Miscellaneous Technical Debates

[DaveL]

Mike,

Your friend needs to be recognized for the new phenomena he has measured with the interferometer!
He should calculate the length of the 11 wavelengths, and then try to fathom why the effect is related to a 45 degree crossing of the gravity field alignment. Fascinating! Look at the thickness of the glass in the mirrors also.

Wilbert Smith Binding Force Meter - 2 versions were made. Mark 1 and Mark 2.

http://treurniet.ca/Smith/BFMeterExp1.htm





I built one that is a little different. I believe it was the first model and not as sensitive.

http://www.resonantfractals.org/Doc/Magnetism/TorsionMeter.htm

Dave L

[Kator01]

Dave

wow, I didnt know you build it, looks very impressive. The question is, can one use wire-wrapped strings of pianos ?
Then the humidity will not be influencing it.
You should be glad that the sensor remained quite...and yes there are much less nuclear test ..if at all

Well concerning my friend Martin I lost contact over the years, he lives 400 miles north of me and he finished this work 9 years ago for two reasons one of which is finances.
He even got calls from the US as far as I remember. You can be sure the NASA replicated his apparatus

Mike

[muDped]

I find all of the various technical topics which are discussed to be quite interesting.

There is, however, the oft repeated question about Energy which has not yet been satisfactorily answered:

Where does Energy come from? or as put another way,  What is the Source of Energy?

Yes, it is a very difficult question.  Perhaps made even moreso by our current state of Scientific Comprehension.

But, the Real Answer may not be as difficult to comprehend as we are inclined to imagine.

Once you are able to explain how Daniel Pomerleau is able to summon Free Energy with just a simple coil, then you will have the answer you seek.

Is it possible that there is only One Source of Energy Universally?

The One Source is able to delegate Control of Energy to make it manifest where and how desired?

Did Nikola Tesla have understanding of the One Source?

By the way;  when searching for information the search will be much more fruitful if you "Duck It" rather than "Google It."

[F6FLT]

I find all of the various technical topics which are discussed to be quite interesting.

There is, however, the oft repeated question about Energy which has not yet been satisfactorily answered:

Where does Energy come from? or as put another way,  What is the Source of Energy?

Recent reflections on antennas lead me to think that energy is not a physical reality, it is only a potentiality, that of a particular configuration of matter and fields in general.

All energy is potential. For example kinetic energy is potential. If we are co-moving with an object that moves relative to the ground, we cannot draw any energy from the object even though this object is said to have kinetic energy relative to the ground.

Energy is only the possibility that a situation A, by a spontaneous action, reaches a situation B. The realization of the action allows us to measure this abstract concept of energy which we will claim to be included in this system before the realization of the action, when it was not, since it is only the realization of the action that materializes it.
We understand that we need a change of state to recover it, or conversely to spend energy to provoke the change of state, and that no energy exists intrinsically in a state, therefore in a static object or situation.
This is confirmed by relativity, since energy is relative, it depends on the observer and therefore on the reference frame. Energy doesn't exist in an absolute way. A "source" of energy in the sense of a fountain does not exist.

[Smudge]

If you can induce a DC voltage into a coil by some moving means, then have a DC current generator connected to the coil, that generator will either deliver energy "somewhere", or absorb energy from "somewhere".  Magnetic fields from permanent magnets come from atomic current circulations, either electron orbits or spins.  If we induce a voltage into such a current circulation (i.e. create an E field vortex) then whatever keeps those electron movements going gets "loaded", so there is the source and the sink for energy.  I have reasoned many times in various papers that we already do this with AC, and shown how it can be deduced from classical theory.  Yet no one seems interested in this as an energy source.  Of course the professors will tell you that inducing DC into any closed loop is impossible, so this is just a pipe dream.  I hope to show that it is not.

Smudge

[F6FLT]

My point was only a digressive answer to muDped's questions, which I will specify. Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality. That's why energy can be potential energy linked to gravity, kinetic energy, electric or magnetic energy... all these energies are obviously not of the same nature.
Energy only represents the work supplied, or to be supplied, to move a system from a state A to a state B.
Energy is equivalent to work. A static state does not work, so there is no energy in a state.

If the passage from state A to B provides work, to say that the energy was included in "A" does not make sense because if we pass from A to C, we would have an energy of different value, but also included in "A". So which one is the right one?!  It is only when the state evolves that the potentiality of the energy is realized at a certain level.

To understand this, let's consider two interfering waves, e.g. two signals emitted in phase opposition by two radio antennas. The field on the perpendicular bisector of the line that connects them will cancel each other out. Yet if each emitted separately, we would have energy on this axis. If we assume that the wave carries energy that will travel in a straight line at speed c, it is double the energy that we should have on the bisector, but we have zero. However, each antenna is unaware that the other is transmitting, so its energy should be emitted in the same way, whether only one or both are in use. But it is not. The energy is only what can be recovered locally from the electromagnetic field. If two fields are in phase opposition, the recoverable energy is zero, there is no energy, so we cannot say that each wave had emitted energy to that point. Only electromagnetic fields or potentials are emitted and superimposed, and the energy is only what can be recovered from their local superposition. The energy is added or cancelled locally when the fields are superimposed, so the energy is not carried in a straight line by the wave as it is usually seen. Energy is not a physical reality.

Now this does not question your ideas, Smudge, but the interpretation that one can make.

On your idea, can we really "load" the atomic current circulations ? I'm afraid your professors are right. These currents are most probably like superconducting loop currents, they evacuate any attempt to change the flux.

[Allcanadian]

Smudge

I have reasoned many times in various papers that we already do this with AC, and shown how it can be deduced from classical theory.  Yet no one seems interested in this as an energy source.  Of course the professors will tell you that inducing DC into any closed loop is impossible, so this is just a pipe dream.  I hope to show that it is not.

Your definitely on the right track...

The one question which drove me bonkers for the longest time is what many past FE inventors were claiming. Throughout the literature we find claims that, 1)a DC current is induced in a closed loop and 2)said induction does not follow the standard turns ratio rule for transformers. I wracked my brain for around two years before I finally nailed the process down.

You are correct and the effect can easily be deduced from classical theory. I equate this new effect to the same mistakes made relating to Earnshaw's theorem. Many supposed that a system of point charges or magnetic fields can never find a stable equilibrium in themselves because of the forces present. Then someone spun a magnet and it was able to levitate above another magnet in a stable configuration. The magnet appears to violate Earnshaw's theorem however it doesn't and many were trying to apply rules which do not apply.

So the real trick is finding these instances or contradictions in classical theory. Here we need to be very careful because much has been misinterpreted and there really easy to miss.

Regards
AC

[muDped]

My point was only a digressive answer to muDped's questions, which I will specify.

Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality.

That's why energy can be potential energy linked to gravity, kinetic energy, electric or magnetic energy... all these energies are obviously not of the same nature.

Energy only represents the work supplied, or to be supplied, to move a system from a state A to a state B.

Energy is equivalent to work. A static state does not work, so there is no energy in a state.

I am in agreement with some of what you've said.

But, how would you conclude that "Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality?"

How would you explain the Energy of Life?

Or the Energy of Matter?

The Energy of Existence?

[Allcanadian]

mudped

But, how would you conclude that "Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality?"

How would you explain the Energy of Life?

Or the Energy of Matter?

The Energy of Existence?

Most scientific minded people tend to avoid those kinds of questions because they have no rational answers. I'm with you on this point and in all my travels and study I have found no rational explanations. Many have no issue with how a refrigerator works but ask them how there consciousness came about and we always get a blank stare off into space. We literally have no comprehension of how to even approach a problem like that.

Such is life...

Regards
AC

[F6FLT]

I am in agreement with some of what you've said.

But, how would you conclude that "Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality?"

How would you explain the Energy of Life?

Or the Energy of Matter?

The Energy of Existence?

Just because you have a word to represent a concept, doesn't make it a physical entity. The map is not the territory.
In physics, energy is only work, so force x displacement. Everything that can be expressed in this unit (  M L² T^-2) can be called energy. A force x displacement is not a physical entity, only a measure of a particular change between two states.

Outside of physics, energy is also a word used with generally vague meanings, very different from physics, and very different depending on what we are talking about. This is not the subject here, I think, where we are supposed to be in technological experimentation where energy has the meaning defined in physics.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

In physics, energy is only work, so force x displacement. Everything that can be expressed in this unit (  M L2 T-2) can be called energy. A force x displacement is not a physical entity, only a measure of a particular change between two states.

Outside of physics, energy is also a word used with generally vague meanings, very different from physics, and very different depending on what we are talking about. This is not the subject here, I think, where we are supposed to be in technological experimentation where energy has the meaning defined in physics.

I agree, energy is the capacity of something to perform work, work is a force acting on something causing it to "move" a distance, ergo all energy relates to the motion of something... Energy is motion.

However you conveniently avoided mudped's question, how does the motion of charged particles/fields relate to the nature of life and existence?. The correct answer is... we do not know and may never know.

I would argue that simply avoiding the hard questions we don't like does not qualify as understanding. Understanding; knowledge about a subject, situation, etc. or about how something works. I would also argue the energy responsible for our existence and life is the same energy we seek to power our devices... energy is energy. 

I hold a different perspective... everything applies and understanding how it applies is the only way forward.

Regards
AC

[muDped]

AC's line of reasoning is actually quite close to the mark.

While we do not presently know, one day we shall.

F6,

When you consider the amount of work you are able to perform daily and the amount of "fuel" you need each day to sustain your existence, is it possible that you yourself

could be an OverUnity Machine?

I believe so.  I believe all Life is evidence of OverUnity Engineering.