Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- From: ewitte@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 13 Sep 2005 13:42:16 -0700
Chris.B wrote:
> Starlord
>
> The vehicle you mention must be running on perpetual motion!
>
> Energy in = energy out (minus any conversion losses)
>
> Using a small motor to provide electricity storage is an energy
> conversion loser.
>
> Using the batteries to drive an electric motor is another energy
> conversion loser.
>
> Nice try. But it just can't be done in our time or in our dimension.
>
> Regards
> Chris.B
Not exactly. There has been quite significant success getting more
energy out than put in for a LONG time. Our problem is $ and people
who automatically discredit everything that does not strictly follow a
set formula. We need to accept that we don't know everything and
experiment like we used to. Things seem to be changing quickly with
free information on the internet :) A few of them are so basic that
there is no way it wouldn't work given the proper arangement and
knowledge. Even if current reports dating back into the 1700's or
earlier are BS that still holds true.
Eric
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- From: T.T.
- Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- References:
- Rosamond Report 2.0
- From: Starlord
- Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- From: Starlord
- Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- From: Starlord
- Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- From: Chris.B
- Rosamond Report 2.0
- Prev by Date: Re: finding a galaxy
- Next by Date: Re: finding a galaxy
- Previous by thread: Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- Next by thread: Re: Rosamond Report 2.0
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|