Perreault writes:
Yes, both valves...
>
> Is the limiting factor the valve(s) or the surrounding
> circuitry or both?
Perreault writes: Niether...
>
> What is the anticipated lifetime of the "valves"
> and what factors are likely to affect this?
Perreault writes:
If too much power is drawn, the valves could burn up
do to ohm law...so this is no problem as long as
more valves are used in the higher power units.
>
> Will we be able to purhase additional "valves" as we wish for $US30
Perreault writes:
Yes!
>
> (each or per pair?) or will there be limitations placed on this? Is
> availability restricted to the duration of the 2 month validation
> program?
Perreault write: No limitations...
>
> 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?
Perreault writes:
You will never find out because of the stated reason below...
>
> Are we required to return the "valves" on demand?
Perreault writes:
The valve once given to a team member is their's to keep.
>
> 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.
Perreault writes:
Good thing for the team that I did not put the composition in the
manual because you would now have the formula and ran with it!
>
> 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?
Perreault writes:
I do not think team members will want to do their own manufacturing...
<<snip>>
>
> 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?
Perreault writes:
If I didn't have a prototype I would not have created the program.
The program is to validate the technology. The research is to improve
on the method of power generation to create a marketable product.
>
> 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.
Perreault writes:
You are not chasing "rainbows?" What do you think over-unity is?
Energy from nothing leaves nothing!
>
> 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?
Perreault writes:
Pure voltage! The smaller the amperage the better. :)
>
> 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?
Perreault writes:
No shit Sherlock!
>
> _>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?
Perreault writes:
Where does it say that my system will be using this frequency?
I merely indicate that our system is similar to the Gray circuitry.
> > 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?
Perreault writes:
Yes! However, it is not the same deadly type used in nuclear reactors!
It is the "ZPE" that you have been chasing...
>
> 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.
Perreault write:
Our system is comepletely safe. If an act of congress is required,
so be it...
>
> 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?
Perreault writes:
This is a direct quote from the manual that Program members will be
given on
the first of February, 1998. Some how you have managed to get past my
security
block and have firgured out the PASSWORD to open the .pdf file. I do not
appreciate
this in the least. This is outright theft! Now you can see why I must
keep this
project very close to my chest. This is an invasion! You are another
"rat in the
cornfield." It is people like you that fuel suppression...
>
> 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.
Perreault writes:
You said a mouthful here, "I I I I I I I, ME ME ME ME"
-ISIS