Author Topic: How Stubblefields Wireless Really Worked. (Read 4214 times)

joellagace · « **on:** April 09, 2023, 11:44:23 PM »

Good day folks. Here is a video where I talk more About Nathan Stubblefield. Just thought I'd share here as it is very interesting information!

https://youtu.be/8NUmPO6JMWY

I explain how his early 1900s wireless system could have worked using Maxwell's original extended equations.

It's my conclusion that such system could possibly not have worked without taking into the consideration Maxwell's original equations. Such as displacement current and its coupling with changing magnetic fields. This action plays a significant role in the transmission through changing magnetic fields.

His device worked even after the batteries became corroded and shorted out with no more power DC. However it was documented, His wireless system still worked fine.

There are other phenomena at play here that goes beyond traditional electromagnetic fields. One such example is torsion fields. These fields can be accounted for in the mathematical framework of Maxwell's extended equations. Specifically through the curve factor. A modification to Maxwell's equations that accounts for the curvature of space-time and could allow for torsion fields.

stivep · « **Reply #1 on:** April 10, 2023, 03:49:01 PM »

I do thank you for bringing up this subject. It activated many of feelings in me some are quite positive and some of it are quite critical.
Video started good but the comment ending it with torsion fields belongs to
popular mostly in Russia wacky and/or odd, nonsensical absurd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field
________________________________________________

conspiracy theory:
In the video at 0:44 conspiracy theory is unfounded . - The education of
Nathan Beverly Stubblefield[1] (November 22, 1860 – March 28, 1928) ended when he was 14.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Stubblefield

Maxwell equations:
Based on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Stubblefield
Maxwell with his equations was unlikely popular in between a farmers there.

language used:
during entire video despite good American English the young gentleman is using quite unorthodox,
(- other than traditionally, accepted) technical language describing quite basic phenomena,
characteristic to a freshman . So yes - he may have great future sometime in the future or not.
But I do thank him very much for his courage of writing a book at this stage.

Wireless communication Patent :
U.S. Patent 350,299 belongs to A. E. DOLBEAR. MODE OF ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION,
Patented Oct. 5, 1886 and not to NATHAN B. STUBBLEFIELD.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US350299
US 600457A Electrical Battery belongs to NATHAN B. STUBBLEFIELD.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US600457
No patent related to wireless communication was found by me that belongs to NATHAN B. STUBBLEFIELD
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
_{So by that all conclusions from Wikipedia are "episodic"- "anecdotal" - to be gentle.
The same happens to public contributors and me too, when there is no suitable record present.}
Analysis of circuit presented on the video:
The (small)schematic on the left hand side bottom - looks like two loops coupled in the near field .
But if in Far Field than it is Tx / Rx pair suitable for wireless communication.
The DC from Battery is changed to AC with biased DC due to mechanical vibration causing modulation in the microphone and electromagnetic wave is transmitted.
Than Rx is able to receive it at the distance few km or more depends on Frequency , impedance matching, and power .
And yes- it could be earth battery or telluric current it will still power the device.

in minute 7:29 of the video "Torsion field" nonsense becomes annoying .
in minute 8:14 I gave up not able to stay the nonsense.

Wesley

joellagace · « **Reply #2 on:** April 10, 2023, 04:08:44 PM »

joellagace · « **Reply #3 on:** April 10, 2023, 04:41:48 PM »

If you would have watched the video in full. I describe how these systems can work. But knowing you stopped watching midway. Not much I can do about the information you missed as I was elaborating my point. To sum it up:

Maxwell's equations provide a foundation for understanding electromagnetic phenomena, and incorporating the curl factor can open up possibilities for exploring torsion, scalar, and spin fields. While these ideas may not yet have widespread acceptance in mainstream science, it's important to approach them with an open mind and continue to investigate and experiment.

As long as the principles of scientific inquiry and rigor are followed, there is always potential for new discoveries and advancements. So it's important to encourage and support continued exploration and experimentation, even if some ideas may seem unconventional.

If you want to know what equations I base myself on. It's all in my ebook that you can download from my youtube.

stivep · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2023, 04:56:10 PM »

Yes you are right. Maxwell was contemplating Ether/eather too.
It was crazy time where lucky in 1905 Einstein was lucky only because other guy - Russian (at that point from not yet Communist Russia)
Nikolay Umov made a mistake but he was close, very close.
https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=83561
note: this article from above may be partially misleading - as I simply didn't analyze it yet -if it was made by Russian propaganda or not.
sorry for that
Wesley

ramset · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2023, 05:17:01 PM »

Joel
Thanks for sharing your work , I suppose any repeatable “gain” anomaly would be
Amazing ..( if more out than in )
Here a repost from an open source researcher who follows physics discussions outside
The box
Quote
I highly encourage anyone to watch Distinti's semi recent work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRDSy88SN4
He goes over all of this, where mass and gravity pop out of the equation because of a very simple fact, two spinning charged particles when disturbed create a reaction force which we call mass (inertia to be exact. He provides all the derivations and it's all simple math, no higher special dimensions and wacky mathematics needed.
His work on the standard model is even more cool but currently on Patreon only. When a simple model and equation leads to explaining the masses and magnetic moments of fundamental particles without resorting to a blackboard full of equations then you have something truly noteworthy at hand. And if you think this is doing pseudo isomorphic science where you're not adding any new knowledge or data to the pool, well here is an example: he can predict the magnetic moment of the Tau particle which is a yet unknown experimental value. This alone should trigger people to look further into this especially people at CERN.
I truly believe his work will become the foundation of future scientific progress when mainstream physics catches on and stops beating their dead horse. I truly believe the only reason why distinti is still rambling on to his small community and making small progress is because of his personality. He makes a lot of fun of physicists which makes things difficult when you want smart and respected people in the community to have a look at your work in a respectful manner. But then again, history tells us it's always the young/new generation that made the biggest impact in science not the old established thinking. Niels Bohr was only 28 when he wrote on the quantization of the electrons energy level. Einstein himself was only 26 and 36 when he published his most impactful papers.
Yet today these papers are seen as gospel and nothing critical can be said of them without being ridiculed as a heretic or nutjob.[/size]
End quote

stivep · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2023, 08:00:03 PM »

Quote from: ramset on April 10, 2023, 05:17:01 PM

Quote
I highly encourage anyone to watch Distinti's semi recent work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRDSy88SN4
// This alone should trigger people to look further into this especially people at CERN.//

Can you introduce the name of the commenter/supporter and his association if possible?

We often use known to us phenomena like :
if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck
to explain something else - but duck belongs to classical mechanics.
more of it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Space Time Curvature visualized with use of trampoline is not explained, but only presented so you can "see" that what is invisible.
That is why Bohr atom was compared to solar system in ~ 1913. It was no television there yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxsT1ut35Q
why-is-the-bohr-model-compared-to-the-solar-system
This was so convenient, that till today it is often used with note that it really is not like that!!!!
_{rubber sheet analogy - it have mislead many peoples as it is only analogy and nothing more than that.
There is no physical fabric of spacetime - it doesn't exist - instead it is just our form of explanation of mechanisms
that need to be quickly understood by some average human animal, while others don't give a damn about it.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/309369/the-fabric-of-space-time}
In minute 1:07 the author makes assumption that may be right in the field of classical mechanics
but can't be applied to quantum mechanics.

mentioned by him Ladder_paradox : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
in 1:57 he makes another mistake light as electromagnetic phenomena has no mass and its only
interaction with matter is collision where photon deposits its energy to a mass converting it to heat.

by the way- Length Contraction formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
was not stolen by Relativity - it was adopted and applied as an leftover of what was right
in outdated model in physics. - like screw from the old wall that belongs to you, that you replaced with new one .

__________________________________________________

When we go along the nonsense:
Fluid dynamics and vortex are classical physics phenomena but
in 5:24 he uses it to reincarnate Ether/eather telling us in 5:47 that eather is consumed by matter in vortex.
We can't check it out as properties of eather are unknown and there is no conversion table available.
by analogy we may say that imperial system is old and we replace it with much better metric system
- however the conversion table still exist and both can coexist as well.

Based on today's models he is wrong in almost every statement he makes in that video -
6:21 we are told that: "every particle of matter is a stable nuclear reactor and we need to save human race."
Gushhhhhhhhhhhh... if it is stable than no worry ..... "it's fine" or "it's all right". "no problem"
"calm down". "Don't panic..."

Stable Particle is not a nuclear reactor is not even an isotope - that can't even explode... period!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction
Nature likes balance so even isotopes get into balance after they throw not needed .. out..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/dull2/

I'll save space in this forum not going to more of it.

_{opinion expressed is my own}
Wesley

stivep · « **Reply #7 on:** April 11, 2023, 06:58:51 PM »

For all curious about phenomena around us:
1. overunity doesn't exist
2. the maximum you can get at the output of any device is underunity.
It means if you deliver to the device or circuit 1W you will get <1W at output.
3. that is why Perpetual motion is a nonsense.
4. anti-gravity doesn't exist.
5. Energy or e.g electrical energy can't be produced or created nor destroyed -energy can only change its form.
It means amount of energy in the universe doesn't change. It is constant.
Term energy production means only that energy changes its from to the one convenient to us.
6 Quantum physics is probably the most precise scientific discipline ever devised by humankind.
https://theconversation.com/seven-common-myths-about-quantum-physics-115029
7. Radioactivity is not dangerous at all if we think that the gasoline in our car tank is safe.
In reality basic knowledge about the both- is like knowing how to use your kitchen knife safely .
8. Classical physics doesn't explain quantum physics
https://iopscience.iop.org/book/mono/978-0-7503-1206-6/chapter/bk978-0-7503-1206-6ch1
Great paper is here for you to read:

Quote

2.Quantum physics is the revolution that overthrew classical physics. Describing the
difference between them is like describing the difference between the Bolsheviks and the Tsars.
Where do we even begin?

https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/What-is-the-difference-between-classical-physics-and-quantum-physics.pdf
9. Ether/Eather doesn't exist
10. Good and spirituality is not recognized by physics as physics exists and is functioning exactly the same with or without any knowledge about "it."
It means that: physics rejects and ignores all that is non-physics related.
11. We all are animals - humans belong to mammals.
12. Free Energy means only Energy that is for Free. like an energy from sun, wind, heat as long as it is at no charge
and there is no tax on it. For example air and electromagnetic wave is for free, but using air to send electromagnetic wave is regulated and/or needs to be licensed
By FCC in USA.
13 Patents are not for free and they restrict your use of anything you didn't think as of yet, as possible, or didn't patent yet for 20 years in average.

I hope it helps.
Happy Passover, Easter, Ramadan
To all of you

Wesley

kolbacict · « **Reply #8 on:** April 11, 2023, 07:22:38 PM »

Quote from: stivep on April 11, 2023, 06:58:51 PM

3. that is why Perpetual motion is a nonsense.
4. anti-gravity doesn't exist.

The invisibility cap exists.
I want an invisibility hat.

stivep · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2023, 07:42:14 PM »

Quote from: kolbacict on April 11, 2023, 07:22:38 PM

The invisibility cap exists. I want an invisibility hat.

Yes invisibility technology exists. So you can be completely invisible from a certain angle in ideal case of it.
https://www.wired.com/story/vollebak-invisibility-cloak/
But I do suggest your seasonal or permanent emigration- you have so close to the Free World.
Wesley

joellagace · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2023, 08:32:21 PM »

I want to clarify that my devices and concepts do not violate the laws of thermodynamics or claim to achieve such. Rather, it utilizes multiple energy sources and manipulations in a clever way. In the case of energy generation such as what this user suggests here, A bit sidetracked from my original topic. ... Multiple energy systems are used to increase the efficiency of energy conversion and transduction, resulting in a greater electrical energy output than what is put into the system as electrical energy alone. This approach is based on well-established principles of physics and engineering and does not involve any kind of perpetual motion or "free energy" I would appreciate it if you could take the time to understand my device and its workings before making any unfounded claims or assumptions.

Quote from: stivep on April 11, 2023, 06:58:51 PM

For all curious about phenomena around us:
1. overunity doesn't exist
2. the maximum you can get at the output of any device is underunity.
It means if you deliver to the device or circuit 1W you will get <1W at output.
3. that is why Perpetual motion is a nonsense.
4. anti-gravity doesn't exist.
5. Energy or e.g electrical energy can't be produced or created nor destroyed -energy can only change its form.
It means amount of energy in the universe doesn't change. It is constant.
Term energy production means only that energy changes its from to the one convenient to us.
6 Quantum physics is probably the most precise scientific discipline ever devised by humankind.
https://theconversation.com/seven-common-myths-about-quantum-physics-115029
7. Radioactivity is not dangerous at all if we think that the gasoline in our car tank is safe.
In reality basic knowledge about the both- is like knowing how to use your kitchen knife safely .
8. Classical physics doesn't explain quantum physics
https://iopscience.iop.org/book/mono/978-0-7503-1206-6/chapter/bk978-0-7503-1206-6ch1
Great paper is here for you to read:
https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/What-is-the-difference-between-classical-physics-and-quantum-physics.pdf
9. Ether/Eather doesn't exist
10. Good and spirituality is not recognized by physics as physics exists and is functioning exactly the same with or without any knowledge about "it."
It means that: physics rejects and ignores all that is non-physics related.
11. We all are animals - humans belong to mammals.
12. Free Energy means only Energy that is for Free. like an energy from sun, wind, heat as long as it is at no charge
and there is no tax on it. For example air and electromagnetic wave is for free, but using air to send electromagnetic wave is regulated and/or needs to be licensed
By FCC in USA.
13 Patents are not for free and they restrict your use of anything you didn't think as of yet, as possible, or didn't patent yet for 20 years in average.

I hope it helps.
Happy Passover, Easter, Ramadan
To all of you
Wesley

stivep · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2023, 09:49:04 PM »

I made intentional misleading statement in point 12 in hope someone will correct me ,but nobody did.

Quote

12. Free Energy means only Energy that is for Free. like an energy from sun, wind, heat as long as it is at no charge
and there is no tax on it. For example air and electromagnetic wave is for free, but using air to send electromagnetic wave is regulated and/or needs to be licensed
By FCC in USA.

The correct wording is:
Free Energy means only Energy that is for Free. like an energy from sun, wind, heat as long as it is at no charge
and there is no tax on it. For example air and electromagnetic wave is for free, however sending electromagnetic wave is regulated and/or needs to be licensed
By FCC in USA. Electromagnetic wave as quantum physics phenomena doesn't need Air nor any other medium to travel.
Wesley

stivep · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2023, 09:59:45 PM »

Quote from: joellagace on April 11, 2023, 08:32:21 PM

Multiple energy systems are used to increase the efficiency of energy conversion and transduction, resulting in a greater electrical energy output than what is put into the system

I'm not sure if I understood your comment correctly .
No method can deliver more energy at output than delivered at input.
it means - there is no way to gain energy at output you can only lose.
But if you don't have to pay for the energy at input than you don't care much what is the efficiency of your energy conversion apparatus
unless some competition of yours can sale that energy at output of their device cheaper.

Niagara Falls hydroelectric station is an example of no need to pay for energy at input.
All energy at output is at ZERO COST means Free Energy, because the cost of operation is lower than gain from sale.
The energy of flowing water there is greater than energy produced by the turbines so there is lose of energy net.
But owners of Niagara Falls don't see any losses in their pockets.
Think about it.
No losses, no maintenance cost, no labor cost, as all of that is paid by customer of yours and pure gain is left in your pocket 24/7

Wesley

partzman · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2023, 11:37:54 PM »

Quote from: stivep on April 11, 2023, 09:59:45 PM

"No method can deliver more energy at output than delivered at input."

Wesley

Wesley,

Are you completely and totally sure of your statement above? Are you sure that you and others you follow, have tried every combination of topologies that exist in conventional electromagnetics?

Just curious!!

Regards,
Pm

onepower · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2023, 11:43:18 PM »

stivep

Quote

2. the maximum you can get at the output of any device is underunity.
It means if you deliver to the device or circuit 1W you will get <1W at output.

This is incorrect and the Conservation of Energy (COE) demands energy cannot be created (over-unity) or destroyed (under-unity) for obvious reasons. If any material thing or circuit was under-unity it would represent an energy sink relative to the surrounding energy. Energy would keep flowing into the imaginary energy sink forcing the surrounding space to become overunity violating the COE.

This is why energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. We cannot get something from nothing nor can we force something into nothing because conceptually they represent the same thing.

Quote

3. that is why Perpetual motion is a nonsense.

This is also incorrect for similar reasons. Motion relates to kinetic energy and is subject to the same rules defined by the conservation of energy.

For example, suppose we could remove all apparent motion from an object. The atoms/particles/sub-atomic particles which make up the object are still in perpetual motion because matter cannot be created/destroyed nor the energy associated with it. The energy must always exist as either the motion of the particles or the motion of EM fields transferring energy between particles.

In effect, the universe is like a giant vacuum tube where all particles are constantly in motion and transferring EM wave energy between themselves. The obvious question is, if motion is not perpetual then where did all the energy go?. So a particle slowed down or sped up representing a change in kinetic energy, where did the energy go?. You see, your reasoning fails under even the most basic scrutiny.

AC

News:

User Menu