Yes. Anybody who thinks it is easy hasn't tried. That makes it more
interesting to me.
The thing I keep noticing is that people say it is easy, and then say,
Look, so and so did it, and all he did was such and such.
These sorts of modern legends-- and they are often nothing more than
that-- serve the positive purpose of helping us keep the faith, if faith
we need, to create overunity devices.
But they also negatively affect people's view of the difficulty at hand.
All of these legends floating around make it seems as if we only need to
figure out how to replicate so and so's work and we will be on our way.
Everybody latches on to a different so and so, for reasons of sanity:
there is so much out there, and it is really such a confused, muddled
mess, that to sort it all out would take lifetimes.
As far as I know, at this point in earth civilization, only Jerry has it
all sorted out :-)
As one on the list
>said, it is expensive and time consuming.
More time consuming than expensive. The main amount of time is spent
trying to figure out which approaches are most likely to work. I
recommend using dowsing for this.
Tom Bearden is doing research all the time
>but is not revealing anything because of the need to protect
>his patent position.
Yes this is a problem across the board as everyone knows.
Anyone who is doing solid work who is honest would have to admit that
they do not share freely all they know.
I know that there is a lot of discussion of a open model of free energy
research, and various versions have been proposed at different times. In
the abstract it is an excellent idea, and I commend John for making a go
of it. Someone else suggested setting up subgroups based on area of
interest and this is a great idea too. I think many such groups already
exist.
I vote for a small, intensive, action-oriented, highly trusting and
committed group, that knows each other well, over any sort of large
group scheme. But who knows, I may be wrong...
I have said frankly that I actively use the lists as a place to look for
projects and people that get my interest, then begin discussing the
possibility of small private groups to develop the ideas further. There
are some who would consider this taking the life blood away from the
great free energy community and secreting it away in little groups, for
profitable returns. Perfectly true, all of it :-)
Seriously though, if my objective is to get a working OU device to the
masses of the people on this planet (not to preach to the converted here
on the lists) then what structure is going to work better than a
profitable business? Has any structure in our society worked as well as
this?
This does not mean that I would ever cover anything up (permanently :-)
or be a party to any sort of intellectual dishonesty. But this is the
method that I feel will get best results for everyone. But let all take
their own ways, the best thing is a diversity of approaches.
Again, I reiterate, a lot of the blaming, argumentation, and egoism in
the FE community is due to the fact that FE is hard to do... but few
want to admit it. It is easier to blame the MIBs :-)
>If you look at the Naudin web site you will see the results of
>alot of research. Most of it doesn't pan out.
In a lot of cases you will see that some very promising areas were
touched on and left without resolution.
Mine, for instance :-)
>On the Keelynet I see alot of claims being thrown around and
>alot of theorizing by quite a few who haven't done their homework
>and don't understand some basic concepts.
>The best proof is a self power system running in a closed loop
>mode. Measurements can be faked or done improperly or just
>misinterpreted. Calibration could be off. This is why a self-powered
>self-feedback mode for an OU system can't be argued with.
>I have been an EE for over 25 years and started with a Tesla coil
>in jr high. These days I have little patience with things that don't
>work and are poorly engineered. So I can understand Jerry's attitude.
>
>Enough of my ranting on this subject.
I couldn't agree more with all you have said.
>
>What I am doing now................
>
>I am building a different design of Newman machine to test some
>theories. I think something else is going on that Newman doesn't
>understand.
Agreed.
>I have distilled down all the claimed OU devices to what appears
>to be the central phenomenon causing common effects.
>This is PCR or phase conjugate retroreflection. This is a proven
>phenomenon in optics. A negative time field is responsible for
>a reversal of normal effects. Scattering of energy becomes collection
>that results in cooling. If more energy is demanded it is supplied
>rather than depleted. In optics a wave will repair itself if distorted
or
>interrupted. The fiberfuse effect is probably a result of PCR.
>It seems that it might be possible to induce PCR with a system of
>electrons in a conductor. The question is how.
Sounds very possible. I am working on the hypothesis what is called ki,
prana, orgone, is actually a dual electromagnetic wave composed of two
circularly polarized light beams in opposite directions. The
polarization rotation is in opposite directions so in this form it has
no power (poynting vector). It has properties of both sound and light.
It can be decomposed by the body or an instrument to give information or
electromagnetic energy. It can evolve into a toroidal form which is the
basis of matter.
One way that has been seen to get at this energy is based on George Lao
Russell. He used two coils wound in opposite directions on cone like
forms, then superimposed, the cones facing in opposite directions. I am
not sure how he activated this arrangement. . He claimed that there were
tests by GE that this worked. All this seems to have SOME relationship
to what you are talking about, I think.
Fred