Tesla: Master of Lightning premieres on PBS December 12, 2000 at 10pm
(check local listings for exact date and time).

Check out a sneak preview at:
www.pbs.org/tesla

Please call your local PBS station and let them know of your interest in
Tesla: Master of Lightning.  Be part of the buzz and pass the news along.
____________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personal .com domain name and
NAMEzero Personal Portal at: http://www.namezero.com.
For customer service, mailto:customerservice@....

Thank you for this Andy!  It's about time the entire public was told,
at least a little bit, about this great man.

Jim Farrer

Andy Cleary wrote:
>
> Tesla: Master of Lightning premieres on PBS December 12, 2000 at 10pm
> (check local listings for exact date and time).
>
> Check out a sneak preview at:
> www.pbs.org/tesla
>
> Please call your local PBS station and let them know of your interest
> in
> Tesla: Master of Lightning.  Be part of the buzz and pass the news
> along.
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE personal .com domain name and
> NAMEzero Personal Portal at: http://www.namezero.com.
> For customer service, mailto:customerservice@....
>
>                       eGroups Sponsor
>

Many thanks for the notification!  I promptly ordered the book, and have
since got it in the mail.  It certainly looks great!!  The only problem
being that I have ~5 books lined up to read before it :(  But for the price,
I figured I'd go for it.  Thanks again,

-Andy C.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 10:21 PM
To: Jet Black; Teslaturbine@egroups; usa-tesla
Subject: [usa-tesla] readings writeings and inventions of Nikola Tesla


   Barnes and Nobel has in its bargin book section:
      Readings Writeings and Inventions of Nikola Tesla.
This book is a bargin at under 9.00. More than likeley can order online
or if prices do not match, I will purchase and ship for anyone who wants
a copy. This book has things you have never heard of and gives some of
the actual writeings of Nikola Tesla. One of the few books I have two
copies of . It is very technical, dry reading for most.
Paul

>From: usa-tesla@egroups.com
>Reply-To: usa-tesla@egroups.com
>To: usa-tesla@egroups.com
>Subject: [usa-tesla] Digest Number 576
>Date: 4 Nov 2000 16:41:18 -0000
>
>
>There are 2 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Re: FW: Tesla Multimedia Event Sneak Preview on PBS.org!
>            From: Jim Farrer <jfarrer@...>
>       2. RE: readings writeings and inventions of Nikola Tesla
>            From: "Andy Cleary" <gemware2@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
>    Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 23:57:49 -0500
>    From: Jim Farrer <jfarrer@...>
>Subject: Re: FW: Tesla Multimedia Event Sneak Preview on PBS.org!
>
>Thank you for this Andy!  It's about time the entire public was told,
>at least a little bit, about this great man.
>
>Jim Farrer
>
>Andy Cleary wrote:
> >
> > Tesla: Master of Lightning premieres on PBS December 12, 2000 at 10pm
> > (check local listings for exact date and time).
> >
> > Check out a sneak preview at:
> > www.pbs.org/tesla
> >
> > Please call your local PBS station and let them know of your interest
> > in
> > Tesla: Master of Lightning.  Be part of the buzz and pass the news
> > along.
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE personal .com domain name and
> > NAMEzero Personal Portal at: http://www.namezero.com.
> > For customer service, mailto:customerservice@....
> >
> >                       eGroups Sponsor
> >
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 2
>    Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:08:07 -0500
>    From: "Andy Cleary" <gemware2@...>
>Subject: RE: readings writeings and inventions of Nikola Tesla
>
>Many thanks for the notification!  I promptly ordered the book, and have
>since got it in the mail.  It certainly looks great!!  The only problem
>being that I have ~5 books lined up to read before it :(  But for the
>price,
>I figured I'd go for it.  Thanks again,
>
>-Andy C.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 10:21 PM
>To: Jet Black; Teslaturbine@egroups; usa-tesla
>Subject: [usa-tesla] readings writeings and inventions of Nikola Tesla
>
>
>   Barnes and Nobel has in its bargin book section:
>      Readings Writeings and Inventions of Nikola Tesla.
>This book is a bargin at under 9.00. More than likeley can order online
>or if prices do not match, I will purchase and ship for anyone who wants
>a copy. This book has things you have never heard of and gives some of
>the actual writeings of Nikola Tesla. One of the few books I have two
>copies of . It is very technical, dry reading for most.
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
hi folks ..if youi really want to read a book written by tesla himself and
is the breakthrough publication in a time when he discarded his work with
alt.current and proceeded on to his new work investigation of the aether
through the disruptive coil system then read the title ...." experiment's
with alternate currents of high potental and frequency....by nicola Tesla
1904...reprinted by omni publications....po box 216 hawthorn calif' 90250
1979...it describes the disruptive discharge coil as he wished it to be....I
highly rcommend you also read ...secret's of cold war technoligy ...by
vassilitos...the first chapter is th best I ever read on tesla ...let me
know....coollio
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

Your head will explode if you sit down and try and read it straight
through. Some of the more bizzar stuff is the pyromagnetic generator (pg
430) and the St Elmo fire device (Pg 170).
     The book also has information on the electro mechanical oscillator
and the Tesla improved disk generator toward the back. I though being
able to break down ruby and other crystals with electricity was a fairly
neat trick.
Paul
Andy Cleary wrote:
>
> Many thanks for the notification!  I promptly ordered the book, and have
> since got it in the mail.  It certainly looks great!!  The only problem
> being that I have ~5 books lined up to read before it :(  But for the price,
> I figured I'd go for it.  Thanks again,
>
> -Andy C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 10:21 PM
> To: Jet Black; Teslaturbine@egroups; usa-tesla
> Subject: [usa-tesla] readings writeings and inventions of Nikola Tesla
>
>   Barnes and Nobel has in its bargin book section:
>      Readings Writeings and Inventions of Nikola Tesla.
> This book is a bargin at under 9.00. More than likeley can order online
> or if prices do not match, I will purchase and ship for anyone who wants
> a copy. This book has things you have never heard of and gives some of
> the actual writeings of Nikola Tesla. One of the few books I have two
> copies of . It is very technical, dry reading for most.
> Paul
>

To those of you involved in a discussion of how a Faraday disk works,
there is a section in readings, writeings and inventions that discusses
in some detail movement of charge throug a faraday disk. Electrciity
follows the path of least resistance, resistance being in terms of
magnetic field combined with movment.
    The improved Tesla disk is substantially different from the Faraday
disk as a modern generator is from a magnet inserted into a coil of wire.
It might be helpful to clairfy the difference between the two in order
to resolve some of the questions unanswered about the disk.
     I suggest we construct one of these and test it to determine the
actual facts about its mode of operation. Once fully tested, hypothisis
can be formed as to its actual function.
    I can provide a high speed 20 inch disk for testing. It will rotate
at about nine to twelve thousand rpm. If any of you would actually like
to become involved in a project to test some homopolar designs I would
like to hear suggestions.
    Intellectual argument is helpful if used toward a constructive
purpose. Members, I am in the process of building a 20 inch turbine
which can have two homopolar generators attached to the shaft. NASA will
computer simulate the model for testing.

James Paul Moore wrote:
>
> At 11:25 AM 10/30/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>>
>
>      Fred McGalliard wrote:
>      >
>      > Jim Farrer wrote:
>      > ...
>      > > ===>> JSF 10/29 I believe my thoughts are real. ALL ELSE could be
>      > > illusory, because I know how unreliable my "senses" are.
>      >
>      > I would take the counter position. "We think we think, therefore we
>      > think we are." (Paraphrasing Kant). Prove that you do in fact think.
>
>      ===>> JSF 10/30 It becomes apparent that there can be no proof of
>      anything, because all other humans (who would need to test this proof
>      are as fallible as I (or nearly so). God only knows, and he don't
>      tell.
>
>      Jim
>
> <<<<
> True enough... that's what I have always thought... there is
> no real proof of much of anything, when one zeros in to an
> almost infinite resolution, given any particular topic.
> >>>>
>
> I would like to see what some of you'all think about the
> claims made by this individual, concerning the clear
> reception of ground radio signals. I remember my first AM
> 'crystal radio', and I even made a 'cats hair' reciever
> using a fine wire touching the surface of a clean razor
> blade, that worked.
>
> I always noticed that the signal was better, if I had the
> antenae clip well grounded, like to a metal water, or gas pipe.
> Doubt if this has anything to do with what this fellow is
> eporting? The main part of his story that I am currious about,
> is the report of the signal increasing to high clarity, after
> being hooked up to the ground rod for an extended time, with
> the radio left on. What could explain this phenomenon?
>
> Thanks for any thought or feedback related to this phenomenon.
>
> JPM
>
> "A nation of sheep will beget a government
> of wolves." -- E.R. Murrow

To those of you involved in a discussion of how a Faraday disk works,
there is a section in readings, writings and inventions that discusses
in some detail movement of charge through a faraday disk. Electrciity
follows the path of least resistance, resistance being in terms of
magnetic field combined with movement.
   The improved Tesla disk is substantially different from the Faraday
disk as a modern generator is from a magnet inserted into a coil of wire.
It might be helpful to clarify the difference between the two in order
to resolve some of the questions unanswered about the disk.
    I suggest we construct one of these and test it to determine the
actual facts about its mode of operation. Once fully tested, hypothesis
can be formed as to its actual function.
   I can provide a high speed 20 inch disk for testing. It will rotate
at about nine to twelve thousand rpm. If any of you would actually like
to become involved in a project to test some homopolar designs I would
like to hear suggestions.
   Intellectual argument is helpful if used toward a constructive
purpose. Members, I am in the process of building a 20 inch turbine
which can have two homopolar generators attached to the shaft. NASA will
computer simulate the model for testing.

James Paul Moore wrote:
>
> At 11:25 AM 10/30/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>>
>
>      Fred McGalliard wrote:
>      >
>      > Jim Farrer wrote:
>      > ...
>      > > ===>> JSF 10/29 I believe my thoughts are real. ALL ELSE could be
>      > > illusory, because I know how unreliable my "senses" are.
>      >
>      > I would take the counter position. "We think we think, therefore we
>      > think we are." (Paraphrasing Kant). Prove that you do in fact think.
>
>      ===>> JSF 10/30 It becomes apparent that there can be no proof of
>      anything, because all other humans (who would need to test this proof
>      are as fallible as I (or nearly so). God only knows, and he don't
>      tell.
>
>      Jim
>
> <<<<
> True enough... that's what I have always thought... there is
> no real proof of much of anything, when one zeros in to an
> almost infinite resolution, given any particular topic.
> >>>>
>
> I would like to see what some of you'all think about the
> claims made by this individual, concerning the clear
> reception of ground radio signals. I remember my first AM
> 'crystal radio', and I even made a 'cats hair' receiver
> using a fine wire touching the surface of a clean razor
> blade, that worked.
>
> I always noticed that the signal was better, if I had the
> antenna clip well grounded, like to a metal water, or gas pipe.
> Doubt if this has anything to do with what this fellow is
> reporting? The main part of his story that I am curious about,
> is the report of the signal increasing to high clarity, after
> being hooked up to the ground rod for an extended time, with
> the radio left on. What could explain this phenomenon?
>
> Thanks for any thought or feedback related to this phenomenon.
>
> JPM
>
> "A nation of sheep will beget a government
> of wolves." -- E.R. Murrow

eGroups Sponsor

I found this to be interesting... was from the
Chicago Tribune...

http://www.rense.com/general5/ufpo.htm

JPM

Tesla patented this device on Feb 3, 1920, as # 1,329,559

In the book, "Tesla Said," by John T. Ratzlaff, this item is
included starting on page 132.  Telsa devotes 11 pages in prose
description of the device.  If anyone is interested, let me
know privately and I'll get it to you.

Jim Farrer

See ===>>JSF 11/6/00 below.  JSF

James Paul Moore wrote:
>
> At 11:25 AM 10/30/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>>
>
>      Fred McGalliard wrote:
>      >
>      > Jim Farrer wrote:
>      > ...
>      > > ===>> JSF 10/29 I believe my thoughts are real. ALL ELSE could be
>      > > illusory, because I know how unreliable my "senses" are.
>      >
>      > I would take the counter position. "We think we think, therefore we
>      > think we are." (Paraphrasing Kant). Prove that you do in fact think.
>
>      ===>> JSF 10/30 It becomes apparent that there can be no proof of
>      anything, because all other humans (who would need to test this proof
>      are as fallible as I (or nearly so). God only knows, and he don't
>      tell.
>
>      Jim
>
> <<<<
> True enough... that's what I have always thought... there is
> no real proof of much of anything, when one zeros in to an
> almost infinite resolution, given any particular topic.
> >>>>
>
> I would like to see what some of you'all think about the
> claims made by this individual, concerning the clear
> reception of ground radio signals. I remember my first AM
> 'crystal radio', and I even made a 'cats hair' reciever
> using a fine wire touching the surface of a clean razor
> blade, that worked.
>
> I always noticed that the signal was better, if I had the
> antenae clip well grounded, like to a metal water, or gas pipe.
> Doubt if this has anything to do with what this fellow is
> eporting? The main part of his story that I am currious about,
> is the report of the signal increasing to high clarity, after
> being hooked up to the ground rod for an extended time, with
> the radio left on. What could explain this phenomenon?
>
> Thanks for any thought or feedback related to this phenomenon.
>
> JPM


===>>JSF 11/6/00 James, I can only comment partly here.  I don't
see what "this fellow"  is saying.  But for the 'cats hair'
receiver having increased clarity after some time:  The fine
wire on a razor edge is obviously acting like a diode.
Comparing it to the galena crystal sets I built, they were
notoriously unstable.  They'd work for a while, then quit.  One
usually had to find a new place on the crystal to restore
operation.  If the Operation was imperfect, the diode was not
functioning totally properly.  Suppose the RF voltage had to get
halfway up to peak before the diode conducted at all.  Lots of
distortion!
Suppose the thin wire on the razor oxidized a little as it was
used.  Now the thin oxide coating could make the diode operate
better, with less distortion.  There could be many other
explanations for this, such as changes caused by simple
vibration,
etching of the razor edge by the RF voltage, etc.
Jim Farrer


>
> "A nation of sheep will beget a government
> of wolves." -- E.R. Murrow

I was asked to become a foundling member of an engineering exchange
program designed to bring technology to market sooner by provideing
computer modeling simulations for business. I consult with various
engineers on my designs. Currently I am seeking someone to help with
combustion chamber, nozzle, and electronic control designs. If
interested in this project you too can participate. NASA (tech briefs)
may not actually be set up yet to test the complete design yet, however
there plans are to extend the program to many different areas.
Paul

James P Moore wrote:
>
> At 08:05 PM 11/4/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>
> > To those of you involved in a discussion of how a Faraday disk
> > works,
> > there is a section in readings, writings and inventions that
> > discusses
> > in some detail movement of charge through a faraday disk.
> > Electrciity
> > follows the path of least resistance, resistance being in terms of
> > magnetic field combined with movement.
> >    The improved Tesla disk is substantially different from the
> > Faraday
> > disk as a modern generator is from a magnet inserted into a coil of
> > wire.
> > It might be helpful to clarify the difference between the two in
> > order
> > to resolve some of the questions unanswered about the disk.
> >     I suggest we construct one of these and test it to determine the
> > actual facts about its mode of operation. Once fully tested,
> > hypothesis
> > can be formed as to its actual function.
> >    I can provide a high speed 20 inch disk for testing. It will
> > rotate
> > at about nine to twelve thousand rpm. If any of you would actually
> > like
> > to become involved in a project to test some homopolar designs I
> > would
> > like to hear suggestions.
> >    Intellectual argument is helpful if used toward a constructive
> > purpose. Members, I am in the process of building a 20 inch turbine
> > which can have two homopolar generators attached to the shaft. NASA
> > will
> > computer simulate the model for testing.
> >
>
> I am curious Paul... how were you able to talk NASA into doing any
> computer modeling for you!?
>
> JPM
>
> > James Paul Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > At 11:25 AM 10/30/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > >      Fred McGalliard wrote:
> > >      >
> > >      > Jim Farrer wrote:
> > >      > ...
> > >      > > ===>> JSF 10/29 I believe my thoughts are real. ALL ELSE
> > could be
> > >      > > illusory, because I know how unreliable my "senses" are.
> > >      >
> > >      > I would take the counter position. "We think we think,
> > therefore we
> > >      > think we are." (Paraphrasing Kant). Prove that you do in
> > fact think.
> > >
> > >      ===>> JSF 10/30 It becomes apparent that there can be no
> > proof of
> > >      anything, because all other humans (who would need to test
> > this proof
> > >      are as fallible as I (or nearly so). God only knows, and he
> > don't
> > >      tell.
> > >
> > >      Jim
> > >
> > > <<<<
> > > True enough... that's what I have always thought... there is
> > > no real proof of much of anything, when one zeros in to an
> > > almost infinite resolution, given any particular topic.
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > > I would like to see what some of you'all think about the
> > > claims made by this individual, concerning the clear
> > > reception of ground radio signals. I remember my first AM
> > > 'crystal radio', and I even made a 'cats hair' receiver
> > > using a fine wire touching the surface of a clean razor
> > > blade, that worked.
> > >
> > > I always noticed that the signal was better, if I had the
> > > antenna clip well grounded, like to a metal water, or gas pipe.
> > > Doubt if this has anything to do with what this fellow is
> > > reporting? The main part of his story that I am curious about,
> > > is the report of the signal increasing to high clarity, after
> > > being hooked up to the ground rod for an extended time, with
> > > the radio left on. What could explain this phenomenon?
> > >
> > > Thanks for any thought or feedback related to this phenomenon.
> > >
> > > JPM
> > >
> > > "A nation of sheep will beget a government
> > > of wolves." -- E.R. Murrow
> >
> > eGroups Sponsor
>
>                       eGroups Sponsor
>

I don't want to appear like Bill CLinton, but what do you mean by "it"?
If you refer to "Tesla Said", then No, I already have it.  But if you mean a
Valvular Conduit, I'm interested.  I am considering making one, but am no
machinist so not sure how to start.

jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Farrer <jfarrer@...>
To: List, The TESLA <usa-tesla@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 1:23 AM
Subject: [usa-tesla] Tesla's Valvular Conduit


> Tesla patented this device on Feb 3, 1920, as # 1,329,559
>
> In the book, "Tesla Said," by John T. Ratzlaff, this item is
> included starting on page 132.  Telsa devotes 11 pages in prose
> description of the device.  If anyone is interested, let me
> know privately and I'll get it to you.
>
> Jim Farrer
>
>
>
>
>

Might better say a government of sheepherders and sheep dogs. The wolves
just eat em, they don't raise em.

James Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Check this discovery out!
>
> http://ananova.com/news/story/sm_105441.html?nav_src=related
> "A nation of sheep will beget a government
> of wolves." -- E.R. Murrow

James P Moore wrote:
>
>    Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain)

===>>JSF 11/6
"... The improved Tesla disk is substantially different from
the Faraday disk as a modern generator is from a magnet inserted
into a coil of wire. It might be helpful to clarify the
difference between the two in order to resolve some of the
questions unanswered about the disk."

I couldn't find this info I have on Tesla, as books are still
put away for duration of my remodeling job.  BUT: memory!
The Tesla mods to the Faraday disk were reasoned as follows:
When a hollow cylindrical magnet is used, the central part of
the disk, having no magnetic field through it, contributes
nothing, and so is cut out and discarded.  Since eddy currents
can flow freely everywhere, prevent this by slotting the disk
from inner edge to outer edge, leaving a solid circle of
metal at outer and inner extremes.  It seems vague, but maybe
real that since Tesla knew the electron path would be curved,
that he considered (or actually did) make these pie wedges
curved.  I'm sure he stated that the amount of curvature
depended upon the rate of rotation and the strength of the
applied magnetic field.
Jim Farrer

===>>JSF 11/6  The "it" I referred to was the 11 page
description.

For other interested parties who don't have the book, I include
the figure here as an attachment.
      On page 135, there are shown two views of the
valvular conduit.  Look at the left most view.  It is only two
dimensional.  For the 3rd dimension, consider a stack of 50 flat
pages of this stacked up.  Now you have the correct 3D view.
To make it, I'd start out by making a wooden mold, and
have it cast (should be iron to withstand the heat).
Then, of course, a pair of flat top and bottom plates.

This explanation, just to get the idea across.  The figure shows
only a top plate, the bottom plate and sides being integral
with the vanes.

It may or may not be obvious, but the incoming fuel-air
mixture should pass thru with no impediment, and so
should come in at the top.  The combustion chamber should be
connected to the bottom.

Jim Farrer

Jim wrote:
>
> I don't want to appear like Bill CLinton, but what do you mean
> by "it"?
> If you refer to "Tesla Said", then No, I already have it.  But
> if you mean a
> Valvular Conduit, I'm interested.  I am considering making one,
> but am no
> machinist so not sure how to start.
>
> jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Farrer <jfarrer@...>
> To: List, The TESLA <usa-tesla@egroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 1:23 AM
> Subject: [usa-tesla] Tesla's Valvular Conduit
>
> > Tesla patented this device on Feb 3, 1920, as # 1,329,559
> >
> > In the book, "Tesla Said," by John T. Ratzlaff, this item is
> > included starting on page 132.  Telsa devotes 11 pages in
> prose
> > description of the device.  If anyone is interested, let me
> > know privately and I'll get it to you.
> >
> > Jim Farrer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>                       eGroups Sponsor
>

Jim Farrer wrote:
...
>      On page 135, there are shown two views of the
> valvular conduit....
> To make it, I'd start out by making a wooden mold, and
> have it cast

Jim. I think a piece of bar aluminum stock would work, although you
might want cooling channels in it. The structure looks like a number of
staggered circular drill holes with a part of the edge removed, into a
common passage. A hack saw or router bit should do this rather easily.
You could turn the structure in three dimensions by either drawing it
out (basically just widening the structure, repeating it in multiple
parallel elements, or creating it by rotation (which would be difficult
to machine). The larger the dimension, the lower the frequency
associated with reversing the flow. A large number of very small VCs
would operate at a very high frequency and still allow a lot of flow
volume. This should make an excellent pulse jet, though I have never
heard of anyone doing this successfully.

subject snipped as there is no faraday disk motors involved (I think)

At 0830 5/11/2000 ,JPM wrote:
>At 11:25 AM 10/30/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>>
>
>
>>Fred McGalliard wrote:
>> >
>> > Jim Farrer wrote:
>> > ...
>> > > ===>> JSF 10/29 I believe my thoughts are real.  ALL ELSE could be
>> > > illusory, because I know how unreliable my "senses" are.
>> >
>> > I would take the counter position. "We think we think, therefore we
>> > think we are." (Paraphrasing Kant). Prove that you do in fact think.

Why should I have to prove I think , by definition in the dictionary , the
mere writing of this sentence is sufficient proof of thought.I am unsure of
the "legal" definition of "think" so i can't comment on that one.I should
read Kant to see what he is _really_ on about........



>>===>> JSF 10/30 It becomes apparent that there can be no proof of
>>anything, because all other humans (who would need to test this proof
>>are as fallible as I (or nearly so).  God only knows, and he don't
>>tell.
>>
>>Jim
>
><<<<
>True enough... that's what I have always thought... there is
>no real proof of much of anything, when one zeros in to an
>almost infinite resolution, given any particular topic.
> >>>>

Help , I am drowning in thought.


>JPM wrote http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m8763.html



>I would like to see what some of you'all think about the
>claims made by this individual, concerning the clear
>reception of ground radio signals. I remember my first AM
>'crystal radio', and I even made a 'cats hair' reciever
>using a fine wire touching the surface of a clean razor
>blade, that worked.
>
>I always noticed that the signal was better, if I had the
>antenae clip well grounded, like to a metal water, or gas pipe.
>Doubt if this has anything to do with what this fellow is
>eporting? The main part of his story that I am currious about,
>is the report of the signal increasing to high clarity, after
>being hooked up to the ground rod for an extended time, with
>the radio left on. What could explain this phenomenon?

The unmentioned variables have me wondering , the type of coax used ?  Was
it the thin RG8 50ohm (networking coax) ,common TV coax  75ohm  , or
something completely different like the chunky 50 ohm RG8 , the length of
the coax (1 meter or 10 meter's) how much is vertical and how much is
horizontal , he dosen't mention anything about the shielding braided shield
so I'll "assume" <shudder> he left each end open.There's probably a few
more variables I'll stumble across when trying to duplicate his experiment.

The signals I drag up out of the array of earths I have setup on my
property (1/4 acre block)  are strong and garbled , most days they can
light up an LED , (biased in either direction) , I havent had the chance to
repeat the experiment in a rural area (I suspect there would be less ground
noise in sparcely  populated area)
Steve's idea of connecting a coaxial cable to an earth stake and using it
as an antenna is on I had never thought of , given the destructive nature
of the signals I pull out of the ground , I'll start off with a cheap and
_expendable_ AM/FM  radio , I'm not going thru the same destructive testing
of my analog & digital multimeters , I did last time , if the results are
encouraging I'll try some of my more expensive broadband recievers , thanks
for the info JPM , notes , measurements , times , frequencies etc etc will
be taken during this neat little tangent you and Steve provided me with.
Time to get my hands dirty again , actually the radio I plan to use has a
built in casette recorder , I'll clean the heads and put a tape in to
record what happens during this little test.....


JB


>Thanks for any thought or feedback related to this phenomenon.
>
>JPM
>
>
>
>"A nation of sheep will beget a government
>          of wolves." -- E.R. Murrow
>
></blockquote></x-html>

I liked Murrow when he said it.  I like Murrow's words today.
And I'll like him toMurrow.
Jim

Fred McGalliard wrote:
>
> Might better say a government of sheepherders and sheep dogs.
> The wolves
> just eat em, they don't raise em.
>
> James Paul Moore wrote:
> >
> > Check this discovery out!
> >
> > http://ananova.com/news/story/sm_105441.html?nav_src=related
> > "A nation of sheep will beget a government
> > of wolves." -- E.R. Murrow
>
>                       eGroups Sponsor
>

Hello Gang,

Just had to step in and make a comment since this is a hot topic at
the moment.   J.B.,If you will drive a ground rod into the earth
and go to the other end of your lot and drive another, connect one end
to the chassis ground on your radio and the other end to your antenna,
you may be amazed at the result.

We have experimented with this setup in the process of detecting
ULF and ELF signals which pass through the earth and have found that
many, many signals of a higher frequency may be detected better than
by using a conventional antenna.  An example of this type of antenna
array and construction details may be found at:
http://www.elfrad.com/project1.htm

To prevent any stray transients or spikes from lightening, or other
stray voltages, take a look at the first part of the schematic located
at: http://www.elfrad.com/sigcon.htm

The diodes and combination of fuses will protect your equipment. You
might give some thought to building a band pass filter to catch the
band of your choice.  Prepare yourself for some surprises and a good
time.

Charlie Plyler
ELFRAD Group

James Paul Moore wrote:
>
>      <snip> to conserve bandwidth...
>
>      The unmentioned variables have me wondering , the type of
>      coax used ? Was it the thin RG8 50ohm (networking coax) ,
>      common TV coax 75ohm , or something completely different
>      like the chunky 50 ohm RG8 , the length of the coax (1 meter
>      or 10 meter's) how much is vertical and how much is horizontal,
>      he dosen't mention anything about the shielding braided shield
>      so I'll "assume" <shudder> he left each end open.There's probably
>      a few more variables I'll stumble across when trying to duplicate
>      his experiment.
>
>      The signals I drag up out of the array of earths I have setup on
>      my property (1/4 acre block) are strong and garbled , most days
>      they can light up an LED , (biased in either direction) , I
>      havent had the chance to repeat the experiment in a rural area
>      (I suspect there would be less ground noise in sparcely populated
>      area)Steve's idea of connecting a coaxial cable to an earth stake
>      and using it as an antenna is on I had never thought of , given
>      the destructive nature of the signals I pull out of the ground ,
>      I'll start off with a cheap and _expendable_ AM/FM radio , I'm
>      not going thru the same destructive testing of my analog & digital
multimeters , I did last time , if the results are encouraging
>      I'll try some of my more expensive broadband recievers , thanks
>      for the info JPM , notes , measurements , times , frequencies etc
>      etc will be taken during this neat little tangent you and Steve provided
me with.
>
> <<<<
>
> As you mentioned JB... there are a lot of possible variables
> missing from Stevies description, but maybe there is something
> there? It would be a good idea to use a cheap expendable AM set.
>
> >>>>
>
>      Time to get my hands dirty again , actually the radio I plan to
>      use has a built in cassette recorder , I'll clean the heads and
>      put a tape in to record what happens during this little test.....
>
>      JB

Jet Black wrote:
...
> Why should I have to prove I think , by definition in the dictionary , the
> mere writing of this sentence is sufficient proof of thought.I am unsure of
> the "legal" definition of "think" so i can't comment on that one.I should
> read Kant to see what he is _really_ on about.

Kant. "I think therefore I am." (Gosh I hope I got that right.)

In fact, a pretty good program might sound very much like you, and make
as much sense as some of our internet folk. There is no really good
definition of thinking, although we do it every day, perhaps. I would
never ask you to prove that you think, but it is very interesting to ask
how we really know that we do. Kant thought it made a solid foundation
to start his philosophy from. I rephrased it because I think he really
erred. At foundation we do not know that we think, whatever that is. We
just are. In most ways totally unconscious of the details.

Hello Gang,

Just had to step in and make a comment since this is a hot topic at
the moment.   J.B.,If you will drive a ground rod into the earth
and go to the other end of your lot and drive another, connect one end
to the chassis ground on your radio and the other end to your antenna,
you may be amazed at the result.

We have experimented with this setup in the process of detecting
ULF and ELF signals which pass through the earth and have found that
many, many signals of a higher frequency may be detected better than
by using a conventional antenna.  An example of this type of antenna
array and construction details may be found at:
http://www.elfrad.com/project1.htm

To prevent any stray transients or spikes from lightening, or other
stray voltages, take a look at the first part of the schematic located
at: http://www.elfrad.com/sigcon.htm

The diodes and combination of fuses will protect your equipment. You
might give some thought to building a band pass filter to catch the
band of your choice.  Prepare yourself for some surprises and a good
time.

Charlie Plyler
ELFRAD Group

James Paul Moore wrote:
>
>      <snip> to conserve bandwidth...
>
>      The unmentioned variables have me wondering , the type of
>      coax used ? Was it the thin RG8 50ohm (networking coax) ,
>      common TV coax 75ohm , or something completely different
>      like the chunky 50 ohm RG8 , the length of the coax (1 meter
>      or 10 meter's) how much is vertical and how much is horizontal,
>      he dosen't mention anything about the shielding braided shield
>      so I'll "assume" <shudder> he left each end open.There's probably
>      a few more variables I'll stumble across when trying to duplicate
>      his experiment.
>
>      The signals I drag up out of the array of earths I have setup on
>      my property (1/4 acre block) are strong and garbled , most days
>      they can light up an LED , (biased in either direction) , I
>      havent had the chance to repeat the experiment in a rural area
>      (I suspect there would be less ground noise in sparcely populated
>      area)Steve's idea of connecting a coaxial cable to an earth stake
>      and using it as an antenna is on I had never thought of , given
>      the destructive nature of the signals I pull out of the ground ,
>      I'll start off with a cheap and _expendable_ AM/FM radio , I'm
>      not going thru the same destructive testing of my analog & digital multimeters , I did last time , if the results are encouraging
>      I'll try some of my more expensive broadband recievers , thanks
>      for the info JPM , notes , measurements , times , frequencies etc
>      etc will be taken during this neat little tangent you and Steve provided me with.
>
> <<<<
>
> As you mentioned JB... there are a lot of possible variables
> missing from Stevies description, but maybe there is something
> there? It would be a good idea to use a cheap expendable AM set.
>
> >>>>
>
>      Time to get my hands dirty again , actually the radio I plan to
>      use has a built in cassette recorder , I'll clean the heads and
>      put a tape in to record what happens during this little test.....
>
>      JB

Thanks for the compliment JP...however I remain a walking question
mark.

I have yet to read the report as the link and archive is disabled
at the moment.  Concerning the variation of amplitude after the initial
connection of the receiver, here's an idea. It could be possible that
due to the capacitance between the antenna terminal and the internal network of
the receiver, it takes a little time to equalize the
DC offset of the earth. Before equalization, the signal AC is riding
on the DC bias.  After an equalization time period, the DC component
changes either high or low perhaps having an effect on the input
pre amp.

We have noticed when connecting an AC voltage between two ground
points, there is a period of time before the resident DC of the earth
returns to normal.

Here is a link to ground radio which includes several good references
and logical explanations of this phenomenon.
http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/ground-myst.htm

Charlie Plyler
ELFRAD Group
> Thanks so much for your expert advice Charlie... didn't know
> that you monitored the Tesla list anymore, but I am glad that
> you picked up this thread! I take it from what you have said,
> that you do believe Stevie's report on his ground radio reception?
> Did you read the report?
>
> If so... do you have any possible hypothesis or explanation,
> for what he reports, related to the signals being weak at first,
> but they became clear and strong, the longer he left the receiver
> on? What might account for this, just coincidence? Does the earth
> draw or suck radio energy into it by some uncharacterized mechanism?
>
> You have learned a wealth of information related to this phenomenon
> of ground propagation of EM waves, and may know as much about this
> subject, as any scientist alive at present, in my opinion. Keep up
> the good research Charlie... I sure that Tesla would be proud of you!
>
> JPM

see ===>>JSF 11/07

Fred McGalliard wrote:
>
> Jet Black wrote:
> ...
> > Why should I have to prove I think , by definition in the
> dictionary , the
> > mere writing of this sentence is sufficient proof of
> thought.I am unsure of
> > the "legal" definition of "think" so i can't comment on that
> one.I should
> > read Kant to see what he is _really_ on about.
>
> Kant. "I think therefore I am." (Gosh I hope I got that right.)
>
> In fact, a pretty good program might sound very much like you,
> and make
> as much sense as some of our internet folk. There is no really
> good
> definition of thinking, although we do it every day, perhaps. I
> would
> never ask you to prove that you think, but it is very
> interesting to ask
> how we really know that we do. Kant thought it made a solid
> foundation
> to start his philosophy from. I rephrased it because I think he
> really
> erred. At foundation we do not know that we think, whatever
> that is. We
> just are. In most ways totally unconscious of the details.
>
>                       eGroups Sponsor

===>>JSF 11/07  I believe it was Von Neumann's challenge to
construct a computer program which would answer a human
inquirer such that the human could not tell whether there
was another hum,an at the other end of the line, or 'just'
a computer.  Such a machine/program was demoed some 20 years
ago, and I took part.  One could ask any kind of questions,
the other end would answer.  The answers were all constructed
along the lines of the Psychotherapist of the day, turning
everything back upon the user, answering a question with a
question, using the questioner's own words:
Q  How do you like the weather today?
A  Why are you interested in the weather>
etc etc etc etc ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum,
until you'd Just Give Up!.

Now, Was this machine thinking?  Did the program survive the
Von Neumann test?

Jim Farrer

>

I can think of an 'ordinary' explanation for the reception
improving as time went on.  The buried copper pipe was buried
in what type of ground?  Desert area, with sand?  Moist Iowa
black gumbo 6 feet thick?  Makes a vast difference.  Suppose the
copper pipe had a coating of some sort.  Anything from lacquer
to ordinary dullness from air oxidation (or whatever happens
to an old piece of previously bright shiny copper, exposed to
the air for a year or so.)

I'd just guess that the pipe did not make a good, low
resistance contact with the ground At First.  (Remember, we
are dealing with a few microvolts of signal, a few micro-
amps of current.)  But with even this small voltage, current
WILL flow.  This will cause complex chemical reactions at the
pipe to ground interface, in those small areas where there IS
some conduction.

IF the ground connection gets better, so will reception.
Jim Farrer

James P Moore wrote:
>
>    Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain)