Overunity.com Archives

Discussion board help and admin topics => Half Baked Ideas => Topic started by: Elvis Oswald on January 19, 2008, 10:08:04 PM

Title: A Conversation
Post by: Elvis Oswald on January 19, 2008, 10:08:04 PM
This begins a conversation... and all are welcome to join our conversation on the subject of the nature of electricity.

We may perform a few experiments... but - this is a discussion.  So no need for equipment.

They say a gram of prevention = a kilo of cure.  They also say, cut once - measure twice.  So it is good to reason before jumping to conclusions.
I wish to start with reason and reach conclusions... but not the conclusions of the last 130 years

I believe the current zeitgeist about electricity is a tangent.  I believe we took a wrong turn somewhere... and that we should back up a step or two.

If you prefer to "stay the course" - this is not for you.
If you are a college educated engineer who cannot think outside the box - this is not for you.

We are beginning here - with http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm (http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm)

I was born and raised in the heart of the USA and I never heard Tesla's name in school. 
So I believe that there has  been an effort to suppress the name... and therefore suppress the later discoveries.

So let's begin with a discussion of the nature of electricity... and let's begin to get a picture of what electricity is, and was, to Tesla in the 1880's.

Let's start there and begin a conversation about electricity.
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: one on January 19, 2008, 11:57:20 PM
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on January 19, 2008, 10:08:04 PM
This begins a conversation... and all are welcome to join our conversation on the subject of the nature of electricity.

We may perform a few experiments... but - this is a discussion.  So no need for equipment.

They say a gram of prevention = a kilo of cure.  They also say, cut once - measure twice.  So it is good to reason before jumping to conclusions.
I wish to start with reason and reach conclusions... but not the conclusions of the last 130 years

I believe the current zeitgeist about electricity is a tangent.  I believe we took a wrong turn somewhere... and that we should back up a step or two.

If you prefer to "stay the course" - this is not for you.
If you are a college educated engineer who cannot think outside the box - this is not for you.

We are beginning here - with http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm (http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm)

I was born and raised in the heart of the USA and I never heard Tesla's name in school. 
So I believe that there has  been an effort to suppress the name... and therefore suppress the later discoveries.

So let's begin with a discussion of the nature of electricity... and let's begin to get a picture of what electricity is, and was, to Tesla in the 1880's.

Let's start there and begin a conversation about electricity.


Elvis

I don't have any quotes   at  the moment  but I think you  are on the right track

Tesla knew  more about  the true nature of electricity  than anyone   sense his  time.

Others have made  some progress but are  soon suppressed .

Hopefully    forums  like this can help  get  past the suppression  .   This  world  doesn't  have much of a future  unless  we can  find a better way to tap   the energy  around us .   
Depending  on fossil fuels   to provide us  with future energy is just no longer an option.   


Those   that have a " good education "  will tell  you that  there is no  such thing as perpetual  motion or free energy .

If you have an atom  at  absolute zero   and  then  raise  the temprature a little  ..........what happens to the electrons  of that atom?   
It seems to me that they  start  spinning .
The higher  the temp ..........the faster that they  spin .

Isn't that perpetual  motion?

On a hot summer  day     alot of updrafts  create very tall clouds.
water droplets  in these clouds moving in  close proximity  to each other  create  lighning .

Isn't this free energy?
Isn't it  over unity?

Free energy is all  around  us .
It is not easy to master  .....but it is there.

The only  reason  we have not mastered it yet is because it is still being activly suppressed .


gary 

Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: mapsrg on January 19, 2008, 11:57:32 PM
I agree Nikola Tesla was suppressed and he was the man that brought electricity to the people.I also dont think we appreciate the true nature of this force.....the true nature of electricity has not been attained and thats why this forum is so good...we are looking for answers and not constrained by dogma
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: Elvis Oswald on February 09, 2008, 02:46:24 AM
circuits are built with the input in mind.  if the input was different - europe vs america - then the circuit is different.

Telsa saw that mass mattered when building a transformer.  10 turns primary and 20 turns secondary doubled the voltage... but having the mass of material in the two coils matched the resonance between the two.  matching the resonance meant 100% transfer... less than matching meant some power loss.
So the mass being equal is is best.  And if you have two masses being equal you have 100% transfer of power.  But more turns = more voltage and less turns = less voltage.

The only difference is surface area.

more surface area (secondary) = more voltage.  Less surface area = less voltage.

and of course - as voltage goes up - amperage goes down.

With less surface area... voltage going down, amperage going up... does the smaller surface cause a resistance?

Some transformers give off heat  does a mass-balanced transformer stay cool?

more to come....
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 09, 2008, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on February 09, 2008, 02:46:24 AM
circuits are built with the input in mind.  if the input was different - europe vs america - then the circuit is different.

The only difference is surface area.

more surface area (secondary) = more voltage.  Less surface area = less voltage.

and of course - as voltage goes up - amperage goes down.

With less surface area... voltage going down, amperage going up... does the smaller surface cause a resistance?



it is not just surface area, its the number of molecules that are allowing for the transfer of electricity. a thinner wire has less molecules being effected by the electromotive force (conduction).
a thicker wire allows for a higher current.

the mass being balanced, there is the same ammount of metal in both wires, one is just stretched out into more turns.


Tesla was not supressed for the knowledge he possessed, he was supressed because of what he DID with that knowledge.
He was not only a super-genius, but also one of the greatest Mad-Scientists this world has ever known. The United States government stopped him from destroying the world, and destroyed his laboratory. The small ammount of knowledge that did manage to escape into the hands of the public, can be used to cause inhumane destruction with simple technology. I believe the supression was done for the good of the free society. - as "unscientific" as that may sound.

a Lot can be learned from the work he did, but there are some things that the general public just should not know.
Much of his technology is hidden in confusing patents, which if any random idiot could understand, we would live in a world of anarchy.

for example, one of his patents teaches one how to destroy any man-made structure with:
(1) the vibrator-motor out of a cell phone or pager (usually free from a decommissioned device)
and
(2) a 20k trim-pot.  (30 cents)


there are hundreds of patents publically available, and several more that the U.S. patent office cannot seem to find in their archives (hmm), most of which have hazardous potential like the one i mentioned above..
Others have the potential to destroy the planet we live on.

That being said, Tesla did know a great deal about the behavior of electricity.
But, as for the nature of the substance of electricity....,
i must refer you to another electrical entrepreneur by the name of Edward Leedskalnin. He truly knew the secrets of  electricity, and by studying what he tried to teach, you can obtain a full understanding of it's nature.
A subject, only recently being breached by quantum physics, and almost everything he said on that subject, thus far holds true. (be careful with his writings on some other subjects though, as most geniuses are, as was he insane)
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: Elvis Oswald on February 10, 2008, 10:13:56 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 09, 2008, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on February 09, 2008, 02:46:24 AM
circuits are built with the input in mind.  if the input was different - europe vs america - then the circuit is different.

The only difference is surface area.

more surface area (secondary) = more voltage.  Less surface area = less voltage.

and of course - as voltage goes up - amperage goes down.

With less surface area... voltage going down, amperage going up... does the smaller surface cause a resistance?



it is not just surface area, its the number of molecules that are allowing for the transfer of electricity. a thinner wire has less molecules being effected by the electromotive force (conduction).
a thicker wire allows for a higher current.

the mass being balanced, there is the same ammount of metal in both wires, one is just stretched out into more turns.


Tesla was not supressed for the knowledge he possessed, he was supressed because of what he DID with that knowledge.
He was not only a super-genius, but also one of the greatest Mad-Scientists this world has ever known. The United States government stopped him from destroying the world, and destroyed his laboratory. The small ammount of knowledge that did manage to escape into the hands of the public, can be used to cause inhumane destruction with simple technology. I believe the supression was done for the good of the free society. - as "unscientific" as that may sound.

a Lot can be learned from the work he did, but there are some things that the general public just should not know.
Much of his technology is hidden in confusing patents, which if any random idiot could understand, we would live in a world of anarchy.

for example, one of his patents teaches one how to destroy any man-made structure with:
(1) the vibrator-motor out of a cell phone or pager (usually free from a decommissioned device)
and
(2) a 20k trim-pot.  (30 cents)


there are hundreds of patents publically available, and several more that the U.S. patent office cannot seem to find in their archives (hmm), most of which have hazardous potential like the one i mentioned above..
Others have the potential to destroy the planet we live on.

That being said, Tesla did know a great deal about the behavior of electricity.
But, as for the nature of the substance of electricity....,
i must refer you to another electrical entrepreneur by the name of Edward Leedskalnin. He truly knew the secrets of  electricity, and by studying what he tried to teach, you can obtain a full understanding of it's nature.
A subject, only recently being breached by quantum physics, and almost everything he said on that subject, thus far holds true. (be careful with his writings on some other subjects though, as most geniuses are, as was he insane)


some things that the general public should not know?

Well - I guess we see that those with the wealth decide who is "general public" and who is not.  That is the problem with your thinking on this subject.

Every man and every woman is born into this world just the same as you, me, or the "elite"  -  it's not up for you or the kings and queens of this world to decide who has what rights.
The Kings and queens have always used wealth and power and technology to enforce their right to rule - and decide who is "general public" and who is not.

The US Government (not "general public") has used their technology to destroy people and to steal resources and to wreck eco-systems around the world.  So, perhaps technology is something no one should have... BUT - it is here and someone will have it.  It's best that we all have it.

Towns in the US that pass laws that say all people must have a gun... all but eliminate violent crime.  I'd say that if all Americans carried the same weapons that the police and military have - we would not have the patriot act and all the executive orders that allow the president to do whatever the f*ck he wants.

So, I say bring it on.  We are natural beings living in a natural world and we have a right to interact with it as we please.
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 10, 2008, 12:18:33 PM
the "elite" or wealthy have nothing to do with this. They too being deprived of much of Tesla's knowledge.

it has to do with Responsibility, Morality, personal characteristics that many people lack, or simply ignore.

if you give 100 people, each a small button that when pressed would blow up Lake Superior.

how long do you think that lake will be there, before it explodes?

what if you gave this button to 10,000 people??

200 billion people? - there would BE no lake left.

If it pleases me to destroy the world, are you saying i have the "right" to do so?  I have to seriously object to such idealism.

the "general public" refers to EVERYONE, not just the lower-class, or the middle-class, or anyone who falls outside of whatever "elite group" you are referencing in your post.

I think you need to understand the full context of what we are discussing here - technologies with destructive potential comparable to that of a nuclear bomb, from devices that are less complex than a Toaster. The majority of mankind is not responsible enough to posses this kind of knowledge. To tell you the truth, i had to struggle with my own self-control on this subject, and i like to think im a "rational person". - Ultimate Power can corrupt one's morality, and 'common sense',  but the Prospect of Ultimate Power, can be even more corrupting. I don't personally agree with the supression that has taken place, but i understand the reasoning behind it. Tesla is not the first, nor was he the last that this has happened to. What you or I think about governmental control is irrelevant, its done with everyone in mind, not just the few therefore we have to think about everyone else here, and not just ourselves.
You may like to have full disclosure of the technology, but would you like Tommy to have it? or Susie?
or what about that crazy kid Jim, who blew up the toilet w/ an M-80 in middle school?

I think we should all be greatful that any common idiot who reads Tesla's work, or his available patents cannot understand what he is talking about. Theres enough people that would use these things to cause destruction, that it makes it worth keeping it from those of us who would use it for good. - at least from the perspective of protecting the nation.

The only people that are not "general public", are government employees who have explicit agreements about what they can and cannot do with given information.

This particular case, i do not think they are "hiding" Tesla's knowledge, i suspect that they destroyed much of it, for the good of humanity. Which could explain why the patent office is missing some of his earlier patents from their archives.
He didnt build what he built, just to play with plasma arcs.....
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: one on February 10, 2008, 01:04:21 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 10, 2008, 12:18:33 PM
the "elite" or wealthy have nothing to do with this. They too being deprived of much of Tesla's knowledge.

it has to do with Responsibility, Morality, personal characteristics that many people lack, or simply ignore.

if you give 100 people, each a small button that when pressed would blow up Lake Superior.

how long do you think that lake will be there, before it explodes?

what if you gave this button to 10,000 people??

00 billion people? - there would BE no lake left.

If it pleases me to destroy the world, are you saying i have the "right" to do so?  I have to seriously object to such idealism.

the "general public" refers to EVERYONE, not just the lower-class, or the middle-class, or anyone who falls outside of whatever "elite group" you are referencing in your post.

I think you need to understand the full context of what we are discussing here - technologies with destructive potential comparable to that of a nuclear bomb, from devices that are less complex than a Toaster. The majority of mankind is not responsible enough to posses this kind of knowledge. To tell you the truth, i had to struggle with my own self-control on this subject, and i like to think im a "rational person". - Ultimate Power can corrupt one's morality, and 'common sense',  but the Prospect of Ultimate Power, can be even more corrupting. I don't personally agree with the supression that has taken place, but i understand the reasoning behind it. Tesla is not the first, nor was he the last that this has happened to. What you or I think about governmental control is irrelevant, its done with everyone in mind, not just the few therefore we have to think about everyone else here, and not just ourselves.
You may like to have full disclosure of the technology, but would you like Tommy to have it? or Susie?
or what about that crazy kid Jim, who blew up the toilet w/ an M-80 in middle school?

I think we should all be greatful that any common idiot who reads Tesla's work, or his available patents cannot understand what he is talking about. Theres enough people that would use these things to cause destruction, that it makes it worth keeping it from those of us who would use it for good. - at least from the perspective of protecting the nation.

The only people that are not "general public", are government employees who have explicit agreements about what they can and cannot do with given information.

This particular case, i do not think they are "hiding" Tesla's knowledge, i suspect that they destroyed much of it, for the good of humanity. Which could explain why the patent office is missing some of his earlier patents from their archives.




Smokey

Where  are you getting this BS  that   Teslas work is dangerous ?

Do you have any proof?

Your   idea that a cell phone   vibrator  and a few  parts can bring down a building is  just plane  silly .
Even  if   a cell phone  vibrator   was strong enough to set up  the necessary  vibrations   it would take   hours  or maybe  days for those vibrations to  build to a  high enough  level to bring  down a building.


Your  analogy  about blowing up a lake Superior is  just as silly .     
If you blow up a lake    you end up  with a big hole in the ground ,   this  hole fills with water and  you  end up  with a lake  .

Perhaps  if you   just climb  under a rock    or stick your head in the  sand   all the worlds problems  will go away.

As far as I know  acid rain is caused in part by our  dependence  on fossil fuel
Is acid rain   going to go away  if  we  do nothing? 

Is  global warming   going to go way  if we do nothing?



The   magic  button  to blow  up a lake  doesn't  exist ........ something  similar  does exist .  and  we pushed that button   a long time ago . 
We are destroyiing   the earth  by  depending on  burnng  fuel   for  our energy needs .


Tesla   was not  blacklisted   because his  work was dangerous .    He was blacklisted  because he  tried to  make a away   create  electricity  on a large scale that could not  be metered .

ALL new technology  has  risks

I do agree with you that   there are some  technology's  here   that   MAY be dangerous .
I agree that  some people might    try to use these technology's to hurt  others  if they become common  knowledge.

The plane  and simple  truth is  that if we keep   on  going  in the same  direction  we have been  going for the last  200 years ......  our world will be unlivable  in  the not  to distant  future.

I for one   choose to  work  to help  improve the chances of   the earth  surviving .



gary
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: armagdn03 on February 11, 2008, 11:37:13 AM
All things can be used for good or evil, it is up to us in how we use them.
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 12, 2008, 04:20:27 PM
G'day all,

My two cents worth in the debate. I know this is not for me to comment upon as I am a conventional engineer but I am doing it anyway. So there.

It is not electricity per se that is not understood by conventional science. Even though we do not know exactly what it is, we have a fair idea what it does.

What is not well understood, and what Tesla was on about is resonance. Two different things really as you can have resonance without electricity.

Understand resonance and you understand Tesla, Keely and a whole host of others that did extraordinary things.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: FreeEnergy on February 12, 2008, 04:58:01 PM
smart and dumb people can be just as good or evil. choose wisely.
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: Elvis Oswald on February 14, 2008, 07:09:01 PM
This wasn't suppose to be a debate over whether to let Tesla's "secrets" loose.  But I suppose that a good argument has been raised - though the details are not perfect - and I will respond.  Then we will proceed.

If Aretha Franklin can break glass with her voice, and memorex tape can do the same... then I guess (with 30 years to work out the plan) there are terrorists with cassette tapes at all the national treasures.... damn them. :)

Understanding the laws of nature may be dangerous.  But, because they are the laws of nature and they are all around us, then they will not be suppressed.  Some will figure them out.

Now you say that "government employees who have explicit agreements about what they can and cannot do with given information" are ok to have this knowledge.  And I think you are naive to believe that our best and brightest are the ones who would be in that position... and that they would "use it for the good of humanity"

Nepotism is what we have in this country.. and "in-breeding" hardly produces the best.  Maybe pretty showdogs - but they are sickly and demented.

As to what humans do with an advantage -  you can look at history and see that any technological advantage in the past has been used to secure power and control.

So let's end this discussion now.  The laws of nature are the laws of our creator.  Our bodies are built and function by these very laws.
To seek control and suppression of these laws is against nature.

If you are against our god given right to have control over our own minds and our own bodies and the corresponding connections to nature... then this forum is not for you.  So stay away!


8)
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: bw on February 14, 2008, 07:36:40 PM
hansvonlieven you are right, resonance.  i think much of the natural energy around us is rooted in resonance and in the vortex.  just look up into the heavens, the vortex is everywhere, galaxies, clouds, storms, moving water, all this and more spins and vibrates.  tap that and we really tap something.  vibes can break things and make big bridges made of steel swing all over.  that looks a lot like energy to me.  heck it may even be overunity.  just how much power does it take to make a vibe anyway.  i'd bet it's a whole lot less than any other method known of to bring bridges down.  heck, i'd even bet a water vortex might power more than the pump it needed to keep spinning, especially since the pump would not need to lift the h2o to the top of the egg shaped vortex tank.  it could enter the tank well below the water level.  i just think the vortex using the water weight may even push a couple of paddles around and power an alternator enough to keep the batteries powering the pump fully charged.  imagine that.
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 14, 2008, 08:09:36 PM
i like to think of resonance, like addition. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 ..... and so on as long as the 'source' keeps giving energy to the system at the right time.

after a relatively short time, you build up power levels far beyond what the source is capable of creating without resonance. Knowing this, resonance should be incorporated into every design we can possibly concieve of, - to improve performance.  at least thats my thoughts on it.

So, anything which can/does include resonance, "should be" more powerful than its identicle counterpart that does not include resonance. - providing that the resonance is constructive, not destructive, with respect to the power levels you are measuring.

Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: Elvis Oswald on February 14, 2008, 11:09:56 PM
Speaking of resonance... thank you hans... let's get into that.  :)

My point about the coils of the same mass was heading that way... but I had smoked a little too much I'm afraid...

You can have a primary and a secondary coil - and you can have 20 turns in the primary and 40 turns in the secondary - but you don't have to have the same material or the same mass.  But of course, you'd want to... because if they were the same material and the same mass then they would resonate.
My point was to say that a perfect transformer is one that both primary and secondary are resonant.  This can be achieved with the same composition of material and mass in both coils.

I brought this up - because it seems to point to something about the nature of electricity.  And thank you Hans, for pointing out that engineers do indeed have formulas that work to show how electricity acts... and of course it acts within that pen.  :)

composition and mass make up resonance... guitar strings are different sizes...
And resonance (at least) optimizes the transfer of the force we call electricity.

What can we deduce from that?
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 14, 2008, 11:53:51 PM
You have to start from the beginning.

A resonant body will accept energy of its own level of resonance and reject energy far removed from its own level of resonance.

It is important to understand this. Now, there is resonance and there is resonance. Take two guitar strings, say one of nylon and one of steel. Now if you tune them both to say A=440 the moment you pluck one the other one will start to resonate if they are in proximity to each other. This is resonance at work they say, but is it?

It does not take a particularly fine musical ear to determine that there is a big difference between the strings as far as sound quality is concerned. The nylon string will be much mellower and the steel string will appear sharp by comparison even though both are tuned to the same pitch.

The reason is simple, the harmonics don't match. Some harmonics will be prominent in the steel string while others are prominent in the nylon.

Perfect resonance is achieved when all harmonics resonate in unison. This is very difficult to do. Keely spent a life time trying to get there, he created some monumental devices, but could never get to the point where he had control enough to make it commercially viable.

For those of you wanting to learn more about this and Keely, feel free to use my web site http://keelytech.com You will find much information on resonance, harmonics and Keely which is not available elsewhere.

I am not given to esoteric speculation. My evaluations and findings are from the viewpoint of a conventional, albeit open minded, engineer.

Enough for now before I start rambling.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 15, 2008, 12:41:24 AM
Lets look at a piece of electricity of finite size. we'll use DC current for this example for simplification.

as it passes through a molecule of ...    lets say Copper, this "electric particle" has an effect on the copper, as it pass through it.  this effect is the same, wether there is one copper molecule, or 30 trillion.


now,, it would make sense that if the electric particle has an effect on the copper, that the copper should have an equal and opposite effect on the electricity. - i.e. turning it into heat and magnetism - and thus some of its energy is consumed while it travels through the copper.

now, when you have equal ammounts of copper that the electricity has to pass through (like a thin wire of 40 turns, and a slightly thicker wire of 20 turns so both have equal mass) - the effect on the electricity you are passing through the wires, should be "identicle" on both sides of the circuit.

Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: Elvis Oswald on February 15, 2008, 11:01:53 AM
Thanks for the addition Hans.  I do understand about speculation :)  and I appreciate your guidance in this - and your open-mindedness.

I'll have to study about what you've said and pose another query to you.

Smokey - let's back up just a bit.  They say electricity is the flow of electrons, it's true.  But, Ed said it was the flow of two types of permanent magnets.
So which one is it - or is it something else?

While we are thinking about transformers... and transferring power across a space... let's also consider a light-bulb.

A light bulb is resistance.  Resistance is what we've harnessed to produce light and heat - and even do calculations with.

But is resistance just electrons being thrown off because they are forced down a smaller pipe?
If you believe that electricity is flowing electrons... or even flowing "aether" then it would make sense.
But what are the other alternatives?

Going back to resonance... two coils with the same size wire - but different turns.  They resonate at different frequencies.  But connect them... what happens?  You have one coil... and it has a resonance different from the two you combined to make it.
And back to what I stumbled through earlier (with no success) - a circuit it made of various configurations of materials that individually have their own resonance.  Connected - these materials form a circuit and the circuit has a resonance.  *Let's exclude dielectric materials for now*

So if we are changing a property of the material by connecting it to other conductive materials... and there is no "flow" - why not chase (for a time) the notion that magnets in a generator are changing a property of the material as well.  -  What if there is no flow?
What if it is merely changing the spin?  Or what if it is changing the speed of the orbiting electrons?  Or both, depending?

Would an increase in speed mean an increase in mass?  Would that create heat?
OR - Would it mean an increase in force that would cause them to orbit higher?  Would that create a vacuum that would draw on some atomic scale power?

My point is that it may not be a flow at all.  It might simply be a change in the behavior of the atomic components of the material.  It may happen instantly when connected to another material.
What exactly it is, I don't know...
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 15, 2008, 01:04:19 PM
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on February 15, 2008, 11:01:53 AM


Smokey - let's back up just a bit.  They say electricity is the flow of electrons, it's true.  But, Ed said it was the flow of two types of permanent magnets.
So which one is it - or is it something else?



whew.... ok im about to open a can of worms here, that will upset some people. which i try to avoid in this forum, but since you asked. i'll give it to you.

The "electron" - as observed is, in fact the cummulative electromagnetic field, emmited from the N/S pair as they push and pull against one another, producing current.  imagine a two lines of people, facing each other, and they shake hands as they pass.  each time two people shake hands - an electromagnetic sphere generates around them, then quickly dissapates as they let go of each other's hands, and use that "boost" to travel to the next person.   What we see when you observe this occuring using a pick-up coil of sorts, is an electromagnetic sphere,traveling down the wire in tiny hops,  which has been dubbed the "electron".

the same is occuring in a static magnetic field, however the cummulative field is much stronger and we cannot detect the "electrons".  these pulses are constricted very closely within the lines of flux because of the cumulative field strength working against the "handshake". Such that there is almost no magnetic variation over time outside of the lines of flux. What this means to us, is that electricity does not induce in the wire unless the lines of flux themselves are moving through the wire. This is observed in practice ( creating electrical resistance in a wire by inducing an opposing magnetic field) however i feel that the current theory used to describe this behavior is a bit misconstrued.

Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 15, 2008, 01:08:38 PM
Quote

What if it is merely changing the spin?  Or what if it is changing the speed of the orbiting electrons?  Or both,

That is actually very close to how i describe the process of "induction"




each atom has its own magnetic field (and resonance).

a substance made up of many atoms/ molecules  will have a "cummulative" resonance, based on the number of molecules/atoms and their cummullative fields acting upon one another.

when you combine another substance (and subsequently its resonance) with the first substance, their combined  magnetic fields (and resulting resonance) will dominate.
in paramagnetic materials the atomic fields are "easy" to manipulate, and they line up while in the influence of a magnetic field - when that field goes away, and angular velocity of each atom takes over and the cummulative field becomes disarrayed.

in magnetic materials the atomic fields are "medium - like a semiconductor" - such that you can chance the cummulative field, but when the dominant field goes away, the atomic fields maintain the field imparted upon them. - over time individual atomic fields 'wander' on occasion, causing a depletion in the cumulative magnetic field.

in a non-magnetic material - the atomic fields are so strong, and so complex that an influencing magnetic field cannot change their orientation - instead they fight each other, which creates a 3rd field (being the cumulative between the two) that resonates around the non-magnetic material- in the forms of electromagnetism. also this "fighting" creates heat and the force we know as electricity. - you move the fields it forces this electric potential to move as a current.
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 15, 2008, 01:26:05 PM
it would seem to me that the 3 types of metals (and/or the sub-types) could be arranged so that they work together like a 'magnetic transistor' - perhaps this is what Searl was onto....
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 16, 2008, 02:12:57 AM
Keely's Gold, Silver and Platina for instance?

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: yamalaris on February 16, 2008, 10:37:33 AM
Hello all, 
@ Tesla's genius is still being understated or withheld .
Popular science recently had an story about wireless power . They gave total credit to the so called "inventor" for "his" high frequency wireless transmition system. Tesla got a  two sentence side bar with the statement " he tried but could not make it work" ..... very sad indeed.
@ when building generators or transformers.
(an source coil coupled to a generator coil) the winding ratio determines the voltage. The basic anology to describe electron motion on the surface of the wire in a transformer, is a  pair of spinning wheels , and how many times the wheel is exposed to the thrust from the adjacent wheel will provide a cumulative effect on the  wheel speed . 
@energy release and energy void
The surface electrons were already spinning but now the ev is higher .How can this be without an increase in electron orbit diameter ( and all that goes with a molecular energy alteration ) ?  The answer is in flemmings motor rule. All things  already have an energy level above zero point. This is a real electical potential.  If you apply the flemming rule to this we see the  vector energy released is from a Torridal rotation of electrons on the conductor . Think of how a baseball is thown in a curve. One surface of the ball is moving with the direction of motion as it spins. Thus a harmonic has been formed to allow propagation of the spin energy to arc the path of the ball.
If we assume that the spinning energy field already exsists in the conductor then it mut have properties induced on it from its surroundings and the cosmos (we are all traveling at 1.9 million kph). If we stike a harmonic between the conductors natural energy any its imparted energy (electricity) can we not draw off the cosmic energy as Tesla's antenna did? This makes energy above zero point a kinetic value more than simple potential (static value). Therein lies the power of harmonics and the bane of world oil.
Thoughts please?

...Best,Tim
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 16, 2008, 04:27:32 PM
the problem i see with this is - the frequency + field strength of the ev. as it orbits, creates a resonating EMF

now, when a voltage is applied on top of this, is changes the field strength and orientation, causng the new field to rosonate at a different frequnecy/energy level.

seems not possible to match the two, as the field caused by the electricity, alters the original field in the material, as well as the field of the original electric field (resistance).

if we were to attempt this, it would look something like this::

an approximation of of the atoms' 'rest state' frequency can be made by using the Compton frequency of the electron
as thus:
compton wavelength  (cw) = (approx) 2.4263102175?10-12 meters

Compton Frequency (Cf) = c / cw  - where c is the speed of light
the radius of the electrons' orbit is = 1/2 of cw.
Cf is the maxumim frequency, representing a hydrogen atom with the electron orbit in its "rest state".
as you increase the energy in the atom by inducing an electric field, the radius increases, and thus the frequency decreases along a non-linear scale. - as the electric wave travels through the wire the electron orbit increases, then quickly decreases with the frequency/amplitude of the electric field effecting it.

Now, most of us dont have access to nitrogen-cooled hydrogen metal to experiment with, so to adjust this value for a more complex element, we must make an adjustment to take into account the number of electrons that are orbiting the atom.Then we must use this number to figure the radius of the outer electron shell, there are charts with known values, i dont need to get into all that here. but this radius can be used to find the frequency of the outer shell, of say Copper. The cummulative frequency of the electrons in the outer shell should be the same - they act as if they are attached to the same 'rotor' as they orbit.

When the electric field is applied, this is when things get complicated.
energy from the electric field excites the electrons in the copper, bringing some of them to a higher energy state, essentially increasing their orbit, lowering their frequency.
ionization of the copper under the influence of the e-field, further complicates this.

and any change in the energy state of the electrons in the copper, results in a change in the e-field's strength. Heat will also do this, but it should be negligable for our calculations here, and will not be addressed.

so to find the cummulative field frequency:

we need the frequency and energy (J) of the e-field
the frequency of the conductive material in its rest state
and the change in J, when e-field is applied to the conductor. < - this can be derrived from resistance (ohms) but i cant find the formulae and its not one i commonly work with.

change in energy level of the conductor = change in J / ev * molar count - negating heat losses.
molar count can be found approx. by displacement (mass)

this is how you determine the electrons' orbital raduis, and thus it's frequency eminating field from the conductor, while under the influence of the e-field.

The frequency of the e-field, will remain the same, only its amplitude decreasing, as a result of the power-transformation, into the conductor atoms, and into heat.

so once we have the frequency of the conductor while under the e-field, its just a matter of finding the right combination of conductors + energy levels + frequencies.

this is a very high number,..  this is an extraordinarily large number, to the extent we may have to invent a new signal generator to create frequencies of that value.

the alternative is to find a harmonic 'octave' of sorts,. a lower frequency that will resonate with the electrons...

perhaps one of the acoustic guys on the forum can take it from here.




Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: Elvis Oswald on February 16, 2008, 08:08:00 PM
I appreciate the enthusiasm.  But I'll stay in the abstract for now.  In my mind - if we had such detail - as posted here... then we would be flying carpets.  :)

Drive slow homie  )

matching freq is best - but harmonics works... though not as good... but sometimes you cannot reach the freq you need with the material you have...
And don't forget that two freq. can produce a third (super het)

I do think that resonance is a function of composition and mass.  When two coils are joined, all particles immediately know of the collective and begin to resonate accordingly.  this is the power we are dealing with here.
And a magnet in motion on part of that circuit till affect it all.

Is it the speed of orbit?
Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: ddsurf on February 16, 2008, 08:20:50 PM
Life organisms, universe and all matter has a rate of decay. The most efficient engines in the universe decays. So in short why seek perfect positive result and ecept a 99% return from losses. Re heat, vibration, friction needs to be recouped and re used by a efficient mechnism.
If a motor were to run at 12,000 rpms with a 99% return how long would it run when turned off with a intial of 90 amps, 10 seconds 220volts input at  ?  This is a more logical question than perpetual motion. Once you achieve 100% you can question the extra .0001 you need

If a carpet could fly it would have special cloth generating propulsion from the air :) But it would decay! It is nature...

I would 100% agree on suppression. It is actually politically powered. Telsa was not on the inside of politics in fact was known as the "mad scientist" was he not.
The grass roots of sites like this has really inspired this insider.

Title: Re: A Conversation
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 17, 2008, 01:40:23 AM
I respect Tesla's genius, and the knowledge he has to share with the world, dont get me wrong here.

but i find is damned hard to believe that he did not know that his energy transmission device would ultimately destroy the planet.

He used the same mathematics we use today.

They did not tear Wardenclyffe down because of some "governmental conspiracy" from the magic crystal ball that Woodrow Wilson had, that foretold him of our generations Energy Crisis, back then, in the dawn of the industrial revolution....
They tore it down because it was dangerous. - we would not even BE here to discuss this had they not.

He wasn't "labeled" a mad scientist, he WAS a mad scientist. - and one of the greatest that ever lived.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Elvis - i dont think today's physics is that far off,
they just need to take a step back, and incorporate pre-einstienian nuclear physics into what we know today and we can start transitioning from a probabalistic quantum realization, into one that is discrete.

Once we do that, we could probably make our flying carpet talk :)

Title: The Question
Post by: Elvis Oswald on March 31, 2008, 07:45:45 PM
OK - so here's the question to contemplate.

How would you tap into the energy that is between the plates of a capacitor?


to clarify:  how would you tap into the energy from inside the space between the plates... assuming you were small - or the plates were huge.  :)
Title: Re: The Question
Post by: M@rcel on April 01, 2008, 08:18:46 AM
Quote from: Elvis Oswald on March 31, 2008, 07:45:45 PM
OK - so here's the question to contemplate.

How would you tap into the energy that is between the plates of a capacitor?


to clarify:  how would you tap into the energy from inside the space between the plates... assuming you were small - or the plates were huge.  :)

ehh.. http://jnaudin.free.fr/cstack/index.htm ?