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: Electrinium  (Read 243533 times)

resonanceman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #360 on: October 21, 2008, 01:02:31 AM »
  Superlight could well be pure dispersion force or that force which expands all.
Contrasted to that is concentration force or that force which seeks to unite all.  These two primordial forces creating reality.  Both just as powerful both just as necessary for the survival of the other.  For without the light there would be no dark and without the dark there would be no light.  Here we are stuck in the middle knowing very little bit about the nature of either.

Sparks

I am kind of stuck here

I can see that  there is a  force  pushing  the planets and atoms  out to a certain  point.
I can also see that there is an inward pushing .   The  PDF  seems to  describe it  pretty  well . 
I can't  explain  the difference  between the inward and outward forces .

I do see that the  balance  between these 2 forces   has  created  all the universes
all  the solar systems  even all the atoms .
The fact that electrons  jump  from  one orbit  to the next  is  controlled by  the changes in  these   forces . 





jeanna

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3546
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #361 on: October 21, 2008, 03:19:22 AM »
But don't forget the observer.

I think especially when you are talking about forces as fine as these you are referring to, you must remember the observer.

IMHO, of course.

I am not suggesting that you should be thinking your electrinium to create itself, it is just that as you are talking about these ultrafine forces and things like superlight, this is the arena of the observer and very delicate.

jeanna

nitinnun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #362 on: October 21, 2008, 03:19:52 AM »
Howdy Y'all

How did we get to a copper iron battery?

Element   Symbol   Atomic Number
Lithium         Li               3
Iron              Fe              26
Copper         Cu              29
Silver           Ag              47
Gold            Au              79
Plutonium    Pu              94

Didn't Mr. Summera say that the difference in mass of the elements making an Electrinium molecule determines its potential difference?  If you go with a copper iron battery the difference is only 3 protons.  A silver iron battery's difference would be 21 protons.  It would be better to go with a larger potential difference, mo voltage.  A gold iron battery would have a difference of 53 protons.  A gold lithium battery would have a difference of 76 protons.  A plutonium lithium battery would have a difference of 91 protons.

It would take experimentation to see if we can get any of these elements to create a stable molecule.  I think we need to go for a bigger difference in the atomic weight.  I think this is what is determining the potential voltaic difference of the battery function.  Also I have made a molecular arrangement which I think is what Mr. Summera was envisioning.  Remember that he had stated that the silver iron molecules will not bond to the silicon by them selves.  Borozon has to be added to the mixture to convince the silver iron molecules to bond to the silicon atoms.  This arrangement is not scaled, I would like to draw it with a 3D CAD program to help people visualize this molecular arrangement.  Si=Silicon, Bz=Borozon, Fe=Iron, and Ag=Silver...

        +++            +++             +++                     Positive
Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si-Bz-Fe-Bz-Si
Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si-Bz-Ag-Bz-Si
         ---                ---                 ---                    Negative

The borozon atoms are a buffer between the metals and the silicon.  Remember that silicon is a semiconductor and it needs to be isolated from the conductive stacks of metal atoms, otherwise the battery will be internally shorted out.  This is the reasoning for using borozon.  Boron is a nonmetalic element which when combined with nitrogen produces a super hard insulator crystal.  The borozon will bond with the metals and the silicon.  The metals will not bond with the silicon.  This creates an insulated corridor for the Electrinium stacks to reside, and the silicon crystal structure is only structure.  I would love to do this with atomic scale construction techniques.  Build the thing molecule by molecule.  Unfortunately we have to work on a larger scale...

OK, Mo Later...







copper/iron works well.

bismuth/iron works very, very, very well.

silver is too expensive to be practical. and we NEED it to be practical/simple/cheap.


bismuth is 83.
bismuth is the most diamagnetic of all the stable elements.
(i strongly suspect that diamagnetism and paramagnetism have something to do with the energy physics).

with bismuth, i get about 25% more voltage, and A LOT more amperage.


i still have to try the monatomic sepperation technique, on some of my bismuth.
first i need to wait for the monatomic iron and monatomic copper fats to dry.
and then mix those together.



.......the resistance still decided the amperage?

last night, i had a realization.

that voltage is magnetism that is standing still.
and amperage is magnetism that is moving.

so increasing the resistance in my middle substance, would increase voltage but decrease amperage.

and decreasing resistance in my middle substance, would increase amperage but decrease voltage.



that stuff about the difference in atomin number causing potential, reminds me of my theory about different etehric pressure.
that one metal has more etheric pressure than the other. and this difference causes electricity to form.


what if in my glue cells, there is a little pressure from lots of atoms?
a little etheric pressure due to atomic weight difference?
and a little pressure on the atoms, from the  constructing polymers in the glue?


bismuth/iron sounds exactly like what you want.
bismuth is cheap. only $26 for a very pure pound of it.



the author of that PDF is not perfect.
he was giving us "the best that he knew how to do".

it is less constructive to focus on building his limited goals,
and more constructive to focus on improving on his work.
on finding newer, simpler, more effective goals.

and i definitely feel that there is plenty of room for simplification, in the exotic chemcial concoctions that he talks about.


partly because the best things in the universe are simpler things, and partly because i cannot trust the efficiency of a man who cannot effectively communicate his idea's to other human beings.

he could write on and on about smaller details, yet not find the words to fully explain important things?????????

resonanceman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #363 on: October 21, 2008, 04:43:49 AM »

 it is just that as you are talking about these ultrafine forces and things like superlight, this is the arena of the observer and very delicate.



Jeanna

yes  it is very delicate .

The  hard  part is keeping  my focus  beyond  my physical mind .

gary   











z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #364 on: October 21, 2008, 01:18:50 PM »
Howdy Y'all,

Nothing like a crash course in metallurgy...

Element   Symbol   Atomic Number
Lithium         Li               3
Iron              Fe              26
Copper         Cu              29
Silver           Ag              47
Indium         In                49
Tin              Sn               50
Gold            Au              79
Lead            Pb              82
Bismuth       Bi               83
Plutonium    Pu              94

Nitinnun, the bismuth iron battery would have a difference of 57, that's good.

I was thinking about something that is already this type of alloy.  Tin Lead solder might provide a experimental starting point.  A solder battery?  Tin Lead would have a difference of 32 which is even better than the silver iron battery (21).

I have been thinking about how we could polarize the alloy.  We make a small wooden trough with two solder terminals.  This trough is going to hold a slug of solder.  Use a soldering iron to melt solder into the trough, and fill the trough attaching to both solder terminals.  Then we apply a current through the slug, remelt the solder while the current is flowing, then allow the alloy to cool while the current is flowing.  This should make the solder polarized.  If the theory is correct, then the polarized solder should generate a voltage.

I am visualizing a wood trough with solder terminals that are secured to the wood so they don't move when the solder slug is melted.  We would have to make sure that the current is uninterrupted during the remelt process.

This method will not produce a product, but it may give us experimental proof of concept...

I am good at soldering, and have the right tools so I give the solder battery a try...

OK, Mo Later...

nitinnun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #365 on: October 21, 2008, 01:30:49 PM »
Howdy Y'all,

Nothing like a crash course in metallurgy...

Element   Symbol   Atomic Number
Lithium         Li               3
Iron              Fe              26
Copper         Cu              29
Silver           Ag              47
Tin              Sn               50
Gold            Au              79
Lead            Pb              82
Bismuth       Bi               83
Plutonium    Pu              94

Nitinnun, the bismuth iron battery would have a difference of 57, that's good.

I was thinking about something that is already this type of alloy.  Tin Lead solder might provide a experimental starting point.  A solder battery?  Tin Lead would have a difference of 32 which is even better than the silver iron battery (21).

I have been thinking about how we could polarize the alloy.  We make a small wooden trough with two solder terminals.  This trough is going to hold a slug of solder.  Use a soldering iron to melt solder into the trough, and fill the trough attaching to both solder terminals.  Then we apply a current through the slug, remelt the solder while the current is flowing, then allow the alloy to cool while the current is flowing.  This should make the solder polarized.  If the theory is correct, then the polarized solder should generate a voltage.

I am visualizing a wood trough with solder terminals that are secured to the wood so they don't move when the solder slug is melted.  We would have to make sure that the current is uninterrupted during the remelt process.

This method will not produce a product, but it may give us experimental proof of concept...

I am good at soldering, and have the right tools so I give the solder battery a try...

OK, Mo Later...




you say that copper-iron are only 3 atomic numbers apart.
yet they have worked very well for me.

bismuth-iron works better. but not THAT much better, than copper-iron


it works better with some elements, than other elements.
my experience has been that degree of diamagnetism, and degree of paramagnetism, are important factors.


tin-lead solder would not work. because rin-lead does not have enough electrical resistance.
.
the middle material has to have enough electrical resistance, to keep the positive and negative terminals electrically sepperate.


it is true that polarizing something, increases electrical resistance.
but i doubt polarization would give tin-lead enough resistance, to allow it to work.

i doubt that polarization could give ANY metal alloy enough electrical resistance, to make it work.



that is another reason why we need a substance with a crystal lattice. because a crystal lattice usually has more electrical resistance.

in addition to the greater chemical stability of the crystal lattice.

and all the covalent bonds, through which to conduct magnetism from one terminal to the other terminal.

z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #366 on: October 21, 2008, 01:36:39 PM »
Howdy Nitinnun,

Well as far as the crystal lattice goes, there is nothing more common than silicon, or silicon dioxide.  Glass, quartz, regular sand, or pure silicon all require high temperatures to work with.  Drannom is using salts, what about sugar.  The melting point of sugar is not that far off from the melting point of soft metals.  Candy battery anyone?  Well, anyway maybe we can find some insulator which is easier to work with than silicon.

Mo Later...

nitinnun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #367 on: October 21, 2008, 01:55:09 PM »
i'll try making sugar-cells in my kitchen oven, later.



if we built a small brick oven,
and heated it with a hand held torch,
than we might get materials hot enough, to covalently bond.

maybe 1 substance with a lower melting point, could bond to 2 other substances with a higher melting point?


i don't know how that type of chemistry works. i'm just throwing out idea's.

sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #368 on: October 21, 2008, 04:44:46 PM »
    @Drannom

    Did you ever employ sodium chloride?   Electrodialysis equipment can give you a pretty concentrated stream of sodium and chloride ions.  Now you take these solutions and put a thin glass wall between the two solutions and slowly evaporate the water, the ions should be attracted to the glass wall.  Problem being is that the elements are so strongly charged they will react with the oxygen or hydrogen in the water and burn at some concentration.   Burning saltwater. Hmmmm  Well anyway the two cells should become strongly charged as the water is removed.  Can this charge resulting from ion seperation pump some electrons around?  Anyway this unit starts to look like Electrinium.

Drannom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
    • Cristallerie La Pyramide d'Alun
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #369 on: October 21, 2008, 09:25:09 PM »
Hi Spark

i have never try it, it seems very interesting, sounds like electrinium without alignment and without compression, sounds much more like Nitinnun's theory !

Sparks, i have a clear picture of the electrinium theory cause i have understand this link on superlight




 http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/11/milewski_describes_magnetoelec.html

also i have read many books talking about Central Sun, spiritual book


hi  z_monkey


according to the electrinium, that is not the difference in weight that we are looking for, we are looking for a difference in density

from electrinium.pdf

Quote
The rule of electrical balance is so important that I am going to repeat It. “The electrical
charge of the atom is equal to its weight multiplied by its volume.” Study this law because what
you read further on will not be understandable otherwise.

Quote
The only difference between the positive and the nega t ive is in size, weight and their electrical charge, and the electrical charge of these two atoms is equal to each other in force under the law of electrical balance and their position as positive and negative is relative. If the two chosen atoms were Silver and Iron, the Iron atom would be the negative. But if Iron was paired up with a much lighter element, then the Iron would be the positive.

@all

i agree that Summera is not perfect with the theory, he is a follower of Tesla, Summera is good  to create an electrinium, like many inventor he is not fully understanding where the energy come from, but knowing how to make it come

Nitinnu

the electrinium is not so long to read, just very long to figure out or imagine

hey, Nitinnun, i suggest you if you fail to try to evaporate the solution with your fe-c-cu-h compound to get sort of sludge, get out the water first

then mixte this sludge with some glue, sugar, or whatever else

then put a high voltage on that mixture while cooling or solidification of the mixture

it's the high voltage that can compress and align  to atoms of different density in a smaller space, and something to keep it like this



wellllll in conclusion


so it's the difference in the density , and no matter the atomic weight

best choice are, silver-iron, steel-gold, steel-platinum, and i agree to try to chose anything else !

hahahah see you


 


nitinnun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #370 on: October 22, 2008, 11:13:38 AM »
i need to know what frequency each element emits.

specifically the frequencies of copper, iron, cobalt, nickel, bismuth, lead, carbon, oxygen, and silicon.


it is very important.

Drannom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
    • Cristallerie La Pyramide d'Alun
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #371 on: October 22, 2008, 11:59:44 AM »
Hi Nitinnun !

i think you are right to use iron-copper cause

from electrinium

Quote
But if Iron was paired up with a much lighter element, then the Iron would be the positive.


when he says ''lighter'' he was talking about the lighter density, in fact that is not density at all, cause he multiply weight by volume !!!


i can not provide you the frequency of each metal, i can only repeat that you need to calculate the volume of the atom or molecule, and then multiply it by the weight, so from my point of view you need the density of iron and compare it to the density of copper, cause that is the difference that gives the potential, i suspect copper to be less in electrical charge than iron

we know all the weights, then we need to calculate the atomic volume !

(weight x volume) does not equal to the density, but something else ! the electrical charge !

when i was talking about difference in frequency i was not refering to electrinium, i was refering to your theory, now i think that if fact, the same rule of electrical charge (weight x volume) shall be apply to your theory



welll in conclusion, i was wrong talking about density, sorry

nievesoliveras

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1996
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #372 on: October 22, 2008, 02:21:12 PM »
Hi!

@all
For the time being I am just the observer.

Jesus

nievesoliveras

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1996
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #373 on: October 22, 2008, 02:35:53 PM »

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Electrinium
« Reply #374 on: October 22, 2008, 03:57:47 PM »
Hello Folks,

Sorry to chime into this thread but I have seen an interesting patent application mentioned in Naudin's yahoo group and maybe it is of interest for you too.  It is US patent application 20080246366:

ELECTRIC GENERATOR

Abstract
Methods, compositions, and apparatus for generating electricity are provided.
Electricity is generated through the mechanisms nuclear magnetic spin and
remnant polarization electric generation. The apparatus may include a material
with high nuclear magnetic spin or high remnant polarization coupled with a
poled ferroelectric material. The apparatus may also include a pair of
electrical contacts disposed on opposite sides of the poled ferroelectric
material and the high nuclear magnetic spin or high remnant polarization
material. Further, a magnetic field may be applied to the high nuclear magnetic
spin material.

You can download from here: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20080246366.pdf

All the Bests, 
Gyula