At 09:52 PM 10/13/98 -0500, Mary and Rob wrote:
>
>1) "Free" energy has a source. Whereas a person should be justly
>compensated for their efforts, other factors come into play at historical
>times like these. Throughout history, one technology has arisen at the
>expense of the predominant preceding technology; The new technology quite
>often arises as a result of the demise (or decentralization) of a
>centralized system. I wish I could remember the title of the book in which
>this thesis was put forth, but some concrete examples were given; as we
>have progressed, for example, from sail to steam, and from steam to
>internal combustion. It was stated that these progressions have taken place
>simultaniously on several levels; technological, socialogical, and
>philosophical. This may be such a time for changes on several levels.
>
>2) This is up for debate, but the Y2K computer problem may have a strong
>decentralizing effect on the current world wide economic system. The time
>could be right for decentralized electrical power to be made available. A
>ready and eager market may open up if the existing dependence on fossil
>fuels suffers another rude shock. At any rate, the transition to New Energy
>will take place at some point. There would appear to be a finite supply of
>fossil fuels, not to mention the deleterious affects that they have on the
>environment.
Due to the nonlinear nature of planetary weather patterns, waiting until the
last minute to make energy technology transitions is not wise. Those who
wish to suppress F/E are either stupid or want to destroy most of us. Our
backs are against the wall. It's now or never, if it's not already too late.
>3) Personally, I would currently assume that such advanced technology may
>be deemed in the "National Interest". Although applying for a patent would
>seem like a logical choice for an inventor, the possibility that the
>invention might be confiscated, and made "secret" still exists. Therefore,
>making the invention widely available, so that the possibility of it being
>ignored or kept secret is minimized, might be the most noble course; for
>the benefit of humanity as a whole.
National interest? Wouldn't it be better to draw from the experience of
previous scientists rather than leave us to our own devices to experiment by
trial and error?
>Whereas it might be difficult to fully capitalize on it for ones own gain,
>the possibility of doing so following the traditional course is also in
>question. Jerry's ideas on "shareware" may have some value here. Remember
>that J.P.Morgan pulled the funding on Tesla's earth transmission system,
>because there was no way to bill customers for it. There will be no way to
>continuously bill customers for this technology once the initial capital
>investment has been made. If you try to control it by being a single point
>source of supply, it will be much easier to suppress the distribution of
>this invention.
Tesla may not have had the system of analysis to tune the transmitter properly.
>4) Through prayers and meditations, such insights and inspirations as have
>occurred to me, I cannot ascribe to my own brilliance, simply to a strong
>desire to know (knock and the door shall be opened). You may not be
>spiritually inclined, but a prayer for quidance on this matter may have
>some benefit.
Divine intervention is probably our only hope.
Win cell / Perrigo array combination:
What if a Win cell were used as a sensor at the base of each conductor
bundle in a Perrigo array. The Win cell would switch the bundle into the
circuit at just the right time so elaborate wiring patterns of the array
would be avoided.
Dennis
Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html