On the nature of free energy.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_27.htm
QuoteThis new power for the driving of the world's machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities- Nikola Tesla, 1933.
QuoteOn June 9th, 1902, both the New York Times and the New York Herald carried a story of a Clemente Figueras, a "woods and forest engineer," in the Canary Islands who invented a device for generating electricity without burning any fuel. What became of Figueras and his fuelless generator is not known, but this announcement in the paper prompted Tesla to send a clipping of the Herald story in a letter to his friend Robert Underwood Johnson, editor of Century Magazine.
In this letter, a part of the Nikola Tesla Collection, at Columbia University Library, Tesla claimed he had already developed such a generator and to have revealed the underlying physical laws.
In fact, the most credible and successful free energy inventors like Nikola Tesla, Clemente Figuera or T.H.Moray all claimed the same thing. They invented a self-acting machine, which does not consume any fuel, which they believed was powered by some form of cosmic energy. As well, like myself these successful FE inventors did not believe any of this technology violated the conservation of energy.
Think about that, why did all of the critics claim any FE device must violate the COE when anyone with any credibility knows nothing can violate the COE?. My belief is most of these critics were either incompetent or paid shills because early on nobody was suggesting any energy came from nowhere. The critics made that nonsense up to try and discredit these inventors. Only a fool would believe anything can just be created from nothing.
I'm not sure why so many people are making up nonsense about Tesla. Early on he claimed his life goal was to tie into the wheel work of nature. To extract clean energy from nature anywhere on the planet. As such anyone claiming they read Tesla's work and also claims Tesla didn't mention free energy is a liar.
I remember the first article I read about Nikola Tesla describing free energy as if it were yesterday. It was his lecture " THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY" from June of 1990. More so the section concerning...
QuoteA DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS—POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING" ENGINE OR MACHINE, INANIMATE, YET CAPABLE, LIKE A LIVING BEING, OF DERIVING ENERGY FROM THE MEDIUM—THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER.
In fact, here Tesla quite literally describes how the concept of free energy actually works. Only a fool would believe they could do work lifting an object and then gain more energy from the same object falling. This is where the myth of violating the conservation of energy came from, from fools. As Tesla explains there is nothing to gain from repeating a conservative cycle where nothing changes. It does not matter whether the cycle is mechanical, electrical, hydraulic or otherwise. There is no extra energy to be gained unless the working medium being utilized can be transformed in some way.
From Tesla...
QuoteFor example, if heat be represented in this analogue by the water of the lake, the oxygen and hydrogen composing the water may illustrate other forms of energy into which the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold. If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy. Corresponding to this ideal case, all the water flowing into the tank would be decomposed into oxygen and hydrogen before reaching the bottom, and the result would be that water would continually flow in, and yet the tank would remain entirely empty, the gases formed escaping. We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort.
The concept is so simple even a child could understand it. Take a ball, it's just a ball and will always act just like a ball. However if we break the ball up into it's constituent smaller parts then it stops acting like a ball. The ball now has completely different properties than when it was whole. Now we drop the ball, it bounces back upward but as it does it breaks up into a million much smaller and lighter parts. Now external/environmental energy could act on all the smaller parts helping to lift them. Then at the peak of it's height we reassemble the ball back into it's original form. Conceptually this is how a "transformation" works. In part of the cycle we change the working medium to act like something else, we change it's properties, which changes the nature of cause and effect and the total energy present.
AC
Agree! I found this Why Files new episode really supports all of this - watch it to the end where he is talking about the Sapphire project in Canada - a plasma device. Although in his usual way of backing out and partly debunking some of what he first states this episode is all about free energy and how Tesla described it being available to use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIgbsZ05O2A
e2matrix
Quotehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIgbsZ05O2A
Gravity is a Lie, Light Speed is Slow, Nothing is Real, the Universe is Electric
Thanks for the link that was an excellent video.
AC
Quote from: e2matrix on 2023.10.31, 00:00:27
Agree! I found this Why Files new episode really supports all of this - watch it to the end where he is talking about the Sapphire project in Canada - a plasma device. Although in his usual way of backing out and partly debunking some of what he first states this episode is all about free energy and how Tesla described it being available to use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIgbsZ05O2A
for reference https://aureon.ca/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GFFfmBGb5U&t=690s Sadly Wal Thornhill passed away recently.
Erased sorry for that.
What or who do you mean (from the dark side)? What I'd like to see is discussions from the bright side, instead.
Just how to progress, what are we doing wrong. What works, etc.
NickZ
Nothing is faster than speed of ligth ;D
Quoteauthor=Classic link=topic=4537.msg108741#msg108741 date=1698845635]
Nothing is faster than speed of ligth ;D
Thats misleading and your ignoring quantum entanglement and that's instantaneous and that's a fact.
And light is spelt 'light' !
Sil
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.01, 12:53:05
What or who do you mean (from the dark side)? What I'd like to see is discussions from the bright side, instead.
Just how to progress, what are we doing wrong. What works, etc.
NickZ
err quotes from those locked in the mushroom celler of course.
You could try and find out about Tesla's experiments on resonance.
Tesla said FE is a wast of time with out resonance.
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2023.11.01, 15:27:38
...
You could try and find out about Tesla's experiments on resonance.
...
I particularly enjoyed (and appreciated) how meticulous Tesla was in studying various types of wine bottles for use in his salt water bath capacitors. If I recall correctly, he decided that champagne bottles with their inward domed bottoms worked best. Amazing guy...
PW
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2023.11.01, 15:27:38
err quotes from those locked in the mushroom celler of course.
You could try and find out about Tesla's experiments on resonance.
Tesla said FE is a wast of time with out resonance.
I successfully replicated many of Tesla's resonance/radiant energy experiments and found almost everyone has Tesla's idea of resonance wrong.
Many suppose it relates to simple alternations or LC but this isn't the case.
For example, the common analogy is ringing a bell or pushing a swing at the correct time. Similar to Alternating Currents moving to and fro at the correct time or LC circuits. This is not the kind of "resonance" Tesla, Moray and many other FE inventors were speaking of. Tesla abandoned AC for short impulse DC which relates to a different form of resonance.
Think of it this way, most equate common resonance as an external force or vibration that matches somethings natural frequency. Like pushing a pendulum at the right time when it's at the highest/slowest point. This relates to the motion of the pendulum back and forth. Where Tesla was talking about hammering the mass of the pendulum so hard and fast it started vibrating in and of itself.
Most not only got this kind of resonance wrong but completely backwards. We strike the pendulum mass to make the mass vibrate and any losses appear as oscillations back and forth. As such most were confusing the losses (motion back and forth) with a supposed gain. Obviously we have nothing to gain from simply moving a pendulum or mass back and forth, it's a losing proposition. We would get out exactly what we put in.
It's no wonder so few people could replicate these effects because as Tesla said, everyone was thinking on the wrong level.
Consider the experiment done by John Hutchison shown below. A solid aluminum bar became fluid at room temperature due to it's own internal oscillations. A fluid defined as a substance whose molecules move freely past one another. Now suppose what might happen if a metal capacitor plate became fluid physically expanding and contracting?. Since the energy of a capacitor plate is dependent on charge density and surface area when the area changes then so must the energy. At which point one or more capacitor plates could become an electrical generator in themselves.
NickZ
QuoteWhat I'd like to see is discussions from the bright side, instead.
Just how to progress, what are we doing wrong. What works, etc.
Is this post bright enough?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.01, 17:20:00
...
For example, the common analogy is ringing a bell or pushing a swing at the correct time. Similar to Alternating Currents moving to and fro at the correct time or LC circuits. This is not the kind of "resonance" Tesla, Moray and many other FE inventors were speaking of. Tesla abandoned AC for short impulse DC which relates to a different form of resonance.
...
Where Tesla was talking about hammering the mass of the pendulum so hard and fast it started vibrating in and of itself.
...
AC
In between which lines do you have to read to come up with that?
Resonance is resonance...
PW
To resonate with the surrounding ambient frequency, may not be the same as device LC resonance.
Coherence to a natural resonant frecuency. If one is trying to tune to an Earth natural frequency. May be what is meant by resonance, in that case.
NickZ
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.01, 21:02:15
To resonate with the surrounding ambient frequency, may not be the same as device LC resonance.
Coherence to a natural resonant frecuency. If one is trying to tune to an Earth natural frequency. May be what is meant by resonance, in that case.
NickZ
I fail to see the distinction...
PW
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.01, 17:20:00
I successfully replicated many of Tesla's resonance/radiant energy experiments and found almost everyone has Tesla's idea of resonance wrong.
Many suppose it relates to simple alternations or LC but this isn't the case.
For example, the common analogy is ringing a bell or pushing a swing at the correct time. Similar to Alternating Currents moving to and fro at the correct time or LC circuits. This is not the kind of "resonance" Tesla, Moray and many other FE inventors were speaking of. Tesla abandoned AC for short impulse DC which relates to a different form of resonance.
Think of it this way, most equate common resonance as an external force or vibration that matches somethings natural frequency. Like pushing a pendulum at the right time when it's at the highest/slowest point. This relates to the motion of the pendulum back and forth. Where Tesla was talking about hammering the mass of the pendulum so hard and fast it started vibrating in and of itself.
Most not only got this kind of resonance wrong but completely backwards. We strike the pendulum mass to make the mass vibrate and any losses appear as oscillations back and forth. As such most were confusing the losses (motion back and forth) with a supposed gain. Obviously we have nothing to gain from simply moving a pendulum or mass back and forth, it's a losing proposition. We would get out exactly what we put in.
It's no wonder so few people could replicate these effects because as Tesla said, everyone was thinking on the wrong level.
Consider the experiment done by John Hutchison shown below. A solid aluminum bar became fluid at room temperature due to it's own internal oscillations. A fluid defined as a substance whose molecules move freely past one another. Now suppose what might happen if a metal capacitor plate became fluid physically expanding and contracting?. Since the energy of a capacitor plate is dependent on charge density and surface area when the area changes then so must the energy. At which point one or more capacitor plates could become an electrical generator in themselves.
NickZ
Is this post bright enough?.
AC
Basically you suggest that we have to introduce a second frequency to trigger its own internal resonance ? Can this be induced from the 1. ground (parametric excitation) or 2. reactive power from the load ? :D
Within some of the best Tesla concepts, would be one of the ideas about the coil that he worked on in the 40's. It is a 2 way coil, which can be seen in Mr. Walter Russell's work. The discussion about nature's coil and man's coil, could definitely be most productive, in understanding electricity.
We all know that nature works with a cold cathode and a hot anode. From a cathode, speed, frequency and pressure increase while volume decreases. We call this the generoactive half of the wave cycle, uphill flow of energy or gravity cycle, where pressure is exerted from without to the centre of matter.
Now we can compare this to man's interpretation of that coil. When power is applied to man's coil, the cathode in the middle divides the coil into 2 hemispheres north and south. Not being the natural flow for electricity, heat and high disturbance are created. One of the biggest mistakes of man's coil is that, when the cathode divides electricity, we assume that the metal core, is also divided in the same fashion, when in reality we know that this is impossible. This is the biggest reason why man's coil is so inefficient.
This is a very simplified process of electricity but definitely could be explored deeper if there was enough interest, especially a lot of discussion must be done for the reaction side of the wave cycle.
Best Regards
So, what will be disturbed and how ? What is affected in a coil ? What about air core coils than ?
When we talk about man's coil, it must be understood, that it was done by people who had no clue about electricity. Secondly the poles are opposite phases. They cannot operate in man's way. This is the reason why there is so much disturbance in man's coil.
In nature's two way coil, the compression side is compression. Everything lines up to push only one way, flow is simple and effortless, no left right jumbo mumbo. Without putting some effort into understanding electricity, we will not go too far.
When something is built very unnatural, everything is going to be affected in a negative way and the best solution is the waste basket.
We tried the air core. The drag is the same as the metal core. Drag and resistance are created by the electrical vortex. The space within the air coil is going to heat up very fast, because of the different pressures and vortexes working on it.
As we can see, metal multiples electrical potential, and is the best solution when it is used properly.
We cannot pretend any longer that we know so much about electricity.
Classic – I hope this answers some of your inquiry.
Best Regards
Can you give more details about unnatural build of coils ? We already know about wrong usage of batteries.
The best example would be our planet. Planets have 2 hemispheres, 2 poles and the equator in the middle. Power comes into the planet through the poles and it is radiated through the equator. This is how electricity creates matter, atoms or stars.
If we take the same action and try to accomplish the same task, in one of the hemispheres, what could happen? How is it going to affect the compression side of the wave cycle?
How natural is that action going to be? What is the best solution?
Best Regards
Interesting ... so, how shall we build a coil in a more natural way than ? And what would be the effect(s) ?
It is easy to build a coil and to receive help if one needs it. The problem is knowing the details of it. We learn around grade 3 that the planets have hemispheres, 2 poles, the equator and so on. If you look at our coil, it is not the same at all. Why? Because someone else told us differently. As we know one hemisphere is compression and the other expansion. In this way, nature keeps her desired temperature. Using only one side, it will definitely create only heat! Without looking deeper, and processing information, it is easy to make catastrophic mistakes.
A few posts earlier, someone claimed that this is an electrical universe without trying to explain why they think that way. They need to explain how electricity can go into different dimensions and grab inner gases, then use them at random and return them back in the exact place. They also need to explain how electricity travels through space, how the waves are produced and repeat themselves.
Not having the nuts and bolts of how it is, we know that the story comes from a do nothing community. Do they even know what role the inner gases have in the physical universe?
Building a coil and not knowing the basics of the electrical world, did not take us too far! My advice is to know as much as possible, so that we cannot be side-tracked by the smallest nonsense, that is thrown at us. Behind the bench, problems arise and one must be ready to solve them with common sense and logic.
To build nature's coil, creates no heat, much higher efficiency and it will solve a lot of our problems that was created by our ignorance.
Best Regards
ourunity
QuoteA few posts earlier, someone claimed that this is an electrical universe without trying to explain why they think that way. They need to explain how electricity can go into different dimensions and grab inner gases, then use them at random and return them back in the exact place.
It's not rocket science, on the primary level we see particles which carry something called an electric field. When said charge carriers move they produce a supposed magnetic field. Thus the nature of everything we know must relate to moving electric fields. Note, the electric field came first then when it moved the magnetic field was produced. I suspect there is no such thing as a magnetic field, there are static electric fields and motional electric fields we call magnetic fields. Ergo, an electric universe according to first principals.
According to most peoples reasoning if a horse started moving we should call it a cow. Maybe that's why nobody has a clue what a "field" is or where to even start hence there dilemma.
QuoteThey also need to explain how electricity travels through space, how the waves are produced and repeat themselves.
Your basically asking the same question as above. You don't understand electricity or EM waves because you have no idea what a field is. In effect, we start with electric, magnetic, gravic fields and particles. Everything else is built on top of these first principals.
AC
A "field" is a volume, an electric field is a volume under certain influence of electric charge and so on. The problem accepting such assumptions will lead to universal acceptance of aether which mainstream science deny it in their complacency with bigoilco.
Ask mainstream science to explain why we can use many times same amount of energy stored in batteries when we use "unconventional" series-parallel setups and you'll be told they still need to dissect particles in search for their truth. They are given unlimited resources just for that instead of coming out clean and accept the obvious truth.
And if we accept Nikola Tesla was correct that everything is electric, and connections should be made between vibrations and frequency ... "miracle" is happening like harvesting electricity from a sheet of graphene layer on an aluminium plate which vibrate and vibration make possible physical movement which translate in moving electric charge.
Take a piece of coal, put it on top of an piece of aluminum and stick your probes from your meter on each. This is the very essence, the evidence that mainstream do not accept as fundamental.
Your galvanic cell if you ever build one is based on same principle, all elements conduct electricity in nature, one form or another and when they are placed in proximity they vibrate, all of them I would say. Supposed chemical reaction should be seen in this terms and we can see the transmutation when elements with electro potential difference are in close proximity generate heat as effect of opposing electric charge ... at least this is my observation.
So, basically we don't need any fosil fuel, nor nuclear to generate electricity. Batteries can provide power and probably never discharge while they have any electrodes left, when they are connected in series-parallel and pulsated at certain frequency, and they don't heat up as there will be a natural flow.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 07:25:24
A "field" is a volume,...
If that was true then the words "field" and "volume" would be interchangeable.
Volume is the three-dimensional measure of space.
Area is the two-dimensional measure of space.
Length is the one-dimensional measure of space.
Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.14, 10:39:43
If that was true then these words would be interchangeable.
Volume is the three-dimensional measure of space.
Area is the two-dimensional measure of space.
Length is the one-dimensional measure of space.
And your point is ?
Yes, a field is a 3D and we use 3D to show or calculate from a reference point. Or maybe you want again to discuss about zero = infinite ?
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 13:09:31
And your point is ?
My point is that a field is not synonymous with a volume, ...even if it involves a volume of space.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 13:09:31
Or maybe you want again to discuss about zero = infinite ?
That is non-sequitur.
Also, I never wrote that zero = infinite.
Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.14, 14:24:50
My point is that a field is not synonymous with a volume, ...even if it involves a volume of space.
That is non-sequitur.
Also, I never wrote that zero = infinite.
1. I am not sure what are you trying to say ? What do you mean a field is not a volume with certain dimensions from a reference point, even if involve a volume of space ? Why volume of space and not volume of the field ? Or maybe you try to say that a field is non existent ?
2. Indeed, you never wrote that, i did, when you said that R = infinite when i said in a super conductor R = zero where I = V/R so logic is if R=0 than I=0 than you said if we can divide by zero is better to say we will have an infinite resistance ;D
3. When you try to nullify existence of a field i guess you follow the same logic and say it is infinite.
4. Tesla have spoken about aether even all others kept quite but happy to use his theories and inventions that are still valid today. So, reject existence of aether but keep and use all the benefits ? Bearden, Bendini and many many others refer to aether in their inventions where they harvested "extra" energy ... mainstream science want us to believe they were all charlatans including Tesla, but are happy to have at hand all benefits.
So, I can't see where is the problem if I decide to reject their nonsense and give them the same respect as they do to all of use. I even can say they are the charlatans or at least incompetents.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 18:11:39
1. I am not sure what are you trying to say ?
I am not trying - I am doing it.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 18:11:39
What do you mean a field is not a volume with certain dimensions from a reference point, even if involve a volume of space ?
Nothing more than I wrote - One is not synonymous with the other.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 18:11:39
Why volume of space and not volume of the field ?
Because a volume is a three-dimensional measure of space ...not field.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 18:11:39
Or maybe you try to say that a field is non existent ?
I don't.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 18:11:39
2. Indeed, you never wrote that, i did, when you said that R = infinite
I am getting tired of having a discussion with you. You do not understand simple sentences and you misquote me on purpose or because you are unable to comprehend simple
relationships.
I doubt I wrote anything about "R = infinite" when discussing coils and induction. R is a symbol of resistance and infinite resistance makes a coil act as if it does not exist.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 18:11:39
...when i said in a super conductor R = zero where I = V/R
So this would make i=∞ (not R=∞) here "i" is a symbol for electric current.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 18:11:39
3. When you try to nullify existence of a field i guess you follow the same logic and say it is infinite.
Do you realize how ambiguous this sentence is !?
The word "nullify" can mean field cancellation by superposition, or an argument against the existence of a field in an undefined situation.
Also, the word "infinite" can refer to "infinite magnitude" or "infinite extent".
Apparently, you are unable or unwilling to express yourself precisely and unambiguously.
You have clear difficulties with the concept of a physical field, you are unable to define its meaning and its properties.
In physics a "field" is a "field of
forces" of varying magnitudes an directions in 3D space (a volume). In case of an electric field these are forces acting on a test-charge located at different 3D coordinates of the volume. Electric fields have infinite extents.
In math, fields are something else, e.g. Galois Fields.
I don't think I will be wasting any more of my time on your imprecise, ambiguous, non-sequitur and magical thinking.
Before we go any further we should clarify something. For a long time we have two camps.
The first camp thinks that this universe is electric, which means, that electricity is all there is – the engineer, the architect and the worker.
The second camp believes that this universe is a gravity controlled electric motion.
It is a common belief that motion is a flash in a vacuum tube, which is what a wave is.
With the first group thinking, electricity would be creating the idea, making a pattern and carrying on the necessary work.
The second group thinks of electricity as a tool, just the worker to create this universe.
Now the second group wants to know more details of how electricity could accomplish all of the tasks and how their views can be justified.
Best Regards
A field is a field.
Stop.
How you want to see it, from mathematic or physics perspective is up to you.
Your explanation: field = field of forces, or field = Galois field, doesn't define the field. Explanations as field = field do not explain the word field. Stop.
You are just Analysing what is happening in a volume of space defined by a field where something is taking place. On top of 3D representation we can add time as well.
Since when common sense is called magical thinking ? I can respond in same manner, but i won't ... my common sense won't let me do it.
Quote from: ourunity on 2023.11.15, 02:32:39
Before we go any further we should clarify something. For a long time we have two camps.
The first camp thinks that this universe is electric, which means, that electricity is all there is – the engineer, the architect and the worker.
The second camp believes that this universe is a gravity controlled electric motion.
It is a common belief that motion is a flash in a vacuum tube, which is what a wave is.
With the first group thinking, electricity would be creating the idea, making a pattern and carrying on the necessary work.
The second group thinks of electricity as a tool, just the worker to create this universe.
Now the second group wants to know more details of how electricity could accomplish all of the tasks and how their views can be justified.
Best Regards
Some people certainly need to start over with very basic knowledge.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.15, 06:56:47
A field is a field.
Stop.
No. That would make the concept of a field an axiom.
It is definitely not that.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.15, 06:56:47
Your explanation: field = field of forces, or field = Galois field, doesn't define the field.
Indeed, but it demonstrates that the concept of "field" has several meanings.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.15, 06:56:47
Explanations as field = field do not explain the word field. Stop.
That is a valid objection. I wrote this to simplify the concept, but if you want the full definition of an electric field then there you go:
"
Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors, which are assigned to each point of a volume (3D space). These vectors represent the directions and magnitudes of Coulomb forces, which would act on test charges placed at these points."
Electric field is an example of a physical
Vector Field but other types of fields exist as well, such as:
- Scalar Field, assignment of a scalar to each point of some space.
- Tensor Field, assignment of a tensor to each point of some space.
- Mathematical field such as a Number Field, which is a type of an algebraic structure containing elements that do not refer to any physical values.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.15, 06:56:47
You are just Analysing what is happening in a volume of space defined by a field where something is taking place.
Yes and in the case of the electric field that "something" being analyzed, are the magnitudes and directions of electric Coulomb forces.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.15, 06:56:47
How you want to see it, from mathematic or physics perspective is up to you.
With this statement you imply that the choice of the type of field is subjective. But it is not.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.15, 06:56:47
On top of 3D representation we can add time as well.
Yes, the coordinates of points in a field do not have to be limited to 3D space.
3D space and 3D time is also possible.
Nonetheless, my original objections stands: Field is not a volume, even if points of a volume are involved in its definition.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.15, 06:56:47
Since when common sense is called magical thinking ?
Since never.
verpies
QuoteThat is a valid objection. I wrote this to simplify the concept, but if you want the full definition of an electric field then there you go:
"Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors, which are assigned to each point of a volume (3D space). These vectors represent the directions and magnitudes of Coulomb forces, which would act on test charges placed at these points."
I have heard may of these non-explanations in physics.
The people using this language could not seem to understand they were not answering the questions only raising more.
For example, you claim an "Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors". Now we have to ask what is an electric force?, where does it come from and why?. What are the electric force vectors?, where are the points?, why are they there?, where did they come from?. Then you claim this also relates to Coulomb forces which act on a supposed test charge. Now we have matter interacting with supposed fields complicating things even further.
In Engineering we call this physics double-speak. Much like politics or religion it's a repetitive drone meant to wear the listener down using circular reasoning. I ask what is an electric field and they say *all this other stuff*. Then I ask what *all this other stuff* means they say an electric field. I think it's strange because everyone seems to understand it's nonsense except the person repeating the non-answers.
Like this for example...
QuoteElectric field is an example of a physical Vector Field but other types of fields exist as well, such as:
Scalar Field, assignment of a scalar to each point of some space.
Tensor Field, assignment of a tensor to each point of some space.
Mathematical field such as a Number Field, which is a type of an algebraic structure containing elements that do not refer to any physical values.
Do we really need to make up more and more imaginary things to not explain what a field is?. I mean, you have already not explained what a field is, why not just leave it at that?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
verpies
I have heard may of these non-explanations in physics.
The people using this language could not seem to understand they were not answering the questions only raising more.
Yes, my answer raises more questions but it does answer the one at hand. It also supports my objection to the statement that "electric field is volume".
In any kind of reasoning, complex concepts are defined in terms of simpler ones. This forms a pyramid of concepts. The ones at its apex are called axioms. Axioms cannot be explained in terms of other concepts.
Thus, it always comes down to saying "grant me that and I will boot up an entire universe for you". If you cannot accept that then show me a better way which does not involve turtles all the way down. ...or we will not be able to communicate
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
For example, you claim an "Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors". Now we have to ask what is an electric force?, where does it come from and why?. What are the electric force vectors?, where are the points?, why are they there?, where did they come from?.
These are good questions, but they do not invalidate my argument against "electric field is a volume", although it involves a volume.
You might be elated to read, that the mainstream physics does not have answers to these questions because it treats the 4 fundamental forces (https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html) as axioms and attempts to feebly explain them with virtual particles or not at all. This does not mean that mainstream science does not have a
good empirical description of these forces such as the Coulomb's and Maxwell's equations, which only tell us how these forces behave quantitatively.
However, I do have a conceptual grasp of the origin of these forces but it is far out stuff and I am not sure this is the proper venue to discuss them nor whether your mind is sufficiently elastic to comprehend my explanations conceptually.
Out of the questions you posed above, I can answer two of them right away without going outside of mainstream science.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
What are the electric force vectors?
They are symbols representing the magnitude and direction of electric force at points in 3d space. Yes, this does not explain the origin of the electric force but it defines it quantitatively at that point.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
, where are the points?
All around you. Point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in 3d space, 2d area or 1d line, and has no length, width, or thickness.
A "primitive notion" or an "axiom" is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
why are they there?, where did they come from?.
This is the subject of the far out stuff, that I'd like to avoid discussing in this venue.
Notice that by asking why the points are here/there and where they come from, you are effectively asking about the origin/nature of the 3d Euclidean reference system that we call space.
It is a very important question which is removed from, what I consider top axioms, by 1 level only.
I am just not sure whether you are ready to comprehend the answer to this question. Most people who I attempted to explain this to were never able to get their mind out of what I call the "aquarium paradigm", which is an idea that we are like fish swimming in an aquarium, where water is an analogy to space. This paradigm is probably the reason why people cling so frantically to imaginary concepts like aether, which sooth their primitive need to have a medium to swim in.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
Then you claim this also relates to Coulomb forces which act on a supposed test charge. Now we have matter interacting with supposed fields complicating things even further.
But you cannot detect an electric field without it, so I am justified to propose that electric fields do not exist without material observers ...or exist only to them.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
In Engineering we call this physics double-speak. Much like politics or religion it's a repetitive drone meant to wear the listener down using circular reasoning.
I know what you mean, but I am not like that. I just refrain from going too deep because I find that almost no one can understand it anyway. People are just stuck in their aquarium of space.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
Do we really need to make up more and more imaginary things to not explain what a field is?
Without analyzing deeply what causes the spatial reference system to emerge, there is no other choice.
An aether is one of such "imaginary things" btw.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.16, 17:41:50
I mean, you have already not explained what a field is, why not just leave it at that?.
No, I explained what an electric field is in terms of an electric force, enough to invalidate the assertion that "field is volume".
I just did not explain the origin of spatial reference system and the origin of the electric force (forces are the cause of accelerations, btw) because this is the wrong venue for it and most people cannot comprehend it anyway.
You can keep repeating the same things, which have brought you no closer to obtaining free energy.
Not the smartest approach towards our goal here. While your credebility is at stake.
Are you here to just to repeat conventional jargon? And to denie Tesla's words and works. Which most of us do value.
What happened to your split tube idea, and aluminum power rings as fuel??? How much actual power was yielded???
Or are your ideas just another distraction, after all these years, proff. As that's what it looks like to me.
Makes me wonder...
NickZ
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.17, 16:41:26
You can keep repeating the same things, which have brought you no closer to obtaining free energy.
The same things!? Alas, I have never discussed the definition of a vector field on this forum. Allcanadian objected to my explanation of it and asked questions about it, so I replied.
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.17, 16:41:26
Are you here to just to repeat conventional jargon?
No, Vector fields are conventional analytical tools. Also using conventional jargon to explain them is not the same as repeating a mantra without understanding it, which you are implying with your choice of the word "repeat",
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.17, 16:41:26
And to denie Tesla's words and works. Which most of us do value.
I did not deny his works in my reply to Allcanadian. I don't deny that he made some novel inventions in his time but I am not aware of any free-energy devices or claims made by him. (by students of his words - yes). Picowatt has studied Tesla's works and words in depth and came to the same conclusion - see here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4532.msg108655#msg108655).
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.17, 16:41:26
What happened to your split tube idea,
I am optimizing its field turning geometry. What are doing with it?
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.17, 16:41:26
How much actual power was yielded???
As much as with the device you had constructed based on your vague idea of energy from air, earth or vacuum. Have you decided which one it is, yet ?
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.17, 16:41:26
Or are your ideas just another distraction, ...
Distraction from what ?
Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.14, 20:39:57
I am doing it.
QuoteAn electric field (sometimes E-field[1]) is the physical field that surrounds electrically charged particles.
More of it is in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field
Wesley
Electric field ? ;D Everything have a charge, there is electro potential in everything, i'll stick with volume and aether, no trust at all in mainstream science.
Vibration, frequency, voltage is the key, I trust N Tesla and Arie deGeus more than any mumbo-jumbo scientist from mainstream science.
And by the way, all the inventors that have build and/or patent any FE/OU speak about aether and how wrong mainstream science is. N Tesla said he used "unconventional" ways in completely different manner than any others sticking, that's why he got success, where others have failed.
Quote from: stivep on 2023.11.17, 18:02:33
If it was me I would ask: What is in this article that is not explained yet?
The electric gradient at the interface of two dielectrics ?
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.17, 18:03:37
Electric field ? Everything have a charge, there is electro potential in everything, i'll stick with volume and aether, no trust at all in mainstream science.
I must disagree.
Neutron doesn't have charge.aether is not recognized rejected by science concept not having reference, no link, nor set properties .
Eather can by that be only seen as intuitive : Intuitive thinking is relying on gut feelings or first impressions rather than logical reasoning or evidence.
Wesley
Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.17, 18:12:22
The electric gradient at the interface of two dielectrics ?
The E -field is just the potential gradient, and this is independent of any medium between the plates, so that E = V / d. in each of the two dielectrics.
This may help:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electricity_and_Magnetism/Electricity_and_Magnetism_(Tatum)/05%3A_Capacitors/5.14%3A__Mixed_Dielectrics#:~:text=The%20E%20-field%20is%20just%20the%20potential%20gradient%2C,%2F%20d.%20in%20each%20of%20the%20two%20dielectrics.
Wesley
Quote from: stivep on 2023.11.17, 18:20:19
I must disagree. Neutron doesn't have charge.
aether is not recognized rejected by science concept not having reference, no link, nor set properties .
Eather can by that be only seen as intuitive : Intuitive thinking is relying on gut feelings or first impressions rather than logical reasoning or evidence.
Wesley
Please remind me where that neutron come from as being an entity by itself ?
I know that is very convenient for any mainstream science defender to work as a coroner doctor as this is mostly what mainstream science is doing ... dissecting dead bodies, while real inventors work with something alive to create something.
Some Explanations for aether can be seen in patent attached.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.17, 18:31:49
Please remind me where that neutron come from as being an entity by itself ?
Notice, that this question is an attempt to find the fundamental axioms.
I could answer that neutron is a piece of spinning space, but then you would ask me what space is. I could answer that it is an aspect of motion but then you would ask me how can there be motion without an object to move and this would get very long as I try to shift you paradigm while being accused by Nick of distracting this thread from a higher purpose (without defining what it is).
Mainstream science states that neutron is a collection of quarks held by gluons. Eventually something must be taken for granted. The verification whether quarks and gluons are the ultimate axioms is beyond the experimental capabilities of us mere mortals. BTW: I do not think that they are it.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.17, 18:31:49
Some Explanations for aether can be seen in patent attached.
Aether has been discussed to death on this forum here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=220.0). No experimental verification has ever succeeded and many conceptual errors with it have been identified.
Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.17, 18:31:49
Please remind me where that neutron come from as being an entity by itself ?
neutron is Elementary particle, , it is one of the three basic particles making up atoms,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
neither the neutron nor the proton is a true elementary particle.
Rather, they are composites of extremely small elementary particles called quarks.
The neutron is composed of two down quarks, each with 1/3 elementary charge, and one up quark, with 2/3 elementary charge.
quark https://www.space.com/quarks-explained
A free neutron—one that is not incorporated into a nucleus—is subject to radioactive decay
-the neutron does not exist in nature in its free state, except among other highly energetic particles in cosmic rays.
-electrically neutral, pass unhindered through the electrical fields .
-neutron is a hadron. https://www.britannica.com/science/neutron
-it behaves like a minute magnet in ways that suggest that it is an entity of moving electric charges. - but entities behavior that is based on similarity does not not justify identity.
example:
all hadrons are subject to gravitation; charged hadrons obey electromagnetic laws; and some hadrons break up by way of the weak force (as in radioactive decay),
while others decay via the strong and the electromagnetic forces.______________________________________________
where (and from what) it come from:Quotefree neutron spontaneously decays to a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino, with a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes.
so now you see its components after the disintegration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
So mass can convert to energy and reverse.
E=mc2 According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, mass can be converted into energy and vice versa.
We regularly convert mass to energy.
The process inverse to particle annihilation can be called
matter creation; more precisely, we are considering here the process obtained
under time reversal of the annihilation process. This process is also known as pair production, and can be described as the conversion
of light particles (i.e., photons) into one or more massive particles.
The most common and well-studied case is the one where two photons convert into an electron–positron pair.
Wesley
Classic is on moderation
Verpies
QuoteYes, my answer raises more questions but it does answer the one at hand. It also supports my objection to the statement that "electric field is volume".
In any kind of reasoning, complex concepts are defined in terms of simpler ones. This forms a pyramid of concepts. The ones at its apex are called axioms. Axioms cannot be explained in terms of other concepts.
Thus, it always comes down to saying "grant me that and I will boot up an entire universe for you". If you cannot accept that then show me a better way which does not involve turtles all the way down. ...or we will not be able to communicate
I was just giving you a hard time, lol.
I think were on the same page I just took a different approach to the "Primary Field" ie. EBG problem. As Einstein implied, we cannot solve a problem using the same kind of thinking which created it. The problem, in my opinion was when science became more about math/calculations and less about nature. As an old Engineer/programmer math, calculations, science and physics are obviously important. However I found they can only take one so far. The numbers can easily take on a life of there own biasing our perspective. The math/equations were supposed to describe natural phenomena after we discovered something new not predetermine what is possible or not in my opinion.
Are you familiar with writing code/programming computers?. The thing about programming is that everything revolves around memorizing numbers, calculations, process and keywords. When I talk to people in science/physics I see all the same attributes. In a sense to rise to some level of understanding we have to reprogram our mind. However in doing so we become programmed in ourselves and biased. The trick I found is to understand I am biased and to seek out new perspectives. This may be why all the people on the cutting edge of science always seem like flakes, lol.
Of course, 99% is lunacy but every now and then there is a sliver of genius. Something which makes us think and that makes all the difference in my opinion...
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.18, 00:07:22
The problem, in my opinion was when science became more about math/calculations and less about nature.
I see that dichotomy, too. In my opinion math predominantly tells us "how much" but it does not tell us "how". For that, conceptual analysis is needed.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.18, 00:07:22
As an old Engineer/programmer math, calculations, science and physics are obviously important.
...
Are you familiar with writing code/programming computers?
My primary source of income is low-level programming.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.18, 00:07:22
The numbers can easily take on a life of their own.
Indeed and people become so enamored with math's quantitative accuracy that they forget that mathematical correctness does not always imply conceptual correctness.
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.17, 16:41:26
Are you here to just to repeat conventional jargon?
I find it amusing to be called a book-thumper and mantra "repeater" while in academic circles I am considered somewhat of a quack for the mere attempt to solve the FE riddle and not taking the 4 fundamental forces for granted (as axioms), criticizing the standard model of fundamental particles and even arguing that time has as many dimensions as space and that all physical magnitudes can be represented as a ratio between space and time. See Page 8 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49658).
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.18, 00:07:22
When I talk to people in science/physics I see all the same attributes. In a sense to rise to some level of understanding we have to reprogram our mind.
Yes and in my experience the hardest to reprogram is the common notion that space is our container.
Verpies
QuoteI see that dichotomy, too. In my opinion math predominantly tells us "how much" but it does not tell us "how". For that, conceptual analysis is needed.
Well said, my interest has always been the how and why of things. I see this as the way forward to designing and building something new.
QuoteIndeed and people become so enamored with math's quantitative accuracy that they forget that mathematical correctness does not always imply conceptual correctness.
I found science can explain many things but not so much an unknown like a free energy device. The concept/discovery always comes first and the science to explain it after the fact. Which led me to the study of psychology to determine how our thinking could bias our perspective. Much like programming I developed a methodology to start asking the right questions. Ergo, an unknown must have a reason for being an unknown. An unknown must have some aspect which eludes the observer intellectually/conceptually similar to a magic trick. In fact some of the most intelligent people cannot understand how magic tricks work hence the term "magic". They think they cannot be fooled but almost everyone is easily fooled.
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47827346
QuoteAnother key part of a magic trick is the "forcing technique". This is where someone thinks they are choosing a card at random, but the magician is really manipulating their decision and the "choices" are false.
"Free will is an illusion. People are much more suggestible than they think. All of our perceptions are very malleable," says Dr Kuhn.
By the same token, we can think were being open minded and logical but our thoughts are predetermined and predictable dependent on our worldview. I think this applies..."The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."― Richard P. Feynman. As such a completely new process or technology would be easy to miss more so if were not actively looking for it.
AC
We have been actively looking for it world wide, and still miss it, free energy.
Perhaps, if we had it, it would further our own destruction, at this time. Like giving a laser gun to a monkey.
NickZ
NickZ
QuoteWe have been actively looking for it world wide, and still miss it, free energy.
Millions of intelligent people watch magicians perform magic all the time and have no idea how it works either. I have seen a magician perform tricks six feet away from a crowd of people and nobody had a clue how the trick was done. People are easily fooled because there predictable. Predictable describes something or someone that can be known, seen, or declared in advance, or behaves in a way that is expected.
As such it's easy to understand why almost everyone missed how free energy works. People are predictable and they always think the same and repeat the same things in the same way. In fact it's very easy to prove and I developed a test I often perform.
The open mind test...
For example, sit down at the bench and build a circuit which powers a 12v light bulb from a battery, it sounds easy doesn't it?. However to prove you have an open mind you have to light the bulb in a new way different from what everyone else has done. Here is where 99% of people fail because they have no idea where to start. They fail because all they know how to do is repeat what everyone else has done. The test example could be anything and it's just a way to prove most of our thoughts are predetermined and predictable.
This may be why Viktor Schauberger said, "In every case do the opposite to whatever technology does today. Then you will always be on the right track". Ah, but everyone wants to have there cake and to eat it to. They want something new but only so long as it agrees with there often false or outdated beliefs. They want it both ways but it doesn't work that way, we have to make a choice between them.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.18, 00:07:22
The problem, in my opinion was when science became more about math/calculations and less about nature.
This video (https://youtu.be/jDw1f5_xneo) is about that issue.
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.14, 21:28:19
This video (https://youtu.be/jDw1f5_xneo) is about that issue.
To be honest this video sounds like white noise to me.
I found there are two kinds of thinking or reasoning.
1)Flow state where all our thoughts converge on the solution to the problem at hand.
2)Divergence where our thoughts lead to more and more complexity moving away from the solution towards every other problem.