Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?

[Eighthman]

Part of my interest in this goes back decades, to my learning about the Moray device.  No one has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation of how this thing worked but I think withdrawing power from the earth - air charge makes the most sense.

I also think......'free energy' (however defined) could hide in some small fundamental mistake made when modern science was still 'new'.

[stivep]

http://amasci.com/freenrg/sukdynam.html
I see many problems with that article.
It would take a lot of space to  discuss all of it,
I'll try to make it short and by that not so  understandable nor even  perfectly correct.
______________________________________
Photon is a carrier of electromagnetic  energy and light takes  one of bandwidths  of electromagnetic waves.
By light  we may understand visible light spectrum, infrared spectrum  and  ultraviolet spectrum.
Atom doesn't absorb electromagnetic wave but interacts with  that wave carrier- the photon.
Effect of that interaction can vary from Bremsstrahlung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

acceleration or deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by magnetic fields

to phenomena listed here:
http://www.nicadd.niu.edu/~piot/phys_630/Lesson17.pdf
all of these interactions are Quantum phenomena
And first problem with William Beaty,  9/9/99 article is that
title of his article is : Possibility That Electromagnetic Radiation Lacks Quanta of Any Kind.
He doesn't specify  how atom interacts with photon  in his study.
Next problem is his definition  of Near Field in regards to   receivers Rx as atom acts as the receiver of EM wave carried by photon.
Although we may speculate  about Near field of Tx (transmitter) when it sends photons,
we can't speculate about  Near Field of  Rx ( receiver) as there is NONE!!!
It doesn't exist, by that there is no Near field of an atom acting as  an receiver
EM Wave  near  Tx has Near Field  than Far Field ( simplified explanation) and EM wave  acts  much different in each of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
But when  EM Wave is  in Far Field and than is received  by Rx than there is  no  presence of  any secondary Near Field.

The next he is talking about I assume is aperture  and efficiency of receiving antenna completely ignoring that
Resonance is  like an open door for photon to come ( simplified) and  Efficiency is just smaller when antenna is smaller.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/64D/jresv64Dn1p1_A1b.pdf

Making an antenna much smaller than a wavelength generally results in it becoming less efficient.

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/157332/efficiency-of-antennas-vs-operating-frequency
There are many  parameters important like directivity of an antenna vs gain.
He simply doesn't  signify  between  point of charge and line of charge .
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-line-charge-and-a-point-charge
For me the article is convoluted, and  looks like story   for some guys trying to  interpret it  while not fluent in the subject matter.
So the conclusion is:
If you take  false assumption and build on it  a house than the likelihood is that it will not stand the  "criticism" of  local environment .
By that you may speculate about ionosphere  oscillations  as phenomena completely separated from  William Beatty  revelations.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1202869
Wesley

[sm0ky2]

Part of my interest in this goes back decades, to my learning about the Moray device.  No one has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation of how this thing worked but I think withdrawing power from the earth - air charge makes the most sense.

I also think......'free energy' (however defined) could hide in some small fundamental mistake made when modern science was still 'new'.

If thats the case, we will find it in the fudge factor 'universal constants' we add or multiply into our equations.

[sm0ky2]

@Stivep


With the rise of 5th dimensional mathematics,
a new view of the photon is available to us.


As a manifestation of a 5th dimensional disturbance,
the photon has no velocity. It is us who have a relative velocity
to the photon of 'c'.


The photon itself carries/creates its' own emf which propagates around it.
This causes the effect we know as self-interference.
In other experiments, we see that this field leaves residual traces through space
allowing it to interfere with another photon much later.


With regards to its' self-generated field it behaves just like the electron
as observed in low voltage DC "air circuits".
(Leedskalnin experiment #4, British Royal Society publication circa 1930's)


The analysis is problematic using our current 4th dimensional model, because of
the relativistic velocities between the particle emission and its' field.
But from a 5th dimensional perspective, only the field moves at c
While the particle remains still.
(Time in our dimension is constant from a 5th dimensional perspective, standing still)
We move at c, with respect to the particle manifestation, or rather we are moving
relative to the disturbance caused in the 5th dimension that we observe as luminescence.


In which direction? - well, to us that translates to every possible direction except one,
which is indeterminate. Or probabilistic rather, at any given instant.


Of course, this gives rise to the understanding that a photon is actually 2 photons.
One is a photon, the other is an antiphoton, or another photon 180-degrees out of phase.
In a dna-spiral, wrapping around one another along a single vector in our dimension.
Each of these photons is made up of 2 photons, and those are each 2 and so on to infinity
Like cauliflower.


We can separate (split) them or combine them up or down for infinity
or annihilate them and create a new photon one stage lower, and some heat, emf etc.[size=78%] [/size]
But there's nothing really there.
What we experience is a manifestation of a 5th dimensional disturbance.
it can be caused by atomic fluctuations, or by ionization or heat,
it can even be caused by emf directly if field strength is intense enough.
The frequency of the fluctuations in the disturbance determines its' intensity,
what we refer to as color.

[Eighthman]

I see the problem with using the Bohren idea is that there seems to be an unarticulated effort to switch off reductionism when one approaches the quantum realm - and it gets fuzzy as to where that line should be drawn.  Victor Mansfield called this the 'just is' idea.  Ultimately, things "just are" and no further explanation is possible.  Victor Stengler followed this approach in denying quantum entanglement by asserting what he called 'decoherence'  that 'just is'.


It's not central to my curiosity here. There might be near field gadgets out there that use some sort of oscillating field to gather energy.  I differenciate near and far field as stuff that's sort of conduction vs stuff that uses transmitted RF waves, subject to 330 ohm radiation resistance. Beaty mentions AM loop antennas and I'll have to examine that.


There are serious efforts ($) to examine the science behind whatever UFO's actually are.  I think we should invest in examining various well attested gadgets as to how they worked - rather than perhaps something so far advanced that we won't figure it out.  I notice from "Penn and Teller's" show that lots of slick explanations can be offered by experts in illusion superficially but their accuracy is another matter, as the entertainment therein shows.  Inventors can be repellent frauds ( Popp and Steven Mark) but that doesn't mean their devices were.