Question: The 11.65Volts filtered and buffered through the
CD device, what was the output pulse voltage? I thought LEDs
are 2.5 volt devices that take about 10-20mA? As I remember
you can take a 5 volt supply and 220 ohms to the LED for
full brightness.
Ever try a TDR measurement with a 555 timer or Function generator?
You get back some interesting waveforms back. Some higher with
an open circuit, terminated in the intrinsic impedance gives
the same voltage back, and shorted end give 0 voltage back.
Discontinuities in the cable also show up.. on a scope in time
at lower voltages for semi shorts or higher when coax shield
is torn open. Neat stuff..
Now back to this 1000' cable. Does it have to be coax? My
thoughts so far is possibly that 75 coax (or 50 ohm) loads
the source down and the termination point required at least
the same impedance to match the power input. If it is lighter
load then you will not see any additional power drawn matter
fact the reflected wave will be higher coming back if the
load has a higher impedance. Not sure what to make of it....
A transmission line what this is...
Going to try it this weekend though.. as a refresher.
v/r Ken Carrigan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Wootan [mailto:normw@airmail.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 9:43 AM
> To: Carrigan, Ken; interact@keelynet.com
> Subject: Re: TOD experiments
>
>
> Ok! Ken, here is the starting point of our experiment. Please go to
> KeelyNet Files and download the original TOD circuit and the Bert Pool
> "FireFly" circuit and you will scratch your head in
> wonderment over the
> results. I think Tom Bearden's Theory will be vendicated.
> Good luck.
> By the way, I was able to power 10 LEDs in parrallel with no
> gain in input
> current from a pure DC source (12 volt gel cell battery).
> FireFly Circuit
>
> ==============================================================
> =================
>
> Message 4855 DATE/TIME:
> 02/10/94 09:09
> From : NORMAN WOOTAN -- RECEIVED --
> To : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
> Subject: Bert Circuit
> Folder : A, "Public Mail"
>
> Jerry: Last night I added about $20.00 to my phone bill for Bert had
> me verify a circuit that he designed. After a quick run to
> Radio Shack
> for a hand full of parts we settled down to some serious construction
> and testing via phone. I was duplicating everything that Bert was
> doing and measureing the results on curent and volt meters plus two
> scopes. This will take your socks right off. Bert will be posting
> some data real soon. I know your interest is up, but you will have to
> await Berts report on the experiment. This is a real ZINGER. Norm
> ==============================================================
> =================
>
> Message 4858 DATE/TIME:
> 02/10/94 10:13
> From : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP) -- RECEIVED --
> To : NORMAN WOOTAN
> Subject: (R) Bert Circuit
> Folder : A, "Public Mail"
>
> Hi Norm! Always open minded around here, in fact, sometimes
> a cesspool
> just seething with stuff....so pour it in...got a note from Lee and he
> responded to a message from Gerald...I must post it since he
> sent it as
> a message to Gerald...but he is eager for more info....maybe if I'm
> lucky won't have to work tonite because of the "ice"...geez, what
> weenies, this ain't nothin....but I would like the day off,
> even though
> it would be unpaid, but I can take a vacation day...>>> Jerry
> ==============================================================
> =================
>
> Message 4865 DATE/TIME:
> 02/11/94 01:26
> From : BERT POOL -- RECEIVED --
> To : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
> Subject: Fire Fly 3
> Folder : A, "Public Mail"
>
> This is in reference to the TOD.ZIP circuit from Lee Trippett!
> .
> Don't you just hate to dial into Keely Net and find that the
> board has been dead and no one's posted anything? Well, a
> lot's been going on, and those of us who've been iced in here in
> Dallas have put the unexpected days off to good use. Read and
> enjoy. Better yet, you'd best warm up your soldering iron!
> .
> 1) an unexpected interruption from Lee Trippett
> .
> A few days ago Lee Trippett sent us a diagram for a simple pulse
> circuit which was supposed to dump a pulse of current into a coil
> and then connect a load to the isolated coil (collector) to
> extract any over-unity power, ala Tom Bearden - minus the
> degenerate power conductor. Lee had gotten some incredible meter
> readings which showed very high input-to-output power ratios. A
> couple of us here in Dallas immediately stopped whatever
> experiments we had in progress and built a couple of these
> devices. Independent confirmation found the current readings
> were erroneous due to the fact that the circuit had the
> experimenter try to measure micro to nano second wide pulses with
> current meters designed to measure steady-state d.c. Fast
> oscilloscopes showed no real power gain. I dismissed the circuit
> as an excellent but faulty try, and then I went back to my work.
> .
> 2) nose to the grind wheel
> .
> As many of you who follow the postings on this net know, I
> proposed an experiment several days ago and invited comments: if
> you connect a battery to a very long wire for 1 uSEC then
> disconnect it, and you have an LED which is 4 uSECs away (several
> thousand feet of wire), will the LED light up? Don't be too
> quick to answer, for by the time the voltage potential gets to
> the LED, the BATTERY WILL HAVE BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM THE CIRCUIT
> FOR OVER 3 MICROSECONDS! Can an LED light up even when there is
> no longer a battery supplying potential in the circuit? That's
> what I was trying to prove. What is nice is that it is a yes or
> no problem. You either have light, or you don't. The purpose of
> the experiment is to determine whether a conductor can be
> potentialized and power withdrawn without running down the
> battery.
> .
> 3) The ghost of TOD returns
> .
> The lesson learned from Trippett's attempt to measure pulses with
> d.c. meters was still very fresh in my mind. I needed to measure
> current accurately in MY circuit, so I set up my meter in the
> d.c. power supply lead to my circuit, not in any area where
> pulses were involved. Just to make sure stray pulses from my
> oscillator (NE-555, the same as Lee's) didn't get back to the
> meter through the power buss, I added several 0.01 ufd spike
> suppressor capacitors to the power leads on the chips, and threw
> in an extra 1,000 ufd across the main buss to really filter the
> d.c. back to the meter. I damn sure was not going to have any
> a.c. crap screwing up my current measurements! My 'scope showed
> the prettiest 11.65 volt pure d.c. input power anyone could ask
> for.
> .
> 4) Wiring my test experiment - LOTS of wire!
> In my test I originally was going to use two 5,000 foot 18 gauge
> wires to perform my LED test. Norman Wootan found several
> thousand feet of RG-5x coaxial cable, which is much easier to
> use. The circuit was very simple: a 555 oscillator provided
> pulses adjustable from 1 uSEC to 20 uSEC wide at a repetition
> rate from a few hundred to several thousand pulses per second.
> The 555 puts out a negative going pulse, and I wanted positive
> pulses, so I fed tha 555's output into a CMOS CD-4001 NOR gate
> wired to act as an inverter to give me positive going pulses. The
> CD-4001 chip is nice for this work, because it can supply current
> directly to an LED without needing any current limiting
> resistors. I checked the output of the 4001 and had very, very
> nice 1 to 20 uSEC pulses. Total circuit d.c. current, with no
> LED was 7.8 milliamps. Plugging in the LED directly to the 4001
> output caused the current to rise to 8.5 milliamps, and the LED
> glowed nicely. I removed the LED and connected the end of a
> 4,300 foot length of coax to the output of the 4001. My scope
> showed an expected drop in pulse amplitude and an increase in
> current to 9.5 milliamps. Expected, because I had measured the
> capacitance of the coax and found that between the inner
> conductor and the outer shielded jacket the coax measured out at
> 0.047 ufd. This capacitance attenuated my pulse some, and loaded
> the circuit, but not to an untoward degree. I measured the
> total circuit current - total current going into the 555, the
> 4001, and the coax - and with NO LED load yet. Current was 9.5
> milliamps. I then connected the LED to the far end of the coax.
> .
> 4) The moment of truth
> I had a 35 mhz dual trace triggered scope connected to each end
> of the coax. I saw the 4001 put a 1 uSEC pulse of d.c. on the
> near-end of the coax. Three uSECs later the pulse reached the LED
> at the other end of the coax. THE LED LIT UP. EVEN THOUGH YOU
> COULD PLAINLY SEE ON THE SCOPE THAT THE DRIVING POTENTIAL HAD
> BEEN REMOVED FROM THE COAX SEVERAL MICROSECONDS PREVIOUSLY.
> EXPERIMENT COMPLETE!
> .
> Wasn't that exciting!? Well, maybe some of you aren't real
> exciteable. I know I didn't pee in my pants. Heck, I didn't
> even dribble. Until I looked at my current meter. You remember
> that carefully filtered, isolated meter which was measuring the
> total power to the complete circuit? I knew already that the LED
> wanted to pull about 0.5 ma current to light up. My unloaded
> circuit was pulling 9.5 ma. Connecting the LED should have driven
> the current up to somewhere near 10 ma. Not even .01 of one ma
> more current flowed into the circuit to light up the LED! So
> where the hell was the power to light the LED coming from? It
> sure as heck wasn't coming through my meter from the power
> supply! I connected and disconnected the LED several times. My
> meter was registering current accurate to .01 of 1/000 of one
> ampere. It never moved. It never saw the LED load. OK, I admit
> that maybe I dribbled a little then!
> .
> I called Norm. He went to Radio Shack and got all the required
> parts. I guided him over the phone on how to connect everything.
> Only he didn't have any coax! It was all on my bench. But he
> did have several thousand feet of wire on a spool. What the
> heck, Lee Trippitt had tried to use a coil - we decided to
> substitute Norm's spool of wire for the coax. Norm got the same
> results as I did with the coax! Quickly, I disconnected my coax
> and connected a spool of 3,300 feet of 22 gauge hookup wire I had
> left over from my TOD experiment. My LED glowed as brightly as
> ever. I found pulse width and frequency COULD be changed to
> force an increase in my current meter. I could set a wider pulse
> and finally get a response from my current meter when I removed
> and inserted the LED. However, OPTIMIZING the pulse caused the
> current in the circuit to DROP when the LED was plugged in!
> Neither Norm or I could explain what we were seeing. Norm hooked
> a second LED across the first LED on his device. Now he had TWO
> glowing LEDS. His meter didn't move a digit. How many LED's can
> we parallel before we start to use power from the supply? We
> don't know yet. But two for sure!
> Continued in next message.....................
> .
> --------------------
> NOTE: This message has been FORWARDED to Norman Wootan by
> Bert Pool on 02/11/94 at 10:42
> ==============================================================
> =================
>
> Message 4866 DATE/TIME:
> 02/11/94 01:28
> From : BERT POOL -- RECEIVED --
> To : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
> Subject: Fire Fly 3
> Folder : A, "Public Mail"
>
> Experiment continued.............
> .
> As as additional test, I placed the LED near a precision
> photocell (which had a 2.2 ufd tantalum cap across it to filter
> pulses into pure d.c.) and measured light output. The photcell
> showed 0.303 volts. I then re-connected the LED through a
> potentiometer to the d.c. power supply and set the pot so the
> LED put out the same light as earlier driven by the coil.
> I then disconnected/connected the LED and watched my power meter.
> Yep, it moved 0.5 ma, just as Old Ampere would have expected. I
> moved the LED back to the coil circuit. I connected/disconnected
> the LED to the coil again. Nope, still NO additional current
> flow, but THE LED LIT UP JUST AS BRIGHT! Ah Ha! Maybe the
> secret was in the pulses! Maybe if I used pulses instead of pure
> d.c. on the control pot test?! So I changed the pot connection
> on the LED test driver from the d.c. buss to the 4001 pulsed
> output and set the pot so the light output was the same as when
> the LED was connected to the coil. When I unplugged the LED,
> current dropped 0.5 ma. Ampere was happy. Volta was happy.
> So, this test showed that it didn't make a damn bit of difference
> whether the "control" test pot used d.c. or pulsed power! If I
> connected the LED to continuous d.c. or pulsed d.c. I could see
> the current to the circuit go UP when I connected the LED. But
> NOT if I connected the SAME LED to the coil circuit! I had run
> out of ideas. That LED was going to light up and pull no current
> from my power supply whether I liked it or not.
> .
> 5) You too can amaze your friends!
> Jerry is putting the diagram on the net. Maybe five bucks worth
> of parts. Less if you already built the TOD. A spool of wire. A
> sensitive photocell is optional (heck, we'll let you borrow one
> of ours if you want). There are no switching transistors
> involved. Please build one of these and start with a narrow
> pulse, about 400 to 600 hertz repetition rate. Slowly increase
> pulse width until the LED glows. Make note of the current on
> your current meter. Disconnect your LED. The current meter
> SHOULD show a significant drop in power when you remove the load.
> It won't. Plug the LED back in. It lights up. Current should go
> up. It does not. Nifty, huh?
> .
> Norm thinks a resonance effect is taking place within the
> coil/coax. I agree. Perhaps the coil or coax IS forming a tuned
> circuit, and the LED is only an insignificant part of the circuit
> current....BUT that LED is in SERIES with the coil! Open the LED
> and you open the coil - end of tuned circuit - if the measured
> current is due to a tuned circuit, opening the circuit should
> stop the resonance and affect the current anyway. This is not
> observed to happen. Build this critter and see if you can expand
> the observed results.
> .
> P.S., Norm has been able to coax the LEDs to light with a TOTAL
> circuit current of 2.5 ma! That's combined power to the LED's,
> and both chips. I can't get below 7.5 ma. He's using a much
> different coil than I. I'd be much interested in hearing what
> results you get. >> Bert
> --------------------
> NOTE: This message has been FORWARDED to Norman Wootan by
> Bert Pool on 02/11/94 at 10:43
> ==============================================================
> =================
>
> Message 4869 DATE/TIME:
> 02/11/94 10:44
> From : BERT POOL
> To : ALL
> Subject: Fire Fly 3 diagram
> Folder : A, "Public Mail"
>
> I'm going to see if I can't use a paint editor to modify the TOD
> diagram to show how to connect the CD-4001 and coil so that you may
> check Norm's and my earlier observations. I'll try to upload
> it today,
> Friday, early p.m. >> Bert
> ==============================================================
> =================
>
>
>
> "Carrigan, Ken" wrote:
>
> > Norm,
> > Since I am versed in EM mostly on antenna systems, I kind of
> > know about resonance on cables and can say that standing waves
> > are what it is all about! However, it is the phasing problem
> > with voltages and current -giving rise to complex impedances.
> > Standing waves give HUGE impedances such that no current flows.
> > Once I had done an experiment with 27MHz 5 Watt CB into a tuned
> > network to match a Rife Plasma Tube. It worked so good that
> > when I keyed the CB, the plasma tube lit but when I unkeyed?
> > IT STAYED LIT!! No power was going to the tube but was only
> > the resonate matched network - oscillating. That kind of threw
> > me.. as I was not looking for that to happen.. so just aborted
> > the project and tried something else.
> >
> > I sure wish Bearden could develop an experiment where HE can
> > confirm his theories, cause I am having a hard time with what
> > he says... as what I know and have learned AND PROVED with
> > experiments pan out. Beardens theories are SO hard to prove
> > out in experiments and I am floundering to find an experiment
> > where his theories can be tested.
> >
> > This 1000' cable sounds promising, but watch out for some
> > HUGE comments as I intend to build it and verify Beardens
> > theory. I know that potential by itself can not give power
> > since power involves current and to draw current the potential
> > will suffer. Newmans Motor is intriguing cause he also states
> > that the high voltage pulse can not travel through the miles
> > of copper wire, but still produces the magnetic field to
> > turn the permanent magnet inside the giant coil. From what
> > I know.. there is still a very very small current in that
> > coil from the high voltage (maybe 1uA or less) but the
> > magnetic field is proportional to number of turns which must
> > be some 10,000! So even a small magnetic field will turn
> > his magnet (slow I might add too!).
> >
> > If we pulse a wire with a certain voltage(potential) AND
> > current, the pulse will travel down the wire but the
> > energy of the pulse will start to diminish. Just can not
> > see this working.. but I am going to look into it and test
> > for myself. Maybe something will turn up. Anything that
> > is unexplainable sure would be nice!!
> >
> > v/r Ken Carrigan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Norman Wootan [mailto:normw@airmail.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 10:51 PM
> > > To: Carrigan, Ken
> > > Subject: Re: Bearden on Bedinis' motors
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi! Ken, Let me do some searching and pull up all the info on the
> > > "FireFly" circuit and post it on this site. That way I won't
> > > be operating
> > > from memory. Let's face it that was back in 1994 when Bert
> > > and I did the
> > > experiment so things are rather "fuzzy" as to circuit
> > > details. I'll also
> > > post the TOD circuit file so you will,have the background
> to our test.
> > > This is exactly what Tom Bearden has been preaching all
> along. Think
> > > about how you can apply a potential to a conductor and cause
> > > an electron
> > > displacement but switch off the potential source before a
> > > current occurs.
> > > the displacement wave of electrons (with inertia) will
> > > continue to travel
> > > down the conductor. This is like throwing a stone in a pond
> > > and watching
> > > the wave travel to the shore line. Now create a wave in
> a confined
> > > channel (conductor) and it will arrive at the other end
> with the same
> > > force that established the wave. Make sense???? Now think of a
> > > standing wave situation where the inputs are carefully
> timed. Small
> > > inputs resulting in magnified output. Resonance! Let me
> > > find the files
> > > and message base on the "FireFly" and post it then all
> > > questions will be
> > > answered. Norm
> > >
> > > "Carrigan, Ken" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Norm!
> > > > Whow really! I'd like to know more about the 1000' LED
> > > > experiment. Specifically :
> > > > >By carefully measuring source current from the battery
> (remained
> > > > >constant) we were able to load the output of the
> circuit with many
> > > > >LEDs with no change on the input side of the circuit.
> > > >
> > > > What is the setup? Is it one wire? Did you then ground the neg
> > > > terminal? On both sides of the 1000' wire? What was the size
> > > > and make of the wire.. gauge. what was the battery voltage
> > > > and LED's in series or parallel? LED's are 2.5 volt devices
> > > > and about 20 mA or less so with a large battery? How about the
> > > > switching circuit? Did you use digital logic to get the ns
> > > > switching rates? Very interesting Norm!! Wish I could be there
> > > > when you did this stuff.... but I'm in Stafford VA! Near the
> > > > Pentagon actually... working on the Navy side of things...
> > > >
> > > > If something pans out in energy or free energy I can get (70%
> > > > chance) funding for research into this. Sure would like to
> > > > get a group together with resumes - Tom Bearden of
> course included!
> > > > I some some contacts in the Naval Sea Systems Command in the
> > > > R&D side, and they are interesting in energy efficiency
> specifically
> > > > in running up masts and powering equipment up there. They are
> > > > thinking of running power up the mast with Fiber optics but
> > > > there is not enough power that can be achieve without burning up
> > > > the fiber!! LOL
> > > >
> > > > v/r Ken Carrigan
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Norman Wootan [mailto:normw@airmail.net]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 8:22 AM
> > > > To: Carrigan, Ken
> > > > Cc: interact@keelynet.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Bearden on Bedinis' motors
> > > >
> > > > Hi! Ken et al, Too bad we don't have the old KeelyNet
> BBS message
> > > > base from the days of the TOD circuit available for you
> to read for
> > > > Bert Pool and I performed the long wire experiment you
> are alluding
> > > > to. Basically the question was whether an LED would light
> > > at the end
> > > > of a wire of a length such that based on the switching
> rate it was
> > > > impossible for an electron flow to establish before the switch
> > > > opened. We found that the LED did in fact light even though the
> > > > switch was open at that instant. If you assume that the fastest
> > > > possible rate of travel is (c) light speed, even though we
> > > know it is
> > > > some value below (c), in a nano second the electron flow
> > > would cover
> > > > a distance of 11.75 inches. We used a wire length of
> 1000 feet and
> > > > switched at a rate so that it was impossible for the
> > > electron flow to
> > > > establish before the source to load switch opened.
> This experiment
> > > > led to the development of the "FireFly" circuit that Bert
> > > came up with
> > > > which was a variation of the TOD circuit. We found
> that the circuit
> > > > performed some rather interesting feats that are still
> unexplained.
> > > > By carefully measuring source current from the battery (remained
> > > > constant) we were able to load the output of the
> circuit with many
> > > > LEDs with no change on the input side of the circuit.
> This whole
> > > > experiment was based on Bearden's theory of the source
> providing the
> > > > potential only and the copper conductor provided the
> electron flow
> > > > based on displacement inertia which explains how the
> LED lights with
> > > > the source disconnected from the circuit. I believe
> that Jerry has
> > > > the "FireFly" circuit in the archives somewhere. Joel
> and I got
> > > > heavely engaged with the MRA about this time so never
> > > explored how the
> > > > circuit worked other than Tom Bearden's explanation.
> > > Interesting how
> > > > things run "full circle" back around to the basic premise
> > > laid down by
> > > > Tom and demonstrated by John Bedini in his Tesla Brandt
> switch. Hmmm
> > > > Norm
> > > > PS: By the way, I built all of the devices that we
> have discussed
> > > > lately and demonstrated them at Jerry's Vangard Science
> Discussion
> > > > Group meetings here in Dallas. If you go to the Tesla
> Society Museum
> > > > you will see my Adams Motor there. Hint, the secret is in the
> > > > negative going spikes.
> > > >
> > > > "Carrigan, Ken" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jer,
> > > > >
> > > > > >If these short duration driving pulses in this motor design
> > > > > >do the same amount of work as regular AC but over a longer
> > > > > >period of time, then wouldn't it have to be overunity?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In reading Beardens email over and over <g> and from his other
> > > > > posts or writeups, he is concentrating on 'vacuum' energy and
> > > > > the conjugate side of real power. I would term it 'image' or
> > > > > 'imaginary' part as in sqrt(-1)? Wonder where this fits into
> > > > > the physical word or vacuum energy?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway... YES! There is two sides to what is being stated and
> > > > > alluded to. What I am interested in, and I think Keelynet, is
> > > > > the overunity portion or 'free energy' or even COP>1 which is
> > > > > really not overunity in the true sense.. but rather takes into
> > > > > account renewable energy.. which is fine with me too! <g>
> > > > >
> > > > > If I read Bearden correct it is the FAST switching or
> outrunning
> > > > > of electron/ion flow. In copper wire, the
> 'classical' electrons
> > > > > flow somewhat slower than 'c', and at higher frequencies such
> > > > > as transients the flow is along the outside of copper at some
> > > > > penetration of skin depth. I wonder is the wire
> length from the
> > > > > load to batteries makes a difference? Papers from
> Bearden long
> > > > > along stated that iron or rusty trash wire was the best as it
> > > > > delayed the electron transport allowing 'potential' to arrive
> > > > > but no current flow. Seems Johns Tesla switch or Ron
> Brants switch
> > > > > uses only this philosophy of switching to achieve a charged
> > > > > battery with only capacitors changed from parallel to series!
> > > > > And THIS was shown to operate at Tesla Show, sponsored by IEEE
> > > > > and Ford.. etc? This is what I want to try to duplicate as it
> > > > > required no winding of coils, magnet placements, shafts, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once of your long ago emails (many probably)
> discussed Tesla and
> > > > > his car, running off the aether from only some tubes that he
> > > > > picked up at some local "Radio Shack" and small antenna, which
> > > > > maybe even was not an antenna. Tesla was into spark gaps,
> > > > > transients, capacitor charges, and of course coils! I have a
> > > > > hard time seeing Tesla, the man who invented AC electricity,
> > > > > faking a running electric car running off the aether. Maybe
> > > > > it is as simple as SWITCHING THREE batteries, or one battery
> > > > > and two capacitors on and off. Dirac also was VERY influenced
> > > > > with electron interactions with electromagnetic
> fields and with
> > > > > electrons in the negative energy states as his Dirac Theory
> > > > > states.
> > > > >
> > > > > >I need to build the 10 year old girls machine...winding the
> > > > > >coils is the only tedious part..<g>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > Exactly! Time to go to basement and dust off the shelves
> > > > > and get some experiments rolling. Even a 5 volt 1.0F cap
> > > > > with a dead 1.5 volt battery should work great! Provided
> > > > > switching rates of thousands of dV/dt can be achieved, and
> > > > > some crapping lengthy cable to hook it all up with! <g>
> > > > > v/r Ken Carrigan
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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/
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------