And then there's Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM, etc. You're just speculating until there are numbers to back up your claims. And right now, the only numbers I see are the netcraft survey that shows Apache with 63% of all web servers and rising. BTW, AOL runs AOLServer, which is their own open-source (!) web server, not IIS.
Repeat after me: Apache is the most popular web server. Microsoft does not make the most popular web server. Apache is the most popular web server. Microsoft does not make the most popular web server. Apache is the most popular web server. Microsoft does not make the most popular web server. Apache is the most popular web server. Microsoft does not make the most popular web server.
There. Hopefully we can put an end to the "hackers just target microsoft because they're most popular" argument right now.
Personally, I prefer XWT to XUL. XWT was inspired in part by XUL but it has significant differences. XWT is a very exciting project; it could make possible cross-platform network-transparent applications that are still as responsive as local applications even over modem connections. It doesn't require Mozilla; in fact it is a small plugin download for Windows, Linux, and Mac. And the best part is, XWT is 100% free and open-source, GPL and LGPL where appropriate. Try a demo, I think you'll be impressed.
WinMX has included ogg as one of it's search options in their newest client v3.3
Really? Woohoo! I love WinMX! Now if only they would make ogg part of the default search choice (MP3 or ogg any bitrate), release a Linux client, and hopefully go open-source. Maybe that goes against their business plan or something, but they haven't been at all clear what their business plan is. I assume they do have one...
Re:With that last question I ask another
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
They hate us because we take it upon ourselves to clean up their spilled milk.
HAHAHAHA! You really believe that because it's patented, that makes it the least bit more credible? HAHAHAHAHA! I'll believe in free energy the day I can buy a cellphone that never needs recharging, and not before. If I knew you, I'd seriously bet you a million dollars right now that this invention is total baloney. The only problem is, I'd never be able to collect because this guy would never admit he's wrong. When the invention failed to work for the umpteenth time under scientific scrutiny, he would have an explanation, and somebody would believe it. That's the way these guys work. There's a sucker born every minute.
It's fairly lengthy for an article on a subject that most people don't care that much about. You may lament the ignorance of the public, but I say that the public has better things to do than worry about the tech industry's problems; the tech industry can worry about its own problems. Yes these issues are important, but there are TONS of important things out there to worry about. Believe it or not, many of them are more important than Palladium.
Reading slashdot tends to give a warped view of issues like these. Think of all the important, weighty issues in politics and business and the environment and so on that you wouldn't bother to read a 2 page article about. Let the politicians and businessmen and environmentalists worry about their problems, and we about ours. It shouldn't be everyone's job to worry about everything.
It is more efficient to recapture the inertia of the car while braking, and most efficient electric vehicles nowadays already use this method. You can never recover the large amount of energy spent combating friction though, and you can only recapture the inertia while braking, because recapturing the inertia slows the car down.
Michael is right. If you look at the details on the site, it becomes obvious that what they are describing is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine. They describe an invention that somehow runs off of batteries, provides enough power to run a large motor, and also recharges the batteries it is draining. This is completely impossible without a source of free energy, and with free energy you have perpetual motion.
You can find this e-mail supposedly describing how the system works at the greaterthings.com site. IMHO it is the worst kind of self-important pseudoscientific garbage that is commonly found on the Internet, with the usual "of course, various large corporations are actively suppressing this technology," and "it is actually very simple but people are too closed-minded to see how it works." My favorite quote is, "...it does first require a dramatic change in the mindset of the experimenters and a completely different view of what you were taught as "conservation of energy." Riiiiiight.
Begin e-mail quote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Colvin
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: TEV - How It Works !!!
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXPERIMENTS ARE
HAZARDOUS. DO NOT ATTEMPT THESE EXPERIMENTS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNLESS YOU ARE
AN EXPERIENCED ELECTRICAL RESEARCHER, EXPERIENCED IN PERFORMING EXPERIMENTS WITH LEAD-ACID
BATTERIES AND PULSE CHARGE AND DISCHARGE OF SAME, AND UNLESS YOU ALSO USE ALL SAFETY
PRECAUTIONS SUCH AS GOGGLES AND PROTECTIVE GLOVES, SLEEVES, AND APRON. YOU MUST NOT
HAVE OTHER INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES PRESENT WHICH COULD BE IGNITED AND BURN
OR EXPLODE. SURGED LEAD-ACID BATTERIES PRODUCE HYDROGEN GAS, WHICH CAN EASILY
EXPLODE SINCE SPARKING ALSO CAN OCCUR. THE ACID FROM SUCH AN EXPLOSION CAN EASILY
BLIND YOU IF IT GETS IN YOUR EYES, AND IT CAN BURN YOUR SKIN. IN ADDITION, LEAD AND
LEAD COMPOUNDS ARE POISONS, AND ARE TO BE HANDLED ONLY BY EXPERIENCED RESEARCHERS.
THESE EXPERIMENTS ARE NOT FOR AMATEURS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT ONLY FOR EXPERIENCED
PROFESSIONALS WITH PROPER KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING,
More than one inventor has discovered or rediscovered a magic thing about
lead-acid storage batteries powering circuits, usually without understanding precisely
what it is that he has really discovered. The chemical and electrical actions going
on in a lead-acid cell are quite complex, and involve interactions in both the positive
plate, negative plate, and in the electrolyte itself. The usual chemical
interactions primarily specify the overall changes of the plate materials from one form to
the other (i.e., for charge and for discharge conditions). However,
there are many other ions (including both H+ which are free protons, and free electrons)
involved in the reactions.
Particularly significant is the double surface and overpotential effects. We
state without further elaboration that the proper use of the overpotentials in these
double surfaces can produce current that moves against the voltage. In other words,
there are processes available in the battery that allow -- under very precise conditions
-- parts of the battery to perform as negative resistors. When that action occurs,
the very notion of charge and discharge is reversed.
Further, the multiple currents and many nonlinear mechanisms involved, allow various
currents to move in opposite directions; some with the voltage and some against the
voltage. Again, we leave further analysis along that line to the experts, only
appealing to them that time-reversal effects must also be considered.
In other words, in addition to the external charges of molecules and atoms
that they normally consider, there are also ongoing a huge variety of nuclear currents and
charging that presently do not appear in any book on batteries, at least any I know of.
There are at least three major currents in such a battery: (1) the ion current in the
electrolyte, (2) the electron current in the conductors (electrode materials, terminal
connectors, etc), and (3) charge transfer reactions at the electrode/electrolyte
interfaces. For our purposes we shall consider primarily only the ion current and
the electron current, and we consider only lead-acid batteries. For an introduction
to various kinds of batteries, we refer the interested reader to a fine little text by
Vincent, and to other similar texts on modern batteries. For deep understanding of
the electrochemistry, we refer the reader to the full series of 13 volumes by Bockris and
Conway.
We shall also rather ignore the double layer effects, which are in fact quite important
because they are responsible for the producing overpotentials, phase shifting of currents,
etc. The present analysis can be materially deepened by taking into
account the double surface layers, their redistributions of charge, the internal
resistances of the cell to the various currents, etc. We leave that for the experts
and encourage that it be done. Here we just wish to get at the basic servomechanism
overshoot mechanism that one can evoke, which usually does not appear in conventional
analyses at all. This mechanism can be used to produce (1) currents (either ion or
electron or H+) moving against the voltage, (2) opposition charge densities which are then
volumetrically squeezed to produce large overpotentials not normally connected
with the charge transfer interactions at the double surfaces, and (3) specific phase
shifting of currents.
It is our contention that, by achieving proper timing of these overshoot effects in
battery in ionic current resonance, one can produce an asymmetrically self-regauging
battery which charges itself and also powers its load. For the purist, there are
also other mechanisms involved that are still unknown, hence accounting for the
adjustments and tuning that usually must be meticulously
performed.
For an equal charge, the ions in the lead ion current (say, in lead sulfate) are
several hundred thousand times more massive than the electrons in the electron current.
They are on the order of more than 200 times more massive than the H+ ions in that ionic
current. Further, the ionic current will resonate (and probably other currents
simultaneously as well, since resonance in this case probably represents a coordinated
resonance among different currents) as shown by Ahluktenko, usually in the multi-megahertz
range. Since the battery is so highly nonlinear in its dynamics, subharmonic and
harmonic resonance effects also are present, particularly subharmonic resonances. We
believe that it is also possible to couple and synchronize molecular oscillations, ion
current oscillations, and material lattice oscillations in the electrodes, in harmonic and
subharmonic oscillation fashion, but that is a quite different subject. Such more
subtle (but can be powerful) effects may occur onl
So you can resonate the ionic current, or the coordinated currents.
Relatively speaking -- that is a coordinated current dominated by massive ions with lots
of inertia and overshoot when the current tries to change intensity or reverse direction,
due to Lenz's law (an
induced emf in a conductor is always polarized in a direction so as to oppose the change
that causes the induced emf). In this case we have a multiplicity of Lenz's law
effects induced when we try to change the ionic current. Some of the accompanying
currents can be affected quite differently from the ion current. Because of this
Lenz law complex dynamics, a simple back pop to oppose the ion current, or to
accelerate it, is not a simple current and voltage matter at all. Indeed, the exact
relationships in such are a quite worthy study for some exotic physical chemistry.
So we just grossly summarize, with rules-of-thumb, and delay the precision to future
detailed studies by very fine laboratory teams.
Here's the rough secret: the chemistry of the battery is largely dominated and
affected by the ion current in the absence of overriding electron current, while the
external load is dominated and affected by the electron current alone. You can
easily pick a point in the ion current resonance cycle (say, when the ionic current in
resonance is in the battery-charging half cycle), and just instantly switch the
electron current to oppose it.
That's a bit of an oversimplification; you actually must get the phasing correct to
properly form new and increased overpotentials, precisely at the proper times so as to
charge the battery and/or powering the load. Note that with currents moving in
opposite directions, the intention is for one current to predominate in the battery in
charging mode, while another current or group predominates in the load in discharging
mode. If you powerfully oppose the ion current, Lenz's law is evoked powerfully, so
that the ion current actually increases its charge capability for a moment, due to its
massivity. The Lenz law emf and the back-popped emf also produce a tremendous stress
potential (a scalar potential by another name), energetically lifting the ions and
particles to a higher potential state.
That is, you momentarily increased the reaction cross section of those ions and
electrons etc., and so you increased the collector systems' dipolarity. Thus they
momentarily receive and collect excess energy from their increased asymmetry in their
active vacuum exchange. In short, they momentarily asymmetrically self-regauge,
which is taking on free excess energy from the vacuum. We note that the generation
of the Lenz law emf effect actually comes from the atomic nuclei, but do not further
explain it.
The point is, you just legitimately extracted excess energy from legitimate
environmental sources. You converted the system into an open dissipative system,
removing any necessity for it to conform to classical thermodynamics because it
momentarily is far from equilibrium with its active vacuum environment.
Further, the inertia of the ions together with the Lenz law effects, causes the ions to
continue in charging mode. This in turn volumetrically squeezes the
opposing charges into a smaller volume, further increasing the charge density and thereby
the potential magnitude (i.e., further increasing the asymmetry of all those
charges in the vacuum exchange, and thereby absorbing more energy from the vacuum).
The production of that charge density squeeze produces a new kind of
overpotential that we can use to power the load (i.e., in electron
discharge mode) at the same time that the ion current continues to charge the battery.
You've just got yourself a true free energy or negative resistor effect, if you can
master it and use it with proper timing. Note that by simple switching (very
sharply, in 5 nanoseconds or less) and phase relationships, you can take power electron
current in the external circuit in the discharge mode, by simply letting this
overpotential be connected to the external circuit to energize the Drude electrons.
And you are momentarily doing that while you are still charging the battery.
Since you are going to be producing discharge pulses of Poynting energy flow from
the overpotentials onto the external circuit in brief spurts, it is wise to use the
pulse discharging to also charge a current smoothing capacitor of
proper capacitance. Therefore you convert your overpotential pulses in
the external circuit into smoothed rippling current through the load.
If you elaborate on these processes and play with them for awhile (like several
months!), you can also see how to phase things in either DC through the load
fashion, or AC through the load fashion.
But the point is, you really can induce one or more processes that allow simultaneously
charging the battery (changing the chemistry in the charging mode) while discharging
energy onto the Drude electron gas in the external circuit, powering them up and thereby
powering the load.
And you have not violated any laws of physics or thermodynamics, and the conservation
of energy law is enforced at all times.
Presently I know of no other book or paper that has such as its stated goal. The
books and current research seem to all try to coherently organize and
synchronize the various battery processes and currents to maximize charging
and maximize discharging efficiency, while keeping the two completely separate.
On the other hand, our purpose is to decoherently organize and synchronize the
various battery processes and currents, to accomplish charging of the battery and
discharging through the load to power it, simultaneously. In short, we seek to
convert the battery and its processes into an open dissipative system capable of overunity
operation, and all the way to self-powering operation while powering a load also.
The ion current can only sluggishly slow to a stop for its reversal; it requires it a
finite amount of time to do that. So it continues right on charging the battery for
awhile. During that ion current hysteresis or overshoot time, you have a tremendous
charge density squeeze occurring. This gives you an overpotential to
use, and you can use it in dramatically different manners, simultaneously, on differing
current types.
So you produce a large overpotential in spike or very sudden buildup,
essentially for free or nearly so. The other end of that overpotential
can be connected (switched onto) the load to deliver a surge of power (sorry for the
normal terminology!) in the load because of the surge of the overpotential
across it. If you time it correctly, you can get a much higher voltage surge from
that overpotential, across the load's impedance. And that means you generate a
higher electron current through that load, which consequently produces greater power
because of the overpotential, than what you yourself had to pay for.
Clever devil that you are, you used that massive old ion current's overshoot to
squeeze the charge density dramatically upward and almost freely form that
overpotential for you. Then you adroitly (and quite suddenly) connected that
overpotential near its peak, right across the external circuit electrons, to power the
load, and let 'er rip.
After all, applying a voltage V to a circuit is in fact asymmetrically regauging
that circuit and changing its collected energy. The magnitude of D
V or overpotential is a measure of the additional amount of asymmetrical self-regauging of
the system you obtained. It's a measure of how much more the system was
opened to receiving excess energy freely from its active vacuum potential
environment.
Who says you must have all the currents in the entire battery-external circuit systems
all in phase or nearly so? Simply put, you wish the ion current in the battery to be
about 180 out of phase with the electron current in the load. And as the ion
current oscillates, you wish it highly overpotentialized in the charge mode, and very much
less potentialized in its discharge half cycle (for resonance conditions).
You need just the opposite in the electron current through the load. You need
that current highly potentialized whenever it is flowing through the load. If you
use DC power in the load, you must disconnect the overpotential formed by the back-popping
squeeze and let the smoothing capacitor discharge to power the load, during
the discharge half of the ion current
Let me warn you that you must use microwave switching techniques, and you must switch
in 5 nanoseconds or less; one nanosecond is better. The entire overpotential is
likely to be over in about 20 to 40 nanoseconds, depending upon the specific battery,
load, and other circuit conditions. Capacitance effects may extend this in some
cases up to a microsecond. So if all you know is ordinary motor switching, go get
the services of a microwave switching engineer first. The average motor
switching fellow will be amazed at the notion of switching so suddenly. The
microwave switching engineer will simply shrug his shoulders and say, Piece of
cake! He does that every day without a second's hesitation.
But as you can see, working your way through all this and getting everything timed just
right, is still a significant undertaking. It's not a simple thing at all. You
can also see why so many ordinary switching guys have failed at it, and why most of them
were incapable of replicating John Bedini's little battery-popping self-powered motor
system.
If you are very clever with your measurements and timing, you can get that ion current
to keep on resonating, and use it as a very stiff oscillating spring on which
to store and release larger amounts of energy in terms of electron charges and potentials.
You can manipulate the potentials, including the overpotential.
You can essentially do what Nikola Tesla did in his circuits: You can shuttle potential
and potential energy in different directions in different parts of your overall circuit,
use multiple currents and multiple current directions. You can control what you do
energetically in the various parts of the circuit. And you can eliminate the back-emf
phenomenon that in the normal current loop with single current type is responsible for
always killing the source dipole. Now you can continually restore the dipole and
power the load independently, simultaneously.
There are many variations on the above, at least four major ones. There are many
additional ones when you apply other timed oscillations (LC oscillators), inductors, etc.
to the circuit. In all, there are at least a hundred or more major variations you
can make to this basic circuit operation. All have something to be said for them.
Various inventors have discovered various ones of them.
The end result is the partial removal of the Lorentz condition that is normally
restored by forcing the killing of the source dipole. Now you can dramatically
reduce the amount of killing, and in fact have a net restoring,
while at the same time increasing the power in the load.
A Recommendation to the Department of Energy
We urge the experienced electrical laboratory teams in the DOE to give this one a real
try. It's nearly all just ordinary theory, only with multiple currents having
dramatically different response characteristics, all in the same circuit loop. There
is also a little servomechanism theory involved, as well as the charge density
squeeze to provide a large overpotential. You need microwave switching, and
asymmetrical self-regauging thrown in. It's quite straight forward, it can fairly
readily be made to work by an experienced lab team, and it's not expensive. But it
does first require a dramatic change in the mindset of the experimenters and a completely
different view of what you were taught as conservation of energy. If you
cannot get past that orthodox practice of accounting only for the dissipated Poynting
energy component, you will never understand it or do it. You are also treating and
using a battery as the highly nonlinear system it really is, not just as
We again strongly warn the reader against casually experimenting with this, unless you
are an experienced researcher, know what you are doing, and take proper precautions! This
is for experienced lab people only. Even then, they must use all the proper
procedures and precautions. You experiment with this at your own legally assumed
risk.
Still, big financial empires don't give up their empires without a real fight -- by
fair means or foul. And that fight includes the ruthless suppression of true
negative resistors. Such as the really excellent battery poppers.
John Bedini is one of the most creative inventors on this planet. He is also a
close friend and colleague. It was my great privilege to be able to work with John
for several years. Though it was sad that he had such an inept pupil!
John built several experimental motors (both electrical and magnetic) in the overunity
area, and performed successful transmutation experiments. John is a recognized
genius in high-end sound amplifier development. Many audiophiles worldwide still
swear that the Bedini amplifier is the best and sweetest-sounding audio amplifier ever
built. Even the test engineers for leading audiophile magazines have said so.
One of John's battery-powered electrical motors, e.g., ran continuously off its battery
for about five years, and kept the battery charged. When you realize that such a
small electric motor is only about 35% efficient, then you realize that about 65% of the
energy flowing out of the battery was being dissipated in the motor as heat, core losses,
etc. So the unit was continuously performing work for that five years. The 1/8
hp motor represented a load in which the continuous rate of work being done (the rate of
energy dissipation) was about 0.08 hp.
The little device was a battery-popper, and we have already covered the theory of such
units in the treatise above. We need not repeat it here.
John built a variety of other motors and generators, some of extremely novel design.
Several of these units did work at overunity performance.
John also was active in assisting other young inventors to get started.
I can assure you of one thing. If I personally ever succeed in this area, then
there are a few people who are going to be endowed. John Bedini is right up there at
the top of the list.
Nelson's Self-Regenerating Back-Popped Battery Power
Unit
WE CALL THE READER'S ATTENTION AGAIN TO THE PREVIOUS WARNING IN BOLD PRINT. DO
NOT EXPERIMENT WITH THIS UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED EXPERIMENTER, PROPER QUALIFIED, AND
TAKE ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. YOU EXPERIMENT AT YOUR OWN ASSUMED RISK.
Microwave switching engineer Bill Nelson and a colleague became interested in Bedini's
little motor. So they met with John several times, discussed the theory of its
operation at length, and even called me a time or two to see what thoughts I had...
Once they thoroughly understood the principles, they reasoned that the motor was just a
load, and all the action was in the battery as controlled by the switcher. Bedini
confirmed that this was correct.
Being expert microwave switching engineers and not motor engineers, they just used an
ordinary lamp for the load. In the theory of such battery poppers below, we will see
that microwave switching techniques are required. However, that posed no problem for
Nelson and colleague.
Before very long, they had a battery-popper working in the overunity, self-powering
mode. It would keep its battery charged and also power the lamp.
Nelson took his little demonstrator to his work (a large aerospace engineering firm)
and showed it to his fellow engineers and scientists to test their reactions. He
stated that (1) a few were naïve and would believe anything anyway, (2) some would
instantly become hostile and disturbed and promptly leave, (3) some would become agitated
and immediately wish to argue, even in a tirade, and (4) a few would closely examine the
unit, with real scientific curiosity and open-mindedness though skeptical...
At one time Nelson investigated putting a little kit on the market, but legally it was
inadvisable. Popped lead acid batteries produce hydrogen gas and can explode.
Someone very naïve would have hurt themselves, and entered a lawsuit.
So there the matter rested. We corresponded sporadically for a few years, then
that was that. But Nelson and colleague had demonstrated both the necessary and
sufficient things to prove the concept and mechanism: (1) independent replication and (2)
independent qualified testing which showed overunity operation.
Watson's 8 kW Battery-Popper Motor
WE CALL THE READER'S ATTENTION AGAIN TO THE PREVIOUS WARNING IN BOLD PRINT. DO
NOT EXPERIMENT WITH THIS UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED EXPERIMENTER, PROPER QUALIFIED, AND
TAKE ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. YOU EXPERIMENT AT YOUR OWN ASSUMED RISK.
Jim Watson successfully replicated Bedini's device (with direct advice from Bedini).
Watson made improvements and modifications, and eventually was able to build one and
adjust it as he wished. He demonstrated an 8 kW device at the first International
Tesla conference in Colorado Springs.
Later Watson was moving toward development and marketing.
Then Watson and his entire family disappeared. Neither Bedini nor I could locate
him. Neither could his financial backer, the late R. J. Reynolds III.
This was a researcher and friend whom I was in contact with several times a week.
Then bingo! Nothing further.
He abruptly and completely broke off all communication with everyone. A
squirrelly message was left on his answering machine for a few days, saying he had moved
(but not in Jim's voice). Then it too was removed. And that was that.
Eerily, it seems that if you call the police in the town where Jim Watson lived, they
will tell you he still lives there on the same street in the same house. At least
that's what they told a friend of mine who checked a few months ago, which is years after
Jim and his family originally disappeared. And that check may be the oddest thing of
all. The police implied on the phone that Jim and his family never
disappeared. Everything fine. AOK. And that's a bald-faced lie. He
and his family did disappear. No one could find them, regardless of how they tried.
His financial backer couldn't even find him.
The clear implication is, stay away from that one. Somebody from the
dark side may have made Jim the offer he could not refuse. One may
never know what really happened, whether or not Jim ever surfaces again -- or has already
surfaced again and is living there very, very quietly. But Jim's entire overunity
motor effort ended abruptly, even though highly successful. And even though the
motor was almost ready to be put into production.
Watson has not been seen at an energy conference since that sudden mysterious
disappearance. No one has had a phone call from him. I have not found anyone I
trust who has seen him again.
You have not seen a Watson overunity power system go to market. You almost
certainly never will.
Yet Jim's device was perfected to the point where he could make the things like
pretzels, adjust them readily, and they worked every time. They could have been put
into mass production very easily. Obviously that made him a grave threat to the
Energy Cartels around the world.
At rare intervals, the Energy Cartel does suppress an invention and an inventor by
making the inventor an offer he cannot refuse, in Mafia terms. Presently
the going price when that offer is made, is $10 million. You take your $10 million,
quit all research, quit your contacts, and you live. But you live very quietly,
although you live very well financially.
The engineers who measured Jim's 8 kW machine there in Colorado Springs are still
alive. And they know what they measured.
There's one other little thing. At that same International Tesla Conference in
Colorado Springs, the folks who were in charge (for the energy barons) of suppressing all
successful overunity devices in the Western world were also there when Jim demonstrated
his 8 kW device. There is a certain effect which happens in a battery sometimes for
a large overunity battery popper unit like that, if the device is for real.
Time-reversal operations and wave transductions can occur, resulting in time-excitation
charging inside the battery materials, in a negative time charge sense (remember, the
overunity operation is a negentropic operation). After a machine of that type and
with that particular internal effects has been used to furnish energy for quite a while,
you can make a definitive test on it. Simply hook it to a normal battery charger for
that size battery, and start to charge it. You then may find to your surprise that
the power will just seem to disappear in that batte
The reason is that wave transduction occurs of your charging spatial energy into
time-energy, and so you have to furnish rather enormous energy to get a little bit of that
negative-time charge reversed. After you fill that seemingly bottomless
pit, then suddenly the negative time-charge will have been eliminated, and at that
point the battery will start to charge up in quite normal fashion.
It is significant that Jim's battery was stolen right out of the machine. Whoever
did it, almost certainly knew how to test it to find out if Jim's generator was actually a
true overunity device. If so, then they tested it and found that indeed it was
genuine.
And there was only one group there who would have known that little tidbit.
What does iSCSI offer that makes it better than, say, NFS? I mean, can't you network boot with NFS just as easily as iSCSI? And isn't the filesystem layer a better place to have the network transparency than the close-to-the-hardware SCSI layer?
No, all the dark fibre we have in the states may be lit up in the future because a cheaper new way of bridging the last mile has just been invented. There's no reason to replace already-installed fibre, it's not "obsolete".
Why do you need different fonts? Fonts are for layout and presentation, not for communicating instructions to the computer.
This is EXACTLY the attitude that literate programming tries to discourage. The philosophy of literate programming is that the most important thing to do is communicate the intent of the code to the reader. Communicating things to the computer is secondary (though still important of course). It sounds funny at first (I hear you saying "but the whole *point* of programming is..."). But if everyone who reads the code can figure out exactly what it is supposed to be doing, it becomes much easier to modify and debug.
If you make a mistake in the code, it is much easier to find if you can compare the code to its documentation to find the discrepency. If you make a mistake in the documentation, it is much easier to find than a mistake in code because it is spelled out in plain english. It makes sense if you think about it.
You don't have to give NYT your personal information to read their stories. I'm not talking about the random NYT registration generator either. Just go to http://www.asahi.com/english/nyt/ and you get all the stories with none of the annoyance. The technology section contains several other interesting stories besides this one.
Well, the Free Linux games scene is not very big. Most of the Free games available for Linux are, to put it bluntly, not fun. Some are not fun because they have performance problems (GL games w/o 3D card), some are not fun because you can't get them to work, some are not fun because they have horrible graphics (I'm talking to you, POV-Ray obsessed people!), some are not fun because they are just not good games.
The L-games avoid all these problems. They are high-quality, easy to install, they work without 3D hardware, they have nice fast graphics, and the gameplay is there. They are arguably some of the best Free games out there for Linux. The guy may be a learning hobbyist programmer, but the fact is that he has created some of the most fun Free Linux games. If that doesn't make him a "Linux games guru" I don't know what does.
Don't use LILO, use Grub! There is absolutely no reason for anyone to subject themselves to LILO any more now that we have Grub. Imagine: filename tab-completion, in a bootloader! Since grub can read your filesystems, you'll never be stuck needing to use a rescue disk if there is still a valid kernel somewhere on your HD. If you mess up the upgrade, you won't hose your system as long as you didn't delete your old kernel.
Nope! You can't disable the launching of explorer through this dialog, explorer is always launched as the shell no matter what you uncheck. Also, systray.exe, curiously enough, doesn't seem to affect the workings of the system tray. If you don't believe me, Ctrl-Alt-Del and kill it and see. I have a feeling it might be connected to the volume icon in the system tray, but I forget if I ever verified that suspicion. Anyways, Windows works fine without it.
My XP Pro machine includes msconfig. It might be because I upgraded from Win98 instead of installing from scratch, but it does appear to be a different version with more features than the Win98 one.
Here is what you do: Start->Run, type "msconfig" [without the quotes], press OK. Click the "Startup" tab, uncheck EVERY SINGLE BOX. [it is nearly impossible for you to break your system in this manner, none of the listed programs are required for Windows to boot up, even the important sounding ones like taskmon, so go crazy!] Now close out and reboot. Congratulations! You have successfully un-bloated your Windows installation! If you find that your keyboard volume buttons don't work or you are missing some other feature, do some investigation and find out which program provides the service you want, and only check its box. This simple procedure solves 99% of Windows slowness problems, and foils many adware programs and junkware like RealPlayer.
Well, I've never had much luck with any emulator but UltraHLE, which IMHO is a work of genius, but it isn't being developed anymore. I haven't tried any emulators recently though. But there's no mouselook, which to me is a big deal. If I'm playing a PC FPS, I expect mouselook. And decent network play. And an emulator will always require much more of a PC than a native game. Goldeneye would probably run smooth as silk on my old machine as a port (the graphics, while they have held up well, do have very low polygon counts and small textures compared to most computer games), but there's no way an emulator is going to run very fast at all. UltraHLE was the fastest I've seen by a mile and Goldeneye still ran slowly on my machine (I tried it, had glitches). Mario 64 was fun though:-)
No, the real sad thing is, Halo never deserved to be the Big Thing in the first place. It's an OK game I guess, but it can't touch the real greats like Half-Life or Goldeneye for fun. What I wish is that someone would port Goldeneye to the PC. I don't even care if they didn't enhance it, it would still be able to stand up to any PC game now on the market in sheer funness.
Alt-F2, man, Alt-F2! Run Command has no business on the desktop context menu, because items on context menus should relate directly to their parent object. Context menus shouldn't be a generic drop-box for misc. useful items, because they have a specific context. Running a command line does not directly relate to the context of the desktop, which is a temporary repository for files and/or a place for keeping frequently used icons (though the panel is better for that). If anything, the "Run Command" item should be on the K menu (and I think it can be, optionally). However, simply having a keyboard shortcut for the "run command" window makes lots of sense since you need to use the keyboard anyway once you bring it up.
There is a problem with this argument: If the person has file extensions turned off so he never sees them, and is also stupid enough to be fooled by this trick, how could he possibly know that.jpg meant a JPEG file, and furthermore know what the heck a JPEG file is and why it is less likely to infect his computer with a virus than an exe? The problem is not hiding of extensions, the problem is that users don't even know that files have different types that have different likelihoods of containing a virus. They just see an "attachment" and they click on it. If you asked them they wouldn't be able to tell you what type of file the attachment was (they probably wouldn't understand the question).
Slashdot Mirror
And then there's Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM, etc. You're just speculating until there are numbers to back up your claims. And right now, the only numbers I see are the netcraft survey that shows Apache with 63% of all web servers and rising. BTW, AOL runs AOLServer, which is their own open-source (!) web server, not IIS.
Repeat after me: Apache is the most popular web server. Microsoft does not make the most popular web server. Apache is the most popular web server. Microsoft does not make the most popular web server. Apache is the most popular web server. Microsoft does not make the most popular web server. Apache is the most popular web server. Microsoft does not make the most popular web server.
There. Hopefully we can put an end to the "hackers just target microsoft because they're most popular" argument right now.
Personally, I prefer XWT to XUL. XWT was inspired in part by XUL but it has significant differences. XWT is a very exciting project; it could make possible cross-platform network-transparent applications that are still as responsive as local applications even over modem connections. It doesn't require Mozilla; in fact it is a small plugin download for Windows, Linux, and Mac. And the best part is, XWT is 100% free and open-source, GPL and LGPL where appropriate. Try a demo, I think you'll be impressed.
Really? Woohoo! I love WinMX! Now if only they would make ogg part of the default search choice (MP3 or ogg any bitrate), release a Linux client, and hopefully go open-source. Maybe that goes against their business plan or something, but they haven't been at all clear what their business plan is. I assume they do have one...
They hate us because we take it upon ourselves to clean up their spilled milk.
Reading slashdot tends to give a warped view of issues like these. Think of all the important, weighty issues in politics and business and the environment and so on that you wouldn't bother to read a 2 page article about. Let the politicians and businessmen and environmentalists worry about their problems, and we about ours. It shouldn't be everyone's job to worry about everything.
It is more efficient to recapture the inertia of the car while braking, and most efficient electric vehicles nowadays already use this method. You can never recover the large amount of energy spent combating friction though, and you can only recapture the inertia while braking, because recapturing the inertia slows the car down.
Michael is right. If you look at the details on the site, it becomes obvious that what they are describing is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine. They describe an invention that somehow runs off of batteries, provides enough power to run a large motor, and also recharges the batteries it is draining. This is completely impossible without a source of free energy, and with free energy you have perpetual motion.
Begin e-mail quote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Colvin
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: TEV - How It Works !!!
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXPERIMENTS ARE HAZARDOUS. DO NOT ATTEMPT THESE EXPERIMENTS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED ELECTRICAL RESEARCHER, EXPERIENCED IN PERFORMING EXPERIMENTS WITH LEAD-ACID BATTERIES AND PULSE CHARGE AND DISCHARGE OF SAME, AND UNLESS YOU ALSO USE ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS SUCH AS GOGGLES AND PROTECTIVE GLOVES, SLEEVES, AND APRON. YOU MUST NOT HAVE OTHER INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES PRESENT WHICH COULD BE IGNITED AND BURN OR EXPLODE. SURGED LEAD-ACID BATTERIES PRODUCE HYDROGEN GAS, WHICH CAN EASILY EXPLODE SINCE SPARKING ALSO CAN OCCUR. THE ACID FROM SUCH AN EXPLOSION CAN EASILY BLIND YOU IF IT GETS IN YOUR EYES, AND IT CAN BURN YOUR SKIN. IN ADDITION, LEAD AND LEAD COMPOUNDS ARE POISONS, AND ARE TO BE HANDLED ONLY BY EXPERIENCED RESEARCHERS. THESE EXPERIMENTS ARE NOT FOR AMATEURS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT ONLY FOR EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS WITH PROPER KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING,
More than one inventor has discovered or rediscovered a magic thing about lead-acid storage batteries powering circuits, usually without understanding precisely what it is that he has really discovered. The chemical and electrical actions going on in a lead-acid cell are quite complex, and involve interactions in both the positive plate, negative plate, and in the electrolyte itself. The usual chemical interactions primarily specify the overall changes of the plate materials from one form to the other (i.e., for charge and for discharge conditions). However, there are many other ions (including both H+ which are free protons, and free electrons) involved in the reactions.
Particularly significant is the double surface and overpotential effects. We state without further elaboration that the proper use of the overpotentials in these double surfaces can produce current that moves against the voltage. In other words, there are processes available in the battery that allow -- under very precise conditions -- parts of the battery to perform as negative resistors. When that action occurs, the very notion of charge and discharge is reversed.
Further, the multiple currents and many nonlinear mechanisms involved, allow various currents to move in opposite directions; some with the voltage and some against the voltage. Again, we leave further analysis along that line to the experts, only appealing to them that time-reversal effects must also be considered.
In other words, in addition to the external charges of molecules and atoms that they normally consider, there are also ongoing a huge variety of nuclear currents and charging that presently do not appear in any book on batteries, at least any I know of.
There are at least three major currents in such a battery: (1) the ion current in the electrolyte, (2) the electron current in the conductors (electrode materials, terminal connectors, etc), and (3) charge transfer reactions at the electrode/electrolyte interfaces. For our purposes we shall consider primarily only the ion current and the electron current, and we consider only lead-acid batteries. For an introduction to various kinds of batteries, we refer the interested reader to a fine little text by Vincent, and to other similar texts on modern batteries. For deep understanding of the electrochemistry, we refer the reader to the full series of 13 volumes by Bockris and Conway.
We shall also rather ignore the double layer effects, which are in fact quite important because they are responsible for the producing overpotentials, phase shifting of currents, etc. The present analysis can be materially deepened by taking into account the double surface layers, their redistributions of charge, the internal resistances of the cell to the various currents, etc. We leave that for the experts and encourage that it be done. Here we just wish to get at the basic servomechanism overshoot mechanism that one can evoke, which usually does not appear in conventional analyses at all. This mechanism can be used to produce (1) currents (either ion or electron or H+) moving against the voltage, (2) opposition charge densities which are then volumetrically squeezed to produce large overpotentials not normally connected with the charge transfer interactions at the double surfaces, and (3) specific phase shifting of currents.
It is our contention that, by achieving proper timing of these overshoot effects in battery in ionic current resonance, one can produce an asymmetrically self-regauging battery which charges itself and also powers its load. For the purist, there are also other mechanisms involved that are still unknown, hence accounting for the adjustments and tuning that usually must be meticulously performed.
For an equal charge, the ions in the lead ion current (say, in lead sulfate) are several hundred thousand times more massive than the electrons in the electron current. They are on the order of more than 200 times more massive than the H+ ions in that ionic current. Further, the ionic current will resonate (and probably other currents simultaneously as well, since resonance in this case probably represents a coordinated resonance among different currents) as shown by Ahluktenko, usually in the multi-megahertz range. Since the battery is so highly nonlinear in its dynamics, subharmonic and harmonic resonance effects also are present, particularly subharmonic resonances. We believe that it is also possible to couple and synchronize molecular oscillations, ion current oscillations, and material lattice oscillations in the electrodes, in harmonic and subharmonic oscillation fashion, but that is a quite different subject. Such more subtle (but can be powerful) effects may occur onl
So you can resonate the ionic current, or the coordinated currents. Relatively speaking -- that is a coordinated current dominated by massive ions with lots of inertia and overshoot when the current tries to change intensity or reverse direction, due to Lenz's law (an induced emf in a conductor is always polarized in a direction so as to oppose the change that causes the induced emf). In this case we have a multiplicity of Lenz's law effects induced when we try to change the ionic current. Some of the accompanying currents can be affected quite differently from the ion current. Because of this Lenz law complex dynamics, a simple back pop to oppose the ion current, or to accelerate it, is not a simple current and voltage matter at all. Indeed, the exact relationships in such are a quite worthy study for some exotic physical chemistry.
So we just grossly summarize, with rules-of-thumb, and delay the precision to future detailed studies by very fine laboratory teams.
Here's the rough secret: the chemistry of the battery is largely dominated and affected by the ion current in the absence of overriding electron current, while the external load is dominated and affected by the electron current alone. You can easily pick a point in the ion current resonance cycle (say, when the ionic current in resonance is in the battery-charging half cycle), and just instantly switch the electron current to oppose it.
That's a bit of an oversimplification; you actually must get the phasing correct to properly form new and increased overpotentials, precisely at the proper times so as to charge the battery and/or powering the load. Note that with currents moving in opposite directions, the intention is for one current to predominate in the battery in charging mode, while another current or group predominates in the load in discharging mode. If you powerfully oppose the ion current, Lenz's law is evoked powerfully, so that the ion current actually increases its charge capability for a moment, due to its massivity. The Lenz law emf and the back-popped emf also produce a tremendous stress potential (a scalar potential by another name), energetically lifting the ions and particles to a higher potential state.
That is, you momentarily increased the reaction cross section of those ions and electrons etc., and so you increased the collector systems' dipolarity. Thus they momentarily receive and collect excess energy from their increased asymmetry in their active vacuum exchange. In short, they momentarily asymmetrically self-regauge, which is taking on free excess energy from the vacuum. We note that the generation of the Lenz law emf effect actually comes from the atomic nuclei, but do not further explain it.
The point is, you just legitimately extracted excess energy from legitimate environmental sources. You converted the system into an open dissipative system, removing any necessity for it to conform to classical thermodynamics because it momentarily is far from equilibrium with its active vacuum environment.
Further, the inertia of the ions together with the Lenz law effects, causes the ions to continue in charging mode. This in turn volumetrically squeezes the opposing charges into a smaller volume, further increasing the charge density and thereby the potential magnitude (i.e., further increasing the asymmetry of all those charges in the vacuum exchange, and thereby absorbing more energy from the vacuum). The production of that charge density squeeze produces a new kind of overpotential that we can use to power the load (i.e., in electron discharge mode) at the same time that the ion current continues to charge the battery.
You've just got yourself a true free energy or negative resistor effect, if you can master it and use it with proper timing. Note that by simple switching (very sharply, in 5 nanoseconds or less) and phase relationships, you can take power electron current in the external circuit in the discharge mode, by simply letting this overpotential be connected to the external circuit to energize the Drude electrons. And you are momentarily doing that while you are still charging the battery.
Since you are going to be producing discharge pulses of Poynting energy flow from the overpotentials onto the external circuit in brief spurts, it is wise to use the pulse discharging to also charge a current smoothing capacitor of proper capacitance. Therefore you convert your overpotential pulses in the external circuit into smoothed rippling current through the load.
If you elaborate on these processes and play with them for awhile (like several months!), you can also see how to phase things in either DC through the load fashion, or AC through the load fashion.
But the point is, you really can induce one or more processes that allow simultaneously charging the battery (changing the chemistry in the charging mode) while discharging energy onto the Drude electron gas in the external circuit, powering them up and thereby powering the load.
And you have not violated any laws of physics or thermodynamics, and the conservation of energy law is enforced at all times.
Presently I know of no other book or paper that has such as its stated goal. The books and current research seem to all try to coherently organize and synchronize the various battery processes and currents to maximize charging and maximize discharging efficiency, while keeping the two completely separate. On the other hand, our purpose is to decoherently organize and synchronize the various battery processes and currents, to accomplish charging of the battery and discharging through the load to power it, simultaneously. In short, we seek to convert the battery and its processes into an open dissipative system capable of overunity operation, and all the way to self-powering operation while powering a load also.
The ion current can only sluggishly slow to a stop for its reversal; it requires it a finite amount of time to do that. So it continues right on charging the battery for awhile. During that ion current hysteresis or overshoot time, you have a tremendous charge density squeeze occurring. This gives you an overpotential to use, and you can use it in dramatically different manners, simultaneously, on differing current types.
So you produce a large overpotential in spike or very sudden buildup, essentially for free or nearly so. The other end of that overpotential can be connected (switched onto) the load to deliver a surge of power (sorry for the normal terminology!) in the load because of the surge of the overpotential across it. If you time it correctly, you can get a much higher voltage surge from that overpotential, across the load's impedance. And that means you generate a higher electron current through that load, which consequently produces greater power because of the overpotential, than what you yourself had to pay for.
Clever devil that you are, you used that massive old ion current's overshoot to squeeze the charge density dramatically upward and almost freely form that overpotential for you. Then you adroitly (and quite suddenly) connected that overpotential near its peak, right across the external circuit electrons, to power the load, and let 'er rip.
After all, applying a voltage V to a circuit is in fact asymmetrically regauging that circuit and changing its collected energy. The magnitude of D V or overpotential is a measure of the additional amount of asymmetrical self-regauging of the system you obtained. It's a measure of how much more the system was opened to receiving excess energy freely from its active vacuum potential environment.
Who says you must have all the currents in the entire battery-external circuit systems all in phase or nearly so? Simply put, you wish the ion current in the battery to be about 180 out of phase with the electron current in the load. And as the ion current oscillates, you wish it highly overpotentialized in the charge mode, and very much less potentialized in its discharge half cycle (for resonance conditions).
You need just the opposite in the electron current through the load. You need that current highly potentialized whenever it is flowing through the load. If you use DC power in the load, you must disconnect the overpotential formed by the back-popping squeeze and let the smoothing capacitor discharge to power the load, during the discharge half of the ion current
Let me warn you that you must use microwave switching techniques, and you must switch in 5 nanoseconds or less; one nanosecond is better. The entire overpotential is likely to be over in about 20 to 40 nanoseconds, depending upon the specific battery, load, and other circuit conditions. Capacitance effects may extend this in some cases up to a microsecond. So if all you know is ordinary motor switching, go get the services of a microwave switching engineer first. The average motor switching fellow will be amazed at the notion of switching so suddenly. The microwave switching engineer will simply shrug his shoulders and say, Piece of cake! He does that every day without a second's hesitation.
But as you can see, working your way through all this and getting everything timed just right, is still a significant undertaking. It's not a simple thing at all. You can also see why so many ordinary switching guys have failed at it, and why most of them were incapable of replicating John Bedini's little battery-popping self-powered motor system.
If you are very clever with your measurements and timing, you can get that ion current to keep on resonating, and use it as a very stiff oscillating spring on which to store and release larger amounts of energy in terms of electron charges and potentials. You can manipulate the potentials, including the overpotential.
You can essentially do what Nikola Tesla did in his circuits: You can shuttle potential and potential energy in different directions in different parts of your overall circuit, use multiple currents and multiple current directions. You can control what you do energetically in the various parts of the circuit. And you can eliminate the back-emf phenomenon that in the normal current loop with single current type is responsible for always killing the source dipole. Now you can continually restore the dipole and power the load independently, simultaneously.
There are many variations on the above, at least four major ones. There are many additional ones when you apply other timed oscillations (LC oscillators), inductors, etc. to the circuit. In all, there are at least a hundred or more major variations you can make to this basic circuit operation. All have something to be said for them. Various inventors have discovered various ones of them.
The end result is the partial removal of the Lorentz condition that is normally restored by forcing the killing of the source dipole. Now you can dramatically reduce the amount of killing, and in fact have a net restoring, while at the same time increasing the power in the load.
A Recommendation to the Department of Energy
We urge the experienced electrical laboratory teams in the DOE to give this one a real try. It's nearly all just ordinary theory, only with multiple currents having dramatically different response characteristics, all in the same circuit loop. There is also a little servomechanism theory involved, as well as the charge density squeeze to provide a large overpotential. You need microwave switching, and asymmetrical self-regauging thrown in. It's quite straight forward, it can fairly readily be made to work by an experienced lab team, and it's not expensive. But it does first require a dramatic change in the mindset of the experimenters and a completely different view of what you were taught as conservation of energy. If you cannot get past that orthodox practice of accounting only for the dissipated Poynting energy component, you will never understand it or do it. You are also treating and using a battery as the highly nonlinear system it really is, not just as
We again strongly warn the reader against casually experimenting with this, unless you are an experienced researcher, know what you are doing, and take proper precautions! This is for experienced lab people only. Even then, they must use all the proper procedures and precautions. You experiment with this at your own legally assumed risk.
Still, big financial empires don't give up their empires without a real fight -- by fair means or foul. And that fight includes the ruthless suppression of true negative resistors. Such as the really excellent battery poppers.
Bedini's Battery-Popper Motor
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/john.html
John Bedini is one of the most creative inventors on this planet. He is also a close friend and colleague. It was my great privilege to be able to work with John for several years. Though it was sad that he had such an inept pupil!
John built several experimental motors (both electrical and magnetic) in the overunity area, and performed successful transmutation experiments. John is a recognized genius in high-end sound amplifier development. Many audiophiles worldwide still swear that the Bedini amplifier is the best and sweetest-sounding audio amplifier ever built. Even the test engineers for leading audiophile magazines have said so.
One of John's battery-powered electrical motors, e.g., ran continuously off its battery for about five years, and kept the battery charged. When you realize that such a small electric motor is only about 35% efficient, then you realize that about 65% of the energy flowing out of the battery was being dissipated in the motor as heat, core losses, etc. So the unit was continuously performing work for that five years. The 1/8 hp motor represented a load in which the continuous rate of work being done (the rate of energy dissipation) was about 0.08 hp.
The little device was a battery-popper, and we have already covered the theory of such units in the treatise above. We need not repeat it here.
John built a variety of other motors and generators, some of extremely novel design. Several of these units did work at overunity performance.
John also was active in assisting other young inventors to get started.
I can assure you of one thing. If I personally ever succeed in this area, then there are a few people who are going to be endowed. John Bedini is right up there at the top of the list.
Nelson's Self-Regenerating Back-Popped Battery Power Unit
WE CALL THE READER'S ATTENTION AGAIN TO THE PREVIOUS WARNING IN BOLD PRINT. DO NOT EXPERIMENT WITH THIS UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED EXPERIMENTER, PROPER QUALIFIED, AND TAKE ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. YOU EXPERIMENT AT YOUR OWN ASSUMED RISK.
Microwave switching engineer Bill Nelson and a colleague became interested in Bedini's little motor. So they met with John several times, discussed the theory of its operation at length, and even called me a time or two to see what thoughts I had... Once they thoroughly understood the principles, they reasoned that the motor was just a load, and all the action was in the battery as controlled by the switcher. Bedini confirmed that this was correct.
Being expert microwave switching engineers and not motor engineers, they just used an ordinary lamp for the load. In the theory of such battery poppers below, we will see that microwave switching techniques are required. However, that posed no problem for Nelson and colleague.
Before very long, they had a battery-popper working in the overunity, self-powering mode. It would keep its battery charged and also power the lamp.
Nelson took his little demonstrator to his work (a large aerospace engineering firm) and showed it to his fellow engineers and scientists to test their reactions. He stated that (1) a few were naïve and would believe anything anyway, (2) some would instantly become hostile and disturbed and promptly leave, (3) some would become agitated and immediately wish to argue, even in a tirade, and (4) a few would closely examine the unit, with real scientific curiosity and open-mindedness though skeptical...
At one time Nelson investigated putting a little kit on the market, but legally it was inadvisable. Popped lead acid batteries produce hydrogen gas and can explode. Someone very naïve would have hurt themselves, and entered a lawsuit.
So there the matter rested. We corresponded sporadically for a few years, then that was that. But Nelson and colleague had demonstrated both the necessary and sufficient things to prove the concept and mechanism: (1) independent replication and (2) independent qualified testing which showed overunity operation.
Watson's 8 kW Battery-Popper Motor
WE CALL THE READER'S ATTENTION AGAIN TO THE PREVIOUS WARNING IN BOLD PRINT. DO NOT EXPERIMENT WITH THIS UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED EXPERIMENTER, PROPER QUALIFIED, AND TAKE ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. YOU EXPERIMENT AT YOUR OWN ASSUMED RISK.
Jim Watson successfully replicated Bedini's device (with direct advice from Bedini). Watson made improvements and modifications, and eventually was able to build one and adjust it as he wished. He demonstrated an 8 kW device at the first International Tesla conference in Colorado Springs.
Later Watson was moving toward development and marketing.
Then Watson and his entire family disappeared. Neither Bedini nor I could locate him. Neither could his financial backer, the late R. J. Reynolds III. This was a researcher and friend whom I was in contact with several times a week. Then bingo! Nothing further.
He abruptly and completely broke off all communication with everyone. A squirrelly message was left on his answering machine for a few days, saying he had moved (but not in Jim's voice). Then it too was removed. And that was that.
Eerily, it seems that if you call the police in the town where Jim Watson lived, they will tell you he still lives there on the same street in the same house. At least that's what they told a friend of mine who checked a few months ago, which is years after Jim and his family originally disappeared. And that check may be the oddest thing of all. The police implied on the phone that Jim and his family never disappeared. Everything fine. AOK. And that's a bald-faced lie. He and his family did disappear. No one could find them, regardless of how they tried. His financial backer couldn't even find him.
The clear implication is, stay away from that one. Somebody from the dark side may have made Jim the offer he could not refuse. One may never know what really happened, whether or not Jim ever surfaces again -- or has already surfaced again and is living there very, very quietly. But Jim's entire overunity motor effort ended abruptly, even though highly successful. And even though the motor was almost ready to be put into production.
Watson has not been seen at an energy conference since that sudden mysterious disappearance. No one has had a phone call from him. I have not found anyone I trust who has seen him again.
You have not seen a Watson overunity power system go to market. You almost certainly never will.
Yet Jim's device was perfected to the point where he could make the things like pretzels, adjust them readily, and they worked every time. They could have been put into mass production very easily. Obviously that made him a grave threat to the Energy Cartels around the world.
At rare intervals, the Energy Cartel does suppress an invention and an inventor by making the inventor an offer he cannot refuse, in Mafia terms. Presently the going price when that offer is made, is $10 million. You take your $10 million, quit all research, quit your contacts, and you live. But you live very quietly, although you live very well financially.
The engineers who measured Jim's 8 kW machine there in Colorado Springs are still alive. And they know what they measured.
There's one other little thing. At that same International Tesla Conference in Colorado Springs, the folks who were in charge (for the energy barons) of suppressing all successful overunity devices in the Western world were also there when Jim demonstrated his 8 kW device. There is a certain effect which happens in a battery sometimes for a large overunity battery popper unit like that, if the device is for real. Time-reversal operations and wave transductions can occur, resulting in time-excitation charging inside the battery materials, in a negative time charge sense (remember, the overunity operation is a negentropic operation). After a machine of that type and with that particular internal effects has been used to furnish energy for quite a while, you can make a definitive test on it. Simply hook it to a normal battery charger for that size battery, and start to charge it. You then may find to your surprise that the power will just seem to disappear in that batte
The reason is that wave transduction occurs of your charging spatial energy into time-energy, and so you have to furnish rather enormous energy to get a little bit of that negative-time charge reversed. After you fill that seemingly bottomless pit, then suddenly the negative time-charge will have been eliminated, and at that point the battery will start to charge up in quite normal fashion.
It is significant that Jim's battery was stolen right out of the machine. Whoever did it, almost certainly knew how to test it to find out if Jim's generator was actually a true overunity device. If so, then they tested it and found that indeed it was genuine.
And there was only one group there who would have known that little tidbit.
Dated: 1999
What does iSCSI offer that makes it better than, say, NFS? I mean, can't you network boot with NFS just as easily as iSCSI? And isn't the filesystem layer a better place to have the network transparency than the close-to-the-hardware SCSI layer?
No, all the dark fibre we have in the states may be lit up in the future because a cheaper new way of bridging the last mile has just been invented. There's no reason to replace already-installed fibre, it's not "obsolete".
What they REALLY meant was that when the astronauts get dressed in the morning, a thoughtlessly placed window causes them to flash the entire earth.
This is EXACTLY the attitude that literate programming tries to discourage. The philosophy of literate programming is that the most important thing to do is communicate the intent of the code to the reader. Communicating things to the computer is secondary (though still important of course). It sounds funny at first (I hear you saying "but the whole *point* of programming is..."). But if everyone who reads the code can figure out exactly what it is supposed to be doing, it becomes much easier to modify and debug.
If you make a mistake in the code, it is much easier to find if you can compare the code to its documentation to find the discrepency. If you make a mistake in the documentation, it is much easier to find than a mistake in code because it is spelled out in plain english. It makes sense if you think about it.
The L-games avoid all these problems. They are high-quality, easy to install, they work without 3D hardware, they have nice fast graphics, and the gameplay is there. They are arguably some of the best Free games out there for Linux. The guy may be a learning hobbyist programmer, but the fact is that he has created some of the most fun Free Linux games. If that doesn't make him a "Linux games guru" I don't know what does.
Don't use LILO, use Grub! There is absolutely no reason for anyone to subject themselves to LILO any more now that we have Grub. Imagine: filename tab-completion, in a bootloader! Since grub can read your filesystems, you'll never be stuck needing to use a rescue disk if there is still a valid kernel somewhere on your HD. If you mess up the upgrade, you won't hose your system as long as you didn't delete your old kernel.
Nope! You can't disable the launching of explorer through this dialog, explorer is always launched as the shell no matter what you uncheck. Also, systray.exe, curiously enough, doesn't seem to affect the workings of the system tray. If you don't believe me, Ctrl-Alt-Del and kill it and see. I have a feeling it might be connected to the volume icon in the system tray, but I forget if I ever verified that suspicion. Anyways, Windows works fine without it.
My XP Pro machine includes msconfig. It might be because I upgraded from Win98 instead of installing from scratch, but it does appear to be a different version with more features than the Win98 one.
Here is what you do: Start->Run, type "msconfig" [without the quotes], press OK. Click the "Startup" tab, uncheck EVERY SINGLE BOX. [it is nearly impossible for you to break your system in this manner, none of the listed programs are required for Windows to boot up, even the important sounding ones like taskmon, so go crazy!] Now close out and reboot. Congratulations! You have successfully un-bloated your Windows installation! If you find that your keyboard volume buttons don't work or you are missing some other feature, do some investigation and find out which program provides the service you want, and only check its box. This simple procedure solves 99% of Windows slowness problems, and foils many adware programs and junkware like RealPlayer.
Well, I've never had much luck with any emulator but UltraHLE, which IMHO is a work of genius, but it isn't being developed anymore. I haven't tried any emulators recently though. But there's no mouselook, which to me is a big deal. If I'm playing a PC FPS, I expect mouselook. And decent network play. And an emulator will always require much more of a PC than a native game. Goldeneye would probably run smooth as silk on my old machine as a port (the graphics, while they have held up well, do have very low polygon counts and small textures compared to most computer games), but there's no way an emulator is going to run very fast at all. UltraHLE was the fastest I've seen by a mile and Goldeneye still ran slowly on my machine (I tried it, had glitches). Mario 64 was fun though :-)
No, the real sad thing is, Halo never deserved to be the Big Thing in the first place. It's an OK game I guess, but it can't touch the real greats like Half-Life or Goldeneye for fun. What I wish is that someone would port Goldeneye to the PC. I don't even care if they didn't enhance it, it would still be able to stand up to any PC game now on the market in sheer funness.
Alt-F2, man, Alt-F2! Run Command has no business on the desktop context menu, because items on context menus should relate directly to their parent object. Context menus shouldn't be a generic drop-box for misc. useful items, because they have a specific context. Running a command line does not directly relate to the context of the desktop, which is a temporary repository for files and/or a place for keeping frequently used icons (though the panel is better for that). If anything, the "Run Command" item should be on the K menu (and I think it can be, optionally). However, simply having a keyboard shortcut for the "run command" window makes lots of sense since you need to use the keyboard anyway once you bring it up.
I invoke Godwin's Law. YHL. HAND!
There is a problem with this argument: If the person has file extensions turned off so he never sees them, and is also stupid enough to be fooled by this trick, how could he possibly know that .jpg meant a JPEG file, and furthermore know what the heck a JPEG file is and why it is less likely to infect his computer with a virus than an exe? The problem is not hiding of extensions, the problem is that users don't even know that files have different types that have different likelihoods of containing a virus. They just see an "attachment" and they click on it. If you asked them they wouldn't be able to tell you what type of file the attachment was (they probably wouldn't understand the question).