"M. G. Devour" <mdev...@eskimo.com> wrote: [...]
> Ummm, my oversight. Marshall's post came to me only because it was > over the message size limit. I sent to the main list a small quote > and the request to relocate to the OT list, where I assumed > Marshall would fill in the missing information when the discussion > picked up. Mike, this was Marshall's oversight, not yours. He took my post in ascii and reposted it in html, against your recommendation on your home page. Then he failed to check if it actually was posted. >> Per Mike D.'s request, I will follow up on the off-topic list. In >> several days, after I stop laughing. > I'm not sure why Marshall would want to respond, since the above > reads a lot like ridicule. The laughing is from Marshall's comment in his post: "Not true, the second law of thermodynamics has already been proven false," You don't go around claiming to have broken the Second Law in Thermodynamics. That is hilarious. Tracking it down was easy. Marshall published an article in Infinite Energy Magazine, Mar/Apr 2006, that claims to break the Second Law: "Yes it can, and can be done easily. The experimental device to do this can be built easily for under $20 and uses a variation of Maxwell's Pressure Demon to extract electric energy directly from the random motion of molecules of room temperature air. The output of such a device was computed, and when the device was built and tested it was found that the output fell within +/- 2 1/2% of the theoretical output over the range of 20 to 55C despite increasing by over a factor of 5 over that range. There is absolutely no power input to the device other than the random motion of air molecules." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/msg/febb9cc1ef2e90d6?dmode=source&hl=en The paper is at http://www.execonn.com/maxwell/maxwells_demon.html Marshall almost certainly reported it to this group, but I was not subscribed at that time, so I had to dig up the information on my own. This paper is the typical junk science technobabble that is used by free energy groups to claim the existence of energy sources that cannot possibly be true. It is used to scam investors and deplete their savings, and there is little or no recourse. They have been doing it for decades. Marshalls' paper contains so many blunders and errors it is ludicrous. It can be trivially disproved in ten minutes with a few pennies worth of material. I did, and the effect Marshall claims does not exist. For example, aluminum has been used since the 1920's to shield highly sensitive electronics from stray charge and RFI/EMI. If the effect Marshall claims exists, it would have been noticed many decades ago. There is no such information in the literature. It would also be impossible to use aluminum as shielding in any low-level instrument, such as the Keithley Model 2182A Nanovoltmeter, which measures down to 1 nV with an input impedance greater than 10 Gigohms. Here are the specifications: http://www.keithley.com/data?asset=50259 There are other similar instruments, such as the HP 3458, and instruments from Fluke Electronics and many other companies. They all use aluminum to shield the sensitive input stages. I buy these instruments in used condition and repair them, so I know how they are built. The effect Marshall claims does not exist. His experiment does not work. His conclusions are wrong. His data is highly suspect. Marshall makes deliberate mistakes that his years in this group should have prevented. There are other mistakes that a few seconds in google easily prove his statements are wrong. Marshall never checked his work. His statements are false. And he should know better. > If you can't take seriously the possibility that there 's > something for you to learn in any discussion of this sort Mike, I have been in instrumentation electronics since 1960. My first patent was filed at MIT in Oct. 2, 1969, and I have been granted 5 additional patents. My patent list is at http://www3.sympatico.ca/add.automation/patents.htm Some of my recent inventions are shown at the bottom of this page. So I am qualified to talk about the things I discuss, and I do not waste everyone's time on issues where I lack knowledge. But I don't think there is anything to learn by communicating about false claims with someone who has no knowledge, and fails to check his work for mistakes. > and treat the other participants cordially, then it may be best to > let it drop. Mike, I came here to see if there was anyone around who would be interested in helping solve problems I am encountering in making advanced cs. I am extremely concerned about viruses such as H5N1, and other antibiotic-resistant pathogens. I believe silver ions are the only hope we have against them, but the conventional methods do not make cs as strong as we need. I have been able to make much stronger cs in the past, and have reported the different processes and methods to this group. But they were terribly inefficient and wasted a lot of silver. I have since developed a new method that has very little waste, produces a 32uS cs that is clear, has barely visible Tyndall in a dark room, and has no taste whatsoever. The metallic taste is what turns off a lot of newbies to cs, and they won't take it again if they dislike it the first time. It is from the AgOH. The 32uS was confirmed with the Hanna PWT, the Faraday calculation, and the salt test. So it is real. And contrary to everyone's claims, the higher ion strength really makes a big difference. Why that is true is another mystery. I have reported the experiment and results to this group. But the higher ion concentration also causes severe problems. The ion concentration drops significantly if you store it in HDPE: http://silversol.freewebpage.org//misc/csdrop.gif but it has only a moderate drop in PET: http://silversol.freewebpage.org//misc/nodrop.gif I was hoping to find others here who might be interested in helping find reasons why the drop occurs, and what could be one about it. I know it is possible to solve this problem, since Frank has measured a 30uS product that looks very similar: Trace Minerals Research Liqumins Colloidal Silver Total Silver Concentration : 31.8 ppm +/- 0.05 ppm Ionic Silver Concentration : 31.6 ppm +/- 0.05 ppm Silver Particle Concentration : 0.2 ppm http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/cpr18/cpr_18.html But there seems to be no one in the group with the qualifications, motivation, or the skills needed to pursue it. During my brief visit here, I watched very carefully to see the reactions to my posts. The conversations with Marshall were only useful to show if anyone else in the group had any technical knowledge, and who might be interested in pursuing advanced work in cs. But if they are there, they kept themself well hidden. So it looks like I will have to do it alone. There is a great deal of work to do, Mike. So rather that waste any more time here on irrelevant issues, I'll simply unsubscribe and go about my business. I may check in again in a year or so to see if anything has changed, but I doubt it. Good luck. > Be well, > Mike D. >[Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] >[mdev...@eskimo.com ] >[Speaking only for myself... ] Regards, Mike Monett Antiviral, Antibacterial Silver Solution: http://silversol.freewebpage.org/index.htm SPICE Analysis of Crystal Oscillators: http://silversol.freewebpage.org/spice/xtal/clapp.htm Noise-Rejecting Wideband Sampler: http://www3.sympatico.ca/add.automation/sampler/intro.htm -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down... List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>