Hi Ron, To be honest I don't know what to make of your prototype. It seems prudent from my point of view to remain as neutral as one can under the circumstances. Nevertheless, I'm both fascinated and encouraged by what I've seen so far. I'm sure there are many (myself included) who wish to be kept abreast of the latest developments when you deem it appropriate to reveal more details. So far, Jones, appears to have gotten your good ear. He has done a decent job of keeping the rest of us who are languishing in the peanut gallery in-the-loop, (no pun intended.)
I just want you to know that while many may have summarily branded you a charlatan, a deluded fool, or worse adjectives, there are many, MANY, including countless individuals lurking about within Beaty's vortex group whom I suspect are very interested in keeping abreast of your progress. We hope you will keep at it, and will keep us informed. My two cents. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com On 10/25/07, EnergyLab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It gets more interesting by the day, does it not? > > So lets see, If I place a picture of the readings on my TriField meter and > my Ham RF field strength meter what a large can of worms that will open up. > > May I guess? > > You have it positioned in a dead spot of the lab, doe a test over every > square foot. > You do not have the gain of the meter turned high enough. > Maybe your meter does not respond to the frequency doing it. > > In truth the reason I am no longer participation on the thread is it is in > my view pointless. > > I listed the conditions of the lab location to be open an honest. But it > appears that was a huge mistake. Have we digressed to dishonest and partial > disclosure 'Is In' and 'Honesty' is out. > > I wish to thank Jones for at least being objective, but are some of you > running in loops? > > I do not belong here (on this group) and maybe there is no other either, but > I think in the interest of experiment it is worthwhile going down that road. > > Thank you all....
