwiki.info Yesterday I provided two of my Free Energy designs, one being a mechanical version. This was published in Steorn forum, which I commented on the possibility that the Steorn Orbo could use the same technique. Not long after, someone approached me asking to join the Steorn SPDC group. There's a catch though. You have to sign an NDA and disclose personal information. There's a lot of talk about the verbiage used in Steorns NDA. I'd bet this NDA would kill any chance of me patenting any future successful Free Energy machine. Hopefully you are aware that anything you publicly disclose, by posting here or placing on your web site for example, without first having a patent application, instantly becomes public domain in most countries, and starts a one year clock for a patent application in the US. AT least that's the way things used to be. I haven't kept up with changes in recent years. Prior art. I'm not sure what the above is intended to say, especially since it is not a sentence. However, let me be more specific. Hopefully you are aware that anything patentable that you have created and you publicly disclose, by posting here or placing on your web site for example, without first having a patent application, instantly becomes public domain in most countries, Open source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source and starts a one year clock for a patent application in the US. Prior art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art After that one year you will be unable to obtain a valid patent in the US. At least that's the way things used to be. I haven't kept up with changes in recent years.
Re: [VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 30, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Open source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Prior art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art Mud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud Well isn't that special. Your future mud bath plans Horace?
[Vo]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Hi, As a side note there was a major update to my research outline page. http://emwiki.info Yesterday I provided two of my Free Energy designs, one being a mechanical version. This was published in Steorn forum, which I commented on the possibility that the Steorn Orbo could use the same technique. Not long after, someone approached me asking to join the Steorn SPDC group. There's a catch though. You have to sign an NDA and disclose personal information. There's a lot of talk about the verbiage used in Steorns NDA. I'd bet this NDA would kill any chance of me patenting any future successful Free Energy machine. Just be careful. We'll have to see what comes of Steorn. After some reading, now I have my doubts of it's true original purpose. Is it or Isn't It? Friday, June 29, 2007 http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/index.html I for one am looking forward to discovering the truth. Regards, Paul Lowranc
[VO]:Steorn SPDC caution!
Hi, As a side note there was a major update to my research outline page. http://emwiki.info Yesterday I provided two of my Free Energy designs, one being a mechanical version. This was published in Steorn forum, which I commented on the possibility that the Steorn Orbo could use the same technique. Not long after, someone approached me asking to join the Steorn SPDC group. There's a catch though. You have to sign an NDA and disclose personal information. There's a lot of talk about the verbiage used in Steorns NDA. I'd bet this NDA would kill any chance of me patenting any future successful Free Energy machine. Just be careful. We'll have to see what comes of Steorn. After some reading, now I have my doubts of it's true original purpose. Is it or Isn't It? Friday, June 29, 2007 http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/index.html I for one am looking forward to discovering the truth. Regards, Paul Lowranc
Re: [Vo]:Test
echo leaking pen wrote: echo On 6/27/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Messages not getting through, or not coming back . . .
Re: [Vo]:Neutron Properties
IMHO, such a task is similar to find the boundaries size of -- http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/bc/300px-Femtosecond_pulse_shapes.svg.png One would need to define the critical threshold; e.g., 70% max could be considered the boundary of the wave/particle. Paul Lowrance Jones Beene wrote: BTW - For those who might harbor a lingering suspicion that many things in physics, from the basics to the complex, are not well known in 2007 - consider something as basic as the diameter and geometry of the particles of matter: electron, proton, and neutron. There is no firm agreement (or even close approximation) on this, AFAIK! We kind of assume they are spherical, but even that is debateable. So-called authoritative references for the neutron's diameter, for instance, can be found from about 10^(-15) meters to about about 10^(-10) meters, a variation of 5 orders of magnitude ! Of course, there are no firm boundaries for these entities anyway, and often one hears the particles (esp the electron) described as a smear. Little more than a cop-out. College textbooks are notoriously in disagreement with current results, and can be off by orders of magnitude over information coming from some national labs. There are reasons for this relating to publication costs, but still Just now, in response to reading a reference claiming a surprisingly large discrepancy between the diameter of the proton and neutron, I have been looking at various online resources, which vary all over the place. To be honest, I cannot find a satisfactory answer, but that is not the purpose of this posting. In the process of surfing for info - a new (new-to-me) theory (TOE) has been found which has some alluring ideas (and obvious problems) but I have not read nor seen the inevitable criticism of it - so I will simply throw out the reference for anyone whose interests may be tickled by the idea of an underlying photonic basis for all matter: http://photontheory.com/willis.htm The main idea of the paper is that an electron is created when two gamma ray of very high frequency interact and bend so strongly that a stable resonating 'circle' results. An equation to find the diameter of the electron from its mass is derived from three other basic equations. The diameter of the electron is found to be several orders of magnitude larger than previously accepted. First of all: There are other similar wave theories, and there is arguably 'nothing new under the sun' here... and other theories can add or improve on some of these ideas: the best of which sites is the site maintained by Geoff Haselhurst and mentioned a few years ago: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg01542.html which relates to Milo Wolff's theories: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/#Milo.Wolff and also there is another : http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_wavetheory.htm ... and The Photonic Theory of Everything by Vernon Brown http://photontheory.com/pte.html .. and if the wave is the equivalent of motion then the ideas of Dewey Larsen are in play. Anyway the basic idea (of Willis H. Thompson) is that an electron is created when a gamma ray of very high frequency interacts with a similar ray. The gamma rays are bent so strongly that they forms a stable resonating paired circle. An equation to find the diameter of the electron from its mass can be derived from three other basic equations. The diameter of the electron is found to be several orders of magnitude larger than previously accepted. I am left with the gut feeling that if anyone with a strong math background (and unlimited patience) could/would revise and resolve all of these similar theories (including R. Mills without his numerous errors) that an adequate TOE would emerge from such a melange. But - since it is unclear who would deserve the credit - that TOE will never happen. BTW - back to size. A neutron, which might or might not consist of a proton, an electron plus some extra mass energy assumed to be a neutrino, is most often said to be about 2.2 proton diameters in diameter. An electron is about 5.6 proton diameters. Although the proton is ~1836 times more massive than the electron, the electron is larger in volume, no problem; and so, and so the neutron being about ~1838 times more massive a hydrogen atom might be expected to somehow average-out that size difference. Hydrogen has the electron orbiting 53,000 proton diameters from the proton. Somehow that electron can be brought nearer to the proton without any kind of charge anihilation, and can form a neutron with a diameter 2.2x ... or not, if one prefers to look at this from a quark perspective which is like opening up another can of worms. For some kinds of visualization of nuclear interactions - it would be helpful to have these relative sizes in mind ... too bad that is not yet possible. Jones
[Vo]:Capturing Ambient Energy by Magnetic Viscosity
I am highly hesitant in releasing the following details of incomplete research, which basically consists of years of work. The research revealed a method of capturing ambient energy by means of magnetic material. The following web page is just a quick thrown together first attempt web page to provide a small outline of the research, which is mostly based on computer simulation software that I wrote. Surely there are various errors, some small, some big. Hopefully we can work together and correct any of such errors, if they exist. I'm expecting far too much criticism, so I'll probably take a momentary step back and just watch. If not, then great. On the other hand, a lot of people have packed their bags headed toward Steorn demo land. So perhaps just a few physicist will read the following research. It's my goal to work with civilized people, to seek truth. As usual I post the following notice: This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind. No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this project and research. The following web page is vague, probably far too many insinuations, so over time I'll have to fill in the missing links. Enjoy, http://emwiki.info Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:diode array recycles ambient heat
Charles M. Brown wrote: The diode array is progressing. A backer is willing to invest in nanoprototyping. There is some difficulty in that electron beam lithography is slow at ~ 1 / 3 second per 50 nm spot so the prototype will be microscopic with ~ 10,000 diodes. In the future, a stamp pad of millions of electron emitters will make many diode spots quickly. I found conference calls to be a powerful way to persuade people that we mean serious business. InSb can be electroplated as either small crystals or a organized deposition of alternate In and Sb layers. Fabricators can now make 4 InSb wafers but they are unnecessarily thick at ~900 um. However, they are expensive at hundreds of times the cost of Si. I think that diode arrays will produce cheap electricity while absorbing ambient heat. Elctricity tends to return as heat when used so an industrialized cave using diode arrays would not heat up or cool down. An estimated power density of 100 watts / cm2 @ 300K seems attainable. And I bet such a board could be made ultra flat and stackable. Eventually this technology will prove to provide more current than any material is capable of handling. In which case the goal will become to design a unit capable of handling more current while flowing appreciable amount of liquid or gas over the unit. Although remember, such a unit wants to remove energy from the material (ambient - electricity). So there will be small hot areas and cold areas. Eventual goal will be two keep both cold hot areas as near room temperature as possible. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Nick Palmer wrote: [snip] Paul is an extraordinarily arrogant thug. If it is possible to effectively cohere Nyquist noise, I hope Charles can do it. Similarly, I hope Paul never succeeds. Neither is ever likely to get useful power from ambient temperature. By the way, the ridiculous debate about the radiation from both sides has mutated slightly - Paul originally said it radiates X watts PER SQUARE METRE from both sides. He is now leaving out the capitalised part (because he secretly realises his mistake and is hoping that we won't notice...). I'm sorry dear brother, but IMHO you sure warp your reality. You place thoughts in your head thinking you know what I'm thinking. I wish you the best, as IMHO you have a world of anger hate inside you. Regards, Paul Lowrance As both sides of the object have twice the surface area of one side plus a small bit extra from the edges (but this is getting silly...) it logically follows that the amount of radiation should be twice the figure Paul used (as Horace immediately pointed out). Paul was guilty of fuzzy logic Q.E.D. Michel pointed out that Paul's phraseology was ambiguous and he is French!! Why should we need an English major to verify something that is obvious (except to an arrogant troll). Crawl away back under your rock Paul, re-read John Winterflood's comprehensive demolition of your idea, and stop bothering us. Emotionally, but correctly, yours
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 19, 2007, at 2:00 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: By the way, the ridiculous debate about the radiation from both sides has mutated slightly - Paul originally said it radiates X watts PER SQUARE METRE from both sides. He is now leaving out the capitalised part (because he secretly realises his mistake and is hoping that we won't notice...). Yes, Paul's web site is indeed in serious need of correction. He should correct it lest someone might think he is an idiot. Horace Heffner, it matters very little what most people think of me. What matters is truth and logic. It says: Blackbody radiation: At a room temperature of 297 Kelvin (74.93 F, 23.85 C) both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter. See: http://emwiki.info I patiently await its correction. It will be updated today, just for you. :-) BTW, I sent an email to a qualified individual, so we'll see what the final word is. Riddle: Bob and John both run at 10 MPH. How fast does Bob run? Riddle: Both Bob and John run at 10 MPH. How fast does Bob run? IMHO that's an inaccurate example. This seems far more accurate, Bob and John both weigh 882.4 pounds. Or even, Bob and John weigh 882.4 pounds. Notice there's no word each, just as in my original text. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 19, 2007, at 2:00 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: By the way, the ridiculous debate about the radiation from both sides has mutated slightly - Paul originally said it radiates X watts PER SQUARE METRE from both sides. He is now leaving out the capitalised part (because he secretly realises his mistake and is hoping that we won't notice...). Yes, Paul's web site is indeed in serious need of correction. He should correct it lest someone might think he is an idiot. If you want to settle the matter, and make Horace eat his words, build a working O U machine. I get your drift, but this has nothing to do with making anyone eat their words, or making someone look bad. Again it has everything to do with truth logic, and a small attempt to perhaps one day catch the attention of a gifted mind. Surely there are other minor reasons. It's ok, you people don't understand people such as myself ... not even remotely close. Perhaps you *feel* like I get upset, when in actuality I'm probably the calmest person here-- just going by previous social experiences with other people. I don't tippie toe around, or fear I'm might hurt someone's feelings by stating truth. If there's a need then I'm blunt. I could easily be making millions of dollars for myself, but it's my decision to live in poverty spending my life working full time on creating a Free Energy machine for the world-- public domain. There's no self pity here, just joy. You see these comments as ego, lol. These words are here to set a seed in some people so they'll begin to grow up, and learn to control their emotions. You people may see me as troll, lol. That's ok, all that matters to me is that I know who I am and why I'm here. It is now very clear why this is a world of war killing, anger negative emotions, pollution ignorance. Poor world! :-( Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 17, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace, my time here is to spread truth and logic to a dark world. OK, it appears you really aren't here trolling for money then. Indeed that is correct. From the start of this research I have posted at the top of all my Wiki pages, Note This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind. No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this project and research. -- http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:PaulL My signature at overunity.com, Smoking Gun will be posted at http://groups.google.com/group/energymover Conventional physics acknowledges Magnetic entropy. Megawatts of energy exchanges occur in certain magnetic materials. Normally magnetic entropy converts to lattice entropy as heat, but it's possible to capture such radiation given the correct circumstances material. Energy exchanges occurring in 1cc @ 100KHz +-Bsat could power a small city. This research is based on conventional physics in a detailed step-by-step manner. Computer simulation analysis reveals what occurs within magnetic material on an atomic scale. THIS RESEARCH IS ENTIRELY SELF-FUNDED. Not a cent was accepted, nor will any be accepted. This is for the World! Learn about this science help at http://groups.google.com/group/energymover; Take note of the above upper case highlighted text that says, THIS RESEARCH IS ENTIRELY SELF-FUNDED. No offense to readers, but how baffling to date modern so-called society still passively teaches and encourages one to save face rather than truth and logic. I would think that truth and logic should rule, but then again this is a world dominated by emotions. Undisputed fact still remains that it is simple to capture ambient energy with present technology. My long time offer still remains. Put ones $$$ where their mouth is and I'll hand you a simple device that generates free energy without any source of power other than from ambient temperature. Present task still remains to complete an appreciably small device to capture significant ambient energy. Say, isn't the above just plain old not so thinly veiled solicitous spam? How many times does the above have to be repeated here before it becomes spam? Perhaps until people (hint hint) will begin to graciously admit their errors so others of lesser scientific knowledge may make a valid conclusion. :-) Rather the common tactic appears to be hit run. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 17, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: The challenge is in building a machine that can capture significant ambient energy without building a ridiculously large machine. It will require nano scale technology or darn clever macro scale design. It's the later that I am working on, and will succeed single handedly. On Jun 17, 2007, at 9:53 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: We need more people entering the research of ambient energy machines. Any intelligent person should never trust that you or anyone has everything under control. [snip] Again, this yet another plea for people to enter this valid field of research. On Jun 17, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Put ones $$$ where their mouth is and I'll hand you a simple device that generates free energy without any source of power other than from ambient temperature. You really should be more consistent in your comments Paul. People will get the impression you are trolling for $$$ or for folks to do your work for you, or benefactors to supply you, rather than struggling to be a genuine contributor. If you will succeed single handedly, why do you need more people, or ask for money for an impractical device? If you expect to succeed single handedly why are you wasting time here trolling? Go succeed. I just can't understand such fuzzy logic Horace. One word, time. Have you heard the term, The more the merrier? More people equates to saving time. Again, this research could use as many people researching ambient energy as an alternative energy source as possible. If you are only working for humanitarian purposes, post your ideas in detail. Show us something that hasn't been around since Maxwell's time. Let's see your engineering, your numbers. Let's see some specific devices, and some experimental results. Show us how it is done. Teach. On many occasions I have provided numbers equations, described the science and such methods in an detailed step-by-step process. As far as mathematics, I've evolved beyond pencil pushing to computer key pushing, as my mathematics is contained in the computer in the form of software. I firmly believe computer software algorithms, functions, and programs are the future of science. Computer simulations are complex. It would be insane to even attempt to write down an equation of such a simulation. If you are working for profit shouldn't you be busy filing for patents and building demonstrators? Good grief, I can imagine how someone funding your efforts would feel about you wasting your time debating instead of working diligently! Your objective appears to be argument and heckling rather than making a genuine contribution to the list, or the art. Prove me wrong! 8^) Hopefully we won't see the old persecuted genius scam emerge from you. It is so boring hearing from yet another genius who sets himself up as an unappreciated persecuted martyr who's only need is an appreciative patron. It is so irritating to watch it happen while real genius, and true contributors to the list, like Ed Storms, work away diligently, without fanfare or adequate funding. That indicates you still don't get it. How many times and in how many ways do I need to keep telling you? It's always been about spreading truth logic and searching for other capable individuals who may be interested in this research. I could die tomorrow, and quite frankly I don't like the thought that my research will go to waste. Furthermore, believe it or not, sitting on the computer and typing these emails is not only an attempt to find certain gifted individuals to join this research, but also it's my break time away from such research. Additionally, at this very moment I am running a computer simulation in the background even though such simulations have reached their present limit without a serious upgrade. The other day an idea came to me that may allow such simulations offer further assistance. ... let me guess, you don't believe me. Here's a compressed gif screen shot of the present simulation running in the background taken a few minutes ago -- JUNE 18TH 2007 SCREEN SHOT http://emwiki.info/sim-snapshot.html R.C.Macaulay wrote: Paul wrote... that is correct. From the start of this research I have posted at the top of all my Wiki pages, Note This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind. No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this project and research. -- http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:PaulL Howdy Paul, Gosh , golly, gee Paul, why didn't you say so to begin with. How wuz we to know? On various occasions I have mentioned it here at Vo. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Paul Lowrance wrote: Furthermore, believe it or not, sitting on the computer and typing these emails is not only an attempt to find certain gifted individuals to join this research, but also it's my break time away from such research. Additionally, at this very moment I am running a computer simulation in the background even though such simulations have reached their present limit without a serious upgrade. The other day an idea came to me that may allow such simulations offer further assistance. ... let me guess, you don't believe me. Here's a compressed gif screen shot of the present simulation running in the background taken a few minutes ago -- JUNE 18TH 2007 SCREEN SHOT http://emwiki.info/sim-snapshot.html Some basic snapshot description was just added: http://emwiki.info/sim-snapshot.html Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 18, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: If you are only working for humanitarian purposes, post your ideas in detail. Show us something that hasn't been around since Maxwell's time. Let's see your engineering, your numbers. Let's see some specific devices, and some experimental results. Show us how it is done. Teach. On many occasions I have provided numbers equations, described the science and such methods in an detailed step-by-step process. What information have you provided that hasn't been around for decades? What's matter? You can't recall? For one, you can use magnetic material as a means of capturing and keeping ambient energy during one full cycle. Furthermore I've provide various methods of capture ambient energy by other means than magnetic materials. As far as mathematics, I've evolved beyond pencil pushing to computer key pushing, as my mathematics is contained in the computer in the form of software. I firmly believe computer software algorithms, functions, and programs are the future of science. Computer simulations are complex. It would be insane to even attempt to write down an equation of such a simulation. As a person who has written complex deterministic and stochastic simulations for a living, What computer language do you write in? I am compelled to waste the time to say the statement It would be insane to even attempt to write down an equation of such a simulation is total bunk, even though most everyone on this list is probably keenly aware of the seriousness of being incompetent to clearly describe a simulation method being applied. LOL, you think you can write a mathematical equation on paper that took a computer simulation program weeks to complete. LOL. Now that is hilarious. Sorry, your pen pushing days are coming to an end, to be replace by more intelligent methods such as computer software. :-) If you are working for profit shouldn't you be busy filing for patents and building demonstrators? Good grief, I can imagine how someone funding your efforts would feel about you wasting your time debating instead of working diligently! Your objective appears to be argument and heckling rather than making a genuine contribution to the list, or the art. Prove me wrong! 8^) Hopefully we won't see the old persecuted genius scam emerge from you. It is so boring hearing from yet another genius who sets himself up as an unappreciated persecuted martyr who's only need is an appreciative patron. It is so irritating to watch it happen while real genius, and true contributors to the list, like Ed Storms, work away diligently, without fanfare or adequate funding. That indicates you still don't get it. How many times and in how many ways do I need to keep telling you? Talk is cheap. Repetitious talk is meaningless. Inconsistent repetitious talk is ... I've already repudiated your fuzzy logic claims that I'm inconsistent. I challenge you to show us my inconsistency. If you can't then you have no business accusing people of cheap talk. It's always been about spreading truth logic and searching for other capable individuals who may be interested in this research. This list has been full of people with their own lines of research or theory. Why do you think your approach is any better? I could die tomorrow, and quite frankly I don't like the thought that my research will go to waste. Well, then, why not get busy documenting your research in detail and distributing it? Why bother wasting time on petty debate and trolling? I already told you the reason. Furthermore, believe it or not, sitting on the computer and typing these emails is not only an attempt to find certain gifted individuals to join this research, but also it's my break time away from such research. Additionally, at this very moment I am running a computer simulation in the background even though such simulations have reached their present limit without a serious upgrade. The other day an idea came to me that may allow such simulations offer further assistance. ... let me guess, you don't believe me. Here's a compressed gif screen shot of the present simulation running in the background taken a few minutes ago -- Why would I not believe you? So you wrote a computer simulation. Not a big deal. Is it meaningful? Time will tell. Sounds like you're just bitter because I keep finding errors in your statements. For example, when I clearly wrote *BOTH* sides of a material radiates and you replied I was wrong, when in actuality you were incorrect. My answer was correct. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: I've already repudiated your fuzzy logic claims that I'm inconsistent. Do you even know what fuzzy logic is? Yes. I challenge you to show us my inconsistency. I feel thoroughly satisfied I have done that - yourself excluded of course. No need to waste even more time on that. IMHO you've showed us nothing but an undeveloped mind, relatively speaking. I detailed precisely why you were incorrect. Feel free jump in and defend your answer. Again, let's analyze your fuzzy logic. You said, 'If you will succeed single handedly, why do you need more people, or ask for money for an impractical device?' Do you really think that proves me inconsistent? One more time, lol -- Can you comprehend that more people joining this research could help, lol. No offense guy, but your logic is really flawed. Gee, I could single handedly accomplish this task in perhaps 4 months, so therefore my fuzzy logic states I should not seek help. Very silly, huh? Yet one more time. I can accomplish such a task alone, but I will not give up on seeking further help regardless of your efforts. If you can't then you have no business accusing people of cheap talk. I didn't accuse anyone of cheap talk. I said talk is cheap. I should know. I do plenty of it. Blah blah blah For example, when I clearly wrote *BOTH* sides of a material radiates and you replied I was wrong, when in actuality you were incorrect. My answer was correct. So is 42. I stand by my answer: Each side of the square meter radiates (5.6705119E-8 kg/(s^3 (deg. K)^4)) * (297 deg. K)^4 * (1 m^2) = 441.2 watts. Your language is misleading. Not only that, you use the same language on your web site. You state both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter. That gives 1764.8 watts total. The correct answer is half that. I suggest you improve the language on your web site, otherwise some people might think you are an idiot. How will you ever manage to troll folks into your private news group? I patiently await the editing of your http://emwiki.info/ 8^) That's funny. both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter means without question that both sides, not one side, radiates 882.4 watts. You seem good at dodging questions. I'll ask you again since you seem to insinuate you're an authority on the topic. Again, you said, As a person who has written complex deterministic and stochastic simulations for a living, What computer language do you write in? Another topic you dodged: Do you think you can write a mathematical equation on paper that took a computer simulation program weeks to complete? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 18, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Yet one more time. I can accomplish such a task alone, but I will not give up on seeking further help regardless of your efforts. Of course not! Why would you want to stop your effort yo troll folks to your group. I can't imagine why anyone would want to work with you though! Since IMHO it's obvious you have no interest in truth and logic, lets sum this thread -- * Horace Heffner brought up the old trolling, scam, and seeking money trick. I repudiated Horace Heffner attempts by providing links to peswiki.com project that contains time stamps from years ago up to today where I clearly state at the top of my wiki pages I never have and never will accept donations for my research. Furthermore I quoted my overunity.com signature, which also clarifies. * Horace Heffner tried a quick stab at trying to disprove my mathematics. Horace Heffner would have you believe both sides should be interpreted as radiating 1764.8 watts LOL. * Horace Heffner would have people believe my ability to write scientific computer simulation software is no big deal. Quote, So you wrote a computer simulation. Not a big deal. * Horace Heffner would have people believe I'm inconsistent. His logic -- I can accomplish it single handedly, and therefore Horace logic dictates I cannot ask for further help, LOL. Horace Heffner should consider simple logic -- More people may accomplish the task in a shorter period of time. More can be said, but that's enough. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Nick Palmer wrote: Horace, you might as well give up. Jerks like Lowrance, with their inflated egos and solipsistic interpretations of the validity of their own ideas and language are undefeatable with mere words - they desperately need repeated hard slaps around the face until they stop. His pathetic, extraordinarily fuzzy logical defense of his originally (highly ambiguous) statement about black body radiation from a surface is a smoking gun that shows he is incapable of realising his own objectionable idiocy. He should realise that the function of language is to accurately communicate to another what you mean - not to write ambiguous phrases that obfuscate clear interpretation. He is undoubtedly an adolescent who thinks he is pretty hot stuff. He is no better than the Red Queen, in Alice in Wonderland, who said that words mean exactly what I want them to mean. I once tried to point out the error in his thinking that so-called thermal noise could be rectified to produce useful power but he was so thick or egotistical, and in love with his own imagined genius, that he was incapable of seeing it... Anyone who seems to believe that computer simulations trump reality is beyond help. LOL, it seems the thugs are all out in force backing each other up now. Retreat, retreat, lol. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] Gosh Nick, you don't think I take this seriously do you? 8^) Actually, I do take to the smell of scam quite seriously and my nose is bothering me for some reason. I have in the past needled potential scammers just to see what they are made of. The scammers always take the bait. http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=Directory:PaulLaction=history All the way back to April 2th 2005 I stated at the top of my wiki pages, Note This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind. No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this project and research. Me and my friends have a nickname, thug. It's basically a person that has a hidden agenda to suppress global free energy. Are you are a thug Horace Heffner? You are consistently self-contradictory. Well, let me know anytime you want to debate this. I repudiated your claims with logic. All you do is repeat your claims backed by nothing. There have been many trolls that have come and gone here, and I suspect you won't be the last to come and go. Troll: A newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post. I'll debate you anytime based on truth and logic. You're just upset because I immediately found an error in your post. Sorry buy, both sides does not mean 4 times, lol. It does not mean one side. Lets get an unbiased English major and see what he or she says? I say that both sides radiates X watts means that both sides (not one side, not four sides, not 1.5 sides) radiates X watts. ... LOL, thug logic. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Nick Palmer wrote: Jerks like Lowrance ... they desperately need repeated hard slaps around the face ... His pathetic, extraordinarily fuzzy logical He is undoubtedly an adolescent who thinks he is pretty hot stuff. ... He is no better than the Red Queen, in Alice in Wonderland, ... Anyone who seems to believe that computer simulations trump reality is beyond help. Such an emotional state of being. :-(
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Michel, I disagree. If I meant each then I would have included it. To interpret it as 2X watts per side it would have to say, both sides radiate(s) X watts EACH. My original statement did not include the word each. Either way with or without the s has the same interpretation. BTW, my MS Word grammar checker is fine with radiates. Do you know an unbiased English major? I'd be interested in hearing what an unbiased qualified person say. Regards, Paul Lowrance Michel Jullian wrote: Paul, the phrase is ambiguous. The s at the end of radiates is not correct, subject being plural, so it will likely be taken as a typo, and the statement will be understood as both sides radiate X watts (= each side radiates X watts) Michel - Original Message - From: Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy ... I say that both sides radiates X watts means that both sides (not one side, not four sides, not 1.5 sides) radiates X watts. ...
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 13, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Some basic facts present standard physics fully understands and accepts: Blackbody radiation: At a room temperature of 297 Kelvin (74.93 F, 23.85 C) both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter. Actually, the above is off by half. Each side of the square meter radiates (5.6705119E-8 kg/(s^3 (deg. K)^4)) * (297 deg. K)^4 * (1 m^2) = 441.2 watts. Regards, Horace Heffner Horace Heffner, You missed the key words. I will quote my above words and highlight the key words, ***BOTH SIDES*** of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter. Surely you know what the words both sides means brother? My number was correct. The difficulty with trying to capture this energy is that an antenna at the same temperature will be similarly radiating. That is completely irrelevant to the task of capturing such energy. Connected to the antenna would be a low voltage solid-state switch that conducts when the antenna's voltage is positive and turns off when negative. This creates a DC voltage that may be pumped to a device that amplifies the voltage; e.g., pumped to an inductor, which then the inductors current is suddenly removed, which causes a voltage spike (collapsing field) to charge the battery. The amplified voltage charges a DC battery. The DC battery does indeed emit blackbody radiation and thermal noise, but that does not drain the battery. The battery is a DC source. No offense intended to you brother, and indeed IMHO you are obviously above average intelligence, but I'm beginning to understand why humanity has yet to achieve global free energy. People just don't seem to see what I've always thought to be the obvious. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:A sound way to turn heat into electricity
Just noticing some real obvious patterns in the alternative energy community. There seems to be a lot of hit run, lol. It has some negative impact, and therefore from here after I would like to have people close the discussion by confirming their error. Stiffler, You said, --- Your idea is viable if we had the ability to heterodyne down from the Thz range with an efficiency that would make sense in recovered useable energy. --- Your key word, if places nearly 100% probability that you are suggesting my idea would only work if we could heterodyne down from the Thz range. Could you please confirm that you read my reply to your above statement and that you now understand heterodyne down from the Thz range is not required to capture appreciable energy from room temperature gradients? Thanks, Paul Lowrance Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi Stiffler, On a macro scale all matter contains a sea of temperature gradients. View two 15 cent millimeter size thermistors separated by say 1 inch and you'll clear see temperature gradients any place on Earth. Such gradients is usable energy, even with old heat-electricity technology. Such a device does not need to reach THz temperature gradients to capture free energy. In fact a slow reacting DMM is fast enough to see the evidence. That in itself is free energy. Not much, but some nonetheless. If you want more energy then make the heat-electricity device smaller, and more of them to cover the same area of course. Stiffler, there is no magic reaction time where such a device suddenly captures free energy from such temperature gradients. I'm a little baffled you would say, Your idea is viable if we had the ability to heterodyne down from the Thz range with an efficiency that would make sense in recovered useable energy. Just below twenty THz is merely the average blackbody radiation frequency at room temperature. Indeed it's probably next to impossible to measure 0.1 Hz blackbody radiation with even the best leading edge equipment, but there is indeed easily measurable temperature gradients in the 0.1 Hz region. Perhaps you were thinking of blackbody radiation. My previous post discussed temperature gradients, not blackbody radiation. This is very obvious and simple physics. Of course it would require expensive equipment capable of making such nano size heat-electricity devices to produce significant electrical energy flow. Presently such devices are not so efficient, but good enough nonetheless. Here's one well known company that's about to release such an efficient solid state chip - http://www.powerchips.gi Regards, Paul Lowrance Stiffler Scientific wrote: Paul, Your idea is viable if we had the ability to heterodyne down from the Thz range with an efficiency that would make sense in recovered useable energy. It is becoming more difficult than every to know what has been and is being researched due to the issue of now 'We Must Sell' our research papers. With hundreds of middlemen resellers of research and the US Government wanting to suppress everything because they are clueless, it is a wonder we even have research left in the US. We have plenty of bio research, but I think that has a different bent if you look at big pharma. So my 1/2 cents worth is, what can we give the common man now that is not under the control of some big corp? The TAPM is one such device as it can be build with some copper pipe and a hack saw, (maybe a few other minor thing :-) ), your 800W/m2 sounds great, but is there that you know of a way to tap it?? -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A sound way to turn heat into electricity No offense intended to anyone, but something must be said about the obvious. Did it ever occur to you people that such a device if made small enough and react fast enough could draw significant continuous energy *anywhere* on Earth day and night? On a micro scale there's a vast sea of significant temperature gradients everywhere. On a nano scale even more so. Just a few days ago I posted info on such an obvious fact of science. I'm just baffled how everyone misses the obvious! It is intentional? I don't get it, LOL. What's going on ... did/do universities play subliminal messages all day programming poor students at a young age to never consider such thoughts, LOL??? Regards, Paul Lowrance Stiffler Scientific wrote: Far from a new idea indeed, what is new is that it is moving closer to being a viable technology. A thermo acoustic refer has been developed and tested in HOT undeveloped parts of the world and found to work. The device is placed in the sun during the day and it produces ice, then it is moved indoors at night and keeps foods cold until the next day. What one must see is that there are NO moving parts. The device can be built from material that is not super
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 17, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 13, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Some basic facts present standard physics fully understands and accepts: Blackbody radiation: At a room temperature of 297 Kelvin (74.93 F, 23.85 C) both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter. Actually, the above is off by half. Each side of the square meter radiates (5.6705119E-8 kg/(s^3 (deg. K)^4)) * (297 deg. K)^4 * (1 m^2) = 441.2 watts. Regards, Horace Heffner Horace Heffner, You missed the key words. I will quote my above words and highlight the key words, ***BOTH SIDES*** of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter. Surely you know what the words both sides means brother? It is ambiguous at best. If John and Bob each have hair then both John and Bob have hair. If both John and Bob each spend $10 then John and Bob both spend $10. If both John and Bob spend $10 then John and Bob both collectively spend $20. It is a lot more clear (to me) to simply say John and bob each spent $10, and a little less specific to say John and Bob collectively spent $20. It is at best unclear when you say John and Bob both spent $10. My number was correct. So is 42. But what does it mean? 8^) Let's clarify one thing. You said, Actually, the above is off by half. You were wrong. My answer was not off by half. Here is the full quote: --- Horace Heffner wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: Some basic facts present standard physics fully understands and accepts: Blackbody radiation: At a room temperature of 297 Kelvin (74.93 F, 23.85 C) both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter. Actually, the above is off by half. Each side of the square meter radiates (5.6705119E-8 kg/(s^3 (deg. K)^4)) * (297 deg. K)^4 * (1 m^2) = 441.2 watts. The difficulty with trying to capture this energy is that an antenna at the same temperature will be similarly radiating. --- I will kindly wait for you to admit your error. The difficulty with trying to capture this energy is that an antenna at the same temperature will be similarly radiating. That is completely irrelevant to the task of capturing such energy. Connected to the antenna would be a low voltage solid-state switch that conducts when the antenna's voltage is positive and turns off when negative. This creates a DC voltage that may be pumped to a device that amplifies the voltage; e.g., pumped to an inductor, which then the inductors current is suddenly removed, which causes a voltage spike (collapsing field) to charge the battery. The amplified voltage charges a DC battery. The DC battery does indeed emit blackbody radiation and thermal noise, but that does not drain the battery. The battery is a DC source. This is nonsense. You imply the blackbody radiation is uniform over the surface of an antenna like the signal from a radio station, No I did not. I have yet to find anyone who understands antenna theory better than I. that there is a way to obtain a signal that is proportional in some way to antenna area. Various frequencies of photons are absorbed or emitted from small (but collectively acting in a quantum sense) adjacent areas of the antenna at the same time. Plank's Radiation Law gives the energy spectrum (of both the incoming and outgoing photons at equilibrium): E(lambda,T) = ((2 h c^2)/lambda^5) / (e^(h c / (lambda K T)) - 1) which is a distribution of energies but which does have a peak at lambda_max: lambda_max = (3x10^7 angstroms/(deg. K))/T At thermal equilibrium, at which any perpetual motion machine must eventually operate due to the infinite time constant, the effect of black body radiation nets out to zero, Your statement the effect of black body radiation nets out to zero is wrong. Blackbody radiation effect never nets out to zero. Show me one example where blackbody radiation nets out to zero. but the antenna effect for large areas is always zero. I never said anything about large areas. I'm talking about wide THz bandwidth antennas. Regardless, such radiation wouldn't even net out to zero for a one mile antenna, LOL. What you are left to work with is ordinary ambient temperature kinetic heat. Well, there are so many issues in your previous assumptions that we cannot even begin to comment on your above statement, as it becomes irrelevant. No offense intended to you brother, and indeed IMHO you are obviously above average intelligence, but I'm beginning to understand why humanity has yet to achieve global free energy. People just don't seem to see what I've always thought to be the obvious. If it were so obvious and easy you and hundreds of others would have practical working machines for sale at Sears, WalMart, etc. That of course hasn't stopped many lunatic
Re: [Vo]:diode array recycles ambient heat
Charles M. Brown wrote: The diode array is progressing. A backer is willing to invest in nanoprototyping. There is some difficulty in that electron beam lithography is slow at ~ 1 / 3 second per 50 nm spot so the prototype will be microscopic with ~ 10,000 diodes. In the future, a stamp pad of millions of electron emitters will make many diode spots quickly. I found conference calls to be a powerful way to persuade people that we mean serious business. InSb can be electroplated as either small crystals or a organized deposition of alternate In and Sb layers. Fabricators can now make 4 InSb wafers but they are unnecessarily thick at ~900 um. However, they are expensive at hundreds of times the cost of Si. I'm glad to see you're going to use InSb over InAs. Although I have no idea what your design is, you'll find that a direct band gap InSb 0.17 eV will generate significantly more thermal noise voltage than InAs. There are far better materials than even InSb I've detailed here at Vo, but they're extremely expensive. I think that diode arrays will produce cheap electricity while absorbing ambient heat. Elctricity tends to return as heat when used so an industrialized cave using diode arrays would not heat up or cool down. Indeed, it's called energy *flow*. For most applications energy would merely flow from immediate environment to device to appliance and back to immediate environment. No energy is added to environment-- closed loop energy flow. One great option of such technology is the ability to move vast amounts of energy away from Earth by capturing ambient energy and then radiating such energy to space by means of electromagnetic radiation. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 17, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote: Please allow me to enlighten you brother. It is not difficult to build a machine that captures such ambient energy, period! The challenge is in building a machine that can capture significant ambient energy without building a ridiculously large machine. It will require nano scale technology or darn clever macro scale design. It's the later that I am working on, and will succeed single handedly. Then you should have no need to waste your time with trifling discussion. Go forth and invent ... the world is in great need. StifflerScientific wrote: I would love to answer, but I think Bill Beaty might be a tad upset with me. Just consider me one of those below average intellect people and ignore what I say and build you device based on your 'almighty correct theory'? Horace, my time here is to spread truth and logic to a dark world. No offense to readers, but how baffling to date modern so-called society still passively teaches and encourages one to save face rather than truth and logic. I would think that truth and logic should rule, but then again this is a world dominated by emotions. Undisputed fact still remains that it is simple to capture ambient energy with present technology. My long time offer still remains. Put ones $$$ where their mouth is and I'll hand you a simple device that generates free energy without any source of power other than from ambient temperature. Present task still remains to complete an appreciably small device to capture significant ambient energy. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:free ambient energy
Charles M. Brown wrote: I want many people to be ready with talents, means, and applications in mind to share the great social change of a quick and definitive introduction of cheap, clean, and decentralized energy. I welcome versions of the diode array and its production equipment becoming low cost, thin profit commodities quickly. We need more people entering the research of ambient energy machines. Any intelligent person should never trust that you or anyone has everything under control. The people in this industry are very interesting. I lost count how many people offered to handle part of my research, but oddly enough they take forever or never complete the task. One of many examples, one person offered to obtain a free Finemet core sample. Every few days to a week the person would update me of their attempts. Supposedly they even had a EE friend request the samples, and nothing. This went on for several months. The day was arriving when I would need the core, so I contacted Metglas, and after roughly a few minutes I had a confirmed sample order of a Finemet core. Again, this yet another plea for people to enter this valid field of research. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: [snip] Horace Heffner wrote: The infrastructure of a country the size of Iran can probably be knocked out using a few 20 megaton bombs and lots of underground burst weapons followed up with periodic neutron bombs and conventional weapons. Why would it even be desirable to do this? What is it exactly about little Iran that has America so terrified? Surely you are no longer sucked in by the words of a President that has already proven that much of what he says is pure propaganda designed to mislead his own people? I would tend to agree with the thoughts of Robin. My thoughts on the matter is preemptive strike on the middle east was highly unintelligent. These people will NEVER forget. Our president bush created a living nightmare for future generations. Instead of spending what will soon approach ONE TRILLION dollars on this war my country should have spent such money on leading edge defense. Gee, how many scientists could you hire for one trillion dollars, lol. Here's a thought, what if our country would have never stuck our unintelligent aggressive nose in other countries business from the start. One great cost effective method is a challenge. Look who won the DARPA $2 million government challenge and what they achieved: http://news.com.com/Stanford+wins+2+million+in+robotic+car+race/2100-11394_3-5892115.html http://www.darpa.mil It's amazing what they achieved. Another great challenge was the X prize: http://www.xprize.org Anyhow, people baffle me! Perhaps politicians don't understand the law of cause and effect. Someone owes the poor younger generations the apology of a lifetime! Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:A sound way to turn heat into electricity
Hi Stiffler, On a macro scale all matter contains a sea of temperature gradients. View two 15 cent millimeter size thermistors separated by say 1 inch and you'll clear see temperature gradients any place on Earth. Such gradients is usable energy, even with old heat-electricity technology. Such a device does not need to reach THz temperature gradients to capture free energy. In fact a slow reacting DMM is fast enough to see the evidence. That in itself is free energy. Not much, but some nonetheless. If you want more energy then make the heat-electricity device smaller, and more of them to cover the same area of course. Stiffler, there is no magic reaction time where such a device suddenly captures free energy from such temperature gradients. I'm a little baffled you would say, Your idea is viable if we had the ability to heterodyne down from the Thz range with an efficiency that would make sense in recovered useable energy. Just below twenty THz is merely the average blackbody radiation frequency at room temperature. Indeed it's probably next to impossible to measure 0.1 Hz blackbody radiation with even the best leading edge equipment, but there is indeed easily measurable temperature gradients in the 0.1 Hz region. Perhaps you were thinking of blackbody radiation. My previous post discussed temperature gradients, not blackbody radiation. This is very obvious and simple physics. Of course it would require expensive equipment capable of making such nano size heat-electricity devices to produce significant electrical energy flow. Presently such devices are not so efficient, but good enough nonetheless. Here's one well known company that's about to release such an efficient solid state chip - http://www.powerchips.gi Regards, Paul Lowrance Stiffler Scientific wrote: Paul, Your idea is viable if we had the ability to heterodyne down from the Thz range with an efficiency that would make sense in recovered useable energy. It is becoming more difficult than every to know what has been and is being researched due to the issue of now 'We Must Sell' our research papers. With hundreds of middlemen resellers of research and the US Government wanting to suppress everything because they are clueless, it is a wonder we even have research left in the US. We have plenty of bio research, but I think that has a different bent if you look at big pharma. So my 1/2 cents worth is, what can we give the common man now that is not under the control of some big corp? The TAPM is one such device as it can be build with some copper pipe and a hack saw, (maybe a few other minor thing :-) ), your 800W/m2 sounds great, but is there that you know of a way to tap it?? -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A sound way to turn heat into electricity No offense intended to anyone, but something must be said about the obvious. Did it ever occur to you people that such a device if made small enough and react fast enough could draw significant continuous energy *anywhere* on Earth day and night? On a micro scale there's a vast sea of significant temperature gradients everywhere. On a nano scale even more so. Just a few days ago I posted info on such an obvious fact of science. I'm just baffled how everyone misses the obvious! It is intentional? I don't get it, LOL. What's going on ... did/do universities play subliminal messages all day programming poor students at a young age to never consider such thoughts, LOL??? Regards, Paul Lowrance Stiffler Scientific wrote: Far from a new idea indeed, what is new is that it is moving closer to being a viable technology. A thermo acoustic refer has been developed and tested in HOT undeveloped parts of the world and found to work. The device is placed in the sun during the day and it produces ice, then it is moved indoors at night and keeps foods cold until the next day. What one must see is that there are NO moving parts. The device can be built from material that is not super expensive. Something (I'm not aware of anyone doing it yet) is to use this device to reclaim potable water from the air. Granted the load is greater than doing the ice, but it can be done, and is an interesting idea as all one does is get to the dew point and dump the resulting latent heat which with proper design can be used by the prime mover. Not new indeed, but better than some of the other hair brained schemes being proposed by many... -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 12:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A sound way to turn heat into electricity Harry Veeder wrote: A sound way to turn heat into electricity http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15401 University of Utah physicist Orest Symko holds a match to a small heat engine that produces a high-pitched tone
Re: [Vo]:wassup wid D2 ?
Could everyone please set their computer date? Steven Krivit's email/post has been lurking at the top of my email list for ~ a week and will continue to stay they until 7/4/2007, as his computer is over one month ahead! Stiffler Scientific clock is only ~ half hour ahead of time. Thanks, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:wassup wid D2 ?
The reason I mentioned your name was because your emails are staying on top of the list ~half hour even though emails from other people arrive after yours. I set my computer to the live atomic clock in Denver, CO, USA. If anyone wants to check their clocks: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ Regards, Paul Lowrance Stiffler Scientific wrote: Stiffler Scientific computer time is -3 minutes of WWVH so where are you seeing ~ 1/2 hour??? -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:wassup wid D2 ? Could everyone please set their computer date? Steven Krivit's email/post has been lurking at the top of my email list for ~ a week and will continue to stay they until 7/4/2007, as his computer is over one month ahead! Stiffler Scientific clock is only ~ half hour ahead of time. Thanks, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:wassup wid D2 ?
Good. The main issue is with Steven Krivit's who's clock is ~ a month ahead. Paul Stiffler Scientific wrote: All fine and good we sync when 'Bill Gates' product gets around to it from 'time-a.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov' and like I said when I read your post we were -3 minutes of the same clock. I did a manual sync and it is now right on the money... -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 3:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:wassup wid D2 ? The reason I mentioned your name was because your emails are staying on top of the list ~half hour even though emails from other people arrive after yours. I set my computer to the live atomic clock in Denver, CO, USA. If anyone wants to check their clocks: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ Regards, Paul Lowrance Stiffler Scientific wrote: Stiffler Scientific computer time is -3 minutes of WWVH so where are you seeing ~ 1/2 hour??? -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:wassup wid D2 ? Could everyone please set their computer date? Steven Krivit's email/post has been lurking at the top of my email list for ~ a week and will continue to stay they until 7/4/2007, as his computer is over one month ahead! Stiffler Scientific clock is only ~ half hour ahead of time. Thanks, Paul Lowrance
[Vo]:free ambient energy
Some basic facts present standard physics fully understands and accepts: Blackbody radiation: At a room temperature of 297 Kelvin (74.93 F, 23.85 C) both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter. Such radiation is well understood and is called blackbody radiation. The peak frequency of such radiation is just under 20 THz (2 GHz). It would require leading edge technology to collect such energy. Temperature gradients: All matter surrounding you is a sea of fluctuating temperatures. Measure the temperature at two locations by means of two quick reacting millimeter size thermistor chips and you'll discover constant temperature gradients. This is a sea of noise, temperature fluctuations, similar to the ocean. Such temperature gradients exists in all matter, including the air. Such temperature gradients equate to usable energy. The average temperature gradient increase with a decrease in separation distance. The average temperature gradient between 1 inch (2.54 cm) of air is easily measurable with two $0.15 extremely small thermistor chips. On an molecular scale the average temperature gradient is significantly greater. On the atomic scale such temperature gradients approach full scale, which at 297K the gradient could approach 297K. For example, one atom might be traveling at 5000 m/s (11000 mph), but a neighboring atom could easily be at a momentary standstill. http://emwiki.info Regards, Paul Lowrance
[Vo]:Tom Bearden on suppression of overunity systems
Some recent articles by Tom Bearden on the suppression of overunity systems -- http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html Paul
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
I'm not taking sides, but IMHO there's very little logic in your statement Michel. I would tend to agree Mr. Newman appears to not understand certain physics, but that is by no means proof Newman has not invented or stumbled upon a major discovery. That's like saying the Wright Brothers could not have invented the first heavier than air powered plane to fly under sustained control because they clearly did not understand certain laws of physics, lol. According to one video documentary engineers from Mississippi State University tested Mr. Newman's device and representatives of the State Department of Energy were on hand to observe the testing. For 6 days tests were ran with perplexing results. WWL Engineers conducted and confirmed one of such tests done by the engineers at Mississippi State University. I would suggest you watch to video documentary: Skip to 2 minutes and 20 seconds time mark. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086 Regards, Paul Lowrance Michel Jullian wrote: Apart from his own evidence being clearly insufficient (the burden of proof should be his), some of his arguments are clearly deceptive. For example, he claims the pump is running with a 10ft head, using this as an argument that it is doing work. In reality the output hose does go up 10 ft, but then it goes down 10ft (it's just flung over a 10 ft ladder), so the pump runs with zero head in fact, it doesn't do any work against gravity. Michel - Original Message - From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:***VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION On Thu, 17 May 2007, Michel Jullian wrote: You seem to be running a very nice scam, Joseph :-) You're a great showman in any case, so spectators aren't entirely robbed. Accusation of a scam, but without evidence, is a very serious matter. It's not reasoning, it's just ad-hominem (and is banned by vortex-L Rule #2: NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned.) Don't make the same mistake that Robert Park et. al. have constantly made. Simply state why you believe Newman to be a scammer, and your arguments will have impact. - Original Message - From: JNPCo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 AM Subject: [Vo]:***VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman 5/17/07 A NEW SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE IS DEMONSTRATED IN MOBILE, ALABAMA! The video.google.com link below features a new demonstration of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine technology and fulfills the promise made by Joseph Newman in April 2007. The amazing results of this new energy technology as shown in the video speak for themselves! Contact Joe Nolfe at (205) 835-9022 for further details about the energy machine technology. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6157958993884349118q=joseph+newman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.josephnewman.com (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo
Please include his full name-- Harry Paul. Anyhow, was this an accidental effect H.Paul discovered or was it a prediction by means of physics or is it an offshoot of another free energy machine? Paul Lowrance Terry Blanton wrote: Paul had never been able to drive an electrical load before. With such small torque, the motor would stall due to loading once even the smallest current was drawn from the generator. PM generators load a source even when open circuited due to core attraction and Lenz effect eddy currents. The loading is heavy at coil core edges resulting in an effect called cogging. With the Ecosmart generator he had to sand down the coil core edges to minimize cogging. I also suggested that he lift the rotor of the generator so that it is not entirely inserted within the stator PM field. Finally, it would run open circuited on a two magnet rotor but stalled once a current demand was added. So, Paul put on the four magnet rotor which gave the additional torque. Based on power measurements this configuration had a COP of over 3.0, INCLUDING THE GENERATOR INEFFICIENCY. Terry On 5/17/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One overriding question... Why are there two Pringles left? No seriously ...why the focus on the small bulb? Assuming that it is not self-powered yet, what difference could the bulb make? Terry Blanton wrote: Paul just posted a new video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H07vGnZot0 It shows a four magnet rotor and a generator driving a load. The energy per pulse did not change but the COP did (upward as would be expected). Better hurry, I don't know how long the BoD will allow it to remain. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo
Please include his full name-- Harry Paul. Anyhow, was this an accidental effect H.Paul discovered or was it a prediction by means of physics or is it an offshoot of another free energy machine? Paul Lowrance Terry Blanton wrote: Paul had never been able to drive an electrical load before. With such small torque, the motor would stall due to loading once even the smallest current was drawn from the generator. PM generators load a source even when open circuited due to core attraction and Lenz effect eddy currents. The loading is heavy at coil core edges resulting in an effect called cogging. With the Ecosmart generator he had to sand down the coil core edges to minimize cogging. I also suggested that he lift the rotor of the generator so that it is not entirely inserted within the stator PM field. Finally, it would run open circuited on a two magnet rotor but stalled once a current demand was added. So, Paul put on the four magnet rotor which gave the additional torque. Based on power measurements this configuration had a COP of over 3.0, INCLUDING THE GENERATOR INEFFICIENCY. Terry On 5/17/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One overriding question... Why are there two Pringles left? No seriously ...why the focus on the small bulb? Assuming that it is not self-powered yet, what difference could the bulb make? Terry Blanton wrote: Paul just posted a new video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H07vGnZot0 It shows a four magnet rotor and a generator driving a load. The energy per pulse did not change but the COP did (upward as would be expected). Better hurry, I don't know how long the BoD will allow it to remain. Terry
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
I'm not taking sides, but IMHO there's very little logic in your statement Michel. I would tend to agree Mr. Newman appears to not understand certain physics, but that is by no means proof Newman has not invented or stumbled upon a major discovery. That's like saying the Wright Brothers could not have invented the first heavier than air powered plane to fly under sustained control because they clearly did not understand certain laws of physics, lol. According to one video documentary engineers from Mississippi State University tested Mr. Newman's device and representatives of the State Department of Energy were on hand to observe the testing. For 6 days tests were ran with perplexing results. WWL Engineers conducted and confirmed one of such tests done by the engineers at Mississippi State University. I would suggest you watch to video documentary: Skip to 2 minutes and 20 seconds time mark. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086 Regards, Paul Lowrance Michel Jullian wrote: --- Apart from his own evidence being clearly insufficient (the burden of proof should be his), some of his arguments are clearly deceptive. For example, he claims the pump is running with a 10ft head, using this as an argument that it is doing work. In reality the output hose does go up 10 ft, but then it goes down 10ft (it's just flung over a 10 ft ladder), so the pump runs with zero head in fact, it doesn't do any work against gravity. Michel ---
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] It should be noted that some educated observers have examined the Newman device, and they feel there may be something to it. IMHO your above statement should have been placed at top of your post, as it's by far the most meaningful. --- ... I would tend to agree Mr. Newman appears to not understand certain physics, but that is by no means proof Newman has not invented or stumbled upon a major discovery. That's like saying the Wright Brothers could not have invented the first heavier than air powered plane to fly under sustained control because they clearly did not understand certain laws of physics, lol. According to one video documentary engineers from Mississippi State University tested Mr. Newman's device and representatives of the State Department of Energy were on hand to observe the testing. For 6 days tests were ran with perplexing results. WWL Engineers conducted and confirmed one of such tests done by the engineers at Mississippi State University. I would suggest you watch to video documentary: Skip to 2 minutes and 20 seconds time mark. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086 --- Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONS
Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] It should be noted that some educated observers have examined the Newman device, and they feel there may be something to it. IMHO your above statement should have been placed at top of your post, as it's by far the most meaningful. --- ... I would tend to agree Mr. Newman appears to not understand certain physics, but that is by no means proof Newman has not invented or stumbled upon a major discovery. That's like saying the Wright Brothers could not have invented the first heavier than air powered plane to fly under sustained control because they clearly did not understand certain laws of physics, lol. According to one video documentary engineers from Mississippi State University tested Mr. Newman's device and representatives of the State Department of Energy were on hand to observe the testing. For 6 days tests were ran with perplexing results. WWL Engineers conducted and confirmed one of such tests done by the engineers at Mississippi State University. I would suggest you watch to video documentary: Skip to 2 minutes and 20 seconds time mark. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086 --- Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:Runaway Breakdown ionospheric energy tap
I'm not taking sides, but IMHO there's very little logic in your statement Michel. I would tend to agree Mr. Newman appears to not understand certain physics, but that is by no means proof Newman has not invented or stumbled upon a major discovery. That's like saying the Wright Brothers could not have invented the first heavier than air powered plane to fly under sustained control because they clearly did not understand certain laws of physics, lol. According to one video documentary engineers from Mississippi State University tested Mr. Newman's device and representatives of the State Department of Energy were on hand to observe the testing. For 6 days tests were ran with perplexing results. WWL Engineers conducted and confirmed one of such tests done by the engineers at Mississippi State University. I would suggest you watch to video documentary: Skip to 2 minutes and 20 seconds time mark. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086 Regards, Paul Lowrance Michel Jullian wrote: --- Apart from his own evidence being clearly insufficient (the burden of proof should be his), some of his arguments are clearly deceptive. For example, he claims the pump is running with a 10ft head, using this as an argument that it is doing work. In reality the output hose does go up 10 ft, but then it goes down 10ft (it's just flung over a 10 ft ladder), so the pump runs with zero head in fact, it doesn't do any work against gravity. Michel ---
