PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-10, 18:52:38
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Nikola Tesla free energy concepts  (Read 4543 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
A “field” is a volume,...
If that was true then the words "field" and "volume" would be interchangeable.

Volume is the three-dimensional measure of space.
Area is the two-dimensional measure of space.
Length is the one-dimensional measure of space.
« Last Edit: 2024-05-19, 20:26:16 by verpies »
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
If that was true then these words would be interchangeable.

Volume is the three-dimensional measure of space.
Area is the two-dimensional measure of space.
Length is the one-dimensional measure of space.

And your point is ?

Yes, a field is a 3D and we use 3D to show or calculate from a reference point. Or maybe you want again to discuss about zero = infinite ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
And your point is ?
My point is that a field is not synonymous with a volume, ...even if it involves a volume of space.

Or maybe you want again to discuss about zero = infinite ?
That is non-sequitur.
Also, I never wrote that zero = infinite.
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
My point is that a field is not synonymous with a volume, ...even if it involves a volume of space.
That is non-sequitur.
Also, I never wrote that zero = infinite.

1. I am not sure what are you trying to say ? What do you mean a field is not a volume with certain dimensions from a reference point, even if involve a volume of space ? Why volume of space and not volume of the field ? Or maybe you try to say that a field is non existent ?

2. Indeed, you never wrote that, i did, when you said that R = infinite when i said in a super conductor R = zero where I = V/R so logic is if R=0 than I=0 than you said if we can divide by zero is better to say we will have an infinite resistance  ;D

3. When you try to nullify existence of a field i guess you follow the same logic and say it is infinite.

4. Tesla have spoken about aether even all others kept quite but happy to use his theories and inventions that are still valid today. So, reject existence of aether but keep and use all the benefits ? Bearden, Bendini and many many others refer to aether in their inventions where they harvested “extra” energy … mainstream science want us to believe they were all charlatans including Tesla, but are happy to have at hand all benefits.
So, I can’t see where is the problem if I decide to reject their nonsense and give them the same respect as they do to all of use. I even can say they are the charlatans or at least incompetents.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
1. I am not sure what are you trying to say ?
I am not trying - I am doing it.

What do you mean a field is not a volume with certain dimensions from a reference point, even if involve a volume of space ?
Nothing more than I wrote - One is not synonymous with the other.

Why volume of space and not volume of the field ?
Because a volume is a three-dimensional measure of space ...not field.

Or maybe you try to say that a field is non existent ?
I don't.

2. Indeed, you never wrote that, i did, when you said that R = infinite
I am getting tired of having a discussion with you.  You do not understand simple sentences and you misquote me on purpose or because you are unable to comprehend simple
relationships.
I doubt I wrote anything about "R = infinite" when discussing coils and induction.  R is a symbol of resistance and infinite resistance makes a coil act as if it does not exist.

...when i said in a super conductor R = zero where I = V/R
So this would make i=∞  (not R=∞) here "i" is a symbol for electric current.

3. When you try to nullify existence of a field i guess you follow the same logic and say it is infinite.
Do you realize how ambiguous this sentence is !?

The word "nullify" can mean field cancellation by superposition, or an argument against the existence of a field in an undefined situation.
Also, the word "infinite" can refer to "infinite magnitude" or "infinite extent".

Apparently, you are unable or unwilling to express yourself precisely and unambiguously.

You have clear difficulties with the concept of a physical field, you are unable to define its meaning and its properties.
In physics a "field" is a "field of forces" of varying magnitudes an directions in 3D space (a volume).  In case of an electric field these are forces acting on a test-charge located at different 3D coordinates of the volume.  Electric fields have infinite extents.
In math, fields are something else, e.g. Galois Fields.

I don't think I will be wasting any more of my time on your imprecise, ambiguous, non-sequitur and magical thinking.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 40

Before we go any further we should clarify something. For a long time we have two camps.

The first camp thinks that this universe is electric, which means, that electricity is all there is – the engineer, the architect and the worker.

The second camp believes that this universe is a gravity controlled electric motion.

It is a common belief that motion is a flash in a vacuum tube, which is what a wave is.

With the first group thinking, electricity would be creating the idea, making a pattern and carrying on the necessary work.

The second group thinks of electricity as a tool, just the worker to create this universe.

Now the second group wants to know more details of how electricity could accomplish all of the tasks and how their views can be justified.

Best Regards
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
A field is a field.

Stop.

How you want to see it, from mathematic or physics perspective is up to you.

Your explanation: field = field of forces, or field = Galois field, doesn’t define the field. Explanations as field = field do not explain the word field. Stop.

You are just Analysing what is happening in a volume of space defined by a field where something is taking place. On top of 3D representation we can add time as well.

Since when common sense is called magical thinking ? I can respond in same manner, but i won’t … my common sense won’t let me do it.
« Last Edit: 2023-11-15, 21:46:44 by Classic »
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
Before we go any further we should clarify something. For a long time we have two camps.

The first camp thinks that this universe is electric, which means, that electricity is all there is – the engineer, the architect and the worker.

The second camp believes that this universe is a gravity controlled electric motion.

It is a common belief that motion is a flash in a vacuum tube, which is what a wave is.

With the first group thinking, electricity would be creating the idea, making a pattern and carrying on the necessary work.

The second group thinks of electricity as a tool, just the worker to create this universe.

Now the second group wants to know more details of how electricity could accomplish all of the tasks and how their views can be justified.

Best Regards

Some people certainly need to start over with very basic knowledge.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
A field is a field.
Stop.
No. That would make the concept of a field an axiom.
It is definitely not that.

Your explanation: field = field of forces, or field = Galois field, doesn’t define the field.
Indeed, but it demonstrates that the concept of "field" has several meanings.

Explanations as field = field do not explain the word field. Stop.
That is a valid objection.  I wrote this to simplify the concept, but if you want the full definition of an electric field then there you go:
"Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors, which are assigned to each point of a volume (3D space). These vectors represent the directions and magnitudes of Coulomb forces, which would act on test charges placed at these points."

Electric field is an example of a physical Vector Field but other types of fields exist as well, such as:
  • Scalar Field, assignment of a scalar to each point of some space.
  • Tensor Field, assignment of a tensor to each point of some space.
  • Mathematical field such as a Number Field, which is a type of an algebraic structure containing elements that do not refer to any physical values.

You are just Analysing what is happening in a volume of space defined by a field where something is taking place.
Yes and in the case of the electric field that "something" being analyzed, are the magnitudes and directions of electric Coulomb forces.

How you want to see it, from mathematic or physics perspective is up to you.
With this statement you imply that the choice of the type of field is subjective.  But it is not.

On top of 3D representation we can add time as well.
Yes, the coordinates of points in a field do not have to be limited to 3D space.
3D space and 3D time is also possible.
Nonetheless, my original objections stands:  Field is not a volume, even if points of a volume are involved in its definition.

Since when common sense is called magical thinking ?
Since never.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
verpies
Quote
That is a valid objection.  I wrote this to simplify the concept, but if you want the full definition of an electric field then there you go:
"Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors, which are assigned to each point of a volume (3D space). These vectors represent the directions and magnitudes of Coulomb forces, which would act on test charges placed at these points."

I have heard may of these non-explanations in physics.
The people using this language could not seem to understand they were not answering the questions only raising more.

For example, you claim an "Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors". Now we have to ask what is an electric force?, where does it come from and why?. What are the electric force vectors?, where are the points?, why are they there?, where did they come from?. Then you claim this also relates to Coulomb forces which act on a supposed test charge. Now we have matter interacting with supposed fields complicating things even further.

In Engineering we call this physics double-speak. Much like politics or religion it's a repetitive drone meant to wear the listener down using circular reasoning. I ask what is an electric field and they say *all this other stuff*. Then I ask what *all this other stuff* means they say an electric field. I think it's strange because everyone seems to understand it's nonsense except the person repeating the non-answers.

Like this for example...
Quote
Electric field is an example of a physical Vector Field but other types of fields exist as well, such as:
Scalar Field, assignment of a scalar to each point of some space.
Tensor Field, assignment of a tensor to each point of some space.
Mathematical field such as a Number Field, which is a type of an algebraic structure containing elements that do not refer to any physical values.

Do we really need to make up more and more imaginary things to not explain what a field is?. I mean, you have already not explained what a field is, why not just leave it at that?.

AC







---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
verpies
I have heard may of these non-explanations in physics.
The people using this language could not seem to understand they were not answering the questions only raising more.
Yes, my answer raises more questions but it does answer the one at hand. It also supports my objection to the statement that "electric field is volume".

In any kind of reasoning, complex concepts are defined in terms of simpler ones.  This forms a pyramid of concepts. The ones at its apex are called axioms. Axioms cannot be explained in terms of other concepts. 

Thus, it always comes down to saying "grant me that and I will boot up an entire universe for you".  If you cannot accept that then show me a better way which does not involve turtles all the way down.  ...or we will not be able to communicate

For example, you claim an "Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors". Now we have to ask what is an electric force?, where does it come from and why?. What are the electric force vectors?, where are the points?, why are they there?, where did they come from?.
These are good questions, but they do not invalidate my argument against "electric field is a volume", although it involves a volume.

You might be elated to read, that the mainstream physics does not have answers to these questions because it treats the 4 fundamental forces as axioms and attempts to feebly explain them with virtual particles or not at all.  This does not mean that mainstream science does not have a good empirical description of these forces such as the Coulomb's and Maxwell's equations, which only tell us how these forces behave quantitatively.
However, I do have a conceptual grasp of the origin of these forces but it is far out stuff and I am not sure this is the proper venue to discuss them nor whether your mind is sufficiently elastic to comprehend my explanations conceptually.

Out of the questions you posed above, I can answer two of them right away without going outside of mainstream science.

What are the electric force vectors?
They are symbols representing the magnitude and direction of electric force at points in 3d space.  Yes, this does not explain the origin of the electric force but it defines it quantitatively at that point.

, where are the points?
All around you. Point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in 3d space, 2d area or 1d line, and has no length, width, or thickness.
A "primitive notion" or an "axiom" is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts.

why are they there?, where did they come from?.
This is the subject of the far out stuff, that I'd like to avoid discussing in this venue.
Notice that by asking why the points are here/there and where they come from, you are effectively asking about the origin/nature of the 3d Euclidean reference system that we call space.
It is a very important question which is removed from, what I consider top axioms, by 1 level only. 
I am just not sure whether you are ready to comprehend the answer to this question.  Most people who I attempted to explain this to were never able to get their mind out of what I call the "aquarium paradigm", which is an idea that we are like fish swimming in an aquarium, where water is an analogy to space.  This paradigm is probably the reason why people cling so frantically to imaginary concepts like aether, which sooth their primitive need to have a medium to swim in.

Then you claim this also relates to Coulomb forces which act on a supposed test charge. Now we have matter interacting with supposed fields complicating things even further.
But you cannot detect an electric field without it, so I  am justified to propose that electric fields do not exist without material observers ...or exist only to them.

In Engineering we call this physics double-speak. Much like politics or religion it's a repetitive drone meant to wear the listener down using circular reasoning.
I know what you mean, but I am not like that.  I just refrain from going too deep because I find that almost no one can understand it anyway.  People are just stuck in their aquarium of space.

Do we really need to make up more and more imaginary things to not explain what a field is?
Without analyzing deeply what causes the spatial reference system to emerge, there is no other choice.
An aether is one of such "imaginary things" btw.

I mean, you have already not explained what a field is, why not just leave it at that?.
No, I explained what an electric field is in terms of an electric force, enough to invalidate the assertion that "field is volume". 
I just did not explain the origin of spatial reference system and the origin of the electric force (forces are the cause of accelerations, btw) because this is the wrong venue for it and most people cannot comprehend it anyway.

« Last Edit: 2023-11-16, 23:55:51 by verpies »
   
Group: Guest
   You can keep repeating the same things, which have brought you no closer to obtaining free energy.
Not the smartest approach towards our goal here. While your credebility is at stake.
  Are you here to just to repeat conventional jargon? And to denie Tesla's words and works. Which most of us do value.

  What happened to your split tube idea, and aluminum power rings as fuel??? How much actual power was yielded???
Or are your ideas just another distraction, after all these years, proff. As that's what it looks like to me.
Makes me wonder...


   NickZ
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
You can keep repeating the same things, which have brought you no closer to obtaining free energy.
The same things!? Alas, I have never discussed the definition of a vector field on this forum.  Allcanadian objected to my explanation of it and asked questions about it, so I replied.

Are you here to just to repeat conventional jargon?
No, Vector fields are conventional analytical tools. Also using conventional jargon to explain them is not the same as repeating a mantra without understanding it, which you are implying with your choice of the word "repeat",

And to denie Tesla's words and works. Which most of us do value.
I did not deny his works in my reply to Allcanadian. I don't deny that he made some novel inventions in his time but I am not aware of any free-energy devices or claims made by him.  (by students of his words - yes). Picowatt has studied Tesla's works and words in depth and came to the same conclusion - see here.

What happened to your split tube idea,
I am optimizing its field turning geometry.  What are doing with it?

How much actual power was yielded???
As much as with the device you had constructed based on your vague idea of energy from air, earth or vacuum.  Have you decided which one it is, yet ?

Or are your ideas just another distraction, ...
Distraction from what ?
   
Group: Restricted
Full Member
*

Posts: 102
I am doing it.
Quote
An electric field (sometimes E-field[1]) is the physical field that surrounds electrically charged particles.
More of it is in this  link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field


Wesley
« Last Edit: 2024-02-27, 17:40:40 by stivep »
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
Electric field ?  ;D Everything have a charge, there is electro potential in everything, i’ll stick with volume and aether, no trust at all in mainstream science.

Vibration, frequency, voltage is the key, I trust N Tesla and Arie deGeus more than any mumbo-jumbo scientist from mainstream science.

And by the way, all the inventors that have build and/or patent any FE/OU speak about aether and how wrong mainstream science is. N Tesla said he used “unconventional” ways in completely different manner than any others sticking, that’s why he got success, where others have failed.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
If it was me I would ask: What is in this article that is  not explained yet?
The electric gradient at the interface of two dielectrics ?
   
Group: Restricted
Full Member
*

Posts: 102
Electric field ? Everything have a charge, there is electro potential in everything, i’ll stick with volume and aether, no trust at all in mainstream science.
I must disagree. Neutron doesn't have charge.
aether is  not recognized rejected by science concept not having reference, no link, nor  set properties .
Eather can by that  be only seen as intuitive :  Intuitive thinking is relying on gut feelings or first impressions rather than logical reasoning or evidence.
Wesley
   
Group: Restricted
Full Member
*

Posts: 102
The electric gradient at the interface of two dielectrics ?

The E -field is just the potential gradient, and this is independent of any medium between the plates, so that E = V / d. in each of the two dielectrics.
This may help:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electricity_and_Magnetism/Electricity_and_Magnetism_(Tatum)/05%3A_Capacitors/5.14%3A__Mixed_Dielectrics#:~:text=The%20E%20-field%20is%20just%20the%20potential%20gradient%2C,%2F%20d.%20in%20each%20of%20the%20two%20dielectrics.
Wesley
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
I must disagree. Neutron doesn't have charge.
aether is  not recognized rejected by science concept not having reference, no link, nor  set properties .
Eather can by that  be only seen as intuitive :  Intuitive thinking is relying on gut feelings or first impressions rather than logical reasoning or evidence.
Wesley

Please remind me where that neutron come from as being an entity by itself ?
I know that is very convenient for any mainstream science defender to work as a coroner doctor as this is mostly what mainstream science is doing … dissecting dead bodies, while real inventors work with something alive to create something.

Some Explanations for aether can be seen in patent attached.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
Please remind me where that neutron come from as being an entity by itself ?
Notice, that this question is an attempt to find the fundamental axioms.
I could answer that neutron is a piece of spinning space, but then you would ask me what space is.  I could answer that it is an aspect of motion but then you would ask me how can there be motion without an object to move and this would get very long as I try to shift you paradigm while being accused by Nick of distracting this thread from a higher purpose (without defining what it is).
Mainstream science states that neutron is a collection of quarks held by gluons.  Eventually something must be taken for granted. The verification whether quarks and gluons are the ultimate axioms is beyond the experimental capabilities of us mere mortals. BTW: I do not think that they are it.


Some Explanations for aether can be seen in patent attached.
Aether has been discussed to death on this forum here.  No experimental verification has ever succeeded and many conceptual errors with it have been identified.
   
Group: Restricted
Full Member
*

Posts: 102
Please remind me where that neutron come from as being an entity by itself ?
neutron is Elementary particle, , it is one of the three basic particles making up atoms,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

neither the neutron nor the proton is a true elementary particle.
Rather, they are composites of extremely small elementary particles called quarks.
The neutron is composed of two down quarks, each with 1/3 elementary charge, and one up quark, with 2/3 elementary charge.
quark https://www.space.com/quarks-explained
A free neutron—one that is not incorporated into a nucleus—is subject to radioactive decay
-the neutron does not exist in nature in its free state, except among other highly energetic particles in cosmic rays.
-electrically neutral, pass unhindered through the electrical fields .
-neutron is a hadron.  https://www.britannica.com/science/neutron
-it behaves like a minute magnet in ways that suggest that it is an entity of moving electric charges. - but entities behavior that is based on similarity does not not justify identity.
example: 
all hadrons are subject to gravitation; charged hadrons obey electromagnetic laws; and some hadrons break up by way of the weak force (as in radioactive decay),
while others decay via the strong and the electromagnetic forces.


______________________________________________
where (and from what) it come from:
Quote
free neutron spontaneously decays to a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino, with a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes.
so now you see  its components after the  disintegration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
So mass can convert to energy and reverse.
E=mc2 According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, mass can be converted into energy and vice versa.
We regularly convert  mass to energy.

The process inverse to particle annihilation can be called matter creation; more precisely, we are considering here the process obtained
under time reversal of the annihilation process. This process is also known as pair production, and can be described as the conversion
of light particles (i.e., photons) into one or more massive particles.
The most common and well-studied case is the one where two photons convert into an electron–positron pair.
Wesley
« Last Edit: 2023-11-17, 21:07:58 by stivep »
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4043
 Classic is on moderation
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Verpies
Quote
Yes, my answer raises more questions but it does answer the one at hand. It also supports my objection to the statement that "electric field is volume".

In any kind of reasoning, complex concepts are defined in terms of simpler ones.  This forms a pyramid of concepts. The ones at its apex are called axioms. Axioms cannot be explained in terms of other concepts.

Thus, it always comes down to saying "grant me that and I will boot up an entire universe for you".  If you cannot accept that then show me a better way which does not involve turtles all the way down.  ...or we will not be able to communicate

I was just giving you a hard time, lol.

I think were on the same page I just took a different approach to the "Primary Field" ie. EBG problem. As Einstein implied, we cannot solve a problem using the same kind of thinking which created it. The problem, in my opinion was when science became more about math/calculations and less about nature. As an old Engineer/programmer math, calculations, science and physics are obviously important. However I found they can only take one so far. The numbers can easily take on a life of there own biasing our perspective. The math/equations were supposed to describe natural phenomena after we discovered something new not predetermine what is possible or not in my opinion.

Are you familiar with writing code/programming computers?. The thing about programming is that everything revolves around memorizing numbers, calculations, process and keywords. When I talk to people in science/physics I see all the same attributes. In a sense to rise to some level of understanding we have to reprogram our mind. However in doing so we become programmed in ourselves and biased. The trick I found is to understand I am biased and to seek out new perspectives. This may be why all the people on the cutting edge of science always seem like flakes, lol.

Of course, 99% is lunacy but every now and then there is a sliver of genius. Something which makes us think and that makes all the difference in my opinion...

AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3485
The problem, in my opinion was when science became more about math/calculations and less about nature.
I see that dichotomy, too. In my opinion math predominantly tells us "how much" but it does not tell us "how".  For that, conceptual analysis is needed.

As an old Engineer/programmer math, calculations, science and physics are obviously important.
...
Are you familiar with writing code/programming computers?
My primary source of income is low-level programming.

The numbers can easily take on a life of their own.
Indeed and people become so enamored with math's quantitative accuracy that they forget that mathematical correctness does not always imply conceptual correctness.

Are you here to just to repeat conventional jargon?
I find it amusing to be called a book-thumper and mantra "repeater" while in academic circles I am considered somewhat of a quack for the mere attempt to solve the FE riddle and not taking the 4 fundamental forces for granted (as axioms), criticizing the standard model of fundamental particles and even arguing that time has as many dimensions as space and that all physical magnitudes can be represented as a ratio between space and time.  See Page 8.

When I talk to people in science/physics I see all the same attributes. In a sense to rise to some level of understanding we have to reprogram our mind.
Yes and in my experience the hardest to reprogram is the common notion that space is our container.


   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Verpies
Quote
I see that dichotomy, too. In my opinion math predominantly tells us "how much" but it does not tell us "how".  For that, conceptual analysis is needed.

Well said, my interest has always been the how and why of things. I see this as the way forward to designing and building something new.

Quote
Indeed and people become so enamored with math's quantitative accuracy that they forget that mathematical correctness does not always imply conceptual correctness.

I found science can explain many things but not so much an unknown like a free energy device. The concept/discovery always comes first and the science to explain it after the fact. Which led me to the study of psychology to determine how our thinking could bias our perspective. Much like programming I developed a methodology to start asking the right questions. Ergo, an unknown must have a reason for being an unknown. An unknown must have some aspect which eludes the observer intellectually/conceptually similar to a magic trick. In fact some of the most intelligent people cannot understand how magic tricks work hence the term "magic". They think they cannot be fooled but almost everyone is easily fooled.

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47827346
Quote
Another key part of a magic trick is the "forcing technique". This is where someone thinks they are choosing a card at random, but the magician is really manipulating their decision and the "choices" are false.
"Free will is an illusion. People are much more suggestible than they think. All of our perceptions are very malleable," says Dr Kuhn.

By the same token, we can think were being open minded and logical but our thoughts are predetermined and predictable dependent on our worldview.  I think this applies...“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman. As such a completely new process or technology would be easy to miss more so if were not actively looking for it.

AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-10, 18:52:38