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