8) Declassification of Energy or Propulsion Devices - Hot topic of discussion at NSS-ISDC

Abstract Apart from applications, branched nanostructures can also be used to explore fundamental issues such as the wave−particle duality of electrons. In a tetrapod transistor, an electron appears to be true to its nature.

Naively, the tetrapod might be expected to behave as a single quantum dot, but from the current's perspective, the arm−branch-point−arm connection looks more like a weakly-coupled double dot hooked up in series. Consequently, the differential conductance (dI/dV) measurements display the characteristic overlapping diamond pattern (a saw-tooth) due to discrete electron charging of the dots, and the energies involved agree with experiments on quantum dots of comparable size. This localized hopping behaviour is observed in the majority (80%) of the devices.

The remaining tetrapod transistors also exhibit a diamond pattern, but not of uniformly sized diamonds. Rather, large diamonds alternate with two or three small diamonds along the gate voltage axis. Cui et al. believe this signifies strong coupling within the arm−branch-point−arm system, such that the charge carrier can tunnel within the tetrapod, between the branch point and the arms. In other words, charge is delocalised across the entire tetrapod, though not uniformly spread. When the probability for the charge to be on the branch point is high, the transport data correspond to the large diamonds. It follows that the small diamonds correspond to the opposite case when there's a higher probability for the charge to be on the arms.

So what determines localized and delocalized charge transport? The authors point to two possibilities: mechanical strain could affect the semiconducting properties of the tetrapod, or stacking faults could change the angles within a tetrapod. This will need to be clarified. If their interpretation is correct, it should be possible for Cui et al. to mechanically tune their devices from localized to delocalized behaviour.

References

America needs a bold new energy strategy, but the President and the Congress have punted. This energy bill is simply business as usual, a smarmy grab bag of corporate subsidies that leaves America more dependent on foreign oil, does nothing for rising gas prices and surrenders leadership in the green markets of the future. What President Bush and the Congressional majority hail as a success is, in fact, a shameful failure of leadership.

With Americans dying in Iraq, oil and gas prices rising, and catastrophic climate change posing a real and present danger, America desperately needs new energy. We need a bold program for energy independence that can create good jobs here by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, while mobilizing American science and technology to free this country of its dependence on foreign oil. This is a national security imperative and an economic opportunity to capture the markets of the future.

Please write your member of Congress and tell them that surrendering to oil and gas interests is not acceptable. Tell them that America can and must do better by embracing the bold Apollo vision for three million good jobs and freedom from foreign oil.

Named after President Kennedy's Apollo initiative that took Americans to the moon in ten years, the Apollo Alliance – a ground-breaking coalition of labor, environmental and urban activists – has detailed elements of a bold plan for energy independence. This initiative would generate over three million jobs here in America through investment in alternative energy and energy efficiency. It would help the US capture the growing green markets of the future -- from super-efficient appliances to the next generation of automobiles. It would help counter global warming and help reduce the spread of asthma and other respiratory diseases that take a harsh toll on American children. And, it would free America of its dependence on Persian Gulf oil.

Instead of embracing the positive Apollo vision, Congress has essentially repackaged the President's failed big oil energy policies of the past, adding a few green measures as decoration. The bill lards subsidies to oil and gas producers, providing them a large return for their political contributions. It puts the interests of contributors and corporate lobbies above those of the nation.

Please write your member of Congress and tell them that we need a real plan for plan for energy independence, not a grab bag of corporate giveaways.

• Gives billions in tax incentives to big oil, gas and nuclear conglomerates.
• Eliminates the requirement that utilities provide 10% of their energy from renewable sources.
• Strips a provision to make even a modest reduction in American oil consumption -- 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015, representing a mere 4% of our projected oil consumption.
• Rolls back oversight on utilities and consumer protections – which would allow companies to structure Enron-like deals and exploit the energy grid.
• Increases drilling incentives for oil and gas companies.
• Rolls back clean water laws to allow drillers to inject harmful chemicals into the water supply without penalty.
• Fails to tackle the fundamental problems of supply and demand now causing ever-increasing prices at the gas pump.

America can and must do better! Let your members of Congress know that it is time for new energy for America – for a concerted drive to free this nation from its dependence on Persian Gulf oil and to make America a leader in what must be the growth markets of the future.

The Apollo Alliance vision for new energy for America is within reach. But first, we must reject big oil’s grip on this administration and Congress, as represented by this oil soaked energy bill. Tell your member that Congress needs to lead. That business as usual is not acceptable. That Americans are looking for those who will lead the way to new energy for America, and will hold accountable those who fold to the special interests on a question vital to our national security, our economy and our health.

The energy bill that has been six years in the making and is nearing the president's desk is not the unrelieved disaster some environmentalists make it out to be. But to say, as President Bush undoubtedly will, that it will swiftly move this country to a cleaner, more secure energy future is nonsense. The bill, approved by a House-Senate conference early Tuesday morning, does not take the bold steps necessary to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, and it also fails to address the looming problem of global warming.

These shortcomings are chiefly the fault of the White House and its retainers in the House. To be sure, the Senate showed no more courage than the House in its refusal to increase fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, even though higher standards, by common consent, are the easiest, quickest and most technologically feasible way to reduce oil demand and cut foreign imports.

But the Senate did approve a renewable fuels provision requiring power plants to produce 10 percent of their electricity from nontraditional sources, like wind power, by 2010. It also approved a provision that would ask the president to reduce domestic oil consumption by one million barrels a day by whatever means he chose. The House conferees rejected both proposals.

Meanwhile, both houses conspired in some spectacular giveaways. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would shower billions in undeserved tax breaks on the same companies, even as they wallow in the windfall profits produced by $60-a-barrel oil.

The bill's most useful provisions may take years to realize their promise. Again thanks largely to the Senate, the tax provisions are far more hospitable to energy efficiency and renewable fuels than earlier versions of the bill, and include substantial incentives for buyers of fuel-efficient hybrid cars.

More important in the long run, however, may be two provisions, buried deep in the bill, that are aimed at developing new energy technologies. One provision would encourage the development and commercial application of biofuels from agricultural products that, much like corn-based ethanol, might someday be used as a substitute for gasoline. The other provision is aimed at developing new clean-coal technologies to turn coal into a gas and, more important, capture emissions of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming.

These could be powerful new tools in any future effort to reshape the way Americans produce and use energy. But the success of both will depend on the willingness of the government to put money into them. That, in turn, will require a deeper commitment to a more adventurous energy policy than this administration has so far displayed.

Electrogravitics II is the second in a series of books with scientific articles, just released by publisher Integrity Research Institute, on the connection of high voltage electric fields and gravity. The Navy, Air Force, NASA and Northrop-Grumman have all pursued and implemented T.T. Brown's discoveries of electrokinetics and electrogravitics for aviation improvements.

The scientific validation of a science that connects gravity to electricity usually could face an uphill, skeptical battle. This has been true of the 1994 publication of Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a New Propulsion Methodology by Thomas Valone. However, eleven years later, a follow-up second volume called Electrogravitics II: Validating Reports on a New Propulsion Methodology has just been released which contains journal articles by the Army Research Lab and Honda Corporation on their experiments and theory of how electrogravitics can work, besides patents by NASA and others. In addition, the author introduces the subject with a discovery that the classical "electrokinetic field" equation can predict how and why pulsed electrogravitics will work best. He also explains in his article that the historic T. Townsend Brown experiments which led to the "Biefeld-Brown Effect" actually comprise electrogravitics and electrokinetics, which differ from each other.

With Science, Historical, Testimonial and Patent Sections, the book appeals to various audiences very well. For those who are interested in the details of the history, a complete reproduction of the three-part series on "Conquest of Gravity: Aim of Top Scientists in the U.S." is included, which appeared in the N.Y. Herald Tribune, November 20-22, 1955.

Overall, the book is interesting and scientific. The historical articles and the first-person testimonials are also intriguing. More compelling and convincing than first book in the series, it is possible that the discovery of pulsed electrokinetics will now be declassified as a result of the publication of Electrogravitics II.

For more information:

Inside the book pictures and review available at Amazon.com:

The Likely Impact of Peak Oil on the United States

"We're in a position to provide for independent verification and a report, using a calorimeter originally built to test cold fusion cells. The offer and description that we recently posted on a CF site gives details" states Dr. Hal Puthoff, Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies and Earthtech in Austin, Texas.

The Offer

Earthtech hereby offers to test promising cells in MOAC free of charge.
We feel that the opportunity of observing a genuine excess heat effect
in an accurate calorimeter is well worth the time, energy, and money we will
expend in the process. A promising cell is one that typically shows at
least 0.20 watts of excess heat and is reasonably repeatable. The
terms "typically" and "reasonably" are open to interpretation. Our
ultimate goal is to identify CF technology that actually works and then
to help develop it into a useful energy source for mankind.

This discussion group seems like a good venue for the announcement of a
new high-accuracy calorimeter at our lab. Ambitiously dubbed "MOAC"
(Mother Of All Calorimeters), this instrument is specifically designed
to test cold fusion (CF) cells operating in the 0-20 watt range.

Brief Description of the System

The calorimeter chamber (CC) is relatively roomy and the space
available for the cell is a rectangular prism volume about 24cm high,
14 cm wide, and 24 cm deep. There are three optical ports which enter
the chamber. One of these is fitted with a borescope which permits
inspection of the cell during calorimetric measurements. The other two
permit laser beams to be directed at the cell cathode if desired.
Provision is also made for actuation of a mechanical device near the
cell (e.g. rotation of magnets around the cell) during calorimetric
measurements.

In addition to the device under test (DUT), the CC also contains a
liquid-to-air heat exchanger and a fan which circulates the chamber air
across the DUT and through the heat exchanger. Thus the heat evolved
by the DUT is coupled to the water flowing through the passages in the
heat exchange.

An active insulation (AI) system essentially eliminates heat loss
through the walls of the CC. Each wall panel consists of a 6mm thick
Al inner plate, 4 cm of Styrofoam insulation, and a 6mm thick Al outer
plate. With temperature sensors on both Al plates and heaters on the
outer Al plate, each wall panel is independently servo controlled to
maintain a zero delta-T across the Styrofoam insulation.

Water is circulated around the heat exchange loop by a precision
pumping system. An automated batch-weighing flowmeter regularly
monitors the actual water flowrate, which is about 2.2 gm/sec. Three
independent stages
of temperature regulation bring the inlet water to 25.000 degrees C
with a typical standard deviation of +/- 0.0006 degrees before it
enters the CC. The CC and the water circulation system are enclosed in
a temperature-controlled environmental enclosure (EE). This
effectively eliminates problems caused by room temperature variations.

Data collection and experiment control are accomplished with two
computers. One is devoted to housekeeping activities such as
temperature control of the EE and the servo control of the 6 AI panels.
The other computer is responsible for the calorimetry measurements
such as electrical input power to the DUT, water flowrate measurements,
temperatures of the inlet and outlet water streams, etc. In all, MOAC
monitors 44 analog input channels and operates 15 analog output
channels to control the system.

Both of these computers run Labview programs which serve up their front
panel images as web pages. This permits anyone with Internet access to
see what MOAC is doing. In addition, the experiment logbook is
maintained as a Microsoft Frontpage HTML document which is also served
up as a web page so you can see what we're trying to do with MOAC. All
data is recorded to disk and may be replayed by the Labview program to
recreate any display obtained during a run.

Accuracy

We set out to design a calorimeter that would achieve +/- 0.1%
accuracy. For example, with 10.000 watts going into the cell, we
wanted MOAC to read between 9.990 and 10.010 watts of heat coming out
of the cell (assuming no excess heat). MOAC is close to this goal now.
However, there are "bad days" when MOAC exhibits mysterious shifts of
0.2 or 0.3% relative. We are actively working to resolve these issues
now.

Specimen Versatility

Because of the total heat collection design of the CC, MOAC exhibits
excellent specimen versatility. For example, we have a 10 watt
calibration resistor permanently mounted inside the CC (near the heat
exchanger), a control electrolysis cell with H2O-H2SO4 electrolyte, and
an immersed calibration resistor in that cell. All three of these heat
sources read the same in MOAC to within +/- 0.1% relative.

Cell Access

MOAC's roomy CC will accommodate a variety of cell sizes and shapes.
In addition the mechanical actuator feature and optical access ports
permit a variety of things to be done to the cell during calorimetric
measurements.

Dual Method Calorimetry

Since the cell is located in a stirred-air chamber during calorimetric
measurements, MOAC performs an isoperibolic measurement of the heat
evolved from the cell while the water-flow calorimetry is underway. The
isoperibolic measurement is accomplished by comparing cell temperature
to the CC air temperature.

For more information

Bios-Materials Research (BMR) Initiative

We are proposing to create a new center whose focus will be to study the
interface between living systems and normal materials research (the
structure and properties of condensed matter and the effects of radiation).
By living systems, we refer to organisms, plants, animals and humans.

The fields of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and Whole Person
Healing (WPH) contain a wealth of scientific data involving the
human/materials research interface that appear to contradict the Western
scientific paradigm. Penn State University is uniquely positioned to exploit
this scientific arena, give it solid scientific underpinnings and discover
broader applications arising from this bios-materials interface. The Penn
State Materials Research Institute is highly regarded as a reputable,
high-tech resource, and CAM-WPH practitioners have begun to contact us to
subject their healing-related devices and samples to rigorous scientific
scrutiny. This opportunity gives us access to new materials samples and
devices that are unavailable to other institutions and holds promise to help
Penn State MRI remain on the forefront of materials research while bridging
the gap with the life sciences.

Electromagnetic and acoustical healing devices have a long history in
medicine, largely beginning in the mid-1800's in tandem with the development
of electromagnetic theory. At that time, there were many unexplained
phenomena that today we know can begin to be understood - perhaps even
proven - using the quantum physics model. Further, at that time, it was not
possible to detect or measure "healing energy" from a human being. Today,
with high-tech instrumentation, we now have key tools with which to
quantifiably measure such previously esoteric fields and energies. The
combination of high-tech equipment, the latest theories in physics (quantum,
gauge theory, etc.), and a wealth of solid scientific data indicating
undeniable "healing effects" that cannot be attributed to placebo response,
create a solid foundation on which to build a possible national center for
scientific investigation of devices used in healing. We envision that one
virtually certain and valuable outcome of the proposed BMR Center will be to
create a national database on electromagnetic devices employed in healing,
assisting medical practitioners and government agencies in determining what
devices have real merit, and setting new benchmarks and standards for such
devices. Furthermore the empirical scientific data may provide us with more
insight on the mechanisms of these phenomena and new ideas for applications.

A second key aspect of electromagnetic and acoustical healing devices is the
very recently realized role of resonance phenomena. Numerous devices have
been constructed which target unhealthy cells, viruses or other
microorganisms and literally destroy them by vibrating them at their
resonance frequency. Non-contact ultrasound is being tested for commercial
use in this capacity to destroy insect pests in wood that is imported - the
collaborative work of Kelli Hoover in Penn State's College of Agriculture
with Penn State alumnus Mahesh Bhardwaj (materials scientist). This
application exemplifies the benefits of BMR collaborations. At Berkshire
Laboratories, Juliana Brooks (and her two dozen major patents) has taken
resonance frequency applications to radically new levels by replacing
catalysts in chemical reactions with their spectral frequency energy
signatures, blurring the distinction between solid matter and
matter-as-energy. Berkshire has so far worked only with Penn State, and with
their move from Ohio to Baltimore, that interaction is sure to increase.
Information gleaned from investigations and collaborations in this realm of
resonance phenomena not only helps us shift our medical system from
biochemical to energy-based approaches, but holds equal promise for
developing new materials, methods and technologies with applications in
agriculture, health, materials and engineering.

Berkshire Labs has Relocated and been Renamed

For More Information and to Offer Support/Collaboration

102 Old Botany Building
University Park, PA 16802

Ed note: IRI encourages support for Pennsylvania State University's initiative which needs much more funding to make the endeavor a success. Call Dr. Slawecki with any questions. -TV

During the NRO's presentation at the same panel discussion, Bennett indicated that the NRO was contemplating "major muscle moves" with 18-month turn-around for satellite launch requests. During the Q & A, I asked Bennett if it was possible that he would consider some inter-agency advocacy to declassify technology we need for space travel. He repeated the question to clarify it and then said "Yes."

Afterwards, I approached him personally to show him a few slides from my NSS talk that included the discussion about high voltage inertial shielding and the triangular planes using this that have been sighted repeatedly all over the country, exhibiting right angle turns. Since Newton's second law says that F = ma, I told him that this proves that inertial mass m can be reduced and shielded. With that technology alone, the lifting power or force "F" we currently used would be vastly improved with mass "m" greatly reduced and acceleration "a" increased.

He identified the concern for security issues and the fact that once something is classified and has value, it usually goes up the levels of classification until "it is out of sight." He also indicated that even if they fail in a project that is classified, it still will not be declassified. This reminded me of the story retired CIA agent A. Glenn Foster told me about Project X and the T. Henry Moray device he worked on before he died.(The project results are still classified though they found flaws in the process.) The conversation turned to today's antiquated energy and propulsion methods that are decades old. Even the photo of the triangular craft I showed him was over ten years old. Bennett indicated that they usually encourage industrial partners to pursue avenues of development which they know exist, so that it may "come out at a lower classification level." I complained that this means the taxpayers will pay twice for it and Congressmen have been quoted in the press saying the same thing. I also expressed my opinion that we are living with WW II technology that has been perpetuated by this military policy of not declassifying things soon enough for civilian economic benefit. He said that he thought it was trickling out fast enough. I showed him a Washington Post article from Dec. 10, 2004 and said that if he was right, the new Public Interest Declassification Board would not be necessary. I told Bennett that I am 54 years old and during all my life, I have not seen any new energy or propulsion technology released by any military agency. However, we all know that due to public pressure alone, at least they declassified the Global Positioning System by removing the scrambling, which has benefitted thousands of civilians, with very few negative security repercussions.

Then, I retrieved my Electrogravitics Systems book to show him the use of electrogravitics on the B-2 as well as my Electrogravitics II book which explains electrokinetics and has the amazing Norton AFB saucercraft with 1950’s rivets but still hovers. However, neither one has been declassified even into the 21st century. I said, since he indicated in his talk that he needs more lifting capability and faster launch schedules, the NRO needs improved propulsion technology as much as the civilian space program needs it. Several people had come to our IRI exhibit booth expressing a specific interest in new breakthrough propulsion technology as well.

I asked him if he knew AF people in high black areas who could be convinced to leak or declassify some of the propulsion technology to the public sector and whether he would do something about it. He said he would try.

We ended the conversation with me stating that our economy would benefit and he would benefit as well. He agreed that we were "both on the same wavelength" and we shook hands. Only time will tell if this historic encounter will be the turning point for the future.

A month later, while manning our exhibit booth at the Noetics Institute conference, I unexpectedly had a conversation with a senior official from the DOD counterintelligence office, who pointed enthusiastically at my Electrogravitics Systems book subtitle and announced, "I know all about the B-2 bomber." After an exchange of ideas and his purchase of everything IRI has on propulsion, antigravity, etc., I was convinced he was truthful. It also confirmed my long-standing belief in Dr. Paul LaViolette's article on the B-2 bomber's auxiliary electrogravitics system. Furthermore, I asked the gentleman whether we could have a future dialogue on the possible declassification of this propulsion technology. He replied that he needed to know what I knew about it first. This answer also indicated that one of the methods the military acknowledges declassification requests: you have to know specifically what to ask for.

As a postscript, it is worth noting that a DOE insider recently indicated to me that Boeing wants to use engine technology for their commercial aircraft that they developed for stealth vehicles. Apparently, it is a high voltage turbine and electrostatic shield that saves over 50% on jet fuel when in operation. It sounded like the benefits from electrogravitics to me, which are well-known to include laminar flow of air over the wings. However, when Boeing applied in the past year to their customer, the US Air Force, for declassification permission, it was denied. Thus, once again, we civilians are stuck burning fossil fuel at exponentially increasing rates, with consequential global effects, mainly because of such non-democratic military decisions.

No further information is available on this topic, except by contacting your Congressman, Office of Naval Research, or Department of Defense. Recommended reading includes the Disclosure book by Dr. Steven Greer or the hardcover book, The Body of Secrets by James Bamford.