Psycho1990

I want to understand the logic behind Calculus, can you refer me to some material available online? I have done calculus before (about 2 years ago), and I'm looking for a book on the foundations of calculus, not a book on practical calculus. Also, what terms should I search for in search engines? If you would like to talk a bit about the foundations of calculus, that would be really appreciated.

Oh, and one practical thing you can do is to use a program that increases the HTTP connections in your browser. Search Google for a program like that; I think TuneUp Utilities has this feature.

There seems to be an easy solution as it seems to me. 1) He will need about 2 hours to watch a 1 hour video. That is if he watches high quality videos for 6 hours a day, he will need about 12 of download time. If you have 2mb/s connection. All of it and more can be downloaded at sleep time + school/university time. So, worst case scenario, the problem is solved. 2) when he wants to do something on demand (download HD clips,) he can always leave you like 30-60KB/s. It shouldn't be a big deal for him, but it can ensure you comfortable web browsing. (web browsing is not like downloading, it takes much less bandwidth.) That's how I solve the problem with myself! At night, I download all I want and more. And when I want to browse at night, I leave like 200KB/s for download, and 40KB/s for browsing. What browsing speed do you have by the way?

Computer Organization, Computer Design, and Computer Architecture; can you tell me the difference between them with examples? I'll quote my book for it's explanation of the three terms, which I don't understand. What are these hardware components? What are some different computer organizations? Is the specification like x86, and the design like Pentium 4? What are some example hardwares?

I don't know who such hype would benefit. You mention Joseph Newman. I've seen a similar experiment by an Australian that also made a machine which on one but him could replicate (which produces electricity more than it takes.) Also this guy: John Kanzius. But his story is a bit difference, from Wikipedia: "Kanzius admitted that this process could not be considered an energy source". It just seems that the media is/was hyping it! Maybe it's just "good" material for media for bringing audience. Anyway, back to HHO, from Wikipedia: "Kanzius admitted that this process could not be considered an energy source, as more energy is used to produce the RF signal than can be obtained from the burning gas and stated in July 2007 that he never claimed his discovery would replace oil, asserting only that his discovery was "thought provoking."" If that RF signal can be produced using energy other than "burning gas" (i.e. solar heat,) then that may be efficient. (?)

@SM I will research the two options. Thanks for making things easier to me. I'm not trying to support their claims. You considered Wikipedia a source, and I brought (from the same source) something to consider. However, I agree with you but to an extent. The fact that he could do it, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else can replicate it, unless he released enough information about how to do it. Ummm... he doesn't have to necessarily think of money. But yeah, then, why would he not try to release what he achieved to people to benefit from it!

"... but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death." From the same page. About "No one could ever duplicate it". I don't know. But the papers are online, so I think one who knows physics should be able to prove him being wrong.

How much electricity... 300W-3000W... Obviously, more is better! I'm willing to put effort, but something like generating electricity by cycling on a bike wouldn't be efficient at all!

What about Stan Meyer's method? If it is also inefficient, what other efficient (and cheap) methods for generating electricity? (Other than wind turbines, wind turbines, and solar cells.)

Aha, I understand. Isn't it possible to do it on the fly? (i.e. generating H2 and feeding the motor at the same time) Edit: Or maybe doing it on small steps... I've just seen these videos:

Is it easy to make a safe one? I'm not concerned with mobility.

Argue in favor of whom? The thing is I didn't really believe him even tho I don't know anything about QM, but that Berkley logo at the beginning of the video confused me. I got lost and asked here; I'm not trying to debate. Once I heard the question "is it worth $2500", I knew this was probably gonna be about money, specially that it was followed by mentioned that they made a "university" for that; and even more, they showed the QM guy as if he was Einstein of the decade.

Is he allowed to talk nonsense at Berkley, Washington, and Oregon universities? Berkley University: University of Oregon: University of Washington: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=l1l-xALTO30 EDIT: I just found the two other links, but I didn't watch them. I only watched the first link.

I don't really know quantum mechanics, so I need your opinion. This guy is relating quantum mechanics to transcendental meditation. Is it possible that what he is saying is valid? (talk about QM finished at about 2:50)