Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 559 Thursday, June 4th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Are Abductions Separate From Ufo Phenomena? Aussie UFOs Gulf Breeze Re: Belgium Phobos Ufo Related Shows "White" spot in Strieber's brain Communion Re: ROAD FLARES Adam & Eve Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion Gulf Breeze Re: Ufo Related Shows Re: What Can We Do? Re: Gulf Breeze Free energy device ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Morrow) Subject: Are Abductions Separate From Ufo Phenomena? Date: 30 May 92 04:35:00 GMT Steve, You seem to be assuming that the "abduction" needs to be a physical event. If "they" are able to play the mind games claimed (having the abductee "see things" that aren't really there), then isn't it possible that many, if not most of the "abductions" are projected into the abductee without any physical interaction at all? It would go a long way toward explaining the odd transportation methods (teleportation thru closed windows, etc) and might explain why many of the experiences have some many "absurd elemnets". In addition, although some of the abductees may have physical events, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the the majority of those who claim an experience (at least those that seem to be legitimate) have endured a strictly mental phenomena. -- Doug Morrow - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic) Subject: Aussie UFOs Date: 31 May 92 04:07:00 GMT > I know you said it was unconfirmed but I'd be interested in > knowing > where this alleged meteorite hit, if anything does come of it. Don, Sorry, I haven't got any more information on this. I only heard it from one of our associates in Queensland who heard it from someone else. So, it is basically a rumor. If anybody should know something about it - it's Bill Chalker who lives in Sydney. As you've already seen, Bill's filed his report and didn't mention meteorite. He was talking to me on the phone, a few days ago, and I mentioned meteorite to him but he said he didn't know anything about it. I didn't reply to you before because I was trying to get more info on the meteorite story but, as you can see, without much success. Vlad -- Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic) Subject: Gulf Breeze Date: 31 May 92 04:48:00 GMT > A good question: Why has no one attempted to send a small > aircraft to the location while the light is being observed? You > might think that as much money as some folks have made off the > book sales, there would be a few hundred dollars left to charter > a small plane for this purpose. Another question: Why has not a > certain "scientific" UFO research organization used a small, > hand-held spectrometer to analyze the light? This would give > some clear indication of its composition, which might turn out > to be magnesium. I agree with you Mike, but you know by now that some "scientific" researchers and organisation will investigate reports only as far as it suits them. That is up to a point where a report looks like a genuine UFO report. They are NOT interested in proving that a report WAS NOT a UFO, hoax or whatever, simply because they want to keep in UFO "business" and also write more books. -- Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik) Subject: Re: Belgium Date: 30 May 92 20:20:00 GMT Well, these guy's went into nitpicking the number of RADAR stations and are convinced that something called "Ionospheric Deflection" did it now. Don't you already pay $4.95 per month even with your flag? I used to be flagged in several areas but I still had to pay the $4.95. If you pay this $4.95 type *Space and go to CAT 7, TOP 12 IT is free. If not, tell me and I'll E-mail it too you. I thought I was getting somewhere with them for while, darn! -- Marc Michalik - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim.Shell@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tim Shell) Subject: Phobos Date: 31 May 92 01:10:00 GMT I happened to be browsing in my local library the other day and came across two very interesting articles in back issues of Sky and Telescope. One dealt with Lunar Transient Phenomenon (LTP) which was in the March 1992 issue, the other was a photo article about the Martian moon Phobos. The Phobos article was particularly interesting with its color-enhanced photo of a bright blue glow coming from the moon's lower hemisphere. I think that any serious UFO fan should check this magazine out once in a while. Although their slant is pretty dry sometimes, there does seem to be good fodder for speculatthere. Just thought someone might be interested. -- Tim Shell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tim.Shell@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Salts) Subject: Ufo Related Shows Date: 31 May 92 02:25:01 GMT Hello Jim! 27 May 92, Jim Speiser writes to Richard Salts: JS> In a message to Jim Speiser <05-26-92 22:01> Richard Salts wrote: RS>> If memory serves me correctly, back in '87, or thereabouts, Ted RS>> Koppel did a program on his "Nightline" series about the abduction RS>> phenomena when Strieber's "Communion" (which I thought then and still RS>> do that it is a very good book) and Hopkins' "Intruders" first came RS>> out. Unfortunately, at that time, I didn't know it was on and missed RS>> it but would a show like that qualify in terms of credibility for our RS>> subject? Did you see that edition of "Nightline"? JS> I did not. Yes, "NightLine" would be a start, but not if they insisted on JS> doing the usual "prominent ufologist vs. Phil Klass" debate. That debate JS> is over, we've won that one, its time to get down to some real issues, say JS> for example, Don Schmitt vs. an Air Force Public Information Officer on JS> the Roswell crash. JS> But NightLine would only be the beginning. I think the best vehicle would JS> be PrimeTime Live, as it has a history of following up doggedly on their JS> investigations. I don't want to see a one shot deal, I want some reporter JS> to sink his teeth into the cover-up and not let go. JS> Jim I've been giving the topic of UFO related shows some thought the last day or two and here is what I've come up with: PrimeTime Live might be a good start but how about a show, or better yet, a SERIES of shows that were written, produced and directed by someone acceptable to MUFON and CUFOS mutually, the science advisory personnel of both those organizations would have the sole say to the director in how the series was organized, the cases selected and HOW they would be presented to a TV audience. NOBODY featured in this proposed series would be jumping to any fast "conclusions" about this or that case 'proving' the existence of 'extraterrest- rials', etc as is sometimes the case with some Unsolved Mysteries shows. The cases would be examined critically (NOT "critically" as CSICOP does it!), the evidence presented along with possible interpretations, extraterrestrials being just one of several possibilities, say. I envision such a series being on, say, NOVA or Discover, if anyone can generate any interest in those shows for our subject matter. THOSE shows would REALLY be BIG guns if the series could be presented in a fair, neutral manner, if that is indeed possible to do. Such is the bare bones of my idea. What do you or anyone else on this network think of this? Rich -- Richard Salts - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Salts) Subject: "White" spot in Strieber's brain Date: 31 May 92 02:53:02 GMT Hello All! Given the source (Robert Scheaffer, a Skeptical Inquirer writer) and given CISCOP's overwhelming penchant for describing anybody who has a positive interest in any paranormal subject in the most belittling, derisive, patronizing and derogatory terms available, I have quite severe reservations about Scheaffer's alleged "description" of Mr. Strieber and how Strieber is supposed to have acted on the set of KPIX. Rich -- Richard Salts - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Salts) Subject: Communion Date: 31 May 92 03:17:03 GMT Hello Linda! 27 May 92, Linda Bird writes to Richard Salts: LB> Hi Richard, LB> Welcome! Are you new to the board? I don't thnk I have seen your name LB> before. I had been downloading this and other Paranet echoes from the Skeptic's Board until I began to carry the Paranet echoes here in Central Texas on my board. I 've been mostly reading other's messages, lurking, so to speak. But I might be coming out of the woodwork a little more often now. LB> Well, when I read "Communion," I was not interested in UFO's, or anything LB> in this field. I read the book simply because it was making a sensation, LB> and I wanted to see what the fuss was about. I would say that I read it LB> much as one would a Stephen King book: just to get a thrill and a shiver. LB> I haven't looked at "Communion" in about 4 years, but will try to find it LB> so I can mention that chapter you mentioned. LB> Thanks, and best to you, LB> Linda Please do! That chapter is REALLY provocative! Don't know if you would want to talk about the chapter and/or the book or whether it is considered history as opposed to more recent material. When I first got the book and read it, I was so enthralled by it that I intended to write Strieber and compliment him for being so courageous for writing it but I never did. That was the first and only book of his that I have but he can sure WRITE! Rich -- Richard Salts - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Richard.Salts@p0.f28.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: ROAD FLARES Date: 31 May 92 05:47:00 GMT Hi John, Should be about to get the IUR article on "flying road flares" out to you early this week. School is almost out, so don't have so much to do at night! Best, Linda -- Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Houston.Mayer@f95.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Houston Mayer) Subject: Adam & Eve Date: 30 May 92 20:41:46 GMT What do you know about Adam & Eve being found south of Denver? I was doing serious research in the weekly World News, trying to keep up with the latest UFO sightings and spotted the article. Houston -- Houston Mayer - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Houston.Mayer@f95.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pony.Godic@f6.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Pony Godic) Subject: Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion Date: 31 May 92 21:24:00 GMT I have been following Gulf Breeze from the beginning and my concern has grown as the hoax has escalated. I have followed the discussions for and against a hoax and remain convinced that Gulf Breeze is a hoax. I will not get into justifying my position as I am merely expressing my subjective viewpoint, not trying to further expose the hoax as it would appear that no matter how much documentation is presented revealing the crude blatancy of the hoax, there are those with a vested interest in promoting it re their reputations and/or financial gain, in company with those who simply want desperately to finally have a real live UFO situation unfolding in their midsts. Nevertheless, I am concerned as the time and energy of very intelligent people is being wasted fighting the good fight. I remind you all of the Cottingley fairy hoax which began as a girlish prank in 1917 and escalated into hoax that lasted until exposure and confession by the perpetrators in the early 1980s. Granted the girls involved had not set out to accomplish the magnitude of hoax that went on to become enshrined as fact and proof. The hoax was validated by none other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the creator of Sherlock Holmes. I find it very unsettling that a man of Doyle's intellectual brilliance could so easily believe in the Cottingley fairies as this clearly illustrates that no matter how intellectually gifted or educated a person is they always have an emotional nature full of needs. Obviously, the Cottingly fairies filled a very deep emotional need for Conan Doyle. I believe that today Gulf Breeze is filling a very deep emotional need for people who are very intelligent intellectually, some of them holding impressive academic creditials which, by association, serve to validate the Gulf Breeze hoax. Anyway, to get to the point, what concerns me is that not only is there emotional fulfilment in Gulf Breeze, there's also, for certain people, financial reward in keeping Gulf Breeze on the boil. Is it possible that when the hoax is exhausted in X number of years time, that the perpetrators will come clean and have the last laugh. What a bloody shame it'll be if Gulf Breeze has anything like the longevity of the Cottingley fairies. -- Pony Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pony.Godic@f6.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic) Subject: Gulf Breeze Date: 1 Jun 92 04:42:00 GMT > It's not that easy. Many of us have been making general pains > of ourselves trying to prove the truth or falsehood of various > aspects of the Gulf Breeze incidents, and we haven't gotten all > that far. John, I don't know whether you've seen it, but there are two excelelnt aricles on the Gulf Breeze in the March/April issue of IUR. One is titled "The Gulf Breeze RUFOS" by Zan Overall and the other- "The Invention of a Gulf Breeze UFO" by Barbara Becker. Vlad -- Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis) Subject: Re: Ufo Related Shows Date: 31 May 92 00:31:00 GMT If you can secure the production finances and completion bond, I will provide you with all the actors, technicians and productions you need. But, only if your intent is quality work (either fiction or non-fiction) with an aim at bettering the general understanding of UFO research. -- Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis) Subject: Re: What Can We Do? Date: 31 May 92 00:44:00 GMT You have hit a very sensitive nail on its already painful head. Even when a serious effort is made to have conferences on UFOs, the media will invariably shoot interviews with over-weight science fiction fans wearing cardboard cutouts of their favorite movie "saucer" and present that image to the world as the core of serious investigators. I went to two conventions in the early 60s and vowed never to go again. In fact I stored away hundreds of boxes of data and only recently have sifted through some of it to see what the mice had not destroyed. We need a center for research. We need salaried professionals and we need sufficient funds to continue major lines of research. At the moment we have none of this - and the few competent souls that carry the torch are often crushed by negative press and self serving entrepreneurs. I stood with Cy Edmonds and Peter Cosky (I know, you've never heard of them) in front of a group of people in Southern New Jersey in 1959 and absorbed the distrust and hatred a whole town had for UFO researchers. We were called nearly every word and discrediting title you can image. It is no worse today. Almost invariably you hear phrases such as, "I'd like to find out more about UFOs, but look at all the crazies you have to deal with." Until we take a professional approach to credibility, we are never going to separate ourselves from science fiction fandom and get on with the work at hand. -- Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Date: 31 May 92 15:25:00 GMT In a message to Vladimir Godic <05-26-92 19:32> Michael Corbin wrote: MC> A good question: Why has no one attempted to send a small aircraft MC> to the location while the light is being observed? You might think MC> that as much money as some folks have made off the book sales, there MC> would be a few hundred dollars left to charter a small plane for this Its my understanding that somebody went to the expense of renting a high-powered searchlight, to try and see an outline of the object. They failed at that, but they managed to signal the object by flashing, and the object allegedly returned the signal. This is what Walt told a friend of mine, anyway. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Achmed.Khammas@f10.n2403.z2.FIDONET.ORG (Achmed Khammas) Subject: Free energy device Date: 26 May 92 22:54:00 GMT THE SYNERGY MODEL If on the earth`s surface a body is moved from one point to another, gravitation has only an indirect effect through friction on this body so long as it is on the same level of potential energy. However, if one wants to move the body's level in a direction opposite to gravitational influence (=upward transport), a considerable expenditure of energy would be required. The expended energy is not lost, but remains stored in the body in form of increased potential energy. The actual percentage of total energy stored on the new potential energy level varies directly with the degree of efficiency of the transport system used. The quantity of possible energy reclamation (Example : Pump-fed power station) also depends on the degree of efficiency of the system converting the stored potential energy into other forms of energy or exergy (e.g. falling water into rotational energy and then into electrical energy, the most commonly known exergy form.) Calm water has a very high surface tension. Gravitation affects all molecules equally strongly, thus permitting the surface to level itself in an ideal manner. Seen in a planetary context, the sea level surface is considered to be the "zero level" of all altitude or depth measurement. The upward transport of water onto a higher level requires a certain expenditure of energy. We contend that this expenditure of energy is especially high in those cases where in an "upward transport" a partial amount of water must be detached from the whole system. In this case, the cohesion counteracts the upward transport and thus increases the necessary energy requirement to a considerable extent. This paper deals with a method of transport which eliminates the necessity for breaking the cohesive forces in water. This "transport system" is based on a topological deformation of water, resulting from rotation but without application of pressure, in which the cohesive forces are not affected during upward transport. A vital element of this transport system is basically not new; it is known as the Newtonian Bucket Experiment. However, in his time Newton had not paid any attention to the possible practical use of spirally rising water. He mainly considered his experiment to be a proof of "Absolute rotation". Since then - and to this day - it seems that no one has dealt anymore intensively with this experiment, with the possible exception of Berkeley, who dismissed Newton's Thesis, asserting the "Bucket Experiment" to be a proof of the "Relativity of Movement". No one seemed to be interested either in the technical or the practical aspects. The physical concept: Continuously acting centrifugal, centripetal and shearing forces result in a helical movement opposite to the gravitational direction. Although continuous bucket rotation releases all of these forces, it releases no strong pressure or suction forces, thus considerably minimizing the losses due to friction. Determining the necessary number of revolutions does not present a problem. The rotating body's minimum number of revolutions depends exclusively on the ratio of height to diameter. Aesthetical calculations result in single-digit number of revolutions per second. Therefore, it is easy to calculate the optimal number of revolutions adequate to the material, to the type of storage as well as to other parameters. These low number of revolutions are independent of the actual dimensions of the rotating body. The water-formed paraboloid in the rotating container steepens with the increase in speed, its base dropping lower and lower as water is displaced sideways and upwards. The aforementioned low number of revolutions are enough to deform the water topologically in such a way that the inside surface of the produced hollow space approaches an upright angle of 90 degrees to the calm surface. The entire system calls to mind those designs for space stations which generate a ( centrifugal ) artificial gravitational force through their artificially created axial rotation; thus ensuring an almost normal life aboard. However, the bucket experiment's most interesting aspect is its application " W I T H I N " a gravitational field, upon which the rotational effect is superimposed. Topological deformation causes the water to literally "creep up the walls" inside the rotation field. As soon as the container' s rim is reached, the unrestrained centrifugal force thrusts the water over the rim. If this upper rim were to be equipped with a (stationary) collecting basin, a certain quantity of water of a higher potential energy level would be obtained. This effect, of course, could only be achieved by first expending a certain amount of energy into the rotation procedure. Let us proceed on the assumption that the water quantity in the bucket is limited and that the bucket itself is at rest. Under these conditions, a relatively large amount of energy would be required in order to lift up the water in the described way. It would be a completely different case, however, if the established rotation ( after expenditure of start and acceleration energy) is only to be kept constant and if there is a constant supply of water at the lower end of the bucket. The energy expenditure necessary to maintain the flow equilibrium is substantially lower than the amount required for start and acceleration, while the total-mass-stabilizing flow equilibrium is materially assured by the "Effect of communicating tubes". If one part of the rotation container is situated beneath the level of feed water, then the water - with a corresponding tube connection and possible axial infeed at the lower end of the rotating cylinder - will flow into the container without any additional application of energy. A further decrease in energy expenditure in the maintenance of rotation can be achieved by reducing the number of revolutions of the cylinder to a subcritical speed . This speed is reached as soon as the water is no longer thrust over the upper rim of the rotating container, but moves only within the rotating container as a standing wall of water. Due to the previously integrated continuous water supply at the bottom end of the rotating body even the most minor increase in speed would reestablish the interrupted flow equilibrium such that each drop that is thrust over the top of the rim would be replaced simultaneously at the bottom. Now, another closer look at the subcritical speed. With this number of revolutions applied, an overflow at the upper rim does not yet occur - unless we were to artificially generate a certain pressure on the water, an incompressible medium. This pressure would immediately thrust the water over the upper rim because it would present the water with its only alternative exit. First, we assume that the water feed at the lower end is (still) closed and that the rotating body is turning with subcritical speed. Since the water quantity is limited in this case, the base of the created rotation paraboloid sinks to a level b e n e a t h the still water surface which is identical with the feed water level. With the water indeed open, however, any drop of the falling water level results in an immediate rise in indeed water pressure with its assumed constant level. Since, according to physical laws, this pressure acts upon the entire water quantity within the rotating cylinder, this pressure could represent exactly that kind of energy which is required to thrust the water over the upper rim of the container even at a subcritical number of revolutions. With the described method we achieve a constant upward flow, opposite to the pull of gravitation, which results in a constant flow equilibrium when a constant number of revolutions is applied. After providing for acceleration, our direct energy expenditure is limited to the compensation of various friction losses, while the upward transport itself takes place through the permanently renewed pressure of the feeding water reservoir ( Sea, lake etc.). The hydrological cycle is closed by the subsequent use of increased potential energy by means of water turbines. With this procedure one can reconvert the gravitation effect - now again uninfluenced by rotation-based centrifugal and centripetal forces - into utilizable electric current. It cannot be left unmentioned that doubts have been raised from various sides concerning the practicability of this system. This machine itself prohibits an uncritical application of the Thermodynamic Principles . In the meantime, however, positive remarks have been made which refer to recent discoveries in physics and chemistry. Indeed, the Belgian scientist Prigogine was recently awarded the Nobel prize for just this particular theory, according to which the application of the Thermodynamic Principles is only allowable in c 1 o s e d systems. If we reflect on the conditions established by Prigogine for an opposite, o p e n s y s t e m, we ascertain, that these conditions are completely met by the transport system described here: An uninterrupted flow of MATTER and ENERGY through the system What represents the uninterrupted supply of chemically-bound energy and/or light in an non-entropic form of human, animal or plant nature, is carried out in this very system by the water itself : it transports its immanent and constantly renewed heat energy, the sources of which are mainly solar radiation and geothermal energy - in addition to the process heat of all biological and mechanical cycles found in the upper layers of the world's oceans. Certain similarities exist between the above described transport system and the universally feared tornados. Due to their exceptionally high revolution speeds, these tornados do represent an extreme form of general turbulence, but they also show very clearly that heat energy itself can transform itself d i r e c t l y into mechanical energy within a cyclonic field, even if only in low percentages. Quantitatively considered, however, they add up to enormous amounts. Several authors with insights into the latest research in the field speak of a synergistic self-organization of matter, which in this practical case, leads to a "self-energization" of the cyclonic structure. It is pointed out that even minimal temperature differences are sufficient to lift up water molecules to astonishing heights. Indeed, the entire population living on the surface of the planet lives from this low-temperature transport. Evaporation lifts millions of tons of water up hourly, without any pressure or suction forces in a technical sense - and that to heights of several thousand meters ! The successful combination of two old and well-known principles with recent discoveries in physics opens up the possibility of water transport ( from the ZERO water level upward), due to the physical characteristics of a cyclonic field, requiring extraordinarily low operating energies. Based on the assumption that a self-energization takes place, these must act - contrary to the first impression - in a decelerating not an accelerating manner. It remains to be seen which actual figures future pilot plants will achieve. Only then will the efficiency of the suggested rotation transport system be concretely verified. However, experiments with relatively small models have already indicated that the installation of centrifugal mass or disk flywheel on the rotating cylinder would pay off not only as regards to stability and temporary energy storage. The heavier the empty rotating container, the greater the water storage in the slow "subcritical speed range", thus also increasing the water quantity thrust over the upper rim due to the pressure of feed water. Due to the additional empty mass, the start-energy investment necessarily increases, but this is more than compensated by the higher equilibrium forces. The necessary energy required for further operation is hardly important because of its low percentage rate. Apart from the above described cohesion, adhesion should also be mentioned. Without this adhesion, the water would not move at all upon the start of the rotation (e.g. which is the case with HELIUM II near absolute zero ). In the aforementioned system, inside friction is a basic precondition for the functioning of the system. As proximity to the rotation center increases, the shearing forces progressively decrease, thus clearly indicating the difference between a centrifugal rotation acceleration (mixer, pumps etc. ) and a centripetal acceleration "from the circumference" which we have named "implosive". Comparing the above system with a conventional centrifugal pump or the possible mathematical or physical conclusions deriving from such a pump, leaves the impression that one intends to explain the flight behavior of a jet with the knowledge gained from ballooning. Gravitation, in our eyes, should no longer be considered negatively as a "foe to be overcome". On the contrary, no upward transport would probably be possible without gravitation and certainly no subsequent energy transformation or energy generation would take place. As a theoretical basis for a future mathematical analysis we have formulated the following: NON-ENTROPIC SYSTEMS ARE ANTI-GRAVITATIONAL The abovementioned system offers numerous possible applications. The system could be applied either as a transport component in pump-fed storage stations, for quick filling of sluices or for larger irrigation projects ; in connection with other technologies, it could be applied in the field of sea-water desalinization and sewage treatments or in other projects. The most important aspect , however, will be the system's utilization in the field of exergy exploitation from various renewable "environmental energies". An important aspect in an economic, technical and ecological respect context. A . A . W . Khammas, 1990 Luetzowstr.81 D 1000 BERLIN 30 0049/30/261 81 86 -- Achmed Khammas - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Achmed.Khammas@f10.n2403.z2.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************** For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact: DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin ********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to******** 'infopara' at the following address: UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to: UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara-request DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to: DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet) Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters: DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname ******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************