Splitting the electron stream

[gravityblock]

I appreciate your effort to explain your thoughts!

You are referring to 100% energy transfer during 1 L/T TC.  Was there evidence of this behavior in Steorn's demonstrations or is this your speculation as to what is occurring?

I think I saw in S4T's videos that when the mechanical resonant frequency of the nuclei in an atom matches the speed of light in the material that energy transfer would be 100% and instantaneous.  Did I understand that correctly?  That may be why I'm hanging up on this, because instant is ∞ greater than Ï,,.

I have to watch the videos a second and third time, picking them apart, and working through the math to internalize it.  Right now I just have a sense of what Frank's work means and implies, I need to understand.  I should just duck into a hole for a few weeks until I do.  I don't want to derail what you're doing with inappropriate questions.

Still learning!

Yes, there is evidence of the voltage/current rising in the e-Orbo demonstrations together almost instantaneously, and the rise time in the current was the same for the voltage.  The voltage didn't lag the current, and the current didn't lag the voltage.  If you're transferring energy at a rate of 1,094,000 m/s over a very tiny distance, then the transfer of energy is nearly instantaneous.  The energy will be transfered at the rate of the TC, assuming the TC is the same for both the voltage and current.  When the Voltage/Current =  the same TC, then the speed of the light in the electronic structure will match the speed of the mechanical waves in the nucleur structure of the atoms, which allows energy to be transferred in one TC almost instantaneously.  You're on the right track.

GB

[lumen]

I could be missing something here, but isn't this just another way of saying the same thing?
Say a 15 Henry coil is passing a magnet and the inductance drops to 1 Henry. Then a current is applied that energizes the coil to 100%, going through all the 5 t/c steps.  Then as the magnet moves away, the inductance increases back to 15 Henry and all this happens in less than 1 t/c of the 15 Henry coil, which is much longer than all 5 t/c steps of the 1 Henry coil.
There is also much less BEMF in the 1 Henry coil than even the 1 t/c of the 15 Henry coil.
Is this not the same thing?

[juice]

The number 1.094 isn't dimensionless. It's MHz-m.

To subtract it from inverse Henries has no meaning. The result of the calculation isn't even close to exact anyway. I know you want to unify the ideas you like, but it just doesn't work out like this.

This isn't science, it's numerology.

[gravityblock]

The number 1.094 isn't dimensionless. It's MHz-m.

To subtract it from inverse Henries has no meaning . The result of the calculation isn't even close to exact anyway. I know you want to unify the ideas you like, but it just doesn't work out like this.

This isn't science, it's numerology.

Below is a quote from ashtweth, who has acquired a License from Steorn, who is privileged to information that is not known to the public.

Yes we are still here and working on it, when we get results we will post them:) , we have not been abducted by aliens, killed by MIB's or are wasting time making stupid posts like the mole trap FREAKS or Paul lowerence

We have re wound our coils to get the inductance needed for the E orbo effect, , time variant magnetic interactions have come a long way with Steorn, i  say dont  wait for our results with the E-orbo, i have seen enough from our Trustee to indicate their effect is REAL (solid state video). So go for it:thumbsup: .

Our SS board has already been ordered and will be here soon, we spin our E-orbo this weekend, you need a certain mH and voltage current to get the orbo effect happening,it takes time.. Naudin and no one on the net has this needed value, its a specific  number, i cant say any more. Or my ass gets beat.

The reason for us taking so long was to learn this mH and voltage current to get the time variant field happening.  The solid state board rectifies these learning curves. so when its here (we already ordered it) it will  be instant, analog Dc in and measured through an analog meter into a resistive load (heat) .  We are not giving up on LEARNING the E- orb , no way

Ill post when we have results my friend be patient cheers:
we do not sleep or waste time, you can ask the members of Steorn

Ash

As you can see, a certain inductance is needed along with the voltage and current to get the orbo effect happening.  No one on the net has this needed value or specific number.  I can tell you right now, that the inductance, voltage, and current are all related to a specific number.  This is why there has been no successful replication of the e-Orbo or ssOrbo from the Open Source Community. 

Also, if you need a time variant field to get the effect, don't you think a good place to look for this is with the time constants of the voltage and current?  The 63 and 37 are related to the time constants and so is the inductance and resistance.... and it was the difference of these two values divided by 1.094 which gave a result of 24.153667093235831809872029250457, and it just happens that the 24.1536...... is nearly the same difference between the inductance at the beginning of the pulse and the inductance at the end of the pulse during one of Steorn's demonstration talks.  It doesn't take a mathematician to realize the odds of this happening by chance are astronomical.  Having said this, the difference in inductance or the inductance change of 24.1536... could be responsible for a time variant field when, and only when, all of the other parameters are correct, such as voltage, current, and inductance.  Now, take this quick summary of what I have done, then compare it to what ashtweth said in the above quote. 

I never subtracted the 1.094 from the inverse of Henries.  Please show me where I did this in any of my posts.  What I did with the 1.094 is explained above.  I suggest you and everyone else to start crunching the numbers.  Also, please show me how the result of the calculation isn't even close to exact?  If you're referring to the 1.094 not being close to 1,094,000..... then we may only be talking about decimal points between unit conversions, etc.  Example:  0.985H = 985mH (the numbers themselves aren't equal, but when conversion is taken into account, then the result is the same.  Even if the result isn't the same due to not taking the conversion into account, the numbers themselves will be the same.  Example: .25 doesn't equal 25, but when 25 is a percent and taken into account, then the numbers themselves are equal and will return the same result.  Also, an unknown number(s) or other calculations could always move the decimal point of 1.094 to the right by six positions to get 1,094,000.  Example:  1.094 * 1,000,000 = 1,094,00.  I could go on and on.  The bottom line is your argument is baseless and has no meaning. Regardless, it results in a number which is nearly identical to what is found in the demo talks against extreme odds of this happening by chance.

GB

[happyfunball]

Fascinating, but it's four years and counting. When does 'Orbo' power anything in the real world? 100 years from today?