I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand is good they are getting closer. But in the other hand they are doing simulations instead of experiments, and the simulations are based in a lot of assumptions that cripple how close the model can be to reality. I wonder if those doing these simulations ever heard about Bostick or Shoulders. Most probably they haven’t.
In the paper, they talk about physical experiments and the simulation is targeted to what could be physically attempted, so I think the simulation is really an attempt to try and estimate with known electrodynamics what the forces and fields might be and how this translates to form and behaviour.
With all the assumptions made, with a single non-resonant pulse, they are achieving magnetic fields, (and potentially electric fields) in excess of anything that has ever been technologically recognised as achieved on earth to day and that is a big win in its own right.
They also note that as the ring expands, the field drops and it is clear that the opposite would be true.
Now, we already know what these things can do, this ads metrics that can help the discussion about the validity of the observables for those that have difficulty in accepting what can repeatably be done easily in the lab.
I have build my experiment based on the information the Safire team was doing, it was not a model. I know they can do a lot, they should show us their latest experiences! . I am disappointed they went 'dark' with filming and talking about what they are doing. When government gets involved and when 'models' get in, be careful. All the big scientists like Einstein had their models and where wrong....
re. 18:38 Greenyer torus (too many in one place, see top two images). We can't ignore the material these occur in, just as spilling liquid on a carpet would produce a different patter than if it were spilled on a hard floor.
Prob: if the explusion filiments are magnetic (due to the material they are in) the filiments would naturally form magnetic lines similar to iron filings in a magnetic fiels, while the material was a) fluid enough to produce the pattern and b) magnetic enough to produce the pattern.
Just looking for options, yous guys. The Wheeler Geon is extremely unlikely, but this doesn't prove the Greenyer torus works to produce the effects seen.
Here's another progblem. How or why would the fields bury themselves halfway inside the material before revealing their true shapes?
I'm not 1`00% onboard with this evo shape at this point. In fact I am less inclined to think it's accurate than I was when I first came onboard. We can see how swirling electrons can create an magnetic torus, but we can't see how a magnetic torus can create another magnetic field in its center, much less how these centers could combine into another larger torus. The A field does not "flow". At least not in 3D space. It's merely a potential with a direction... having no dimensions, as pointed out at the beginning of the video.
This is my impression after studying it all the way up to almost page 2, lol.
The article is not very good. It's confusing wording in the intro (what parts are opposite polarity and why do they represent it this way?), fig 1(a) is ok. fig 1(b) needs to explain the lack of current density at the center of the vortex, while shedding like crazy, fig (c) might be ok but appears to have shifted to a top-down perspective without specifying the change (i.e., where's the negative current coming from if we are looking at electrons swirling in a plane???), and fig 1(d) looks like it eats ions.
Lots of high power behind the simulation, yeah. But there's a lot of high power behind hot fusion development too, and that's been "just around the corner" for... how many decades now?
I think the part that really kills this study for me is the lack of current density in the center of vortex A. It could be explained by a relativistic shift in the wave function of an electron, but at only 0.2 c? You could understand a physical instrument finding electrons to have disappeared, but this is a simulation. Anything that's hidden would have to be programmed deliberately TO be hidden.
And then the packing tape on the top to keep whatever's inside from getting out again, I remind myself how "black boxes" are so often invoked to keep a failing theory from simply going away. In this case its the magical invocation of "relativistic" phenomena.
re: "the ring has essentially no dimension." (2:45)
That's apparently the consensus if considering the magnetic properties..
The A field confined inside swirling electrons would have no dimension. It's a "magnetic potential". s/a Aharanov-Bohm effect.
However, Shoulders' and the simulation under discussion in the video create the ring with electrons. So while it is dimensionless in the magnetic sense, in the charge cluster sense it does have dimensions while it is observable. On the other hand, positive feedback between the swirling around the ring and the field it causes could result in strange phenomena such as even electrons disappearing, teleporting of matter (in unknown states of disassembly?), or do other weird things, mentioned in Shoulders' work - if I understand it correctly (yet),.
A Leak From Our Universe to Another (Ken Shoulders, 2006)
Bob, this is very confusing. Dimensionless ring at 2:45 or so then followed by D-4D (obviously DOES have dimension) and then even "fractal". This needs some explanation, doesn't it?
See 13:08
Ouch! Lol.
Not enough differentiation between charge and magnetism in your description?
I think that's it. Even tunsten filiments in incandescent bulbs can be seen to "drift" when powered by a DC current. That's why the bulbs in old satellites had to stop using DC for their luminosity calibration. This is clearly an effect driven by "electron" flow. And so electrons (driven by magnetic fields) are probably what leaves the tracks you observed in the hutchison samples. No?
In all cases of the ring, it has a diameter from one side to another.
There is a difference between the active magnetic core which, when alive, has practically no dimension, and a collapsed structure, where the matter is re-presented in normal 3D atomic volume space forming a torus. If a dimensionless ring lands on a surface, gets disrupted, the matter re-materialises in a half doughnut above the surface as observed in the Fe-rich torus on the Copper Oxide surface in VEGA.
In the case of the sphere, the practically dimensionless structure is the inside of the double layer - again until it collapses, where upon you have a shell produced.
In my view, the sphere is made up of interconnected tori that pack in a bucky-ball like fashion - pentagons and hexagons mostly, one can imagine it as the edges between soap bubbles.
If the toroid of 'sphere' form are energetic enough, they will burrow into matter. you can see this in the diamond in LION or in VEGA Copper Oxide.
Energetic EVOs in the form of Tori, Spheroid clusters or collapsed fragments of these can travel through matter or along its surface leaving tracks and marks which have a dimension similar to the event horizon around the particular structures cores.
Understood. But the D-4D dimensions and even before that manifests are where this gets sticky. Good point about the Vega torus with a rope-like helical shape, which we also see in other places. So the problem here, as I see it is in defining or differentiating between what you call the magnetic core (probably actually an 'A' field tied back to itself) and external single, double, quadruple or however many layered structure than maintains it.
re interconnected tori that pack in a bucky-ball like fashion
That does appear to be the case. Now how do the various sides attract one another? And where are the points at which they are attractive (rather than repulsive)? Never mind how they might find each other to produce these shapes for now, we can see evidence of it as one was apparently rolling around on a vibrator plate from Ohmasa in this video, here.
New MFMP Video – “OHMA – Strange Radiation – The Causal structure”
It left a very long trail, apparently rolling as it went, then turned several times, leaving imprints on the plate as it went leaving clues as to it's 3D structure.
re. LION and VEGA
I'm still playing catch-up on those but I've seen other videos that show the meshes and polygons and have an observation of my own on this.
It looks to me (so far) like all the "paisley" shapes may have "tails" due to having blown out sides (of a polygon in the images I've seen). There are a couple of them that this appears to be happening in and another that has TWO lobes below (in the image) three sides of a polygon. IN other words, it looks like a pentagon with two sides blown out into blobs.
Sorry no links at this time, but you might know what I'm talking about from the description?
re. event horizon...
I'm having a great deal of difficulty dealing with this gravitic well for particles whose wave function would (possibly/probably?) be much larger than the expected event horizon.
Note that even the Geon doesn't place the center of gravity in the nucleus, but hypothesizes it to be part of a standing wave where gravity and electromagnetism are in resonance. In the Geon model, there is no event horizon mentioned for the model and if there was, it would be difficut to see how a standing wave could survive the trip aournd the loop.
But who knows. Gravity seems to escape from black holes just fine. ;-) Magnetism too, or so the astrophysicists appear to believe.
We can see electrons which explaines the negadive charge.
In order to remain in any kind of structure there must be a positive charge, and we see that too (infered from negative eV in 'red' area.). Do we have any understanding of how the positive charge is getting generated or what's causing it?
====================================
Notes for others that may have the same problem I have with all the synonyms (three names for every effect = N^3 times as confusing): ;-)
Video: Dynamics of moving electron vortices and magnetic ring
...self compression of the cell, contents radiate as light and leptons (seen in Hutchison samples), called a "gravity decay" (matsumoto's term).
* * 52:20 particles of matter coliding with 0.5 eV synthesize cold neutrinos (equivalent to relic neutrinos) which facilitate inverse beta decay. (An electron falling into the nucleus frees a proton and some other junk.)
DISCLAIMER: I'm still trying to get up to speed here so if you find any errors, more power to you. I understand Bob's reluctance to create a new vocabulary for these things but without a standard naming convenction, resultant confusion is certain to hinder progress in understanding for newcomers and potential contributors to the effort.
Just A Thought:
Seven pennies set on a table can be clustered into their smallest shape forming a hexagon. These hexagons can be connected in the patter of the "foosball" above to form a sphere. If the center penny is removed the structure would remain IF the coins were glued firmly, in such a way as to remain flat. (like centripetal force?)
I think you've nailed it Bob. Now the problem is the insane number of synonyms, each worthy of credit to their authors, but incredibly confusing, in my opinion. And this problem with nomenclature is not confined to names for various electron behaviors but also the names for the Parkhomov tables. Ouch! :-)
BUT the reason I agree with him is really based on some footage I saw of the UFO over Mexico City during the solar eclipse. The UFO went 80 miles in 3 frames. It looked like an inch worm the front extending first, then bringing up the back end, in what might be called "hyperjumps" and looking like a string of beads overall. The effect was somewhat like if you rolled a glass rod over a dot or period on a piece of paper.
Through air.
My eyes are pretty bad. I really appreciate the videos.
WRT "wheels within wheels within wheels" and flattened toroids - I have a possible explanation for that.
I've been searching for consistent models of the Universe for 50 years. By the time I got to Uni I'd realized that there was something broken in the heart of Chemistry, which then meant Subatomic Physics was also compromised. I eventually worked out there were problems with Cosmology, Geography, and many other areas.
After much searching I believe I at last have come across models which are self-consistent and are a lot better at explaining the basics from the very small to the very large (still a lot of work to be done on the in-between), that being at the small level the model of Miles Mathis, leading into much of the Electric Universe Theory, with work by Per Bak especially showing how they all hold together.
Unfortunately Miles's model especially has a very steep learning curve and is spread over hundreds of self-published papers, so I've done my best to summarise it - you can find it here:
The rest of my site goes over the other bits and how they hang together.
So what does this have to do with this presentation? In Miles's model subatomic particles are built up of what are effectively very small non-compressible billiard balls that have "layers" of spin - first of all axially (like the Earth's rotation), then in an X plane (like the Earth orbiting around the Sun), then Y and Z planes, gradually building up to electrons and larger particles. So what you have in this model is effectively "wheels within wheels within wheels". The spin is so fast that by the time you get to an electron rather than being a sphere it's more like a compact disk - a toroid with a hole in the centre, which is constantly recycling smaller particles, mainly coming in at the poles and being ejected mainly around the equator. As these get bigger they're more 3D than 2D as they can't spin as fast; a plasmoid would have a similar shape to a scaled-up proton, anti-proton or neutron.
Miles's model then goes on to explain how atoms and molecules have definite structure, and how that leads to magnetism, beta decay, electrical conductivity and a host of other properties.
Hopefully you find this useful, as I believe it does a lot better job than the standard model of explaining the basics behind the sort of properties you are finding.
Constructive criticism and suggestions welcome here or via honestscientisttas at-sign gmail dot com.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand is good they are getting closer. But in the other hand they are doing simulations instead of experiments, and the simulations are based in a lot of assumptions that cripple how close the model can be to reality. I wonder if those doing these simulations ever heard about Bostick or Shoulders. Most probably they haven’t.
In the paper, they talk about physical experiments and the simulation is targeted to what could be physically attempted, so I think the simulation is really an attempt to try and estimate with known electrodynamics what the forces and fields might be and how this translates to form and behaviour.
With all the assumptions made, with a single non-resonant pulse, they are achieving magnetic fields, (and potentially electric fields) in excess of anything that has ever been technologically recognised as achieved on earth to day and that is a big win in its own right.
They also note that as the ring expands, the field drops and it is clear that the opposite would be true.
Now, we already know what these things can do, this ads metrics that can help the discussion about the validity of the observables for those that have difficulty in accepting what can repeatably be done easily in the lab.
I have build my experiment based on the information the Safire team was doing, it was not a model. I know they can do a lot, they should show us their latest experiences! . I am disappointed they went 'dark' with filming and talking about what they are doing. When government gets involved and when 'models' get in, be careful. All the big scientists like Einstein had their models and where wrong....
This work was done independent of SAFIRE - they just happened to have forwarded on the paper having become aware of it themselves.
re. 18:38 Greenyer torus (too many in one place, see top two images). We can't ignore the material these occur in, just as spilling liquid on a carpet would produce a different patter than if it were spilled on a hard floor.
Prob: if the explusion filiments are magnetic (due to the material they are in) the filiments would naturally form magnetic lines similar to iron filings in a magnetic fiels, while the material was a) fluid enough to produce the pattern and b) magnetic enough to produce the pattern.
Just looking for options, yous guys. The Wheeler Geon is extremely unlikely, but this doesn't prove the Greenyer torus works to produce the effects seen.
Here's another progblem. How or why would the fields bury themselves halfway inside the material before revealing their true shapes?
I'm not 1`00% onboard with this evo shape at this point. In fact I am less inclined to think it's accurate than I was when I first came onboard. We can see how swirling electrons can create an magnetic torus, but we can't see how a magnetic torus can create another magnetic field in its center, much less how these centers could combine into another larger torus. The A field does not "flow". At least not in 3D space. It's merely a potential with a direction... having no dimensions, as pointed out at the beginning of the video.
Bob can you post a link to the paper, please!
Links added
Will do.
[Rats... sorry. Serious typo error correction.]
Maybe I'm still commenting in ignorance, but I'll bet I'm not the only one that feels this way.
At video 29:20 (paper) dynamics of moving electron vortices in laser plasma interactions
https://pure.strath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/122601640/Yue_etal_PoP_2021_Dynamics_of_moving_electron_vortices_and_magnetic_ring_in_laser_plasma_interaction.pdf
This is my impression after studying it all the way up to almost page 2, lol.
The article is not very good. It's confusing wording in the intro (what parts are opposite polarity and why do they represent it this way?), fig 1(a) is ok. fig 1(b) needs to explain the lack of current density at the center of the vortex, while shedding like crazy, fig (c) might be ok but appears to have shifted to a top-down perspective without specifying the change (i.e., where's the negative current coming from if we are looking at electrons swirling in a plane???), and fig 1(d) looks like it eats ions.
Lots of high power behind the simulation, yeah. But there's a lot of high power behind hot fusion development too, and that's been "just around the corner" for... how many decades now?
I think the part that really kills this study for me is the lack of current density in the center of vortex A. It could be explained by a relativistic shift in the wave function of an electron, but at only 0.2 c? You could understand a physical instrument finding electrons to have disappeared, but this is a simulation. Anything that's hidden would have to be programmed deliberately TO be hidden.
And then the packing tape on the top to keep whatever's inside from getting out again, I remind myself how "black boxes" are so often invoked to keep a failing theory from simply going away. In this case its the magical invocation of "relativistic" phenomena.
Where v is 0.2 times the speed of light.
Length contraction = sqrt(1 - 0.v^2) = 0.98. Time dilation = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2) = 1.02.
Your guitar would sound a tiny bit, less than a semitone flat. At 0.23 c it would sound almost exactly a quarter tone flat.
Don't throw out the guitar. ;-)
re: "the ring has essentially no dimension." (2:45)
That's apparently the consensus if considering the magnetic properties..
The A field confined inside swirling electrons would have no dimension. It's a "magnetic potential". s/a Aharanov-Bohm effect.
However, Shoulders' and the simulation under discussion in the video create the ring with electrons. So while it is dimensionless in the magnetic sense, in the charge cluster sense it does have dimensions while it is observable. On the other hand, positive feedback between the swirling around the ring and the field it causes could result in strange phenomena such as even electrons disappearing, teleporting of matter (in unknown states of disassembly?), or do other weird things, mentioned in Shoulders' work - if I understand it correctly (yet),.
A Leak From Our Universe to Another (Ken Shoulders, 2006)
www.rexresearch.com/shoulders/ALeakFromOurUniversetoAnother.pdf
See first parag.
Bob, this is very confusing. Dimensionless ring at 2:45 or so then followed by D-4D (obviously DOES have dimension) and then even "fractal". This needs some explanation, doesn't it?
See 13:08
Ouch! Lol.
Not enough differentiation between charge and magnetism in your description?
I think that's it. Even tunsten filiments in incandescent bulbs can be seen to "drift" when powered by a DC current. That's why the bulbs in old satellites had to stop using DC for their luminosity calibration. This is clearly an effect driven by "electron" flow. And so electrons (driven by magnetic fields) are probably what leaves the tracks you observed in the hutchison samples. No?
In all cases of the ring, it has a diameter from one side to another.
There is a difference between the active magnetic core which, when alive, has practically no dimension, and a collapsed structure, where the matter is re-presented in normal 3D atomic volume space forming a torus. If a dimensionless ring lands on a surface, gets disrupted, the matter re-materialises in a half doughnut above the surface as observed in the Fe-rich torus on the Copper Oxide surface in VEGA.
In the case of the sphere, the practically dimensionless structure is the inside of the double layer - again until it collapses, where upon you have a shell produced.
In my view, the sphere is made up of interconnected tori that pack in a bucky-ball like fashion - pentagons and hexagons mostly, one can imagine it as the edges between soap bubbles.
If the toroid of 'sphere' form are energetic enough, they will burrow into matter. you can see this in the diamond in LION or in VEGA Copper Oxide.
Energetic EVOs in the form of Tori, Spheroid clusters or collapsed fragments of these can travel through matter or along its surface leaving tracks and marks which have a dimension similar to the event horizon around the particular structures cores.
re diameter and Vega tori.
Understood. But the D-4D dimensions and even before that manifests are where this gets sticky. Good point about the Vega torus with a rope-like helical shape, which we also see in other places. So the problem here, as I see it is in defining or differentiating between what you call the magnetic core (probably actually an 'A' field tied back to itself) and external single, double, quadruple or however many layered structure than maintains it.
re interconnected tori that pack in a bucky-ball like fashion
That does appear to be the case. Now how do the various sides attract one another? And where are the points at which they are attractive (rather than repulsive)? Never mind how they might find each other to produce these shapes for now, we can see evidence of it as one was apparently rolling around on a vibrator plate from Ohmasa in this video, here.
New MFMP Video – “OHMA – Strange Radiation – The Causal structure”
https://youtu.be/zF9enAUHI6E?t=110
It left a very long trail, apparently rolling as it went, then turned several times, leaving imprints on the plate as it went leaving clues as to it's 3D structure.
re. LION and VEGA
I'm still playing catch-up on those but I've seen other videos that show the meshes and polygons and have an observation of my own on this.
It looks to me (so far) like all the "paisley" shapes may have "tails" due to having blown out sides (of a polygon in the images I've seen). There are a couple of them that this appears to be happening in and another that has TWO lobes below (in the image) three sides of a polygon. IN other words, it looks like a pentagon with two sides blown out into blobs.
Sorry no links at this time, but you might know what I'm talking about from the description?
re. event horizon...
I'm having a great deal of difficulty dealing with this gravitic well for particles whose wave function would (possibly/probably?) be much larger than the expected event horizon.
Note that even the Geon doesn't place the center of gravity in the nucleus, but hypothesizes it to be part of a standing wave where gravity and electromagnetism are in resonance. In the Geon model, there is no event horizon mentioned for the model and if there was, it would be difficut to see how a standing wave could survive the trip aournd the loop.
But who knows. Gravity seems to escape from black holes just fine. ;-) Magnetism too, or so the astrophysicists appear to believe.
[EDITED (for typos, as usual)]
For Bob and All:
Two parts here. Top part for Bob, the bottom part is a record of my attempt to FAQ my way out of the multiplexed terminology.
Question for Bob:
re. Dynamics of moving electron vortices and magnetic ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Yqea-GhaY&t=3240s
cued up at 54:00
We can see electrons which explaines the negadive charge.
In order to remain in any kind of structure there must be a positive charge, and we see that too (infered from negative eV in 'red' area.). Do we have any understanding of how the positive charge is getting generated or what's causing it?
====================================
Notes for others that may have the same problem I have with all the synonyms (three names for every effect = N^3 times as confusing): ;-)
Video: Dynamics of moving electron vortices and magnetic ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Yqea-GhaY
Here's what we have so far. LOTS of clarification of definitions in a single video.
13:06 EVO (like smoke ring, like soliton)
? 13:57 Geon (alternating electric and magnetic fields (a standing wave) held in ring by gravity.
19:09 Bostick/Nardi "condensed plasmoid" = EVO.
24:34 rotational splashing from holes made be micro ball lightning or EVOs.
25:37 close together will "wet" together.
42:24 matsumoto - material disappearing (spheres) itonic cluster,
* Possible sructures:
* * Nodal structure under the lion's foot at the Forbidden Palace in Beijing [See video at 21:50]
* * ?? alternate structure made of flat planes of either 5 or 6 sides. (foosball image) https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1320388983699542029/large (all sides equal length, can be made of cardboard and will form a sphere with no stress points).
...self compression of the cell, contents radiate as light and leptons (seen in Hutchison samples), called a "gravity decay" (matsumoto's term).
* * 52:20 particles of matter coliding with 0.5 eV synthesize cold neutrinos (equivalent to relic neutrinos) which facilitate inverse beta decay. (An electron falling into the nucleus frees a proton and some other junk.)
DISCLAIMER: I'm still trying to get up to speed here so if you find any errors, more power to you. I understand Bob's reluctance to create a new vocabulary for these things but without a standard naming convenction, resultant confusion is certain to hinder progress in understanding for newcomers and potential contributors to the effort.
Just A Thought:
Seven pennies set on a table can be clustered into their smallest shape forming a hexagon. These hexagons can be connected in the patter of the "foosball" above to form a sphere. If the center penny is removed the structure would remain IF the coins were glued firmly, in such a way as to remain flat. (like centripetal force?)
I think you've nailed it Bob. Now the problem is the insane number of synonyms, each worthy of credit to their authors, but incredibly confusing, in my opinion. And this problem with nomenclature is not confined to names for various electron behaviors but also the names for the Parkhomov tables. Ouch! :-)
No biggie. Just another thought.
Bob, if you happen to see this...
I agree with Shoulders about the black EVOs being due to increased speed, not the dark twin, as you have been thinking.
https://www.rexresearch.com/shoulders/SUPERLUMINALPARTICLEMEASUREMENTS.pdf
See the last sentence under Conclusions.
BUT the reason I agree with him is really based on some footage I saw of the UFO over Mexico City during the solar eclipse. The UFO went 80 miles in 3 frames. It looked like an inch worm the front extending first, then bringing up the back end, in what might be called "hyperjumps" and looking like a string of beads overall. The effect was somewhat like if you rolled a glass rod over a dot or period on a piece of paper.
Through air.
My eyes are pretty bad. I really appreciate the videos.
Thank you!
.
Howdy, Bob.
WRT "wheels within wheels within wheels" and flattened toroids - I have a possible explanation for that.
I've been searching for consistent models of the Universe for 50 years. By the time I got to Uni I'd realized that there was something broken in the heart of Chemistry, which then meant Subatomic Physics was also compromised. I eventually worked out there were problems with Cosmology, Geography, and many other areas.
After much searching I believe I at last have come across models which are self-consistent and are a lot better at explaining the basics from the very small to the very large (still a lot of work to be done on the in-between), that being at the small level the model of Miles Mathis, leading into much of the Electric Universe Theory, with work by Per Bak especially showing how they all hold together.
Unfortunately Miles's model especially has a very steep learning curve and is spread over hundreds of self-published papers, so I've done my best to summarise it - you can find it here:
https://thehonestscientist.com/miles-mathis/
The rest of my site goes over the other bits and how they hang together.
So what does this have to do with this presentation? In Miles's model subatomic particles are built up of what are effectively very small non-compressible billiard balls that have "layers" of spin - first of all axially (like the Earth's rotation), then in an X plane (like the Earth orbiting around the Sun), then Y and Z planes, gradually building up to electrons and larger particles. So what you have in this model is effectively "wheels within wheels within wheels". The spin is so fast that by the time you get to an electron rather than being a sphere it's more like a compact disk - a toroid with a hole in the centre, which is constantly recycling smaller particles, mainly coming in at the poles and being ejected mainly around the equator. As these get bigger they're more 3D than 2D as they can't spin as fast; a plasmoid would have a similar shape to a scaled-up proton, anti-proton or neutron.
Miles's model then goes on to explain how atoms and molecules have definite structure, and how that leads to magnetism, beta decay, electrical conductivity and a host of other properties.
Hopefully you find this useful, as I believe it does a lot better job than the standard model of explaining the basics behind the sort of properties you are finding.
Constructive criticism and suggestions welcome here or via honestscientisttas at-sign gmail dot com.