Author Topic: I need help with a KEELY project (Read 58276 times)

Grumpy · « **Reply #45 on:** September 30, 2007, 05:45:37 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 10:43:18 PM

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

This is an assumption. No one is privy to every device ever created. Keely's work and ideas have had a profound impact on many people and their work. To say that no one has replicated his work may be correct, but to say that the study of his work has not lead to a usable device is presumpuous. Replication of Keely's work is a grand goal, but many have indicated that this is not necessary to produce the same results. There are many types of motors to propel an automobile, many means to an end. Seek the "why" not the "how".

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 10:43:18 PM

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.

Correct. Those quotes are from YOUR web site, as are the frustated responses in the quotes. The explanations are mine. If you had taken more than a cursory glance at what I wrote you would have known that I pulled the quotes form your web site. There is a great deal of information in Moore's book. I suggest a perusal of it to refresh your memory.

What is "real"? It's all an illusion. Dreams are illusion but they feel pretyt damn real when they occur. Reality is realtive.

Philosophy is of the MIND, science is of the MIND's creation. So, science can never exceed that which wrought it. I doubt you will see the meaning of that, but the seed is planted none the less.

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #46 on:** September 30, 2007, 05:50:30 AM »

Of course the are from my website, but as quote from Professor Brinton, not from Keely. The point I was making is that Brinton NEVER understood Keely.

Hans von Lieven

argona369 · « **Reply #47 on:** September 30, 2007, 06:54:28 AM »

>This is an assumption. No one is privy to every device ever created.

@Grumpy

Don?t be such an ass. Confrontation yields nothing.

Han?s , how long have you been researching Keely?

>many of Keely's observations have been verified

So what discoveries???

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 10:43:18 PM

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

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #48 on:** September 30, 2007, 07:06:51 AM »

G'day argona,

I have been researching Keely on and off for over 30 years. If you have a look at my website http://www.keelytech.com you will get an idea where I am coming from.

Sonoluminescence for instance was first described by Keely and not re-discovered until 1934. The disintegration of quartz by sonic vibration was first demonstrated by Keely, today they pulverise garbage using sound waves. Keely showed antigravity by sound waves, this has not been achieved yet but acoustic levitation has recently been achieved in the laboratory. There are other things, too much to get into here, though fact is, physics is catching up slowly with Keely when it comes to acoustics.

Besides, Keely was the first to state that enormous energies were locked up in the "interstitial spaces of corpuscles" (Keely's term for subatomic particles) This statement more than anything else discredited him with the scientific world of the day. All you have to do is look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see how right he was.

Hans von Lieven

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #49 on:** September 30, 2007, 08:09:07 AM »

Hans:

Have you given any thought to what might happen if/when you are successful? Well, I guess since you have been working on it for 30 years, I suppose you have...but my point is this: Just as the end result of nuclear research gave us and the world, the bomb, if Keely was correct, once that Geni is out of the bottle...what then? I am just amazed that to this day, the only real advances that came out of the Manhatten Project were the bombs, and being able to boil water to make power.

Suppose you unlock a way to cause fission using more readily available materials as opposed to plutonium? Would this not put a very powerful weapon in the hands of many less advanced peoples? I don't mean to sound like a doomsday wet blanket here but if you were able to replicate even some of Keely's claimed results, then some would use it for good and some for evil. I guess I am just looking at the other side of what could be a tremendous advance. In other words, I trust a man, I don't trust mankind.

Bill

Grumpy · « **Reply #50 on:** September 30, 2007, 08:16:17 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 30, 2007, 07:06:51 AM

Besides, Keely was the first to state that enormous energies were locked up in the "interstitial spaces of corpuscles" (Keely's term for subatomic particles) This statement more than anything else discredited him with the scientific world of the day. All you have to do is look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see how right he was.

"Interstitial spaces of corpuscles" has nothing to do with "subatomic particles". Keely was refering to the vortices of the "ether", which are the ambiant potential - call it the "electrostatic scalar potential" if it makes you happy. It's the "time" parameter of Einsteins 4-vector. Also known as the "torsion field". See the work of Wilbert B. Smith, F.F. Mende, and Stephan Marinov.

Quote from: argona369 on September 30, 2007, 06:54:28 AM

@Grumpy
Don't be such an ass. Confrontation yields nothing.

It's not intentional, just my nature. All I'm trying to do is open Hans' mind a little - let him see the dark side of the moon.

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #51 on:** September 30, 2007, 08:26:54 AM »

There is no "dark" side of the moon. It should actually be called the far side, but I guess everyone on here probably already knows that.

Grumpy, are the works of the men you mentioned still available in print somewhere? Even the library at our local university leaves a lot to be desired.

Bill

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #52 on:** September 30, 2007, 10:57:02 AM »

Well Pirate,

This is the dilemma. We are talking of energy here, heaps of it, though we are not talking about fission as much as we are talking about fusion. So at least there should not be any radioactivity.

Helena Blavatski said that Keely's technology should not be available to mankind for at least 10,000 years.

What came out of the Manhattan project never made it into peaceful technology on a larger scale because of the inherent danger of the materials involved and the very real fear that someone irresponsible might get their hands on it. For that reason massive safeguards were put into place from raw materials to the metals required to make enrichment feasible. It is a moot point that Keely's technology might pose the same dangers without the difficulty of basic material procurement. The best thing is to ignore it and do nothing one might argue.

If you believe that then we should go back to the cave and live like savages. For better or worse, the technology to destroy this planet has been around for a while. The question is, do you want a technology like Keely's be developed by Iran or perhaps Robert Mugabe? Wouldn't that be fun?

We have no choice, we must go forward and stay on top or there is no hope for anyone.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #53 on:** September 30, 2007, 11:10:45 AM »

OK Grumpy be pedantic,

Corpuscles was the term used by Keely for subatomic particles, You are right I didn't make that clear, though any halfway intelligent person would have caught what was meant. Unless of course someone wanted to argue just for the sake of it.

Hans von Lieven

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 30, 2007, 08:07:05 PM »

Hans:

Well, I have to admit, you got me with your point about Iran. You are correct. As good or bad as the atomic bomb may be, I am glad it was ours first here in the USA. And so, as you said, one can't turn back the clock or hide with their head in the sand. Technology marches forward with or without us. I failed to consider that in my question to you. Thanks for helping me to understand this.

Bill

argona369 · « **Reply #55 on:** October 01, 2007, 12:19:13 AM »

Thanks Han?s , I briefly looked at your site there?s lots to read!
Will be reading that when I have a chance in the next day of two.
At first glance it seems as in Sonoluminescence that Keely was
making extreme mechanical pressures. but I can?t help but see
something ?electrostatic? in his machines and also thinking of
The spark gap disassociation or dielectric breakdown
of ultra pure water (spark gap water explosion).

And corpuscles sound as good as any description of matter at the time,
trying to describe the indescribable
We still don?t know what things like matter really are, just what they do.
Just look at string theory.

@Grumpy
>It's not intentional, just my nature. All I'm trying to do is open
>Hans' mind a little - let him see the dark side of the moon.

I think we all do it unintentionally from time to time when views differ.
including me

Cliff,

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 30, 2007, 07:06:51 AM

G'day argona,

I have been researching Keely on and off for over 30 years. If you have a look at my website http://www.keelytech.com you will get an idea where I am coming from.

Sonoluminescence for instance was first described by Keely and not re-discovered until 1934. The disintegration of quartz by sonic vibration was first demonstrated by Keely, today they pulverise garbage using sound waves. Keely showed antigravity by sound waves, this has not been achieved yet but acoustic levitation has recently been achieved in the laboratory. There are other things, too much to get into here, though fact is, physics is catching up slowly with Keely when it comes to acoustics.

Besides, Keely was the first to state that enormous energies were locked up in the "interstitial spaces of corpuscles" (Keely's term for subatomic particles) This statement more than anything else discredited him with the scientific world of the day. All you have to do is look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see how right he was.

Hans von Lieven

Prophmaji · « **Reply #56 on:** October 02, 2007, 04:34:08 AM »

I have nothing to add but that eventually..scientific language will be available to explain the work of Keeley, Russell, etc.

It's like two ends of an equation that are both equal. The scientific sense of reasoning, methods and 'art' as expressed as technical explanations will eventually equal the working esoteric explanations. The scientific method will always be 'gobbledygook' to the average man, whereas the esoteric explanation CAN be reached by the common man.

The technical explanation can and will difficult and tedious, is my personal expectation. But, the explanation ventures deep into the esoteric by sheer necessity. What the final thoughts are on that line of logic is: The answer is deeply esoteric and therefore any scientific explanation will border on the useless in terms of practicality.

It is also the simple point that..such work is wholly unnecessary.

In the better sciences, math is wholly unnecessary. The mind and simple physical experiments alone, will suffice. You are beginning to search into the 'multiverse' and the metaphysical by definition. In that world, science is but a joke. Not necessary.

I heartily encourage you to continue, however. You will likely get somewhere. What you will find when you get there, is that the specific methods by which strict scientific methodology works..is not required for this very human understanding.

What we are talking about here, is Pandora's Box. Most specifically that Pandora's Box does not allow for partial openings in a given human. You get the whole package whether you desire or plan for just a tiny bit of it. You will not be afforded the chance or capacity to be selective in your understandings. The whole package will arrive on your doorstep. It will nearly drive you mad. Some.. it does end up doing so, to their detriment. Some survive it.

Point being, be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #57 on:** October 02, 2007, 06:48:49 AM »

I get your point prophmaj,

some of the things you say make sense, some not.

I am simply not interested in esoteric or scientific explanations. They have their uses for sure and perhaps as well as mathematics do not deserve the prominence they get. I am simply interested in a working technology that is of use to mankind.

You people talk about Keely and his esoteric ideas, yet you do not know very much about the man at all. Virtually all you have read is secondhand from newspaper articles and secondhand from Clara Bloomfield Moore who was beholden to Helena Blavatski and Annie Besant and had a religious agenda.

The only things of Keely we can be certain of are his machines, and I mean the photographs here, and his charts. In spite of his voluminous writings, all of it has disappeared with his machines. Even the companion volume to his charts that explains them has never been located. He refers to page numbers on his charts so we know it existed.

I want to understand Keely, not some super rich overeducated religious nut that had nothing better to do with her time than quoting people.

Hans von Lieven

argona369 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 02, 2007, 02:33:18 PM »

Hi Hans,

Wonderful site you have there Han?s, Only half way through it but a couple of things came to mind.
One was , what would happen if you had a resonator inside a resonator?
I?m not sure if this is relevant but was thinking of this photon propulsion system being developed.
I?m not sure if this is considered as a resonator inside a resonator though,

?places the laser medium within a resonant optical cavity?
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2007/September/7/88894.aspx

And by coincidence I came across this mention of ?corpuscles? by John Thomson (1856-1940)
Referring to electrons. Is this the same as Keely's corpuscles?
It seems quite the coincidence.

?later called electrons, which he called "corpuscles" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
http://www.aip.org/history/electron/jjelectr.htm

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #59 on:** October 02, 2007, 10:03:05 PM »

Quote from: argona369 on October 02, 2007, 02:33:18 PM

Hi Hans,

Wonderful site you have there Han?s, Only half way through it but a couple of things came to mind.
One was , what would happen if you had a resonator inside a resonator?
I?m not sure if this is relevant but was thinking of this photon propulsion system being developed.
I?m not sure if this is considered as a resonator inside a resonator though,

?places the laser medium within a resonant optical cavity?
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2007/September/7/88894.aspx

And by coincidence I came across this mention of ?corpuscles? by John Thomson (1856-1940)
Referring to electrons. Is this the same as Keely's corpuscles?
It seems quite the coincidence.

?later called electrons, which he called "corpuscles" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
http://www.aip.org/history/electron/jjelectr.htm

G'day argona and all,

Thank you for your kind words about my site, I am glad you find it useful and of intrest.

As to resonators within resonators, this is what Keely is all about. He created his effects by placing resonators inside and outside a resonant cavity, usually spherical. I am attaching here a photograph of Keely's Globe Motor with the spherical shell removed. You can clearly see the resonators on the outside as well as the resonators mounted inside the shell.

As to "corpuscles", it was simply a term used to describe a particle smaller than an atom which were then thought to exist by some. In 1897 Thompson through his work on cathode ray tubes proved to science that these particles existed, later on the particles he discovered were called electrons because of their electrical nature.

It is interesting here to note that Keely was talking about the "corpuscular nature of the atom" some 50 years before Thompson's discovery.

Hans von Lieven

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: I need help with a KEELY project (Read 58276 times)

Grumpy

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

hansvonlieven

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

argona369

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

hansvonlieven

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

Pirate88179

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

Grumpy

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

Pirate88179

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

hansvonlieven

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

hansvonlieven

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

Pirate88179

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

argona369

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

Prophmaji

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

hansvonlieven

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

argona369

Re: I need help with a KEELY project

hansvonlieven

Re: I need help with a KEELY project