Quote:

"The whole question is this. We all know about ordinary nonlinear mixing and mixers. We know that two signals can indeed be mixed nonlinearly. Can we build a nonlinear mixer and a dual circuit, where we feed a voltage-like signal in and also a current-like signal in to the mixer, get the two combined into a high voltage, high current signal output, and do that without back-field coupling onto the two input "signals" to force equal energy dissipation in the input>

Look at this very carefully. There is absolutely no conservation of energy law that requires that the energy input circuit dissipate as much energy as does the load circuit that receives the energy to power it. So why are we taught only those mixing circuits that will indeed force equal input dissipation? We need three things in the input: (1) lots of voltage, (2) lots of current, and (3) small energy dissipation. That means we need a "voltage-like" input and a "current" like input, which do not interact with each other on the input side of the mixer. We then need a mixer that will mix the two into a single signal with high voltage and high current, but will not back-couple its fields onto the input circuit to up the input dissipation.

Stivep,

I wonder if control of the acceleration (the sawtooth wave) would compress the modulated wave and give us a non-linear acceleration. Maybe this would explain it?

Control - The Third Derivative of Position

In the fields of Aerodynamics, Hydrodynamics, and Electrodynamics, only Position (statics) and it's first two derivatives, Velocity, and acceleration are used in current science.

Even Newton stated that Position MUST have 3 derivatives to completely define motion. The missing 3d derivative in science are for variations in Acceleration. Newton knew that it took position, and 3 derivatives, and 4 equations to define the 3 dimensional world, and now you know it too.

Why doesn't Physics use these Control Field sets in the branches of dynamics? Obviously, masses, molecules, atoms, and particles have motions and relationships that are variations in Acceleration Fields, the definition of the Contol Field being variations of acceleration, and the results, from elementary particles to stellar bodies.

Newton provided the necessary formal expression in the calculus, where he defined velocity as the rate of change of position with respect to time, and acceleration as the rate of change of velocity with respect to time.

Velocity is known as the first derivative (of position), acceleration as the second derivative. These two expressions laid the basis for the theory of gravitation.

While Newton mentioned a third derivative, he made no attempt to give it a physical meaning. What is it? Since each derivative is the rate of change of the quantity derived (i.e., velocity is the rate of change of position, acceleration the rate of change of velocity), we may conclude that the third derivative is the rate of change of acceleration.

Every automobile driver has direct experience with the third derivative, for in controlling the car by pushing the accelerator, applying the brake, or changing its direction with the steering wheel, he is changing its acceleration.

For example, a a number of years ago, engineers at General Motors were trying to find the analytical foundations for what passengers considered a comfortable ride in a vehicle. They assumed that minimizing vertical acceleration was the key, but road testing said otherwise. They found that the rate of change of acceleration, or the third derivative of position, was the key factor. This was new mathematical ground, and GM didn't know what to call the derivative of acceleration.

This, in fact, is control.

The existence of the fourth EM field for a patterned or cyclical hetrodynamic Control EM field is both a logical and physical necessity following the natural pattern of the 3 known fields.

The Eletrodynamic Control field is totally predictable when deliberately generated, and the constraints of the design elements make a generated Control EM usable by man.

Basically, in the case of the Alexander Motor / Generator Patent, these Control EM fields are generated by superimposing or heterodyning a Velocity EM (a generator rotor motion) and an Acceleration EM motion (transformer) together, instantaneously in a common element.(stator magnetic field)

http://community-2.webtv.net/SkyVessel/FreeEnergy/ Maxwell and Einstein USED ONLY VELOCITY & ACCELERATION, in formulating current electromagnetic theory and relativity theory, NEVER considering Control, or the third derivative of position L, expressed mathematically as L/TÂ³.

Here is a direct quote from Albert Einstein that proves this point:

" THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY OWES ITS ORIGINS TO MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD "

ALBERT EINSTEIN

(ed. Schilpp; Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Library of living Authors, 1949, p62.)

This poses the question: Was Maxwell stupid or cunning?

So we can say, just as acceleration is change of velocity, so control is change of acceleration and is the third derivative, and hence has status. The neglect of the third derivative by classical physics is traceable to the fact that it cannot be used for prediction. We may, of course, as in a guided missile, lock the controls to home in on a target and hence render control determinate, and this is the special case covered by cybernetics. But in the general case, we must go a step further and recognize that control is "outside the system."

It is indeterminate--the driver is free to steer the car where he wishes. This does not deny its existence as a factor in evolution. We can diagramatically represent the derivatives by a circle on which position is shown at the right and its three derivatives in sequence clockwise.

Such a circle, above, is also representative of the cycle of action, and applies to any repeating cycle, such as the swing of a pendulum.

Here, however, we are interested in the fact that the representation implies that derivation returns to itself after four applications. Is this the case? Does the fourth derivative reduce to a position? Yes.

For example, when you're driving a car, your control of the car is governed by position, for that is what your destination is, a position in space. Or again, the control of a guided missile is directed by the position of the target. Therefore, the fourth derivative is position. In other words, if we divide by T four times, we are back at the start: 1/T4 = 360 degrees = O degrees. (Standing still, known as the identity operator in science.)

We propose to make control a criterion for the description of entities on the right-hand side of the arc .

Our right to do this stems from the fact that control can be identified with the third derivative and is therefore equal in status with other derivatives (velocity and acceleration). Or, again, control is evident to observation: an automobile, a paramecium, a Flying Saucer can be observed to be under control or not under control. And control is evidence of life. The definition of motion is Complete, as explained below.

What these generated control fields do is increase or decrease all of the binding forces of Nature, with their vortex radiated actions, the most stable, natural form of the Control Electomagnetic / Dynamic field is the binding energy in the nuclei of all atomic elements, the so-called strong nuclear force.

The field due to the orbital motion of the electron, and proton charges vary inversely as the square of the distance, the same as gravity.

The field produced by the translational motion of these charges vary inversely as the cube of the distance.

These observations will totally unite electromagnetic and gravitational field theory and account for the strong and weak forces in the atom.

Both the strong and weak nuclear forces are products of Control Field actions. In the nuclei of atoms; the motions of the protons and neutrons produce a very strong, local control field binding energy.

All the forces of nature are part of the REAL electromagnetic, dynamic system

The photon got into the wave / particle dispute because it is a Control Field product, mismeasured as an acceleration product. This is why the famous "light slit' test results in classical physics led to the speculations in the nature of light as a particle, and a wave, or wavicle, and the electromagnetic spectrum.

Thus, the famous Quantum Energy-Electron-Volt scale is in error with respect to Nature's energy levels.

Although we get results, using 3 out of the basic 4 fields, or 75% : Planck's constant and the photoelectric effect are both guesses, why higher frequency photons have more power than lower frequency ones.

The nature of the photon as a control field, patterned particle exactly explains what and why these phenomena exist.

The Wave-Mechanics of de Broglie applied to atomic electron orbitals is easily seen as yet another acceleration patch, where the Control Field Should Have Been Used.

The using of only part of a particles natural motion would introduce the alleged uncertainty principle in Wave-Mechanics.

The motional field errors in quantum levels, wave-mechanics, etc. are the result of particles (electrons, etc) using Control Field orbits, that are mistakenly taken for acceleration fields.

The deliberately overlooked / ignored higher motional component will cause the "smearing" or "energy gaps" claimed by Classical Physics.

From these sorts of mistakes Lorentz derived a batch of equations. He ran time through a variation system, shortened dimensions in the direction of motion , and increased mass of a body , which would be infinite at light velocity.

If you start with invalid assumptions, putting them into equations does not improve the situation.

When a particle or group of particles is accelerated, it sets up a magnetic braking field to oppose the driving field, hence more and more power is needed to to increase the acceleration of the particle group .

There is no increase in mass, only an increase in needed driving force, and the results are made to fit invalid theory, with all the bewildering fudge factor phantom particles that comprise it. (As mentioned before, Maxwell's theories use/cover only 2 of the basic 3 derivatives, upon which Einstein developed his incomplete theories )

Here is a natural Aerodynamic Control Field that occurs in nature;

http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/prime137/doc0 To obtain Control Field motions and effects in Hydrodynamics we must have variations in hydrodynamic acceleration flows. Thus we must accelerate the liquid and vary that acceleration to achieve Control Field effects in Hydrodynamics.

In nature, certain types of water flows have varying acceleration flows that are Control Fields. One example is the rapid flow (acceleration) of of water to a waterfall, from a lake (Position) and the sudden release ( variation ), velocity plus gravity acceleration, at very low natural conversion levels, ( L/T +L/TÂ² = L/TÂ³ ), that allows, and helps fish to "climb" up the waterfall, (a slight anti-gravity effect ).

Another is the steep gradient stream flow in which the stream bed shape rolls or coils the waters acceleration flow. This rolling / coiling motion heterodynes with the acceleration flow to create control Field effects as the "Rhinegold" or floating (levitating) clicking / sparkling rocks effect as an example.

The Schauberger logging flume is a designed version of utilizing the Hydrodynamic Control Field Effect. The flumes trough design and his "waterbodies" (motion directing fins) recreated the Control type steams. He then floated (levitated) very heavy logs in shallow water within these flumes. The water temperature / purity are critical factors as Shauberger noted.

The Shauberger implosion water turbine was a direct result of his intuitive knowledge of the Hydrodynamic Control Field, as the accelerating water spiral flow tubes "corkscrew" the waterflow in a contracting downward spiral with the tube wall shapes in a hyperbolic ratio curl. The principal design problem, then as now is that the exact ratio of acceleration spiral to "curl" (corkscrew) must be held or the vector forces in the flow tube explode violently outward.

The current spiral design shape arguments of cycloid, hyperbolic, or phi ratio hide the critical design reality of force vectors of spiral to curl ratio.

GEOMETRICAL BALANCE OF VECTOR FORCE / MOTION FIELDS IS THE SECRET IN ANY CONTROL FIELD DESIGN. You could make any of them function by matching the spiral to curl ratio, but they all have their design trade-offs, like less levitation for wider water temperature range, etc.

Viktor Schauberger, forced into the German V-7

( circular flying objects ) program in WW11, while a German prisoner of war matched the water tube spiral ( cycloid ) to curl ratio in his tubines for radiated levitation. This field stops electrical conduction in remote objects.

Control Fields of this type will register as ultra-powerful magnetic fields on standard Gauss meters / magometers.

Shauberger's bio-technical submarine design has a movable bow, that gives the conical / teardrop shaped hull the flexibility of a fish.

The rifled, water-intake (velocity) in the front, center of the sub, between the movable bow, permits a variable step-up, (acceleration) creating a strong torque on the water which after entering the implosion turbine is intensified to such a pitch,(Control) that it's resonance is driving it instead of initial startup motor to get the flow stared.

The water exits the corkscrew, rifled , tubes at top and bottom behind the movable bow, at the highest point in the taper, outwards, creating a propelling vortex thru which the sub is guided with a properly designed guidance fin at the pointed rear taper of the conical vessel; thus there is little outside resistance to flow, and no propellers, as in conventional designs of the present.