Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[tinman]

I know what was wrong; you need 240V and 100A instead of just 5A no that looked plenty strong... would be curious if ceramic magnets were used, if it's a matter of strength.

I ahve tried strong PM's,and very weak PM's ,and all give the spin of bubbles at the pole end.As you seen in the video,i got no spin from the electromagnet at all-not even a slight bend.

I had intended to shoot another video tonight,but i not long got home from work. I start at 3.30 to 5am ,and finnish between 7.30 and 9.30pm.It's now 8.50pm here,so by the time i hit the shower,have some dinner,and hit the hay,it will be around 10pm-only to rise again at 3.30am. As i drive a semi for a living now(done with the workshop's and mine sites),it is very important that i get some sort of decent hours sleep. So i just aint going to make it out to the work shop tonight im afraid. Will try again tomorrow night,as i have something i want to show you all-well i hope i do anyway lol. I will be filming it live as it happens-no testing first-should be a hoot,or a compleete fail.
Were going for a full wireless fish tank motor,as a hint.

[tinman]

TA quote:

A:  I post this thread

B: An intelligent inventive critter like Tinman gets inspired from the info here/in the book .......to do something WHOLLY DIFFERENT

C: Holy Sh*t!!!!!!!   Instant results




You left out a step there TA...finally someone catches him in a mistake (me)...we'll label that step B1.



Regards...

You catch who in what mistake?.

[tinman]

what if the current is only going through the axis, and not radially?  (works also if it's stuck on a hanging plate, and the electrical contacts are literally on the ends)

The thing with doing it in water,is that the current is going in every diretion. This is why i dont think it is acting in the same manner as a homopolar motor-but lots more to learn yet,and far to early to know what is really happening.

[wattsup]

What the hell, are you guys sleep-posting again. hahaha So much intensity and not one piece of toast was added on the table.

@TA

Thanks for your reply. I will comment in bold between your lines. Not because I am any bolder then you. hahaha

I have no such video using "nails"  elaborate.

Yes in this video of yours here........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMu0cndKl4&list=UUVcxJ9k14bi__-uA1cGkEcA

Yes, of course it can be boiled down much more so. And I have future videos for that.  The book which is expanding is another matter.

wattsup: """But to say this effect is the result of multi fields moving both ways, one lifting up, the other pushing down onto a geometrically uniform pattern is something that just does not click."""

That it doesnt "click" is no ERR on my behalf. Simplex lowest-pressure cross-mediation is extremely simplex.

I love being refuted actually, and I stated my purpose here many times, I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything.  They can wipe their arse with the book for all it matters.

IF HOWEVER someone (has happened a few times in this thread) has something very logical and coherent to say FOR or AGAINST any point, thats always of great USE, and great BENEFIT (to myself at any rate).

A friendly DEBATE isnt an argument.     I respect all parties here, but this is NOT A personality contest, its an exchange of information and ideas. Sometimes rough, sometimes Smooth.

However I dont care one way or the other about anyone's  "personality",   if you care about mine, well, that lay at your own feet.

I don't care about yours, I care about readers who will have a field day trying to understand via your teaching method. No problem man. No sweat off my arse either - hehehe.

wattsup: """" If the cause of the cone pattern is the magnet field pattern, then why does the cone pattern change?""""

I explain same in a future video and the 3rd edition of the book,    I state outright IN the book that "much WILL and NEEDS to be expanded upon".

So lacking that further explanation you can understand my stance on this as it is explained, but I must certify that any explanation will still have to be such that it can hold against further debate.

wattsup: """""But then I read "there is no Ether in space, only space within the Ether", just cannot figure that one out.""""""

Neither can most people.

What you are stating here is an oxymoron. So if ether is everywhere, how is it not in space. May as well say there is no juice in an orange, only orange in the juice. Helloooooooooooo. Anyone home. May as well try 1 + 2 does not = 3, but 3 = 2 + 1. What part of the brain is this type of logic supposed to reside?

Polarity = Spatial = CW/CCW  ...........these are the mental skr3w of human (MIS)understanding

Ultimately there is NO "polarity" in a "magnet" only field reciprocation and MOVEMENT along lowest pressure gradients, of which FIELDS in their instantaneous attributional creation, generates the ATTRIBUTE OF SPACE , that being polarization.

Chains of causation:
1. Field(s)
2. space
3. polarization

However, logically one can say that 2 and 3 are co-eternal

Space is an attribute of a FIELD,  there are no "fields in space", only SPACE as an attribute, and posterior (in creation) from FIELDS.

This is voodoo science man. Space is an attribute of a field, then you say there are no fields in space. What you are actually saying here is without a field, there is no space, and, there are no fields in space. I think the only way to understand this is after a good old lobotomy.

You are going to have to slice this up in more serveable portions.

This is why Einstein was a mental midget, he REIFIED the attribute of FIELDS , that being SPACE as "something" that "does things" and "acts on things"

Look, forget about Einstein, him being a joker is no help for anyone trying to understand your logic and failing that, you may wind up in the same room as him. Is that what you want?

wattsup: """"My main stance is ether is everywhere. In space, in atoms, in magnetism, in action at a distance, in everything man. So where is this "no ether in space" """"

Then you SHOULD HAVE ALREADY deduced from this fact that you are swimming IN fields upon fields WITHIN fields and other fields upon fields upon fields.

Why should I deduce anything about ether and the field. The field you talk about is what for you? The only field I recognize is the field produced by ether onto any energized object. But that field is totally useless for our purposes. All fields are totally useless because they are only the after effect of a genuine energisation.

The Aether/Ether is  NO-where (in space),     Where, or GREEK TOPOS or "Khora" the "where" is as pertains TO space, AS posterior to any and all fields.

"look at the wide open spaces!!"  (said the goof standing IN A FIELD (Khora) ...)

Youre talking about the baby before the mother (fields).     There is no space without a field,   Space is POSTERIOR to any and all fields,   either in simplex, OR compounded.

There is no "Ether in space",   Space is POSTERIOR to ANY and ALL fields.    Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko proves this (however he doesnt grasp the implications) in his books.

Why do you keep saying Space is posterior to any and all fields, when space is unconditional, is certainly not posterior to anything since everything needs space and otherwise how can ether be everywhere without having the space to be everywhere? The fields you are talking are furts in a windstorm compared to space and ether. They should not even be equated with the ether since ether is the prime.

The field you infer over the magnet is turning in a spin that is spinning air bubbles. Air bubble is not a field but a physical limitation that cannot be used as a sure fire method to establish what you are purporting, since without the upward momentum of bubble buoyancy, the experiment would not be possible and if you are purporting a vortex on top of the magnet you are right, but the energy is now coming from the bubble rise itself which is often in a spiral. Saturate a water volume with micro bubbles so these stay fixed in their buoyancy to stay put, remove all other objects then put your magnet inside at 1" or 2" above the base with one pole up and see if the bubbles start vortexing ON THEIR OWN.

For me, what does a magnet do? It sticks well to other magnets and metals and copper loves it for the electro therapy. hehehe You are giving this magnet super skills when all it wants to be is a simple magnet. This may blow your mind but for me, every magnet is a mini-planet with its own gravity. Put ferrofluid on it and the metal ions will arrange themselves in cones because of the fluid viscosity gives it a high liquid surface tension that can hold over small metal ion mounds to produce the points of the cones. The points of the cones you see are probably 90% fluid with only ultra small metal ions. It has nothing to do with field input/output over/under or beside. It's a planet but its not Planet Earth with a huge furnace roaring up our ass. It's a magnetic planet and not a real planet but it has its own gravity.

You see my friend, only too described forces cause attraction. Our present notions that we have endowed to magnets and gravity. But what if the magnet was also gravity in action. That would clarify so many misconceptions, even your own.

Put it this way. Let's say you had a one cubic yard of Solid Hardwood and a one cubic yard Neo Magnet and a one cubic yard of AAA Beef, all three well encased in a non conductive but very strong protective layer, flown out to space and shot out into space at let's say 1/50th the speed of light. In 10 years, which of the three will survive but more importantly grow in mass? That big fat neo will have how much  more magnetic appeal to swing around planets and attract other matter, more then the others? hahaha. You see your big fat 6" neo you purchased is actually a small polarized planet. You can add small metal shaped houses and anything you want and when you move the magnet, all of those objects will move with it, right side up, upside down all those objects will be like they are on their own planet. Only when you break their bond will they leave the planet otherwise they will be stuck on that planet forever. Hmmmmmmm. Sound familiar? As soon as you can do what a magnet does, you become a micro-planet. Like any planet, its maximum gravity pull really starts close to its surface. The value of the field outside that close quarters is peanuts compared to the real coupling potential close up.   
The magnet does not need to produce anything more then gravity and gravity should not be producing flying fields like you say and gravity will explain ever single effect we have ever seen done with a magnet plus it will explain why thus far we have not reached OU with our magnets.

The screen shots of magnetic fields is showing what? The patterns we see on the screen are not from the magnet. What is a screen? How does it work? What you are showing is the screens' inability to cope in maintaining its actual image when a strong magnetic force is placed smack dab next to the pixels, because the screen would require gyroscopic pixels to compensate for the warpage instead of regular pixels as we know them. The pixelated screen is just reacting from every angle of each pixel to produce the patterns. SO WHAT? Does not mean anything about the magnet itself is just a mass of gravity. It's the screen that can't handle it so it squeezes in them patterns. Again, big deal. Forget those screens man. Don't take them too seriously and I surely would not build a  theory of everything around them. hehehe

If you made a cubic screen and put a cubic magnet inside, all you would get is black. Other then that what you see on the screen is not what is emitted by the magnet in the patterns you state. How the hell do you expect an object like a magnet that was produced via grand randomness to then produce patterns that are totally symetrical, balanced, etc. The symmetry comes from the screen man and not from the magnet. The magnet only does one thing, attracts metalic or charged substances. That's it, that's all. So you have to be careful man, when you start one theory, then another, then another all based on what? Screens & bubbles. Wow, you will have to do much better then that. I think thus far, I am giving you more then you are giving me. I am sure those who read this will know what I am talking about. I have to say this magnet/gravity was just realized last night so this is fresh off the brainworks and I have you to thank for it because this one part of....... call it "Magnetry" was simmering in the back burner for months now.  This was the missing link to explain Spin Conveyance (look it up and you will find nothing - why?).

You said it yourself. Magnet comes from magic and your theory is imparting even more magic. You have managed to over complicate the magnet when the main reason for a theory is to remove the complications otherwise construed as reality. 

Ultimately, we will realize that magnetism does not exist and this will again simplify our view of the universe.

@TA, what I am getting from your writings is a patchwork of ideas with endless repetition, no cohesion, and lots more repetition but no real talking. Come down off your grand dissertations and talk normal for a week, then go back to your way if you want. Your book could be downloaded and read, but the main question is who will understand them? Look in the mirror cause you are the only one who does. No one here can even entertain 1/10 of all the crap you put out, but no, we are the problem. Quit sucking on your silver spoon and start a normal discourse, don't use any of your regular lines or words, find new ones, otherwise I see this type of logic will go nowhere. It is chock full of contradictions and will not hold against so many types of valid objections. 

I'll stop here for now.

@tinman

Please do not take my suggestions as any form of critique of your experiments. When a theory is based on an effect, without acknowledging all the other mitigating factors, it does not do the theory or anyone justice. Call it selective rationalization.

wattsup

[tinman]

@ wattsup Quote: Please do not take my suggestions as any form of critique of your experiments. When a theory is based on an effect, without acknowledging all the other mitigating factors, it does not do the theory or anyone justice. Call it selective rationalization.

Well you know me,i make statements regarding results from my own test. I also post those test by way of video,so as everyone else can see what im seeing. In saying this,it will be hard to show the vortex spin within a PM-if it is there. I know what all the books say,but there are also books that say there is a vortex spin with PM's. So the only way to know for sure,is to look for this spin,and find a good way to show it.

Im also having fun along the way lol.