Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL  (Read 36395 times)

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2021, 03:20:56 AM »
#27: 1947 Hendrik Casimir in angstrom-level what Otto v.Guericke did with two half-spheres ( Blaise Pascal)
          1951 "ether of particles" also known as 'sea' : Dirac sea

Offline nix85

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2021, 01:35:35 PM »
I been looking into balanced and unbalanced lines again. OMG how the massacred this subject, there is only confusion and ignorance left. Only this guy explains it right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-DKuye6ODg

Some basics everyone here knows, coax is unbalanced, inner and outer conductor have different geometry and impedances, unlike balanced two identical pair lines.

I see most people out there think "ground wire" carries no signal, even NO CURRENT (HAH!), just like most of them think "ground/neutral wire" in their homes has no voltage on it.

"Ground wire" carries EXACTLY THE SAME CURRENT, EXACTLY THE SAME SIGNAL.

Ground means just common reference voltage point in the circuit.

There is no difference between signal, it's the same signal going through both conductors. Ground is purely arbitrary and could be switched around, just like "live and neutral" in powerlines.

I am not talking about differential current here for audio where 3 wires are used, two of which carry signal 180° out of phase.

To quote from wiki

"Most explanations of balanced lines assume symmetric (antiphase) signals but this is an unfortunate confusion—signal symmetry and balanced lines are quite independent of each other. Essential in a balanced line is matched impedances in the driver, line and receiver. These conditions ensure that external noise affects each leg of the differential line equally and thus appears as a common mode signal that is removed by the receiver. There are balanced drive circuits that have excellent common-mode impedance matching between "legs" but do not provide symmetric signals.[8][9] Symmetric differential signals exist to prevent interference to other circuits - the electromagnetic fields are canceled out by the equal and opposite currents. But they are not necessary for interference rejection from other circuits."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_line#Balanced_and_differential

And this.

"Provided that the impedances of two conductors in a circuit are equal (it is balanced), external electromagnetic interference tends to affect both conductors identically. Since the receiving circuit only detects the difference between the wires, the technique resists electromagnetic noise compared to one conductor with an un-balanced reference (low-Ω connection to ground).

Contrary to popular belief, differential signaling does not affect noise cancellation. Balanced lines with differential receivers will reject noise regardless of whether the signal is differential or single-ended, but since balanced line noise rejection requires a differential receiver anyway, differential signaling is often used on balanced lines. This improves SNR, reduces EMI, and makes the signal more immune to ground currents or differences.[1]

The technique works for both analog signaling, as in balanced audio, and in digital signaling, as in RS-422, RS-485, Ethernet over twisted pair, PCI Express, DisplayPort, HDMI and USB."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling#Advantages

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3018
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2021, 02:33:57 PM »
And who are you to question OU or ever worse define what electricity is?
Answer:
Here is who I'm:
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/msg558293/#msg558293

Position in human horde  is affecting you as an animal and  your influential status.
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/msg558293/#msg558293
]____________________________________________________________________________[/b]


For God's sake, you don't even believe it is possible,

Answer:
For physics God doesn't exist . {In more elegant form I'll say: - Physics doesn't recognize God.)
And for Darwin - you are just an animal - a the mammal to be exact.
Go to church with your believes...
or to one of my favorite synagogues - great entertainment , you'll not get bored  there.

Yes it's 4-6hours event,- happiness, smile, casual conversation, new social connections, some business talk, ..
I had some science talk with  another  scientist. --- all of that is  tolerated  ..well... sort of...  :) if done..


]____________________________________________________________________________[/b]



OU  doesn't exist with that attitude.


Answer:
There is and never was - an attitude  making OU - overunity to be  lesser of a nonsense.
In physics I don't accept any  believes.- OU  doesn't exist.
]____________________________________________________________________________[/b]


Your perspective is waaay too limited to give informed opinion on these subtle subjects.
"subtle" : everything that is so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.

Answer:

Physics doesn't recognize  words "delicate, subtle , limited, precise or difficult"
Physicist analyzes phenomena and publishes results in form of an opinion on these subjects.
If other physicists can replicate the published results than we:
- create new model
- correct  existing model.
- support and further improve the quality of  a model.

I'm in physics for more than 30 years now.
Wesley
« Last Edit: June 09, 2021, 06:41:35 PM by stivep »

Offline nix85

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2021, 03:23:49 PM »
Answer:
I'm in physics for more than 30 years now.
Wesley

Bunch of pulp again. There is God, our most inner Self beyond Mind.

There is subtle in physics, most subtle Primary Light cascades down into ever slower and cruder forms of expression all the way down to "matter" which is but trapped light.

Belief is good as long as it is based on open minded extensive research combined with intuition. OU has long been out of realm of belief for anyone who did enough research into it.

I never used term difficult as there is nothing difficult in nature except for the one who makes it so for himself, usually due to ignorance.

Mainstream physics believes in many particles they have no way of detecting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles#Hypothetical_particles

For Adepts, there is no belief, they see the insides of subtatomic particle from all sides simultaneously just like you see macroscopic objects. Nature keeps no secrets from the Master. Others need instruments that can never reach the same perfection of perception. By this inner sight, occultist knew the structure of reality long before physics was even a thing.

You proclaimed yourself a physicist for 30 years, isn't it ironic that you dare to crown yourself with such title, you don't even understand the 4th law of motion.

You don't even understand that centrifugal force focused on one side of rotation can lift whole device into air + massive amounts of weight, like so https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHPna2WF_g0

What kind of physicist are you if you don't know even this most basic of natural principles?

Offline nix85

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2021, 04:39:54 PM »
Principle of the levitating device above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe_RDTFVrkc


Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3018
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2021, 08:00:44 PM »
...
1. You have problem with  understanding English language:
    Who is helping you with writing?

Example1:

Quote
Wesley says: For physics God doesn't exist . {In more elegant form I'll say: - Physics doesn't recognize God.)
a - Please read  the first two words: "For physics"
b - construct mental picture of  a sense of the sentence.
Conclusion:
 It is the physics that doesn't recognize  existence of  any spiritual models that are based on believes.
 Your personal position to this particular subject in question is never mentioned in my  comment.
___________________________________________
Example2:
Quote
Wesley says: And for Darwin - you are just an animal - a mammal to be exact
a. - Please read  the first three  words: "And for Darwin"
b  - construct mental picture of  a sense of the sentence.
Conclusion:
It is the  Darwin  evolutionist, that doesn't recognize  you as a human - in any other form but only:
- as an animal  that belongs to group of animals known as mammals.
Action:
You may disagree but than you will not graduate, unless you say
that  :
- according to Darwin you are  an animal


___________________________________________________

Belief is good   

physics is not based on beliefs but on models. If model doesn't works for us  we throw  it away as we  did with  Ether/eather.
We don't have believes in physics - we have predictions
 A prediction is: a statement that we make about the future.
___________________________________________________


I never used term difficult as there is nothing difficult in nature except for the one who makes it so for himself, usually due to ignorance.   
You nix85 used  the wording:
Quote
"subtle subjects."

Answer:
I gave you definition of word: subtle
"subtle" : everything that is so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.
.encyclopedia.com/literature-
-but   how could you  understand it if you don't  know how to process logic of English language.
___________________________________________________

You proclaimed yourself a physicist for 30 years,
Tell me the truth nix85 - who does the reading for you?

Answer:

This is what I wrote:
Answer:
Here is who I'm:
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/msg558293/#msg558293

Position in human horde  is affecting you as an animal and  your influential status.
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/msg558293/#msg558293
____________________________________________________________________________
And yes
 I'm in physics for more than 30 years now.
- but one doesn't exclude the other.
___________________________________________________

Summary:

I do respond  to your comments from the position  of social respect.
You didn't provide  firm answers  having a solid, almost unyielding surface or structure.
You are acting  like... like a dog  jumping around  and trying to find any chance to bite .
I'm not your enemy,
But how  do you know that?
 :)

Wesley  :)

Offline nix85

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2021, 10:07:16 PM »
1. You have problem with  understanding English language:

No, Wesley, you do.  Even tho i'm non native speaker, my English is way better than yours, sentence structure, terminology and overall expression, not to mention how scattered and chaotic everything you write is.

Quote
Example1: a - Please read  the first two words: "For physics"
b - construct mental picture of  a sense of the sentence.
Conclusion:
 It is the physics that doesn't recognize  existence of  any spiritual models that are based on believes.
 Your personal position to this particular subject in question is never mentioned in my  comment.
___________________________________________
Example2:a. - Please read  the first three  words: "And for Darwin"
b  - construct mental picture of  a sense of the sentence.
Conclusion:
It is the  Darwin  evolutionist, that doesn't recognize  you as a human - in any other form but only:
- as an animal  that belongs to group of animals known as mammals.
Action:
You may disagree but than you will not graduate, unless you say:
-that according to Darwin you are  an animal


___________________________________________________

If you were not taking things so literally, so black and white, you would've looked at the context, just 2 paragraphs below i make it very clear that material physics is inferior to Spiritual Physics. Physical instruments can measure only so much, especially those of mainstream physics. If we take into account those of the black projects, then such science is much closer to REAL science.

The very reason mainstream science is so limited and in big part flawed is for this materialistic approach, which we see slowly reverse in quantum physics but still their models are flawed missing the simpler all encompassing model, similar to which i touch upon in one of previous posts.

Quote
physics is not based on beliefs but on models. If model doesn't works for us  we throw  it away as we  did with  Ether/eather.
We don't have believes in physics - we have predictions
 A prediction is: a statement that we make about the future.

I never said physics is based on belief (altho ultimately this whole reality IS based on belief and is fundamentally imaginary, unreal), belief is a transitory phase, once one has done enough research and work in particular area, there is no place for belief.

Just because you limited yourself to what big boys say, mainstream narrative, it only shows your lack of discernment, there is a whole another, REAL science happening parallel with mainstream, that did not dismiss ether, overunity, or gravity control, Keely, Hollingshead, Zirbes, Bearden being just a few in a long chain of great ones whom you SHOULD'VE but you didn't study.

In his 1921 monograph Sidelights on Relativity Einstein states:

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such a space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. (measured rods and clocks), nor therefore any space intervals in the physical sense.”

Quote
You nix85 used  the wording: ________________________________________
Answer:
I gave you definition of word: subtle
"subtle" : everything that is so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.
.encyclopedia.com/literature-
-but   how could you  understand it if you don't  know how to process logic of English language.
Tell me the truth nix85 - who does the reading for you?

Here are few synonyms for subtle: fine, minute, precise, elusive.

Subtle is indeed a great term, subtle energies are exactly what we are talking about, finer forms of energy, elusive for those who don't know how to extract/resist them.

Again, one great example being etheric rainmaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwhu2G2p2sM

One of us really has trouble understanding English, i'll give you a hint, it ain't me.

Quote
Answer: [/sub]
This is what I wrote:And yes
 I'm in physics for more than 30 years now.
- but one doesn't exclude the other.

So much uncalled for rant. Ok you did not say you are a physicist, but "in physics". Excuse mua, such a great difference.

Isn't it sweet how you did not even address the 4th law of motion and inertial propulsion or etheric rainmaking, you, with such "great" experience in physics. :)

Quote
Summary:
I do respond  to your comments from the position  of social respect.
You didn't provide  firm answers  having a solid, almost unyielding surface or structure.
You are acting  like... like a dog  jumping around  and trying to find any chance to bite .
I'm not your enemy,
But how  do you know that?
 :)

Wesley  :)

I doubt you can understand the concept of respect.

Compare this or my last post to your last posts, mine with no personal attacks, no name calling, yours full of angry, aggressive rhetoric, personal attacks, demeaning paraboles...so who is "like a dog  jumping around  and trying to find any chance to bite". Look in the mirror, Wesley, boi.

No Wesley, you are not my enemy, you are your own worst enemy. :)

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3018
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2021, 12:37:39 AM »
There is nothing  to quote from your comment.
1. you expressed your opinion.
2. you addressed Ether, Spiritual Physics....you have rights to your opinion.
3. I was never aggressive,  but you have rights to your opinion.
4. I never  assigned myself  into being or not being  a physicist as titles and ranks are not important here. :)
    -moreover  I don't need you to attack me based on a  position in human animal horde you belong too. https://a-z-animals.com/animals/human/
Answer:

Quote
Here is who I'm:
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/msg558293/#msg558293

Position in human horde  is affecting you as an animal and  your influential status.
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/msg558293/#msg558293
No matter how many times I repeat that  you can't get it right.
____________________________________________________


5.  Mentioned by you .
 In Sidelights on Relativity Einstein :

page 9.
Quote
The ether does not exist at all.
https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Sidelights/Einstein_Sidelights.pdf

page 10
Quote
The  special  theory  of relativity  forbids  us  to  assume  the  ether  to  consist  of  particles observable through time,

page11
Quote
From  the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis.

page14
Quote
According  to  the  general  theory  of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would
be no propagation of light
but:
Quote
But  this  ether  may  not  be  thought  of  as  endowed  with  the  quality characteristic of
ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it.   
Explanation of word:
 - ponderable : having appreciable weight or significance.
 - ponderable media :  are all ponderable bodies that are constantly in motion in through space
    and consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
____________________________________________________
Summary:
https://overunity.com/18815/has-anyone-here-constructed-an-overunity-system-that-works/msg558116/#msg558116
3 points in time  belonging to the same frame of reference. - the plane
explains that  in 1916 science started to build new model for General Relativity
and later on that model was improved  rejecting totally Ether/Eather due to
development of new form of analysis.
The statement of Einstein  was among many other statements  not yet corrected to its present form.
You are referring into frozen point time in that particular book.. but you not taking to the account the improved by science
Model of General Relativity

Wesley

Offline nix85

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2021, 01:29:35 AM »
No one cares about your titles, i simply referred to your supposed 30 years of physics experience yet, you are ignorant of even the most basic mechanical principles like 4th law of motion, let alone the true mechanics of the time-space.

There is much to quote but you are dodging anything that doesn't suit your little worldview.

For start, address the etheric rainmaking and inertial propulsion.

"The  special  theory  of relativity  forbids  us  to  assume  the  ether  to  consist  of  particles observable through time,"

Yet mainstream physics is perfectly fine with concept of virtual particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Vibration of ether CREATES time and time creates space.

First of all ether is not made of particles. There are no particles, anywhere, anywhen, there are just waves. There is just one infinite forcefield made of vibrations of infinite frequency and amplitude bound by secondary vibrations of finite frequency and amplitude which create interference patterns along 6 axis of time, time is AC, it just oscillates "in place", it never moves. Each matter-antimatter universe picks up oscillations in opposite directions, thus matter-antimatter timelines flow in opposite directions.

3D space is created by imaginary angle between 6 time axis

"The angle of 60 degrees could only be created by an apparent frequency shift maintaining the harmonic vibrations of the rotating field."

In other words, this is the very root of relativity, REAL relativity, from perspective of each of 6 time axis, nearby axis appears to oscillate at 1/2 it's frequency altho they are exactly the same. This allows perception of depth and consequently illusion of 3D space. Time is first, space second, it is time-space, NOT space-time.

https://galactic.no/rune/iarapdx1.html
http://www.resona.nl/Denaerde/denaerde.html

Michelson–Morley experiment is nonsensical, we already experience motion of ether as gravity (and antigravity). Within a gravitational bubble, local reference frame, only direction the ether moves is from all sides toward earth center and back into space in another form, gravitational bubble being polarization of ether.

With appropriate apparatus you could detect motion of ether spiraling around the earth all the way to it's boundary just beyond our Moon and then back to the poles.

Earth "falls" in Sun's vortex, neutral energy piles up along the leading edge (equator) and makes the planet rotate which produces the differential of neutral energy between the equator and the axis which in turn makes neutral energy spiral from the equator toward to poles, in same direction (toward east) on both hemisphere, this develops Earth's own vortex which repels the parent vortex due to C+ speeds in the outer layers of the magnetic field which shear and release energy in form of expanding bubbles of nothing. Whole universe works like this, from smallest subatomic "particle" to entire cosmos.

Natural principles are simple, for those with eyes to see.

Offline nix85

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2021, 01:50:58 AM »
If you want to read the full FALLING BODIES THEORY by Zirbes, i upload a book which is not so easy to find any more.

Zirbes and his team performed great number of experiments with gravity in an abandoned mine 2000 feet deep by throwing balls of various metals in various configurations and photographing and measuring the time of impact for each.

One experiment in which a sphere of iron and a sphere of graphite of equal weight were simultaneously dropped down. Amazingly, the graphite sphere, although considerably larger than the iron sphere because of its lower density, and therefore prone to more wind resistance, impacted when the iron sphere was still six feet from impact. A similar experiment using spheres of other metals revealed that the iron sphere still impacted later than all the other spheres. Moreover, the spheres diverged considerably from each other prior to impact and also developed a specific rotation when falling.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/93ywxfxh71p7jz7/zirbes.pdf/file

http://www.rexresearch.com/zirbes/zirbes.htm

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3018
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2021, 01:56:49 AM »
Sorry this is not my style of conversation.
You are not responding to the questions and answers in the format
of logical conclusion I'm familiar with.
I may have nothing against e.g Russian Fish Market but I don't want  be a part of it.

Thank you for your time.
Happy Ether, Happy Overunity and any other nonsense to you. :)

Wesley.

Offline nix85

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #41 on: June 10, 2021, 02:11:19 AM »
I'm sure it sounds illogical to you :)

Are you gonna flee before you addressed

1) ETHERIC RAINMAKING

2) CENTRIFUGAL PROPULSION

Or maybe you claim these also to be "nonsense" :)

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #42 on: June 10, 2021, 09:45:03 AM »
Good Morning,un-/balanced line in topic theme ?
I reed yesterday also about RELATIVTY,cause the 1951 date from Diracs "ether of particles" expression,knowing from the End 80',but End 1880, experiment of "ether" existent confirmation/deny by Michelson  and later also Morlay ! Michelson-Morlay
Why there where an "ether" search ? Sound waves velocity ! Light velocity,later c = constant velocity of light !
               Ether = a carrier medium

1901 : based " Galilei his Relativity" A.Einstein refind a Ge(ne)ral Relativity and definition,in whose light its c not only on earth but astronomically " universal,everywhere" is resistantfree same in its speed and velocity !
So we have to differ the expression ' ether' as wave/light phenomen and in use ,meaning " cloud and/or sphere" !
              Nano- dimension-sphere,Sub-Angstrom( 1 Angstrom ~ 1 Atom thickness ) Sub-Atom = nucleus/nuclear
2021 : electricity is anymore 'electron's,by international convention now to be expressed as ION and/or PLASMA,            and all other kinds of e-particles !

Please,when You all dispute about " science disputation about hypo-/thesis" repeat the both opponent sides by academical Physics "facts" in the 18./19./20.century !
And as last : from 'Galileis Relativity" A.Einstein refind and confirmed James Clerk Maxwells original 20(21?) Formulas/Equations and Isaak Newtons gravity field findings as structure elements for his "Relativity theorems" ART and SRT.

Sincere
OCWL

Offline nix85

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2021, 12:33:49 PM »
Good point about constant light velocity, lanca.

Also, the nonsensical concept of expansion of space.

Space is infinite, boundless, it does not expand or contract.

Model of the universe according to what was shown to Bentov

https://youtu.be/KMbeK_6ATxQ?t=4156


Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Reactive Current - Parallel RCL
« Reply #44 on: June 10, 2021, 01:21:29 PM »
Parallel RCL                 RLC-Reihenschwingkreis

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwingkreis
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwingkreis

RLC circuit - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › R...


An RLC circuit is an electrical circuit consisting of a resistor (R), an inductor (L), and a capacitor (C), connected in series or in parallel.

 and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindstrom ,reactive current ,active current = Wirkstrom only valid for :  AC technology


                                                                                                                                                            ( pulsed DC ?)


 " Blind(e,er),blind ,original solely translation = unable to see because of injury, disease, or a congenital condition.
a blind man with a stick "


https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindstrom


                                     not/consumed : charge active current and carrier reactive current