I need help with a KEELY project

[Grumpy]

Hans,

I see that you have all of the answers and do not need help from anyone.

You say that water is alive, but you do not speak to it.  Saying water has a "life of it's own" is not saying that it is a living entity.  Water is a living entity.  So, no, you are not aware that water is "alive".

You have a statement on your site: http://keelytech.com/theorycomments.html
"There is no such thing as a "Sacred Science", there is only science."

This pretty much sums up your approach to Keely and his work, a modern scientific approach, which will bequeath nothing.

I was curious about your opinion of the existence of an etheric medium, so I searched your site.

While I only read a few paragraphs, my first impression is that you do not understand what Keely was trying to convey.  You can not use modern scientific reasoning and ever hope to understand Keely.  (By the way, this statement is one reason for the existence of this thread - so that this thought may be conveyed to you.)

Some excerpts:

Each by itself is called a `current,' and all three must be present in every `stream' or `flow' of force. The relations of the currents in every flow are expressible in thirds, and it is experimentally demonstrable that the relation of the three are in the order named: as 33 1/3 : 66 2/3 : 100.

What does he mean here? Is he talking about harmonics or amplitude when he talks about the relationship between the flows?

The three currents are:
I. The Radiative : called also the `Dispersing,' the `Propulsive,' the `Positive,' and the `Enharmonic.'
II. The Focalizing: called also the `Negative,' the `Negative Attractive,' the `Polarizing,' and the `Harmonic.'
III. The Dominant: called also the `Etheric,' or the `Celestial.'

(If you are familiar with the work of Wilbert B. Smith, you will see a correlation here.)

It is a familiar fact that a cord in vibration tends to produce a similar vibration in a cord placed near it.
This sentence does not make sense whether he means cord or chord.

It makes perfect sense, he is talking about a "cord" - as in a string.  This is "resonance" and you get the same thing with tuning forks and anything else that has the same vibrational frequency.  (Yes, that statement is rather "absract" - on purpose.)

In the three metals, silver, gold, and platina, we obtain the proportions --- 3 : 6 : 9 : --- As this is the primary relation of the modes of vibration, a wire made of these three metals is peculiarly adapted to transmit concordant impulses : and nodes made of these substances placed upon a wire, transmitting resonant vibrations, indicate, by the different orders of vibration induced in them, the rate of oscillations of the atomic constituents.
What on earth is that supposed to mean "nodes made of these substances placed upon a wire"?

Here, Keely is describing how to determine the frequencies of the atoms that make up a wire, by placing nodes made from silver, gold , and platina, in which vibrations will be induced by the atoms of the wire.  Quite fascinating.  Kind of like downconverting the enormously high vibration of the atoms into a range that a human can detect via sound or touch.  The three metals would have to be layered a certain way, and a ratio to their proportions.  Think of it as a "molecular downconverter".  Who would have thought?...
(This is explained on page 305 of Moore?s book in the link below, which is searchable online.)

I see Blavatsky mentions "blue ether" - ever seen that?  or been in it?

http://books.google.com/books?id=wWY1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA298&dq=john+keely+vibration&ei=2dT7Rr_yMZmepgLk28XECw

In this book, Keely explains everything very well.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Grumpy,

You say " While I only read a few paragraphs, my first impression is that you do not understand what Keely was trying to convey.  You can not use modern scientific reasoning and ever hope to understand Keely. "

I disagree with that statement. All of Keely's discoveries were the result of scientific experimentation in a very methodical and controlled manner, not as a result of esoteric reasoning. This came much later when he didn't know any other way to describe what he found and was under intense pressure to offer some sort of explanation.

I am aware of Keely's model and the underlying philosophy. I am also aware of Dr. Mark Snoswell's work with Spinor resonance, which is very much in line with Keely's work.

Dr Snowswell says here on another thread:

The ideas I bring to the area come from years of part time experimental and theoretical research. I am well versed in the activities of the "free energy" and skeptic communities visible on the web now and in the past. My contribution is in developing new conceptual models that fit both classical engineering and the potential new phenomena being observed.

I am not interested in theory alone nor abstract concepts and maths. I seek simple conceptual models that can be visualised and used to design new technology.

This is very much my approach. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is essentially nothing wrong with the metaphysical approach either, it is simply not me. I cannot make a contribution there. This I leave to you, Jerry Decker and Dale Pond, just to mention a few. I wish you success.

As to me, I will continue to research the subject along the lines of my training and experience as an engineer. In the end it does not matter. If Keely is right, any diligent inquiry into his technology will yield results, no matter what the theory behind it.

Hydrogen and oxygen were discovered as a result of the Phlogiston theory, which proved in the end to be wrong, yet produced very real advances in our understanding of the world.

It is wonderful to discuss these things with someone with a different approach, it forces both parties to re-examine and justify their reasoning. This way lies new insight and knowledge.

Hans von Lieven

[Grumpy]

Hans,

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

If you had a different attitude, you would now know that Erfinder and IronHead have an unusually keen understanding of the works of Keely, Tesla, and others.  Do not view these other approaches as e"soteric", but as a different language describing something in perfect detail so that things do not get lost in the translation.

Best wishes in your research.

[hansvonlieven]

Agreed Grumpy,

When I use the word esoteric I mean more coming from a philosophical angle. Though valid in its own right it is not my way of approaching things here.

I am trying to reverse engineer Keely's technology. Not copy his machines, there IS a difference. Whatever I turn up going my way is freely shared and hopefully of use to someone.

I do not underestimate yours, Erfinder's and Ironhead's knowledge on the subject. Having said that, I do feel that Solfeggio frequencies and Fadic addition are not helpful in my research.

Hans von Lieven

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

Because of some private mail I have received in relation to Keely criticising the approach taken by me I feel I need to say a little more on the subject.

Keely's theories have been around for some 150 years now. They have been studied by many, and many a book has been written on the subject. All those books center around the metaphysical aspect of his theories and seek validation of Keely's ideas from sources like the Bible, The Bhagavad Gita, The Vedas and a lot of theosophical teachings from Helena Blavatski to Leadbeater, Annie Besant and Clara Bloomfield Moore and so forth.

None of these books have ever led to the development of a usable device of any sort.

In the meantime many of Keely's observations have been verified since and a number of devices have emerged in recent years confirming that Keely was on a solid scientific track. These re-discoveries were not made by people who claim to have a deep spiritual understanding of Keely's philosophy, but by engineers trained in conservative physics.

Keely can be understood through his devices alone. It may well be that his theories are as hollow as much of today's scientific thinking.

Whatever he discovered is either real or it is not. If it is real it can be found out again. Fancy theories might point in a direction and suggest an approach but it is replication of his work that is the ultimate arbiter of what is real and what not.

Incidentally Grumpy, the quotes in your earlier post are NOT from Keely. They are from a paper published by Professor Brinton, after Keely's death if I remember correctly.

Hans von Lieven