i was reading on this web page http://amasci.com/elect/elefaq1.html#ak ,most of his stuff make real sense ,but still i am not sure what is electrical current ?when we move the magnet over a coil , a voltage and current will be generated .
how the current generated ?????????????? what actually happens in the coper coils ?
Electrons are the outermost parts of atoms. Valence electrons are the ones in orbit the farthest from the center, and will always randomly drift around in a conductor hopping from one atom to other nearby atoms. It is this property that determines how well a material conducts electricity. The more freely and easily this motion occurs is what determines the material's conductivity.
When a potential (voltage...also known as EMF/electromotive force) is applied across a conductor, the electrons themselves tend to take on a drift or migration more in one direction than any other, although their motion is still mostly random. An electric field is the cause of this chain reaction which travels at nearly light speed, so the reaction appears to be instantaneous and is called current flow.
Surprisingly, though, individual electrons don't fly down the wire at light speed. In fact, they still mostly drift almost randomly, only progressing down the wire at a very slow pace.
There was recently a short discussion about this in a thread here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9377#msg9377 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9377#msg9377)
The posts before and after this one and the links I gave on the linked post above, are a good starting point in understanding how electrons migrate in a conductor (from the negative end to the positive end) when a voltage is applied, versus how they randomly hop between atoms without any significant directional net travel when no voltage is applied.. An electric field is the cause and it's effect is current flow which whips down the wire almost at light speed.
Hope this helps.
Cheers!
Humbugger
Quote from: fisal on 2011.01.30, 06:20:01
i was reading on this web page http://amasci.com/elect/elefaq1.html#ak ,most of his stuff make real sense ,but still i am not sure what is electrical current ?when we move the magnet over a coil , a voltage and current will be generated .
how the current generated ?????????????? what actually happens in the coper coils ?
I am sure the well educated guys could tell you everything about the electric current, which written in all the books around the world, but don't forget until we understand how an atom, or atomic systems work,we still don't know everything. Maybe the CERN will shed some light with new discovery's.
However I think I have a very good example for you, to show from another viewpoint, what electricity is. BS mode on.
Take two exactly same circular coils, same size, same amount of wire, same inductance, resistance, capacitance,which are separated from each other some meter apart, and connected together by wires. Take two exactly same magnet hang on a rope over the coils in the same point, same plane, like a pendulum.
Now if you move one magnet, on the other side the other magnet start to move too. Depending on the the speed of the magnet passing over the half area of the coil, you will experience more loss in the system, so not all the movement could be transferred from one place to another. In the speed which matching the resonant frequency of the coil there will be the less loss in the system. However still there. In a superconducting case, you could transfer all the motion from one place to another by the coils, without any loss, still no free energy. :P
In a simple way, electricity is wave motion across the mass, which transfers the momentum, from one end of the mass to an another. All the charged capacitor you could imagine hold "momentum", which could be transferred to any place by conducting materials, and converted to any form of energy with the necessary components.
So, don't forget, if you have 1 and you transfer even in a superconducting circuit, you will got 1 on the other side, in real life less than 1. There could be only one way to have free energy,and that would require some outside source of "free motion". Like the one, which give the existence our material world, and still allow the atomic parts to move when all the energy is removed from the system. :o
BS mode off.
Certain BS does smells good. ;D
Quote from: Chef on 2011.01.30, 15:31:30
So, don't forget, if you have 1 and you transfer even in a superconducting circuit, you will got 1 on the other side, in real life less than 1. There could be only one way to have free energy,and that would be require some outside source of "free motion". Like the one, which give the existence our material world, and still allow the atomic parts to move when all the energy is removed from the system. :o
Correct. Find a way to move the magnet that requires very little energy. Then the output is the same, but the input has been reduced, so you get the same current for less work.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.01.30, 19:34:44
Correct. Find a way to move the magnet that requires very little energy. Then the output is the same, but the input has been reduced, so you get the same current for less work.
Not one magnet. That is useless. It has to be two magnets with one polarity each against your wire. Ever think why only one does almost buzz all when you run it near your coil compared to when you use the same energy with two? One only makes the atoms core turn one way towards the outer field so you only get half a swing of spin conveyance. With two magnets, a north followed by a south field, the atomic spin becomes complete and that spin is conveyed throughout your conductor to produce your "electricity., which is only spin convenyance. The faster you spin, the higher the voltage. The more atomic cores that spin, the more current you get. It is soooo simple but we like to complicate things. Just think of the wire as a solid collection of spinners, the first spins the next that spins the next (like a conveyor belt) and so on until you get to the end of the wire. What is only important is how much spin is available at the end of the wire that will connect to your next component that will receive the wires spin conveyance. At one end you have clockwise spin but that same direction seen from the other end is counterclockwise and hence your differentiation of polarity. Make them spin like you are in the tail of a tornado. The atomic core of copper atoms is like in a gyroscope that can follow or turn away from respective fields. Electrons do not travel or your copper would change its atomic makeup and become something else. Electricity has nothing to do with valence. But even the field of the magnet does not belong to the magnet so the story can go many levels deeper then we think. But they are all inter-related to ether because ether drives them all into existence and from there into inter-relations between themselves and other elements.
wattsup
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.01.30, 21:54:50
Not one magnet. That is useless. It has to be two magnets with one polarity each against your wire. Ever think why only one does almost buzz all when you run it near your coil compared to when you use the same energy with two? One only makes the atoms core turn one way towards the outer field so you only get half a swing of spin conveyance.
Has to be two magnets?? One does almost buzz.... what...??
QuoteElectrons do not travel or your copper would change its atomic makeup and become something else. Electricity has nothing to do with valence. But even the field of the magnet does not belong to the magnet so the story can go many levels deeper then we think. But they are all inter-related to ether because ether drives them all into existence and from there into inter-relations between themselves and other elements.
Electrons do not travel? But they have mass and have been shown to travel. If not electrons, what is emitting from the cathode of a CRT then?
Wherever are you getting this stuff from? What qualifies you to say such things like electrons do not travel?
@FD
When you get off you high horse, let me know and we can talk. Just re-read what you just wrote and try to find the misnomers. Hint: electrons have mass??????? or not. So what speed do they travel at?
Then consider one small atom in space flying into the Earths atmosphere. What will happen even at a small fraction of the speeds you will be talking about for electricity travel? Then, what would happen to your copper wire if it harbored "mass" at those speeds? Try to think beyond what you are told is real and you may just find reality. Or at best, you will learn to think for yourself.
Last question. What qualifications do you have to say electrons do travel? lol
wattsup
PS: "Buzz all" is an expression meaning "nothing" or "next to nothing". One polarity against a wire does nothing. Then take two magnets with north and south facing on one end with a separator between them and pass that magnet group near your coil. You will soon understand what I just said.
Just to continue on this one magnet against a wire thing. This is relative to SM's TPUs.
When he took his big magnet and moved it near the two central toroids, it was not intended to be used as a means to energize his coils. He only used it to FEEL the thumping action of those toroids and around the LTPU rings. He used it like a doctor would use a stethoscope to listen to your heart. It was his way on ensuring that everything was working normally. If he puts a magnet near his TPU or onto his TPU, it was only to make sure the TPU was working by feeling the "vibration". Otherwise he had no other way of knowing if the device was working or not to continue his demo. One non-moving magnet on the TPU will do NOTHING or in my lingo Buzz All.
Wattsup: I remind you that not the TPU topic, so please ask a moderator to move your post, where it should be. ;)
Before today, I thought I was the only person that understood to look for a method of creating a current that requires less work to move the electrons. It looks like Chef sees this too. Everyone else looks for another source of energy.
I'm with you Grumps and maybe we should consider this:
Theory:
1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
Hypothesis:
1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
2. assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument
3. antecedent clause: in logic, the antecedent of a conditional statement
Conjecture:
1. guesswork: the formation of judgments or opinions on the basis of incomplete or inconclusive information
2. something guessed: a conclusion, judgment, or statement based on incomplete or inconclusive information
3. unproved theorem: a theorem in science or mathematics that has still to be proved
Speculation:
1. opinion based on incomplete information: a conclusion, theory, or opinion based on incomplete facts or information
2. reasoning based on incomplete information: reasoning based on incomplete facts or information
3. risky transaction: a financial transaction that involves risk, but is potentially profitable
Assumption:
1. something taken for granted: something that is believed to be true without proof
2. belief without proof: the belief that something is true without having any proof
3. act of undertaking something: the act of taking something upon yourself
And in the end it is experiment that finds the truth
ION,
Feynman is correct, of course. The problem, as you well know, is that conclusions based on experiment often assume that the experiment and measured results are well-designed and properly carried out. In modern conventional science and physics, huge effort is expended on designing and performing accurate experiments before any conclusions are drawn. I would estimate that 20% of physics efforts are in the area of developing theories while 80% is involved with carefully designing experiments, the required special equipment and often inventing new ways of making super-accurate measurements. Extensive peer review and criticism is employed all the way through to find any possible fault with the experiments and the measurement methodology.
In "alternate science" not so much. Folks get all uptight if anyone challenges their experimental approach or meaurement methods. Conjecture, belief and emotion nearly always lead to "observations of excess energy production" that turn out under actual scrutiny, to be nothing more than normal, explainable phenomena.
The reason I like this forum, as opposed to the others, is because there are people here, including yourself, who have the knowledge to propose valid experiments, to calmly accept and ponder criticisms and alternative suggestions, to argue the fine points without getting hysterical or emotional and to carry the evolved experiments out with correspondingly sound measurement practices. There just isn't much of that going on in most "Free Energy" circles.
Humbugger
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.31, 03:06:55
I'm with you Grumps and maybe we should consider this:
Theory:
1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
Hypothesis:
1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
And in the end it is experiment that finds the truth
Let's start with a fairly simple experiment. You wind up a large coil of wire, say 1000 feet long or more. Like a whole spool. You apply a HV (2kv or more) DC Pulse to this coil at a rate of say 30kHz or 100kHz - whatever is easy to do. You will find that a very strong field is developed around this coil. It seems to be electrostatic but stronger than if the coil was powered with HV DC. If you bring a magnet near the coil, the magnet will move violently. If you bring a slenoid near this coil with DC applied to the solenoid, then the magnetic field gets stronger. It appears that this pulsed HV coil produces and effect that make a magnetic field stronger. Does this occur with less energy than if I had just applied more current to the solenoid? That is what we want to explore, and what we want to know.
Grumpy:
Something for you to contemplate about your experiment with the big coil and the high voltage pulses. The coil will integrate the voltage excitation from the pulses and the output from the integration process is current flowing through the coil and the associated magnetic field around the coil:
i(t) = 1/L Integral [from t = 0 to t = T] v(t) dt, where v(t) is a sequence of voltage pulses of a certain voltage and a certain time length and a certain frequency.
So the question is how does this property of the coil relate back to your experiment?
MileHigh
How do you show that the energy applied to the 2nd coil from the first coil plus the energy supplied to the 2nd coil from the power supply, is less than the magnetic field produced by the second coil? I.E. how can you show that you have more than you applied?
It's not so easy. This is why amateurs make so many assumptions. It becomes very expensive and time consuming to prove everything, and to what end? Peer review is brutal.
Since Faraday's discovery of induction principles, that horse ran very quickly out of the gate and is now the basis of all forms of conversion of mechanical energy into electrical energy.
What has possibly been left behind are alternative means of "induction", i.e. how can we coerce current to flow in a wire without the use of a changing magnetic field. Is this even possible?.
While we have fine tuned the laws of Faraday induction to the nth degree, do we really understand the exact mechanism at play?
I personally think this is a most important area for discussion and experiment. We started this a while back, but it got derailed and buried.
A simple experiment would be needed.
Absolutely!
Is everyone sure that the magnetic field is actually caused by the electrons moving from point A to point B?
I gave up on measuring the magnetic field and had started to measure force directly.
I built a simple rig where one side accepted a coil in a fixed position and the other side had a coil mounted to a force meter with a data line out for the pc.
When the two coils repelled it was seen as a spike on the data logger.
The force data did not always match the data from the Gauss Meter.
At this point, the only thing that I am sure of, is that our micro model of things lacks detail and is incomplete. There are several articles around that argue that a moving magnetic field is not the cause of induction and that it is the electric field produced by the moving magnetic field that causes induction.
I believe there is an easier way to move the electrons and create electric current that requires less work, and thus would appear to run with gain compared to conventional methods. It's not OU, just a different way of doing things that is not included in the old model. Same result as OU though.
ION
Quote:
I personally think this is a most important area for discussion and experiment. We started this a while back, but it got derailed and buried.
A simple experiment would be needed.
--------------------
Sounds like a very good idea ![simple experiment].
Can you elaborate?
Thanks ,
Chet
Efficiency comes out of order rather than chaos.
Vibrating electrons back and forth seems like chaos to me.
Getting them all moving in the same direction feels a lot more like order.
Moving them in one direction around a ring sounds even better.
What did sm say.. getting them up to speed took energy keeping them at speed took a lot less.
Maybe that is one way to do it
My guess is it will be found in DC and not AC
Electrons drifting along in a conductor is a secondary effect, a byproduct. I posted some articles a while back by "Edwards" where he showed through experiments that displacement current actually drags the electrons along until a conduction current is established. The immediate question is what is causing the displacement current, and can this be utilized in a different way?
I have some other articles that argue the energy in an electrical circuit can not be from the electrons in motion.
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.01.30, 23:08:07
@FD
When you get off you high horse, let me know and we can talk. Just re-read what you just wrote and try to find the misnomers. Hint: electrons have mass??????? or not. So what speed do they travel at?
Then consider one small atom in space flying into the Earths atmosphere. What will happen even at a small fraction of the speeds you will be talking about for electricity travel? Then, what would happen to your copper wire if it harbored "mass" at those speeds? Try to think beyond what you are told is real and you may just find reality. Or at best, you will learn to think for yourself.
Last question. What qualifications do you have to say electrons do travel? lol
wattsup
PS: "Buzz all" is an expression meaning "nothing" or "next to nothing". One polarity against a wire does nothing. Then take two magnets with north and south facing on one end with a separator between them and pass that magnet group near your coil. You will soon understand what I just said.
Absolute, utter madness! It's been quite a long time since I've read so much drivel - and never before on this forum. I don't think that we'll be doing much talking unless you come out of fantasy land and get something close to a decent education. Why do people like you seem so ready to sweep known science under the carpet and make up your own versions of it... as if you are privvy to something that scientists and great minds are not? Not everything is some great conspiracy!
Electrons
do have mass. SCIENCE FACT!
Electrons do not travel at or near the speed of light through copper or anything else in terms of current flowing. Drift velocity is relatively very slow - in the order of just a few inches per minute. You really should know all this.
Anyway, I'm not going to start a flame war so I'll leave you to your delusions.
Quote from: ramset on 2011.01.31, 16:38:48
ION
Quote:
I personally think this is a most important area for discussion and experiment. We started this a while back, but it got derailed and buried.
A simple experiment would be needed.
--------------------
Sounds like a very good idea ![simple experiment].
Can you elaborate?
Thanks ,
Chet
Chet:
There are huge gaping holes in my knowledge and education. Since I cannot fully understand some of the stuff others seem to easily grasp, I am left with no resort but to try experiments based on an intuitive approach.
I've read a lot of what is posted and other physics and electrical writings. It's all stored somewhere in my biocomputer, but most of the dots that need to be connected are out of my conscious view.
Times like this, I must rely on the output of my biocomputer's intuition circuit to display a "flash" to my conscious mind. Then I can follow that hunch and see where it leads. Actually this is what a lot of early scientists and some present day ones do anyway. A good foundation in electrical theory can be helpful to prevent travellng down roads that go nowhere, but this is not absolutely necessary.
No experiment is unworthy of trial, as long as the results are properly measured. shared and subject to peer review.
So experiment and carefully keep notes so that you can replicate. Anyone can stumble onto something new.
I've got a few hunches, but no "eureka" flash of insight.
Hope that answers your question in not too longwinded a fashion. LOL
ION
I'll take your "Hunches" any day!,I know we have the Learned amongst us
And as Wattsup said that can be a bit stifling in the "creative juices" department.
So be it!
Nobody is going to look silly here! we know there is more to our world than our current interpretation,and we need to feel free to explore our thoughts in a safe [not being made fun of] place.
Let this be that place !,Times a wasteing,
I'll take your hunches any day!
A different technique for induction ?
A dlfferent way to Harvest?
?
Chet
Quite a while ago, I tried to induce current in a coil by using two forces, no rotation, based on "guiding center" principles for particles. This was a long-shot as free particles in space or a plasma are not constrained like particles in matter are. This test was unsuccessful, but very valuable.
I made a large coil of about 2500 feet of wire and applied HV DC impulses to this. My understanding was that this produces an indepenedent force (gravity is also an independent force). Around the pulsed coil was a collector coil. Around the entire coil was a solenoid coil, fed DC from a power supply. All coils wound same direction, like three solenoid coils plced concetrically.
The results was some ES induction and no current to speak of. I had no force in the direction of the wire, and I think this is why the electrons did not drift.
Very good converse here.
Let me open a can of worms that I have been fighting / accepting / and hiding.
I realized early on that some of you were tallking in inverse explanations all leading to the same goal. I guess protection was the reason. I don't know but I have my suspicions.
Like: SM said 'No' to my 20 foot diameter audio ring connected to a stun gun. But if you look at the SM17 there is twenty feet of cord in those large hoops. Now if we shock those we would get a high speed effective aperture. So along these lines this has been haunting me for 5 years and I wanted to know if we push away the natural magnetic force and when it returns we effectively have many lines (Flux) crossing a fewer lines (copper). See what my youtubes all point to now? When I saw the large white sparks on the SM17 video I knew it was a stun gun circuit driving it and I was trying to fit this against a tuned circuit with a return force. but I fell for the arguments when I should have stayed with my suspicions all along. That was the time I had identified the answers that could be reversed for valid explanations. Some are, some aren't. I had a good concept coming into this OU thing. But the mystery of it and the status quo existance I had been living up till then under the guise of standard education had me amazed and baffled at the same time. So in the last five years I have sooo many 'Oh shit' moments I have lost track. And do ya think you can go around with the nermils and explain this? 'Friggin whacked' they say.
This is where I am headed with this current effort. It is a combination of all things discussed here and closely fits the SM17 physical design. With the large capacitors, the large diodes and the assumed 'Closed' spark gap device it sure looks like the stun gun circuit to a tuned ring, no? That would make it a horizontal ringed Tesla coil. The discharge we never seen but it thumps. Same thing. And it fits the simple circuit as most have tauted because we already know this design. This is why I posted this here.
A charge pulse circuit with a coil, a diode, a neon bulb to a secondary. The shock wave that hits the secondary is minor current and huge voltage. This rings the secondary into a greater force. The magnetic field is held outward until this coil setup subsides and then is snaps back. No?
@Chet, 689 days left(IMO)...
Resonance is just a means to an end and even Tesla himself said you can often do better with an ordinary transformer. I think "resonance" has made things more confusing than any other term.
Stick to basics and not patterns, hints, clues, or other forms of possible BS.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011.01.31, 17:52:58
Absolute, utter madness! It's been quite a long time since I've read so much drivel - and never before on this forum. I don't think that we'll be doing much talking unless you come out of fantasy land and get something close to a decent education. Why do people like you seem so ready to sweep known science under the carpet and make up your own versions of it... as if you are privvy to something that scientists and great minds are not? Not everything is some great conspiracy!
Electrons do have mass. SCIENCE FACT!
Electrons do not travel at or near the speed of light through copper or anything else in terms of current flowing. Drift velocity is relatively very slow - in the order of just a few inches per minute. You really should know all this.
Anyway, I'm not going to start a flame war so I'll leave you to your delusions.
You know what, I did not expect anything less then such responses. But that's OK. I was just testing how open you guys really are to new ideas and now I know that this will never be the place to advance any new perspectives. Too bad because it goes so much deeper then this, but I realize this now was a big mistake to advance here. Sorry for that.
And now back to our regular amps/volts programming.
wattsup
PS: Let me remind these great people here that the title of this forum combines "overunity" and "research". I don't know about you but in my book research means working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks, and only in that manner is this research towards overunity. But I guess I read the title wrong and should go back to grammar school as well.
I mention particle drift earlier. There are particle drift modes comprised of multiple forces that can add energy to (accelerate) the particles. I would not be surprised to find that this occurs in conductors. You constantly expend energy to accelerate the particles and the universe is constantly slowing them back down. Apply your forces a little differently and the universe doesn't mind so much.
If this occurs in a conductor, then the particles will move in a spiral along the conductor path, and I have heard that they do.
O0
Attached is an articles by Edwards and Saha that explains how displacement current difuses into conductors to establish conduction current.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.02.01, 00:53:55
I mention particle drift earlier. There are particle drift modes comprised of multiple forces that can add energy to (accelerate) the particles. I would not be surprised to find that this occurs in conductors. You constantly expend energy to accelerate the particles and the universe is constantly slowing them back down. Apply your forces a little differently and the universe doesn't mind so much.
If this occurs in a conductor, then the particles will move in a spiral along the conductor path, and I have heard that they do.
Grumpy I am with this idea, I was thinking the resistance to the flow of electrons is inside the conductor so if you switch the fields, that is have the magnetic field flow through the conductor instead of the current then you would have the electrons flowing around the outside of the wire, similar to the magnetic field flowing around a current inside a wire. Would this cause there to be less resistance for the electrons to deal with? Couple that with a moving or rotating magnetic field inside the copper and the electrons will follow, from what I have read, a south pole and is probably pushed some by a north pole, creating a current flow in one direction, and you have DC output.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.02.01, 20:35:33
Grumpy I am with this idea, I was thinking the resistance to the flow of electrons is inside the conductor so if you switch the fields, that is have the magnetic field flow through the conductor instead of the current then you would have the electrons flowing around the outside of the wire, similar to the magnetic field flowing around a current inside a wire. Would this cause there to be less resistance for the electrons to deal with? Couple that with a moving or rotating magnetic field inside the copper and the electrons will follow, from what I have read, a south pole and is probably pushed some by a north pole, creating a current flow in one direction, and you have DC output.
Well, if you use a method of induction that constantly re-creates a displacement current along the outside of the conductor, then you can develop a lot of current outside the conductor that is not subjected to the limiting factors inside the conductor. Using this form of induction would result in more current in smaller conductors since more of the soaking effect occurs in a shorter amount of time, as mentioned in the Edwards article. More current in smaller conductors was mentioned by Spherics in the AVEC literature.
If you could make the atomic world of the conductor more "ordered", this should lower the resistance that slows the electrons. One way is cooling the wire down. Another would be to somehow apply forces to the particles to limit their motion. This might be accomplished by applying forces in three directions. Un-Bound or loosely-bound particles are free to move, as an induced current, and everything else is constrained by these forces. A similar effect is electrostatic cooling.
Displacement current is the transfer of momentum, as Chef mentioned, without charge carriers moving.
DS shared some interesting observations:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=534.msg8482#msg8482
HV DC output induced by a rotating field in a looped Tesla secondary.
Grumpy,
Yes that is the same basic results I got 2 years ago at OU.com but with a little different set-up, but very similar results. A high DC voltage showing up where it didn't belong. So I'm thinking we may be on the track of something here, lets hope.
If electrical current is a drift or flow of electrons then why if I connect negative terminal of one car battery via 12V bulb with positive terminal of another car battery there is no effect on bulb ?
What is so magic in power source that you can have many currents in one wire and each is related only to his own power source ?
Can you explain it ?
As Poynt stated and DS just mentioned: it is phase pumping.
Quote from: forest on 2011.02.02, 20:33:28
If electrical current is a drift or flow of electrons then why if I connect negative terminal of one car battery via 12V bulb with positive terminal of another car battery there is no effect on bulb ?
What is so magic in power source that you can have many currents in one wire and each is related only to his own power source ?
Can you explain it ?
Quote from: forest on 2011.02.02, 20:33:28
If electrical current is a drift or flow of electrons then why if I connect negative terminal of one car battery via 12V bulb with positive terminal of another car battery there is no effect on bulb ?
What is so magic in power source that you can have many currents in one wire and each is related only to his own power source ?
Can you explain it ?
Forest,
In the first question you do not have a complete circuit, you have an open circuit and until you close it by either connecting the other ends of the battery together or grounding both ends nothing is going to happen in the bulb. No current can flow as you have it connected and if you measure the voltage across the bulb you will find zero.
As for your second question I believe this has been answered many times If I am understanding it correctly.
With enough voltage and frequency in a coil you will ionize a small gas layer on the surface of your coil and if the conditions are right it will become the conductor
Which brings up another problem, if you have an insulated high voltage coil and you achieve a conductive gas layer you now have a virtual capacitor due to the insulation. When this capacitor fails where does the little emp go when the virtual plate collapses
Non-ionic currents appear conductive.
O0
...and can discharge just like conduction currents, but there is a slight difference
Anyone know what the difference is?
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.02.01, 00:35:27
You know what, I did not expect anything less then such responses. But that's OK. I was just testing how open you guys really are to new ideas and now I know that this will never be the place to advance any new perspectives. Too bad because it goes so much deeper then this, but I realize this now was a big mistake to advance here. Sorry for that.
And now back to our regular amps/volts programming.
wattsup
PS: Let me remind these great people here that the title of this forum combines "overunity" and "research". I don't know about you but in my book research means working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks, and only in that manner is this research towards overunity. But I guess I read the title wrong and should go back to grammar school as well.
Electrons without mass or electrons flying in metals at the speed of light are not "new ideas". They are old but wrong ideas that have been discarded a century ago by very intelligent people, for obvious reasons due to observations and measurements that skilled people can still verify today.
All science domains are linked together, mechanics is compatible with electromagnetism, electromagnetism is fully compatible with relativity, and so on... Science is internally consistent. To keep only a part of science by accepting the notion of "electron", while rejecting another part such electron mass, is a nonsense: in doing such a thing, you break the internal science consistency so you can be sure you are wrong. Your electron without mass is no more an electron. You can call it "magical donut" or whatever you want.
Contrarily to what you said, you are not "working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks" but you are fighting known working ideas from skilled people!
We can only progress by "standing on the shoulders of giants". Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, Fermi... were not nuts. It is a vain and pretentious product of ignorance to deny in layman terms and fuzzy assertions, without showing a single working counter-experiment, the intellectual work already done, which is based on observations, proved by measures and by confirmed predictions, and brilliantly demonstrated by all the technology using it. Science is not complete but only at the fringe, so the progress will not come from unskilled and immodest people who refuse to study it (or are unable to do it) and make again and again the errors of the past (and many new ones :( ).
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.03.14, 13:52:00
...
Contrarily to what you said, you are not "working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks" but you are fighting known working ideas from skilled people!
We can only progress by "standing on the shoulders of giants". Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, Fermi... were not nuts. It is a vain and pretentious product of ignorance to deny in layman terms and fuzzy assertions, without showing a single working counter-experiment, the intellectual work already done, which is based on observations, proved by measures and by confirmed predictions, and brilliantly demonstrated by all the technology using it. Science is not complete but only at the fringe, so the progress will not come from unskilled and immodest people who refuse to study it (or are unable to do it) and make again and again the errors of the past (and many new ones :( ).
Did the "giants" on whose shoulders we must stand know
what they were doing? Did they understand what they
were looking for?
Fortunately for us they did not. Ever more fortunately
they didn't feel bound or restrained to a set of "laws"
which were inviolate. Their minds were very open and
receptive to whatever phenomena were observed.
The "laws" (which were never intended to thought of as
boundaries not to be crossed) came later as did the
restraints to be "good scientists" and not ask difficult
unorthodox questions.
Those few scientists today who've not lost their childhood
curiosity, optimism and hope are largely shunned by the
"mainstream" institutions; particularly if their views are
sympathetic towards the "fringe."
The pressures which can be brought to bear in order to
keep "science' within the box are awesome.
@exnihiloest
QuoteContrarily to what you said, you are not "working towards new ideas, new perspectives, new outlooks" but you are fighting known working ideas from skilled people!
We can only progress by "standing on the shoulders of giants". Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, Fermi... were not nuts. It is a vain and pretentious product of ignorance to deny in layman terms and fuzzy assertions, without showing a single working counter-experiment, the intellectual work already done, which is based on observations, proved by measures and by confirmed predictions, and brilliantly demonstrated by all the technology using it. Science is not complete but only at the fringe, so the progress will not come from unskilled and immodest people who refuse to study it (or are unable to do it) and make again and again the errors of the past (and many new ones
I'm a big fan of the "oldies" such as Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Maxwell, but would include Tesla, Weber, Steinmetz .... just because what they said was so simple and made so much damn sense. Today when we read the science journals it's hard to say what in the hell their talking about because of the terminology, my theory was always that if they cannot explain something in simple terms almost anyone can understand then there is a good chance they don't know what their talking about, kind of like a parrot -- it's sounds smart but it just ain't.
QuoteElectrons without mass or electrons flying in metals at the speed of light are not "new ideas". They are old but wrong ideas that have been discarded a century ago by very intelligent people, for obvious reasons due to observations and measurements that skilled people can still verify today.
I think we should be careful when we use the terms "intelligent", "observations" and "people" in the same sentence maybe because it wasn't all that long ago that the most intelligent people observed the fact that obviously the world was flat, that heavier than air machines could never fly etc...., you know how the history goes. In which case I can't say I have a great deal of faith in the supposed experts ability to get it right, their track record and the fact that they keep changing their damn story. One minute they say the electron has energy as mass in motion, then it's the field energy around the electron, then it's no longer a particle but a cloud, then it's not the electron nor it's field but the field oscillations, my god would you trust anyone who constantly tells you something is a irrefutable fact then later completely changes their story?.
I guess we could ask the question how could an electron appear to be without mass without losing any? One answer could be that if the rate of change of the field density between any two electrons propogates faster than either of the masses then it could appear to have no mass because we never were measuring the electrons only the change in the fields associated with them. I recently read a quote by one of the physicists who developed a metamaterial which renders solid objects invisible to certain wavelengths which seems relevant, "fundamental physics has no limits", for clarification I would add-- the only limit is our understanding of fundamental physics.
Regards
AC
@allcanadian, @Dumped
I understand your objections. But what I said is based on pragmatism, not on fuzzy philosophy. I judge only on the results and the facts.
What are the facts?
On one side, that one of conventional science: nuclear plants providing energy, versatile communication networks around the earth via optical cable or satellite, sophisticated consumer electronics, transport means able to fly to the moon, or around the earth in less than 1 day, or to take photos of far planets, marvelous tools to help people as nmr or echograph imagery and so on...
On the other side: endless OU claims but not one working free energy machine, nothing except likely Mill's or Rossi's production of extra power.
The outcome is clear.
Bearden, Aspden, Bedini, Steorn, Lutec, MPI, Floyd, Milkovic, Minato and so on: zero point.
Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Ampère, Coulomb, Weber, Helmholtz, Tesla (except his longitudinal wave), Faraday, Fermi, Bohr and so on: all the points
Special mention: Randell Mills, Sergio Focardi, Andrea Rossi. These real scientists based their work on conventional science and then, they go beyond. Their methodology is "standing of the giants shoulders" to go further. We see it is efficient.
In defence of Exn, who was basically supporting my response to Wattsup's earlier post, while there are things that are a little fuzzy in science, things that do not always abide by general rules and laws as we have set up - hence things that have not ultimately been pinned down - there too are things that are undisputed and which we categorically 'know'.
I agree with Exn, in that Wattsup was stating things that are dated and incorrect - thoughts and ideas that have long since been resolved. He was confusing the issue by effectively trying to reinvent the wheel, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it has long ago been invented. I guess it comes down to doing the research, which many people just don't seem to want to do - or simply don't have the background for understanding the science in the first place. Whatever it is, we see many times on these forums that science and electronics is misunderstoond and misinterpreted by those without the necessary background to understand what is occurring. The point is, the work of great people and great scientists cannot and should not be overlooked. Their work provides us with great leaps of knowledge and indeed provides us with the stepping stones for us to move forward, and to simply wipe the slate clean and start again would be next to criminal.
In 1915 Tolman and Stewart devised an experiment which ultimately determined that electrons do have mass, and indeed the mass of the electron is now scientific fact and an accepted figure. So to say that electrons have NO mass and move at the speed of light is a quite ludicrous statement from an ill-informed individual who needs to get up to speed.
Simply by doing the research in the first place, ridiculous statements and silly posts can be avoided. And let's face it, with the internet, research is a lot easier than it used to be.
Incidentally, with reference to the title of this thread, I see nothing at all wrong with our present definition of electrical current. As I see it, electrical current is the the movement of charged particles (any charged particles). Anything else, any other form of energy displacement or transference that does not involve the movement of charged particles is something else entirely. At least that's how I see it.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.03.15, 08:22:24
These real scientists based their work on conventional science and then, they go beyond. Their methodology is "standing of the giants shoulders" to go further. We see it is efficient.
This in my opinion is the key to good research.
Start from a solid foundation and move on from there. DO NOT, as many appear to do, start from and try to progress from dodgy footings.
Quote from: exnihiloestThese real scientists based their work on conventional science and then, they go beyond. Their methodology is "standing of the giants shoulders" to go further. We see it is efficient.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011.03.15, 08:40:11
This in my opinion is the key to good research.
Start from a solid foundation and move on from there. DO NOT, as many appear to do, start from and try to progress from dodgy footings.
Isn't it odd that Science now has a subset thought of
as "conventional science?" Has something been lost
within the realm of science and its true goals?
Thankfully, there have been some who've tried "to
progress from dodgy footings" as it were; without
their fearless efforts to attempt what at first seemed
unreasonable we'd not have those brilliant discoveries
which were "foolish accidents!"
One thing sure about people in general, and perhaps
several orders of magnitude more-so for those who think
of themselves as "scientists:" We never know nearly as
much as we think we do.
It is true that we've learned to "judge" as part of our
"programming" by associational osmosis; but are we
actually prepared to judge? We go through the motions
in accordance with what we've seen as "role model examples"
but our "Judgments" are often sorely lacking.
Truth be known, our judgments more often than not are simply
manipulations to establish superiority over others whom we've
judged to be "less worthy."
So there we have it: EGO
Science as it is presented to the masses is ego driven. And, it
is very much "controlled."
QuoteIsn't it odd that Science now has a subset thought of
as "conventional science?" Has something been lost
within the realm of science and its true goals?
Personally it's just ALL science to me, and it seems that references to 'conventional' science, as opposed - presumably - to 'non-conventional' science, is simply usually a product of ignorance. I very much doubt that established scientists ever use the term 'conventional' science. Certainly to me science is science and I find the term 'conventional science' a bit of a misnomer.
Hi all here on OUR. I'm new here and english is not my first language - so please excuse any "strange wordings"...
First of all: this is by far the best forum regarding alternative physics (as far as I am aware of...) - congratulations!
I'm still busy digging into all the posts and surely haven't got my head around all the theories posted here.
Shortly to my standpoint: I believe in the aether (or whatever you may call the underlying structure of the "classical quantum physics"), I have read - beside many other theories - T. Bearden (don't agree too much), Harold Aspden (yes, but not completely convinced) ...and of course Nikola Tesla, who is my "favourite workbench and lab in reading".
I have an engineering background (which is more than never a real obstacle...) and also have an eye on the biological aspects of "non-classical" physics - I just want to play it safe enough C.C. Grumpy's post "...that will blow your hair back..." lead me to this website. But more to this maybe at another time...
So, now I want to bring up a thread again, which, like some of the most interesting other ones, ends with an open question from Grumpy... (...maybe i'm the only only one here who doesn't get it, then please let me know...)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.02.03, 15:23:06
Non-ionic currents appear conductive.
O0
...and can discharge just like conduction currents, but there is a slight difference
Anyone know what the difference is?
As far as I understand it, in "non-ionic currents" no charge in form of an electron or ion moves, like the displacement current (is this the only non-ionic current?).
These currents appear conductive like in the paper by Edwards and Saha discussed, so charge movement is a secondary effect.
If you, Grumpy, didn't like the words "electromagnetic waves" in the abstract of this article, I would not be surprised.
The non-ionic currents are the movements by the "particles" mentioned in:
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.02.01, 00:53:55
I mention particle drift earlier. There are particle drift modes comprised of multiple forces that can add energy to (accelerate) the particles. I would not be surprised to find that this occurs in conductors. You constantly expend energy to accelerate the particles and the universe is constantly slowing them back down. Apply your forces a little differently and the universe doesn't mind so much.
If this occurs in a conductor, then the particles will move in a spiral along the conductor path, and I have heard that they do.
O0
Then the slight difference should be:
- in ionic currents the energy is discharged by ripping molecules apart, during recombination light/waves/etc. are generated. Ion movement is what seeks to cancel the electrostatic field.
- in non-ionic currents the discharge takes place on the level of the "particles" themselves...(?)
...and here is where my wild speculations begin. Aspden's quons are also charges, what the "opposite background charge" may be, he admits having no clue...
Anyone a hint for me where to start?
...now on to more digging in the posts...
Cheers,
Sivispacem
Welcome to the forum, Si vis pacem
(Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin adage translated as, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war")
At the time of those posts, I was exploring non-ionic currents as a source of energy. I am no longer pursuing this path, since I determined that something else must be happening. I am convinced now that "magnification" is indeed real, and that it occurs from scalar fields, via electrical impulses, and in some cases from magnetic fields changing. The interaction of the scalar field with other fields is what allows the magnification to be used.
Thanks for your welcome!
With the "Si vis pacem, para bellum" I stick to the first half of the sentence... O0
OK, with your answer you jumped right in! I read in other posts from you (and like in the "full disclosure paper") how you image this magnification to occur - or better: I think I got a clue of how you see things.
Where I've not yet arrived is a conclusive picture of the aether - and for me to have one is quite essential, especially before starting building something.
I like to start with the simple tests you mentioned (pulsed coil with a magnet in proximity / two coils with delayed pulses - "SM's starting point").
I still cannot imagine (...and found no hints so far...) how the bifilar coil experiment should work.
You send a pulse through, better: across, the first coil, followed by the second one. The first pulse is a scalar shockwave, the second one too. As long as there are no reflections, this would mean two scalar waves taking off. Hm.
Or: the first pulse is not only generating a scalar shockwave (which is unimportant in this thought experiment) but also causes a rise of a magnetic field in the first coil. This is then amplified by the second shockwave and induces a strong response in the first coil.
Would make more sense.
But then: wouldn't it be enough to power the first coil with DC to have the magnetic field? ...wouldn't then timing be absolutely uncritical? ...it's obviously not...
When I think about these things, always the sentence "You generate a pattern in the aether that is LIKE a magnetic field" drops in my head... so, what is the aether?
I just do not get the puzzle pieces together yet...
Cheers,
sivispacem
BTW: ...are we in the right thread or should I post in a "better suited one"?
The bifilar coil produces a compressed pulse with an amplitude much higher than the two input pulses. Poynt99 was able to reproduce this in spice, and this by itself is just a pulse. This pulse, when HV, produces a scalar wave that will interact with a magnetic field to magnify the magnetic field. Sequence your pulses in a circle and you rotate the magnified magnetic field, inducing current. The magnification can be 1:10 or even 1:1000, or more.
I don't have a good model of the aether, yet.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.31, 03:42:43
...
This pulse, when HV, produces a scalar wave that will interact with a magnetic field to magnify the magnetic field.
...
Have you a model describing a "scalar wave" interacting with a magnetic field, with more formalism than layman's terms under which anyone can put anything?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.05.31, 07:36:50
Have you a model describing a "scalar wave" interacting with a magnetic field, with more formalism than layman's terms under which anyone can put anything?
See these two articles:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=79.msg14108#msg14108
All very good articles!
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=79.msg14108#msg14108
In layman's terms:
I have always looked at all matter like the 3 states of matter, i.e. Gas, liquid, solid.
We can take a form, apply frequencies to it, and change its form whether to a solid or to gas.
I see the aether as these 3 states also. Each state depends on the inflection of waves or interference at any one spot in this void(as humans, in our current technology, see it).
As an example I use a tub of water. Stir it with a stick and the water spins.
Swish a stick back and forth and we produce chaos.
Push it at a resonant frequency and we can empty the tub and with less volume of the interference as compared to the volume we are trying to move. Sounds like a start to Overunity here.
Take a paddle, smack the surface and there will incur more damage to the paddle or source. The destination target hardly moves at a slow speed yet transmits the force quick at relatively low resistance. Sounds like we are playing with a block of ice.
Put a square board on the surface and at a quick speed one could walk across the top.
So what we did here was to change the attack speed to the target but never changed the target speed.
In referencing the aether I don't believe that humans are capable of changing the form of aether, at this time. As an example a nuclear detonation does two things, it partially changes the target(space) by impacting the surrounding space with speed, producing chaos. Getting past the mystery of trying to understand what the surrounding environment is and look at it like it is malleable is a big step. How do we impact and how do we alter it? The companion wave generation is a step in this direction. Unfortunately we trying to swish hot water into ice.
'Frequency equals matter', you can quote me on this.
Giantkiller:
If I understand you right, then "your" basic principle of getting OU is influencing / transforming the aether in a way to let it give energy. Mother nature will take care of "restoring" the aether to energetic equilibrum. Right?
One appearant form is the cool running of a device (thermal energy is transferred to another form, nature restores the temperature difference with the surroundings).
This reminds me to the post of Grumpy: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=45.msg1325#msg1325 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=45.msg1325#msg1325)
(Letter to T.E. Bearden from the TVQ Group):
"...Any "free energy" system which causes a resistive load to run cold
is malfunctioning and should be shut down immediately as a matter of
safety. Just try to keep warm with one and you will see the point
here. The goal is to provide pure vector power to the load. If a
resistive load runs cold, or cooler than when run with conventional
power sources, then the translation process is suspect.
If we pollute the space-time that our virtual lepton fed generator
is operating in with lots of unhappy virtual antileptons, something
is going to give. This must be avoided. The virtual antileptons
will pinch off the flow of virtual leptons and the system will stop,
or suffer performance degradation at least...."
I didn't find much about this TVQ Group, but they seem to have a point.
Could you (...or anybody else...?) give a hint about this group?
Cheers,
Sivispacem
Google Johnathon Worrell Keely(heterodyning) and Viktor Shauberger(vortex)
Quote from: sivispacem on 2011.05.31, 15:37:10
Giantkiller:
If I understand you right, then "your" basic principle of getting OU is influencing / transforming the aether in a way to let it give energy. Mother nature will take care of "restoring" the aether to energetic equilibrum. Right?
One appearant form is the cool running of a device (thermal energy is transferred to another form, nature restores the temperature difference with the surroundings).
This reminds me to the post of Grumpy: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=45.msg1325#msg1325 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=45.msg1325#msg1325)
(Letter to T.E. Bearden from the TVQ Group):
"...Any "free energy" system which causes a resistive load to run cold
is malfunctioning and should be shut down immediately as a matter of
safety. Just try to keep warm with one and you will see the point
here. The goal is to provide pure vector power to the load. If a
resistive load runs cold, or cooler than when run with conventional
power sources, then the translation process is suspect.
If we pollute the space-time that our virtual lepton fed generator
is operating in with lots of unhappy virtual antileptons, something
is going to give. This must be avoided. The virtual antileptons
will pinch off the flow of virtual leptons and the system will stop,
or suffer performance degradation at least...."
I didn't find much about this TVQ Group, but they seem to have a point.
Could you (...or anybody else...?) give a hint about this group?
Cheers,
Sivispacem
I tried to contact Bob Shannon and Joe Misiolek of the TVQ group through old contact information from their old articles/posts. I was not successful. I do not know what happened to them, they just faded away. Lester Hendershot was contacted by Geza Korcsmaros, a member of a group active in aether vortex research at that time. I could not find any more info on them either.
I considered that Joe of Bob may have been "spherics", but I never found any evidence to support this.
I think Joe is talking about virtual particles changing into real particles in the excerpt above (from his letter to Tom Bearden). I have read about this possibility for a long time, but I was not convinced that this occurs on the scale that it must for many OU devices to work. I toggled back and forth between "converting virtual or potential energy into real energy" and "a new means of inducing curent" and settled on the new means to induce current. Both may be occuring depending on the system, since there is an electrical manifestation and a magnetic one. The radiant electricity charging effect reported by Tesla appears "electric" in nature, but the rotating induction effects of the TPU appear "magnetic". Either way, if you magnify the process, you get more out than in.
Lets look at it this way:
Tesla stated that metal objects sometime floors away became charged or discharged, not glass or biomass(human or wood).
The radiant energy went through glass and biomass. Hold a lightbulb and it lights with the user expressing no feelings. So all metalic matter is called charged because of the coherence of the energy to current. The metallic latice has a certain property that produces magnetic fields while the glass(ceramic) or biomass does not. So if the metallic latice can produce a magnetic field then is can produce current. The radiant energy was said to be all over the area. The reason why a diode is just a piece of wire is the metal leads cohere the energy while the silicon passes it. Sounds like a form of kinetic energy.
When a Telsa coil fires it seek metal, concrete, dirt or ground.
Giantkiller:
Thanks for the reply. Viktor Schauberger is well known (...he lived 4 driving hours away from where I live... ;)) and he was the starting point of my OU activities. It always leads to vortices...
Grumpy:
I'm bringing this point because there are many reports of people experimenting with OU devices, who experienced bad effects on their health. Even Bearden lists a number of them in his book "Energy from the Vacuum" (but in a quite "hidden" section... :o). ...and he admits that "...things are not understood completely..." or "...not yet clear...". These were the pages were I woke up from Bearden...
The aether vortex side with Wilhelm Reich (et al.) and his Orgon / DOR / Cloudbusting activities are even more eerie... A good friend of mine has direct contact to people who are working with this today. There are some activities, one of the "negative examples" is presented at www.desert-greening.com. When he also wanted to start activities in this sector, a clear response was given: this "technology" is one of the most dangerous ones one can imagine, and, if applied in a let's say "selfish" way, it often ends lethally. The group estimates the number of persons who know how to work with it and have the "right personality structure" as max. 8 - 10 worldwide. They "hoped to have wakened his attention"... ("desert-greening" is an example of non-responsibility with this technology - in a desert it's simply not normal to grow seeds - and there are definitively side effects on a scale not too constrained...).
I think there is so much "aetherics" below the level of quantum mechanics we know today and this "underworld" is much more complex than we all may imagine.
But please don' get me wrong - I do not intend to be the "party pooper"! I just want to be aware of the dangers that may appear - and I am also convinced, that there are ways to "free energy" that do not harm any living beeing.
Grumpy, then if I understand it right, you are now further on the track of "classic magnetic induction" - the trick is to set up a huge magnified magnetic field with a little input power by a clever combination of the different field (scalar, magentic,...). Right? This would appear to have the potential of a "healthy technology".
...still need to get my head around things... and, who restricted the day to 24 hours...??? :D
Cheers,
Sivispacem
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.05.31, 21:08:16
Lets look at it this way:
Tesla stated that metal objects sometime floors away became charged or discharged, not glass or biomass(human or wood).
The radiant energy went through glass and biomass. Hold a lightbulb and it lights with the user expressing no feelings. So all metalic matter is called charged because of the coherence of the energy to current. The metallic latice has a certain property that produces magnetic fields while the glass(ceramic) or biomass does not. So if the metallic latice can produce a magnetic field then is can produce current. The radiant energy was said to be all over the area. The reason why a diode is just a piece of wire is the metal leads cohere the energy while the silicon passes it. Sounds like a form of kinetic energy.
When a Telsa coil fires it seek metal, concrete, dirt or ground.
Giantkiller, this is exactely what keeps me going: Tesla grew very old while the Curies suffered cancer... from this perspective no doubt which choice to take!
Quote from: sivispacem on 2011.05.31, 21:31:37
Grumpy, then if I understand it right, you are now further on the track of "classic magnetic induction" - the trick is to set up a huge magnified magnetic field with a little input power by a clever combination of the different field (scalar, magentic,...). Right? This would appear to have the potential of a "healthy technology".
Right, you alter the density of a magnetic field and then move this denser region around like a big magnet. It may have some properties that are not classical.
I think technology is as healthy as people are responsible. If you use it in a bad way, you get a bad result.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.31, 14:08:52
See these two articles:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=79.msg14108#msg14108
Thanks for the link. I had already read Vlaenderen some years ago, in particular his older paper http://www.andre-waser.ch/Publications/GeneralisationOfClassicalElectrodynamics.pdf.
Unfortunately there is not one experiment supporting his theory and making the difference with others. Either he reinterprets or misinterprets facts that are more simply explained by conventional theories (for example there is no need to name "scalar wave" a displacement current), or he based his theory on facts that have been proved to be false, such FTL speed of scalar potentials in free space, coaxial cable, wave guide... old idea already seen even in the mainstream science in the 80's, 90's (for ex. http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9710027, http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209102, http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0201013...) until the mid of 2000's when it was discarded due to the evidence of measurement mistakes.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.06.01, 07:59:31
Thanks for the link. I had already read Vlaenderen some years ago, in particular his older paper http://www.andre-waser.ch/Publications/GeneralisationOfClassicalElectrodynamics.pdf.
Unfortunately there is not one experiment supporting his theory and making the difference with others. Either he reinterprets or misinterprets facts that are more simply explained by conventional theories (for example there is no need to name "scalar wave" a displacement current), or he based his theory on facts that have been proved to be false, such FTL speed of scalar potentials in free space, coaxial cable, wave guide... old idea already seen even in the mainstream science in the 80's, 90's (for ex. http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9710027, http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209102, http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0201013...) until the mid of 2000's when it was discarded due to the evidence of measurement mistakes.
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0201013 deals with optical pulses
http://fr.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0209/0209102v1.pdf - isn't this dealing with EM waves?
(Group velocity faster than C is already accepted.)
I think that many people misinterpret the physical meaning of a "potential". When a potential is created, it's effect on other objects is created at the same time. One might jump to the conclusion that the potential field is communicated instantly to the entire universe. The potential does not have to transmit an electromagnetic wave to the rest of the universe.
If I have two spheres, 10 feet apart, I connect one to ground and I apply a potential of 10kv to the other one. How much time will pass after I apply the HV and the potential of the grounded sphere changes? In other words, what is the velocity of the change in the electric potential? For all I know, any measurement other than "instantly" is due to measurement error.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.06.01, 14:13:27
...I think that many people misinterpret the physical meaning of a "potential". When a potential is created, it's effect on other objects is created at the same time. One might jump to the conclusion that the potential field is communicated instantly to the entire universe. The potential does not have to transmit an electromagnetic wave to the rest of the universe. ...
Here I like the wording Tesla often used - an analogy to liquids (e.g. electric pressure).
If you have a swimming pool 50m long and splash waves on one end, it takes quite a time for them to travel across the pool.
If you take a tube or a garden hose 50m long, which is under pressure, any pressure release on one end will be noticed (nearly) instantly at the other end.
For my understanding, such a comparison fits better to "potentials" than any EM travelling...
exnihiloest (...I like latin "revivals"... O0):
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.06.01, 07:59:31
...Unfortunately there is not one experiment supporting his theory and making the difference with others...
I don't get your point... I've read it only once (...so maybe I'm not yet "in"...), but it appears that his theory may explain some phenomena, which for I haven't read an explanation before. These phenomina (like the Hutchinson-effect) ARE experiments in my eyes.
I just like theories that are very open to the "underworld" of classical physics. There are so many things not yet explained, or even explainable, that demand for a very "able" underworld / aether / whatever you want to call it.
Just an example attached: M. Montagnier - the discoverer of the HIV-virus - transmits DNA information by "electromagnetic effects". He is right now under a certain "pressure" from colleagues, who think he turned from a genius to a crackpot. ...I don't think so...
Cheers,
Sivispacem
QuoteIt is interesting to observe that, should the cyclotron orbits around the water shell be
saturated by an ion species which does not match the Schumann resonances, the activity of
the biological system would be inhibited. This prediction is in agreement with facts since
we know that there are ions promoting biological activity and ions inhibiting it. The above
conclusion holds, of course, if the only em background is the natural one (Schumann modes) or
an artificial em background with frequencies similar to the Schumann ones; should an artificial
em background with a different frequency distribution be present, a reshuffling of the favorable
and unfavorable ion species would occur. This feature could provide a rationale for the observed
impact of ELF fields on the physiological activity.
Sounds like a possible health or death ray. Star trek sick bay next stop.
Fascinating: To create a coherence domain to resonant ring other CDs that allow these biased environments to talk to the resonancy of DNA and control the phase-locking for manipulation. This can be done by external means to inject controls internally to a subset that needs a specific control for promotion or demotion.
Also sounds like a form of baptism where one human form projects a harmonious clause over another human form in water.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.06.02, 21:43:21
Fascinating: To create a coherence domain to resonant ring other CDs that allow these biased environments to talk to the resonancy of DNA and control the phase-locking for manipulation. This can be done by external means to inject controls internally to a subset that needs a specific control for promotion or demotion.
OMG!
I think it is time for me to change medications again.
GK, I understood that statement on the first read :D
Quote from: sivispacem on 2011.06.01, 18:44:37
...
If you take a tube or a garden hose 50m long, which is under pressure, any pressure release on one end will be noticed (nearly) instantly at the other end.
...
It is false. And it is well known that it is false. The reason is that an infinitely rigid body doesn't exist, there are deformations along the body, and the time travel of such a pressure has already been easily measured.
Any pressure at one end produces a pressure wave travelling in the material by progressive deformation, at the sound speed, i.e. much much slower than the speed of light and naturally not instantly.
For a potential, it is the same, except that the speed is the speed of light. This is confirmed by the speed of the field which derives from the potential and therefore propagates at the same speed.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.06.03, 09:56:43
It is false.
Yes, you're right that it's false (...nice wordings...). That's why I mentioned "Nearly". This "Nearly" is literally the scalar pressure gradient in the water - which is, in my eyes, the same as the scalar "effect" regarding potentials. It needs not necessarily be infinite, but it may be well faster than light. So, simply taken: Water surface waves = EM waves; water pressure gradient "wave" = scalar "wave".
Cheers,
Sivispacem
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.06.01, 14:13:27
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0201013 deals with optical pulses
http://fr.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0209/0209102v1.pdf - isn't this dealing with EM waves?
(Group velocity faster than C is already accepted.)
Recami and Nimtz were the proponents of ftl speeds, and made us dream. But their arguments were not solid and have been discarded.
In particular the most frequent mistake is to not consider that a EM pulse is reshaping during its transmission, changing the time dispersion of the energy, so the error is due to the fact that the threshold triggering the time measurement is not the same at the start point than at the end point. The pulse seems to go ftl due to its reshaping, while in fact, the front of the wave is still under the light speed.
Another frequent mistake is due to the addition of several wave periods going back and forth, inducing a phase shift that can be easily confused with an increasing speed, especially in tunneling waves, and in near field experiments (where the receiver and its antenna radiates back a part of the received wave).
Quote
I think that many people misinterpret the physical meaning of a "potential". When a potential is created, it's effect on other objects is created at the same time. One might jump to the conclusion that the potential field is communicated instantly to the entire universe. The potential does not have to transmit an electromagnetic wave to the rest of the universe.
This statement can be discarded by lack of facts. If it was true, we could communicate instantaneously. None experiment allows to do it.
And when the field like an electric field derives from a potential, if the potential was instantaneous, the field would be so, which is not observed.
Quote
If I have two spheres, 10 feet apart, I connect one to ground and I apply a potential of 10kv to the other one. How much time will pass after I apply the HV and the potential of the grounded sphere changes? In other words, what is the velocity of the change in the electric potential? For all I know, any measurement other than "instantly" is due to measurement error.
What you know is obviously not enough. This case is typically a transmission by displacement current. It needs the same time as a transmission between one plate of a capacitor to the other, i.e. t=d/v where d is the distance between plates and v=1/sqrt(ε*µ).
Quote from: sivispacem on 2011.06.03, 10:10:28
...
It needs not necessarily be infinite, but it may be well faster than light. So, simply taken: Water surface waves = EM waves; water pressure gradient "wave" = scalar "wave".
...
I'm interested neither by "what it needs" nor by "what it may be". I'm only interested by "what it is", i.e. by facts and observations.
When facts and observations don't support statements, these statements are outside of science and useless relative to our goal which is to obtain real free energy. At least, I suppose this goal is shared. But I'm not sure. I often feel that many participants prefer to have fun, pleasure and easiness by dreaming a reality that we don't have, rather than to confront our real physical world which requires much more intellectual efforts, austerity and rigor.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.02, 23:41:24
OMG!
I think it is time for me to change medications again.
GK, I understood that statement on the first read :D
LOL. If you understood that WW, you certainly do need to change your medication... and go for a good lie down too! :)
Let me dumb down my previous statement into a more basic example:
Ring a tuning fork and others in the room ring also without using the same action as on the first i.e. the mechanical strike.
But wait! A mechanical strike? Only once? What strikes the other tuning forks? A wave? A pressure gradient?
Is a mechanical strike only achievable by beating a club on the ground or our neighbor?
While the destination is harmony the journey is chaos.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011.06.03, 12:14:47
LOL. If you understood that WW, you certainly do need to change your medication... and go for a good lie down too! :)
I checked after a good nap. I still understand GK's post :o
Guess I'll cut my medication (beer) in half.
BTW:
FarraDay,
We must be careful. We're not supposed to have fun or enjoy this effort. After all, if we look like we're having some fun we risk not showing more intellectual effort, austerity and rigor. Some folks have their fun theorizing and trying to run their own theory into the ground. Others.... Well, running into the ground must be enjoyable :-\
I smell a degree in general physics or psychology. I'm not sure which. Multiplicity via Google translate?
Maybe I won't cut my medication in half ;D
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.03, 21:00:47
I checked after a good nap. I still understand GK's post :o
I smell a degree in general physics or psychology. I'm not sure which. Multiplicity via Google translate?
Maybe I won't cut my medication in half ;D
Good: '
Our lot in life is to learn and to be hurled into inconceivable new worlds'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39121161/Secondary-Electron-Emission-by-Bruce-Darrow-Gaither (http://www.scribd.com/doc/39121161/Secondary-Electron-Emission-by-Bruce-Darrow-Gaither)
Pick a spot, any spot in the spectrum wasteland and make a kingdom from it...
"Why" does a changing magnetic field induce a current in a conductor?
"Why" is a current induced in a conductor moving in a magnetic field?
In other words: Why does magnetic induction occur at all?
(We have touched on this several times before, but I don't think we have a good answer, yet.)
If you want OU, you have to ask the hard questions.
Here is one that has always bothered me:
Why is the magnetic field around a conductor circular? Circular? How can that be? Try arranging magnets to make a circular field like that around a wire.
GK,
That spectrum chart is a wonderful piece of art. Thanks for sharing it.
It reminds me of one hanging on our classroom wall. It was a complete circle and looked so much like the one you posted. It must have been made by the same folks.
Recently, EMDevices stirred some old memories from that time. I'm really surprised any of my brain cells or the memories survived from that era.
Many of my comrades didn't. Not that they are missing much. There were no conservatives allowed in those ranks. Maybe the MIB masters knew none of us should be allowed to rise as a political power?
Grumpy,
Quote
"Why" does a changing magnetic field induce a current in a conductor?
"Why" is a current induced in a conductor moving in a magnetic field?
In other words: Why does magnetic induction occur at all?
Those are the best questions and the most important to answer.
My answer will not solve any great mysteries but it is the most correct and the only answer according to my former teachers.
The answer is either 'momentum', acceleration' or both.
The most simple explanation is to look to the work of Lorentz on changes of moving point charge in a static magnetic field. Then look for recent discoveries covering circular polarized charges and light effecting magnetic fields.
No matter how we ask the question it boils down to one or more of those roughly 20 basic known facts in physics. None of which have anything more than empirical evidence of their value or existence.
So, it boils down to this... all of physics is based upon roughly 20 empirically (only) known facts with not one reasonable explanation for any one of them. Physics seeks to explain the unknown while it's basis is the unknown. The perfect circular logic.
@WW,
Thats is the chart from Don Smith's videos.
QuoteSo, it boils down to this... all of physics is based upon roughly 20 empirically (only) known facts with not one reasonable explanation for any one of them. Physics seeks to explain the unknown while it's basis is the unknown. The perfect circular logic.
Sound like a perfect opportunity to break the laws and rewrite the book.
And remember: There is always someone up and coming. Scroll down th ethe video fo th echimpanzee and the AK47. Its not about the firing of a gun but watch the arrogance of the supressor.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2016793/Rise-Planet-Apes-Chimps-really-shoot-guns-like-new-film-trailer.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2016793/Rise-Planet-Apes-Chimps-really-shoot-guns-like-new-film-trailer.html)
Well, I have just determined that the circular magneic field around a conductor is "azimuthal polarization of virtual electron-positron pairs" or you could just say aether polarization, or vacuum polarization, but this is rather general. By saying it is little dipoles lined up in a circle, you imply the handedness, the vector of the magnetic field. They must align and couple with some amazing force. Could also be little vortices.
Should be able to get a much better view of momentum transfer now, and why magnetic fields to not beget OU. However they are vector forces and hence useful.
I have officially taken the red pill and crawled into the "rabbit hole".