There is always plenty to absorb.
>I have in front of me the Hyde patent description and it starts :
>Abstract:
>Externally charged electrodes of an electrostatic generator induce
charges
>of opposite polarity etc.etc.
>I mentioned before that this is an electrostatic electricity
transformer
>only
Yes it is a combination of a parametric and inductive electrostatic
generator I think.
and would work fine but for two if's.
>1 The diodes carrying the current have to be massive. I used 100 amp
1000
>volt diodes for some experiments and they had 700 ohm forward
resistance,
>cost the earth and burned up two just like that. No doubt if you were
to
>use a lot of smaller ones in parallel you may get somewhere providing
your
>static charge generator was large enough but the losses and heat
generation
>still considerable.
Almost any mechanical device is going to have losses that would
neutralize any small "OU" even if it was there..
I recommend looking at Ferdinand Cap's patent for a parametric electric
machine at
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/US04622510__
This is the direction I have been working on for a year or so, I believe
that a parametric generator can be made which doesn't require power to
change the C or L values. I've moved away from the capacitive forms
though, the power output is not high enough.
>I have written a reply as he was so good and sent me a long letter
>explaining his position. He is of the opinion that we all need to work
fast
>if we want our grand children to have a world to live in.
>Please look up his homepage sullos@ba.net and you see where he is
coming from.
Sorry couldn't get it as
>"Like me a self confessed nutcase." but with a brain that thinks around
>corners. Otherwise when it comes to money, I am in the same predicament
as
>you and find that to get an idea off the ground to make money, you
still
>need backing from someone and I would have thought that a group like
the
>keely net group could combine their rescources and make something
happen
>for all of us.
Well this is part of my point--backing must be from a benefactor if you
are a research group, but can be a loan from a bank if you are a
business.
>See correspondence John Berry !! which has died down a little at this
stage.
>There are 255 members on the net and at $1000 each to contribute, even
on
>time payment, that is 255OOO dollars to kick something off the ground
!!
>I'd borrow the money on bank card to make this happen !!
I don't believe that money is the main problem with experiments. The
main problem is designing an experiment that actually shows anything.
I don't think that the problem lies in a lack of talent or
organizational skills either. The problem lies in a lack of a body of
experimental work and associated theory that strongly suggests good
directions to go in. There are hundreds of almost mythical experiments
and devices floating around. If even a small group of people on this
list could AGREE that one particular direction was the way to go, then
well designed experiments to test those hypotheses would be supported in
many ways.
Right now we have a lot of intellectual confusion, mostly. There are a
hundred different theories and "para-facts" to choose from. I've added
plenty to the pile myself :-) Each researcher makes their own survey of
the meagre experimental data and decides-- on too little evidence-- that
a particular direction is the most promising. Then the lists become a
competition to see which of the "favorites" will be held in esteem, at
least for a while. Since almost none of this is based on solid
scientific evidence, almost none of it fits the definition of science,
and it would be better to call it a very interesting popularity contest.
No idea(s) can come to the position of being the "best route(s)" since
first there is not enough evidence either way, but also because each
idea has its die-hard supporters who will not let go of it even when
there is no real evidence that it works.
Of course there is only one way to resolve this is to do experiments,
many experiments, with well-reported data. Only then will we be able to
even DECIDE which pathways are the most promising.
In the meantime, even when you get the group together, you still have to
decide which pathways to pursue-- you have simply moved the conundrum to
a smaller terrain.
It IS worth the trouble to do, all of it, although personally I have
taken the much-loved :-) "business solution".
Fred