Thanks Mark, I'm trying as best I can to stick to principles in a complicated, contradictory world... Most of the problems seem to be man-made and ideology based.
Science seems simple, people are perplexing. Remi. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Goldes Sent: 04 July 2005 14:30 To: [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: TEC data Hi Remi, Congratulations! Your work is both brilliant and beautiful. Cheers, Mark >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: TEC data >Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:36:57 +0100 > >Dear Vortex, >I have some data for the TEC project. After a number of years of project >mismanagement and the sacking of a supervisor, I have a new supervisory >team >who told me I was trying to do too much at once. Terrible problems were >encountered with power electronics and so forth in the quest for a device >that was over-unity. The new team told me to break the project up and so I >came up with the following scalable experiments, each of which proves the >thesis, however the latter experiments are obviously more gratifying: > >1) Independent flux concept. >2) Cooling of an isolated reservoir. >3) Excess power generation. > >On 1) >If you read the papers is the link below (go to the thermo-electric link), >specifically 'ERA2005', 'ERA2004' and appendicii of the first two papers >you >will see what we mean by the independent flux concept. We have two terms in >an energy equation, one is just the field energy the other is dipole work. >The latter term is limitless and represents energy external to the >electrical system entering it. **This term will be the heat conversion to >electricity.** > >The data shown in the slides for ERA2005 13, 14 and 15 show the term acting >as a stiff voltage source so the decay rate is not affected. When there is >no ferrofluid in the core, the flux is just dependent, energy is constant >and hence loading affects the decay rate. > >**So there is no doubt about it the effect occurs.** > >We shall do more experiments and present this more formally with full kit >and materials. Discussion with supervisors and others say some might find >this a little subtle and we should wait until the second experiment before >submitting to mainstream journals (avoid doing a P+F and condemn it to >crankdom! Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence.) > >On 2) >We are beginning to design for this. We will aim for unequivocal cooling >not >some talking shop statistical analysis. > >On 3) >A comparative easy step on from 2. Small amounts of power from heat being >converted to electricity is already occurring in (1) but not enough to >break >even though. > > >The other stuff on the website (propulsion and signalling) I am thinking >about and will put material hopefully by the end of year. I think the third >project is practically easier than the second but I am beginning to have >good theoretical ideas for a mechanism based on real phenomena (not ZPE). I >always work on the basis that, if a phenomenon exists follow the >consequences no matter how weird. I won't discuss these projects until I >have composed my thoughts into some coherent paper. They need more work. >....................................... >Website >http://luna.bton.ac.uk/~roc1 >....................................... > >Excuse me if I don't stick around, I respect your forum but find it a >little >too 'nerd-macho' sometimes (especially vortex) and I don't suffer the sort. >Regards, >Remi. >
