PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-02-19, 16:59:27
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 33
Author Topic: What is Known about the TPU  (Read 356102 times)

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
How is my statement incorrect?  To induce change, something has to change.  You cannot induce a current from a static magnetic field.  You ahev to move it or change it's magnitude.

Now, that is correct  :)

The mistake folks make is they think a static magnetic field is frozen in space and not under the possible influence of anything else.

There aren't many differences between it and a bubble. It can be deformed in almost any fashion but not easily punctured.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
SM's kicks must induce a current in a way that it gives us an advantage.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3673


Buy me some coffee
A current as we know takes a certain time to flow from switch on, what happens if the current can be made to flow much faster
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
A current as we know takes a certain time to flow from switch on, what happens if the current can be made to flow much faster

What if we miss the forest for the trees?

I.E. What if the true current is not the drift of electrons, and the electrons are just along for the ride?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2756
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I.E. What if the true current is not the drift of electrons, and the electrons are just along for the ride?
What do you propose is driving those electrons then?


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
Well, apparently there is an aether after all.  Maybe aether drags them along.

http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/504/1/1004_1?isAuthorized=no
Quote
The Trouton and Noble experiment, which was initially performed (and fiascoed) in 1903, has only been questioned recently. When correctly performed, this very simple electrostatic ætherdrift experiment gives unambiguous positive results: a suspended, parallel-plate capacitor charged at high voltage by means of lateral feeding wires exhibits a stimulated torque and tends to line up its plates in the East-West direction. Other tests by means of vertical feeding wires exhibited continuous rotations. This new class of elementary EM phenomena is described in the present paper. As far as it relates to the state of motion of the vacuum, it is our understanding that: (i) it serves as the physical basis for another class of electrostatic phenomena involved in the generation of linear thrust and technically referred to as “Biefeld-Brown effect” drives; (ii) it might be of tremendous importance for implementing “future flight” propulsion systems; (iii) it might add a new dimension in space weather. The present paper aims at clarifying these concepts. We shall only present the exploratory side of a wider, proprietary research and development effort, so as to encourage the replication of Trouton-Noble’s experiment by academia and other members of the scientific and engineering community. © 2000 American Institute of Physics.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=aether%20drift%20szames&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFAQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw%2Fcjp%2Fdownload.php%3Ftype%3Dfull%26vol%3D48%26num%3D4%26page%3D427&ei=Vz6OT9jtCOWKiAKQ7MXpAg&usg=AFQjCNFtc77Bj-7bt8AKYGUiJigXGJohJw&cad=rja

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=aether%20drift%20szames&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFoQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjnaudin.free.fr%2Fhtml%2Ftroutnbl.htm&ei=Vz6OT9jtCOWKiAKQ7MXpAg&usg=AFQjCNHaqNuIgM3gdBZefVXA_UVmis4nmQ&cad=rja
   
Group: Guest
Well, apparently there is an aether after all.  Maybe aether drags them along.

http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/504/1/1004_1?isAuthorized=no
...

I'm afraid when I read the name of the authors: "Patrick Cornille, Jean-Louis Naudin".
Although I consider Jean-Louis Naudin as an interesting experimenter, his site is full of errors and bad interpretations whose some of them are well known, even by him, and have never been corrected. Many experiments are also correct but conventional. It is funny to see that one of them dismissed the "Patrick Cornille's pendulum" related to BB effect and to thrust without reaction, proving that Patrick Cornille doesn't make serious studies before publishing his theories (it should be obvious for a skilled physicist that the measurement of a current in an electrotatic experiment is incompatible with the electrostatic nature of the experiment!  C.C). We can't trust such people. And it's a pity for me to say that, because JLN is the guy who has let me renew with physics after many years of interruption, thanks to his site and the lifter, so I have indeed regard for him!

Under high vacuum conditions, there is no thrust (see Nasa experiments. Their conclusion: "we find that their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses only electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions."

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3673


Buy me some coffee
Oh no not again. Asymmetric thrusters have indeed been proven to work in a hard vacuum.
Anyway it's common knowledge since a NASA employee spilt the beans on a cover up at NASA regarding this.

Then there's the experiment i did, a solid block of epoxy encasing an array of asymmetric capacitors does indeed produce measurable thrust, and also as we know TT also showed a block of plates would move.
If a solid block can move on earth why would it not move in a vacuum, we are now not talking about the dielectric being hard or soft in this case.

Even Brown tested in a vacuum.
Most of Browns work is still classified so why would NASA be allowed to reveal the truth that would be against national interest and break the classification.
« Last Edit: 2012-04-18, 12:32:44 by Peterae »
   
Group: Guest
Oh no not again. Asymmetric thrusters have indeed been proven to work in a hard vacuum.
...

References?

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3673


Buy me some coffee
It's a classified effect, use a bit of logic
Work done by TT Brown you will see many vacuum chambers and very expensive equipment, now why would you spend a large fortune building all this equipment if it did not work in a vaccum. Seeing all this vacuum equipment of TT's should ring alarm bells.
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/v/Rp4hygoD3RU?rel=0&iv_load_policy=3','1-Rp4hygoD3RU','TT%20Brown%20Electrogravity%20Vacuum%20Experiments[/youtube]

Theres a NASA video showing it works in a vacuum as well OOPS
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYMUv1VJ3VQ&feature=related[/youtube]

Then theres a guy who started a company to prove it works in a vacuum, he did the test and got movement, yet all the scientists and NASA will not go near him/speak to him or are even bothered about his results.

Cannot remember his name but there are videos around made by his company which show it working.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QuHgzrPuGk&feature=related[/youtube]

INTRODUCTION TO PROJET MONTGOLFIER REPORTS
Quote
The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force. At this point our team was scattered, the project shut down and we were unable to make the further tests to further refine and quantify the results.
http://projetmontgolfier.info/INTRODUCTION.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf page 28
Quote
These experiments were explained by scientific community as due entirely to "ion-momentum
transfer", or "electric wind". It was predicted categorically by many "would-be" authorities that
such an apparatus would not operate in vaccum. The Navy rejected the research proposal (for
further research) for this reason. The experiments performed in Paris several years later,
proved that ion wind was not entirely responsible for the observed motion and proved quite
conclusively that the apparatus would indeed operate in high vacuum.

page 27
Quote
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm
Hg.Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark
within the large bell jar.- These vacuum sparks represented momentary ionization, principally of
the metal ions in the electrode material. The DC potential used ranged from 70kV to 220kV.



Again if it works in epoxy why would it not work in epoxy inside a satelite.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eqU1bDFtgI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL[/youtube]

There is one very important paper i was looking for from many years ago i think from Parnell university which had it working in tests a long time before Nasa said it does not, unfortunately this seems to have been wiped from the net, maybe someone has a copy.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
Let's skip arguments and say that there is an aether.

Ok, we attribute the properties of "vacuum" to "aether":

intrinsic impedance (Z0) = 377 ohm

permittivity (ε0) ≈ 8.854187817620... × 10−12 farads per metre (F·m−1).

permeability (μ0) = 4π×10−7 V·s/(A·m) ≈ 1.2566370614...×10−6 H·m−1


Let's hypothesise that these properties are variable. 

Does this help us generate electricity?
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
Ampère's Force Law states that the force per unit length is given by:



Ampere's Force is proportional to permeability.

 
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3673


Buy me some coffee
Wow i never realized the impedance of free space was that low, an area of space that has nothing in it has a low impedance  :o

Has anyone tried to confirm this by measurement?

EDIT
You need a sink and source for energy to flow, in free space we only have the source.

In lightening energy in the clouds arcs to earth, but what is earth connected to that allows the circuit to be closed for lightening to work, earth must have a different potential than where the lightening came from, so if we use a small metallic ball to represent earth and fire hv at it, lightening wont happen once the ball is charged to the same potential because the ball is floating, so why is the earth not floating, there has to be something that closes the potential, but what ever it is it cannot conduct electricity otherwise that would arc instead.

If earth is one half of a capacitor the atmosphere is the dielectric then why does the charge in the sky not increase the charge the earth has, if it did then earth would have an ever increasing higher potential.


So the secret is to find the sink and how to establish it in the same way earth does.
The answer maybe this low ohmic impedance, AC flows but DC arcs

remember what SM said about more than one current in a wire, well maybe it's possible for one current to be a source and a totally separate current to be a sink one Dc one AC, only when the conditions are right can they annihilate each other, even Tesla mentioned you need to find the potential or sink(Something like that you get my point hopefully)
« Last Edit: 2012-04-18, 16:07:43 by Peterae »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3673


Buy me some coffee
Quote
You're right that with the Earth's large size, you might expect a slight
over or under abundance of electrons.  However, even a small net charge
would quickly draw an opposite charge from the regions around us (there are
plenty of charged particles in the solar wind, for example).  So the Earth
is, for all intents and purposes, charge neutral.  If there is a net
charge, I doubt if it would be measurable given the Earth's large size and
the tiniess of the charge.  In addition, we are constantly being bombarded
with particles of various types, many of which carry charges, so the exact
number, being small, is likely to fluctuate.
   By the way, this arguement for charge neutrality holds for pretty much any
large object in the universe, from comets to galaxies.

How can the earth not have a net charge and yet it can still be a sink for lightening.
When the lightening strikes it still cannot charge the earth even thought there's a potential difference between the 2 so how does charge from a strike get used up by the earth, whats the return path to give a neutral net charge after many thousands of strikes.
Put it another way why is the earth a sink, solve this problem and there should be no problem capturing the Aetheral energy.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
That's only one form.  Any charged conductor will balance when connected to ground and it is not always positive to negative.  Charged dielectric however tends to hold the charge.  This was a big problem years ago when I worked with sensitive things that didn't like static. (safe-arm devices, detonators, initiators, etc.)  The charges on the dielectric have trouble getting to the conductor to discharge, so the best solution to static is conductive materials or high humidity.

We want to keep the current moving, so we have to keep influencing it to move to ground (Kapanadze, Tesla) or we move it repetitively (TPU, AVEC, etc.). 

A very basic analogy is a ball.  Kapanadze throws the ball (green box device). SM spins the ball round and round.  Both move the ball in different ways.  O0











   
Group: Guest

The videos are useless if the vacuum conditions are not given. From what I have read elsewhere, when a high vacuum is done, the air molecules are still ionised but their kinetic energy is much higher because there is much less collisions with other molecules than at atmospheric pressure or in a not too high vacuum.
This means that a ion wind due to a lesser density of molecules is (partly) compensated by a much stronger kinetic energy of each molecule, and even in a very high vacuum, the ion wind remains the likely cause of motion. I remember that I have seen a test from Nasa or from a military lab where the rotation stopped completely in a very pure vacuum (µPa?), but I don't retrieve the paper.

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3673


Buy me some coffee
OK let's say this does not work in a vacuum, can you explain to me how the encapsulated devices work, i have run experiment myself on this and i could never work out how they thrusted as there was no moving air external to the device, although i must say the thrust was very small it was indeed there at all times the device was powered, no matter which orientation or how close/far it was from sourrounding objects.

   
Group: Guest
When I see TT Browns work I am reminded of this figure 4 on page 170 in Maxwell's paper: On Physical Lines of Force (note that the paper starts on page 161)

Maxwell's work did not depend on ions and ultimately led physicists the world over to conclude that EM radiation would propagate freely through a vacuum thus dispensing with the notion that a medium was necessary. And of course the Michelson Morely Experiment was intended to end the debate.

However, Nikola Tesla raised a very interesting hypothesis by stating that the Aether would be and is dragged along with the Earth as it rotates. In this case the Michelson Morely experiment would fail even when an Aether was present. It is very interesting that recent tests such as Gravity Probe-B and The Earth Drags Space and Time - NASA show that Space-Time is dragged along with the Earth similar to what Tesla indicated.

I have come to believe that what the scientific community now refers to as Space-Time is the same stuff that Tesla called the Aether.

If so, then the force we see in a narrowing field, whether Electrical or Magnetic, should exist anywhere Space-Time exists regardless of vacuum or high pressure gasses.

As regards the Earths charge see How Does The Earth Benefit From Lightening six questions down.

As regards Steven Mark's TPU - one thing I find interesting is the gyroscopic effect that it exhibited. While Einstein's Mass Energy equivalence is broadly accepted I have always had a reservation regarding the interplay between gravity and energy. I have always viewed massless energy to be unaffected by gravity because it coexists with Space-Time in a non-displacement manner. Since inertia and thereby gyroscopic effects are a form of artificial gravity I am inclined to believe that Mark's TPU is moving mass, aka electrons or some other particle around the loop. Unless of course the effect is only something else that mimics gyroscopic activity.  :P

In looking at his setup, especially the exposed videos where the wiring can be seen, I am inclined to think that he has a round robin configuration where the final stage is re-entry in phase with the first stage. So all that is needed is a small battery or magnetic pulse to get the system into resonance. If that resonance is sympathetic to any of a multitude of power sources, man made or natural, then the oscillation would continue and any excess energy could be extracted. It would be nice to see if the external source could be identified. Whatever it is, it must be operating at some harmonic of Steven's frequency of operation. I've read about the imploding TV sets etc. and having a deep background in that technology I cannot discount his claims. I can't help but wonder if there was a Piezo effect in play as many of the older tubes had a high concentration of Quartz in their makeup. Nevertheless Steven eventually moved to Solid State AFAIK so that wouldn't explain his source.

Look for commonality between Moray, Tesla, Marks & Schwartz. That commonality will no doubt point to the source. Each device is different, but each device has something in common with all the others.

 8)

   
Group: Guest
OK let's say this does not work in a vacuum, can you explain to me how the encapsulated devices work, i have run experiment myself on this and i could never work out how they thrusted as there was no moving air external to the device, although i must say the thrust was very small it was indeed there at all times the device was powered, no matter which orientation or how close/far it was from sourrounding objects.

In matter of assymetric capacitor, there is not one experiment that works with a null current. There is always leakages and current flows. Even only 100µA at 30 KV means 3 W, which is a well enough power to move a device.
For me the problem is less a question of pressure than a question of current. If you could run your experiment in air but without current, it would be conclusive.
Of course the current diminishes with the pressure but never enough to show a motion with zero current, which is the only condition to speak of "electrostatic". So until proof of the contrary, i.e. a demonstration of motion without current (or at least with a voltage x current product much less than the mechanical energy to fight), Okkham's razor says that the ion wind is by far the more likely cause of motion.

   
Group: Guest
...
It is very interesting that recent tests such as Gravity Probe-B and The Earth Drags Space and Time - NASA show that Space-Time is dragged along with the Earth similar to what Tesla indicated.
...

Gravity probe B experiment confirmed only predictions of general relativity. Contrarily to GR, there is no possibility to verify "what Tesla indicated", for the reason he didn't provide a theory with quantifiable predictions.

   
Group: Guest
Let's skip arguments and say that there is an aether.

Ok, we attribute the properties of "vacuum" to "aether":

intrinsic impedance (Z0) = 377 ohm

permittivity (ε0) ≈ 8.854187817620... × 10−12 farads per metre (F·m−1).

permeability (μ0) = 4π×10−7 V·s/(A·m) ≈ 1.2566370614...×10−6 H·m−1


Let's hypothesise that these properties are variable. 

Does this help us generate electricity?

Surely. For example take a plane capacitor. Its capacity is C=ε0*S/d. Charge it at U=Q/C=Q/ε0*d/S. Decrease ε0: you increase U, you get extra energy.
The remaining question is: how?  :(

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3673


Buy me some coffee
OK i have it  C.C all we need to do is get an electric field to interact with the aehter, this will change the permittivity of free space.
spheric already told us how to do that, it's all in the timing of 2 sharp phase delayed pulses, this would result in a higher charged area of space, which would explain the nature of the TPU's output which appears as a Capacitive discharge with hash, the hash being required to cause the change in permittivity.

This could also explain the sharp tall pulse i get by phase delaying, and also explain why my fets die when i hit the critical phase delay, the increased charge being received increases the voltage across the FET and causes Avalanche and re triggering and final destruction.

I also know that at the same time this happens there is also an accompanied magnetic pulse, how can changing the permittivity create a magnetic pulse?

this would also mean a nuclear explosion would also change the permittivity of free space.

More importantly we now know why my condenser mike was picking ghostly sounds when ever i ran the pulse experiments O0
« Last Edit: 2012-04-20, 13:21:11 by Peterae »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
Surely. For example take a plane capacitor. Its capacity is C=ε0*S/d. Charge it at U=Q/C=Q/ε0*d/S. Decrease ε0: you increase U, you get extra energy.
The remaining question is: how?  :(

Yes, how do you decrease the permittivity of space or any other dielectric?

Can't we increase permeability as another option?
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
OK i have it  C.C all we need to do is get an electric field to interact with the aehter, this will change the permittivity of free space.
spheric already told us how to do that, it's all in the timing of 2 sharp phase delayed pulses, this would result in a higher charged area of space, which would explain the nature of the TPU's output which appears as a Capacitive discharge with hash, the hash being required to cause the change in permittivity.

This could also explain the sharp tall pulse i get by phase delaying, and also explain why my fets die when i hit the critical phase delay, the increased charge being received increases the voltage across the FET and causes Avalanche and re triggering and final destruction.

I also know that at the same time this happens there is also an accompanied magnetic pulse, how can changing the permittivity create a magnetic pulse?

this would also mean a nuclear explosion would also change the permittivity of free space.

More importantly we now know why my condenser mike was picking ghostly sounds when ever i ran the pulse experiments O0

Spherics said that the electric pulse had to interact with a magnetic field to expose the aether and gave some specific guidelines.

Good time to refresh on the definitions of permittivity and permeability.
   
Group: Guest
In matter of assymetric capacitor, there is not one experiment that works with a null current. There is always leakages and current flows. Even only 100µA at 30 KV means 3 W, which is a well enough power to move a device.
For me the problem is less a question of pressure than a question of current. If you could run your experiment in air but without current, it would be conclusive.
Of course the current diminishes with the pressure but never enough to show a motion with zero current, which is the only condition to speak of "electrostatic". So until proof of the contrary, i.e. a demonstration of motion without current (or at least with a voltage x current product much less than the mechanical energy to fight), Okkham's razor says that the ion wind is by far the more likely cause of motion.



I think we can prove the aether through logic. First, I would argue that vacuum is an insulator.  Yes, it's not even a dielectric.  So in theory, if you have a capacitor with vacuum as a separator, it wouldn't work.   Second, current cannot flow through a vacuum.  The reason being vacuum doesn't have free electron to conduct current.  So in theory, current can't flow through a vacuum tube.  I think vacuum is a dielectric and capable of break down to conduct current.  But then, it wouldn't be vacuum anymore by definition. lol  One thing I always wonder is how in the world does vacuum has permeability and all other stuff.  Vacuum means nothingness, how nothingness has properties. lol



   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 33
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-02-19, 16:59:27