Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[truesearch]

@TheoriaApophasis


I respect your background and experience and would like to ask you one question: How do you suggest getting usable energy from a permanent magnet's "field-lines" without using physical movement in relation to a coil?


sincerely,
trueseach

[TheoriaApophasis]

This will be followed by pictures that are suppose to be showing magnetic field lines,when in fact will be electrical field line's.

Poor child, if you ACTUALLY had read the book, I would tell you that what fools think is a "magnet" is an electrified dielectric object

IN WHICH, in perfect condition, is 3.23606 parts dielectricity to 1 part magnetism.


Yes, they ARE electrical , however you confuse electricity with dielectricity, but that is ok.


However you, like everyone else, has no idea what a "field" even is.  There is no accurate definition of same.

[TheoriaApophasis]

How do you suggest getting usable energy from a permanent magnet's "field-lines" without using physical movement in relation to a coil?

I nowhere made any such claim of doing so.


I am not part of the "free energy" crowd of fools and nut jobs, and genuine overunity is impossible.   One might get "overunity" by drawing enormous power from natural sourced, but thats just "free movement" coupling.

I never mention free energy, or alternative energy, or overunity etc etc.

[SeaMonkey]

Well now, this has become a very interesting
exchange of thoughts!

It is always good to see new, (or Old, as this case
may be) mind expanding possibilities.  At the
same time it is rather puzzling to see how some
react defensively in response to what is perceived
a threat to the way they understand things.

You've said it well Th.Ap.  It is very refreshing
to observe how you "handle" those who would
want to disagree.

Let us hope that the end result of this discussion
will prove to be very positive and enlightening.

Carry on Gentlemen...

[TinselKoala]

Experimented for many years,  since I retired at age 32, and am 42 now.    MUCH more experimenting than yourself?


Contradict WHAT son?     Prove same.    Everything I have said is in accord with JC Maxwell, Faraday, and CP Steinmetz and O. Heaviside.


"I have found great difficulty in conceiving of the existence of vortices in a medium, side by side, revolving in the same direction about
parallel axes. The contiguous portions of consecutive vortices must be moving in opposite directions; and it is difficult to understand
how the motion of one part of the medium can coexist with, and even produce, an opposite motion of a part in contact with it. In (a
mechanical) mechanism, when two wheels are intended to revolve in the same direction, a wheel is placed between them so as to be in
gear with both, and this wheel is called an 'idle wheel'. The hypothesis about the vortices which I have to suggest is that a layer of
particles, acting as idle wheels, is interposed between each vortex and the next, so that each vortex has a tendency to make the
neighboring vortices revolve in the same direction." - James Clerk Maxwell


Godfather of electrical theory.


I suspect the both of you might be teenagers.   Children and their claims.    Go experiment for years and then write a book proving your premise son.


Talk is very cheap.   I do the experiments. 

Baby boy, I have experimental _notebooks_ that are older than you are.  You have no idea to whom you are talking when you talk to Mile High, Tinman or me with your disrespect and false claims. Carry on digging yourself deeper and deeper holes, sweet child. And it's very clear that you have no hope of understanding what I've written _and published_ in major scientific journals, so you can push your nonsense off on someone else. Kiss kiss, little deluded dreamer.