Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[RCH]

Aether,

Before we shift our discussion, I want to wrap up a couple of loose ends in my previous "court analogy":

I'm NOT saying that the US judicial system is "perfect" (are you kidding?!). 

What I was attempting (probably badly ...) to illustrate, was the fact that any HONEST judicial system requires HONEST evidence ... and HONEST forensic interpretation of that evidence. 

And that, ultimately, "justice" is totally constrained by the ability of the Courts to make honest "reasoned" decisions, based on honest, state-of-the-art analytical techniques applied to whatever evidence is ultimately presented to them ....

Scientific techniques which have, demonstrably, MARKEDLY IMPROVED with time.

So, "justice" -- far from being unchanging and "divinely ordained" from the Beginning -- continues to be a very fallible, human, "changing commodity" ... with time.

As does "Science."

Evidence analysis which would have easily convicted individuals in previous years, is now being outweighed by NEW scientific analysis techniques (and methodologies ...) -- which can exonnerate those previously "convicted felons" ... and has ... in hundreds of known cases. 

In fact, based on the introduction of these new scientific techniques -- such as DNA -- some States in the United States have literally suspended application of the death penalty ... based on the (obvious!) MAJOR "imperfections" discovered underlying the entire forensic basis of the previous convictions!

So, in our much-vaunted US legal "jury system" -- justice is RELATIVE ... with time!

And, this does not take into account (as you so rightly pointed out ...) the structural problems, overwork and understaffing, economic disparities, and general bureaucratic ineptitude of our current legal system (the guy who was kept over his visa by the system, and thereby was held on ANOTHER charge after his initial time was served, being one of many such examples ....). 

In Science, so-called "peer review" is a direct cross-over of the legal "jury system" -- with some crucial differences, however. 

In a court trial in the US, a defendent -- under the Constitution -- has the Right to directly confront his accuser.  In the scientific "peer review" system for scientific publication, a scientist trying to get a paper published on a "controversial" finding or discovery in a "referred scientific publication" can be attacked ... and literally "shot down" ... not in public (as in court), but by ANONYMOUS ACCUSERS ....

And he (or she) may never get to know "who" did them in ... by giving them a "thumbs down," anonymous , bad review behind the scenes ....

So, in Science, not only are the same scientific limitations of analysis and "state-of-the-art" techniques in play as in the Court system ... the entire political system underneath is (deliberately?) "stacked against" revolutionary scientific discoveries that may "make waves!"  By allowing "negative anonymous reviews" -- which can effectively, politically, block publication of truly "revolutionary results."

This is why THIS forum (and all the others like it ... all across the World Wide Web) is now SO critical to reestablishing a free-flow of truly independent scientific and experimental information ... such as that occurring here. 

I can't help wonder where Bruce DePalma and Eric Laithwaite's revolutionary ideas -- and supporting, extraordinary lab experiments -- would be today ... if THEY had had "the Web" ....

And (plug ... plug) -- also offered access to network radio programs like "Coast to Coast AM."               


RCH

[aether22]

Before we shift our discussion, I want to wrap up a couple of loose ends....

I can't help wonder where Bruce DePalma and Eric Laithwaite's revolutionary ideas -- and supporting, extraordinary lab experiments -- would be today ... if THEY had had "the Web" ....
And (plug ... plug) -- offered access to network radio programs like "Coast to Coast AM."

All well said.

[i_ron]

DEAR I_RONman,

PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED THE TOROID GENERATOR COILS w/ BACK I_RON AS PROMISED.

I ALSO SKETCHED OUT SOME ANTICIPATED FLUX PATHS FOR THE ROTOR FLUX.
THE ROTOR MAY NEED TO BE A MONO-POLE.

THE DRIVE SHAFT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE CENTRE OF THE BACK I_RON PLATE.

CHEERS
Thane

I would be considered inthane not to give you an attaboy for that! Very nice, very nice and neat indeed. I too would be interested how the different flux paths play out....

Confession is good for the soul, so they say... I tried the previous model with the mot cores and
coils and couldn't get any action/reaction. I used a solid steel rotor, whereas your's seem to be all spoked, would that make the difference?

The present experiment has me on the edge of the chair. It is along the line of several patents
suggesting Lenzless operation and is a most novel setup, why didn't I think of that?  I was, time
permitting, wanting to try C cores and a dual rotor setup, but you have beat me to it.

Ron

[RCH]

Aether and Larry C,

A Postscript ....

A few posts ago, our (current) favorite cynic and "agent" -- OUman -- asked Larry provocatively:

"... Can you cite examples to support any of your other statements [re Depalma's N-Machine]? I'm interested to find out how you know those things.

                         "- References in those university curricula or course outlines or course notes?
                         "- Textbooks* more recent than yours where these are mentioned?
                         "- Patent numbers?
                         "- Links to companies and products of that sort?"


In my earlier post, I outlined the little-discussed "underbelly" of the entire "scientific, peer-review publishing process" -- how scientific discoveries actually make their way into "university curricula ... textbooks ... or receive patents and corporate funds ..."; where, in fact, anonymous "hit men" -- unknown to the authors of "disturbing" scientific papers -- can literally scuttle any publication (and thus, successful replication by other scientists) of any unwanted and/or disquieting scientific assault opon "the status quo." 

OUman's question (above) -- in the face of this reality -- is (at best ...) naive.

The fact that this CENSORED "anonymous peer-review" system is THE underlying Reality of Science in the 21st Century, is the "800-pound pink elephant in the room" ... that no one in the scientific community (except for a brave few ...) ever dares to talk about. 

So, how serious is this "secret 'voting' system" in peer-reviewed scientific journals -- against publishing true "scientific breakthroughs?"

Simply read Dr. Thomas Van Flandern's footnote (below), to his valiant (though failed) attempts to get a scientific paper on the potential "Intelligently-Designed Artifacts" at Cydonia (on Mars) published in Nature magazine -- probably the world's most prestigeous, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Wrote Tom, of the "enlightening" experience:


" ... The [Cydonia] paper was submitted to Nature magazine for review and consideration for publication. It was rejected instantly without review. In a request for reconsideration, we learned that the magazine has a list of topics judged 'not suitable for Nature', and that the 'Face on Mars' has been on that list since the 1998 JPL-released image appeared. Upon further inquiry about the type of evidence that would be required to return a subject on that list to 'respectable science', we were told that the risk to the reputation of a commercial publisher such as Nature was too high for evidence alone to change the status of such a subject. A group of 'big name' scientists and their institutions would have to assume the risks involved in such a controversial action [emphasis added] ...."

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/asom/pressconf_nyc/Artificial%20Structures%20on%20Mars-NYC.htm


One can only speculate what ELSE is on "the list." 

Certainly ... experiments and/or scientific papers relating to "free energy" must be, according to these secret rules, also "totally forbidden" ....

Which is why democratic, world-wide Internet forums -- such as this -- are CRITICAL now ... to any real, further scientific progress! 

For, based on Tom Van Flandern's first-person testimony (a world-class, mainstream scientist, who was once in charge of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the US Naval Observatory!) -- true intellectual freedom. to publish "anomalous" scientific EVIDENCE ... no matter how robust! ... in the most visible of mainstream scientific publications--

Has demonstrably been lost ....


RCH

[OilBarren]

I would be considered inthane not to give you an attaboy for that! Very nice, very nice and neat indeed. I too would be interested how the different flux paths play out....

NOT INTHANE - JUST RATHER INCONTHANERATE. 
JUSTME WILL BE POSTING THE FINAL PRODUCT SOON (PHOTOS) AS SOON AS SHE IS DONE HEXXING ANOTHER HOCKEY FRANCHISE - TEST DATA TO FOLLOW WEDNESDAY.

Confession is good for the soul, so they say... I tried the previous model with the mot cores and
coils and couldn't get any action/reaction. I used a solid steel rotor, whereas your's seem to be all spoked, would that make the difference?

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND CONFESSIONS.
AND IT MIGHT HELP OTHERS AS WELL.

The present experiment has me on the edge of the chair. It is along the line of several patents
suggesting Lenzless operation and is a most novel setup,

THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS ABOUT LENZLESS OPERATION - OR DID YOU SLEEP THROUGH THAT CLASS?

why didn't I think of that?  I was, time permitting, wanting to try C cores and a dual rotor setup, but you have beat me to it. Ron

SELL YOUR BUSINESS - HAVE YOUR WIFE THROW YOU OUT AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME.

Thane