Re: [Vo]:Do it backwards: added 1997-style, science-based Vortex

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2009, at 12:28 AM, John Berry wrote: > > The alternate list however would not kill the current Vortex, Ok I'd go > since I don't care for 99% but no one will miss me as I have tended to lurk > 99%

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > 2009/6/17 John Berry : > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Michel Jullian > > wrote: > >> > >> 2009/6/17 John Berry : > >> > An additional thought. > >> > > >> >

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > 2009/6/17 John Berry : > > An additional thought. > > > > I believe that one issue would be that such an experiment might well > become > > "deficient" of the charge that is applied to the plasma

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:03 PM, wrote: > > > I think you will find that there is a voltage rise, but not an energy > increase. > The reason for the voltage rise is that the capacitance is suddenly > reduced, > while the charge remains more or less constant. Any energy increase would > be > very

Re: [Vo]:Do it backwards: added 1997-style, science-based Vortex

The alternate list however would not kill the current Vortex, Ok I'd go since I don't care for 99% but no one will miss me as I have tended to lurk 99% of the time. THIS vortex will stay the same as it is essentially free of such content anyway and this content will get a chance to perhaps grow, a

Re: [Vo]:Do it backwards: added 1997-style, science-based Vortex

> > but add a "Classic Vortex:" an experiment-centered list similar to > the way vortex once was, back in the Chris Tinsley era, a place for > alt-science people to discuss their current work. Build stuff. Run tests > on odd claims and weird devices. It might remain pretty dead except when > a "

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

her of all arcs and we know that lightening storms produce negative ions, well I am sure these negative ions are distributed as the plasma column is extinguished. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM, John Berry wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Kyle Mcallister < > ky

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, John Berry wrote: > > > From: John Berry > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Enough Already > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 8:41 PM > > Too bad about the hel

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

not a slow fade. It seems like you are well suited, just start of with charging the capacitor to a low voltage to be on the safe side. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, John Berry wrote: > > > From: John Berry > > Subject: R

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: > > I am afraid my specifically "On Topic" thread looks like it will die due > to inattention, version 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lack of > general interest. > > > > I think it got some attention. We just don’t know what to make of i

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

f his beliefs but you aren't being asked to only believe Hiddink. I am happy to explain anything you may not get, though the idea is very simple. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: > > > > -- > > *From:* John Berry [mailto

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

Hopefully though it is the end of this whole affair as it is about finding a resolution. It is still interesting how many are putting their energies into that. I am afraid my specifically "On Topic" thread looks like it will die due to inattention, version 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lac

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

Good idea Ed. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > I suggest a public discussion stops when anyone objects. Following the > objection, anyone who wishes to continue the discussion privately can make > their wish known publicly. These people would be put on the cc of the > privat

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

AGREED! On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > *Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can > be handled without Bill having to get involved at all.* > > Ed > > On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote: > > And at this point, this part of

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.Better is a rule of thumb, politics should be allowed as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off topic subject it ought to go to B. Not to mention the cost of running an extra list to Bill. Any

Re: [Vo]:Help Vortex

3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.Better is a rule of thumb, politics should be allowed as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off topic subject it ought to go to B. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:42 AM, OrionWorks wrote: > From S

[Vo]:A bit more, from Hiddink...

The invention is based on Faraday's problem: Two concentric metal spheres do not touch and form a capcitor C. That one is charged up to a potential V. Then the outside sphere is removed. The remaining sphere is a 1-terminal Capacitor c. The potential on that sphere is momentarily C/c x V. It is s

Re: [Vo]:Help Vortex

Agreed. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: > Any or all of us could take responsibility in helping to maintain the > effectiveness and integrity of the list. > > I was not acutely aware that RELIGION and POLITICS were inappropriate > subjects here until this recent flare-up. I,

Re: [Vo]:On Topic

Note, a post detailing the effect/device is coming, might take a bit before it's complete... On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: > > --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Chris Zell wrote: > > > From: Chris Zell > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:On Topic > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Date: Monday, J

Re: [Vo]:On Topic

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > John Berry wrote: > > I have been on vortex for, well not as long as some but I guess, hmmm, > > might be over a decade now though, lurking more often than not. > > > > Anyway it seems that on topic

[Vo]:On Topic

I have been on vortex for, well not as long as some but I guess, hmmm, might be over a decade now though, lurking more often than not. Anyway it seems that on topic posts are kinda rare, especially if you assume that the topic is not just alternative sources of energy but IMO things the "skeptics"

Re: [Vo]:A good bye from Jed for now-this will change, I hope

If Jed stays away however after he has been let back in and does so despite knowing he had plenty of support. Well yes that could be considered worthy of that term, that however has not happened yet. Essentially let's sum it up thus, Grok is/was an ass. He has lead to MR. Beaty drawing a line in t

Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment

At this point, why isn't Jed back? I wasn't gone this long... Anyone contacted him, told him the level of support/commiserations and ensured he isn't taking it all personally? On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Well stated Steven! Jed makes people think by making informed ar

Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...

political belief you also believe. You need to > separate the message from the messenger because sooner or later the message > will take a path away from reality into insanity. You don't want to be on > board when this happens. > Ed > > > > On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:05 AM, J

Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...

Erm, I think by that definition of insanity the world would have more insane than sane. At least reason/evidence *seems* to dictate how a minority view reality. Of course there are differing levels I suppose, grok was outside of "normal" not in his logic but in his hostility. On Mon, Jun 15, 200

Re: [Vo]:the end of analog television is today

; the same time than they can record or the stations go over time and > the TiVo cuts off the end of the show. > > actually, stations specifically changed up times to screw with dvrs, > because, you knowskipping commercials bad > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Berry wrot

Re: [Vo]:the end of analog television is today

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM, wrote: > We are going to find many people watching what they want, for free, in very > low definition, over the internet. > That tells me you know nothing about watching TV online. The HDTV 350MB (per 42 mins=1H minus ads) xvid avi's are of a generally decent

Re: [Vo]:the end of analog television is today

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM, wrote: > > We are going to find many people watching what they want, for free, in very > low definition, over the internet. > That tells me you know nothing about watching TV online. The HDTV 350MB (per 42 mins=1H minus ads) xvid avi's are of a generally decent

Re: [Vo]:Question for the Vort collective...

How about a black hole? Simply shoot a laser so the light gets captured in a stable orbit around it, with the time dilation as an added bonus the light should last a good long time, "simply" maneuver a mirror in place to extract the light. On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:54 AM, wrote: > In reply to

Re: [Vo]:Temporarily removed: Jed Rothwell, Thomas Malloy

Just an opinion and I could be wrong here, but wasn't grok's attitude the problem more than politics or religion? Now grok is gone then maybe it would be enough to just warn that any political or religious topic should be moved as soon as the participants recognize such? Because I suspect that Je

Re: [Vo]:Question for the Vort collective...

A florescent substance in a mirrored container perhaps? A solar cell, a battery, a circuit and an LED bulb? A tree/forrest (burn it, put it out, re igntie it, allow photosynthisis to do it's thing). If IR light then any black object will absorb and re-radiate, again stick it n a mirrored box to

Re: [Vo]:Binary Resonant TC Primary Design

Ok, I don't pretend to know what you are talking about nor do I really have the time to find out. But even though you may discount my opinion I do have a reason for believing that you are on the right track with operating Tesla Coils from car alternators. I personally believe that some sources of

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

huh, I see you already made some posts on it... On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM, John Berry wrote: > Hey, good to see you around, last I recall you had some tesla binary > electromagnet thingy which I didn't understand. (my description of which may > be so poor as to confuse you

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

Hey, good to see you around, last I recall you had some tesla binary electromagnet thingy which I didn't understand. (my description of which may be so poor as to confuse you) On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Harvey Norris wrote: > > > > From: Michael Crosiar > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Michael Crosiar wrote: > I'm still not convinced that you can't spin a field! You said before that > we can't grab a field, but we can in a way since fields do interact with > each other... > Actually fields don't interact (bend compress etc...) with each other!

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

fields in synchronous motors, plausibly such could be made to appear to rotate faster than C but it would not be real motion. Here too IF it even rotates it is not clear if it can be considered the same as motion of a particle or wave. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:31 PM, John Berry wrote: >

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

Ok, well if it's axial field orientation then I would say you have walked right into the N-Machine paradox. Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when you rotate a magnet on an axial orientation? It is very difficult to prove since the only effect from an axially rotating magnet is a

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

Ok, so take a magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles flip. The field at some distance from the magnet must logically be moving greater than C. So we have 2 possibilities

Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily

Here I was thinking this whole terrorist thing was a bull crap, but now I see there are terrorists literally everywhere, even on this list, even on the chair I'm sitting in... I guess if you have a web of lies anyone who insists on the truth becomes a terrorist... > The U.S. government has said

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

I'm more a lurker here too, but would you mind clarifying the geometry of your question? Anyway at a simplistic level I think the fields would tend to become disconnected, they could be thrown off as radiation as fields disconnect from the near field. But if you are talking about a geometry such

Re: [Vo]:[OT] H1N1 Synchronicity

So much pointless prattle, sometimes more is less. Grok said something I can fully agree with which may be a first: *"However the fact remains that the main stumbling block to the advance of society today -- and certainly to OU 'fringe science' and tek -- remains the present social order, with it

Re: [Vo]:[OT] H1N1 Synchronicity

Vitamin D deficiency is the main reason people catch colds and flu's in the winter, indeed American Indians didn't tend to get colds and neither did/do nudists from what I have heard. There have been cases where giving vitamin D has made people immune to colds and flu's. There are plenty of other

Re: [Vo]:Extinct creature still alive?

Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHXOj3h6P5o&NR=1 On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:43 AM, wrote: > Hey, wait a minute, maybe that's Bob Park's brain that fell out. > -- > *An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy > Steps!

Re: [Vo]:Asteroid 2009 DD45

Personally I am highly skeptical that they could predict with enough accuracy where one would fall in the event it is actually small enough to evacuate an area rather than a whole country. On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 4:54 PM, wrote: > In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:47:53 -

Re: [Vo]:Organic farming under threat...

nd you'd rather not do the research and > shatter your world view. Sigh. Just like all the anti alt sci types. > This is a SCIENCE forum. > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:16 PM, John Berry wrote: > > You have some quite unbalanced points in there but I don't have

Re: [Vo]:Organic farming under threat...

bel, and lot of > neccesary safe practices screamed down by people who didn't understand > the science of it, and at this point, the organic label on food COULD > be good, but is often not. ) > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM, John Berry wrote: > > Um, I don't kn

Re: [Vo]:Asteroid 2009 DD45

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: > > --- John Berry wrote: > > > The only way "we" can realistically do anything is > > if "we" have technologies > > or friends that "we" don't generally admit to, I > > hol

Re: [Vo]:Asteroid 2009 DD45

The only way "we" can realistically do anything is if "we" have technologies or friends that "we" don't generally admit to, I hold out no hope for a mission as in the movie Armageddon or lasers or... Though with a bit of foresight get Podkletnov of the job and he may be able to redirect it. On Mo

Re: [Vo]:Organic farming under threat...

r the environment. > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM, John Berry wrote: > > Organic and Small Farmers and Ranchers; Natural Food Products Farmers > Under > > Attack... > > The Obama administration is pushing farm controls through Congress as > fast > > as possible

Re: [Vo]:Can You Envision $1T?

damn, Ok blame my eyesight, 1T not 17 ;) On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM, John Berry wrote: > WTF, this is the 3rd email I have got this morning about $17, all totally > unrelated. > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> In $100 bills: >&g

Re: [Vo]:Can You Envision $1T?

WTF, this is the 3rd email I have got this morning about $17, all totally unrelated. On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > In $100 bills: > > http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html > > Terry > >

[Vo]:Organic farming under threat...

Organic and Small Farmers and Ranchers; Natural Food Products Farmers Under Attack... The Obama administration is pushing farm controls through Congress as fast as possible and has coordinated the bills so there will be no debate and the committee meetings

Re: [Vo]:Lots of people reading Claytor today

grok, the reason is that either out of malice or disregard there are businesses (people) who are happy to hurt people, make them sick and kill them for a profit. I can't decide which is their main objective the money or the destruction but both occurs. Cancer is one example of something that is e

Re: [Vo]:Lots of people reading Claytor today

as just vaguely possible that someone reading this won't have seen Miss Carolina so if you are wondering about my sobriety right now check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > John Berry wrote: > > I consider most e

Re: [Vo]:Lots of people reading Claytor today

I consider most everyone on this earth to be severely deluded, what's your point? On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:19 PM, grok wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > As the smoke cleared, OrionWorks > mounted the barricade and roared out: > > > Grok sez: > > > > > As the smoke c

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

> > Upon reflection, and as I approach the sixth decade of my life on this > planet I've found myself, sometimes uncomfortably, reevaluating a few > of my personal interests within the UFO community and the "Free > Energy" field. In my own defense I really can say without a doubt that > I've experi

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I > immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have > someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I > won't immediately co

Re: [Vo]:Who is John Galt?

Well I guess that would be off the scale, those who hold it as a political ideology would assume that there is a system to keep people from harming each other or that the society did not contain dysfunction so not requiring any army/police/justice system to protect people On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2

Re: [Vo]:Who is John Galt?

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM, wrote: > In reply to John Berry's message of Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:05:35 +1300: > Hi, > >I find it incomprehensible that anyone could seriously support > >communism/socialism and actually be talking about the same thing that > >created some of the greatest atrocit

Re: [Vo]:Who is John Galt?

I agree with Edmund ;) On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > I agree with John, However, there seems to be a > basic misunderstanding about the difference between capitalism and > socialism. > > Capitalism works because it is designed to allow each person to make > decisions ba

Re: [Vo]:Who is John Galt?

example and you don't need to watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" to recognize it. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:27 AM, grok wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > As the smoke cleared, John Berry > mounted the barricade and roared out: > >

Re: [Vo]:Who is John Galt?

I think that it is clear to everyone that socialism, communism in anything like the form that we have seen in the past is not what anyone is talking about, not even the theory/ideals of Marxism would have any fans. However something else that is differentiated from current so called capitalism or

Re: [Vo]:I've been hammering away at the correspondence principle

; but would you envisioning that a bit of the fabric of space may break away when the photon does? John Berry On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:26 AM, wrote: > Cold fusion observables have enabled me to take a swipe at the > correspondence principle. > > Section was rewritted to exprss this. >

Re: [Vo]:NOW would be a good time to show your support for cold fusion

"due to the ingrained *ingrained* cronyism at DoE and their false faith in hot fusion. Time to clean house and move-on" On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > - Original Message > > > From: Horace Heffner > > > For having a non-physical presence, they certainly do a good

Re: [Vo]:Lotteries vs casino gambling

Compared to roulette the lottery makes lots of sense because with the latter there is a very real even if very small chance of becoming truly wealthy with a very small investment. Where the roulette player must have a larger purse and has no chance of making the kind of money a lottery player migh

Re: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber

One thing to be said of lotteries is that it is the only kind of unskilled gambling that makes sense. Besides any rare possible ability to effect/predict the results there is no reason to gamble. (excluding games of skill such as BlackJack, Poker, sports bets) But playing the lottery does make se

Re: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber

erm, every contest she ever entered. On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2008, at 5:51 PM, John Berry wrote: > > Well then there is: www.the*winningsage*.com<http://www.thewinningsage.com/> > If you believe it, she has apparently won every

Re: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber

Well then there is: www.the*winningsage*.com If you believe it, she has apparently won every contest she has ever won and she has entered thousands. Tony Robbins recounds how at one of his seminars he told people to choose something and to really believe in it to ma

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Cheney Praises Obama Security Team

Sorry! ;) On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Nopers, that was Mr. Johnson as I would never make such an accusation. ;-) > > Terry > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM, John Berry wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:08 AM, OrionWork

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Cheney Praises Obama Security Team

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:08 AM, OrionWorks wrote: > Terry sez: > I guess it encouraging to suspect (or at least hope) that both > Bush/Cheney actually did acquire a certain level of wisdom I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Re: [Vo]:'Heavy' drinkers live longer

I do know that Vitamin C and Lysine taken in good dosages (3-5 grams a day each) will reverse heart disease, CHF etc... Thanks Linus Pauling... On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Yikes! Somebody's hawking *palm oil* as a healthy alternative to (fill

Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?

And true or not they should be discredited regardless of the reason for their failed replications. On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:33 AM, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The number of failures from them had me thinking the same thing, true or > not it is a natural conclusion.

Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?

The number of failures from them had me thinking the same thing, true or not it is a natural conclusion. On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This was recently (11/23/09) posted on the Hydrino group: > > "As I have pointed out in the past, EarthTech is not t

Re: [Vo]:Line Broadening 1

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw > airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to > happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put

Re: [Vo]:Anti cold fusion and anti-HOT-fusion book

Though not OU, the most effective fusion is IMO from the Farnsworth Fusor. Rather than billions being put into it, it's a hydrogen fusion process anyone can make. (and get neutrons from) Not that I'm disrespecting cold fusion, it is however unclear how to make it easily replicable IMO. (and I don

Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether

What kinds of motors? I am actually planning to do an experiment similar to this soon and I do have a nice Synchronous motor. I actually believe that this is 'the key' to OU, I have noted some correlations that 'prove' it IMO. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM, R C Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro

Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether

The LoT is IMO easily defeated (at least in appearance as it is impossible to ever solve the question absolutely) when the aether is correctly conditioned. The aether is the medium of all matter and energy and if you engineer it's state you can change the rules, if you change the board on which ma

Re: [Vo]:HAVA: Game over?

I don't have time to go into it at this moment but I believe I have found a way to have online voting secure and cheat proof if anyone is curious, it's not really hard. On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > You all would fail at solving murder mysteries. Con

Re: [Vo]:Rusi Taleyarkhan under attack again

It was by one of the originators of radionics I think. Radionics = Torsion (or whatever term the reader prefers) I have also heard of some people effecting yeast, they make those cookie dough sausages explode in the supermarket. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [Vo]:The Future of Free Energy?

Jones, I don't expect you to agree, believe or understand. But I have established that it is possible to pull energy from generators and motors by inductive pickup, pickup that would by conventional standards be a rebelliously loose coupling but is made stronger (uni-directionally) by certain qual

Re: [Vo]:test

well it worked On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:56 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > attempting to get through via different mail server > >

Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors

Not read any of this thread yet, but it reminds me of a thought I had yesterday, I wondered if I could find a way to make a time varying magnetic field not cause induction, and my conclusion is that I could. I could (at one point anyway) cancel the inductive field around a solenoid if I wound it o

Re: [Vo]:Re: Paradox

returning to my previous position that the only way to make energy is by using the aether (the board on which we play the game, if you can change the board you can change the rules) and (with only one possible exception) you can't create energy by finding 'holes' in basic physics. John Berry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Paradox

netic field, fig 5 helps illistrate this issue. Anyone wanna take a crack at this, either explaining the paradox or at least telling me in each case if you agree with the winner I've chosen. Or run it through a 3D magnetic simulation program? Or at least agree it's a head scratcher!?!?

[Vo]:Re: Paradox

I have found that diameter of longer coils has little effect on gauss. Never the less this paradox would seemingly still hold as long as the coils were short, preferablr shorter than shown. On 2/20/08, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have designed a transformer which

Re: [Vo]:Look Who's Back

He's been out for a very very very long time. On 11/2/07, Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > > http://www.drjoechampion.com/ > > > > At $800 per oz. maybe it's time to give it a shot. > > > > Terry > > > > > Is Joe out of prison no

Re: [Vo]:Message from the Inventor, was: Cold reception to cold electricity

The level of skepticism in this group even from the moderator makes it very hard to accept the 2nd rule: NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link .) The tone here should be one of

Re: [Vo]:Message from the Inventor, was: Cold reception to cold electricity

As to the 'signal generator is always running in the background' claim look at this message 318 on overunity.com where Stiffler replies (also fig S1 and S2 at http://67.76.235.52/DrStiffler/ce4.asp lack any signal generator connection or plate of any type to couple to): >So the signal generator >w

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold reception to cold electricity

My skeptic detector keeps ringing. Seriously, the 'evidence' against him is some vague sense you get at the way get gets mad doesn't 'feel' right? What if I said that someone else was almost certainly correct cause I had a good feeling about them? When evidence to debunk something lacks skeptici

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

Honestly what are the odds that Ron has gone from real verified things to faking? (and for what reason, not money) The real verified things are interesting enough, and has not this also been replicated several times now? I think that too many people are all too aggressively skeptical and it's bu

Re: [Vo]:Re: Replications of Stiffler circuit

Since it works without any signal generator connected or likely even operating all I can assume is you haven't been paying attention. On 11/1/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "vortex" > Sent: Tuesday,

Re: [Vo]:Part 8 "Cold" electricity

Incidentally this circuit which powers it's self seemingly is doubled, interesting since it reminds me of Hendershot, both self powered and both basically twin circuits. What is happening is they are powering each other. On 10/30/07, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *

Re: [Vo]:Part 8 "Cold" electricity

External to the circuit, being that it is most probably it's own power source. On 10/30/07, Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:15 PM, DDMasters wrote: > > > Maybe you should read his web pages, he does say no generator is > > used in his > > #7 free standing unit

Re: [Vo]:Part 8 "Cold" electricity

*Fig: 14 - Circuit #7 Diagram* No localized external power source is used in the following two circuits. It is currently unknown how the circuit is being powered. Except for an earth ground connection, no other connections are made. The aluminum pan in which the circuit is sitting is floating and

Re: [Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity

ly informed about) the uniform detected field strength regardless of distance not the overunity nature of it so I can't say what else it may have proven. But in my opinion the is the key to the effect. On 10/29/07, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007,

Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes -- in case anyone's still interested

You can't just believe > something because it was on the internet anymore than you can believe the > "official" explanation. > Ron > > --On Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:30 PM +1300 John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Indeed Ron. > > And now 6

Re: [Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity

On 10/28/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is this patent 6798329 you are referencing ? Two of the inventors have > the first name of Osamu, so this may not be the one you are referencing. No, try JP55082505, *GB2075755* Also - Coler: where is the diamagnetic material there? Sil

Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes -- in case anyone's still interested

Indeed Ron. And now 6 of those involved at Barkersfield and Minot have been killed. On 10/28/07, Ron Wormus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They would have to refuel before returning but I see no reason take off > from Minot when the mission would likely be > flown out of Robbins anyway. Also, ther

Re: [Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity

ith devices that fail to do anything unusual (conventional tech) the odds seem good to say the least. Did I waste my time typing this? (if you read this in interest please say so) Oh I forgot one, Glass tetrahedrons (or corners of box shaped ORAC wrote: > > On 10/26/07, John Berry <[

Re: [Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity

On 10/26/07, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, EnergyLab wrote: > > I don't think big RF sources are common. Once you're far from the AM > tower, I doubt that there's much chance that you'll accidentally get close > to another major transmitter. So carrying your de

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >