Originally posted by stompk
Nothing like have 7 replies in a thread and being ignored.

Thats the way it goes somedays. Just so you know, its a turn off when post like the above quote get placed in a thread and an even earlier post tries to lay a guilt trip on others for "why won't anybody jump in" on your theory.

If the reader sees something that piques there intellectual interest they will post, other wise you have to take what comes from it.

Just to give you some reality here, this thread has been viewed 10,570 times and replied to 119 times.

So, looking at you theory of electricity in Johns photo, No, I don't see it when I run photoshop filtering on the image..

Sorry for getting off topic for a second their spiky!

....no need to apologize, we're all cool.....

Originally posted by welivefortheson
what use would a hard hat be in this situation?,

OSHA regulations

Its an old piece of machinery, hard hats are required regardless if something may fall on you or not... It looks like a hard hat to me too... you can make out part of the face below the brim.


[edit on 14-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by stompk
For example, why logs to roll it on, ]

Having moved heavy boats in cradles on logs I can tell you that logs make very good sense for big stuff like that...

Wheels can break, or get stuck, requiring a crane to right it.. All those logs distribute the weight nicely... and the loss of one log would not stop the process

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
So what is going on? If they went back to the original idea they were working on does that mean that it is better then the tokamak/ITER? What does LLNL know that we don't?

Good question...

There is this interesting statement from LLNL...

Magnetic Fusion Energy
Another early energy effort was research on magnetic fusion energy. This research had been part of the Laboratory since its founding in 1952 and grew under Batzel's directorship. In the magnetic confinement concept, the fuel is trapped in a magnetic force field long enough to achieve fusion.

Fusion since 1952??? And in the Aristarchus thread they are chastising me for suggesting we have it today

Originally posted by Jadette
I can find lots of citations, so I doubt that it was on the hush-hush.

Maybe not hush hush... but certainly not easy to get your hands on either... all the citations, but you can't download the papers

THIS might explain the history of US Fusion research to everyone. It's a report done in 1995 explaining...well the history of US Fusion.

There was some disbelief in this thread about our capablity to do something like this in the 1970s. However, we've been working on such projects since the 1950s, it was a spin off from hydrogen bomb research.

LOL so I have been saying... I even showed documented WORKING fusion projects at MIT and Sandia Labs... dated the Russian Tokamaks and still the skeptics scream "There is no such work..."

Yet in here... oh its just a big magnet used for fusion experiments... quite normal actually What would we ever do without such diligent skeptics?

And finally, LLNL won an award for recycling the parts from the MFTF-B project

Cute! They win an award for cleaning up their own mess Gotta love it

Thanks for all those links... Lots of info and leads to other departments..

Now perhaps you could be do kind as to explain to me what it is and why they would need a

"cryogenic recapture facility was used in support of the 1980's era Magnetic Fusion Energy Program's, Mirror Fusion Test Facility (MFTF).

There are actually 2 of them. You can see just a bit of the second one peeking out from behind on the left side. Above the guy with the hard-hat.

Very interesting indeed.

Originally posted by robija
They are not the same.

I agree..

and you are right about the Serbian... but how much German and French can you handle

Welcome to ATS

Originally posted by Havalon
Thank you John, One question still remains - is that machine, - the one from the original post - the one your father was working on with the Townsend Foundation?

No data on that yet... but we do have it from a reliable source that the Philidelphia experiment was involved (from one whose grandfather worked on it with W. Lear and TT Brown) Will keep you posted... documents are beginning to surface now as the secrecy time expires

Originally posted by SeeQ
There are actually 2 of them. You can see just a bit of the second one peeking out from behind on the left side. Above the guy with the hard-hat.

You know I do believe you are right

Well there were supposedly 6 buried in the original 'story' and the LLNL documents indicate you need TWO to work in tandem....

And there is a lot going on in those documents that still bothers me...

To NJ Mooch... got any more on this below?

Smithsonian/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service

Title: The Tandem Mirror Fusion Test Facility
Publication: Energy and Technology Review, July 1980, p. 1-9.
Publication Date: 07/1980
Category: Plasma Physics
Origin: STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
FUSION REACTORS, PLASMA CONTROL, PLASMA DIAGNOSTICS, REACTOR TECHNOLOGY, TANDEM MIRRORS, TEST FACILITIES, CONTROLLED FUSION, CRYOGENICS, ENERGY TECHNOLOGY, MAGNETIC FIELD CONFIGURATIONS, NEUTRAL BEAMS, REACTOR DESIGN, SOLENOIDS, SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETS, THERMAL BARRIERS (PLASMA CONTROL), VACUUM SYSTEMS
Bibliographic Code: 1980EnTR.....R...1.


Okay

1 - What does NASA have to do with this?
2 - Why did they need two machines to work in Tandem?
3 - Why are they referred to as MIRRORS
4 - We had super conducting magnets back then? (haven't checked)
5 - Why the cryogenics? Or is this something to do with the cooling liquids for the super conductors?

The Mirror term is my biggest concern... ties in to other LANL work

[edit on 14-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by robija
They are not the same.

I agree..

and you are right about the Serbian... but how much German and French can you handle

Welcome to ATS

Not much

Originally posted by stompk
Why won't anybody jump in a discuss any of my posts??

I've had a few IM's about how interesting it is, but nobody wants to discuss it in public?

Weird behavior people. Maybe it's because some of you that have thought I was crazy, are starting to see the truth. I'm not. I'm truly guided by God, for the betterment of mankind.

Look at my stuff. It is real.

Oh really. Then you should be a celebrity. And you are not ignored anymore.

It must be that your mate God helped you. I just need to reply to you. He is true, people.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by robija]

Zorgon, good point on the naming of the things, NASA etc. This is a great thread.

The newer of the two simply looks like two U-shaped magnets married together to create a field between the two, so I'm really baffled with why you would need two, or six, and how you would use them in that configuration. No telling if it's what they say, or if it's a reproduction of found technology.

I guess I'd be good if I knew why you would need multiple units. Unless they are each generating energy and can be focused, such as atom smashing machines, then why!? I'm going with stealth or weapon experiment, not energy fusion. Maybe energy, but something seems weird here.

And yes, to the poster that has reminded us all several times, I know, it's "Just a magnet"

In relation to comments on your postings, IMHO I thinks that some people get 'tunnel vision' on these threads and follow their own points or observations and consequent replies to their own input without reading the fresh stuff like yours, unless it fits their own way of thinking. I could be wrong of course!

Plus, it would seem you have a very astute and scientific way of explaining yourself, this sometimes goes 'flying over the heads' of some.

Finally Stompk, whilst I admire and respect your faith in the Lord, is it really necessary to mention this in nearly every post?

What do you think drives me?

If I have an astute and scientific way of explaining myself, then why worry about my beliefs? I never mentioned a thing until I felt left out of the conversation, and I realized it is simply because of my avatar.

Spiky was is ready to accept the Government explanation.

I challenged the blind acceptance, came up with a theory, even tied it to John Titor, and explained it with full detail. I could have started my own thread about it, but I chose to do it in Spiky's thread, where all that thought and reasearch and knowledge got buried.

Oh well.

Someday scientist will realize they can't explain everything, but everthing can be explained.

I don't brag very often, but that theory and machine I drew came right off the top of my head. I'll remain impressed with myself for a moment. OK done.

you know i dont even think there is a guy in the picture,get a copy of the colour photo,and zoom in and out.

you can see that the guys head is coloured the same as the dirty-golden squares of the "magnet".

his lower half is also the same colour as the sand.

is he an illusion??

Originally posted by welivefortheson
you know i dont even think there is a guy in the picture,get a copy of the colour photo,and zoom in and out.

you can see that the guys head is coloured the same as the dirty-golden squares of the "magnet".

his lower half is also the same colour as the sand.

is he an illusion??

Hey there WeLive... heres a blow up of the little guy, in color. Personally, I dont think it does anything to assist your arguement, or ours for that matter. My enhancing skills arent the best nor is the software I'm using. Its just the run of the mill stuff that came with Windows XP. Perhaps if one of the other ATS'rs is up to it, they can do a better enhancement than what I've got here. I think he looked better in black and white. But now as I'm thinking about it, I dont think that color photo was an original color photograph. It kinda looks like it was colored after the fact. I may need someone to me back up on that one.