Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] E-MHD NEWS!

["D. Blake" <dblake@bright.net>]

Chill Dude!  My intent was not to offend I assure you.  My talk is as big as
I'am, and get used to it!  I could very well be performing on WWF if I did
not smoke so much, OK?
Let's get something straight.  My views in no way represent the views of
others who participate in this discussion group.  In fact, I have
participated in some pretty serious arguments with fellow members.  We may
disagree, but eventually the World continues to revolve in greased grooves.
Thicken your skin a little; and from me at least, welcome to the discussion
group.

TTYL,
BigDave

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Gordon <lrrg@wantree.com.au>
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] E-MHD NEWS!


>I find your conclusions as offensive as they are paranoid, Big Dave. To
>reveal too much detail regarding the inner workings of my propulsion system
>would be foolish. It's not that I don't trust anyone in the group, but to
>reveal that information in the public domain would immediately and
>permanenty negate any possible ownership of the idea on my part -
>irrespecive of whether or not anyone in the group did anything with the
>information. To suggest that I should show everyone just because you say so
>is extremely childish and demonstrates not even the most basic knowledge of
>the concept of intellectual property.
>
>I would never under any circumstance want anybody anywhere to spend a dime
>on this project without having first seen the design and the test-bed that
I
>have constructed and operated successfully. In order to do this, the party
>would have to enter into a contract with me not to reveal the details of my
>design, even if we did no further business together. The only point at
which
>I would expect to be paid for this device is the point when revenue begins
>to be generated by the sale, license, or manufacture of this device - NOT
>BEFORE. I would never expect anyone to pay me without them first having
>performed a feasability study themselves and having completed legally
>binding paperwork with me.
>
>  I would have thought that if any organization in the world would trust a
>submarine enthusiast and inventor, it would be PSUBS. I sincerely hope that
>Big Dave does not speak for the entire organization in this respect. I can
>certainly understand how doubts could be raised about this engine, given
the
>fact that nobody has seen anything of it's like before and some 21 year old
>Australian is claiming to have invented it. That's understandable. What is
>not understandable is the protectist and insulting way in which Big Dave
>presented his arguments. For that, there is no excuse.
>
>As for my mention of 'cold fission', this was something I found on the net
a
>couple of years ago. This is not something that I claim to have invented
>myself, nor is it something I am attempting to make money on. I was simply
>sharing it with the group to see if anyone knew any more about it. If there
>turns out to be no truth behind it, well that's a pity. If it turns out to
>be an effective source of  air-independant energy, we all win. That article
>was written by an anonymous researcher to the best of my knowledge, so I
>have my own doubts about it. That is not to say that is any less plausible.
>Not being a Nuclear Physicist, I am not qualified to say whether it would
>work or not. I simply thought it may have been of some interest to the
>group. So do get your facts in order before you get too carried away in
>future.
>
>I am no longer sure if I am welcome in the group. Would anyone in the group
>that has an opinion on this please share it with me. I would like nothing
>more than to remain a member of the discussion, despite this recent attack,
>and continue to be involved in the exchange of ideas in regards to
submarine
>technology. I never wished to exploit PSUBS or any of it's members, simply
>to share my enthusiasm with other people that would be interested to hear
>about it.
>
>Regards,
>Richard Macrae Gordon
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: D. Blake <dblake@bright.net>
>To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:32 AM
>Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] E-MHD NEWS!
>
>
>> Lynn:
>> This is all well and good, but I for one remain skeptical.
>> I was willing to entertain the idea of E-MHD as it seemed very
>provocative,
>> and at the same time, productive.  Still, not enough fundamental
>information
>> has been revealed--by Rich, or anyone else--to accurately determine the
>> feasability of such a propulsion system.
>> Rich had been somewhat convincing with his rhetorical decourse until his
>> latest post referring to "cold fission" as a possible energy source.  In
>> addition recall his reluctance to reveal even the smallest measure of
info
>> to Carsten.
>> To my mind, the subject of "cold fission" sends up warning signals to
>> introduce skepticism in terms of overall agenda on his part.  The
"agenda"
>> at this time seems to be a desire to obtain monetary investors in spite
of
>> credibility.  His admitting a not wanting to go further into detail
>because
>> of "patentability" concerns provides ample opportunity for pause.
>> Oh what a sorry-sorry time we live in today.
>> This beg's the question:
>> Is Rich genuinely interested in the furthering of PSUBS knowledge, or the
>> acquirement of Dollars?  I think the latter.
>> We have seen this before if not so obvious.  Here I refer reluctantly to
>> propane as a ballast source.  Or equally incredulous, a ballast systems
of
>> dubious value that proclaims acrobatic like manuevers with umpteen
>> ball-valves requiring a gymnastic athleticism to operate.  I say that
LOL.
>> Hey, I have in my past worked on assembly lines.  I know with practice,
>> complicated actions can become routine and accurate with repetition.  No
>> doubt a person--over time--can manipulate a dozen and a half valves
>> second-nature not unlike operating a less complex--albeit
>complex--backhoe,
>> or helicopter.
>>
>> To Rich:
>> This idea of an alternative system of propulsion seems intriguing on the
>> surface--or subsurface for that matter (LOL)--but strikes me as too
>> outlandish.  I say put-up, or shut-up!  Some of my ancestors came from
>what
>> is now Missouri: the "show me State".
>> Tesla Tony has it right.  You don't trust us?  Send your info to
>Scientific
>> American or whatever.  Until then, quit your solicitations, OK?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Big Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lynn A. Roth <lynnr@penguin.nu>
>> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
>> Date: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:58 PM
>> Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] E-MHD NEWS!
>>
>>
>> >Basically, you pass a magnetic field through the medium in one
direction,
>> an
>> >electric field through 90 degrees to the magnetic and the medium will
>flow
>> >in a direction perpendicular to both fields.  So, the medium must be
>> bipolar
>> >(H2O is) and pass electric current. H2O doesn't very well in a pure
>state,
>> >so I believe this only works decently in salt water.....That's what I
>> >remember without looking it up, so I may be wrong.
>> >
>> >Lynn
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>> >[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org]On Behalf Of
>> >TeslaTony@aol.com
>> >Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:41 PM
>> >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>> >Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] E-MHD NEWS!
>> >
>> >
>> >Try submitting a bit about it and some pictures to New Scientist,
>> Scientific
>> >American, Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, because anyone who has
>> >enough money to develop one of these things and knows a bit about subs
>> would
>> >love to have one of these things, especially if it is more efficient
that
>a
>> >prop.
>> >
>> >Just out of curiosity; how does this thing work? I've heard about E-MHD
>> >systems before (Hunt for the Red October, the Yamato 1), but have never
>> >heard
>> >quite how the system is supposed to work.
>> >
>> >Anthony
>> >
>>
>>
>