Koen

 Thanks for the test and your thoughts.

 Koen : ?on the subject of the iron "bubble", that is again not proof of anything Ed said,
and it is entirely understandable why a piece of molten iron with current running
through it can and likely will show some form of spiral pattern if the molten iron
is stretched and worked like a glass-craftsman works molten glass.
It is a neat little trick, but it is no proof of any monopoles, nor of anything else
in Eds theory.?

 - The whirling molten iron should indicate that ?something? cause it whirl?. which
    I could not understand from your notes, what it is (and would like to hear, if you will).
 - If I?m not wrong, it is the molten iron that keeps spinning (and slowing down), due
   to the motion of the magnets in the contact point, that ?took? with them small particles
   of iron and throw them (together with the magnets) as sparks.
   But if there is a better explanation, I would like to listen to that.
 - The bubble at the end of the test is approx. 10% of the observations. I wonder if you have
    any thoughts about the rest of test (why there is attraction ?   Why copper is different then
    iron ?   Why there are sparks ?  Why most of the sparks are thrown in those direction and
    not other ?  Why a bubble is formed ? Etc.).
 - There are many aspects to this little tests and all should fit each other.


 By the way, I?m under the impression that your keep rejecting Ed?s model explanations by
saying ?but it is no proof of any monopoles, nor of anything else in Eds theory.?
I think the point is not about Black or White - 100% confirmed / 0% confirmed, but if it
make sense or it doesn?t.  Like you mentioned before - ?since we cannot see them, we have
to observe them indirectly?, which I?m 100% with you on that.  So the point is more about
?could it be that magnets are doing all that ?   Or it?s out of question?.



Koen : ?there is no "conversion" of electrons into magnetic fields or vice versa.
I thought it would be clear enough the way I put it;
Magnetism is a relativistic phenomenon, that arises when the electron moves
in respect to the observer. The electron does not disappear, nor does it lose
any of its charge. To the electron itself, nothing changes except for its position.
To the observer a magnetic field arises around the moving electron.
Ergo, the magnetic field is a direct effect of the relative motion between observer
and electron, and not in any way a "conversion" of energy of the electric to the
magnetic form.?

- If magnetism is a relativistic phenomena that caused by the moving electrons, then
   how the electron ?bring these twins? ?   Or if the electrons are not their parents then
   who ?gives birth? here ?
 - It sound as the fog from Victoria Falls is caused by the moving water, but the water
   are not the ?parents? of the fog?. And after the fog settle down and become water
   again, it sound that these water cause by the settling fog, but it is a different entity?..
 - So why do we have to re-invent nature, instead of follow it ?
 - And if Magnetism was here since the beginning of the physical universe, why a
   contemporary culture have to invent new particles ?


Koen : ?I completely fail to see what you find so attractive about Leedskalnins theory,
because it does not explain anything that the electron model does not,
and it is more complicated.?

 - If you fail to understand Ed theory, because it does not explain anything that the electron
   model does not, so there are a few issues here :
   A. They are conflicting each other, so they cannot explain in the same way.
   B. This theory does not belong to Ed Leedskalnin, it belongs to nature?
   C. This is not about ?which one is right or wrong?, but about ?how things works?, so an
        objective point of view is necessary here (which seems to be missing, since 99.9999%
        of humanity is already ?washed? by the electron).  And if someone wants to re-visit it,
        it have to be done from a ?clean? point of view, so it?s not so much about science, but
        more about psychology?(at least in the beginning, after that it have to be put to the
        test in the most scientific ways).
  - The last thing I would say about Ed model - that it?s complicated !!!  And I think one of
     the barrier to understand it, is that we don?t used to think simple, and simple become harder
     to understand?.


Thanks for the test you offered, if you don?t mind roughly sketch it on paper, mail it to me
and I?ll make a nice drawing and put it up to the forum.


Cheers

Sorry, if it sound cynic, but it will really help if you can make a small sketch.

Don't worry rangerover, I didn't understand what Koen was talking about either.

.... it's like we're two preachers of different religions preaching to eachother...

My view is and was that Eds theory is nice and close but no cigar,
and that it is in my opinion nothing but a different interpretation
of the very same model that uses the 90 degree entanglement of
electric "A" fields and magnetic "B" fields.
So that he is not saying anything new.

I do not mean to say Eds view is completely different,
I mean to point out that the huge difference and the breakthrough
insight that you and some others seem to see between Eds theory
and the established model is not really there.

That is why I keep saying it does not bring us anything new.

I do not really want to keep repeating Eds statements and views
which I think were a good thought experiment for him but are
certainly not groundbreaking insights.

As for the test setup I suggested, I have made a drawing of the idea
and will attach it to this post. I hope it is clear enough.

Please do keep in mind that I am merely trying to come up with
a setup that might work if magnetism is indeed emitted as monopole
particles from the magnet poles, but that is just about the extent of
the influence of Eds ideas on the concept...

By the way, here is a site of a guy who also thinks he has made a
Leedskalnin-ish magnet battery: http://www.lawofmagnetism.com/magbat.html
It has in the mean time been established that what he is getting out
as electricity is just a galvanic current, because he has made a simple
galvanic cell with one of the dissimilar metals being the magnet material.

Aaaaargh!

I have asked for someone to post a setup that would allow for testing,
nobody did post any such thing,
now I post something that just might do something if Eds story holds up,
and it's not good enough for you?

The idea behind this setup is that, if Ed is right and electric current is
actually an imbalance in the N and S particle exchange between a magnets
poles, then an intentionally created imbalance where a wire "sees" more
N particles than S particles or vice versa should generate an electric current.
So what I tried to do in the given setup is to make an imbalanced situation
in the core, where the core receives more N particles than S particles while
the particle flow is still in the normal direction.
I used a second core on the other end to do the same with the S particles that,
again according to Eds theory, should simultaneously be emitted from the S pole
while the N particles are emitted from the N pole of the middle magnet.

Standard electromagnetic theory says that this will do nothing.
There is still no flux change according to normal theory, so there is zero induced
current.

Eds theory, if I understand him correctly, says that this will create an imbalance
in the number of N and S particles and this will produce current, if the particles
"swirl" in the same way.

This "swirl" thing is why I suggested trying this setup with coiled iron wires to provide
a spiral path for these alleged particles.
I am not entirely sure if it will work with coils, as I find Eds entire coil story vague in
respect to the exact geometric pattern this opposing monopole flows are supposed to
follow. It may be that it will not work with a normal core and coils around it, but that instead
we should use the coiled iron wire wound directly around the straight bare copper wire...

Ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.
Let's try to work toward a testable setup that does show things normal theory does not predict,
instead of working against eachother...

May I ask what you use magnetic "needles" for in your Wimshurst machine?
As far as I know no magnetic components are needed to make one of those work... ?

Koen:

In answer to your long answers to my long post...

"I guess the main problem is the same as it has always been: most people in positions of power are there because they want power, and not because they want
the best for the people. And most people who elect the people in power are too naive to consider that when the time comes to vote. " ...And all the rest..

We are on the same page here.  I agree that the cost of petroleum has lead to us not only using for plastics, but fuel as well.... We do need to apply new renewable resources...I agree with the warming but believe it needs to be dealt with reasonably..and without panic...Yes the leaders seem to be thinking of themselves under false pretenses using emotional arguments instead of reason.  The uninformed voter falls for it. They did with Hitler, too.  And several other comments you made..were dead on..I agree.  I realize that scientists have several views and theories on Global Warming...but my concern, and I concur with the Copenhagen Consensus, is that we should spend the $45 trillion dollars being quoted as the cost to cut emissions in half by 2050 should be used to solve problems we really can tackle, such as food sources for the hungry, and better, cleaner resources that are viable, and medical help and education.  But you know, much money pork barreled for certain sources usually end up in a rich man's pocket and the rest of us have been "had."

As far as our country..and their complaints on petrol prices...(I'm going to include a couple other issues here)...
I've known for years that our petroleum is cheaper, and so is alot of other stuff around here, such as food and clothing.  The average "poor" person here can somehow be collecting welfare, yet still manage to own a tv or two, DVD, VCR, a car, go to the movies, pay $100 to watch some rock star perform, wear GUCCI boots, have their nails and hair done, frequent clubs and restraunts,etc, etc...then complain because of a $5.00 copay on a doctor's office visit.  Gasoline is about $4.09 per gallon around here and only doubled the past year from just above $2.00.  We are pretty lucky but the problem is people are so used to living it up and they also are credit poor.  The average American is like our government...deep in debt.  I shudder to think what would happen if we had another Depression.  There is no gold standard, either so our dollar is basically worthless.  We have way more inports than exports, are leasing road tolls mineral rights, ports and other sources of business to foreign countries, so the control is out of our hands, I've heard some talk about Japan wanting mineral rights to Alaska while our Congress refuses to drill, China drilling off coast of Cuba, Russia arguing over the Arctic Circle with Canada, and of course, outsourcing.  You can't even call a company stationed here about a problem without getting someone in India, then they don't understand you and mess up your account (happened to me recently).  (Our county is leasing the land to an outside [US] State company to drill for natural gas from the shale.  I asked the Surveyor and he said only about 60 people would benefit from the county for the land lease, but it would not bring in economic opportunities to the county...bummer, but that's what happens in some poor countries when companies come in for oil or gold or wood, promising wealth, but they already have their employees so it doesn't help the natives).
I heard a story recently about Rome before its fall long ago (ancient Rome) that just before its collapse, it looked strong to the outsider.  USA appears to be strong, but lives beyond its means.  We are more than 8.12 trillion in debt (I'm sure it's more now) and the average citizen lives beyond their means.  We are trying to solve the problems by Welfare...forget work ethics. Now I remember a few years ago in Denmark that they were having some financial trouble, and the Prime minister (I think) passed something that you had to be in the country (immigrant) for a certain amount of time before obtaining government welfare, or even getting a job.  Really, they needed to do that to preserve their economy. 
America needs to get people back to work to have an economy.  (Don't go by our unemployment rate because that does not include people not collecting or people on welfare, SSI, or living off of someone else.) Money for no work (even when you can) and no developement for trade, then let's take care of the rest of the world by borrowing money from China and giving it to Pakistan, Iraq, etc., does not sound like good investment to me.  Not that I'm against working together as countries, you need that for trade, but there needs to be something of value involved here, not just a piece of paper.  We need to stop being wasteful, with this "I have the right"  attitude and live within our means.  (gambling is becoming a problem here too..they take a loan out, gamble it, lose it, take another loan, or borrow, or get a 2nd mortgage, or take someone else's stuff to the pawn shop, gamble again...lose their entire pay check, and credit cards,, their spouse's card, write false checks... but never go for help because "they don't have a problem.") 
And innovative options that develope a trade need to be produced here instead of just promising us a "chicken in every pot."  Now the idea of every child getting $5000. 00 at birth, that more solar energy would produce more jobs, that changing over to biofuels would solve our dependence on Middle East oil, that everyone having free health care..etc.  All sounds good.  But first of all, a President does not have the power to "make laws."  The Legislature does that.  Second of all, health care is never free.  Taxes pay for it that a person won't personally.
Budgeting training:
And let me tell you, I managed to pay for my son's hospital bill and doctor bill and spouse's surgery by what is known as "budgeting."  And on low income too.  Most people don't seem to know what a "budget" is.  They seem to think you can just blow all your money on pot and alcohol, then sit back and let the government pay for your bills, or claim bankruptcy, while you complain because they did not do enough for you.  Some people seem to be under the misconception that the hospitals all get their equipment for free and nurses and doctors don't need any money to work on.  America was under the misconception that there was plenty of oil and it would just last and last and last, so they take long drives (go cruising) and race around like there's no tomorrow.  That is changing.  A recent report of last month showed a decrease in fuel use.
Now you go to some 3rd world countries and see that they appreciate what help they get because it's not common place.  They don't take it for granted.  But in rich countries, things are taken for granted and we get this attitude like "it's our right."   "It's our right to own and drive a car."  It's our right to free healthcare."  It's our right to free food and a place to live."   Oh really?  So does that mean someone can be FORCED to give it to you even if they don't want to become a doctor, farmer, carpenter, etc.?  Isn't that like slavery?  Don't look at me.  This former nurse QUIT!    And she's not going back. (retraining)
"Take a lesson from the ants..if you don't work you don't eat."
Clinton was correct on his evaluation of our welfare system that people needed to get back to work and off the system.  He suggested a 2-year program to retrain the move people back to the work force.  I know some woman complained they wanted to stay home to take care of their children.  Now nothing against that,  I wish I could too.  But then they watch TV and go the all kinds of nail parlors, etc, don't know where their kid is...maybe grandma is raising it, get the check, show off their diamond rings and hair extensions to the nurse at the office, unable to answer any questions about the child because..."my boyfriend raises him,"  and thus "works" the system.   I'm sure other western civilizations have some of those "con job" problems too.  And of course some really do use the help for their benefit, go to school, and get back to work, even pushing the baby carriage to class with them. (I've done it and seen it).  I saw that Germany makes them look for jobs in order to receive government assistance...at least according to a news report.  Sounds like they're smart and we're stupid.  What do they do in the Netherlands?  Any incentives to go back to work?

Same with other countries... they need to have the education and develop trade for themselves to develop,,, and some are. (Costa Rica and their Ecotourism) But just free charity without a plan to develop a manner of self sustainment is not going to work to solve hunger and poverty.  But I see instances of exploitation that hurts them and takes advantage of their ignorance and lack of power, instead, especially in Africa and South America.  Then of course they end up with a con artist dictator pocketing money leading them, helped into power by western leaders. (Sadaam Hussain was one)

I don't really have much belief in the leadership of our countries.. The people you could depend on, many just don't have the power.  And of course people don't really get informed so they vote for the flim-flam, fly-by-night man who gives a pretty speech. 

Enough of the soap box, and thank you ahead of time for your thoughts and discussions, this has been very insightful to see that people across the ocean actually have some of the same concerns and ideas, (when you really get down to it).  In spite of cultural differences, even.  I appreciate your input, greatly.

Beck

Another way is to rub hard rubber until it gets hot, then it will be a temporary magnet. The difference between the rubber magnet and the steel magnet is that the magnet in the rubber comes from the magnets that hold together the rubber, and both North and South poles are in the same side of the rubber and the magnet poles are small and there are many of them close together, but in the steel bar the attracting magnet is not the magnet that holds together the steel, but the surplus magnets the circulating magnet that was put in it. Attract the iron filings with the rubber magnet, then approach with the steel magnet. Change the poles, then you will see some of the filings jump away. This means the steel magnet changed the magnet poles in the iron filings, and so they jumped away."

Scotty1:

Rubber?  Is this any particular kind of rubber, I mean can you give me an example of something made by it because you said "hard rubber?"  This is interesting.  I know with some metals you can rub to apply friction and get it to work as a magnet, but did not realize it worked with rubber.  This I've got to try.  How much friction needs to be applied?  What's the best way?
Also, does not the "needle" usually point to the South pole?  I know that the so-called North pole of Earth is actually the "magnetic South Pole" and vice versa, but in cartography we just call North...north pole, but I think the Chinese referred to the South and everything cartographic was designed by reference of the "South pole,"  which is really the north pole, so we western cartographers are backwards or upside down, however you want to think of it.

"During the time the electromagnet holds the weight...there is almost no external field.
The North and South pole magnets were DISPLACED in such a way so that they no longer come out of the metal as an external field."

Now isn't this basically creating a "bond?"  Is this like a bond that occurs chemically like Van der Waals or ionic bonds, but in a different level?

beck

Tom Bearden used a closed path.
On Tom's site he shows Gabriel Kron (i think).....He made a true neg resistor...and he mentioned that the secret was to have both open and closed path's simultaneously.

I happen to have studied what material I could find on Kron, and the related paths of investigation walked by Gray.
Bearden indeed does claim that Kron at some point discovered how to make an actual negative resistor, but that all seems
to come down to a few odd statements Kron made, and that seems to be all the evidence for that idea...
The most important quote there as I recall was something like "Since very fey true negative resistors exist for use in
the Network Analyser, we use a second circuit, where the capacitances are replaced by inductances, and the inductances
by capacitances, at a fixed frequency.". Bearden seems to find this proof in itself, and I do agree that the first part of
the sentence does seem to suggest a negative resistor was indeed developed, but of course it is not proof in itself.
What I find very interesting is this "second circuit" he talks about. He clearly says that they could not use negative
resistors in the NA, but instead they opted for a second circuit. What did they use this citcuit for? Well, obviously
they were trying to build a negative resistor in order to make the device a self-runner. Instead of using actual negative
resistors, they used this second circuit to achieve as close to that effect as they could. In other words: using this second
circuit somehow made the energy consumption of the entire device much lower.
And in that respect indeed Kron mentions his concept of "the open path", in contrast to the normal "closed path" which
current needs to run. From other notes and documents by Kron it is clear he was in the first place a normal electrical
engineer so obviously his "open path" did not mean there was no "closed circuit" for the current to travel. Instead his idea
was that current as we know it experiences loss because it in fact consists of two components that flow oppositely
and obstruct eachothers flow. So insted of one "closed path" where these flows are forced to flow oppositely through the
entire circuit, he came up with what he called "open path" which was basically seperating the two components and
allowing them to flow along their own seperate paths, thus eliminating their losses.
The way he describes these flows and the circuits suitable and/or used for the conduction of the "negative current" flow
is suspiciously similar to the descriptions of mr. Gray's "cold current" and related ideas.
From the descriptions of the circuits it also seems a large part of the Bedini motor circuits is similar to this basic method.
What it seems to come down to is that apparently a high potential spike can flow through certain inductive parts of a circuit
as the "negative energy" pulse or "current", which can be the opponent flow to the normal current...
I have not worked this out completely yet, but it looks to me like those three inventors were either using eachothers ideas,
or have come up with similar ways to do the same thing using the same ideas.