Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: AhuraMazda on January 09, 2008, 10:06:46 PM

Title: No magnetc field
Post by: AhuraMazda on January 09, 2008, 10:06:46 PM
I have recently come to the conclusion that the Earth has no magnetic field and have decided to share this knowledge rather than go for a Nobel prize.

If we have two small pins placed a little apart, under the influence of a small magnet they atract each other.
 
Why is it that earths magnetic field does not bring them together? (but the Earths magnetic field is too little to do that is no answer).

Another one: if you rub a magnet against a suitable nail several times the nail becomes magnetic.
you take a similar nail and rub it on the ground (north to south ) as much as you like and let me know the result!

I am having a sleepless night and Please someone answer this question too: Can a single atom of any ferromagnetic material
be made into a magnet?

AM
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: AhuraMazda on January 09, 2008, 10:57:32 PM

Here is an old book from when  magnetism was a new science!

An_Introduction_to_Natural_Philosophy:

http://books.google.com/books/pdf/An_Introduction_to_Natural_Philosophy.pdf?id=grQLAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=IIPK35NhwzU5eFQKKcFT6hrutu4
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 09, 2008, 11:06:17 PM
I have recently come to the conclusion that the Earth has no magnetic field and have decided to share this knowledge rather than go for a Nobel prize.

Well Ahura, how do you account for the behaviour of a compass needle then?

Take a magnet, float it on a piece of wood and put it in a bowl of water and you can see the earth's magnetic field. No other explanation. Sorry about your Nobel prize.

Hans von Lieven
Title: No magnetc field
Post by: Earl on January 10, 2008, 12:39:24 AM
@Ah

not only can a single atom be a magnet, a single electron is a magnet.  It can not be otherwise:  a moving charge always generates a magnetic field.

Take your two needles, and your NEO magnet, then place your NEO magnet as far from the needles as the center of the Earth and ask yourself, will the needles still attract?

Now you should understand.

Earl
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: sparks on January 10, 2008, 10:38:57 PM
@Ah

not only can a single atom be a magnet, a single electron is a magnet.  It can not be otherwise:  a moving charge always generates a magnetic field.

Take your two needles, and your NEO magnet, then place your NEO magnet as far from the needles as the center of the Earth and ask yourself, will the needles still attract?

Now you should understand.

Earl

   And a magnetic field always moving the charge  :)
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: AhuraMazda on January 10, 2008, 10:52:54 PM
Thanks. Now if the magnetics flow always goes around a metallic body then how should a compass behave in a Faraday cage?
Put your bets down now because tomorrow at work I am taking a compass inside a Faraday cage!



AM
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: sparks on January 10, 2008, 11:21:16 PM
@ah

   Magnetism arises from a force to disperse all- Gravity arises from a force to concentrate all   The rest of the names
electricity mass potential  positive negative waveform green black purple electron proton neutron quarks animal plant sun planet on and on into infinity are just descriptions of these two fundamental forces or wills at play.  It has to be this way or all would be void or all would be as one. Once we can come to a full understanding of the interaction of these forces Man will be able to create reality into what he can only dream of now.
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: AhuraMazda on January 10, 2008, 11:40:34 PM
@sparks

Precisely.
At school they teach a theory that makes children think there is a magnet inside the Earth. This creates a lot of mis-conceptions and this is what I am trying to eradicate.

AM
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: sparks on January 11, 2008, 02:36:21 AM
      I believe the dispersion/concentration is so evident that it is overlooked by those studying a particular ordering of being.  I believe that permanent magnets cause the dispersion flow to act in a predictable way.  It is like canyon walls are to a river.  The dispersion force is everywhere and the permanent magnet construct results in a predictable reaction of this flowing force.  Iron is a pretty cool construct though.  It can resist the gravity of a blackhole which swallows up stars for lunch.  It is the iron core of the Earth that converts huge amounts of electro-magnetic energy from the sun into orbit and rotation which allows the Earth to exist within a gravitational field that should have made Earth part of the Sun's surface billions of years ago.
     I believe SM's tpu works the same way.  The magnetic field around the tpu allows for electro-magnetic waves to get collected and channeled into the tpu.
Not because of any match with some majical frequency but the same way the Earth does.  The torroidal magnetic field is such that it channels the em into the core of the tpu where the energy in the electrical potential of the wave is given up into a vortex current that supports the spherical shaped magnetic "antennae" and also results in energy gain of the vortex.  Be interesting to put the tpu on an air hockey table and see what she does.
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: AhuraMazda on January 11, 2008, 10:06:18 AM
      I believe the dispersion/concentration is so evident that it is overlooked by those studying a particular ordering of being.  I believe that permanent magnets cause the dispersion flow to act in a predictable way.  It is like canyon walls are to a river.  The dispersion force is everywhere and the permanent magnet construct results in a predictable reaction of this flowing force.  Iron is a pretty cool construct though.  It can resist the gravity of a blackhole which swallows up stars for lunch.  It is the iron core of the Earth that converts huge amounts of electro-magnetic energy from the sun into orbit and rotation which allows the Earth to exist within a gravitational field that should have made Earth part of the Sun's surface billions of years ago.
     I believe SM's tpu works the same way.  The magnetic field around the tpu allows for electro-magnetic waves to get collected and channeled into the tpu.
Not because of any match with some majical frequency but the same way the Earth does.  The torroidal magnetic field is such that it channels the em into the core of the tpu where the energy in the electrical potential of the wave is given up into a vortex current that supports the spherical shaped magnetic "antennae" and also results in energy gain of the vortex.  Be interesting to put the tpu on an air hockey table and see what she does.

Interesting. I started this thread with TPU and to some extent Bedini motor in mind and to encourage debate. There is soooo much to find out about magnetism.
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: The Eskimo Quinn on January 11, 2008, 11:14:55 AM
Well, for the good old school teachings of three schools of thought,

one the magnetic earth centre,
two the magnetic field theory and
three the magnetite northern pole theory.

 for the first all science has agreed so far we do NOT KNOW what is in the centre of the earth, and unless it is a bar magnet pointing north south, i think we can rule it out, a spherical magnet does not work in that fashion BOING theory bounced.

for the second magnetic field around the earth, HHMM possible, yet because Tesla thought so, I am inclined to disagree, mostly because he, and anyone who believed his suspended pole theory knows nothing of physics. If there was a full metal ring around the planet 20 feet off the ground, it could not fall anywhere because it is equally pulled from every surface below by gravity, keeping it suspended, no magnets required. If Tesla had half a brain he would have known that, about as smart as newton who never thought of an original idea in his life, Newton:gee let me see, if we push an object it should continue unless interfered by another force, wow what a man he must be a God, pity Galileo thought of it before his grandfather was born, useless d!ckhead. although if a metal ore belt is under the sirface somewhere around the equator a north sole field at the poles would be possible, otherwise the field must be evenly spread.

for the third magnetite, probably the most sound yet least of the proponents, i will go with this from what we know to be true as a proven fact, entire islands and area the size of some states destroy compass readings by planes and boats, so most certainly a pole comprising vast quantities of magnetite would by any standard of physics be sufficient to control all needles, equally the north pole gives off high magnetic field readings the south or opposing pole does not, if it were a field the readings would be identical. This too would also rectify the global map, written by those who lived on top of it, EG: a slow cooling planet has a fat bum, as it forms a pear shape at the base, a fast cooling planet is the opposite, like a gold pan, all the heavy material is in the centre at the base whilst the lighter materials are flung and expand out the top whilst spinning giving a pear shape to the top at high speed. this would mean for the magnetite to be at the thin end, it must have cooled rapidly, ipsofacto, our map of the earth is upside down, of course had the first map makers and explorers been located down south, it would be up the other way ( so it was no possible to fall off)

The answer is it is unknown and we each have our opinions, i have simply given information to support my own. You have given no information to support Why the needles move if there is no field or magnetic force.





Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: sparks on January 11, 2008, 02:06:37 PM
@Eskimo Quinn

       I am not saying that there is a  static construct of the core of the Earth that gives rise to the near and far magnetic fields of the Earth.  What I'm saying is that there is an electrical current inside the core of the Earth that gives rise to the magnetosphere which perpectuates the magnetosphere and results in Earth's spin and orbit.  This electrical current arises from the shape of the magnetosphere (the wave guide) and the electrical oscillations of the em waves radiating from the sun. 
I contend the Earth's core is iron just because it is still around. Iron defies gravity.  Look what's left around a black hole once a whole Galaxy is concentrated to the size of a basketball. Iron because of it's construct is influenced more by the dispersion force of the Universe than any other form of matter.  Iron also has electrical flow memory.  Deposits of magnetie most probably arose from fierce electrical storms that resulted in lightning strikes flowing through the frozen iron on the Earth's ancient surface. Scientists say the moon's core is frozen iron blown out of the Earth's core.  I believe first there was hydrogen and last there will be iron.  A construct of being equally affected by the two primal forces of the Universe.
       
       Telsa's endeavours were to charge a capacitor with generators at point a
then create a HIGHPOWERED oscillator and send the em energy from this oscillator into the ground in a vectored direction so they would show up at point b. This wasn't a cb radio transmitter (Marconi was enchanting the world with radio communications at the time)   This was wireless POWER.  No transmission lines no telephone poles.  He was using the Earth's crust as an antennae for millions of horsepower transmission.  Maybe his ring if it was powered up with an electron vortex flow would produce a magnetic field which would react with Earth's.  Betya that ring would start a moving.
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: allcanadian on January 12, 2008, 12:17:20 AM
Tesla said everything was made of charge carriers in an insulating medium, this includes a "magnetic" field which is an effect of these carriers---not cause, the magnetic field was considered electric in nature, the original works of Weber, Amphere and others have shown this . I would like to point out a blatant contradiction here, the EM theory is just that ---- a theory, and if a "theory" fails in any case ---- even once, then it is an incorrect theory. EM theory has NO room for purely electrostatic longintudinal waves, it has NO room for purely magnetic torsion waves. So either you buy into the EM theory and call thousands of open minded scientists liars or the EM theory is false, incorrect or in Teslas words a delusion.
Here is an interesting read------http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm
Tesla did real experiments nobody wants to talk about because as I said the EM theory holds true in every case or it doesn't in any case, I will let you come to your own conclusions.

Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: sparks on January 13, 2008, 12:40:36 AM
@all canadien

    You leave out the third possibility that both are imperfect.  I respect Telsa's work.  When you view it with what he had to work with you respect it even more.  Telsa was a builder like Lee DeForest. He would build experiment and then build some more according to the results of his experiments.  He made mistakes like everyone else.  Elastic aether?  He was into generating at point a and receiving at point b. He used the Earth as an antennae and shot high frequency high power energy into it.  The wave was still guided by magnetic field propogation.  He himself stated that 95 percent of the transmission could be current which left 5 percent of the transmission energy going into guiding the current.  He must have had a hell of a time trying to calculate how far his potential was going to go considering the antennae he was using.
Longitudanal em transmission does not equate to scalar em.  I can see scalar em working if you can fill a field with say electrons or photons then electrically "push" on the field.  Electrons and photons do have mass so the energy flow would be scalar.
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: allcanadian on January 13, 2008, 03:28:03 AM
@sparks
LOL :D
Quote
The wave was still guided by magnetic field propogation.  He himself stated that 95 percent of the transmission could be current which left 5 percent of the transmission energy going into guiding the current.

I mean no offense but you have taken Teslas words completely out of context, here is what he said--

Quote
Counsel
Let's see if I understand this correctly. If you have radiation or electromagnetic waves going from your system, the energy is wasted?
Tesla
Absolutely wasted. From my circuit you can get either electromagnetic waves, 90 percent of electromagnetic waves if you like, and 10 percent in the current energy that passes through the earth. Or, you can reverse the process and get 10 percent of the energy in electromagnetic waves and 90 percent in energy of the current that passes through the earth.

Quote
By proper design and choice of wave lengths, you can arrange it so that you get, for instance, 5 percent in these electromagnetic waves and 95 percent in the current that goes through the earth.  That is what I am doing.  Or you can get, as these radio men, 95 percent in the energy of electromagnetic waves and only 5 percent in the energy of the current. . . . The apparatus is suitable for one or the other method.  I am not producing radiation with my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic waves. . . . In my system, you should free yourself of the idea that there is radiation, that the energy is radiated.  It is not radiated; it is conserved. . . .

Quote
By proper design and choice of wave lengths, you can arrange it so that you get, for instance, 5 percent in these electromagnetic waves and 95 percent in the current that goes through the earth.  That is what I am doing.  Or you can get, as these radio men, 95 percent in the energy of electromagnetic waves and only 5 percent in the energy of the current. . . . The apparatus is suitable for one or the other method.  I am not producing radiation with my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic waves. . . . In my system, you should free yourself of the idea that there is radiation, that the energy is radiated.  It is not radiated; it is conserved. . . .

Read the article ----------http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm#A7
Teslas machines could develop potentials above 12 million volts at megacycle frequencies, instantaneous energies in the millions of horsepower range ---- and none of the so called experts then nor today can reproduce his work, that should tell you something.

Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: sparks on January 13, 2008, 04:58:45 PM
      @all canadien

   Sorry I took his words out of context. :-[  I was working off of memory and it was late.  I was imperfect. :)  Telsa was inspired when he realized lightning flowed through the Earth.  He knew he was standing on a big old conductor.  If he was to create an oscillating field inside an Earth antennae,  couldn't the wave first radiate and then reflect.  This way he gets his conservation of energy and more when the energy in the standing waves of the Earth gets on board the reflected signal?  I have seen it happen in conductors barely over a 100' feet long when using variable frequency drives to power electric motors. Pop goes the mosfets.
Or it could be just scalar wave propogation if the Earth bound electrons are considered the media.  Then the energy wave would act like a sound wave or in this case more like an Ocean wave.  I don't see where the energy would be conserved though in this type propogation unless you get an echo.
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: allcanadian on January 13, 2008, 05:31:42 PM
@sparks
Quote
Sorry I took his words out of context.   I was working off of memory and it was late.
No problem :D We have the same goal , to understand what Tesla was doing but to do this we need facts. What is seldom considered is that the earth is full of Dielectric and ferromagnetic materials, the dielectric materials are for the most part near the surface. Tesla said the earth is a capacitor, so we could consider the surface of the earth as the dielectric , the upper atmosphere one plate, and the inner earth of ferromagnetic materials the other plate. This would mean everything we know(the earth) is in a capacitive displacement current of 100 volts/meter. Now imagine YOU are inside a charged capacitor, how do you get this free displacement current for use ?. Remember the displacement current/energy is already there---everywhere, we do not create anything. What if we made an open capacitor and made the earth vary the capacitance hence doing work?

In this article-----http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1901-01-30.htm  , Tesla discovers capacitance varies with altitude thus changing the frequency of oscillation in a tank circuit. But the earth has a potential gradient of 100 volts/meter so does capacitance change in a potential gradient?, science has considered capacitance a static value.
I am still researching the idea that all space could act like a giant capacitor full of electrostatic displacement currents, and magnetism is nothing more than matter interacting with the displacement current, making magnetism ----- an electrical phenomenon ;D.
I stated in another post that if you believe energy can move from one place to the next as a wave then you must also believe that all space and matter contains energy and waves in motion.

Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: M@rcel on January 14, 2008, 12:01:46 AM
Now imagine YOU are inside a charged capacitor, how do you get this free displacement current for use ?. Remember the displacement current/energy is already there---everywhere, we do not create anything.

Using a C-stack (http://jnaudin.free.fr/cstack/index.htm)?
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: allcanadian on January 14, 2008, 03:37:58 AM
@ M@rcel

I was thinking Tesla patent 685957 Apparatus For The Utilization of Radiant Energy, this patent looks very easy but Im sure its not. In order to extract energy, energy must be moved from one place to the next. In order to do this I would think resonance with thte external energy must be established, the external energy needs a reason to move. But our perspective is always decieving us, maybe a capacitor (two close metal plates) is always charged and we just don't understand how to discharge it correctly, we should always consider the "other" perspective.
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: M@rcel on January 14, 2008, 12:15:11 PM
ok, but picturing the earth as a giant capacitor (with one plate in the ionospere and the other in the earth's core), this was the first thing that came to my mind. Might explain why an unconnected capacitor get a charge over time. What would happen with two plates one metre apart in a field of 100 V/m?
Title: Re: No magnetc field
Post by: sparks on January 14, 2008, 07:16:35 PM
   
    I believe strongly that what man calls matter is just two fundamental forces in a fleeting state of equilibrium.  Energy is matter in a state of flux or change.  Einstein's theory of relativity states this when he qualifys the E=mc2 formula as working only relative to an observer.  Thus there can be no energy
(E=matter changing) unless there is an observer. Change does not exist unless something stays the same.   So the physical Universe is filled with matter.  This matter is the construct of a force to disperse reacting with a force to concentrate. The observer can go nowhere in this Universe where matter does not exist. So the Universe is filled with the potential for energy. The challenge is to setup an observer which experiences energy in such a way that it benefits the builder. The Earth construct (or properties of matter)  should be viewed as a state of equilibrium between the force of concentration (gravity of the Sun)
and the force of dispersion, (magnetism of  the Sun).  I use the word magnetism because I don't know if the force of dispersion has been named and quantified other than the speed of light.  The Sun is the largest form of matter round here so for practical purposes the Earth needs to be viewed as relavent to the Sun.  If one can understand what gives rise to Earth then one can understand what is needed  here on Earth to be constructed to give rise to energy on Earth.  Man must disrupt the state of equilibrium between Earth and the Sun in order to give rise to Energy.  Burning dead plants has been working up until now but it's practice is coming to a screaching halt.  Smashing atoms is way too Rue Goldberg with a huge potential for disaster.  Wind and Sun reliant on a very diffused and unreliable potential.
Man has been called the fire starter.  But before he started the fire he was the wood gatherer. We now need to gather electro-magnetic waves, the fundamental building blocks of matter, and send them down paths that keep us warm,  just like the first cavemen gathered tinder and deadwood, set it down and sat by the fire.

@all canadien

       I think that both forms of EM energy flow is prevalent.  In a conductor when the potential is first applied there is flow of energy through the electron cloud (always present in a good conductor) that moves through this field like a radio-wave.  It is the kick phenomenon.  Then the rest of the potential energy converts through the electron cloud like an electrical sound wave.  So Telsa and the other scientists are both wrong and both right.   Least that's what I believe.