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