Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Ambient Voltage Device

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    ... If it turns out to be worthwhile. ... Doc has a camera and handles this sort of work as an associate. He just got out of the hospital today from broken
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 22, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, "Jones Beene" <jonesb9@...> wrote:
      >
      > Harvey,
      >
      >
      >
      > This is interesting. Could you by any chance post a video of what is going
      > on to YouTube?
      If it turns out to be worthwhile.
      >
      >
      > That might help us better visualize the effect. The YT videos are a bit of a
      > pain since they must be done according to the standards they have set, so
      > there is a learning curve. But if a picture is worth a thousand words, a
      > video is worth a book.
      Doc has a camera and handles this sort of work as an associate. He just got out of the hospital today from broken ribs, and is taking some time off. The first you tube video I wish to do is on the ferrite heating effect by resonance. I formerly requested to Doc for us to establish a you-tube account , but some kind of difficulty ensued. These things of course are scheduled.
      >
      > BTW - there could be a practical application, further down the road.
      One never knows, but curiosity killed the cat.
      >
      >
      > Did you see the James Hardy video on YT? That is the pump+Pelton that can
      > reportedly self-power. As crude as his set up was, he was able to see an
      > anomaly. Those Torpedo pumps can do something magnetically to the water, due
      > to the close contact. Not sure what.
      >
      >
      >
      > Jones
      No I haven't, I'll google it. Can you provide a synopsis about the Carolina? southern inventor that claimed a kind of cavitation heat process of vortexian water flow? Didnt this have something to do with Bill Beaty's vortex list, or was it always more concerned with the electrochemistry of cold fusion? You guys are a gold mine of knowledge sometimes. I am still very confused about the following, among more immediate matters. If it is true that it takes exactly 79 earth years for mars to rotate as many times against the sun, doesn't this imply that the martian day alone is at least one month of ours? I think I must have misread something.
      HDN
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > From: teslafy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:teslafy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > Harvey D Norris
      > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:52 AM
      > To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [teslafy] The Ambient Voltage Device
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I assume that I have made some kind of mistake again, so I am reticent to
      > report on it. The disbelief was so great that at first I immediately sought
      > to dis-proove it, which I was quickly able to do. But then later I doubted
      > this prognosis and retested it, and it appears to be true with reservations,
      > which can be understood from past research.
      >
      > Apparently as it seems, I have secured a device that continually outputs a ~
      > 2DCV output from the environment; or more properly from differing metallic
      > connections placed along an elevated water bath, which is essentially
      > capacitively grounded to earth by connection of bottom hose exit of water
      > under pressure of weight of the water as a gravity water feed system. This
      > hose merely touching the ground might serve as that capacitive earth
      > grounding which might explain the effect. This relationship, only initially
      > theorized as a possible cause to be disproved, is mentioned in light of the
      > fact that on the elevated column of water, voltage is registered between
      > metallic points inserted between the elevations, and thus it might be a
      > device interfacing with the electric field of the earth itself.
      >
      > A somewhat convincing demo of the magnetization of water flow through a
      > vortex cone was conducted today; but again with reservations. This is
      > because past experience enables an alternative explanation, and essentially
      > something can be told where a deceptive fact exists which the audience
      > doesnt know; but the evidence is presented which appears to corroborate your
      > hypothesis.
      >
      > As mentioned two silver electrodes separated by three ft vertically in a 100
      > gallon elevated holding tank: FIRST In the circumstance of inducing a
      > voltage ACROSS the water flow initially entering the tank by a vortexian
      > cone flow, the water does not flow directly down by gravity, but rather is
      > deflected sideways by the geometry of the cone that dictates its downward
      > flow. In fact Jack, the ideal cone is probably not a linear sloped cone they
      > can give you as a child as a dunce cap. We can't clown around here.
      >
      > IF THE WATER FELL VERTICALLY DOWN THROUGH THE OPENING BY GRAVITY, THE
      > INDUCED VOLTAGE ACROSS THE WATER FLOW BY FALLING THROUGH A MAGNETIC FIELD
      > WOULD BE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE MOVEMENT; OR HORIZONTAL.
      >
      > As previously mentioned the water movement by the vortexian cone obstruction
      > causes the water flow to be deflected from it's normal vertical fall where
      > when this apex is placed in a magnetic field, now the induced emf by
      > movement through a magnetic field has both a horizontal AND a vertical
      > component. This becomes the first explanation where it is shown that a DC
      > voltage meter can show a potential difference of voltage created by the flow
      > of falling water through the (magnetic field) cone between points of
      > elevation once a complete continuous path of flow is established between the
      > points of differing elevation.
      >
      > I theorize that since water is a polarized molecule, instead of currents
      > developing to restrict the movement of flow in general against the magnetic
      > field which occurs by Lenz law by the creation of an opposite magnetic field
      > by the movement; instead that opposing magnetic field is made by the
      > acquired 3 dimensional pivoting spins of the polarized water molecules made
      > during fall through the apex of the cone where it initially is compressed
      > and accelerated, and then released in expansion and de-accelerated: where
      > this process can be understood in context as a certain volume of flow within
      > a certain time period; where two opposite processes have occurred. A spin
      > itself may by construed as two opposite processes glued together. If the
      > polarized water molecules REMEMBER their 3 dimensionally acquired spin when
      > being accelerated and de-accelerated during their travel through the
      > magnetic field: when they fall into the holding container if these polarized
      > water molecules act like gyroscopes that remember their original impressed
      > spins, a macroscopic coherence may exist, and we have a water battery of
      > weak proportions, but not necessarily so.
      >
      > To late for now; tomorrow
      > HDN
      >
    • Jones Beene
      Harvey, * * Can you provide a synopsis about the Carolina? southern [Gerogia] inventor that claimed a kind of cavitation heat process of vortexian water flow?
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 23, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        Harvey,

        Ø     

        Ø  Can you provide a synopsis about the Carolina? southern [Gerogia] inventor that claimed a kind of cavitation heat process of vortexian water flow? Didnt this have something to do with Bill Beaty's vortex list, or was it always more concerned with the electrochemistry of cold fusion?

        That would be the Griggs cavitation pump. The overunity results could never be proved to everyone’s satisfaction, although it was a very efficient way to turn electricity into heat.

        The pump did go commercial, and has been a big success. The company that bought the patent wisely does not mention the “o word”

        http://www.hydrodynamics.com/technology_review.htm

        Here is info on the Hardy device:

        http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:James_D._Hardy%27s_Self-Looped_Water_Pump_and_Electricity_Generator

        Most self-appointed experts think it is BS.

        Problem is- a guy that I trust went up to Hardy’s garage and saw it running and says it is “for real” even though it is a crappy build.

        I know that at first – that device seems miles away from your current experiment, but could be closer than you think, in terms of what is going on in the water.

        Jones

      • fleubis
        Until there is 3rd party validation and replications the Hardy device has been and continues to be PURE BS. A year later and still nothing. This crapola of I
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 12, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Until there is 3rd party validation and replications the Hardy device has been and continues to be PURE BS. A year later and still nothing.

          This crapola of "I know a guy who knows a guy and saw the thing working and it's the real deal" is a waste of bandwidth.

          James


          >
          > Here is info on the Hardy device:
          >
          > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:James_D._Hardy%27s_Self-Looped_Water_
          > Pump_and_Electricity_Generator
          >
          > Most self-appointed experts think it is BS.
          >
          > Problem is- a guy that I trust went up to Hardy's garage and saw it running
          > and says it is "for real" even though it is a crappy build.
          >
          > I know that at first - that device seems miles away from your current
          > experiment, but could be closer than you think, in terms of what is going on
          > in the water.
          >
          > Jones
          >
        • Jones Beene
          Well, I see that you have identified yourself as one of the self-appointed experts who thinks it is BS . Fine. But please spare us the further wasted
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 12, 2009
          • 0 Attachment

            Well, I see that you have identified yourself as one of the “self-appointed experts who thinks it is BS”.

             

            Fine.

             

            But please spare us the further wasted bandwidth of you own skepticism.

             

            We don’t need that. Save it for a skeptic’s forum where you and your fellow nay-sayers can wallow in the blissful self-importance of a shared limited horizon.

             

            A reactionary negative viewpoint, with zero counter evidence to back it, is counter-productive – and it could be catching.

             

            … even if it’s not swine flu – it is pig-headed ;-)

             

            Jones

             

            From: On Behalf Of fleubis

            Until there is 3rd party validation and replications the Hardy device has been and continues to be PURE BS. A year later and still nothing.

            This crapola of "I know a guy who knows a guy and saw the thing working and it's the real deal" is a waste of bandwidth.

            James

            >
            > Here is info on the Hardy device:
            >
            >
            href="http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:James_D._Hardy%27s_Self-Looped_Water_">http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:James_D._Hardy%27s_Self-Looped_Water_
            > Pump_and_Electricity_Generator
            >
            > Most self-appointed experts think it is BS.
            >
            > Problem is- a guy that I trust went up to Hardy's garage and saw it
            running
            > and says it is "for real" even though it is a crappy build.
            >
            > I know that at first - that device seems miles away from your current
            > experiment, but could be closer than you think, in terms of what is going
            on
            > in the water.
            >
            > Jones
            >

          • Doc green
            dead link ... From: fleubis Subject: [teslafy] Re: The Ambient Voltage Device To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, August 12,
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 12, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              dead link


              --- On Wed, 8/12/09, fleubis <jdavis@...> wrote:

              From: fleubis <jdavis@...>
              Subject: [teslafy] Re: The Ambient Voltage Device
              To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 8:12 AM

               

              Until there is 3rd party validation and replications the Hardy device has been and continues to be PURE BS. A year later and still nothing.

              This crapola of "I know a guy who knows a guy and saw the thing working and it's the real deal" is a waste of bandwidth.

              James

              >
              > Here is info on the Hardy device:
              >
              > http://peswiki. com/index. php/Directory: James_D._ Hardy%27s_ Self-Looped_ Water_
              > Pump_and_Electricit y_Generator
              >
              > Most self-appointed experts think it is BS.
              >
              > Problem is- a guy that I trust went up to Hardy's garage and saw it running
              > and says it is "for real" even though it is a crappy build.
              >
              > I know that at first - that device seems miles away from your current
              > experiment, but could be closer than you think, in terms of what is going on
              > in the water.
              >
              > Jones
              >


            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.