Hi Keith,
His name is Keith Trenton. Believe me, no moss would dare grow anywhere
near him. At some point in the future he may find his way back into the
Carroll work with its many implications, but it would require a pretty hefty
budget. We tried to find government funding to explore some of
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 04 May 2005 16:47:02
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Good point. It would have to be a point source. Even a dipole has
>directionality.
True, but you would have to be very lucky to point it's blind spot
right at the source.
>
>Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>>What form w
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 12:09, Keith Nagel wrote:
> Google "Pykrete" and you'll find a wealth of information
> about this odd bit of history.
>
> http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/7/floatingisland.php
>
> K.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tu
Hey Mark,
you write:
>At least one young scientist believes he was more correct than most will
>allow.
You ought to let the poor boy out of the basement for some air, he
must have moss growing between his toes at this point.
It would probably help you more than hurt. Just a thought *smile*
K
Guys,
Here is a ramp climb and drop at 1 frame / sec.
http://www.myfilehut.com/userfiles/prometheus_effect/ClimbandDropFramebyFrame.avi
Note the ball has no starting KE and no horizontal KE
on the vertical exit. The rotation about the exit
point does induce some rotational KE but I don't
measure
Hey Stephen,
You write:
>He has lots of interesting results but if he has anything absolutely
>airtight in the way of a public demonstration of something really new I
>must have overlooked mention of it.
This ain't academia. You gots to pay to play.
>He has a theory which requires throwing out Q
Jed Rothwell wrote:
[ ... ]
Mills is much, much better and far more credible than people like the
Methernitha crowd, Greg Watson, or for that matter Correa. But he
still has a wide credibility gap, and he still has not made a real
effort to convince people. The last thing he told me, years ago,
--- "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Obviously the KE is actually a little higher than
> that if the horizontal velocity is nonzero,
There is almost no horizontal ball velocity on exit
but the ball does have some rotational KE which I
don't attempt to measure. To get a good ex
--- Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Exactly right. What is it strange is that many of
> the people making these claims, including some well
> educated ones, do not seem to realize this.
Hi Jed,
So can I ship you a SMOT and the measurement system so
you can prove the data I'm seeing i
Prometheus Effect wrote:
--- "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just measure x0, x1, t0, and t1, plug them in, and
you get v0. Then
to find v1,
v1 = v0 + a*Dt
Hi Stephen,
I'm using Final Velocity = average velocity + g *
transit time / 2. Then final KE = 1/2m * Final
Velocit
Hey Jed,
you write:
>I am surprised they managed to sneak this into the archive. I predicted
>will soon be yanked out.
It certainly will if you post the cached URL. Here's the link
with some staying power.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0505026
With 25 documents already filed, Widom will not
--- "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please stop cross-posting to Vortex and other
> groups.
OK.
> Just measure x0, x1, t0, and t1, plug them in, and
> you get v0. Then
> to find v1,
>
> v1 = v0 + a*Dt
Hi Stephen,
I'm using Final Velocity = average velocity + g *
transit ti
David Nagel thinks this paper may be germane to CF, for obvious reasons:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026.pdf
Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride
Surfaces
A. Widom, L. Larsen
Lattice Energy LLC, 175 North Harbor Drive, Chicago IL 60601
ABS
Mike Carrell wrote:
But people should at least be cognizant of the fact that they
> are making extraordinary claims! And they should expect disbelief, and be
> ready to deal with it. They should offer rock solid evidence even if it is
> not extraordinary.
>
> Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As fa
I wrote:
I classify both cold fusion and the Mills claims as "anomalous" energy.
"Anomalous" is not synonymous with "unbelievable" -- it just means there
is no explanation. Mills, unlike CF, does not have a textbook physics
explanation.
That is contradictory. Obviously I meant that "anomalous" i
From reading Carroll it is apparent he had a humor to temper his intellect.
As time goes by I am coming to realize that CF will emerge just as I am
considering the major movement will occur as the result of new mathematics
rather than physics alone. Carroll relied upon his math wisdom and skills
Good point. It would have to be a point source. Even a dipole has
directionality.
Harry Veeder wrote:
What form would a non-directional antenna have?
Harry
Terry Blanton wrote:
From: Robin van Spaandonk
No, the question was, "doesn't anyone listen at radar frequencies,
without a dire
Hey Frank.
You write:
>I couldn't agree more. One has to turn water
> into wine...if one wants to be believed. 8-)
OK Frank, you know I can't resist a good challenge *grin*
http://www.blacktable.com/gillin030901.htm
...but I'll need some ketchup too.
K.
Wow Ed I don't think I've ever heard such optimism from you. It is
certainly welcome!
s
At 09:42 AM 5/3/2005 -0600, you wrote:
Quite the opposite, Jed. The field is moving forward on several
fronts. The field has now changed in two important ways. People who
have had some success are
Jed wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
> >>Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll be
> >>the biggest thing since Relativity,
> >
> >It'll be the biggest thing since Principia Mathematica. It's much bigger
> >than relativity.
> >
> >PM of the first kind using stati
Jed wrote:
> Mike Carrell wrote:
>
> >The testatika machine has been supplying power to the Methernitha colony
> >for years also; many have seen it a documented it and it is conveniently
> >ignored...
>
> All the documentation of this device that I have seen proves absolutely
> nothing. It consis
At 12:47 pm 04-05-05 -0700, Jones wrote:
>
>Even if he is correct, mixing science with religion will get you
>only a larger measure of suspicion and ridicule from the people
>who matter in the physics establishment, and in a field which does
>not need any added layers of disbelief, it is unwise
Please stop cross-posting to Vortex and other groups.
Prometheus Effect wrote:
>Guys,
>
>How would you calculate the final KE of a vertically
>falling ball assuming you know the mass of the ball, g
>and you could accurately measure the transit time of
>the last say 25mm of the vertical drop?
>
>The
- Original Message -
From: "Jed Rothwell"
This one would be nice if true:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MoonDthenucleov.pdf
Indeed, it is interesting, even if Moon fits into a "certain"
mold... but at least I hope that someone with experimental skills
is trying out the possible variati
At 02:47 pm 04-05-05 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Public wrote:
>
>>> Have you seen this?:
>>>
>>> http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html
>>
>>
>> Wow. Notice that the magnets are moving at 90d angles from the motion
>> of the ball in each cycle, in the movie clip. Reminds me of the SMOT.
>>
Mike Carrell wrote:
The testatika machine has been supplying power to the Methernitha colony
for years also; many have seen it a documented it and it is conveniently
ignored...
All the documentation of this device that I have seen proves absolutely
nothing. It consists of hearsay, blurry photogr
Prometheus Effect wrote:
4) My inability to deliver a device which could
deliver ***significant*** energy
(emphasis added) Don't you get it? You only need to deliver POSITIVE
energy, any amount greater than zero. It does not need to be
"significant". If it's > 0 then you've produced somethin
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll be
the biggest thing since Relativity,
It'll be the biggest thing since Principia Mathematica. It's much bigger
than relativity.
PM of the first kind using static magnets goes down to the bedrock of a
This is actually not new; the ball has been happily rolling around for
years, to my knowledge. It is on display in a public museum. The testatika
machine has been supplying power to the Methernitha colony for years also;
many have seen it a documented it and it is conveniently ignored, like the
el
I have started reading Carroll's stuff. He is certainly a man after
my own heart if the following gem is anything to go by.
--
If the reader detects a note of sarcasm in the above statement,
it is only because it was meant
Public wrote:
Have you seen this?:
http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html
Wow. Notice that the magnets are moving at 90d angles from the motion
of the ball in each cycle, in the movie clip. Reminds me of the SMOT.
Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll b
I have begun uploading the ICCF-11 papers, including ones that do not
require editing and ones that I cannot edit (because they are already in
Acrobat format). See:
http://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm
This one would be nice if true:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MoonDthenucleov.pdf
These two pap
What form would a non-directional antenna have?
Harry
Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>>
>> From: Robin van Spaandonk
>
>> No, the question was, "doesn't anyone listen at radar frequencies,
>> without a directional antenna?"
>
> None that I know.
>
>
> From: Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, the question was, "doesn't anyone listen at radar frequencies,
> without a directional antenna?"
None that I know.
At 04:37 pm 03-05-05 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>We are familiar with his earlier patents. We did not visit the lab where
>the fractional hydrogen work is done, but we did see some reasonably
>impressive video.
>
>Since Shell had expressed interest in that aspect, our focus was on his
>magn
35 matches
Mail list logo
