On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Norman Wootan <normw@fastlane.net> wrote:
>Hi! Jerry et all; I wish to thank you for the great answer regarding the
>MRA project. ...
Norman, I was really interested and moved to read your post and Jerry's
earlier statement. When the MRA stuff was happening originally I was
pleased that Bill Beaty sent stuff to usenet so that I found out about
it. Through him I managed to get some information to you guys and was
pleased that it was appreciated at the time.
Then and now, I think that I have some information derived from my
theories that is essential in understanding almost all anomalous device
behaviour. Of all the strange devices and rigorous anomalous data that
I know about every one fits with my theory.
Rather than try and post the whole theory here I will just put the URLs
Ray Tomes home page - http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
Harmonics theory - http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/st201.htm
and those that are interested can have a look. However I will include
one table and a brief explanation here also.
The harmonics theory is a fundamental theory about the universe which is
derived from the fact that the wave behaviour of the universe is
non-linear (this is in fact a General Relativity result). In essence it
says that every standing wave will gradually lose energy to other waves
that are exact harmonics of the original wave. I believe that all major
structures in the universe are nothing other than many levels of
superimposed standing waves. The rate of energy movement is extremely
low, at about the Hubble rate of 1 part in 10 billion per year.
>From the above simple axiom I can calculate that some waves have more
energy than others because there are more paths to them. For example, a
wave of frequency 12 receives energy from frequency 1 by 8 different
routes while 11 and 13 have only one route each. Harmonics 12, 288,
2880 and especially 34560 are calculated to very strong. Near powers of
34560 are also especially strong waves. Let us look at that in relation
to an assumed universal wave of 10 billion light years.
N 10^28 cm Feature Common Units Observed
/ 34560^N
0 1*10^28 cm Universe 10^10 light years ~10^10 LY
1 2.9*10^23 cm Galaxies 3*10^5 light years 2.2e6, 1.8e5
2 8.4*10^18 cm Stars 8.9 light years 4.43, 8.9 au + etc
3 2.4*10^14 cm Planets 16 a. u. 10, 0.35 au
4 7.0*10^9 cm Moons 70,000 km 190,000 km + others
5 2.0*10^5 cm X 2 km ? 1.7 km ?
6 5.9 cm Y 5.9 cm ? 5 cm ?
7 1.7*10^-4 cm Z (Cells) 1.7 microns ~1.5 microns
8 4.9*10^-9 cm Atoms 0.49 Angstrom 0.53 Angstrom
9 1.4*10^-13 cm Nucleons 1.4 fm 1.3 fm
10 4.0*10^-18 cm Quarks 4*10^-18 cm ? but < 10*10^-18 cm
The predicted major structural distance scales in the universe match the
observations of distances between galaxies, stars, planets, moons, ...
atoms and Nucleons. The predictions for atom and nucleon waves are very
near to the observed Bohr radius and nucleon radius.
Note that the above is a gross oversimplification of the theory and that
there are other less important l;evels of structure in between. There
are also many different frequencies present and the strong ones are
musically related. I have been able to explain many previously weird
results related to cycles in economics, geology, physics, cosmology and
so on. The theory is well tested and really works. That does not mean
that everything is known, but the guess work can be considerably
narrowed down.
Look at the levels that I call X, Y and Z which are the ones that have
no obvious structures visible. Each of these is associated with some
anomalous devices.
X is associated with the MRA results. From the posted frequencies that
had interesting things happen with the MRA device I found that all were
very near exact fractions of 172,500 Hz. That frequency corresponds to
a 1.74 km wave which fits close to my X prediction.
Y is associated with an anomalous chemistry result that I heard about in
Russia which gets a different result when the radius of a flask is near
5 cm. Note that 1.74 km / 5 cm is very close to 34560 (certainly within
the errors of the 5 cm figure).
Z is associated with the phenomenon called "electron clustering" which
shows quanta of near 1 um. There are other things that also show that
about 1.5 um is a key quantum size.
I want to stress that I am quite certain that the following aspects of
these experiments are important...
1. The frequencies, wavelengths, periods etc of all oscillations MUST
match natural waves that are present everywhere in the universe if you
want to tap natural energies (free energy).
2. The dimensions of all important components must be sizes that match
important wavelengths of natural waves.
3. The substances used (liquids, gases and solids) must have speeds of
waves; light, sound and heat; that allow these matches to take place. I
might add that the three major types of waveforms mentioned are also
related by the 34560 ratio in velocity.
Because most experimenters are not aware of these factors (except
perhaps some who study Keely to some extent) they do not understand why
experiments have a partial result one time, nothing the next, and blow
up on still another occasion. Even things like liquid levels in
containers and temperatures will affect these conditions.
Many experiments are like a radio turned up to full volume but off the
station. You get a bit of crackling and sometimes a faint signal and
then one day the tuning accidentally wanders onto the station (the
natural waves) and all hell breaks loose.
Does this make sense?
I am pleased to assist anyone working on experiments if they give me
information about the frequencies, sizes, materials etc that they use.
Remember also that the waves in the universe are modulated and some
frequencies come and go over longer periods. Even the rate of decay of
unstable isotopes show periodicities (subtle but there).
-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
Boundaries of Science http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/scienceb.htm