1995.01.19 / John Vetrano /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John S Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 19 Jan 1995 21:55:02 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <JWw4Btz.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Actually, strictly speaking, I personally do not sell CF water heaters. I am
> working on other CF gadgets; I don't sell any kind. The place to contact if
> you want a heater is:
>  
> Mr. James Griggs
etc.  deleted in the interest of brevity.

Announcement for Cold Fusion Day at MIT as posted by Dr. Mallove

"Cold fusion is the generic term for the production of excess power from 
electrochemical cells, typically involving heavy water with palladium, 
or light water with nickel. Nuclear products and emissions have also 
been reported, such as tritium, neutrons, helium-4, and charged 
particles."

Jed,

In the top post you strongly imply, though don't state explicitly, that
the Griggs device involves cold fusion.  Could you please indicate what it
is about this device that meets the above criteria as laid out by Dr.
Mallove?  I don't believe it is an electrochemical cell.  I have only been
reading this group for a few months and this subject might have been
covered already (sorry if that is the case), but it seems that calling the
Griggs device a *CF* water heater seems to lack proof.  It may be an
intriguing gadget and may indeed be overunity (I'm not qualified to judge
either way), but is there any evidence of fusion?  I'm not trying to be
hostile, and I've appreciated your response to my earlier questions and
requests, but the idea of calling this a *CF* water heater has bothered me
some.

Looking forward to reports of the CF day!


Thanks in advance for the info.

John Vetrano
js_vetrano@pnl.gov
boring .sig to follow

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Mark Thorson /  I Found It !!! (was: Buying Heavy Water)
     
Originally-From: eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I Found It !!! (was: Buying Heavy Water)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:32:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom puts Marmite in the electrolyte

I talked to Aldrich, Cambridge Isotope, and ICN, and the best price
was Cambridge at $385 for 1000 gm and $45 at 100 gm.  This is for
99.9% purity.  Aldrich wanted a little over $400 for that, and
ICN wanted over $700.  The price difference is because Cambridge
Isotope is a producer of the material.
 
Aldrich won't deal directly with private individuals.  I suppose
they've had some bad experiences with people making drugs.  You have
to be either an industrial lab or a university or something.  I
specifically asked Cambridge whether they would have a problem
dealing with an individual, and they said absolutely not.  You just
have to pay in advance.  I also asked whether I could repeat this
information on the Internet, and they said yes, so here it is.
 
Their number is:
 
Cambridge Isotope Laboratories
(617) 938-0067
(800) ISOTOPE

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudeneee cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Mike Griffin /  Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:44:57 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation

In article <Be94xH1.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> That shows that a person can be a genius about some things and a fool about
> others. Newcomb should have stuck to what he was good at, rather than
> pontificating about subjects he knew nothing about. 

The mind boggles comtemplating the bandwidth that woould be saved if Jed were
to follow his own advice (or just this particular suggestion)!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Akira Kawasaki /  MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. re-Repostng.
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. re-Repostng.
Date: 19 Jan 1995 23:44:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <950114142135_76570.2270_HHB53-1@CompuServe.COM> 
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes: 

*****NOTE WELL: The room assigment for the MIT Cold Fusion IAP program 
has changed from 10-105 (the Bush room) to Room 6-120, the Physics 
Lecture Hall

************************  COLD FUSION DAY  ************************     
                              at MIT
                            COLD FUSION
              A Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                        IAP  Program 
                Video-Lecture-DemonstrationProgram
_______________________________________________________   
January 21, 1995, Saturday 9AM-5PM Room 6-120, Physics Lecture Hall
First floor, main building of MIT.

(Enter at 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, the main entrance of MIT. 
Go down the "Infinite Corridor" straight ahead, and turn right at the 
end to a new corridor. A few doors down this corridor is Room 6-120)
________________________________________________________

  Cold fusion is the generic term for the production of excess power 
from electrochemical cells, typically involving heavy water with 
palladium, or light water with nickel. Nuclear products and emissions 
have also been reported, such as tritium, neutrons, helium-4, and 
charged particles. New non-electrochemical physical systems have also 
been discovered that evidence significant excess power and associated 
nuclear products. It is difficult to imagine a greater reversal of 
scientific fortunes than what has been emerging in the cold fusion 
field. As the literature of cold fusion expands, the startling phenomena 
are of continuing interest to experimentalists,theoreticians, inventors, 
and entrepreneurs. In this day of lectures, discussions, and startling 
videos, the focus will be on the history, science, technology, and 
business of cold fusion.

   Recent developments in commercial-level power production will be 
discussed at this meeting. The program organizers are also negotiating 
to have one or more demonstration units in operation at MIT this day.

  1. It is probable that the company in charge of the first U.S. Patent 
granted for cold fusion, the Patterson patent, 5,318,675, will be there 
to show a video tape of its cells' operation. Also, an actual cell 
should be there too.
  2. James Griggs of Hydro Dynamics, Inc. will discuss new evidence 
(photographic and photo-micrographic) of extremely high temperatures on 
the rotor surfaces of Hydrosonic Pumps.
  3. Dr. Peter Graneau will discuss "Anomalous Forces in Water Plasma 
Explosions" and will show a video tape of experiments
  4. Professor Peter Hagelstein (MIT Dept. of EE and CS) will discuss 
Neutron Transfer Reactions
  5. Professor Keith Johnson (MIT Dept. of Materials Science) will 
discuss 
his theoretical work, and progress on the cold fusion movie "Excess 
heat," which he scripted and which will be produced by a major Hollywood 
studio for release in early 1996.
  6. Graduate student Ray Conley (MIT Dept. of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics) will discuss his light water excess heat experiments.
  7.AND, much more -- some big surprises.
________________________________________________
For more information on the meeting please contact Dr. Eugene F. 
Mallove, MIT '69, at  Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 
03302-2816;Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975  or at 
INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com

re-Reposted, courtesy of aki for cold fusion science




cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 / Mike Griffin /  Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: This forum officially for CF, not HF
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:47:15 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation

In article <3fmd7k$4g1@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> 
> This forum was created in response to the original CF results---but
> fusion is fusion---i.e. joining of nuclei. 
> 
Barry,

I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken on this point.

A small (smaller all the time) group of researchers have, by pushing the envelope
of the scientific method and being more broadminded about experimental technique
than "mainstream" scientists, has discovered a new fusion mechanism with the
following properties:

1) No neutrons emitted;
2) No gamma rays;
3) Takes place at much lower collision energies (and may not require collisions
at all;
4) May be observed with deuterium, tritium as fuel, or neither;
5) All byproducts except heat are difficult or impossible to measure and may
not exist.

to mention a few.

The technique that has led to these marvelous results?  Why CALORIMETERY
of course!

I guess you missed all that....

Mike Griffin
Discalimer: (removing tongue from cheek): My employer has no views, that I know of,
on exotic physics discovered by mediocre chemists, and I certainly don't speak for
them or anyone else.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 21:25:54 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>I'm not an engineer, so maybe I'm mising something here.  Did you change
>the definition of "efficient" between these two sentences?  On casual
>reading, it looks like you are saying that a gas or oil fired boiler 
>produces *more* than 30% excess heat.
 
No, I meant that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel,
whereas gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%.
 
Electric space heating and low pressure water boiling is incredibly
innefficient thermodynamically. However, as I have pointed out here many times,
there are special situations in which gas or oil cannot be used. There is
a limited market for electric boilers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.19 /  RobertBass /  Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
Date: 19 Jan 1995 22:11:04 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

   In commenting on my Defense of Simon Newcomb,       
jedrothwell@delphi.com
in the previous posting in this thread, brings out some outrageously
incorrect statements which Newcomb made in 1903 and 1906.
   When I referred to him as a great mathematician, I was thinking of his
epochal work of 1874, which led him to be revered by most civilized
people, including the crowned heads of Europe.
    Evidently he fell into the well known trap of believing that one's
prestige is objectively proportional to one's omnidirectional acuity, and,
as many famous and distinguished people in various careers (including
science) have done when at the peak of influence but past the peak of the
creativity & the competence which generated the influence, he pontificated
upon subjects in which he was uninformed, to anyone who would listen. 
This illustrates one of Arthur Clarke's true but sad "Laws."
   By then Necomb was 29-32 years past his prime.  As the Roman poet
Pindar (echoed by Gray's elegy in a cemetery), noted millenia ago, "the
paths of glory lead but to the grave."
   robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Jon Bell /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: jtbell@presby.edu (Jon Bell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 04:12:22 GMT
Organization: Presbyterian College, Clinton, South Carolina USA

 Thomas Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.svpal.org> wrote:
> but i know of not a single  documented case 
>for inverse beta decay by the neutrino,  in any cloud chamber 
>photographs. 

How about bubble chamber photographs?  Many experiments were done at 
Fermilab and CERN using large bubble chambers in high-energy neutrino 
beams.  Neutrino events are, on the whole, rather distinctive in 
appearance and kinematic characteristics:

	1.  No visible tracks coming in;
	2.  Several high-energy tracks coming out, with the total 
momentum pointing backwards down the beam line (with some scatter because 
of the invisible neutral particles which also come out);
	3.  *One* of those tracks being either an electron/positron (for 
an electron-neutrino beam) or a muon (for a muon-neutrino beam);
	4.  The electron or muon's momentum being distinctly "separated" 
kinematically from the momenta of the other outgoing particles.

#3 is the key signature here.  A high-energy neutron interacting with
another nucleon has to produce e+/e- or mu+/mu- in pairs in order to
conserve lepton number.  Single-lepton production in such events requires
serious "new" physics which would surely have effects in other
experiments.  Besides, a standard feature of the analysis is to estimate
the background flux of neutrons in the beam line; most of them are fairly
low energy, and are mostly eliminated anyway by requiring that events have
a certain minimum energy. 

-- 
Jon Bell <jtbell@presby.edu>                        Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science        Clinton, South Carolina USA

(who worked on a couple of those experiments a long time ago, as a grad 
student)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjtbell cudfnJon cudlnBell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 20 Jan 1995 04:48:25 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3fmt0u$6qb@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
> <3fh5lv$1v4@borg.svpal.org> <3fhatp$1bfn@msunews.cl.msu.edu>:
>Distribution: 
>
>>Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:
>
>> Run, don't walk, to your local bookstore and order:
>> The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics.....
>
>Robert, I have had that book since it first can out in 1991, love it. So 
>now we can talk to the same experimental data. Pages 227, and 228 

I'm at home right at the moment so I can't check the reference....but
it appears that your complaint is based solely on the limitations of
a 1962 experiment.  In the 20 years since, I do think we've addressed
most of the concerns you express.  And found your "worries" to be without
substance.

>purports to show experimental confirmation that neutrino cross sections 
>increase with energy. As usual, the (theoretical) neutrino flux is 
>monitored by the muon flux (theoretically) associated with it. There is 
>the rub!

"As usual"...  Actually one can also predict the flux given the (measured)
secondary spectrum and the known characteristics  of simple pion/kaon
decay.  The two together give confidence that there aren't arbitrary
factors of E_{\nu} "missing".  Now I'm a little confused about *which*
muon flux you "doubt".  There are sort of two.  But maybe I should back up
and give a little background for the "observers" to this debate.

For the most part I'll discuss general features of neutrino production/
observation at accelerators, but when necesary with an emphesis on
how things were handled at Fermilab.  Why FNAL?  Two reasons: (1) the
experiments were more recent and at higher energies (along with a large
range of energies) and (2) I'm more familiar with them (having been a large
contributor to the analysis of E733's 1983 and 1987-8 data sets, as well
as knowledgable about E594's analysis using the same detector in a
narrow band beam).

Okay to get started:  How are neutrinos produced?  Well, I scetched this
out in one of theos WWW URL references I previously posted.  But to review:
One takes 800 GeV protons (E733,400GeV for E594) and you blast them into
a chunk of beryllium oxide (appropriately water cooled).  Out come a
bunch of secondary particles such as pions, kaons, etc (and lots of the
primary protons, too).  Now, you collect (with magnets) those secondaries
and you direct them down a "decay pipe".  A "wide band" beam such as used
by E733 takes everything; a "narrow band" beam selects on seconary charge
and momentum (dumping the rest).  The secondaries travel down the pipe,
and during their travels some decay.  Those that decay (semi-)leptonically
produce a neutrino and a charged lepton (generally a muon, but an admixture
of electrons too).  Now in a low flux beam such as E594 used one can 
measure the flux of these muons and thus directly measure, to a degree,
the neutrino flux.  Those secondaries that don't decay all end up in the
hadron dump at the end of the tunnel..  The dump is followed by 1km
of steel (old battleships!) and earth :  the berm.  Thus the only thing
that makes it out are: neutrinos, muons created by neutrinos in the tail
end of the berm that weren't ranged out, very low energy (thermal) neutrons
that escape the top of the berm and material covering the target/decay pipe
who randomly walk up and then down into the detector with "skyshine"
(adding but a slight "haze" to the edge of the detector, though playing
havoc with the scintillators!).

Now the detector:  our detector was located in historic Lab C (previously
occupied by HPWF (Rubia)) - and composed of what one typically finds in
the electronic (as opposed to Bubble Chamber) detectors:  a veto wall
to veto triggering on muons entering the front face, a calorimeter for
measuring the energy and angle of the hadronic shower and to provide
tracking information for the muon in the case of a charged current (3/4 of
the total) event, and a spectrometer for measuring the muon(s) momenta.

>The experiments at Brookhaven in 1962 (see page 184) set the tone for all 
>later HEP neutrino experiments. Brookhaven got * cosmic ray muon 
>background* in their spark chamber, that, in their words (see page 188) 
>"In 1800 cosmic-ray photographs thus obtained, 21 could be accepted as 
>neutrino events." What is meant by "neutrino events" are the cosmic-ray 

Again, I refer you to the postscript file I early gave reference to 
(http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/ ...) It *clearly* demonstrates
that cosmics are easily pattern recognized.  ..And studies were done 
to measure the cosmic rate by seeing what one sees outside the three
10ms gates we're open for in the 60sec cycle.  Those along with the active
veto on the front face should smooth over your "concerns".

>muons that come horizontal or nearly horizontal. ( by saying "accepted as 
>neutrino events" is as if * muons resulting from neutrinos* was a 
>foregone conclusion.).

Explain to me (and everyone here) how one explains the 100000 events I've
got on tape that have the characteristics of:
  * nothing visible coming in the front (ie a neutral)
  * a hadronic shower with the just the energy/angle distributions
    one would expect from the current theory
  * an outgoing muon that traverses the spectrometer (we know the
    direction because of a number of factors), again with energy/angle
    distributions given by the theory.
  * that the correlations are different for neutrino and anti-neutrinos
    (these can be separated in the narrow beaam expts, by selecting
    the sign of the secondary pi/k's you let decay).  And in the wide
    band expts one gets the right ratios of mu-/mu+ charged current events.
Yes, we do background (cosmics, pileup (overlapping events), etc)
corrections;  and we make fiducial volume cuts (selecting only events near
the detector center) to avoid losses out the sides/back/front.
  

>Brookhaven tried to *gate* a window that would reduce the cosmic muon 
>background. To calibrate the gate timing they *raised the energy of the 
>accelerator to generate more muons* through the steel shield! Then the 
>energy from the accelerator was reduced and the experiment proceeded to 
>count the muons that got through the shield "as signal" ! I believe in 

That was then, over 20 years ago.  We've gotten a little more sophisticated
dince then...and have, surprise, surprise, found that their reasonable
estimates were, get this, reasonable!  Wow.  A konspiracy, perhaps?  Now
that's a chuckle...to think that 10+ collaborations of 10-50
(self-interested) experimentors would all forgo a Nobel prize (for
disproving the electroweak theory) would all manage to keep this great
coverup of sigma != const*E_{\nu}.  This includes some Europeans who
would gladly show up us snotty Americans.

>muon type neutrinos, but Brookhaven's famous experiment stretches my 
>credulity.

Fine, disbelieve *that* experiment.  But now you go on to doubt ALL the
experiments and THAT frankly stretches -my- credulity.

>Unfortunately, this type of experiment detects only the ubiquitous muon.

We've measured more than simply the presence of the muon...lots of other
characteristics of the event (remember there's a hadron shower as well).  
And, oddly, they are, well, predicted by the current theory.

>Don't get me wrong, i absolutely believe in neutrinos, i just don't 
>believe we are detecting them because our experiments are based on seeing 
>charged particles (theoretically) produced by the neutrino. Seeing 

Let's see...I measure "nothing" (ie. neutrals only) into my detector,
and a big hadron shower+big muon out, and you want to explain it how?
Now it can't be photons in, nor neutral hadrons because (1) they couldn't
have made it through the berm (2) we would see an measurable unevenness
in the vertex position (interaction length) with depth in the detector, 
but we don't...nice and flat (after correcting for geometric acceptances).
(3) in any case, neither of these possible alternatives could explain the
NC/CC ratio, nor the energy and angle (muon/hadron shower) characteristics.

>ordinary charged particles flying around at odd angles or odd times, is 
>not proof set in concrete, in my view. We seem too easily able to accept 
>as *proof* of neutrino detection, some theoretical ability of the 
>neutrino to transmute or *knock-on* charged particles.

So exactly WHAT "proof" of the existtance of the neutrino would you be
inclined to accept.  And those particles don't simply go "flying around at
odd angles", but rather in very well predicted ones...  Again, take a 
look at the picture and tell me how to explain the characteristics I
measure of these events.  "Transmute or *knock-on*"??? You profess to
have some knowledge of the current theory, so what the hell are you talking
about here?  The theory is quite clear on what is going on:  neutrino in,
emits virtual W (or Z) and thus converts to a muon; vector boson scatters
of a quark in the nucleon and produces the hadron shower.  As for "easily
able to accept"...well, you must not have followed the history...and this
post is now far too long to go over it all.

>Regards: Tom.

-robert

 Robert W. Hatcher      | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
 Associate Researcher   | Michigan State University | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 (517) 353-3008,-5180   | East Lansing, MI 48824    | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhatcher cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy MPEG movies online now !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt
sci.physics.new-theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.energy.h
drogen,sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.partic
e
Subject: Free Energy MPEG movies online now !
Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:27:00 +0100

Hi,

I finally have my own FTP server now.

I have put the best MPEG movies of the free energy machine

Testatika

now up online at:

ftp.b-2.de.contrib.net (194.77.35.1)  in:

pub/harti/energy/TESTATIKA   called testati1.zip and testati2.zip

These are about 2.3 MB big MPEG movies, which show Mr. Paul Bauman,
the inventor, light up a light bulb with the machine's output-power.

This machine is capable of producing about 3 KW of "free" power converted  
from tapping Zero Point Energy. It is NOT a so called perpetuum mobile !
The output of the Testatika machine is around 270 to 300 Volts DC at 10  
Ampere.


Play the MPEG movies with VMPEG12a.zip MPEG player on DOS/WINDOWS !

Regards, Stefan.

## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / William Rowe /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 05:59:10 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Jed Rothwell wrote

>They sell BIG units. I mean like 100 or 200 KW, starting at $10,000. They are
>suitable for factories only, not homes or for laboratory tests. They produce
>10% to 30% excess heat. With an industrial app., 30% of 200 KW is enough to
>pay for the machine in a year or two. It is not as efficient as a gas or oil
>fired boiler, but it is a heck of a lot better than an electrically fired
>unit, and there are many apps where only electricity can be used.
> 
>- Jed
>

In response Richard Shultz wrote:

>I'm not an engineer, so maybe I'm mising something here.  Did you change
>the definition of "efficient" between these two sentences?  On casual
>reading, it looks like you are saying that a gas or oil fired boiler 
>produces *more* than 30% excess heat.
>

As clarification Jed Rotwell wrote:

>No, I meant that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel,
>whereas gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%.
> 

I'm confused. In the first comment, the last sentance makes the point in
terms of
efficiency

   gas or oil burner > "it" > electrically fired unit
   
From the rest of the post, the pronoun "it" seems to refer to the GG. Richard
Shultz made the obvious respopnse

The clarification seems only to make the point

   gas or oil burner > electrically fire unit
   
in terms of efficiency.

Surely, you aren't suggesting a gas or oil burner (chemical sources of heat)
produce more heat (excess heat) than can be accounted for by chemical means. If
gas or oil burners are more efficient thant the GG, it seems clear the GG cannot
be producing more heat than can be accounted for by chemistry. Also, oil and gas
burners are well known to be less than 100% efficient. If they are more
efficient than the GG, how can the GG be claimed to have more than 100%
efficiency?

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  harmon@hepnsf. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 20 Jan 1995 08:26:25 GMT
Organization: CSU Dominguez Hills, Carson,  CA, USA

In article <3fmvm0$6up@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>Jim, there is a way that false positives from cosmic rays can transmute 
>the Cl-37. See for example the Scientific American article ( Jul 69) by 
>John N. Bahcall. page 30, "High energy muons are very penetrating and can 
>knock proton's out of nuclei well below the earth's surface. If such a 
>proton entered the neutrino detector, it could mimic the entry of a solar 
>neutrino by converting chlorine 37 (37Cl) into an atom of radioactive 
>argon 37 (37Ar)" unquote. Forgive me for dropping names, but sometimes to 
>make a point........

Yes, that is absolutely right, it is called a charge exchanging reaction.
There is also a reaction that could be initiated by a real pion.  
Since they don't image the reactions (to see the proton enter) and
only see the result, they have to subtract this background
from the total number, which they do.  Between 1970 and 1991 they announce
a total of 0.509+/- 0.031  events per day.  The expected cosmic
ray background that they subtract is 0.08 +/- 0.03 per day for a total
of 0.429+/-0.043 neutrino-induced events per day. 

>Again, these types of statements presuppose that the neutrinos are really 
>being detected, i think we should say theoretically is expected to 
>see..... And as Bahcall points out, background can get you coming and 
>going, with mimic transmutations. There is absolutely no way we can 
>actually measure this mimicking background. Who is to say that all signal 
>is not background?

I'm sure they have measured these backgrounds.  The average muon energy is 
a very well known function of depth.  So they have to calculate the probability
of a muon initiating a hadron shower near the detector, then figure out the
cross section for the charge exchange reactions (they might be experimentally
measured) and they get the expected background.  
These guys are pretty smart, and they probably spent a lot
of time on background subtraction.  Especially when they realized their results
were not in agreement with predictions. Again, that is why it is 
nice to have the Cerenkov detector because of the measured angular 
correlation to the sun and the energy spectrum.

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  harmon@hepnsf. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 20 Jan 1995 08:50:20 GMT
Organization: CSU Dominguez Hills, Carson,  CA, USA

In article <3fmt9e$6qb@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>>Craig Harmon (harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu) Writes:
>> Well the crosssection would be markedly higher if there was a 
>>sizable magnetic moment. 
>
>Yes, and if the neutrino mass is small, the magnetic moment would be 
>enormous from Ub = ( e hbar/2 x mass in kg) since mass is in the denominator.

According to my Particle Data Table, U_b (Bohr magneton) is:

	U_b = ehbar/2m_e

which is dependent upon the electron mass, and is given as a constant
with the value of:

5.788382 E-11 Mev/T.  

What formula were you using?

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: GG vs SL
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG vs SL
Date: 20 Jan 95 21:40:54 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day :) ........
In article <3fl0b7$6us@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
 (John Logajan) writes:
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
> : |> The Griggs device and the current round of sonoluminesence laboratory
> : |> experiments exist in about the same relative volume of water -- but the
> : |> Griggs device is subjecting it to on the order of 200 times higher
> : |> energy density.
> : |> 
> 
> : I'm very interested in the energy density.  Any typical figures?
> 
> The energy input figures I "guessed" at about 30 HP for a Griggs device
> and about 100 Watts for an ultrasonic amplifier.  30HP * 750W = 22.5KW.
> 
> 22.5KW/100W = 225:1.
>       
> One Griggs device has a 12 inch rotor which appears to be about 4 inches
> wide. The spacing is likely on the order of 1/10 inch between the rotor
> and the shell.  12*pi = 38".  38*4*.1 = 15 Cubic/Inches, or about 2.5"
> on a side, not unlike the dimensions of a SL experiment.
>
 --------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm, John I think something is not quite right with your -ultrasonic-
energy calculations. Remember that the Griggs device is heating water
-mainly- by a hydro-friction effect. Jed once posted that the Griggs
device only exhibited the "excess energy" when holes were drilled
into the rotor (causing the ultrasonics), but without the holes (and
the ultrasonics), the device still heated copious amounts of water.
A closer approximation of the Griggs ultrasonic power might be 
determined by calculating the number of watts -excess- power
and dividing that by some (unknown) "conversion efficiency"; as one
could not expect that the "Griggs Effect" is going to convert the
ultrasonics to heat with 100% efficiency.
 Jed, if you have the relevant figures, could you please post them?
John has raised an interesting point, if any research is to be done
on what appears to be an ultrasonic effect, one of the first things
to be done is to try to quantify how much ultrasonic energy is involved
and maybe try to determine some efficiencies. Perhaps Jed may care to 
give us some insight to the "tuning proceedure" in particular, is there
some correlation between the most efficient frequency for Grigg's
device and the volume of the "cavity" in the pump?

Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 20 Jan 1995 12:06:17 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <ZW06xx6.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>>On casual reading, it looks like you are saying that a gas or oil fired 
>>boiler produces *more* than 30% excess heat.
 
>No, I meant that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel,
>whereas gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%.

Right.  Now I see what you meant.  Kind of reminds me of the time that I
moved from an apartment with electric baseboard heaters to one with a
gas furnace and watched my heating bills brop precipitously for the 
obvious reason.  Thanks.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Richard Blue /  Rothwellian thermodynamics
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwellian thermodynamics
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 01:15:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To quote Jed Rothwell:

< Electric space heating and low pressure water boiling is incredibly >
< inefficient thermodynamically.                                      >

With astounding insight that even Jed probably does not yet appreciate
he has arrived at "THE TRUTH" about cold fusion experimentation.  The
implications of the above statement are truly mind-boggling.  What Jed
is telling us is that when a resistive heater is totally surrounded
by a gas or liquid medium the I^2 R power input does not go to heat
that medium.  By his estimates as little as 3-5% of that power appears
as useful heat.  Clearly there are great opportunities to find better
ways for degrading electrical power to heat.

But alas!  What are the implications of this profound insight for
cold fusion experimentation.  I fear that six years of hard work
by cold fusion investigators has been rendered worthless by this
one flash of Jed's brilliance.  Consider the problem of calorimeter
calibration.  It has been almost universal practice to calibrate
a cold fusion calorimeter using heat from a resistive heater.  The
now discredited assumption has always been that the heat output
was equal to the IV power input.  But in the Rothwellian picture
that simply is not so!

If Jed's low efficiency estimate prevails, cold fusion calorimeters
have been systematically miscalibrated by a factor of 20 to 30.
Thus any claim for excess heat must be reduced by a correspondingly
large factor.  Very few of the result reported to date will survive
this drastic revision as being clearly positive with respect to
excess heat.

In one stroke cold fusion has been sweeped away!  Congratulations, Jed!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 20 Jan 95 17:57:38 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <3focrr$o5m@newsbf02.news.aol.com> fusionfire@aol.com (FUSIONFIRE) writes:
........
......
....
..

>Singularity Technologies, Inc.  will soon announce a new design for fusion
>reactors that are scalable right down to home sized units.  Clean,
>aneutronic, inexpensive. 
>.......  However, we have discovered that no fusion reactions occur as a
>result of the energetic collisions afforded by high temperatures.  Our
>reactor catalyzes reactions at the rate we fuel it!  It's out put is a
>highly directional beam of charged particles which we tap for energy using
>magnetic arrays.





Witchcraft, right?

Very appropriate for your Salem loacation (even if its Oregon instead
of Massachussetts).

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  FUSIONFIRE /  Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
     
Originally-From: fusionfire@aol.com (FUSIONFIRE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
Date: 20 Jan 1995 08:27:36 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Don't be a jackass Archimedes.  You are not the first to suggest neutron
materialization!  Nice try!   You must think you have invented the whole
world.  Seem's you have some insight, but you are barking up some totally
wrong trees in many areas.  True, neutrons can be made to materialize but
they do not violate conservation when they do.  Net energy of the universe
is zero!  You may be a nice guy but I think you should tone down your own
importance.  I quote an ancient Arabic saying:  "If you listen carefully
you may hear the thoughts of another and think them your own."  So if you
ever heard the thoughts of God (and made some progress towards greater
insight into physics) just keep in mind that you are not God; you may have
just heard his thoughts.  Seems there is something out there that wishes
to destroy you and it is surely having its way at this time.  Settle down
Archimedes or bob or tom or joe or gene or sam or bill or whoever you may
be.  Don't hide behind this fakery of a name.

Best rgds
FusionFire
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenfusionfire cudlnFUSIONFIRE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter who believes what?
Date: 21 Jan 1995 02:10:30 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Richard Milton (richard@milton.win-uk.net) wrote:
: In article <3f7d1g$rcf@network.ucsd.edu>, Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) writes:
: >Chris Parkinson (parky@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: How long did it take the Wright bros. to convince the world that flight 
: >: was possible. The Defense Department took 5 years. Even the NY Times 
: >: still disbelieved them even after an airplane flew passed a train 
: >: carrying a bunch of Times reporters.
: >
: >Oh come on, people knew "flight was possible", the question was, 
: >"is the technology sufficiently advanced and cost effective to
: >to be practical?"
: >
: >The subsequent great improvement in internal combustion engines and
: >other critical aviation technologies advanced at pace rapid enough
: >to make it so.  That this would happen was not obvious.


: Matt, most professional scientists though powered heavier
: than air flight was probably impossible.  

: For example,
: Simon Newcombe, professor of mathematics and astronomy at
: Johns Hopkins U, wrote in "The Independent" just three
: weeks before the Wright's first flight that powered flight
: was "impossible" and he suggested that it would only become
: possible if new metals could be found. 

Q: When was aluminum first refined in economical industrial
quantities?

: --
: *****************************¦********************************
: Richard Milton               ¦ 


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 21 Jan 1995 02:13:15 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Electric space heating and low pressure water boiling is incredibly
: innefficient thermodynamically. However, as I have pointed out here many times,
: there are special situations in which gas or oil cannot be used. There is
: a limited market for electric boilers.

Even ultrasonic cold fusion ones producing 50% excess heat and a little
bit of Helium-3?


: - Jed

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
Date: 21 Jan 1995 02:29:45 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3fevjl$5bm@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
>   I have noticed in the last year that many magazines get ideas from
> the Internet, especially New Scientist. Example, I posted questions
> about Wimshurst and in the latest editions, there was an article on
> Wimshurst.

I shudder to think what science mags have become if they 
are using Ludwig Von's ideas for inspiration.

By the way, Ludwig: do you have any thought on exactly what form of
mental illness could lead an individual to think they have solved all
manner of major physics and math problems, even in the face of 
rigorous refutations of their ideas? I suggest you ponder that awhile.



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 21 Jan 1995 02:40:17 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3focrr$o5m@newsbf02.news.aol.com> fusionfire@aol.com (FUSIONFIRE)  
writes:

> Singularity Technologies, Inc.  will soon announce a new design for fusion
> reactors that are scalable right down to home sized units.  Clean,
> aneutronic, inexpensive. 
> 

Ludwig Von Plutonium wouldn't happen to be your head of
R&D, would he? :-)

> Anyone want more info?
> 

Why don't you just post it here. In particular, I'm anxious to hear
what process it is that produces the fusion energy, and what nuclear 
byproducts you observe.

Also interesting that you have decided high energy collisions don;t
produce fusion, in apparent contradiction to 30+ years of theory +
experiment. Its amazing how dumb those scientists are, ain't it? :-)


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  FUSIONFIRE /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: fusionfire@aol.com (FUSIONFIRE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 20 Jan 1995 08:12:27 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Here's what I have to say about the fusion efforts of the welfare queens
in white coats at Princeton and other places:

The Chinese had black powder for more than a thousand years and we might
smile to ourselves that they did not understand its true operation.  Yet
they brought it to a high art in fireworks, etc.

I am positing that the men who build H-Bombs (Fusion weapons) are ignorant
of the real mechanism behind the fusion portion of the weapon.  Yet they
still work.  It is very possible to build something that functions without
actually understanding the mechanisms.  However, if it works the people of
the world will believe that you really know how it works.  Caution here! 
Remember the Chinese?

The connection is that the radiation coupling of a fusion weapon doesn't
cause charged fuel nuclei to overcome the coulomb barrier so that the
interacting nuclie are then bound by the nuclear strong force.  It just
doesn't happen that way.  But as long as the scientific community believes
that it works that way then they will continue to pursue this avenue.  But
believe me, it is a dead end street paved with the purest gold or should I
say tax money.

Anyway, the success of the fusion weapons has led us astray. And has led
everyone to believe that if you heat the fuel to a high temperature
(thereby making the particles smack into one another so that the
internuclei distance is around 5 x 10-13 cm) so that the nuclear strong
force can win out over coulomb repulsion).  If it works in weapons it will
work in a tokamak.  Sorry, but since it doesn't actually work that way in
weapons, it will never really work that way in a tokamak or elmo bumpy
torus or any other device including inertial confinement schemes.  If
physics hadn't invented the nuclear strong force out of the same whole
cloth that the emperor's new cloths were made from we wouldn't be in this
mess today.

Singularity Technologies, Inc.  will soon announce a new design for fusion
reactors that are scalable right down to home sized units.  Clean,
aneutronic, inexpensive.   I know, I know, you're not likely to believe
this.  However, we have discovered that no fusion reactions occur as a
result of the energetic collisions afforded by high temperatures.  Our
reactor catalyzes reactions at the rate we fuel it!  It's out put is a
highly directional beam of charged particles which we tap for energy using
magnetic arrays.

Anyone want more info?

Write:  C. Cagle, Chief Technical Officer
           Singularity Technologies, Inc.
           1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
            Salem, OR  97302
            503/362/7781

Or reply to FusionFire@AOL
Or singtech@teleport.com  (after 1/22/95)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenfusionfire cudlnFUSIONFIRE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Stefan Hartmann /  MRA update 11, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: MRA update 11, free energy device !
Subject: MRA Tech Note
Subject: mmmmm....could be!
Subject: Test Report
Subject: Seeing is Believing
Subject: MRA Parts
Subject: Yout Letter
Subject: MRA
Subject: MRA
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:32:00 +0100

Message 10447                                  DATE/TIME: 01/06/95 09:15
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA Tech Note
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Last night Norm was over and we added another output to the MRA, so
that it was driving lights (incandescent and fluorescent) in addition
to the usual motor load.  This required retuning the MRA for maximum
power to match the new load requirement.  We were "overdriving" the
output of the MRA below unity to "max out" the power to the load.
 
After the lights were removed so that only the motor was on the
output, the MRA was retuned for the motor, but the resonant fre-
qency had changed.  Prior to adding the lights, the resonant fre-
quency was 34.28 kHz.  After removing the lights, it was 33.43 kHz.
Although this is only a difference of 850 Hz, it is interesting as
it indicated that the MRA is alterable.  This might be useful in some
applications.
 
The MRA still detunes for max gain as before, and still provides
surplus potential (1.5VAC above noload) when detuned, but this is
the first indication that it can also be REtuned to a new resonant
center frequency.  Apparently, the magnetic core is more "permeable"
than we had thought.
===============================================================================


Message 10450                                  DATE/TIME: 01/06/95 10:39
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : JOHN PETERS
Subject: mmmmm....could be!
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

,
 
Went back and read the WBSMEMO.ASC file again...memory ain't what it
used to be, and never was.  I hadn't thought of the MRA within the
context of that file, but you are right on the mark with your com-
parison.  The biggest hurdle to understanding the MRA is in seeing it
as an new device via existing technology.  It is a different tech-
nology, actually a very, very old technology using new components.
However, because the technology isn't in the "books" yet, it is
viewed (at best) as a "new" technology.
 
The existing "rules" don't apply...but the old, really old rules do.
For example, when Heaviside bastardized Maxwell's Theories (you will
NOT find the Heaviside interpretation in ANY of Maxwell's published
works), Heaviside stripped out all of the references to the ether,
which he said was "mystical and should be murdered from the theory",
and so he murdered the ether...except that it just wouldn't die!
 
Maxwell opened the door to P-channel quantum potentials, and Heaviside
slammed it shut.  Heaviside wanted to provide simple "laws" so that
the electricians of that day could vector power and measure current
in workable systems.  Heaviside never went to college, did not know
calculus, and was lost in the true implications of Maxwell's theory.
It's time we moved up to the reality of ALL of Maxwell's theory, not
just the kindergarten version.
 
Anyway, I got side tracked...back to your question.  Without having
seen the WBS device, it's hard to say for sure, but the effects seem
similar.  The INTENT of the MRA was to design a device compatible with
naturally occuring energies, specifically ferroresonance as it applies
to earth's electromagnetic fields.  However, in DOING this, especially
with optically sensitive materials, we enabled the MRA to re-open
Maxwell's door.  What we caused was a link to form which translated
etheric energy into ordinary EM in a closed loop resonant circuit.
This link is referred to as the "P-channel", because it manifests as
excess potential.
 
This effect has been experienced in semiconductor circuits for many
years, and is normally destructive to the devices, so resistive and
filtering components are added to effectively "close" the channel.
This isn't necessarily bad, because until circuits can be designed
to USE the excess potentials, we don't want them going into resonance
and burning out.  As seen by the Neiper/Seike Ring (the schematic that
is on KeelyNet is wrong, btw), you also experience gravitic effects
when you allow tetrahedral lattices to self-resonate.
 
Considering that the MRA at resonance is virtually stopping the spin
of particles (like a strobe synchronized to a timing mark), it is very
likely that a more efficient MRA could cancel the quadrupole effect of
gravity.  There are other ways of doing this, such as the Biefield-
Brown method of high potential or the Searl method of folding energy
onto itself in resonant plasma layers, and possibly the technology of
anti-g (for a practical space ship) would utilize some or all of the
above.  However, we'll never get "there" from "here" by using the
Heaviside "laws".
 
Conventional science has a "circle the wagons" mentality to this new
(old) technology, and insists on trying to hammer the wheel back into
a square, on the assumption that it will "work" better because roads
are flat.  So we clunk along and congratulate ourselves on our "vast"
achievements.  OK, I'll get back down off the soap box...
 
We'll drag them by the ear if necessary, kicking and screaming all the
way, and force them to re-open Maxwell's door.
 
Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10454                                  DATE/TIME: 01/06/95 16:38
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : ALL
Subject: Test Report
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

                        FAX PAGE 1 OF 2
 
To: Hal Puthoff
 
Hi Hal,
 
Yes, you are correct about the motor current.  We checked it with
an analog meter early on in the tests, and it indicated 140 ma.
This was then used as a constant.  However, I just rechecked it
with the Fluke 87 inline to the motor, and the true DC current
varies from 120 ma at max power to 116 ma at max gain.
 
As for the output switching, we are trying to determine the actual
primary circuit current of the MRA.  Once we have tuned the MRA, we
remove it from the output of the signal source, and connect the
signal source to the decade box.  Once we measure the amount of
resistance required to attain the same drop in amplifier output
voltage as the MRA was causing, we then can divide resistance into
voltage to determine the current draw of the MRA.  We've tried other
methods, such as low values of resistance in the primary of the MRA,
and the results defy ohm's law.  Adding resistance actually increases
primary current...which should also increase secondary output, but
in fact, causes it to decrease.  As you will see, the current in
series with a resistor in the primary circuit is higher than the
current with just a meter in series with the primary, which makes no
sense in terms of classical EM theory.  We believe that the resistor
is closing the "P-channel", which removes the source of excess poten-
tial.  Even the slight resistance of the meter, or of a current probe
which contains a coil, will have the same effect in varying degrees.
So, we use the decade box as an equivalent load, instead.
 
Also, Norm and I put a very heavy combination of output loads on
the MRA last night to see how much power we could extract from it,
regardless of gain.  This experiment lasted for about an hour.  After
we were finished, we found that the center resonant frequency of the
MRA had changed from 34.28 to 33.48 with just the motor on the output.
Apparently, the magnetic core is more "permeable" than we had thought.
 
So, here are the new measurements, factoring in the measured motor
current and the "new" center resonant frequency:
 
(see next page)
                        FAX PAGE 2 OF 2
 
To:  Hal Puthoff
 
MRA #3 Test Data
Test Date January 6, 1995
Joel McClain
 
Maximum Power Mode:
 
Resonant frequency = 33.48 kHz
 
Input signal with noload (MRA not connected) = 26.97 VAC
 
MRA output load = Pittman DC motor, 19.1 VDC @ 120 ma.
 
Input signal with MRA connected and powering motor = 25.39 VAC
 
Input signal amplitude reduction as per above = 1.58 VAC
 
Measured equivalent resistance to achieve 1.58 VAC drop = 200 ohms
 
RMS input power @ 200 ohms = 2.28 W
 
MRA output = 18.35 VDC X 120 ma = 2.20 W
 
 
Maximum Gain Mode:
 
Resonant frequency = 33.34 kHz
 
Input signal with noload (MRA not connected) = 27.13 VAC
 
MRA output load = same Pittman motor @116 ma
 
Input signal with MRA connected and powering motor = 26.88 VAC
 
Input signal amplitude reduction as per above = 0.25 VAC
 
Measured equivalent resistance to achieve 0.25 VAC drop = 1600 ohms
 
RMS input power @ 1600 ohms = 319 mw
 
MRA output = 15.5 VDC X 116 ma = 1.80 W
 
Notes:  This data uses inline current measurements for DC output at
both the maximum power and maximum gain settings of the MRA.
 
The center resonant frequency has changed from the previously measured
data of January 3, 1995, and was still continuing to change (upward) 
even as these measurements were being taken.  It may eventually rise
to the original measured frequency of 34.28 kHz.
 
The maximum gain measurement of primary current using a decade box was
taken in a linear area of potential which would show a voltage drop
with the MRA in the circuit.  Further decreasing frequency will cause
the voltage from the signal source to increase above the noload volt-
age, in which case it is not known how to measure input power to the
MRA.
===============================================================================

Message 10477                                  DATE/TIME: 01/07/95 10:04
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN                       -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: Seeing is Believing
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

To: Norman Wootan
 
cc: Walter Rosenthal
    Tom Bearden
    Hal Puthoff
 
Subj:  Incandescent lamp test
 
There is a very easy method for "seeing" the power gain of the MRA,
and it does not require power amplifiers, only a sine wave generator.
You need two of the tiny "grain of wheat" lamps...if you don't have 
them on hand, I will send you some.  Put one lamp is series with the
input to the MRA primary, and put the other lamp in series with the
MRA secondary to the bridge rectifier.  If you are not using an amp-
lifier, put a 50-100 ohm resistive load on the output of the bridge
rectifier.  If you are using an amplifier, use more resistance to 
avoid burning out the lamps.
 
Using only a signal generator for the MRA input, tune the MRA to peak
resonance.  The lamp in the primary circuit will not illuminate, but
the lamp in the secondary circuit will begin to glow.  The glow is
bright enough to photograph for your records of this test.
 
If you are using an amplifier, do not put the lamps in the circuit 
until you have detuned the MRA for max gain.  Then put them in, and
you will see that the secondary lamp is much brighter than the pri-
mary lamp.  You can continue to detune until the primary lamp is "out"
(at which point the input voltage from the amp is above noload) but
the secondary lamp is still glowing.
 
I suggest that light sensitive devices could be used with the lamps
to measure gains in terms the output of these devices.  However, I
still have no idea of how to measure gain once the primary lamp is
"out" and the secondary lamp is still lit.
 
Joel
===============================================================================
Message 10492                                  DATE/TIME: 01/08/95 11:05
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: MRA Parts
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bill:  I sent a package of MRA info to Don Smith down in Houston for he 
has a similar circuit to the MRA except that it uses a Tesla coil 
running at high voltages to interactwith the earth's weak 
ferro-magnetic field to produce over-unity operation. A lot of people 
have practically given up on Don's device for he has not powered a 
practical load to date that we know of but his theory is sound as far 
as I can determine. An incorporation of what we have learned about 
ferro-magnetic resonance frequencies and his Tesla coil driven circuit 
could provide another effective method of ZPE tapping.  Don has done 
some research on the piezo material and pinned down three current 
manufacturers of these transducers. The first is ADDCHEM a spin off 
from the PENWALT family. Then there is SOLVA and KERRA.  He also went 
to the speciality wire manufacturers and asked about making a piezo 
type conductor that could be incorporated directly into our circuits.  
The wire manufacturers were amused to say the least for their comments 
were "we have been working all these years to make a wire that produced 
no noise and you come along and ask for a degenerate conductor that 
will make maximum noise".  They are interested in the concept though 
and will get back to us with the data needed.  I would not be too quick 
to judge the MRA as a non reproduceable device for between Joel and I 
we have built 8 of the units and have been able to achieve the 
over-unity ratios that we are comfortable with.  The biggest problem 
that I see is that no one wants to take the time to do the necessary 
reading of the messages, tech reports and go out and find the 
materials.  We clearly stated that we do not have all the answers and 
have not nailed down exactly what will or will not work as to magnet 
type or shape. The piezo is a big variable for we have a stack of culls 
which just will not work.  We expect that they have lost the poling 
that was done at time of manufacturer.  I know that there is someone 
out there on the Internet who has experience in this area.  Dan 
Davidson told me that to the best of his knowledge the poling is done 
at the "currie point" of the piezo material with a capacitive discharge 
used to establish the required "polarity of charge".  If anyone out 
there has knowledge in this area please give us some input so we can 
revive some of these "dead" piezo's.  I'm sure others will encounter 
this problem so we need more knowledge about the piezo element.  Since 
the "Jury" is still out as far as testing is concerned we have to wait 
but in the meantime Joel and I are still building more working devices. 
Since Joel and I have agreed not to accept any re-imbursement of any 
kind you have to understand the expense we have encountered to get the 
info out that we have so far sent.  Each info pack that I send out is 
over an inch thich and the postage and reproduction cost is roughly 
$15.00 per shot.  MRA shipping runs $4.10 UPS up to $13.00 FedX. Joel 
and I do the best we can within our budget. So far I have expended 
about $400 free gratus to a bunch of folks so I'm not int the mood to 
hear a bunch of "bitching".   The whole purpose of this exercise was to 
"share knowledge" and encourage others to do "research".  We are not 
going to ship kits like something you would expect to find down at your 
"FREE ENERGY" hobby shop.  Sorry    Norm
===============================================================================
Message 10495                                  DATE/TIME: 01/08/95 13:11
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : CHRIS FLAMIG
Subject: Yout Letter
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Chris,
 
We believe that there is a ley line running approximately over this
area, centered to the west of I-45.  There are countless "lights in
the sky" stories, because it seems that ley lines are sort of hyper-
spatial highways for craft of a certain type.  However, there was a
landing and witnessed take off not far from here, which was inves-
tigated by MUFON.  A picture was taken of the landing sight, which
was in a cotton field, and which caused plants is a circle of about
150 feet diameter to be pulled straight up.
 
Neighbors saw guys in the field later at night with spotlights,
apparently looking for candy wrappers and beer cans at three or so
in the morning.  It got a little wierd for a while...no denying that.
It wasn't something I'd like to have happen on a REGULAR basis.
 
I'm very interested in your dad's radio experiment...there is nothing
new about the MRA, except the fact that it is being openly shared and
submitted for independent analysis.  Norm and I can take all of the
measurements and pictures that we want, but until acknowledged pro-
fessional physicists and engineers test and document it, it is still
"officially" an anomaly...or the work of a couple of "hicks from Texas
who have the nerve to question the LAWS".  Guess what...nature writes
the laws, and could care less about what we think.
 
I honestly believe that our very survival as a specie depends on our
accepting nature's reality, no matter whose ego gets bruised...now,
more than at any other point in our entire sordid existance.  So, the
MRA has been given...no politics as usual, no greed, no ego...just
"here it is...enjoy".  No, Chris, I don't care what the I-Net says...
the whole point of science is that it is SUPPOSED to be open to new
ideas and the challenge of every currently accepted idea.  As you have
seen, there are MANY people who feel that to do so is some sort of
"heresy"...well, up theirs.  What have they ever contributed?
 
The idea of trying once and giving up doesn't work for Norm and me...
we've been trying for a VERY long time, but it is REALLY HARD to lose
the wrong ideas which are "acceptable" in order to have any success
at all...hard for anyone, especially we who have been schooled in the
field of electronics.  Sort of shakes the foundation a bit, but when
the true laws of nature are understood, you discover that MANY people
for centuries have already "been there...did that".  Some were able
to use nature to build great civilizations...most were "flamed", but
in those days they used real flames, so I consider myself lucky to be
around today.
 
Tell me more about your dad's experiment...it may turn out to be very
helpful...we still have a lot of questons...still scratching the sur-
face.  As far as I'm concerned, the MRA is of no importance itself,
the importance is in how it demonstrates nature's laws as opposed to
man's laws...from there, we can begin to build.  Thanks again.
 
Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10506                                  DATE/TIME: 01/08/95 22:49
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : JOEL MCCLAIN
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Joel:   Neodymimum; 15.58 excess @ 35840 P: no light S: light P:43.3L   
27.72 NL  What say?   Norm
===============================================================================
Message 10508                                  DATE/TIME: 01/09/95 08:12
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : JOEL MCCLAIN
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Joel:  Alnico "8"   20.84 Excess @ 36100   P: 48.60 L P: 27.76 NL  
Seems that the harder the magnet material the closer we get to the 
natural resonance of the transducer.  The MRA cannot tell the 
difference between materials.  Sorry, "Mother Nature" made all magnetic 
flux the same "hyperspacial" frequency therefore the boy scout cannot 
tell the scout master that the reason he got lost was because his 
compass was not tuned to the right frequency.  The MRA is capable of 
extracting or pair coupling in the "P" channel no matter what the 
source of magnetic flux be it the earth's natural flux or some "exotic" 
mix of elements we call super magnets.  Don Smith is going to love this 
for it vendicates his valient efforts which appeared to be dashed on 
the rocks of failure. "RESEARCH" is the key.   Norm
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Stefan Hartmann /  MRA update 13, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: MRA update 13, free energy device !
Subject: (R) MRA Parts
Subject: MRA Parts
Subject: MRA Testing
Subject: What's Wrong with Science?
Subject: Your Message # 10589
Subject: MRA
Subject: PHI and the MRA
Subject: Comment
Subject: MRA / octaves
Subject: (R) MRA / octaves
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:34:00 +0100

Message 10590                                  DATE/TIME: 01/12/95 09:20
From   : BILL BEATY                         -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: (R) MRA Parts
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

I scanned your document and put it on my web page on Sunday night.
Anyone coming there for MRA updates will see it.  I managed to
get it down to 150K.  Shall I upload a copy so you can see that 
the resolution is acceptable?  I'll "advertize" it in the cold
fusion news area.
]
I got your package Monday, and have spent a few hours messing
with it. THANKS!  Excellent packaging job, nothing damaged at all.  
It seems that my signal generator can't put out a high enough 
voltage to get the effect to kick in.  Next I'm going to get a 
friend's Carver amp.  My Wavetek at work puts out 20 Vpp, but
it gets pulled down to 8Vpp at resonance, and the energy 
throughput is totally conventional: exactly 100% at resonance, 
and falling fast at other frequencies.  The magnet does NOT 
make any noise, and all the signals in the circuit are pure 
sine waves, without any other frequencies.
]
I have brochures on the way from five separate PZT manufactures,
so I should get some info on "poling."  Speaking of which: the
piezos themselves behave very strange near resonance.  All kinds
of pure tones appear, and turn on and off when frequency or voltage
is varied.  The best freq for this seems to be a bit higher than
the resonance peak.  I saw signals start small and slowly grow, then
vanish when the piezo is touched, only to slowly grow again. I got 
the "death" effect, when the piezo makes a screech and then the 
sounds vanish for about a half hour.  Very similar to that TVQ 
optoisolator device.  Also similar to nonlinear optical
crystals illuminated with laser light, where conventional phase
conjugation creates closed reflection paths, optical resonances,
self-organized hologram elements, etc.  I wouldn't be suprised if
the innards of the piezos were doing the acoustic version of this.
I notice that when a piezo is being silent, sometimes I can get it
to sound weakly by applying slight pressure to the leads.  It 
seems that tiny bending forces have a great effect on piezo audible
"subharmonic" sounds.  I wonder if your piezo "culls" could be made
to work by pulling or pushing just right on the lead wires.  Also,
the "culls" may generate a set of frequencies that just by coincidence
miss the magnet resonant frequency, so they are too far off for the
piezo and magnet frequencies to grab each other and start talking.
The cure for this might be to grind little flat areas on the edges
to retune them.
]
I have a couple of ceramic slab magnets, so I built a plexi form
and wound a coil around it, with the magnet suspended inside.  
With an extremely tiny signal applied to the coil at 11KHZ the 
magnet rings VERY loud (and annoying!)  If I touch the corners 
of the magnet slab, the ringing goes way down and the tuning is
much broader. Instead of suspending the magnet, I found that soft
foam rubber does not interfere much with the ringing of either the
magnet or the piezo.  This makes sense, since foam is mostly air,
so the magnet thinks its hanging in air.
More soon...
===============================================================================

Message 10595                                  DATE/TIME: 01/12/95 10:22
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: MRA Parts
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bill:  Glad you got everthing "intact" and you are progressing with 
your research. If you stick strictly to the RULE9 doc. and make the 
magnet resonate (about 8-8.5K audible) you will find the piezo running 
at exactly 3 octaves up or around 34-35KHZ. Only under these conditions 
will you achieve the "virtual rotation" within the crystalline lattice 
of the magnet material.  Check out the "E" message from Joel about the 
phone call from the engineers at Lockeed Corp that verify that the MRA 
does achieve over-unity for they are getting 140% and congratulate us 
on our output figures. They said that some German and Russian engineers 
have achieved similar results also.  last night I got a call from an 
engineer down in Clearwater FL. who is getting 125% and is not even 
useing the "cadilac" piezoe's that we are useing.  The iron content of 
the ferro magnet material seems to be the key to the gains.  it all 
goes back to what Tesla claimed when he said "A fine grade of steel 
will play a very important part in tapping an infinite source of energy 
for iron is a unique element in that it has 2 free electrons in the "M" 
shell of the atom that can be extracted for use only to be replinished 
by the ether".  About the document scan, I really appreciate your 
efforts with this for in the near future you will see where this is 
going. By the way, I sent Gene Mallove a set of the messages and all 
the info on the Perkins Pump and my Cold Fusion test etc.  This will 
eventually all be tied in a nice little package for it all goes back to 
Joel's RULE9 document. Please send down the scan so I can see it.  
Maybe with the next I-net download would be fine.  As to the I-net 
dialog, the worm seems to be turning.  This "Rodney" in the Biology 
Group is simply going to SH-- when he reads the HUDSON file from 
Keely_Net.  What about posting something for the Biologist to chew on 
and quit griping about your postings.  Real soon they will wake up and 
realize the tie-in to their world.   More later "flack taker", He! He!  
Thanks again. Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10612                                  DATE/TIME: 01/12/95 20:41
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: MRA Testing
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bill:  I too have a wavetek sig gen and suffer the same problem as you, 
no guts with these new sig gen's.  Joel has the "old standby" a HP 200 
cd which really belts out the voltage sufficient to drive the MRA 
directly while you and I have to use an amplifier in line to boost the 
signal to the necessary driving level of around 27 V.  A lot of this 
transistorized gadgetry is nice to have but the old vaccuum tube stuff 
is better in my mind.  I guess my age is showing for I went through a 
DeVry correspondence cource in electronics back in 1953 when I was 15 
years old and in high school.  Boy those were the days, TV was new on 
the scene and I got to build my very own oscilloscope and vaccuum tube 
volt meter. WOW.  Soon all my friend and relatives wanted all their 
electronics fixed but were too cheap to pay me.  They called it a 
learning experience so I gave the whole lot to my brother in law who 
was building his own Heath Kit color TV.  Well I learned enough theory 
to satisfy a youngster anyway.  If you run into any snags on your MRA 
just leave Joel and I a note for we want all to have success at 
duplication.  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10621                                  DATE/TIME: 01/13/95 10:32
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : ALL
Subject: What's Wrong with Science?
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Not being one to shrink away from controversy, and since I seem to
make a habit of getting my ideas stuck in the zipper of established
thinking's fly, I offer the following brief description of what, in
my opinion, is wrong with science.
 
#1  "It just ain't natural..." From Gone With The Wind.
 
Early scientists lived close to nature, studied it, and reported
their findings.  Today, this is considered primitive...science is
studied in buildings which exclude nature...often without even real
windows that open.  Sometimes even underground...and the natural
means of observation (the senses) have been replaced with "sensors"
while the deductive organ (the mind) is now a computer program.
 
Science is understanding nature...the further you are away from it,
the less you can observe into "internalized" comprehension.
 
#2  Money
 
There was no purposeful suppression of etheric knowledge when it was
first discovered in this century.  However, those who postulated this
knowledge had a real hankering for red meat once a week, and found
that this could not be attained by pressing theories which most people
(even fellow scientists) could not comprehend.  So Heaviside and later
Einstein "won", because their theories could be put into practice with
the side benefit of funding in spendable currency.
 
However, this "boxed in" scientific inquiry, and while all of the
planes and corners of the box have been amply studied and documented,
inquiry has been hobbled to the confines of the box.  Anything that
doesn't fit in the box might threated the weekly dose of red meat, so
it is vehemently rejected, attacked, denied, etc.  The lessons of
history were not forgotten.
 
#3  The "Hallowed Cloister" complex
 
When Marconi advanced his theory that wireless communication was pos-
sible, he was soundly thrashed (or trashed) by the "accepted" nobility
of science.  So, he just went ahead and did it anyway.  Once something
is proven to work, money chases after it, so the mainstream of science
claimed it as their idea, and jumped in for the feeding frenzy.
 
In theory, science is supposed to be open to new ideas, and to the
challenge of every currently held theory...as long as you are within
the "idea box" of currently held beliefs...which sort is rather self-
defeating to the theory.  If you are an accredited member, you cannot
"disbelieve" what is KNOWN to be true (today), nor can you redefine
the parameters of the "box".  If you are NOT in the box, you could not
possibly know enough to do so...Catch 22...
 
Well, that's how it appears to this member of the "great unwashed"
of the world.  Just about every truly useful invention has come from
someone's workshop or kitchen table, with ample sunlight and fresh air
to help in "absorbing" the nature of science.
 
Obviously, we've all benefitted from discoveries made within the con-
fines of the "idea box"...maybe.  Our planet has been nuked and pol-
luted, our weather is screwed up, and new fatal diseases are popping
up all over the place, but we have cuisinarts and cadillacs, so how
bad can it be?  Can we maybe go back now, and try to "discover" the
ether while there is still time?
===============================================================================
Message 10630                                  DATE/TIME: 01/13/95 18:01
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: Your Message # 10589
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Bill,
 
I almost missed the P.S. after your message # 10589.  The source of
the harmonics is the same as the source of the surplus potential.
From Keely, we learned the importance of three octaves in order to
link up with the ether.  From Bearden, we learned that the harmonics
are (Whittaker) biwave pairs, and that the ether conforms to the
Coulomb Transverse Potential.
 
So, when the requisite criteria is met, the biwave pairs vector into
3-space energy at the harmonic frequencies.  That's it.
 
The rest of the MRA theory is resonance theory, as is the Rule of
Nines, and exists to describe how to use naturally occuring lattice
structures to mimic earth (and any other EM generator) in terms
of the nested tetrahedral relationships.
 
Why three octaves? Because we exist in 3-space, and we are creating
a 7-space effect, with the fourth dimension, or p-channel, acting as
a conduit into (and out of) 3-space.  Now, a trained observer will
want to see exactly where the harmonic biwave translation occurs, and
will go nuts looking, because the wave pairs exist simultaneously with
our spacetimetime and translate instantaneously...no speed of light 
required.
 
Why nested tetrahedral relationships?  Because they are the geometric
relationships which embody PHI, and PHI is the pure mathematical
constant to create resonance...musical, or any other type.
 
That is why you see the excess potential at the load and source sim-
ultaneously, and it is load dependent to the extent that the load 
affects harmonic interaction of the magnetic core.  That is why you
have to lower gain of the MRA to close the p-channel by removing the
excess potential first.
 
You can't see the translation, only you can only see the effect.
I look forward VERY MUCH to your tests and comments.
 
Joel
===============================================================================
Message 10634                                  DATE/TIME: 01/14/95 08:25
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : JOEL MCCLAIN
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Joel:  New winding set up: BaFe magnet, AWM style 1860 1/4" ribbon 
braided tinned conductor for secondary, AWG 20 Ga. stranded primary 
yeilded, 49.20V @ 28.55V sig for 20.65 excess potential @ 36.18KHZ.  We 
will find that correct wire type and turns ratio yet. I,m useing 100 T 
on P and 100 T on Sec. I have several more combo's yet to try so will 
keep you posted.  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10640                                  DATE/TIME: 01/14/95 10:49
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: PHI and the MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Bill,
 
The last message wasn't as clear as I would have liked with regard
to PHI.  I once worked out the harmonic and octave relationships
as PHI (and PI, since PI = PHI squared, times 6/5...thus PHI
squared = PI...also, 1 + 1/PHI = PHI, which is also known as
the Fibonacci Series).
 
The file PHI&RES.ASC has some of this information, and because the
"notes" harmonize perfectly and the octaves double exactly, this
conforms to "standard" musical scales as are used today.  Using
the Fibonacci series as a starting place for note frequencies is
not an arbitrary decision.
 
Today, we see PHI as a methematical constant, ie, 1.618, for use in
plane geometry.  To the ancient Egyptians, it was math but had a much
deeper implication...it was the symbol of rebirth throughout eternity
just as the Fibonacci series "perfects" at higher number intervals.
Also, because the use of PHI in art is very "harmonious" to view,
PHI coordinates (nested tets) were used by Michelangelo in the dome
of the Sistine Chapel, as well as by Veronese, Raphael, da Vinci, and
was even used by the architect Le Corbusier in the design of the
United Nations building.
 
In retrospect, I think that this must be a perfect validation of the
resonance based chart of the elements as created by Walter Russell,
although he certainly doesn't need any validation from me.  The fact
is, music is math and geometry, and geometry is the yardstick for
three dimensional existance.  It's all one nested relationship, and
the singular constant is PHI.  If you want to create resonance and
balanced harmonics in octave groups, you must use PHI.  Because we
tend to separate "music" from "science", we don't HEAR nature, and
we trust our intellect to create unnatural yardsticks.  Fact is, when
computers were invented, and IBM needed programmers, they hired mus-
icians to train for the positions.
 
In an electronic circuit, semiconductors are made of silicon or
germanium, both of which are tet lattice structures, and both of
which will occasionally break into free oscillation, rich in PHI
based harmonics...that is how the Nieper ring works, because once
the material has three octaves of resonance, the particle spin is
virtually stopped...like a timing mark under a strobe...and the effect
of gravity is suspended.
 
Three octaves are necessary in 3-space because the each of the octaves
"fills" one dimension.  The octaves interact with each other to make
harmonics at 90 degrees of phase separation, effectively "filling" a
3-space object.  This is mass aggregate resonance, and it allows you
to couple biwave vectorless energy into a circuit.  It also allows you
to overcome temporal effects as well as gravitic effects.  That is why
I said that when you nest two tets, you have the keys to everything.
 
The MRA uses materials which are cube latticed, and a cube IS a nested
tet sitting on its "flat side".  So, when you trap the harmonics on
one side of a phase reversed series resonant circuit, you develop a
potential which is higher than the noload voltage of the device which
is supplying the circuit.  That's half of ZPE.  The other half is
having ferrite in the resonating core to provide electrons to match
with the excess potential to create power to a load.  And that's the
MRA.
 
Part of the resentment to this information is simply due to the fact
that all of this was known to and possibly discovered by very ancient
peoples...and we are lagging behind them today in our comprehension of
science as nature, by the division of music and science, etc.  Well,
all I really wanted to do was to provide correlations to help tie in
the octave relationships with the lattice geometry, and I hope that
this information helps.  You can see how well it is received by most
people, but you can also measure the excess potential on your own MRA
so you'll have to decide for yourself.
 
Enjoy.



===============================================================================
===============================================================================

Message 10657                                  DATE/TIME: 01/14/95 19:47
From   : DEAN HARRISON                      -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : Jerry Decker (SYSOP)
Subject: Comment
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

The following is to announce Dean Harrisons new BBS located in 
Louisiana.  He is planning to carry a KeelyNet Conference with the same 
files there as here.  If you are local to that area or would like to 
check it out, feel free to give him a call!
...
OOPPS hit the button to quick.  I have the BBS up and running on a 14.4 
and about a gig of room so I shall see what the south has to offer. I 
will relay anthing worth relaying o.k.. BTW The number to the board is 
504-261-0979.  You can post it anywhere if you want.  I am making it a 
no ratio FREE board. So let's spread the the wealth <or is that TRUTH> 
:)                                              Dean Harrison
later and thanks.
===============================================================================

Message 10660                                  DATE/TIME: 01/15/95 03:51
From   : CHRIS FLAMIG
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA / octaves
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Can some one explain to me just what Keely meant by octaves,
while I am familiar with harmonics, and musical octaves, I am
having a hard time with the Rule of 9 thing..  Some math and
frequency examples would be instrumental in clearing up my confusion...
of simply relating it to music theory... I play a pretty good 
guitar.   
===============================================================================


Message 10663                                  DATE/TIME: 01/15/95 11:52
From   : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
To     : CHRIS FLAMIG
Subject: (R) MRA / octaves
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Chris!  Octaves are simply doublings of a note.  Read the file 
BRINTON.ASC, it is pure Keely and to the point....everything Keely did 
was based on a principle of THIRDS and referred to ratios as in 1:3:6, 
etc.....for Octaves, if 440 is your fundamental, then 2 X 440 = 880 and 
would be the 1st octave OF THAT fundamental, 2 X 880 =1760 and is the 
2nd octave of the fundamental of 440.....it all relates to what you are 
using as your fundamental....there are many music scales which also can 
be confusing.  The two most common were further confused by a 
convention that is no longer used.
Rule of 9 is an extrapolation based on several observations and I think 
when one first gets into this, one should stick to the basics and not 
get off into extrapolations...they are interesting to study, but will 
confuse you in the event you don't have a grounded understanding.
A key study in this matter is Dr. Angus MacVicar's 'A Sketch of a 
Philosophy', he correlates matter to geometric form, yet what you are 
wanting to know is much farther up the ladder than the primary 
understanding of frequency and musical intervals.  Try Brinton.
As to musical scales, one system consisted of 8 whole notes with NO half
tones (flats & sharps), the other consists of 12 notes, 8 whole and 4 half.
Keely would refer to F flat, flat which would fold back over to A sharp.
A sharp is a 1/2 tone higher, a flat is 1/2 tone lower.  Just remember 
it all relates to the FUNDAMENTAL of the mass aggregate frequency and 
because of differences in size and character, fixed freqs apply only to 
certain natural aggregates such as H2O at 42.8khz and other elements or 
molecules which have their own frequencies...>>>  Jerry
===============================================================================


Message 10666                                  DATE/TIME: 01/15/95 13:21
From   : BOB PADDOCK                        -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

 |
 | NW> A vaccuum tube is the only animal that could survive the
 | NW> punishment in a high voltage circuit like this. Bob Paddock's
 | NW> indestructible transistors won't cut it in this harsh
 | NW>environment.
 |
 |      Here's a new one just out form Hitachi:
 |
 |      "Robust 50W power MOSFETs help reudce EMI.  For safe
 | electronic power switching for lamps, solenoids, electric
 | heaters and motors in automobiles and industrial control
 | systems, the HAF2001 power transistor is fully tolerant of
 | short circuits and practically indestructible. Under
 | conditions where traditional power transistor would fail
 | and perhaps cause fires, it can turn off and remain off
 | until reset, just like a circuit breaker.  The 10A silicon
 | N-channel MOSFET also offers the tuning flexibility that is
 | essential for reducing EMI.  Tailoring device's rise time to
 | the characteristics of a system achieves low EMI levels.
 | ...HAF2001 has a 10A (ID) capability, 6V VDSS
 | (Drain-to-Source breakdown voltage), +16V/-2.8V VGSS
 | (Gate-to-Source breakdown voltage) ratings, 50mOhm
 | on-resistance, and switching times (tON/tOFF) as fast as
 | 29us/26us."
 |
===============================================================================
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Mark Thorson /  Re: Tritiated water
     
Originally-From: eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritiated water
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 20:20:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom mixes uranium with the palladium

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950120161315.4816B-100000@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz  <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
>A question to any lurking radiochemists: What is meant by "tritiated water"?
>Is that H2O, to which a small amount of T2O (or whatever) has been added, or
>is it THO, or what? How are Bq related to c/s/ml? What would be the Bq/ml for
>pure T2O?

I once asked almost the same question with regard to D2O.  I was told that
the hydrogen atoms in water are mobile.  If you could somehow create
a liter of pure DHO, it would immediately decompose into 250 ml of D2O,
500 ml of DHO, and 250 ml of H2O.  If anyone has a reference for this
possible fact, I'd appreciate having a pointer to it.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudeneee cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Gregg Economou /  electric plasma confinement?
     
Originally-From: geest3+@pitt.edu (Gregg E Economou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: electric plasma confinement?
Date: 21 Jan 1995 17:53:23 GMT
Organization: the Hackers' Guild


Has anybody had any experience with using electric fields to confine 
plasma instead of magnetic fields?
Magnets seem to be very popular and easier to work with, but i notice the 
work of Hirsch in the 60s and he achieved very good confinement with a 
minimum of power [for the 60s] but no work seems to have been done since 
in the area.
Im presently a CS student but very interested in theoretical physics, 
and have gotten interested in fusion, particularly with electric field 
confinement.
Please email any resonses to geest3+@pitt.edu, as i dont get to read news 
evry often..

Thanks

Gregg Economou
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudfnGregg cudlnEconomou cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Tritiated water
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritiated water
Date: 20 Jan 1995 21:42:30 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <eeeD2q0I2.Moq@netcom.com>, eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:

> I once asked almost the same question with regard to D2O.  I was told that
> the hydrogen atoms in water are mobile.  If you could somehow create
> a liter of pure DHO, it would immediately decompose into 250 ml of D2O,
> 500 ml of DHO, and 250 ml of H2O.  If anyone has a reference for this
> possible fact, I'd appreciate having a pointer to it.

Er, no.  If it's pure D2O, it'll stay pure D2O.  However, if you have a
50/50 mix (not that the weight difference is meaningful anyway, but by mole
fraction, not weight fraction) then one recovers the proportions you've
cited.  Protons and deuterons exchange rapidly in (room temperature and
hotter) water, so the proportions of H2O, HDO, and D2O are dependent solely
upon the relative abundances of D and H in the mixture under consideration.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / CHU CHUNG /  nova
     
Originally-From: chuti@ecf.toronto.edu (CHU  TING CHUNG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: nova
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 21:21:56 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

Sorry to bother everyone again, but what fusion processes are involved 
in the nova phenomenon in stellar evolution?           

Thanks.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenchuti cudfnCHU cudlnCHUNG cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion Digest 3190
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3190
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 04:11:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

William Rowe     browe@netcom.com wrote:
> Surely, you aren't suggesting a gas or oil burner (chemical sources of heat)
> produce more heat (excess heat) than can be accounted for by chemical means. If
> gas or oil burners are more efficient thant the GG, it seems clear the GG cannot
> be producing more heat than can be accounted for by chemistry. Also, oil and gas
> burners are well known to be less than 100% efficient. If they are more
> efficient than the GG, how can the GG be claimed to have more than 100%
> efficiency?
________________________________________________________________
Jed is obviously looking at overall efficiency from initial 
combustion of chemical fuel to output of heat in the form of steam 
and/or hot water. In the case of the GG and other electrical boilers, 
this means including the efficiency of the power station where the 
electricity was generated. That's why the GG ends up being less 
efficient than a gas or oil fired boiler.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / e mcfarland /  Re: MRA update 11, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: ewm@cbnews.cb.att.com (edward.w.mcfarland)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA update 11, free energy device !
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 21:39:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <hatunenD2pMHs.66C@netcom.com>,
DaveHatunen <hatunen@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <5eD-df6eldB@shb.contrib.de>,
>Stefan Hartmann <harti@shb.contrib.de> wrote:
>
>>Last night Norm was over and we added another output to the MRA, so
>>that it was driving lights (incandescent and fluorescent) in addition
>>to the usual motor load.  This required retuning the MRA for maximum
>>power to match the new load requirement.  We were "overdriving" the
>>output of the MRA below unity to "max out" the power to the load.
>
>Yawn.
>
>Let us know when the thing is driving itself.
>
>[...]
> 
>>The MRA still detunes for max gain as before, and still provides
>>surplus potential (1.5VAC above noload) when detuned, but this is
>>the first indication that it can also be REtuned to a new resonant
>>center frequency.  Apparently, the magnetic core is more "permeable"
>>than we had thought.
>
>Here, of course is the clue that these people don't know what they are
>talking about. "Surplus potential" is a nonsense statement, and
>measuring voltages that don't seem to the tyro to be possible is a
>commonplace in RLC circuits, especially if any non linear elements are
>present. They seem to think that volts = energy in some manner. They
>also seem to think that the 8th grade science Ohm's Law they learned is
>the version they should use. Try differential equations, y'all, because
>it's probably the only way to actually solve the circuit.

Many of them acknowlege that they "don't know what they are talking about."
That is the purpose of posting to the net, to find out from people who DO
know what they are talking about, if what they appear to observe as an
excess of power at the output compared to input is real or some fault of 
their measurement process. 

>A good course in fundamental dynamic electrical theory would straighten
>these people out in a hurry.

Do you mean that they would find out then, that their measurement method is
faulty?  

>There's an old saying, "the proof is in the pudding." Well, the pudding
>here is connecting the output to the input.

I agree.  However, continually harping on their level of sophistication rather
than pointing out in detail the error of their ways is not the way to 
"straighten these people out in a hurry."

>-- 
>
>
>    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
>    *                Daly City California:                *
>    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
>    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
>    *******************************************************
>

Ed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenewm cudfnedward cudlnmcfarland cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Tan Ha /  Re: Tritiated water
     
Originally-From: amati@netcom.com (Tan Ha)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritiated water
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 05:02:57 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:
: In article <eeeD2q0I2.Moq@netcom.com>, eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:

: > I once asked almost the same question with regard to D2O.  I was told that
: > the hydrogen atoms in water are mobile.  If you could somehow create
: > a liter of pure DHO, it would immediately decompose into 250 ml of D2O,
: > 500 ml of DHO, and 250 ml of H2O.  If anyone has a reference for this
: > possible fact, I'd appreciate having a pointer to it.

: Er, no.  If it's pure D2O, it'll stay pure D2O.  However, if you have a
: 50/50 mix (not that the weight difference is meaningful anyway, but by mole
: fraction, not weight fraction) then one recovers the proportions you've
: cited.  Protons and deuterons exchange rapidly in (room temperature and
: hotter) water, so the proportions of H2O, HDO, and D2O are dependent solely
: upon the relative abundances of D and H in the mixture under consideration.


Whaddya mean "er, no" Thomas?  Note that Mark said "pure DHO", not D2O.  
Doesn't the remainder of your paragraph agree with what he said???

Please confirm or deny...

TH

"It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious"
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenamati cudfnTan cudlnHa cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / A Plutonium /  Re: ideas & copyrights
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: ideas & copyrights
Date: 20 Jan 1995 19:38:05 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <9501172135.ab28708@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>
m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) writes:

> Please stop spouting this rubbish. I am a science writer. Have been for 25
> years. Before that I was a fusion researcher. If I want to write about
> theories of cold fusion, I am free to do so without mentioning anyone's name. 
> 
> Before shoting your mouth off, perhaps you should consult one of these
> lawyers you say you will unleash upon me. They will happily take money from
> you to confirm that I am free to write what I like so long as I neither
> steal your words, nor libel you.
> 
> Now, can we get back to talking about fusion, preferably hot fusion. You
> know, the sort that we know exists.
> 
> Oh yes. One final thought. You can guarantee that nobody every mentions your
> name simply by behaving as you now do.
> 
> Michael Kenward

  Wrong Mr. Kenward. You do not realize how strong the copyright laws
are. Most people take a nonchalance attitude towards them. The law is
very strong and only when there is alot of money or fame riding on a
circumstance is the law called into court. Your view of the law sounds
too wishy washy. Let me give you some examples.
  1) photocopies which are distributed in a classroom. get away with
it, because the court costs far exceeds any collection cost.
  2) Tesla vs Marconi for the credit of the radio. This was a case
where fame was riding on the verdict, it was of such importance that it
went through the courts in order that Tesla could vindicate himself.
Here was an example where Tesla needed to invoke the copyright laws in
order to receive fair justice. If it had been someone else other than
Marconi and a small fry who let us say was just writing about wireless
in some sci-fi book, Tesla no doubt would have deemed it not worthy of
the cost of a trial.
  3) Copyrights of songs are very strong. Let us take the example of a
song I much like. Say Vangelis's Chariots of Fire. Suppose I take the 3
minute opening and change a few notes and speed it up so as to not be a
100% duplicate and let us say I play this song on a TV show or use it
in a movie. And, I never give credit to Vangelis or ever mention his
name. How long, do you think I could get away with that? Not long at
all, because if Vangelis invoked the law of copyright, then all he had
to do was show that more than 4 successive notes in a time frame were
exact copies of his Chariots of Fire, and I would be found guilty in a
court of law.
  4) Software is copyrightable. And software is perhaps the most
valuable copyrights, where whole industries such as Microsoft or
Nintendo rely on copyright law. Now according to Mr. Kenward's view of
copyright law, he should be able to take say WORD 5.1 and rename it
WIRD 12.0. Then go into the program and with his "paraphrasing" or "his
idea" change WORD 5.1 to suit himself and then have a different product
of WIRD 12.0. Now, Mr. Kenward, since he was a science writer for 40
years and never challenged on anything, likewise, goes out and
broadcasts WIRD as his own puppy. Everything is fine up until Mr.
Kenward is starting to get alot of publicity about his WIRD. And of
course, Microsoft enters the picture, not that they are worried about
Mr. Kenward reducing the sales of WORD, but they are concerned because
WIRD is backboned after WORD, their own proprietary and copyrighted
product. Microsoft as soon as they get word of Mr. Kenward's WIRD, not
take action immediately, if not due to issues of money, it is the issue
of reputation (fame).
  5) This example carifies the whole deal behind copyright. (I should
have been a lawyer, for I am good at this, in fact I was a legal
officer in the Navy.)
   Copyright law follows to a large degree the law scheme of
counterfeiting. To break a copyright law in a sense is to counterfeit.
When someone counterfeits the USA 100 dollar bill, he is duplicating
the bill and not giving credit to the US govt. He is okay until the
moment he exchanges the counterfeit for $100 worth of merchandise. In
the same view, a copyright fraud is a person who mimics the originator,
and has broken the copyright law the moment he exchanges his copy for
monetary gain (whether book sales or sales in fame).

  So, in summary Mr. Kenward, go ahead with your copying of various
ideas. I am sure you never have to mention Heisenberg with the
Uncertainty principle, you can rename it the Kenward Uncertainty
principle and get away with it. Why? Because the uncertainty principle
is so commonly associated with Heisenberg that if he were alive or his
trust would never bother to challenge you. However, as far as the CF
experiments are equal to Violation of Conservation of Energy/mass is
equal to Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. That idea is not commonly
known, not widespread, not even confirmed as of this writing. And,
should you Mr. Kenward write about this idea without giving Archimedes
Plutonium credit for it since I have copyrighted it and patent pending.
Then, you Mr. Kenward have opened yourself for a legal copyright suit.
But, the only thing perhaps preventing me from going after you Mr.
Kenward should you not give me credit, is that you are a small fry not
worth the legal costs. However, NATURE, NEW SCIENTIST, they are not
small fries and are well worth the legal court costs.
  My advice to you Mr. Kenward is open your eyes, you wear your
prejudices like a pair of horse blinders.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / Stefan Hartmann /      
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.envi
onment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle

Subject: MRA independantly verified at 140 % !
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:39:00 +0100

Hi,

I just received the news, that 2 other groups besides the inventors
at Keelynet have verified the MRA to be over-unity.

One group at Lockheed reports 140 % efficiency one other group in Germany
tells 125 %.

Please let me know, if you also work on an MRA.

Regards, Stefan.

email to:
harti@contrib.de

## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudszM 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Stefan Hartmann /  MRA update 12, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: MRA update 12, free energy device !
Subject: Re: Upload of TMIDEVIC.ZIP
Subject: MRA
Subject: MRA lamp Z test
Subject: Lamp Z test followup
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)
Subject: (R) MRA Tech Notes
Subject: I Be Tired!
Subject: MRA
Date: 20 Jan 1995 14:41:00 +0100

Hey Internet Lurkers... these messages represent only about 1/3 of
the actual traffic on Keelynet.  If you're interested in Unconventional
Science, you'll have to log on direct, at  214-324-3501.  No internet
port yet, only direct phone calls.
       - Bill Beaty
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

Message 10515                                  DATE/TIME: 01/09/95 11:45
From   : GLENDA STOCKS
To     : ALL
Subject: Re: Upload of TMIDEVIC.ZIP
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Stewart Harris created a device about 19 years ago, which he believes
raised a mass via magnetic power (this is as I understand it). 
Stewart understand how to make his device based on a dream that
he had, and so, he is also interested in discovering exactly how
this information came to him.  Nevertheless, he has the experts
confounded as to why/how his device does what it does.  This file
TMIDEVIC.ZIP contains a series of message threads about his
device and a video he has that demonstrates it.  I will be happy
to convery to Stewart any comments or remarks.
 
Glenda
===============================================================================

Message 10540                                  DATE/TIME: 01/10/95 08:06
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bill:  I read all of the I-Net messages that you have sent to date and 
cannot believe the confusion that exist on their end over simple things 
such as frequency relationship between the piezo and the primary coil 
of the MRA. From what I am seeing they have not read the MRA1.ASC or 
more important the RULE9.ASC. All the TECH notes and follow up test 
results are also there which they obviously are not reading or there 
would be no confusion or argument as to how measurements were made. How 
is it that most of these people are missing the follow-up test reports 
and Tech-Notes that we are posting everyday?  Are you useing two 
different areas on your web and they are not looking in the right 
place? I cannot believe that supposedly inteligent PHD's can't find the 
messages that have answered all the questions that they have posed in 
the Net traffic you sent to us.  I have given exact details on the 
piezo and the magnet material. We covered the turns ratio and wire 
sizes, type, etc.  It is such a delay from us to them through you, 
maybe that is the problem. By the time they get the answers a whole new 
batch of questions are asked that are redundant. We are basically a 
"light year" ahead in the theory behind this MRA phenomenon and 
improvemnets in material types and configuration etc. but are not going 
to post any more details till these people get it together on their end 
and read and understand what has already been provided but has been 
lost in the shuffle somehow.  In this "electronic super highway" I 
still cannot believe that a simple message cannot get through to them 
from us without all this BS confusion.   By the way, did you get your 
MRA?????    I hope you remember our personal deal we made, you said you 
would scan in the document I sent to you in return for the MRA unit.  
Any progress?  I hate that you wound up in the middle of this "range 
war" that has erupted among the "FLAMERS".  Jerry said last night that 
Bill was getting "MAJOR HEAT" over this MRA.  "KILL THE MESSENGER" 
mentality.  Be patient Bill for the dust will settle and the MRA will 
still be there looking back at them.  When the testing is complete we 
will provide more info to all.   Norm
===============================================================================


Message 10543                                  DATE/TIME: 01/10/95 12:08
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA lamp Z test
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Oh no...not another MRA test report!!!  When is that *@#& Joel going 
to stop publishing that !#@* stuff here?  Well, probably fairly soon.
Fact is, the only reason that this report is here is because of the
problems with measuring the primary current of this beast.  The
MRA adds voltage to the circuit, which is nice, but it creates ALL
KINDS of current measurement problems.
 
So, I have appended the "grain of wheat" lamp test to give real
numbers instead of just seeing the difference in light.  I put one
of the lamps directly on the signal generator output, and measured
its impedance at the frequency of the MRA under test.  Why?  Well,
because the lamp can thus be put into the primary, and when you
measure the voltage drop across it, you can divide that by the
impedance and KNOW the actual primary current...no need to worry
about the excess voltage, because if any of it "adds" across the
lamp, primary current will appear HIGHER, which would reduce the
gain of the MRA, and help to disprove it as an overunity device.
I'll take that chance, as long as I know the exact impedance of 
the lamp.
 
Also, where there is a difference in measured versus calculated output
current, I've taken the lower number, also to be ultra-conservative.
 
So, here goes:
 
The "lamp test" of the MRA has been further used for the purpose of
standard "ohm's law" tests and measurements.  The "bottom line"
figures are 470.0 mw input to the primary of the MRA and 751.0 mw 
output from the secondary.  This is a gain of 1.6 times unity at
the low power end of the resonant range.  The measurements and cal-
culations are given below:
 
AC signal in = 28.94 VAC under load of the MRA
AC signal in = 28.54 VAC without the MRA connected
AC excess potential provided by the MRA = 0.40 VAC
 
AC signal at secondary = 8.64 VAC
Measured secondary current = 123 ma
Voltage drop across lamp = 2.92 VAC
Calculated current = 2.92 VAC \ 20.77 ohms = 140 ma
   with an error margin of 17 ma from measured current
Secondary power = 8.64 VAC times 123 ma times .707 = 751 mw
 
Bulb impedance = 20.77 ohms at the freq input to the MRA
AC voltage drop across bulb in series with primary = 0.470 VAC
Primary current = 0.470 VAC \ 20.77 ohms = .0226 Amperes
Primary power = .0226 Amperes times 28.94 VAC  times .707 = 462 mw
Lamp power = .0226 Amperes times 0.470 VAC  times 0.707 = 7.5 mw
 
To cross check these numbers, the total primary impedance was cal-
culated, and the impedance of the lamp was subtracted from it.
If accurate, the difference in power should equal the power which
is added to the primary when the lamp is not connected:
 
Primary impedance = 28.94 VAC divided by .0226 Amperes = 1280.53 ohms
Subtracting lamp impedance of 20.77 ohms = 1259.76 ohms
Primary power with lamp = 462 mw
Primary power without lamp = 28.94 VAC divided by 1259.76 ohms =
   .02297 Amperes times 28.94 VAC = 665 times .707 = 470 mw
Calculated power of lamp = 7.5 mw and under cross check  it is
   equal to 470 mw minus 462 mw = 8 mw, with an error margin of 0.5 mw
 
Because:
        A. The lamp impedance was measured out of circuit at the
           frequency used in the circuit
        B. The same lamp impedance is used for both primary and
           secondary current measurements
        C. Primary power tracks on cross check
        Therefore
        D. Primary power = 470 mw
 
I THINK that nails it...at least as far as can be measurd with a low 
power lamp,  and assuming that the MRA should eat any differences in
measurement versus calculations which would reduce its gain.  All of
the measurements are in series for current, as per ohm's law, and all
other calculations are ohm's "to the letter".  As usual, my coffee got
cold, so I'll stop here.  Thank you for your continued indulgence.
 
Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10548                                  DATE/TIME: 01/10/95 14:53
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : ALL
Subject: Lamp Z test followup
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Just an addendum to the lamp impedance test report.  Found that the
circuit would not stay at unity + indefinitely at that very low
level of input.  After about an hour, the voltage drop across the lamp
in the primary went up to over a volt, and that knocked the MRA down
below unity.  I think that the low level of input wasn't enough to 
sustain the harmonics that had built up as the MRA was warming up.
 
Joel

===============================================================================

Message 10551                                  DATE/TIME: 01/10/95 17:31
From   : BOB PADDOCK                        -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

 |
 | NM> ..A vaccuum tube is the only animal that could survive the
 | NM> punishment in a high voltage circuit like this. Bob Paddock's
 | NM> indestructible transistors won't cut it in this harsh 
environment.
 | NM> Thoughts and ideas.
 |
 |      I've come across a couple of more transistors for
 | crummy environments.
 |
 |      Motorola's TMOS Smartdiscret Products.
 |
 |      For example 400V/10A IGBT, MGBP20N40CL/MGB20N40CL,
 | "designed primarily as ignition coil drivers to withstand
 | high current in a pulsed mode with out latching."
 |
 |
 |      Or more interestingly the 60V/1A MLP1N06CL "device
 | that has integrated on-chip current limit capability,
 | drain-to-source voltage clamping and gate voltage
 | protection."
 |
 |
 |      Also National Semiconductor "Overture" [TM] Audio
 | Power Amplifier Series with SPiKe [TM] Protection.
 |
 |      "The performance of the 876/LM3886/LM3875/LM3876,
 | utilizing its Self Peak Instantaneous Temperature ('Ke)
 | (SPiKe[TM]) Protection Circuitry, puts it in a class above
 | discrete and hybrid amplifiers by providing an inherently,
 | dynamically protected Salve Operation Area (SOA).  SPiKe
 | Protection means that these parts are completely safeguarded
 | at the output against over voltage, under voltage, overloads,
 | including shorts to the supplies, thermal runaway, and
 | instantaneous temperature peaks."
 |
 |      Specs are 25W to 150W (Depending on part number) of
 | continuous average power to 8 ohm load with 0.06% (THD+N)
 | from 20 Hz-20KHz.
 |
===============================================================================

Message 10553                                  DATE/TIME: 01/10/95 17:35
From   : BOB PADDOCK                        -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : JOEL MCCLAIN
Subject: (R) MRA Tech Notes
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

JM>     I think that this is related to the poling of the
JM> piezos...possibly it is lost on some in the process of
JM> soldering them.
 
     I talked with some one who was familiar with
Ultrasonic Welding.  The said that the piezos where typical
compressed a with rubber compression setup, and contact was
made with brass springs.
 
     Would this work better/worse than soldering?  Yet an
other point to experiment with...
 
===============================================================================

Message 10562                                  DATE/TIME: 01/10/95 19:28
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN                       -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: I Be Tired!
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Norm,
 
Well, tomorrow is the one month birthday of the MRA, and dude, I'm
TIRED.  Except for Christmas Day and New Year's Day, I've been
testing this critter seven days a week, some days all night and
right on into the next day....I've unhooked the one for Hal and will
start getting it wrapped and packed up, and then I'm going to go
totally brain dead for a while.  Just read and relax.
 
I don't want to hear "eeeeeeee" all day and night from the piezo and
magnet for a while.  While we wait to hear back from the test sites,
I'm not going to give it another thought.  Suggest you might want to
try the same, as I suspect we're both getting a little worn around
the edges.  C'ya,
 
Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10569                                  DATE/TIME: 01/11/95 07:35
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : BOB PADDOCK
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bob:  Thanks a million for the package and the schematics.  I'm very 
interested in the "high performance" transistors so I really appreciate 
your search efforts.  The magnets are bonded together so don't try to 
separate them for they break very easily. As to the transducers Joel 
and I have not figured out the .07 figure. In the batch I bought they 
were sorted out and grouped under that number ie. all the .07's were 
together then there would be a group of .09's etc.  Some sort of 
matching they did at manufacturering. I guess they were installed in 
the welders in matched sets so as to have the highest performance. The 
brass strip method of providing electrical contact works for I have 
several mounted this way in between two pressure plates so I can torque 
them down to about 100 # pressure which Dan Davidson recommende I try. 
The other train of thought is to make the contacts in a way as to allow 
the piezo to freely resonate in free air with minimum contact at any 
point.  Soldering directly to the silver surface is detrimental to the 
piezo as evidenced by our stack of "dead transducers". They are in 
effect almost a pure capacitive device and will give off a very loud 
"squeal" when they go "sour" and quit working.  I know that someone who 
works with these devices will eventually "jump in" and educate us about 
these animals.  The sooner the better.  These "OEM" items are always 
like that for they are manufactured for use in a specific piece of 
equipment with precise specs.  We come along and try to adapt this 
device to one of our experiments out of convenience sine we picked them 
up surplus.  This is OK for experimentation and all out there should 
realize the facts behind what I said.  When questions arise as to data 
on the transducers I would say that we really don't know what we are 
dealing with but they work.  When we get further along and get some 
"optimum" numbers we may be able to go to the original "OEM" source and 
have some super piezo's designed that will target the performance 
curves that we develope through trial and error.  It would be nice if 
there was a computer program that could analyze the MRA parameters and 
design the optimum piezo characteristics we need.  Right now all we can 
say is that in a circuit that does everything "contrary" to accepted 
electronic and physics theory we can't get a handle on exact and 
optimum design characteristics.  It will eventally take a team of 
specialized engineers to figure out how to take this MRA idea and make 
it do usefull work.  All we have done is open the "door" to the fact 
that tapping the Zero Point is real and can be demonstrated. Where and 
how this is developed remains to be seen. Once the fundamental theory 
is proven then very large sums of capital will be thrown into research 
and all this will become reality.  All we could do was give the info to 
the world and let smarter folks run with it to it's usefull application 
in solving our energy problems.  What more can I say.  Thanks again Bob 
and good luck with your MRA.  Norm
===============================================================================
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  FUSIONFIRE /  Re: Aneutronic fusion
     
Originally-From: fusionfire@aol.com (FUSIONFIRE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aneutronic fusion
Date: 20 Jan 1995 08:30:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Yep! It was maglich or something like that.  I remember him too.  But like
so many other fellows.  This stuff fell by the wayside.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenfusionfire cudlnFUSIONFIRE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Dieter Britz /  Tritiated water
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritiated water
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:25:25 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


There was a question recently about the use of tritiated water in cnf work.
Well, I have two papers here: Kikuchi et al 1991, and Rusov et al 1989 (look
them up in the bibliography to get the full refs). The first is in Japanese,
the other in Russian. The Kikuchi charged tritium into Pd by electrolysis
but I am not sure how much the water was tritiated. I find, among the 
Japanese text, mention of 0.1 M NaOH, so I take it that the base was H2O; 
then I find "T" and "0.37 MBq/dm^3, which I presume is a measure of 
tritiation. In a book on radiochemistry, I found that HTO has 3*10^7 
counts/s. So all you have to do is to relate this to Bq. and you have the
concentration of T in the soup used by Kikuchi et al! One really should know
some Japanese. The Rusov et al says that deuterated water (i.e. D2O) was 
used, 98% pure, and they added double distilled tritiated water, having an
activity of 10^9 Bq/ml. Btw, they also used as cathode an alloy of 72% Pd 
+ 25% Ag + 3% Au.

A question to any lurking radiochemists: What is meant by "tritiated water"?
Is that H2O, to which a small amount of T2O (or whatever) has been added, or
is it THO, or what? How are Bq related to c/s/ml? What would be the Bq/ml for
pure T2O?

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  prasad /  Patent quality. Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patent quality. Re: Free Energy Device
Date: 20 Jan 1995 13:40:23 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3fl23l$aaf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass) writes:
|> (someone else wrote:)
|> >Ha! Whenever did anyone working with patents ever come up with
|> >a half-way decent theory????
|> 
|> >Dick Jackson
|> 
|>      I shook hands with Swiss patent clerk Einstein in his office in the
|> ...
|>      The standard biographies of Einstein report that he had a _lifelong_
|> interest in patents & inventions.

Not many people know much about Szilard, so said that book I don't
quite remember the name of.  But I recall reading in it that Szilard
and Einstein filed many a patent together, including one or more
(there I go, in the spirit of the legalese!) generally relating to
thermodynamics, more particularly relating to refrigeration.

Szilard was shacked up with hardly any lab in England during much
of the war, and his principal activity was to think and file...
Later, when Enrico Fermi finally arrived at the patent office
(probably in Italy) to describe chain reaction in nuclear fission,
he was chagrined to learn that Szilard had already filed/patented it!

[ Well, that's as I remember it.  Ability to cite references
  was never a strong point of my upbringing.  (No mark:1.2.3
  in the vedas or upanishads... ;)

  So do feel free to correct the story!
]

Like books and magazines, there are good patents and bad patents,
there are technical patents and there are patents that describe
how to fold your table cloth.  And there are patents that describe
well and don't make money, and those that have no theoretical
founding, but do make lots.  Just like people.  We make all sorts
in our own image.  (my patent lawyer should be delighted!)

-----
#my own opinions these, not ibm's nor my employer's.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 / Dieter Britz /  Most recent P&F claim for nuclear products
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Most recent P&F claim for nuclear products
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:03:23 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 18 Jan 1995, Jim Carr wrote:

[...] 
> What is the most recent article by P&F (not someone else) in the refereed 
> literature that makes a claim that they see neutrons or tritium or helium 
> (not just heat) as a result of electrochemically induced CF?  
> 

(Permit me to change the Subject): the most recent one is Pons and 
Fleischmann, "Concerning the detection of neutrons and gamma-rays from 
cells containing palladium cathodes polarized in heavy water", Nuovo Cimento
105 A (1992) 763. They found some. 

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.20 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: MRA update 11, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA update 11, free energy device !
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:17:52 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <5eD-df6eldB@shb.contrib.de>,
Stefan Hartmann <harti@shb.contrib.de> wrote:

>Last night Norm was over and we added another output to the MRA, so
>that it was driving lights (incandescent and fluorescent) in addition
>to the usual motor load.  This required retuning the MRA for maximum
>power to match the new load requirement.  We were "overdriving" the
>output of the MRA below unity to "max out" the power to the load.

Yawn.

Let us know when the thing is driving itself.

[...]
 
>The MRA still detunes for max gain as before, and still provides
>surplus poten