Re: Correa, etc.
Jeff, I can understand one reason you never saw the OU effect. You ***must*** use the Correa circuit, including the batteries. The PAGD discharge conatains a lot of energy anda single discharge willcharge up any reasonable heap of capacitors to the pointthat the PAGD discharge is quenched. The Correas are no fools; every aspect of the device and circuit are empirically necessary. The Correa experiment does not use a plug-in power supply. It uses batteries for the source and batteries for the sink. It seems like a pain, butthe batteries are carefully chosen and carefully calibrated. The proof if the effect is either in oscillograms of individual discharges -- into the battery sink -- or careful measurement of accumulated charge in the output batteries over an extended run. It is so tempting to assume that a system like PAGD was put together without knowledge of 'real' engineering and should be easily "improved", so you do something that 'looks like' the Correa setup without actually understanding it. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: revtec To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Correa, etc. I capturedforward pulses in up to six 5600 mfd 350v caps in parallel. I kept these from over charging with a load bank of series/parallel 40 watt bulbs that I switched in and out as needed to limit maximum voltage. Reverse pulses could easily reach 700v which is well above my 600vdc supply even though there is no inductor in the circuit. I also have a clip on ammeter on the 120vac power cord. This crude arrangement could only identify massive OU performance if it was factor of two or more. Reverse pulses are much rarer. You will need two 350v caps in series to capture them. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
RE: Correa, etc.
I respect your opinion and have spent considerable time analysing the patents and related comments by Aspden. There is a need to make the PAGD practical - huge banks of batteries aren't going to do it. I think we need To look at pulse transformers to bring the voltages down to more useable levels. I e-mailed the Correas and received a reply that I interpret as meaning that no one has replicated their Results - at least, in any open, published fashion. A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. To put it simply in a nutshell they are far too contentious about their work. I have no Doubt that they will never achieve any practical commercial application of any of their fascinating research. Like it or not, technology is a human enterprise - with all the social obstacles that entails. It's really Too bad but much the same happened to Tesla in his latter years. I wish things were different. They should Take things in stride, accept that other people make mistakes and don't 'get it', without a lot of patience and help. Maybe that's for the best - they will never meet the same suspicious fate as Mallove or Paul Brown. I say the above also because their attitude of contention becomes infectious - and that inhibits the benefit that they sincerely Wish to promulgate. One of the wisest proverbs I ever heard is this: Fashion is made by fools - but only fools defy fashion. Reich had some brilliant insights but I would never Recommend his personality to others. -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge. I wrote about this for IE some years ago. Mike Carrell From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa, etc.
In all the written info from the Correas, I never saw a mention of whether they were going for a forward pulse or a reverse pulse or both. With all due respect to Mike, the Correas never proved that OU performance cannot be done with a proper capacitor circuit. Your idea of using a pulse transformer to get reasonable voltages may have merrit, but I suspect that the accompanying inductive reactance may be counterproductive. Large capacitors like 5600mfd @350vdc are $60 to $75 ea. So , get ready to spend a little money. You will also need ballast resistors ranging from 100 to 5000 ohm in order to see the full range of the phenomena. The 100 ohm will need to be 250 watt min. In general I found that the rate of PAGD events is controlled by the ballast resistor value and the intensity of the event is controlled by capacitance across the tube. This parallel capacitance cannot be electrolytic ( electrolytics burn up) and must be relatively small. I have tried values from 1 to 88 mfd. I call this capacitor the initiator. The Correas do not use this circuit element. While capturing rapid fire pulses with my caps and light bulbs did not show any sign of over unity, I did do some single pulse experiments two years ago that at first looked promising. I was set up to capture a forward pulse with a 3mfd initiator cap and a fairly high ballast resistor. I noted the voltage on the filter caps of my power supply and then switched off the 110vac. I then powered up the circuit. A moment later I would get a single PAGD event and then I would immediately shut off the circuit and read the voltage increase of the pulse capture cap, and then read the voltage loss of the power supply filter caps. I then did energy gain/loss calculations and often found the energy gain of the capture cap to be more than the energy loss of the power supply filter caps by as much as 11%. This didn't really prove anything since these results were within the capacitance tolerances of the caps. But, like I said, these positive results did not hold up during rapid fire operation. I firmly believe that Paulo Correa is a truly brilliant person. He has called me a buffoon. Perhaps he is correct in that judgement. But, I like to think that what I lack in genius I make up for in common sense. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:42 AM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. I respect your opinion and have spent considerable time analysing the patents and related comments by Aspden. There is a need to make the PAGD practical - huge banks of batteries aren't going to do it. I think we need To look at pulse transformers to bring the voltages down to more useable levels. I e-mailed the Correas and received a reply that I interpret as meaning that no one has replicated their Results - at least, in any open, published fashion. A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. To put it simply in a nutshell they are far too contentious about their work. I have no Doubt that they will never achieve any practical commercial application of any of their fascinating research. Like it or not, technology is a human enterprise - with all the social obstacles that entails. It's really Too bad but much the same happened to Tesla in his latter years. I wish things were different. They should Take things in stride, accept that other people make mistakes and don't 'get it', without a lot of patience and help. Maybe that's for the best - they will never meet the same suspicious fate as Mallove or Paul Brown. I say the above also because their attitude of contention becomes infectious - and that inhibits the benefit that they sincerely Wish to promulgate. One of the wisest proverbs I ever heard is this: Fashion is made by fools - but only fools defy fashion. Reich had some brilliant insights but I would never Recommend his personality to others. -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge. I wrote about this for IE some years ago. Mike Carrell From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa
RE: Correa, etc.
Chris writes: A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. We have discussed Correas' work before on Vo. You can look in the archive for the details. Paulo follows the list very closely, but only posts under pseudonyms if at all. I was very interested in the work when I first came across the patents, but subsequent discussions with his alternate persona's made me question his ability to objectively judge the experiments he conducts. I have been told that this is a strategy to discourage competitors; you can make of that what you will. While I can agree with Mike on the value of an accurate reproduction of the tech disclosed in the patents, practically speaking that cannot happen unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. So we have independent workers like Jeff, who I think can contribute to the general understanding even if they fail to reproduce the effects claimed. For that reason I posted some of Jeffs' pictures to my corporate site a year ago or so. I just completely updated the site and the links are now no doubt dead. Jeff has his own website, and is quite capable of posting them there. Why he does not do that you must ask of him directly. K.
Re: Correa, etc.
Jeff Fink wrote: In all the written info from the Correas, I never saw a mention of whether they were going for a forward pulse or a reverse pulse or both. With all due respect to Mike, the Correas never proved that OU performance cannot be done with a proper capacitor circuit. In the Correa circuit, the energy generated in the cell is full wave rectified and dumped into a capacitor shunted by a battery pack. A PAGD pulse may contain 100 joules at several hundred volts. What *must not happen* is that the terminal voltage of the cell rise during the PAGD pulse, for that will quench it. Nor can you trigger it. It is not that a capacitor bank won't work, it just has to be ***very large***. Much larger than Jeff tried. Your idea of using a pulse transformer to get reasonable voltages may have merrit, but I suspect that the accompanying inductive reactance may be counterproductive. Large capacitors like 5600mfd @350vdc are $60 to $75 ea. So , get ready to spend a little money. That's 0.0056 farad. Q = CV, 1 joule will charge it to 178 volts and 100 joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. You will also need ballast resistors ranging from 100 to 5000 ohm in order to see the full range of the phenomena. The 100 ohm will need to be 250 watt min. In general I found that the rate of PAGD events is controlled by the ballast resistor value and the intensity of the event is controlled by capacitance across the tube. You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. This parallel capacitance cannot be electrolytic ( electrolytics burn up) and must be relatively small. I have tried values from 1 to 88 mfd. I call this capacitor the initiator. The Correas do not use this circuit element. For very good reason. Jeff has known better and not duplicated what the Correas used. While capturing rapid fire pulses with my caps and light bulbs did not show any sign of over unity, I did do some single pulse experiments two years ago that at first looked promising. You have not duplicated what the Correas did on several important points. The circuit looks 'odd' but that is what they say works. I was set up to capture a forward pulse with a 3mfd initiator cap and a fairly high ballast resistor. I noted the voltage on the filter caps of my power supply and then switched off the 110vac. I then powered up the circuit. A moment later I would get a single PAGD event and then I would immediately shut off the circuit and read the voltage increase of the pulse capture cap, and then read the voltage loss of the power supply filter caps. I then did energy gain/loss calculations and often found the energy gain of the capture cap to be more than the energy loss of the power supply filter caps by as much as 11%. This didn't really prove anything since these results were within the capacitance tolerances of the caps. But, like I said, these positive results did not hold up during rapid fire operation. I firmly believe that Paulo Correa is a truly brilliant person. He has called me a buffoon. Perhaps he is correct in that judgement. But, I like to think that what I lack in genius I make up for in common sense. Jeff, common sense can be misleading when dealing with something new. When I approached the Correas to write about PAGD, I did so as a student, without preconceptions as to what is or is not common sense. I assumed they had discovered a truly new phenomenon that did not necessarily obey any ordinary rules, and that they had empirically worked out how to evoke it and control it. After all, here is a simple tube in which 100 joule flashes of energy appear spontaneously when the proper conditions are provided. Where in all of conventional science and common sense is there precedence for this? Mike Carrell
Re: Correa, etc.
Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. - Jed
RE: Correa, etc.
Mike writes: You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. I agree with Mike in this. Electrode capacity and geometry are important parameters for this effect; add additional capacity and you change discharge regimes from AGD to simple arc discharge. BTW, a substantial amount of industrial research has gone into AGD, do a literature and patent search and you will see. The main industrial use is for things like nitriding metal surfaces. A question for Mike: does Paulo have a current collection of refs on his website relevant to this work? K.
Re: Correa, etc.
Jed Rothwell wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. While I agree with Jed about the basic point he is making, success in replicating the cold fusion claims is not based on skill, or at least not the kind of skill Jed is noting. Success has been based on chance creation of the nuclear active environment. No one, even today, knows what this environment looks like or how to create it on purpose. Repeated success is based on having a chance success that the researcher was able to duplicate by holding the conditions constant. Naturally, because many variables are involved, not all of them can be held constant. Consequently, success is frequently marred by many failures, even for the more successful researchers. Only gradually, have some of the variables been identified. This has happened only because a few people kept trying and failing. Initially, the effect was thought to occur in bulk palladium. Consequently, great effort was devoted to obtaining palladium that could load to high D/Pd ratios. Now we know that this approach is not important. A variety of materials work and these can be applied as thin layers to inert materials. The point is that if the PAGD effect is like cold fusion, it probably can be initiated several different ways, some of which can be found by the same kind of trial and error used by the Correas. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. l would also like to point out that a strict duplication is not replication. It is possible for both studies to make the same mistakes. Replication is most impressive when the same effect can be produced several different ways, each of which show that the same variables are having the same effect on the outcome. Cold fusion has passed this test. The PAGD effect has not. Regards, Ed - Jed
Re: Correa, etc.
Jed wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. A patent is supposed to disclose how to practice a new discovery to those skilled in the art. The Correa patents are the most densly technical I have seen, they are virtual theses. There is lots and lots of information tucked into the text and references. I even went to the NY public library to check up on an earl;y reference given in one of the Correa patents. As with CF there are lots of things to go wrong. Alexandra Correa is a technical glassblower who made many of the cells that were tested. The one that appears in videos and some illustrations is rather straightforward, apparently, but there are stipulations on the materials to be used by alloy number. Nothing I saw in there was trivial and I read and re-read and dug and asked questions. If Keith's practically speaking means the Correas instructing one in all the necessary arts --perhaps like how to clean electrode surfaces -- then the casual 'replicator' is asking too much unless a license fee is paid. Even with all that, there are certain conditions of voltage and pressure that have to exist, which are indicated in the patents, which the experimenter has to discover for himself once he has done the rest of the work. Just producing the effect does not carry one into product development. There is lots of work to be done, once one realizes that this is new physics, that PAGD is an aether energy transducer. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. Note that Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles are accomplished experimental scientists who did not need much more than knowledge of what FP found to do likewise. Many did not realize the importance of the Pd cathode metallurgy, or adequate calorimetry, etc. and etc. Similarly, to do PAGD one has be knowledgeable about glow discharge phenomena and related matters that may not converge in the head of someone without adequate study. The notion that PAGD is obscure is primarily a matter of not taking it seriously enough to devote adequate study, or dismissing the notion that it is an aether energy transducer and must be really something else. Same deal with CF, as we all painfully know. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. This is very well stated by Jed, a guy who has been in the trenches for years. Scott Little at Earth Tech has made attempts to verify various OU claims through the years. I've seen his shop, talked to him, he's an honest man. When some effect is defined well enough that he can produce it, it is perhaps ready for prime time, but with his facilities he could not make a transistor from scratch. Mike Carrell
Re: Correa, etc.
Edmund Storms wrote: and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. While I agree with Jed about the basic point he is making, success in replicating the cold fusion claims is not based on skill, or at least not the kind of skill Jed is noting. Success has been based on chance creation of the nuclear active environment. No one, even today, knows what this environment looks like or how to create it on purpose. Naturally, I agree that this kind of luck also played an important role. >From Mike's description such luck cannot happen with the PAGD. Making a PAGD is more like cloning a sheep -- you have to be an expert at every stage. Luck does not enter into it. Still, there is a great deal of skill to doing CF, much of it perhaps unconscious. This skill helped set the stage for success by people like Bockris. They knew how to avoid many dumb mistakes that tripped up non-electrochemists before the chance creation of the nuclear active environment could even get underway. The point is that if the PAGD effect is like cold fusion, it probably can be initiated several different ways, some of which can be found by the same kind of trial and error used by the Correas. Unfortunately, it appears that is not the case, and the PAGD effect is more like cloning a sheep -- there are very narrow set of procedures, and they must all be done correctly. The cloning success rate, by the way, still runs from 0.1% to 3%, even today after tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on cloning research.. (See http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/). If cloning had provoked the same visceral opposition from scientists that cold fusion did, there is no chance it would have been replicated. Replication is most impressive when the same effect can be produced several different ways, each of which show that the same variables are having the same effect on the outcome. Cold fusion has passed this test. The PAGD effect has not. Perhaps that is not the fault of the PAGD effect, but rather a technical limitation. Perhaps there is only one reliable way to do it. If the effect is real and the technology is developed, additional methods are likely to be discovered. I believe there was only one proven method of making transistors in 1952 -- germanium junction devices, I think they were. It took weeks of intense hands-on training to teach that method to experts. Groups of engineers from outside companies who paid the patent fee attended classes at Bell Labs. By the mid-50s there were half a dozen other commercialized methods, some of them quite different from the original one. Perhaps the PAGD demands the same kind of development path the transistor did, with a relatively tight set of technical specifications and a long list of dos and don'ts (which were published in a famous book known as Mother Bell's Cookbook). If so, that is most unfortunate, because Correa is the last person on earth who is qualified or likely to carry out the kind of program needed to ensure the success of this technology. His personality utterly precludes it. He has said he has no intention, in any case, because humanity does not deserve his invention -- or his genius. He seems to have put the PAGD aside now, and he is working on other projects that are based on what I would say are very peculiar notions about physics. If the PAGD as difficult to replicate as Mike indicates, we might as well write the whole thing off now. If I were religious, and also inclined to believe claims such as the PAGD, I might wonder why God keeps putting such wonderful discoveries into the hands of such incorrigible people. - Jed
RE: Correa, etc.
How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa, etc.
- Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge. I wrote about this for IE some years ago. Mike Carrell From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa, etc.
I capturedforward pulses in up to six 5600 mfd 350v caps in parallel. I kept these from over charging with a load bank of series/parallel 40 watt bulbs that I switched in and out as needed to limit maximum voltage. Reverse pulses could easily reach 700v which is well above my 600vdc supply even though there is no inductor in the circuit. I also have a clip on ammeter on the 120vac power cord. This crude arrangement could only identify massive OU performance if it was factor of two or more. Reverse pulses are much rarer. You will need two 350v caps in series to capture them. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa, etc.
At 10:05 pm Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Thomas Malloy wrote: snip On a separate note, I just got done reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove, Well, I always wear my scapular so I'm alright, Jack [unless they catch me in the bath of course - but they wont have many opportunities for that ;-) ]. Anyway, if you shed your blood for Truth, you get a Get out of jail free card and go straight to heaven without having to do your purgatory - so why worry! 8-) And by the time they wake up to the significance of any fundamental discovery, it'll be all over the internet. You have absolutely no idea how incredibly stupid these people are. To give you an example, consider this extract from a memo I wrote to my Director after escaping from the Spanish Inquisitorial clutches of the Expert Panel (allegedly) charged with scrutinizing all ten way-out papers I had written in the course of my previous career. ** USE OF PROBABILITY METHODS IN ENGINEERING In the second paragraph on page 9 of the Expert Panel Report the distinguished experts claim that I am, wrong in that the numbers of 2's - 1/6 when N - infinity and does not tend to zero. If I really had claimed that for N spins of a dice the number of 2's that come up tends to zero and does not tend to 1/6, I would have not merely been wrong. I would have been grossly incompetent. What I actually wrote was this:- === however many trials I make there is no guarantee that the percentage of 2's will be exactly 1/6. === So that things will be crystal clear and to eliminate any possible misunderstanding, let me elaborate precisely what I mean by that statement. If I spin the dice six hundred times there is no guarantee that I will get exactly one hundred 2's (one hundred being of course. one sixth of six hundred as I'm sure the Expert Panel will concede). I might get ninety eight 2's or ninety seven 2's or one hundred and three 2's, for example. I might even get one hundred 2's but. as I've said, there is no guarantee. If I spin the dice six million times there is no guarantee that I will get exactly one million 2's. Of course it is possible, but it isn't very likely. It is considerably less likely than my chance of getting one hundred 2's when I spin the dice six hundred times. If I spin the dice six billion but I can't imagine that I need to elaborate any further. Surely, the next sentence of my note will now be perfectly clear. It continues on from the previous sentence given above as follows:- = On the contrary. if I make 6N trials where N is a very large integer, even though the fraction of 2's could be 1/6, the probability of this is small and tends to zero as N tends to infinity . = Weren't the Expert Panel curious as to why I should want to make 6N trials where N is an integer rather than simply N trials? Isn't the reason perfectly plain? Namely, unless the number of trials is divisible by 6 then the number of 2s can never be 1/6th? Besides being accused of being wrong, I was also accused of being repetitive. It seems to me I was not repetitive enough. Perhaps I should have assumed that people's short term memory wasn't sufficient for them to carry over the word exactly from one sentence to the next, and I should have repeated it. If I had been writing for my mother (aged 95) I would have done. As for the accusation of being trivial I fear that, on the contrary, I might have been too profound. I must say, I do applaud the Expert Panel's commitment to intellectual freedom of expression in proposing that someone who believes that in a long run of dice throws the number of times that 2 comes up tends to zero. should be allowed 15 weeks to write up his ideas on possible failure of a nuclear reactor. I fear I would be far less liberal. I would ask him along to my office and say very kindly. Look here Frank. the management have been having a little talk. We feel that you've been in research non-stop for 36 years and really deserve. a jolly good rest so that you can pursue your hobbies and spend some time with your 14 grandchildren. We don't have any voluntary premature retirement vacancies at present. but we do have discretion and we feel your case is rather special. How about it? Interested? And if I had been a member of the Expert Panel and asked to question someone who believed that in a long run of dice throws the
Re: Correa, etc.
Title: Re: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws. A man who has not found a cause which he is willing to die for, has yet to find a reason for living. Paraphrase of Martin Luther King Jr.
Correa, etc.
Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
