RE: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

--- "J. Klum" wrote: > I'm fairly sure that this is correct as I am in the same room with him at this time and we are responding to this VPN through one of his servers at this time in the great city of your host. Sorry for any confusion, and I would be the one to blame for that -- but the stra

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

Terry wrote: But, but, but the vids reside on Google's server, not Stiffler's. That is true. All I can surmise is that he wants to update those videos, and to probably dispense with the "cold electricity" designation - as all that terminology does is to become t

RE: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

at this time and we are responding to this VPN through one of his servers at this time in the great city of your host. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Elect

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

J. Klum wrote: www.stifflerscientific.com and www.drstiffler.com were taken down by accident when the wrong switch was thrown shutting down the lab for the holiday. The DNS automatically defaults to the host. The site is back up but DNS replications may take up to 72 hours worldwide. The YouTu

RE: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

were removed on purpose. Because the last few video's were far from professional in response to those that were less professional. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:27 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Electrici

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

But, but, but the vids reside on Google's server, not Stiffler's. Terry On Nov 21, 2007 9:40 AM, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Saw this on another list: > > > > Remember cold electricity? Just hours ago, all the vi

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

While seemingly drastic I can appreciate preventative action of this sort to protect one's work, particularly in our current cyber-age where everything is fair game to the unscrupulous. What puzzles me nevertheless about Staffer's recent action is the apparent suddenness of it all. It gives many o

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:46:01 -0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What is the difference of not having access to the web > site because it was taken down OR under a DOS attack? > > Mark Jordan > > You need to see these things in a wider perspective: It's nothing to the viewer of the s

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

Saw this on another list: > >> > >> Remember cold electricity? Just hours ago, all the videos for Dr. > >> Ronald Stiffler's "Cold Electricity" demonstrations were removed > >> from YouTube. His web site is now taken down as well > > > > > >

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

--- "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a precaution against a DoS web attack on his server, which has happened before, he has temporarily taken down the web page and videos until next week when he returns. > Just out of curiosity, why would one endeavor to prevent a /possi

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

Jones Beene wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saw this on another list: Remember cold electricity? Just hours ago, all the videos for Dr. Ronald Stiffler's "Cold Electricity" demonstrations were removed from YouTube. His web site is now taken down as well Not th

Re: [Vo]:Cold Electricity

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saw this on another list: Remember cold electricity? Just hours ago, all the videos for Dr. Ronald Stiffler's "Cold Electricity" demonstrations were removed from YouTube. His web site is now taken down as well Not the MIB this time ;-) Apparently he i

[Vo]:Cold Electricity

Saw this on another list: Remember cold electricity? Just hours ago, all the videos for Dr. Ronald Stiffler's "Cold Electricity" demonstrations were removed from YouTube. His web site is now taken down as well

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

Jones sez: ... > Stay tuned (most likely to the Hartmann site) for a major announcement. > > Jones Translated to meaning that the loop between apples and oranges may soon be closed? (He said wistfully!) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com

[Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity indeed

One further refinement of the "cold" electricity theme, now to be called SEC or "spatial energy coherence". Horace Heffner wrote: "ZPE is not carried by real photons. If ZPE consisted of real photons then film would automatically expose at a phenomenal rate. Real ra

Re: [Vo]:Cold electricity: manipulating an audience

William Beaty wrote: On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, John Berry wrote: The level of skepticism in this group even from the moderator makes it Ah, I remembered! That's what first turned me off to Ron Stiffler and started my "chilly" attitude. He started demonizing the criticism of his stuff. H

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

I'm using two 9V batteries in series. I burned out my oscillator which was rated at 15V. No, it doesn't work well at 9V at all. Interesting thing is that it actually brightens slightly when I lower the duty cycle on the square wave. I guess it generates more harmonics. Anyway, I'm back in the

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

Can you reduce the input power? Harry On 2/11/2007 1:58 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > No. I'm putting in a lot more than I'm getting out. Ron claims a > worst case COP of 3.0. I'm probably pumping in over a watt and the > light is barely lit. It does brighten when I hold the end of the > wire;

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

No. I'm putting in a lot more than I'm getting out. Ron claims a worst case COP of 3.0. I'm probably pumping in over a watt and the light is barely lit. It does brighten when I hold the end of the wire; so, it's just an antenna. No majic here. Actually, I'm not even sure the core is BaFe. Te

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

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, John Berry wrote: > 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 >

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

Terry, if you're doing a repro of any of Ron's circuits, I have a suggested power measurement. This is a pretty obvious suggestion, I think, and you're probably already 'way past this level, but none the less if you should check this, I'd be interested in hearing the results. (You may already

[Vo]:Cold electricity: manipulating an audience

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, John Berry wrote: > The level of skepticism in this group even from the moderator makes it Ah, I remembered! That's what first turned me off to Ron Stiffler and started my "chilly" attitude. He started demonizing the criticism of his stuff. He was calling it "skepticism," a

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

What is the meaning of this nonsensical reply? On Nov 1, 2007, at 2:47 PM, John Berry wrote: 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.as

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

On Nov 1, 2007 9:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Well, my L.E.D. lit up right away and brightened when I extended the > open lead on the secondary of the Xfmr. It should peak at 377 Ohm. > Go figure. > > Terry Are you saying you have performed your own replication of the Stiffler circuit? (success

[Vo]:Moon Temps: was "Cold" electricity

There is little doubt that temperatures of objects or particles in intergalactic space, and even in interplanetary, i.e moon crater temps at the poles, for instance, can get close to a few degrees K, after eons of blackbody radiation with no input. The speculative point about ZPE being a "prop

Re: [Vo]:"Cold" electricity indeed

Hi Robin, Must be a residual Halloween thing...funny that this "kids" site you dug up says -233 C while every "adult" site I have seen (like NASA) says -173 degrees Celsius is the nighttime low... http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html ... my granny used to say that kids should "b

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

Well, my L.E.D. lit up right away and brightened when I extended the open lead on the secondary of the Xfmr. It should peak at 377 Ohm. Go figure. Terry On 11/1/07, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Terry Blanton wrote: > > > He's back and claiming that you called hi

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

In reply to John Berry's message of Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:31:02 +1300: Hi, [snip] >I think that the problems are of a psychological nature, it's protection >against pain. Easier to attack (and be happy if mistaken) than experience >the pain of a failed energy revolution. > >On 11/2/07, Robin van Spaa

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

On Nov 1, 2007, at 2:31 PM, John Berry wrote: 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

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

On Nov 1, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: No! you are squirming to dodge the question of- did someone intentionally insult the guy needlessly. Hey, people insult me all the time. Just ask me. Does that mean I should sue for defamation? Something taken as an insult doesn't necessa

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

In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:58:25 -0500: Hi, [snip] >The wave _forms_ (rather than the power) from the signal generator may be >indispensible. If that is so then a closed loop (with an earth ground) would >require the signal generator to be part of the loop. [snip] Th

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

>From W. Beaty ... > Also, has someone replicated Ron's closed loop device, > the stand-alone-no-signal-generator version which lights > LEDs? If so, which message announces this success? Not sure if this specifically answers your question but according to my uneducated eye there may have been,

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

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:40:25 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Geeze... get real. Are you so out to lunch on petty details that you >cannot see the forest for the trees? He does not owe you a detailed >accounting of how he eliminated these issues - [snip] He does if he wishes

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Terry Blanton wrote: > He's back and claiming that you called him a "con-artist". Rather than calling him a con artist, instead why did I carefully explain my cold reception? Because I intended to explain my cold reception!!! --- Now that I think about it, Ron's anger over

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

On 1/11/2007 2:13 PM, William Beaty wrote: > On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, John Berry wrote: > >> Seriously, the 'evidence' against him > > Read my message again. WHAT EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM? I'm *trying* to > explain why he got a chilly reception here. > >> is some vague sense you get at the way >> get

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Beaty wrote: > I wrote my message about "cold reception" the day before. I see that a > day later Ron has gotten angry and left the overunity.com forum. It's > because Stefan Hartmann asked him to totally enclose the stand-alone > circuit in aluminum, wo/ any ground wi

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

On Nov 1, 2007, at 11:05 AM, William Beaty wrote: On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, John Berry wrote: Honestly what are the odds that Ron has gone from real verified things to faking? (and for what reason, not money) Read my message again. Read the subject line. I'm attempting to explain why he

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

On 11/1/07, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote my message about "cold reception" the day before. I see that a > day later Ron has gotten angry and left the overunity.com forum. He's back and claiming that you called him a "con-artist". Terry

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

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, John Berry wrote: > Seriously, the 'evidence' against him Read my message again. WHAT EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM? I'm *trying* to explain why he got a chilly reception here. > is some vague sense you get at the way > get gets mad doesn't 'feel' right? Exactly. But not "vague"

Re: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, John Berry wrote: > Honestly what are the odds that Ron has gone from real verified things to > faking? (and for what reason, not money) Read my message again. Read the subject line. I'm attempting to explain why he got a cold reception on vortex. I think people here aren

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

I like Ron's generous offer to avail his lab's resources to perform independent replication of the hotly contested Stiffler circuit. Perhaps Dr. Stiffler may be able to lend assistance - if he has the time. IMHO too many individuals are in danger of taking Dr. Stiffler's recent claims TOO PERSONAL

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

In my estimation underneath some the criticism lies a tiny bit of jealousy. Harry On 1/11/2007 10:11 AM, Esa Ruoho wrote: could we just wait instead of badmouthing him its not like weve got a car sitting around with a parking meter running. right? if theres not enough data, lets wait till he pos

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

Jones,Ron,Bill,Stephen,Michel,Horace... Lighten up. Harry On 1/11/2007 9:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Stephen, > > I don't know where you come from, but in Texas (so I have been told) if > you call someone a "con man" you better hope that you are a better shot > than he is... > > Jones > > >

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

On 1/11/2007 5:07 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "William Beaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:48 AM > Subject: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity > > >> Because I've

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

has this all been checked? someone posted it today on overunity as "having been updated". any of you that are able to concentrate on, well, pages and pages of data, will probably be able to tell the rest of us if he has posted something new on november? http://67.76.235.52/DrStiffler/ce4.asp these

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

Esa Ruoho wrote: its funny, i read that mail of his and saw nothing at all about suing anyone on vortex-list. I pick nits for a living; sometimes the habit carries over to other places. i think we live in different worlds. try and switch yours around to a more rosy one, see how things go.

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

this looks like an interesting post. anyone like to tear him down and slag him off and be all skeptical over everything? oh and ignore the links:) " Quote from: Joh70 on *Today* at 02:19:51 PM But maybe is not RF!? Stiffler alw

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

Stephen Sorry. I am not his psychic nor confidant nor on his legal team, and have no clue what he would do if further provoked... but I am enjoying watching you squirm, while continuing the juvenile tactic that you must have learned from you own children - that everyone must stop what they ar

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

OK, everyone calm down before somebody says something foolish. My offer for independent evaluation to Ron stands . Anyone ever heard of a mexican standoff? It is created when a bunch of drunks in the Dime Box saloon all cock back on their sawed off shotguns. It only results in losing good custo

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

Just my 2 cents worth Jones Howdy Jones, Thanks for publishing Dr. Stiffler's letter to Vorts. Granted that the vortex L group is a cantankious bunch of what-evers that can lambast you until you can react like Ron, but there is a cleansing quality about taking your lumps in this group.

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

its funny, i read that mail of his and saw nothing at all about suing anyone on vortex-list. i think we live in different worlds. try and switch yours around to a more rosy one, see how things go. stiffler hasnt eaten your children or killed your great great grandfather. and this was NOT implying

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

i cant seem to pay enough attention to any of this, but it seems that at least hartiberlin and another person on overunity.com are muckinga round with it. which is funny, youd think people on VO- would have "more respectability", "more skills", and "more time" to "do it better". http://www.overunit

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

Jones Beene wrote: No! "No" what? No, you won't answer the question, or "no" he's not planning to sue anyone? Spell it out! You said Ron said: I am so against a Litigious Society, yet often it has a side that is the only way to receive redress in cases such as this. The same people th

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

could we just wait instead of badmouthing him its not like weve got a car sitting around with a parking meter running. right? if theres not enough data, lets wait till he posts some more videos and data. any mail we write to him takes him further and further away from posting what he comes up with.

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

Is the circuit considered complicated to those who know about such things? Has DrS given out enough information for it to be replicated? Has anyone tried? Apologies if I am asking questions that have been answered.

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

No! you are squirming to dodge the question of- did someone intentionally insult the guy needlessly. It may not have been you personally, but do NOT try to frame this as an "innocent question" type of thing. It went way beyond that. And as for your juvenile repetition of "are we there yet" ..

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

Jones Beene wrote: Stephen, I don't know where you come from, but in Texas (so I have been told) if you call someone a "con man" you better hope that you are a better shot than he is... You didn't answer the question, Jones. Your response amounts to saying insulting someone will make the

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

Stephen, I don't know where you come from, but in Texas (so I have been told) if you call someone a "con man" you better hope that you are a better shot than he is... Jones Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jones Beene wrote: To: Vortex Members On 11/1/2007 From: Dr. Ronald R. Stiffler

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

Jones Beene wrote: To: Vortex Members On 11/1/2007 From: Dr. Ronald R. Stiffler [ ... ] I am so against a Litigious Society, yet often it has a side that is the only way to receive redress in cases such as this. The same people that advise me on the legality of my work are most excited

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

John Berry wrote: 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

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

Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "William Beaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:48 AM > Subject: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity > > > > Because I've observed hoax

[Vo]:Re: Cold reception to cold electricity

- Original Message - From: "William Beaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:48 AM Subject: [Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity > Because I've observed hoaxers in action, whenever I see Ron get angry over > certain questions, an

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

[Vo]:Cold reception to cold electricity

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, DDMasters wrote: > I just don't get it. I look in on vortex every now and then and have for > many years. I must say I have never seen such an uproar over anything since > the SMOT. Am I just shallow or does vortex need to be renamed to something > like ..Vortex Legal.. Might

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

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:44:16 -0700: Hi, [snip] >No one knows what the effective input power is, and in one incarnation >of the circuit - yes - it may come via the ground wire, but surely in >Fig 16, the scope image which shows a peak current to ground from the

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

The thread is 26 pages long beginning here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3457.0.html I think you have to be a member to see the images. Terry On 10/31/07, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:41:20 -0700: > Hi, >

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

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:41:20 -0700: Hi, >Check Hartmann's site for the latest circuit setup and pic from Dr. S >and tell me what your see. > >Jones Do you have a direct URL for this? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.

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

Check Hartmann's site for the latest circuit setup and pic from Dr. S and tell me what your see. Jones Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Oct 2007 In that video, no generator was used except for startup, but apparently it was NOT turned off, so the obje

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

In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:36:01 +1100: Hi, [snip] I wrote: >If the circuit really is OU, then perhaps the signal source can be replaced >with >a small on board oscillator comprising a single HF transistor. It should draw >it's power from the same connections

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

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:51:51 -0700: Hi, [snip] >In that video, no generator was used except for startup, but apparently >it was NOT turned off, so the objection from the assorted kibitzers was >that significant power from it was being coupled through the ground

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

In reply to John Winterflood's message of Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:54:55 +0800: Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > ... Note that Tesla lit light bulbs 25 miles away, with no wires, > > using only the ground as common medium. ... > >As I understand it there were two conductors - the earth and th

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

Jones: Thank you for a very clear recap of the situation, and for the clear statements with regard to the signal generator. The confusion over whether the signal generator was turned on or turned off was maddening. With your statements here, at last we have a stake in the ground. (Whether it

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

WHOA Horace -- Slow down! It doesn't say quite what you think! Let's take it word by word. Horace Heffner 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. It is in plain English. Someh

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

: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Part 8 "Cold" electricity DDMasters wrote: > Am I just shallow or does vortex need to be renamed to something > like ..Vortex Legal.. Might better explain t

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

DDMasters wrote: Am I just shallow or does vortex need to be renamed to something like ..Vortex Legal.. Might better explain the group. Sadly, this trend is endemic to more than this forum ...Kinda reflective of two (or more) mega-societal trends in the USA- the inevitable aftermath of the

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

DDMasters wrote: Maybe you should read his web pages, he does say no generator is used in his #7 free standing unit. It is in plain English. In that video, no generator was used except for startup, but apparently it was NOT turned off, so the objection from the assorted kibitzers was that sig

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

er 29, 2007 4:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Part 8 "Cold" electricity 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. It is in plain English. Somehow I miss

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

d in > > his > > #7 free standing unit. It is in plain English. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:04 PM > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Part 8 "Cold

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]:Re: "Cold" electricity

o]:Re: "Cold" electricity What a dodgy mess this is! 8^) Second try to send this. On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Stephen, > >> How can you possibly think a circuit with a battery in it provides >> a more clear-cut case of OU than a circuit which l

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

s in plain English. > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:04 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Part 8 "Cold" electricity > > > > > Jones Beene wrote: > > Part 8 is now up

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

power delivered by the sig gen. What's the shape of the signal BTW, sine, square, triangle? Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:06 PM Subject: [Vo]:Part 8 "Cold" electricity Part 8 is now up on YouTube to

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

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. It is in plain English. Somehow I missed that. It indeed says there under the Fig. 14 title: "No localized external power source is used in the

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

What a dodgy mess this is! 8^) On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen, How can you possibly think a circuit with a battery in it provides a more clear-cut case of OU than a circuit which lights LEDs with no input power at all? Once again - let me repeat that no one has

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

Maybe you should read his web pages, he does say no generator is used in his #7 free standing unit. It is in plain English. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Part 8 "

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

What a dodgy mess this is! 8^) Second try to send this. On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen, How can you possibly think a circuit with a battery in it provides a more clear-cut case of OU than a circuit which lights LEDs with no input power at all? Once again - let

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

On Oct 29, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Part 8 is now up on YouTube to answer the objection that the aluminum pan itself was somehow involved. There is still one wire to the signal generator - no ground, no fakery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn8u8EIJ8Gk Unbelievable! The "gr

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

Jones Beene wrote: Part 8 is now up on YouTube to answer the objection that the aluminum pan itself was somehow involved. There is still one wire to the signal generator - no ground, no fakery. If we're back to a SIGNAL wire running to the SIGNAL GENERATOR, then I guess we can say for sure

[Vo]:Part 8 "Cold" electricity

Part 8 is now up on YouTube to answer the objection that the aluminum pan itself was somehow involved. There is still one wire to the signal generator - no ground, no fakery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn8u8EIJ8Gk

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

Stephen, How can you possibly think a circuit with a battery in it provides a more clear-cut case of OU than a circuit which lights LEDs with no input power at all? Once again - let me repeat that no one has ever claimed that there is NO power input. No one has ever claimed that there is a

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

Jones Beene wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The circuit under discussion was the one with a single ground wire attached and no input. It is based on the circuit shown in video #7. It is described farther down on that page. The one with a battery is yet something else again. The circui

[Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity

- Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity > It seems to me that the commentators here have been too quick to assume that > the effect is > conse

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

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The circuit under discussion was the one with a single ground wire attached and no input. It is based on the circuit shown in video #7. It is described farther down on that page. The one with a battery is yet something else again. The circuit is FAR from "somethi

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

Jones Beene wrote: I am really surprised that all of the RF-expertise here on Vo seems to be fixated on capacitive coupling when the initial photo on that page shows a battery driven isolated circuit with its own signal, where capacitive coupling is impossible. The circuit under discussion

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

as contributory. On a more positive note, Lindemann has added two videos relating to another aspect of "cold electricity" to YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvNIXyUXXqg Lindemann is looking at the "cold" phenomenon from a very different perspective than Stiffler, and

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

William Beaty wrote: It's either the nobel prize, **OR** it's just tapping into the AM radio station. Or something else. Horace pointed out figure 22 on this page: http://www.drstiffler.com/ce4.asp I think that page deserves a very careful reading, and then I think we really, really need

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

> > That's different! And it likely was. The ferrite loop stick transmitting with a distant pickup coil uniformly receiving regardless of distance was replicated. Not the same as the setup seen more recently. Also maybe more was/has been done but I was only interested in (and so only informed a

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

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, John Berry wrote: > but he did inform me of someone else (In Italy IIRC, which I very well may > not) who had replicated the effect and that is the same basic device here. That's different! (And by replication, do you mean the stand-alone operation, with no DC supply, no si

  1   2   3   >