HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Subject: Re: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Followup-To: et@et.com
Summary: usefullness of tarot cards
Keywords: tarot
Organization: Eric Taylor and Associates, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:50:16 GMT
Expires: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 07:00:00 GMT

In article <6868@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>[...]
>Sigh. Not to be impolite, but
>[...]
>Unless your source can provide more details, he's about as useful as
>channelling or tarot cards.
>	Tarl

I have not any comment concerning "channelling", but I object
to your implication that Tarot cards are not useful.

You should understand what the original purposes and valid uses of the
Tarot cards are.

Tarot cards used for fortune telling *is* invalid and useless.

The  Tarot cards real and valid use is as an encyclopedia. A modern
encyclopedia is mostly useless, but only if you happen to be
illiterate and can not read. Now think about that for a second.
Being illiterate and being stupid are two different things.
When Tarot was most important, during the middle ages, most everybody
*was* illiterate. The Tarot is a system of encoding information using
visual symbology. Anyone who is interested in psychology or visual methods
of education would do well to study Tarot. Being non-verbal, the lessons
available thru Tarot fill a niche that is mostly neglected in our modern
methods of education. Tarot used for fortune telling is a corruption
and should be avoided. As a comparison, consider: just because
astronomy is used for astrology, does not mean that astronomy is useless.
One does not need to practice astrology to learn astronomy. Similarly,
while fortune telling is a waste of time, Tarot cards are useful.

I could go on at great length, but this is not the appropriate forum
for further discussion. Please contact me via e-mail if you desire
more information.

Eric Taylor
et@et.com
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:31:30 EDT
From: William Fabanich <WAF102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: String Theory

You might look at...

     "Theories of Everything : The Quest For Ultimate Explanation"

                     By John D. Barrow

                     Oxford University Press   , 1991



also......

       Discover August 1991

                    (Cover Story)

                          The New Theory of Everything

                       by David H Freedman


                         this is about the research of
                         Dimitri Nanopoulos at Texas A&M


   these are nice and simple, but should due, at leastas an intro.

**********************************************************************
* William A. Fabanich, Jr.             * Internet:                   *
* Undergrad. Assist.                   *     WAF102@psuvm.psu.edu    *
* Propulsion Engineering Research Ctr. *     WAF@orville.psu.edu     *
* Penn State University                *     WAF@wilbur.psu.edu      *
****************************************     WAF@eclc.psu.edu        *
*  ...the meek shall inherit           *  Bitnet:                    *
*                 the Earth...         *     WAF102 AT PSUVM         *
*   ...the rest of us will go to the stars ... ***********************
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tordm@vana (Tord G.M. Malmgren)
Subject: Re: String Theory
Reply-To: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:40:23 GMT

In article <1OCT199213101949@csa3.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>>I was wondering...does anyone know what happened to the string theory?

>String Theory is still alive and the subject of intensive research.  It has
>not a single piece of experimental evidence either in favor or against, which
>is unlikely to change in the near future.  So String Theory will probably 
>not die anytime soon.

 as I heard it there are about 10**32 (or something like that) various
string models that would lead to the existing theories, hence we'd need
more constraints on it for it to be useful...




---------------+--------------------------------
 Tord Malmgren | InterNet: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE | These opinions are my OWN,
               | BITNet  : TordM@SESUF51        | and NOT of this department!
---------------+--------------------------------
 Department of Physics, University of Stockholm
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: String Theory
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:03:27 GMT

WAF102@psuvm.psu.edu (William Fabanich) writes:

>also......
>       Discover August 1991
>                    (Cover Story)
>                          The New Theory of Everything
>                       by David H Freedman

>                         this is about the research of
>                         Dimitri Nanopoulos at Texas A&M

It's a fun article if you read it as an exploration of the sociology
of theoretical physics, but I'd like to note that Freedman's 
explanation of gauge theory is COMPLETELY garbled.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: mjl17@mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk (Michael Lush)
Subject: Re: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
Organization: U. of Cambridge, England
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:27:26 GMT

In article <Bvpq4E.JEE@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 	I believe the that NASA has been extensively researching the 
|> feasability(sp?) of using the Earth's magnetic field as a source of energy
|> for the Space Station Freeedom.
|> 	The shuttle recently conducted an experiment (which failed due to an
|> equipment malfunction) in which a 13 mile conductive wire was to be stretched
|> out and allowed to pass through the electromagnetic field of the earth while
|> in orbit.
|> 	We know that it will generate electricity, just ask any high school
|> physics teacher about passing a wire through a magnetic field, the question
|> was: Would it be practical?
|> 	Does this fit into FREE ENERGY???
|> 
|> 
|> 	J.P. Hoffman
|> 	(maybe NASA will give me a job to thank me for the positive publicity?) 


	Wont this just convert expensive orbital velocity into
electricity?

-- 
Michael

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist           |      Nameless Abominations are people too.
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2066 sci.energy:4767
From: dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:48:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories

A few days ago I posted that I'd sent for Mayer's patent and hadn't
received it.  Well, I just found out that my first suspicion was true
and I just it mixed in with the patents I'd given to a friend.  So as
of about a week ago the patent office was still willing to send that
particular patent out to anyone who asked.

					Dave
From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Keywords: Kevran, fusion, transmutations
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:25:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <6561@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>[...]
>we have discussed Mr. Kervram's experiments in great detail before, and
>his experimental methods were simply unacceptably sloppy. He didn't show
>that anything had happened - his data was lost in the noise of his
>sloppiness.
>[...]
>-- 
>         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
>         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
>Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

Thanks for the clarification! That is exactly the kind of answer the helps
us determine wether an experiment is worth repeating. Saying that
a result can't be right since it doesn't agree with theory answers nothing.
Saying that a result is useless since the data is full of not just noise
but also sloppiness and/or poor methodology answers
quite nicely. This is especially important to those of us investigating
"new theories". While there are many new theories of great interest, we
need to be able to distinguish the bogus from the possible, regardless
of the plausability. Kevrun's example serves to show us what happens
when we try to put meaning in where none exists.

Thank you Tarl.

--
Eric.
From: tordm@vana (Tord G.M. Malmgren)
Subject: Re: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Reply-To: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:36:26 GMT

In article <w2+pzg#.noring@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:

>I just heard from a source that I'd rather not reveal that some sort of Federal
>"gag order" was put on one or more of the Meyer patents and/or his work.  My
>source stated that it was classified 'Secret'.

 is this the same "Meyer" who was screwing around with dudettes from the
Pleiades?? who got ray-beam shot-guns from them, and who was taken for
round-trips in their magnetized superconducting earth'n'space gravity
riding UFO's and provided us with really out off focus photographs??




---------------+--------------------------------
 Tord Malmgren | InterNet: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE | These opinions are my OWN,
               | BITNet  : TordM@SESUF51        | and NOT of this department!
---------------+--------------------------------
 Department of Physics, University of Stockholm
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:34:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Hello,

I just heard from a source that I'd rather not reveal that some sort of Federal
"gag order" was put on one or more of the Meyer patents and/or his work.  My
source stated that it was classified 'Secret'.

Has anybody heard independent corroboration of this rumor, or is this just a
false alarm?

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2043 sci.energy:4716
From: tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:43:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <w2+pzg#.noring@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>I just heard from a source that I'd rather not reveal that some sort of
> Federal "gag order" was put on one or more of the Meyer patents and/or his
> work.  My source stated that it was classified 'Secret'.
>
>Has anybody heard independent corroboration of this rumor, or is this just a
>false alarm?

Sigh. Not to be impolite, but
   1) Unknown source
   2) Unknown material
   3) Unknown restriction ("gag" order????)
   4) Unknown time of event

The only non wide-open qualification is that it has to have the name
"Meyer" associated with it. I suppose blind chance guarantees that the
government has imposed some kind of restriction on some work by some
person by the name of Meyer at some time in the past.

Incidentally, a "gag order" usually means that specified individuals cannot
comment on a specific subject. Does not mean the subject material itself
cannot be published (as being classified would mean).

Unless your source can provide more details, he's about as useful as
channelling or tarot cards.
	Tarl
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2046 sci.energy:4729
From: dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:51:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories

I recently sent off for a bunch of patents, including several of
Meyer's.  They arrived the other day and the hydrogen from water patent
seems to be missing.  The cover letter doesn't say anything about them
leaving one out on purpose or it being classified in any way.  A more
likely explanation is that I mistakenly gave that patent to a friend for
whom three of the patents were gotten or the Patent Office just forgot
it.

By the way, I've seen various messages on the net saying that patents
cost $1.00 or $1.50.  I got a polite letter back from the Patent and
Trademark Office saying that I hadn't sent enough money.  It said:

    Effective December 16, 1991, fees for patent and trademark
    copy services were increased.  Copies of patent and
    trademarks are now $3 each, plant patents are $12 each, and
    copies of utility patents which issue with color drawings
    are $24 each.  Please mail your request to the U.S. Patent
    and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C.  20231.

    Copies of Foreign patents can also be obtained for $12
    each.  Please mail your request to the U.S. Patent and
    Trademark Office, Washington, D.C.  20231, Attention:
    Scientific Library.

					Dave Bridgham
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:26:05 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...) writes:
>	I believe the that NASA has been extensively researching the 
>feasability(sp?) of using the Earth's magnetic field as a source of energy
>for the Space Station Freeedom....
>	Does this fit into FREE ENERGY???

No.  Dragging the wire through the magnetic field slows down the orbiter.
The energy comes from the orbital energy of the craft.  That energy is
clearly not free as you paid quite a bit for it in burnt fuel.  The NASA
experiment is interesting, however, as a way to study the properties of
magnetic field and the ions floating around in it (since the current is
completed by following the field lines to the pole and back).

     Richard M. Mathews			F oster 
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence and
					   F reedom!
From: v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:30:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41





	I believe the that NASA has been extensively researching the 
feasability(sp?) of using the Earth's magnetic field as a source of energy
for the Space Station Freeedom.
	The shuttle recently conducted an experiment (which failed due to an
equipment malfunction) in which a 13 mile conductive wire was to be stretched
out and allowed to pass through the electromagnetic field of the earth while
in orbit.
	We know that it will generate electricity, just ask any high school
physics teacher about passing a wire through a magnetic field, the question
was: Would it be practical?
	Does this fit into FREE ENERGY???


	J.P. Hoffman
	(maybe NASA will give me a job to thank me for the positive publicity?) 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:43:41 GMT

In article reese@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:

>> Hello,
>> 
>> I just heard from a source that I'd rather not reveal that some sort of Federal
>> "gag order" was put on one or more of the Meyer patents and/or his work.  My
>> source stated that it was classified 'Secret'.
>> 
>> Has anybody heard independent corroboration of this rumor, or is this just a
>> false alarm?
>> 
>> Jon Noring
>
>While we're at it, Jon, what happened to Tom Bearden? We haven't heard
>much about him and his inventions lately.  I, for one, sent you a
>message asking to be sent more info, and I haven't heard a peep.

Jason, I just sent you e-mail explaining what may have happened.  If you
don't get it, then let me know someway.

Anyway, the Bearden/Puthoff/etc. material can be obtained via anonymous
ftp from site:

lupulus.ssc.gov

in directory /papers.

Bearden just presented a paper before the most recent IECEC, so I hope to
be able to post an ASCII version of this paper within a few weeks or a
couple of months.  Everybody remind me to keep me on my toes.  :^)

I encourage newcomers to this newsgroup to read very carefully the papers
by Puthoff and Bearden for an interesting, but speculative, alternate view
of quantum mechanics and electromagnetics.

Also, those who have read the 1903,1904 Whittaker papers, take note:
Richard W. Ziolkowski published a paper recently where he independently
derived the same results, but in a more rigorous and complete way, using
modern terminology.  I don't have these papers handy (so I can't give
references), but they were published in some physics journal.  Ziolkowski
was not aware of the Whittaker papers and was surprised that his work was
antedated by almost 90 years.

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2053 sci.energy:4743
From: jwlx_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Jeff Wilcox)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:34:55 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


  For anyone who is interested, Is still have the original posting about
this, including the diagrams.  To anyone who is interested send me e-mail.
If there is enough response, I will go ahead and repost it.  Its pretty
long.  This subject puzzles me because it seems like such a great idea,
and yet it was allowed to die so easily.  Did I miss something?  Was this
exposed as a fake?  If not, why aren't we implementing these ideas?
Any opinions/info please post.

				Jeff Wilcox
				U. of Rochester 
				jwlx_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
				jwlx_ss@db6.cc.rochester.edu
				jwlx_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:04:47 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu:
>      FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
> by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist

"Physicist", ha.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
    "My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
     group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
     are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur."           -- Matt Welsh
From: tem1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: String Theory
Summary: What happened to the String Theory?
Keywords: strings, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, whatever
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:39:03 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

I was wondering...does anyone know what happened to the string theory?  I
remember reading a big article a couple years ago (in a fairly large 
scientific magazine, sorry cant remember which) about it.  THe cover of the
magazine had a neat picture of computer generated strings on it. Anyway,
the point of this post is this:

Is is still being debated, or has it been totally discredited?  Also, could
someone either post to this board the 'meat' of the theory or email me the
information necessary to read about it (i.e. The magazine I referred to, date
etc...)

Thank you.
Tim Miller

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Miller		     |  "The only thing we have to fear, is fear     |
   tem1@Ra.MsState.Edu	     |    itself"				     |
			     | "Within each of us lies the power of our      |
Mississippi State University |  consent to health and to sickness, to riches |
Major:  Chemistry/Physics    |  and to poverty, to freedom and to slavery.   |
Minor:  Mathematics	     |  It is we who control these, and not another" |
			     |      ---Illusions, by Richard Bach	     |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technology
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:00:48 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sci.physics.new-theories: 29-Sep-92
FREE-ENERGY Technology mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu (14246)

>      For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901:  "The 
> demonstration that no possible combination of known 
> substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of 
> force, can be united in a practical machine by which man 
> shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer 
> as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any 
> physical fact to be." 

>      Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright 
> Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final 
word.  

Of course, Wilville and Orbur's little toy was *not* practical and did
*not* fly long distances. Before airplanes became practical, new
substances and forms of machinery had to be invented which were *not*
known in 1901. (New refinements, anyway; I admit that the basic concepts
of metal, propellor, and internal combustion engine were already known.)

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories