>Well, can you, or does Keelynet contain, a writeup of Dons', Mikes', yours,
>or Sweets' experimental design and testing? I think we all know that
>Sweets device did/does exist, Bearden test results, video film
>and characteristics of the unit - is al proof that he did have something
>working. I do remember Sweet stating the it defies physical laws and
>that the transformer/coil does not act like the classical coil. Guess we
>need to generate some new physics unless it all can be explained
>by QM.
>
>v/r Ken Carrigan
Hi Ken,
The lecture delivered by Don and Mike at the '94 Denver symposium was
written up in the handbook of that event along with all the other papers
delivered. You should find quite a lot of info at Pat Bailey's 'Institute
for New Energy' site.
There is a profusity of information around on Sweets claims, experiments
and devices. From my research there appears to be quite a number of
different circuits that were used. Don's circuit was very simple and quite
different from Sweets and he, apparently, had success with it. Mike used a
different setup again (poor success). While there were different circuits,
all approaches relied on the special magnet conditioning process.
I will dig out the info I have on Sweet, Don and Mike, and get it scanned
if you are interested. It would seem that the 'secret' (shit, I hate that
word!) of Sweet's device is in the magnet 'conditioning'. Also the use of
Barium ferrite magnets is strongly recommended by these guys (something to
do with Ohmic resistance needing to be high?).
Bill.