Dear TR,
Thank you very much for viewing my comments with an open mind sorry I did
not reply earlier.
>What I have shared here is very specific to the technology, and hard won
>information. Please understand, that you view my efforts in the light of
>the existence of the Internet, this is a totally new world, unlike when
>this work was originally done.
>
True. Hence my comments. I have seen a long suppressed (Rife Tube from
1930s) cancer treatment technology literally come alive in less than 3
years because of the Internet and from the efforts of a kind soul (Dr.
James Bare). And Dr. Robert Beck exposing research (destined to be shelved)
of a simple in vivo application of micro current to destroy the AIDS and
numerous other ailments. More information available separately.
>I will for instance, reference the information regarding plate proximity
>and voltage requirements. In pre-internet days, this may have taken long
>hours of study and some bit of luck to find, as are resonate harmonics.
>Those things have been shared openly. There are single sentences, in some
>of my posts that have taken years and the work of many people, to then be
>simply, and easily placed here. Many who have been keeping a file of my
>posts are now making units that work, and that is exactly what I wanted to
>see. As far as "not invented here", my most recent unit is working in
>Canada and is now undergoing testing and adaptation for the mining
>community of Canada.
>
Fantastic! Are you referring to George Wiseman's unit?
>The post about forming a web site, is a good idea, and one of the obvious
>steps needed, to more properly use the power of the internet in furthering
>this technology, but as you might expect, that may become a full time job
>in it's self.
>
Yes that is surely a danger but those who have done it have used resources
from the net to help them. This in no way minimizes your comments - just a
suggestion. In any event this will be very time consuming.
>One main purpose in my suggestion of this project was to replicate my self
>many times over, among people who also would like to see this technology go
>forward. I can and will continue to post here, as well as keeping up my
>other internet work in helping groups with this technology.
>
I am very appreciative of this. In the case of Rife technology that is
exactly what was needed. It is now developing critical mass.
>Multiple, independent corroboration, of each step in the design process is
>another thing that I can see of value in a group research project. As this
>unit would grow, many could come to bear on the independent verification of
>the test data. Errors could be caught quickly, and corrected.
>
See above comment your assessment is right on target.
>Public domain, is what my posts have now become. I feel that you may have
>misunderstood what I meant by certain restrictions of specific information.
> It is my expressed purpose, that the greatest amount of information be
>placed on a web site and shared with all to do there own work in this area
>of research.
Agreed
>I do feel that it would be unfair to release, outside the core group,
>design criteria specific to the prime project of the competition. That
>would be like running a race, where the rules are, that you must push your
>opponent in front of you.
>
What I don't understand is how you are going to prevent the competition
getting this info once it is in public domain. The competition can and will
simply infiltrate the core group?? The public domain should actually level
the playing field that is exactly what has happen in the Rife situation
with the originators becoming highly respected expert consultants and the
public at large getting access to this technology.
>One of the hardest things that I have personally faced here, is to get
>people to the point of understanding that there is no one universal design.
>Or if there is one, it is the welder. Rather that getting into designing
>such a thing from the ground up, the option there, is just to go buy one.
>Although they cost about $10,000, many, I work with have done exactly that,
>and are now seeking and receiving my help on designing application
>technology. I think my work here is different in that I seek to help those
>who want a deeper, first hand understanding of this technology. i.e. What
>experiments to do, what electrolyte to use, how much concentration, what
>plate material/spacing/connection, what type of power supply, how much
>current, all those things. All of this saves a beginner many hundreds of
>hours of research, and I am glad to do it.
>
Couldn't thank you more for this info, unfortunately I have only been
exposed to some of it but I will keep plugging away at it. I solidly fall
in the beginner category and my frustration stems from the good and bad
information overload I am getting on these issues (down side of the net)
lot of which is defocusing the issue at hand. I really would love to get
something solid to start on. It has never been an issue on joining the
core group you have started. I am simply pointing some inconsistencies and
I really hope that it helps. If you will accept me then I surely would love
to join.
>One of my posts dealt with the eradication of Asbestos, a difficult problem
>for our world. The group that started right here on this site, is now
>completing work on their first production cell. They did as I had
>suggested and bought a BN 200, for $2,700, to proof out the concept, and
>launched right in to the work on a interim level unit, not a full plant
>design. They are taking the steps, and doing the work needed to manufacture
>their own design, specific to the needs of their application.
>
Fantastic!
>I am hoping to foster another group in the Southwestern United States, to
>work on the Knudtson Power cell technology, once again started right here
>in this site. A very simple technology well outlined here, but can it run
>house? A neighborhood? A city? Although the technology has been shown to
>work, a full scale unit has never been built. And, there again to what
>scale? House or city or factory or space station? The neat thing that you
>might be a bit more appreciative of, is that you were part of that process,
>you were there and involved in some of the first talks of this project.
>
This has been an area that I have been struggling to get involved in (for
personal use) and George Wiseman has been teasing me with this or that for
the last 2 years. He does not feel BG is the way to go because of its low
heat output etc. In my opinion the coversion to electrocity could solve
that issue??
I would love to try to build "Knudtson Power cell" if I could get more info.
>This Grant proposal, zero "G" Hydroxy welder, is just one more in a long
>line of research projects that I am presently working on and would hope to
>further along. I guess that is what I call "planting" the seeds of change.
>
You certainly planted a big one here! Will try to help as much as I can.
>Please continue to offer other areas where you see problems in this idea.
>I read your posts and they point out many things that I need to be
>conscious of if I am to be successful in this or many other such efforts.
>
Will do
Regards,
Chris Gupta
>All the best
>
>TR Knudtson
>
>
>At 12:46 AM 10/31/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>At 05:57 PM 10/29/98 -0800, trknute@earthlink.net wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>could focus and share information.
>>>
>>
>>TR Knudtson,
>>
>>If you want to share the info why are you beating around the bush? Just
>>put it in the public domain! Frankly I am getting a bit tired of these
>>teases that people in the know and/or with hidden agendas keep badgering
>>various lists with....
>>
>>>The thing that I am wanting to offer to those who would involve themselves
>>>directly in the research, is complete disclosure of all reports and
>>>documentation. This may be different than the news group.
>>>
>>>If this project goes on to develop a collective product, a final granting
>>>of patent or such, I would see it as a possession of the group, and
>>>ownership then be of an international distribution, to each contributing
>>>member.
>>
>>Come on now how are you going to coordinate all this? Typical wishful
>>thinking, totalling impractical...
>>
>>>In bringing Brown to the US in 90, I had hoped that the us would not act
>>>in this way, much to my disappointment it was the case. Even after
>>>demonstrating the technology for the Lawrence Livermore labs, The excited
>>>scientists left our meeting with the greatest enthusiasm claiming this the
>>>most important discovery since the atomic age, There quote not mine, only
>>>to turn sour over night, phoning later to explain that they had not much
>>>extra time to spend on such things.
>>
>>What would you expect these people to do?? Go around praising the inventors
>>on how great the invention is and then build and market it for them to
>>boot? Have you inventors never heard of the NIH (Not Invented Here)
>>syndrome? For them to be as enthusiastic as the inventors it would also
>>have to be their idea at least partially - its called buy in... sorry life
>>is just that way...
>>
>>I agree with Dwenbert...
>>
>>"They all seem to be bumbling around like Newman, not getting
>>anything accomplished. If these people are this inept at business, they
>>can't be so all-fired brilliant at anything else. People skills are not
>>THAT remote from other forms of abstract reasoning."
>>
>>If only the inventors had spent half the time and money marketing their
>>invention instead of trying to convince disinterested parties something may
>>have come of it.....
>>
>>>
>>>Oh hell!, I just want to cut down on my e-mail, and have one place for
>>>people to come to get as much as they can, in the way of starting in this
>>>technology, and free of charge. That does not mean that we have to let out
>>>specifics on a given design that the group may be working on.
>>
>>Free of charge? not let out specifics? Either its public domain or its not.
>>Really this is just more rubbish!
>>Less malarkey please!
>>
>>>I have always been an advocate that the future of this technology does not
>>>lie in making units, but rather in the applications of this gas.
>>>
>>
>>Well stop hoarding the info. Let it out in the public domain and pls don't
>>give us all the tiresome diatribe on non disclosure agreements and how the
>>inventors have spent all their lifes on their inventions etc. and have
>>every right for a 'ransom' for their info etc. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
>>sorry for the catch but that's life and I can tell you 'information wants
>>to be free' and sooner or later we will have the info. So if you want to
>>make a difference do it sooner... as it may be very later.. as in scheme of
>>things (nature) time is irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>On a positive note I have learned a lot from your posts and its a real
>>pity that this is turning out be so unnecessarily complex... If we had more
>>info we all could learn/dialogue with a lot more substance and accelerate
>>this technology, While we both seem to want the same thing, going in
>>circles is just not going to do it. Sad
>>
>>
>>Chris Gupta
>>
>>>TR Knudtson
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>