<snip>
Alan wrote:
_>> Hear hear! Also what are we getting ourselves into by signing up. Are
_>> we committing ourselves to thousands of dollars to set up an experiment
_>> which may not work anyway? I think Monsieur Perreault is playing things
_>> a little TOO close to his chest.
Bruce Perreault wrote:
_>Everything should cost under $200. If you are already an electronics
_>buff then you probably have all of the parts hanging around your work
_>bench.
I think I qualify as an electronics buff. So far, so good.
Bruce Perreault wrote:
_>The only component that is unique is the Moray type valve. I will
_>provide a pair of these FREE of charge to team members. All others
_>will have to pay $30. for them.
Okay, does your beta test design (12v, 8A o/p per web page) use both
"valves"? Is the limiting factor the valve(s) or the surrounding
circuitry or both? What is the anticipated lifetime of the "valves"
and what factors are likely to affect this?
Will we be able to purhase additional "valves" as we wish for $US30
(each or per pair?) or will there be limitations placed on this? Is
availability restricted to the duration of the 2 month validation
program?
The fact that you quote a specific output implies this is a working
technology; what then do you require of "team members"? Are you
trying to ascertain how readily the system can be reproduced by
people of varying skill levels and in different geographical locations?
What sort of testing do you anticipate being required? Would continuous
operation and monitoring be desirable/required? To what level of
accuracy?
Are we required to return the "valves" on demand?
Bruce Perreault wrote:
_>The composition will be kept a trade-secret of Nu Energy Horizons.
That, regrettably, is a potential bottleneck. It makes it too easy
for vested interests to suppress the technology as they only have
to find and put out-of-commission one "entity".
Bruce Perreault wrote:
_>This will insure that nobody takes the technology and runs off with it.
As I said above, my main concern is over somebody taking the technology
and suppressing it. If we can believe half the "urban myths" floating
around this has already happened many times over.
Bruce Perreault wrote:
_>Team members that can muster the ride will become "diamond"
_>distributers.
_>A "down-line" will be developed. We will hit the market hard once a
_>product is ready for public consumption. This will be world-wide and
_>will take on a life of it's own...
Is it your intention that all manufacturing be done centrally, or
that distributors of proven technical ability manufacture units
locally?
Jerry Decker wrote:
_>> _>My concern is buying into claims, a disease we all tend to suffer from
_>> _>aperiodically, I try to not adopt a doubting Thomas role, but damn, how
_>> _>many of these claims must we continue to read and even allow ourselves to
_>> _>get sucked into.
Alan Schneider wrote:
_>> And the reason we're vulnerable to this "disease" is because we all really,
_>> really need and want a workable and easily reproduceable F/E O/U device.
Jerry Decker wrote:
_>> _>The bottomline WAS, IS and forever will be; Does it work? Followed by,
_>> _>where can I buy one.
Alan Schneider wrote:
_>> (or find out where to get the parts and how to build one!!!!!!!)
Bruce Perreault wrote:
_>I tried to develop the chlorine prototype into a kit concept and failed
_>and my credibility has suffered since throughout the FE circles. This is
_>probably a blessing. I will not make the same mistake twice. Any "kit"
_>building with be done by program members. This is my Research team. It
_>is the old Edison priciple made manifest today...
The implication is that you want a lot of people to become involved
in a mass production style "cut and try" development effort? (Which is
after all, what Edison was (in)famous for!)
What exactly *DO* you have, Bruce? Do you have a working prototype that
you want help improving? Or just a relatively unproven idea that you
want us to test for you, trying different components/configurations
in the hope that someone will strike it lucky?
I *AM* interested (obviously, or I wouldn't be subscribing to freenrg-l,
vortex-l or KeelyNet-l and spending hours per week sifting through all
the list traffic) but I'd prefer to have a known direction to go in
from the start rather than pick a direction and start walking in the
hope that somewhere along the line, somewhere out there, I'll accidently
stumble onto something significant or a desirable destination. My time
budget is quite tight, as are my finances and I really don't want to
waste either by chasing rainbows unnecessarily. I'm sure I'm not
alone on this point.
You mention in your post "validation of a "free energy" device..."
on Fri, 23 Jan 1998 (replying to Ken Carrigan) that
_>* There is no radiation in the beta-version that the group will be
_>validating. The key to power generation is a special tube that uses
_>a star type spark-gap that acts as a regulator and ionic pump. Ions
_>are fed to the tube from a high-voltage, high-frequency, low-current
_>inverter circuit. Energy is added to the ions by the tube through
_>catalytic reaction. The ions act as a vehicle to transfer energy from
_>the tube to a tank circuit.
What level of electrical power input is required for this to occur?
You explicitly state on your web page that:
_>"Our prototypes are not "over-unity." They are simply harnessing a
_>very old source of energy in a very unique way. The advantages over
_>other systems are many.
_>The world is indeed moving at a suicidal pace, we need this technology
_>more than ever. The prototypes are designed for many different uses.
_>They will light lights, charge batteries, run motors and electrical
_>appliances.
It can be said with some accuracy that no so-called "Free Energy" device
is, in fact, over-unity; if a device appears to be over-unity then you
are making the mistake of viewing an open system as a closed one. The
energy supplied must be coming from somewhere, be it environmental heat,
zero-point energy, intra-atomic binding energies or whatever.
If you have to provide more electrical input energy into the tube to
make it operate than is available at the circuit's output then you have
merely come up with a sophisticated way of *wasting* energy. Or is this
where radioactives come into the equation?
_>Electrical current is available through a bell type step-down
_>transformer.
At 6 kHz a la Edwin Gray/Henry Moray, per your web site? Wouldn't that
be somewhat inefficient?
Further,
_>* It will be clearly shown what has to be done to build a high-wattage
_>unit to power, say, a home with power generating principles involved.
_>For obvious reasons radioactive material will not be used in this beta
_>test.
Does this imply that a high power version *WILL* require the use
of radioactive material?
If so, I predict that your system will go nowhere - there is already
an incredible maze of legislation and regulations in place governing
the supply, handling and use of radioactives in (probably) all
countries, sufficient to totally preclude their use by private
individuals and all but the largest and most wealthy corporate
entities.
Additionally the various environmental groups around the planet all,
rightly or wrongly, have a very predictable and very intense knee-jerk
reaction wherever radioactivity is involved or, indeed, even mentioned.
In that same post you say:
_>* For someone that has the basics it should cost under $200.00 to build
_>a basic proof of concept beta-version. For a person who is starting from
_>bare-bones it should cost under $500.00
I presume this represents cost of components for surrounding circuitry
we would be required to build. Do you provide known working designs for
this or do you give a list of specifications for us to design our own
circuitry to meet? If the former, do you have lists of equivalents for
components that may not be locally available in other countries, or at
least descriptions of critical parameters needing to be met by
substitute components?
_>To build a prototype that puts out say, 5Kw, would cost about $5.000.00
Are the "valves" supplied capable of this level of power given suitable
supporting circuitry?
Bruce, I'm not having a go at you or trying to give you a hard time
but I *DO* want to get a clearer idea of what I'll be letting myself
in for if I do subscribe to (and you accept me for) your validation
program. I'm sure there are other list members who feel similarly.