Re: [VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Richard,Tonight has been consistent, as someone just informed me that Stanford has hooked up with Chevron to study "their" new discovery of nanodiamond for broad scale industrial applications and something to do with Silicon Vally. The looming question is why I ever thought anyone at Stanford (or any other University that I contacted) would bother to fund my discovery of a never before known, Semiconductive Non DetonationNanodiamond powder?Quite the "common" thing to do.Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris wrote.. My comments on this are at http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=1993mode=threadorder=0thold=0however I will say here that the Correa's are common folk, with no imagination, foul, nastypersonalitiesand they havesticky fingers as well.My Pulsed Plasma Drive worked so well for them - they decided to say they invented it! Howdy Chris,Gosh Chris, That's plum disgusting! My sweet ole grandma Blanche Louise Townley, to whom one never attributed a "cuss word" would have understood and appreciated the " common" remark. One must be veddy British to appreciate the depth of disgust the use of this word implies. Richard __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Chris wrote.. Tonight has been consistent, as someone just informed me that Stanford has hooked up with Chevron to study "their" new discovery of nanodiamond for broad scale industrial applications and something to do with Silicon Vally. The looming question is why I ever thought anyone at Stanford (or any other University that I contacted) would bother to fund my discovery of a never before known, Semiconductive Non DetonationNanodiamond powder? Quite the "common" thing to do. Howdy Chris, You read my post on patent themes. Didn't your grandmother ever tell you that people cheat at cards? Hollywood has made a fortunefostering the fable thatgood guys wear white hats. What is to keep bad guys from wearing white hats to fool the gullible? A border cantina ( University) is no place to look for a " friendly " game of cards. The crossed bandeleers and the knife in the boot is a sure sign you are in mixed company. Ah! Stanford .. where all the hopes and aspirations of the simple and pure in heart clash with "silicon valley and US DOE". If you want to make a fortune, move to New Mexico, raise long red peppers and sell the strings to the rich tourists. All the patents have expired. Richard
Re: [VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Richard,You might remember that I once sought investors in hydrogen, fusion and nanodiamond from the highly intelligent members of this forum - except nobody believed anything I said. Nanodiamond is a Trillion Dollar business that I will not be seeking investors for anymore - as I will attempt to finish what I started myself. My posting of Stanford/Chevron simply proves that "they" are not asresistant to changeas many of the self righteous members of this group would appear to be. Stanford/Chevron finally realized how tremendously valuable my discovery is, and invested - just not with the inventor and all that refused to assist me have lost a great opportunity.Please don't take that the wrong way, but it is as plain as the nose on your face and as simple as a fact can be.ChrisRC Macaulay wrote: Chris wrote.. Tonight has been consistent, as someone just informed me that Stanford has hooked up with Chevron to study "their" new discovery of nanodiamond for broad scale industrial applications and something to do with Silicon Vally. The looming question is why I ever thought anyone at Stanford (or any other University that I contacted) would bother to fund my discovery of a never before known, Semiconductive Non DetonationNanodiamond powder?Quite the "common" thing to do. Howdy Chris, You read my post on patent themes. Didn't your grandmother ever tell you that people cheat at cards? Hollywood has made a fortunefostering the fable thatgood guys wear white hats. What is to keep bad guys from wearing white hats to fool the gullible?A border cantina ( University) is no place to look for a " friendly " game of cards. The crossed bandeleers and the knife in the boot is a sure sign you are in mixed company. Ah! Stanford .. where all the hopes and aspirations of the simple and pure in heart clash with "silicon valley and US DOE".If you want to make a fortune, move to New Mexico, raise long red peppers and sell the strings to the rich tourists. All the patents have expired.Richard Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Chris wrote.. My comments on this are at http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=1993mode=threadorder=0thold=0however I will say here that the Correa's are common folk, with no imagination, foul, nastypersonalitiesand they havesticky fingers as well. My Pulsed Plasma Drive worked so well for them - they decided to say they invented it! Howdy Chris, Gosh Chris, That's plum disgusting! My sweet ole grandma Blanche Louise Townley, to whom one never attributed a "cuss word" would have understood and appreciated the " common" remark. One must be veddy British to appreciate the depth of disgust the use of this word implies. Richard
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: VO, Perhaps they need a centrally administered site across the web, some kind of extra-national thing providing bona-fides for web interactions. One would register with conventional documents such as drivers license, passport etc. and you'd log on to it (some generated bit string unique to oneself) before doing any secured site surfing to say you are currently on the net, the secured site would then quiz it to find out who you were no matter what the moniker? Just a guess without thinking things through. A sort of centralised repository of names, webs, computer serial numbers etc. If you don't sign up, you don't play. Um ... wouldn't this make identity theft awfully easy? How would you feed it the generated bit string? If it's secure, it's too long to type by hand, and a program would have to do it for you. Now suppose your system picks up a Trojan horse that just knows how to sniff for those bit strings ... oops. Even worse, assume for a moment that the central system's security isn't perfect, and somebody makes off with a snapshot of the database... Also keep in mind that every real-world financial database which requires an ID of some sort also has a back door, because losing the key could be a disaster otherwise. Mother's maiden name plus last four digits of your SS number is the most common one. So, if someone got a copy of the central database, they could get into all the accounts using the back doors, whether or not there was a whizzbang public/private key supposedly keeping it all buttoned up. Central identity databases of any sort are scary. That's one reason states and colleges don't (or can't) generally force you to use your SS number as your driver or student ID number. Sleepy and dozy at the moment so point the flaws out please. Might be back Tuesday. Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Beaty Sent: 17 December 2005 04:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. Sometimes they ban fee-for-service email addresses like PObox, as well. And then I ban them and take my money elsewhere.
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Gosh Bill, Now I feel bad for using a free email and online handle. What's in a name? Is a long-used handle any more or less informative than the name your parents gave you? A family name tells where you came from. A nickname tells what your friends think about you. A Nom de Cyber tells what you feel about yourself. I go by Merlyn because thats simply the way I think of myself. My real name (for those interested) is Adam Thomas Cox, and I'm from Wichita, Ks. Since anyone can claim to be anything online, the answer is not to demand a proven identity, but perhaps to demand an identity with some history behind it. BTW Bill, thanks for not requiring a verified email addy instead of the pay ones, it would complicate thinks greatly. Adam --- William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Steven Krivit wrote: Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. In observing (or fighting with) flamer types over the years, I noticed that one of the major characteristics that reliably defines flamer is... anonymity! Serious people give their real names (and often provide a message sig with personal website, city, etc.) Immature or abusive people use handles. snip (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Correa attacks Wikipedia
VO, Perhaps they need a centrally administered site across the web, some kind of extra-national thing providing bona-fides for web interactions. One would register with conventional documents such as drivers license, passport etc. and you'd log on to it (some generated bit string unique to oneself) before doing any secured site surfing to say you are currently on the net, the secured site would then quiz it to find out who you were no matter what the moniker? Just a guess without thinking things through. A sort of centralised repository of names, webs, computer serial numbers etc. If you don't sign up, you don't play. Sleepy and dozy at the moment so point the flaws out please. Might be back Tuesday. Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Beaty Sent: 17 December 2005 04:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Vo, Jed, Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech and what we really mean by democracy is an educated populous (adult, not a-dolt), non salacious media (not power without responsibility) and trustworthy leaders. Yes, it is a good idea to consult leaders in the field before anything is placed on the site. Inaccurate writing should be viewed as defamation and clamping down on that is not censorship or crying foul when one doesn't get one's way but human decency. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF and it was very interesting to see how a rational mind goes about tackling a difficult problem and putting delimiters on it. It should be more known. Regards, Remi. Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia Jed Rothwell Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:49:53 -0800 Harry Veeder wrote: Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. I expect the people at Wikipedia will welcome this. They would probably agree that their model does not work for all subjects. We need a variety of different online encyclopedias, some of them completely open to the public -- that anyone can change -- and others more restricted. The one size fits all model is inadequate. We also need sites such as LENR-CANR.org where authors publish papers and represent their own points of view and no one else's. Wikipedia itself may become more sophisticated and it may implement different levels for different kinds of articles. As I said in the discussion section for the cold fusion article, if they want experts to write, they will have to promise those experts that their work will not be trashed. The work might be changed, but the expert author will be consulted, and if he objects his objections will be reviewed by other experts. - Jed ... Website http://luna.bton.ac.uk/~roc1 ...
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . . Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can post any comment, anonymously. This is an invitation to trolling and character assassination. The article on cold fusion is full of skeptical nonsense and unfounded opinion. At Amazon.com they used to allow anonymous reviews of books. They abolished the practice after they found out the large number of glowing reviews were written by the authors or their friends, and many attacks were written by literary rivals. They should have realized that would happen. See: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1271358,00.html I think that a serious online encyclopedia will have to be based on some compromise between unfettered unregulated open access and Encyclopaedia Britannica style the experts know best authoritarianism. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF . . . Do you mean the ICCF1 paper? I uploaded it to: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJnuclearene.pdf - Jed
RE: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Jed, Yes you are correct, always a fine balance between justice and progress and the forces of anarchy. Yes that was the paper I read. I believe it is stuff of that quality that is going to attract young research fellows to the subject. I'm sorry if my responses get a little patchy from now on as it is the end of the year and technically the university is meant to be closing. I just want to put my feet up for a bit anyway. Regards, Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jed Rothwell Sent: 16 December 2005 15:24 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . . Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can post any comment, anonymously. This is an invitation to trolling and character assassination. The article on cold fusion is full of skeptical nonsense and unfounded opinion. At Amazon.com they used to allow anonymous reviews of books. They abolished the practice after they found out the large number of glowing reviews were written by the authors or their friends, and many attacks were written by literary rivals. They should have realized that would happen. See: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1271358,00.html I think that a serious online encyclopedia will have to be based on some compromise between unfettered unregulated open access and Encyclopaedia Britannica style the experts know best authoritarianism. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF . . . Do you mean the ICCF1 paper? I uploaded it to: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJnuclearene.pdf - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vo, Jed, Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech and what we really mean by democracy is an educated populous (adult, not a-dolt), non salacious media (not power without responsibility) and trustworthy leaders. But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. It's ike Usenet, or like a call-in radio show where the callers have no names and they all disguise their voices. That type of setup has major consequences (e.g. the difference between sci.physics.fusion versus vortex-L.) If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Yep, one hoaxster 'fessed up recently: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html -Original Message- From: William Beaty But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
William Beaty wrote: But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked . . . Actually, the editors can block people, and they have done so occasionally. I suppose the offenders can simply register a new name. If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. Well, they might change to that model. They seem like smart people, who are willing to try new things. After the recent scandal they reduced the editing capabilities of anonymous contributors. I think they said that anonymous contributors can no longer initiate articles or sections. Against my better judgment, I added some stuff to the cold fusion article today, including three links to introductions to the subject in different languages. Some anonymous person promptly chopped them out. I wrote to him/her/it: Dear Anonymous Person: Why were these [links] moved? Did you move them to the other versions of Wikipedia? Is there there some kind of policy at Wikipedia banning non-English articles? If there is such a policy, kindly point it out to me. If not, let us put the links back. Also, I would appreciate it if you would sign your work in future. . . . - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. Steve At 02:09 PM 12/16/2005, you wrote: Yep, one hoaxster 'fessed up recently: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html -Original Message- From: William Beaty But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Others believe the Logos should be self-sustaining. Or as Mr. Grimer iterated *In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum* (bringing us back off topic ;-) -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
--- William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. There are two anonymizing utilities, Tor and Privoxy, which can be used together for anonymous surfing with a web browser. that includes signing up to webmail sites like yahoo.com and then subscribing to a list such as Wikipedia, or even Vortex. Since you have a real email address, you can confirm a subscription if required to do so, but neither the webmail site nor the list you are subscribing to knows your real IP. At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. I have the feeling that won't last, because more of the webmail sites are requiring that Java or Javascript be turned on in the browser before allowing you to sign up. Doing that lets the site to get past the protection of Tor and Privoxy and find out your real IP. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Steven Krivit wrote: Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. In observing (or fighting with) flamer types over the years, I noticed that one of the major characteristics that reliably defines flamer is... anonymity! Serious people give their real names (and often provide a message sig with personal website, city, etc.) Immature or abusive people use handles. I've seen a number of forums which harness this effect to improve their online community: requiring the use of real names, or at the very least requiring that users have a real email address (not free mail such as yahoo, etc.) In the online world, if your real name is like your face, then a handle is like wearing a mask. In realworld society if you're out shopping or walking down the street (or waiting in a bank,) how do you respond to people who walk in wearing masks? What would you think of a person who spent all their time wearing a mask? How about an entire town where the residents traditionally wear masks all the time? Online handles are really very weird. We got used to them, and they were a novelty at first. But whenever a community arises where mask-wearing is perfectly acceptable, then personal responsibility for our actions is disrupted, and that community seems to automatically attract all the bad parts of Marti Gras. With Wikipedia, if the point is to prevent famous experts with recognizable names from being taken more seriously than others, then they need to do the anonymity thing differently. Let people wear masks, but connect them permanently to the SAME masks, perhaps by requiring real names/addresses/emails during registration, but allowing other users to only see the online username/handle. That way the playing field is leveled, yet also you *are* your mask, so you're not really anonymous. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. Harry Jed Rothwell wrote: Maybe Wikipedia deserves more respect after all! This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia . . . has a link to an attack by Correa et al.: http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/ Sometimes you can judge people by their enemies. I agree with Wikipedia policy that it is not the right place for a detailed article on Aetherometry. If ever there was a subject that should be presented by supporters in their own webspace, Aetherometry is it. Actually, I thought the Wiki article on Aetherometry was pretty good, and remarkably even handed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetherometry - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Harry Veeder wrote: Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. I expect the people at Wikipedia will welcome this. They would probably agree that their model does not work for all subjects. We need a variety of different online encyclopedias, some of them completely open to the public -- that anyone can change -- and others more restricted. The one size fits all model is inadequate. We also need sites such as LENR-CANR.org where authors publish papers and represent their own points of view and no one else's. Wikipedia itself may become more sophisticated and it may implement different levels for different kinds of articles. As I said in the discussion section for the cold fusion article, if they want experts to write, they will have to promise those experts that their work will not be trashed. The work might be changed, but the expert author will be consulted, and if he objects his objections will be reviewed by other experts. - Jed
RE: Correa
From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:07 AMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell Sadly, I hope you haven't been infected with the Correas' mindset. I have done a lot of 'homework' on this subject - including sending the Correas an e-mail warning them that much of their patents effect may be covered by old patents by Philo Farnsworth in the '30's and '40's in which he obtained "overunity" ( perhaps in a different context) from implinging electrons on vacuum housed aluminum plates.( multipactor tubes) As things stand, the Correas do not have anything practical to offer the public. For the sake of humanity, let's hope that changes. It is entirely reasonable to question their work - respectfully - so as to try to create something practical out of it. At least one of their patents clearly presents a transformer on the output in the printed schematic, so they've experimented with it. We should respect and try to faithfully duplicate their technical work. That said , we should utterly avoid the spirit of contentiousness, contempt and seething hatred that creates the defeat of noble enterprise. It is not enough to have a Ph.D. If we follow this ugly course, we are making ourselves the equals of darkened hearts and minds who sneer at cold fusion and other developments, regardless of evidence. Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: Correa
Chris Zell wrote: Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell CZ: Sadly, I hope you haven't been infected with the Correas' mindset. MC: No. I want to make the point that one should start from what the Correas did and published before changing it. CZ: I have done a lot of 'homework' on this subject - including sending the Correas an e-mail warning them that much of their patents effect may be covered by old patents by Philo Farnsworth in the '30's and '40's in which he obtained overunity ( perhaps in a different context) from implinging electrons on vacuum housed aluminum plates. ( multipactor tubes) MC: No problem. I have not said, or intended to say, that the PAGD phenomenon appears only in the Correa parallel plate configuration. In fact the patents state that they have seen it various electrode configurations [built by Alexandra], even in flurorescent lamps. Another person has alerted me to reports of unexplained explosions in plasma experiments in Russia. CZ:As things stand, the Correas do not have anything practical to offer the public. For the sake of humanity, let's hope that changes. It is entirely reasonable to question their work - respectfully - so as to try to create something practical out of it. At least one of their patents clearly presents a transformer on the output in the printed schematic, so they've experimented with it. MC: You are correct on that, I had forgotten it. In your text you had mentioned first pulse transformers, then audio transformers, any old transformer. I pointed out that an essential feature is that the voltage across the tube must not rise during the discharge, which will quench it, limiting the energy output. This is the problem with simple capacitors. A transformer, unless carefully terminated and designed, will have leakage reactance which will generate back emf to the discharge current spike, which may quench it. Thus some depth of knowledge is needed in the selction and use of reactive devices such as transformers and motors. MC: Recently, the Correas have collaborated with Harold Aspden to produce a motor. Information is available on the aetherometry website. MC: The Correas had first seen the PAGD effect and learned how to produce it before they used transformers and motors as loads. My caution is to do simple things first and produce the PAGD effect before you add improvements. As I have mentioned in another post, the test circuit contains a full wave rectifier. It is quite likely that the PAGD discharge itself is oscillatory and may contain videband components. We should respect and try to faithfully duplicate their technical work. That said , we should utterly avoid the spirit of contentiousness, contempt and seething hatred that creates the defeat of noble enterprise. It is not enough to have a Ph.D. If we follow this ugly course, we are making ourselves the equals of darkened hearts and minds who sneer at cold fusion and other developments, regardless of evidence. MC: Quite so. I have no dislike of the Correas, who were hospitable toward me. Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. MC: That's part of it, and actually no mystery at all if you have studied well enough to understand that the GD of PAGD means glow discharge and are familiar with that phenomenon. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit. MC: The ultracaps are chemical devices; check their wideband performance. I have in another post suggested that experimental work could be done with a resistance load of suitable value, and a battery operated two channel oscilloscope to measure the output pulse and the input pulse together. Tektronix makes a suitable unit, selling for about $2,000. You could capture and measure individual pulses, but not do
RE: Correa
Chris, it would be helpful if you would turn off the HTML option when posting here. It would reduce your post size by about 2/3. Thanks. At 10:05 AM 3/6/5, Zell, Chris wrote: From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell Sadly, I hope you haven't been infected with the Correas' mindset. I have done a lot of 'homework' on this subject - including sending the Correas an e-mail warning them that much of their patents effect may be covered by old patents by Philo Farnsworth in the '30's and '40's in which he obtained overunity ( perhaps in a different context) from implinging electrons on vacuum housed aluminum plates. ( multipactor tubes) As things stand, the Correas do not have anything practical to offer the public. For the sake of humanity, let's hope that changes. It is entirely reasonable to question their work - respectfully - so as to try to create something practical out of it. At least one of their patents clearly presents a transformer on the output in the printed schematic, so they've experimented with it. We should respect and try to faithfully duplicate their technical work. That said , we should utterly avoid the spirit of contentiousness, contempt and seething hatred that creates the defeat of noble enterprise. It is not enough to have a Ph.D. If we follow this ugly course, we are making ourselves the equals of darkened hearts and minds who sneer at cold fusion and other developments, regardless of evidence. Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=us-ascii META content=MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIV dir=ltr align=leftSPAN class=578304515-06032005FONT face=Arial color=#ff size=2/FONT/SPANnbsp;/DIVBR DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left HR tabIndex=-1 FONT face=Tahoma size=2BFrom:/B Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BRBSent:/B Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:07 AMBRBTo:/B vortex-l@eskimo.comBRBSubject:/B Re: CorreaBR/FONTBR/DIV DIV/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Chris wrote: /FONT/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #00 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTBR/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2SPAN class=359301422-04032005nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;n bsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; Now we're getting somewhere!/SPAN/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2SPAN class=359301422-04032005/SPAN/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial color=#ff size=2SPAN class=359301422-04032005No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. /SPAN/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial color=#ff size=2SPAN class=359301422-04032005/SPAN/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial color=#ff size=2SPAN class=359301422
Re: Correa
Hey Chris, If you want to give me a call, I'll tell you about all the stuff I tried that didn't work. 610 582 1694 Jeff
Re: Correa
Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: Correa
Jeff wrote, my comments in blue. Mike
Carrell
I don't know anything
about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string
cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this
impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different
contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't
know.
Batteriestake charge
by chemical action, which can't happed as fast as the PAGD pulse; Jeff is
right. This is why the Correa circuit has a large electrolytic capacitor
across the batteries, to take the peak energy and buffer it so the battery
chemistry can act.
What I do know is that if you run the tube with
only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little
sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap
combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect
nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn
into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture
capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed
a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away
with it)
The faint blue glow is one of the
precursors to the PAGD discharge. When you put a 3 mfd capacitor across the
cell you have made an ordinary strobe flasher and the energy comes from
charging the capacitor.
My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates
separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by
3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I
also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as
well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no
obvious OU.
The Correa patents are quite
specific about the aluminum alloys used, and quite specific about the need for
a low work function, which will also depend on the condition of the surfaces
with respect to contamination. If you don't "get" this, you are missing
essential matters.
As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized,
you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity
is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder
vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows
me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may
not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my
equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode
plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the
cathode.
Jeff
- Original Message -
From:
Zell, Chris
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25
PM
Subject: Re: Correa
Now we're getting somewhere!
Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the
output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be
inhibited
because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and
the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a
charge.
It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality
to transform the pulses down. I would think the low
impedance
of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube
favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would
work
in such a circuit.
RE: Correa
For
those of us that read email in plain text to avoid embedded viruses please
refrain from formatted replies... it is impossible to follow. Also,
formattinggets stripped out in the archived messagesso the
historical context of your thread is lost too.
Just a
suggestion. -john
-Original Message-From: Mike Carrell
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 8:24
AMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re:
Correa
Jeff wrote, my comments in blue. Mike
Carrell
I don't know anything
about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string
cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this
impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different
contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't
know.
Batteriestake charge
by chemical action, which can't happed as fast as the PAGD pulse; Jeff is
right. This is why the Correa circuit has a large electrolytic capacitor
across the batteries, to take the peak energy and buffer it so the battery
chemistry can act.
What I do know is that if you run the tube with
only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little
sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap
combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect
nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn
into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture
capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed
a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away
with it)
The faint blue glow is one of the
precursors to the PAGD discharge. When you put a 3 mfd capacitor across the
cell you have made an ordinary strobe flasher and the energy comes from
charging the capacitor.
My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates
separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by
3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I
also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as
well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no
obvious OU.
The Correa patents are quite
specific about the aluminum alloys used, and quite specific about the need for
a low work function, which will also depend on the condition of the surfaces
with respect to contamination. If you don't "get" this, you are missing
essential matters.
As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized,
you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity
is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder
vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows
me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may
not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my
equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode
plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the
cathode.
Jeff
- Original Message -
From:
Zell, Chris
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25
PM
Subject: Re: Correa
Now we're getting somewhere!
Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the
output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be
inhibited
because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and
the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a
charge.
It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality
to transform the pulses down. I would think the low
impedance
of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube
favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would
work
in such a circuit.
RE: Correa
Not really sure why the reply to does that. The message is technically being sent from the mail server, not from me per se. The reply to address should update accordingly... there is nothing I can do from my end. It's a mail server thing. My lazy work around to that problem (and it only really happens with a small minority, had no idea I was one of them) is to hit reply to all and simply click on and delete the offending address. That might save you a few mouse picks. 8^) -john -Original Message- From: Grimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 1:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Correa At 09:38 am 05-03-05 -0600, you wrote: For those of us that read email in plain text to avoid embedded viruses please refrain from formatted replies... it is impossible to follow. Also, formatting gets stripped out in the archived messages so the historical context of your thread is lost too. Just a suggestion. -john And a jolly good one too! I always understood that Vortex post should have no HTML and no attachments. It's very irritating for people who are reading in plain text to have to delete wodges of HTML before being able to reply. And while I'm having a moan I would like to point out, John Steck, that your e-mail address appears where the Vortex address normally appears. This means that I have to delete your address, click on my nicknames window and substitute the Vortex address or my reply will go to you rather than Vortex. Quite a few posts come through like this. I don't know why but I wish people would sort it, out of consideration for those of us who keep our Lord Beaty's commandments. ;-) As for attachments, if posters want to refer to photos, diagrams, etc. they can use a URL to their own website or a Yahoo group site. Moan over, ;-) Frank Grimer -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 05/03/04
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
Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
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
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:25:55PM -0600, Zell, Chris wrote: Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. If this is about a choice between a battery and a capacitor, better results might be obtained by using a capacitor (chosen for low internal series inductance) _and_ a battery, connected in parallel. (The combination should be connected with short, straight wires to whatever is producing the pulses, to reduce inductance). The capacitor will begin absorbing the incoming charge immediately, and by the time its voltage begins to rise the battery will (hopefully) begin taking the rest of the charge, preventing any substantial voltage rise across the parallel combination, and thus across whatever it's connected to (PAGD tube, presumably). While the capacitance can be increased by adding multiple capacitors of the same type to the parallel combination, one may also parallel different _types_ of capacitors -- one (or more) with large capacitance but unavoidable internal series inductance, and one (or more) with smaller capacitance but designed to have much less internal series inductance (these are called bypass capacitors). The small, low-inductance bypass capacitor will absorb the very beginning of the incoming charge, while the rest of the initial charge makes its way through the series inductance of the larger capacitor. After that, the remainder of the charge will go into the battery (which may be even slower to respond). Connecting two different capacitors in parallel in this way is frequently done in electronic circuits. For example, a computer plug-in card (e.g., a video card) will likely have a slow electrolytic capacitor and a fast ceramic bypass capacitor connected in parallel between its ground and +5 volt power input. The electrolytic reduces low-frequency AC across the +5 power line to the chips in the card, while the bypass cap will reduce high-frequency AC.
Re: Correa
I don't know anything about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't know. What I do know is that if you run the tube with only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away with it) My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by 3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no obvious OU. As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized, you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the cathode. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Correa Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
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.
