WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?

[Localjoe]

Is it possible to magnetize palladium?
                               Joe

[hansvonlieven]

@ Joe,

NO, all precious metals are diamagnetic.

Hans von Lieven

[nightlife]

hansvonlieven, have you played with the "string theory"?  If so, what are your thoughts about it?

Someone mentioned it to me the other day and I read up on it a bit and it makes me believe it comes from Keely's theory's and or experiments. They say it is based on Einstein?s theory's but I am finding that Einstein may have stole a lot of his theory's and inventions from others. Maybe not word for word or part for part but the ideas in general.

I have found this with several other so called inventors. It really upsets me to hear of them saying me, me and not mentioning others that helped and or came up with the idea's.

Every theory and design I have thought of comes from others peoples ideas that I just either tweaked or duplicated to what I think will work. If I should ever build one, it would be dedicated to all those who inspired me giving all credit where credit is due. There are a few from this forum as well as the forum its self that is due credit in any thing I build.

I think we are on the right track with the frequency theory if we only could find out what those natural frequencies are so we can find a way to order them for us to utilize. Do you know if Hutchinson is still around? 

[hansvonlieven]

Yes nightlife,

I am somewhat familiar with it. The problem with string theory, as far as I can judge, is that there are no observable phenomena that substantiate the validity of it. That in my view makes it more a philosophy than a theory. For all intense and purpose it is as useless as the chaos theory.

A lot of hot air leading nowhere.

That is why I concentrate on experimentation and short distance projections and hypotheses rather than trying to construct an overall picture of life, the universe and everything.

As to the research into complex frequencies and their properties, that is the one I am trying to track down.

Hans von Lieven

[allcanadian]

You may find this interesting, there is no such thing as magnetism just like tesla said, Its all electric baby yea!

Maxwell?s formulation, however, eliminated consideration of the angular component of the force between current elements. It also removed the most fundamental of Amp?re?s assumptions?the unity of electricity and magnetism?by introducing the concept of a magnetic field. There is no magnetic field in any of the writings of Amp?re, nor of his successors in electrodynamics, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann. Magnetism, for them, is considered an epiphenomenon of electricity; it is the force of electrodynamic attraction or repulsion acting between circuits of electricity, called magnetic molecules (and which came to be known later as electrons).

@http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

or maybe this?

The discovery of the phenomena of electrical and magnetic induction had introduced a new element into the considerations of electrical law, not taken up in Amp?re's 1826 work. There thus existed, side by side, three seemingly valid descriptions of the electrical interaction: (1) the Coulomb-Poisson law, describing the interaction of two electrical masses at rest; (2) the Amp?re law, describing the interaction of elements of moving electricity, and: (3) a description of the laws of induction, elaborated by Emil Lenz and Franz Neumann. In his Fundamental Electrical Law, stated in 1846, Weber achieved the unification of these various phenomena under a single conception.

Instead of the mathematical entities, described as current elements by Amp?re, Weber hypothesized the existence within the conductor of positive and negative electrical particles. He assumed that the presence of an electrical tension caused these particles to move at equal velocities in opposite directions. If one regards an Amp?re current element as containing, at any given instant, a positive and a negative electrical particle, passing each other, then in the pairwise relationship of two current elements, there are four interactions to be considered. By the Coulomb law, these interactions, consisting of two repulsions and two attractions, cancel each other. However, the elementary experiments of Amp?re had shown that a motion is produced between the wires, implying the existence of a force not described by the Coulomb law. For example, two parallel conducting wires attract each other when the current in the two wires flows in the same direction, and repel each other when the opposite is the case. The situation is perfectly well explained under the Amp?re force law, when one takes into account the angular relationship of the respective current elements. However, Weber's unifying approach was to assume that the relative velocities of the electrical particles produced a modification in the Coulomb electrostatic force, to produce the resultant force between the wires. Considering all the configurations which Amp?re had examined, as well as those arising from the phenomena of induction, he was able to formulate a general statement of the Fundamental Electrical Law. This showed that the general law describing the force of interaction of two electrical particles, depends upon the relative velocities and the relative accelerations of the particles. The Coulomb electrostatic law thus becomes a special case of Weber's general law, when the particles are at relative rest.

@http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/weber.html


So really magnetism doesn't exist it is electric, a PM is moving electric charges held in alignment in matter. The scientific community is covering up Maxwells screwup, and we all know you can't give a nobel prize to a screwup, that would be embarrasing.
As well Wilhelm Eduard Weber and homopolar generator are two words no physicist wants to hear.

I have seen the devil and looked into his eyes and his name was vanity.-AC