[Vo]:Re: meeting next month with this inventor
- Original Message - From: William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Todd Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:meeting next month with this inventor 3. Note that we always get good vibes from con artists. Excellent point :-) If someone says they have the secret to an Overunity device, and they want to sell it, then you should ignore any positive gut feelings. That person is a con artist; Not necessarily, they could just want to make a profit from a genuine working idea couldn't they? Michel
[Vo]:Re: CE4
Well spotted in any case! BTW Ron hasn't answered my question unless I missed it: what does he measure on the 1 ohm resistors, just input and output currents, or...? Maybe someone else knows the answer? Michel - Original Message - From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: CE4 Hi Dr. B. I haven't looked at the project at all yet, being too busy with my Steorn and Noether's theorem experiments, as well as some activity with some new tip propulsion helicopter activity. I guess I'll get to it eventually. There's just so much material to investigate ( good or bad thing depending on how you look at it ( It sure keeps us active and alive! ) :-) :-( ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona http://HoytStearns.com -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 4:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: CE4 So Hoyt -- Have you replicated this circuit using a cannibalized TV xtal ? Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: 3.58 MHz is probably a rounded version of 3.579545, the most common xtal in the world -- the NTSC color subcarrier frequency. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona http://HoytStearns.com I will show that later (a 5V dip oscillator), this should solves a bit of the trouble with the gen drift. What about a X-tal OC for generating a signal at a specific frequency : http://www.t-mallusa.com/product_info.php?products_id=2894878 Two problems - there is none available AFAIK which oscillates at *exactly* the frequency you found for your circuit 3.58 MHz, but assuming that one can adjust the core (filing), or the windings or the beads in the circuit in order to match the OC frequency - this one might be more efficient than the 5V , as it is a lower voltage part (3.3).
Re: [Vo]:Re: meeting next month with this inventor
Oh yes, we're going there with both barrels loaded ;) Go to www.green-salon.com for updates on event location/date/time. We should have a public demo date confirmed in a couple weeks. On 10/15/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Todd Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:meeting next month with this inventor 3. Note that we always get good vibes from con artists. Excellent point :-) If someone says they have the secret to an Overunity device, and they want to sell it, then you should ignore any positive gut feelings. That person is a con artist; Not necessarily, they could just want to make a profit from a genuine working idea couldn't they? Michel
[Vo]:Re: CE4
Who's speaking? ;-) Ron, you should really sign your posts, they will get you all the same... I still don't get it, you measure voltage drop on (V) and current through (I) each 1 ohm? (that on the input circuit, and that on the output circuit). And what do you do with those? Suggestion: you should show the measuring resistors and indicate the various signals on your circuit diagram. Michel - Original Message - From: EnergyLab [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: CE4 Michel; Sorry, but I'm not paying attention to much of anything other than trying to do what is normal and get the web page populated with information. I feel its counter productive to answer on an individual level until I present all available info in ONE place. Already there is so many bits and pieces around the net, some partly complete, some incomplete and some just plain wrong. In short the SS site will be the answer location. I have found it much better to just delete my mail for awhile, but I do scan where possible for ones I should maybe answer. Your question - The answer is the impedance of the secondary is well above 10meg ohm (maybe more in #4) and even a 2cm bare wire added to it upsets the readings and available power. The 10meg is a value obtained from an earlier work that will also be on the page (when finished). For why I only measure VI on a 1ohm is that the reading is in phase there. Scope readings are out of the question on the circuit shown in video #4 and there is no cap present at the output of the rectifiers. With other more productive circuits other measurements are maybe a bit better, but anything on the secondary is IFFY. I have a number of cultures to view that have been on hold for two may hours now, so things are not moving at the speed people want (so it appears). -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: CE4 Well spotted in any case! BTW Ron hasn't answered my question unless I missed it: what does he measure on the 1 ohm resistors, just input and output currents, or...? Maybe someone else knows the answer? Michel - Original Message - From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: CE4 Hi Dr. B. I haven't looked at the project at all yet, being too busy with my Steorn and Noether's theorem experiments, as well as some activity with some new tip propulsion helicopter activity. I guess I'll get to it eventually. There's just so much material to investigate ( good or bad thing depending on how you look at it ( It sure keeps us active and alive! ) :-) :-( ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona http://HoytStearns.com -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 4:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: CE4 So Hoyt -- Have you replicated this circuit using a cannibalized TV xtal ? Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: 3.58 MHz is probably a rounded version of 3.579545, the most common xtal in the world -- the NTSC color subcarrier frequency. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona http://HoytStearns.com I will show that later (a 5V dip oscillator), this should solves a bit of the trouble with the gen drift. What about a X-tal OC for generating a signal at a specific frequency : http://www.t-mallusa.com/product_info.php?products_id=2894878 Two problems - there is none available AFAIK which oscillates at *exactly* the frequency you found for your circuit 3.58 MHz, but assuming that one can adjust the core (filing), or the windings or the beads in the circuit in order to match the OC frequency - this one might be more efficient than the 5V , as it is a lower voltage part (3.3). No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 11:10 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 11:10 AM
[Vo]:Motivators and Innovators ... was: meeting next month with this inventor
Michel Jullian wrote: If someone says they have the secret to an Overunity device, and they want to sell it, then you should ignore any positive gut feelings. That person is a con artist; Not necessarily, they could just want to make a profit from a genuine working idea couldn't they? This exchange seems to highlight the fact that there are at least two valid perspectives (opposing but legitimate perspectives) towards the 'intellectual property' surrounding any purported alternative energy device, and especially if that device involves new physics (i.e. so-called overunity). Then there are the illegitimate perspectives - the con-artists and patent trolls. On this forum we seem to get an assortment of postings from all four POVs 1) Legitimate, but for profit - 2) Legitimate, but not for profit - 3) Scam artists 4) Patent trolls, or wannabe (lurking) patent trolls Needless to say, postings and commentary from those few who expect to reap financial gain from the input of others are often hollow. More often we suspect that type of individual is lurking, collecting, and never posting. Fortunately (from my perspective) this forum tends to attract older retired engineers, scientists and inventors who are relatively content with their lives and do not have an overriding greed or motivation for profit. I think Horace Heffner would be a prototype for that ideal. I would also like to salute Ron Stiffler for his selflessness in this regard, inoffering, and at great personal sacrifice, his decades of experience and discoveries. Even if replication does not quickly follow, there is much of value in what he has done and presented. Possibly the 'old farts' like myself realize that, given the normal economic cycle and the time it takes getting from idea-to-product, means that they would never benefit much anyway from the next big thing even if they are instrumental in getting the concept from brain to drawing-board. The best gift many of us can bestow on the next generation is to freely share experience and insight to make the world a better place. But still we hope and do not expect the scum-bags of the group-4 variety (above) to read something here and rush-off to a patent attorney and try to claim (steal) the freely-given idea as their own. I do not have any problem whatsoever with the profit-motivation - our whole economy (almost) depends on it. But the thing which makes the free-enterprise system work best, by tempering unbridled greed (of the Gordon Gekko variety) ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gekko ...is the so-called gift economy - where there are active a small minority of either wealthy of still-productive and experienced thinkers who are willing to freely give, with no expectation of a return - and to share either funding or valuable ideas for the greater good. These individuals tend to seek out the niche where there is the greatest need for help and advancement. Or the greatest injustice from the greed-mongers. There is little doubt to many of us that the area of greatest need for benefiting future society centers around energy ... and furthermore that conservation is not enough, and further exploitation of fossil fuels will lead to more war, poverty and injustice. Even if, in our heart-of-hearts, we suspect that mainstream physics is mostly correct on all pronouncements regarding cracks in the Laws, we still present the outlook that there is a huge missing piece of the energy puzzle which the mainstream is missing... even if we do not buy-into the full extent of supression nonsense. I have to laugh and cringe at some of the postings which one sees on other forums from individuals (most often not using their real name) whose motivation and greed cannot be disguised, or whose gullibility is laughable, or whose idealism is so far ahead of their abilities that their input is counter-productive. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Motivators and Innovators ... was: meeting next month with this inventor
Are there any laws against patenting something which has been copy righted first? I would imagine that a patent right could be denied or nullified on basis of a copy right infringement. Harry On 15/10/2007 10:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This exchange seems to highlight the fact that there are at least two valid perspectives (opposing but legitimate perspectives) towards the 'intellectual property' surrounding any purported alternative energy device, and especially if that device involves new physics (i.e. so-called overunity). Then there are the illegitimate perspectives - the con-artists and patent trolls. On this forum we seem to get an assortment of postings from all four POVs 1) Legitimate, but for profit - 2) Legitimate, but not for profit - 3) Scam artists 4) Patent trolls, or wannabe (lurking) patent trolls Needless to say, postings and commentary from those few who expect to reap financial gain from the input of others are often hollow. More often we suspect that type of individual is lurking, collecting, and never posting. Fortunately (from my perspective) this forum tends to attract older retired engineers, scientists and inventors who are relatively content with their lives and do not have an overriding greed or motivation for profit. I think Horace Heffner would be a prototype for that ideal. I would also like to salute Ron Stiffler for his selflessness in this regard, inoffering, and at great personal sacrifice, his decades of experience and discoveries. Even if replication does not quickly follow, there is much of value in what he has done and presented. Possibly the 'old farts' like myself realize that, given the normal economic cycle and the time it takes getting from idea-to-product, means that they would never benefit much anyway from the next big thing even if they are instrumental in getting the concept from brain to drawing-board. The best gift many of us can bestow on the next generation is to freely share experience and insight to make the world a better place. But still we hope and do not expect the scum-bags of the group-4 variety (above) to read something here and rush-off to a patent attorney and try to claim (steal) the freely-given idea as their own. I do not have any problem whatsoever with the profit-motivation - our whole economy (almost) depends on it. But the thing which makes the free-enterprise system work best, by tempering unbridled greed (of the Gordon Gekko variety) ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gekko ...is the so-called gift economy - where there are active a small minority of either wealthy of still-productive and experienced thinkers who are willing to freely give, with no expectation of a return - and to share either funding or valuable ideas for the greater good. These individuals tend to seek out the niche where there is the greatest need for help and advancement. Or the greatest injustice from the greed-mongers. There is little doubt to many of us that the area of greatest need for benefiting future society centers around energy ... and furthermore that conservation is not enough, and further exploitation of fossil fuels will lead to more war, poverty and injustice. Even if, in our heart-of-hearts, we suspect that mainstream physics is mostly correct on all pronouncements regarding cracks in the Laws, we still present the outlook that there is a huge missing piece of the energy puzzle which the mainstream is missing... even if we do not buy-into the full extent of supression nonsense. I have to laugh and cringe at some of the postings which one sees on other forums from individuals (most often not using their real name) whose motivation and greed cannot be disguised, or whose gullibility is laughable, or whose idealism is so far ahead of their abilities that their input is counter-productive. Jones
[Vo]:Liquid metal
Hi all Experimenting with Mercury can be rather hazardous. Now with Gaslinstan, liquid down to -19 centigrades, a lot of experiments become possible. Too bad it is still rather expensive. Someone mentioned strange effect when rotating mercury fast. David
Re: [Vo]:Motivators and Innovators ... was: meeting next month with this inventor
Jones wrote.. There is little doubt to many of us that the area of greatest need for benefiting future society centers around energy ... and furthermore that conservation is not enough, and further exploitation of fossil fuels will lead to more war, poverty and injustice. Even if, in our heart-of-hearts, we suspect that mainstream physics is mostly correct on all pronouncements regarding cracks in the Laws, we still present the outlook that there is a huge missing piece of the energy puzzle which the mainstream is missing... even if we do not buy-into the full extent of supression nonsense. Howdy Jones, Mainsteam physics will become obsoleted. Discipline is waning and another breed of scientist is emerging with absolutely no respect for the old ways. At present, it may remain difficult to earn that PhD with this new posture but the mold has been broken. The reason is that today's youth are taught to cast off the past/ existing ways ( Shades of Toffler's book Future Shock). They are taught that change is the norm . This situation is most evident in the corporate CEO culture and manifested and encouraged by the innovators like Goldman-Sachs that simply merge firms for profit, regardless of the fit. How this new culture of change translates within the manufacturing world remains obscure. Our own small manufacturing companies devote much time to head scratching simply trying to decide what is real or bogus in trends. It takes us an average of 14 years to move an industrial product from the time of conception to profitability. The chances of this ever happening are near zilch-zero. We spend an average of 300k per 1 mil in sales for researching new ideas and products with most ending in failure or obsoleted by competition or market trend. Many believe they can design and produce a quality product if they had the money. Never happens except in rare cases. Ever notice that huge firms buy out firms that have successfully produced an innovative new product. These huge firms DO NOT design and build ( unless with gov't military money. This has become another new culture described as Boeing the moment). Study the link for the new energy list. Of these ideas perhaps one or two may actually pass the prototype stage. http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_--_RD The good news is there is an interest and desire toward new energy advancement. As this momentum continues, there will be a breakthru and then an avalanche. There is really no stopping it now. Richard
