Subject line is misleading :) Real (and efficient it seems, they claim
higher efficiency than diesel), but neither FE nor OU, right?
I don't understand what becomes of the GHGs:
http://www.micro-combustion.com/ :
3.Does not emit greenhouse gases (Produces but doesn’t emit).
I imagine this
Horace wrote on 11-10-09:
United States Patent Application 20090010962 Kind Code
A1 Palese; Peter ; et al. January 8, 2009
Serial No.: 628292 Series Code: 11 Filed: June 1, 2005
PCT Filed: June 1, 2005 PCT NO: PCT/US2005/019382 371 Date:
February 6, 2008
So, a generic patent for ns1 gene
Abd,
You are correct that Shawyer does not specifically make any claim regarding
space-time . My interpretation should have been clearly demarcated. My intent
was to suggest a possible scenario where the EM drive might be plausible -
Whether shawyer considered reativistic effects induced
Good point about the Schaeffer similarity, Chris.
http://www.rexresearch.com/schaeffe/schaeffer.htm
However, when you throw in Griggs (and the other pump anomalies) and then
add-in all of the sonoluminescence material which is out there, it would be
a losing cause for the government or
here we go:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2005/0039434.html
Save a copy. Ya never know
At 12:39 AM 11/9/2009, William Beaty wrote:
If an odd phenomenon needs investigation, then
science is the way to go. But if debunkers claim
to be investigating an odd phenomenon, yet
they're secretly certain that the phenomenon
isn't real ...then they're not just debunkers. They're
At 09:43 AM 11/10/2009, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
Abd,
You are correct that Shawyer does not specifically make any
claim regarding space-time. My interpretation should have been
clearly demarcated. My intent was to suggest a possible scenario
where the EM drive might be plausible
Not
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, November 8, 2009 8:28:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 07:14 AM 11/8/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
The group velocity of the
Abd sez:
...
I'm not ready yet, but, looking ahead, do you
think I could get Robert Park to denounce my
Kitchen Fusion kits?
Just drop him a line when you get up to speed. I bet he would oblige.
No problemo! ;-)
(Too bad it's not fission, Kitchen Fission would
be a great name. I suppose
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, November 8, 2009 8:28:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 07:14 AM 11/8/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
The group velocity of the
Horace Heffner wrote:
I have no idea what this might mean in terms of what would happen if
they should hit some atoms along the way though, as the atom apparent
mass might be infinite. Also, the mass presented to the incoming atoms
would be infinite. A practical case of the irresistible
Horace Heffner wrote:
Silly me! You don't have to travel faster than c to cross the universe!
As you approach c with respect to the local universe, it shrinks! You
then have less distance to travel at your near c speed. There is no
limit to your apparent speed.
cf Tau Zero by Poul
12 matches
Mail list logo
