The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

[pauldude000]

@poynt99

If you dont wish to see, why ask....

The simple truth for the necessity of such an experiment is simply to remove excuse. I could show you scope shots all day long, and would hear nothing but "but it really isn't it is.....". Quite literally a thousand excuses for anything which can be demonstrated.

Why?

The person whom witnesses has already made up their mind that they are right. At this point they will decide that anyone else speaking against their ideas HAS TO BE wrong.

A person can con themself into believing almost anything when they believe themselves automatically correct. That is how someone can read a Tesla patent, then assume they understand him, when they deny exactly what he states clearly in the same patent, thinking they have a "deeper understanding" than their own idol. That is how a hard core scientist can relegate conflicting data into phrases such as "margin of error". That is how some dude in a trailer park sees a light in the sky, and firmly swears he has been contacted by Venusions. It is the same modis operandi (mode of operation) in all cases.

The simple fact is this, I do not feel like arguing over this. If you have already decided that they don't exist, then fine. Be honest and state it outright. If you think you know what they are, then fine, tell us all. Just be honest, is all I ask. I hate worthless superiority games.

I am being honest with you and everyone else, calling it quite literally as I understand it. If my perception changes then so does what I speak to match. However, I am not in the business of "proving" anything to you or anyone else. I try to communicate my understanding as clear as possible, that is all I can do. If someone doesn't wish to believe me, then fine.

I do not have anything to "prove", nor any desire to necessarily "prove" anything. I enjoy being able to share what I have learned. Believe it or not, a valid observation by you will cause me to check my own observations and understandings, as I also enjoy learning.

Time always is the great equalizer, and I don't always claim to be right on anything, let alone everything. Many may assume this, but that is their own personal problem.

The question is this, do you wish to see "kicks" or not? Just be honest with me. If you cannot grant me this, then it becomes evident that you have no wish to learn anything I may have to share with you, which means that communication between us is then just a complete waste of time and effort. I will simply stop communicating with such.

Paul Andrulis

[poynt99]

@poynt99

If you dont wish to see, why ask....

[snip]

The question is this, do you wish to see "kicks" or not? Just be honest with me. If you cannot grant me this, then it becomes evident that you have no wish to learn anything I may have to share with you, which means that communication between us is then just a complete waste of time and effort. I will simply stop communicating with such.

Paul Andrulis

relax Paul. i am questioning your logic to perform some fancy experiment. i'm not saying now nor did i imply before that i do not wish to see your kick scope shots, i most certainly do.

if you feel it necessary to perform a fancy experiment to show the kick then i won't argue about it. i'm just saying i'd rather see what you were seeing when you exclaimed "aha, i've got kicks!"

i'm trying to learn also, and maybe my experiment was faulty.

i also think you and buzz-ard might want to be a little less nonchalant about saying the kicks are everywhere. if they were, there would be 100's of videos showing them by now, and you wouldn't have to devise any special field-canceling setup in order to show them.

show me what you saw and i won't argue, i'll just take it for what it is, i promise

[pauldude000]

@poynt99

I can understand that. I will post the results.

It is just that ---> I <--- ( me, myself, this dude ) was making those very excuses. It took such an experiment to even convince me, and if it took that much for me, then why less for anyone else?

Many undoubtedly have much more learning and experience than I, therefore even more difficult experiments might be necessary for such. The original experiment which showed me something common being what was referenced as "kicks", was this very coil setup, which I built to experiment with someone else's concept on a different subject. What happens when a term used in the 50's and earlier (kicks) is given another term in use today? You will "see" the understanding as you have learned, and still look for that which is already in front of you, and always has been, which you already "know".

A square wave is technically worthless unless it can be smoothed first, otherwise you gain a distorted signal. However, what is truly causing the distortion to begin with. Add a semi-archaic technical reference to a "kick", and guess what, something common becomes something complicated and special....... 

Of what surprise whatsoever to anyone is there that a magnetic field can affect electrons? (The actual question is was the source correct about the influence being the earths magnetic field.)

Now, concerning people quoting or misquoting SM or Tesla either one....

( I had fallen into that trap by reading the "understanding" of SM here, before reading SM's own quotes. Nothing "mystical" there, but I find it amazing how many quote part, and ignore what they do not like. Do not get me wrong, nothing is "complete" there either. )

Paul Andrulis

[poynt99]

IMHO, I do not believe it is a direct magnetic effect either, as kick and inrush occur in circuits in space systems (don't ask). SM's quote from the EE book about kicks was composed before the 70s, and tying the effect to the earth's magnetic field was a convenient explanation at the time. The kick only occurs in a cold circuit, as a warm circuit implies that there is already a pathway established. A warm circuit when pulsed exhibits a surge but no kick. In a cold circuit, there is an induced magnetic component as the fields around the conductor are established and atoms are entrained, just before flow can be measured - this from quantum physics. Also from quantum physics, a small number of 'looser' electrons will entrain more easily than average and start things moving before the coming inrush - this is SM's "kick" and Loner's "wavefront", and can be interpreted as 'free energy' because there was no traditional work done to cause the movement of these electrons. In a broader statement, the kick we see is the establishment of a voltage environment that joules can be transmitted through.

the EE book quote you are referring to, is that the tube amp book or something else? in the tube amp book i am sure they are referring to a physical kick rather than any type of electrical one.

atoms and electrons are entrained by the magnetic field? is this grumpy's "alignment", and Bearden's "relaxation time"?

[buzz-ard]

@poynt - The EE book I mentioned is the very one SM cited regarding the kick, and the keyword I recall was "valves", so yes, that would have been the tube amplifier tome. Someone here on the forum found the book and posted a scan of the relevant page a couple of months ago. The way I read it, that page was not talking about a kinetic manifestation, but instead about the electrical phenomenon the author termed "kick". Unless I read it wrong, which is always a possibility.

As to Grumpy's "alignment" and Bearden's "relaxation time", I can't say positively that they are referring to the same thing I am - it would seem so from the terms chosen. The broader concepts are both valid, but I haven't examined either of their statements that closely.

@duff - It's been many years since I was in a classroom, so I've had to really scrape the edges of my memory to recall much about reflection and I haven't had sufficient time yet to research it properly again. But the more I think about it the more I'm convinced we're not seeing reflection, as the kick appears on the leading edge of the pulse event. If memory serves, reflection happens after an event and may superimpose itself in such a way as to appear to be part of a pulse train. But we aren't necessarily talking about pulse trains here - a single pulse will show a kick. For it to be otherwise, we'd be looking at Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and I don't think we're working in that realm.