From herman@college.antioch.edu Thu Sep 12 14:41:58 1996
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 02:00:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: William Beaty <billbeskimo.com>
Subject: Survey of results (fwd)



	Dear Bill,

	This is not yet cleared for post.  Several reasons, including 
confidential communications, but I thought you would like to have the 
list so far, sources include the guy, PK, who wrote the papers, Modanese 
Giovanni [who does NOT want to be quoted at this time] and others and the 
results of people 
asking quesions of PK and others and they then taking measurements.

	All effects confirmed.


	As soon as any or all are OK for post, I will let you know.  
Won't be long, maybe even just a few days.


	Thanks for bearing with me on the privacy issue.  I already had 
one fellow who said he would respect confidentality, and POSTED 
confidentail information form Dr Li to I from NASA.  Li clammed up ... 
pisssed too!


	All items confirmed.

	Just got personal communication and pre print from finns and italy.
	one change.

	Change/addition;

	Effect does not fall of with square of distance .... does not fall 
off at ALL!  From zero to 3 meters.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college>
To: John Schnurer <herman@college>
Subject: Survey of results (fwd)

	Not for post.

OK	1) effect additive
	2) toroid displays 'hole' in effect at close range
	3) toroid looks like disk at distance
OK	4) disk or toroid display 'toroidal zone of expulsion'
OK	5) explusion weak
OK	6) effect linear to a degree increase with rate or rotation

	7) effect falls slightly with distance, not with sq/distance
		# 7 is in error, see note at top


	8) columnar, no divergence
	9) no effect below, no weight change below .. plus or minus none 
OK	10) small effect, but some, with no rotation
OK	12) larger disk does not, per se, make for more effect.
	13) no side effects .. meaning no effect to side of rig.

						J


	For you, Bill, I will be happy to amplify on any of these points 
and lt you know how the answers were arrived at.....all of this is solid.
	Examples:

	 the 2.1 % effect is claimed due to it being the maximum 
they could measure as stable.  Effect was stronger at time but disk or 
toroid rotation was limited due to imbalance.  It would start to wobble 
and they would have to use the field/drive solenoids to brake [reduce] 
rotation.  

	In the second published results everyone ... [prior to this] was 
yelling about EM or E fields or magnetic .... you know, other forces.  So 
these folks shielded the SNOT out of it.

	One part I REALLY liked in a pre pub not yet released was ....

.... "formed a tonnel [their spelling] of ...." describing the columnar 
'beam' , if you will of the effect, as it afected dust particles and air 
and other fluids placed in the 'beam' .... well, heck, Bill, what else do 
you want to call it.


	More as I get it.

	I can flag the ones you can post.... but if you attribute it to 
me or PK or Modanese, then I am in trouble.  That much I CAN do.

	Post, but no attribution to the above, all the ones listed "OK"
	As SOON as the paper is officially released to press, the rest, 
but for a couple will be postable and you can then give PK the hit as the 
source.

	I am in the process of building a slightly different way to do 
this, and while I may not be albe to let out for post some of the 
physical manufacturing tricks .... I will send for post all measurements 
I get.

	Best I can do for now.  It works ... just needs 'poking'.


					J