Re: [EVGRAY] Taking gravity from strength to strength

Hector,

What is the difference between driving high impedance windings on a
generator/magneto with a step down for load vs normal impedance windings
with a step up and step down for load?  Will the former or latter have
less lenz issues?

Assuming proper impedance matching


.

On 3/28/2019 4:01 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>  
>
> took a look at it all i can think is magneto ignition -- magneto
> ignition ,,,
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <arkresearch@...> wrote :
>
> ok!
>
> ---In [email protected], <schoonersolsticemoon@...> wrote :
>
> Hector
> Start putting your feelers out for a used Samsung or LG front loading
> washing machine motor in Puerto Rico cheap. We need your brains here.
> I posted a picture of what it should look like.
> A plus, and bummer, of the design is that you need a shaft and bearing
> for it.
> I attached mine to the end of a 2.6 kw generator, using it's bearing,
> and shaft. (See picture), separate post to Doug 
> Cheers Warren
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>
>             On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 9:33 AM, arkresearch@... [EVGRAY]
>             <[email protected]> wrote:
>              
>
>             Have you ever built & tested a Rotoverter ? Normans MRA ? 
>             a Kone motor?  , a Newman motor ? a coil banger ? ....
>
>             still curious ?
>
>             (H) 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             ---In [email protected], <eagleseeone@...> wrote :
>
>             http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf
>             I made their list....
>             but they just cant get their mind around the fact that it
>             transmutes the water into silver.
>
>
>             Why I write the way I do....
>
>             http://milesmathis.com/anger.html
>
>             I often get emails, from fans and opponents alike, asking
>             why I seem to be so angry and confrontational. Can't I
>             just present the facts in a scientific manner without all
>             the emotion? No, I can't. It isn't my style, for one
>             thing. And I have no desire to change my style. Many will
>             think this is just caprice or ego, but it isn't. I keep my
>             style, and even play it up, not from ego but from a firm
>             belief that it is both called for and necessary. If you
>             are one of the ones bothered by my anger, my reply to you
>             is, “Why /aren't/ you angry? You should be. Given all the
>             lies you have been told, all the misdirection you have
>             been hit with, all the dodging and fudging and faking you
>             have been presented with as science, you should be
>             furious. You should be just as mad at the current
>             scientists as you are at the current politicians, and for
>             the same reason. You have been sold a bill of goods,
>             taught a bunch of fake and false equations in high school
>             and college, heard decades of loud and obnoxious promotion
>             for novel theories that turn out to have been created from
>             nothing, been presented with new heroes who are nothing
>             more than conmen, and been taxed to support all these
>             careerists and their bloated projects. What you are told
>             is true is not, and what you are told is false is often
>             full of promise. While bad new ideas from entrenched
>             phonies are shoved down your throat in all the magazines
>             and other media, good new ideas are slandered, belittled,
>             and buried, to protect these same phonies. If you aren't
>             mad, you either aren't paying attention, or you are taking
>             too many sedatives.
>
>             Still, I often hear that “anger is not productive.”
>             Scientifically, that is false. Anger is one of the most
>             productive things. It is one of the primary engines of
>             human action. Anger and sex are the two biggest motives of
>             human action, and anger may have even more potential than
>             sex, especially in extraordinary situations. The modern or
>             contemporary belief that anger is unproductive is actually
>             just one more lie you have been fed, to keep you quiet.
>             Along with all this fake and false science, you are taught
>             to be embarrassed by your own emotions. This keeps you
>             from channeling your anger into positive action. Instead,
>             you sit on it and try to squelch it, as something low and
>             unscientific. This is just what your teachers and handlers
>             want. They want you to spend all your time reacting
>             against your own natural emotions, and no time reacting
>             against their theories and projects. They need you to be
>             docile, so they teach you there is something wrong with
>             anger. This insures you do nothing. Instead, you
>             rationalize your inaction as some sort of emotional
>             purity. You are “above all that.” You are not a coward,
>             you are a yogi or a Zen master, enlightened and above the
>             fray. While you are doing that, they sell you an
>             upside-down world as some advance. While you are admiring
>             the purity of your navel, they steal the food from your
>             lips, the socks from your feet, the very air from your
>             lungs. That's not hyperbole, either. They /are/ stealing
>             the air from your lungs and the lungs of your children,
>             whether or not you have the gumption to be angry about it.
>
>             But the only thing wrong with anger is bottling it up.
>             Instead, you should use it. That is what it is there for.
>             We don't need any more yogis or Zen masters or other
>             purists. We need some people with some fight left in them,
>             people who can't placidly watch the world crumble while
>             they coddle themselves and talk of objectivity.
>
>             “All right,” you will say, “maybe so, but it doesn't have
>             to make its way into the actual research. Be angry if you
>             want, but give us a paper that is calm and objective.”
>             Again, that tends to sound good, because it is what we are
>             taught. We are taught to separate ideas from emotion.
>             Reason is good, emotion is bad. But I don't buy it,
>             because it is false. Emotion is /not/ bad; and besides
>             there is no possible way to separate reason and emotion.
>             In reality, they are always informing one another.
>             Therefore, a writing style that tries to excise the
>             emotions must be a falsification. It is a sort of lying to
>             the audience, trying to convince it that you are
>             emotionless when you can't be. In that sense, any
>             “objectivity” is fake. A writer cannot be objective,
>             because a writer is a single person, a subject, who has
>             opinions and emotions. Any objectivity is a pretense. It
>             is better to just say what you intend to say, with the
>             emotion in it, and let the reader see the two together.
>
>             It is actually easier to judge “facts” when they are
>             couched in the emotions they cause. That is to say, it is
>             much easier to spot a lie when a writer is not trying to
>             be objective than when he is. We are taught that
>             scientific writing was chosen as a style historically
>             because it is the most transparent. But again, that is
>             false. Not only false, but a lie. Scientific writing was
>             chosen and kept because it has proven to be a great way to
>             hide. When all emotion is excised from writing, it becomes
>             very difficult to judge the veracity and character of the
>             writer. The writer becomes invisible. The invisibility of
>             the writer would seem to be a good thing, but it actually
>             isn't. The invisibility of the writer is like the
>             invisibility of the magician's hand: it allows for all
>             sorts of things to be passed off in the dark.
>
>             To see what I mean, compare what you know about me from my
>             style to what you know about famous physicists from their
>             style. You may or may not like my style, or the
>             personality it exhibits, but you have to admit it tells
>             you who I am. It informs you about my veracity. Many
>             readers will doubt my humility, but few will doubt my
>             veracity. I don't seem to be hiding anything. It's all
>             right there, good or bad. Can you say that about other
>             physicists? I can't. I feel pretty sure, even before I
>             check their facts, that they are hiding something. Their
>             style is a dead giveaway. From the first sentence, they
>             are trying to divert me. They are diverting me not only
>             from the fundamental questions, by taking me immediately
>             into side alleys and unsupported maths, but also from
>             learning anything about their character or veracity. They
>             purposely avoid telling me anything I might be able to use
>             in judging them or their theories. This is because the
>             sentences don't say anything. Most often, they are
>             sentences with form but little or no content. They have no
>             emotional content, of course, because that is forbidden in
>             science. But they also have very little content of any
>             other kind. We don't get science, we get science-speak. We
>             get a lot of lingo, math, and claims of relevance, but no
>             real ideas or opinions.
>
>             Readers will tell me, “We don't want ideas or opinions, we
>             want facts. We want data.” Really? Is that really what
>             physics is? Facts and data? No. That is what we have been
>             taught, but it is false. Physics isn't facts and data. We
>             have lots of facts and data now, and almost no physics,
>             since no one can read that data. We don't need more facts
>             and data, although they are always nice to have. We need a
>             coherent reading of centuries of data, going back to
>             Galileo. We don't have it, therefore we don't have
>             physics. We have data, we have facts, and we have math,
>             but we have very little physics, because we have very
>             little in the way of good ideas or opinions about how to
>             explain that data.
>
>             Math is not an explanation of data, although many modern
>             physicists seem to think that it is. Any monkey can
>             force-fit data into equations. But if the equations don't
>             naturally represent some comprehensible mechanics, we
>             don't have physics. All we have is the pretense of
>             physics. We have a bunch of big equations that overpaid
>             people can fill blackboards with, but we have no real
>             physics. Physics /means/ mechanics. Look up the definition
>             of the word. We have been sold a non-mechanical physics,
>             but that is about as logical as non-aesthetic art or
>             non-constructive architecture or non-aqueous water. If you
>             will accept a non-mechanical physics, you will accept
>             anything. Basically, the modern world /has/ accepted
>             anything, in all fields. It has accepted everyday,
>             untouched objects as art; it has accepted thuggery and
>             looting as government; it has accepted mobsters as
>             politicians; and it has accepted magic and mysticism as
>             physics.
>
>             If this doesn't make you angry, I don't know what to say.
>             You must be under the influence of some strong sedative,
>             and all sedatives aren't pharmacological. Your sedative
>             may be wealth or career or position or prestige. I can't
>             say. All I can say is that I will continue to tone it UP,
>             to sharpen my theories as well as my tongue and my wit and
>             my sense of humor. If that isn't to your taste, you will
>             have to do your science reading elsewhere, I suppose. Good
>             luck with that, since you are unlikely to find healthy
>             opinions or ideas from those who are sitting on their
>             emotions.
>
>

Kone, Yes I know about high impedance being better, but wondered if
there is a difference between converting to high impedance with a tranny
or direct with large windings in the motor in the sense of what you just
presented.



On 3/28/2019 5:04 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>  
>
> Hi Mick
>
> IF you can find that delayed lenz rpm window where rotor speeds up
> under loading, then high impedance coils better, since the Than Karl
> Heins thing of delayed lenz requires high impedance coil.
>
> Kone
>
>

Hi Mick
 Low impedance winds in motor and generator coils Bill Muller always worked with at least what I saw. MAybe not the usual delayed timing of saturation lenz buster, but a before-top-dead center (leading) lenz buster along with the low hysteresis black sand cores with the random polarities to the encased ferrites....
 hector will say high impedance and steel laminate cores I am pretty sure...hopefully he will chime in
 Kone

took a look at it all i can think is magneto ignition -- magneto ignition ,,,


---In [email protected], <arkresearch@...> wrote :

 ok!

---In [email protected], <schoonersolsticemoon@...> wrote :

 Hector Start putting your feelers out for a used Samsung or LG front loading washing machine motor in Puerto Rico cheap. We need your brains here.
 I posted a picture of what it should look like.
 A plus, and bummer, of the design is that you need a shaft and bearing for it.
 I attached mine to the end of a 2.6 kw generator, using it's bearing, and shaft. (See picture), separate post to Doug 
 Cheers Warren

 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature
 
 On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 9:33 AM, arkresearch@... [EVGRAY]
 <[email protected]> wrote:
 
   Have you ever built & tested a Rotoverter ? Normans MRA ?  a Kone motor?  , a Newman motor ? a coil banger ? ....

still curious ? 

 (H)  





 

---In [email protected], <eagleseeone@...> wrote :

 http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf
 I made their list....
 but they just cant get their mind around the fact that it transmutes the water into silver.
 

 

 Why I write the way I do....
 

 http://milesmathis.com/anger.html http://milesmathis.com/anger.html

 

I often get emails, from fans and opponents alike, asking why I seem to be so angry and confrontational. Can't I just present the facts in a scientific manner without all the emotion? No, I can't. It isn't my style, for one thing. And I have no desire to change my style. Many will think this is just caprice or ego, but it isn't. I keep my style, and even play it up, not from ego but from a firm belief that it is both called for and necessary. If you are one of the ones bothered by my anger, my reply to you is, “Why aren't you angry? You should be. Given all the lies you have been told, all the misdirection you have been hit with, all the dodging and fudging and faking you have been presented with as science, you should be furious. You should be just as mad at the current scientists as you are at the current politicians, and for the same reason. You have been sold a bill of goods, taught a bunch of fake and false equations in high school and college, heard decades of loud and obnoxious promotion for novel theories that turn out to have been created from nothing, been presented with new heroes who are nothing more than conmen, and been taxed to support all these careerists and their bloated projects. What you are told is true is not, and what you are told is false is often full of promise. While bad new ideas from entrenched phonies are shoved down your throat in all the magazines and other media, good new ideas are slandered, belittled, and buried, to protect these same phonies. If you aren't mad, you either aren't paying attention, or you are taking too many sedatives. 

 Still, I often hear that “anger is not productive.” Scientifically, that is false. Anger is one of the most productive things. It is one of the primary engines of human action. Anger and sex are the two biggest motives of human action, and anger may have even more potential than sex, especially in extraordinary situations. The modern or contemporary belief that anger is unproductive is actually just one more lie you have been fed, to keep you quiet. Along with all this fake and false science, you are taught to be embarrassed by your own emotions. This keeps you from channeling your anger into positive action. Instead, you sit on it and try to squelch it, as something low and unscientific. This is just what your teachers and handlers want. They want you to spend all your time reacting against your own natural emotions, and no time reacting against their theories and projects. They need you to be docile, so they teach you there is something wrong with anger. This insures you do nothing. Instead, you rationalize your inaction as some sort of emotional purity. You are “above all that.” You are not a coward, you are a yogi or a Zen master, enlightened and above the fray. While you are doing that, they sell you an upside-down world as some advance. While you are admiring the purity of your navel, they steal the food from your lips, the socks from your feet, the very air from your lungs. That's not hyperbole, either. They are stealing the air from your lungs and the lungs of your children, whether or not you have the gumption to be angry about it. 

 But the only thing wrong with anger is bottling it up. Instead, you should use it. That is what it is there for. We don't need any more yogis or Zen masters or other purists. We need some people with some fight left in them, people who can't placidly watch the world crumble while they coddle themselves and talk of objectivity. 

 “All right,” you will say, “maybe so, but it doesn't have to make its way into the actual research. Be angry if you want, but give us a paper that is calm and objective.” Again, that tends to sound good, because it is what we are taught. We are taught to separate ideas from emotion. Reason is good, emotion is bad. But I don't buy it, because it is false. Emotion is not bad; and besides there is no possible way to separate reason and emotion. In reality, they are always informing one another. Therefore, a writing style that tries to excise the emotions must be a falsification. It is a sort of lying to the audience, trying to convince it that you are emotionless when you can't be. In that sense, any “objectivity” is fake. A writer cannot be objective, because a writer is a single person, a subject, who has opinions and emotions. Any objectivity is a pretense. It is better to just say what you intend to say, with the emotion in it, and let the reader see the two together. 

 It is actually easier to judge “facts” when they are couched in the emotions they cause. That is to say, it is much easier to spot a lie when a writer is not trying to be objective than when he is. We are taught that scientific writing was chosen as a style historically because it is the most transparent. But again, that is false. Not only false, but a lie. Scientific writing was chosen and kept because it has proven to be a great way to hide. When all emotion is excised from writing, it becomes very difficult to judge the veracity and character of the writer. The writer becomes invisible. The invisibility of the writer would seem to be a good thing, but it actually isn't. The invisibility of the writer is like the invisibility of the magician's hand: it allows for all sorts of things to be passed off in the dark. 

 To see what I mean, compare what you know about me from my style to what you know about famous physicists from their style. You may or may not like my style, or the personality it exhibits, but you have to admit it tells you who I am. It informs you about my veracity. Many readers will doubt my humility, but few will doubt my veracity. I don't seem to be hiding anything. It's all right there, good or bad. Can you say that about other physicists? I can't. I feel pretty sure, even before I check their facts, that they are hiding something. Their style is a dead giveaway. From the first sentence, they are trying to divert me. They are diverting me not only from the fundamental questions, by taking me immediately into side alleys and unsupported maths, but also from learning anything about their character or veracity. They purposely avoid telling me anything I might be able to use in judging them or their theories. This is because the sentences don't say anything. Most often, they are sentences with form but little or no content. They have no emotional content, of course, because that is forbidden in science. But they also have very little content of any other kind. We don't get science, we get science-speak. We get a lot of lingo, math, and claims of relevance, but no real ideas or opinions. 

 Readers will tell me, “We don't want ideas or opinions, we want facts. We want data.” Really? Is that really what physics is? Facts and data? No. That is what we have been taught, but it is false. Physics isn't facts and data. We have lots of facts and data now, and almost no physics, since no one can read that data. We don't need more facts and data, although they are always nice to have. We need a coherent reading of centuries of data, going back to Galileo. We don't have it, therefore we don't have physics. We have data, we have facts, and we have math, but we have very little physics, because we have very little in the way of good ideas or opinions about how to explain that data. 

 Math is not an explanation of data, although many modern physicists seem to think that it is. Any monkey can force-fit data into equations. But if the equations don't naturally represent some comprehensible mechanics, we don't have physics. All we have is the pretense of physics. We have a bunch of big equations that overpaid people can fill blackboards with, but we have no real physics. Physics means mechanics. Look up the definition of the word. We have been sold a non-mechanical physics, but that is about as logical as non-aesthetic art or non-constructive architecture or non-aqueous water. If you will accept a non-mechanical physics, you will accept anything. Basically, the modern world has accepted anything, in all fields. It has accepted everyday, untouched objects as art; it has accepted thuggery and looting as government; it has accepted mobsters as politicians; and it has accepted magic and mysticism as physics. 

 If this doesn't make you angry, I don't know what to say. You must be under the influence of some strong sedative, and all sedatives aren't pharmacological. Your sedative may be wealth or career or position or prestige. I can't say. All I can say is that I will continue to tone it UP, to sharpen my theories as well as my tongue and my wit and my sense of humor. If that isn't to your taste, you will have to do your science reading elsewhere, I suppose. Good luck with that, since you are unlikely to find healthy opinions or ideas from those who are sitting on their emotions.

Loop an RV over 10KW and you go Philadelphia experiment on steroids ... if you end in the past leave something there to recognize ..

LOL ! you will need to go to el escorial castle in Spain to know what i left there ! 



H   


---In [email protected], <eagleseeone@...> wrote :

 Look I get it youse guys has studied a lot of physical phenomena. Mechanical contraptions. 

 

 Has any one here in this group any testimonies or 'devices' that show "any" non physical phenomena studies or reports??  

 

 What did Tesla mean by Non Physical?  Just what is it that this group hopes to achieve with another 2 decades of Physical Phenomena research that they failed to achieve in the last 18 years?  A greater understanding of Physical Phenomena? 

 

 I built a twin 4 rodded Silver Generator for the Manipulation of DNA 3 years before Joe Built his 4 rodded Silver Generator (2004) for the activation of the Meridian Energy Lines and transmuting of water into silver.
 

 Here's the spiel and the schematics for the study of non physical phenomena for beginners. Everyone starts some where.
 

 Just for the Lab Rats amongst us
 Or you could be a health nut
 Its even for the Sceptics 
  
 I present to the World of Free Energy     
 The apparatus for Transmutations
 The space age Upgrade to Medicinal Silver.
 Your one stop design product for Magnetic Field Science Design specs for practical applications. 
  
 The SilverJoeCell.
 http://joecellwaterscience.com/silverjoe_cell_11.html http://joecellwaterscience.com/silverjoe_cell_11.html
  
 with Just some of the secret wiring exposed here 
 http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf
  
 with the special stirring instructions shown here
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TlP9q6TnY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TlP9q6TnY4
  
 Its not limited to just Silver. Any range of materials can be toyed with. Silver, Gold, Platinum, Copper and Stainless 316 being experimented with so far. In the USA the SS316 version, separated gold from ores. The Silver Cell design is an excellent choice for the beginner. It not only teaches Water Quality by the differing results one obtains from each source in taste and smell (yes it makes water Smell of the Memory of where is came from) it has the benefit of tickling the Thyroid gland if it is in need of attention. This Elixir recipe Design construct Charges good clean Spring waters and just needs lots of Outside the Box thinking to utilize its Unique Energy Format. Lots of Industries could use this type of energy.
 

 The Wiring format can be done several ways to understand the splitting of the Phases to glean more on the flow of magnetic Current. Non Physical. The Unseen part of Matter. Its magnetic Fields. Just like you can split water into two parts and get sparks aka Lord Kelvin, So too can splitting the Water (electricity) in a Circuit or when connecting 2 electromagnets (or more) to one power source that will givemulti fields that cause all kinds of emf and emp disturbance.

 
 

 There was a cheap chinese goods importer that coulndt find buyers for a 12V motor. In another line of goods in their shop another chinese company had sent over generators about the same size. Both had a 12mm Hex drive and input shaft. So they direct coupled together like a socket and ratchet handle and it weighed about 5 kilos all up. A ready made rotoverter. Several KVA too I might add.They didnt know much and sent them all to the scrap dealers where the employees ring us up if anything interesting comes in. I took lots of pictures of the overunity device but with an iphone. For some reason iphone photos when downloaded onto my home computer and then transferred to a 2 T bite storage they came out as the wrong format. so all was lost. Joe never builds 2 of anything and he said I had learned enough to use the tech to find a westinghouse benefactor for Field Science.

 

 



---In [email protected], <arkresearch@...> wrote :

 Have you ever built & tested a Rotoverter ? Normans MRA ?  a Kone motor?  , a Newman motor ? a coil banger ? ....

still curious ? 

 (H)

Hi Mick
 IF you can find that delayed lenz rpm window where rotor speeds up under loading, then high impedance coils better, since the Than Karl Heins thing of delayed lenz requires high impedance coil.
 Kone

the magic is in resonance and taping the RE into joule - volt ampere non reflective extraction ..

as people continue to "load the mule" it will sit down and not move a hair ! 

"get the mule exited first " 



(H) 




---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :

 Hector,
 What is the difference between driving high impedance windings on a generator/magneto with a step down for load vs normal impedance windings with a step up and step down for load?  Will the former or latter have less lenz issues?
 Assuming proper impedance matching
 
 
 .
 
 On 3/28/2019 4:01 PM, arkresearch@... mailto:arkresearch@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
 
   took a look at it all i can think is magneto ignition -- magneto ignition ,,,
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <arkresearch@...> mailto:arkresearch@... wrote :
 
 
 ok!
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <schoonersolsticemoon@...> mailto:schoonersolsticemoon@... wrote :
 
 Hector Start putting your feelers out for a used Samsung or LG front loading washing machine motor in Puerto Rico cheap. We need your brains here.
 I posted a picture of what it should look like.
 A plus, and bummer, of the design is that you need a shaft and bearing for it.
 I attached mine to the end of a 2.6 kw generator, using it's bearing, and shaft. (See picture), separate post to Doug 
 Cheers Warren
 
 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
 
 On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 9:33 AM, arkresearch@... [EVGRAY]
 <[email protected]> mailto:[email protected] wrote:
 
   Have you ever built & tested a Rotoverter ? Normans MRA ?  a Kone motor?  , a Newman motor ? a coil banger ? ....
 
 still curious ? 
 
 (H)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <eagleseeone@...> mailto:eagleseeone@... wrote :
 
 http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf
 I made their list....
 but they just cant get their mind around the fact that it transmutes the water into silver.
 
 
 
 
 Why I write the way I do....
 
 
 http://milesmathis.com/anger.html http://milesmathis.com/anger.html
 
 
 
 I often get emails, from fans and opponents alike, asking why I seem to be so angry and confrontational. Can't I just present the facts in a scientific manner without all the emotion? No, I can't. It isn't my style, for one thing. And I have no desire to change my style. Many will think this is just caprice or ego, but it isn't. I keep my style, and even play it up, not from ego but from a firm belief that it is both called for and necessary. If you are one of the ones bothered by my anger, my reply to you is, “Why aren't you angry? You should be. Given all the lies you have been told, all the misdirection you have been hit with, all the dodging and fudging and faking you have been presented with as science, you should be furious. You should be just as mad at the current scientists as you are at the current politicians, and for the same reason. You have been sold a bill of goods, taught a bunch of fake and false equations in high school and college, heard decades of loud and obnoxious promotion for novel theories that turn out to have been created from nothing, been presented with new heroes who are nothing more than conmen, and been taxed to support all these careerists and their bloated projects. What you are told is true is not, and what you are told is false is often full of promise. While bad new ideas from entrenched phonies are shoved down your throat in all the magazines and other media, good new ideas are slandered, belittled, and buried, to protect these same phonies. If you aren't mad, you either aren't paying attention, or you are taking too many sedatives. 
 
 Still, I often hear that “anger is not productive.” Scientifically, that is false. Anger is one of the most productive things. It is one of the primary engines of human action. Anger and sex are the two biggest motives of human action, and anger may have even more potential than sex, especially in extraordinary situations. The modern or contemporary belief that anger is unproductive is actually just one more lie you have been fed, to keep you quiet. Along with all this fake and false science, you are taught to be embarrassed by your own emotions. This keeps you from channeling your anger into positive action. Instead, you sit on it and try to squelch it, as something low and unscientific. This is just what your teachers and handlers want. They want you to spend all your time reacting against your own natural emotions, and no time reacting against their theories and projects. They need you to be docile, so they teach you there is something wrong with anger. This insures you do nothing. Instead, you rationalize your inaction as some sort of emotional purity. You are “above all that.” You are not a coward, you are a yogi or a Zen master, enlightened and above the fray. While you are doing that, they sell you an upside-down world as some advance. While you are admiring the purity of your navel, they steal the food from your lips, the socks from your feet, the very air from your lungs. That's not hyperbole, either. They are stealing the air from your lungs and the lungs of your children, whether or not you have the gumption to be angry about it. 
 
 But the only thing wrong with anger is bottling it up. Instead, you should use it. That is what it is there for. We don't need any more yogis or Zen masters or other purists. We need some people with some fight left in them, people who can't placidly watch the world crumble while they coddle themselves and talk of objectivity. 
 
 “All right,” you will say, “maybe so, but it doesn't have to make its way into the actual research. Be angry if you want, but give us a paper that is calm and objective.” Again, that tends to sound good, because it is what we are taught. We are taught to separate ideas from emotion. Reason is good, emotion is bad. But I don't buy it, because it is false. Emotion is not bad; and besides there is no possible way to separate reason and emotion. In reality, they are always informing one another. Therefore, a writing style that tries to excise the emotions must be a falsification. It is a sort of lying to the audience, trying to convince it that you are emotionless when you can't be. In that sense, any “objectivity” is fake. A writer cannot be objective, because a writer is a single person, a subject, who has opinions and emotions. Any objectivity is a pretense. It is better to just say what you intend to say, with the emotion in it, and let the reader see the two together. 
 
 It is actually easier to judge “facts” when they are couched in the emotions they cause. That is to say, it is much easier to spot a lie when a writer is not trying to be objective than when he is. We are taught that scientific writing was chosen as a style historically because it is the most transparent. But again, that is false. Not only false, but a lie. Scientific writing was chosen and kept because it has proven to be a great way to hide. When all emotion is excised from writing, it becomes very difficult to judge the veracity and character of the writer. The writer becomes invisible. The invisibility of the writer would seem to be a good thing, but it actually isn't. The invisibility of the writer is like the invisibility of the magician's hand: it allows for all sorts of things to be passed off in the dark. 
 
 To see what I mean, compare what you know about me from my style to what you know about famous physicists from their style. You may or may not like my style, or the personality it exhibits, but you have to admit it tells you who I am. It informs you about my veracity. Many readers will doubt my humility, but few will doubt my veracity. I don't seem to be hiding anything. It's all right there, good or bad. Can you say that about other physicists? I can't. I feel pretty sure, even before I check their facts, that they are hiding something. Their style is a dead giveaway. From the first sentence, they are trying to divert me. They are diverting me not only from the fundamental questions, by taking me immediately into side alleys and unsupported maths, but also from learning anything about their character or veracity. They purposely avoid telling me anything I might be able to use in judging them or their theories. This is because the sentences don't say anything. Most often, they are sentences with form but little or no content. They have no emotional content, of course, because that is forbidden in science. But they also have very little content of any other kind. We don't get science, we get science-speak. We get a lot of lingo, math, and claims of relevance, but no real ideas or opinions. 
 
 Readers will tell me, “We don't want ideas or opinions, we want facts. We want data.” Really? Is that really what physics is? Facts and data? No. That is what we have been taught, but it is false. Physics isn't facts and data. We have lots of facts and data now, and almost no physics, since no one can read that data. We don't need more facts and data, although they are always nice to have. We need a coherent reading of centuries of data, going back to Galileo. We don't have it, therefore we don't have physics. We have data, we have facts, and we have math, but we have very little physics, because we have very little in the way of good ideas or opinions about how to explain that data. 
 
 Math is not an explanation of data, although many modern physicists seem to think that it is. Any monkey can force-fit data into equations. But if the equations don't naturally represent some comprehensible mechanics, we don't have physics. All we have is the pretense of physics. We have a bunch of big equations that overpaid people can fill blackboards with, but we have no real physics. Physics means mechanics. Look up the definition of the word. We have been sold a non-mechanical physics, but that is about as logical as non-aesthetic art or non-constructive architecture or non-aqueous water. If you will accept a non-mechanical physics, you will accept anything. Basically, the modern world has accepted anything, in all fields. It has accepted everyday, untouched objects as art; it has accepted thuggery and looting as government; it has accepted mobsters as politicians; and it has accepted magic and mysticism as physics. 
 
 If this doesn't make you angry, I don't know what to say. You must be under the influence of some strong sedative, and all sedatives aren't pharmacological. Your sedative may be wealth or career or position or prestige. I can't say. All I can say is that I will continue to tone it UP, to sharpen my theories as well as my tongue and my wit and my sense of humor. If that isn't to your taste, you will have to do your science reading elsewhere, I suppose. Good luck with that, since you are unlikely to find healthy opinions or ideas from those who are sitting on their emotions.

Oh I agree , its schedule , that's the challenge! If its not, then its finances!  lol
Soon the mule will pass a gigantic fart! Then we will be in darkness.
I have had more thrown at me today again from several other directions!
Good energies so far ! lol

  Had an elderly retired electronics engineer whom was my favorite to work
with, tell me.
Primarily, pretty much all has been worked on and invented, just comes back now in different forms.
   I however feel , there are new findings to change its perimeters.
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected] [EVGRAY] <[email protected]>
Sent: March 29, 2019 12:47 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EVGRAY] a new direction for free energy or not.



the magic is in resonance and taping the RE into joule - volt ampere non reflective extraction ..

as people continue to "load the mule" it will sit down and not move a hair !

"get the mule exited first "

[https://s.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo53.gif]

(H) [https://s.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo31.gif]




---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :


Hector,

What is the difference between driving high impedance windings on a generator/magneto with a step down for load vs normal impedance windings with a step up and step down for load?  Will the former or latter have less lenz issues?

Assuming proper impedance matching


.

On 3/28/2019 4:01 PM, arkresearch@...<mailto:arkresearch@...> [EVGRAY] wrote:


took a look at it all i can think is magneto ignition -- magneto ignition ,,,[https://s.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo15.gif]


---In [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, <arkresearch@...><mailto:arkresearch@...> wrote :


ok![https://s.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo31.gif]

---In [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, <schoonersolsticemoon@...><mailto:schoonersolsticemoon@...> wrote :

Hector
Start putting your feelers out for a used Samsung or LG front loading washing machine motor in Puerto Rico cheap. We need your brains here.
I posted a picture of what it should look like.
A plus, and bummer, of the design is that you need a shaft and bearing for it.
I attached mine to the end of a 2.6 kw generator, using it's bearing, and shaft. (See picture), separate post to Doug
Cheers Warren

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 9:33 AM, arkresearch@... [EVGRAY]
<[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote:


Have you ever built & tested a Rotoverter ? Normans MRA ?  a Kone motor?  , a Newman motor ? a coil banger ? ....

still curious ? [https://s.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo4.gif]

[https://s.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo28.gif] (H)






---In [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, <eagleseeone@...><mailto:eagleseeone@...> wrote :

http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf
I made their list....
but they just cant get their mind around the fact that it transmutes the water into silver.


Why I write the way I do....

http://milesmathis.com/anger.html

I often get emails, from fans and opponents alike, asking why I seem to be so angry and confrontational. Can't I just present the facts in a scientific manner without all the emotion? No, I can't. It isn't my style, for one thing. And I have no desire to change my style. Many will think this is just caprice or ego, but it isn't. I keep my style, and even play it up, not from ego but from a firm belief that it is both called for and necessary. If you are one of the ones bothered by my anger, my reply to you is, “Why aren't you angry? You should be. Given all the lies you have been told, all the misdirection you have been hit with, all the dodging and fudging and faking you have been presented with as science, you should be furious. You should be just as mad at the current scientists as you are at the current politicians, and for the same reason. You have been sold a bill of goods, taught a bunch of fake and false equations in high school and college, heard decades of loud and obnoxious promotion for novel theories that turn out to have been created from nothing, been presented with new heroes who are nothing more than conmen, and been taxed to support all these careerists and their bloated projects. What you are told is true is not, and what you are told is false is often full of promise. While bad new ideas from entrenched phonies are shoved down your throat in all the magazines and other media, good new ideas are slandered, belittled, and buried, to protect these same phonies. If you aren't mad, you either aren't paying attention, or you are taking too many sedatives.

Still, I often hear that “anger is not productive.” Scientifically, that is false. Anger is one of the most productive things. It is one of the primary engines of human action. Anger and sex are the two biggest motives of human action, and anger may have even more potential than sex, especially in extraordinary situations. The modern or contemporary belief that anger is unproductive is actually just one more lie you have been fed, to keep you quiet. Along with all this fake and false science, you are taught to be embarrassed by your own emotions. This keeps you from channeling your anger into positive action. Instead, you sit on it and try to squelch it, as something low and unscientific. This is just what your teachers and handlers want. They want you to spend all your time reacting against your own natural emotions, and no time reacting against their theories and projects. They need you to be docile, so they teach you there is something wrong with anger. This insures you do nothing. Instead, you rationalize your inaction as some sort of emotional purity. You are “above all that.” You are not a coward, you are a yogi or a Zen master, enlightened and above the fray. While you are doing that, they sell you an upside-down world as some advance. While you are admiring the purity of your navel, they steal the food from your lips, the socks from your feet, the very air from your lungs. That's not hyperbole, either. They are stealing the air from your lungs and the lungs of your children, whether or not you have the gumption to be angry about it.

But the only thing wrong with anger is bottling it up. Instead, you should use it. That is what it is there for. We don't need any more yogis or Zen masters or other purists. We need some people with some fight left in them, people who can't placidly watch the world crumble while they coddle themselves and talk of objectivity.

“All right,” you will say, “maybe so, but it doesn't have to make its way into the actual research. Be angry if you want, but give us a paper that is calm and objective.” Again, that tends to sound good, because it is what we are taught. We are taught to separate ideas from emotion. Reason is good, emotion is bad. But I don't buy it, because it is false. Emotion is not bad; and besides there is no possible way to separate reason and emotion. In reality, they are always informing one another. Therefore, a writing style that tries to excise the emotions must be a falsification. It is a sort of lying to the audience, trying to convince it that you are emotionless when you can't be. In that sense, any “objectivity” is fake. A writer cannot be objective, because a writer is a single person, a subject, who has opinions and emotions. Any objectivity is a pretense. It is better to just say what you intend to say, with the emotion in it, and let the reader see the two together.

It is actually easier to judge “facts” when they are couched in the emotions they cause. That is to say, it is much easier to spot a lie when a writer is not trying to be objective than when he is. We are taught that scientific writing was chosen as a style historically because it is the most transparent. But again, that is false. Not only false, but a lie. Scientific writing was chosen and kept because it has proven to be a great way to hide. When all emotion is excised from writing, it becomes very difficult to judge the veracity and character of the writer. The writer becomes invisible. The invisibility of the writer would seem to be a good thing, but it actually isn't. The invisibility of the writer is like the invisibility of the magician's hand: it allows for all sorts of things to be passed off in the dark.

To see what I mean, compare what you know about me from my style to what you know about famous physicists from their style. You may or may not like my style, or the personality it exhibits, but you have to admit it tells you who I am. It informs you about my veracity. Many readers will doubt my humility, but few will doubt my veracity. I don't seem to be hiding anything. It's all right there, good or bad. Can you say that about other physicists? I can't. I feel pretty sure, even before I check their facts, that they are hiding something. Their style is a dead giveaway. From the first sentence, they are trying to divert me. They are diverting me not only from the fundamental questions, by taking me immediately into side alleys and unsupported maths, but also from learning anything about their character or veracity. They purposely avoid telling me anything I might be able to use in judging them or their theories. This is because the sentences don't say anything. Most often, they are sentences with form but little or no content. They have no emotional content, of course, because that is forbidden in science. But they also have very little content of any other kind. We don't get science, we get science-speak. We get a lot of lingo, math, and claims of relevance, but no real ideas or opinions.

Readers will tell me, “We don't want ideas or opinions, we want facts. We want data.” Really? Is that really what physics is? Facts and data? No. That is what we have been taught, but it is false. Physics isn't facts and data. We have lots of facts and data now, and almost no physics, since no one can read that data. We don't need more facts and data, although they are always nice to have. We need a coherent reading of centuries of data, going back to Galileo. We don't have it, therefore we don't have physics. We have data, we have facts, and we have math, but we have very little physics, because we have very little in the way of good ideas or opinions about how to explain that data.

Math is not an explanation of data, although many modern physicists seem to think that it is. Any monkey can force-fit data into equations. But if the equations don't naturally represent some comprehensible mechanics, we don't have physics. All we have is the pretense of physics. We have a bunch of big equations that overpaid people can fill blackboards with, but we have no real physics. Physics means mechanics. Look up the definition of the word. We have been sold a non-mechanical physics, but that is about as logical as non-aesthetic art or non-constructive architecture or non-aqueous water. If you will accept a non-mechanical physics, you will accept anything. Basically, the modern world has accepted anything, in all fields. It has accepted everyday, untouched objects as art; it has accepted thuggery and looting as government; it has accepted mobsters as politicians; and it has accepted magic and mysticism as physics.

If this doesn't make you angry, I don't know what to say. You must be under the influence of some strong sedative, and all sedatives aren't pharmacological. Your sedative may be wealth or career or position or prestige. I can't say. All I can say is that I will continue to tone it UP, to sharpen my theories as well as my tongue and my wit and my sense of humor. If that isn't to your taste, you will have to do your science reading elsewhere, I suppose. Good luck with that, since you are unlikely to find healthy opinions or ideas from those who are sitting on their emotions.

MickAll Evergray posts seem to be ending up in spam on my Yahoo.Sorry to be so slow getting back to you.I am getting my circuit from Patrick Kelly's on line energy book chapter 32, where he gives complete program and circuit.
Cheers Warren
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 1:34 PM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY]<[email protected]> wrote:       
 

Thanks Warren for some common sense!  
 
 
What circuit are you building, something was mentioned about Arduino but I must have missed the post?
 On 3/22/2019 8:15 PM, Warren Keillor [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
  
      
It is somewhat boastful to assume people have not achieved your measure of education, while at the same time, berate a group of dedicated experimenters for not being, in your eyes, successful.
 Why on earth do you wish to simply pester us, for doing things that you have not a clue about?
 You are not curious. You are simply preaching, and lecturing, playing messiah among the heathen. I am getting back to making a device, with solder, and circuit board. After hundreds of failures, maybe this will be the one? Cheers Warren
 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 10:31 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] <[email protected]> wrote:          
But you dont know what causes the Two Dimensional Frequencies. Or have a grasp at the Spiral of 3D a frequencies. 
 Or the structure of Light Plasma emitted by the Sun thats the source of emitted Frequencies. 
 And thats just for starters. 
 
 I am pretty sure all you got are photon releases from electrons colliding other electrons. So last millenium theories. 
 
 There are none so wise as they who seek Upwising.
 
       
    
  #yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927 -- #yiv6684340927ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mkp #yiv6684340927hd {color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mkp #yiv6684340927ads {margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mkp .yiv6684340927ad {padding:0 0;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mkp .yiv6684340927ad p {margin:0;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mkp .yiv6684340927ad a {color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-sponsor #yiv6684340927ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-sponsor #yiv6684340927ygrp-lc #yiv6684340927hd {margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-sponsor #yiv6684340927ygrp-lc .yiv6684340927ad {margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927actions {font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927activity {background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927activity span:first-child {text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927activity span a {color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927activity span span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927activity span .yiv6684340927underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927attach {clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 0;width:400px;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927attach div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927attach img {border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927attach label {display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927attach label a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 4px;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927bold {font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 dd.yiv6684340927last p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv6684340927 dd.yiv6684340927last p span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv6684340927 dd.yiv6684340927last p span.yiv6684340927yshortcuts {margin-right:0;}#yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927attach-table div div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927attach-table {width:400px;}#yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927file-title a, #yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927file-title a:active, #yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927file-title a:hover, #yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927file-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927photo-title a, #yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927photo-title a:active, #yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927photo-title a:hover, #yiv6684340927 div.yiv6684340927photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 div#yiv6684340927ygrp-mlmsg #yiv6684340927ygrp-msg p a span.yiv6684340927yshortcuts {font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927MsoNormal {margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv6684340927 o {font-size:0;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927photos div div {border:1px solid #666666;min-height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927photos div label {color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv6684340927 .yiv6684340927replbq {margin:4px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mlmsg select, #yiv6684340927 input, #yiv6684340927 textarea {font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv6684340927 code {font:115% monospace;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-mlmsg #yiv6684340927logo {padding-bottom:10px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-msg p a {font-family:Verdana;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-msg p#yiv6684340927attach-count span {color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-reco #yiv6684340927reco-head {color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-reco {margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-sponsor #yiv6684340927ov li a {font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-sponsor #yiv6684340927ov li {font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-sponsor #yiv6684340927ov ul {margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-text {font-family:Georgia;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-text p {margin:0 0 1em 0;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-text tt {font-size:120%;}#yiv6684340927 #yiv6684340927ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {border-right:none !important;}#yiv6684340927

Warren,

Yes signal to noise ratio here is getting difficult for me also.  OK I
will respond with the query someone else also brought up; book only
seems to go up to chapter 24 or so on Kelly main link, can you provide link?

Thanks,

Mk

On 4/14/2019 9:52 AM, Warren Keillor [email protected]
[EVGRAY] wrote:
>  
>
> Mick
>
> All Evergray posts seem to be ending up in spam on my Yahoo.
> Sorry to be so slow getting back to you.
> I am getting my circuit from Patrick Kelly's on line energy book
> chapter 32, where he gives complete program and circuit.
> Cheers Warren
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>
>     On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 1:34 PM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY]
>     <[email protected]> wrote:
>      
>
>     Thanks Warren for some common sense! 
>
>     What circuit are you building, something was mentioned about
>     Arduino but I must have missed the post?
>
>     On 3/22/2019 8:15 PM, Warren Keillor [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>      
>>
>>     It is somewhat boastful to assume people have not achieved your
>>     measure of education, while at the same time, berate a group of
>>     dedicated experimenters for not being, in your eyes, successful.
>>
>>     Why on earth do you wish to simply pester us, for doing things
>>     that you have not a clue about?
>>     You are not curious. You are simply preaching, and lecturing,
>>     playing messiah among the heathen.
>>     I am getting back to making a device, with solder, and circuit
>>     board. After hundreds of failures, maybe this will be the one?
>>     Cheers Warren
>>     Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>     <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>>
>>         On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 10:31 PM, [email protected]
>>         <mailto:[email protected]> [EVGRAY]
>>         <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>          
>>
>>         But you dont know what causes the Two Dimensional
>>         Frequencies. Or have a grasp at the Spiral of 3D a frequencies.
>>         Or the structure of Light Plasma emitted by the Sun thats the
>>         source of emitted Frequencies.
>>         And thats just for starters.
>>
>>         I am pretty sure all you got are photon releases from
>>         electrons colliding other electrons. So last millenium theories.
>>
>>         There are none so wise as they who seek Upwising.
>>
>

MickI am in a remote house in the Welsh country side, at present, with fairly slow internet.They do have" the electricity" most of the week, though...Was able to charge the cell phone last night.
We managed to install local SIM cards. Spring here here is splendid, and ahead of us in Ontario.My Samsung/ generator is done mechanically, just sorting out the Arduino to motor circuit, with software.Cheers Warren
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 2:31 AM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY]<[email protected]> wrote:       
 

Warren,
 
Yes signal to noise ratio here is getting difficult for me also.  OK I will respond with the query someone else also brought up; book only seems to go up to chapter 24 or so on Kelly main link, can you provide link?
 
 
Thanks,
 
Mk
 
 On 4/14/2019 9:52 AM, Warren Keillor [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
  
      
Mick
 All Evergray posts seem to be ending up in spam on my Yahoo. Sorry to be so slow getting back to you. I am getting my circuit from Patrick Kelly's on line energy book chapter 32, where he gives complete program and circuit.
 Cheers Warren
 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 1:34 PM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY] <[email protected]> wrote:          
 
 
Thanks Warren for some common sense!  
 
 
What circuit are you building, something was mentioned about Arduino but I must have missed the post?
  On 3/22/2019 8:15 PM, Warren Keillor [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
  
      
It is somewhat boastful to assume people have not achieved your measure of education, while at the same time, berate a group of dedicated experimenters for not being, in your eyes, successful.
 Why on earth do you wish to simply pester us, for doing things that you have not a clue about?
 You are not curious. You are simply preaching, and lecturing, playing messiah among the heathen. I am getting back to making a device, with solder, and circuit board. After hundreds of failures, maybe this will be the one? Cheers Warren
 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 10:31 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] <[email protected]> wrote:          
But you dont know what causes the Two Dimensional Frequencies. Or have a grasp at  the Spiral of 3D a frequencies. 
 Or the structure of Light Plasma emitted by the Sun thats the source of  emitted Frequencies. 
 And thats just for starters. 
 
 I am pretty sure all you got are photon releases from electrons colliding other  electrons. So last millenium theories. 
 
 There are none so wise as they who seek Upwising.
 
       
     
        
    
  #yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577 -- #yiv5477300577ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mkp #yiv5477300577hd {color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mkp #yiv5477300577ads {margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mkp .yiv5477300577ad {padding:0 0;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mkp .yiv5477300577ad p {margin:0;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mkp .yiv5477300577ad a {color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-sponsor #yiv5477300577ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-sponsor #yiv5477300577ygrp-lc #yiv5477300577hd {margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-sponsor #yiv5477300577ygrp-lc .yiv5477300577ad {margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577actions {font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577activity {background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577activity span:first-child {text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577activity span a {color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577activity span span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577activity span .yiv5477300577underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577attach {clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 0;width:400px;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577attach div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577attach img {border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577attach label {display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577attach label a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 4px;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577bold {font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 dd.yiv5477300577last p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv5477300577 dd.yiv5477300577last p span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv5477300577 dd.yiv5477300577last p span.yiv5477300577yshortcuts {margin-right:0;}#yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577attach-table div div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577attach-table {width:400px;}#yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577file-title a, #yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577file-title a:active, #yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577file-title a:hover, #yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577file-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577photo-title a, #yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577photo-title a:active, #yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577photo-title a:hover, #yiv5477300577 div.yiv5477300577photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 div#yiv5477300577ygrp-mlmsg #yiv5477300577ygrp-msg p a span.yiv5477300577yshortcuts {font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577MsoNormal {margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv5477300577 o {font-size:0;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577photos div div {border:1px solid #666666;min-height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577photos div label {color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv5477300577 .yiv5477300577replbq {margin:4px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mlmsg select, #yiv5477300577 input, #yiv5477300577 textarea {font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv5477300577 code {font:115% monospace;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-mlmsg #yiv5477300577logo {padding-bottom:10px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-msg p a {font-family:Verdana;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-msg p#yiv5477300577attach-count span {color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-reco #yiv5477300577reco-head {color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-reco {margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-sponsor #yiv5477300577ov li a {font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-sponsor #yiv5477300577ov li {font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-sponsor #yiv5477300577ov ul {margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-text {font-family:Georgia;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-text p {margin:0 0 1em 0;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-text tt {font-size:120%;}#yiv5477300577 #yiv5477300577ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {border-right:none !important;}#yiv5477300577