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: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?  (Read 1298 times)

Offline Eighthman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« on: December 20, 2021, 03:50:45 PM »
I have searched a bit and can't find any info on whether anyone has attempted to cause the charged ionosphere to oscillate with reference to earth (ground) so as to generate current.


The closest I can come to this is ideas that Tesla might have had this in mind as with wireless power transmission.  And it would likely be a 'near field' effect - not a simple RF transmission.


Anybody got anything? ???

Offline Eighthman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2021, 07:19:03 PM »
http://amasci.com/freenrg/sukdynam.html


If you don't understand where I'm going with this, the above reference might help, if you have some imagination.  It deals with a quantum phenomena yet using classical principles. So, I see an analogy to a much larger application, as with harnessing the earth to air current by means of a VLF near field oscillation - that derives power from that.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2021, 02:07:29 AM »
To my knowledge, only 2 people have theorized and/or attempted this


1) Nikola Tesla
2) Steven Mark

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2021, 02:20:59 AM »
In the time of Ra, the Earth was known to sing at 6 times per second


In the time of Archimedes the great, this was noted to be 6 and a half


Fitzgerald thought he had measured 6.9
In the time of tesla, it was nearing 7


In Mark’s day, he measured and calculated it to be 7.83516etc,etc


Today, in our time, even NASA doesnt report anything lower than 8Hz


Our atmosphere is increasing in size.
And at an accelerating rate.


Why? Im not sure
I may have something to do with large volumes of gaseous matter that
used to be solid trees…

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2021, 02:25:03 AM »
Another theory is that melting icecaps are raising sea levels,
pushing the atmosphere outwards.

Offline Eighthman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2021, 12:49:12 AM »
Part of my interest in this goes back decades, to my learning about the Moray device.  No one has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation of how this thing worked but I think withdrawing power from the earth - air charge makes the most sense.

I also think......'free energy' (however defined) could hide in some small fundamental mistake made when modern science was still 'new'.



Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3018
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2021, 03:18:25 AM »
http://amasci.com/freenrg/sukdynam.html
I see many problems with that article.
It would take a lot of space to  discuss all of it,
I'll try to make it short and by that not so  understandable nor even  perfectly correct.
______________________________________
Photon is a carrier of electromagnetic  energy and light takes  one of bandwidths  of electromagnetic waves.
 By light  we may understand visible light spectrum, infrared spectrum  and  ultraviolet spectrum.
Atom doesn't absorb electromagnetic wave but interacts with  that wave carrier- the photon.
Effect of that interaction can vary from Bremsstrahlung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
Quote
acceleration or deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by magnetic fields
to phenomena listed here:
http://www.nicadd.niu.edu/~piot/phys_630/Lesson17.pdf
all of these interactions are Quantum phenomena
And first problem with William Beaty,  9/9/99 article is that
title of his article is : Possibility That Electromagnetic Radiation Lacks Quanta of Any Kind.
He doesn't specify  how atom interacts with photon  in his study.
Next problem is his definition  of Near Field in regards to   receivers Rx as atom acts as the receiver of EM wave carried by photon.
 Although we may speculate  about Near field of Tx (transmitter) when it sends photons,
we can't speculate about  Near Field of  Rx ( receiver) as there is NONE!!!
It doesn't exist, by that there is no Near field of an atom acting as  an receiver
EM Wave  near  Tx has Near Field  than Far Field ( simplified explanation) and EM wave  acts  much different in each of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
But when  EM Wave is  in Far Field and than is received  by Rx than there is  no  presence of  any secondary Near Field.
 
The next he is talking about I assume is aperture  and efficiency of receiving antenna completely ignoring that
Resonance is  like an open door for photon to come ( simplified) and  Efficiency is just smaller when antenna is smaller.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/64D/jresv64Dn1p1_A1b.pdf
Quote
Making an antenna much smaller than a wavelength generally results in it becoming less efficient.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/157332/efficiency-of-antennas-vs-operating-frequency
There are many  parameters important like directivity of an antenna vs gain.
He simply doesn't  signify  between  point of charge and line of charge .
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-line-charge-and-a-point-charge
For me the article is convoluted, and  looks like story   for some guys trying to  interpret it  while not fluent in the subject matter.
So the conclusion is:
If you take  false assumption and build on it  a house than the likelihood is that it will not stand the  "criticism" of  local environment . :)
By that you may speculate about ionosphere  oscillations  as phenomena completely separated from  William Beatty  revelations.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1202869
Wesley

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2021, 01:35:13 PM »
Part of my interest in this goes back decades, to my learning about the Moray device.  No one has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation of how this thing worked but I think withdrawing power from the earth - air charge makes the most sense.

I also think......'free energy' (however defined) could hide in some small fundamental mistake made when modern science was still 'new'.


If thats the case, we will find it in the fudge factor ‘universal constants’ we add or multiply into our equations.


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2021, 02:20:57 PM »

@Stivep


With the rise of 5th dimensional mathematics,
a new view of the photon is available to us.


As a manifestation of a 5th dimensional disturbance,
the photon has no velocity. It is us who have a relative velocity
to the photon of ‘c’.


The photon itself carries/creates its’ own emf which propagates around it.
This causes the effect we know as self-interference.
In other experiments, we see that this field leaves residual traces through space
allowing it to interfere with another photon much later.


With regards to its’ self-generated field it behaves just like the electron
as observed in low voltage DC “air circuits”.
(Leedskalnin experiment #4, British Royal Society publication circa 1930’s)


The analysis is problematic using our current 4th dimensional model, because of
the relativistic velocities between the particle emission and its’ field.
But from a 5th dimensional perspective, only the field moves at c
While the particle remains still.
 (Time in our dimension is constant from a 5th dimensional perspective, standing still)
We move at c, with respect to the particle manifestation, or rather we are moving
relative to the disturbance caused in the 5th dimension that we observe as luminescence.


In which direction? - well, to us that translates to every possible direction except one,
which is indeterminate. Or probabilistic rather, at any given instant.


Of course, this gives rise to the understanding that a photon is actually 2 photons.
One is a photon, the other is an antiphoton, or another photon 180-degrees out of phase.
In a dna-spiral, wrapping around one another along a single vector in our dimension.
Each of these photons is made up of 2 photons, and those are each 2 and so on to infinity
Like cauliflower.


We can separate (split) them or combine them up or down for infinity
or annihilate them and create a new photon one stage lower, and some heat, emf etc.[size=78%] [/size]
But there’s nothing really there.
 What we experience is a manifestation of a 5th dimensional disturbance.
it can be caused by atomic fluctuations, or by ionization or heat,
it can even be caused by emf directly if field strength is intense enough.
The frequency of the fluctuations in the disturbance determines its’ intensity,
what we refer to as color.


 


Offline Eighthman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2021, 04:29:45 PM »
I see the problem with using the Bohren idea is that there seems to be an unarticulated effort to switch off reductionism when one approaches the quantum realm - and it gets fuzzy as to where that line should be drawn.  Victor Mansfield called this the 'just is' idea.  Ultimately, things "just are" and no further explanation is possible.  Victor Stengler followed this approach in denying quantum entanglement by asserting what he called 'decoherence'  that 'just is'.


It's not central to my curiosity here. There might be near field gadgets out there that use some sort of oscillating field to gather energy.  I differenciate near and far field as stuff that's sort of conduction vs stuff that uses transmitted RF waves, subject to 330 ohm radiation resistance. Beaty mentions AM loop antennas and I'll have to examine that.


There are serious efforts ($) to examine the science behind whatever UFO's actually are.  I think we should invest in examining various well attested gadgets as to how they worked - rather than perhaps something so far advanced that we won't figure it out.  I notice from "Penn and Teller's" show that lots of slick explanations can be offered by experts in illusion superficially but their accuracy is another matter, as the entertainment therein shows.  Inventors can be repellent frauds ( Popp and Steven Mark) but that doesn't mean their devices were.

Offline onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Ionosphere Oscillation Ever Attempted?
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2021, 06:01:59 PM »
Eighthman
Quote
I also think......'free energy' (however defined) could hide in some small fundamental mistake made when modern science was still 'new'.

Indeed and Beaty hit on part of the solution...
Quote
The two papers above provide a solution. If an atom behaves as an electromagnetic resonator similar to a coil/capacitor tank circuit, and if the resonant frequency of the "atom/circuit" is the same as the frequency of the incoming light, then the atom will absorb a tiny portion of an incoming light wave and store it as a region of oscillating local EM fields surrounding the atom. Oddly, these fields strongly interact with the incoming light because they are naturally phase-locked to it.

The mistake was made when Einstein was unable to reconcile action at a distance. Rather than come up with a real theory that works he made the measures of space and time variable. Einstein cheated, he fudged the math making constants variable. Everyone is wrong about GR because the guy who invented it, Einstein, said it was wrong. Now GR is little more than a cult like the far right or flat Earther's.

Maxwell also cheated if anyone actually bothered to read his original work as I have. Maxwell claimed all external effects and field gradients outside the context of field lines will be ignored. He also claimed to have discarded all anomalies such as Weber's work. Like Einstein Maxwell cheated and discarded all effects which didn't align with his generalized theories which are obviously biased.

As Beaty implied, atoms could produce resonant effects in a similar way to Cassimir plates. This also relates to matter at high velocity changing it's frequency of oscillation leading to the fallacy that time changed when in fact matter did. Think about it, we take two plates in close proximity and they confine/restrict the EM waves between them. The "plates" are simply a large group of atoms thus it seems reasonable that the scale could be reduced further even down to the atomic level.

It's really strange because what most people seem to believe is not only false but a comedy of errors and fallacies from the past. In fact, what Beaty is suggesting is similar to what Maxwell proposed in his work if anyone bothered to read it. Maxwell's demon is a good start. Not the watered down and generally false internet version I mean the original literature in there own words.

If you want to learn how FE works go back and read the works of Faraday, Ampere, Weber, Lord Kelvin and Maxwell. These men knew what they were doing and did real experiments which hold a treasure of knowledge.

Regards
AC