The Quonset Hut

Mikado, This is from our discussion in the Edgar Cayce thread over at the Token

I don't believe that the tunnel diode Beau is talking about is the same as a 1N37xx but is something one would encounter working with Electrogravitics. In fact, the effect is quite common nowadays in certain manufacturing processes.

If the fan is an antenna, of sorts, any frequency could be transmitted over it, not just GHz.

Just my two cents.

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... ode#p25596

Yes, to all of the above. And to continue our discussion from here:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1092#p31953

No ghosts in the night, or whatever you were thinking I was thinking. I think I was thinking about the circles where there are secrets within secrets....where downloads (like those the good Dr. K encountered when he was a translator in the Belin encounter) may come from anywhere.

But for now, I'm just establishing this thread as a record of where we left off kind of placeholder...unless you have something to add.

rose

re-rose wrote:Mikado, This is from our discussion in the Edgar Cayce thread over at the Token

I don't believe that the tunnel diode Beau is talking about is the same as a 1N37xx but is something one would encounter working with Electrogravitics. In fact, the effect is quite common nowadays in certain manufacturing processes.

If the fan is an antenna, of sorts, any frequency could be transmitted over it, not just GHz.

Just my two cents.

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... ode#p25596

Yes, to all of the above. And to continue our discussion from here:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1092#p31953

No ghosts in the night, or whatever you were thinking I was thinking. I think I was thinking about the circles where there are secrets within secrets....where downloads (like those the good Dr. K encountered when he was a translator in the Belin encounter) may come from anywhere.

But for now, I'm just establishing this thread as a record of where we left off kind of placeholder...unless you have something to add.

rose

First off, I am not following you as to the "ghosts in the night or whatever you were thinking I was thinking" statement for I have no idea who or whom Dr. K is so you have me at a disadvantage.

I wish to make it clear that I will not go to a link at the Token, even to read. Why should I read there when I can't respond? So, with that said, could you be specific if you wish to discuss this and just simply cut and paste the specific with the link for others if they so choose to follow it?

What I will add is that I believe Dr. Brown found that shaped dielectrics, will respond over a gradient established by the charge applied with a distinctive negative and positive. The asymmetry of the dielectric creates a distinctive gradient as opposed to a symmetrical dielectric. That is the key.

Are you still a member at the Token? I congratulate you if so.

Mikado

With regard to the shaped dielectrics, I'm understanding that form and function go hand in hand. Am I understanding this correctly?

Cat

Well Cat, form and function can go to a good deal of many things.

When it comes to dielectrics, I would say essentially you are correct. Further, function enters into it very much so for you may have a gradient of charge that is not wanted...and then....you might and that is where form comes into play. So, the shape of the dielectric will determine the gradient and that would be determined by the function which means function determines shape.

So, I suppose a simple yes will do for now.

Mikado

Mikado,

So, with that said, could you be specific if you wish to discuss this

No, I'm just gathering some of the pieces right now.

and just simply cut and paste the specific with the link for others if they so choose to follow it?

I thought I did, but I may not be through with them compilation yet.

So, if I understand you correctly, it is possible that there is a dialectric material and shape, that would, via something comparable to the quantum tunnel effect of the diode, be porous to the EG?

or did I oversimplify?

rose

re-rose wrote:Mikado,

So, with that said, could you be specific if you wish to discuss this

No, I'm just gathering some of the pieces right now.

and just simply cut and paste the specific with the link for others if they so choose to follow it?

I thought I did, but I may not be through with them compilation yet.

The link you gave goes to the token. I stated in my answer above that I will not go there and I gave my reasons. So I am asking you to please not give me a link to that site, cut and paste and give the citation for others if they wish to see the source. You also posted a link to where you posted in the Kilroy thread. So, which link is it you are thinking of or is there another?

re-rose wrote:So, if I understand you correctly, it is possible that there is a dialectric material and shape, that would, via something comparable to the quantum tunnel effect of the diode, be porous to the EG?

or did I oversimplify?

rose

It is not only possible and I believe that is the phenomenon that Andrew may have stumbled upon back when he was talking about room temperature super conduction.

As to oversimplify...porous? You have me on the use of that word.

I did ask you somethings in my post:

Mikado wrote:First off, I am not following you as to the "ghosts in the night or whatever you were thinking I was thinking" statement for I have no idea who or whom Dr. K is so you have me at a disadvantage.

Could you explain what you meant and who Dr K is?

When you have gathered all that you said you were compiling then you can ask and I will answer as best as I can from my limited experience working with dielectrics.

Mikado

ps: when you are ready and are done compiling, I will give you the hint that might help you but be prepared, you will need to brush up on some theory.

Let's not hear things that go bump in the night and react as if it is something other than what it is, a bump in the night or perhaps just that - communications.

Okay, sorry.

Dr. K, whose name escapes me now, is now a retired nuclear materials physicist living in Los Alamos. He was one of the folks interviewed for this book and the documentary that was made of it.

http://www.amazon.com/Spies-Beneath-Ber ... 1909609129.

As a very young soldier, he was sent to the listening post in the Tunnel to serve as a Russian Translator.

Though I don't believe it's in the book, and I know it's not in the documetary, he has since said that while at his listening post he would sometimes receive strange 'downloads.' The only way he could clear his mind of them and get his focus back on listening was to take notes and sketches as they came. His superiors were very interested in the information he was getting.

So, keeping all options open:

He was, for a brief period of time in his life, highly psychic.

He was the delivery target of an experiment in unusual communications.

He was accidentally eavesdropping on someone else's work with unusual communications

He has fabricated the whole story.

Pourous....hmmm. You're right. Bad word there.

When I was reading up on the tunnel diode announcement from AFCRL , it seemed to me that it was a big deal for them to discover how do fabricate a chip with gaps or openings (or whatever the techie word is), set at an angle so that only certain light/energy/information packets we call quanta, would come in. The unwanted others, that were once noisy signals on the line, would pass on through.

To me, that seems sort of a like micro version of your macro gravitor effect.

rose

Rose,

Are you referring to this document:

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream ... sequence=5

It came up on certain key words - afcrl tunnel diode

afcrl AD 40427 wrote:A tunnel-diode down converter designed and developed for conversion from
X-band frequencies to UHF has proved that low noise figures are possible, when
a forward bias voltage is chosen in the first region of the I-V characteristic of
the tunnel diode so that the conductance Go is positive. When a sufficient localoscillator
voltage can drive the operating point into the negative-resistance region,
the tunnel diode down converter exhibits a conversion gain and a noise figure 3 to
4 db lower than attainable with converters having common diodes. With a local
oscillator frequency of 8.33 kMcps and an IF of 30 Mcps, an average noise figure
of 4.5 db was measured. For mismatched conditions of the input admittance, a
generator conductance 0 of 2 mhos was advantageously chosen in order to get a
low noise factor and high gain. A microstrip line transformer was used to establish
the high generator conductance.
The measured noise figure of an improved second device, similar to the
first one, was 3.0 db.
The experimental devices are of attractively small size.

Is this what you are referring to? It is the downloaded PDF from the link above.

The link above discusses NIC's (negative impedance converters) using discreet components of which the tunnel diode was eliminated. However, the PDF quoted above is for a converter from X band to UHF. You may be familiar with X band if you have ever saw/used a radar detector.

The link above discusses dielectric antennas whereas the dielectric is on the surface of the sphere. Further, it discusses diffraction and refraction of the signal on the surface of the dielectric.

Mikado

re-rose wrote:viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1092#p31953

rose

Mikado, I've been advised that I mispoke in the referenced thread about. The topic on Pegasus was not in the Inventor's forum, and not connected to it. It was (though it may not be there now) in the public area. My mistake. Since I can't correct it above, I am doing so here.

As to the document you referenced above, no that's not the one I saw. I've been searching for the specific report from 1963, but it has done one of those poof things. I will keep looking.

rose

re-rose wrote:

re-rose wrote:viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1092#p31953

rose

Mikado, I've been advised that I mispoke in the referenced thread about. The topic on Pegasus was not in the Inventor's forum, and not connected to it. It was (though it may not be there now) in the public area. My mistake. Since I can't correct it above, I am doing so here.

As to the document you referenced above, no that's not the one I saw. I've been searching for the specific report from 1963, but it has done one of those poof things. I will keep looking.

rose

The referenced post when linked, comes up with a login screen, so, that would tell me it is not public and therefore moot.

As to reports involving the AFCRL (Air Force Cambridge Research Labs), there are quite a few.

If you find it, please post the reference. It might be curious to note that the frequencies involved in the one report are in the transmitted range of the Hutchison transmitter.

Mikado