He will need a battery for start up. Once the scooter has reached a
sufficient speed it will propel itself perpetually by self charging.
I have met Thane in person and witnessed an earlier version of his
regenerative acceleration device.
Is he scammer? No one who has met him thinks he is a scamm
About anything that claims over unity concerning violations of the EM
field.
2011/12/17 Mary Yugo
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> MY, that is a violation worse than any Newton's law. EM do
>> not generally obey any Newton's law because even at low energies it is
>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> MY, that is a violation worse than any Newton's law. EM do
> not generally obey any Newton's law because even at low energies it is
> sensitive to Lorentz invariance. So, a violation of Lenz law strongly
> implies violation of the constancy o
MY, that is a violation worse than any Newton's law. EM do
not generally obey any Newton's law because even at low energies it is
sensitive to Lorentz invariance. So, a violation of Lenz law strongly
implies violation of the constancy of the speed of light or violation of
causality or violation of
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> Thane posted a new video on dec.14.
> He says he is going to install the prototype shown in an electric scooter.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dme4bW2fPhQ
>
Installing free energy devices into vehicles instead of properly testing
them fo
Thane posted a new video on dec.14.
He says he is going to install the prototype shown in an electric scooter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dme4bW2fPhQ
Harry
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
wrote:
> I think I've watched all of Thane's vids and from what I remember, there
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> MY wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a
>> > violation would also violate COE and >Newton 3. That's rather unlikely, at
>> > least on a
Oops. Forgot about the big bang did we? It is amazing that based on a
few 100 years of observations by one species, on one planet, on the
outer rim of one galaxy of billions in the known universe that a semi
salient entity would make that statement. Had you said that 1,000,000
years in the futu
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> MY wrote:
>
>
> >I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a
> violation would also violate COE and >Newton 3. That's rather unlikely, at
> least on any macro scale for any appreciable time period -- or the
> >universe
MY wrote:
>I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a violation
>would also violate COE and >Newton 3. That's rather unlikely, at least on any
>macro scale for any appreciable time period -- or the >universe would not be
>the way we see it.
Are you trying to convince m
figure?
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon
>>
>>
>>> 2) Shorting
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon
>>
>>
>>> 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time
>>> constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to
>>> electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed
>>> w.r.t. t
ossible, the effect you mention will only result in
> momentary jerk in the direction of rotation.
> However, what is observed is a steady acceleration in the direction of
> rotation while the coils remain "shorted".
>
> Anyway Thane Heins youtube channel has better examp
ry
>
>> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
>> From: hveeder...@gmail.com
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>
>> Hopefully it will become free energy device.
>>
>> Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included )
ey-the-laws-of-thermodynamics
>
>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
> From: dlrober...@aol.com
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:24 -0500
>
> To get the attention of physicists you will need to find a way to conn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> In any case, it continues in self-sustaining mode far beyond the limits of
> chemistry,
>
Not more than a few per cent on *this* side of the limits of chemistry.
> and the energy used to reheat it is far less than the energy it produces
>
Mary Yugo wrote:
> OK. Then why does it have to be reheated by a "safety" heater at regular
> intervals?
>
I do not know, but there must be a reason. Nothing happen in nature without
a cause. Perhaps they will find a way to make it run without this in the
future.
In any case, it continues in
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
> There is nothing in any Rossi device's design that routes heat BACK from
>> output to input via a controller.
>>
>
> This make no sense. The heat is there in the reactor. There is no need to
> conduct, convect or conv
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month
>> capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic?
>>
>
> Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous
> heat, 4 hours proves th
Mary Yugo wrote:
Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month
capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic?
Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous
heat, 4 hours proves the point as well as 40 years would.
There is nothing in any Ross
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Did you notice the difference between the ecat that could "self-sustain",
> and the one that did not? About 70 kg more mass, and 8 kW less power. Hmmm.
> Coincidence?
>
NO! Progress!
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> He did that! What are you talking about?!? He has made the thing
> self-sustain from internally generated heat for 4 hours.
>
It's not self-sustaining if you have to cycle the input power, and Rossi
has admitted that the input power has to
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> So why not take some of the output heat, run it through a simple and
> reliable control system, and then return the heat to the input end?
>
> Then, Rossi could "self sustain" after a brief initial period of
> electrica
Mary Yugo wrote:
So why not take some of the output heat, run it through a simple and
reliable control system, and then return the heat to the input end?
Then, Rossi could "self sustain" after a brief initial period of
electrical heating, for as long as he liked.
He did that! What are you t
Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
> From: hveeder...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Hopefully it will become free energy device.
>
> Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
> that it is possible to circu
rotation, it would cause a "push" in the direction of rotation. There could be
a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow
band of rotation frequency.
In the video
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> This requirement reminds me of the skeptic's demand that Rossi's device
> needs to run a generator to supply the input power and it is valid.
Actually, with Rossi, it's simpler than that. His claim is that his device
makes 6X the thermal
Reminds me of Thane Heins' "Regenerative Acceleration."
http://ottawaskeptics.org/local-investigations/121-in-this-town-we-obey-the-laws-of-thermodynamics
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:24
the skeptic's demand that Rossi's device needs to run a generator to supply the
input power and it is valid. One day I hope to see this test performed.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
> that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
> eventually lead to a free energy device.
>
Steorn has never demonstrated any violation of any natural
Hopefully it will become free energy device.
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device.
But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
energy, t
Hopefully it will become free energy device.
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device.
But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
energy, t
I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free
energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with
the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving.
If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficu
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
> According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we
> all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper
> measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the
> new year.>>
>
DVM's are notorio
34 matches
Mail list logo
