E/G Communications and Quantum Physics

For a discussion of the science of Townsend Brown, his experiments and his ideas.
H. Short
Space Cadet
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:02 pm

Re: that was scarry

Post by H. Short »

Trickfox wrote:Mr. H.Short

THAT WAS SCARRY BEAUTIFUL OF A POST.

I understand everything you are saying, but I have something to add.
Does that mean you are as delusional as I am?? :lol:
Trickfox wrote:Someone (let's call him a "head hunter") once asked me to answer the following question as breifly and comprehensively as I could.

He said: "If you had to build a whole new "Communication system" that nobody in the world understood how to duplicate or intercept, how would you do it"

I immediatly replied: First, I would find out how EVERY TYPE of communication system operates right down to the nitty gritty, (including first order logic) then, I would build something completely different than everything I've looked at.

Because of that response I am able to post here and participate in this forum today. In fact, immediatly after answering this question in front of a few "executives" I was introduced to the man who told me about Dr. Brown.

Isn't that a coincidence?

Trickfox
Coincidence? I don't know. Sounds like it, but sometimes the ramifications of events related to this forum are, as many have observed previously, rather difficult to wrap ones head around. But it will be most helpful if you'd care to share ideas on this subject. It is always much more productive when there is someone to bounce ideas off of.
Radomir
Senior Cadet
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:51 pm

defining electricity by Tesla's terms

Post by Radomir »

H. Short:

Like you, I will start with a disclaimer and request for forbearance. I am not a scientist, nor electrical engineer. I'm just an amateur enthusiast. I like the pseudo-Victorian term, "gentleman experimentalist." That said, if you are interested there is a DVD by Peter Lindemann which goes into his understanding of how Tesla personally defined what electricity actually is. I found it very thought-provoking. PL's method was intensive analysis of Tesla's patent records, and some concrete experimental work in verifying his interpretation of Tesla's writings.

Also if you haven't read Eric Dollard's stuff on Tesla, you might enjoy it. He is one of the few contemporary folks I could find who have intensively sought to replicate a broad range of Tesla's work and understand it directly rather than theoretically.

(Yes both of these individuals were involved in the early Borderlands group, but please folks don't tar and feather with a broad brush due to such association. If you watch the early videos by Borderlands, it seemed like they were a young group of explorers, who found things that didn't make sense according to classical EE theory, and they went ahead and tried to publicize those things. I appreciate even Vassilatos' efforts to record and transmit things that have been suppressed, even if his research methods have been demonstrably called into serious question specifically around his content on TTB. If I hadn't found Vassilatos' writings I probably never would have been intrigued enough to find and read TTB's patents, and then to find this site.)

R.
H. Short
Space Cadet
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:02 pm

Bear With Me 02 - Ordered Flows

Post by H. Short »

It dawned on me after I posted Bear With Me 01 that using sailboats as an example among a group of sail boating enthusiasts is probably a good way to get put on a non-forum hit list... However, the point of this exercise is not to convert anyone but to demonstrate that there might be a different way of looking at things we are familiar with, so maybe I can get through this with life and limbs intact, if not reputation.

With all respect to Bernoulli and Euler I am going to pretty much ignore them and talk about higher levels of order and Brownian movement. I'm also going to be very general here as this is just to present concepts, so bear with me...

On an average mild day at sea level, or there abouts, the speed of sound through the air can be around 300 to 350 meters per second. In actuality the individual molecules of air are moving upwards of 500 meters per second, but the lower speed of passage of the sound waves is an average due to the chaotic random motion of the molecules and variations in molecular speed. In other words the level of order of the air molecules in normal conditions is low. It is thought that in this normal chaotic condition the free mean path, that is the distance a molecule can move from the time it is hit once before it collides again with another molecule, is only a few molecular diameters. Gas molecules have a much larger mean free path than those in liquids and solids, however their mass is generally less: i.e. water is about one thousand times denser than air. (Recently I've read a couple articles about nano technology which discussed the detrimental effects of this constant bombardment of the nano devices by air or liquid molecules, its a very serious design issue.)

This constant motion and bombardment is directly related to ambient temperature, and is the source cause for pressure effects: i.e. the harder the molecules strike a surface and the more frequently, the higher the pressure. One way to lower the pressure is to cool the gas. Another way is to impose an ordered movement upon the mass: i.e. get a percentage of the molecules in a mass to move along a common path. What this does is translate the chaotic random motion into a more orderly movement with less lateral motion and therefore fewer collisions with neighboring molecules. The amount of energy contained by the mass is the same, it is just more ordered with a higher speed but lower temperature because temperature is simply random vibration. (Physicists have a cute term for this, something like cool streaming or whatever, apparently so you won't think about what is really going on. This is similar to the use of their term negative resister. What do you think that is? Well, its a diode or whatever that acts in certain conditions as a natural electrical current amplifier... But that would contravene the scared Law of Conservation so it can't be called what it really is, it has to be offically known to the world as a negative resister - talk about suppression via institutionalized delusion...)

How to accomplish this imposition of order? Traditionally humans like to use force: expend prodigious amounts of energy via pumps to force fluids to go where we want. The problem with this is that as you inject force into the system and try to push the molecules from one point to another they have to force the molecules in their way to move. This simply generates an opposing force which builds pressure, generates heat and resistance, and quickly sets limits on what can be accomplished: shades of the Japanese subway car packing procedure.

There is a better way: suction. Yes we are talking basic Schauberger here, but this is the process behind it which generally no one seems to be able to explain. First, to define our terms, suction, as used here, is an absence - the absence, or lessening anyway, of opposition. There is no 'lifting' force as in 'they were sucked into the tornado and found themselves on the yellow brick road...'. As Paul mentioned, it is all about pushing - but without the opposition. How does this work?

Back to the sailboat - and you thought I forgot... The explanations on the net about how a boat can sail into the wind, generally talk about the curved sail acting as an airfoil and the longer distance the wind has to travel over the leading convex side creates a lower pressure and therefore a 'lifting force' is generated pulling the boat along...

That is the generally accepted explanation; but it really doesn't tell you what this 'lifting force' is, nor does it really tell you where that energy came from that propels the boat into the wind nearly as fast as what the wind is actually blowing... Think about it for a minute. The wind is blowing at you. How can you end up going into it at nearly the same speed? A speed which exceeds what you can do with the wind directly behind you. The differential in pressure that Bernoulli's equation deals with can not generate that much force.

Lets examine the situation:

A) The ordered movement of air (the wind) sets up certain environmental conditions around the sail, primarily a zone of differential air pressure: lower pressure immediately next to the sail, graduating into a zone of higher pressure and then down to ambient.

B) Remember that pressure is due to the intensity of molecular impacts per a given area. The air molecules in the lower pressure area ahead of the sail are colliding with the sail in fewer numbers and with less intensity. As the sail is pushed forward by the more chaotic less ordered but highly pushy air mass on its lee side the molecules in that area encounter less opposition and their free mean path is extended forward in the direction of motion of the sail as it moves away from them. This sets up an 'avalanche' effect wherein all the molecules on the lee side encounter less opposition in that direction and they automatically become more ordered, moving in mass in that direction. The key to this is that as explained above the actual top speed of air molecules is around 500 meters per second; and when there is lowered opposition that is the speed they can spontaneously obtain from the energy in the environment around them.

The pressure differential dealt with in the Bernoulli formula is nothing compared to this. This is where the extra energy comes from: a higher level of order imposed on normal molecular motion, powered by ambient temperature, via an absence of opposition due to certain conditions in the environment.

The importance of this concept is that similar conditions can perhaps be set up at aetheric levels. How does this relate to the mystical galactic communicator? It might not have a direct connection. This is primarily an example of how common place events can be viewed from a different perspective to give a little more insight into what is going on around us. Inorder to get to where we might be able to understand how a space propulsion or galactic communicator might work requires a little more insight, and familiarity with other concepts; but this is a good starting point, for molecular motion in itself, as I hope some of you can visualize, has some rather quite remarkable inherent potentials.

Disclaimer: None of this is original with me, what little understanding I have picked up on this subject is from Mr. Evert's rather remarkable website. I hope my attempt to explain it made some sense - let me know. btw: For those of you who are versed in German I would highly recommend visiting Mr. Evert's site (http://www.evert.de/). If you aren't then be warned that he jokes that while he has pages in 'English' he doesn't write English: he writes German using English words... :)
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Post by Mikado14 »

Short wrote:This is similar to the use of their term negative resister. What do you think that is? Well, its a diode or whatever that acts in certain conditions as a natural electrical current amplifier... But that would contravene the scared Law of Conservation so it can't be called what it really is, it has to be offically known to the world as a negative resister - talk about suppression via institutionalized delusion...)
Does Mr. Evert explain the above or this what you interpreted? I would just love to know how a diode is a current amplifier or how the diode (other than a tunnel diode) exhibits negative resistance.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Trickfox
The Magician
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Quebec or Montreal
Contact:

Already bouncing

Post by Trickfox »

H. Short

I assure you that my ideas are already bouncing all over the posts in this forum. "Archived here" are all kinds of "FAR OUT there" (Victoria will testify) ideas that never bounced back from the deep dark emptyness of a void. If you want to be there bouncing them back then try this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=1815#1815

Oh, and be sure and listen to the POET quoted in that thread. He will speak a language that you have never heard but you will understand the "conversation idea" completely. It has to do with NEW, Exiting, Talented, NOW (for you perhaps). You are going to have to "Travel to the past to change the future"

Enjoy.

Trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
H. Short
Space Cadet
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:02 pm

Re: tesla fan

Post by H. Short »

Trickfox wrote:http://www.tesla-museum.org/meni_en/nt. ... i&opc=sub3

I saw a stunning presentation of a very powerful demonstration of Shauberger's principles of air vortex flow in a charged electric field.

It's an original design called a Tesla Fan.

there is a JAVA movie animation which demonstrates this principle, and I suspect it's a good hint about other possible effects in the quantum domain.

These are likely to be areas of study taken by Dr. Brown and Beau Kitselman. (still waiting for the book so that I can confirm).

Trickfox
I went and looked at the video at the on-line Tesla museum and must say I had never seen that exact design for the fan or the pump for that matter. I am not quite sure how or why the output for the fan is axial instead of the normal, and to me anyway, more logical radial. Did I miss an explanation about it? Am not quite sure what you are referring to regarding a vortex flow in a charged electric field, is this the video or something else?

Interestingly most discussions of Schauberger's devices gloss over the electrical aspects. Nearly all of his designs incorporated electrical conductors in strategic locations with the apparent intent to produce ionic electrical fields. In fact, it was the Repulsine model that opened my eyes to how the design for the 'toy' submarine I read about years earlier could in fact be applied to a flying craft. It is rare to see that aspect of it even acknowledged. My first attempt to analyze a Schauberger device was the Repulsine and I grew so frustrated with trying to figure it out that I gave up in disgust declaring it to be a fraud he perpetrated upon the Nazis while trying desperately to keep himself and his laborers alive.

I still think that is true, however, I have come to the conclusion that the actual Repulsine design is in fact the product of a genius. It incorporates so many capabilities into the simplest design that it is mind bending to think about at times. I may be completely wrong, but if you dismiss the nested undulating series of grooves and ridges as being a misdirection and instead line the ridges and grooves of the two facing discs together and give the slopes a 10 degree or so angle, you have in effect a 360 degree equivalent of a rocket nozzle capable of supersonic exhaust speeds. Combine that with the production of electro-magnetic torodial fields and the orthogonal vectors produced by the high rotational speeds and that sucker should simply vanish into the blue. It in itself is simply an engine - not a craft. You have to fasten it onto a frame.
Last edited by H. Short on Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trickfox
The Magician
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Quebec or Montreal
Contact:

Still observing

Post by Trickfox »

Like I said, I still have a few books to read before being able to answer those questions. For now I think that You tube about Shauberger that our navigator so graceously suplied us with will give you a few hints.

Understand any German?

Trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
H. Short
Space Cadet
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:02 pm

Re: Still observing

Post by H. Short »

Trickfox wrote:Like I said, I still have a few books to read before being able to answer those questions. For now I think that You tube about Shauberger that our navigator so graceously suplied us with will give you a few hints.

Understand any German?

Trickfox
Unfortunately where I am at the moment it is not possible to access youtube. Und, ich nicht verstehan deutsch... (how terrible was that attempt at writing German?? :) No, I spent hours and hours going over and over what Mr. Evert had so kindly put up on the net to gain what little grasp of the subject matter I could. I'm sure I've missed major portions of what he is trying to pass along. But that little of it I do understand has certainly been worth the effort.
H. Short
Space Cadet
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:02 pm

Re: defining electricity by Tesla's terms

Post by H. Short »

Radomir wrote:H. Short:

Like you, I will start with a disclaimer and request for forbearance. I am not a scientist, nor electrical engineer. I'm just an amateur enthusiast. I like the pseudo-Victorian term, "gentleman experimentalist."
Amateur enthusiast describes me as well. Except I can't say I am a gentleman.
Radomir wrote:That said, if you are interested there is a DVD by Peter Lindemann which goes into his understanding of how Tesla personally defined what electricity actually is. I found it very thought-provoking. PL's method was intensive analysis of Tesla's patent records, and some concrete experimental work in verifying his interpretation of Tesla's writings.
I think I'm familiar with that although I haven't actually seen it.
Radomir wrote:Also if you haven't read Eric Dollard's stuff on Tesla, you might enjoy it. He is one of the few contemporary folks I could find who have intensively sought to replicate a broad range of Tesla's work and understand it directly rather than theoretically.
Isn't this the Dollard brothers, or do I have them confused with someone else? Their work is quite interesting altho the very first article I read raised some doubts simply because of some expressions they used, that I apparently misinterpreted. They did interesting experiments on ball lightning - wish Tesla had published his notes on that - along with a few thousand million other notes he might have made...

I've never been interested in 'touring' Europe but I'd make an exception just to stop by the Tesla museum.
grinder
Senior Officer
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:20 am

Dollard?

Post by grinder »

Eric Dollard? him? That name seems really familiar and I associate it with sound coming from a bright light. ( Biblically now where could we place that little ditty?) And for some reason I associate his work with Townsend Brown also but please forgive, I don't remember where I saw that. Anybody else out there know what the heck I am talking about? grinder
H. Short
Space Cadet
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:02 pm

Post by H. Short »

Mikado14 wrote:
Short wrote:This is similar to the use of their term negative resister. What do you think that is? Well, its a diode or whatever that acts in certain conditions as a natural electrical current amplifier... But that would contravene the scared Law of Conservation so it can't be called what it really is, it has to be offically known to the world as a negative resister - talk about suppression via institutionalized delusion...)
Does Mr. Evert explain the above or this what you interpreted? I would just love to know how a diode is a current amplifier or how the diode (other than a tunnel diode) exhibits negative resistance.

Mikado
Here are a few links; the first is my favorite simply because I like the hands on attitude he has, and his obvious love of experimentation. I believe I read somewhere that this phenomena was used by troops in WW II to power crystal radio sets with a rusty razor blade using the carbon from a pencil lead as the 'cat' whisker... That brings to mind the interesting question of how many crystal radio sets can be tuned into a 1 watt radio transmitter...? The interesting part being that radio receivers impose no drain on the transmitter's power, and crystal radio sets drive the speakers in the headphones from the strength of the received signal, they don't use batteries or external power sources... [This wasn't from Mr. Evert's site which is one of the reasons why it was in brackets.]

http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/zincosc.htm
"Some articles refer to this negative resistance as being like that displayed by a tunnel diode. It is true in the sense of having negative resistance, but it is in fact a different type of negative resistance. This is ok since both types of negative resistance can have the effect of gain, supplying enough energy to an LC circuit for it to become an oscillator."

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/index11.html
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cnr/cnrexp1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_resistance
H. Short
Space Cadet
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:02 pm

Re: E/G Communications and Quantum Physics

Post by H. Short »

Paul:

There seems to be a possible conflict in the goals set out by these two different posts of yours:
Paul S. wrote:In the past week, ... there have been a couple of very important posts that, for the first time since all this started nearly a year ago, actually start to put a NAME on some of the ideas that we have been dancing around.

Simply stated: Something Townsend Brown discovered, which we're calling "Electro-Gravitic Communications," is actually a means of communicating with "other dimensions."

What I'd like is everybody's help in coming up with a reasonable explanation of what we're talking about in terms of contemporary science.

I want to toss around some answers to this question:

"If accepted theories of physics, i.e. quantum mechanics or Stirng Theory provide for the existence of dimensions hidden beyond our physical world, then how can we make a case that Townsend Brown's "Electro-Gravitic Communications" devices provide the means for communicaitng with those hidden dimensions?"

.. it seems to me that ... there is a solid foundation for what we are saying Townsend Brown discovered, built, and operated, and now is the time to get those 'scientific ducks' in a row, to make the case that the rest of the world is just now catching on to what our Dr. Brown knew all his life.

Anybody care to suggest how we do that? Clearly... concisely, and without going off on verbal tangents, please. The object here is to be understandable -- and, ultimately, persuasvie.

Anybody?

--PS


General Comments Thread Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:10 am Post subject: Re: No DANGER
Paul S. wrote:I think my "covert mentors" (a new phrase I just picked up -- anybody recognize it?) have bent over backwards to make sure that I don't "possess any knowledge" that would put me in jeopardy. That, despite my best (i.e. mostly feeble) efforts to find out more than they want to tell me.
Seems like what is wanted regarding T.T. Brown's technology is information at the level of a news article, but please lets not deal with detail at the level of a patent.

Am not sure how "ultimately, persuasvie", or interesting for that matter, that can be; but then my interests are primarily in the technology.

When you wrote about Fransworth you had patents, diagrams, reports, and other material detailing his inventions, including the Fusor. Hard to see how you could have written a successful story without it.

Without hard supporting documentation to verify an assertion that T.T. Brown was in fact a visionary scientist it sounds like just another effort in speculative ficiton. Hell, if you want to do that I have a sci-fi special ops opus I'd gladly collaborate on. Its got reptilian sauroids, hard core field operators, jim dandy hi-tech weapons, beautiful capable women, evil conspiracies, niffty FTL ships and portals, and just about everything. If I left something out let me know, we can add it in... :roll:
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Post by Mikado14 »

H. Short wrote:
Here are a few links; the first is my favorite simply because I like the hands on attitude he has, and his obvious love of experimentation. I believe I read somewhere that this phenomena was used by troops in WW II to power crystal radio sets with a rusty razor blade using the carbon from a pencil lead as the 'cat' whisker... That brings to mind the interesting question of how many crystal radio sets can be tuned into a 1 watt radio transmitter...? The interesting part being that radio receivers impose no drain on the transmitter's power, and crystal radio sets drive the speakers in the headphones from the strength of the received signal, they don't use batteries or external power sources... [This wasn't from Mr. Evert's site which is one of the reasons why it was in brackets.]

http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/zincosc.htm
This link is NOT what troops used in WWII. All of the examples use a 9V battery. I don't believe they were in the ration packs.

H. Short wrote:"Some articles refer to this negative resistance as being like that displayed by a tunnel diode. It is true in the sense of having negative resistance, but it is in fact a different type of negative resistance. This is ok since both types of negative resistance can have the effect of gain, supplying enough energy to an LC circuit for it to become an oscillator."
I asked about the diode you mentioned and I excluded the tunnel diode, therefore, you were discussing the tunnel diode. If you search the forums with the keyword "tunnel", you will see that it has been discussed quite a bit. Who ever wrote that paragraph, they do not understand a tunnel diode for it still needs a battery to supply forward bias voltage. The negative aspect comes into play when (if you look at your first link you will see a graph of E vs I) the voltage (E) increases the current (I) decreases for a bit.
This link has various different methods or proposals for extracting energy from the vacuum. In my quick scan I noticed that a source is still required but I agree, it is interesting.

A battery is again used here which shoots down the first paragraph and it is an experiment with a carbon junction but still, an external supply is required and since you are talking carbon, you can get negative characteristics out of it in certain conditions but that I will not go into here for I believe it is not relevant to Paul's book.

Nice graph, looks just like the plot out of a curve tracer on a tunnel diode junction.

I am trying to understand you here. Would it be safe to say that you are saying that in a closed system where there is a net gain of energy that that is negative resistance? Wouldn't "Over unity" be more descriptive?

Just trying to understand here.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Chris Knight »

H. Short,

You're absolutely correct regarding the need for verifiable information, etc.

One of the "rules" that Paul accepted when he took on this project was that every piece of information given to him would be verifiable through an available public source. However, researching the location of that information and drawing the lines between the dots has been left up to his own efforts. Whenever a hypothetical situation is presented, Paul is careful to always lead with a disclaimer. So, the information presented as solid fact in the book is already in the public domain in some form.

Now, my interest is primarily in the technology side of Brown's work (as is yours, Trickfox's, Mikado's and others), but Paul leans towards the historical aspect of his life, so the story is primarily about the man rather than the technology as so much as is needed for the story. As you pointed out, the technological aspect is the portion that could probably get Paul in more trouble.

The book on Farnsworth, was also about the man, rather than the technology, but Philo spent such a large portion of his life fighting RCA on patent rights, the inclusion of that technological information was really necessary to understand his story. Plus, the fight was so public and Philo's son and wife were still living, so much of the information was available to Paul. The technical notes on the potentially self-sustaining fusor was not, and I believe I remember Paul presenting that scene with Philo and his wife, and then adding the disclaimer.

As far as patents, diagrams, and other documentation are concerned, the Brown family "archives," if you will, are not available to the general public aside from the documents I have maintained on http://www.qualight.com over the years - some of which is available from public sources, some of which is not. In addition to the documentation in the archives not available to the public, there is, of course, documentation not available to the public in the form of classified information and documentation held in private libraries.

One of the understandings that we have is that all efforts go into assisting Paul with this project to "get the word out," and then we will broach the technology aspect. As time goes by, the publication of documents such as the Structure of Space, which we have discussed in some detail, will, I think, offer a paradigm shift in the way we understand the universe.

Hope that helps,
Last edited by Chris Knight on Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andrew
Qualight Environmental
(http://www.qualight.com, http://www.qualightenv.com, http://www.qualightscp.com)

"If you think the situation is under control, then you don't truly understand the situation."
grinder
Senior Officer
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:20 am

in or out?

Post by grinder »

Andrew,

In an earlier post above you made this statement:

"Unless you have an antenna designed to maximize the transmission of the gravitational component and the necessary equipment on the receiving end to interpret those signals, then you're just plain out of the game."

And so what I am thinking here is this is EXACTLY what the Caroline Group HAS and has HAD for a good length of time . Now whether Dr. Brown was the one person who developed this or the technology was already there and he was somehow given the ability to see it ( but thats one in the same, isn't it?)

So, until we understand that antenna etc and can do it ourselves. Does that mean that we are
" Just plain out of the game"

I kinda think so. And maybe thats the other part of this test. On one side we have the challenge of Pauls book to see the historical and personal side of this interaction with Townsend Brown and then there is the other side which is really a challenge to all of us to " figure it out".

Does that make any sense to anybody? You know when you get into this technology stuff that my mind wants to scatter to the woods but I think I just grasped this last idea pretty good. grinder
Locked