> > I wrote: > > Does yours resemble any of these pictures? > Terry wrote: > Yes. But these seem to use an electrolyte.
Schiffer is quite clear that he considers using an electrolyte is OK *if necessary*, and you're going for a relatively quick result. However, he also says that "For the patient experimenter or one that is using neat water, i.e., water without electrolyte, excellent results are achieved with currents as low as 50 m/Amps". He's since stressed this on list - very low current (still at around 12vdc) is effective. > I can't believe someone did that spherical attempt. I > seriously doubt > the geometry matters. If you look at Moshe's homepage, you'll see that he has a definite world view. Now, what we've been discussing on this list has been purely in mechanistic terms, whereas there are those on the JC lists that hold other (and various), more 'spiritual' views. To these individuals, geometry may matter a great deal - Schiffer's position is that he believes the true JC is a 'down converter' of energies from another place. What I find interesting, and why I sometimes seem to lurch from one position to another, is that both views may be perfectly valid, depending upon the frame of reference. Science as we know it does a fair job of explaining the rules/laws that govern the three dimensional world that we see on a daily basis. Why shouldn't there be also be certain set 'laws' governing that which we cannot see - the higher dimensions, spirituality or however you wish to describe it. If there are such laws, and if we accept that these other planes of existence intersect with ours, then it may make absolute sense that certain geometry's are key to tapping these energies (think about Hinton's [e.g.] descriptions of 2D and 3D world interactions for a simple explanation as to why this could be so). Patrick
