Two units, sending/receiving

[Victoria Steele]

Andrew and Trickfox, I am not sure that I can say I truly understand but I know that you both explained it well enough. I have to just go off in a corner somewhere and chew on all that for a moment.

The first thing that hit me is, its just such a simple system, so direct and uncomplicated .... beautiful .... but I am not sure that I am seeing everything.

These glitches? There were negative as well as positive "glitches"? And did I understand you to say that those "glitches " were one of the things that he noted and was most interested in? Would two "units" separated by some distance ..... say, a thousand miles. Would they register the same glitch pattern? Would there be any delay in timing? I rather imagine that there wouldn't be and that one unit would register instantaneously with another. All I can think of is ..... submarine communications ...... and I begin to understand perhaps why much of Dr. Browns work remains difficult to get information on.

You were very generous with the information that you shared with us Andrew. (Which only tells me that you know that its not all that simple and someone armed with what you told us here isn't going to be very successful trying to build one of these things.) But given the right technology they could be built?

Two charged sufaces with the dielectric in between. Isn't that how the "fan" works too? How wierd is that? And weren't his "flying saucers" capacitors actually? Who would ever believe you if you tried to explain all of that from a standing start? Victoria

[Chris Knight]

Victoria,

Yes, now you are beginning to see the worth of the system. There were positive and negative glitches. Townsend was interested in correlating them with some source and also the timing between the two units. As far as my knowledge goes, he found that the glitches were recorded at the same time on all units. That is where the question of the speed of gravity waves comes in.

The technology can be difficult for many people to understand for a number of reasons. The first is that it takes on so many forms, which you pointed out. We are talking about the coupling between electromagnetism and gravity.

Consider the coupling between electricity and magnetism - do you want to generate power with a turbine, run a motor with power, operate an AM/FM transmitting station, turn on a light, run a MRI scan...they are all different functions, however they all share a configuration of a common denominator - moving a piece of copper past a magnet.

Another reason is unfortunately a function of the inevitable progress of science. In our rush to advance our science we have abandoned many potential avenues of science - the vacuum tube for example is an extremely valuable avenue relatively unexplored.

Coupled with the nature of the educational system to encourage specialization leaves most people with an extremely narrow band of knowledge and an inability to think across differing technologies for solutions. It is rare to find anyone with an advanced degree who is also relatively broad-based in the sciences.

For example, this year alone, I have had to be familiar with the intricacies of pulp sources and papermaking processes, dyes, resins, semiconductor dopants, high-end ceramics, metal working (lathe and mill), high-end sound systems, as well as the breadth of geological sciences such as source areas of certain rocks and minerals, mineral compositions, and formation/depositional environments, and so on. I'm no cerebral juggernaut, but without any one of those areas of knowledge, I would have been stopped short.

And so it goes. Remember that Dr. Teller (Los Alamos, father of the hydrogen bomb), who was a very truculent fellow I understand, looked at one of Townsend's fans and basically said he had no idea how it worked. So being an intellectual giant won't always give you an edge.

Andrew

[Mark Culpepper]

Andrew!

I am not sure exactly what to say, except MAYBE to try to say that I am finally getting a GLIMPSE into how important this technology is to all of us. Thank you, and Trickfox too, for addressing the issue.

I know Andrew that you have been standing beside the Brown family for many many years. Will you also be standing beside Paul as he tells the human story of this technology? There may be scientific questions that I don't believe he will be prepared to answer at this conference. Will you guys be working as a team then in this situation? I thought you just have done an excellent job explaining to us non scientists what makes this thing so difficult. Thats sort of a hallmark of his style of writing, but will you be there too?

People at this conference, I don't think, have an inkling yet of how important this event is going to be, how people will regard it in the future.

And Trickfox. I see from some of your responses that Canada will be well represented too. I think that you are going to have some very important observations. Beginning to think here that the discussions that will go on AROUND Pauls presentation will be as historic as the presentation itself.

Mark C.

[Mikado14]

Will you also be standing beside Paul as he tells the human story of this technology? There may be scientific questions that I don't believe he will be prepared to answer at this conference. Will you guys be working as a team then in this situation? I thought you just have done an excellent job explaining to us non scientists what makes this thing so difficult. Thats sort of a hallmark of his style of writing, but will you be there too?

.

A little Mikado perspective here.

Paul will have a hell of a time as it is. To present anything in the way of the technology would be a mistake. IF Paul is telling the rest of the story, he will be correcting the misconceptions of what Dr. Brown did, where he was etcetera. I don't mean that he will not be mentioning the technology but I would venture to say the "how to" is not relevant at this time.

Paul will have to face a few......antagonists. He is a big boy and he will prevail, in time.

Do you really believe that Stanton Freidman, Bill Moore, Berlitz, Dayo et al are going to sit on their collective coattails and not attempt to discredit Paul? They will not give up their reputations without.........

That is what Paul will have to face in that arena.

The book will come out, the truth will be known and the sun will shine.

And to you Andrew, be ready for then it will be your turn.

Mikado (just my couple of pennies)

[Mikado14]

Mikado,


I am a little lost (so what else?)

You say that Dr. Brown himself mentioned a transmitter? Somehow that bit of information has been caught somewhere else in my brain, and must have gotten covered up! Can you help me out here at all? Where was this "transmitter" mentioned?

I have a vague memory of that picture of Dr. Brown standing beside a tower that someone in Canada had identified as an MI5 tower located in England. Dr. Brown was wearing a leather jacket and I can remember the discussion of what year it was because his jeans were rolled up . I thought that the consensus was that it was probably 1955 or so (he WAS in England with Mr. Twigsnapper in 1956) Is that the "transmitter that you are talking about? If so I think that we have sort of "split our forces here" and are talking about two completely separate things. But like I said, I could be entirely wrong.

Are you talking about something referred to as a "gravitational communications system?" Or something else?

I need to refresh my memory. I am sure that you are absolutely right but its not coming to the top of my brain right now. Help? Not built until 1952? Are you referring to something that was demonstrated at Pearl Harbor? Or something else? truely, I am lost! Victoria

Winterhaven

Mikado

[Paul S.]

Paul will have to face a few......antagonists. He is a big boy and he will prevail, in time.

As it stands, I'm only going to have about five minutes left for questions when I'm done with the formal presentation. I could... uh... "plant" friendy questions to avoid having to deal with subjects I'd rather leave to a less public forum.

Any volunteers?

--PS

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Myself? I would rather stand aside and see what other people, who are perhaps fresh to all of this, ask you when they get a chance. We can all chew on stuff back here. My vote is to step aside and let some new voices pipe up, good bad or indifferent. I think that you will be suprised Paul, at the reaction. As twigsnapper said, try to conceal your astonishment. Elizabeth

[Chris Knight]

Mark,

Yes, Paul and I have always been working together, although I'm hardly any help in the historical arena. I stand behind him 100%, and will be around to answer any basic technical questions that might arise. Paul is doing an excellent job bringing together the historical account of Townsend's life. I'm just there to support him. We can get around to the practical mechanics of his work soon enough.

However, as Mikado said, Paul's going to have his hands full as it is. I suspect, too, that he might receive some backlash. Remember that some of these people have built portions of their careers on what might amount to hot air, so the real story may adjust their image in ways they may not appreciate.

As Elizabeth said, I'm also really waiting to hear the conversations that go on. I'm looking forward to mingling, and hearing what good and bad things are said.

Andrew

[Trickfox]

Paul

Don't expect too many "planted questions" my friend. Just keep in mind that we are all quite confident that you will have absolutely no problem answering them.

Trickfox

[Victoria Steele]

Of course you know that there will be many in the crowd who will be completely and 100% in your corner but Andrew is right ... there will be others who will REALLY feel threatened!

Going to be tough for them but on what will they base their criticism? That your research material isn't sound? What? ... speaking to the man who has spent the last four years studying personal papers, government records and talking candidly with the mans daughter? You have reading his lab notebooks, spoken to men who worked alongside him? What are they going to say to come up against that. "No! .... You can't be right .... because WE didn't write it first? " Let them try it! They will look ridiculous in one easy lesson! Of course, that may not be new to some of them .... and will not slow them up. So I would be prepared Paul for nearly anything.

Like a political strategist. why don't you yourself draw up some highly critical comments and questions on your work? And then work on delivering a calm, measured and appropriate response to those harsh questions. Sometimes its good to do that. Ask your neighborhood politician! Victoria

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

If someone was to go about asking how to get the proper history of Thomas Townsend Brown, who would it be?
Valone? William Moore? Vassilatos? , Nick Cook?

No, there is only one mans name which is going to come to the surface and like it or not, Paul is going to have to accept that mantle. He IS the EXPERT on Townsend Brown. Of course he will be the first to remind me that an expert is someone who knows just a little more than others around him. OK. Thats fine. But in this case, Paul knows a WHOLE LOT more than those around him. And a whole lot or just a little bit ...... he will become the accepted authority about the man named Thomas Townsend Brown.

Even Andrew (who has studied Townsend Browns work for most of his adult life) is unaware of some of the particulars involved. Isn't that was a good bigrapher does? He tell a persons story so those around can understand the man or woman better? Thats what Paul has set out to do and thats what he will accomplish.

The technology? Thats for others eventually to figure out. I agree on that point with Mikado and Andrew and Trickfox ( Hi Victoria, haven't forgetten you!)

What authority out there is going to stand up and say "no, no .... Townsend Brown wasn't at all the way that Paul Schatzkin has portrayed him. I knew him better!" I want to see that person stand up and I want to meet him face to face. Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

Thanks to Ladygrady, this is probably the most difficult post I've had to make so far in this forum. In fact, I've gone over it several times before deciding to post it.

I have been following and posting in this forum for about a year, and during this time period my words have been written, edited, and expanded upon greatly. In fact I may have gone just a bit too far without realizing it. That is why I took a break to go and find my kitty cat. (Mr Twigsnapper's comments become pertinent at this point)

The technology discovered and developed by Dr. Brown is far more complex than I myself even realize. Just yesterday I had to admit publicly in this forum that I had grossly underestimated the importance of high energy propulsion systems, and that I have been poking fun at such a
system without realizing how pertinent the information really was. I'm sorry Andrew, you deserve a lot of respect for understanding that system because I failed to pay attention to it!!!

I'm afraid that I have to side with Mikado and Victoria about the issue of "explaining the details" of the communications technology to conference attendees. It would take several months of training in the fundamental laws of physics to convince anyone that the Electrogravitic com system is a functional reality. In fact there is just not enough time to go through all the details there at the conference. I would be ill equipped to do so without having all the text books to reference the work.

Andrew's explanation of the communication system is fundamentally correct, however the explanation itself (as Andrew himself admits) is somewhat oversimplified and not meant to help anyone build and operate such a system.

Witness the very first RADIO system, which consisted of a single component called a "diode". In fact up until the last decade or so, a person could find advertisements for a RADIO KIT which consisted of a pair of electromagnetic headphones connected in parallel to a single diode and an antenna, and absolutely no other components. (amended to include a coil and capacitor as per Mikado's post further on in this thread)

The trouble is that such a system is now completely obsolete and non-functional....... -unless,... of course,... you are standing right next to a powerful radio station transmitter. Then, and only then will you hear the sound signal originally modulated onto the radio signal. (this is also the mystery behind the "dental work" which have caused some people to hear voices in their heads)

The problem of course, -is that a "single diode" radio is not really a radio as we now understand things. It has no CHANNEL SELECTOR. Therefore a single diode Radio will pick up the strongest radio broadcast nearby and demodulate the information into a sound frequency electromagnetic wave.(unless it is one of the new DIGITAL cellphone systems)

Unfortunately, things have gotten infinitely more complex in radio systems and we are now playing around with radio systems a thousand time more complex that the original single diode radio system.

Andrew's explanation of the electrogravitic communication system is very much like the explanation of a single diode radio system. Fundamentally it is correct however Victoria is also correct and the system is -at present- a thousand time more complex than this simple explanation and someone trying to build such a device based on Andrew's explanation would undoubtedly be frustrated to realize that the explanation lacks detailed clarity.

In other words there is truth in that age-old saying "a cookbook and list of ingredients does not make of anyone, -a chef".

Trickfox

[Mikado14]

Trickfox,

You must be younger than I. I can remember making a "cat's whisker" radio when I was about 9 from a cub scout manual.

Not trying to over shadow you here but bear with me for you may have hit upon something.

The Cat's whisker was a piece of phosphor bronze that I took from a slot car at the time. The diode in actuality was a piece of galena. You also needed to wind a coil and a capacitor to make a tuned circuit and a very long wire between two trees or you could do what I did, we had steel pipes with the old cast iron radiators, tied it off on a pipe, worked great.

For all you budding scientists' out there, look up galena.

Thanks Trickfox, I needed a kick in the...... to remember.

Mikado

PS Victoria I expect to see you first.

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

I am just chiming in on something that Andrew said about the educational system of the United States. How it actually forces you to choose a "specialty" which then further alienates you from other fields of knowledge.

I was just talking to a very good friend who has been taking extra classes because of his job requirements for advancement. Now he already has a Masters degree and is an older student. He has been in the service and now is working in another part of the government. He claimed that he was frustrated because his instructor was a "tree ring expert" who really didn't know about economics or history or much of anything else. Somehow that image stuck in my brain.

Now its important to be an expert in tree rings, BUT if one of those rings shows a marked anomally, Would you know enough about geology or climates to realize that a major volcanic event had happened that year and the tree is showing you that? Other sciences can help your understanding? But if there is no cross referencing going on you are in sad shape.

And heres the tough spot. Do you assume that everything in your field has been uncovered already/ or that you adopt the same attitude which Dr. Millikan did toward Townsend Brown wheh he said that his students idea was impossible and "not to be considered"

I guess that quite a few people do that and then when they run into someone like Dr. Brown who has such a wide ranging intellect it is upsetting to say the least. So some resort to name calling. Or rumor mongering. And its alot easier to haul out the character assasination guns when the intellectual ammo has run out.

I guess that we just have to expect to be running into more Millikans during this journey. Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

Laughing out loud here Mr. Mikado, because you are quite correct, and the coil/capacitor tuned circuit was indeed a necessity with a cat's wisker radio kit. I just forgot that particular description, and I was also assuming the "inherent" inductance and capacitance of the diode circuit in my "minimum component" example of a RADIO system.

Please note however that the tuned "TANK circuit" offered in the cat's wiskers radio kit provided a specific desired bandwidth, so you are quite correct, and that radio kit usually included a single inductor and capacitor along with the diode, which means that the radio kit had three components rather than one. (two of which are passive)

My mistake!
Trickfox (51-fyi)