Spinor resonance -- explanation for TPU like devices

[Gustav22]

....Cut 1196mm length...

Hi MarkSnoswell,

I was curious why you chose such a seemingly awkward length.
So I tired to find out, and if my calculations are correct, 1196mm circumference lead to a ring of ca. 38cm (15") diameter.

Please let me know why you have chosen this specific diameter
and/or which other diameters you think make sense
and/or whether all collector diameters imaginable are equally feasible to achieve success.

Thank you.

[MarkSnoswell]

I was curious why you chose such a seemingly awkward length.
So I tired to find out, and if my calculations are correct, 1196mm circumference lead to a ring of ca. 38cm (15") diameter.

LOL... as good as any size to start with -- not to to small and not to big. There is nothing to indicate that any particular size is best so I figured why not use the size SM has inspired everyone to try. I also dont think that it's a particular fundamental frequency that is important if it's spinor resonances as I suspect -- The absolute frequency is only important to tune to the physical properties of the coils used. It's the topology and frequency ratios that are important -- absolute static biases are also important factors in that they make the systems more coherent. 

[MarkSnoswell]

So where does the energy come from?  Electron spin. That?s the short answer? we convert a very small amount of an electron spin to a lot of momentum == electromotive force == useful current.

I figured that?s the best way to start ? just blurt out the answer and then back it up. As time permits I?ll explain more the supporting postulates. They are just postulates, not dogma. I may be wrong; however I do believe that I have a small set of concepts that show the way forward without discarding the beautiful work of those who have gone before. I?m not so arrogant to turn my back on the geniuses of the past or present ? instead I stand on their shoulders in an attempt to look out further and deeper into the nature of things. Above all I strive to make things clear for everyone and not just the mathematically gifted ? these are conceptual models that I will present; with all due respect and deference to the great mathematical works of past and present.

So back to the questions everyone wants to know the answer to -- where does the ?free? energy come from and how do we tap it??
In practice Randal Mills (www.blacklightpower.com) has provided the most modern and compelling experimental evidence for this. Mills has shown that the electron in hydrogen can be dropped to a lower energy level than was previously thought possible. The amount of power released by dropping the electron to a lower energy level is >100x more than released by chemical oxidation of hydrogen. Mills shows that dropping the electron to this lower level is a non-radiative process ? it does not involve emission of a photon.
Now rather then get into a deeper discussion of Mills process and arguments I want to address the question ? why does it work? Why can we lower an electron to a lower energy level and get a lot of energy out? The simple reason is that the vast amount of energy in ?particles? is in their spin. When I say particles here I am referring to fermions ? electrons, protons and neutrons. These all exhibit spin ? -- which means that they are spin waves in a simply connected 3D space? if the language is confusing then just think of them as spinning waves... But very special spinning waves of the sort in the attached animation. I can?t stress enough just how different the spinning waves are than your normal concept of spin. Physicists refer to these waves as spinors and I will use that term (and spin) to distinguish them from normal (single axis) rotation. I plan to do lots of animations so that everyone can learn to be intuitively happy with the truth that you can take any closed volume of space and spin it?s surface in one direction ? without every tangling 3D space. This sounds fantastic but it is a simple property of 3D space ? but the mathematics, even the concept, is not taught at high school or even at most university level courses? but more on that later. Back to our main theme for now?

But we have been taught that the energy in ?particles? is in their mass ? there is no mention of spin and energy. Yes we have ? but there is subtle error in this intuition. Mass is just curvature of space ? that is pure symmetrical curvature == compression or expansion. It takes energy to curve space and that gives us the Energy=Mass  (forget the constant of c^2 in e=mc^2). So isn?t there a lot of energy in curved space ? Yes, but how do you curve space. How does a spinor (I?ll switch to spinors rather than particles from now on)  create curvature of space. The answer is by spinning ? and remember this is a spinor wave not a simple single axis rotation. The curvature (mass) component of space distortion of a spinor is a symptom of the spin ? not the cause. Spin is the cause ? mass is the symptom; and the *vast* amount of energy is in the spin.

Why is most of the energy in the spin of a spinor rather than it?s mass? The reason is that energy will flow into every available mode possible. I will come back to this in a more rigorous manner at a later date ? for now let?s imagine a simple model? Think of space as a 3D mesh of springs ? introduce some vibration. The number of distortional modes in even a small volume of our 3D mesh is vast ? however the ratio of twisting modes outnumbers pure curvature modes by a truly vast amount == the ratio of the gravitational constant to the EM force. This ratio is on the order of 10^40.

OK ? 3D space has a vast number of ?twist and spin? modes compared to compression. The ?twist and spin? modes are what gives rise to electro magnetism. This gives us both an opportunity and a problem: The opportunity is that we can tap spin energy. The problem is that 3D space can twist and spin in so many modes that it?s incredibly difficult to control the spin. This is the reason that we haven?t stumbled onto the control, and taping, of spin before. It takes an exquisite degree of control to grab a hold of a spinor (an electron say) and manipulate it?s spin.

Put another way ? the key to unlocking vast amounts of energy is not brute force (as in atomic fusion and fission) it?s control. You need almost no energy, but a great deal of control to unlock a whole range of exciting new effects and energies.

So how much control do we need to control spin? A way to get an idea is to ask how much control do we need to generate a spinor? It turns out that we need at least three independent parameters. This does not mean three magnetic fields ? they would just add up to one field. You need three *independent* parameters to combine at one location. There are lots of possibilities and this is a new area that I am actively researching ? conceptually, constructing animations and looking for fundamental concepts. One of the simplest solutions I have found (which is new) is the nested combination of 3 harmonic waves at frequency ratios x,2x and x. The practical goal is to come up with simple devices that let us control spin == which will result in coupling spin and curvature == gravity, inertia, time, and electro magnetism.

What happens to a low energy electron if we make one ? how does the energy come out? If you drop the spin of an electron you alter it?s charge. As Mills has shown you also alter the energy levels it can readily reach to emit and receive photons. In the first place the altered charge creates a charge imbalance in the surrounding medium and our low energy electron is accelerated electrostatically ? we have current. But now our low energy electron is moving it has very limited opportunity to interact with normal electrons ? there are no allowed energy gaps and so it behaves as a superconducting electron. It can still drive inductive processes, so it?s not hard to couple it to ordinary electrical flow through a transformer. However if a low energy electron does manage to jump up to ground level it takes up energy cooling the environment and resulting in transfer of it?s EMF to ordinary electron flow. These are the characteristics of ?cold electricity? that appear in increasing numbers of reports associated with ?free energy? research.

Enough for now ? It?s (too) late again. I had hoped to explain how this all ties into TPU?s and similar devices ? the accompanying magnetic field (just a different view of spin) jumps etc? later. Many of the consequences should already be apparent to the astute reader.

I  have attached three animations. A single strap animation that shows a connection to a spinning object. notice that it takes two rotations of the object to return to the original condition == 720 deg for one cycle == spin 1/2. THe second animation is a very early and crude hand animation of a spin ? spinor. As crude as it is it is the clearest demonstrator that you can spin a region of space (the sphere in the middle) in one direction without every tangling it?s connection to 3D space. Spinors in 3D space come in two, view independent, forms (handedness) positive and negative ? which is why we have two charges.
I dont have a clean animation to showing the class of spinors that fermions (electrons, protons and neutrons) belong to -- it's a class of spinors with nested positive and negative spinors such that the inside and outside are static. This is the form of a stable spherical standing wave. This is the basic form most likely to represent stable real word spinors ? our electrons, protons and neutrons. Which also brings in the the whole concept of spherical inversion...

g'dnight for now.

Mark Snoswell.

[bob.rennips]

Mark, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. You explain very well indeed. Thank you.

When you talk about modes, you introduced the idea of 'twist'.

In the same way that you are using the term 'spin' to '...distinguish them from normal (single axis) rotation...' is a 'twist' something different in spinar-world, or is it a general term to mean some fraction or multiple of a 720degree turn of a spinar ?

thanks. Bob R.

[MarkSnoswell]

In the same way that you are using the term 'spin' to '...distinguish them from normal (single axis) rotation...' is a 'twist' something different in spinor-world, or is it a general term to mean some fraction or multiple of a 720degree turn of a spinor ?

Hi Bob,
   No -- I was just referring to all of the random vibrational modes that you can subject a connected mesh to.

Here is a simple example of comparing the number of pure compression modes to twist (skew, torsion -- whatever term you like)....

Now before I give this explanation please note that it's not completely correct -- it's simplified to make presentation of the concept easier.

Think of the minimum platonic solid for 3D space - the tetrahedron. It is made up of 4 nodes and 6 connections. Let?s ask ourselves two questions
1. How can we move the nodes so that we change the volume without introducing any twist == curvature == mass.
2. How can be move the nodes to introduce twist but not alter the volume == twist == electromagnetism.

In the first image you see the solution to 1. You can move the nodes along lines radiating from the center of the tetrahedron.

In the second image you see the solution for moving one node so that the volume remains the same but the tetrahedron is twisted. There is a conical surface that you can move each node over.

So what is the ratio of the number of possibilities for twist verses compression? ... well a 2 dimensional space divided by a one dimensional line is an infinite ratio -- nonsensical. The point is that there are vastly more twist modes than there are pure compression modes. The ratio goes up as you increase the volume and complexity of 3D mesh...

If we model space as a plank length 3D mesh made of nodes and links only then by the time we get to the scale of a proton it appears that there is almost no chance of energy appearing as a coherent compression or expansion of space -- it's little wonder that the ratio of gravity to electromagnetic forces is 10^40 -- a number so large that it's beyond comprehension -- in fact it's about the ratio of the diameter of a proton to the diameter of the entire known universe!


But we are not interested in random energy -- we are interested in stable particles. Particularly in electrons because so many of our machines run on electric current. Electrons, protons and neutrons (the fermions) are examples of stable waves. They oscillate -- it's not until you have a stable repeating spherical wave that you can talk about it as a spinor. What the meaning or effect of twisted space would be is unknown. So I talk about twist just to differentiate it from curvature -- actually I sound probably talk about torsion and curvature of space.


hmmm... that leads me to think about what I should explain next. I want to stay close to things that will help experimenters. I think it would be best to talk about collective electrodynamics. I would encourage anyone flowing this thread to get and study Carver Meads book, Collective Electrodynamics. The first chapter is online and is substantially based on this http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6013.pdf Even if you can?t follow the simple maths Carvers explanations are elegant and clear...

Anyway... Next post I will explain why static bias (both magnetic and charge) are important in achieving non classical (and over unity possibly) effects. -- put simply there is a very good reason for using a high static voltage to get anomalous effects.

Cheers

Mark.

PS. I was very impressed to see that Bob Boyce stated that he did not achieve over unity in his toroidal units unless the static voltage of the secondary was over 11.5 volts ? and the higher the bias voltage the better. He used 110 ? 160Volts static bias I believe. I look for clues like this to identify people with a lot of real experience and devices worthy of further study.

PPS. A bias of 5Kv or higher would be even better ? *much* better as I?ll explain next time.