E/G Communications and Quantum Physics

[Chris Knight]

Grinder,

Yes, I still believe what I said there.

We've discussed in other threads how our understanding of the universe is based on our beliefs or training, and the same can be said for how we look at the nuts and bolts of the universe.

Whether we like it or not, we have been taught a specific way of looking at electricity, gravity, nuclear force, communications, etc. I like to bring up Bill Beatty over at http://www.amasci.com who enjoys messing with our preconcieved notions of physics.

For example, Brown's "Structure of Space" is an entirely different paradigm of how the universe is put together, but more importantly is that Townsend Brown didn't just think it up - he used it as a working model to build and invent equipment.

Take the propulsion aspect, the basic Biefeld-Brown Effect (one of my favorites). If you take a capacitor and put a high voltage across it, you might get a minimal effect. Without an understanding of the concepts behind the Effect, the ordinary person considers it a wash.

That's because if you have gone through electric engineering school, or are self-taught, you have learned a paradigm of how electricity works. An apparatus using the Biefeld-Brown Effect appears contradictory to the current EE school of thought.

I liken it to putting the wheels of a car on the roof. Anyone will tell you that won't work (I've never tried it myself, but I'll bet it won't work either), and to a person trained in the current EE school of thought, the BB apparatus looks like "the wheels are on the roof," i.e. or they end up saying something to the effect of "That capacitor won't work. Here's what you need to make a capacitor."

Or the Ohio University professor who gave me the motivation to continue studying Brown's work, "We know all there is to know about capacitors. You're wasting your time." That statement was from a very intelligent PhD in physics - unfortunately, he could only look at the issue from one side.

[ladygrady]

These are all wonderful discussions fellows ( and Ladies).

What will happen in the not too distant future I wonder when all of you meet under the same roof to just sit and talk. NOW thats going to be exciting!

And in between we can get Paul to sign our copies of his book! grady

[H. Short]

H. Short,

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

The need for verifiable information is simply as validation for the underlying thesis or hypothesis of this book, which is that T.T. Brown's story is worth telling as he was intimately involved with the development of radical paradigm shifting technology amid a background of intrigue, super secret agencies, world spanning conspiracies, deception, and a touch of the supra natural as well.

While there are publicly available patents for Brown for ion machines, ion pumps, electro-kinetic flying discs, etc., there is nothing which so far gives credence that he actually developed any technology of revolutionary significance. Unless such technology is demonstrated there is no rationale basis for the tales of intrigue or for a book because this is a case where the technology, and only the technology, validates the hypothesis.

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.

Again, without the technology there is no history and no story because it isn't a history or story of much interest, because, again, it will be a history of a man who didn't do anything to warrant much interest.

Regarding bringing up potential dangers related to exposing the hypothetical radical technology; that was simply done to demonstrate the value of such technology and therefore its value to the book. And if it does exist and is that valuable, then the only way Paul couldn't be in danger and still be able to tell a tale worth reading, would be as I pointed out, that control of it is now absolutely in the hands of those who are encouraging Paul.

To say that it does exists but that Paul won't be writing about it puts this whole effort in the bait and switch column. I happen to believe that technology was developed and that Brown played a very important role in its development. I also happen to think that Paul is a sincere professional.

I'm simply pointing out flaws in the logic of the book's development as presented on this forum; flaws that are better addressed at page 350 than 500.

The answer to this is also directly related to this topic thread and whether or not there can be any real contributions to Paul's request:
viewtopic.php?p=1615#1615

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 realize that the reality of the situation is that no one who posts on this forum is going to be credited by most readers with having any insight into the so far hypothetical T.T. Brown technology. I am arrogant enough in my ignorance however to believe fairly intelligent individuals with diligent thought and research can grasp eighty percent or more of about any subject through self study. It helps if there are well meaning others who wish to work together to bounce ideas off of. It is my sincere belief that a serious contribution toward understanding Brown's supposed communication system is possible.

However, I seem to be the only one who sees the paradox here. If the technology exists but there is still enough danger surrounding it that Paul can't be given specific details, then how the hell can you have any sort of serious discussion here? If forum members X and Y suddenly have a serendipity moment during a discussion and it all becomes clear, what happens when they try and post that information?

And if the potential for posting such information on this forum doesn't exist then posting anything is a complete and utter waste of time in the context of the current story line underlying this book.

If you can not deliver the technology then switch the perspective to something akin to 'Out of Africa'; have Linda as a narrator telling about what she knows and has learned of her dad. Instead of using the line 'Once I had a farm in Africa.', use something like 'My father once built a starship and touched the face of God.' Haunting and evocative to cover up the lack of hard proof of technology. I'd buy that, but I won't buy this without the technology, because like Einstein's space: there is nothing there.

Hope that helps,

Same here

[H. Short]

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.

Regarding there being no discussion of troops using rusted razor blades and such at the links I provided, please understand that I am one of those people who often make connections with other concepts and lines of thought while in discussion about something else. That is often a very stimulating process - except when its not. I apologize if my use of the term "I believe I read somewhere.." did not make things clear. If you are interested in the subject try doing some searches regarding crystal radios - this is often mentioned in these type of articles.

"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.

The above quote you credit to me was in fact from the page the url linked to, the purpose of which was to give some idea of what was there. Your other comments will be addressed below.

Because of my tendency to foment confusion through making asides, to help keep me on topic in this post I will therefore use a list of sub-topics. But first let me reiterate just what it was that started this sub-discussion:

(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 officially known to the world as a negative resister - talk about suppression via institutionalized delusion...)

The above is the entire aside related to negative resistors from the post entitled 'Bear With Me 02' on molecular motion concepts regarding developing an understanding of the basis of T.T. Brown communication systems. The point of the aside was the use by modern academics and scientists of misleading terms in order to cover up phenomena that doesn't fit into their severely flawed paradigms.

Please note the following:

a) the use of the qualifying phrase "a diode or whatever".

If you looked at the Bedini site you will have noted that they use a wind powered generator for an example of a negative resistor, which gives some indication of the range of devices this term covers. In discussing my post, wind generators would therefore probably fall under the category: whatever. Some of the sites discuss the difference between tunnel diodes and negative resistors, I am not responsible for their definitions. If you think they are wrong they would probably be glad to hear from you. In any case, anything you consider as not being a diode would again automatically, and legitimately, fall under the 'whatever' category.

b) the phrase "a natural electrical current amplifier".

First, the term 'amplifier' was used, not generator. Most electric or electronic circuits are powered. But in any case, there is nothing in my comments which specified powered or non-powered systems.

The amplification effect which is referenced in each of the links I gave you generally shows up on the graphs as a range in which the current rises while the voltage drops. If you don't think this is significant and don't agree that reference to this phenomena by the term negative resistor is a calculated ploy using a play on words to cover up evidence of natural amplification you most certainly are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

c) If you define a negative resistor as a device which has no external power source, then you are using a definition different from mine or any given in the links provided. You are free to do as you will, but please note, once you change definitions then you have created a new and completely separate discussion. Any further discussion then along these new lines is completely and entirely yours.

If you have any questions or insights into the main topic of the post, molecular motion, I'd be pleased to discuss them with you.

[Victoria Steele]

I may have missed your exact meaning HShort but what I read was " If there is no " scientific fact" to prove out what Townsend Brown has done according to Pauls book , then the whole book ( and discussions springing from it) become invalid." About right?

My outlook is ..... if there IS scientific proof WITHOUT the story of Townsend Brown then ALSO the whole deal is a complete wash out.

Which one comes first???????

AND whose responsibility is it to present the scientific facts to back up the book? Certainly not Pauls. He has his hands full! And he said at the very first that he was no scientist, yet with the material he has presented so far I can tell that he is causing a stir already. Things bubbling to the surface have to be noticed though, by the scientists who can put all of that to good use.

I see it as a challenge.

There are those who will couch themselves in the statement that you have brought up " Without Scientific Proof" The whole story is invalid! Oh theres a safe place.

I say, without an UNDERSTANDING of the story ... ULTIMATELY the entire scientific breakthrough will lead to NOTHING. or worse than nothing, perhaps even a negative of nothing.

Whatever happens , what would have the power of devaluing Pauls efforts here? And the resulting book? Our own old natures I suspect.

To suggest that retreating into the old " I didn't see scientific proof, therefore the whole thing is invalid .... it doesn't exist." Is precisely my point. Sometimes you have to "see" things with eyes you didn't know you had. Just my opening shot. Victoria

[Mikado14]

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.

Regarding there being no discussion of troops using rusted razor blades and such at the links I provided, please understand that I am one of those people who often make connections with other concepts and lines of thought while in discussion about something else. That is often a very stimulating process - except when its not. I apologize if my use of the term "I believe I read somewhere.." did not make things clear. If you are interested in the subject try doing some searches regarding crystal radios - this is often mentioned in these type of articles.

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.

The above quote you credit to me was in fact from the page the url linked to, the purpose of which was to give some idea of what was there. Your other comments will be addressed below.

Because of my tendency to foment confusion through making asides, to help keep me on topic in this post I will therefore use a list of sub-topics. But first let me reiterate just what it was that started this sub-discussion:

(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 officially known to the world as a negative resister - talk about suppression via institutionalized delusion...)

The above is the entire aside related to negative resistors from the post entitled 'Bear With Me 02' on molecular motion concepts regarding developing an understanding of the basis of T.T. Brown communication systems. The point of the aside was the use by modern academics and scientists of misleading terms in order to cover up phenomena that doesn't fit into their severely flawed paradigms.

Please note the following:

a) the use of the qualifying phrase "a diode or whatever".

If you looked at the Bedini site you will have noted that they use a wind powered generator for an example of a negative resistor, which gives some indication of the range of devices this term covers. In discussing my post, wind generators would therefore probably fall under the category: whatever. Some of the sites discuss the difference between tunnel diodes and negative resistors, I am not responsible for their definitions. If you think they are wrong they would probably be glad to hear from you. In any case, anything you consider as not being a diode would again automatically, and legitimately, fall under the 'whatever' category.

b) the phrase "a natural electrical current amplifier".

First, the term 'amplifier' was used, not generator. Most electric or electronic circuits are powered. But in any case, there is nothing in my comments which specified powered or non-powered systems.

The amplification effect which is referenced in each of the links I gave you generally shows up on the graphs as a range in which the current rises while the voltage drops. If you don't think this is significant and don't agree that reference to this phenomena by the term negative resistor is a calculated ploy using a play on words to cover up evidence of natural amplification you most certainly are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

c) If you define a negative resistor as a device which has no external power source, then you are using a definition different from mine or any given in the links provided. You are free to do as you will, but please note, once you change definitions then you have created a new and completely separate discussion. Any further discussion then along these new lines is completely and entirely yours.

If you have any questions or insights into the main topic of the post, molecular motion, I'd be pleased to discuss them with you.

This is a repost to a deleted answer

A wise man chooses his battles, and I choose not to do so at this time.

I will point out however, your the one who speculated about a crystal radio being turned into a transmitter.

And one other item, in regard to the word resistance. It is used in many things, for example, the French Resistance in WWII, I don't believe they had any electrons with them. Or how about the General who asks his subordinates how much resistance they think they will have in an upcoming battle, I do not believe he is talking about being assaulted by electrons. And what of resistance to the wind? You went from a graph of Voltage vs Current in one link and in another they are talking about resistance of a propellor. I suppose you could say electrons are involved in all the examples depending on your point of view.

Speculate to your hearts content.

Mikado

Goodnight Caroline....wherever you may be.

[Victoria Steele]

The above exhange here might just prove my point. Where is Elizabeth? I think she would be tempted here to say something like " Boys, Boys"

And as long as that temptation is there why in the everloving world would any entity which might be holding on to all of this scientific Proof be willing to allow that to bubble up?

Of the two parts of this story, the science on one side and the personal story on the other ..... Are we even capable of understanding the personal story if we hinge it to solid proof before we can sense its value? Victoria

[Mikado14]

The above exhange here might just prove my point. Where is Elizabeth? I think she would be tempted here to say something like " Boys, Boys"

And as long as that temptation is there why in the everloving world would any entity which might be holding on to all of this scientific Proof be willing to allow that to bubble up?

Of the two parts of this story, the science on one side and the personal story on the other ..... Are we even capable of understanding the personal story if we hinge it to solid proof before we can sense its value? Victoria

Hi there red! I posted the above and then saw your post.

Stay outta the heat, it's a killer here on the east coast.

Mikado

[Martin Calloway]

HShort,

Your statements seem to reflect the thought that Townsend Browns " developments" (Other than the ionic breeze and other insignificant demonstrations "aka toy carnival ride") may still have to stand the test of " proof" to make the telling of his story worthwhile.

Andrew just recently wrote

"For example, Brown's "Structure of Space" is an entirely different paradigm of how the universe is put together, but more importantly is that Townsend Brown didn't just think it up - he used it as a working model to build and invent equipment.

Take the propulsion aspect, the basic Biefeld-Brown Effect (one of my favorites). If you take a capacitor and put a high voltage across it, you might get a minimal effect. Without an understanding of the concepts behind the Effect, the ordinary person considers it a wash.

That's because if you have gone through electric engineering school, or are self-taught, you have learned a paradigm of how electricity works. An apparatus using the Biefeld-Brown Effect appears contradictory to the current EE school of thought."

So I am a little confused here. Has it or has it not been "prooven adequately" to back this story up? Are you waiting for the " classified" or " Caroline Secret" stuff to show up before you believe others will consider the Brown story interesting or valid? Just asking for a clarification here. Interesting problem then of what comes first, the chicken or the egg.
Martin

[Mark Culpepper]

If its anything scientific BOY am I in the wrong pew.

But I just wanted to note that if the Townsend Brown story stopped completely short of explaining itself as far as the technology was concerned. ... I could probably care a flying rip as long as all the good stuff about World WarII and the intelligence networks and his families moves and his daughters relationships with what was happening around her and Josephine packing that little green teapot was in there.

Science only goes so far and is a constantly changing thing anyway. So called " experts" one day are busy rewriting their ideas the next, if they are worth anything. It may be that we will NEVER understand what Dr. Brown was really seeing and developing. But what else will we have learned along the way? Thats what I am in it for.

No words from Elizabeth? Now thats a mystery!

The FTM? I hope that it exists. But sometimes there are some things that I really don't need to have the reality of ... until I am ready. Personally, I might think I am .... but I still wonder. MarkC

[flowperson]

EGG ?

I am curretly slogging my way to the finish of Lisa Randall's book, Warped Passages. It's only taken me a year and a half, but for anyone who's willing to undergo the mental gymnastics, it's well worth it.

The Universe she seems to propose is one of an infinite and unlimited entanglement of "branes". Practically all particles and forces are constrained from exiting, entering, and affecting any other universal branes or anything in/on them except for one thingy...gravitions/gravitation. Otherwise all of the realities of particular branes remain upon/within them.

The obvious conclusion with regard to the issues being discussed on this thread is," Does this mean that communication with/through gravity particles/waves is a viable assumption? And as a corollary, does this mean that quantum complimentarity phenomena are the local-non-local features which enables this ?"

The question of whether that connotes "foreverness" is still a question. Perhaps she will venture a guess before the book is done. I'll report on that if I can ever pull myself away from these scintillating discussions long enough to read the rest of it.

Beam me up Lisa !

flow....

[Paul S.]

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.

Actually, Eric Dollard is a name I've been hearing for a long time. He enjoyed a friendship with my friend, Philo T. Farnsworth III -- oldest son of the TV/fusion inventor and my mentor on that story and the attitude I bring to this one.

Some years back -- decades, I guess -- Eric Dollard experimented with a rebuild of Farnsworth's multipactor tube. The multipactor is a 'cold cathode' amplifier of enormous power that builds on secondary electron emissions, and was also the precursor to Farnsworth's fusion device.

It has been a long time, but I have seen a video tape of Eric's multipactor experiments, and what I recall seeing is some kind of flame-like output which..... acted like a loud speaker. The flame spoke, or sang, or whistled Yankee Doodle.

I suppose we could speculate that the effect is somehow akin to Dr. Brown's 'flame jet generator,' or the 'loud speaker' variation of the fan, but I don't have a firm enough grasp of the physics/mechanics of any of these devices to be able to make such an assertion categorically. Maybe Mikado, or Trickfox, or somebody who has a handle on these things, might have a better than I.

In any event, Eric Dollard -- good to see his name here, regardless of any associations with Borderlands. Nor should that statement to be taken as a blanket dismissal of Borderlands; they, too, have had a role to play in all of these unfoldings.

--PS

[Victoria Steele]

I am not mad or upset with them . In fact, I think Borderlands is extrememly important. I don't hold any ill feelings for them at all. More admiration and respect actually. Just still miffed at Vassilatos for not stepping forward into the light and standing behind his words.

There are just so many people out there who are quoting him and getting the wrong impression of what was happening with Dr. Brown and still the guy hasn't stepped forward. Thats my beef with that situation. I actually think Borderlands itself has served a wonderful purpose publisheing and storing all the stories that many others wouldn't have touched.

Noise from a flame? What, I said! Victoria

[grinder]

Paul,

In this very odd rabbit hole of coincidences ( that are not!) you mention Eric Dollard. You mention the multipactor tupe and cold fusion and that you had a connection with him through the Farnsworth family family and now .... a flame with noise coming from it? And you hesitate in thinking that there might or might not be a connection to the work of your current project. I hear bells ringing here guy.

What does Mr. Dollard say about the work of Townsend Brown?

Someone who goes straight to building instead of messing about with theories sounds like just the type of man that Dr, Brown might have appreciated so maybe the feeling was mutual?

And if not I should think with your connections from the past he should be very interested in what you are doing now and just maybe would consider posting and giving us his interpretation of just how valid Dr. Browns story may end up being?

from this http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Eric_Dollard

"Eric Dollard is the only man known to be able to accurately reproduce many of Tesla's experiments with Radiant Energy and wireless transmission of power. This is because he understands that conventional electrical theory only includes half of the story"

And so " the other half" might be something we can talk about here?

grinder

[twigsnapper]

"Eric Dollard built his first 10 KW transmitter during high school. He excelled in the Navy as a microwave telecom trouble shooter. Eric has spent much of his life studying the works of Nikola Tesla, C. P. Steinmetz, J.J. Thompson and others in great depth. He is the author of several significant books on electrical theory. He has constructed and restored a number of extraordinary devices based on Tesla & Alexanderson’s research. Eric Dollard currently provides consultation services to electric utilities."

http://sftesla.org/Newsletters/2007/SFT ... _03_11.htm

as of March this year. Anybody know what he is doing now?

And this is a long read but some of you might find it more than just a little interesting . http://66.218.71.231/language/translati ... =us&fr=sfp

following the links you bounce from Dudley Clark ( Palm Springs) to Gluhareff Helicoters to C.P. Steimetz ..... to William Lear ... To Townsend Brown ..... and back again to papers being collected in 1943 .... that never ended up in "government " hands. Still following or did I lose you somewhere along the line? I agree , its getting complicated but you will do better when you have all the points in a line.

http://www.tipjet.com/about_us.htm

Promise folks, the leaps are not all that big.
twigsnapper