* First of all, although you quoted;
* William Beaty wrote:
* * This was posted to the renergy list and I thought it should be
* shared here. It might offer some insights into the recent 'vortex
* countdown' =20
* that indicates a method of tapping energy from a Hilsch/Rankin type
* vortex tube - check it out;
* Bill did not write that, I did (Decker), so please don't blame him, I
* am just trying to contribute to the info base in an attempt to
* understand where you are coming from with your 'vortex countdown'. =20
A quick correction and an apology to Bill AND Jerry AND everyone...
Now that Bill is moderating Vortex-L, he forwarded Jerry's message to =
me. That's why I mistakenly thought Bill wrote the message. Sorry, =
Bill.
Also, I want to say that I meant no "blame" for anything. The word =
"blame" indicates that something wrong was done and that is not the case =
here. Jerry did nothing wrong.
Now for the rest of Jerry's replies...
Jerry Decker wrote:
* All of the aforementioned have to do with spirals and vortexes and
* each offers a bit of understanding which I thought might be applicable
* to your countdown. =20
It was this comparison to my work that I immediately became worried =
about (not offended) because I could just picture in my mind everyone =
saying to themselves, "OK, I see... this claim of ZPE's is just another =
unfounded crackpot idea that has no real basis just like all the rest." =
In fact, shortly after I began composing my initial reply to your post, =
I received a response from the "3rd party validation" source that I am =
currently negotiating with that indicated this kind of perception. John =
Steck's response, "Hey, that setup looks darn familiar...... 8^) Is it =
too early to say I told you so? hee hee hee" also seems to indicate that =
perception. Needless to say, damage control was the order of the day at =
that point.
* I'm sorry if you got offended, it wasn't intended to inflame or
* arouse, but in all candor, you haven't provided any useful
* information, so we have no option BUT to try to figure out how you
* purport to be able to extract energy, so please don't get upset with
* any of us for at least trying.=20
Please understand, I did not get upset with anyone. In fact I encourage =
everyone to challenge me. I see it as the best way to shore up my =
claims (short of disclosing too much). I've never made it any secret =
that I cannot reveal my secrets...yet, and I understand anyone trying to =
"figure it out" as a result of our announcement. It's my guess that, =
until our announcement, most have discounted in their own minds the REAL =
possibility that there is any F/E ability in a gaseous vortex. Our =
announcement has probably changed this to a degree.
* If we didn't care, we'd just blow you off and not respond in any way,
* that to my mind is a GOOD thing when you get people curious enough to
* think about it.
As I have said above and in a few of my other posts, having readers =
challenge me is the best thing I could ask for. This is because it =
gives me a chance to meet that challenge in a way that can add to my =
credibility. Of course, I run the risk of the reverse happening if I =
can't meet the challenge, however, when you actually have the answer, =
the challenges are easy to meet. My family and friends have been =
challenging me for many years. That's why I have their full support =
today. I've been able to meet their challenges without fail. Several =
of them have graciously offered their services by joining me in this =
venture (albeit far below what is really needed to achieve full success, =
hence our announcement).
Jerry Decker wrote:
* You also wrote in your response;
* Dennard: (the source of energy) "originates from the gravitational
* forces on the center rotating structure"=20
* ZPE's comment: Any person with even the most basic education in
* physics knows that gravity is not energy.
* Really? Can anyone truly explain gravity to satisfy all queries and
* prove their explanation by being able to control it? =20
* I think the flow of gravity could be considered as a kind of energy
* because you can tap into it. Flaky as some might see it, gravity IS
* more than probably a pushing effect and one day we will be able to
* prove it and use it, however at this point, I would in in no way say
* anything ABSOLUTELY isn't possible.=20
* IMO that statement is like the patent examiner saying back in the late
* 19th century, everything has been invented so they might as well close
* the patent office.=20
I think you (and probably a lot of readers) misunderstand something (due =
to my lack of explaining myself on this). I fully agree with what you =
are saying about gravity in the sense that the macroscopic force we call =
gravity could actually be a physical manifestation of a more complex =
reality involving an aetheric energy or ZPE. However, Dennard gives no =
real indication of this concept in his web pages. This leads me to =
believe that Dennard thinks there is a surplus source of energy in the =
potential energy available in matter due to its relative vertical =
position that can be somehow endlessly tapped when matter falls downward =
within a gravitational field. This is evidenced in his statements such =
as, "Gravity is accepted as a viable form of power in our hydroelectric =
technology and our understanding of the power in falling water due to =
gravity. The concept of rotating water due to the force of gravity is =
the idea behind Whirlpower .".=20
I also want to apologize for my apparent "condescending" attitude toward =
Dennard. While I am guilty of maybe having a little fun with my =
responses by interjecting a little humor or sarcasm, I never meant to =
demean him. He is to be commended for being innovative and bold. I =
just think he needs to brush up on his knowledge of physics before =
developing a "dream inspired" concept to the degree he has. I would =
have to say that my "off-color" attitude was a direct result of my =
needing to scramble for "damage control" due to the perceived misguided =
conclusions that were drawn as a result of Dennard's theory being =
compared to mine. I need to be more careful in the future and avoid all =
"knee-jerk" reactions like that one.
Jerry Decker wrote:
* Time will tell who is right. For my money, I don't care who it is as
* long as we can all test it ourselves and use it for something =
practical.
While many will be able to test it for themselves, it is certainly more =
difficult to construct than what can be done in one's own garage. If it =
were that easy, I would have succeeded in doing that myself. =
Construction from scratch will require extreme precision that is simply =
not achievable to most of us who have ordinary shop tools. Ultimately =
computer automated manufacturing techniques will make the technology =
affordable to everyone, though.
Thanks for reading.
Best Wishes,
ZPE
http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe