another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[gravityblock]

Good gracious.  Poynty Point - WHAT ARE YOU THINKING

When I've finished here, I'll take take the trouble to argue each and every statement that you've referred to in your last post - not because it's deserved - but because I'm ALARMED.  I'm alarmed that no-one is coming forward to say 'POYNTY ARE YOU MAD?'.   Bubba - Gravityblock - HopToad - EVERYONE has a sense of competence when it comes to the definitions of energy.  But they say NOTHING about this nonsense?  Have you FOOLED THEM TOO?  REALLY?  You really BELIEVE this rubbish?  You ACTUALLY, SINCERELY BELIEVE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VALID?

Rosemary,

Thanks for the invite and for including me in this discussion.

Using the right hand and pointing the thumb in the direction of the moving positive charge or positive current and the fingers in the direction of the magnetic field the resulting force on the charge points outwards from the palm. The force on a negatively charged particle is in the opposite direction. If both the speed and the charge are reversed then the direction of the force remains the same. For that reason a magnetic field measurement (by itself) cannot distinguish whether there is a positive charge moving to the right or a negative charge moving to the left. (Both of these cases produce the same current.) On the other hand, a magnetic field combined with an electric field can distinguish between these, such as the Hall effect.

Until this distinction is made, then I have nothing more to say about this nonsense.

Now, more to the point.  Why didn't you notice that all of our SI units are off by a factor of velocity relative to the true units?  How can this be?  Acceleration is the root core of velocity (acceleration * time).  The c in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 hasn't been reduced to acceleration * time.  Also, E=mc^2 states that it is light which has the velocity.  This is the inverse of reality.  Equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always include and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

A = Gravitational Acceleration
Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
A x Z = Velocity of Light (Velocity of Gravity)

In scientific circles, a calculation that has not been known is that the product of;

Wavelength  *  Frequency  =  Speed of Gravity
AZ^2 * 1/Z = AZ

is parallel to

Gravitational Acceleration  x  Orbit Time  =  Speed of Gravity
A * Z   =   AZ

The results are exactly equal, however the units are not.

In the true energy equation, Wavelength is comparable to Gravitational Acceleration (A) and Frequency is comparable to Orbit Time (Z).  When Frequency (1/Z) is changed into Orbit Time (Z) the Wavelength is not also just flipped to the inverse, rather the AZ^2 of Wavelength is then changed into Acceleration (A).  Wavelength is represented by Orbit Diameter (AZ^2)

Earth's Gravity (9.80175174 m/s^2)  x  earth's Orbit Time (30,585,600 seconds, exact lunar year)  =  the Velocity of Gravity and Light (299,792,458 m/s). 

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Wavelength = Orbit Diameter = Acceleration of Gravity x (Orbit Time)^2

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Frequency = 1/Orbit Time

A monumental law in True and Pure Physics that Albert Einstein did not realize is that equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always contain and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

Gravock

[SkyWatcher123]

Hi folks, Hi rose, I notice you say that leds can be used with the pulse circuit.
Is that all that was in the circuit or was an inductor in line also or inductive resistor, I am guessing some kind of inductance is needed to get an oscillation, thanks.
I remember these discussions over at EF awhile ago.


If the intent is to prevent a flamed discussion, then I would suggest not throwing fuel on the fire. 
peace love light
tyson

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Schubert,

I must thank you for that introduction to Reiji Maigo.  I've been reading up on it in wiki.  How INTRIGUING.  I'll look around to find more on this subject. And thanks for resolving my dilemma. Schubert will do nicely.  I have a friend who's  named her son 'Beethoven'. It's so nice.

Regarding this ...

To respond to your earlier comment: Have you tried to hook up for example 5 heater in parallel the five heater will produce 500 watts, As I recall correctly you can find as low 150-200 watts Stirling engine...

'No' is the short answer.  But I think I see your point.  In other words we simply put more resistors in parallel?  Is that right?  Would they work off the same switch?  That Q array?  Because then my concern is that with so much current, those transistors would melt.  But either way.  I do not have the interest nor the time nor the money.  Perhaps it's something you could explore - if you're up for it.  Unfortunately I must pass.  I'm reasonably satisfied that there's a solution.  But I certainly won't be finding it.

Most intrigued with that 'fable'.  I keep going back to it.  I'll need to get some of those books. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Gravock,

I puzzled over your previous table - and am bowled over by this last post of yours.  Clearly we're dealing with some heavy duty intellect.  Golly.  I absolutely cannot make sense of it.  But I nonetheless acknowledge that this is a significant contribution.  Rare INDEED, that we have members who share such extraordinary insights. 

Regarding my complaint against Poynty.  I am well aware of the niceties of a charged property to current flow.  That, after all, is the basis of my thesis.  But - as I understand it - the standard model does NOT allow for a charged property in an electric current. EVER.  In fact,  all convention has determined is that current flows in the direction of the greatest applied potential difference.  All potential difference is relative.  But convention has ALSO determined that a battery supplies a positive voltage.  Therefore, relative to that, then the resulting flow of current over the circuit material - will be positive.  For some reason best understood by himself - Poynty proposes that this current must be computed as a negative current because the measured voltage across the load is negative.  Which is nonsense and an entire travesty on standard measurement protocols.  That induced voltage over the circuit components will make not a blind bit of difference to the direction of current flow from the battery.  Unless and until the circuit is open - the battery is disconnected - and the collapsing fields can then generate that negative current flow - which is then consistent with this applied NEGATIVE voltage. 

But I don't think you're arguing.  And regarding all this?  I am absolutely in awe Gravock.  I'm posting the whole thing as a tribute to your work here - but I must confess.  It is way over my head.

Now, more to the point.  Why didn't you notice that all of our SI units are off by a factor of velocity relative to the true units?  How can this be?  Acceleration is the root core of velocity (acceleration * time).  The c in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 hasn't been reduced to acceleration * time.  Also, E=mc^2 states that it is light which has the velocity.  This is the inverse of reality.  Equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always include and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

A = Gravitational Acceleration
Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
A x Z = Velocity of Light (Velocity of Gravity)

In scientific circles, a calculation that has not been known is that the product of;

Wavelength  *  Frequency  =  Speed of Gravity
AZ^2 * 1/Z = AZ

is parallel to

Gravitational Acceleration  x  Orbit Time  =  Speed of Gravity
A * Z   =   AZ

The results are exactly equal, however the units are not.

In the true energy equation, Wavelength is comparable to Gravitational Acceleration (A) and Frequency is comparable to Orbit Time (Z).  When Frequency (1/Z) is changed into Orbit Time (Z) the Wavelength is not also just flipped to the inverse, rather the AZ^2 of Wavelength is then changed into Acceleration (A).  Wavelength is represented by Orbit Diameter (AZ^2)

Earth's Gravity (9.80175174 m/s^2)  x  earth's Orbit Time (30,585,600 seconds, exact lunar year)  =  the Velocity of Gravity and Light (299,792,458 m/s). 

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Wavelength = Orbit Diameter = Acceleration of Gravity x (Orbit Time)^2

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Frequency = 1/Orbit Time

A monumental law in True and Pure Physics that Albert Einstein did not realize is that equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always contain and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

Gravock

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Dear Schubert,

I must thank you for that introduction to Reiji Maigo.  I've been reading up on it in wiki.  How INTRIGUING.  I'll look around to find more on this subject. And thanks for resolving my dilemma. Schubert will do nicely.  I have a friend who's  named her son 'Beethoven'. It's so nice.

Ahah, sorry but Schubert it's not my name, just my pseudo. If you want to call me by my true name it's Jonathan !!!


Just that i'am fan of classical music and Japanese culture (especially their comics).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You all right the transistor would be melted, but sorry can't test your idea at this time because i'am on another project (Transverter or Resonant Magnetic amplifier).


Problem in real life you can't make everything at the same time, else, you fail !!!


Regards Jonathan.