Molina Martinez patent

[esaruoho]

In Keely's disintegrator the idea was to introduce several wave forms, harmonically related into a harmonically related cavity. The idea was that the interaction of these waves created upper harmonics, so fantastically high in pitch that they were capable of influencing matter on the molecular and atomic, even subatomic levels by resonance alone. This patent tries to achieve exactly the same but uses light instead. The only other difference is the technical jargon used by Keely and Martinez to explain its workings. Does that answer your question Esa?

yes it does, hans. cheers. how would you say that the several waveforms were generated in the keely disintegrator? could the function of reverb , in a resonant cavity, explain the creation of higher harmonics (multiples of the sound)? Would you go as far and say that the Dale Pond mention of Keely using, in his mind, something quite akin to "Amplitude Additive Synthesis" - be related to this generation of higher harmonics by using a resonant cavity to  feedback or reverberate the frequency inside it  in order to constantly keep creating higher harmonics, up to a point, when the highest harmonics created, creates the specific effect that achieves the result that keely, or anyone, was looking for?

i am all for looking at the martinez patent (light) from the point of view of keely (sound). these things should be interchangeable. it would be great tho to be able to, intuitively, comprehend the martinez patent, but maybe these two forms of devices  speak and support eachotehr. what do you think, hans?

oh...and:
i never subscribed to that airpressure tank thing. people who use that as an excuse to call him a scam, never bother to look at waterhammer effect, resonance, harmonics of sound, and, eventually disassociation of material inside a resonant cavity.
there are other reports where a journalist was present when keely levitated this 3 ton airpressure tank (sphere) into the basement or bottom of his laboratory - then later when he dies, people come in and start drawing schematics of how the scam was done. its not quite that simple, mates

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Esa and all,

According to contemporary physics sound and light cannot be explained in the same terms.

Allright you Ether guys, shout me down if you will, but it is a fact that two light beams crossing each other at say 90 degrees do NOT influence each other.

However sound waves crossing at 90 degrees have a profound effect on each other, since they are pressure waves in a medium and have to traverse rarefied and compressed zones which may or may not be out of phase.

This gives rise to additional harmonics known as beat frequencies, which carry their own harmonics with them. Without going into too much depth about the attendant phenomena it is fair to say that light does not behave in this manner. There are no beat frequencies generated when two incompatible light beams meet.

Sound, especially resonance is NOT as well understood as contemporary physics would like you to believe. I sometimes wonder why research in this area is discouraged and professors and physicists run for cover whenever I bring the subject up in these circles.

Hans von Lieven

[Jackpot]

list

[Thaelin]

Hans:
   Define what two compatable light beams would be then? How would they influence each other.
You make a point here that I have never heard before and I did make lasers for a while in my life.

thaelin

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Thaelin,

Fair point.I was talking in terms of harmonic relationships. Beat frequencies between harmonically incompatible sounds, like 120 Hz and 130 Hz generate a beat frequency of 10 Hz, whereas there is no beat frequency between 120 Hz and say 240 Hz since that is an octave and they are harmonically compatible.

Light does not behave in this way, therefore strictly speaking there is no such thing as compatible and incompatible light. The laws of harmonics do not apply here.

I should perhaps have chosen a different terminology, though what I said is in essence correct.

Sorry for the confusion.

Hans von Lieven