Overunity.com Archives

G?day all,

I need your help.


For many years there has always been something in the back of my mind nagging me about Keely?s system. Only now did I come to grips with what it was.

As you perhaps know in Keely?s later machines the liberator and the motor communicate with each other via two independent circuits. One is the direct connection by wire or tube, the other one, what Keely calls the diatonic scale rings that are seemingly identical and are fitted to both devices.

This is  a photograph of the motor and liberator

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Fkeelyfeedback.jpg&hash=df1c9e133789bbea226e5351f27d7e585e4a2bc5)

The liberator is the small device in the left foreground. Here is a picture of the liberator on its own

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Fdiatonicliberator.jpg&hash=d21d21f69923ea5fc89b8cf2b6e0d1ae118b3607)

Note the diatonic scale ring on the bottom.

I have also a photograph of the diatonic scale ring in my  collection. The device in the photo has obviously been damaged. Some of the resonators are bent, others appear to be broken.

In an attempt to analyse the scale I took the distortion out of the picture with the comparatively crude software at my disposal and suddenly it became clear to me what had been bothering me for so long.

In spite of its name it is not a diatonic scale at all along the lines that Keely constructed all other scales (thirds) but appears to be a logarithmic spiral.

Seemingly all notes of the scale are represented, in contradiction to most of what he is saying elsewhere about discords.

I need someone with better software and more expertise in these matters than me to take the distortions out of the picture which will hopefully enable me to make relative measurements and come up with the algorithm that Keely used in its construction.

Here is  the original photo and the reworked one so you can see what I mean.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fdia1.bmp&hash=764c10caa25dde1fb081bde8844a88b8dc15097a)

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fdia2.bmp&hash=c46c6fc544cb8cbf3e2056134aa9b0532c90f3ae)

It has long been my contention that Keely achieved the extremely high frequencies he was working with through some sort of acoustic regenerative feedback. For my thoughts on the matter see http://www.keelytech.com/regenerative.html

I believe the scale in question was Keely?s attempt to control the feedback and prevent runaway frequencies that, as you perhaps know, plague that sort of system.

Even with all the wizardry of modern electronics this is still a problem awaiting a satisfactory solution.

I believe that all of Keely?s difficulties in trying to control runaway speeds and reversions are due to his inability to come to grips with that particular problem.

A point worth mentioning here is that I consider the key to that ring of resonators an important step towards understanding Keely's scales.

Even on my crude attempt to take the distortion out there is a noteworthy aspect.

Assuming all resonators are made from the same piece of drawn wire, which appears to be the case and is logical, and taking the longest wire as the fundamental of the scale, something appears from the relationship between the resonators that could give us a vital clue to Keely's scale construction.

The longest resonator seems to be exactly six times as long as the shortest, which will give us sixths. The resonator an octave above the shortest is then set on thirds. About the ones in between I can only speculate at the moment.

We have now a unique graphic illustration of Keely's approach. Assuming then that the largest resonator is set to B-flat, as would seem logical, the unscrambling of the other notes would appear to be important.

I appreciate that Keely's B-flat is not determinable as we do not know which concert pitch he used. A=440 was not generally introduced until the 1950's and is still not in universal use. Keely is almost certain to have used something different.

Nevertheless here is a real chance to learn something, at least in my view.

So, if some of you are interested in helping me to solve this puzzle please offer your suggestions.

Hans von Lieven

G'day all,

Come on boys, lend a hand with this one. Surely on a forum such as this there is someone who knows something about the kind of computer programmes that can do a job of this sort. I know these programmes exist, I just don't know where to start looking for one, or for someone that can do the job.

Hans von Lieven

Thanks for your input Erfinder,

I am well aware of Keely's graduation. If you have a look at my website you will find my ideas on what Keely did to achieve the purity of resonance required for his system to work.

I am, on this one aspect, interested in the exact algorithm used to compute this specific scale. Once I know even roughly what the relationships are between the individual notes, I am sure I can find a mathematician who could come up with the equation. I am not so sure that the algorithm can be arrived at by Fadic addition.

I will look closer into your suggestion. thanks a lot, I need all the help I can get. :-)

Hans von Lieven

free and opensource image manipulation   http://www.gimp.org/

HI everyone,

I'm a new member but a long time reader of this forum.

perhaps, you should take the math out of this enigma and seek a musician to shed some light on the diatonic scale of Keely.  It seems (only from the photo's) that these wires may be 'plucked' to discern the coordination of the pitches and then someone with a seasoned ear (a musician) can better describe the relationships of the pitches. 

Also,  I read that Keely was sold on the "magical" properties of Bb.  If you re insert the math portion of music, you will see a fairly close similarity of the frequency of Bb and the Frequency of the Earth being just under 8hz Although the Earth resonates several Octaves below the usable music scale.  This can be visualized by the fact that string when plucked will produce a pitch with a certain frequency and if you double the length of the string, the frequency will be divided in half.  And proprtionaltely, if you divide the string in half, the frequency will double.

Take note that an object will resonate with a frequency that is proportionate to it's size.  The string used in A above middle C on a piano woll resonate @440 Hz while the size of the Earth,  Being Much larger, will have a significantly lower frequency. 

As to the confusion about exactly what frequency Mr. Keely used to tune his Bb, take note that Modern tuning has progressively gone flat.  Meaning,  The A 440Hz of today Had a higher frequency during say Mozart's time.  And the Bb during Keely's life would be slightly Higher pitched than todays Bb.

If you havn't to the conclusion by now, I am a musician by profession and a avid admirer of the sciences.

G'day all,

Thank you for your efforts. Thanks Gothic for the link, I will download the programme today and see what I can do with it.

As to Brahma, If you have a look at my website http://www.keelytech.com you will find my thoughts on B-flat. You will also find what I am thinking about harmonics and so forth. I am very interested in the fact that you are a musician.

Keely was a musician, a very gifted one by contemporary accounts, who studied under his grandfather who was a Kapellmeister (manager and conductor of an orchestra) in Baden Baden before emigrating to the US.

It is my guess that Keely's grandfather's early career was that of an organist, a common career path in those days, and that Keely acquired his extensive knowledge of organs and their construction and the behaviour of sound in organ pipes from him.

Keely also seemed to have an intimate knowledge about enharmonic scales, which is not all that common amongst musicians.

This leads me to suspect that his grandfather played an organ that had two black keys between the whites, if you know what I mean.

There are not many such instruments in the world, I have ever only seen two of them and unfortunately was not allowed to play them so I can talk only from theory rather than experience. :-(

You say that an object will resonate with a frequency that is proportional to its size. That is strictly speaking not true. It is true that size has a bearing on frequency but that is not the only determining factor. Things such as the material used, the shape of the object etc. all have a bearing on the resonant frequency of a body or cavity.

An old adage of physics is: "A resonant body will accept energy at its own level of resonance and reject energy far removed from its own level of resonance" is a far more telling and precise definition. Having said that, I do get your point. You will never get the sound from a 6' organ pipe you can from a 60' organ pipe. :-)

Please stay in touch Brahma, I am interested in your ideas.
And thanks for your contribution.

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans,

I can't help you with the computer program, but I can tell you that knowing that the center is a circle is not enough information to undo the perspective transform and create a face-on view.  There are many perspectives that would produce the same ellipse in a photograph.

If you know that all the angles between the resonators are supposed to be the same, then that _is_ enough information.  You could measure the endpoints and some other point on each of the resonators in your photo, put the coordinates into a spreadsheet along with the major an minor axes of the apparent ellipse at the center, and fit an inverse perspective transform to produce a circle at the center with equal angles between the resonators, along with the coordinates of the endpoints in a face-on view.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Thanks Entropy,

I know that my crude effort is nowhere near satisfactory, I only put it out there to show what I had in mind.

I also know that there are programmes available that can take the perspective out of the picture and create a properly proportioned image. Unfortunately the only people I know of that have that kind of software are NASA and they aren't answering. :-(

In the meantime we might have to resort to your approach.

Hans von Lieven

@ hansvonlieven

I suggest obtaining some piano wire, tempered, not anealed, and just shooting from the hip with a spiral arrangement based on the "Golden Spiral".  I suspect that the arrangement of the wires as shown - being a flat spiral - is a key aspect of the device.  Spirals imply a vortical aspect.  The Golden Spiral was identified in exploraation of the "Oregon Vortex" - an naturally occuring site in Oregon, USA.

Also, you do know that when Keely first dissociated water he was hurt by the explosion and I believe he calculated the pressure at 25,000 psi - (might have that totally wrong).  I recommend dissociating a drop on the head of a pin and not a cup full of water.

Hi Hans,
have not studied Keely yet,
but saw a picture somewhere, that after his death they
discovered beneath his floor some faking devices where he
got his pressure from ?

So was it a fake or not ?

Dale Pond has alot of info on the Keely motor and a forum of builders dedicated to this motor.
Dale is without a doubt the first authority on Keely's works . He has dedicated his life to Keely's work.

Here are the replications
http://www.svpvril.com/

He is the Gallery
http://www.svpvril.com/JKMotor/index.html

Here is Dale's Forum
http://svpvril.com/phpbb2/index.php


Here and old lecture by Dale Pond
http://earthharmonics.blogspot.com/2007/04/dale-ponds-on-john-worrel-keely.html

G'day Ironhead and all,

Thanks for the links. I know Dale Pond, he is aware of my work and I am of his.

As a matter of fact he was the first person I approached with the above problem. For those interested, here are Dale's comments on the matter.

http://svpvril.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=2478#2478  This is on Dale Pond's forum

Hans von Lieven

G'day Stefan,

Whilst it is true that after Keely's death he was accused of fraud, it is also true that the people that accused him thus had much to gain by it.

Keely in his career had built over 2000 devices in his workshop in Philadelphia. Of course he had compressed air facilities as well as other motors there.

The motor in the picture on the top had been demonstrated running not only in Keely's workshop but also in front of thousands of people at the Philadelphia World Exhibition. I seriously doubt that the organisers of the event would have permitted Keely to conceal a compressed air sphere underneath his stand in order to deceive the public.

Keely disassembled his motor on many occasions to show its construction. Photographs of the open motors exist. There is no mechanism there for compressed air to act upon. In fact the people that accused Keely of fraud at the time were in possession of his machines but at no stage showed the alleged drive mechanism like a piston or an air turbine that they claimed was there.

Keely's machines as well as his voluminous writings and manuscripts disappeared after Keely's death never to be seen again.

No, Stefan, after over 30 years of research I am convinced we are dealing here with a suppression of technology and not with a fraudulent Keely.

Keely describes sonoluminescence, a phenomenon that was only re-discovered recently and has scientists puzzled. Keely also held that there were enormous energies locked up in the "corpuscular embrace of matter" long before it became possible to split the atom. It was this statement more than anything that discredited him with the scientists of his time. He claimed to have split the atom with resonance alone and not with "corpuscular bombardment" which he had considered but rejected as too crude. He had many explosions in his workshop that were reported in the press with far more damage than could be attributed to compressed air.

I could go on for hours, but if you are interested have a look at my website where I go into detail on many aspects of Keely's work.

http://keelytech.com

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans,

Is it possible to give me one single measure of something  in the requested picture so I can make it as a direct view.

Thank you

Goran

G'day premako,

There is nothing in the photographs I have that makes an accurate measurement possible. The liberator sphere was I think 4 inches in internal diameter, the scale ring on the bottom is an identical twin to the one I have been playing with, though from the photo is in much better condition. This gives at least some idea of size.

I don't think the absolute values are of importance. What I feel is the key is the relationship between the resonators. Some say it is a Fibonacci spiral, some have suggested it is a golden spiral but I am not so convinced that this is true. If we can deduce the algorithm used in the scale construction from the progression in size we are most of the way there, because it is an almost safe bet that the fundamental of the scale is a B-flat.

Sorry I cannot help any further as the machine in the picture has disappeared and direct measurements are not possible.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 22, 2007, 05:49:07 PM
If we can deduce the algorithm used in the scale construction from the progression in size we are most of the way there, because it is an almost safe bet that the fundamental of the scale is a B-flat....

...remembering, of course, that B flat then is not B flat now. The convention changed. I thought he was keen on 42.8khz,
which, taken down a dozen octaves or so, gets to be E or
thereabouts.
Paul.

G'day Paul,

In some of his experiments Keely refers to 42.8 KHz, that is true. Where the liberator and the motor is concerned he only ever talks about the "Transmissive Chord of B-flat". I am aware that we can only guess at what concert pitch Keely used.

Hans von Lieven

I believe you need to find an expert in 3d modeling.

By taking the picture as a backdrop, and modeling 3d parts to match the
perspective of the photo,  one should be able to reproduce the part.

Hi,

I am a 3D CAD designer and I can help but I need some real dimension there to make the picture in the real size so I can make the parts. This is the best solution . If the real measurements are not possible than as you suggested relationships will work too but if the machine is design to work with some specific value than we will do nothing. But that is why research is. To try.  :).

Best rregards,

Goran

   

G'day premako,

Relative sizes are enough, it will reveal (hopefully) Keely's system of chord construction. You see, all musical scales (harmonic ones, and we are talking pure harmonics here, not tempered scales) follow the same relationships.

In other words if you were to build a musical scale on a fundamental of C=150 Hz you would on top of this construct your scale according to a strict algorithm.

If you now had a clock that generated the impulses creating that scale, it would not matter if the clock slowed down or sped up, you would still arrive at a musical scale that was constructed along the same parameters, regardless of the pitch of the fundamental. It would just sound different.

We could never determine, just by knowing the absolute dimensions of the resonators exactly what note they would produce, much depends on the material, whether it's hollow or not and how much stress there is. The note of a string changes with tension the length and diameter of the string can be the same. (within limits of course)

All I need to know is how these (presumably 64) resonators relate to each other, assuming that the diameter and material is the same for all of them.

Thank you for your interest. I appreciate your help.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 23, 2007, 10:54:59 AM
G'day Paul,

In some of his experiments Keely refers to 42.8 KHz, that is true. Where the liberator and the motor is concerned he only ever talks about the "Transmissive Chord of B-flat". I am aware that we can only guess at what concert pitch Keely used.

Hans von Lieven

I mentioned in another thread that ultrasonic tube sealing machines center on the frequency of 42kz, with plus or minus 2khz for finding the right frequency for the particular water filled material that is in the tube. The amplifiers have feedback circuitry for finding the correct frequency and putting the most power into the gap that best seals the tube. It blows anything out of the gap. Every time. Very nice.

One should endeavor to find such circuitry designs on the net. It may create new possibilities.

G'day Prophmaji and all,

Ultrasonic sealing machines have been around for a while. They operate from around 20 to 45 KHz depending on the application.

The way they work is an oscillator generates the required frequency that is fed into an amplifier. The amplified signal is fed into an ultrasonic horn that imparts its energy to the seam. Because an ultrasonic horn essentially focalises the energy into a very small area (i.e. the seam) the vibrations cause molecular hysteresis (heat) at the point of contact which welds the material. Another advantage is that the intense vibrations tend to push any material between the foils to be welded sideways as the horn applies pressure. This kind of self cleans the joint prior to welding.

The real advantage is that the heat stays in a very confined area, only very little of it is being conducted away by the material itself while it is being welded. This makes it ideal for sealing food sachets and delicate liquids, though it is by no means confined to this.

I cannot find any specific reference to 42.8 KHz, my feeling is that it is probably ideal for that particular process as far as the product and the particular plastic that is being used is concerned.

Hans von Lieven

Sorry Mike,

I thought I had written to you, I'll go and check my mail when I get home, maybe I didnt send it off. I am in an internet cafe at the moment. You bet I am still interested :-)

Hans von Lieven

If the two scales on each device are the same, then vibration of one will cause vibration in the other - just like a tuning fork.

"Erfinder" told you about 369hz, but you must have missed his point.

In case you thought that he made it up:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:FkhDzxWn1uoJ:educate-yourself.org/pnl/solfeggio01dec06.shtml+keely+396hz&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:3WLf3lTvuy8J:www.quantumbalancing.com/waterbalance.htm+keely+396hz&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

G'day Grumpy,

I am well aware of the laws of resonance, as far as we understand them today, so there is no argument about that hypothetical balance of yours.

What I have problems with as far as the Solfeggio "scale" is concerned is

One,

it is NOT a musical scale, a collection of sounds,yes. There is NO harmonic relationship between the notes, which is the hallmark of a musical scale.

Two,

Fadic addition is not a  valid mathematical procedure. It only works in a decimal system that has a zero and groups the numbers the way we do.

This kind of addition is not possible using hieroglyphics, cuneiform or Roman numerals for that matter. It means perhaps something to a numerologist, it has no place in science.

Hans von Lieven

Isn't science "a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research"?

Since when is "remove whatever you don't like or understand" part of the scientific method?

Quote from: Grumpy on September 26, 2007, 02:33:34 PM
Isn't science "a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research"?

Since when is "remove whatever you don't like or understand" part of the scientific method?

Sorry Grumpy,

you lost me there. What are you talking about?

Hans von Lieven

You cast aside whatever you don't consider "scientific".

You should take a more open-minded approach to the work of Keeley. 

You can disociate water without spherical instruments or diatonic scales if you know how.

G'day Erfinder and all,

I am aware of Kelvin and Lord Armstrong,

Not very efficient though.

Hans von Lieven

One ounce of water dissociated would be like several sticks of dynamite.

Keely used musical notation to describe terms that he did not have any other means to describe.

Forget about the "lengths" of the wires for a minute.

How many wires are there?  (Individuals with the knowledge of these forces will not even have to count them)

Notice that the arrangement appears to be a section of a Fibonacci or Golden spiral.  (see below)

Notice the direction of the spiral arangement to the devices.

Notice that the pipns do not appear to be round.  Vibration is in the plane of the spiral.

What is the function of the spiral arrangement?

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 26, 2007, 06:05:52 PM
G'day Erfinder and all,

I am aware of Kelvin and Lord Armstrong,

Not very efficient though.

Hans von Lieven

What of the connection from Lord Kelvin to Victor Schauberger?

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 22, 2007, 05:49:07 PM

I don't think the absolute values are of importance. What I feel is the key is the relationship between the resonators. Some say it is a Fibonacci spiral, some have suggested it is a golden spiral but I am not so convinced that this is true. If we can deduce the algorithm used in the scale construction from the progression in size we are most of the way there, because it is an almost safe bet that the fundamental of the scale is a B-flat.

Sorry Grumpy, I am way ahead of you.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 26, 2007, 07:21:20 PM

Sorry Grumpy, I am way ahead of you.

Hans von Lieven

I'm glad you think so.  I don't need a diatonic scale or any musical scale to disociate water.

The dissociation of water is EASY !  To do it efficiently is the trick. Can you do that??

Hans von Lieven

It can be done and it almost killed me . Grumpy knows .
Sounds like you dont really need help Hans , Sounds like you got it all figured out .
Telling someone you are way ahead of them is not a good way to ask for help in this area . You have no Idea where we could have led this .  I see now you need no help

Grumpy I was considering Hans but not like this , you know what I mean .

Back to my little world I go
IronHead

I was talking about the Fibonacci and Golden spirals when I said that, nothing else. So please don't misquote me.

Hans von Lieven

I see.  I am still following to see how this goes.
There are only a handle full of people worldwide
working in such and area that are close .
The key is to bring them together.


The hard part is finding the ones that are not only close but can work together

IronHead

To true, ironhead. There are a few of us doing real work though, the trick is finding them.

Hans

Good answer . I will be contacting you soon.


IronHead

Big damn universe out there.  Science of modern man only see a small portion of it.

You know, there are several threads on this and other sites about the production of HHO - dissociated water - and it's use as a fuel for combustion engines.  IronHead posted a great deal of info regarding his research in this field - excellent results - very reproducible.

Jerry Decker also did some work using ultrasonic transducers:
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/ultraoxy.htm
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/sondis.html

By the way, you  have not answered the questions concerning the spiral arrangement of wires, or the connection between Lord Kelvin to Victor Schauberger.

Some trivial insights:
Kelvin showed that water can store an enormous static potential - very interesting...
Victor showed that water was "alive", amongst other things.

In actuality, the Earth is a living entity too.  I know that does not fit into the scientific view of things, but this does not make the fact any less real.  Listen closely and you can hear it cry sometimes, but that is another story...)

Whole damn universe is swirling vortexes.  Tesla actually mentioned that fact several times.

So, are you trying to get H and O or the pressure produced by the separation?

Edit: Erfinder nailed it with mention of Kelvin and natures "preferred method" - electrostatic potential - set into vibration of course.

G'day Grumpy,

First of all, I am very much aware that water is alive and NOT simply H2O.  If you had read my article entitled "Water and its Isotopologues"  on my website you would know this.

I am also very much aware that the dissociation of water with minimum effort requires a deep understanding of that rather mysterious substance. We use water everyday in many ways, and that familiarity has blunted us to the point where we have difficulty perceiving it as anything but banal.

Schauberger, Kelvin and Armstrong, as well as Keely had a much deeper understanding.

Let us hope that further diligent inquiry will lead us to the same.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

I see that you have all of the answers and do not need help from anyone.

You say that water is alive, but you do not speak to it.  Saying water has a "life of it's own" is not saying that it is a living entity.  Water is a living entity.  So, no, you are not aware that water is "alive".

You have a statement on your site: http://keelytech.com/theorycomments.html
"There is no such thing as a "Sacred Science", there is only science."

This pretty much sums up your approach to Keely and his work, a modern scientific approach, which will bequeath nothing.

I was curious about your opinion of the existence of an etheric medium, so I searched your site.

While I only read a few paragraphs, my first impression is that you do not understand what Keely was trying to convey.  You can not use modern scientific reasoning and ever hope to understand Keely.  (By the way, this statement is one reason for the existence of this thread - so that this thought may be conveyed to you.)

Some excerpts:

QuoteEach by itself is called a `current,' and all three must be present in every `stream' or `flow' of force. The relations of the currents in every flow are expressible in thirds, and it is experimentally demonstrable that the relation of the three are in the order named: as 33 1/3 : 66 2/3 : 100.

What does he mean here? Is he talking about harmonics or amplitude when he talks about the relationship between the flows?

The three currents are:
I. The Radiative : called also the `Dispersing,' the `Propulsive,' the `Positive,' and the `Enharmonic.'
II. The Focalizing: called also the `Negative,' the `Negative Attractive,' the `Polarizing,' and the `Harmonic.'
III. The Dominant: called also the `Etheric,' or the `Celestial.'

(If you are familiar with the work of Wilbert B. Smith, you will see a correlation here.)

QuoteIt is a familiar fact that a cord in vibration tends to produce a similar vibration in a cord placed near it.
This sentence does not make sense whether he means cord or chord.

It makes perfect sense, he is talking about a "cord" - as in a string.  This is "resonance" and you get the same thing with tuning forks and anything else that has the same vibrational frequency.  (Yes, that statement is rather "absract" - on purpose.)

QuoteIn the three metals, silver, gold, and platina, we obtain the proportions --- 3 : 6 : 9 : --- As this is the primary relation of the modes of vibration, a wire made of these three metals is peculiarly adapted to transmit concordant impulses : and nodes made of these substances placed upon a wire, transmitting resonant vibrations, indicate, by the different orders of vibration induced in them, the rate of oscillations of the atomic constituents.
What on earth is that supposed to mean "nodes made of these substances placed upon a wire"?

Here, Keely is describing how to determine the frequencies of the atoms that make up a wire, by placing nodes made from silver, gold , and platina, in which vibrations will be induced by the atoms of the wire.  Quite fascinating.  Kind of like downconverting the enormously high vibration of the atoms into a range that a human can detect via sound or touch.  The three metals would have to be layered a certain way, and a ratio to their proportions.  Think of it as a "molecular downconverter".  Who would have thought?...
(This is explained on page 305 of Moore?s book in the link below, which is searchable online.)

I see Blavatsky mentions "blue ether" - ever seen that?  or been in it?

http://books.google.com/books?id=wWY1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA298&dq=john+keely+vibration&ei=2dT7Rr_yMZmepgLk28XECw

In this book, Keely explains everything very well.

G'day Grumpy,

You say " While I only read a few paragraphs, my first impression is that you do not understand what Keely was trying to convey.  You can not use modern scientific reasoning and ever hope to understand Keely. "

I disagree with that statement. All of Keely's discoveries were the result of scientific experimentation in a very methodical and controlled manner, not as a result of esoteric reasoning. This came much later when he didn't know any other way to describe what he found and was under intense pressure to offer some sort of explanation.

I am aware of Keely's model and the underlying philosophy. I am also aware of Dr. Mark Snoswell's work with Spinor resonance, which is very much in line with Keely's work.

Dr Snowswell says here on another thread:

The ideas I bring to the area come from years of part time experimental and theoretical research. I am well versed in the activities of the "free energy" and skeptic communities visible on the web now and in the past. My contribution is in developing new conceptual models that fit both classical engineering and the potential new phenomena being observed.

I am not interested in theory alone nor abstract concepts and maths. I seek simple conceptual models that can be visualised and used to design new technology.

This is very much my approach. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is essentially nothing wrong with the metaphysical approach either, it is simply not me. I cannot make a contribution there. This I leave to you, Jerry Decker and Dale Pond, just to mention a few. I wish you success.

As to me, I will continue to research the subject along the lines of my training and experience as an engineer. In the end it does not matter. If Keely is right, any diligent inquiry into his technology will yield results, no matter what the theory behind it.

Hydrogen and oxygen were discovered as a result of the Phlogiston theory, which proved in the end to be wrong, yet produced very real advances in our understanding of the world.

It is wonderful to discuss these things with someone with a different approach, it forces both parties to re-examine and justify their reasoning. This way lies new insight and knowledge.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

If you had a different attitude, you would now know that Erfinder and IronHead have an unusually keen understanding of the works of Keely, Tesla, and others.  Do not view these other approaches as e"soteric", but as a different language describing something in perfect detail so that things do not get lost in the translation.

Best wishes in your research.

Agreed Grumpy,

When I use the word esoteric I mean more coming from a philosophical angle. Though valid in its own right it is not my way of approaching things here.

I am trying to reverse engineer Keely's technology. Not copy his machines, there IS a difference. Whatever I turn up going my way is freely shared and hopefully of use to someone.

I do not underestimate yours, Erfinder's and Ironhead's knowledge on the subject. Having said that, I do feel that Solfeggio frequencies and Fadic addition are not helpful in my research.

Hans von Lieven

G'day all,

Because of some private mail I have received in relation to Keely criticising the approach taken by me I feel I need to say a little more on the subject.

Keely's theories have been around for some 150 years now. They have been studied by many, and many a book has been written on the subject. All those books center around the metaphysical aspect of his theories and seek validation of Keely's ideas from sources like the Bible, The Bhagavad Gita, The Vedas and a lot of theosophical teachings from Helena Blavatski to Leadbeater, Annie Besant and Clara Bloomfield Moore and so forth.

None of these books have ever led to the development of a usable device of any sort.

In the meantime many of Keely's observations have been verified since and a number of devices have emerged in recent years confirming that Keely was on a solid scientific track. These re-discoveries were not made by people who claim to have a deep spiritual understanding of Keely's philosophy, but by engineers trained in conservative physics.

Keely can be understood through his devices alone. It may well be that his theories are as hollow as much of today's scientific thinking.

Whatever he discovered is either real or it is not. If it is real it can be found out again. Fancy theories might point in a direction and suggest an approach but it is replication of his work that is the ultimate arbiter of what is real and what not.

Incidentally Grumpy, the quotes in your earlier post are NOT from Keely. They are from a paper published by Professor Brinton, after Keely's death if I remember correctly.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 04:43:18 PM
None of these books have ever led to the development of a usable device of any sort.

This is an assumption.  No one is privy to every device ever created.  Keely's work and ideas have had a profound impact on many people and their work.   To say that no one has replicated his work may be correct, but to say that the study of his work has not lead to a usable device is presumpuous.   Replication of Keely's work is a grand goal, but many have indicated that this is not necessary to produce the same results.  There are many types of motors to propel an automobile, many means to an end.  Seek the "why" not the "how".

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 04:43:18 PM
Incidentally Grumpy, the quotes in your earlier post are NOT from Keely. They are from a paper published by Professor Brinton, after Keely's death if I remember correctly.

Correct.  Those quotes are from YOUR web site, as are the frustated responses in the quotes.  The explanations are mine.  If you had taken more than a cursory glance at what I wrote you would have known that I pulled the quotes form your web site. There is a great deal of information in Moore's book.  I suggest a perusal of it to refresh your memory.

What is "real"?  It's all an illusion.  Dreams are illusion but they feel pretyt damn real when they occur.  Reality is realtive.

Philosophy is of the MIND, science is of the MIND's creation.  So, science can never exceed that which wrought it.  I doubt you will see the meaning of that, but the seed is planted none the less.

Of course the are from my website, but as quote from Professor Brinton, not from Keely. The point I was making is that Brinton NEVER understood Keely.

Hans von Lieven

>This is an assumption. No one is privy to every device ever created.

@Grumpy

Don?t be such an ass. Confrontation  yields nothing.

Han?s , how long have you been researching Keely?

>many of Keely's observations have been verified

So what discoveries???

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 04:43:18 PM
G'day all,

Because of some private mail I have received in relation to Keely criticising the approach taken by me I feel I need to say a little more on the subject.

Keely's theories have been around for some 150 years now. They have been studied by many, and many a book has been written on the subject. All those books center around the metaphysical aspect of his theories and seek validation of Keely's ideas from sources like the Bible, The Bhagavad Gita, The Vedas and a lot of theosophical teachings from Helena Blavatski to Leadbeater, Annie Besant and Clara Bloomfield Moore and so forth.

None of these books have ever led to the development of a usable device of any sort.

In the meantime many of Keely's observations have been verified since and a number of devices have emerged in recent years confirming that Keely was on a solid scientific track. These re-discoveries were not made by people who claim to have a deep spiritual understanding of Keely's philosophy, but by engineers trained in conservative physics.

Keely can be understood through his devices alone. It may well be that his theories are as hollow as much of today's scientific thinking.

Whatever he discovered is either real or it is not. If it is real it can be found out again. Fancy theories might point in a direction and suggest an approach but it is replication of his work that is the ultimate arbiter of what is real and what not.

Incidentally Grumpy, the quotes in your earlier post are NOT from Keely. They are from a paper published by Professor Brinton, after Keely's death if I remember correctly.

Hans von Lieven

G'day argona,

I have been researching Keely on and off for over 30 years. If you have a look at my website http://www.keelytech.com you will get an idea where I am coming from.

Sonoluminescence for instance was first described by Keely and not re-discovered until 1934. The disintegration of quartz by sonic vibration was first demonstrated by Keely, today they pulverise garbage using sound waves. Keely showed antigravity by sound waves, this has not been achieved yet but acoustic levitation has recently been achieved in the laboratory. There are other things, too much to get into here, though fact is, physics is catching up slowly with Keely when it comes to acoustics.

Besides, Keely was the first to state that enormous energies were locked up in the "interstitial spaces of corpuscles" (Keely's term for subatomic particles) This statement more than anything else discredited him with the scientific world of the day. All you have to do is look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see how right he was.

Hans von Lieven

Hans:

Have you given any thought to what might happen if/when you are successful?  Well, I guess since you have been working on it for 30 years, I suppose you have...but my point is this: Just as the end result of  nuclear research gave us and the world, the bomb, if Keely was correct, once that Geni is out of the bottle...what then?  I am just amazed that to this day, the only real advances that came out of the Manhatten Project were the bombs, and being able to boil water to make power.

Suppose you unlock a way to cause fission using more readily available materials as opposed to plutonium?  Would this not put a very powerful weapon in the hands of many less advanced peoples?  I don't mean to sound like a doomsday wet blanket here but if you were able to replicate even some of Keely's claimed results, then some would use it for good and some for evil. I guess I am just looking at the other side of what could be a tremendous advance.  In other words, I trust a man, I don't trust mankind.


Bill

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 30, 2007, 01:06:51 AM
Besides, Keely was the first to state that enormous energies were locked up in the "interstitial spaces of corpuscles" (Keely's term for subatomic particles) This statement more than anything else discredited him with the scientific world of the day. All you have to do is look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see how right he was.

"Interstitial spaces of corpuscles" has nothing to do with "subatomic particles".  Keely was refering to the vortices of the "ether", which are the ambiant potential - call it the "electrostatic scalar potential" if it makes you happy.  It's the "time" parameter of  Einsteins 4-vector. Also known as the "torsion field".  See the work of Wilbert B. Smith, F.F. Mende, and Stephan Marinov.

Quote from: argona369 on September 30, 2007, 12:54:28 AM
@Grumpy
Don't be such an ass. Confrontation  yields nothing.

It's not intentional, just my nature.   All I'm trying to do is open Hans' mind a little - let him see the dark side of the moon.

There is no "dark" side of the moon.  It should actually be called the far side, but I guess everyone on here probably already knows that.

Grumpy, are the works of the men you mentioned still available in print somewhere?  Even the library at our local university leaves a lot to be desired.

Bill

Well Pirate,

This is the dilemma. We are talking of energy here, heaps of it, though we are not talking about fission as much as we are talking about fusion. So at least there should not be any radioactivity.

Helena Blavatski said that Keely's technology should not be available to mankind for at least 10,000 years.

What came out of the Manhattan project never made it into peaceful technology on a larger scale because of the inherent danger of the materials involved and the very real fear that someone irresponsible might get their hands on it. For that reason massive safeguards were put into place from raw materials to the metals required to make enrichment feasible. It is a moot point that Keely's technology might pose the same dangers without the difficulty of basic material procurement. The best thing is to ignore it and do nothing one might argue.

If you believe that then we should go back to the cave and live like savages. For better or worse, the technology to destroy this planet has been around for a while. The question is, do you want a technology like Keely's be developed by Iran or perhaps Robert Mugabe? Wouldn't that be fun?

We have no choice, we must go forward and stay on top or there is no hope for anyone.

Hans von Lieven

OK Grumpy be pedantic,

Corpuscles was the term used by Keely for subatomic particles, You are right I didn't make that clear, though any halfway intelligent person would have caught what was meant. Unless of course someone wanted to argue just for the sake of it.

Hans von Lieven

Hans:

Well, I have to admit, you got me with your point about Iran.  You are correct.  As good or bad as the atomic bomb may be, I am glad it was ours first here in the USA.  And so, as you said, one can't turn back the clock or hide with their head in the sand.  Technology marches forward with or without us.  I failed to consider that in my question to you.  Thanks for helping me to understand this.

Bill

Thanks Han?s , I briefly looked at your site there?s lots to read!
Will be reading that when I have a chance in the next day of two.
At first glance it seems as in Sonoluminescence  that Keely was
making extreme mechanical pressures. but I can?t help but see
something ?electrostatic?  in his machines and also thinking of
The spark gap disassociation or dielectric breakdown
of ultra pure water (spark gap water explosion).

And corpuscles sound as good as any description of matter at the time,
trying to describe the indescribable
We still don?t know what things like matter really are, just what they do.
Just look at string theory.

@Grumpy
>It's not intentional, just my nature. All I'm trying to do is open
>Hans' mind a little - let him see the dark side of the moon.

I think we all do it unintentionally from time to time when views differ.
including me  :)

Cliff,

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 30, 2007, 01:06:51 AM
G'day argona,

I have been researching Keely on and off for over 30 years. If you have a look at my website http://www.keelytech.com you will get an idea where I am coming from.

Sonoluminescence for instance was first described by Keely and not re-discovered until 1934. The disintegration of quartz by sonic vibration was first demonstrated by Keely, today they pulverise garbage using sound waves. Keely showed antigravity by sound waves, this has not been achieved yet but acoustic levitation has recently been achieved in the laboratory. There are other things, too much to get into here, though fact is, physics is catching up slowly with Keely when it comes to acoustics.

Besides, Keely was the first to state that enormous energies were locked up in the "interstitial spaces of corpuscles" (Keely's term for subatomic particles) This statement more than anything else discredited him with the scientific world of the day. All you have to do is look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see how right he was.

Hans von Lieven

I have nothing to add but that eventually..scientific language will be available to explain the work of Keeley, Russell, etc.

It's like two ends of an equation that are both equal. The scientific sense of reasoning, methods and 'art' as expressed as technical explanations will eventually equal the working esoteric explanations. The scientific method will always be 'gobbledygook' to the average man, whereas the esoteric explanation CAN be reached by the common man.

The technical explanation can and will difficult and tedious, is my personal expectation. But, the explanation ventures deep into the esoteric by sheer necessity. What the final thoughts are on that line of logic is: The answer is deeply esoteric and therefore any scientific explanation will border on the useless in terms of practicality.

It is also the simple point that..such work is wholly unnecessary.

In the better sciences, math is wholly unnecessary. The mind and simple physical experiments alone, will suffice. You are beginning to search into the 'multiverse' and the metaphysical by definition. In that world, science is but a joke. Not necessary.

I heartily encourage you to continue, however. You will likely get somewhere. What you will find when you get there, is that the specific methods by which strict scientific methodology works..is not required for this very human understanding.

What we are talking about here, is Pandora's Box. Most specifically that Pandora's Box does not allow for partial openings in a given human. You get the whole package whether you desire or plan for just a tiny bit of it. You will not be afforded the chance or capacity to be selective in your understandings. The whole package will arrive on your doorstep. It will nearly drive you mad. Some.. it does end up doing so, to their detriment. Some survive it.

Point being, be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

I get your point prophmaj,

some of the things you say make sense, some not.

I am simply not interested in esoteric or scientific explanations. They have their uses for sure and perhaps as well as mathematics do not deserve the prominence they get. I am simply interested in a working technology that is of use to mankind.

You people talk about Keely and his esoteric ideas, yet you do not know very much about the man at all. Virtually all you have read is secondhand from newspaper articles and secondhand from Clara Bloomfield Moore who was beholden to Helena Blavatski and Annie Besant and had a religious agenda.

The only things of Keely we can be certain of are his machines, and I mean the photographs here, and his charts. In spite of his voluminous writings, all of it has disappeared with his machines. Even the companion volume to his charts that explains them has never been located. He refers to page numbers on his charts so we know it existed.

I want to understand Keely, not some super rich overeducated religious nut that had nothing better to do with her time than quoting people.

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans,

Wonderful site you have there Han?s, Only half way through it but a couple of things came to mind.
One was , what would happen if you had a resonator inside a resonator?
I?m not sure if this is relevant but was thinking of this photon propulsion system being developed.
I?m not sure if this is considered as a resonator inside a resonator though,

?places the laser medium within a resonant optical cavity?
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2007/September/7/88894.aspx

And by coincidence I came across this mention of ?corpuscles? by John  Thomson (1856-1940)
Referring to electrons. Is this the same as Keely's corpuscles?
It seems quite the coincidence.

?later called electrons, which he called "corpuscles"  ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
http://www.aip.org/history/electron/jjelectr.htm

Quote from: argona369 on October 02, 2007, 08:33:18 AM
Hi Hans,

Wonderful site you have there Han?s, Only half way through it but a couple of things came to mind.
One was , what would happen if you had a resonator inside a resonator?
I?m not sure if this is relevant but was thinking of this photon propulsion system being developed.
I?m not sure if this is considered as a resonator inside a resonator though,

?places the laser medium within a resonant optical cavity?
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2007/September/7/88894.aspx

And by coincidence I came across this mention of ?corpuscles? by John  Thomson (1856-1940)
Referring to electrons. Is this the same as Keely's corpuscles?
It seems quite the coincidence.

?later called electrons, which he called "corpuscles"  ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
http://www.aip.org/history/electron/jjelectr.htm

G'day argona and all,

Thank you for your kind words about my site, I am glad you find it useful and of intrest.

As to resonators within resonators, this is what Keely is all about. He created his effects by placing resonators inside and outside a resonant cavity, usually spherical. I am attaching here a photograph of Keely's Globe Motor with the spherical shell removed. You can clearly see the resonators on the outside as well as the resonators mounted inside the shell.

As to "corpuscles", it was simply a term used to describe a particle smaller than an atom which were then thought to exist by some. In 1897 Thompson through his work on cathode ray tubes proved to science that these particles existed, later on the particles he discovered were called electrons because of their electrical nature.

It is interesting here to note that Keely was talking about the "corpuscular nature of the atom" some 50 years before Thompson's discovery.

Hans von Lieven

Hans:

Fantastic photo!  I have a question for you.  Would the information that you post here on this forum be considered publishing?  I am not up to date on internet law, which is accelerating so fast I doubt anyone can keep up with it.  the reason I ask is this...suppose you publish an idea here on your Keely project and someone sees it and rushes for a patent.  I know the spirit here is open source and I agree with that spirit.  I was just wondering that if this indeed happened, could you then make their patent null and void based upon your prior publication of the idea on this site?  If this is the case, then I think a lot of people would be even more open with their ideas and projects. 

One day, I would love to hear a detailed explanation of what I have observed in your latest photo of the resonator inside a resonator.  I am just amazed at what has been buried by history and time.  Who ever constructed that apparatus (Keely) obviously had a plan for doing so and I believed it did what he said it did.  Thanks.

Bill

G'day Bill and all,

Just about everything I am saying about Keely here I said some time ago on my website. My website carries a copyright notice and therefore anything published here and there is, as far as the law is concerned "publishing". As far as I am concerned the project I am trying to stimulate is open source. I do not want any money or royalties, perhaps not even recognition for my contribution if that is the way it pans out. I simply want to make Keely's technology accessible to everyone. Not the dreamboy theety weety esoteric bullshit that has been floating around for over 120 years and has never done anyone any good, but the real stuff.

I know I am putting myself into the firing line by doing this.

As of now I am starting a new thread called "Dissociating Water, A Keely Project". This is an open source project that is accessible to everyone and everyone is invited to participate.

See you there.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 03, 2007, 01:52:04 AM
G'day Bill and all,

Just about everything I am saying about Keely here I said some time ago on my website. My website carries a copyright notice and therefore anything published here and there is, as far as the law is concerned "publishing". As far as I am concerned the project I am trying to stimulate is open source. I do not want any money or royalties, perhaps not even recognition for my contribution if that is the way it pans out. I simply want to make Keely's technology accessible to everyone. Not the dreamboy theety weety esoteric bullshit that has been floating around for over 120 years and has never done anyone any good, but the real stuff.

I know I am putting myself into the firing line by doing this.

As of now I am starting a new thread called "Dissociating Water, A Keely Project". This is an open source project that is accessible to everyone and everyone is invited to participate.

See you there.

Hans von Lieven

Patents should be rejected and can be invalidated by "prior art".  The term refers not only to copyrighted publications, but also to opensource, public domain, etc.  If yo publish something, and can provide evidence of the content and date, then a patent for an invention with the same characteristics is not valid.

Regards,
jeffc

Thanks Jeff,

We'll beat those scheming shyster lawyers yet. :-)

Hans von Lieven

G'day all,

This thread has been asleep for a while and I thought it was dead.

Today I received an E-mail from someone who has evidently done some work on my problem. I am just waiting for his permission to publish his communication, in the meantime have a look what this guy has done with a mathematical programme. More later, here is a screenshot:

Hans von Lieven

If I'm not mistaken that spiral is a representation of phi right? I wonder if we all are using base 10 math and the government/informed use base 8.. This is too close to not connect, music is math and math is music.  I guess its been in front of my eyes for a while i just didn't make the connection, ..natural half steps .. b&c and e&f i wonder how the Keeley scale  interprets those. further investigation i think will lead us to find that Keeley's math was influenced by using music as his base. 

Off topic Comment-  One of the Stargate series referenced base 8 once...Just throwing it out there. If anyone else has watched sg-1 since the beginning they will understand where I'm coming from with this, sometimes that show mentions things that become reality just a few years later.

G'day localjoe,

Actually I don't know what he used to create the spiral. The idea is to create a spiral that is identical to Keely's.

I am trying to find out exactly what algorithm Keely used to create his diatonic scale of which we have a photograph. We do know he used musical scales and harmonics.

Early days yet, but this is a big step in the right direction.

Hans von Lieven

Ah ha , i found a pic that supports that statement

I don't get it Joe,

This is just a circle of fifths arranged repetitively along a spiral. It doesn't make sense musically. I would like to know where you found this arrangement and what it is supposed to mean.

Hans von Lieven

Sorry that pic wasn't very descriptive , I was googling phi and musical scales in assorted combinations of those two and came up with a site that
http://www.aniwilliams.com/geometry_music_healing.htm (http://www.aniwilliams.com/geometry_music_healing.htm) which had that pic half way down, the Fibonacci ratios with the notes are discussed below, i just mentally blocked the metaphysical stuff and took the real info i derived from the tables, also http://goldennumber.net/music.htm (http://goldennumber.net/music.htm)shows more my point i guess was that if the 432 tuning standard is used phi lines up exactly as the fifth and that spiral of Keeley's was probably a perfect representation of phi id bet money on it. Visually you can see it you look at the golden spiral as its called its a spitting image of that cad drawing.

I feel everyone should read this

http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter5.html (http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter5.html)

Greek philosopher Pythagoras discovered a wonderful mathematical relation between the harmonic notes in music. He noticed that by depressing a string in different positions on the fingerboard of a guitar like string instrument that harmonic sounds were created. Some notes sounded better than others. At each depression of the string the string is divided in two different lengths and the ratio between these lengths were measured by Pythagoras. He marked down all the ratios that sounded harmonically well together. In this way he found the following ratios:

1:1 (open snare)
1:2 (depressed at 1/3 of the length of the string)
3:2 , 5:3,  13:8,  21:13, 34:21

What Pythagoras had discovered is called the Diatonic musical scale, named after the fact that the string is divided into two lengths (Dia = two).

These ratios correspond with the frequencies of the notes produced by the white keys of the piano when attuned in the Diatonic scale. After the 7th note the octave of 8 notes is repeated only this time the first and the eighth note are doubled in frequency! The next 7 notes of the white keys on the piano follow the exact same ratio!

Now if you have been paying attention you may already have noticed that the musical ratios discovered by Pythagoras are the same ratios of the Fibonacci sequence! Simply take a number out of the Fibonacci sequence and its successor and you have the musical ratio found by Pythagoras.

The Fibonacci sequence is the sequence that gives us beautiful harmonics in music. The diatonic scale is not the only musical scale, there are many more, in fact no piano today is tuned in the Diatonic scale. But the principle relation between harmonics in music and mathematical progressions of the Fibonacci sequence is real.

Now let?s pretend that we?ve tuned a piano in the Diatonic scale and that we have extended the piano?s keyboard with keys to provide for 49 octaves! That would be one hell of a piano and it would certainly no longer fit into your living room!
But suppose that we could actually play on this piano. When we play the notes in the last two highest octaves, the keys on the furthermost right side of this piano, will correspond with the frequencies of the colours of light!
There are seven keys in the highest octave that are the frequencies of the 7 primary colours of the spectrum of light, the 7 colours of the rainbow!

So not only does the Fibonacci sequence define the ratios of harmonics in sound but also in the electromagnetic spectrum of light, it defines the 7 colours of the rainbow!

Music and color, the same harmonic ratios

We now know that many musicians like Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Bart?k, Schubert and Debussy used the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Mean ratio deliberately not in the notes but in the composition itself. For instance Beethoven used the Golden Mean in his famous Beethoven?s Fifth. His famous opening motto not only appears on the first and the last bar of the symphony but also on the bar that represents the exact Golden Mean point of his symphony! Bela Bart?k used both the Golden Mean and the Fibonacci sequence deliberately in his compositions using the measures 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 and 89 to introduce new instruments such as strings, cellos, percussion etc.


After reading this one I believe youve stumbled upon something much bigger than i initially thought and it defiantly proves Keely wasn't a con artist to any nonbelievers out there still..... He was in the know of this sacred geometry and used it in his work

Im simply blown away by the implications of these findings and the parallels between this Keely work giant killers tpu and the rodin coil theory azerzw has talked about everyone should digest these 3 pieces of data I've posted in the associated forums it wold benefit many people here .

Quote from: Localjoe on November 03, 2007, 08:25:41 PM
Im simply blown away by the implications of these findings and the parallels between this Keely work giant killers tpu and the rodin coil theory azerzw has talked about everyone should digest these 3 pieces of data I've posted in the associated forums it wold benefit many people here .

Yep. I was blown away when Hans posted the Keely site. Talk about the Holy Grail dropping in your lap! That is why I built the Keely generator so damn fast, with the Bucket-o-vibes, The Bose Acoustic radiator standing wave, and had IS do the 3 speaker heterodyning. There was no experimenting here. Just turn these things on and get garanteed phenomimal results! Like pluging in a microwave oven! And even now I have a fantastic piece of equipment on my bench that reaches far into the past and future for testing. It's amazing. It is like having an o-scope 100 years ago.

--giantkiller. Thanks for the reference.

Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 03, 2007, 01:21:53 AM
I don't get it Joe,

This is just a circle of fifths arranged repetitively along a spiral. It doesn't make sense musically. I would like to know where you found this arrangement and what it is supposed to mean.

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

I think this and similar stuff is used to damp certain frequencies (unwanted ones,
unwanted harmonics).
If you have point A oscillating with frequency a,b,c,d,e,f,g - and you want just
frequency c has his maximum amplitude there -  you put such thing on with rods
tuned to frequencies a,b,d,e,f,g.
"schwingungstilger" is the proper name in german - dont know how to call that in english.
Its like suck up unwanted frequencies by using a series lc in electronics tuned to
the unwanted frequency.
In some keely setups - I think similar stuff is used at the feedpoints of the resonators -
to select which frequency of the compound wave on the wire feeds the actual resonator.

Anyway, have seen lots of photos of your webpage - I think these are "passive" components -
and not used to be excited manually or whatever.

rgds,

Wolfgang

Some speculative thoughts :

If I want to build a "3 phase" "keely motor" operated
by 3 frequencies - I would choose 3 complete
independent frequencies based on primes -
3,5,7,11....
By feeding the frequnencies in series 3 - 5 - 7 -
and hook up a "filter" which filters 5,7 out for the
phase 1 resonator, 7,3 out for the 2nd resonator -
and 7,3 out for the 3rd - connect everything with the "wire".
By playing 3(on the wire) - I can excite p1, playing 5, excites p2 ....
... operating a motor by playing a triole .....
just speculation.
Thats frequency multiplexed controlling -
crazy musician.
Same principles - different technology (unique).

Display !!!!!

If you look at the pictures WHERE this spiral is placed -
its also quite possible that this part is used to "display"
the activity of frequencies.
If a frequency tuned to a specific swinger is present - it vibrates.
"rpm" "display".

I think the display idea is not too bad.


rgds.

G'day all,

I have just received permission to publish the e-mail I spoke about earlier.
...
----- Original Message ----
From: Graham Ormiston <gormiston@diomedinc.com>
To: hansvonlieven@yahoo.com.au
Sent: Saturday, 3 November, 2007 12:37:27 AM
Subject: Keely's 'diatonic scale'

Hi Hans,

I saw your correspondence on Keely?s ?diatonic scale?. I thought an approach to the problem might be to create 3D images of possible solutions and compare them with the original image. I wrote a short Python script (attached) to create a suitable model, using the Visual Python library. The attached GIF is a screenshot. You can rotate and zoom the image using the mouse. The script can be edited to create different dimensions and distributions of rods.

This won?t undo any distortions like fisheye in the original image, but it may give you a little more to work with. Ideally, it would be nice to have a transparent window to overlay the images. That might take a little longer?

Python can be downloaded from www.Python.org. Visual Python can be downloaded from www.Vpython.org. You need to install Python first, then Vpython. The Vpython package, once installed, can be found in the Python25\lib\site-packages\visual directory. When installing Vpython, you have to check the box for either the Numeric or Numarray module. I found that Numeric worked, but with Numarray I had problems. There are directories for examples and documentation included with the visual package. Visual Python was designed for teaching Physics, so some of the examples are quite interesting, particularly as they can be mathematically accurate as well as visual. The double pendulum example is worth looking at.

Graham Ormiston 
...

Thanks Graham, great job.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: fritz on November 05, 2007, 04:46:55 AM
Display !!!!!

If you look at the pictures WHERE this spiral is placed -
its also quite possible that this part is used to "display"
the activity of frequencies.
If a frequency tuned to a specific swinger is present - it vibrates.
"rpm" "display".

I think the display idea is not too bad.
rgds.

No, Fritz,

It was definitely not for this. There is one scale on the motor and one on the liberator. Both devices are in resonance with each other. Keely used to draw small tubes of gum over some of these resonators, that much is documented.

I believe the scales were Keely's attempt to control unwanted frequencies occurring with a sort of acoustic regenerative feedback.

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans and everybody,
just thought I would drop my two cents as regards the principles of these devices.
Recently due to the one invention commercialization project I am working at, I was "forced" to focus on the phenomena of cavitation. I believe native English speakers should be more familiar with the less formal name of "water hammer".
Small bubbles forming and collapsing within the water cause cavitation. This collapse (although microscopic) has a great power able to totally deform hard metal. That?s why the caviation historically have been fought against rather than stimulated or researched further.
Recently the scientific community have started to analyze this process further and have found a number of applications of this process. Although the exact source of massive power from those mini-explosions have not yet been established, some of scientists believe that this is caused by microscopic reaction of HOH. It is explained as due to the circumstances under which cavitation starts, small bubbles are actually a water split up into H and OH. As those have different potential, it causes microscopic spar across the bubble, which results in explosion of the bubble.
Different methods for achieving cavitation exist. One used in food processing is done by the means of ultrasound.

Could it be possible that the same effect was achieved by Keely and others and due to some modifications they stopped those explosions?

Yes aiks,

Keely reported sonoluminescence he achieved by purely acoustic means. This phenomenon was not re-discovered until 1934. For more detail on this look at my website http://keelytech.com/sonoluminescence.html which gives a rundown on the phenomenon. It is exactly the kind of thing you are talking about.

Hans von Lieven

Hans, a very interesting document indeed, thanks.
Staying on the cavitation side of the issue; - we all have heard of the water heater with COP>1, installed in some municipal building (fire fighters?) for getting the hot water. It is said that it also utilizes the effect of cavitation, but achieving it with different principles ? moving the water mechanically.
So if the cavitation is to be ?blamed? for this effect, perhaps existing ultrasonic devices creating cavitation have to be examined and used as basis for further experiments.
I wonder what would happen if we tried to electrolyze the water in which cavitation happens, or if we created those effects at different harmonic frequencies where all of the cause different type of cavitation (Keely?s approach?).
Further ? this document also states the forming of ?OH radicals in water during cavitation process.

I wonder how much this unit would cost: http://www.hielscher.com/ultrasonics/50h_p.htm  Or, - how hard should be to construct one myself.

Sorry - here is a link to a document from Royal Society of Chemistry: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CC/article.asp?doi=b410015h

An yes, that unit, with additional equipment will cost around 5k USD. With a falling exch.rate of $, it should soon become available to every household.

Quote from: aiks on November 07, 2007, 04:15:41 AM
Hans, a very interesting document indeed, thanks.
Staying on the cavitation side of the issue; - we all have heard of the water heater with COP>1, installed in some municipal building (fire fighters?) for getting the hot water. It is said that it also utilizes the effect of cavitation, but achieving it with different principles ? moving the water mechanically.
So if the cavitation is to be ?blamed? for this effect, perhaps existing ultrasonic devices creating cavitation have to be examined and used as basis for further experiments.
I wonder what would happen if we tried to electrolyze the water in which cavitation happens, or if we created those effects at different harmonic frequencies where all of the cause different type of cavitation (Keely?s approach?).
Further ? this document also states the forming of ?OH radicals in water during cavitation process.

I wonder how much this unit would cost: http://www.hielscher.com/ultrasonics/50h_p.htm  Or, - how hard should be to construct one myself.

G'day aik,

All this is discussed in my thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3411.0/topicseen.html You will find a series of essays by me on the subject there. It should answer most of your questions.

Hans von Lieven

@Hans

Found this web page-site and maybe this professor may have some insight into Keely. He is talking about Maxwell and others in that time frame. Also has info on vortexes. Just though it may be relevant. His home page link is at the bottom of the linked page.

http://www.cs.umbc.edu/~lomonaco/thomson/Slides.html

Thanks wattsup, good stuff.

Hans

hansvonlieven, I notice that it is not perfect and some tips are broke off as well a couple probes are completely broke off not to mention the one that is bent.

It looks to me like it may be used as some sort of frequency scale that starts at a high note and ends low or vice versa. I am assuming the pegs on the platform it is setting on must rotate and that may explain why the one is bent and a couple are missing.
The other part I see looks like may be some sort of power supply do to the wires coming out of it. Or it could be a transmitter of some sort. I would like to know what is in side of it as well as what the wires are attached to.

Quote from: nightlife on December 17, 2007, 01:23:44 AM
hansvonlieven, I notice that it is not perfect and some tips are broke off as well a couple probes are completely broke off not to mention the one that is bent.

It looks to me like it may be used as some sort of frequency scale that starts at a high note and ends low or vice versa. I am assuming the pegs on the platform it is setting on must rotate and that may explain why the one is bent and a couple are missing.
The other part I see looks like may be some sort of power supply do to the wires coming out of it. Or it could be a transmitter of some sort. I would like to know what is in side of it as well as what the wires are attached to.

No, the rings did not rotate, photographs of the assembled devices show they are stationary, in fact Keely talks about this. There was NO power supply. They are simply two complex resonators which were tuned to each other in order to create what Keely called "a sympathetic link".

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, maybe it was tool used for checking tunes of vibrations.

@ nightlife 


No, it was essential for the running of the motor according to Keely.

see the assembled motor with both scales in place one on the motor and one on the bottom of the liberator just barely visible.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Fkeelyfeedback.jpg&hash=df1c9e133789bbea226e5351f27d7e585e4a2bc5)

Hans von Lieven

I didn't see this pictured, well at least not blown up as it is if I did.

What is this motor? It looks like there is a wire or a tube coming from the and or close to the scale going down the liberator. Is this motor supposed to have run on it's own power?

Do you know what the liberator consist of? I also notice some sort of wire or pipe on the opposite side coming from the base, going up to the gear and or close to it. Do you know what that is?

The side with the scale looks to have a crank attached to it, is it a crank? If not, do you know what it is?

The last thing I question is, what are the groups of items on the inside of the center ring? They look like three different sizes and or items that are placed at different points around the ring.

Sorry to ask so many questions but this is interesting.

Jeeeeeesus nightlife, can you give me a couple of weeks to answer this?   ;D

The picture is of Keely's Globe motor, There is no crank handle on it and the things on the ring are resonators.

The rest I'll explain when I have a bit more time.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, a couple of weeks? NO WAY! You have a couple of hours and not a minute more. LOL I am joking of course.

Sorry, I thought you already knew those answers and when ever you find out just let me know and in the mean time I will see if I can find any information. If I do, I will post it.

I do know the answers nightlife,

In fact if you study my website virtually all you are asking for is there.  http://keelytech.com

It is just at the moment I am fairly stretched, I have a relative in a grave condition in intensive care at the hospital and I have to look after her animals while she is ill on top of this. She has no-one else here that cares.

Luckily in the last two days there has been some improvement and she is no longer on the critical list.

Talk to you later.

Hans

hansvonlieven, man, that?s terrible. I do wish the best for them and I hope you can still get some enjoyment from the holiday's.

I am glad to have met you and you have a good heart as well as a higher then average level of common sense and I hope my findings will help you with your quest. I didn't go in to details with it but the basics are there and that should be all that is needed.

My job here is done now but I will try and help those who need it to understand what my theory really means and how it is the key to producing free energy. Based on my findings, I think the TPU devise would be the best way to capture and compress it as long as a few things were changed to accommodate what is needed.

Good luck to you and best wishes to you and your family.

hansvonlieven, I have been thinking about Keely's theory of our universe having three different flowing vibrant frequencies. I cant find anything that say's how he determined that. Do you know or do you know where I can find it if there is even a record of it?

Something that is really bothering me is that a frequency is a sound and for it to be a sound, it has to flow. The word I am after doesn?t exist because it has never been put to words as to what electricity is.

Based on that, electricity has to already be present to create a frequency. I guess I will have to change the word frequency with the word electron.

Regardless what I call it, theory remains the same.

Quote from: nightlife on December 19, 2007, 11:20:26 PM
hansvonlieven, I have been thinking about Keely's theory of our universe having three different flowing vibrant frequencies. I cant find anything that say's how he determined that. Do you know or do you know where I can find it if there is even a record of it?

Something that is really bothering me is that a frequency is a sound and for it to be a sound, it has to flow. The word I am after doesnââ,¬â,,¢t exist because it has never been put to words as to what electricity is.

Based on that, electricity has to already be present to create a frequency. I guess I will have to change the word frequency with the word electron.

Regardless what I call it, theory remains the same.

I think your missing the point nightlife.... a freq is determined from f * λ = c easily with a single variable ....The longer the wavelength meaning bigger wave the more resistance it encounters from the ather,  the smaller the wavelength the less resistance it encounters on its path and is able to travel at a faster oscillation.What modern science doesent want to get into now is that when magnetic feilds come into play the speed of light in the given shell or feild may be altered meaning that a second equation is needed to calculate the variable state of c before the rest could be properly found.  Just go look at the full EM SPECTRUM....  from 1 hz up to terahertz energy may have different forms depending on its freq or speed of oscillation.... from vibration to coherent sound to radio and to light...  there are many examples  but start checking into basics like this for a better start.
                                                                                                                                                Joe

PS.. I think this guy named.. ummm i forgot hold on... wait ... Keely yea thats it. made rotating magnetic feilds with a few different techniques ...

no Bill, don't do that,

I think frequency, or vibration is better. Keely says that mass (therefore electrons) are created by certain vibratory conditions.

The way I understand it is that whenever these primordial streams meet under certain conditions matter is manifested. by the same token he says that if you can level a complimentary frequency at matter you can dissolve it into energy.

Hans

Quote from: nightlife on December 19, 2007, 11:20:26 PM
hansvonlieven, I have been thinking about Keely's theory of our universe having three different flowing vibrant frequencies. I cant find anything that say's how he determined that. Do you know or do you know where I can find it if there is even a record of it?

Something that is really bothering me is that a frequency is a sound and for it to be a sound, it has to flow. The word I am after doesn?t exist because it has never been put to words as to what electricity is.

Based on that, electricity has to already be present to create a frequency. I guess I will have to change the word frequency with the word electron.

Regardless what I call it, theory remains the same.

@nightlife

Have a look at Professor Brinton's description of Keely's system  http://www.keelytech.com/theory.html 

You will get a clearer view of what I am driving at

Hans

hansvonlieven, it looks to me like you are after the makings of a electron. Is that true?

Actually I am trying to go beyond that nightlife   ;D

hansvonlieven, did you know that our governments regulates what frequencies we can transmit? This limits our research because if we cant transmit certain frequencies to test their electrical content, then we have no way to locate and or test which frequencies would work best as a power source. I almost bet this was done after Tesla discovered what he did. Big money wouldn't allow it then and still won't allow it because they cant put a meter on what?s free, it would be like trying to put a meter on the air we breath.

I still think it can be done with what we have access to. This will be my next idiotic quest to see how much more of an idiot I am. Everyone already thinks I'm an idiot because of my thoughts for a electricity theory.

This time I will try to get some proof with verifiable results before I make a bigger ass out of myself. Any suggestions based on my idiotic electricity theory?

If I'm not back by the end of the holiday's, I wish you and your family happy holidays.

G'day nightlife,

There are very good reasons why the electromagnetic frequency band is tightly regulated world wide. They found that out very early in the piece with the old spark gap transmitters that sprayed stray frequencies all over the landscape. you could not have more than two or three of these things in the same area without them interfering with each other because they needed too much bandwidth.

There is only so much bandwidth available and competition is fierce.

As to making perhaps an idiot of yourself don't ever be afraid of that. Every time we are wrong and someone points out the error of our ways we have an opportunity for learning. This is far more important than any temporary feeling of embarrassment. Throw yourself out there with courage, take your lumps as they are dished out and come out of it a better and wiser man. There is no dishonour in this.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, the whole idiot thing is just to help save myself from becoming involved in a disrespectful debate. I in no way consider myself as a idiot, uneducated yes but no way close to an idiot. A idiot to me is a close minded person who can not try to use a open mind when trying address a situation.
Education isn't so much as what you have read and or been told as much as it what you have personally experienced. Our education systems are based on what others have read and or been told and or what they have possibly experienced. 
  When we base our education on what others have experienced, we are at the mercy of their story of their experience. We all know how things can and do get twisted when a story gets told by another after hearing it from another themselves. We also know how some exaggerate about things as well. We also know how some will tell it how they want it to be heard so it will benefit themselves. This is one of the reasons our education systems are regulated and only allowed to teach about certain things and they are limited on the way they can be teach them as well as they are limited to what they can use to teach about them.
The whole electron thing is a prime example, no one has ever seen one but yet we are taught that there is one. The same thing with God. They say there is a electron because there has to be and they say the same thing about God.

Maybe God is the electron, proton an nuclei?
Maybe a atom contains another universe?

There is no answer and only assumptions at this point, we have to use what we do know about and when energy is the subject, we must start with what we know of as a natural ever lasting reproducible energy source and that would be a natural flow that can be received and repelled as well as intensified or canceled or restricted. The only natural source that we are aware of at this time like that is a frequency.

Does that make sense? LOL

G'day nightlife,

You are not the only one that does not believe in the existence of electrons as particles. have a look at http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, if a electron is what electricity is made from, then it has to be a form of a frequency because there is no way a atom can pass thru a solid. Electricity can and does pass thru solids but only thru what it is attracted to. The same as a frequency. The same with our body's. our body's contain iron which would attract frequencies and there for must have electrons. That would explain our electrical currents that are said to send signals to and from our brain. The iron in our body's must be like silver or copper.

I am getting there and I will have a way for us to capture these so called electrons in a mass amount enough for us to be able to use them as a power source. Stay tuned, the mad man will return. LOL

@nightlife,

I see it something like this

If you assume that there is an ether and that electricity is a PRESSURE WAVE within that ether you do not need electrons.

If you assume there is no ether, just particle physics, you do need electrons since something has to carry the charge.

This is where people like Keely, Helmholtz, Schauberger, Tesla and others differ from the main stream.

Hans von Lieven

G'day all,

As an addendum to my last post I would like to draw your attention to this article on Helmholtz:

http://www.geocities.com/bioelectrochemistry/helmholtz.htm

At the end of the article it says this:

Helmholtz' work was the end product of the development of classical mechanics. He pushed it as far as it could go. When Helmholtz died, the world of physics was poised on the brink of revolution. The discovery of X-rays, radioactivity, and relativity led to a new kind of physics in which Helmholtz' achievements, although impressive, had little to offer the new generation.

I have a feeling that conventional science has too readily relegated Helmholz to history. I feel there is much that he discovered which has been put aside in favour of a different approach to physics.

Perhaps it is time to re-examine his teachings. But that would require re-examination of ether theory and who in science is prepared to do this?

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, I am saying that a frequency is the electron and the frequency is what carries the charge. We must use something to  collect mass amounts of frequencies to have enough power to utilize for what ever we need it for.

This test should be done to see if I am right. Take a antenna and put in the middle of a compressed magnetic field. I would use a thick ring magnet that is at least about 3 inches thick with the center the north and the outer perimeter the south with a hole in the center about 2 inches. The another magnet with the polarities reversed but with the same size hole in the center. Then put the north on top and the south on the bottom compressing them together leaving about a 2 inch gap. Then take some super conducting material and make a circle 1 inch in diameter and 51/4 inches long. Put this in the center using something none metallic to keep it centered. Then make sure it is 1/8 inch above the center of the north magnet and then check to make sure the bottom is a 1/8 inch below the bottom magnets center. Then place the antenna through the center using something to keep it centered. Then check the leads coming from the antenna and I bet you will have voltage.

This design should create a vacuum effect that would only have this affect on frequencies. If not, try it by removing the south first and if that doesn't work, try it removing the north and if that doesn't work, use the concept on a attraction motor with different magnets and it will work.

Magnets strongest attraction and repel points are in the center of the polarities bur you have to leave a gap when trying to shield one side so the magnetic flux can still rotate. You also have to start the shield just before the center of the draw.

Did that make sense?

Where do you even come up with this shit man... I mean woahhh! after what hans just said you have THAT to say back ... You should run immediately to the closest public place and start yelling I'm a terrorist....I bet they would  listen to your theory's then.

G'day nightlife and all,

I am reposting here what I said on the subject in another thread

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: nightlife on December 21, 2007, 01:23:39 PM

QuoteMy whole point of starting this thread was to show everyone that electricity can be produced by collecting natural frequencies because frequencies are part of what electricity really is. Frequencies can be collected using one and or the combination of all ferromagnetic elements for the attraction and or a north end of a magnetic field will supply the same effect and the south end of the magnetic field will repel it or in other words, push it.
Magnetic fields act like a vacuum, the north being a suction and the south being the exhaust. They will use the vacuum effect on all ferromagnetic elements as well as a frequency but it will only use the exhaust effect on frequencies.
Magnetic fields act like a turbo for the flow of frequencies, the stronger the field, the stronger the flow.

G'day nightlife,

You obviously suffer from a number of mis-conceptions about the nature of electricity, magnetism and oscillations (frequency)

These things exist independently of each other and only are associated with each other under certain conditions.

For instance, a sonic pressure wave at ANY frequency has no electrical or magnetic phenomena accompanying it. You can level a sound wave at, for instance, a piece of glass and shatter it, without causing any electrical or magnetic phenomena to occur. There were no electrical discharges or magnetic disturbances when the Tacoma Bridge collapsed.

There is no electricity whatsoever associated with a permanent magnet. No discernible electric field has ever been discovered around a permanent magnet.

There is no magnetic field associated with static electricity. You can charge up an electrophorus with static electricity and attract a dielectric, like bits of paper, with it and have no deflection of a magnetic compass needle. Try it for yourself, take a bit of plastic, like a comb, rub it with wool and pick up tiny pieces of paper with it next to a compass. It will pick up the paper but it will not show a magnetic field.

There are no discernible oscillations in direct current ( DC )

There is no such thing as suction, there is only differential in pressure. It is the pressure that fills a vacuum, not the vacuum attracting something.

All the phenomena you are talking about come about as the result of an interaction between these forces.

For electricity to generate a magnetic field it has to flow! For a magnet to generate electricity it has to move against something!

The forces themselves exist independently of each other.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven,  "There is no electricity whatsoever associated with a permanent magnet. No discernible electric field has ever been discovered around a permanent magnet."

That?s because a magnet doesn't contain enough for us to find. The other reason is because it is so self involved because it is using all it's energy to fight against the opposing flow. It has no bite left after working so hard. In my opinion anyways.

"There is no magnetic field associated with static electricity. You can charge up an electrophorus with static electricity and attract a dielectric, like bits of paper, with it and have no deflection of a magnetic compass needle. Try it for yourself, take a bit of plastic, like a comb, rub it with wool and pick up tiny pieces of paper with it next to a compass. It will pick up the paper but it will not show a magnetic field."

I wouldn't think that you would be able to create a magnetic force from combing your hair. It may have enough electricity in the air around it to attract paper because paper contains iron.

"There are no discernible oscillations in direct current ( DC )"

There may be and we just don?t have good enough meters to be able to detect the vast amount of vibrations it has.

"For electricity to generate a magnetic field it has to flow! For a magnet to generate electricity it has to move against something!

The forces themselves exist independently of each other."

That is correct except a magnet doesn't create electricity, it only makes it flow when it is moved against a weak ferromagnetic element that attracts electricity and if you stick a wire in the middle of design I just posted before this post, I bet you would get voltage.

Maybe there are different frequencies as you stated but I am stuck in open mind mode until I get this figured out and I am have a hard time thinking there are different ones except for the ones that have that are created from things added to them.

I am getting there and I think I am now to the point where I can start experimenting with a few things to test my theory.

 

Localjoe, I am keeping a open mind while I try to find away to get free energy. I am ignoring everything I was ever taught as well as everything I have read except for the things I find sensible. I may, as I have a few times with this, change my direction because I may have learned to except something to be sensible that I found un-sensible at the start.

Please don?t test my intelligence, you will see soon enough what and why I say things I do. It is going to take a person with some common sense and a open mind to figure this out. I do believe I am getting close and I am now to the point to where I can experiment.

Just bare with me a bit longer and I should be done with what you may think is idiotic.

@ nightlife,

You say:   I wouldn't think that you would be able to create a magnetic force from combing your hair. It may have enough electricity in the air around it to attract paper because paper contains iron.


Iron has nothing to do with it, in fact anything ferrous does not work. It will pick up glass dust or coal dust and is actually used tho clean up micro particles from emissions.

You can get enough energy from an electrophorus to kill you if the thing is big enough and gets rubbed well. What you can get is a massive spark, like a lightning, and then, and only then, do you have a magnetic field but only during the discharge. Which proves my point because the electricity was there BEFORE the discharge and without a magnetic field.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, "Iron has nothing to do with it, in fact anything ferrous does not work. It will pick up glass dust or coal dust and is actually used tho clean up micro particles from emissions."

All those items have iron in them, they are so light that they will come to a mass amount of a energy field easier then the energy field will come to it. You have to remember that a energy field is only has a north polarity unless it is put in a spinning action. If the field is heavier then what it is attracted to, it will draw what it is attracted to, to it instead of its self to it.

@ nightlife

How do you make out that carbon or silica contains iron?

Hans von Lieven

@hans
One cannot have a sensible debate if the parties involved are using
entirely different languages in entirely different worlds. Kinda reminds me of a few
other threads.

@nightlife
You have your theory and although I know it's totally wrong you have every right to have it.
However, I see no reason why you need to keep starting new threads to push your theory.

ERS

Evil Roy Slade, good point but I started a new thread when had Idea about something new. I will stop doing that and I mean no harm.


hansvonlieven, I am assuming that atoms have some sort of a iron content to be able to hold a so called electron from coming out of it because you cant tell me that a atom, being a substance, can pass through another substance. Think about that next time you hear some one referring to a electron as a substance.

I told you guys that I am here with a open mind using only my common sense and common sense tells me that one substance can not flow thru another.

How do you suppose a complex and large atom like iron fits into a hydrogen atom for instance. You are treating iron like a subatomic particle.

Hans

hansvonlieven, I must be becuase I cant think of any other element that is attracts a force or a frequency that would be in every substance known to us.

Is there one I am not thinking about?

That shoots your theory in the foot right here, doesn't it?

Hans

hansvonlieven, no, because I am saying that the so called electron is a frequency and we know a atom is a substance.

If a electron is a substance, do you think one substance can go thru another? It is impossible, so then the so called electron has to be some sort of frequency.

Do you see what  have been trying to get at and why I am so stuck on my theory? I know there are all sorts of frequencies but electrons would have to be a part of all frequencies for all frequencies to be attracted to iron.

You mentioned how one crystal could stop one frequency from flowing thru it and that makes me think that frequencies must contain another force and I am thinking that maybe were the so called electrons come from.
This is turning in to another endless search like our existence. LOL

One think I can say is there is no way a electron can be a substance and every frequency has to have these so called electrons flowing with in them.

It is not true that all frequencies are attracted to iron. Pressure wave frequencies are actually repelled by it.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, well great, now I guess we have to find out what all these different frequencies and waves are made out of. LOL

That tells me that we must have a negative frequency and a positive frequency and I am wondering if we may have a neutral. Keely did talk of three different ones although he I believe was referring to vibrant ones that I am assuming would be positive ones.

It sounds to me that we need to attract the LF and use the Galena crystal to filter the bs out leaving only the electricity behind for us to utilize.

 I was trying to use my computer to draw a picture of the design I was talking about for a antenna but after seeing the set up Meyers used, I want to give that a try. It looks rather simple to build as far as the actual absortion process and I think that alone should give us some readings to base the reality of his design on.

What are your thoughts about this design he has? Do you see any way to simplify it do to our advancements with circuitry?

@ nightlife

How much more simple can you get, iron wire, zinc plates and a couple of magnets.

Apart from us now having stronger magnets than Myer had there is no advancement in any of this, it is soooooo basic.

Just mount the whole assembly on a board about 4 feet long and connect a diode to it and measure what you get. Myer reckons you can get about 8 Volt with a rig like this. He does not mention amperage.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, I was talking about the rectifier, not the absorber.

For a rig like this a simple diode will suffice for testing

Hans von Lieven

Does anyone Notice something about the "GALLERY" on post # 11??????

take a good look at that first photo labeled  Hansen,Victor

that photo was taken no earlier than  (mid) 1984 , and there appears to be a Keely motor sitting on the table.

Where is this device now?? and why hasn't anyone taken it apart to see how it works??

@ hans and nightlife

"iron" is not the proper substance here, but the analogy is very applicable, essentially, the simplest atomic structure (hydrogen) is composed of x# of these tiny "irondust fragments" making up the proton that are all polarized together to form a monopole.  Conversly the electron is composed of y# of these fragments that are polarized as a monopole of the opposite polarity, the fields are nearly identicle, but there is a large difference in physical "mass" (for reasons i do not yet understand). The electrons do not "pass through" materials, rather they pass Between the atoms.

electrons cannot ever reach the atom, they are pulled inwards and fly outwards in a constant motion until they are slowed (by loss of energy in the nucleaic field) towards the end of its cycle. (atomic decay)
the electrons dont loose their energy, the nucleus does.

in paramagnetic materials, (such as iron or steel)  the nucleic field has multiple "nodes", where the fields of the associated protons and neutrons cross each other. They are symmetrical, meaning that an identicle node occurs on the opposite side of the nucleus- Which alows the electron to assume an orbit along that pair of nodes.

When a magnetic field is introduced, the electrons are either repelled or attracted to the field (depending on the polarity [a/c EMFs always attract them]) and the electron assumes the respective orbital path.

the molecular allignment of a solid piece of ferromagnetic metal is such that all the electrons assume parallel orbital paths, giving it a "net magnetic field", while in the presence of another (stronger) field. -

the neutron is also "paramagnetic but is much different, in the fact that it assumes an equal and identicle field to the proton its attached to.

molecules such as copper has a more complex system of "nodes", which do not allow a cummulative parallel alignment of the electrons.

Iron is not good for inducing electricity, you need a non ferromagnetic metal (copper seems to work well), because of the perpendicular fields that create the "electricity" we use. 

Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 23, 2007, 07:12:10 PM
Does anyone Notice something about the "GALLERY" on post # 11??????

take a good look at that first photo labeled  Hansen,Victor

that photo was taken no earlier than  (mid) 1984 , and there appears to be a Keely motor sitting on the table.

Where is this device now?? and why hasn't anyone taken it apart to see how it works??

As far as I know this patrticular motor is one of the many replications tried by Dale Pond. It does not work. He has built far more elaborate ones, they look exactly like the globe motor but they dont work either. He actually sells them for $25,000.00 and I believe he has sold a few. They all have names. Here is a photo of "Atlin"

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svpvril.com%2Fimages%2FAtlin8399.gif&hash=143d287667becf65c5b43216a71a380b1a280e8d)

Hans von Lieven

If you notice in keeley's writings, that every 7th key is "off". - and he does things to handle this

a closer look at the original picture you posted, i can see that every 7th "bar" i'll call them, along the spiral is "off" in length. shorter, but i cannot find any apparent mathematical seqeunce to it. i think this is pure harmonics at work here, perhaps from the cancellation effects (destructive interference) of crossing freqiencies.

i think you need to adjust every 7th bar along the spiral to fit the scale w/ interference, this is perhaps the reason he added this particular piece to begin with, to eliminate some sort of bad resonance.

Yes Smoky,

This is exactly what I have been thinking. We know Keely drew some small gum tubes over some of the resonators of that scale. I have always thought that Keely's motor relies on some regenerative feedback in order to achieve the ultra high frequencies he claimed. For that to occur the harmonics need to be pure and free from unwanted oscillations.

Hans von Lieven

its Constructive Interference.

He utilizes all octives of b flat,
the resonating ones are the 3rd resonant frequency, and then the 6th and 9th
something about every 7th being cut short by destructive interference from the 5th ad 8th

if molecules do indeed resonate in this frequency range, then what he is saying about the energy levels is absolutely correct. It is an exponential increase to infinity.

for the very same reason they put HUMOUNGOUS diodes on the tall radio towers,  constructive interference can build up megavolts on those towers and blow out the entire transmitter station.

That make sense because signal interference would be considered a resistance and should create energy. Any flow that is resisted should create a frequency and I have it stuck in my head that a frequency is electricity.

This next link shows how a large amount of frequency powers a florescent light and burns salt water. You should also note the light of the beam has a color to it which would show it's added contents such as maybe sound and or video. If it didn't have the added sound and or video feed, I would bet it would be the same color of daylight. I suspect that because of the effect that our suns frequency has on our atmosphere when it is flowing thru it. I am assuming that if he was to hold his hand in the beam, it would get hot after a few minutes if that long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5BBL849ZI

He really isn't doing anything but amplifying a radio frequency and I have it stuck in my head that we should be able to attract as much as he is producing.
I am also thinking that the added sound and or video feed may contribute to the intensity of the frequency kind of like smokey was talking about with the interference. I am also thinking that the harmonics in the added feeds maybe the difference such as low bass vibrations and high note vibrations being the interference.

Again please note that this is a video and I am assuming they are being honest and as we all know, you never know unless you see it in person for yourself and I have not.

Nightlife:

I have seen this video before.  This made the national media for a short bit a little while ago.  My thoughts, when I first saw it, was, how much power does it take to run the transmitter vs. the potential power gained by the seperation of the hydrogen and oxygen from the water?  That looked to me to be a pretty heavy piece of equipment they were using.  I am not saying this is not a breakthrough discovery, it may be.  Maybe also just a first step. The thing that fascinates me about Keely is the resonance factor.  Just look around the O.U. site here and see what some are doing that involves resonance.  I don't even have to mention Tesla with his occilator that shook his building to near destruction by apply the right pulses at the proper time.  Hans has referenced the bridge that collasped because the wind set up a certain resonance in the suspention wires that built upon itself until....blam.  Because of the nature of atoms, everything has a natual resonance. (I read that but can not recall where)  I believe that Keely, and some others, understood this far beyond what we know of today. (Or think we know)  I am now just begining to try to understand occilator circuits and from the results I have seen on the Stiffler topic, and the micro TPU topic, I believe there is something there.

@ Hans:

How the heck does that guy get $25,000 for a replication that does not work???  Maybe I am in the wrong business.  Of course, I could never enjoy a single dollar I "earned" by ripping someone off.

Bill

 This is one of the aplications for a patent.

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdes?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2006190063&QPN=US2006190063

There is more that can be found by searching this next link's site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius

Pirate88179, I think Hutchinson said something about that. I also believe Einstein did to when he got into the string theory.

I to was wondering how much energy it consumed and I have to finish reading the application I found to try and find out.

Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 24, 2007, 04:14:24 AM
Nightlife:

Hans has referenced the bridge that collasped because the wind set up a certain resonance in the suspention wires that built upon itself until....blam.  Because of the nature of atoms, everything has a natual resonance. (I read that but can not recall where)  I believe that Keely, and some others, understood this far beyond what we know of today.

Bill

The sad truth is that there is lots of research in this area
from a military point of view.

A Merry Christmas !!!

      Alright after even more research ive found yet more data that confirms that the a432 tuning is the only tuning that will produce creative harmonics. As well this gives the base theory of the diatonic spiral.  ;D Notes and freq for the 432 tuning.

        288 D
        324 E
   360 F
   384 G
   432 A
   480 B
   540 C
   576 D


13.5.1  THE PHI SPIRAL

Fundamental to all studies of spirals is the most important of them all, known as the Golden Mean, Fibonacci or ?phi? spiral. To best understand this spiral, we start with the innately harmonic, vibrational way that it is created through number summing. Essentially, we will see that each new number is the sum of the previous two. Typically we start with one and add it to itself. That gives us a product of two. Then we take two and add it to the number before it, which was one, and that gives us three. Then we take three and add it to the number before it, which was two, and we get five. And on it goes as follows:

    1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89?

So, the numbers continue to expand in a simple, harmonic way, where each new number represents the sum of the two numbers that came before it. If we divide the above pairs of numbers into each other, in the earlier stages we will see all the common Diatonic musical ratios that Pythagoras discovered such as 3/2, 5/3, 8/5, 13/8 and 21/13. This should not surprise us, as music is a vibrational motion, and the summing technique used in phi is a form of vibration as well. The elegant nature of this vibration is easily seen in drawings of the ?phi spiral,? pictured below. To better understand how this spiral works with the Platonic Solids, it should be viewed as a three-dimensional object, as though it were wrapped around a cone with the top point at G and the bottom point at A. This type of three-dimensional spiral shape is called a ?conical helix.?

Fibonacci or "phi" spiral and geometric counterparts.

Although the early stages of the ?phi? number series will form the musical ratios between themselves, as the number pairs get higher and higher, the ratios between them become more and more similar, and the growth process stabilizes. Ultimately, as you go higher every pair of numbers in the series will divide together to form the exact same number, meaning that the ratio between all the numbers remains constant. For this reason, the ratio is called a ?constant? as it will always be the same, and the number, (which continues endlessly,) is:

    1.618033988749894848820?

Another interesting fact is that we can start with any two numbers, regardless of their difference, and begin summing them using the simple formula above. No matter how different they might be, within a short period of time we will again create the constant ?phi? ratio between the two of them. This entire concept has inspired countless generations of mathematicians, musicians, scientists and philosophers, as it mysteriously shows up in many different guises, including the growth proportions of plants, animals and human beings. As we have said, the musical ratios of ?phi? provide the structure for simple geometry in both two and three dimensions, which we now know is another form of vibration. The above diagram demonstrates this, as we can see that there are actually six isosceles triangles of identical proportions represented as the spiral continues to expand. The size ratio between each of the triangles will be the ?phi? constant of 1.618?, given above.

Quote from: Localjoe on December 24, 2007, 01:08:16 PM
      Alright after even more research ive found yet more data that confirms that the a432 tuning is the only tuning that will produce creative harmonics. As well this gives the base theory of the diatonic spiral.  ;D Notes and freq for the 432 tuning.

        288 D
        324 E
   360 F
   384 G
   432 A
   480 B
   540 C
   576 D


13.5.1  THE PHI SPIRAL

Fundamental to all studies of spirals is the most important of them all, known as the Golden Mean, Fibonacci or ?phi? spiral. To best understand this spiral, we start with the innately harmonic, vibrational way that it is created through number summing. Essentially, we will see that each new number is the sum of the previous two. Typically we start with one and add it to itself. That gives us a product of two. Then we take two and add it to the number before it, which was one, and that gives us three. Then we take three and add it to the number before it, which was two, and we get five. And on it goes as follows:

    1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89?

So, the numbers continue to expand in a simple, harmonic way, where each new number represents the sum of the two numbers that came before it. If we divide the above pairs of numbers into each other, in the earlier stages we will see all the common Diatonic musical ratios that Pythagoras discovered such as 3/2, 5/3, 8/5, 13/8 and 21/13. This should not surprise us, as music is a vibrational motion, and the summing technique used in phi is a form of vibration as well. The elegant nature of this vibration is easily seen in drawings of the ?phi spiral,? pictured below. To better understand how this spiral works with the Platonic Solids, it should be viewed as a three-dimensional object, as though it were wrapped around a cone with the top point at G and the bottom point at A. This type of three-dimensional spiral shape is called a ?conical helix.?

Fibonacci or "phi" spiral and geometric counterparts.

Although the early stages of the ?phi? number series will form the musical ratios between themselves, as the number pairs get higher and higher, the ratios between them become more and more similar, and the growth process stabilizes. Ultimately, as you go higher every pair of numbers in the series will divide together to form the exact same number, meaning that the ratio between all the numbers remains constant. For this reason, the ratio is called a ?constant? as it will always be the same, and the number, (which continues endlessly,) is:

    1.618033988749894848820?

Another interesting fact is that we can start with any two numbers, regardless of their difference, and begin summing them using the simple formula above. No matter how different they might be, within a short period of time we will again create the constant ?phi? ratio between the two of them. This entire concept has inspired countless generations of mathematicians, musicians, scientists and philosophers, as it mysteriously shows up in many different guises, including the growth proportions of plants, animals and human beings. As we have said, the musical ratios of ?phi? provide the structure for simple geometry in both two and three dimensions, which we now know is another form of vibration. The above diagram demonstrates this, as we can see that there are actually six isosceles triangles of identical proportions represented as the spiral continues to expand. The size ratio between each of the triangles will be the ?phi? constant of 1.618?, given above.

You now have the correct frequencies.

Meta