Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[CRANKYpants]

HERE IS SOME GOOD BED-TIME READING FOR EVERYONE OUT THERE IN DEBT LAND:
http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk/downloads/How_I_06.pdf

T

[Cap-Z-ro]

Thanks Thane...an excellent piece.

That should be required reading for everybody before they are permitted to vote.

Regards...

[markzpeiverson]

HERE IS SOME GOOD BED-TIME READING FOR EVERYONE OUT THERE IN DEBT LAND:
http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk/downloads/How_I_06.pdf

T

I hesitate to do this, but given the importance of this issue, I'll make an exception...

To give the doc that Thane mentions even more credibility and impact, here are some excerpts from U.S. court cases (many being Supreme Ct) regarding the term 'income'...

“No attempt has ever been made by Congress to define with specificity the term ‘income’ as it is used in the sixteenth amendment”
Conner v. U.S, 303 F. Sup.1187, 1189.

“The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code,”
U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404.

The reason that Congress has never defined “income” is because it has no authority to do so,

“Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution.”
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, page 206

Congress CANNOT redefine a word used in the Constitution once the Sup.Ct. has defined that term!!!!

The meaning of income, as used in the 16th Amendment and in all of the taxing statutes in Title 26, is confirmed by a number of Supreme Court decisions, which have never been reversed or repealed. The 1921 Supreme Court decision of Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co v.Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, could not have not said it more clearly when it held on pages 518-519:

“The word (income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts
of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act (of 1909) and what
that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”


Therefore, the meaning of “income” in our revenue laws means a corporate profit as is clearly stated in the above decision and as confirmed in the following five other Supreme Court decisions.

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not
in any proper sense an income tax law.  This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population as prescribed by the Constitution.  The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation…" (Citations omitted).   Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414. (Emphasis added)


'Certainly the term “income” has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than in that of 1909
(See Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417), and for the present
purpose we assume there is no difference in it’s meaning as used in the two acts.'
Southern Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918)(Emphasis added)

'It was not the purpose or effect of that (16th) Amendment to bring any new subject within
the taxing power.  Congress already had power to tax all incomes.  But taxes on incomes
from some sources has been held to be “direct taxes” within the meaning of the constitutional
requirement as to apportionment…. “Income” has been taken to mean the same thing as used
in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various
revenue acts subsequently passed.' (Citations omitted)
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926) (Emphasis added)

'And before the 1921 Act this Court has indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207),
what it later held, that “income,” as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the Sixteenth Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.'
Merchant’s Loan &Y Trust Co. v. Smientanka, 255 U.S 509, 519;

see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335
       Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S.103, (1932)


'Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of ‘income” it imports,
as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or
as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.'
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 247 U.S. 179, (1918) (Emphasis added)


Therefore, there can be no doubt that “income” within the meaning of the U.S. revenue laws means gain or profit “arising from corporate activities.”  Therefore, “corporate profit” and “income” in the “constitutional sense” both mean the same thing.

After many years of researching this on my own and reading all of these and many more court cases, I came to the conclusion that what these excerpts are saying is exactly what it sounds like... Wake up America!!!

-Mark
Now back to your irregularly non-scheduled program...

[sparks]

    The reason this machine shows energy conversion is at the expense of time.
A coil of highselfinduction (t's highvoltage coil)  is gonna take more time to have it's induced voltage appear at the terminals.  Therefore when they are shorted the current is going to flow at a different time which allows the sliding magnets to receive a push instead of a buck.  The low voltage coils are only inductively linked to the highvoltage coils and will  experience the magnetic field disruption of the hv coils and not that of the prime mover.  Timing is everything when it comes to Lenz Law.  Induced voltage effects do not have to occur at a time when the prime mover magnets will be subjected to a lenzlaw induced current.  Lenz only states that a current will arise in the coil that will produce a magnetic field that opposes the prime mover magnetic field.   IT DOES NOT SAY WHEN.
      Tesla discovered this many many years ago and I studied a patent of his that exploits this principal.  The energy is coming from the atomic dipole moment alignment which is generated by it's spin.  In a permanent magnet this is done already for you.  Tesla demonstrates that electromagnets can be used also but the core magnetic response to an exciter dc pulse gets kinda tricky.

[baroutologos]

Hi Mr Kator01

It seems that your technical knowledge on the electricity and its technical aspects is far superior than mine But please consider the following. THERE has to be an peculiar property of the inductors when pulsing. otherwise, Mr Heins could not experienced any accelaration.

Regarding the oscilloscope, my mistake, perhaps i did not expressed clearly. Can you measure please, with that equipment, the voltage wave when the two legs of the coil are open ? (rotor full speed, HV coil unshorted of course) If so can you post a picture of that? -

(someone in a similar setup noticed that the voltage output of the HV coil was greatly amplified (x100) when a rectifier high voltage bridge was connected to the HV coil and the negative *ground* leg was actually grounded!! I think perhaps the bridge is not even necessary. just groundind the one coil leg and take measure...     )

Secondly, with the o-scope, can measure current wave? I think it can. Can you serialy connect the o-scope to the HV coil (thus shorting the coil and having accelaration) - again rotor full speed. Can you post the those current images? - No resistor needed.

Last, but not least, i think we are dealing with a phenomenon that the official science text books are delibertely have ommited. If that is so, reasons could  vary from political to financial


I looking forward your findings

Kind regards,
Baroutologos

ps: keep the good work!