It's not that I'm slamming formal education, engineers or
scientists, geez what do I DO for a living...electronics....
What perturbs me is the attitude that there CAN BE NOTHING
BEYOND what is currently known....it is peculiar and brings
up the spectre of some kind of concerted effort or peer
pressure driven NEED to lambaste and deny new ideas or
attempts to experiment...
To my view, it is simply WRONG to discourage people from
thinking about these 'new' ideas and ESPECIALLY TO
DISCOURAGE experimentation, claiming the results are well
known or that the experiment is too simplistic to produce
any useful observations....
Geez, all electronics comes from a magnet stroked past a
wire...how simple is that? Without these basic discoveries,
there would BE NO engineers or scientits and there are many,
MANY other equally simplistic demonstrations that were
simply SCALED UP to produce practical devices that do work.
Bill Beaty is on the right track by stating the differenc
between PURE SCIENCE which is that of basic discovery and
duplication,
FOLLOWED BY the engineers who figure out ways to scale up a
known, reproducible effect.
Invention to my view uses KNOWN laws applied in novel ways
to produce novel or other useful effects.
DISCOVERY of unknowns is a completely different thing, not
simply paddling through known water or known paths.
It is incredibly thrilling and satisfying to build something
with your own hands, but to discover something new and
unknown, whether a realization based on a correlation or by
doing an actual experiment that reveals something new that
so many others have MISSED....would, I think be beyond
description.
I've not yet experienced the experimental discovery of a new
principle but have gone through many epiphanies,
realizations and understandings when I re-evaluate what I
THOUGHT was the way it was, with new information to arrive
at completely new and different conclusions.
I have seen it over and over when speaking with academics
and engineers, PARTICULARLY NOTABLE IN CLUSTERS...when a
group of them get together, if you don't have a PhD or an
engineering degree, you CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING....yet, the
minute the 'cluster' breaks up, they come sneaking up when
no one is watching and start pumping you for
information....of course, they can't USE any of it unless
they can blend it in as their own discovery, which is almost
never the case because it would then make them one of us
'weird science' people...thus jeopardizing their tenure or
high paid consulting/research position....<g>..
But there are a very, VERY FEW of these academics and
engineers...who do realize that knowledge and insight comes
from many sources...people like John Bockris, Tom Bearden,
Hal Puthoff, Dan Davidson, Moray King, Hal Fox, Don Kelly
and quite a few others who are out on a limb in their own
profession AND IN THEIR STANDING WITH THEIR PEERS because
they acknowledge that there is simply much that is not
known...
and they do encourage these new views that deviate RADICALLY
from the stale, FIXED 'laws' they are taught and work with
everyday, where they have to quench or suppress anomalies by
shielding, grounding or altering their circuits to stop the
effect which is interferring with the intended design....
One famous free energy researcher told me a great story
about this which is at;
http://www.keelynet.com/info1297.htm#hpou
Hewlett Packard O/U Circuit - 12/21/97
This will sound like just so much useless spook talk, but I
am hoping someone else has information about it. Recently,
while speaking with a free energy researcher, he told me he
had been contacted by a Hewlett Packard field engineer about
an anomaly he and his team had been asked to help resolve.
It seems there is a circuit developed at HP and installed in
some of their early machines which tended to spontaneously
produce overunity. This would swamp the other electronics or
burn them out when this circuit went nuts and started
injecting unexpected power into the system.
I asked if the circuit type was known, power supply, control
board, input/output, what class of circuit and he did not
know. I also asked if he knew what class of machine since HP
makes many different types, printers, copiers, computers,
etc.. and he did not know that either.
This circuit would go into some kind of resonant state which
would for the duration of the oscillations, produce excess
power. Bill Ramsay has noted in his gravity wave experiments
that there are periods when the earth is subjected to waves
that will entrain the gravity wave detectors to clearly show
something has captured the circuit. Bill's report is on the
site below.
Mechanical Gravity Wave Detection - 11/20/97
Hodowanec Gravity Wave Detector - 11/03/97
Gravity Wave Detection - Bill Ramsay -
06/10/97
The point here, with people like Moray, Hendershott, Hubbard
and others, there are references to 'stroking' a magnet
across the circuit to establish a 'flow' (resonant coupling
to allow power transfer), squeezing a capacitor to do the
same, or in Moray's case, listening to the pink noise of the
universe while tuning his detector, until he heard a
distinct 'whooshing' signal that was the 'pulse' of the
universe.
So it would appear that we could very well have circuits
that were at a frequency that was close enough to be caught
up, KINDLED to be ENTRAINED, by an overpowering wave from
this mystery pulse.
If it takes this kind of tuning to make ZPE powered devices,
so be it. In fact, the circuitry could be so designed as to
hunt for a given set of characteristics or a 'wave
signature', lock into it and track it using phase locked
loops.
One of the other complaints regarding ZPE tapping is that
the energy is not continuously stable, but comes in erratic
waves which can produce intensifications or brownouts of
energy. This is engineerable using a pilot circuit to
monitor for ZPE fluctuations.
Such a pilot circuit would serve as a kind of UPS
(uninterruptible power supply) that would maintain a
constant source of power. It might even be necessary to use
a battery backup system to smooth out such ZPE ripples when
they occur, just as we currently do for grid power.
--------------------------
and the following email from Tom Bearden on a similar
subject;
From: Tom Bearden
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:23:32 EST
To: Jerry Decker
Subject: Re: Purported Overunity Results by Hewlett Packard
Jerry,
Probably a circuit that was somewhat akin to a thing that
Westinghouse placed in the Minuteman missile some years ago.
In those days electronics were still more bulky, and space
and weight were at a premium on board ICBMs etc. So the
engineers set about to design a highly efficient frequency
converter for the Minuteman. It had to be at least 90%
efficient, preferrably 95%.
The engineers used germanium transistors and
state-of-the-art feedforward and feedback loops, to squeeze
every bit of efficiency out of there that was possible.
Something like 64 transistors were involved in the forward
and reverse multiplelooping.
(snip...) Our own team was blowing transistors off the board
in one-foot flash diameter sudden violent explosions in
1990. We know what has to be done to control the excess
buildup, but certainly did not have the type of team and
laboratory facilities necessary to tame it. Perhaps Hewlett
Packard has done so, and had the necessary team. If so, they
almost certainly do not understand the mechanism, but have
discovered how to do it.
In the Westinghouse Minuteman case, all the output side
electronics started failing out there in the field. After
much investigation, it was found that the average unit was
putting out about 115%. The receiving electronics could not
accept that much.
Corporate officials came down hard on the engineers, so they
just put in limiting diodes, etc. and spoiled the ping pong.
That brought the thing down to about 95% efficient, and the
electronics on the output side quit blowing out. Everybody
was happy, and everybody continued to use those "crippled
overunity units" in the Minuteman missile.
Westinghouse quietly filed five or six patents around that,
and that was the end of that. Everybody "knows" that you
cannot produce an EM system that puts out more than you
input! They have all been educated in the crippled
Maxwellian equations that only deal with EM systems that
have already been violently wrenched into local equilibrium
with their vacuum exchange.
Both the Russians (Moscow University) and the U.S. (Gabriel
Kron for a contractor in a Navy contract at Stanford
University) made free energy devices in the 1930s. The
Russian work is fully documented in the hard Russian physics
literature and the French physics literature.
The KGB/Communists suppressed the Russian work at the
beginning of WW II. I do not know what happened in France to
cause its abandonment. In the U.S., Kron's work was never
openly released on what he called his "negative resistor"
which, when connected to the Network Analyzer at Stanford,
allowed the NA to be disconnected from the generator because
the negative resistor would power it.
Heck, Jerry, I was 68 this month. It's about time that I
pass along some of this mess I uncovered after so many years
of painful work. At least we can steer the young fellows in
the right direction, instead of just waving our arms and
shouting "It's resonance! It's resonance! " - Cheers - Tom
-- KeelyNet - From an Art to a Science Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com/discussion archives http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, TX 75187 - 214.324.8741------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com> with the body text: leave Interact list archives and on line subscription forms are at http://keelynet.com/interact/ -------------------------------------------------------------