Displayed is one iron wire with a coil on it and a neo attached with North facing the wire.
The coil in the center does not do anything at the moment. I placed it there as a pickup in further testing.
With the use of a neo this reader coil could never cross the Bloch wall. If I have a weak field outside then the Bloch wall is buried deep in the magnet. But this explanation is only good for this set up. The Bloch wall can excised in other ways. Right now I want the weak field. Using a neo will not give the weakest field. I would have to use a longer wire. I used a bigger bundle on the neo and just got a stronger field in at a 6" length. With the one wire setup I registered a 20 degree attraction of the compass needle. This is a result of this weak field level management scheme. I am expecting the amber monitor to show differing range of colors as the field collapses at different rates. Amber for the slowest and rainbow to white for the faster speeds. :)
I also have a hall effect sensor attachment for my scope.
I will put a very small pulse coil on the exposed end of the wire, the point farthest from the neo mag. When I pulse this at 2hz the pumping action will show up on the amber monitor screen. The Bloch wall movement will be seen albeit small. This will show the pumping charge action that Don Smith talked about where the running circuit charges its own battery power supply.
This simple demonstration is very modifiable to change things rapidly.
If I orient the polarity of the pulse coil to cancel the flux then...
In other words: the magnet will push the BEMF of the pulse coil collapse even faster than a normal collapse with the added advantage of another field going the same way as the BEMF across the coil in its off time. :o 8)
I will crucify myself if I am wrong or simply change things around. LOL.
Anybody?
This can be duplicated with coils.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2013.01.17, 03:26:42
Anybody?
This can be duplicated with coils.
.... with conical coil and spark between the end all under vacuum ... Russel Coils
http://www.rexresearch.com/russellcoil/russellcoil.htm
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_russell_2cone_device.jpg
I thought the Bloch Wall of a magnet was just a myth.
Nice video....but...
How do you make a singular magnetic bowl that is a monopole?
If not a monopole, then what is the magnetic polarization of the bowls? Inside opposite outside?
If that is the case, his magnetic bowls should be painted the opposite color on the inside, yet he shows no polarization on each bowl????
He is holding back on info. Yes, i believe up and down.
Armagdn03 posted with him and then Lapoint deleted the posts.
As i recall wasn't Peterae who faced 2 video jug coils towards each other?
What we do have is irrepressible evidence at multiple k
levels of materials.
Now the plasma spin is the focus. As a number of OURs have pointed to electron precession in the TPU.
8)
But if the fields were in and out then how does the birdshot stand up and flux shows up in the ferro fluid? So evidence points to up and down also by the compass.
Bloch wall, Grumpy, Bloch wall.
Hello,
I had a conversation with this fellow as GiantKiller pointed out, and he became quite defensive and deleted everything that people could see and shut down the page except for a photo of himself.
In response to Walter Russell and bloch walls. Russell asserted over and over again that each magnet has in fact four poles, but this is hidden to us through our method of attack. The bulge in the iron filings of around the center of a bar magnet show this, as does the video referenced above. The bowls are NOT monopoles. They are oppositely polerized, each has a north and south, but they are both inverses of each other. More to come....
That video is an hour long, so I haven't watched all of it yet. Can someone get to the point of it all?
Maby and Davis came to the same conclusion:
And Bill Gaede has this to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8
some informations
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Primer-Fields/327616574014043
Grumpy
I believe is was Howard Johnson as in the Howard Johnson magnet motor who mapped the magnetic field with precision instruments and found every textbook is incorrect. It is exactly as indicated in the diagrams you have posted and I have also built sensitive magnetometers and came to the same conclusion.
Imagine that, all the experts are apparently incorrect yet again, I wish I could say I am surprised but unfortunately I'm not. At the center of every magnet is a neutral zone of zero magnetic field and I have measured the field down to 1/10 of a mm at the surface of the magnet. In fact at the surface the polarity can flip from one polarity to the other through a motion of less 1/10 of a mm however that was the lowest increment I measure to. I believe this relates to Earnshaw's Theorem as I have found the same instability when using two fields in levitation experiments. This instability may relate directly to the phenomena of magnetic resonance.
AC
Quote from: ION on 2013.01.17, 21:15:50
And Bill Gaede has this to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8
interesting
what does he say about electricity?
I finally got a chance to watch the video and it was actually kind of comical how he put such a mysterious spin on all of this. A couple years ago when I started getting serious about magnetic bearings the second day of experimenting I basically figured out everything he was showing in the video.
He is simply using two ring magnets nothing more and if you take two ring magnets in attraction a distance apart then the ball bearings do concentrate in the areas of greatest field density and all of them do repel each other as shown in the video. I used this trick in my first ball bearings which did not need a cage to keep the ball bearing separated because they naturally repelled one another in the presence of a magnetic field. It is the field density which holds the ball bearing in place between the magnets and the fact that each ball bearing is magnetically induced with the same polarity which keeps them apart.
I would guess he is simply using a magnetic material and casting it in with a ceramic binder to produce two bowl shaped ring magnets with a North polarity outward and South polarity inward and vice versa. The rolling bowls and the repulsion of a ball bearing was kind of neat but I have done similar experiments and it is easy to explain. People might make the mistake of assuming there are two fields here when in fact there are eight, each bowl has two fields and each red and blue bowl in attraction has four fields present. As well it is not generally understood that when two opposite fields merge they become zero, we could say +1 or N plus -1 or S = 0 however part of the trick is knowing where the zero is.
Now if we take a red and blue bowl in attraction then the field sums to zero at the exact center between the bowls and it also sums to zero at the division between the N-S polarities in each bowl. This is why if you try and drop a ball bearing down the center hole of any ring magnet is sticks at the mid-point in the center or zero point as shown in the video. So in the video the external fields simply converge at some external point of balance which is why the ball bearing is not repelled as he said in the video it is in fact "balanced" at a point near to where the two external fields merge. It is not repelled it is attracted to an external point which is why when the magnets move or the field spacing changes the ball bearing moves.
I imagine these field interactions may seem a little bizarre but it is really no different than throwing two rocks in a pond and creating two circular wave forms. Where the two wave forms meet an interferece patterm is created which is not like either of the original wave forms. I don't like to use the term Bloch wall anymore because it refers to a region between magnetic domains so I generally use a term coined by Wesley Gary which is the neutral zone. I use the term zero point as well but that can get confusing with all the Bearden/###### stuff however it may apply in some way.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.18, 09:15:08
I finally got a chance to watch the video and it was actually kind of comical how he put such a mysterious spin on all of this. A couple years ago when I started getting serious about magnetic bearings the second day of experimenting I basically figured out everything he was showing in the video.
He is simply using two ring magnets nothing more and if you take two ring magnets in attraction a distance apart then the ball bearings do concentrate in the areas of greatest field density and all of them do repel each other as shown in the video. I used this trick in my first ball bearings which did not need a cage to keep the ball bearing separated because they naturally repelled one another in the presence of a magnetic field. It is the field density which holds the ball bearing in place between the magnets and the fact that each ball bearing is magnetically induced with the same polarity which keeps them apart.
I would guess he is simply using a magnetic material and casting it in with a ceramic binder to produce two bowl shaped ring magnets with a North polarity outward and South polarity inward and vice versa. The rolling bowls and the repulsion of a ball bearing was kind of neat but I have done similar experiments and it is easy to explain. People might make the mistake of assuming there are two fields here when in fact there are eight, each bowl has two fields and each red and blue bowl in attraction has four fields present. As well it is not generally understood that when two opposite fields merge they become zero, we could say +1 or N plus -1 or S = 0 however part of the trick is knowing where the zero is.
Now if we take a red and blue bowl in attraction then the field sums to zero at the exact center between the bowls and it also sums to zero at the division between the N-S polarities in each bowl. This is why if you try and drop a ball bearing down the center hole of any ring magnet is sticks at the mid-point in the center or zero point as shown in the video. So in the video the external fields simply converge at some external point of balance which is why the ball bearing is not repelled as he said in the video it is in fact "balanced" at a point near to where the two external fields merge. It is not repelled it is attracted to an external point which is why when the magnets move or the field spacing changes the ball bearing moves.
I imagine these field interactions may seem a little bizarre but it is really no different than throwing two rocks in a pond and creating two circular wave forms. Where the two wave forms meet an interferece patterm is created which is not like either of the original wave forms. I don't like to use the term Bloch wall anymore because it refers to a region between magnetic domains so I generally use a term coined by Wesley Gary which is the neutral zone. I use the term zero point as well but that can get confusing with all the Bearden/###### stuff however it may apply in some way.
AC
I pointed almost all of this out to him, and he said that it was the geometry of the bowls which was the real "secret". I pointed out the X field antennas (http://www.rexresearch.com/harteh/ehfield.jpg), the EH antennas, the work done by Hans jenny showing circulations which were congruent, alchemanual (http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb275/tortuga0303/Manual.jpg) etc... A thousand examples expounding on the same concept. He dismissed it all saying it was all "WRONG WRONG WRONG", and that nobody had figured this out yet. Here are a few of his comments to me....
"Birkeland actually did more relevant research many years ago, but again he had his magnetic fields all wrong"
"You also might want to study the work of Hannes Alfvin. He was close than Russell but still didn't have it."
Concerning Russell...
"Wait until you see the tech I am coming out with. It is way beyond what Russell even dreamed of. He and his mystic ideas lead an otherwise brilliant man astray. The mind does not create matter. He was totally wrong on a lot of stuff. A lot."
I like the work he did in the visualization department, and his plasma experiments would mate very nicely with the Philo T Farnsworth Multipactor Tube, and perhaps he has already thought of this, but he was very defensive and felt I was attacking him. The reality was, I was pointing out where the information already existed, was being implemented, and some directions he could take it. I will be interested to see where he plans on taking this.
Quote from: Armagdn03 on 2013.01.18, 15:38:29
I pointed almost all of this out to him, and he said that it was the geometry of the bowls which was the real "secret". I pointed out the X field antennas (http://www.rexresearch.com/harteh/ehfield.jpg), the EH antennas, the work done by Hans jenny showing circulations which were congruent, alchemanual (http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb275/tortuga0303/Manual.jpg) etc... A thousand examples expounding on the same concept. He dismissed it all saying it was all "WRONG WRONG WRONG", and that nobody had figured this out yet. Here are a few of his comments to me....
"Birkeland actually did more relevant research many years ago, but again he had his magnetic fields all wrong"
"You also might want to study the work of Hannes Alfvin. He was close than Russell but still didn't have it."
Concerning Russell...
"Wait until you see the tech I am coming out with. It is way beyond what Russell even dreamed of. He and his mystic ideas lead an otherwise brilliant man astray. The mind does not create matter. He was totally wrong on a lot of stuff. A lot."
I like the work he did in the visualization department, and his plasma experiments would mate very nicely with the Philo T Farnsworth Multipactor Tube, and perhaps he has already thought of this, but he was very defensive and felt I was attacking him. The reality was, I was pointing out where the information already existed, was being implemented, and some directions he could take it. I will be interested to see where he plans on taking this.
Ah, Yes... The 'Mystery' and 'Everybody has it all wrong' guru. We have seen that the open source, free energy constituents actually do know about this. As I have said in the past 'We need a good, dumb prairie dog'. But it is good to see somebody that will take the heat on this. For us? Why waste a good disaster when one can capitalize on the derision.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.01.17, 20:45:52
That video is an hour long, so I haven't watched all of it yet. Can someone get to the point of it all?
Maby and Davis came to the same conclusion:
Hey grumpy! In what book did you find that photo? I am not familiar with it.
Quote from: Armagdn03 on 2013.01.18, 16:35:05
Hey grumpy! In what book did you find that photo? I am not familiar with it.
I hacked it out of an Amazon preview of one of the books on magnetic stuff by Davis and Rawls.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Magnetism_and_its_effects_on_the_living.html?id=HcFqAAAAMAAJ
http://www.magnetage.com/Books_2HD4.html
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.01.18, 17:08:48
I hacked it out of an Amazon preview of one of the books on magnetic stuff by Davis and Rawls.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Magnetism_and_its_effects_on_the_living.html?id=HcFqAAAAMAAJ
http://www.magnetage.com/Books_2HD4.html
Awesome thanks so much!
Does anybody have a copy of this book?
I posted this on his facebook wall, we will see how quickly it is deleted!!! HA HA HA
"Something you might find interesting to consider. Almost all previous considerations of such field interactions were depicted as inverse cones with the apex facing one another...Why is this? Because the magnetic field acts toward the spherical, while the electric field acts towards the radial. It is only where the two meet at 90 degrees to one another (pointing vector) do we experience what we know as "power". In an arrangement where the two are juxtaposed, (such as your setup with cathode in center, anodes outward (radial field gradient) ) You will find the pointing vector aligns with the conical photos given by many before. Often I believe things are dismissed as "crazy" or "wrong" before they are understood. There have been many assertions also that a bar magnet has four poles, not two...which is in perfect agreement with your assertions. Its not the shape of the magnet which is interesting, but the inherent field shape of natural bodies. I know you dismiss him as being wrong, but Walter Russell made VERY similar statements, however many do not understand him as he re-coined terminology to be more accurate. His findings were validated by Westinghouse, Raytheon, and NORAD (I have some of the original test results). This lead to the discovery of Deuterium, tritium, Neptunium, and plutonium in their exact locations on the periodic table. It would be hard for a crazy man to accomplish this, and have it validated if he was "wrong"."
hello Armagdn03
Quote(http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb275/tortuga0303/Manual.jpg)
That's an interesting photo, a while back I did some neat thought experiments relating to this. What if we could retain the knowledge we have yet also try to imagine a completely unbiased view of the natural phenomena we see. To see a phenomena through the eyes of a child in a scientific way without bias.
Then I looked at the magnetic field, this action at a distance and considered that we may have it all wrong as there is no conclusive proof the field is the sole function of the magnet in itself. We could use an analogy here, if I blow a bubble under water and had no comprehension of water then is the bubble something in itself or a lack of something which would be the water or is it both?. Now if I were a fish it would be natural to conclude the bubble is something in itself and I could call this phenomena a field and try to relate everything else to it however the fact remains that I would be missing half of the bigger picture due to my perspective.
As well I believe it was Faraday who originally coined the terms "field" and "lines of force" and the literature before this time had a very different and more open minded perspective concerning what it was. In any case my current model of the primary fields dictates that they are not actually a field as we understand them at all. Matter continually absorbs and radiates energy in discrete packets but where does it absorb the energy from and where does it go and has this energy been changed in some way?. Now if all External EM energy sets matter in oscillation in some way then a change in the energy state of matter must effect this EM radiation forming a type of interference pattern external to matter appearing as a "field" from our perspective.
It may very well be that in this case we have been completely mesmerized by the bubble we have categorized as a field and completely ignored the water. It also helps if we understand that there may be no set frequency or wavelength ... it is many or possibly all of them combined. It is an interesting model.
AC
Quote from: DeepCut on 2013.01.19, 02:35:45
"A confirmation of the vortex nature of magnetism may be found in 'Magnetism and its Effect on the Living System' by A. R. Davies & W. C. Rawls (Acres, Kansas City). They claim that with the help of a cathode ray oscilloscope the energy emitted from the pole of a magnet can be photographed to show rotating small cables rather than lines of force as generally assumed."
http://www.health-science-spirit.com/energy.html
DC.
http://keelynet.com/energy/rawls1.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=19579
GK, I believe you are correct, when a magnet is added at the end of the coil, maybe leave a tiny gap as well, the back EMF will be more pronounced because the core magnetization will not just decay to zero but flip polarity and increase up to what the magnet produces. All of this assuming opposing the magnet's field.
Are you trying to measure the domain wall propagation velocity with that compass? :-\
If so, Get yourself two coils or mag sensors, spaced apart by some distance, with equal length probes and look for the delay, could be in the nanoseconds.
EM
Hello all you OU yuppies. lol
Well, after a good time unplugged with all my time on my workbench, I am finally deprogrammed from SM, TK and gang and a host of other secret holding nimrods that are only on this planet to confuse the hell out of us and waste precious life and energy. Halla-f'n-luya to that. May they all find themselves stuck in a hole full of the same burning oil that they all perpetuate by their non-humanoid laden actions. Phew......
I just read and like this thread started by @GK back in January 2013.
Yes the Primer Fields (PF) idea looks extremely promising especially for me that has been investigating that the field comes from outside (ether) being compressed onto and directed by the pulsed medium, but time will eventually tell us all the facts.
The idea of the PF looking at a real event occurring in our Universe everyday falls in perfectly with @Erfinders' first rule of OU, look to nature. Solid proof to realize that the final effect is right in front of us and we cannot deny the effect is real. The inverse bowl explanation holds very well when you attack the idea from all angles, it still holds true or plausible. This is just fantastic and the implications are indeed enormous.
Back at the beginning of March when I first noticed this PF bowl design (was working and had to finish up some other tests), I decided to work out a drawing of how to try and replicate the effect with coils, as @GK so instinctively mentioned. Force of habit to always extrapolate nature to replicable events. hehehe
Below is the drawing I made then showing the coil relations but I had not posted it yet on my Understanding OU thread at OU.com. I think it is better posted here and I will post it there as well. hehehe
So here we can consider that P1 attracts the ether in a polarized manner where on the left side of the P1 you produce the required polarity. P2 and P3 act like the two PF rings attracting as well and creating a concentrated ether stream through S1 as the output. That sounds like super crazy man. But maybe this is the way to start thinking on how to manipulate the ether. Attract it (we do that all the time), compress it and direct it (we presently leave the last two parts to toroidal cores or lamination cores or direct coil-to-coil interactions in order to achieve our mischievous couplings).
I remember when @otto was doing his ECD tests (device using two ring levels plus three pulsed coils), I was wondering to myself if the two levels could act like a beam maker, so I asked @otto if he could do a field map using his compass and after trying it he indicated that there was a spot a good 6 feet or so above the ECD that showed some field anomalies. What could shoot up that far from the ECD? Hmmmmmmmmm. Could it be an energy tunnel like in the PF? The funny thing is the ECD has two rings, one bigger then the other (P2 and P3 analog) and the three coils could be simply attracting ether into the ring vicinity (P1 analog), hence the anomaly @otto noticed above the unit. Very bizarre coincidence?
We have to start getting away from all the mundane stuff, pulse P1 to impress S1 via a core. We already know that works to even good degrees but we need more. So here, P1 is simply required to create an ether field presence (calling in the ether troops) where one particular field polarity can be "infinitely" (big word) compressed by the two other coils and projected or beamed outwards through the S1 collector coil. This basically could create a true ether sink and what flows down the sink drain is ether energy that will need to be harnessed once an optimal S1 is developed.
These are the coil topologies and strategies we need to inspect. How to manipulate the infinite ether presence. Here there is no coil to coil relation in terms of standard coupling so you cannot expect the same results, the same dreaded flyback, or, the same coil-core-coil battles. Here we simply use the coil to attract the ether field and try to guide it via other coils into a more compressed and faster moving nature that we can then harvest. The prime element is ether so it is totally invisible to our regular senses. It is like working blind and it will take many many trials to get it right, but this would be a valid out-of-the-box way to consider the ether in our practical daily experiments.
This will be easy to try out indeed.
wattsup
PS: I added the word " wattsupprimerfieldscoil " to the drawing and to this post in case anyone sees the drawing without this post, they should be able to find this thread if they google that word.
Well
Since we like simple,perhaps a thought?
we play in ambient and try to effect "anomolies" that can be observed [as per this thread ]
Have any of you Upped The density?
Perhaps 90 times and played in "water"?
?
And of course there is this...
Qoute
What actually happened in the water experiment?"
This is also very interesting...... as you may recall, the units vibrate or pulse when in operation, well.... when you submerge them in water they exert physical movement against the body of water. The amount of hydraulic pressure they can develop is HUGE ! I can not emphasize this point enough. Now think about the associated problems... ?
When the units are operated in the open air or held in the hand there is no problem because the air acts as a spring or cushion. in the water, however, the units have a solid substance to act against. Can you imagine what can happen?
thx
Chet
Sorry to but in again.
Just thought you guys might want to see this new and timely video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-dhIK2ozz0&feature=endscreen
wattsup
ZFF needs to fine tune his measurement protocol.
When using the power off spin down, he needs to start at an exact rpm and end at a finish rpm for each test while counting seconds and fractional seconds.
Coils need to have same gauge and number of turns, and actually measure output power into the same resistive load in each case.
I suspect the coupling differs for each type of coil, so output power would be less for the bowl shaped if fairly compared.
Solid matter should really rock!
I dont think i am fooled on this or my life long experiences have amounted to nothing...
But here is Thane:
What does anybody think of this?
http://www.scaleblaster.com/scaleblaster.html (http://www.scaleblaster.com/scaleblaster.html)
EM, GiantKiller,
Agreed. The photo is very suspicious and
quite obviously a fake. The video is rather
ingeniously done and rather convincing,
however. How is it done?
Regarding the ScaleBlaster:
Thoughts I (http://forums.watertechonline.com/forums/1-wto-board/topics/172233-scale-blaster-electromagnetic-descaler)
Thoughts II (http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/plumbing/msg0107095411858.html)
Quote from: giantkiller on 2014.03.10, 20:03:51
What does anybody think of this?
http://www.scaleblaster.com/scaleblaster.html (http://www.scaleblaster.com/scaleblaster.html)
@GK what's cookin man.
About the ScaleBlaster, I used to be the marketing manager for a company called Scalemaster Canada Inc. many many years ago. We built electrostatic scale inhibitor systems but for industrial sizes from 3" to 12" diameter pipes. But we would never put these on homes, apartment complexes, etc. We would put them on cooling towers of vapor producing boilers that worked in a loop. This way the water was exposed to the field pulses many many times per day to keep the effect.
Those home models are junk since they only work as a one pass.Once the water sits in the pipes or in the hot water tank the effect is lost within a short period of time.
I have a scaleblaster in my lab. photo below. If the question is can they be used for OU research, I am sure they can. That's why I brought this one home from my water treatment company. I also brought a few Ultraviolet light circuits to try them eventually. hehehe photo below.
I am sure if you contact some local water treatment guys and ask them if they have any surplus or returned UV circuits that they wish to depart with for your R&D effort they may give you a few.
The UV circuit shown is a Sterilight ballast BA-ICE-S. These can blow sometimes when there is a power surge from a thunder storm or when power outages return. Usually when they blow like that, the warranty is void so the water treatment dealer may have several in hand. It is usually a small capacitor that is worth around 25 cents that blows, hehehe, but dealers generally do not know that so...........................
The only thing about these circuits is that they may have some sensing circuits to make sure the output is being consumed properly or they go into error. How they would handle when used on coil pulsing remains to be seen.
About that video by Deirones, I saw it as well and have taken an image of the back side of the removable plate held upside down showing what looks like some epoxy filling. There could be a small battery there but how he brings out the connecting is another question I have not figured out yet, simply because I did not want to put any more time on it. I am so sick and tired of all these wannabee OUers like that guy x_name41 and his Akula 30 watts illusion will now generate how much commotion and replication attempts, I don't know but, geez, I would have hoped that guys had much more discernment then that before jumping into the ring and being set-up up to get clobbered again down the road.
Best we stick to our own works.
wattsup
I have this Atten ATF05c Function generator. It states a 50 ohm output impedance on channels A & B.
Coupling impedance based devices has always been trouble for me as I am strictly TTL logic minded.
So I ask for help in this matter.
I am trying to drive a NAND gate mc14011 and have the hookup schematic attached. Is the hook up of the load impedance matching correct?
The FG is hooked directly to the nand gate inputs.
I chose CMOS over TTL because the coil driver circuit is operating at +12v.
The chip gets hot and the signal attenuates from 20v to 5.4. When I remove the 50 ohm the signal rises to 9.6. This is still not high enough. The FG amplitude is set to +20vdc to over come the attenuation.
The signal coming through the chip is comprised of very fast shoot through currents of 500mv and the pulse height is 50mv. I have 10k pulldown resistors on the inputs. The signal that gets through is very noisy.
By the looks of my schematic can any one tell what I a missing? Is the impedance matching resistor correct? This is what I read on then net.
I do not have the unused pins grounded. CMOS is a pain in the butt.
Thanks in advance.
Yes, the impedance matching would be correct for those applications
where it would be critical.
What are the characteristics of your pulses from the generator in terms
of frequency and pulse width? Could it be exceeding the capabilities of
the chip?
Something is clearly wrong with a CMOS chip that runs hot! What is
your load on the chip?
Only the unused input pins need grounding to eliminate the possibility
of noise pickup and weird responses. The unused output pins may be
left floating.
If the load is heavy all four gates of the chip may be parallel connected
to beef up the output current sourcing and sinking capability.
@ Dump! Thanks for the response.
The channel A pulses are tight, square and 50% duty cycle @ 10khz.
The channel B pulses are tight, square and 50% duty cycle @ 1khz.
The only floating unused inputs are the unused gates which is one.
I made 50 ohm terminators to tee off the BNC A & B outputs of the function generator.
And there is HF noise in the outputs of the mc14011. Could be the unused gate. I will ground those tomorrow when back on bench. Its late and the day job calleth...
The heat could be a bad chip, no? The scope still shows some vague image of the signals I am trying top produce.
Thanks again.
Hi there,
Well, if to go in simple ways, there is possibility to have leverage on magnetic poles switching, just that require precise engineering and good visualization in mind about how it happens with low power consumption on magnetic switch. If you would research on magnetic motor/coil gun/V-gate - all that needs some electrical influence for neutralizing magnetic field so started process would continue without stopping...
Cheers!
Aye, the hot chip could mean a bad chip.
Ground those unused inputs or as Dumped said use them to beef up the others, you can use TTL for instance a 74LS38 is a quad input Nand gate but open collector, this allows the nand to pull low a higher voltage but it wont drive high, i did not see what you are trying to drive so cannot tell if that would be good.
I switched to 74hc00. Instant Gratification! I can now move on.
Quote"There is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been monitoring us for a very long time. That their appearance is bizarre from any type of traditional materialistic western point of view. That these visitors use the technologies of consciousness, they use toroids, they use co-rotating magnetic disks for their propulsion systems, that seems to be a common denominator of the UFO phenomenon" (source) - Dr. Brian O'leary, Former NASA Astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/06/20/5-reasons-why-everybody-knows-we-are-not-alone-in-the-universe/ (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/06/20/5-reasons-why-everybody-knows-we-are-not-alone-in-the-universe/)
The family is just visiting the zoo. After all, one does not step into the cages but merely throws peanuts at the aminals.
Hmmm, beings of light...
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/02/19/we-are-living-in-the-most-important-time-in-the-history-of-the-universe-dolores-cannon-discusses-our-current-paradigm/ (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/02/19/we-are-living-in-the-most-important-time-in-the-history-of-the-universe-dolores-cannon-discusses-our-current-paradigm/)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ)
Pancakes, anyone?
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/teardown-tuesday-induction-cooktop/?utm_source=All+About+Circuits+Members&utm_campaign=7fa6874aff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2565529c4b-7fa6874aff-266155541/ (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/teardown-tuesday-induction-cooktop/?utm_source=All+About+Circuits+Members&utm_campaign=7fa6874aff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2565529c4b-7fa6874aff-266155541/)
I saw this claim that a D.C. motor in series with a neon bulb exhibited an additional 30% efficiency.
I had to consult with Nicholas.
And of course this is correct.
Basically the setup is driving the motor with an EMP or a chaotic pulse width modulation protocol.
To further the validity would be to measure the RPM with a hall effect to see the chaotic RPM,
but a coil collector probe would show the noise too.
The elephant in the room is the motor would be chattering and jogging at a very minute time frame.
Eye balling the motor would accept deception.
But if one doesnt care about level operation then I guess we have a win here.
This is why I keep harping on the usability of the EMP and not the mystery.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2022.06.14, 17:33:34
I saw this claim that a D.C. motor in series with a neon bulb exhibited an additional 30% efficiency.
What's nice is how such a thing is so darn simple to test.
I think you'd want to use a large filter cap in parallel with the DC bench supply though, as the neon and motor may both generate a lot of RF flyback that might throw off the readings on the meter. I surely can't be the only person that's gotten phantom OU readings only to find out it was a harmonic distortion or similar. :P
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.06.16, 02:25:31
harmonic distortion or similar. :P
If pumped up it would be destructive. Snubbed just shy of that would lead to resonant pumping.
This is a capacitor:
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.06.16, 02:25:31
...I surely can't be the only person that's gotten phantom OU readings only to find out it was a harmonic distortion or similar. ...
Oh no, you don't! :)
http://rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm (http://rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm)
Hertz was a student of Helmholtz.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2022.09.01, 16:04:29
Hertz was a student of Helmholtz.
How did Hertz/Hemholtz' views differ from others in the era, or the 21st century consensus on Electrical Engineering?
I misplaced that article but in it the 'differing'(bad term)..... It seemed to me in the article that there were additive conflicts interjected. As each person got ahold of the model they changed it thinking there were .......
Forget my dissertation about this. I google it again and it is blatant all over the internet because of published works and papers.https://www.jstor.org/stable/41134117
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/41134117)But I add this: Different modalities of electron effects appear at different pressures depending on what the test is being performed. I also believe that different views arise between people when they can only view the dynamics through their filters.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/power/article/21262055/microwaves-rf-ambersemis-newly-tapedout-ic-extracts-dc-from-ac-mains?o_eid=7041H6655490C9L&rdx.ident[pull]=omeda|7041H6655490C9L&oly_enc_id=7041H6655490C9L
https://en.delachieve.com/the-hendershot-generator-hendershot-generator-circuit/ (https://en.delachieve.com/the-hendershot-generator-hendershot-generator-circuit/)
The TPU is a folded version.
GK, would you mind going over this diagram in more detail?
I'm curious on things like:
- Wire gauge
- Wire length
- Measured inductance
- Coupling factor between various coils (loose, tight, 90deg,uncoupled, etc)
- Critical minimum voltage or other critical minimum factors
Also curious about disconnecting the stun gun portion and just studying the remaining configuration by itself (attached)
Instead of starting with a complete system, I'd like to break everything apart into base components to help understand them individually.
The design is predicated on Watts out.
Size the wire and components correctly.
Nothing critical.
Scope the amplitude gain of the feedback and snub at component wattage level.
This engine works at any size.
One can raise the component size or tier up successively larger stages like Adrian did.
The smallest of this engine that I use is in the electric flyswatter.
Its great for testing the units.
This is why SM had many sizes.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2023.04.27, 00:05:43
The design is predicated on Watts out.
Size the wire and components correctly.
Nothing critical.
Scope the amplitude gain of the feedback and snub at component wattage level.
This engine works at any size.
One can raise the component size or tier up successively larger stages like Adrian did.
The smallest of this engine that I use is in the electric flyswatter.
Its great for testing the units.
This is why SM had many sizes.
All coils air-core? I take it the red+black 'transformer' is in-fact standard 10-14awg PVC/silicone power cord wire?
Is accoustic-range frequencies (3-40khz) a critical factor? If-so any theories why? (acoustic resonance/magnetostriction/etc?)
All-copper or is iron/nickel wire required at some stage?
Answers:
Quote from: giantkiller
100% Cu, air, non-critical at this juncture. The spacing is the tuning. Snubbing the harmonic destruction is the protocol.I did the first acoustical tests in 2007, the middle one was the 3 canon heterodyner, the large one was the controller into the Bose and the small one was the TDA2003 test.If things bounce then there is capturable energy. Everything bounced. I did the swr field strength meter test with the LTPU. It could perform a 6 foot toroidal field at 1 foot to 10 feet while an LED was lit coupling off the verticals at a tuned frequency.
While doing the small TDA2003 test I realized I could replace the audio with oscillatory mechanics by moving a microphone close to a small DC motor/pager motor. I could easily move the mic or dampen the incoming signal through a potentiometer(snubber). This removes the audio component after I found the reverb and harmonics there. The volume potentiometer(Voltage level control) stays but the frequency potentiometer function is replaced with a square wave pulse width adjustment It is proportional speed control now. Variable harmonic thumping. THe kill switch stays too.
The verticals are in series with the microphone while the motors are in series with the center TPUs, for now. I have an idea to incorporate another spark gap in series with the motor to increase the stadium/verticals input. The microphone is still located at the motor.This gets housed between the aluminum discs for harmonic compression. The previous audio and TCoil test moved the suspended discs. The discs are getting mounts made so that the magnetic field from the speakers reflects inward.
The current setup is multi-phased and previous tests were all open bench experiments and validation. This next configuration needs a container for the antennas in order to capitalize on the greater feedback loop. Its essentially two magnetic parabolic reflectors facing each other and driven from inside using compressed audio and magnetic fields. The harmonic ringing will bounce inside. Pulse Wave Cymatic Tectonics.
I am currently working the design of the container through the router table workflow.
SMs LTPU had two potentiometers and a switch.
The operation is obvious in the stun gun circuit. The built up charge is snapped out by the spark gap dumping the coil and that cap in one direction, into of the primary of the output transformer of the charge pump stage. The charge pump is the output stage of an Armstrong oscillator in synch with the series LC of the charge pump stage. That energy ejected from the output stage into space is a ridiculous waste. Harvest it by using it to thump resonance in the TPU tank stage. The verticals are part of the tank circuit. There is where the encompassing field resides that is collapsed by the spark gap. The microphone assists as the incoming trigger. The microphone also puts information in the charge field that promotes other harmonics. The spark gap discharge is a broadband EMP. Every inch of copper will read.
This picture has a double meaning that I later pointed out publicly.
By building it that way I did was to show the relationship between the vertical microphones and the TPU verticals. Also that the horizontals were analogous to the speaker rims but they also can create or read. The speaker center is the center toroid. Set this up as a parallel pair. Two frequencies or one on dual channels that are out phase. Harmonics that amplify need to be snubbed. This all comes from prior art or previous work of others. These segments are easily attachable as one pleases. The previous information points out stages that work already in the real world.
GK, I assume 'stun gun modules' refer to these dime-a-dozen HV charge pump circuits that you can find everywhere online, usually for under $5.00/ea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTx8pMHo4jI
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09724L5VK (one of the many random sources)
The full teardown and characterization of the modules in the video will help us a lot when making simulations and designing test/tuning protocols.
Usually they are rated up to around 40-70kv intermittent duty, though I've found they energize around 1v with significantly lower output.
As a small note/tip for using gas discharge tube (GDT's) as a 'spark gap' -> I have found that GDT's tend to ionize somewhere around 2x their rated voltage. So a 200v GDT will actually trigger somewhere around 400v, and a 1kv GDT will tend to trigger around 2kv, and so on.
Like spark gaps, they tend to be very noisey compared to solid-state snubbers, with irregular trigger voltages and lots of weird harmonics, which in this case may actually be desirable, or even necessary.. ???
GK, regarding the 'stun gun' circuit:
Are you using direct off-the-shelf or are you modifying/simplifying as-per pics 2 or 3?
I use CFL ckts, Harbor freight swatter and some I replace the t092 with a to220 trannies, Stun gun weapon ckts. I even built my own with audio transformers. And ignition coils. I have yet to try mwave trans in the mix. Thats a bit too big for the bench. It need a larger setup like Adrian does. I could do this with the router table cuts for framing.I have yet to find a need for that size unless I need plasma arcing. But these little engines do just fine producing low power EMPs. I just need the bandwidth ejections. I am sure that specific ranges would suffice but that would come under tuning for plasma gases which again I dont need.
SM showed loud white sparkage and there are only two circuits that do that, a charge pump with a sparkgap and the Walton-Cockcroft. Both are fed with an Armstrong oscillator.
This reiteration is for the new comers, if there be any.
https://pcbstator.com/ (https://pcbstator.com/)
Standing waves show up as cymatic patterns but not as a single plane but 3d areas of compressed, uncompressed - nodes/antinodes energy.Standing waves can be moved harmonically by random or controlled forces.The harmonic movement is every 7th wave in the high seas. The harmonic movement must be dampened in HV power lines and transformers in power distribution networks. The harmonic movement is what turns solid earth into a moving slide.The greats that got shut down knew about harmonically moving the resonant fields. The difference between them and the rest of the world is that they captured the rhythmic action instead of letting it go to self destruction. This self destruction is what has caused all the grief of ignorant fools. They shunt, filter, dampen, and ground out the most explosive power on the planet. The power when not channeled destroys metals and unconstrained items. Think Hendershot, Moray and there are others.What is interesting and mostly missing is that the resonant fields can be kinetically shaken by spark gaps. Don Smith and Steven Mark showed this. I promoted it early on in 2006 due to what I saw from the greats. Telsa mentioned that men would amazed at the power available when the fields reconnect. It is nature's law that it ABHORS a vacuum. Moving a copper wire through the field is a fine example of this as the field reconnects after the wire passes through the 3d area. The wire captures that energy.The excitation can be accomplished by rhythmic or kinetic execution. Its your choice as to how you want to deal with the entropy.
In case this gets deleted from other benches. This the correct approach.
https://www.facebook.com/100078268117321/videos/2168016553397361/ (https://www.facebook.com/100078268117321/videos/2168016553397361/)
QuoteJames Clark-Maxwell predicted the possibility that electromagnetic waves might exist. In theoretical discussions designed to more thoroughly explain his mathematical descriptions, Maxwell asked his readers to consider two different kinds of electrical disturbance possibly existing in Nature. The first consideration dealt with longitudinal electric waves, a phenomenon which required alternating concentrations of electrostatic field lines. This densified and rarefied pulsation of electrostatic fields necessarily demanded a unidirectional field, one whose vector was fixed in a singular direction. The only variable permitted in generating longitudinal waves was the concentration of he field.
Subsequent propagation along the electrostatic field lines would produce pulsating thrusts on charges, pulsations moving in a Single direction. These "electrical soundwaves" were rejected by Maxwell, who concluded that such a condition was impossible to achieve.
His second consideration dealt with the existence of transverse electromagnetic waves. These required the rapid alternation of electrical fields along a fixed axis. Space spreading electrical lines would supposedly "bend to and fro" under their own momentum, while radiating away at the speed of light from the alternating source. Corresponding forces, exact duplicates of the alternations produced at the source, would be detected at great distances. He encouraged that experimenters seek this waveform, suggesting possible means for achieving the objective. And so the quest to find electromagnetic waves began.
https://www.aetherforce.energy/the-true-story-of-teslas-radiant-matter/ (https://www.aetherforce.energy/the-true-story-of-teslas-radiant-matter/)
People are trying get something to vibrate indefinitely while disregarding entropy. Destructive harmonic feedback conquers this. Yet they have not ears to hear.
Could someone kindly elaborate on this concept?
Destructive Harmonic Feedback
A brief and basic summary of interpretation would be of great value to myself and potentially others,
Some of us have not the experience to grasp the subtleties of what is being said here.
I have much interest in these devices and the variations thereof (and of course, the implications manifest)
Could an analogy be made to what the goal is here?
In practical terms, how might a less knowledgeable researcher wrap their head around the concept of the TPU
Or similar devices? What is fundamentally required? A high frequency and a high voltage seemingly, but how exactly is an influx actively incurred??
Can standard electron model be considered as being flawed when attempting a TPU style build?
By "orthodox" perspective, a ground - electron pump producing more out than in should not be possible (unless collecting microwatts)
I'm not fully convinced either way personally (anything's possible) , but a further simplification yet could surely be helpful for everyone
I will keep it simple so it awakens you.
Search rogue waves. When the 7th wave eclipses with another 7th wave they tear ships apart.
Remember sitting in the bath tub a experiencing how such a little butt scootch could cause waves over the edge?
Search power distribution harmonic dampening. Its real and has to be the primary consideration in the designs.
Search cymatics and you will see the patterns then view these as 3d. You now have a multiple axial linear accelerator with energy ejections in all directions.
Now think about reflective harmonics which cause resonant rise. If not snubbed it will destroy equipment. Snub it and capture the release. Tesla said so. 'If man would only realize the amount of power in that discharge...' Think belly flop.
Stick a microphone in front of a speaker. The feedback is an autonomous driver. This comment right here is the second one that caused SM to reply to me. The first one was the huge spark of the TPU demo was a stungun. The stun gun incorporates a resonant charge pump. So does a microwave oven, an MRI machine, and Tesla coil.I know there are a lot of people that are struggling with breaking entropy and they dont even know it or refuse to acknowledge it. But it is the brick wall of the designs.
It doesnt take rocket science. Build an oscillator and add larger power handling stages to it. The head connected at the end determines what the device will do.Most know I harp on 100 dead scientists from the 90s and early 2000's. Its real so keep your demos to your self. I got away dissecting the TPU to its fullest because there are no industry killing demos and there should not be. The trolls will get to you and bad things will happen. I have made it this far due to my presentation style and lack of corporate or academic affiliations. The D.O.D. couldnt even catch me and I worked for them. Build stages and connect them. See the results and then disconnect them and move on to the next stage configuration. Piece meal it to stay under the radar. Dont show you friends or family. This caused my 2nd divorce after shutting down the internet of my previous neighborhood and blowing laptops and routers. 'Nice EMP' ya got there I said to myself. It was transmitted through infrastructure ground. I am here and on OU. I even shut down Berlin for 3 days from a test the choked their routers at Overunity.com. I pride myself at being the most dangerous person on the planet because I know what I saw in my tests. One test even scared the shit out of SM. It was the 20 foot loop of expensive stereo drive cable driven by a stungun next to a commercial and military air base.
If you google 'Aaron Salter' you get huge lists of propaganda and racial misdirection.
But if you google 'Aaron Salter water truck' you see behind the curtain. Its real.
I have documented all the stages and the configuration ad infinitum. It is as simple as SM stated. My posts might look like 52 card pickup but really all the stages are advertised. The TPU is a Tesla coil but the whole operation sits inside the coil. If you want something to play with build the LTPU 17". The instructions are in the threads by pictures and operational stage demos. The device is a speaker, amplifier, radio RxTx, harmonic echo generator as a feedback loop.My last config was to place a a pager motor in front of a microphone connected to an amplifier. Wake up. SM had the same thing. Thats why the TPUs vibrate. In his demos he also swipes, places and removes magnets from the devices. These are the operational switches. All of his little labels are gold, pure gold and expose clearly what he did.I just followed along.
And I caused a lot of trouble.
Step to the edge but do not jump.
If anyone is looking to be spoonfed I just gave you a whole bowl of Maypo. Feast.
I took the final configuration to the next level and disclosed in the scifi novel I wrote and published. Yep, its public domain, scifi and far reaching. Because it was so obvious. A fellow OUer asked me 'Do you really want the idiots to have this?'
Some might take fault with this post. I know what I did and the whole scheme worked otherwise people wouldnt be asking.
The caveat is if you dont understand or want to search to put the pieces back together in the obvious order then the journey is not for you.
I have never got argued with what I post.
I know there is a lot here to dissect but press on. Its worth it. There is no pdf because some fool would run his mouth and bring trouble the likes we dont want to see.
Stay slick.
Thankyou for your fascinating reply.
I will heed your warnings, as they directly coincide with my best informed assumptions.
Given the available information one must conclude that it's all very possible
And there is vested interest to keep these things quiet
Observing this fact should be enough to spur anyone with a spine onto doing something about it
Even if just to further their own personal interests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiW6Vp08tfI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiW6Vp08tfI)
How does this relate? A humble joule thief also operates on reactive power iinm?
Would be great to know where we could read your novel!
It seems those of us with an interest / extreme curiosity for this area of research must supply one another with relevant materials.
I have done what I could so far by assembling the "Overunity Smorgasbord" playlist and building various projects here at OUR.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpuBp-WaqFobl1olMsCLo1hzwvTIewbvj (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpuBp-WaqFobl1olMsCLo1hzwvTIewbvj)
Kudos for the continued "troublemaking"!
We could do with some more of that in EE IMO O0
PS just noticed M. R. GHALLABs' paper is from Egypt..
Can't help but remember the GPOG resides there..
And all its unexplained technical; seemingly inexplicable geometries and the imposition they proffer to mainstream perspective of HIS-Story
With the work that Ben Van Kerkwyk is doing alongside others, it should be clear that there are secrets abound..
And for many reasons (None in OUR favour, mind)
To this day no one has mapped the toroidal field being swiped with a cabinet magnet yet clearly SM showed this.
This was the excitation for the feedback loop.
https://mechanitec.ca/best-free-magnetic-field-simulation-software/ (https://mechanitec.ca/best-free-magnetic-field-simulation-software/)
The toroid has its circular inner field morphed by the dipole cabinet magnet.
Any perturbations look like pulses traveling around the toroidal field. Sm used FE wire to create a small saturable inductor.Take note of the balance of volume between the coil's size and the core size. Its not like we have seen before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSQ63yloAA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSQ63yloAA)
A dynamic magnetic field model truly shows the operation of the TPU. Remember SM put a clamp-on Amp meter in the free space in the center of the TPU by the center toroids and showed activity.
Thankyou for the information :)
I will deeply consider what has been presented.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N78E7CR (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N78E7CR)
I repeated this here for my own notes.
The Kapanadze is: This is a parallel to Don Smith's circuit. Because Don used open air coils he needed tuning but not a ground connection. Tariel exploits the field storage of the caduceus and the capacitance of the coax to achieve the same thing but he needs ground for an electron source.
The ground mesh of the coax becomes an extremely large EMP transmission to the flame line and the dielectric of the coax becomes a buffer to the kinetic energy thereby holding the charge there instead of completely in a resonant outer field. The coax dielectric area and the caduceus nodes work together at different time frames of the energy entropy.
Filament based resistors always light up in EMP field. Lets see motors.
Twin lead is essentially coax in this usage. The two leads in both are separated by a plastic dielectric.
Just another version of the stun gun charge pump circuit. The driver oscillation can be gotten in a number of ways including pwm.
Armstrong to a Walton-Cockcroft is the cheapest and most passive step up.
The choice is to determine what purpose is the goal and what head one needs to drive to meet that purpose.
Tesla, Worley, Leedskalnin, TTBrown, Hutchison and many others started with electrostatics. Let the decay start when power is needed at an appropriate point of exit.
This is basic premise which non grounded OU must follow. Devices that have a ground connection are pulling electrons from there.
The non grounded must excite to ring then pick a spot along the ringing to attach to or buffer for a useful looping to occur.
Study the Armstrong and you will see whether a proclaimed OU device is worth your time. If you dont see an Armstrong then move on.
For instance does anyone see the Armstrong in the Witt device? I do. The looping is handled by the parallel proximity and the buffering is handled by the rpm limiting.
It wont work on a single axle because the field is not coupled to the driver. YOU CAN NOT MANAGE ENTROPY in a reasonable way. It cost too much in componentry and effort.
The Bedini motor(little school motor(its not his invention)) is a joule thief with mechanical buffering. Not sorry to burst egos.
Oscillate, pump, harvest are the only steps one needs. Any configuration needs buffering to get or limit to a usable current level.
The configuration is the mechanical output head which is the builder's choice.
So once the current or emp is seen then you have completed Oscillate and pump. Harvesting take control/buffering. HV diodes are a good start.
A simple OU start is to build an Armstrong oscillator with microwave transformers. This can be driven with joule thief. One might not see this on the internet because its such a great start that HV is no problem to get but to manage. I accept no liability for your efforts. You are basically building an arc welder but instead of shorting through metal connections you would want to buffer that explosion of energy after the pumping.
Each step has its experts and very detailed posting of builds and science behind it. Great nuggets for forward progress if one cares to stuff immeasurable diatribe into their brain bucket.
The quickest way is to accept the Armstrong model as a lens to look through. You'll find this adheres to non grounded devices. Now if you want to use a Kapanadze to drive an Armstrong then this will put you well ahead of where most get stuck but you will be forever be attached to ground. Iron wire cores are great to reduce eddy currents.
This excerpt here is the most complete description one will find explaining OU and not trigger TPTB.
Use a microwave oven circuit and replace the magnetron with a Tesla coil secondary. Immense amount of energy will exit. That emp will cause a suitable ringing for most to experiment with. I started out there after I told SM the TPU was driven by a stungun circuit (Armstrong with a charge pump) then moved to uwave xfrmrs. I eventually moved back to using/harvesting electric flyswatter ckts. Its cheaper, done and expendable.
There are a lot of categories of builds and circuits to use because all fall into the trap of their area of soapbox. If one doesnt see the Armstrong then make no further attempts as there will be no progress.
Self oscillation is the primary mover.
Just bounce a weak magnetic field in resonance.
The resonant frequency is dependent on 3 things:
1) The configuration of the head, i.e. material and shape.
2) The space/distance that the bounce is to occur in.
3) The relation of the space/distance to the field strength.
This is why Bedini, SM, and Mueller used cabinet magnets.
This is why Bedini stated Neodyniums were to strong.
Coral castle is based upon the distance as a major factor because the head was crystaline.
Don Smith's units were the distance of the spark gap to the resonant coil field.
If you see a spark gap then the field is being micro pressured/thumped(SM) from it resonant statis base.
If you want a unit with out a spark gap well good luck. Only the EMP shakes the stability into ringing.
Review the Witt device again to see the large field interaction with the commutator sparking inside. Sounds like a magnifying transmitter to me.
The comp wave generator does just this to expose the slight pressure return from the aether.
Funny thing I never get arguments for pointing out the obvious.
Just enough truth to not get disappeared.
It sounds easy, the only thing missing is all the relevant details between the the cause and the effect.
which is of course basically everything...
AC
https://thedebrief.org/scientists-have-solved-this-anti-gravity-mystery-while-confirming-new-form-of-magnetic-levitation/ (https://thedebrief.org/scientists-have-solved-this-anti-gravity-mystery-while-confirming-new-form-of-magnetic-levitation/)
Since the magnetic field does not rotate with the rotating magnet(Maxwellian proof) then the magnetic moments are rotating with in the magnet. Are the moments aligning to the planet? If so then the planet is aligning to a greater external static force that does not modulate on the vertical/torus axis. That toroidal field must be the solar system to galaxy to universe.
Since the moments are rotating then there must be a frame drag between the moments and the molecular structure.
...but the molecular structure doesnt exhibit any change.
Different modalities of electron effects appear at different pressures depending on what the test is being performed. I also believe that different views arise between people when they can only view the dynamics through their filters.
Sorry I have not answered anybody.
A single frequency can be used when there are two 90 degree coupled coils made of dissimilar metals because both fields connect as long as the resonance exists then one collapses into an EMP into the second field. This is just like the primary of a Tesla coil EMPing the resonant field of the secondary.
Stan Deyo 2005 talk mentions the Lorenz torsion of two angular fields connecting.
Am I correct in understanding the process as: Resonant coils of dissimilar metals at right angles; one will essentially "thump" the other; then harvest?
I saw some comments probably 10 years ago from a guy in the Philippines harvesting the standing wave from the secondary of a resonant Tesla coil using a series wound bifilar coil (in order to avoid secondary reflection).
Something Bedini said on a Don Smith thread on EF, about a year before he passed - that ambient charge will enter a pulsed coil at its center (Bloch Wall) as the magnetic field of the coil collapses. I think Bedini attributed this influx of charge to gravity (he spoke of a ubiquitous gravity wave that could be harnessed in this fashion).
So is the "thump" what enables the aether to pump into the setup?
Always enjoy your posts.
Bob
Yes. The companion wave tests that Grumpy, JDO300 and I did showed the one bump echo returning. Its like a one reflection from a very stiff material.
The coil was a paper towel tube wound with bifilar lamp cord and struck with two very short pulses really close together.
We used the bidirectional GBTs switch board that Jason designed. I bought four and they are indestructible.
So that being said then I took hold of the Bloch wall knowledge and realized that there is one in space between two opposing fields that could be manipulated electronically.
The Kunel patent fit the bill. I had that patent years before and it stuck. I had previously realized that the Kunel patent attached to the High Q multiplier was the schematic for the TPU.
All the devices we were shown that work are either mysteriously lacking a vital piece of the puzzle or the author talks 'Special' materials.
The working devices all bounce the virtual Bloch wall in space. Move it what ever way one can and its all the same event.
The Kunel patent is the document that tells all. I found that patent after I built the GK4 and realized its the same protocol but in a VERY noisy fashion.
I know everyone wants to know or be the hero of the world with this tech. But dont. Forget the fame and glory and follow the Kunel patent along remembering all the devices you have seen and you will see those that are just noise or those that work.
In all the SM vids you will see him with slight of hand magnet. The buzzing is a relay oscillator. Its all Tesla. The buffering of the energy down to a usable level the next step. After that we all know what to do.
The information from me has never changed about this. Its always been right in our faces. I just got there the earliest by realizing the stun gun charge pump, the Fe garden wire and the magnets.
In your question and comments here you already are seeing the obvious.
In other forums I talk till I am blue in the face about adding Fe or NiFe material to their noisy builds but I cant get them off that trail. And thats ok because when this last coupling protocol is seen they have an enormous amount of inventory that will work. Thats how I made so many dangerous test results.
Look at what Hubbard and Hendershot did. The Hendershot weave predisturbs the field at the inside surface layer.
Look at what Muller did. He cuts the field and then reconnects. The beauty of all this repeat is the info world is so polluted with this tech that no one is going be able to claim ownership because everyone will see the Kunel protocol and all of testing and repeating in millions of threads.
The latest I realized is the Phryll coil. Its under the pretense of alien mystical nonsense, so to speak. But I just built one using steel instead of silver. This is alien tech. The specs of it are so artistically scientific its amazing.
The content is 2 dissimilar metals, one frequency and a crystal(that is the magnet) and the angle of the tube sides. The main thing that loses everyone is the coils are 90 degrees perpendicular to each other. The GK4 claims that break through also. The Deyo wedding cake coil is also 90 degrees and he is the first and only to announce its not the coils, its a natural event of two field reconnecting at an oblique angel and getting its Lorenz torsioned. Absolute Gold. But then he says but thats for another talk which I have not seen yet. So in other words you want the DARPA level secret? There it is.
Now if you are still following this, here is the coup de grace. By using dissimilar metals one can use one frequency because the two metals react differently to the one frequency. I never used capacitors on the GK4 and look what that open face microwave did. The downfall of all the only Cu devices is the builder is trying find the magic setup to keep Cu ringing forever. This is a fools journey. Put a naturally occurring field in there to break it or massage it in some way and you will 'HAVE IT'. This is what Smith, Hubbard, Hendershot, Steven Mark, Muller, and Bedini does. But everybody goes off trying to reinvent. What idiocy. Nobody is going to come out of the chute like I did with what the GK4 exposed. Not bragging. Strangely lucky. It is what it is. And if somebody does end up with something then you can bet its something mentioned in the post right here. I guarantee it. I send nuggets to Muller's daughter all the time and she lights up. She knows what her dad did. She wants me to give a public talk but I deny. There are just too many question after no matter how simple I talk about it. I just dont understand the blindness to the documentation.
This is the spoon feed that SM refused to do. Probably his way of backing the truth of the NDA. Remember he said 'It really is simple.' Thats mean 'Simply copying the patents.'
It really is radio. Transmitter closely coupled to receiver. He captures the transmit reflections.
Here is more magic:
https://rumble.com/v6srbp5-non-rotating-flux-on-a-rotating-magnet.html (https://rumble.com/v6srbp5-non-rotating-flux-on-a-rotating-magnet.html)
There is enough technical docs supplied to interrogate.
https://rumble.com/v6srbp5-non-rotating-flux-on-a-rotating-magnet.html (https://rumble.com/v6srbp5-non-rotating-flux-on-a-rotating-magnet.html)
Quote from: giantkiller on 2025.05.07, 02:23:42
https://rumble.com/v6srbp5-non-rotating-flux-on-a-rotating-magnet.html (https://rumble.com/v6srbp5-non-rotating-flux-on-a-rotating-magnet.html)
Repeat your experiment on a monochrome CRT. You are not seeing lines of flux, you are seeing a defocused projection of the shadow mask as electrons exiting the holes of the shadow mask are deflected. That is why the colored dot pattern does not rotate, the shadow mask is stationary.
PW
Will do.
Thanks for the detailed reply, GK. I'm now a homesteader the last 5 years, and work pretty much to exhaustion these days, so not always time to engage the way I'd like to - so my apologies for not gratefully acknowledging sooner. That said, I do understand your post much better after letting it percolate in my brain and re-reading it a week later. There's gold in there, and I appreciate you doing that.
One thing I thought I'd throw out there, which you may or may not choose to address: I noticed Bedini was using Litz wire on some of his setups. I know what Litz wire in a coil does. Do you see a value in it here?
Regards,
Bob
Quote from: picowatt on 2025.05.07, 03:03:07
Repeat your experiment on a monochrome CRT. You are not seeing lines of flux, you are seeing a defocused projection of the shadow mask as electrons exiting the holes of the shadow mask are deflected. That is why the colored dot pattern does not rotate, the shadow mask is stationary.
PW
O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXlig7orT9E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXlig7orT9E)
simplicity. :)
Interesting conversations.
On EM, light and the non-rotation of fields. My analogy is a gatling gun, the barrel or source may rotate but the bullet leaves in a straight line. This is because once a particle, wave or bullet leaves the source it becomes independent from it. Think of a light bulb, the moment a photon leaves the surface of the filament it becomes independent from it. Rotating the light bulb has little or no effect on the particles leaving it.
Here is a good example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk, Visualizing video at the speed of light — one trillion frames per second
This gives us a very good clue as to the nature of the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational) and why they do not rotate with the source.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.06.20, 15:30:31
Interesting conversations.
On EM, light and the non-rotation of fields. My analogy is a gatling gun, the barrel or source may rotate but the bullet leaves in a straight line. This is because once a particle, wave or bullet leaves the source it becomes independent from it. Think of a light bulb, the moment a photon leaves the surface of the filament it becomes independent from it. Rotating the light bulb has little or no effect on the particles leaving it.
I fail to see how your Gatling gun analogy proves or disproves fields do not rotate with the source. The Gatling gun is still firing one barrel from a fixed position regardless of the fact that multiple barrels rotate into alignment with that position before launching a projectile. Like any gun fired from the same position at any firing rate, the projectiles will follow the path toward which they were launched (given that windage and gravity are ignored). The rotating barrels of the Gatling gun play no role in modifying the launching of the projectiles (aside from keeping the barrels cooler). The projectiles are launched just as they are with any other single barreled gun firing in the same direction.
It is true that once the projectile is launched, movement of the barrel has no effect on the already launched projectile. In a similar fashion regarding your light bulb, once a photon is emitted, modification of the bulb's position or on state no longer affects that previously launched photon. However, photons and projectiles are not "fields".
Quote
Here is a good example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk, Visualizing video at the speed of light — one trillion frames per second
This gives us a very good clue as to the nature of the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational) and why they do not rotate with the source.
Again, I fail to see how the video offers any clues as to whether fields rotate with their source. The question of whether or not a magnetic field rotates with a magnet has been pondered for some time, and there remains debate among scientists as to whether it does or does not. I am in the camp that believes that fields do rotate with their source. Rotation of a purely homogenous magnetic field may appear to be stationary, however, it is a trivial matter to detect the variations in the rotating field caused by microscopic domain irregularities. It is therefore reasonable to state that the field is at least modulated as the magnet rotates due to these domain irregularities. Macroscopic irregularities are much easier to detect and the variations in the field that occur due to those macroscopic variations do indeed rotate with the magnet (a useful trait used every day to detect rotation of a shaft, etc)
In my imagineering of the world, a field is a modified region of space and any movement of the source of that field will modify that region of space accordingly.
Just my two cents...
PW
picowatt
QuoteIt is true that once the projectile is launched, movement of the barrel has no effect on the already launched projectile. In a similar fashion regarding your light bulb, once a photon is emitted, modification of the bulb's position or on state no longer affects that previously launched photon. However, photons and projectiles are not "fields".
Good response and this was the only point I was trying to make in my analogies. Something leaving a source becomes independent of the source.
QuoteAgain, I fail to see how the video offers any clues as to whether fields rotate with their source. The question of whether or not a magnetic field rotates with a magnet has been pondered for some time, and there remains debate among scientists as to whether it does or does not. I am in the camp that believes that fields do rotate with their source. Rotation of a purely homogenous magnetic field may appear to be stationary, however, it is a trivial matter to detect the variations in the rotating field caused by microscopic domain irregularities. It is therefore reasonable to state that the field is at least modulated as the magnet rotates due to these domain irregularities. Macroscopic irregularities are much easier to detect and the variations in the field that occur due to those macroscopic variations do indeed rotate with the magnet (a useful trait used every day to detect rotation of a shaft, etc)
Good catch, when developing magnetic levitation devices and bearings I noticed all magnets have irregularities. My field mapping arrays determined field strength is never uniform near the surface. The far field is more uniform but the near field is a mess.
I think we need to define what constitutes a true "field rotation". In my testing a rotating irregularity on the magnet surface caused a periodic change in the field detectors. Here a change in the field strength in one specific area rotates with the magnet. However we can do the same thing with many small magnets with different field strengths rotating. This is not a true "field rotation" imo it is a periodically changing field strength at the source.
This comes back to my analogies and understanding the difference between a source (field carrier) and something external to the source (the field). When we adopt the "field carrier" model things become clearer imo.
ChatGPT can explain it better...
Question, does a magnet spinning on the north-south axis have a rotating field. The field is uniform, how can it rotate?.
Answer,
QuoteFirst: What does it mean for a magnet to spin on the North-South axis?
Assume we have a bar magnet with its magnetic dipole aligned North-South (i.e., magnetic north pole pointing geographic north). If you spin this magnet around its own magnetic axis (i.e., rotate it like a top, aligned N–S), then:
The direction of the magnetic dipole doesn't change — it's still pointing North. The field lines don't change either — they're symmetric around the axis. So, to an external observer, the magnetic field appears static, not rotating.
So does it have a rotating field?
No, not in this configuration. If the magnet spins about its own dipole axis (N–S), and the field is uniform and symmetric, there is no rotating magnetic field in space — the field does not change direction at any point in space.
In effect, many people are confusing a field change and a field rotation.
AC
Quote from: picowatt on 2025.06.21, 01:12:25
...
Again, I fail to see how the video offers any clues as to whether fields rotate with their source.
...
The answer to this question has been known for a long time. By definition, a field is only a vector at one position in space. If its intensity and direction are constant, by definition it does not rotate, since it is static. This is the case when a cylindrical magnet rotates around its magnetic axis; the field remains constant everywhere.
If this same magnet were to turn 90° from its magnetic axis, then at a given point in space the field would increase, decrease or change direction, giving the impression of rotation, in the same way as if I were to project a laser light onto a cylindrical wall by turning the torch, I would see a point of light rotating along the wall. Does this mean that something is moving along the wall? Of course not, the photons always come from the lamp, they don't move along the wall.
With a magnetic field, it's the same thing. The field is created by the magnetic dipoles of its source. As with the lamp, there is a source. It can be modelled as an emitter of virtual photons that mediate the field. The virtual photons originate from the source, so they do not rotate tangentially somewhere in space.
F6FLT
Well said and I agree.
Simply put, when we spin a magnet on it's polar N-S axis the field does not rotate with the magnet. However a rotation or movement on any other axis moves the poles and the field does change.
AC
If a static magnet induces a field in an approaching cored coil, the core will become a magnet if close enough. There will be a field induced in the coil. At this point, if any further movement of the cored coil occurs, it is then the magnet that is moving through the coil field. The magnet doesn't cause resistance in the coil. It's statically sitting on a bench. The induced field within the coil generates resistance in response to change... nothing to do with magnet, it is just inducing the field, not the response of the coil to the induced field. The equilibric forces rotating around the bloch wall within the coil field are responsible for the resistance to change.
Robert Adams (and many others) knew that this induced field in a coil could be biased, to alter how the equilibric forces react to change - counterwound pulse coils on either side of the rotor in this case.
And in the device I've been working with that uses counterwound secondaries, a dead short or load at 1800rpm will speed the device up.
Moving magnets over connected counterwound coils... simplicity... but you need to understand that the bloch wall is etheric in nature. Ie . It is a higher energy density, which is why working with the bloch wall is so important.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.21, 17:23:34
The answer to this question has been known for a long time. By definition, a field is only a vector at one position in space. If its intensity and direction are constant, by definition it does not rotate, since it is static. This is the case when a cylindrical magnet rotates around its magnetic axis; the field remains constant everywhere.
However, if your cylindrical magnet was actually a can containing a motor driving a charged sphere, then the field magnitude at any point around the magnet would change value as the magnet's rotation speed adds to or subtracts from the internal motor's speed!!
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.06.22, 09:55:16
However, if your cylindrical magnet was actually a can containing a motor driving a charged sphere, then the field magnitude at any point around the magnet would change value as the magnet's rotation speed adds to or subtracts from the internal motor's speed!!
Smudge
I agree and have already thought about this question, thinking that rotating a magnet around its magnetic axis could increase or decrease the magnetic field, depending on whether the rotation was in the same or opposite direction to the spin.
This is the result of an oversimplification.
Firstly, spin is not a classical rotation. You can't mechanically generate a spin 1/2. And if we model the electron by a rotation of charges, given its radius, the charges should move faster than light.
But let's suppose that, despite this, we insist on making the analogy with a rotation. Then spin would appear as a rotation at billions of rd/s, making the effect of any mechanical rotation completely negligible and inaccessible to measurement.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.23, 13:40:15
Firstly, spin is not a classical rotation. You can't mechanically generate a spin 1/2. And if we model the electron by a rotation of charges, given its radius, the charges should move faster than light.
But let's suppose that, despite this, we insist on making the analogy with a rotation. Then spin would appear as a rotation at billions of rd/s, making the effect of any mechanical rotation completely negligible and inaccessible to measurement.
Agreed. Atomic orbital electrons do have a calculable rotation rate and they also create some of the magnet's field. They don't move faster than light but again the effect of any mechanical rotation is completely negligible. One can ask the question, are there slower electron circular orbits, like cyclotron generated, that would allow the mechanical effect to be present?
If the electron travels along a circular path of greater radius than its own, the tangential velocity of the charge will predominate in generating the magnetic field.
We wouldn't be testing a variation in the electron's rotation on itself, but a variation in the rotation on this circular path. This is where we enter classical physics. Since we know that a rotating charged ring generates a (measurable) magnetic field, it's clear that a mechanical rotation would increase or reduce the magnetic field of a coaxial circular current. If the circular current is not coaxial with the mechanical rotation, the calculations would be more complex, but the effect would most likely still be there.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.23, 13:40:15
Firstly, spin is not a classical rotation.
Notice that you take the spin for granted without an explanation, i.e. magically.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.23, 13:40:15
You can't mechanically generate a spin 1/2. And if we model the electron by a rotation of charges, given its radius, the charges should move faster than light.
Notice that you take charges for granted without an explanation, i.e. magically, too.
How do you explain the mechanical torque in Einstein de Haas effect and this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=53828) ?
@Verpies
Your comments are really bizarre. On the one hand, they have nothing to do with what I've written, which is conventional, even spin is defined mathematically, and on the other hand, evoking one subject is not the same as denying others that are more or less related, such as the conservation of angular momentum and the Einstein-de Haas effect.
I only said that the mechanical rotation of a magnet added to the electronic spin would not be detectable, assuming that this addition of a classical effect to a quantum effect makes sense, which is doubtful.
And then I said that the rotation of a current loop would change the magnetic field it generates. In fact, I realize that this is only true if the mechanical rotation involves only electrons, not positive charges, otherwise the effects would cancel each other out. It's a truism.
All physics is surprising, but that doesn't make it magic. If there is magic, it doesn't come from me, but from those who suggest it in the unknown or in reinterpreted conventional phenomena.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.24, 16:38:52
@Verpies
Your comments are really bizarre. On the one hand, they have nothing to do with what I've written, which is conventional, even spin is defined mathematically,
It might seem that way to you because you conflate mathematical coherence with conceptual correctness.
However the fact is that you use certain crutch ideas just like other members of this forum whom you have criticized for using other crutch ideas, such as the magnetic flux.
@Verpies
These are not crutch ideas, but those linked to what we know. What would be contrary to the basics of physics in what I've written? What would be wrong?
A current is charges that move, whether by mechanical or electrical means: they are C/s. By definition.
As for spin, it's "a Hermitian vector operator with three components, usually noted Ŝx, Ŝy, Ŝz by reference to the three axes of Cartesian coordinates usable in physical space. These components are observables verifying the commutation relations characteristic of a kinetic moment...". Spin is nothing else. Don't expect me to elaborate, it's beyond me, but when we talk about spin, that's what we should master. What's certain is that it's not a simple current loop. By definition.
Unlike free energy, which in theory is always at its starting point, nothingness (and in practice, too), science is knowledge that is built up. This doesn't mean that there are no unknowns, but that we make progress by building on what we know. I've only used what's known, and what I've written is refutable.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.25, 21:11:19
A current is charges that move, whether by mechanical or electrical means: they are C/s. By definition.
Here you are defining current in terms of electric charges and motion, but you are treating these two concepts axiomatically (i.e. on faith and magically). You also establish a relationship between them using the mathematical division operator ...but this mathematical relationship in no way explains what a charge is (nor motion) ...even if the relationship is correct. Oh, you can quote me Lorentz equations and Maxwell equations that quantitatively define the behavior of these charges in electric an magnetic fields more precisely, but that increased mathematical correctness in no way explains what a charge is and additionally you are forced to drag in auxiliary crutches such as force fields - consequently you are not any better off conceptually. Making "conventional" statements according to the Standard Model does not help either. This is especially evident when considering the irreducible units of the SI system, The SM's "fundamental" forces and particles as well as the physical objectification of space that is endowed with bendable properties.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.25, 21:11:19
Unlike free energy, which in theory is always at its starting point, nothingness (and in practice, too), science is knowledge that is built up. This doesn't mean that there are no unknowns, but that we make progress by building on what we know.
I realize that every theoretical system needs to rely on a set of magical assumptions (axioms) but the more of them you allow, the less that theory elucidates.
Scientific knowledge, indeed is built up on these axioms but I see no effort from you to reduce their number ...and you cannot progress.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.25, 21:11:19
I've only used what's known, and what I've written is refutable.
It's excellent that what you've written is refutable but notice that it is also not progressive. You are stuck in the ruts of the Standard Model, taking the "conventional" concepts like: charge, mass, "fundamental" forces (and the spatial fields of theses forces), motion, objects (particles) and building on these concepts using mathematical relationships between them which seem to justify to you the conceptual fundamentalism and correctness of these concepts.
I have observed you criticizing other members of this forum for using other conceptual crutches, often leading to their resignation, so when I see you doing the same under the umbrella of towing the conventional "Standard Model"'s line, I can't help but notice the parallels between the pot and the kettle calling themselves black. I usually keep quiet and let them defend themselves but eventually I can't help but notice that you are better educated and more intelligent than the members you criticize and they don't stand a chance against you. That does not makes you right, but it does make them quiet.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.25, 21:11:19
As for spin, it's "a Hermitian vector operator with three components, usually noted Ŝx, Ŝy, Ŝz by reference to the three axes of Cartesian coordinates usable in physical space. These components are observables verifying the commutation relations characteristic of a kinetic moment...".
That is the raw mathematical model that relies on the presupposition of the Cartesian reference system and kinetic moment and as such it does not explain much without the origin of these concepts.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.25, 21:11:19
Don't expect me to elaborate, it's beyond me, ...
I do not expect you to elaborate mathematically, but I do expect you to elaborate conceptually.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.25, 21:11:19
Spin is nothing else.
If it is nothing else than it is purely mathematical, has no origin nor physical significance, in other words - a virtual crutch, similar to virtual particles and dark energy (which come with a lot of math attached, too).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.25, 21:11:19
What's certain is that it's not a simple current loop.
I also think it is not a current loop ...but what is it then? Providing the mathematical expression does not elucidate it conceptually.
I could give you an answer on a plate but I don't think you will accept it without coming to the same conclusion yourself.
https://brilliantlightpower.com/reactionless-propulsion/ (https://brilliantlightpower.com/reactionless-propulsion/)
What the strange site is? :D
Quote from: verpies on 2025.06.25, 23:51:14
Here you are defining current in terms of electric charges and motion, but you are treating these two concepts axiomatically (i.e. on faith and magically). You also establish a relationship between them using the mathematical division operator ...but this mathematical relationship in no way explains what a charge is (nor motion) ...even if the relationship is correct.
Definition :
"An electric current is a flow of charged particles"
"In the International System of Units (SI), electric current is expressed in units of ampere (sometimes called an "amp", symbol A), which is equivalent to one coulomb per second."
These are definitions, and I use them. I don't have to specify that every current is accompanied by a magnetic field, which I use implicitly, because it's all part of the basics of physics.
I'm talking to people who speak of "magnetic field" or "spin", so a priori they know the definitions, the context and understand me, otherwise what are they talking about? If they don't know the basics of physics, they shouldn't talk about "magnetic field" or 'spin' but about "snake oil" or "spinning top" and define their objects themselves.
Quote
Oh, you can quote me Lorentz equations and Maxwell equations that quantitatively define the behavior of these charges in electric an magnetic fields more precisely, but that increased mathematical correctness in no way explains what a charge is
...
Let me stop you right there. What a charge "is" is not a scientific question. This idea is based on two errors of reasoning that the philosophy of science explains very well.
The charge IS only the scientific concept that defines it. To impose an imaginary object on it, supposed to be real, independent and possibly different from the definition, is unscientific and, I would add, illogical, since the concept of charge comes only from those who have characterised and defined it.
Physics characterises or models observations, never what things would really be, assuming they exist, since outside of observations, whether direct or indirect, we have no access to them!
So when there is ambiguity, the mathematical definitions that you criticise me for using instead of concepts take precedence over the concepts. The proof is in quantum mechanics, where the concepts compatible with the theory are multiform (Everett theory, ITQM, MQR, Copenhagen interpretation, etc.) whereas the mathematical formalism is unique and works perfectly well for describing observations.
As we are looking here for a technology, free or cheap energy, and as I know of no technology without science, and as I see everyone using concepts from science, such as 'field' or 'spin', I also place myself in the domain of the physical sciences when I answer. I therefore ask everyone who uses scientific terms to justify what they claim is contrary to what is known in science. Conversely, I don't demand any justification if what I'm told is already well established in scientific knowledge and I'm not asked to do so either - I'm not a teacher.
We can, and indeed must, make hypotheses that may even be extravagant in order to move forward, and discuss them, but which are not incompatible with what we already know, a matter of pure logic.
That's what I'm trying to do here
Verpies
QuoteIt's excellent that what you've written is refutable but notice that it is also not progressive. You are stuck in the ruts of the Standard Model, taking the "conventional" concepts like: charge, mass, "fundamental" forces (and the spatial fields of theses forces), motion, objects (particles) and building on these concepts using mathematical relationships between them which seem to justify to you the conceptual fundamentalism and correctness of these concepts.
You nailed it imo.
Many people use the fallacy fallacy or argument for normalcy to justify their perspective. This also relates to the bandwagon fallacy or appeal to popularity. However new scientific discoveries are being made every day which are not normal or popular. As such the argument for normalcy doesn't hold water.
I realized the science was flawed early on when my research specialized around very high voltage, electrostatics and plasma effects. This area is basically a black hole and 99% of people don't understand it. It made sense to me that the least understood area could produce more new insights. Now I'm consulting and when all my EE friends have HV problems they come to me.
AC
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.06.26, 08:01:22
https://brilliantlightpower.com/reactionless-propulsion/ (https://brilliantlightpower.com/reactionless-propulsion/)
What the strange site is? :D
Randell Mills, I used to follow him because of his promising hydrino theory. And here he is, switching to reactionless propulsion, even though he still hasn't marketed a single electricity generator in over 15 years?! I'm very disappointed in this guy. And his investors too, no doubt. They need something new to motivate them, I guess.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.06.26, 16:08:57
...
I realized the science was flawed early on when my research...
[irony on]That's probably why everyone today uses NNTT (New Nikola Tesla Technology) electric generators, the result of a revolutionary new technology based on a new science, and not coal-fired power plants, solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric generators or atomic power plants, the result of the science of those idiots like Newton, Ampère, Carnot, Kelvin, Einstein, Bohr, Maxwell, Schrödinger or Dirac.[irony off]. ;D
To show us that science is flawed, you'd have to show us right science, and what you can do with it. For the moment, all I see is blah, blah, blah.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.21, 17:23:34
The answer to this question has been known for a long time. By definition, a field is only a vector at one position in space. If its intensity and direction are constant, by definition it does not rotate, since it is static. This is the case when a cylindrical magnet rotates around its magnetic axis; the field remains constant everywhere.
...
Quote
With a magnetic field, it's the same thing. The field is created by the magnetic dipoles of its source. As with the lamp, there is a source. It can be modelled as an emitter of virtual photons that mediate the field. The virtual photons originate from the source, so they do not rotate tangentially somewhere in space.
I agree that if the magnetic field of a magnet rotating on its magnetic axis is modeled (defined) using vectors, and if those vectors remain constant (static), one might consider the field to be stationary. This is similar to looking at an optically perfect mirrored sphere while it is spinning on an axis, as just looking at that sphere would offer no sense of its rotation.
However, I disagree with your statement that "a field is only a vector at one position in space". A magnetic field (or any field) is a modified region of space that can be described using vectors, but that modified region of space is not made up of imaginary vectors anymore than a mountain is just a sheet of paper with contour lines drawn upon it.
I am amazed by the advancements achieved in all fields of science and engineering over my lifetime. With regard to the study of magnetic fields and particle physics, the ability to predict and design based on the mathematical models currently in use is simply amazing. I make no argument against that math, nor am I even qualified to do so. That the mathematical models are correct, for the most part, is readily proven by the ability to predict and design based on those models.
However, just as a mountain is not a contour map, the world is most likely not just a bunch of math on a chalkboard.
The current, rather layman like, understanding of the world around us is that the "empty space" we are surrounded by and immersed in is actually a world filled with quantum fields. The "real" particles we observe within those fields are said to be specific excitations of and within those fields. The "virtual" particles you mentioned, which are in many ways similar to their "real" particle counterpart, are also just specific excitations of the same fields, but they are deficient in one or more aspect of the excitations of "real" particles. The greater these deficiencies are, the shorter the lifetime or effectual range these virtual particles will possess.
Virtual particles may not even exist, as no one has detected or observed one to date. They are, for the most part, a convenient mathematical tool, and in some ways are similar to renormalization. Lattice theory or QCD appears to do just fine without invoking virtual particles, but for now, let's assume that "something" similar to virtual particles actually exists.
So, based on the above, and again in rather layman like terms, we live in a universe where empty space is actually said to be filled with quantum fields. The particles we observe sparsely scattered about within that "empty space" are merely specific excitations of those quantum fields and those particles can themselves produce (reflect or re-radiate, if you will) additional excitations of the quantum fields from which those particles are constructed by way of what we call virtual particles.
The matter we observe that is constructed from these particles is said to contain only a tiny volume of the total volume of space occupied by that matter, with the bulk of that volume (to a very high percentage) being just "empty space", or, as defined above, the quantum fields.
An electron, for example, could be considered a point in space where specific excitations of the quantum field converge in such a way as to produce a region of space that produces, via virtual particles (reflections or re-radiations), modification of the surrounding space (quantum fields) such that we observe the characteristics we assign to that electron (spin, charge, etc). It is also believed that, in agreement with the uncertainty principle, that point in space where the fields converge to produce that electron are not static, but rather noisey in that the electron may or may not actually exist in any specific location at any point in time.
With regard to a magnet, we can invoke all manner of discussion with regard to unpaired electrons, domains, virtual particles, dipoles and the like, but it may be wise to consider that what is "inside" the magnet and what is "outside" the magnet are in reality the same thing, differing only with regard to specific excitations of that same thing (ie, the quantum fields).
It is difficult to not visualize the quantum fields as being a multitude of sine waves of various frequencies, phases and amplitudes radiating through space from all directions such that they constructively add or destructively interfere with each other to the degree that what remains is just a backround noise floor we might refer to as zero point energy. Those sine waves could contain all manner of frequencies and amplitudes (energy) such that with a sufficient, or near infinite, amount of constructive or destructive interference, could appear as just a low level background noise or an undetectable bias which may actually contain a large, possibly infinite, amount of "energy".
It is also difficult to not visualize the convergence of a specific set of those sine waves of specific frequencies, phases, and energies (quanta) forming a region in space that defines a particle (electron, etc) which is able to re-radiate or reflect surplus (or unneeded) energy impinging on that defined area of space (electron. etc) such that the space surrounding that defined region of space (electron, etc) is modified to produce the properties we observe when other similarly defined regions of space are brought in proximity to the original region. The empty space surrounding these defined regions of space (particles, etc) are the source of "energy" that both creates and sustains these regions with the re-radiations or reflections by these regions (virtual particles) themselves also modifying the surrounding space. We detect these modified regions of space when we attempt to position two such regions in proximity (ie, two particles brought into proximity for example) and observe phenomena we define as being the various forces (for example).
When I consider a magnet and its surrounding field, it is difficult to not visualize a mostly "empty" region of space which is locked in a convergence of the fields within that empty space such that the "sources" of the magnetic field and the "magnetic field" itself are locked together in a sort of feedback loop or standing wave that both sustains the "source" and produces the properties observed external to that "source".
To me, a simple layman, the above discussion makes more sense than to model a magnet (or dipole) as if it were some sort of isolated or independent "thing" itself possessing unlimited energy capable of forever radiating virtual photons in a fashion similar to a lamp's filament emitting photons.
In my imagineering, the magnet and its surrounding field are locked together in an inextricable fashion such that whatever changes within one affects the other.
Given that there is a lot more "empty space" then there is "matter", it seems naive at best to ignore "empty space" and consider "matter" as being the major contributor to all that is. To me, it seems as though we have learned to define the world as one might the negative of an image, such that the math is wholly (or mostly) quite accurate in describing the interactions of the minor players while ignoring "empty space" as one might the so called elephant in the room.
We assign physical properties to "empty space", such as its permittivity and refractive index, but tend to ignore it as a real entity. The pre-Einstein world seemed mostly concerned with what makes up "empty space" while the post-Einstein world decided we could describe everything mathematically without needing whatever "empty space" actually is. But now, as we have defined "empty" space as being filled with "something", and with the apparent puzzle of missing energy and matter (as in dark), perhaps we are coming full circle.
Having spent my single digit years (a long time ago) concurrently reading science texts from both the 1800's and 1950's, in response to a 6th grade quiz regarding what matter is according Bohr's model of the atom, I responded with the following:
"Everything" is made of "nothing". All "nothing" is almost "something". There are two kinds of "nothing", organized "nothing" and disorganized "nothing". Everything I know may be wrong...
Apologies for the long winded response,
PW
F6FLT
Quote[irony on]That's probably why everyone today uses NNTT (New Nikola Tesla Technology) electric generators, the result of a revolutionary new technology based on a new science, and not coal-fired power plants, solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric generators or atomic power plants, the result of the science of those idiots like Newton, Ampère, Carnot, Kelvin, Einstein, Bohr, Maxwell, Schrödinger or Dirac.[irony off]. ;D
I'm surprised you don't see the connection of plasma physics and clean energy to Nikola Tesla. The name tends to come up because Tesla was a pioneer in HV electricity ie. Plasma science, electromagnetic fields and resonant systems. Also because Tesla was a firm believer in clean, limitless energy. This is literally what the best plasma and fusion scientists on the cutting edge of technology are trying to do.
QuoteTo show us that science is flawed, you'd have to show us right science, and what you can do with it. For the moment, all I see is blah, blah, blah.
From ChatGPT, Plasma physics is full of unknowns and one of the most complex and least understood branches of physics, especially when applied to fusion. Even though we've made major progress, there are still many unknowns that scientists are actively working to unravel. Plasma is a highly nonlinear system.
It behaves more like weather than a solid or liquid — turbulent, unstable, and sensitive to tiny disturbances. Plasmas can spontaneously develop instabilities.
Which agrees with what I said earlier. HV and plasma physics is the most complex and least understood branches of physics. So it only makes sense that this area of science would relate to many new technologies and discoveries.
AC
As food for thought regarding my last post, or just some fun entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odJxJRAxdFU
PW
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.06.26, 18:37:13
F6FLT
I'm surprised you don't see the connection of plasma physics and clean energy to Nikola Tesla.
...
Well I'm not surprised you see what I don't see. I'm not very sensitive to illusions.
Quote from: picowatt on 2025.06.26, 17:54:19
...
Apologies for the long winded response,
...
Don't apologize, I find your response very interesting, stemming from a curiosity of mind quite in line with the philosophic and scientific spirit, and I share many of your points of view, for example particles such as the electron as quantum field nodes of a vacuum that is not empty.
I'm only going to respond to the possible points of divergence. I see two categories:
1) the question of map and territory
2) the question of mathematizing the theory to compare it with measurements.
In case 1, I put your statement:
"A magnetic field (or any field) is a modified region of space that can be described using vectors, but that modified region of space is not made up of imaginary vectors...".
Mathematical definitions are the only operational data. What we do know is that by modeling electromagnetic effects with vector fields, we can predict events and quantify them. This is the "map". These fields are well defined on the map, and only they are defined. What the influenced space is "really" made up of (and assuming the existence of a reality independent of what we see of it), we don't know. You're talking about the "territory". That the region is "modified", as you say, is possible, but the field model doesn't say so, and we don't have any others. On the other hand, it does say that the fields simply superpose, and that's enough to correctly describe what we're observing.
Having said that, of course you have the right, as does every physicist, to go beyond the field model, in which case you can improve the map, but without ever having access to the territory. A small step was taken with the notion of the virtual photon, notably with Feynman. Virtual photons are not radiated, but exchanged. If, as you say, they are not directly detected or observed, they are indirectly, and necessary to explain phenomena such as the tunel effect or to calculate light/matter interactions, a question of energy levels. If you're interested in the constitution of the quantum vacuum, the appearances and disappearances of particle/antiparticle pairs in the vacuum are perfectly consistent with the notion of the virtual photon. Just because they're "virtual" doesn't mean they're not real.
Now we come to case 2. Even if, as you say, and everyone agrees, a region of space is not a field of mathematical vectors, it is through these fields that science models what we observe, and in a precise way, i.e. through calculations that we can confront with measured values. One of the rules of science is to take the trouble to verify the theory by comparing it with observations and measurements. Math is therefore unavoidable when it comes to verifying a theory, since you have to put numbers to it. You can imagine anything to describe a region of space or quantum vacuum "modified" by the field of a magnet, but if you don't provide anything to quantitatively verify your idea, it will remain vain, unfounded, in short a simple hypothesis like hundreds of others. Imagining, as Einstein did, what he would "see" if he were moving at the speed of light, can be a contructive starting point, just as with your "modified" space. But you have to go far beyond the idea. As long as you haven't succeeded, for Einstein's idea, in establishing the constancy of space-time intervals for all observers, and the evidence of the Lorentz transforms that follow from this and enable relativistic effects to be verified by calculation and comparison with measurements, it will have been useless, and nothing then authorizes you to suppose that your idea of a modified space would be more relevant than that of vector fields.
Finally, to return to the subject at hand, even if you managed to produce a mathematical and quantized theoretical version of a quantum space "modified" by a magnetic field, you'd still have a lot of work to do to demonstrate the rotation of the region when the magnet influencing it rotates (if that's what you're assuming).
One last remark about the permittivity you mention. It's attributed to the vacuum, but to the classical vacuum. Here again, there's nothing to criticize, since the permittivity included in the equations makes it possible to calculate what we measure from observations. It works, so the goal is achieved. Now that we know from QM that the vacuum is not empty, we can go further with the idea that permittivity reflects a certain internal state of particle/antiparticle fluctuations. But as in the other case, the idea is not enough. The idea of the atom appeared centuries before Christ, and was useless for almost 2 millennia. Of all the ideas that appear at any one time, statistically there will always be a few good ones. In science, you have to demonstrate the relevance of the idea and verify it. You've probably got some good ideas, it's just a question of making them operational. In this field, I've never succeeded. :(
Quote from: picowatt on 2025.06.26, 17:54:19
...is actually a world filled with quantum fields. The "real" particles we observe within those fields are said to be specific excitations of and within those fields.
These "quantum fields" are are objects, distortions, turtles, ...what ?
Quote from: picowatt on 2025.06.26, 17:54:19
The current, rather layman like, understanding of the world around us is that the "empty space" we are surrounded by and immersed in
That's understandable, that's what human senses indicate to our brains.
Is this "empty space" a real object ? Is it an object at all ...or is it merely a geometric reference system ? Can it, does it exist without an observer and observee ?
Can observed angles and delays give us an illusion of this "empty space" ?
Notice how the deception of our senses (measurements) gives the appearance of space in games like Call of Duty, No Man's Sky and GTA, despite that this space does not objectively exist inside the computers that run these games ...and a larger volume of space does not even have to occupy more memory.
Verpies
QuoteThese "quantum fields" are are objects, distortions, turtles, ...what ?
Logically, particles, fields and EM waves cannot move through a space without occupying said space. Thus we must conclude space cannot be empty and must be seething with energy in translation. To claim otherwise makes a mockery of the conservation of mass and energy. This is why intelligence is superior to our very limited senses.
QuoteIs this "empty space" a real object ? Is it an object at all ...or is it merely a geometric reference system ? Can it, does it exist without an observer and observee ?
AI claims,
QuoteSpace is a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction. It can also refer to the area around us that allows for movement and interaction, as well as the region beyond Earth's atmosphere known as outer space.
One clue may be that things on small scales or moving at very high velocity are invisible to us. A bullet sitting on a table is easy to see yet hundreds of bullets flying all around you are invisible. The fact remains that as technology progresses, the closer we look at smaller scales the more we see. Thus we already know the direction this concept of space is going.
As well, the more primitive the person or culture the less they observe and understand. 500 years ago most had no clue anything smaller than a speck of dust could exist and they understood very little. Then as they evolved and developed better technology they learned new things. So again, we already know the direction we are headed based on what has already happened.
Ironically, every generation claimed they understood everything and technology had peaked. As we know, they were just as wrong as most are today. Weird how most keep making the same mistakes as in the past.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.07.02, 15:51:29
Verpies
Logically, particles, fields and EM waves cannot move through a space without occupying said space. Thus we must conclude space cannot be empty and must be seething with energy in translation.
...
Obviously, if waves are moving through space, it's no longer globally empty. This is a meaningless truism C.C that scientists understood even in the 19th century.
The question is only whether waves, and perhaps particles too, moving through space, need this medium, i.e. whether they are not in fact what waves generally are: a disturbance of the medium that propagates, so a medium that is obviously not empty even in the absence of waves.
In the 19th century, this medium was called ether. Today, we can imagine that the quantum vacuum is a kind of ether, but we have no serious model of electromagnetic waves as a disturbance of the quantum vacuum.
F6FLT
QuoteObviously, if waves are moving through space, it's no longer globally empty. This is a meaningless truism C.C that scientists understood even in the 19th century.
The question is only whether waves, and perhaps particles too, moving through space, need this medium, i.e. whether they are not in fact what waves generally are: a disturbance of the medium that propagates, so a medium that is obviously not empty even in the absence of waves.
I'm not really concerned whether particles and waves need a medium only the total energy density and any possible interactions within a given space. It follows a logical progression of thought.
1)Space cannot be empty because we know it is full of particle and field energy in translation.
2)Since space is saturated with particle and field energy there should be some interactions with matter we can capitalize on.
3)What are the possible ways and means to convert said particle and field energy to a more practical form.
QuoteIn the 19th century, this medium was called ether. Today, we can imagine that the quantum vacuum is a kind of ether, but we have no serious model of electromagnetic waves as a disturbance of the quantum vacuum.
In other words, down the rabbit hole. I try to remain focused on energy and energy conversion.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025.07.03, 17:50:25
...
1)Space cannot be empty because we know it is full of particle and field energy in translation.
...
Once again, either this sentence makes no sense or it's a truism. Obviously, where there are waves or particles, it's no longer a vacuum. A 7-year-old understands that, so there's no need to repeat it.
The relevant questions are: do particles and waves occupy 100% of space, thus constituting themselves a "non-empty vacuum"? If not, is the remaining percentage a real empty vacuum or is there an underlying fabric where there are no particles or waves (but virtual particles, for example)? If this fabric exists, which is probable according to QM, are the waves and particles a disturbance of it?...
F6FLT
QuoteOnce again, either this sentence makes no sense or it's a truism. Obviously, where there are waves or particles, it's no longer a vacuum. A 7-year-old understands that, so there's no need to repeat it.
"Space cannot be empty because we know it's full of particles and field energy in translation" is a scientific fact. This may be a truism to you but not to a greater majority of people who believe space/outer space is empty. Many like to deal in absolutes I do not.
QuoteThe relevant questions are: do particles and waves occupy 100% of space, thus constituting themselves a "non-empty vacuum"? If not, is the remaining percentage a real empty vacuum or is there an underlying fabric where there are no particles or waves (but virtual particles, for example)? If this fabric exists, which is probable according to QM, are the waves and particles a disturbance of it?...
You need to be more specific, your using the term "vacuum" as a general term but it's implied your referring to an absolute vacuum. Most wouldn't understand the context of what your trying to say.
I think your also confusing the issue of particles and fields/waves. A particle occupies a given space but charged particles have fields which extend much further.
Let's ask an AI. Question, do fields occupy all space beyond matter?.
QuoteAnswer, fields do occupy all of space, even the "empty" space beyond and between matter. Fields are not limited to where matter exists. They are defined at every point in spacetime, even in deep space where there is (nearly) no matter.
So we can assume, while particles may not occupy every space the fields related to them do. Ergo, the fabric of all space is the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic). As T.H.Moray put it, matter floating in a sea of energy.
Logically...
1)All space is full of fields relating to the material source which produced them.
2)All material things are in a state of change.
3)If the material source is perpetually changing then so must the fields radiating from said source.
4)All space constitutes energy because the fields found everywhere in every space are always changing with the source.
5)Ergo, the fabric of space is Field Energy.
The key concepts are, fields do occupy all of space, even the "empty" space beyond and between matter. A field change constitutes energy.
AC
Serious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwDdX0wsv_Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwDdX0wsv_Q)
New discovery. I found this 2 months ago and posted around a number of sites. I have received no arguments nor validation.
Spherics calls it Lensing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz64vAEQMuU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz64vAEQMuU)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6eR2K4ERFfA (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6eR2K4ERFfA)
Quote from: giantkiller on 2026.05.30, 05:45:09
I have received no arguments nor validation.
It's not surprising. The guy manifests no knowledge about decomposotion of vectors into their components nor vector fields nor continuous gradients.
https://youtu.be/xqKgVVmcCto (https://youtu.be/xqKgVVmcCto)
Nice demo. O0
mags
Otis T Carr, John Searle, & David Hamel all built two craft each. The first craft of each man took off vertically and was never seen again. They all built a second version and added controls. The government stepped in and shut them down. And they were all mocked.
I am adding Eric Laithwaithe in the mix with my demo. Like Eric, I too have witnessed things that the Abominable No men has never seen or dispel.
An Hv charge will added in the future tests to add T.T.Brown in too.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2026.06.05, 17:42:31
https://youtu.be/xqKgVVmcCto (https://youtu.be/xqKgVVmcCto)
The primary fields E,B,G move with the source but does not rotate on axis with it. Similar to why radiated light does not rotate with a rotating light bulb. The misconception of rotating fields came about because some people thought the field lines were real instead of imaginary as a form of notation.
I found it easier to simply discard the notion of a magnetic field and see it as a motional electric field. All magnetism is due to electron orbit and spin which is really no different than the electrons moving in circles in the conductors of a solenoid coil. The electron is made of even smaller particles moving in a circle within the electron as it spins. One could speculate that the subatomic particles within the electrons in a magnet are simply effecting other subatomic particles exterior to it giving the false appearance of a field or action at at distance. This theory was held by Nikola Tesla who believed all action was kinetic in it's nature. This theory would seem to hold water considering that were always discovering new particles smaller than we thought possible.
It could be that the smallest particles are massless which is just another way of saying not having the property of inertia. In effect, nothing "moves" as we perceive it and acts more like a pressure wave moving through water. This could be why the Michelson-Morley experiment did not detect an aether or fabric of space.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.06.07, 17:05:44
The primary fields E,B,G move with the source but does not rotate on axis with it. Similar to why radiated light does not rotate with a rotating light bulb. The misconception of rotating fields came about because some people thought the field lines were real instead of imaginary as a form of notation.
I found it easier to simply discard the notion of a magnetic field and see it as a motional electric field. All magnetism is due to electron orbit and spin which is really no different than the electrons moving in circles in the conductors of a solenoid coil. The electron is made of even smaller particles moving in a circle within the electron as it spins. One could speculate that the subatomic particles within the electrons in a magnet are simply effecting other subatomic particles exterior to it giving the false appearance of a field or action at at distance. This theory was held by Nikola Tesla who believed all action was kinetic in it's nature. This theory would seem to hold water considering that were always discovering new particles smaller than we thought possible.
It could be that the smallest particles are massless which is just another way of saying not having the property of inertia. In effect, nothing "moves" as we perceive it and acts more like a pressure wave moving through water. This could be why the Michelson-Morley experiment did not detect an aether or fabric of space.
This is the best instructional video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU
If nobody wants to watch the whole video go to the 10min mark, but I suggest you watch it all.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2026.06.07, 17:24:43
This is the best instructional video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU
If nobody wants to watch the whole video go to the 10min mark, but I suggest you watch it all.
Thanks for the video, I really like these old videos and lectures which demonstrated an idea or effect without all the bias we see today. As if to say, here is the idea, think what you may.