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

["Richard Gordon" <lrrg@wantree.com.au>]

Cory,
        In that process, as I recall it, you are not actively causing the
fission. You are simply harnessing natural radiation from the decay of the
isotope. This could be going on inside a composite pressure-proof,
lead-lined cylinder no bigger than a shoe-box. Something to think about
perhaps??? I wish someone out there could test this device. I'd really like
to know if it works or not.

Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: Stratton Design Studios <cory@strattondesignstudios.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 12:13 AM
Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] E-MHD NEWS!


> Personally I wouldn't think about using any kind of fission reaction as a
> propulsion system as any fission reaction puts out harmful radiation. Cold
> Fusion however if ever proven to work could be a possibility, it doesn't
put
> off radiation and can actually turn radioactive elements into other
elements
> that are not radioactive.
>
> Cory
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> [mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org]On Behalf Of Richard
> Gordon
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:20 AM
> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>