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
Your absolutely right, and totally within your duties as the
administrator William. However, Joseph has been asked repeatedly over
the past twenty plus years to conclusively demonstrate that his machine
produces any usable energy, and AFAIK, he has yet to do so
William Beaty wrote:
On Thu,
That story about the difficulties the maser inventors faced is a really
great argument.
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
Did not know about this related terahertz RD, which as it turns out,
appeared on Tuesday
http://tinyurl.com/2f5okq
The longshot bet for an ailing Terra, short of a mythological trinity,
may be another strange kind of trifecta - a triple coherency... (to be
explained, hopefully)
There does
Hi Terry,
...
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
Michel Jullian wrote:
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) . . .
It is a siphon, in other words. There would
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Newman rediscovered the metaphysics of the siphon:
Gravity can work for you, instead of you always working
against gravity.
This brings up the economic issue of charging for joules (energy) which I
mentioned before.
e.g. What gives an hydro electric company the right to forever charge for
joule
I wrote:
At some point the system they have built is producing more energy then was
required for its construction.
That should read:
At some point the system they have built has produced more energy then was
required for its construction.
Harry
Dear Terry,
You are suggesting the electric power out of the generator is more than 3 times
the electric power consumed by the motor. If so, there would indeed remain no
serious obstacle to self-powering (which you had already announced as imminent
1 year ago), since converting the output
Jed wrote:
Newman does not appear to understand some elementary concepts such as
the siphon. Many years ago when I spoke with him, he did not appear
to know the difference between AC and DC electricity, and why it is
important to use different kinds of electric meters.
...
I know many
The following year-old patent, in a more perfect world, might form the
basis of an incredible unintended benefit in cheap nuclear energy
(apparently unintended by the inventors, that is).
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060140326.html
Alas, the powers-that-be in the USA will most likely
The magnetic wankel. Cited by the patent examiner on H. Paul's
patent. Paul says he thought of it playing with a dual rotor
helicopter. Go figure.
Terry
On 5/18/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please include his full name-- Harry Paul. Anyhow, was this an accidental
effect
You tube downloads into a temp folder on your computer. You just have
to find where (search on date/time). You can then rename the file
with a .flv extension and use this freeware to play it:
http://www.wimpyplayer.com/products/wimpy_standalone_flv_player.html
We never really tried to get the
Ununtended was an unintended consequence of the confluence of
old-eyes, small print, hasty posting - and a spell-checker which does
not work on the Subject box.
Anyone know of a way to get Mozilla Thunderbird to spell-check the
subject box?
Paul Lowrance wrote:
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.
Bad example. The Wright brothers were as different from Newman as
I dunno.
Although once an unintended consequence happens, for better or worse it is
often left untended. ;-)
Harry
On 18/5/2007 1:08 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Ununtended was an unintended consequence of the confluence of
old-eyes, small print, hasty posting - and a spell-checker which does
not
Michel Jullian wrote:
Come on Jed. The guy is 72 he says, he has been running his show
under various forms for 40 years it seems, and he is very far from
being an idiot.
He seemed kind of stupid to me, but I only talked to him for 10 or 20
minutes, so I cannot tell. He was not trying to
Vortexians;
I just had a conversation with an old friend, Al. He mentioned the late
Paul Brown. Al is stockholder in Nucsol. Several years ago, some short
sellers targeted the company, the value of it's stock has yet to
recover. The culprits have a court date soon.
Paul had some plasma
Edmund Storms wrote:
Thanks Jed for trying to keep such people honest.
Thanks. I forwarded your message to the prof.
Nick Palmer wrote:
That story about the difficulties the maser inventors faced is a
really great argument.
I copied that text from a review of Townes' book that I wrote
See:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread281219/pg1
I have mixed feelings about this. I dislike conspiracy theorists, but
I welcome their support. I cannot easily add a message to this
discussion but if I could I would tell these people that there is
nothing secret about cold fusion or
Michel, ma belle,
His input power is 23.52 W/pulse x duty cycle. Duty cycle is 4 pulses
per cycle x 0.028 sec/cycle over 1.5 sec/cycle or 1.76 W. COP = 2.38
These were not the figures he had when we had it optimized. Poor girl
has degraded significantly. Plus, Paul changed the bulb (I told
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
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.
Bad example. The Wright brothers were as
I cleaned up that essay about Partridge and sent him a copy. He may
not be pleased by it.
I would be astonished -- flat out floored -- if he were to upload a
copy. People like him never do that.
People like me, on the other hand, always do that. If someone sent me
an essay shredding my
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 18 May 2007 13:04:27 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Newman rediscovered the metaphysics of the siphon:
Gravity can work for you, instead of you always working
against gravity.
This brings up the economic issue of charging for joules (energy) which I
mentioned
-Forwarded Message-by Akira Kawasaii
From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: May 18, 2007 5:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday May 18, 2007
WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 18 May 07 Washington, DC
1. DOE POLYGRAPH PROGRAM: COUNTER
Hi,
http://www.physorg.com/news97945163.html
quote:-
This happens because the metamaterial that makes up the cloak stretches the
metrics of space, in a similar way to what heavy planets and stars do for the
metrics of space-time in Einsteins general relativity theory.
...sounds like a warp
34 matches
Mail list logo
