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

Custom Search

Author Topic: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)  (Read 338515 times)

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #420 on: June 29, 2008, 06:59:15 PM »
What was funny is attributing things Einstein didn't invent or even thought about. He's not some Almighty creator.

I insist that E=MC^2 basically works with subatomic bond energies ONLY.

You may insist at your leasure, as I firmly believe in free speech, but it changes nothing. No, Einstein is not an almighty creator, and I disagree with him on many points. This topic however, is not worthy of argument, and it requires two participants to hold an argument.

Argument is over.

Paul Andrulis

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #421 on: June 30, 2008, 05:15:30 AM »
Einstein stated himself that he did not know if E=MC^2 was true.

From the man himself:

Quote
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. ? I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

You want the answer?  It is quite simple, and even advanced civilizations can only offer the same answer.

"Light just is."

---------------------

EDIT:  Follow only Einstein and you are a fool, but you can make a good paycheck...

---------------------

Ever wonder what Tesla's RE is?  A changing field (use region if you like) of pressure different from the surrounding pressure.  That simple.  Like a moving air current - the wind.  Over two years I searched for that answer.  Dollard calls it dielectric flux - which it is - but does not get to the basics that the density of this field is different and changing - propagating.  Quite amazing really.  Throw a little Wilbert Smith and Francis Nipher in and you see high voltage is the key to creating the pressure differential.   Now 12v ain't gonna get it.  Just a guess as it varies, but you would need probably 20 to 50 volts just to see anything.  1000v and you getting the goods, 10k and your kickin' ass.  100k and you're a hero - news at 6.

Had mankind followed Tesla, we would be populating the star systems instead of bitching about the price of gas and how wrong Einstein really was.





aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #422 on: June 30, 2008, 08:31:38 AM »
"Light just is."

Ever wonder what Tesla's RE is?  A changing field (use region if you like) of pressure different from the surrounding pressure.

I'm sure that light is simply a longitudinal wave in a complex-numbered medium.

I think Tesla's RE is the same thing as I'm hypothesizing (DC acoustic wave). What the heck is this wave you ask? It's very simple. Take two objects that have kinetic energy and make them collide. On the very moment of collision, kinetic energy of both objects will quickly and gradually vanish for a moment. What happens to the energy? Quite simple: it is converted into DC acoustic wave (or Radiant Energy field). On the next step this RE field will accelerate collided particles and will fade away as soon as particles fly away from each other. In fact it is how MASS is created - that's why E=MC^2 works very well if you use it correctly to estimate binding energies (energy used to stick particles together). I'm just expanding the concept to any colliding particles (the reality we live in is universal) - not just nuclear bonds. To sum up, in my hypothesis, E=MC^2 can be used as a measurement of transient mass created upon collision of particles having summary energy of E. This mass as Tesla's RE is a concept totally unexplored in physics. But I'm sure it hides a key to overunity, because mass obviously is non-reactive: it can't vanish just because some other object flies nearby this mass field.

Well, I'm pretty sure that even molecular compositions may have their "defect of mass". I have not found any info on that, but according to what I've written above, molecular bonds should also affect mass.

...

I think I've "nailed" it this time. "Transient mass" appearance is exactly why discharges may work in overunity devices. The same I think applies to magnetostrictive materials and resonant modes created in them - they affect bond distances and so they should create transient masses as well.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 09:16:55 AM by aleks »

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #423 on: June 30, 2008, 02:54:49 PM »
To add a bit more detail, in the case of molecular bonds you may see this transient mass quite obviously when you are compressing a piece (volume) of matter. Of course, in a closed system this will increase pressure, but beside that you'll in fact increase mass of matter - together with its changed dimensions. So, now you clearly see how kinetic energy quite obviously turns into mass and potential energy together. I know this example is too simple/banal, but in search for overunity it's quite an important piece of puzzle I think.

(defect of mass is a bit inverse, because it literally "steals" mass when kinetic energy is stored in subatomic bonds - something like that happens when you expand piece (volume) of matter instead of compressing it)

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #424 on: June 30, 2008, 04:44:53 PM »
I have to go wash your ideas out of my mind before they contaminate my own.

"complexed numbered medium"?  "transient mass"? 

Kinetic energy and collisions?  Are we smashing particles now?

RE has nothing to do with "particles".

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #425 on: June 30, 2008, 04:50:13 PM »
I have to go wash your ideas out of my mind before they contaminate my own.

"complexed numbered medium"?  "transient mass"? 

Kinetic energy and collisions?  Are we smashing particles now?

RE has nothing to do with "particles".
Oh, yeah. Here's another source of contamination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy Or is it exactly what you are thinking RE is? ;)

Now, read this and understand that who wants to contaminate your mind is not me: http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml
"Tesla was now operating under entirely new rules which he referred to as ?dynamic? electro-static forces" My DC Acoustic Wave is exactly dynamic electro-static force. When you change its sign, it's a gravity (mass) force. Otherwise it's an "electro-static" force you can change at your will.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 05:11:49 PM by aleks »

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #426 on: June 30, 2008, 06:48:46 PM »
Oh, yeah. Here's another source of contamination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy Or is it exactly what you are thinking RE is? ;)

Now, read this and understand that who wants to contaminate your mind is not me: http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml
"Tesla was now operating under entirely new rules which he referred to as ?dynamic? electro-static forces" My DC Acoustic Wave is exactly dynamic electro-static force. When you change its sign, it's a gravity (mass) force. Otherwise it's an "electro-static" force you can change at your will.

Yeah. OK.  I'll just leave you alone from now on.

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #427 on: June 30, 2008, 06:50:05 PM »
@Aleks

What supposedly is a "DC acoustic wave"?

DC and "acoustic wave" have nothing in common. I am starting to see a piltdown man here.

Do you know about the piltdown man?

A researcher wanted to find the "missing link" of evolution so badly, and wanted others to believe in evolution to the extreme that he took human remains and ape remains, and MADE his "missing link". He was famous for a time, now is infamous.

I bring this up, as the concepts being proposed are not just conflicting, there seems to be intent behind them. I try to be generous in that it may be a misunderstanding on my part. Therefore please explain this notion.

Paul Andrulis

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #428 on: June 30, 2008, 07:23:40 PM »
No problem, just leave it alone as Grumpy did it. Unfortunately, discussions here are largely non-constructive. Even if I had a working device, it would not help if you knew nothing about how it operated. Nobody wants to be an ape but then everybody proves by his deeds he's an ape simply by doing something without ANY understanding of what he's doing.OK, let's leave this alone.

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #429 on: July 01, 2008, 11:09:15 PM »
Sorry, but I have to add this link: http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Tesla's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

And the quote: "There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." E=MC^2 is unfortunately an experimental fact (together with time lag of satellites in regard to on-Earth clocks). Its understanding (and application) is, however, CAN be seen from another point of view - e.g. the one I've offered. (and you'll still have to stick to Joules if you want to transform understanding into known and proven physics). Mass is not a matter - and that's all I wanted to note. Mass is a gravitational field much like electrostatic field is. Mass is produced from stress of ordinary electrostatic fields. That's the reason Keely's "spheres in spheres" has so much meaning. When you are stressing three spheres to each other, they create additional sphere that surrounds them.

Complex-numbered medium (gas or crystal) is the medium where each node has SIX degrees of freedom meaning that position (or disposition) of each node is defined by 3 complex numbers that correspond to space's dimensionality.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2008, 11:35:59 PM by aleks »

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #430 on: July 02, 2008, 01:45:00 AM »
@aleks

First, I thought you asked me to desist......

The link is classical wiki, in that the author of this article is a wannabe. You want to know what is amazing?

Two quotes from this article:

"Though these principles guided his future research and experiments, Tesla did not announce his theory until near the end of his life after he had been disillusioned by the war efforts. The Dynamic Theory of Gravity neither appears nor is mentioned anywhere in standard Tesla informative sites and reportedly, is still classified and unavailable under the FOIA."

"Tesla's theory put him in direct contrast with the re-emerging Relativity theory, which is that energy does not directly originate from matter or vice versa, but that matter behaves as a medium for forces to act upon or to act through, and that without matter there is no Energy (nor Force) and vice versa (he said a body without force is like a body without a mind)."

Notice that in the first sentence from the introduction this individual (the writer) states that the theory was announced, but no information is available, hinting that the government is withholding the info and it is "classified". The writer states later that no mathematics have been provided whatsoever.

Yet he seems to supposedly have all this information at his fingertips to write the rest of this massive article. Note the second quote, in which he writes essentially exactly what Tesla's theory is, and goes in depth in explanation, even quoting SWAMIS as reference......

Come on.....

This reminds me of the radiant energy horsepucky where people supposedly quote Tesla as to what radiant energy is, when he states what it is in a patent quite clearly. See patent #685,957 "Apparatus for the Utililization of Radiant Energy"

AVAILABLE HERE->http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/index.html

Amazingly enough, Radiant Energy has a name today, it is called ionizing radiation. (Ultraviolet, X-Rays, Alpha, Beta, & Gamma particles, etc...)

What IS amazing is how many people "quote" Tesla.

Many of Tesla's views were correct, so were many of Einstein's. I agree with parts of both's views. BOTH were just men.

Paul Andrulis 

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #431 on: July 02, 2008, 01:54:54 AM »
@aleks

I just noticed something from your last post. Who, besides you in your reference, stated that "mass is matter"? Mass is NOT matter. I was explaining that mass is a  FUNCTION or ASPECT of BOTH energy AND matter. (I implied that it is a shared function, IE a field effect.)

Paul Andrulis

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #432 on: July 02, 2008, 05:26:58 AM »
@ Paul,

Don't be foolish now.

Cross-reference of Alek's terminology puts him in rock-throwing distance of the grail.

Radiant energy may often be referred to rays and such, but what Tesla discovered was far more important than mere "rays".

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #433 on: July 02, 2008, 09:23:09 AM »
pauldude000, many books and articles that discuss Tesla's legacy have a lot of flaws in their reasoning and flow of facts. Some refer to the fact that many works of Tesla were siezed by government. So, lack of the whole picture is a normal state of things - no need to accuse anybody.

As Grumpy noted, radiant energy is not just "small particles" from the Sun (now known as neutrino) nor some other EM radiation. It's clear that Tesla referred to "radiant energy" in at least one very different application: Wardenclyffe tower where I think Tesla wanted to produce a powerful dynamically-changing electro-static field varying at a predefined frequency that could reach the whole world - for both communication and powering applications. It's far beyond EM radiation. It's a key to both gravity control and true overunity (energy from aether). One important aspect to note is that this had to be a UNIT electro-static field. It's not that this tower wanted to positively or negatively charge every bit of surrounding matter as in conventional understanding of charge (which is quantized by charge of electron). Unit electro-static field has its own charge.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 10:15:57 AM by aleks »

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #434 on: July 02, 2008, 09:39:34 AM »
I just noticed something from your last post. Who, besides you in your reference, stated that "mass is matter"? Mass is NOT matter. I was explaining that mass is a  FUNCTION or ASPECT of BOTH energy AND matter. (I implied that it is a shared function, IE a field effect.)

Well, in the first place I myself had a hard time to distinguish between the two. Also have a look here what our children are tought: http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/mass.html "Mass is the amount of matter an object has."

I stumbled to this dated work: http://www.timestar.org/mass.htm So, even at that time ordinary bla-bla-ing assumed that mass is matter, and the authors insisted this is incorrect. They also give an idea that electrons can change their mass - it only differs from my view is that I think electrons should collide with something in order to convert their kinetic energy into transient mass.