Free Solid State/mechanical energy

[Charlie_V]

I think the number three is important because there are three states in the universe, a positive, a negative, and a neutral.  Thus, vibrational modes will be on octaves of three, oppose to music where it is only two.

Personally, I think we should spend more time developing something that I call passive amplification.  What if we could change a magnet's field without having to fight the coil?  Using a small amount of energy, the field would go from zero to full strength in an oscillatory cycle.  By placing a coil perpendicular to this changing field, we could generate electricity.  The coil and magnet would periodically attract and repel in the normal fashion, yet the object producing the field alterations would be unaffected.  Thus, a passive amplification is accomplished since the amount of electricity would not be directly based on how much energy you put in, but by how strong the permanent magnet was and how fast you altered the field (the latter being dependent on energy input).  The amount of electrical energy could therefore far exceed the input energy - creating power in a closed loop fashion. 

Science currently teaches that electricity is created not by the permanent magnets in the generator, but by the work that's placed on the axial (rotor).  In this thinking, the magnets are simply a force-producing object, conveying no energy to the system.  This, my friends, is wrong.  The source of energy (from any generator) comes from, and only from, the magnets - not the input work. 

The only real steps taken in science are through creativity, the rest are a methodical mimicking of those steps.  176 years ago, a creative man discovered that changing a magnet's field caused current to flow in a coil.  As great an advance as this was, the man unfortunately altered the fields through physical movement of the coil/magnet.  The methodical mimicking that followed produced the idea that this was the ONLY way to change the fields - never thinking that there might be other, extremely more efficient, ways. 

[barbosi]

There is a device named Kosol spherical device.
Might be interesting as lecture the Theory with regard to the fileds.

http://www.geocities.com/phoenix_risingiii/KosolDevice/section1.html

EDIT:
Many interesting aspects related to terminology, field theory, materials, etc. made me put this work in pdf format. I thought this could set a common language and minimum knowledge.

[barbosi]

Harmonic scales (first two):

SVP Harmonic Relationships:

EDIT:
Grumpy,

Whit regard to your post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,133.msg24132.html#msg24132

Where did you find those pictures? I couldn't find them in the pdf file from SVP?


I just found a page with info http://ray.tomes.biz/ and for some pictures Grumpy posted, available at http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html

Interesting enough is "Flow of Energy" with a picture meant to encourage you to explore the mentioned website. Here you can see 144

[barbosi]

If anyone still paying attention to this thread, did you figured out why there are four secondaries and only two primaries? In fact the question is "why only two primaries? why not four, or 12 or 24?"

Regards.

[nat1971a]

Hi All,

I have been following your posts with great interest. I have made some interesting observations after reviewing Tesla's patent 568,176 in light of what ERFINDER has posted.

1. item "C" in figure 1 (the circuit controller (tesla) or rotary switch (erfinder)) is positioned on top of the rotor or electromagnetic motor. This is obvious from the patent text but not from the patent diagrams.

2. The position of the brushes "F" in figure 2 are interesting. They indicate to me that the "size" of the circuit controller (tesla) or rotary switch (erfinder) and the electromagnetic motor are the same. This is not obvious at all. This correlates to the information erfinder has posted. The only difference is that Tesla is using 4 poles compared to erfinders 24

P.S I have attached the patent diagrams for ease of reference.

3. The position of the brushes in figure 2 also line up with the neutral point (VOID) of the magnets if I understand correctly. This also correlates to the information erfinder has posted. Is this a coincidence? hmmm

Also of interest are the following excerpts from "The physics of the primary state of matter" Schappeller

p146 " The essential condition is that every magnet must consist of 3 parts: two poles and a neutral."

p147 "the magnets are set in opposing pairs N + S (plus and a minus) and the neutral is the central core of air space or neutralised interpolar energy. And this neutrality or impolarity is the real source of the electric current".

Regards,

Nat