I have some questions and one correction.
First of all, although you quoted;
> William Beaty wrote:
> * This was posted to the renergy list and I thought it should be
shared here. It might offer some insights into the recent 'vortex
countdown'
> that indicates a method of tapping energy from a Hilsch/Rankin type
vortex tube - check it out;
Bill did not write that, I did (Decker), so please don't blame him, I
am just trying to contribute to the info base in an attempt to
understand where you are coming from with your 'vortex countdown'.
All of the aforementioned have to do with spirals and vortexes and
each offers a bit of understanding which I thought might be applicable
to your countdown.
I'm sorry if you got offended, it wasn't intended to inflame or
arouse, but in all candor, you haven't provided any useful
information, so we have no option BUT to try to figure out how you
purport to be able to extract energy, so please don't get upset with
any of us for at least trying.
If we didn't care, we'd just blow you off and not respond in any way,
that to my mind is a GOOD thing when you get people curious enough to
think about it.
==============
You also wrote in your response;
> Dennard: (the source of energy) "originates from the gravitational
forces on the center rotating structure"
> ZPE's comment: Any person with even the most basic education in
physics knows that gravity is not energy.
Really? Can anyone truly explain gravity to satisfy all queries and
prove their explanation by being able to control it?
I think the flow of gravity could be considered as a kind of energy
because you can tap into it. Flaky as some might see it, gravity IS
more than probably a pushing effect and one day we will be able to
prove it and use it, however at this point, I would in in no way say
anything ABSOLUTELY isn't possible.
IMO that statement is like the patent examiner saying back in the late
19th century, everything has been invented so they might as well close
the patent office.
If everything WAS known, just shoot me now because I wouldn't WANT to
live...<g>...
============
You also wrote;
> Dennard: "The belief is that the energy needed to pump up the fluid
or gas is less than the rotation energy that is being stored in the
surrounding fluid or gas."
> ZPE's comment: Belief? OK. Based on what theory... that gravity
is energy? Come on!
> Dennard: "If gravity is not considered of a possible form of
energy, Whirlpower is impossible"
> ZPE's comment: Exactly!
What is wrong with that statement? He did precede it with the
condition IF, THEN. At least he allows for the POSSIBILITY that
gravity might not be energy, rather than saying IT IS and that's all
there is to it. You certainly seem to be rather strident in your
response.
============
You also write;
> ZPE's comment: Again... any person with even the most basic
education in physics knows that gravity is not energy. So where's the
logical theory, much less the math to support such a belief?
> Dennard: "The energy is in the wiggle, which comes from the force
of gravity acting upon the vortex."
Again, a very condescending and limiting attitude which I think is
unfair. I've not seen Dennard or anyone else take that tone with you.
The guy presents his idea, with an animation and openly, so he
certainly doesn't deserve to be slammed or denigrated for being open
about it.
No teasemail, he might be in error but he's open enought to not have
to do a countdown tease.
Sorry, but until you can offer some details or at least some
description of your process, I really don't think its to slam anyone
else who has ideas or opinions about their particular vortex theories.
Time will tell who is right. For my money, I don't care who it is as
long as we can all test it ourselves and use it for something practical.
Good luck with your plans...
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com