Stephen; I was told to look at your post as it was insured I would want to respond. But I am not returning to the list(s)until I finish documentation that I will present at a later time. It makes no sense to have this dialog with hundreds of people that are talking only from past or similar experience. I decided it was prudent to assemble all information in ONE place and answer questions in ONE place. This removes the possibility of a question begin answered in a different way as a result of a slightly different ordering of the question, then all 'Hell' is set free again.
Now for you Post. Thank You... This is the most accurate view of what was presented yet. You must have looked and thought about it before putting in your two cents. This is the response I desire in order to carry on a dialog. Everyone assumes (myself included) and we all know the definition of assume? Now I just can not obtain and have tried for many years to get anyone to understand and look at what I am saying and not implying. 'I do not believe in "OU" or "Free Energy"', I do indeed believe in the conversion of one form of energy into other forms that allow the result to be usable. In my feeble mind I do believe the Universe has a finite amount of energy, some known and some unknown. The secret is to tap and use the unknown. It is not OU or Free Energy, you pay for what you get, even if it is at the Universal level. I so wish the populace would stop this OU craziness and focus on what I am trying to do. Present a conversion from another (unidentified) form to a useful form. If it could be looked at in this way we could move forward and not be held back by the past and current knowledge and theory. If we can duplicate and see that the addition of loads (LEDS or Incandescents) can be added and not spin the meter any faster then even if all gather around some 'mundane' explanation or not, the finding is significant. Measurement errors, measurement methods, isolation ala Faraday case and on and on, varies so much across the disciplines that each view think their way is sacrosanct. This is not the case, yet some will fight to the death over their long and closely held training and observation. I think this could indeed be explained with a little work inside of conventional theories, yet if it is, without looking outside the box, it is currently headed to the grave with all the rest of past claims. I have not moved to secrecy but then again I am now working only with a select group, why, because in this way the playing field is leveled and one does not have to waste energy in defending ones self, even thought it provides additional fuel for the fires, He is gone, see it don't work, He faked it and left us hanging, He never planned on telling us. This I understand happens when you get more than one involved, but there are like thinkers and often it is required to slow down and stay in the circle. The last three videos will be shown, but are indeed videos. The written work, the procedure, the duplication or observation of similar results are what is not needed and open free dialog can follow. I agree Kits are out, public study groups are out and after the last videos to finish the ten, YouTube is out. YouTube is not the place to display this type of work, for whatever reason, be it so called protection, public dissemination, ego building or whatever comes to mind. This is not the way. Now comes the age old question, well if you can't get your peers to sign on then what can you do. I think that has been answered throughout history, it was buried either by or wit the inventor. Hope to be back soon and will have the info link posted when it reaches a mass where it will answer questions. R.Stiffler -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity William Beaty wrote: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jones Beene wrote: > >> I find Bill's T-coil comparison enlightening ;-) but lacking (in the >> sense of apples-to-oranges) wrt to the latest experiment -- where there >> is NO, ZERO, NADA, signal... merely ground, or DrS's touch. > > Ah, that's different! > > :) > > I totally missed any announcement that self-acting or "closed-loop" > operation was achieved. WHOA slow down, that's not what was said. I've lost my sound again on this system so I can't hear the sound track on Video 7 but I don't think it's vital to understand what's happening. It's in three steps: -- Apparatus shown unconnected, all LEDs dark. -- ONE wire is connected, and the LEDs light. The wire is disconnected, and the LEDs go out again. -- Dr. Stiffler takes hold of the "input wire" with his hand, and the LEDs light again, but dimmer this time than when a clip lead was connected to the device. Is the signal generator still running in the background at this time? I don't know; my /guess/ would be 'yes'. (Darn I'd love to hear the sound track on #7 -- if someone types in a capsule summary I'll be happy.) At _no_ time is the circuit shown powering itself, nor is it shown operating with no external connection. The fact that the external connection is to Dr. Stiffler's hand in no way negates the fact that there is an external connection. ****************************** ISSUE for Bill: Tesla-coil type circuits tend to have high impedance, "looking back" into the circuit, or so I have been led to believe. In contrast, LEDs have (nearly) ZERO impedance when forward biased (they have a fixed voltage drop, but no impedance on top of that). This is why they must normally be driven by a current source, not a voltage source. To answer a question put elsewhere, by someone (Jones, ?maybe?): No, you can't light an LED with "voltage only" (high voltage and extremely low current) -- you need an mA or two to light it, at somewhere between 1 and 3 volts depending on the particular LED. 3,000 volts from a high impedance coil which can't source more than, say, 0.05 mA won't do the job; the impedance mismatch is too large. So how do you drive LEDs from a Tesla coil? > Did a video mention it? Or a message here? All I > saw was discussions of 12V power supply in early videos, but I didn't see > any announcement that the device started running by itself. Nor did I. AFAIK it did not do that. > So that > explains all the uproar about scoffer sneers, and about needing a Faraday > shield. No, that was earlier, back with video #4, which just used a two wire hookup, but in which the output power was apparently far larger than the input power. > > Running by itself *IS* closing the loop. But it doesn't do that. Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 11:10 AM Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 11:10 AM
