It has been a while since we had a board meeting, but Management (Elaine) and Labor (me) are about to embark on our summer rest break.

Driving across the country isn’t a rest break – especially since I have everything right down to the pee stops worked out in advance in Excel.  One of us drives, the other bitches.  And when we run out of things to whine about we can turn on Rush which is the only thing on radio on the AM band out  here in Fly-Over Country between Texas and Idaho.

You are a member of our board of directors by virtue of being here.  There is now director’s insurance, no compensation, and if you want executive travel perks, it will be on your dime not ours.

With that out of the way:

1. Should we carry more of a weapon with us than George’s mouth?

I’ve been mulling this one over.  Part of me says if you carry a gun, you are asking for trouble.  Especially if you get pulled over.

If a cop asks “Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?”  Said officer might become concerned if I said “Why yes sir, I do.  I brought along 600 rounds of 7.62, an AK-47 and an SKS and a Ruger 9 MM…”

Even after explaining they were unloaded, no magazines inserted, and trigger locks on, I’m wondering if that would be the wise thing to do?  I mean, it’s not illegal per se, but people are getting crazier – and on both sides of the blue line.

2.  Second question is whether we should get our concealed carry permits once we’re back in Texas?

I am still going round and round on this one.  The way I figure it, if you tell people (via the concealed permit) that you likely have a gun, then you’re a target for when the great gun round up takes place.  I think it’s coming, but let’s see if the High Court completely screws the pooch on 2nd Amendment.  Near as I can tell, they can’t read well.

The other side is that a concealed permit means you my know enough to be safe with a gun and are not a lawbreaker with an illegal weapon.

I’m not sure there is a one size fits all in this.  We never travel at night, we are hyper-vigilant about where we stop, and we always pack heavy comms.

But comments are welcome because we like to get best of class ideas to choose from.  Thank you.

Antigravity II

A reader by the name of John (and thank you again, John) was kind enough to send me a note from a free energy journal he receives.  Included was this note from one of the participants:

Here is what I am working with at present:
In order to establish a connection of power into the background field, we can use the 9x octave structure.
We fracture the background field by 9, and establish two points of resonance that will set up a flow between them.
333 / 9 = 37
37 / 333 = 0.11111111111111…
The two points I am working with at present… 333 mm and 37 mm.
37 * 9 = 333
37 and 9 are the [factors] of 333
This is the river of Tom Bearden’s mental models, and the wheel work of nature of Tesla’s descriptions.

I felt compelled to share a bit of thinking on this point both with John – and now you – so you can have a sense of what’s going on in that pea-sized brain of mine: Here’s what I sent him:

While it is REMOTELY POSSIBLY that a nine-fractal relationship will work, we need to drop back to a baseline frequency which can only be established experimentally.

You see, when you begin with the experimenter begins with assumption like 333 mm and 37 mm, they demonstrate a belief that there is something “correct” about the arbitrary length of human measurement units.

Kanzius has established that there is the  vicinity of 14 MHz a region of spectrum where there is  measurable break-down of salt water into Brown’s gas.  (Oxygen and hydrogen.)

Let’s do an experiment:

Assume the Kanzius work finds an optimized frequency  is 14.0 mhz.

We know that the half-wave length of radio waves is 468/f(MHz) = half wavelength.

For 14 MHz this means 33.4285714 feet for the half wave. The  FULL wavelength of 14 MHz is  66,85714 feet.

To apply a 9-fractal relationship, we might then multiply the Kanzius half wave times 0.111111.  Which is a half wave of 3.7135 feet.

To translate this into a second frequency (in MHz) where the 9th fractal woo-woo MIGHT exist, we would divide  468  by the half wave  in feet to arrive at 126.926659 MHz.

OK, so this means the 9th harmonic.  Intuitively it’s worth testing, but I’m not holding my breath.

As you know there is a LOT of pseudo-science around the investigation of antigravity, there is an easy leap into the Dirac Sea to swim in a pool of imprecise thinking.

One of the ways this best expresses itself is in how we try to explain “science” through the use of arbitrary units of measurement.  The problem reduces (after simmering on the back burner of the contemplative brain for a while) to establishing a methodology for research that is “units independent.”

Nature is about relationships as Mandelbrot fans know.  However, when I read articles about supposed resonance of fractals, I have to take a huff on the oxygen tank (a small one helps with deep thinking from time to time) and ask “What the hell are people thinking?  Am I the only one who reads the basic physics books?”

Allow me to explain:  In wave theory, a resonance is a point at which an even (or odd) number of wavelength are evenly divisible into a longer/lower frequency.  Antenna modeling (which I’ve done) shows no perceptible magic at the 9th harmonic of RF.  The value is not fractal and the concept of fractal antennas is better described over here.  I’m presently working on a topologically anomalous antenna that may offer different performance compared with fractal “patch” antennas, but that’s another project for down the road.
The think to keep in mind is that when armchair physicists begin to wave around “so many octaves of this” or so many fractals of that practical application is the whole game.  Except for GHz and above, fractal antennas are of little interest.  I don’t think we’re even around the “right tree” yet with most of what’s on the net, but I would love to be proven wrong.

Let’s step back from the problem and look at the problem in a different way:

Smart apes invent a simple sine wave oscillator.

They then studiously apply all the mathematics they can imagine to argue that a more complex wave would allow them to do “magic.”

Perhaps, but likely not.

On the other hand, when you have a 4-by-4 matrix of tones (3-by-4 being displayed to civilians) you now have the frequency arrangement called DTMF.

That means dual tone, multi-frequency.

Better known as TouchTone®  dialing.

In today’s world, because there are so few barriers to entry in the “information space” we are constantly besieged by BS’er who can admittedly make up some grand math delusions.

But until someone can “reduces it to practice” I will hold the applause and instead work on some basics of physics with a two (or three) “tone” approach rather than quibbling.  I learned a long time ago not to quibble on math.  Hard, repeatable results on the other hand?  Kind of hard to argue those.

Kanzius has demonstrated direct breakdown of saltwater in an RF field at a know frequency.  So what are the additional frequencies that might push that simple reaction right up to the conservation of energy limits so we can unhook from gasoline?

The opportunity seems to be there.  The fundamental research I wrote about in Monday’s column may offer a path to finding the missing pieces for a breakthrough.

Which is why I read things like Edison’s notebooks, rather than internet sites unless I need a missing fact.  I don’t remember Leedskalnin or Tesla referring to the ‘net.  Trial and error men were what they were and each had plenty of errors, but once an opening was found, they were exploited.

It’s a matter of getting the right data set in front of the correctly-wired brain to look at the problem in just a certain light, or tested in such a way as to bridge across to the Breakthrough.

Thank you for your kind note, however.

I don’t like to leave stones unturned, but like the patient gold miner, I got a lot of river to work.  And much of it looks like mighty virgin territory where no one has methodically “dipped a pan.”  I’m a miner and gambler at heart.  I’ve demonstrated to my own satisfaction in markets that the tinkerer has a better shot than the one-trick pony math-slingers a good bit of the time.

Oh, they might be able to calculate the speed of an approaching train, but they will likely still be standing on the tracks by the time the train shows up.  The experimenter with a multivariate approach is more prone to those “Look Up!” moments at the heart of many breaks.

Another point:  When it comes to the breakthroughs, there is a great deal to be learned by simply comparing the weight of the “research books” that one has produced and sold to the number of patents held, or to the weight of the research apparatus.  Those ratios are mighty fine BS detectors.

I’m very skeptical of those who write more than they test in the lab.

That said, I’ve got the last of the parts ordered to allow me resolution down into the one part in 20-million range  as  I get the “fishing rig” built.

Since the potential buyer for our airplane is in no particular hurry, neither am I.  That’s because when I do the spectral testing (tentatively in Sept.) it would be nice to test fly any encouraging findings if there are any.

It is remotely possible that fortune is how Universe arranges our future.  In the end, it may be simply trying to see where Nature is pointing and go try to get on the tracks in front of her.

OK, soldering irons at the ready?

Write when you break-even,