Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?

[wattsup]

@otto

I made a few drawings of wind directions so I will not make any divergence from your build and save time.

Please look at the two wind directions of collector and identify which direction A or B.

Also please look at the bifilar control wind directions and identify the direction on one half (B or C) and on the other half (again B or C) over the ferrite yoke.

Thanks in advance.

[Grumpy]

Grumpy, you reminded me of something that my help me a LOT.

I won't get into setails, but I still have the references stored away, just had completly forgotten
about the whole thing.  It's an old method, but there was a big push in the mid to late 70's where
it was detailed how to modulate a laser via the "Electron cloud" or "Space charge" in a vacuum
tube.  You passed the laser through that area and the different tube conductions and potentials
would modulate the beam.  What I had forgotten was that it's a linear function, not a "Particle"
function, which now, with the understanding I'm slowly getting, could mean that it's an aether
charge dielectric function more than an electron particle blocking function.  It had always been
a sore point with me that the laser had no angular displacement from impacting on the electrons.

If this is truly an aether function, in whatever form, that may be why the tables were made, the
functions derived, and the whole thing forgotten.  I haven't heard a reference to this in at least
25 years, but I've been out of that loop for a lond time too.

EIther way, just mentioning "Light" turned on the "Light Bulb" for me.  If it's the right bulb, I
have no idea, but at least I can start on somewhat familar ground.

Good idea, and with EM stating the basic current to field derivation has been done, then there
has to have been a field pattern and strength formula defined.  If all of that could be assembled
into a single concept, the the exact structure and strength of the field is findable.  Calc?

I've gotta look into this more, but I'll admit, I'm more of a hands-on type of guy, and would
rather assemble, wind, build and test for days then spend an hour with the calculator.  Just
typing here is enough.  I have to do too much Computer work for "Work" and the "Building"
part is the "FUN".  If I have to "Do the math", so be it, but I"ll be a long time before that
really happens.  There are lots of "Keyboard Builders" here.  Sorry to say, I'm the oppisite
side of that coin, I want to play with a build first, and type or do math later.  (Or Never!  )

Having said that, please, everyone, don't think I ignore or file away and forget the information
you guys put here.  It all goes in and stays there, just not in a way that I'm comfortable even
talking about.  Makes me sound crazier than I already do, and my rep. here is bad enough.

Art.

You and EM just gave me an idea...Maxwell has equation for Roentgen current...and have to talk to a friend about what he saw around his Tesla magnifier.

[otto]

Hello all,

@wattsup

If B is showing a CW winding direction then OK.
If D is showing a CW winding direction then OK.

The most important is that the "start point" of the turns must be at the point where the 2 halfs of the cores are "connected" together. This is the most important point for winding such a TPU.

Just take a lamp wire, make a few turns INSIDE the cores and then take 2 copper wires and start to wind a few turns. Everything wound in CW or CCW. Not mixed CW + CCW. I tried this but it seems it was not so good.
Hmmm... what means not so good?? Everything you make in such an iron core is good! What a statement!
For sure I know that loooooong coils are not good.

@All

As I hope I learned how to build a 4" TPU and use such a TPU to light a bulb, Im going  to build finally a 3 stack 6" TPU with an iron core.

In the last 3 weeks? or so I made a lot of this little TPUs, a lot of coils, a lot of various connections, tests......heeeey, I have 5 iron powder cores. Not a problem to build many various TPUs.

Otto

[pauldude000]

@All, & Especially Loner and Grumpy

I will post this anyway, though many may look cross-eyed in the future for such notions.

Since we are speculating, lets speculate.

I actually think that neither the space-time model, nor the aether model "cuts the mustard". (is adequate)

I am actually starting to think of a model where there is an energy field which permeates all things, in the manner of the conception of the aether, but not "matter" or "a gas". This field would be completely non-detectable AS energy, as it would be ambient or "ground state" energy. Consider a battery as a source of energy. To detect any "energy" being present, it must be measured as a difference in energy levels across the poles of the battery. When a battery is "dead", there is still the same amount of energy in the battery, in that the number of electrons present which we consider the energy is the approximately the same as full charge, merely equal on both sides or at equilibrium. Therefore no energy can "flow", or be utilized.

Now, for any form of energy to transfer location in space, there has to be an energy imbalance, just like exists in a hypothetically "charged" battery. Thinking of the model as being a balanced energy field actually simplifies matters, since such things as "action at a distance" become local field effects of the overall field. A field that is present everywhere then explains motional effects, since even a stationary field would appear motional if all effects in the field are in motion relative to the field itself.

This would also account for all "missing mass", as mass itself would be merely a demonstration of movement relative to the omnipresent field. Matter would therefore be another aspect of the field. So would all forms of energy be modifications, or effects of the field.

It actually simplifies everything quite well.

Just a speculation, which probably has no basis in reality.

Paul Andrulis

[Grumpy]

@ Paul,

Yep, something like that...

Your now on the right track.