Spinor resonance -- explanation for TPU like devices

[MarkSnoswell]

This is in response to a PM which reflects the feeling of a lot of people ? Is this all a fake and a waste of time?


Is there something really out there to be discovered ? yes. No question. We really don?t know everything yet!


A side note before I continue  --------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this area is full of people who desperately want to believe. Most of the time they are honest but delude themselves into believing far more than they should. A few become dishonest ? and they get noticed the most.

Unbounded optimism and belief are fine ? in fact they are great motivators!  However, in equal measure, they require honesty and respect, for others and yourself. You must be aware not to create unreasonably false hopes. Regrettably the whole history of ?Free energy? is littered with people who allowed their desires and passion to delude themselves and then others into false belief. Most of the time this leads to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal as time goes on and magical results do not happen. For some the temptation is too great and they slip into knowingly deceiving themselves and others into something that is not true. They then get cast in the same light as the rare con artist that deliberately preys on others.

Don?t think scientists are beyond this behavior ? even in peer reviewed journals overzealous enthusiasm leads to distortion, and sometimes outright fraud. A case in point is the charge of an electron. This was first determined in the famous Robert Millikan and Harvey Fletcher's oil-drop experiment in 1909. The exact electron charge has been refined ever since then with better and better experiments. If you plotted the published results you would expect to see a random distribution of figures that get closer to the true value with time? you don?t. What you see is the published values start with Millikan and Fletchers published figure and gradually get closer to the true value. What was happening was that scientists rejected values too far away from previously published results and biased their own data ? a very unscientific, by very human thing to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is my opinion that the evidence for various new energy technologies is overwhelming. If you are in doubt just take some time to read the technical papers on Randal Mills Blacklight Power www.blachlightpower.com Many of Randal?s papers are published in peer review journals. Although his theories may be hotly debated I believe his core finding is well proven -- that you can drop the electron in a hydrogen atom to below the previously accepted ?zero? level. Dropping the electron to this new ?below zero? level releases lots of energy ? orders of magnitude more than chemical reactions by orders of magnitude lower than atomic fusion. This result alone ads credibility (but doesn?t make them all true) to all of the water based energy technologies.

Things I have seen that add credibility to TPU class of device?

I visited a group in Mexico last year. They have some very advanced technology which is a result of over 20 years research and a lot of funding  ? I saw demonstrations that were very impressive. They have got to the stage of miniaturizing their devices such that 400w power can be delivered from a 3mm cube device ? small enough to mount in a 8 pin dip package.  I can?t tell you if it was real or fake as I didn?t get the opportunity to test it myself. It appears to have all of the characteristics, artifacts, failure modes and inspirations as SM TPU. They are not the same but they appear to share many common characteristics.

Marcus Hollingshead appeared to have something also ? I also noticed a lot of consistency in everything Marcus reported.

And then there is all of the hydrogen work ? Stanley Meyers and Bob Boyce are amongst prominent ones here. Again I am impressed by not just their reported results but by lots of little things that suggest they have the right ingredients for novel effects to exhibit themselves.

I chose to mention the above devices because I think they all have a common mechanism at work. Put it all together and there is something worth investigating? and I think I have a conceptual framework that shows simply why all of the technologies may work. However a conceptual framework is a long way from engineering   -- eg. E=mc^2 is a brilliant concept but doesn?t tell you how to engineer atomic energy devices!

Initially I dismissed SM TPU as a fake or at least a distortion of fact. However the hints from various people make me think there is something real here ? pulse signals at three different periods, 3 drive coils, DC bias, the 1x and 2x components (plus others)? all of these things make sense. I think I know why they would be *required* in a device that taps spin energy of electrons. What I don?t know is how much truth or fabrication there is to any of the reports of success from anyone at present?. With all due respect there isn?t any really rigorously credible evidence from anyone.

As I said previously ? I was also seduced several times into attempts to copy reported devices ? and failed. I am not interested in this. The way forward is to come up with reasonable theories that are testable and could explain the devices? and then to methodically explore them. At the very least this will result in new understanding and discoveries ? the hope is that it will lead also to breakthrough new technologies.

Cheers

Mark Snoswell.

[MarkSnoswell]

@tao and @z_p_e
I agree with the sentiment and direction of this stuff but not the explanation. As stated it conflicts, or at least overlooks, a number of well established principals. I believe I have a better explanation which is what I will be covering in my next "lecutre" on collective electrodynamics.

@tao
SM "circuit potential" -- yeas, DC bias I think.

@motorcoach1
I cant help with requests like this -- no time. Please go to my web site www.cgsociety.com -- thats where all the worlds aspiring and professional 3D artstis hang out. It's free to join and you can look for people to help you there.

@earl
You read my mind and saved me a post with the most of that
I agree with everything with one exception -- I think the output power will apear in the AC component predominantly -- there may be a DC drift, and I would love to find that it's possible to drive significant power as DC current, but I expect that the power will be in the AC component in most designs.
Oh -- and I believe the static CD Bias will only have an effect on the collector. It is not applied to the drive (control) coils.

@BEP
Good to see you here -- did you see the latest PM from me?
Yes -- you are right electrostatic and megnetostatic potentials are the correct terms -- and theoretically both can be equally effective. It's just a matter of which one is practical to apply in a particular device. my upconmming 'lecture' on collective electrodynamics will hilight that both are effective.

@Bob Boyce
You get your own whole reply as soon as I have written it up
PS -- did you get the PM I sent you?

[Super God]

How would you apply a DC bias to JUST the collector?  Isn't it wound around the entire toroid?  I think I'm misunderstanding something...

[BEP]

@Motorcoach1

Email what you have with as much detail as possible including what kind of fab is required. I'll make it up in Acad so a shop can make use of it with CNC or whatever.
Hand sketches, notes, dimensions - whatever.

PM me if you don't see my email.

[MarkSnoswell]

It was great to see you mention the open ended primaries. ...
You are 100% correct in that the higher the DC bias potential, the greater the energy gain possible.

Have you tried spinor resonance modeling with the use of x, 2x, 4x phase controlled drive frequencies. I am curious about what it would predict?

It's excellent to see theory and experiment agree Have you plotted energy efficiency vs DC bias?

On the 1x, 2x 4x components in spinors. This is not easy -- i just spent a fruitless hour looking for an easy solution to animate -- I failed. The formulation for the basic dual spinor (dual meaning in and out wave) is rich in second and fourth order harmonics but it's construction is as a spherical quaternion rotation... while I can marvel at the similarities and render the pure spinor the exact connection of math?s to engineering is not clear to me. It's one of those cases where experimentation is going to lead theory for now. At best I could do some analysis and suggest ratios of amplitudes for the harmonics which might increace efficency -- but when your hitting everything with big sharp pulses fine tuning of relative drive amplitudes may be too sublte to measure an effect from. However it is worth noting that I think that there is merit in testing different amplitudes for the different harmonic components.

Another huge complication is that charge is a spinor it's self -- so to really understand things we need to ask what does a coherent spinor wave front (voltage pulse wave front) look like? ... and what will happen if we superimpose several of these with different periods? ...

However (if that's not difficult enough) that?s still not the *real* question. If you think about just the superposition of wave fronts you are missing the point -- the wave fronts could have come from any period pulse train, but we know that interesting things only happen when the pulse trains are in a particular harmonic ratio. This fact alone tells us that we need to look at the collective behavior over a full wavelength ? which leads us to the realization that we are not going to see anything interesting at all unless the electrons (or at least a good percentage of them) over a full wavelength act collectively? which leads directly into what I wanted to say about collective electrodynamics ? next post.

Cheers

Mark.