Re: MRA

Norman Wootan ( normw@fastlane.net )
Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:34:24 -0600

Hi! Ray, Good to hear from you after such a long time. Yes, Joel and I did
appreciate very much the info you sent back in the "heat of battle"days of
the MRA project. We received so many messages etc. from so many people
around the world it was very difficult to respond to everyone. The whole
world is "hungry" for answers to our energy problems. As Jerry stated,
someday soon ,someone will produce a stand alone device. I have seen enough
evidence in my research to know that aetheric energy tapping is completely
possible and will happen very soon. Others in the past have done it but for
some reasons could not easily reproduce the effects. Your explanation fits
exactly the observations that Joel and I made while testing the MRA. The
gain or output had rythmic cycles during the day and night that seemed to be
related to the sun, moon and planetary alignments. Please read the current
BORDERLANDS regarding the lunar influence on making colloidial silver. I
agree totally with you about the influence of the universal background with
our earth bound experiments. Sorry guys, your free energy generator may not
produce peak power except when the moon is full. Ray, I will get back to you
later ref. the data you have provided. Thanks again for the contact. Norm

Ray Tomes wrote:

> Hi all, I am new here. My name is Ray Tomes and I have been in touch
> with Jerry by email for about a year and still looking forward to
> meeting him some time. I live in New Zealand and do full time research
> on cycles and the formula for the universe.
>
> 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