Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 559
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 559
Thursday, June 4th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Are Abductions Separate From Ufo Phenomena?
Aussie UFOs
Gulf Breeze
Re: Belgium
Phobos
Ufo Related Shows
"White" spot in Strieber's brain
Communion
Re: ROAD FLARES
Adam & Eve
Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Gulf Breeze
Re: Ufo Related Shows
Re: What Can We Do?
Re: Gulf Breeze
Free energy device
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Morrow)
Subject: Are Abductions Separate From Ufo Phenomena?
Date: 30 May 92 04:35:00 GMT
Steve,
You seem to be assuming that the "abduction" needs to be a physical
event. If "they" are able to play the mind games claimed (having
the abductee "see things" that aren't really there), then isn't it
possible that many, if not most of the "abductions" are projected
into the abductee without any physical interaction at all? It would
go a long way toward explaining the odd transportation methods
(teleportation thru closed windows, etc) and might explain why many
of the experiences have some many "absurd elemnets".
In addition, although some of the abductees may have physical
events, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the the
majority of those who claim an experience (at least those that seem
to be legitimate) have endured a strictly mental phenomena.
--
Doug Morrow - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Aussie UFOs
Date: 31 May 92 04:07:00 GMT
> I know you said it was unconfirmed but I'd be interested in
> knowing
> where this alleged meteorite hit, if anything does come of it.
Don,
Sorry, I haven't got any more information on this. I only heard it from
one of our associates in Queensland who heard it from someone else. So, it is
basically a rumor. If anybody should know something about it - it's Bill
Chalker who lives in Sydney. As you've already seen, Bill's filed his
report and didn't mention meteorite. He was talking to me on the
phone, a few days ago, and I mentioned meteorite to him but he said he didn't
know anything about it. I didn't reply to you before because I was trying
to get more info on the meteorite story but, as you can see, without
much success.
Vlad
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Gulf Breeze
Date: 31 May 92 04:48:00 GMT
> A good question: Why has no one attempted to send a small
> aircraft to the location while the light is being observed? You
> might think that as much money as some folks have made off the
> book sales, there would be a few hundred dollars left to charter
> a small plane for this purpose. Another question: Why has not a
> certain "scientific" UFO research organization used a small,
> hand-held spectrometer to analyze the light? This would give
> some clear indication of its composition, which might turn out
> to be magnesium.
I agree with you Mike, but you know by now that some "scientific"
researchers and organisation will investigate reports only as far as
it suits them. That is up to a point where a report looks like a genuine
UFO report. They are NOT interested in proving that a report WAS NOT a
UFO, hoax or whatever, simply because they want to keep in UFO "business" and
also write more books.
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik)
Subject: Re: Belgium
Date: 30 May 92 20:20:00 GMT
Well, these guy's went into nitpicking the number of RADAR stations and
are convinced that something called "Ionospheric Deflection" did it
now. Don't you already pay $4.95 per month even with your flag? I
used to be flagged in several areas but I still had to pay the
$4.95. If you pay this $4.95 type *Space and go to CAT 7, TOP 12 IT
is free. If not, tell me and I'll E-mail it too you.
I thought I was getting somewhere with them for while, darn!
--
Marc Michalik - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim.Shell@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tim Shell)
Subject: Phobos
Date: 31 May 92 01:10:00 GMT
I happened to be browsing in my local library the other day and came
across two very interesting articles in back issues of Sky and
Telescope. One dealt with Lunar Transient Phenomenon (LTP) which
was in the March 1992 issue, the other was a photo article about the
Martian moon Phobos. The Phobos article was particularly
interesting with its color-enhanced photo of a bright blue glow
coming from the moon's lower hemisphere. I think that any serious
UFO fan should check this magazine out once in a while. Although
their slant is pretty dry sometimes, there does seem to be good
fodder for speculatthere. Just thought someone might be interested.
--
Tim Shell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tim.Shell@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Salts)
Subject: Ufo Related Shows
Date: 31 May 92 02:25:01 GMT
Hello Jim!
27 May 92, Jim Speiser writes to Richard Salts:
JS> In a message to Jim Speiser <05-26-92 22:01> Richard Salts wrote:
RS>> If memory serves me correctly, back in '87, or thereabouts, Ted
RS>> Koppel did a program on his "Nightline" series about the abduction
RS>> phenomena when Strieber's "Communion" (which I thought then and still
RS>> do that it is a very good book) and Hopkins' "Intruders" first came
RS>> out. Unfortunately, at that time, I didn't know it was on and missed
RS>> it but would a show like that qualify in terms of credibility for our
RS>> subject? Did you see that edition of "Nightline"?
JS> I did not. Yes, "NightLine" would be a start, but not if they insisted on
JS> doing the usual "prominent ufologist vs. Phil Klass" debate. That debate
JS> is over, we've won that one, its time to get down to some real issues, say
JS> for example, Don Schmitt vs. an Air Force Public Information Officer on
JS> the Roswell crash.
JS> But NightLine would only be the beginning. I think the best vehicle would
JS> be PrimeTime Live, as it has a history of following up doggedly on their
JS> investigations. I don't want to see a one shot deal, I want some reporter
JS> to sink his teeth into the cover-up and not let go.
JS> Jim
I've been giving the topic of UFO related shows some thought the last day or
two and here is what I've come up with:
PrimeTime Live might be a good start but how about a show, or better yet, a
SERIES of shows that were written, produced and directed by someone acceptable
to MUFON and CUFOS mutually, the science advisory personnel of both those
organizations would have the sole say to the director in how the series was
organized, the cases selected and HOW they would be presented to a TV audience.
NOBODY featured in this proposed series would be jumping to any fast
"conclusions" about this or that case 'proving' the existence of 'extraterrest-
rials', etc as is sometimes the case with some Unsolved Mysteries shows. The
cases would be examined critically (NOT "critically" as CSICOP does it!), the
evidence presented along with possible interpretations, extraterrestrials being
just one of several possibilities, say. I envision such a series being on,
say, NOVA or Discover, if anyone can generate any interest in those shows for
our subject matter. THOSE shows would REALLY be BIG guns if the series could
be presented in a fair, neutral manner, if that is indeed possible to do.
Such is the bare bones of my idea. What do you or anyone else on this network
think of this?
Rich
--
Richard Salts - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Salts)
Subject: "White" spot in Strieber's brain
Date: 31 May 92 02:53:02 GMT
Hello All!
Given the source (Robert Scheaffer, a Skeptical Inquirer writer) and given
CISCOP's overwhelming penchant for describing anybody who has a positive
interest in any paranormal subject in the most belittling, derisive,
patronizing and derogatory terms available, I have quite severe reservations
about Scheaffer's alleged "description" of Mr. Strieber and how Strieber is
supposed to have acted on the set of KPIX.
Rich
--
Richard Salts - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Salts)
Subject: Communion
Date: 31 May 92 03:17:03 GMT
Hello Linda!
27 May 92, Linda Bird writes to Richard Salts:
LB> Hi Richard,
LB> Welcome! Are you new to the board? I don't thnk I have seen your name
LB> before.
I had been downloading this and other Paranet echoes from the Skeptic's Board
until I began to carry the Paranet echoes here in Central Texas on my board.
I 've been mostly reading other's messages, lurking, so to speak. But I
might be coming out of the woodwork a little more often now.
LB> Well, when I read "Communion," I was not interested in UFO's, or anything
LB> in this field. I read the book simply because it was making a sensation,
LB> and I wanted to see what the fuss was about. I would say that I read it
LB> much as one would a Stephen King book: just to get a thrill and a shiver.
LB> I haven't looked at "Communion" in about 4 years, but will try to find it
LB> so I can mention that chapter you mentioned.
LB> Thanks, and best to you,
LB> Linda
Please do! That chapter is REALLY provocative! Don't know if you would want
to talk about the chapter and/or the book or whether it is considered history
as opposed to more recent material. When I first got the book and read it, I
was so enthralled by it that I intended to write Strieber and compliment him
for being so courageous for writing it but I never did. That was the first
and only book of his that I have but he can sure WRITE!
Rich
--
Richard Salts - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: ROAD FLARES
Date: 31 May 92 05:47:00 GMT
Hi John,
Should be about to get the IUR article on "flying road flares"
out to you early this week. School is almost out, so don't have so
much to do at night!
Best,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Houston.Mayer@f95.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Houston Mayer)
Subject: Adam & Eve
Date: 30 May 92 20:41:46 GMT
What do you know about Adam & Eve being found south of Denver? I was doing
serious research in the weekly World News, trying to keep up with the latest
UFO sightings and spotted the article.
Houston
--
Houston Mayer - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Houston.Mayer@f95.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pony.Godic@f6.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Pony Godic)
Subject: Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Date: 31 May 92 21:24:00 GMT
I have been following Gulf Breeze from the beginning and my concern
has grown as the hoax has escalated. I have followed the discussions
for and against a hoax and remain convinced that Gulf Breeze is a
hoax. I will not get into justifying my position as I am merely
expressing my subjective viewpoint, not trying to further expose the
hoax as it would appear that no matter how much documentation is
presented revealing the crude blatancy of the hoax, there are those
with a vested interest in promoting it re their reputations and/or
financial gain, in company with those who simply want desperately to
finally have a real live UFO situation unfolding in their midsts.
Nevertheless, I am concerned as the time and energy of very
intelligent people is being wasted fighting the good fight. I remind
you all of the Cottingley fairy hoax which began as a girlish prank
in 1917 and escalated into hoax that lasted until exposure and
confession by the perpetrators in the early 1980s. Granted the girls
involved had not set out to accomplish the magnitude of hoax that
went on to become enshrined as fact and proof. The hoax was
validated by none other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the creator of
Sherlock Holmes. I find it very unsettling that a man of Doyle's
intellectual brilliance could so easily believe in the Cottingley
fairies as this clearly illustrates that no matter how intellectually
gifted or educated a person is they always have an emotional nature
full of needs. Obviously, the Cottingly fairies filled a very deep
emotional need for Conan Doyle. I believe that today Gulf Breeze is
filling a very deep emotional need for people who are very
intelligent intellectually, some of them holding impressive academic
creditials which, by association, serve to validate the Gulf Breeze
hoax. Anyway, to get to the point, what concerns me is that not only
is there emotional fulfilment in Gulf Breeze, there's also, for
certain people, financial reward in keeping Gulf Breeze on the boil.
Is it possible that when the hoax is exhausted in X number of years
time, that the perpetrators will come clean and have the last laugh.
What a bloody shame it'll be if Gulf Breeze has anything like the
longevity of the Cottingley fairies.
--
Pony Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pony.Godic@f6.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Gulf Breeze
Date: 1 Jun 92 04:42:00 GMT
> It's not that easy. Many of us have been making general pains
> of ourselves trying to prove the truth or falsehood of various
> aspects of the Gulf Breeze incidents, and we haven't gotten all
> that far.
John,
I don't know whether you've seen it, but there are two excelelnt
aricles on the Gulf Breeze in the March/April issue of IUR.
One is titled "The Gulf Breeze RUFOS" by Zan Overall
and the other-
"The Invention of a Gulf Breeze UFO" by Barbara Becker.
Vlad
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis)
Subject: Re: Ufo Related Shows
Date: 31 May 92 00:31:00 GMT
If you can secure the production finances and completion bond, I will
provide you with all the actors, technicians and productions you need.
But, only if your intent is quality work (either fiction or
non-fiction) with an aim at bettering the general understanding of UFO
research.
--
Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis)
Subject: Re: What Can We Do?
Date: 31 May 92 00:44:00 GMT
You have hit a very sensitive nail on its already painful head. Even
when a serious effort is made to have conferences on UFOs, the media
will invariably shoot interviews with over-weight science fiction fans
wearing cardboard cutouts of their favorite movie "saucer" and present
that image to the world as the core of serious investigators. I went
to two conventions in the early 60s and vowed never to go again. In
fact I stored away hundreds of boxes of data and only recently have
sifted through some of it to see what the mice had not destroyed.
We need a center for research. We need salaried professionals and we
need sufficient funds to continue major lines of research. At the
moment we have none of this - and the few competent souls that carry
the torch are often crushed by negative press and self serving
entrepreneurs.
I stood with Cy Edmonds and Peter Cosky (I know, you've never heard
of them) in front of a group of people in Southern New Jersey in 1959
and absorbed the distrust and hatred a whole town had for UFO
researchers. We were called nearly every word and discrediting title
you can image.
It is no worse today. Almost invariably you hear phrases such as,
"I'd like to find out more about UFOs, but look at all the crazies you
have to deal with."
Until we take a professional approach to credibility, we are never
going to separate ourselves from science fiction fandom and get on with
the work at hand.
--
Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze
Date: 31 May 92 15:25:00 GMT
In a message to Vladimir Godic <05-26-92 19:32> Michael Corbin wrote:
MC> A good question: Why has no one attempted to send a small aircraft
MC> to the location while the light is being observed? You might think
MC> that as much money as some folks have made off the book sales, there
MC> would be a few hundred dollars left to charter a small plane for this
Its my understanding that somebody went to the expense of renting a
high-powered searchlight, to try and see an outline of the object. They
failed at that, but they managed to signal the object by flashing, and the
object allegedly returned the signal. This is what Walt told a friend of
mine, anyway.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Achmed.Khammas@f10.n2403.z2.FIDONET.ORG (Achmed Khammas)
Subject: Free energy device
Date: 26 May 92 22:54:00 GMT
THE SYNERGY MODEL
If on the earth`s surface a body is moved from one point to another,
gravitation has only an indirect effect through friction on this body so long
as it is on the same level of potential energy. However, if one wants to move
the body's level in a direction opposite to gravitational influence (=upward
transport), a considerable expenditure of energy would be required. The
expended energy is not lost, but remains stored in the body in form of
increased potential energy. The actual percentage of total energy stored on
the new potential energy level varies directly with the degree of efficiency of
the transport system used. The quantity of possible energy reclamation
(Example : Pump-fed power station) also depends on the degree of efficiency of
the system converting the stored potential energy into other forms of energy or
exergy (e.g. falling water into rotational energy and then into electrical
energy, the most commonly known exergy form.)
Calm water has a very high surface tension. Gravitation affects all molecules
equally strongly, thus permitting the surface to level itself in an ideal
manner. Seen in a planetary context, the sea level surface is considered to be
the "zero level" of all altitude or depth measurement. The upward transport of
water onto a higher level requires a certain expenditure of energy. We contend
that this expenditure of energy is especially high in those cases where in an
"upward transport" a partial amount of water must be detached from the whole
system. In this case, the cohesion counteracts the upward transport and thus
increases the necessary energy requirement to a considerable extent.
This paper deals with a method of transport which eliminates the necessity for
breaking the cohesive forces in water. This "transport system" is based on a
topological deformation of water, resulting from rotation but without
application of pressure, in which the cohesive forces are not affected during
upward transport.
A vital element of this transport system is basically not new; it is known as
the Newtonian Bucket Experiment. However, in his time Newton had not paid any
attention to the possible practical use of spirally rising water. He mainly
considered his experiment to be a proof of "Absolute rotation". Since then -
and to this day - it seems that no one has dealt anymore intensively with this
experiment, with the possible exception of Berkeley, who dismissed Newton's
Thesis, asserting the "Bucket Experiment" to be a proof of the "Relativity of
Movement". No one seemed to be interested either in the technical or the
practical aspects.
The physical concept:
Continuously acting centrifugal, centripetal and shearing forces result in a
helical movement opposite to the gravitational direction. Although continuous
bucket rotation releases all of these forces, it releases no strong pressure
or suction forces, thus considerably minimizing the losses due to friction.
Determining the necessary number of revolutions does not present a problem. The
rotating body's minimum number of revolutions depends exclusively on the ratio
of height to diameter. Aesthetical calculations result in single-digit number
of revolutions per second. Therefore, it is easy to calculate the optimal
number of revolutions adequate to the material, to the type of storage as well
as to other parameters. These low number of revolutions are independent of the
actual dimensions of the rotating body.
The water-formed paraboloid in the rotating container steepens with the
increase in speed, its base dropping lower and lower as water is displaced
sideways and upwards. The aforementioned low number of revolutions are enough
to deform the water topologically in such a way that the inside surface of the
produced hollow space approaches an upright angle of 90 degrees to the calm
surface.
The entire system calls to mind those designs for space stations which generate
a ( centrifugal ) artificial gravitational force through their artificially
created axial rotation; thus ensuring an almost normal life aboard. However,
the bucket experiment's most interesting aspect is its application
" W I T H I N " a gravitational field, upon which the rotational effect is
superimposed. Topological deformation causes the water to literally "creep up
the walls" inside the rotation field. As soon as the container' s rim is
reached, the unrestrained centrifugal force thrusts the water over the rim. If
this upper rim were to be equipped with a (stationary) collecting basin, a
certain quantity of water of a higher potential energy level would be obtained.
This effect, of course, could only be achieved by first expending a certain
amount of energy into the rotation procedure.
Let us proceed on the assumption that the water quantity in the bucket is
limited and that the bucket itself is at rest. Under these conditions, a
relatively large amount of energy would be required in order to lift up the
water in the described way. It would be a completely different case, however,
if the established rotation ( after expenditure of start and acceleration
energy) is only to be kept constant and if there is a constant supply of water
at the lower end of the bucket. The energy expenditure necessary to maintain
the flow equilibrium is substantially lower than the amount required for start
and acceleration, while the total-mass-stabilizing flow equilibrium is
materially assured by the "Effect of communicating tubes". If one part of the
rotation container is situated beneath the level of feed water, then the water
- with a corresponding tube connection and possible axial infeed at the lower
end of the rotating cylinder - will flow into the container without any
additional application of energy.
A further decrease in energy expenditure in the maintenance of rotation can be
achieved by reducing the number of revolutions of the cylinder to a subcritical
speed . This speed is reached as soon as the water is no longer thrust over the
upper rim of the rotating container, but moves only within the rotating
container as a standing wall of water. Due to the previously integrated
continuous water supply at the bottom end of the rotating body even the most
minor increase in speed would reestablish the interrupted flow equilibrium such
that each drop that is thrust over the top of the rim would be replaced
simultaneously at the bottom.
Now, another closer look at the subcritical speed. With this number of
revolutions applied, an overflow at the upper rim does not yet occur - unless
we were to artificially generate a certain pressure on the water, an
incompressible medium. This pressure would immediately thrust the water over
the upper rim because it would present the water with its only alternative exit.
First, we assume that the water feed at the lower end is (still) closed and
that the rotating body is turning with subcritical speed. Since the water
quantity is limited in this case, the base of the created rotation paraboloid
sinks to a level b e n e a t h the still water surface which is identical with
the feed water level. With the water indeed open, however, any drop of the
falling water level results in an immediate rise in indeed water pressure with
its assumed constant level. Since, according to physical laws, this pressure
acts upon the entire water quantity within the rotating cylinder, this pressure
could represent exactly that kind of energy which is required to thrust the
water over the upper rim of the container even at a subcritical number of
revolutions.
With the described method we achieve a constant upward flow, opposite to the
pull of gravitation, which results in a constant flow equilibrium when a
constant number of revolutions is applied. After providing for acceleration,
our direct energy expenditure is limited to the compensation of various
friction losses, while the upward transport itself takes place through the
permanently renewed pressure of the feeding water reservoir ( Sea, lake etc.).
The hydrological cycle is closed by the subsequent use of increased potential
energy by means of water turbines. With this procedure one can reconvert the
gravitation effect - now again uninfluenced by rotation-based centrifugal and
centripetal forces - into utilizable electric current.
It cannot be left unmentioned that doubts have been raised from various sides
concerning the practicability of this system. This machine itself prohibits an
uncritical application of the Thermodynamic Principles . In the meantime,
however, positive remarks have been made which refer to recent discoveries in
physics and chemistry. Indeed, the Belgian scientist Prigogine was recently
awarded the Nobel prize for just this particular theory, according to which the
application of the Thermodynamic Principles is only allowable in c 1 o s e d
systems. If we reflect on the conditions established by Prigogine for an
opposite, o p e n s y s t e m, we ascertain, that these conditions are
completely met by the transport system described here:
An uninterrupted flow of MATTER and
ENERGY through the system
What represents the uninterrupted supply of chemically-bound energy and/or
light in an non-entropic form of human, animal or plant nature, is carried out
in this very system by the water itself : it transports its immanent and
constantly renewed heat energy, the sources of which are mainly solar radiation
and geothermal energy - in addition to the process heat of all biological and
mechanical cycles found in the upper layers of the world's oceans.
Certain similarities exist between the above described transport system and the
universally feared tornados. Due to their exceptionally high revolution speeds,
these tornados do represent an extreme form of general turbulence, but they
also show very clearly that heat energy itself can transform itself
d i r e c t l y into mechanical energy within a cyclonic field, even if only in
low percentages. Quantitatively considered, however, they add up to enormous
amounts. Several authors with insights into the latest research in the field
speak of a synergistic self-organization of matter, which in this practical
case, leads to a "self-energization" of the cyclonic structure.
It is pointed out that even minimal temperature differences are sufficient to
lift up water molecules to astonishing heights. Indeed, the entire population
living on the surface of the planet lives from this low-temperature transport.
Evaporation lifts millions of tons of water up hourly, without any pressure or
suction forces in a technical sense - and that to heights of several thousand
meters !
The successful combination of two old and well-known principles with recent
discoveries in physics opens up the possibility of water transport ( from the
ZERO water level upward), due to the physical characteristics of a cyclonic
field, requiring extraordinarily low operating energies. Based on the
assumption that a self-energization takes place, these must act - contrary to
the first impression - in a decelerating not an accelerating manner.
It remains to be seen which actual figures future pilot plants will achieve.
Only then will the efficiency of the suggested rotation transport system be
concretely verified. However, experiments with relatively small models have
already indicated that the installation of centrifugal mass or disk flywheel
on the rotating cylinder would pay off not only as regards to stability and
temporary energy storage. The heavier the empty rotating container, the greater
the water storage in the slow "subcritical speed range", thus also increasing
the water quantity thrust over the upper rim due to the pressure of feed water.
Due to the additional empty mass, the start-energy investment necessarily
increases, but this is more than compensated by the higher equilibrium forces.
The necessary energy required for further operation is hardly important because
of its low percentage rate.
Apart from the above described cohesion, adhesion should also be mentioned.
Without this adhesion, the water would not move at all upon the start of the
rotation (e.g. which is the case with HELIUM II near absolute zero ). In the
aforementioned system, inside friction is a basic precondition for the
functioning of the system. As proximity to the rotation center increases, the
shearing forces progressively decrease, thus clearly indicating the difference
between a centrifugal rotation acceleration (mixer, pumps etc. ) and a
centripetal acceleration "from the circumference" which we have named
"implosive".
Comparing the above system with a conventional centrifugal pump or the possible
mathematical or physical conclusions deriving from such a pump, leaves the
impression that one intends to explain the flight behavior of a jet with the
knowledge gained from ballooning.
Gravitation, in our eyes, should no longer be considered negatively as a "foe
to be overcome". On the contrary, no upward transport would probably be
possible without gravitation and certainly no subsequent energy transformation
or energy generation would take place.
As a theoretical basis for a future mathematical analysis we have formulated
the following:
NON-ENTROPIC SYSTEMS ARE ANTI-GRAVITATIONAL
The abovementioned system offers numerous possible applications. The system
could be applied either as a transport component in pump-fed storage stations,
for quick filling of sluices or for larger irrigation projects ; in connection
with other technologies, it could be applied in the field of sea-water
desalinization and sewage treatments or in other projects. The most important
aspect , however, will be the system's utilization in the field of exergy
exploitation from various renewable "environmental energies". An important
aspect in an economic, technical and ecological respect context.
A . A . W . Khammas, 1990
Luetzowstr.81
D 1000 BERLIN 30
0049/30/261 81 86
--
Achmed Khammas - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Achmed.Khammas@f10.n2403.z2.FIDONET.ORG
********************************************************************************
For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact:
DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to:
UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara-request
DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to:
DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet)
Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters:
DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
