Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84217
  • *Latest: Jarik

  • *Total Posts: 897741
  • *Total Topics: 15822
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 21
  • *Total: 23

Author Topic: a new kind of visible radiant energy?  (Read 265108 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #165 on: August 30, 2010, 07:30:55 AM »
Hi again Guys,

I just want to post the following link which - surprisingly - or not, is very much about what Dave's rig is showing us - I think.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeUgDJc6AWE

You will notice that Hutchinson talks about the Casimir effect and the 'jitter' that he thinks is accessed through Tesla type radiation application techniques.  He also proposes that this may be a different 'dimensional' effect which starts effecting the actual atomic structures.  I am absolutely not qualified to comment - but this is what intrigues me.  Metal softens without heating.  The bonding can be so compromised that that the material shape degrades to dust.  The lattice structure of aluminium turns to 'spaghetti like' strings.  Non metallic materials are shifted and levitated.  All very strange.

What I'm trying to determine is whether - indeed - it is some extraneous field - holding bonded atoms together.  I actually need a one dimensional orbiting string of dipolar particles - that will then be able to neutralise the 'environment' of atoms, so to speak.  In other words - two strongly opposing or 'like' charged atoms would, theoretically, be able to interact with such a field to enable them to share the same space.  Else - in many instances - it would be impossible to amalgamate material structures where their intrinsic charges are repellent.  Effectively, it would explain 'bonding' more easily and, believe it or not - more simply.  But without that 'bonding' - without that extraneous field - I cannot see anything inside the atom itself that would always promote any kind of proximity - unless the atoms' charges were somehow sympathetic.  It may be the elusive 'glue to the universe' that our astrophysicists are looking for.

I believe that Dave's rig - or the Lambright effect - is our early clue which will unfold this field.  You will note in those videos that the atomic structures remain the same.  It is only the condition of their bonding that is varied.  And this is changed without the application of 'heat'.  I suspect that these fields are 're-arranged' or are 're-positioned' in space.  Effectively, under usual circumstances,  they reach a happy compromise with our earth's magnetic fields - which are smooth, or smoothish' and then this stable or 'rest state' is interrupted by these irradiating fields - that they lose that 'rest state'. 

I do hope this relevance is clear.  And I'm really hoping that some of what I'm trying to point to here is understood. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #165 on: August 30, 2010, 07:30:55 AM »

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #166 on: August 30, 2010, 07:34:05 AM »
i dont know wether to add this guy to the team,
or lock him in the lab and save him for later....
the one on the right is the FairField Vortex Drive

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #167 on: August 30, 2010, 07:40:35 AM »
@ Rose

have you found a way to "polarize" things, different from what Dave showed with the PMH / aluminum?

Hi Sm0ky,
Absolutely NOT. Everything I have found absolutely agrees with or is consistent with the Lambright Effect. They only thing that I have NOT found is that 'Lambright Glimmer'.  I've seen it in on Dave's videos but have not seen it on my own rig.

What I'm trying to do - somewhat ponderously, so you guys must please bear with me - is the ACTUAL magnetic configuration.  My thinking here is becoming 'modified' or 'refined'.  I now see an attractive AND repulsive force in a magnetic field - and it's an alignment of this that seems to induce that strong magnetic interaction with non-magnetisable materials.  But I'm working with magnets.  The only effects I'll be able to achieve are really localised.  The advantage of using 'spins' and 'induced fields' such as Dave and even Hutchinson get - is that the 'field effect' is less localised.  I'm just doing some exercises in magnetic configurations that I fondly think may be required and appropriate.  It's fundamental forces we're dealing with.  And I'm trying to find those roots.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #167 on: August 30, 2010, 07:40:35 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #168 on: August 30, 2010, 07:51:29 AM »
i dont know wether to add this guy to the team,
or lock him in the lab and save him for later....
the one on the right is the FairField Vortex Drive

Sm0ky - Very interesting indeed.  It's my experience that one can 'neutralise' any magnetic field with the use of conductive material.  I'm assuming that those bearings are paramagnetic?  But that construct is SO SYMMETRICAL.  Very intriguing.

Rosemary 

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #169 on: August 30, 2010, 08:23:25 AM »
@ rose
i tried to draw this out for you
when you alter the interaction between the nucleii and the electrons, by changing their orbital vector,
you essentially are changing the way each atom interacts with the one its adjoined to.

where they "share" orbital path components, is where they "bond".

if the paths change, so does the bonds.

hope this helps. the picture in the middle is my atomic description of magnetism.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #169 on: August 30, 2010, 08:23:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #170 on: August 30, 2010, 08:26:21 AM »
And guys, at the risk of waxing philosophical - let me stress this.  We really do NEED to keep this knowledge OPEN and the more answers we find here the better.  Else I strongly suspect that this knowledge may become the 'exclusive' province of those hyper trained - highly qualified physicists who will gain MORE from keeping the thinking 'obtuse' than by making it readily understandable. 

I'm rather committed to the belief that physics is essentially simple.  And I'm trying hard to keep it that way.  As ever - my own bench mark is my own lack of scientific aptitude.  And if I can understand it then anyone can.  LOL.  But having said that I keep hearing that my writing is NOT understood.  If so - then please get me to explain it better.  I can but try. 

But I'm sure you all see the significance of this.  It's amazing stuff. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #171 on: August 30, 2010, 08:35:57 AM »
@ rose
i tried to draw this out for you
when you alter the interaction between the nucleii and the electrons, by changing their orbital vector,
you essentially are changing the way each atom interacts with the one its adjoined to.

where they "share" orbital path components, is where they "bond".

if the paths change, so does the bonds.

hope this helps. the picture in the middle is my atomic description of magnetism.

Sm0ky - you're right and you're absolutely right.  There is no question that the interactions can be explained in terms of the electron's varying orbits.  But that's all done on the postulate that the electron itself is generating a magnetic field.  It does nothing to explain the 'magnetic' field that is then generated.  And classical physics relies on the electron as the 'charge' carrier. 

I'm not arguing classical physics.  It's been proven at levels and at standards that I could NEVER hope to emulate.  And I'm ill equipped to argue it.  But classical CANNOT explain the 'jitter' - the casimir effect - gravity - even the electromagnetic interaction.  Locality questions.  LOTS OF QUESTIONS Sm0ky.  It can ONLY measure it.  In other words - we still have NO HANDLE on the SOURCE of energy itself. 

What I've proposed is another 'force'.  But it's not another force - it's simply the magnetic field as a primary force.  The numbers stack.  It certainly doesn't conflict with the extraordinary reach and achievements of our scientists - and, it may possibly explain those many outstanding questions that we all are obliged to entertain if we stick to the standard quantum and classical explanations.  And remember that while both these disciplines are interrelated - they come from two different ends of the scientific spectrum and they NEVER quite meet int the middle. 

In any event.  My thesis is NOT the discussion here.  Sorry for introducing it.  What is under discussion is the possibility that we're uncovering the actual 'force' that is responsible for all energy.  And this has serious implications on gravity.  And I think it's clear to us all that the Lambright Effect definitely speaks to a gravity field.  Certainly that's my take.

Kindest again
Rosemary

BTW your illustrations are EXCELLENT. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #171 on: August 30, 2010, 08:35:57 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #172 on: August 30, 2010, 08:40:36 AM »
...I'm rather committed to the belief that physics is essentially simple...


On a philosophical level, is it very simple. and it's all the same, "universal" if you will.
the large is just a reflection of the small.
and the very large is a relfection of the large.
and so on.


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #173 on: August 30, 2010, 08:42:16 AM »
On a philosophical level, is it very simple. and it's all the same, "universal" if you will.
the large is just a reflection of the small.
and the very large is a relfection of the large.
and so on.

Here we're in perfect synch.
 ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #173 on: August 30, 2010, 08:42:16 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #174 on: August 30, 2010, 08:58:41 AM »
i dont want to get too off topic with this,
but we can delve a little deeper into the rabbit hole..

These "pieces of the atom" are magnetic in nature.
the electrons motion is what causes it to be electric.
it moves because its attracted to everything. except for an adequately strong electric charge to repel its own charge.

every orbit causes a "magnetic moment". the vector of the magnetic field is exactly the same as in an electric coil, or two neutron stars orbiting one another.

when you allign these orbits onto a planar axis (magnetize them) this causes these magnetic moments, to ( on average) occur in the same vectoral direction.

forcing this to occur in a copper wire (coil), causes heat as well as magnetism. all the forces of nature are magnetic in origin.


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #175 on: August 30, 2010, 09:19:26 AM »
i dont want to get too off topic with this,
but we can delve a little deeper into the rabbit hole..

These "pieces of the atom" are magnetic in nature.
the electrons motion is what causes it to be electric.
it moves because its attracted to everything. except for an adequately strong electric charge to repel its own charge.

every orbit causes a "magnetic moment". the vector of the magnetic field is exactly the same as in an electric coil, or two neutron stars orbiting one another.

when you allign these orbits onto a planar axis (magnetize them) this causes these magnetic moments, to ( on average) occur in the same vectoral direction.

forcing this to occur in a copper wire (coil), causes heat as well as magnetism. all the forces of nature are magnetic in origin.

I'm absolutely with you.  But NO classical theory can explain why an electron does not 'nose dive' into the proton when they're oppositely charged.  NO classical theory can explain why - the nearer the electron is brought to the proton - the more urgent becomes their mutual repulsions.  NO classical theory can explain why a 'magnet on magnet' interaction does not generate an electric field.  NO classical theory can explain any of this.  It can only speculate.  This is because the forces - all of them - are invisible.  So we're all obliged to constrain all our observations to empirical evidence and rely on those measurements to 'use' those forces. 

What I'm proposing is something MUCH more radical.  I'm actually suggesting that we can uncover the forces themselves - or, as I see it - the single force that underlies the known forces.  But I'll get back here - and I'll address your point more adequately.  Sorry for this but I've run out of time.

More glitches from our utility supplier.  We're still 3rd world guys.  It's annoying.

Kindest as ever, and in haste
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #175 on: August 30, 2010, 09:19:26 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3279
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #176 on: August 30, 2010, 09:24:12 AM »
@ Gravity Block
   
What exactly would be gained from knowing that a piece of... say Aluminum, has a ferromagnetic quality of (X)

Or that a piece of Copper has a field of (X - Y)

They are not magnetic. but are attracted to a field, when they should NOT be.. its very strange. but im not sure what measuring this will tell us??
......
...........
i guess what im getting at, Grav..
    What exactly do you hope to determine,
 with the knowledge of the
 precise permeability of a piece of polarized aluminum???
Is there some standard, for causing a mass of alumimum to be attracted to a magnetic field, that perhaps... consumes a given ammount of energy, by which we could use to asses the strength of the magnetic current?

In short, it allows you to do controlled tests or to uncover the actual 'force', as Rosemary said.  By knowing how much force it took to twist the fiber through a given angle, Coulomb was able to calculate the force between the balls. Determining the force for different charges and different separations between the balls, he showed that it followed Coulomb's law.  There are too many of these examples to even attempt to mention them all.  If the force determined by the Baker's device showed it has the properties of gravity, such as the same rate of attraction between all masses, etc., then we can attribute this effect to gravity.

Does density, heat, pressure affect the data.  We know when a material heats up, it will lose it's magnetic properties, thus if temperature is a factor, then the force may be partly due to a magnetic phenomenon, which may lead to the discovery of secondary magnetic fields that is currently unknown to the scientific community.  Does the density of an object effect the data?  Does radiation pressure, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure , have an effect?  Will an object with a larger volume have a different force than an object with a smaller volume.  This could show that the radiation pressure from the electromagnetic waves from the sun has a repelling force against a mass according to it's density and surface area exposed, which would help to explain the reasons behind the elliptical orbits of the planets.

Thus, the planets orbits may be due to a repelling force and an attraction force which finds an equilibrium according to the planets density and surface area exposed to the sun and the relative distance between the sun, magnetic center, and the planet itself.  This could mean the elliptical orbits are due to the sun orbiting around a magnetic center of the solar system, because a planet will be exposed more to a repelling force when the sun is between the planet and magnetic center and will be pushed away during this time, or a planet will be exposed more to an attraction force when the magnetic center is between the planet and sun, and will be pulled in during this time, thus the reason for the elliptical orbits of the planets.  Please note, if the repelling force was due to only the centrifugal force of a planet, then the planet would take a spiral course and plummet into the sun.  Also, if the opposing force of attraction was due to the centrifugal force alone, then this doesn't explain the elliptical orbits of the planets, thus a need for another repelling force.

I could go on and on, but the end conclusion is it could redefine our understanding of gravity and magnetism, or could verify a theoretical fifth force and lead to many other great discoveries.  This is how Coulomb and other great scientists proceeded in their work, and I don't know why one would want to deviate from this successful model.

GB
« Last Edit: August 30, 2010, 10:27:59 AM by gravityblock »

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #177 on: August 30, 2010, 10:24:25 AM »
thats because the "clasical" interpretation of what these forces are, and what causes them to be manifest

is based on speculation and conjecture.

their models help them to solve the problem, and through this, the necessary mathematics were drawn out. and very accurately.

but there is still the underlying assumptions made, that inhibit them from seeing the larger picture.

why the electron doesn't hit the nucleus,? well, it actually does. eventually...

once the magnetic field of the nucleus dissapates so much that it can no longer accelerate the electron to its critical velocity. then the nucleus gets impaled, and its inner field shifts. sometimes the impact can eject fast moving particles completely out of orbit, and off into the space around it.
science calls this "atomic decay", but they base all of their knowledge of this on some random pointless statistic..

if we had the means to vectorally direct an electron, to impale a proton at a perfecly perpendicular angle between their centers......  it would theoretically be possible to collide the two. this kind of precision its like hitting the atomic lottery, given the number of atoms in our part of the universe.. im sure this happens, but wether or not we observe this, or ever figure out how to cause it to happen who knows... if they get their heads out of their %#^*es maybe they could figure out that in a given sample, there exists atoms that have decayed outside of their normal associated time-frame. they acknowledge this, but ignore its implications... they consider it a "troublesome nusance", and incosistencies in their results... an unwanted % that they have to account for because its there, but they otherwise want nothing to do with...
--------------------------------------------------------
when you bring the two pieces together, you are increasing the force attracting between them, but also increasing the velocity, and thus causing more outward force tangential to the vectoral orbit. when you attempt to contain the electron with an electric field, what you are containing is the electric field emited by the moving electron.
and thus not preventing it from moving, just rapidly changing its vectoral direction. causing it to orbit within its own field, twirling in a sort of screw-like pattern, which becomes more and more curved as you approach the proton.

as the electron approaches the speed of light, you are confronted with an infinite outward force preventing the two from touching one another. the magnetic attraction is what is accelerating it.
When the protons magnetic field weakens and can no longer sustain this, the atom ceases to be a baryon and depending on the energy exchange between the atom and its environment when it becomes unstable, the electron may become part of the protons mass, thus forming a "neutron".
or fracture the proton into groups of its magnetic components. the electron itself joining one of those groups.











Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3279
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #178 on: August 30, 2010, 10:52:20 AM »
Thoroughly approve of any attempt at making actual measurements but I'm not sure that I, personally could put that apparatus together. 

Kindest regards to all
Rosemary

After you study the Baker's device, then I think you will agree there would be no difficulty in putting this apparatus together.  If Dave sends me a device to test, then I will build the Baker's device myself, so controlled experiments can be done and documented.

GB

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #179 on: August 30, 2010, 11:38:45 AM »
  @smokey

    The electromagnetic stimulation of radioactive decay can make anything radioactive by decreasing the angular velocity of electrons in the 1s orbital.  They have found this out and can now take radioactive waste and electromagnetically stimulate it until it drops below radiation levels of that you would find in a smoke detector.  What the problem is is control.  When a guy can whip up a device put it in his garage and change his human waste into enough energy to power the neighborhood they loose control.  They no longer have us working night and day paying electric bills and fuel bills and taxes on fuel and taxes on electricity and taxes levied on stuff we make and stuff we do.  We are free to go out and change salt water to fresh change a desert into a farmland change packaging and all our waste into fertilizers and raw materials to rebuild our infrastructures and new structures.  A world of so much there is no need for wars or depletion of natural rescources that cause wars.  I dont know about you but this is no longer a matter of if is it  possible it is a matter of who is in the way of building such a world and why.

 

OneLink