Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

On 2/17/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your position, like that dangerous > lunatic > Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus "Dirty Harry" who "felt > lucky" and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum... No Nick, I'm probably the most safe and sane thinker on this deb

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

Two things, for one there are many uses for wood, as long as it's not burnt why not make use of what you can rather than just burying. And secondly the rate of pine growth varies greatly, see: http://www.forestenterprises.co.nz/new/afi/nzplantation.htm So location is key, as is choosing a very f

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Twin paradox solved by a universal static aether adjustment to SR ;) SR is totally broken. And no inertial acceleration doesn't solve it, the twin at home is undergoing plenty of acceleration around the earth, around the sun, thermal and sound vibrations. Also the acceleration to light speed can

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

Ok, so what do you think the cost per tonne of carbon dioxide removed by your method would be? Obviously it's going to have to be better than $15USD per tonne to be worth while. Though I don't suspect you aren't far enough along for a cost analysis yet? On 2/16/07, Frederick Sparber <[EMAIL PRO

Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics

> [Original Message] >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Date: 2/15/2007 3:34:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL P

Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics

On 2/15/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, not kW levels, in fact you can get what I described from a 12w flyback > that powers a plasma globe. How cute, is this what you tried to fly your lifter with? Of course not.

Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics

On 2/15/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics > On 2/5/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL

Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics

rectify easily deadly. On 2/15/07, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Berry wrote: Actually the only thing you feel is a pin point burn and the smell of burning skin, plus a buzzing. If it wasn't for the burn it's not painful though possibly irritating. Is it like

Re: [Vo]: Re: Fred's Van de Graaff Antics

On 2/5/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It won't rise but some of the ions will go round or even through the paper so you'll get some remaining thrust, it's very hard to insulate high voltages. Anyway no one serious in the field still doubts the ion wind hypothesis, for thousands o

Re: [Vo]: Voltage versus field, and the electrophorus

It applies to plates just the same. On 2/15/07, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In reply to John Berry's message of Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:42:17 +1300: Hi, [snip] >Robin is not right. Robin was talking about two flat plates. Granted, they only appear as flat plates when close toge

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

On 2/14/07, Frederick Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Undoing it in less than 300 years is going to be costly. Fred I disagree. see: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020412080812.htm Cost of the entire process is equivalent to about 20 cents per gallon of gasoline. So for 4

Re: [Vo]: Voltage versus field, and the electrophorus

Yup, that was meant to be "I'm not wrong about this." I was changing it from "I don't think I'm wrong about this", decided I was certain so I removed the uncertainty but by doing so reversed it's meaning. On 2/15/07, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Vo]: Voltage versus field, and the electrophorus

Robin is not right. A metal sphere and a metal cone of equal capacity at an equal voltage and charge imbalance will have the same net electric field. But the electric field density at the point of the cone (along with the charge imbalance density at that point) is greater than the electric field

Re: [Vo]: Voltage versus field, and the electrophorus

In a 2 plate capacitor when together the field strength is concentrated more on the inside of the 2 plates, while there is the same net field once separated now it is spread out, and the field of the opposite plate isn't in range so actually it is a lot weaker. On 2/14/07, Robin van Spaandonk <[

Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)

On 2/10/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Exactly. Just because some drivers sometimes run into trees, you do not declare that no one can drive, or that cars do not exist. Doctors and drug companies kill people by the thousands (scratch that, millions) and only slowly are they getti

Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)

Jed, you are right in everything you say. Though by the same token there are many things that are proven and yet utterly ignored because people think that the limits they place on the universe actually mean something, why they think their model of the universe trumps irrefutable proof of how the

Re: [Vo]: Now this is a website!

I'm all for Apocalypse: *Apocalypse* (Greek : Ἀποκάλυψις -translit. APOKALYPSIS, literally: the lifting of the veil), is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden fr

Re: [Vo]: Re: A New Candle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fPXewq8S5w Another candle fake. On 2/9/07, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, well I would give this a freaking low chance of being real, even if I was ok with the open circuit I'd not be so fine with the fact it's symmetrical yet devel

Re: [Vo]: Re: A New Candle

Ok, well I would give this a freaking low chance of being real, even if I was ok with the open circuit I'd not be so fine with the fact it's symmetrical yet develops a DC voltage. However if you look when the flame goes out on the lighter that is exactly when the bulb turns on, so while the flame

Re: [Vo]: Voltage versus field, and the electrophorus

That's how many electrostatic machines work such as the Wimshurst. There are 3 different things, voltage, field strength and charge imbalance, in this case the Voltage goes up, however the field strength goes down (though is still considerable and covers more area) and the charge imbalance obviou

Re: [Vo]: Re: Climate Change

Actually I think I recall that sun light measurements over the decades are showing that less sun is reaching the surface at least. On 2/8/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: thomas malloy wrote: >>Dr Ball won't make the headlines by pointing out that plant growth >>is stimulated by an

Re: [Vo]: Fw: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 2, 2007

Ok, I'll bite, where is the evidence that all planets are heating up in the last few years, and by how much? And if this is happening isn't it more reason not to make the problem with worse with greenhouse gases? On 2/3/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. PARIS: THE IPCC REPORT I

Re: [Vo]: Re: vortex-digest Digest V2007 #50

On 2/5/07, Stiffler Scientific <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Berry said; >>I hate theory, but must add that understanding what is going on with this technology is important if it is to become a science. John, so is this the old 'Chicken and Egg' thing? Maybe I do n

Re: [Vo]: Re: vortex-digest Digest V2007 #50

On 2/5/07, Stiffler Scientific <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You are calling it right? I have been in and out of groups for over 12 years now and it has not changed. The hands on people are 1% of the listers. I have cried foul often about the arm chair crowd and they just tell me to 'MOVE ON'.

Re: [Vo]: electricity question

Almost all energy is potential energy really. Motion is potential as it depends of the reference frame, voltage is potential. Just because you can measure it doesn't mean it's not potential, you can measure gravity, magnetic fields, motion... The one exception that I can think of is light (or e

Re: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question.

On 2/2/07, Stiffler Scientific <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is my last comment on this thread as I for sure live in a different world than the rest of you. Move. Plus I just don't see New Zealand taxing people based on the power they would have used if connected to the grid.

Re: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question.

Still no one has really answered the whole question, which is basically what would happen to this world where it currently is if it was suddenly given technology which is at a level seen in Star Trek? Would it be likely to play out well or poorly? And what could be done to ensure it's more good t

Re: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question.

vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question. John Berry wrote: > Ok, let's say that one of us (I haven't BTW) finds out how to crack this > Free Energy nut. > And Antigravity, and Healing/Rejuvenation. > > By discovering a new branch

Re: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question.

I just realized how complex a cut off device is, a fuse, I mean they might want something more complex than that but if there is a blackout or brownout the power being supplied by the grid is ziltch or has dropped which means only your device is powering all those homes which will mean increased c

Re: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question.

n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/1/07, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, let's say that one of us (I haven't BTW) finds out how to crack this > Free Energy nut. There are still economics associated with FE. Let's suppose I can generate FE of 2 kW continuous.

[Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question.

Ok, let's say that one of us (I haven't BTW) finds out how to crack this Free Energy nut. And Antigravity, and Healing/Rejuvenation. By discovering a new branch of physics which makes the things above and more easily doable. Obviously like any technology it could be misused too. So what would yo

Re: [Vo]: Easy Unidirectional Force, get out your calculators...

e moving, do they still retain a field? or is it latent and waiting to catch up? If we were to assume spin was the field generator, how can the lag be explained unless there is some underlying drag? Please ignore me if I just don't get it. -Original Message- *From:* John Berry [mailto:[E

Re: [Vo]: Easy Unidirectional Force, get out your calculators...

On 1/31/07, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:48:21 +1300: [snip] What about the reverse situation. The time it takes for the force from the bottom magnet to reach the top magnet? Wouldn't that produce the reverse effect? ...a

Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics

sh the field. This is pretty freaking basic stuff! Michel - Original Message - From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > The magnet moving towards the loop will

Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics

The magnet moving towards the loop will induce the opposite voltage in the loop, as .0001 volts induced in the opposite direction is enough to reverse the current direction in the SC loop the magnet will basically not be attracted at all. Except

Re: [Vo]: Easy Unidirectional Force, get out your calculators...

it is still pretty interesting no? Isn't a device that breaks 2 such major laws even slightly worth some interest if only as a proof of concept that it can be done? Plus it seems the effect could be engineered to useful proportions conceivably. On 1/28/07, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

[Vo]: Easy Unidirectional Force, get out your calculators...

Ok, here is a challenge, please calculate the unidirectional force that would be created by having a 2x1 inch cube neodymium magnets (1 Tesla) separated by 2 inches in attraction. Vertically aligned Now assume that gravity is equivalent to acceleration: ^ 1 G of virtual acceleration up. (hence g

Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics

Well, first let me explain something. I didn't pay much attention to the post I initially replied to, I didn't pay any attention to the subject line and assumed it was a discussion going on in a different list where the list owner (Bill Alek) expressed that he does not believe that any magnetic f

Re: [Vo]: Bruce Depalma & "Free Energy

On 1/21/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Berry wrote: > Well as I spent time with Bruce (and Andrew Mount and Paul Clarke) in New > Zealand not long before he died and I can tell you that he was as Paul > asserts a kind man, no negativity. > > The last N-Machine

Re: [Vo]: Bruce Depalma & "Free Energy" - A Sad Story of Fraud and Delusio

Well as I spent time with Bruce (and Andrew Mount and Paul Clarke) in New Zealand not long before he died and I can tell you that he was as Paul asserts a kind man, no negativity. The last N-Machine test in NZ before his death was not so positive. I believe that the N-Machine will work as a motor

Re: [Vo]: time distortion fields

Ever? Yes. In the Steorn device? No. On 1/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Quoting Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > One off-beat possibility is a time distortion field. I wonder if > clocks in the surroundings run at a different speed? :) > Time distortion fields,

Re: [Vo]: Steorn question

Because it doesn't. On 1/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why aren't people more clear about the steorn motor and say that it gets colder as it creates mechanical power? Then the motor would be a type of Ambient Heat Recycling machine which is revolutionary but possible. Diod

[Vo]: Measuring Precession

I am planning an experiment to see if I can cause a rotation of the aether in a metal ring, and then by rotating the ring (on an axis through it's cross section) see if any processional forces appear. (so if the aether is moving, and assuming this has an inertial effect it would be precessing) So

Re: [Vo]: PNL study on plug in hybrids shows there is enough generating capacity

On 12/12/06, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Researchers at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory also evaluated the impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, on foreign oil imports, the environment, electric utilities and the consumer. . . . Then Bush calculated it

Re: [Vo]: Merucry and the Vortex Prophecy ?

Ok, so most likely a liquid metal 'living' AI technology ala T2... ;)On 11/8/06, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:On 11/7/06, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:> In astrological symbolism, the planet Mercury represents the mind,> technology and particularly the intellectual processes a

Re: [Vo]: Seeing Tesla with new eyes

I am extremely interested in what your describing but my imagination let me down, maybe you could make a diagram and put this idea on your website? This is very interesting and close to some thoughts of mine.For one there are many independent claims (Morton for one) that an electrical discharge ca

Re: [Vo]: Jed's Edict

The answer is either free energy devices or solar, wind, wave, tide etc.. generators and then rather than scrapping cars make a synthetic fuel:http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/html/bfr10.htm Encourage full electric and as an alternative hybrid, and for those unable to switch to more efficient tec

Re: [Vo]: Seeing Tesla with new eyes

I have a friend, he's a bit odd, but anyway he told me about a friend of his (also John) who built a death ray, he isn't technical and I'm am doubtful he'd be able to come up with such interesting details, by using very strong UV lamps and high voltage was able to create just such a conductive chan

Re: [Vo]: SUVs

Those small cars were something like 11 times more likely to kill you, plus they are ugly.On 9/29/06, Kyle R. Mcallister < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:- Original Message -From: "John Steck" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:17 PMSubject: RE: [V

Re: [Vo]:

Taking 'Vortex' more literally than most.Here is a question though, is a vortex just rotation of fluids, a fluid moving in a circle which in in effect a single dimension of movement.Or is it only when you have a fluid moving around, towards the center and down (or up?). (IMO that's a true vortex) W

Re: [Vo]: Re: I Think that I will never see...

If Jed is even close to being right (in the ballpark) it doesn't make sense, there is more than enough power from hydro, solar, wind, wave and tide and temperature differentials, and electric cars work just fine.No need for stupid bio fuels (unless they use waste products and take little energy to

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

> I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves> through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether > flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the> ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a> budget.>Close but

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

while I am not sure exactly how, I wonder if the reason the droplets do that is because of a 90 degree aether flow. On 9/23/06, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves > through the donut superconductors inducing a seco

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

On 9/17/06, Wesley Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out o

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

ut?Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:> - Original Message - From: John Berry> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor>>>> What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST>>

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In reply to  John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:05+1200:Hi,[snip]>> BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass>> change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside >> down. This is not the sort

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In reply to  John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37+1200:Hi,[snip]>> >No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?>>>Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it re

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

Indeed, it would seem that the hypothesized preferred frame would act as the "road". Or the "air". There is another word that could be used, it startswith an "e" (or "ae") but I will remain a gentleman. :)I'm not so much of a gentleman then.  > But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especial

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

>No Kyle, your mistaken.You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. To postulate a scenario where a supposedreactionless engine consumes power at a rate based on an "absolute" velocity and therefore obeys energy conservation I think is less mistaken than tosimply ass

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

No Kyle, your mistaken.There is no way it can work with a stationary reference frame as you say.The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no longer be in resonance hence lower Q and lower EM boun

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

I suppose KWh is a poor unit of energy to use when my example only ran for a few seconds, so change to some other suitible measure of energy.On 9/15/06, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be u

Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

No, Wesely is correct, it is an inertial anchor. (it could be used to push off or it could be used by moving it in the direction of travel and turning it on then bringing it to rest relative to the ship, or both)The reason acceleration is tricky is not because the energy is converted into motion bu

Re: [Vo]: Robin

My understanding was that magnetic fields weren't really 'lines' but a smooth field and were never really cut or broken, this thread sounds like bunk I'm afraid.How far apart are these lines? if I was small I guess I could navigate around them and not feel a field. Can I tie the lines in a knot?I t

Re: [Vo]:

Remi, seriously how do you know energy can't be created or destroyed?There is a theory saying it can't.And there are observations where it is conserved.And observations where it isn't.Logical thought experiments where it is conserved. And logical thought experiments where it is not conserved.Energy

Re: [Vo]: FE, harassment, death threats

Paul Brown did die in a car crash so it's possible he was killed. (some have called it suspicious)Also Stepan Marinov was possibly suicided.On 9/3/06, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jed Rothwell wrote:> William Beaty wrote:> >Suppose you stumbled across the same thing

Re: [Vo]: If you were Steorm, what would YOU do?

Knowing what Steorn apparently know I would do pretty much what Steorn has done.Knowing what I know first I would pick friends and tell them everything, have them work with me in the workshop to replicate everything, they would know everything I would know. After having about 20 such people trained

[Vo]: Challenges are popular.

Don't know if this has been posted before:http://www.relativitychallenge.comSR has been invalidated plenty based on logic and experiment, now the math finally gets what's coming to it.

Re: [Vo]:

, you mean you don't understand it?On 9/2/06, Terry Blanton < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On 9/1/06, John Berry < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Seriously? I mistakenly use Sterling instead of Stirling and you see fit to> remark, but Harriet posts some very hard to entertain (even i

Re: [Vo]: Steorm

>>OTOH, I recall a man who build a "F E" circuit which worked by microwaveradiation from a near by source.Who?On 9/1/06, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote:> Your overlooking the problem of patents. The patent will not be> allowed if the theory is disputed and it gets wors

Re: [Vo]: Fwd: MAHG at TeslaTech convention

Of course there are those that claim that, but this isn't about seperation and recombination of H2 and O but of H and H.On 9/1/06, thomas malloy < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:John Berry wrote:>>> On 8/31/06, *Jones Beene* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>> This message came form Ter

Re: [Vo]:

Seriously? I mistakenly use Sterling instead of Stirling and you see fit to remark, but Harriet posts some very hard to entertain (even if your open minded) new age stuff about Atlantis and crystals somehow relating to a magnetic perpetual motion machines and you decide to contribute? On 9/1/06, Te

Re: [Vo]:

e next glimpse. Peep show science !   ... not there is anything wrong with drama... or peep shows for that matter   Jones       ----- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: MAHG at TeslaTe

Re: [Vo]: Re: MAHG at TeslaTech convention

e? On 9/1/06, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- John Berry wrote: > Bill Lyne believes much the same [basicmisunderstanding of hydrogen chemistry -in theexplanation]A google search for Thorsten Ludwig, President of theGerman Association for Space Energy (GASE), indicates that he

Re: [Vo]: Fwd: MAHG at TeslaTech convention

On 8/31/06, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This message came form Terry Holmes:His presentation pretty much consisted of the 2005Naudin resultswith photos from the web site from lastsummer--complete with theVan Nostrand [incorrect!} quotes implying that the energy of combination of  hydroge

Re: [Vo]: Steorm

I hope you're right, IMO if it isn't closed loop they shouldn't have released it until they have that covered.It will only really be useful once they have it power it's self, this will also mean that the sceptical jury is far far more likely to come back with a positive result, not that I think sce

Re: [Vo]: Steorn.net

On 8/27/06, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, John Berry wrote:> There are indicators against this being a scam though, first the fact that> they have already patented useful (security) technology, have millions of> dollars, investors and if they are s

Re: [Vo]: 2786 scientists express interest in Steorn

d still what of the technology they have already developed) Please explain how you envision this scam working, yes scam was my gut reaction too but I don't think it's a valid one.On 8/27/06, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, John Berry wrote: > The

Re: [Vo]: Steorn.net

There are indicators against this being a scam though, first the fact that they have already patented useful (security) technology, have millions of dollars, investors and if they are shown as pulling off a scam they will be totally sunk.(scammers would be unlikely to put so much on the line, well

Re: [Vo]: 2786 scientists express interest in Steorn

Interesting, I was going to post this to their websites forum but I can't see how your meant to register for it. (unless you have to register as an interested scientist)Free Energy is possible, that is to say the 'Law' of thermodynamics is just a theory based on early observation. One that not all

Re: [Vo]: New Segway Products

War, killing, fighting isn't Americas solution to everything no matter how much you and much of the US seems to think that it is.The US spends more on defense than all other countries combined even though the next biggest are allies of the US. The US has military bases in oh so mant other countries

Re: [Vo]: New Segway Products

>>I am sort of against the war at this pointBright chap eh? ;)Your 'sort of' against the war at this point? I bet Bush is 'sort of' against  the war at this point.You should be generally against war (state sponsored murder) anyway but against this war where the US attacked a nation not threatening

Re: [Vo]: Re: Joe Cell Running

I haven't read all posts so I'm not sure if you've got any unadulterated stuff left.Try some of it on a plant you don't care to much about, preferably non-microwaved stuff as microwaved water can kill plants. Also there are bions which are created by breaking down matter (also read a thing about co

Re: [Vo]: Joe Cell Running

Or ormus oil? (they claim that m-state elements in water give it qualities similar to what you describe)On 8/1/06, Terry Blanton < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The current had dropped slightly this morning to 0.85 mA.  I didn'thave time to microwave it.  I did take a couple of drops and placedthem on

Re: [Vo]: [Humor] UR(L) Kiddin'!

A few others:http://www.dollarsexchange.comhttp://www.kidsexchange.nethttp://www.gasheating.co.uk http://www.nice-tits.org http://web.archive.org/web/20021207085002/www.nice-tits.org/pics.html

[Vo]:

The subject was eaten so I shortened it and am resending.(all the same chars are present)On 7/26/06, RC Macaulay < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Howdy John Berry,   Interesting thought regarding parallel lines of force. You may expand on the thought and receive more input form others

[Vo]:

On 7/26/06, RC Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Howdy John Berry,   Interesting thought regarding parallel lines of force. You may expand on the thought and receive more input form others in the group.Not sure if Horace Heffner is still on Vort, I decided to email him and rewr

Re: [Vo]: Re: Just a test - subject keeps getting eaten

y Times announcements. Maybe it would help our host sort this out if the victims of the "subject eater" posted their original subjects (which they'll find in their Sent box)Michel- Original Message - From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <vortex-L@eskimo

[Vo]: Induction - find my error !?!

Something very odd is going on with my email so I have sent this a few times, though this is the first time (I hope) with a subject, I apologize for reposting. (it will be interesting to see if both of my subscribed addresses get this email with subject) As there haven't been any replies to my prev

[Vo]: Just a test - subject keeps getting eaten

This is a test to see if the subject will stay if I put the [Vo]:  part in front as the last time I posted to vortex there was no identification in the subject. (In other words I haven't posted in years)

[Vo]:

-Resent (from different email address) because other one had problems.-As there haven't been any replies to my previous post (Bifilar coilattracting a charge and Faraday motor no lenz), I'm left wondering why, was it not understood? Was an obvious fault seen that didn't seem worthyof reply?Was it u

[Vo]:

As there haven't been any replies to my previous post (Bifilar coil attracting a charge and Faraday motor no lenz), I'm left wondering why, was it not understood? Was an obvious fault seen that didn't seem worthy of reply? Was it understood and no fault was found leaving people scratching their he

[Vo]: Bifilar coil attracting a charge and Faraday motor no lenz

I had some further ideas as writing this, the best stuff is found after: ***Faraday!!*** Due to the 'motional e-field' or pancaking of the electric field of the electron drift in a wire a positive charge or charged object should be attracted and a negatively charged one repelled, the moving elect

Re: SONY Patents Metaverse First Step

*On the subject of magnetic fields on the brain (tempted to try this one):* * From Keelynet:* * NOTE: This was from a conversation I had several years ago, so the details might be a bit fuzzy>>> Jerry* *Walter Rawls, who worked with the effects of monopolar magnetic fields on matter with

Re: Coaxial Capacitor Thrustor

Replying to myself ;) John Berry wrote: I do have a concern with your diagram though, if you go from wire or coax to plates the current branch out to fill the plates. The problem is that the currents branching out should create a force in the opposite direction this becomes more clear if you

Re: Coaxial Capacitor Thrustor

Great analysis. It should work IMO even if the forces are as Ampere states unless there is no displacement current, in which case the closed end would be balanced within it's self, and the open end would have no force. Your analysis makes it tempting to try and build it, except that in air ther

Re: Toshiba Press Release

But if it can recharge in 1 minute then an all electric car could be topped up along the way, at lights or service stations. All electric cars could be made much lighter. Sure you can't go anywhere remote, but still. (popular places could have charging locations, as long as there is power in the

Re: Rail Gun Recoil

t objection would be removed. So wide ribbon would be the best material to use. Horace Heffner wrote: At 1:22 AM 4/4/5, John Berry wrote: I'm not sure there is a single established answer to what I'm about to ask, but I know that both possibilities were at one time considered. In a rail

Rail Gun Recoil

I'm not sure there is a single established answer to what I'm about to ask, but I know that both possibilities were at one time considered. In a rail gun, clearly the force on the movable member is reflected elsewhere in the circuit, either as a longitudinal force on the rail, or on what bridge

Re: The BIG DEAL

I see no problem with a massive farm, or with lots of smaller ones, and ones on top of buildings, and roofs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to distract the Vort membership from the recent fascinating Lithium-Ion "breakthrough" I thought it might be interesting to recap another interesting claim.

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

But what effect would this have on satellites and future spaceships? If this is a good idea (and I doubt it) the orbit of the particles would have to be limited so they are easy to steer round. Horace Heffner wrote: At 7:12 PM 2/9/5, revtec wrote: God stuff is considered off topic in this foru

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >