>Fred wrote:
>
>>In addition, if the Ampere equation-- which predicts most results
>>accurately-- is accepted, then the law of conservation of energy is
>>violated. The reason is that, as Pappas shows in some papers about spark
>>discharges in relation to the Dragone device, the Ampere law predicts
>>that when a spark or electron beam reach a velocity of 70% of the speed
>>of light the magnetic forces become stronger than the electric forces
>>and the beam focusses itself, bringing the electrons closer together, in
>>effect operating against entropy and violating the supposed law of
>>conservation of energy. The energy of the beam increases without any
>>input. This of course does not happen in the Lorentz formulation. But
>>does it happen in reality?
>>
>>I suggest it does, in the following devices:
>>1) The Newman machine, which in fact is overunity, but has nothing to
>>do with Newman's theories but is a large induction coil allowing for
>>spark acceleration past the 70% limit.
>>2) The Chernetski experiment as described by Frolov, where shunting an
>>arc into an induction coil circuit reduces the apparent load.
>>3) The Dragone device as described by Tim Vaughn, also using a large
>>coil.
>>4) The anomalous reaction forces described by many early plasma
>>researchers.
>>5) Possibly the Correa device as well.
>
>(#6?: Jerry, didn't you once describe an experiment in which a van der
>Graaf spark fired through a glass tube terminating in a hole in a grounded
>plate showed anomalous energy?)
>
>I've just had an idea. I admit that it's a little bit of a stretch, but
who
>knows, there could be something to it. Let me know what you think.
>
>I was reading a message on another list and the following was quoted:
>
>> "For decades, the various energy companies have been COLLUDING with
>>each other to successfully ignore and even SUPPRESS several types of
>>'FREE ENERGY' technology... For example, at least three U.S. Patents
>>[#3,811,058; #3,879,622; and #4,151,431] have so far been awarded for
>>motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on PERMANENT MAGNETS, apparently TAPPING
>>into the energy circulating through the Earth's magnetic field... During
>>the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named Viktor Schauberger invented
>>and partially developed an 'IMPLOSION TURBINE' [German name,
>>'ZOKWENDLE']. As described in the book 'A BREAKTHROUGH TO NEW
>>FREE-EVERGY SOURCES', by Dan A. Davidson, 1977, water is pumped by an
>>IMPELLER pump through a LOGARITHMIC- SPIRAL-SHAPED coil of tubing until
>>it reaches a CRITICAL VELOCITY. The water then implodes, no longer
>>touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump, which then
>>converts the pump's motor into an electric generator. The device seems
>>to be tapping [the dynamo energy of] the Earth's rotation, via the
>>'Coriolis effect', like a Tornado."
>
>I'm sure some of you recognize the capitalization style of "BS" McElwaine,
>but since he's quoting someone other than Beter or Terziski, I think we can
>deal with it rationally.
>
>First, tapping the Coriolis Effect, as has been pointed out in discussions
>here or on KeelyNet several years ago, is unlikely to produce a significant
>amount of power.
>
>Second, he makes no mention of the alleged blue glow associated with
>Schauberger's more advanced devices. Here's where I started thinking. I
>had just started to reply to the message and mention the glow when I
>remembered Fred's message here about self-imploding self-accelerating
>electron beams. Now, we know that water droplets can often develop an
>electric charge, as in thunderclouds, the "Kelvin's Thunderstorm"
>demonstration apparatus or the oft-quoted negative ion benefits of
>waterfalls. What if, as the water in the Schauberger apparatus pulls away
>from from the walls of the tube, it leaves droplets behind, and the
droplets
>develop a charge? Would it be possible for the charged water droplets, if
>they were very small, to accelerate, via vacuum pull down the tube or
>cavitation or something, to the point where they undergo Ampere-law
>collimation? Can anyone calculate this?
>
>--
>If it looks like a hydra, and moves like a hydra, it's a hydra.