Re: [usa-tesla] chas campbell and tesla Fwd: Wheel torque
- "Mike Riversong" wrote:
>Jim Murray did an excellent presentation at the recent 2007 ExtraOrdinaryAs I mentioned , I believe that Jim Murray is on the level , possibly
>Technology conference. I highly recommend you get his DVD from
>TeslaTech. www.teslatech.info I was ill during his presentation and
>didn't get to see it. But there was a lot of good feedback from people who
>did. In conversing with him, i got a definite sense that he's on the
>level, and has done his homework.
frustrated as all hell due to him chasing down a few blind alleys at
high speed & running into brick walls a lot....that flying saucer must
have been a disappointment....
On the ~60 minute talk & projected photo's he shows in the earlier
video posted , he has been involved with working torque magnifiers
but has been unable to develop or build them into the domestic
"plug & play" assortment of flywheels & generators that Chas has
put together. The electric car that Jim was involved with when he was
19 yrs old looked very interesting , until they integrated the motors into
rotating tractor wheels , that was a very bad idea.They should have kept
the flywheel motor setup inside of the car.
Check the video section of this page for.....
" OPENING CEREMONY: Mike Riversong "
Time will tell , this month to be precise , as to wether Chas actually
has the goods or his collection of Inertia Flywheels etc is merely a
piece of "Modern Art"
>At 05:36 PM 8/27/2007, you wrote:
> >Jim Murray has tapped into this phenomena/area successfully
> >a few times in his life it seems.
> >The IEEE's R&D department , stuck to "company policy" &
> >wouldn't financially entertain the working device he built ,
> >I wonder if they actually looked at it or he had a working model
> >to show them ?
> >Where are the public records and data of Murray's wor?. In other
> >words, why believe that statement?
> >Obviously someone here doesn't know anything at all about the IEEE.
> >There isn't any "R&D Department" and there for sure isn't any "company
> >policy". It's composed of a bunch of ivory tower academics and many
> >many professional groups of guys working in different disciplines. Some
> >of these guys have laboratories of their own or work for outfits which
> >do but there is simply no place where someone could apply to get his
> >device tested and there isn't, and never has been, any money to finance
> >anything but a couple of inane publications for the general membership.
> >All of the "good stuff" appears in the professional group transactions
> >or the Proceedings and is thoroughly peer reviewed. I've been a member
> >of the IEEE and its predecessor groups (Institute of Radio Engineers and
> >American Institute of Electrical Engineers) for just over 60 years and
> >never in that time has there been any mechanism to evaluate or finance
> >anything and no one to approach to request same. The two organizations
> >joined in the 1960's to form the IEEE and the operation has been going
> >down hill since then - all of the expertise is in the professional
> >groups and all of the liberal politics is in the organization per se.
> >Sorry, nonsense is nonsense and Tesla's name deserves better.
- Turn your sound on the PC down when you view this video. I found it very interesting... all these
complex standing wave patterns of resonance around us that we can't see. Check it out when you can.
Also, I watched the Jim Murray presentation at the link provided by someone, and enjoyed it.
I watched the rather crude video at a previous link provided, and the man has done some
quite interesting research and has been associated with some controversial folks, for sure.
I found some of the presentation to be quite interesting, and other parts so-so, and the pics
were bad, so couldn't tell much there but part of it was the video camera seemed to have no
operator, and the conversion into a streaming file probably lost a lot of resolution also. However,
at the very end of the lecture when he was answering questions... you actually got to seem him
and the picture at that point was much better with the lights on, etc. It was worth watching for free.
At 04:32 PM 8/31/07 -0700, you wrote:
Jim Murray did an excellent presentation at the recent 2007 ExtraOrdinary
Technology conference. I highly recommend you get his DVD from
info I was ill during his presentation and
didn't get to see it. But there was a lot of good feedback from people who
did. In conversing with him, i got a definite sense that he's on the
level, and has done his homework."
If he made the statement about the IEEE which has been attributed he
HAS to be a dishonest liar. If he didn't make the statement all bets
are off. I have no idea what was in his presentation and not inclined
to pay any money to find out. If he's "done his homework" and has
something noteworthy and doesn't care to make public and submit to
critical review that's his business. He won't get much recognition
until he does.
"Each day is a new life. Seize it. Live it."
--David Guy Powers--
- Let's keep in mind that IEEE has done a lot to further Tesla
research. They were in fact a co-sponsor of the early Tesla Symposium
events in the 80s, and some of the board members of the International Tesla
Society were IEEE members.
IEEE has always included a healthy mix of people who were interested in
Tesla, and those who were skeptical about his research lines -- somewhat
the way this list is now.
At 01:59 PM 8/28/2007, you wrote:
>I believe Jim Murray has been caught out in at least 1 <rather large>
>lie , with his comments about the IEEE at the end of that ~60 minute
>video presentation I watched.At the end he really does lay the boot into
>the IEEE & offers no proof to back it up.
>The IEEE should have some right of reply to Murray's claims.
>Ed has the experience , knowledge & probably the right to do
>it by proxy here.
>Maybe he has a gripe with the IEEE or maybe he has been exposed
>to one too many "odd" rotating magnetic fields during his extensive
>career in fringe science.
>I would not completely dismiss all that Murray has done over his lifetime
>because of a few wrong comments/statements , but I would expect him
>to be more accountable with what he says in his public presentations...
>I noticed that he became very quiet & change the subject when someone
>asked him about finding the IEEE's charter/document he claimed to exist
>& in part said that said the IEEE will not fund overunity experiments
>(or something very similar)
>I also looked through a few Tesla books yesterday & could not find any
>documentation , references or sketches to help back up the claim below
>"Tesla said that if you put six electric motors evenly spaced around a
>the motors rotating with the flywheel, that much more torque would be
>than would be expected from the energy input"
>Not to say that most electric motors/generators of the late 1800's did not
>temptingly huge flywheels & rotating power take off's for belt driving
>attached to them to use for Kinetic energy applications & experiments , AC
>"motors" from that period were big & extra heavy to say the least.
>I left Ed's more accurate description of the IEEE as it was & is today for
>Nice reply Ed.