Wanna do something useful on FE? Study a lot

[profitis]

@kator yes electrostatics is where we meet many a 2nd law discrepency.a other german,andreas trupp has thoroughly explored this area as have many others. electrostatics in fact plays a role in many types of cold fusion aswell.

[Kator01]

Forest,

very good question. Lets ponder on this:

The reason why you have a more easy discharge into the air created by a tesla-coil emanating from a
needle that from a torus or a sphere is because of  the charge-density, right ? However this energy is wasted.

Coulomb-pressure is caused by the charge-density and if the kinetic energy is increased by this means then
discharge-time ( di/dt ) of electrons  must be shorter ( for the same amount of charge-carriers in the two different condensers ) . I had to study Jeong´s video more than one time- stop at the formulas,  calculating and comparing values, in order to understand.

Yes, the higher the kinetic energy the shorter the time of dicharge. Now the technical problem is to give way to this fast discharge. Ohmic loads are not the way and no.. I do not have an answer where this extra-energy goes if the discharge is directed through a resistor or an incandescence bulb

Regards

Kator01

[the_big_m_in_ok]

Hi Bugler

@tim123
I'm going to try and do as many responses as possible in the time I have on this borrowed computer.   I like most of your replied assertions with a few mild exceptions...

I tend to agree with your position, but I think it's a complex situation... Here's the logic as I see it:
- Official science teaches that OU is not possible. So, to believe in OU - you * must believe official science is wrong *, or at least incomplete.

And I agree in principle.   Orthodox scientists may have a hidden agenda they want to follow and a few, I believe, follow one.

- To go through a scientific training - while not believing what you're being taught - would be very difficult, if not impossible. Many millions of people start off studying the official science - and they tend to conclude that OU is impossible.

There was an old saying:  "The really bright student can overcome the failings of a school education."   I never did think FE and OU were impossible.   There was always something in my subconscious that told my the orthodox scientists/engineers were FOS.

- So (generally speaking) you * have to start off * as non-scientifically-trained to even bother in the first place. So it is inevitable that most people will be scientific dunces - when they start out. However...

Very good.   I'm still like that to some extent, but I have at least looked at what was available in officially reviewed papers and alternative literature as well.

- When you start experimenting, you find much of official science is the best model available, and you start to use it and learn it.

As a shamanistic-oriented Native American, I began using what amounted to intuition to begin learning what there was out there in the way of information.   I sometimes thought orthodox science was, as I said above, FOS.

- When you have learnt a decent amount of science, you realise just how clever good scientists & engineers are. If you're not in awe of people like Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla etc. it's because you don't yet understand what they did.

Tesla admitted out loud to others, and it was written down, he was being coached in electrical engineering theory and practice by someone or something that wasn't necessarily human---and using telepathy to do it.   The short answer to my response to this is I do understand what the geniuses of the past were doing to get their know-how.   There were geniuses, first and foremost, however.

- Genuine searching for OU * inevitably leads to studying official science *, but it doesn't work the other way around - official science doesn't prompt you to search for OU. If it did - these forums would be a different place for sure.

Yes, exactly.   Scientific orthodoxy isn't about to present public proof that we were looking in the right place all along.   The game would be over, then and there.

- I personally think searching for OU is a very healthy thing to do - mentally, emotionally and spiritually. You have to learn by facing up to having been wrong in the past. Most people *never* do that... Facing up to being wrong is necessary for learning, and the better you get at it - the faster you learn. Ultimately, we're here to learn about ourselves.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.   We should never stop learning; especially about ourselves.

- Official science, is very accomplished, but it is still fundamentally incomplete. Lacking a Grand Unified Theory, science is only able to describe effects, but not causes.

Okay, this is a biggy.   I spoke to someone about 20 years ago who said, by way of a reall high Top Secret Clearance in the Navy and later in the Gov't, that Einstein was described as having finished the Grand Unified Theory in the lats 20's or early 30's.   He said nothing about it because he thought humanity wasn't ready for the power it would give people---FE and OU, space travel, antigravity on demand, teleportation on demand as well, matter transformation, and more, to name a few.   He probably destroyed his notes and calculations.   

- The only thing that has remained constant about science over the centuries - is that it has always been proved wrong by subsequent generations of scientists. (Or at least incomplete / an approximation)

Yeah, ain't that the truth!!   People fairly often like to be lied to, since they seldom can handle the harsh reality of a cruel world like this one.   They're not exactly the most intelligent to begin with on top of that---with a few exceptions, of course.

- So, given science's lack of completeness, who can say which parts are essential learning, and which are just dogma?

Hard to say.   I suppose there are a few elite power mongers who have the scientific and/or engineering truth, but I doubt if they're going to be forthcoming with it anytime soon.

- For example: If RAR Energia's gravity powered machine works - as they claim it does - then how does that fit with current mechanical engineering knowledge? Where does it leave Newtonian mechanics? (That's a genuine question, I'd like to know...)

That one stumps me.   I don't know anything about the theoretical or practical hardware or theory pertaining to this subject.   I'll pass on this one.

- The greatest scientists have always seen reality in a fundamentally different way than everyone else. So, perhaps there is some validity in ignoring official science - but only if you're aware enough to come up with something better... I think that's exactly what people like Keely, Schauberger, Walter Russell, Tesla did.

Yeah, you betcha.   I have very high functioning Asperger's syndrome and a high IQ to go with it.   It's literally a form of autism, so it's described in the DSM IV as a mental illness, to boot.

BTW, have you heard of the Fifth Element, and do you have any favorite Unified Theories?
http://www.halexandria.org/dward124.htm

Regards
Tim

I GOOGLized "Fifth Element" and "Unified Field" to see what I could find.   Fifth Element generally referred to something like 'aether', which is unlike any of the other classical elements (Earth Wind, Water, and Fire).   Plasma as an ionic and electron mixture at ionized matter tempratures is all I can think of right now to describe the Fifth Element.
      For myself, when I was younger, I tried to combine, with differential equations:  electricial, time and power equations---I didn't even know what differential equations were at that time!---and I used physics textbook equations at the public library to do it.   I didn't get too far before I quit.   They "didn't compute" the way I was using them, so I gave up, eventually.

(The 'Web site you cite won't load and run on this computer.   I implied the software was restrictive, didn't I?)

--Lee

[forest]

Forest,

very good question. Lets ponder on this:

The reason why you have a more easy discharge into the air created by a tesla-coil emanating from a
needle that from a torus or a sphere is because of  the charge-density, right ? However this energy is wasted.

Coulomb-pressure is caused by the charge-density and if the kinetic energy is increased by this means then
discharge-time ( di/dt ) of electrons  must be shorter ( for the same amount of charge-carriers in the two different condensers ) . I had to study Jeong´s video more than one time- stop at the formulas,  calculating and comparing values, in order to understand.

Yes, the higher the kinetic energy the shorter the time of dicharge. Now the technical problem is to give way to this fast discharge. Ohmic loads are not the way and no.. I do not have an answer where this extra-energy goes if the discharge is directed through a resistor or an incandescence bulb

Regards

Kator01

Well, I believe 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct. There are methods to get more energy in spot but I think when we study Jeong's way  we find that the the average in time power will be the same for both cases so the total energy collected in time will be the same also.  The point is how much time and energy we have to spend to change capacitor shape to get more energy in spot....

[tim123]

...I spoke to someone about 20 years ago who said, by way of a reall high Top Secret Clearance in the Navy and later in the Gov't, that Einstein was described as having finished the Grand Unified Theory in the lats 20's or early 30's.   He said nothing about it because he thought humanity wasn't ready for the power it would give people---FE and OU, space travel, antigravity on demand, teleportation on demand as well, matter transformation, and more, to name a few...

Hi Lee
My feeling is that the GUT was completed around that time - from work by the great thinkers such as Keely, Russell, Tesla and many more. I'm not so sure about Einstein, some say he was a plagiarist, and it was his wife who developed Relativity, and there does seem to be evidence... I'm old and cynical enough to be suspicious of anyone who's eulogised by the PTB...

I think there are scientists who have been allowed to work on real physics, but the fruits of their labour is hidden away in black projects, at least for now.

The Fifth Element is also known as the Third Derivative. It is the theory that there is a force proportional to the rate of change of acceleration. It extends Newtonian mechanics - and it makes a lot of sense. It also allows for OU.

The basic premise is that nothing can happen instantaneously. Every action has a reaction - but it cannot be simultaneous.

Every thing takes some time to react to incoming energy. Nothing happens instantly. This is why light has a speed - and doesn't just propogate everywhere instantly.

Makes * a lot * of intuitive sense eh. DAVIS AND STINE were the researchers. The term they came up with is INTRACTANCE - which is like a kind of resistance - and the concept of CRITICAL ACTION TIME for a system.

According the Mach's Principle, all matter in the universe is connected - and that is what gives rise to inertia...

So, in essence, you can get the universe to do work for you - as long as you provide the initial impulse faster than the system can react.