The Brnbrade Coil/Overunity?

[EMdevices]

...The truth is that all the magnetic theories of today are wrong, and it is because of the mathematics they use to describe electrons. This maths does not allow them a complete picture.....

So we use wrong theories to design CRT deflection coils and magicaly they work.Ã, 
and we use wrongÃ,  theories and design electric motors and magicaly they work.

wow, we've been pretty lucky so far with our WRONG theories, one of these days the magic is going to wear off and poof, everything will come crashing to a stand still  LOL.

EM

[EMdevices]

In the Preface to Daniels book,Ã,  we read:

The object, which
has been kept in view, is in all cases simply to state
the facts which have been observed, and to generalize
them only so far as the progress of discovery
has fully authorized.

I wish we would all practice this philosophy in our sharing of experiments, instead of rambling on about our theoriesÃ,  LOL

Also, a bit of history to put the Daniels book into perspective.

http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/oersted.htm

Oersteds discovery in 1820, that a magnetic compas needle is affected by an electric current flowing in a wire, united the two separate phenomena.Ã,  MAGNETISM, AND ELECTRICITY.Ã,   Now we know they are related and call the science Electro-Magnetism.Ã,  

In Daniels book (1842) it appears he's yet not aware of induction as a way of generating electricity.Ã,  From the table of contents we have the 4 ways of generating electricityÃ, 
1)Ã,  FrictionÃ,   (Van de Graff generators have been around for a hundred years prior and they use this form)
2)Ã,  GalvanicÃ,  (battery, and this has been around for a while)
3)Ã,  ThermoÃ, 
4)Ã,  AnimalÃ,  (say what?Ã,   LOL)

Anyway,Ã,  I'll try to read through the book see what he has to say.Ã,  It's interesting to read early writings.

Thanks for the link guys.

EM

[wattsup]

@BEP

Glad to see you agree.

@EM
You are very right about the book.
And the "animal"  will definitely need some explaining.

@scotty1

Thanks for the reference but maybe when referring to this book, is it possible to quote a page number. That book scrolls real slow.

It's good to have someone from leedskalnin.com on this thread.

Actually, it's from leedskalnin that I started to get into trouble about my positive and negative. Still haven't explained it.

Also, on Erfinder thread, I asked about the positive and negative. Also got in trouble there for trying my transformer version of his circuit.

And granted we've been wasting the negative by just grounding everything we have to it, like a garbage dump. I know this is one of the ECD's problems. I know this, but do not know enough about electronics to take advantage of this knowledge. Stuck in a NonEEer body, with an OU mind. I guess that's why Davis's book seems more close to home. Elementary. 1842. What an honor indeed.

If current only travels one way, how does a filament of a bulb know when to burn up molten hot, and still be able to give continuity to the other polarity. How can that continuity signal be maintained amongst a molten hot filament. Something had to come from the other side to tell the filament, here's were you burn. That has puzzled me. The advent of both polarities advancing toward the filament and heating it from both sides seems to be the most plausible answer.

I always give the lightning analogy on this. Where a lighting bolt never hits the ground. It descends until such time as a bold from the ground rises to meet it in mid-air. Both polarities advance towards each other. It would explain so many unexplainable phenomena.

Even Erfinder's circuit is better explained when you see it as both polarities advancing towards the commutator. I had looked at that circuit for days, as I know others have here.

But in todays world, such thinking can get you in deep shit with the EE authorities.

My own brother is a classic EEer and he thinks we're crazy. He's my favorite antagonist. If I need someone to call to verify OU, he's the one.

I will probably never be able to understand it enough.

But then there are the nuts and bolts. When a device is shown with x and y components and is shown to produce some results, then when you replicate it, and it does not, this cannot be explained merely by a lack of understanding.

[BEP]

@EM
Yes. Read it. Please do. You'll see the main difference between his explanations and ours is mainly terminology. Induction is there.

Animal ? Yes but like he said he only shows what he finds and describes it the best way he knows.

@Wattsup

Don't fret about not having the EE label. It is fine if you can suppress it until verification is needed. Having an EE in the family is probably a better scenario.

All I can say is I know enough to know I don't know it all and what has been taught to me must always be confirmed. The laws of physics are only observations. The observer sees it happen - does his math to prove it - does his proof to prove the math. It doesn't quite come out right but he knows it is because he observed it. So he hammers the math and the proof to match. And here we are.

Like Einstein said 'relative to the observer'.

Sure it works for all the things we design today.

[scotty1]

Erfinder....while we were chatting on msn messenger, you clearly stated that your presentation would only be making claims, and no working model will be presented...Is that still correct?
Oh, I see you finally let your name be revealed in that document.
I will be fascinated to see the minuites of that discussion....
---------------------------------
Now obviously I know that current motors ect work with the maths to make them work, but all that math is based on magnetic fields that are not composed of particles....now what if the field is made of particles?
I can explain electricity and magnetism without ever showing an electron.
The current model of magnetism says that there is no motion in a closed magnetic circuit...but the tests i do show that there is motion.
-------------------------------------------
What Ed was saying is that the North and South monopoles are the cosmic force and they are the final division of matter..not the electrons and other quantum particles.
EMdevices......Ed also clearly states that that the original J.J Thompson tests with the vacume tube were bias to the neg polarity, and so the beam was given the name electron....
Ed states that if you suspend a needle magnet in a vertical position over and in the center of that electron beam....and the cathode being on the west side and the anode on the east side, then the verticle hanging needle magnet will be deflected the same as it would if it were suspended over a current carrying copper wire...now that said...that same needle can also be deflected by a closed magnetic circuit...as Ed wrote and tested in his notes....
Oersteds tests are in Ed's notes too...I built the device to show how it works.
Lenz's law is in Ed's notes too...but he gives a much better description of how that works...and it must work because I use it to wind my coils in my motors...
Ed's theory is all about DYNAMIC MONOPOLES...and both North and South pole monopoles.
Ed said that if it were called Magneticity then he would accept it, because it shows a magnetic base.
The more people would replicate Ed's works according to his notes, the more understanding will come out.
I think that any serious researcher will find many answers in the model that Ed Leedkalnin describes.
Anyone who thinks I am rambling simply has not done the work. 
Scotty