Re: Negative Resistance discovered??

John Berry ( antigrav@ihug.co.nz )
Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:26:46 -0700

I had a theory to make use of just that, It was to make use of the
electric fields to accelerate charge, I noted that carbon and
semiconductors would work as it needs to be able to conduct electric
fields, Also vacuum tubes, all of which have been shown to be able to
use this effect!!!

note: I had seen semiconductors do this and there are a few vacuum tubes
(which I know how to optimize) that showed this effect, but not carbon
till now.

I also did some experiments and noted the effect through anything that
conducted both electrons, I used HV through dielectric to force electron
flow (not ion flow) and found the field density (which can be changed by
the electrode shape) effected the conduction through the dielectric,
this is how batteries work except for the fact that we put electrolytic
conductors between the plates and not semiconductors, It seems like my
theory was correct!

I made this theory before I was aware of the semiconductor and vacuum
tube effects so I can show how to make the effect of more use if anyone
wants?

John Berry

Jerry W. Decker wrote:

> Hi and Gnorts!
>
> Received this most interesting email and I thought
> we should all get busy and try to track this down,
> for reasons I shouldn't have to elucidate;
> ==============
> Obviously you don't know me and I'm very new to free
> energy physics. But! This morning I came across a
> web site that had announced that Deborah Chung, Phd.
> and professor at University of Buffalo in New York
> had discovered a carbon composite material that had
> room temperature superconducting attributes as well
> as a -8 Ohm reading (that's negative resistance!).
>
> Since that time the page has been removed!; however,
> I can vouche that it was in that directory and that
> there are other press releases about Deborah Chung
> and superconductivity and carbon materials science.
>
> The web page was;
>
> http://www.buffalo.edu/news/Latest/ChungResistance.html
>
> You will see several files with Chung at the beginning
> of the name if you simply go up one level. That is,
> go to;
>
> http://www.buffalo.edu/news/Latest/
>
> Why do I bring this up to you? Glad you asked.
> Is it possible that what they are actually seeing
> is zero point energy? They just don't know it since
> they aren't looking for it. What else could explain
> negative resistance?
>
> Also, I wanted to email T. Bearden, but could not
> find his address. I assume you would know how to
> contact him and that someone in his position and
> knowledge would be able to pursue this if it makes
> sense.
>
> Thanks.
>
> P.S.
> You might want to venture over to;
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/9807100151223.shtml
>
> which has some discussion by many people that read
> the article.
>
> Here is a quote from someone else referencing
> another page which, interestingly, has been
> removed, too:
>
> by Steve Parkinson () on Friday July 10, @03:59
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=00013617012944
>
> Here's the original article I read, from the Daily
> Telegraph on-line
>
> SCIENTISTS claim that they can now make materials
> that lose resistance to electricity at room temperature.
>
> According to the researchers at the University of
> Buffalo, New York, the discovery has the potential
> to lead to faster, more efficient electronic devices.
>
> Without resistance, there is no energy loss, so the
> amount of energy that is put into a system is
> exactly the amount that it produces.
>
> This was previously thought to be possible only with
> the development of so-called superconductors that
> work at room temperature.
>
> Prof Deborah Chung, speaking at the fifth International
> Conference on Composites Engineering in Las Vegas
> yesterday, said:
>
> "This is not a superconductor but a strange
> conduction phenomenon we call negative resistance."
>
> She observed "negative" resistance in carbon-composite
> materials, used in aircraft and tennis rackets, and
> zero resistance when these materials were combined
> with others that are conventional, positive resistors.
>
> This finding of negative resistance flies in the
> face of a fundamental law of physics - opposites
> attract. Prof Chung said the application of voltage
> usually caused electrons - which carried a negative
> charge - to move toward the high, or positive end,
> of the voltage gradient.
>
> But in this case, the electrons moved the other
> way, from the plus end of the voltage gradient to
> the minus end. Prof Chung said:
>
> "In this case, opposites appear not to attract."
>
> =====================
> This is of course a very exciting discovery as Tom
> Bearden has often discussed how a negative resistance
> component or circuit would be one answer to the free
> energy many of us continue to seek.
>
> I thought with the discussions a couple of months
> ago about 'negative viscosity' in the presence of
> vortexial or tornadic patterns, this discovery is the
> electronic analogue to the mechanical/thermal. It is
> strangely reminiscent of British inventor Spence with
> his vortex electron chamber which he claims produces
> abundant overunity energy. The problem with the unit
> was corruption/pitting of the anodes as the electrons
> were drawn to the central cathode. I haven't heard
> if he ever resolved it.
>
> So if you find out anything more, please post either
> to me or to the list (where I would transfer it
> anyway...<G>...) thanks!!!
>
> --
> Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
> Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
> ICQ # - 13175100 / AOL - Keelyman
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187