I've often wondered if these magnetic systems have some unforeseen zero point asymmetry built into the construction materials... but then I also allow for trapped ambient gases in the calcium pores of pyramid block.:_) Fran
_____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims -----Original Message----- From: Harry Veeder > In Thane Heins' system an input of kinetic energy maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Yes, that rings of Aspden's theory, but doesn't it forcefully argue for the type of demonstration where the claimed OU device is interposed between a very efficient motor and a very efficient generator? Both are kinetic devices. This route is the simplest yet most important way that any inventor can prove his claims: to "close the loop". For instance, I am fond of the CSIRO open source motor which always wins the solar races in Oz: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Reducing-GHG/Solar-cars-use-CSIRO-motor.aspx It is 98% efficient as a motor and can be rewired to be 95% efficient as a generator. That includes windage, friction and copper losses. Thus the combination will self-power in a rather dramatic way so long as the electrical system connecting the two has a COP of at least 1.1 ... but to be on the safe side, 1.2 may be needed. In either event the gain required can be so low in percentage terms that it would be questioned by skeptics as measurement error - if only meters are involved. Bottom line: there is no excuse for not employing this expedient, since a self-runner is rock solid proof of the claim. Not to mention - very dramatic proof. To fail to do so, after all these years, is essentially a tacit admission that the device in question is not gainful. Jones
