Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: A Conversation  (Read 14810 times)

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2008, 05:53:51 AM »
You have to start from the beginning.

A resonant body will accept energy of its own level of resonance and reject energy far removed from its own level of resonance.

It is important to understand this. Now, there is resonance and there is resonance. Take two guitar strings, say one of nylon and one of steel. Now if you tune them both to say A=440 the moment you pluck one the other one will start to resonate if they are in proximity to each other. This is resonance at work they say, but is it?

It does not take a particularly fine musical ear to determine that there is a big difference between the strings as far as sound quality is concerned. The nylon string will be much mellower and the steel string will appear sharp by comparison even though both are tuned to the same pitch.

The reason is simple, the harmonics don't match. Some harmonics will be prominent in the steel string while others are prominent in the nylon.

Perfect resonance is achieved when all harmonics resonate in unison. This is very difficult to do. Keely spent a life time trying to get there, he created some monumental devices, but could never get to the point where he had control enough to make it commercially viable.

For those of you wanting to learn more about this and Keely, feel free to use my web site http://keelytech.com You will find much information on resonance, harmonics and Keely which is not available elsewhere.

I am not given to esoteric speculation. My evaluations and findings are from the viewpoint of a conventional, albeit open minded, engineer.

Enough for now before I start rambling.

Hans von Lieven

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2008, 06:41:24 AM »
Lets look at a piece of electricity of finite size. we'll use DC current for this example for simplification.

as it passes through a molecule of ...    lets say Copper, this "electric particle" has an effect on the copper, as it pass through it.  this effect is the same, wether there is one copper molecule, or 30 trillion.


now,, it would make sense that if the electric particle has an effect on the copper, that the copper should have an equal and opposite effect on the electricity. - i.e. turning it into heat and magnetism - and thus some of its energy is consumed while it travels through the copper.

now, when you have equal ammounts of copper that the electricity has to pass through (like a thin wire of 40 turns, and a slightly thicker wire of 20 turns so both have equal mass) - the effect on the electricity you are passing through the wires, should be "identicle" on both sides of the circuit.


Elvis Oswald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • ONI
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2008, 05:01:53 PM »
Thanks for the addition Hans.  I do understand about speculation :)  and I appreciate your guidance in this - and your open-mindedness.

I'll have to study about what you've said and pose another query to you.

Smokey - let's back up just a bit.  They say electricity is the flow of electrons, it's true.  But, Ed said it was the flow of two types of permanent magnets.
So which one is it - or is it something else?

While we are thinking about transformers... and transferring power across a space... let's also consider a light-bulb.

A light bulb is resistance.  Resistance is what we've harnessed to produce light and heat - and even do calculations with.

But is resistance just electrons being thrown off because they are forced down a smaller pipe?
If you believe that electricity is flowing electrons... or even flowing "aether" then it would make sense.
But what are the other alternatives?

Going back to resonance... two coils with the same size wire - but different turns.  They resonate at different frequencies.  But connect them... what happens?  You have one coil... and it has a resonance different from the two you combined to make it.
And back to what I stumbled through earlier (with no success) - a circuit it made of various configurations of materials that individually have their own resonance.  Connected - these materials form a circuit and the circuit has a resonance.  *Let's exclude dielectric materials for now*

So if we are changing a property of the material by connecting it to other conductive materials... and there is no "flow" - why not chase (for a time) the notion that magnets in a generator are changing a property of the material as well.  -  What if there is no flow?
What if it is merely changing the spin?  Or what if it is changing the speed of the orbiting electrons?  Or both, depending?

Would an increase in speed mean an increase in mass?  Would that create heat?
OR - Would it mean an increase in force that would cause them to orbit higher?  Would that create a vacuum that would draw on some atomic scale power?

My point is that it may not be a flow at all.  It might simply be a change in the behavior of the atomic components of the material.  It may happen instantly when connected to another material.
What exactly it is, I don't know...

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2008, 07:04:19 PM »


Smokey - let's back up just a bit.  They say electricity is the flow of electrons, it's true.  But, Ed said it was the flow of two types of permanent magnets.
So which one is it - or is it something else?



whew.... ok im about to open a can of worms here, that will upset some people. which i try to avoid in this forum, but since you asked. i'll give it to you.

The "electron" - as observed is, in fact the cummulative electromagnetic field, emmited from the N/S pair as they push and pull against one another, producing current.  imagine a two lines of people, facing each other, and they shake hands as they pass.  each time two people shake hands - an electromagnetic sphere generates around them, then quickly dissapates as they let go of each other's hands, and use that "boost" to travel to the next person.   What we see when you observe this occuring using a pick-up coil of sorts, is an electromagnetic sphere,traveling down the wire in tiny hops,  which has been dubbed the "electron".

the same is occuring in a static magnetic field, however the cummulative field is much stronger and we cannot detect the "electrons".  these pulses are constricted very closely within the lines of flux because of the cumulative field strength working against the "handshake". Such that there is almost no magnetic variation over time outside of the lines of flux. What this means to us, is that electricity does not induce in the wire unless the lines of flux themselves are moving through the wire. This is observed in practice ( creating electrical resistance in a wire by inducing an opposing magnetic field) however i feel that the current theory used to describe this behavior is a bit misconstrued.


sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2008, 07:08:38 PM »
Quote

What if it is merely changing the spin?  Or what if it is changing the speed of the orbiting electrons?  Or both,

That is actually very close to how i describe the process of "induction"




each atom has its own magnetic field (and resonance).

a substance made up of many atoms/ molecules  will have a "cummulative" resonance, based on the number of molecules/atoms and their cummullative fields acting upon one another.

when you combine another substance (and subsequently its resonance) with the first substance, their combined  magnetic fields (and resulting resonance) will dominate.
in paramagnetic materials the atomic fields are "easy" to manipulate, and they line up while in the influence of a magnetic field - when that field goes away, and angular velocity of each atom takes over and the cummulative field becomes disarrayed.

in magnetic materials the atomic fields are "medium - like a semiconductor" - such that you can chance the cummulative field, but when the dominant field goes away, the atomic fields maintain the field imparted upon them. - over time individual atomic fields 'wander' on occasion, causing a depletion in the cumulative magnetic field.

in a non-magnetic material - the atomic fields are so strong, and so complex that an influencing magnetic field cannot change their orientation - instead they fight each other, which creates a 3rd field (being the cumulative between the two) that resonates around the non-magnetic material- in the forms of electromagnetism. also this "fighting" creates heat and the force we know as electricity. - you move the fields it forces this electric potential to move as a current.

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2008, 07:26:05 PM »
it would seem to me that the 3 types of metals (and/or the sub-types) could be arranged so that they work together like a 'magnetic transistor' - perhaps this is what Searl was onto....

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2008, 08:12:57 AM »
Keely's Gold, Silver and Platina for instance?

Hans von Lieven

yamalaris

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2008, 04:37:33 PM »
Hello all, 
 @ Tesla's genius is still being understated or withheld .
 Popular science recently had an story about wireless power . They gave total credit to the so called "inventor" for "his" high frequency wireless transmition system. Tesla got a  two sentence side bar with the statement " he tried but could not make it work" ..... very sad indeed.
 @ when building generators or transformers.
 (an source coil coupled to a generator coil) the winding ratio determines the voltage. The basic anology to describe electron motion on the surface of the wire in a transformer, is a  pair of spinning wheels , and how many times the wheel is exposed to the thrust from the adjacent wheel will provide a cumulative effect on the  wheel speed . 
@energy release and energy void
 The surface electrons were already spinning but now the ev is higher .How can this be without an increase in electron orbit diameter ( and all that goes with a molecular energy alteration ) ?  The answer is in flemmings motor rule. All things  already have an energy level above zero point. This is a real electical potential.  If you apply the flemming rule to this we see the  vector energy released is from a Torridal rotation of electrons on the conductor . Think of how a baseball is thown in a curve. One surface of the ball is moving with the direction of motion as it spins. Thus a harmonic has been formed to allow propagation of the spin energy to arc the path of the ball.
If we assume that the spinning energy field already exsists in the conductor then it mut have properties induced on it from its surroundings and the cosmos (we are all traveling at 1.9 million kph). If we stike a harmonic between the conductors natural energy any its imparted energy (electricity) can we not draw off the cosmic energy as Tesla's antenna did? This makes energy above zero point a kinetic value more than simple potential (static value). Therein lies the power of harmonics and the bane of world oil.
Thoughts please?

...Best,Tim

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2008, 10:27:32 PM »
the problem i see with this is - the frequency + field strength of the ev. as it orbits, creates a resonating EMF

now, when a voltage is applied on top of this, is changes the field strength and orientation, causng the new field to rosonate at a different frequnecy/energy level.

seems not possible to match the two, as the field caused by the electricity, alters the original field in the material, as well as the field of the original electric field (resistance).

if we were to attempt this, it would look something like this::

an approximation of of the atoms' 'rest state' frequency can be made by using the Compton frequency of the electron
as thus:
compton wavelength  (cw) = (approx) 2.4263102175?10-12 meters

Compton Frequency (Cf) = c / cw  - where c is the speed of light
the radius of the electrons' orbit is = 1/2 of cw.
Cf is the maxumim frequency, representing a hydrogen atom with the electron orbit in its "rest state".
as you increase the energy in the atom by inducing an electric field, the radius increases, and thus the frequency decreases along a non-linear scale. - as the electric wave travels through the wire the electron orbit increases, then quickly decreases with the frequency/amplitude of the electric field effecting it.

Now, most of us dont have access to nitrogen-cooled hydrogen metal to experiment with, so to adjust this value for a more complex element, we must make an adjustment to take into account the number of electrons that are orbiting the atom.Then we must use this number to figure the radius of the outer electron shell, there are charts with known values, i dont need to get into all that here. but this radius can be used to find the frequency of the outer shell, of say Copper. The cummulative frequency of the electrons in the outer shell should be the same - they act as if they are attached to the same 'rotor' as they orbit.

When the electric field is applied, this is when things get complicated.
energy from the electric field excites the electrons in the copper, bringing some of them to a higher energy state, essentially increasing their orbit, lowering their frequency.
ionization of the copper under the influence of the e-field, further complicates this.

and any change in the energy state of the electrons in the copper, results in a change in the e-field's strength. Heat will also do this, but it should be negligable for our calculations here, and will not be addressed.

so to find the cummulative field frequency:

we need the frequency and energy (J) of the e-field
the frequency of the conductive material in its rest state
and the change in J, when e-field is applied to the conductor. < - this can be derrived from resistance (ohms) but i cant find the formulae and its not one i commonly work with.

change in energy level of the conductor = change in J / ev * molar count - negating heat losses.
molar count can be found approx. by displacement (mass)

this is how you determine the electrons' orbital raduis, and thus it's frequency eminating field from the conductor, while under the influence of the e-field.

The frequency of the e-field, will remain the same, only its amplitude decreasing, as a result of the power-transformation, into the conductor atoms, and into heat.

so once we have the frequency of the conductor while under the e-field, its just a matter of finding the right combination of conductors + energy levels + frequencies.

this is a very high number,..  this is an extraordinarily large number, to the extent we may have to invent a new signal generator to create frequencies of that value.

the alternative is to find a harmonic 'octave' of sorts,. a lower frequency that will resonate with the electrons...

perhaps one of the acoustic guys on the forum can take it from here.





Elvis Oswald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • ONI
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2008, 02:08:00 AM »
I appreciate the enthusiasm.  But I'll stay in the abstract for now.  In my mind - if we had such detail - as posted here... then we would be flying carpets.  :)

Drive slow homie  )

matching freq is best - but harmonics works... though not as good... but sometimes you cannot reach the freq you need with the material you have...
And don't forget that two freq. can produce a third (super het)

I do think that resonance is a function of composition and mass.  When two coils are joined, all particles immediately know of the collective and begin to resonate accordingly.  this is the power we are dealing with here.
And a magnet in motion on part of that circuit till affect it all.

Is it the speed of orbit?

ddsurf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2008, 02:20:50 AM »
Life organisms, universe and all matter has a rate of decay. The most efficient engines in the universe decays. So in short why seek perfect positive result and ecept a 99% return from losses. Re heat, vibration, friction needs to be recouped and re used by a efficient mechnism.
If a motor were to run at 12,000 rpms with a 99% return how long would it run when turned off with a intial of 90 amps, 10 seconds 220volts input at  ?  This is a more logical question than perpetual motion. Once you achieve 100% you can question the extra .0001 you need

If a carpet could fly it would have special cloth generating propulsion from the air :) But it would decay! It is nature...

I would 100% agree on suppression. It is actually politically powered. Telsa was not on the inside of politics in fact was known as the "mad scientist" was he not.
The grass roots of sites like this has really inspired this insider.


sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: A Conversation
« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2008, 07:40:23 AM »
I respect Tesla's genius, and the knowledge he has to share with the world, dont get me wrong here.

but i find is damned hard to believe that he did not know that his energy transmission device would ultimately destroy the planet.

He used the same mathematics we use today.

They did not tear Wardenclyffe down because of some "governmental conspiracy" from the magic crystal ball that Woodrow Wilson had, that foretold him of our generations Energy Crisis, back then, in the dawn of the industrial revolution....
They tore it down because it was dangerous. - we would not even BE here to discuss this had they not.

He wasn't "labeled" a mad scientist, he WAS a mad scientist. - and one of the greatest that ever lived.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Elvis - i dont think today's physics is that far off,
they just need to take a step back, and incorporate pre-einstienian nuclear physics into what we know today and we can start transitioning from a probabalistic quantum realization, into one that is discrete.

Once we do that, we could probably make our flying carpet talk :)


Elvis Oswald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • ONI
The Question
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2008, 01:45:45 AM »
OK - so here's the question to contemplate.

How would you tap into the energy that is between the plates of a capacitor?


to clarify:  how would you tap into the energy from inside the space between the plates... assuming you were small - or the plates were huge.  :)

M@rcel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: The Question
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2008, 02:18:46 PM »
OK - so here's the question to contemplate.

How would you tap into the energy that is between the plates of a capacitor?


to clarify:  how would you tap into the energy from inside the space between the plates... assuming you were small - or the plates were huge.  :)

ehh.. http://jnaudin.free.fr/cstack/index.htm ?