Electromagnetic Frequency?

wsx

Electromagnetic Frequency?
« on June 5th, 2013, 11:19 PM »
Tesla I hear was interested in the number 3 and even 6 and 9. I assume certain electromagnetic things needed to have an imbalance in way? Maybe people should think 3 dimensional and not in 2 dimension when it comes to energy or out of the box.

Nikola Tesla said that, "If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." http://nerdbusiness.com/blog/3-6-9-time-management-strategy

Well maybe some might say it does not apply to electronics. But what if it did?
If you add 1 by 1 one get 1, if you get add or multiply 2 by 2 you get 4, but 3 is the first when you multiply it you get 9 which is 3 more than if you add it. Sure other numbers give bigger gain but bigger means more number and to reach a higher number in electrical current you need more power and so less is more.

Does multiplication have a place in electricity or electromagnetic? If you fold a price of paper in 2 you get 2 layers, if you fold that then you get 4, then again it would be 8, etc. Now do people know how many layers it would be if you fold it hypothetically 20 times? Most don't believe that number that its over a million layers.

Another is frequency which is heavily ignored by science and some private individuals are exploiting it to their personal advantages and wont make it public. To use small amounts of power to generate great force with the momentum of the previous impact seems to be multiplying to compound the previous power released with the current one to have potential and kinetic working together.  Frequency is used like in outdated inefficient motors, but not in many other aspects. Compound energy is also not as obviously used.

I assume some know about Tesla's Oscillator that brought down a building. Even mythbusters tested it and felt that it was a myth. Mythbusters have been wrong a few times and seem to intentionally fail experiments by skewing the hindering the results. Bad enough they did a test ot help boost cars MPG with alternative energy "booter" and changed the experiment to say the booster can not work alone and it's a useless booster which they were leading the audience.  Maybe they are right or wrong when they talked about Tesla's oscillator (earthquake machine) as a myth. But the thing they did not do which they messed up and did not understand in their early experiment is how it works. Shouldn't they have had a oscillator to adjust the frequency to .01 degrees? Should they have has a sensor to read the current frequency the object was taking and by detecting the object? shouldn't the frequency be adjusted depending on the vibration frequency? Since how can one use the same frequency and not adjust every vibration when a small vibration of a iron beam is completely different form a big vibration of a iron beam? It's just like a spiral drain how the center of the drain goes a shorter distance than the outer ring of the spiral.

Certain things maybe have to been shown as being just myth since some feel that if people know too much then it's bad. Maybe they are right, no one deserves anything and progress happens through ones desire for truth or pleasure than having truth or pleasure. So again why give an answer for what is true since as I said I am not here to give answers, and if you got one then laziness sets in. And people do not seem to appreciates what they have not earned, which is a different topic. I am not saying I have answers, I am just saying certain info seems to be diverted away from our concentration.

As the saying goes "Necessity is the mother of invention is an English proverb meaning that difficult or impossible scenarios prompt inventions aimed at reducing the difficulty" Maybe some peoples pain is their drive and their drive invents weather for good or bad.

Matt Watts

RE: Electromagnetic Frequency?
« Reply #1, on June 6th, 2013, 03:40 AM »Last edited on June 6th, 2013, 09:27 PM by Matt Watts
If you watch the Tetryonics video, you will spot the significance of threes:
http://tetryonics101.com/

Also, sympathetic vibration appears to be key.
http://www.svpvril.com/

The way I understand it so far is that when two or more objects vibrate (internal oscillation) in harmony, altering one of those objects forces nature to restore the vibration.  I suspect that is where the "free energy" gets injected.

If you study this patent, it clearly makes no sense unless you understand Tesla's "disruptive gap" and how it interferes with the natural resonance of the electrical circuit.  And by doing so, additional "radiant" energy gets injected into the system that is later captured and utilized in the form of conventional AC current.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-514,168-generating-electric-currents

Unfortunately our modern education system teaches people to push buttons and fill-out paperwork.  It doesn't teach us how the universe really works so that we can take advantage of that knowledge in our everyday lives.  We have a lot of catching up to do.

I've just started a journey watching all the videos over here and I must say, I've never learned so much in such a short time in all my life:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Tetryonics/

wsx

RE: Electromagnetic Frequency?
« Reply #2, on June 7th, 2013, 01:54 PM »
Interesting  info.
 
Would you say Tesla is wrong on some inventions like the earthquake machine?
Tesla is smart since he pushed himself to be a electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist which plenty of scientists want to focus on one type of science than many.

Wouldn't oscillation to a certain frequency for a particular thing be more efficient than a constant unbroken current or a fixed unscientific frequency?

One example of electromagnetic frequency in what I am saying is how the guy could not make an led work but when he used a frequency of on/off then the led worked. Did the fast on off use less power to light it up?
From 2:30-3:00 which he explains it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qHECpEhJdB8#t=126s

Speaking of Electromagnetic Frequency some say that its dangerous. Isn't this overrated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aVj-Vbaqlu8#t=98s


Matt Watts

RE: Electromagnetic Frequency?
« Reply #3, on June 7th, 2013, 03:25 PM »
Quote from wsx on June 7th, 2013, 01:54 PM
Interesting  info.
 
Would you say Tesla is wrong on some inventions like the earthquake machine?
Tesla is smart since he pushed himself to be a electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist which plenty of scientists want to focus on one type of science than many.
Tesla wanted to understand it all, how the fundamental principals of the universe work.  Telsa at his time didn't rely on the science of his time.  Sure he studied what he could get his hands on, but I think the majority of what he learned, he got from intuition or visions in his head.
Quote from wsx on June 7th, 2013, 01:54 PM
Wouldn't oscillation to a certain frequency for a particular thing be more efficient than a constant unbroken current or a fixed unscientific frequency?
Probably depends on the object.  In some instances it would certainly make more sense to change frequency based from the feedback you get from the object.  In other instances, it might make sense to create a fixed frequency and let the object come into resonance with your source oscillation.
Quote from wsx on June 7th, 2013, 01:54 PM
One example of electromagnetic frequency in what I am saying is how the guy could not make an led work but when he used a frequency of on/off then the led worked. Did the fast on off use less power to light it up?
From 2:30-3:00 which he explains it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHECpEhJdB8#t=126s
You can certainly pulse with an energy source and show more effect than with the same energy slowly and equally let out over the same period of time.  LEDs are a prime example of doing this, so are Lasers.
Quote from wsx on June 7th, 2013, 01:54 PM
Speaking of Electromagnetic Frequency some say that its dangerous. Isn't this overrated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVj-Vbaqlu8#t=98s
Take a look at the research conducted by Royal Raymond Rife.  He proved micro-organisms could be destroyed by the organism's natural internal resonant frequency.  Now suppose you hit yourself with a frequency that did that to your red blood cells.  It would indeed be dangerous; over enough time, fatal.  I don't know what those frequencies are, but you can guarantee those that turn technology into weapons do.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out the frequencies used by WiFi and cell phones were picked intentionally because of their effect on a human body.

wsx

RE: Electromagnetic Frequency?
« Reply #4, on June 7th, 2013, 05:27 PM »Last edited on June 7th, 2013, 05:46 PM by wsx
So you say Tesla has been wrong.

Since this form is about efficiency then shouldn’t pulses be conceded more?

Rife is a good example. When virus gets hit with a small frequency it resonates despite small and when another pulse is shot it just keeps increasing.
So lets say a hypothetical strength of 10 hits it, then when it vibrates it goes down by 3 to be 7 but, then another pulse hits at that same moment to be 7+10=17, and then next pulse hits its its (3-7)+(3-10)+10= 4+7+10=21, etc so it can be 7,17,21, etc until the strength is too much.

As for being fixed wouldn’t the same example for an a I-beam also do the same, but different since when the mean vibrates 1/8 of an inch apart from to 2 inches wouldn’t a 2 inch distance need a different frequency when it moves that much due to the distance it travels? I could be wrong.

Also you say electricity like power lines, TV, and other standard electronics are not as bad as the link indicates?

Matt Watts

RE: Electromagnetic Frequency?
« Reply #5, on June 7th, 2013, 07:47 PM »
Quote from wsx on June 7th, 2013, 05:27 PM
So you say Tesla has been wrong.
He probably made his share of mistakes, but overall I think he had a pretty good handle on things.
Quote from wsx on June 7th, 2013, 05:27 PM
Since this form is about efficiency then shouldn’t pulses be conceded more?
More when you consider only the time span during the pulse.  If you consider the energy during the pulse all the way to the next pulse, the total energy is equal or less.
Quote from wsx on June 7th, 2013, 05:27 PM
Rife is a good example. When virus gets hit with a small frequency it resonates despite small and when another pulse is shot it just keeps increasing.
So lets say a hypothetical strength of 10 hits it, then when it vibrates it goes down by 3 to be 7 but, then another pulse hits at that same moment to be 7+10=17, and then next pulse hits its its (3-7)+(3-10)+10= 4+7+10=21, etc so it can be 7,17,21, etc until the strength is too much.

As for being fixed wouldn’t the same example for an a I-beam also do the same, but different since when the mean vibrates 1/8 of an inch apart from to 2 inches wouldn’t a 2 inch distance need a different frequency when it moves that much due to the distance it travels? I could be wrong.

Also you say electricity like power lines, TV, and other standard electronics are not as bad as the link indicates?
You can add harmonics to the base frequency.  When you do that there will be peaks of amplitude far greater than any single frequency signal.  So a base frequency with an amplitude of 1, plus three more harmonics each having an amplitude of 1, you can get amplitudes of 4.  Apply that to an earthquake machine and it seems quite likely you could shake a building enough for people to notice.