MESSAGE ARCHIVE FOR FREENRG-LIST@ESKIMO.COM Sept 1995 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:26:06 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: freenrg-list@mail.eskimo.com Subject: freenrg-list exists... I've been putting off (and 'dreading' the reading time I'll burn!) for a long time the startup of this list. ;) Rules: 1. No true-believer vs. pathological-skeptic flamewars, a la sci.physics.fusion. Lets just say that freenrg-list is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (having maybe a bit of rational skepticism,) and let the skeptics leave in disgust. 2. Heavy on experimentalist. Or theory-led experiments. Or theoretical implicatoins of experiments. This is not a forum for incredible physics theories to which conventional science turns a deaf ear. But if your theory leads directly to interesting, testable, real-world phenomena, then by all means discuss the experimental possibilites. If experiments turn up anomalies not covered by any theory, definitely jump right in and post your findings. It's very acceptable to put your theories on a web page and announce their presence here. 3. more? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: freenrg-list@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: freenrg-list exists... On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, William Beaty wrote: > Rules: > > 1. No true-believer vs. pathological-skeptic flamewars, ala ... > > 3. more? > 3. Junkmail email advertizing will not be tolerated. While not illegal, widecasting of junk email ads to internet sites is against the Unwritten Rules of the Internet. Anyone who spams freenrg-list with junkmail will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team. ;) Occasional on-topic advertizing by regular freenrg-list users is acceptable. Maybe should be No. 1? : TOPICS: experiments and devices which exhibit anomalous energy production (or consumption!) or which violate currently-accepted physics theory. This includes overunity, electrogravity & inertia violation, 'scalar', psi and paranormal, Relativity violation, and any similar topics which we here consider interesting (ask us!) .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 21:32:01 -0700 From: majordomo@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Welcome to freenrg-list Reply-To: majordomo@mail.eskimo.com Welcome to the freenrg-list mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "majordomo@mail.eskimo.com" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe freenrg-list bilb@mail.eskimo.com Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: [Last updated on: Fri Sep 29 21:16:39 1995] ************************************************************************** WELCOME TO FREENRG-LIST ************************************************************************** This list is for the discussion of experiments and devices which exhibit anomalous energy production (or consumption!), or which violate currently-accepted physics theory. This includes: - Overunity - Electrogravity & inertia violation, - Scalar Electromagnetism - psi phenomena, and paranormal - Relativity violation ...and any similar topics which the regular users consider interesting (ask us!) Rules: 1. Debunkery and believer/skeptic flamewars are frowned upon. Let's just say that freenrg-list is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (having maybe a bit of rational skepticism,) and let the skeptics leave in disgust. 2. Heavy on experimentalism. Or theory-led experiments. Or theoretical implications of experiments. This is not a forum for all those controversial physics theories being ignored by conventional researchers. But if your theory leads directly to interesting, testable, real-world phenomena, then by all means discuss the experimental possibilites. If your experiments reveal anomalies not predicted by ANY theory, definitely jump right in and discuss your findings. Also it's very acceptable to publish theoretical work on a web page and announce their presence here. 3. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated. While not illegal, widecasting of junk email ads to listservs sites is against the Unwritten Rules of the Internet. Anyone who spams freenrg-list with junkmail will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team. ;) Occasional on-topic advertizing by regular freenrg-list users is acceptable. - Bill B. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From: gns@aladdin.co.uk Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 21:11:29 +0100 To: bilb@eskimo.com Subject: Re free energy discussion list >I'm going to take the plunge and start up a discussion list for >unconventional physics. Stay tuned... > >- Bill Beaty Hello Bill, I think that's a great idea. My interest in joining the Tesla list, was entirely motivated by my enthusiasm for unconventional physics. (esp free energy devices) Because of the overwhelming number of articles are unrelated to this, I have just unsubscribed. Unfortunately, this means that I will be unaware of any further postings that you might make, regarding how to join such a list. I would be very grateful if you could add my name to any such list, or notify me when it commences. Thanks, Simon Bascom From: richard.quick@slug.org (Richard Quick) To: bilb@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ball Lightning On Tue, 5 Sep 1995 John Bell wrote.... > I'm looking for some information on ball lightning production. Malcolm Watts replied: MW> Now that's a subject that I've always been interested in!!! Yes, this has been done by Tesla, and by Kenneth L. Corum and James F. Corum, who were the first people to my knowledge to accurately decipher Tesla's sometimes crypic notes and reproduce Tesla's orignal experimental method. Corum & Corum published in the Tesla Coil Builders Association publication "NEWS" Volume 8, #3--July, August, September-- 1989, "Tesla's Production of Electric Fireballs", pp 13-18. This article includes four B&W photos, one page of apparatus schematics, and an extensive bibliography. It is available as a back issue from the TCBA. In addition Corum and Corum published a more lengthy paper in 1988 titled: FIRE BALLS - A Collection of Laboratory Experiment Photographs; which consists of text plus 36 color photographs and commentary, 50 pp total for $55.00 and available from: Corum & Assoc. Inc., 8551 State Route 534 Windsor, OH 44099. Yet another paper on the subject was presented by the Corum brothers at the 1990 Tesla Symposium at Colorado Springs, Colorado. The paper titled "Fire Balls, Fractals, and Colorado Springs: A Rediscovery of Tesla's RF Techniques" may be found in: PROCEEDINGS of the 1990 INTERNATIONAL TESLA SYMPOSIUM, 1991, International Tesla Society, edited by Steven R. Elswick, Asst. Editors Gary Peterson, Jason Wentzell; ISBN 1-9620394-2-X Tesla, of course, was the first person that I am aware of to produce electrical fire balls in the laboratory. Tesla shows dozens of diagrams and photographs of apparatus capable of producing fireballs in the COLORADO SPRINGS NOTES (or CSN). See the notes and diagrams on pp 114-115, 174, 176, 177, text on pp 368-370, etc... The CSN is liberally sprinkled with circuits and techniques for fire ball production; the problem being that Tesla does not show a wiring diagram and say "This circuit produces fireballs." The circuits he used are diagramed in the course of the notes, but the discussion of fireballs appears in different sections with no clear connection to a particular circuit schematic. The key to understanding the versitility of these circuits is in realizing that the main coils were large and difficult to move. However, by simply moving the base lead wires around and adjusting the dischargers and tank circuit tune, it was easy to fire a Magnifier configuration one minute, and a fire ball machine the next. (well a few minutes anyway!) > THE COLORADO SPRINGS NOTES, 1899-1900 By Nikola Tesla... Hardcover, 440pp, Published by NOLIT, Beograd, Yugoslavia, 1978. Prefaced and annotated by Aleksandar Marincic, Assoc. Prof. of EE Beograd Univ. and advisor to the Nikola Tesla Museum, Yugoslavia. BTW, the fireball circuit basically consists of two secondary coils with substantially different frequencies (say 67 kHz & 156 kHz) coupled to the same tank circuit. The Corums used a primary coil shaped like an oval racetrack (or a modern football stadium) with the two secondary coils positioned inside. Points are generally added to the coil dischargers to force the two coils to strike one another. Carbon vapor assists in the production of a stable plasma sphere, so the discharger points are doped with carbonaceous material. Richard Quick **************************************************************************** Steve Roys to Ed Sonderman: > I am also interested in ball lightning, and would be very keen to find > this TCBA reference that you were speaking of. Vol 8#3 is the issue that has the article by the Corum's (titled "Tesla's Production of Electric Fireballs"). In it they describe how you can use a two coil system to create electric fireballs. The article is (imho) well-written and they give a list of references if you want to find out more. The 1989/1990 double issue of the Tesla Memorial Society's "The Tesla Journal" also has an article by the Corums titled "High Voltage RF Ball Lightning Experiements and Electro-Chemical Fractal Clusters". In it they postulate a possible mechanism for natural ball lightning. They also describe their single coil setup (24" x 84" secondary, 2.4MV @ 66kHz output) they used to generate their fireballs. An extensive list of references is also included in this article. The Corums' are (to the best of my knowledge) the most "scholarly" and well-respected investigators of Tesla technology, and I would think that anything from them would be well worth your time and effort to obtain if you're seriously interested in trying to understand what's going on. A lot of their articles are technical, but not to the point that you need a PhD in physics to understand what they're saying. Steven Roys *************************************************************************** Oh yeah, to close on this subject, Tesla mentioned fireball production in his patent record: Quoting Phil Mason: PM> I have got a book from around the turn of the century called PM> 'Electricity in the service of man.' It is a translation of PM> a German text. Reading Ed's email about the high voltage PM> applied over a bath of brine, in an attempt to produce ball PM> lightning, reminded me of an illustration in this book. It PM> is apparently possible to produce a glowing plasma-like ball PM> over the water and around the electrode, when connected to a PM> very large battery (of 100 cells) - I seem to remember the PM> emphasis being on current as opposed to voltage. Anyway, I PM> shall dig out the book this weekend and let you know. OK, I have seen video tape and apparatus photos (including the fireballs) recorded by Robert Golka a few years back. It concurs with the information you posted above. Robert Golka used a very high current, low voltage, step-down transformer with a pulse action switch (no capacitors, coils, etc.. just a heavy step-down xfmr and switching network). Golka placed aluminum plates near the surface of the water tank, and using a hand-held electrode fitted with what looked like an arc welding rod, switched the current into the aluminum plate. Fireballs jumped out of the water and floated across the tank. Problem: I was in a group who discussed these experimental results at length after we viewed the experiment documentation. We came to a conclusion based on clearly presented evidence that while Golka had indeed produced "fireballs" this was not a case of laboratory production of "ball lightning". There is a difference. We examined photos of the damage done to the aluminum plate and the high current electrode. We also examined photos of small spherical residue left when Golka's fireballs extinguished. We came to the conclusion that Golka's fireballs consisted of burning metal particles and metal plasma. The fireballs left a spherical bead of dross that is typical of welding residue. This experiment documents a completely different set of conditions than those that were noted by Tesla in the Colorado Springs Notes, and again by Kenneth and James Corum in their work done reproducing Tesla's fireballs. Tesla's patent record also contains an ominous warning concerning operation of his large Magnifier circuits. I refer you to Tesla's Patent No. 1,119,732 patented 12/1/1914, lines 120 - 154: The adjustments should be made with particular care when the transmitter is one of great power, not only on account of economy, but also in order to avoid danger. I have shown that it is practicable to produce in a resonating circuit E A B B' D immense electrical activities, measured by tens and even hundreds of thousands of horse-power, and in such a case, if the points of maximum pressure should be shifted below the terminal D, along coil B, a ball of fire might break out and destroy the support F or anything else in the way. For the better appreciation of the nature of this danger it should be stated, that the destructive action may take place with in- conceivable violence. This will cease to be surprising when it is borne in mind, that the entire energy accumulated in the excited circuit, instead of requiring, as under normal working conditions one quarter of the period or more for its transformation from static to kinetic form, may spend itself in an incomparably smaller interval of time, at a rate of many millions of horse-power. The accident is apt to occur when, the transmitter circuit being strongly excited, the impressed oscillations upon it are caused, in any manner more or less sudden, to be more rapid than the free oscil- lations. It is therefore advisable to begin the adjustments with feeble and somewhat slower impressed oscillations, strengthening and quickening them gradually, until the ap- paratus has been brought under perfect control. "E" above refers to the dedicated RF ground. "A" refers to the grounded secondary coil. "B" refers to the extra coil. "B'" refers to an RF transmission line linking the top of the extra coil to the air terminal. "D" is a very large toriod terminal. "F" is a support tower over 100 feet high for mounting the apparatus and capped with air terminal "D". To take a bit of liberty with Tesla's rather archaic prose, he is talking about a three coil system with a large discharger. The primary and secondary coils are acting as a narrow band signal generator, and this signal is fed by RF transmission line into the base of the extra coil, which is mounted in this case above the primary/secondary, directly below the toriod terminal. The extra coil is electrically operating as a normal Tesla secondary would be in a 1/4 wave system; though instead of being induct- ively coupled to the primary, the extra coil is base fed with RF current. His first statement regarding tens, even hundreds, of thousands of horse-power is a measure of the energy stored and processed over a 1/4 wave cycle (actually it is slightly longer in the quoted patent) in the tuned and resonating coil system from the ground to the air terminal. He next refers to a shift in nodal points in the circuit, from the top of the discharge terminal, down to a section of the extra coil. With this shift of nodal points, he notes the grave possiblities of fireball production. He then notes that with the shift in nodal points the entire system frequency has been compromised, and that instead of an orderly processing of the system energy over a 1/4 wavelength (or more) period of time, resonance collapses and the system energy is released nearly instantly; at a rate that Tesla notes is many millions of horse-power. Tesla tells us this accident is likely to occur in a large Magnifier coil system where the coils are fully powered, but not perfectly in tune. He notes that it is the introduction of a higher frequency signal into the circuit which causes the nodal point to shift downwards, and advises a slow power up with a low frequency, gradually increasing both power and frequency, until the system is brought into perfect tune. This little warning by Tesla is also in line with some of the circuits he experimented with at Colorado Springs, and his notes on fireballs there contain the same circuit elements as the patent quoted above: two or more coils in the circuit (in addition to the primary/tank circuit); sudden shift in the resonate frequency of the system, or two coils of different resonate frequency striking one another; resulting in a very sudden release (near instantaneous) of the energy from what had been a tuned and excited resonant circuit. Richard Quick .. If all else fails... Throw another megavolt across it! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 19:40:34 -0600 From: richard.quick@slug.org (Richard Quick) To: bilb@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ball Lightning About fireballs, quoting Malco: > I know that Dr Robert Golka originally set out to do this but > as far as I'm aware, he didn't suceed, even with some pretty > massive power inputs. Quoting James (Greg) Peters: JP> Golka DID succeed in producing ball lightning. However he JP> failed in his attempt to harness it's power. He did not succeed in producing fireballs with Tesla coils. He did go out with a borrowed locomotive and a submarine circuit breaker and produced fireballs by tripping the breaker open with a wooden broom handle while under full load (one million watts DC). Later as I mentioned, he produced other fireballs with very high current, low voltage, AC by arcing the current through an aluminum plate in a tank of water. The first fireball is typical of a "plasmoid" where arcing produces a plasma channel that is lifted by it's own heat. On occasions an irregularly shaped "ball" of plasma will break off the channel and drift upwards for a moment before cooling. I have seen these on a Jacob's Ladder running 8 - 10 KVA, and it is really no big deal. At 1000000 watts I am sure it would look quite impressive, but it is still not ball lightning. The second fireball left a small spherical residue which to all appearances is simply a bead of welding slag. Starting a high current arc into the aluminum vaporized a small hole in the metal plate, looking much like a 22 cal. bullet hole. The fireballs produced in this fashion most likely consist of burning metal vapor. Again, I have seen fireballs produced by arc welding that fit all of the descriptions, including residual material, of Golka's experiment. They float, vary in color, can bounce off the skin without serious burning, but they are not ball lightning. Richard Quick .. If all else fails... Throw another megavolt across it! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 23:28:04 -0600 From: William Beaty To: bilb@eskimo.com Subject: Free Energy Discussion Group! FREENRG-LIST Well-p, now all those horrible nasty free energy and antigrav discussions have a place to go. I've just started freenrg-list@eskimo.com! To subscribe, send this: subscribe freenrg-list your-email-addr-here. Send to: majordomo@eskimo.com Not 'o/u' stuff exclusively, but also any 'crazy' experimental physics. Gravity effects. Relativity violations. Psi and paranormal. Ghost cameras?! Heavy on experimentalism, no unprovable crank-theory flamewars, no rabid debunkery. Also, vortex-L has been trundling along for eons, with discussions of water-vortex and cavitation based overunity devices. Current topic is the Potopov device from Moldova. ....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 17:25:59 -0600 From: mrbarton@ix.netcom.com (Mark Barton) To: bilb@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ball lightning (a coilers dream ) You wrote: > >Hi all , > >I would be interested to hear peoples opinions and theories on ball lightning. >Tesla could 'apparenty' produce it with a modest amount of power at will, >but there is little or no >documentation on how he did it. The Corum brothers documented their results on producing ball lightning with simple TC apparatus. It involves two coils tuned to disparate frequencies side by side within a common primary. Anyone familiar with building modest size coils should be able to reproduce their apparatus. You can read all about it in their article "Fire Balls, Fractals and Colorado Springs: A Rediscovery of Tesla's RF Techniques". This appears in the _Proceedings of the 1990 International Tesla Symposium_ available from Lindsay Publications. Lindsay carries myriad books on Tesla coiling. Lindsay Publications, Inc. P.O. Box 538 Bradley, IL 60915-0538 (815) 935-5353 This should keep ya busy. Zap, Mark P.S. I have yet to hear about anyone reproducing their results. Maybe that could be your job! Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 20:03:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat Harris Subject: Introducing Myself - PatHarris (Stewart Harris) To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com Hellow Bill & All: I am the source of TOMI, The Theory of Magnetic Instability. I also have another theory I postulated from the above and the demonstrable effects therefrom. It is TIRE, the Theory of Instantaneous Reconstitution of Energy. Sorry about the length and seeming posturing of the names but I am not smart enough to do any better. I include the following as a starting poing: Top view |<--track-->| ____________|____________ | ___| | |___ | | |___| (start) |___| | | |___| |___| | | |___| incline |___| <---------roll of magnets, positioned at | |___| |___| | the same angle as the slope of | |___| |___| | the incline | |___| |___| | | |___|____________|___| | | | | | | | decline | <-----------no magnets here, but not as much | | | | space between the rolls as I've | ___|____________|___ | shown | |___| |___| | | |___| |___| | | |___| incline |___| | | |___| |___| | | |___| |___| | | |___| |___| | | |___|____________|___| | | | | | | | decline | | | | | | | |____________| | | (finish) | |________________________|_ The runner is positioned by hand at the bottom of the first incline (top of the top-view diagram). When it is released, it moves rapidly up the first incline, down the first decline, up the second incline, and down the second decline. When it reaches the bottom of the second decline, it simply falls down into the lower level of the box (bottom of the top-view diagram). It's clear the runner is *released*, not given a push. It has to be aligned correctly. My guess is the person aligning it feels a pressure of the runner against his fingers when it's properly aligned. In the demo, the person aligns it and then simply lays his finger on the rod to keep it from moving, then removes his finger, and the runner starts to move immediately. *************** The above is a linear view of my demo. The description below is from Judy Stein from a video I sent to her about 18 months ago. JS> JS> Cross section view JS> JS> runner starts here JS> | JS> | | /\ /\ | JS> | | / \ / \ | JS> | | / \ / \ | JS> | / \/ \ | JS> |------------------------------- | JS> | | JS> | <--------- runner ends up here JS> |____________________________________| JS> ****************** The above is a large cross-section view of what occurs. There is a back plate on the left side. You place the 'magnetic' runner at the bottom of the first incline. (You will have to hold it there since it is active as soon as it goes into the track. The runner immediately takes off and climbs up the first incline, down the next, up the third, down the next and, because there is no level end to the demo, it falls into the well below. This demo is cardboard, scotch tape. ... It would have worked had they been attached as Stewart Harris had done to take advantage of the 'magnetic instability'....since 1978, he has had this information and been trying to get it out in one form or another, now it's hit and will lead to phenomenal things....IT INDEED WORKS... ... Just got a call from Dan, after we talked last night, he rigged up the magnets and was just laughing his head off at how it worked just as described and dammit, after all these years, the principle (one of them) is SO SIMPLE a child could do it.....anyway, he is placing an order with AZ for hundreds of magnets to develop a circular track... ... It will be fun to watch this next year as the newsletters, conferences and indeed THE MEDIA become aware and focussed on this principle...I have sent out packages to all the contacts, TESLA, ESJ, BORDERLAND, NEN, SEA, KING, BEARDEN, ETC....so they will be aware of what is going on with the full details....it will simply expand now way beyond this.....I just want Stewart to get his full due as the DISCOVERER of the effect, not that others have not done it, but that Stewart first RELEASED it for others to understand.....PHANTASTIC!!!......>>> Jerry The above from Jerry Decker, SysOp of Keelynet. They have gone astray onimplementation, but as I have been designated as not know enough about this to be helpful, I have not heard from anyone in over a year. Can't tell you what has been happening from that end. I'll give Jerry all the info as soon as I learn more so he can get the word out for this will be a "kick-ass" conference if it comes about. It will be centered around working "free-energy" devices so let's all get Stewart Harris' magnetic motor to run on it's own to provide the 3rd category of F/E device that is a hybrid motor/generator. Norm ************* As can be seen, I am not a part of this activity. ************ ================================================================ Message 11269 DATE/TIME: 02/06/95 07:52 From : PAUL VISINGER -- RECEIVED -- To : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP) Subject: TMIdevice Folder : D, "Special Associates Area Alpha" Thank you Jerry, Norman and Joel for answering my questions about the TMIdevice. I took a couple of versions of it over to a friend of mine who is a Physics professor. We had a great time thinking of reasons why it wouldn't work. Specifically, everytime we thought of a reason why it couldn't be made to go in a circle that exact same reason should have been applicable to the 2 cycle linear version. So, the only thing left to do is to make it go in a circle. I left one of the devices with him so he could annoy some other Physics professors that I know. I told him to not to let them take it apart unless there was a wager involved. It could be a good way to make some magnet money. Well, thanks again for your input and I'll be trying to make this thing go in a continuous cycle, one way or the other. I have an idea for a flapper type version. This is great fun. I already have about 350 magnets but it looks like I'll need a few more. Bye, Paul. cc: Norman Wootan Joel Mcclain ********************* Below is another evaluation from another viewpoint. |OLX$SOM| BBS: VEGASPG Conference: 2082,new-theori Number: 603 Reply-to: 0 Private: No Receipt: No ExHeader: No Date: 1995-03-01,05:28 From: Gantt Steve To: ALL Subject: Response to Glenda M. Sta Flags: -- In response to your quotaion of the conservation of energy (et al) in relation to the work being done by magnets. .1. I have performed the experiment and had it perform as stated. .2. Work IS being done by magets alone. .3. The conservation of energy relates ONLY to Newtonian physics. .4. Not one person has yet defined magnetism ( it's properties, yes . but that is like defining an automobile by it's atributes). .5. It is obvious that no one really knows why magnets do what they . do, so why confine them to Newtonian Laws. Most likely they are operating in an area of physics not yet fully understood. Similarly lacking a definition are the subjects of electricity, most aspects of particle physics, gravity and life. If you do have a definition that is NOT a list of attributes. Please post them ! ********************* There is hope still! Date: 1995-03-15,13:37 From: jfoster@utdallas.edu To: Stewart Harris Subject: Re: TMI device, free 2/3 Flags: Thanks for the info. I think that you will be pleased to know that what you have may well be patentable after all. The reason for patent declines of the type of device that you invented is that claims of "perpetual motion" devices are dismissed out of hand with no review. I want to assure you that what you "discovered" is not perpetual motion, however it may be the closest thing that we can design to it. There is a whole science of energy conservation involved here, that is not currently recognized by the scientific community. It may be of some satisfaction to you to "know" that they will likely be in for some shocks over the next 2 years. I work with a group of individuals with credentials. Assorted degrees in physics, nuclear science, math, etc. A concept of energy conservation that provides for not only your type of device, but some others that are very unique, is going to be published, when we finish verifying the empiracle data. I began work on this about 34 years ago, when I could not accept either the sage theories of Mr. Einstine, or the work of the emerging math/physics fields of quantam mechanics. In 1976 I found the first key (an equation) that led me to really try to redefine the physical laws regarding the conservation of energy. I did not, and have not tried to gain wide recognition of these views. I have instead tried to develope a wide base of substantative empirical data to support my theories. You will be pleased to know that I have also developed the knowledge into useful inventions over the years, and am in the process of developing a number of patent applications based on this knowledge. It does not matter whether your insight came via a dream, a daytime hunch, or blotches on a bathroom wall. The proof of the concept will bear you and several others out. That proof is real, reproducable, and most of all, VERY PROFITIBLE. You will not hear from me again, as I try to keep a low profile, so again, Thanks! John Foster jfoster@utdallas.edu 75352.3464@compuserve.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~THE END~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One final item! "Space Energy Association, P. O. Box 11422, Clearwater, FL 34616 Report on the T.M.I. (Theory of Magnetic Instability) Device of Inventor Stewart Harris of Las Vegas, NV./U.S.A. It has now become quite clear here that the T.M.I. Device is an important new discovery which provides support and validation to the dynamic type of new energy devices, and has implications to other advanced physical areas. 1. The T.M.I. device clearly shows that compound magnetic stator elements can and do interact with multiple, single magnetic roller elements, in a limited or 'continuous' mode of operation. 2. The T.M.I. device now clearly validated the project work of Prof. John R. R. Searl of the U.K., and his S.E.G. (Searl Effect Generator). The Searl Effect Generator also consists of compound magnetic stator rings and multiple, single magnetic rollers. 3. The T. M. I. Device now clearly validates the dynamic type of new energy unit since it can and does operate in a continuously linear mode of operation. It now appears unlikely that this T.M.I. Device can be converted into a continuously rotating device, since it is probable that friction will preclude roller rotation due to the cage or restraining means for the multiple magnetic rollers. (I will insert in there that I have already done what the gentleman has postulated cannot be done. But that is another issue entirely. It is because I got special designs via dreams.) (The article includes a demo model of my device in the form of a photograph of the one the author built from my specs, another reproduction of reality.) The above photoprint shows the 'proof of principle' prototype for the T.M.I. Device here in our possession. The complete plans/specs for the T.M.I. device have been provided by the KeelyNet, of Texas. After witnessing the T.M.I. in operation, anyone who doubts the 'reality of macro-level perpetual motion.' should seek protective means for the tops of their pointed heads!! While physics readily accepts 'perpetual motion' at the micro-level, it rejects it at the macro level! WOWEE! How dumb can you get on this small planet!" ********************** Well, enough to get some feathers out of whack! Let the discussion begin. Try to keep it simple since I am legally blind and am trying to get a speech thingie going, and I am not a scientist so technical terms are available to me, but not at the level of most of you -- no, all of you since only have an eighth-grade diploma. Regards, Stewart Harris PatHarris@Delphi.Com `[1;30;41mRainbow V 1.19.3 for Delphi - Registered Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 00:34:03 -0500 From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com Subject: Greetings Hello! I just signed up for this newsgroup. It should be interesting and thought- provoking! I have a question to start off: Has anyone here built a Kromrey generator? I have a copy of the patent (U.S. Patent # 3,374,376 March 19, 1968.) John Bedini, in "Experiments With A Kromrey & a Brandt-Tesla Converter Built By John Bedini", stated that the design in the patent did not work, and he had to modify it to make it work (no modification was explained.) The patent shows an arrangement of field coils like this: Field Coils / _____________ / ____________| |____________ | | | | | | | | | N ____| | ___ S | |_______| |_____________| |_______| Armature Coils _______ _______ / | | | |/ ____|_______|_______________________|_______|_____ |__________________________________________________|Shaft | | | | |_______| |_______| _______ _____________ _______ | |____| |____| | | S | | N | | | | | |____________| |____________| |_____________| In the book TAPPING THE ZERO-POINT ENERGY by Moray B. King, he hypothesizes that the field coils should be polarized as follows (sharply bucking fields): _____________ ____________| |____________ | | | | | | | | | N ____| |____ S | |_______| |_____________| |_______| _______ _______ | | | | _____|_______|_______________________|_______|______ |____________________________________________________| | | | | |_______| |_______| _______ _____________ _______ | |____| |____| | | N | | S | | | | | |____________| |____________| |_____________| So does anyone know if this is the correct way to orient the fields to make it work? I am accumulating parts for a Kromrey generator. I am also accumulating parts for the Brandt-Tesla converter. If anyone has any experiences with that device, please let me know! Zack Widup Urbana IL w9sz@prairienet.org