Quote from jbignes5 on October 14th, 2017, 05:54 PM

But it says 1/10 wavelength. But yeah that is how the signal is broadcasted around the loop. Like a signal traveling down the loop. In this case it is in resonance and there is a standing wave instead of it going around the loop.

If I have got this wrong apologies but goto the webpage to see the 1/4 loop

 I just read Steinmetz on this subject and this is what he has to say:

  "We find the same thing in all theories, the chemical, the thermodynamic, etc. It simply means that our present formulations of the ionic theory, of the electromagnetic wave theory, and of all other theories are very far from final correctness, but are at best only very crude conceptions of the nature of things, which will have to be modified again and again with our increasing knowledge before we can expect to reach a moderately rational conception of nature's laws and phenomena, if we ever arrive there."

 How are we to advance if we do not challenge the "Laws" and devise a better understanding of the nature of space itself. It turns out Steinmetz was already talking about the "ether" and found staggering contradictions to most of the accepted theories including the electron.

 If we stick to the electron and other logical fallacies then it leads to dead ends and contradictions. We must at some point break away and formulate a new understanding of the aether and what that is. Once we know that the electron is nothing but a surface of layers and double layers then we can devise ways to take advantage of this new understanding and not the old one which has thrown away the baby with the bathwater so to speak.

 Reference: General electric review  Vol. XV., No. 1  January 1912

jbignes

Quote

If we stick to the electron and other logical fallacies then it leads to dead ends and contradictions. We must at some point break away and formulate a new understanding of the aether and what that is.

So your suggesting we abandon something we know works at the bench and start wildly speculating about something very much unproven?. I see no contradictions and Aether theory falls right in line with our conception of the electron. Which contradictions are you speaking of?.

Just a seguestaion

We all have our own way of looking it this problem

For me I have to look around and and see what nature has to say about it.

Then I look around at what theories others have about it.

Then I ask my self where should I start so I don't have to waist so much time doing tests thst others habe proven for us.

Then I start thinking what is wrong and what I'd like to re test.

Then I can have my own view point.

One thing is true. We need to at least use other well know theory's to just make sence of what we are trying to tell each other.

As we can't help each other if we can't explain our self's in a way that makes sence. So we use what is know to help us explain it. So dont for get that. Its just to help guide other to learn what it really is.

Personialy I think that everyone here has been a major factor to my own thinking. 

And I'm supper great full for all of you.

So heres what I'm asking.

Let's all express this the way we see it. Then be verry open to others views. Then try to go in the right derection. Debeates are needed. I just don't want some one to take it to far. None of us know what it is deep down bottom of it all..  So its cool to see it differently.  So many   ways to skin a cat!!!

Is it a cloud or is it rings. I don't care. All I know is that it is something and past physics shows somthing. (Again I like to keep things simple for now)

Any hoo. Let's just keep sharing what we know and keep being open to others.

Don't get stuck on the little things.

Also. "The bench of truth" will help guide us. For it is the way... 

Much love all. Let's keep going. We can get there I know we can.

~Russ

 I gave the reference Onepower, Steinmetz said that there are logical errors in the current Theories. These errors cause us to chase non entities like in the case of Russ an electron hitting another. Or the system we know today as our grid. Transients can be powerful given the right circumstances. Those circumstances cause outages and strange problems like the runaway disconnection issue with grid systems. Simply because the theories have left something out. Steinmetz was brought in to fix those errors and the only way he could was to learn from Tesla's examples.
 I am only pointing out my take on this and trying to give examples of others who were very respected in their day. I'm not saying that the concepts of the current theories are wrong but the way it happens for real has been misunderstood and further theories base themselves on those errors in the theories.
 The quote from Steinmetz stands. He knew more about our theories at that time then I could ever profess.

 Now am I 100% right.. I highly doubt it but if we went wrong in our theories even in little ways then it would throw off any further advances from then on.

 I think the real problem is that the current science scene is so divided into little groups that walls are built up between them. With those walls separating the different sciences we have diverged from the truth of the whole. We will never be able to reconcile this till we find out where we went in error and express that. You might not be able to see it yet. That is no problem. But flat out rejecting rebuking is like repeatedly bashing your head into a wall over and over with your eyes shut tight.

Build it first, explain it later.


Russ has given you all some concepts you can put to the test on your bench.  Find out for yourself if they lead you someplace you have never been before.  Or...

You can wait for someone else to figure it out and balk at their results without ever experiencing it for yourself.

Its OK to start with an idea. But I would not call it a theory till it products your bench test.

And yes the walls are what what I'm trying to avoid.

It seemed to me we have about 6 people or so here on this thred who has the knolage  and skills to get us where we want to be.

I want to keep the amazing knolage flowing. Its magical.  And I'm loving it.

We have a forums here we remove as much BS and people who don't really want to contribute. And I can see its paying off.

Good speed.

Keep the open mined.

~Russ

Oh by the way. Have we even answered weather or not the load consumes the energy? 

What I have learned on the bench is that in the right conditions we can genarate a magnetic feild with vertialy no loses. The energy is shuffled but not lost.

If we split the positive....

And also that in superconducting condistion we can do the same with no losses (but I haven't verified this on my bench)

And also a light bulb will give off photons and still not lose any energy. But its almost impossible to get any "full" transfer through a magnetic feild

(I still need to verify the no loss with light but a carbon resistor works fine on the bench) 

Also I did a huge 14ohm load with the big cap bank and it also seemed all well. But need to calaualte the voltages still. But it heated up 60-80 degrees C

http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2679.msg46279#msg46279


~Russ

If we need a reference Of definitions.  This seems like a good one. Also note this is just to help us.  Its not the say all do all.

If there is a fundamental flaw on this page please due point it out and say why.

http://www.energygroove.net/science/atoms-electrons-photons/

We arnt out to say physics is wrong. We are out to prove nature can be included in a circuit. ;)

~Russ

Quote

Also I did a huge 14ohm load with the big cap bank and it also seemed all well. But need to calaualte the voltages still. But it heated up 60-80 degrees C

Hi Russ, sorry but i think you no well just heating it up is not getting you any where...
you need know the joules, to get this you need to be much more controlled with your data.
  you need to heat a specific material (say water) You need to know its specific heat value.The specific heat of water is 1 calorie/gram °C = 4.186 joule/gram °C, its weight and Temperature difference.before and after difference.

Q = mcΔT  Si unit is J (joules)

Heat added = specific heat x mass x (tfinal - tinitial)

you need to then run two comparisons giving the water heater the watts as per the norms and then running the load through the capacitor circuit.
compare the joules results.
Regards
Oh and just incase your workshop is cold make sure the water is above 4 degrees at start....we dont need to worry about phase transitions i.e. the latency from ice to water.

Quote from ~Russ on October 15th, 2017, 01:15 PM

If we need a reference Of definitions.  This seems like a good one. Also note this is just to help us.  Its not the say all do all.

If there is a fundamental flaw on this page please due point it out and say why.

http://www.energygroove.net/science/atoms-electrons-photons/


We arnt out to say physics is wrong. We are out to prove nature can be included in a circuit. ;)

~Russ

Thanks Russ for giving us a base line we can all reference, for me the model on this page is as I see it with one exception. but I'll go with this and try to draw attention to when I'm deviating if I have to.

I believe and Pauli recognised a case for the electron to show at times a moment of magnetism, caused by (axis spin). but this is omitted by physics by stating that although the electrons are paired and the pairing with opposite spins (orbital spin) negates the magnetism.
This was omitted because the size of the electron was not found...see my Reply #119
Just recently in science terms the swedes have supposedly captured a electron image.
The fact that the axis spin was omitted in 1929 did not mean it was false reporting. it was omitted because of a caveat
I conjecture that at times the electron would not be paired with another electron - outside of the outer valence and so would show and have axis spin giving that magnetic moment and a magnetic loop.
I would even give a very bold statement and say I believe the free electron has a massive role to play in creating the orbital power of the magnetic flux in a magnet. but don't let this statement take away the legitimacy of the other points I make here.
With reference to your base line website this either admits a single electron position outside the valence or its use of English is poor. I show the quote here and underline the wording 'it'

Quote

Electrons in the outermost valency shell are the furthest from the nucleus and therefore have the weakest attraction to it. In certain conditions the outermost valency electron is so loosely bonded to the atom, e.g., the copper atom,  that it is free to randomly wander from one atom to another. This creates free electrons. When the random movement of free electrons is controlled by an external influence, e.g., a magnet, the free electrons can be directed to form an electrical current.

I am only trying to show existing work and observations that have been ruled out not because they are incorrect but because they were and are observed and by acknowledging them they serve to complicate what scientists wanted to use from the observations at that time. I believe times are changing and soon we shall here a more unified example using the size when found of the electron.

Quote

Oh by the way. Have we even answered weather or not the load consumes the energy? 

What I have learned on the bench is that in the right conditions we can generate a magnetic field with virtually no loses. The energy is shuffled but not lost

For me The load is the whole circuit (the wire is a load) and because of resistance and bad reflections losses exist. so the load has consumed the energy, but greatly reduced over time. A superconductor circuit would make for a fantastic energy circuit and I'd almost say no the load does not
consume the energy in that case.
The saving grace is the fact that we can create a (almost) free magnetic field at ambient temperature which should give us the ability to replenish losses and so negate having to use a superconductor. That is tremendous. and very humbling to think (and how dare we) that we can recycle energy using a open system. even if we don't understand the maths if we can create the cycle, like seeing the seasons we can replenish growth each cycle.

I thought this was relevant and verry helpfull

https://youtu.be/KYYWZhsgVPc

Yeah yeah. More eletrons...  But it will help us think. I think.

~Russ

Quote from sonnet on October 15th, 2017, 02:02 PM

Hi Russ, sorry but i think you no well just heating it up is not getting you any where...
you need know the joules, to get this you need to be much more controlled with your data.
  you need to heat a specific material (say water) You need to know its specific heat value.The specific heat of water is 1 calorie/gram °C = 4.186 joule/gram °C, its weight and Temperature difference.before and after difference.

Q = mcΔT  Si unit is J (joules)

Heat added = specific heat x mass x (tfinal - tinitial)

you need to then run two comparisons giving the water heater the watts as per the norms and then running the load through the capacitor circuit.
compare the joules results.
Regards
Oh and just incase your workshop is cold make sure the water is above 4 degrees at start....we dont need to worry about phase transitions i.e. the latency from ice to water.

of course of course. but lets not go so extreme till we prove we need it.

lets look at this for a min.

First thing to do is start basic.

Here is the question.
1. Do we lose charge (voltage potential) due to the load? ( light, heater, carbon resistor, inductor, big short wire)
2. If all we care about is having a difference in potential (charge) and we do indeed louse it, whats the cause?
3. if we do lose charge. What loads can we make due "work" and not lose our charge?
4. Is EM radiation (photons) needed to "louse" our charge? if not, what and how do we louse our charge?
5. is it possible to gain charge, if so what are those points? ( like the transient in the BEMF)

we lose our charge if we have one cap.... this is a bad test device.

we only lose half our charge if we use 2 caps and split the positive.

so we start there.

Test one, get a base line. use 2 caps, see what they do with a dead short. and an inductor ( one cycle of transfer) ( leakage voltage)

now use a light, a heater element, carbon resistor, Etc.

see if the final charge is the same, if not why. ( will need to do some time constant testing as well)

my guess is that if my thinking is correct. Even the light and heater will not have any difference in potential than a non photon emitting ( non EM) load.

the bigger we scale the test up, the eazer it will be to check theses things.

at that massive scale ( 5kJ) i should be able to very eazly tell if we have a delta of 80Deg C ( on a 14 ohm heater) vs an inductor. with almost no heat... and the charges are the same... there is no or virtually no loss due to the photon emitting. ( something else at that point)

if in deed this idea is correct. if we get numbers showing that the light or heater dose make it drop in charge faster... well that's it. no need to go further in testing. little heat or alot... in that test we rule out that the load dose not indeed consume our energy. and we might in fact discover that the resistance is the only factor to our charge balancing...

I'm not out to break thermal dynamics or something... i'm out find what load that can do work. and not consume our energy!

Please tell me where i can improve or change this test.

if some one wants to wright an SOP go for it...

Thanks!!

~Russ

Quote from sonnet on October 15th, 2017, 03:39 PM

For me The load is the whole circuit (the wire is a load) and because of resistance and bad reflections losses exist. so the load has consumed the energy, but greatly reduced over time. A superconductor circuit would make for a fantastic energy circuit and I'd almost say no the load does not
consume the energy in that case.
The saving grace is the fact that we can create a (almost) free magnetic field at ambient temperature which should give us the ability to replenish losses and so negate having to use a superconductor. That is tremendous. and very humbling to think (and how dare we) that we can recycle energy using a open system. even if we don't understand the maths if we can create the cycle, like seeing the seasons we can replenish growth each cycle.

totally my attitude. I love the way you worded this.

~Russ

Something to note for posterity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccdScxKbiW4

Regarding the inductor Russ used in the video in the first post - how would a person figure out the right inductance for such a coil - should there be a resonant relationship (LC) with the either of the capacitors?

OK - I can now see the answer to this question but can't delete this post so... Yes, the inductor should match the capacitor for resonance.

This is what they faced with the first Trans Atlantic cable for voice transmission.

Once they ciphered how to balance the coppers capacitance per unit foot, with the cable pairs inductance per unit foot, by putting a correct twist in the wires, the Voice audio started to come through as intelligible sounds. Most all the energy was passed down the lines and did arrive at the other end. This is called transmission line theory.

You definitely have my full respect in this method of "comprehension." Working blind formulas we assume are true does not lead to a full understanding!

How can the light bulb glow with an opened circuit on the other end of the two coils?

This is called Antenna theory. And almost no one fully grasps it. As a matter of fact it is so complex, it is easier to just build an antenna and then take measurements, then try to predict how it will work, at least in the HF bands. We can do all kinds of sophisticated calculations, but the installation always surprises us in some way no one saw coming.

The last thing I came up with was called the discone antenna. All it does is attempt to hit the 377 ohm impedance point where the radio wave couples to the Field Fabric and then propagates through it. Much of the antenna is not really necessary and can be replaced with other components or even just rolled up. Some guy like yourself ciphered that and it worked!

Keep on keepin' on, it is the work at the bench that takes us forwards, the phenomena is important to witness, only then can we model it with math that is correct.

One more point of electronic theory I would mention, we tend to think that 1/2 the voltage will give us 1/2 the power, this is not true. Power = E squared / R.

1/2 the voltage will gives us 1/4 the power when used in a powering circuit.

Now I am not saying that is correct, I am saying that is what 200 years of electronics has handed us as true.

This one thing has led to hundreds of hours of discussion over the years, that if we run the voltage to 1/2 into a second capacitor, why is the energy now 1/4 what it was?

The energy was calculated as the square of the voltage. At first it really puzzled me.
However if the power formula is actually correct, then it would be true.

So if we end up with two capacitors at 1/2 the voltage, we will end up having lost 1/2 the power.
And I then assume, you already knew this part, so I am then catching up here.

This effect is simply due to the geometry of how capacitors store energy, and that when it is released as power, current is a factor also.  I = E / R    and power  P = I * E  =  E^2 / R.

You will not even notice the loss of 1/2 the power until you draw it out with current present.

Now I would assume that the air pressure tank would operate in a similar manner, and if we drop the air pressure in the tank to 1/2 all the impact tools that it powers would drop to 1/4 the power. This is also related to the draw of air from the tank as the volume of the air has 1/4 the power to move the impact wrench, so in these tanks we have a compressor that turns on way before 1/2 the pressure is lost.

Walter Russell and Wilbert Smith have worked out some very interesting formulas to clarify how to deal with the three field forces, and how to calculate them in a more simplified way using geometry. While the Electric and Magnetic fields are well know the Pressure cause by them is not so clearly recognized. Wilbert Smith gave the pressure part of the three fields a new name Tempic Field Force. These three forces are always found in quadrature alignment of vector forces.

Nissam Haramein handed us the geometry of "fractal octaves" as well, matching Walter Russell's method.

I have attempted to clarify this in a document.

The Law of Geometric Expansion

This formula appears to work, where I have used it to bring up energy from the Field Fabric.

Quote from ~Russ on October 15th, 2017, 01:15 PM

If we need a reference Of definitions.  This seems like a good one. Also note this is just to help us.  Its not the say all do all.

If there is a fundamental flaw on this page please due point it out and say why.

http://www.energygroove.net/science/atoms-electrons-photons/

We arnt out to say physics is wrong. We are out to prove nature can be included in a circuit. ;)

~Russ

Russ, that is an over simplified mental model of the atom at this point in physics. You may want to check out the p orbitals for a more in depth mental picture. Also keep in mind when an electron jumps off a copper atom it decelerates from just under c velocity to so many coulombs per second as an amp, and this generates a microwave energy causing heat. Where in the proton cannot jump off the atom and if we get a pure enough positive charge, what comes out is a tempic field vibration that can create motion rather then heat. This was observed in the past and why the electric power was stated to follow the positive charge down the wires. Where the negative charge will burn you, the positive from the back of a TV set will hurl you across the room without any burns.

Splitting the positive and negative is usually done using a very fast pulse transition. As the electron shell and proton shells spin in opposite directions they tend to cancel out in copper atoms. When the spike hits the copper atoms, the electron shell can turn at microwave frequencies, but the protons shell with mass attached turns 1000 times or more slower, so the two separate in alignment of spin. Voltage surges free of the proton control and spikes at 90 degrees to the wire. This is separating the positive and negative at the atomic level of the field tilt and releasing energy that is normally cancelled inside the atoms. This is also the reason for a power factor problem, as the current is generated by the positive charge, where the negative charge only burns things. The current then lags the voltage by 90 degrees in a pure copper circuit. This can be reclaimed and corrected using an output coil system with coils at 90 degrees wired in series aiding. The two coils at 90 degrees will then capture both electron and proton spin and recombine them in series aiding. One coil is reversed so the two fields that fly free add rather then subtract in the output. Geometric power factor correction. You can send a square wave through a spherical transformer wired like this and a square wave will come out the secondary's. Air core or copper core can be used, but if iron cores are used it will attenuate the higher frequencies of the electron shell, the wave will then come out rounded off more like a sine wave. I have done all these experiments on the bench years ago. I am not sure if this info will assist you at this point, but it is accurate to the best of my results. You will thus find coils wound at 90 degrees in many of the past devices. In the work of Floyd Sweet you will also find the Electron Proton ratio being used.  http://www.resonantfractals.org/Doc/EP_Ratio/EP_Ratio.html

I apologize, if I derailed this thread in another direction, but if we want to keep our focus on the power, rather then only the voltage, we will end up moving in a different direction then only the two capacitors mental model.

If the goal is to develop increased power, it is the coils with fly-back energy we should be focused on. The copper interaction can be greatly amplified to produce actual power if the components of the power are manipulated correctly.

As described, the magnetic wheel can turn or not turn, the pulsing of the coils is where we get added energy from. The splitting of the positive and negative at their source, inside the copper atoms, and then recombining them in proper phase of a 90 degree shift of phase, is the basic key to power extraction. The atoms power to correct itself, is then used externally of the atoms, and actually reversed to increase the output power, rather then to cancel as it does inside the atoms as they self correct.

This has been done over and over in past devices we have studied. With the understanding of the E/P ratio causing both to create more energy at the circuit level, rather then at the atom level, we can see gains.

The source of the power is then also identified, and no longer just a tweak that happens to work on the bench when we hit it by accident.

If there is another source of power present in the battery circuits, we could examine that more closely also. The chemistry of the batteries, however as I recall Bidini removed his first battery charger from the market as it was not giving the batteries the same current output, when the voltages soared. Just capturing the voltage spikes, did not seem to produce much actual power. We also discovered this early on, as collecting only the voltage spikes and surges from the electron side on 90 degree coils, proved to have very little actual power in discharge conditions. This may be why connecting dead batteries in series with the charging circuit works better, as the battery chemistry also somehow causes the E/P 90 degree phase splitting to self correct.
But what a lot of hassle to go through to accomplish that! LOL!

You guys are doing the thought work, and that is important. I hate to see you repeating all over what has been done dozens of times already, and without quite enough education that is already available in the mainstream. NMR science was developed I believe in the 40's or 50's, where they began to understand what happens inside the atoms nuclear center, and that the mass of that atoms is located there and not in the electron shells. That the power of EM in copper wire to create motion is found in the Isotope in the nuclear field, not so much in the electron shells.

As was suggested, if we look deeper into the physics, we get a better feel for what is happening. There is n fact a very specific frequency we can use to separated the positive spin from the negative spin of the copper atoms, and while it can be found experimentally with F gens, it can also be calculated. A correct pulse of 1/4 wave of the NMR frequency will split them instantly for a time of recovery. Each field can then be extracted at 90 degrees to one another, and then manipulated externally in a circuit to add rather then cancel out. This has been known since the days of Floyd Sweet, Wilbert Smith, and Walter Russell. We rediscovered in my day, and you guys will too if you take this far enough, then you will realize you cannot share it openly in working devices or you may get shut down from external desires for it to be suppressed again. The best I can hope to do is to share it so other reach comprehension, that it does work, and it can create self runners, as many of those guys back then had done. I believe it was Hendershot that made little toy airplanes for his son using magnet motors and some square coils at 90 degrees to keep them running after he spun the prop once. I wasted a lot of time pondering that as if somehow I could cipher it, but alas it was only after the NMR training, it started to make sense. Eventually I developed the spherical transformer, that proves how this works. Some people can feel how many turns to put on the 90 degree coil, to hit the E/P ratio between the two coils.

The NMR training is online a free.
https://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/nmr/