The Quonset Hut

“A Short Autobiography” by T. Townsend Brown can be viewed on the Thomas Townsend Brown Family Website. Paul Schatzkin drew upon some of the information in this document for incorporation into the first draft of his book, “Defying Gravity: The Parallel Universe of T. Townsend Brown.”

By definition, an autobiography is ‘an account of a person's life written by that person’.

“A Short Autobiography” is extraordinarily short for an autobiography, consisting of a few paragraphs under each of the nine topic headings. Indeed, the document appears to me to be more a collection of chronologically arranged anecdotes than a purposely written autobiography.
According to Townsend Brown’s daughter it dates from 1973, though Townsend relates nothing of his post WW2 life.
Surprisingly, Townsend tells us nothing about his home life, not even mentioning his marriage to Josephine Beale in September 1928, or the birth of his son, Joseph, in March 1934. Instead Townsend concentrates on his scientific life and his life in the Navy.

As I read Townsend’s “A Short Autobiography” I got the overwhelming impression that it was not written by him at all, for in my estimation it fell far short of the fluency and technical-writing standards that are evident in his writings elsewhere.

As a benchmark I used Townsend Brown’s article “How I Control Gravitation", published in Science & Invention in August 1929, which illustrates his very precise and lucid writing style.

Here is an extract:

The writer and his colleagues anticipated the present situation even as early as 1923, and began at that time to construct the necessary theoretical bridge between the two then separate phenomena, electricity and gravitation. The first actual demonstration of the relation was made in 1924. Observations were made of the individual and combined motions of two heavy lead balls which were suspended by wires 45 cm. apart. The balls were given opposite electrical charges and the charges were maintained. Sensitive optical methods were employed in measuring the movements, and as near as could be observed the balls appeared to behave according to the following law: "Any system of two bodies possesses a mutual and unidirectional force (typically in the line of the bodies) which is directly proportional to the product of the masses, directly proportional to the potential difference and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

The peculiar result is that the gravitational field of the Earth had no apparent connection with the experiment. The gravitational factors entered through the consideration of the mass of the electrified bodies.

The newly discovered force was quite obviously the resultant physical effect of an electro-gravitational interaction. It represented the first actual evidence of the very basic relationship. The force was named "gravitator action" for want of a better term and the apparatus or system of masses employed was called a "gravitator."

Although that article dates from 1929 I find it hard to believe that Townsend Brown’s literary standards dropped as seemingly evident in his 1973 ‘autobiography’. Moreover, in all that Linda Brown has publicly written about her father I do not recall her ever suggesting that in his retirement years he was any less capable of writing fluently and precisely.


“A Short Autobiography” begins as follows:

Childhood:
When only 8 or 10 years old - I would walk around my neighborhood carrying a large umbrella (wired) listening to "Humoresque" which was being played in my home on Victrola and broadcast. I was able to pick up the music one block from his home. There were few records to be had in those early days.

I built a workshop in my backyard. It was a clubhouse - a meeting place for my friends and playmates where I arranged many innovations to surprise his friends. I rigged up the light….

It is far from clear what thought the first paragraph is trying to convey. Furthermore, if those are the verbatim words of Townsend Brown his switching back and forth between the first-person narrative style (“my”) to the detached third-person style (“his”) is truly bizarre.

A much more likely explanation, it seems to me, is that someone has taken a vaguely written passage about Townsend Brown’s childhood and has modified it so as to present it as written by Townsend Brown, but in so doing has failed to do a thorough job.

‘A Short Autobiography’ contains a number of surprising spelling mistakes and similar oddities.
For example, on the two occasions that Townsend refers to his first Physics teacher at Cal. Tech. - the experimental physicist and Nobel laureate, Professor Robert A. Millikan - the Professor’s name is misspelled as “Milikin”.
Similarly, when Townsend refers to the captain of Submarine S-48, Capt. O.R. Bennehoff, his name is misspelled “Benehoff”.
In addition, ‘fuselage’ is misspelled “fusilage”, ‘Galleon’ is misspelled “Gallion”, and ‘exorbitant’ is delightfully misspelled “exhorborant”.

In describing the accommodation aboard Eldridge Johnson’s yacht, the Caroline, the written words “completely laundry” should obviously be ‘complete with laundry’; and it seems that sailor Townsend Brown wrote “after deck” when the widely known naval term is in fact, ‘aft’ deck.

Furthermore, on a number of occasions “thru” is written in preference to ‘through’, and “Sat. nite” is written in preference to ‘Saturday night’, which to me doesn’t match Townsend’s writing style at all.

All told, these appear to me to be someone else’s traits and mistakes, not Townsend’s.


In a section headed Naval Research Laboratory - Washington, D.C., Townsend states that 4¼ miles is 4,862 fathoms:

The submarine rescue vessel U.S.S. Chewink was designated to accompany the submarine wherever it went to be on hand to assist in rescue operations if such were needed. Unfortunately, it was recognized, however, that most of the anticipated (years quota) dives the submarine was scheduled to make were in the deepest part of the Atlantic. Depths up to 4¼ miles (4,862 fathoms) were in water far to [sic] deep for any rescue operation whatever to be effective. Nevertheless the "Chewink" followed its orders.

But 4¼ miles is not 4,862 fathoms.
4¼ Statute miles is 3,740 fathoms, and 4¼ Nautical miles is 4,304 fathoms.

I believe that sailor and scientist Townsend Brown, adept as he must have been at working with miles, feet and fathoms in the prestigious scientific surveys he participated in as a science officer, would surely have known that 1 Nautical mile is just over 1,000 fathoms, making the above conversion easy to do in his head to a close approximation, and equally easy to spot when it’s wrong.
Of course someone lacking that technical knowledge would see nothing wrong with “4¼ miles (4,862 fathoms)”, and that together with the writing style leads me to believe that this was not written by Townsend Brown.

Here’s another paragraph from that section:

We were measuring Gravity!! This could only have been done where the pendulums were vigorously steady and their periods accurate. This meant that it could not be done on a surface ship - but only in a submarine, well below the level of the ground swell. Most dives, therefore, when measurements were made at a depth closely approaching the crushing depth of the submarine (water pressure increases at the rate of 1/2 lb. per foot of depth and is exerted thru the entire hull of the submarine. There were several instances in this trip where, due to automatic valves out of control, the computed crushing depth was exceeded. These dangers made such an impression on Capt. Benehoff [sic] that he ordered the submarine into the Navy Yard at Key West to effect repairs.

To my eyes that paragraph has nothing at all in common with Townsend Brown’s writings found elsewhere. Instead it appears to me to have been written by someone who has come across the story and, without understanding the technicalities, is retelling it in his or her own muddled fashion, trying to pass it off as Townsend Brown’s.
That disjointed, incomplete and abandoned sentence in the middle of the paragraph is telling enough, simply by being that. But in addition it contains the phrase ‘crushing depth’ rather than ‘crush depth,’ which I understand is the correct naval term. Although that may seem a trifling difference, I believe it is telling difference, distinguishing those who have some familiarity with submarine matters from those who do not.
Moreover, I think it likely that Townsend would have been quite familiar with the term ‘crush depth’, for control over the depth of the submarine was lost and regained a number of times during that cruise.
There is also a lack of scientific rigour in the explanation about water pressure. Had Townsend written that line I’m sure his scientific training would have made it second nature for him to express the pressure increase on the hull (not “thru the entire hull”) as ‘approximately ½ lb. per square inch per foot of depth’.


The following three paragraphs again seem to me to be completely devoid of Townsend’s characteristic fluency, good English, and clarity of thought and expression:

Degaussing Cable:
While I was assigned to Section Acoustic and Magnetic Mine Sweeping in the Navy - the need arose for protection against magnetic mines which were being planted by Germans. Some way was needed to sweep mines from the channel, and this required exploding them where they were to be rid of them. To do this job one way was placing a huge coil on a barge and passing current thru the coil to produce a magnetic field which spread to the bottom of the estuary, river Thames. The trouble was, when blowing up the mine, it was invariably under the barge and blew up the barge and coil - there seemed to be no way to create a field (magnetic) and outsmart the Germans.

Someone suggested that if we would trail a wire behind a boat, which, of course, was called a mine sweeper, and put current in that wire of several hundred amperes, that it would do the job. But, the wire being heavier than water, it would sink to the bottom and become ineffective. A way had to be found to keep the wire at the surface. Plastic floats were tried, only when the mine was detonated it blew up all the floats and the wire sank to the bottom. That is when I got the idea of putting floats inside the wire. Like sausages - wire wrapped around sausages at a net density of about 9.8 and therefore, the cable floated on water of density 1. So the cable floated. It was 3 1/2" inches diameter and conducted 300 amperes, which was more than enough to blow up the mines. When the mines blew up, the cable was merely tossed into the air and did not damage it.

I took out a patent on this idea, which was immediately classified, but I heard nothing more. I understand it is in use today. It is accepted as the best method of minesweeping on modern minesweepers due to clear mine fields.

Again, those paragraphs appear to me to have been written by someone who totally lacks Townsend Brown’s scientific knowledge and technical writing skills. For example, one of Townsend’s characteristics was his carefully considered choice of words in his written work, as evidenced in his scientific notebooks. For this reason I do not think he would have repeatedly called a 3½ inch diameter cable - capable of conducting 300 amperes - a “wire”.

Furthermore, when comparing the density of one substance with that of another (commonly water), I think it would have been second nature for Townsend to have used the scientific term ‘Relative Density’ (or ‘Specific Gravity’), rather than the word ‘density’ alone.
In addition, Townsend would know that any ‘cable and float’ contraption with a Relative Density of about 9.8 compared with water would sink straightaway due to having a density similar to that of copper and lead. Someone lacking an understanding of Relative Density, however, would see nothing wrong in the line that was written.


Conclusion
For the reasons I have given in the examples above I do not believe “A Short Autobiography” was written by Townsend Brown. There are many more signs than I have discussed here that lead me to that conclusion, but I would be labouring the point to mention them all.

I am of course, not suggesting that these events in Townsend Brown’s life never occurred. I am simply pointing out that, in my view, these are not Townsend Brown’s own accounts – they are someone else’s that are falsely presented as being Townsend’s - and that this should be borne in mind when reading the misleadingly titled document, “A Short Autobiography” by T. Townsend Brown.

Geoff



Citations:

“A Short Autobiography” by T. Townsend Brown.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c4md9tt

"How I Control Gravitation" by T.T. Brown.
http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm

Autobiography of T.Townsend Brown wrote:Someone suggested that if we would trail a wire behind a boat, which, of course, was called a mine sweeper, and put current in that wire of several hundred amperes, that it would do the job. But, the wire being heavier than water, it would sink to the bottom and become ineffective. A way had to be found to keep the wire at the surface. Plastic floats were tried, only when the mine was detonated it blew up all the floats and the wire sank to the bottom. That is when I got the idea of putting floats inside the wire. Like sausages - wire wrapped around sausages at a net density of about 9.8 and therefore, the cable floated on water of density 1. So the cable floated. It was 3 1/2" inches diameter and conducted 300 amperes, which was more than enough to blow up the mines. When the mines blew up, the cable was merely tossed into the air and did not damage it.

I can see as well that an argument can be made into not only the writing style but the lack of technical expression that has been demonstrated in other works of Dr. Brown. Here is the problem that I see with the above.

Single ought cable (0) is capable of carrying around 250 Amps, easily, and if floated in the water, quite possibly a good deal more due to the cooling nature of the water. If that were the case, why would the cable need to be 3 1/2"? Single ought cable is less than 1/2" in diameter. Dr. Brown would have known this unless there was another reason for the need of the cable to be this diameter, however, it certainly wasn't for it's current handling capabilities. The statement reeks of someone who doesn't know the transmission limits of current of cable or wire.

Secondly, why would he have used the word "plastic"? Wouldn't he have used the word rubber? In fact, both could be wrong for a good deal of floats employed during WWII would have been a Carley float. A Carley float is certainly not plastic and is more rugged than a rubber float and is not as susceptible to puncture.

Thirdly, the actual method that is described was NOT done by Brown but an Englishman - Sir Charles Goodeve. As anyone can see, the method Goodeve developed is referred to as the "Double Longitudinal Sweep" (Double L)

http://www.goodeveca.net/CFGoodeve/cfg_bio.html#sweep

Now taking into account that the "wire" was wrapped around a "plastic" core it is conceivable that the result would be 3 1/2". However, it should be noted that Goodeve's first sea trials were conducted on Boxing Day in 1939. A British company developed the "wire" and it was widely used and is referred to as "buoyant magnetic sweep cable" (note that the word "wire" is not used). Further:

above link wrote:After the war this invention was recognized by the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors. Charles received an ex gratia award of £7500 which was the largest individual award made in connection with claims for devices designed to combat magnetic mines. This he generously shared with those who had helped him bring the idea to success.

Why would the British government give an award to the wrong man?

More to come later.

Mikado

Autobiography of Townsend Brown wrote:The submarine rescue vessel U.S.S. Chewink was designated to accompany the submarine wherever it went to be on hand to assist in rescue operations if such were needed. Unfortunately, it was recognized, however, that most of the anticipated (years quota) dives the submarine was scheduled to make were in the deepest part of the Atlantic. Depths up to 4¼ miles (4,862 fathoms) were in water far to [sic] deep for any rescue operation whatever to be effective. Nevertheless the "Chewink" followed its orders.

The first sentence gives away the fact the Dr. Brown did NOT write this. The USS Chewink was "designated" to accompany the submarine... <snip>. The Navy does not "designate", they assign. The proper wording would have been -

"The USS Chewink was assigned to accompany the submarine....<snip>." Another way of saying the same would have been -

"The USS Chewink was ordered to accompany the submarine....<snip>." Secondly, if Dr. Brown had a red pen, he would have changed U.S.S. to simply USS. Rarely do the "periods" appear in the name of a ship.

Continuing, the following sentence is a misrepresentation - "Depths up to 4¼ miles (4,862 fathoms) were in water far to [sic] deep for any rescue operation whatever to be effective. Nevertheless the "Chewink" followed its orders."

The "S" class submarines had a depth range of 200' (70 meters). That is a long way from 4 1/4 miles. With that said, the manner in which the paragraph is written implies that the sub would have survived sitting on the bottom when in reality, it would have been nothing more than an imploded hull long before it even reached the bottom.

And yet again another misrepresentation - "...most of the anticipated (years quota) dives the submarine was scheduled to make were in the deepest part of the Atlantic."

What does it matter how deep the ocean is when the design depth limit on the S-48 was 200'? Submarines are normally rated for a lifespan of so many years and that is based upon "dive cycles" and takes into account the corrosive effect of sea water and metal fatigue from compression cycles and this is based upon it's design depth limits. Dr. Brown would not have made such a cavalier statement. All one has to do is to compare his writing style in his notebooks to this paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_S_class_submarine

The entire paragraph was written by a person who had only an inkling of the topic. Based upon Dr. Brown's thoroughness in other writings, it is a dead give away that he was not the scrivener.

Mikado

Linda Brown has seen fit to publish on a public forum, without my permission, the contents of my private email correspondence with her earlier today.

I also note that she has not seen fit to publish the content of her first email to me which gives the lie to her assertion elsewhere this evening that “I don't believe that I have ever done anything in his direction that is less than cordial”.

For the record, following her approach to me this morning I replied that I was very happy to discuss this forum topic with her here on the Quonset Hut, or if she preferred, ‘mirrored’ between the Quonset Hut and her own web site. However she replied that she was not prepared to discuss this topic with me on these public forums, even though her web site is ostensibly devoted to the topic for discussion - her father’s life and science.

Linda Brown later suggested that we discuss the topic on her section of yet another forum where she is a moderator, but as I originated this topic on the Quonset Hut, and as Linda Brown is able to post here, I will not do any such disservice to the Quonset Hut readership.

Geoff
Posted shortly after 11 p.m. in England (GMT +1 hour)

And her publishing private correspondence surprises you in what way?

I am sure she will claim in some manner that any mistakes in the autobiography were made by her mother or herself or some such nonsense which brings to mind the comment in regard to the red pen...the dreaded red pen that her mother and her feared. So many excuses. Therefore, where was the red pen?

I am further sure that one of her battle cries in regard to the cable etc was patented and immediately classified. Heard that one before. I believe that process was discussed quite heavily on the old forum as being "born secret" and that was done "prior to a patent being issued". Which brings us to Goodeve? There is plenty of information in regard to the "Double L" mine sweep. Excuses. That is what it always is, justifications for the obfuscations. This is secret and that is secret but there is a wealth of other information out there. So why is it only work of Dr. Brown's that appears to be classified in regard to the mine sweeping? Because it is easier that way. Make a claim and you don't have to prove anything.

Linda can post here but she won't. Now ask yourself the question as to why? Perhaps it is because there were 57 unique visits yesterday. Or perhaps it is the 101 unique visits today. And this is all from individuals who are following what is being posted. They are individuals that are interested in the truth. Everything posted here always gives a source (citation) or discusses from a source. This is alien to Linda, apparently, she cannot argue with the truth so she will not even discuss it on the Token either and chooses to discuss it on yet another forum, more than likely the Living Moon. Now ask yourself why? Perhaps because they have refused to approve my membership? And why? Because they can't handle the truth and neither can Linda or perhaps it is to get you, Geoff, to a forum where I cannot post and you will be "ganged" up on.

Don't fret Geoff. There are others who would like to post their feelings but as you have just experienced, she will berate and attempt to belittle you and of course, there are those sycophants who neither enjoy much or have much who will support her in her fabrications.

Keep posting with citations and sources for she can't i any of her rants. It will always be something that she has in some file that she can't find or disclose....so very convenient or it will be anonymous sources who die and magically come back to life...multiple times. She is slowly becoming a laughing stock on some other forums of serious writers so my advice is to keep the citations and sources as a system of checks and balance for those that are critiquing what is posted here.

Mikado

PS: Linda can post here. She did so on May 1 st -http://www.ttownsendbrown.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31395#p31395 and then again on May 6th - http://www.ttownsendbrown.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31397#p31397. Proof that she can post whatever she chooses exists so when she cries that she is not welcome or that she can't post, it is just another lie...situation normal.

Yesterday Linda Brown published on the Living Moon forum - without my consent - large parts of my email correspondence with her earlier that day. In so doing she has demonstrated that she has no regard whatsoever for the accepted norms of courtesy and confidentiality in private correspondence.

As a consequence of her discourteous action I feel relieved of the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the remaining correspondence, and so I reproduce it below in its entirety so that everyone can form their own judgement.


Linda Brown wrote:

Geoff,
I am writing this just to tell you how desperately disappointed I am in your last piece. Why have you let yourself be used by Mikado? Toward what purpose?
One of the things written in the last laughable presentation was this. I don't remember if you penned this or Mikado did but you have attached your name to this joint effort.

All told, these appear to me to be someone else’s traits and mistakes, not Townsend’s.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

First of all I find it laughable that you would criticize " A short autobiography....." for being short.
AND
The changes in the passages which flowed back and forth from "I "to "he" was because Mother did the typing ( ALWAYS).... in this particular instance she actually did alot of " cut and pasting".... literally..... I have the original paper....
The mistakes are distinctly hers and Dad was too sick at the time to care actually.
So I need to ask you why you are lending yourself to Mikados [sic] agenda here?
It is stupid and pathetic and I really expected so much more from you.! [sic] I have been waiting for a further discussion on Mr. Sarbachers [sic] whereabouts.... but have you given up on that and now turned to this pathetic attack?
Linda.

Geoff wrote:

Dear Linda,
Thank you for your email, I am happy to discuss this matter with you, but I think it best if we do so in public. I would therefore be grateful if you would post the content of your email on the Quonset Hut and I’ll respond.
Alternatively, if you prefer to post on the Cosmic Token forum instead, then please feel free copy my post there together with the content of your email, and provided you give me your permission to do likewise I’ll respond on the Quonset Hut.
Geoff

Linda Brown wrote:

My communication is with you private Geoff. Posting either on the Hut or on the Cosmic Token only gives Mikado more amunition [sic] for his agenda and I will not give him the pleasure of that.
Unless of course.... I am fulfilling an agenda that you might have here.... in which case I am willing to listen to whatever reasons you might have for this. Strangely I trust you far better than Mikado.
So can you please tell me what is happening here?
Linda

Geoff wrote:

Dear Linda,
My interest, and it’s not an ‘agenda’, remains and will continue to remain what it has always been, to learn about your father’s life and try to understand, as best I can as a layman, what interested him as a scientist.
I am my own man and I walk my own path.
Now with that assurance, please can we move on to discussing this matter publically in the way I suggested in my previous reply to you?
Geoff

Linda Brown wrote:

I am prepared to believe you that you do in fact " walk your own path"
So with that in mind I have a suggestion. Since it seems important to you for some reason that you are not disclosing to have our conversations publically posted..... I invite you to join me on the Living Moon forum. I have one particular spot that might lend itself to this conversation ... and I will start a thread there called " A short autobiography" and post your comments there. Then we can pick up the conversation and you can get the audience that will be interested and seems important to you. Would that work?
It is a big Forum compared to either the Token or the Hut with many people who are extremely interested in the story of Townsend Brown. Please join me there
[Linda]

Linda Brown’s declaration in her second email, “My communication is with you private Geoff” is worthy of note in view of her then publishing large parts of it on a public forum.

Not only that, Linda Brown then penned this on the Living Moon forum:

He [Geoff] also needs to realize that once an email is sent off.... its sort of like peeing in the ocean.... you never get it back. If he had expected confidentiality he should have asked for it.

I believe all this speaks volumes about Linda Brown’s character.

Geoff

Living Moon forum:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/inde ... pic=1410.0
and
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/inde ... ic=1410.15

Geoff wrote:Linda Brown wrote:

My communication is with you private Geoff. Posting either on the Hut or on the Cosmic Token only gives Mikado more amunition [sic] for his agenda and I will not give him the pleasure of that.
Unless of course.... I am fulfilling an agenda that you might have here.... in which case I am willing to listen to whatever reasons you might have for this. Strangely I trust you far better than Mikado.
So can you please tell me what is happening here?
Linda

Geoff wrote:

Dear Linda,
My interest, and it’s not an ‘agenda’, remains and will continue to remain what it has always been, to learn about your father’s life and try to understand, as best I can as a layman, what interested him as a scientist.
I am my own man and I walk my own path.
Now with that assurance, please can we move on to discussing this matter publically in the way I suggested in my previous reply to you?
Geoff

Linda Brown wrote:

I am prepared to believe you that you do in fact " walk your own path"
So with that in mind I have a suggestion. Since it seems important to you for some reason that you are not disclosing to have our conversations publically posted..... I invite you to join me on the Living Moon forum. I have one particular spot that might lend itself to this conversation ... and I will start a thread there called " A short autobiography" and post your comments there. Then we can pick up the conversation and you can get the audience that will be interested and seems important to you. Would that work?
It is a big Forum compared to either the Token or the Hut with many people who are extremely interested in the story of Townsend Brown. Please join me there
[Linda]

Linda Brown’s declaration in her second email, “My communication is with you private Geoff” is worthy of note in view of her then publishing large parts of it on a public forum.

Not only that, Linda Brown then penned this on the Living Moon forum:

He [Geoff] also needs to realize that once an email is sent off.... its sort of like peeing in the ocean.... you never get it back. If he had expected confidentiality he should have asked for it.

I believe all this speaks volumes about Linda Brown’s character.

Geoff

Living Moon forum:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/inde ... pic=1410.0
and
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/inde ... ic=1410.15

Here is a suggestion for you Linda. I know you are here, in fact, several times a day, for example (all times are PDT):

31 May 05:50:20 AM

31 May 05:52:50 AM

31 May 05:53:17 AM

31 May 05:53:38 AM

31 May 06:06:33 AM

31 May 07:41:53 AM

31 May 07:42:07 AM

31 May 07:42:25 AM

31 May 07:42:40 AM

31 May 07:43:19 AM

31 May 08:19:19 AM

Now, why don't you post here? Could it possibly be the fact that you are not an administrator leaving you with the inability to edit as you have done when you transferred Geoff's email/posts to the Living Moon? Couldn't be that...could it? I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions mind you.

So now, how many forums have you been on? Good golly, you can't even stay on your own forum(s)(two last count) and you take your same tired worn out story to yet another forum.

Think about this, if you really had something honest to say then your two...count them....forums should be enough. Truth will create it's own audience. You need to learn that.

Well Geoff, I do so hope you don't allow Linda's self-righteousness and double standard (the email thingy...asking to be private and yet comparing it to peeing in the ocean....emails are more secure than that and what everyone is viewing, is her truly showing a form of self-justification of her actions. A decision she consciously made to post and violate her own wishes. She keeps proving a double standard that I have said all along.) keep you from posting in the future. Perhaps the others I have talked to will see exactly how toothless she really is.

Linda Brown wrote:My communication is with you private Geoff. Posting either on the Hut or on the Cosmic Token only gives Mikado more amunition [sic] for his agenda and I will not give him the pleasure of that.

So Geoff, you have personally experienced how she wishes to keep things private and then makes it public. Don't let it dissuade you or anyone else for that matter. Speak your peace or forever lament in private.

It so very easy to win a war when the enemy continues to give you ammunition. Should I state that she has done what she claims not to want to do?.....give me the pleasure of a loaded weapon......

Mikado

Getting back on topic, a review of the known facts involving the minesweeping.

In the book, "Defying Gravity", the writer reports in Chapter 43, page 220, the following:

Defying Gravity Chapter 43, page 220 wrote:Another report covering the period from
October 1, 1940 - March 31, 1941 finds
Brown engaged in “Acoustic Mine Sweeping,
development and design (1 month); Magnetic
Mine Sweeping, development and design, (5
months)” and lists his permanent address at 4447 Greenwich Pkwy NW Wash DC.
The subject of minesweeping is something that comes up in the short autobiography that
Brown dictated to Josephine many years later:

Some way was needed to sweep mines from the Channel and this required exploding
them where they were to be rid of them. To do this job, one way was by placing a huge
coil on a barge and passing current thru the coil to produce a magnetic field which spread
to the bottom of the estuary, river Thames. The trouble was, when blowing up the mine, It
was invariably under the barge and blew up the barge and coil.
There seemed no way to create a magnetic field and outsmart the Germans.
Someone suggested that if we could trail a wire behind a tug boat (which of, course, was
called a minesweeper), and put current in that wire of several hundred amperes, that it
would do the job.
But, the wire being heavier than water, would sink to the bottom and become ineffective.
A way had to be found to keep the wire at the surface. Plastic floats were tried. Only,
when the mine was detonated, it blew up all the floats and the wire sank to the bottom.
That is when I got the idea of putting floats inside the wire. Like sausages. Wire wrapped
around the sausages at a net density of about 9.8 and therefore, the cable floated on
water of density of 1. So the cable floated. It was 3 1/2" in diameter and conducted 300
amps, which was more than enough to blow up the mines. When the mines blew up, the
explosion merely tossed cable in air and did not damage it.
I took out a patent on this idea. It was immediately classified. I heard nothing more, but
understand it is still in use today, still accepted as the best method of minesweeping.

Given that the minesweeping work was classified, and that researchers have been denied
access to anything even referring to anything classified that might show up in Lieutenant
Brown’s Navy records, that’s about the extent of information available on Brown’s
minesweeping work.

The following is from http://www.goodeveca.net/CFGoodeve/cfg_bio.htm

http://www.goodeveca.net/CFGoodeve/cfg_bio.htm wrote:A full scale sea trial was arranged for Boxing Day, 1939. Two tugs were loaded with car batteries and Ford V8 engine-driven generators, to provide current for the cables. The cables were not self-buoyant but were lashed to floating spars and although the trials were considered satisfactory, the day ended with one of the tugs aground with a cable wound round its propeller! A self-buoyant flexible electric cable was clearly required and it had to be capable of withstanding the shock waves from exploding mines. The help of the British Insulated Callendar's Cable Company was enlisted. Stimulated by the infectious enthusiasm and inventiveness of Charles, they achieved partial success in a matter of weeks and the first buoyant cable was delivered on 18 January 1940-the first of 1½ million yards to be manufactured by the end of the war. By February the first magnetic mines had been swept by the Double L. Special wooden minesweepers modelled on Yarmouth trawlers were commissioned and they operated most effectively: 74 mines were swept by March, and nearly 300 by the end of June 1940. The speed with which the enterprise was brought to success owed much to Charles's enormous energy and enthusiasm and his skill in dealing both with the naval personnel concerned with trials and the civilians responsible for the design and manufacture of the cables and the electrical equipment.

The question arises - what report is the writer referencing in Chapter 43 from the above quote? If the report is in regard to the NRL working on magnetic mine sweeping than that is understandable. However, when looking at the dates, in October of 1940, Dr. Brown began working on Acoustic mine sweeping and then one month later, November 1, 1940 began working on Magnetic mine sweeping and continued so for 5 months until March 30, 1941.

In the autobiography of Dr. Brown, he mentions the following:

Excerpt from the above quote from Chapter 43 wrote:Some way was needed to sweep mines from the Channel and this required exploding
them where they were to be rid of them. To do this job, one way was by placing a huge
coil on a barge and passing current thru the coil to produce a magnetic field which spread
to the bottom of the estuary, river Thames.

Now ask this question - Why would Dr. Brown be looking to explode magnetic mines from November 1940 until March of 1941 when Sir Charles Goodeve had already done sea trials of the "Double L" on Boxing Day, December 26, 1939 and it was a success and by June of 1940 had exploded/cleared nearly 300 mines which is almost five months prior to Dr. Brown beginning to work on magnetic mine sweeping? Why would Dr. Brown be doing so in the river Thames when the British had a very effective way of doing so?

Why would Dr. Brown patent something that was already done, and by the British? Wouldn't that have opened him to a possible patent infringement since his description is nearly identical to Goodeve's device?

The conclusion based upon the known information is that who/whomever wrote the autobiography has perpetrated a hoax.

Mikado

I recently contacted the son of Sir Charles Goodeve and here is part of that correspondence:

Mikado's email wrote:
Hello Mr. Goodeve.

I have been doing a due-diligence on a book - "Defying Gravity" by Paul Schatzkin. This book is about Thomas Townsend Brown. Within the book it is reported that Dr. Brown invented what your Father did in regard to the "Double L" mine sweeping.

Here is an excerpt from Chapter 43, page 220:

Another report covering the period from
October 1, 1940 - March 31, 1941 finds
Brown engaged in “Acoustic Mine Sweeping,
development and design (1 month); Magnetic
Mine Sweeping, development and design, (5
months)” and lists his permanent address at 4447 Greenwich Pkwy NW Wash DC.
The subject of minesweeping is something that comes up in the short autobiography that
Brown dictated to Josephine many years later:

Some way was needed to sweep mines from the Channel and this required exploding
them where they were to be rid of them. To do this job, one way was by placing a huge
coil on a barge and passing current thru the coil to produce a magnetic field which spread
to the bottom of the estuary, river Thames. The trouble was, when blowing up the mine, It
was invariably under the barge and blew up the barge and coil.
There seemed no way to create a magnetic field and outsmart the Germans.
Someone suggested that if we could trail a wire behind a tug boat (which of, course, was
called a minesweeper), and put current in that wire of several hundred amperes, that it
would do the job.
But, the wire being heavier than water, would sink to the bottom and become ineffective.
A way had to be found to keep the wire at the surface. Plastic floats were tried. Only,
when the mine was detonated, it blew up all the floats and the wire sank to the bottom.
That is when I got the idea of putting floats inside the wire. Like sausages. Wire wrapped
around the sausages at a net density of about 9.8 and therefore, the cable floated on
water of density of 1. So the cable floated. It was 3 1/2" in diameter and conducted 300
amps, which was more than enough to blow up the mines. When the mines blew up, the
explosion merely tossed cable in air and did not damage it.
I took out a patent on this idea. It was immediately classified. I heard nothing more, but
understand it is still in use today, still accepted as the best method of minesweeping.

Given that the minesweeping work was classified, and that researchers have been denied
access to anything even referring to anything classified that might show up in Lieutenant
Brown’s Navy records, that’s about the extent of information available on Brown’s
minesweeping work.

It is my understanding that your Father developed the process in the late thirties and by information supplied in your website that the trials began on Boxing Day in 1939. I was wondering if your Father had a patent taken out on the device/method or if you are aware of the influence of Townsend Brown on perhaps any work that your Father did and in the event that is of the negative, any comments you might have.

My feeling is that the above report in the book is false and information you can give would be appreciated.

Thanking you in advance for any information that you may offer,

Mikado

And Mr. Goodeve's subsequent response:

Mr Goodeve's response wrote:I'd never heard of Brown before, but taking Wikipedia as my impeccable
source (:-)) it sounds as if he was a bit of a loose cannon...

As far as I can tell, there was no connection between him and Dad's
department. The production cables were produced by British Insulated
Callender's Cables, and the name that seems to be associated with their
design is P. V. Hunter. I remember reading an article a while back that
went into some detail of their development, but I can't locate it on the
(open) web, now. There is a 1959 article in the JIEE, but I don't have
the appropriate subscription to read it on the web; depending on where
you're located, you might be able to find it in a University library.

I think your dates are about right. Probably nothing much happened
until November '39, when they recovered the intact mine from the Thames,
but progress was rapid after that, and the sweep was deployed early in
1940. In fact it had its first "kill" in February of that year. So
October '40 would have been a bit late to suggest the idea...!

I don't think the British Navy was much interested in taking out patents
at the time! Getting things working and out in the field (or at sea...)
was what was vital. I suppose it's possible that Brown had the idea
independently and did patent it, but it's not the sort of thing I'd have
thought needed to be permanently [and conveniently!] classified.

Cheers,

I concur as to - "not the sort of thing I'd have
thought needed to be permanently [and conveniently!] classified." - yes, conveniently classified sure solves a good many questions.

Mikado

I took the time to read "A Short Autobiography." It reads like a very rough draft of an incomplete work, or possibly some detailed notes for an oral presentation. It is inconsistent with other writings I've read that were known to have been written by Brown. I don't have enough material to present an opinion that it was written by someone else. It could have been a very rough draft of the beginning of something by Brown, or it could have been very detailed notes for some type of presentation. Taken just on its own, it lacks the co.text to determine its actual origin and purpose. At least in my opinion. I tutored English and business communications in college. Iwould have been rolling my eyes and shaking my head at a student who showed me something like that.

Cat 5150