Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The "source" of the electricity is not a capacitor or a battery either, they are merely storage containers, as is a "magnet". Actually, I doubt that a "storage container" is really accurate either from my own understanding, I suspect it is but a handy vehicle. However, the "source" would include breaking things down on the quantum level. The question is, is it really worth traveling into the world of pure speculation? 

You made this post on late - and you then talked about circular logic.  My quarrel with Heisenberg and Bohr - is that they justified the use of measurement - rather than delving into the understanding of the things measured.  I think Pauli went so far as to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to conceptually understand the properties of an atom.  I share your distaste here.  Our quantum theorists put paid to the promotion of concept.  And, as they did away with the need for aether almost at the same time - then they found themselves in the happy position of not needing to analyse the 'field'.  Which, when you think about it, was in itself a gross 'over simplification'.  All acknowledge that energy is sourced from gravity or electromagnetic or nuclear energy - but none of them studied those forces - just their effect on measurable matter.  That's only one half of the equation. 

And, if aether energies are, somehow, the same thing as 'dark energies' then - surely the time is long overdue to start studying those invisible forces.  I would have thought?



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

"Magnetism can exist in a vacuum", I think is what I stated.  I'll rephrase this to "A magnetic Field can exist in a vacuum".  This was, I had thought, an accepted belief that "Radio Waves", or EM Radiation (Electro-Magnetic) were something that existed.  If such things do exist, and can propagate through a vacuum, then they can exist without the requirement of standard matter, or "Mass" as I was describing matter.

Art.  Electromagnetic radiation is just that.  A combination of electricity and magnetism.  This, more or less, was the interaction that Maxwell used to describe a photon's path through the vacuum.  I know you know these things.  I'm not presuming to teach you.  I'm just trying to highlight a point.  But I get it here then - that mass is what's proposed to be missing in the vacuum.

I used the word
I was in no way attempting to describe the "Effects" of Magnetic fields on anything, as that is not within the realm of possibilities, if thinking critically and using "accepted" science.  (At this time and using "Classical" definitions...)  Many like to think they 'have a clue', but I have yet to see someone in the mainstream really put forth the "real" information.  (I am not saying I know anything, either!:)  One can only observe the effects, and make theory based of those observations.  Of course, if the theory bases magnetism in matter ("Mass" as described!), the the theory may hold true in matter, but cannot be accurate for the reality of magnetism.

I'm also not talking about their 'effects'.  I'm proposing that these fields may be material in their essence.  Mainly because if they are not material then their energy is manifest from 'nothing' - which rather defeats thermodynamic principles at the get go.  If you recall - I showed that the manifest voltage across a resistor as the result of current flow - shows that 'something' resulted from that flow - and it is only indirectly associated with the flow of current. Did it come out of nothing?  Is that even reasonable?  Does it simply imprint 'space' with a kind of 'shape' which then serves to collapse and generate another current flow?  Or does it halve itself so that one half goes 'up' and one goes 'on' - so to speak.  The one half extrudes as a magnetic field - the other half flows on as charge or whatever.  If this last proposal of mine is NOT seriously considered then - the simple fact is that current flow - be it electrons or charge or whatever - is able to produce something from nothing.  And whether you give it mass - or wether you see it as a ghost shape that somehow imprints itself on space - it is still something from nothing. 

So.  The fact that magnetism can exist in matter - in no way refutes that magnetism itself may comprise matter - in a really subtle and elusive sense.

So, all I AM saying is that, if a magnetic field can exist, in a location where there is no matter (Use "mass" as above, for clarity...), then the matter obviously cannot be "required" for the field's existence.  That is just standard logic.

Here it seems as if we're arguing the same point.  But I'm not sure.  If magnetism does not require matter - then by the same token does an electron require matter or does the existence of any particle depend on the existence of other particles to manifest and stay manifest?  I doubt it.  No matter essentially requires other matter.  It's just with the proximity to both other matter and other fields - one can generate a certain predictable movement in those particles.  And I would propose that the same is true about magnetic fields.  The difference is that the 'field' moves as a whole, where the particles can be isolated from each other. 

If one actually carries this simple piece of data into the field of "Electrical" data (Which, by the way, requires acceptance of "Classical" electron theory, or you really shouldn't use the word Electrical because the word electron is part of that word, but I digress...)

Art?  That's not fair.  The term 'electric' was used on the assumption that the electron is the particle.  And the term electric was actually based on Electra - a Greek Goddess - I think.  (Just looked it up and it gives endless reference to Carmen Electra - not the same thing.)

(As an important "Critical Thinking" note:  A Magnetic field IS NOT produced by "Moving Electrons", as I hope is obvious, IF you can accept any of the above.  There is more/other things going on...   If you DO move "Electrons", or conduct "Classical" current, you WILL find a Magnetic field.  The first is observed fact.  The second is a "Classical" defined action.  Does that help, or make it worse?   And this is just barely touching the subject of one sentence...)

I wholly agree with this statement.  But that means that the magnetic field is somehow 'exposed' by that current flow - at best.  So.  Here's what I'm hoping can be discussed.  Can it be that a magnetic field comprises particles?  Just that?  If this simple point were ever acceded - then we could all move on.  It's really, really important.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, Paul, Loner - all.  I know I'm picking holes in some points that are self-evident to you all.  But it's not self-evident to me.  I have NEVER been able to find a justifiable reason for current flow to generate a magnetic field unless that field was substantive - or particulate.  Even if it's conceptually understood as a kind of ghost shadow then it must, in itself, have properties of energy.  Else how could it transfer that measurable potential difference as current when those fields or that 'shadow' collapses.  That's a measurably energetic interaction - those collapsing fields.  I know this well.  We use it extensively in our research. 

So.  I just don't know how mainstream view this.  It seems that a magnetic field is the CONSEQUENCE of an electric field and this is widely understood.  But based on WHAT?  In my simplistic understanding of the thing - I see that magnetic fields must be disturbed inside the material of the circuit - to extrude anywhere at all.  And having been extruded, then they've simply been 'rehoused' so to speak - in an extruded plane - where previously they were 'inside there' - somewhere?  And since the extrusion of the fields make not an iota of difference to the material structure of the atoms inside that wire - then they were NOT inside the atoms. 

We all know about the casimir effect.  But for readers who may not be that familiar - it's the experimental evidence of atoms 'bonding' on a very small scale - without any material difference to their atomic structure.  This effect was first predicted and then proven.  And I wonder if the casimir effect is dependent on magnetic fields.  We know that magnets 'stick' and - if one imposes a one dimensional orbiting field of magnetic type particles to the exterior of atoms they would be able to orbit - either in the figure 8 or as a complete circle - and thereby neutralise the valence condition of any atom to enable a bonding.  It's speculative but has the very real merit of locating what may be the source of all that magnetism that's measured across a coil - or wire - or resistors - or inductive resistors - whatever.

And as a reminder to you both.  A magnetic field extruded or otherwise - makes no material difference to the atoms - not even when the material gets hot.  The only difference is to the bound condition of that material which may then weaken or degrade over time.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Mk1]

@all

All energies were dark at some point , lucky for us we found those we could touch and see .

What is energy ? Most of the time we don't see it ! why ?

A bucket of water can't show its energy , if no one kicks it .

Like a magnets need to be moved , to create energy in a coil .

A core need to be kicked to output anything , the concept is there .

I worked on making some JT circuit and tried to make it into a step down transformer , it never worked i always got more then the input voltage .

I bet you need to take specific measures to build step down transformer like a really bad core .

But the answer is more in the fixed 60 h freq , hiding the forest .

Loud music doesn't break glass , but a specific freq will break any particular glass , because of the resonance freq (the speed the glass vibrates naturally at ) .

Now if the same freq is played in load speakers the glass will react in synchronicity with the sound even at real low levels , higher levels breaks the glass .Any other freq will leave the glass intact even at greater input or any for that mater.

This approach yield , greater response at a lower input , a suspect that if you are careless about freq , you will have about what you put in ( text book ).

There is gravity in every thing it is a force , its in everything , that is water the electricity and magnetic current are like rock dropped in the water releasing some of the water out of the bucket , but you only see what has been released and is equal to the mass of the rock .

I hope most will see that saying there is a better way to do things , it is logical too , what you guys have against logic , a see Bayer's .

Mark

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Mark.  Who's arguing?  And where are we being illogical?  I actually don't know that resonance is the only proof of 'more out than in' but it's a good example.  And I think we all concur that energy is in mass.  What we're trying to do here is find the constituent properties of that energy.

I am very impressed by your coils, by the way.  Very artistic.  But our essential 'drive' here is to see if we can get to a better understanding of the properties of the 'field' - or that's my interest, in any event.  You see, you guys, with respect, are exploring this potential 'dark' energy source - on a purely empirical level.  I think there's more than enough justification to try and establish some conceptual understanding of this.  Even if it's to enable some better control of it - and certainly to enhance it's predictive values which is essential if we're to put it to good use.  But let's first establish that it's both theoretically and logically required.  God knows.  We'd do well to get logic back into theory.

Regards,
Rosemary