Re: Exchange of Mass?
From: fkasner (fkasner_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: The Murinator: "Re: The Experts Speak."
- Previous message: Don Lancaster: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Maybe in reply to: If I told U I'd have 2 kill U: "Exchange of Mass?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:05:30 GMT
If I told U I'd have 2 kill U wrote:
> hhc314@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message news:<7ce4e226.0407270845.6c8f4129@posting.google.com>...
>
>>knews4u2chew@yahoo.com (If I told U I'd have 2 kill U) wrote in message news:<36caa37d.0407262157.28d778c2@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>Someone PLEASE tell these morons that the CHARGE
>>>of an electron is DISTINCT and SEPARATE from its MASS,
>>>and that one can be applied without the other passing -
>>>this is simple quantum physics, and is the basis of an entire branch
>>>of science called scalar electrostatics, which is VERY REAL, and being
>>>applied not only in Stan's devices, but elsewhere. The fact that these
>>>morons don't know anything about it is no excuse for their stupidity.
>>>Electron CHARGE is capable of doing WORK without exchange of its MASS.
>>>PERIOD.
>>>
>>>That would be like a staticly charged.......???
>>
>>One word only: DUH!
>>
>>Are you so terminally clueless that you cannot comprehend the
>>difference between the charge on the electron and the charge transfer
>>required to separate a hydrogen ion from a water molecule?
>>
>>Do you believe that Faraday earned his fame and reputation in this
>>subject by repairing broken doorknobs? (Quite likely, you do.)
>>
>>DUH!
>>
>> Harry C.
>
>
> From a successful Experimenter:
>
> <>
> I don't now what WFC are doing now. Perhaps they need a
> period without extra trouble, but there are a limit. People need
> this invention so they have to do something. If not, I agree
> with you, anyone else had to do something.
>
> But, you are free to share my writing with your friends.
>
> It's a lot of articles on Internet describing nearly the same
> technic. BUT they all use a lot of current. (driving transducers
> for optic, sound etc.)
>
> When I first was reading Stanley's patent I associated his
> technic with Coulomb's Laws for electrical attraction force.
> On this Nuclear Level you can manipulate the forces DIRECT
> (no transducers) with help of electricity. Look at the picture
> how nice this forces works.
>
> (The picture to which Ted is referring is one in which a regular hair
> comb which has a static charge from being run through one's hair is
> held near a small stream of water flowing from a faucet. In the photo
> the water stream is bending towards the comb like metal to a magnet.
> This is showing the power of the static charge and it's affect on the
> water molecule.)
>
> How much current you need for
> this operation depends on the dielectric constant (in this case
> water). You want as low voltage level as possible for this
> operation and you can do it with help of Resonant Action.
> But don't let Resonant Action take place in the wrong order.
> It depends on your application what action you need.
>
> (Following lines comes from the Hubbard Coil description)
> The coil system built by Hubbard in 1919 was reported to
> have a damping time of several hours. Damping is to the
> extent of reduction of amplitude of oscillation in an oscillatory
> system, due to energy dissipation as resistance. With no
> supply of energy, the oscillation dies away at a rate
> depending on the degree of damping. The effect of damping
> is to increase the period of vibrations. It also diminishes
> sharpness of resonance for frequencies in the neighborhood
> of natural frequency.
>
> As you see you can't ignore the damping-factor. I was
> ignoring that. Perhaps I was lucky.
>
>
> What happened if it still "ringing" inside the pulstrain-break.
> I was an idiot not measured that. What is the optimal "time
> for ringing" in an WFC application??????
>
> I never write in the English language why this writing take
> some time. If you write some more, please, don't be upset
> if you not receive a quick answer. Reading is no problem
> so feel free to write if you want. I don't know much about
> hydrogen and I'm not working with any gases so don't
> expect to much from me. But if my writing can be helpful to
> you, that's fine.
>
> Regards, Ted!
OK, once more I have to educate you. That nonsense about the charge on
the comb affecting the water molecule is just that. The water became
charged by virtue of tranfer of electrons (contact potential effects)
between the water and the metal pipe. The fast motion of the water
precluded the easy transfer of the electrons back to molecular clusters
in water that had lost them or gained them. So running water will react
to a magnetic or electric field.
And it is also true that electric charge is associated with matter. It
is a property of matter under certain conditions. Charge does not exist
separated from matter.
God, you are an uneducated dolt, Dummy II.
FK
- Next message: The Murinator: "Re: The Experts Speak."
- Previous message: Don Lancaster: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Maybe in reply to: If I told U I'd have 2 kill U: "Exchange of Mass?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
