The reason is, in my opinion, that is very difficult to achieve
a CONTINUOUS generation of energy- see my paper
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-preparing-swot-analysis-of-ni.html
what
conditions are necessary for a new source of energy.
But I think this year (good for new energy
I would wager that the reason Mills hasn't got a commercial device, after 20
years and $60M, is
because his theory is flawed...
-Mark
_
From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi be
Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas
is Randy Mills himself.
This is science, not religion, so orthodoxia and heterodoxies can discuss
freely and peacefully- based on experimental facts. I think it is both fair
and interesting.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:16 AM, wrote:
> In reply
>From Mauro:
...
> Most probably, the reason is comets are charged bodies.
> The electric field of the comet interacts with the electric
> field of the Sun, and a CME occurs. The electric interaction
> is also the reason for cometary tails, by the way. The level
> of denial the academic communit
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 13:27:20 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>not so close, perhaps. Is Randy speaking about something like this? Again
>practical data not limits of theory
[snip]
Randy doesn't think Hydrinos can penetrate the electron shells of other atoms. I
think he may be w
Wiki has an paragraph on the Superrotation of Venus :
"Since the 1960s a puzzling phenomenon has been observed in the atmosphere
of Venus where the atmosphere above the cloud base is seen to travel around
the planet about 50 times faster than the rotation of the planet surface, or
in only four t
David
You wrote:
"If another more practical and smaller size example helps you to better
imagine the physical situation you can think of a gas centrifuge for uranium
enrichment. There should be high shear flow in that case as well and not as
we are erroneously informed on various places on
I think a satisfying view of time is that the universe consists of "Nothing
But Motion", the physics of Dewey B. Larson's "Reciprocal System" -- that is
the primary constituent of the universe is a unit of motion which is
space/time and it can support 3 dimensions of motion, so space and time are
j
I have no problem with "lack of a Time dimension" but there must still
remain at least one additional spatial dimension. The fact that we are
confined into a 3 dimensional plane only makes the detection more difficult.
What we refer to as future and past becomes blurred by gamma when an object
is
Superrotation is shear flow on gas planets and stars and it requires an
explanation since there appears to be no force or stress to drive them.
Recently I came up with the following idea after having tried two others
with limited success.
Assume that gas or matter flowing along planets' or stars'
On 04/26/2011 01:02 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 10:50 PM 4/25/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
> FYI:
> Here's an article for all you theorists...
> "Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension"
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
> -Mark
No problem .
How can this be described as free energy?
Is it anything more than an efficient photocell…?
From: MJ
Interesting research!
Here is a link to UC Davis where a related paper can be had for free:
http://leopard.physics.ucdavis.edu/rts/p298/Schaller.pdf
On 05/13/2011 11:46 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 13 May 2011 21:55:42 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
I don't believe in them. I have seen this happen more than once in
SOHO videos. A coronal mass ejection corresponds with a comet
collision:
http://www.foxn
Interesting research!
Original Message
Here are just a couple of examples where anyone can obtain an abstract, but
will be asked for their membership ID or for the full text -- many papers
available so if intere
Life is full of surprises. Sometimes even good ones.
Peter
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
> From Peter:
>
> > Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted
> directly
> > in the most valuable electric ener
>From Peter:
> Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted
directly
> in the most valuable electric energy.
Do you anticipate that Mills is about to release additional "news" updates?
There hasn't been much out of BLP lately.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.
On 05/14/2011 01:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
A safer nuclear reactor should be meltdown proof, proliferation safe,
passively air cooled, deployed underground with waste (stable in 1000 years)
shipped off site for centralized underground storage.Such a reactor is
possible to build.
Of course
Dear Fran,
the paper has resulted from a bet with Randy- that I will
be able to publish a pro-hydrino paper in a journal of the American Chemical
Society. By the way this was the last
issue of the journal and the paper is an "opinion" publication. For me it
was first of all a diplomatic success.
C
The Vortex list was down for a time from May 12 until May 13. The
service provider, Eskimo North, has been having difficulties since
2009. While they may get through this, they are clearly overwhelmed
and dependence on Eskimo North for anything is risky.
I hope that Bill, here, has a backup of
Peter,
I like you paper and even the term "orbitalities" despite my
conviction that these orbitals are locally unchanged and only appear smaller
because as Naudts posits the hydrino is relativistic. That doesn't make
anything you said wrong just understated, My interpretation for orbit
not so close, perhaps. Is Randy speaking about something like this? Again
practical data not limits of theory
peter
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, wrote:
> In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 10:00:17 +0300:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear
please source, Robin! Thanks- I was referring to the practical results
Peter
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM, wrote:
> In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 08:55:06 +0300:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested
> >at all i
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 10:00:17 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear phenomenon?
Because very small Hydrogen atom can get closer to the nucleus of another atom,
thus reducing the separation distance between nuclei and vastly increasing
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 02:02:27 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
> How does the hydrino technology explain the occurrence of transmutation in
>exploding metal foils? A generalized cold fusion theory should.
It wouldn't explain anything not involving Hydrogen.
[snip]
Regards,
Robin
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 08:55:06 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested
>at all in Rossi's technology.
>Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino
>energy, the heat released per unit of weight of
A different one. (Mostly Entrained by the earth)
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Charles Hope
wrote:
> The aether that was debunked a century ago, or a different one?
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone.
>
> On May 13, 2011, at 21:53, John Berry wrote:
>
>
>> Well, explain how it is to be tested and we'l
>
>
> The plans incase you have not found the other thread:
http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/romerouk/selfrunning_free_energy_device_muller_motor_generator_romerouk_version1_1.pdf
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>>
>> the designer now says:
>> it was all a fake...someone
Where was this suspicious pre-demo mentioned?
Sent from my iPhone.
On May 13, 2011, at 22:48, "Jones Beene" wrote:
> No disagreement to speak of - not to mention in a couple of months I might
> be arguing Terry's position and he might have mine. But the truth will out,
> and therefore let m
The aether that was debunked a century ago, or a different one?
Sent from my iPhone.
On May 13, 2011, at 21:53, John Berry wrote:
>
> Well, explain how it is to be tested and we'll give it a shot.
>
> T
>
>
> My opinion is that the conservation of energy is generally accurate and than
>
There are claims (from multiple unrelated sources) of matter which 'stops
existing' and yet the energy from that is not what you might assume. (not
explosive in the least)
Not to say that a matter antimatter reaction would not be as powerful as
imagined, but I don't think that conventional science
Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear phenomenon? Hydrino energy
is hyperchemistry see e.g. my paper
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html
Different levels. The first principle of the world is infinite
interestingness see my blog Ego Out, you cannot dictate to N
31 matches
Mail list logo
