The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

: shall: wish- 273 -STEFAN MARINOV Dr. E. PanarellaMorellenfeldgasse 16 25 June 1990 PHYSICS ESSAYSA-8010 GRAZ — AUSTRIA Nat. Res. CouncilRoom^lOO, Bldg. MIOTel. 0316/377093Dear Dr. Panarella.OntarioKIA 0R6Thank you very much for your letter of the 11 June 1990 concerning my paper PE2500/KLA.I have rewritten the paper following ALL your suggestions and convincing me once morein the validity of the formulaImpact = (Quality) ,i.e., that the impact which a paper can have on the reader is equal to the quality ofof the paper at a power n, where n is the number of rewri tings of the paper. Thank youof having suggested to me to rewrite the paper! Now it is almost perfect.Here I shall answer the three remarks of the referee in his second comments.1. I do NOT accept Ampere's law when writing (in the addendum of the last variationof my paper): " I agree that Ampere's formula predicts for my rotating Ampere bridge atorque in the same direction as predicted by Grassmann's formula". I only noticed thatAmpere's formula predicts the SAME direction of rotation as Grassmann's formula (and asNature does). From this conclusion the referee cannot make the conclusion that I acceptAmpere's formula. - I also agree that Goebbels' f^tatement "Every lie if 1000 times repeatedbecomes a truth" is true, but this does not signify that I accept Dr. Goebbels.Thus I continue to assert that the Ampere's bridge is propulsing by the action of internalforces and NOT by the action of the currents in the stator (as is the assertionDf Ampere's formula). The point of the paper is exactly AT THIS POINT.2. In his first comments the referee wrote:The Ampere force law predicts that Marinov's motor will not rotate if C and F arewelded conductor junctions and AB and GH are made very long compared to DE. Thecurrent from a battery or other source would then have to be introduced with slippingcontacts at A and H. Also the battery leads would have to be kept well awayfrom the motor. If the motor still rotates with these modifications, then I acceptMarinov has proved his point of selfpropulsion.I showed in the addendum (this text is now included in the paper - p. 8) that ifthe sliding contacts will be put at the points B, G or at the points A, H, far enoughfrom the bridge, then ALSO ACCORDING TO GRASSMANN'S FORMULA, the bridge will NOT rotate.According to Grassmann, a CLOSED current loop cannot rotate about an axis and violatethe angular momentum conservation law. But an UNCLOSED current loop CAN ROTATE about^n axis violating thus the angular momentum conservation law. Such are the loops in my3ul-Cub machine without stator and in my Rotating Ampere Bridge with DISPLACEMENT current.UNCLOSED loops(i.e., circuits with condensers) rotate under the action of INTERNAL-ORCES and such a rotation can be explained only by Grassmann's formula but NOT by Ampere's'ormula as the WHOLE stator wire comers from infinity and goes to infinity ALONG the AXIS.*3. I gave in the new version of the paper a more DIDACTIC explanation (p. 5) why two)arts of one and the same current loop act one on another with equal and oppsoitely directedforces (according to Grassmann). If this "topological" explanation is not suffi-:ient for the referee and he will ask me "How thin must be the two parallel wires", or'One cannot send finite current along very thin wires because they will be burnt", etc.,prefer to cut the discussion because even to the statement "The day has 24 hours")ne can raise objections of being imperfect.Hoping to receive soon your final decision concerning my paperPROPULSIVE AND ROTATING AMPERE BRIDGES AND THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY,to point out that the photograph of the RAF-machine was sent with the previous/ersion of the paper.Sincerely yours.One can put the source of alternating tensionj //.,, .^ ,ilong the axis of the Bui -Cub machine .7- cUtiUf-^l/ithout stator BETWEEN THE POINTS OF SUSPENSION and Stefan Marinovhen the ROTATING system will be COMPLETELY ISOLATED.