@ brad... 
This is a compact unit that is great for people that do not have alot of space and money.  You can pick up one on ebay cheaper.  Add a o-scope to this and a multimeter and your all set.  If you are going to send dc current into a large coil, then have a good high voltage probe to save your scope from being killed. In addition you will need to use an isolating transformer if you are going to be working with wall current circuits like a Tv.  Very important.  Here is an excellent book to get started in electronics.

Matt,

Let's say you see high-voltage spikes from your motor coils.  So, do you assume that high-voltage spikes are "good" and then you try to make even higher voltage spikes?  Or, do you want to understand the mechanism that produced the high-voltage spikes in the first place?

If you understand the mechanism then you can decide if they are useful or not for what you are trying to accomplish.  And if you do indeed decide that they are useful and since you understand them, you can pretty much taylor-make them with parameters of your own choosing.

So knowledge is a tool to use to accomplish your goals.  Without knowledge you are pretty much dependent on serendipity.  I was reading about chemistry and in the 19th century chemists were puzzled about the nature of matter.  Many accidental discoveries advanced the study of chemistry but they only happened once every 20 years.  But once the knowledge of the basic framework of how atoms form molecules was mastered by the early 20th century, then chemists were cranking out thousands of new chemical compounds each year.

If we assume the Newman motor does something special, then the way it works will be some combination of the way we understand things now and some special features according to Newman.  So all I can say is bring it on.  But at least up to now, I haven't seen any Newman-specific special features or concepts demonstrated.  I suppose time will tell.

SS

SS

Quote

So knowledge is a tool to use to accomplish your goals.  Without knowledge you are pretty much dependent on serendipity.

Knowledge is important however in many cases it can lead to false judgement and bias due to the human condition which is always subjective. If there is one true constant it is that new knowledge and understanding generally renders old knowledge obsolete. Knowledge and understanding are not static they are fluid and always changing... perpetual if you will.

Quote

If we assume the Newman motor does something special, then the way it works will be some combination of the way we understand things now and some special features according to Newman.

Speculation at best, which begs the question...what way do you understand things now and how many ways are there?. You don't honestly believe some other civilization somewhere else would somehow understand things the way you do... do you?. You see it always comes full circle back to the strange notion why men believe they are gods and that their own thinking and beliefs must be universal and correct which is of course... a little woo woo.

I intend to be wrong about everything as many times as it takes to be proven right.

SS,  I should not post anything here as I said I would not respond.  However i really see that you have the skills needed to achieve thses goals. 

The problem is your not able to take on a new theory of operation and generate a new prospective of goals to test. 

Its ok to take known ways of testing to test the hypositis. 
But being open to new outcomes is needed.  Or you'll never find it. And be stuck to think that everything you have  been tought is right. 

Let me ask you this one qustion. 

What is  a feild?  More specifically,  what is a magnetic feild? 

~Russ

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 18th, 2018, 10:01 AM

Let's say you see high-voltage spikes from your motor coils.  So, do you assume that high-voltage spikes are "good" and then you try to make even higher voltage spikes?

First off I wouldn't "assume" anything.  If I can get high voltage spikes, I would ask myself, "Can I use this for something?"  Would a potent high dielectric field benefit me in some way?  If it can, then yeah, I may try to produce even a stronger dielectric field, provided I can still control it.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 18th, 2018, 10:01 AM

Or, do you want to understand the mechanism that produced the high-voltage spikes in the first place?

This is somewhat of an iterative question.  At certain phases of research I may not care how something works, only that it does work.  At other phases it may be imperative I fully understand the mechanism of operation.  Just depends on where you are at certain times and where you want to go next.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 18th, 2018, 10:01 AM

Without knowledge you are pretty much dependent on serendipity.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you can reproduce it.  For instance, I can make steam from water without having to know the intercut details involved in the process and yet use the steam to produce intended results.  However, if I wanted to improve the conversion rate of water to steam while minimizing energy input, then yes, I better brush-up on those details to a level beyond conventional science.  Knowing I can reduce the atmospheric pressure would be a very useful piece of information.

It's entirely possible Russ' JWN motor is teetering on the edge of scale and by him building a larger prototype the results he seeks would be blazingly obvious.  We don't know for sure.  I came across a document posted somewhere in this thread that describes a reference design where the permanent magnets are inside the coil.  The height and width ratios are specified.  It's quite possible this reference design would easily demonstrate Newman's principals.  At this stage of development it would be nice to know just how far off the mark we actually are and why we're not quite seeing what we hoped to have seen by now.  What I'm confident of is we have some more road to travel and somewhere down that road we'll see the golden lights Newman promised we would find if we stayed on course.  And like any story, you'll gain a lot more beginning at the start and finishing at the end, instead of just jumping to the end.  Patience is a virtue.

For fun, I have to take a shot at this:

Quote from ~Russ on February 18th, 2018, 01:25 PM

What is  a feild?  More specifically,  what is a magnetic feild?

A field is a volume of space.  Period.  It's that simple.  Logically the word "field" and "volume" can be interchanged.

The word placed in front of the word "field" is the attribute of interest within the volume of space of interest.  The generic term "field" implies all attributes are considered.

A magnetic field is the magnetic attribute within the field of interest.

I'm not 100% certain, but pretty sure the magnetic field is the curl of spin within the field of interest, a lot of spin, scattered all throughout space and matter.  I would go so far as to say all volumes of space have spin, that's a given whether we focus specifically on that attribute or not.



See, we look at these words wrong and it screws up our logical ways of thinking.  We say an energized solenoid coil produces a magnetic field.  Wrong.   The magnetic attribute (curl of spin) is already defined within the field, the volume of space we are interested in.  All the solenoid coil does is alter the already existent magnetic attributes.

Now my question:

Is my answer above enough of a description to be useful in some way?

Russ,

Quote

SS,  I should not post anything here as I said I would not respond.  However i really see that you have the skills needed to achieve thses goals.

The problem is your not able to take on a new theory of operation and generate a new prospective of goals to test.

Its ok to take known ways of testing to test the hypositis.
But being open to new outcomes is needed.  Or you'll never find it. And be stuck to think that everything you have  been tought is right.

Let me ask you this one qustion.

What is  a feild?  More specifically,  what is a magnetic feild?

That's an old loaded question.  It's like if I was to ask you, "What does water taste like?"  Or even if I asked you, "What does orange juice taste like?"

Your forum is about energy research.  The fundamental answer in the context of the focus of your forum is that electric and magnetic fields are a way of storing and manipulating energy.  The wise move is to not take your eye off of the energy ball.  And that's why I discussed the energy dynamics of a pulse motor.

And the reality is that the bench in combination with knowledge and experience is the real way to go.  Sure you can be open-minded, but if you bias open-mindedness over what the bench and your knowledge is telling you that's a mistake.  Nobody knew why the current and energy consumption of a pulsing coil went down when it pushed away a magnet, something that you see in nearly every motor in the pulse motor build off.  That means that there are times when people including yourself do things on the bench without really seeing or understanding what they are looking at and they can come to some false conclusions like that.  There is no reason that you can't be interested in what Newman is proposing and still leverage your knowledge and bench experience to extract the truth, not the enforced "you must believe" truth, but rather, the real actual truth without bias or preconceptions.

Who decides what "bias" and "preconception" means?  That's a hot potato, and arguably the real arbiter of that is knowledge and experience.  It's for each individual to answer.

You talk about "a new theory of operation."  And with that goes "read the book."  I will put the ball in your court.  When are you going to do a test where you say, "This is a test of what Newman says in chapter three (or whatever) of his book?"  Go ahead, and do some tests that relate directly to Newman's claims.   Note I have been following this thread for a few weeks and I still have not read anything about someone discussing Newman's theories and how you can test the Newman motor to verify the theories to find extra energy.

If you think I have the skills to help achieve the goals of this thread then great.  That suggests to me that if I call you out on something that you say, then your course of action should not be to say  "you have to believe" but rather you should check yourself to see if what I am saying is true or not.  Case in point right here when you state, "We already saw that in the right process we can get a longer decay from the feild than we put in."  The first time you mentioned this you thought that it was showing extra energy and I told you that it is perfectly normal and has nothing to do with extra energy.  And you are trying to spin the observation and say that it's "keen" for big coils.  In reality you are looking at nothing more than a discharging time constant for a coil.  It's much less glamorous when you discuss what is essentially exactly the same thing for a capacitor.  If somebody said, "I charge my 10,000 uF capacitor in five seconds and then it takes an hour and a half to discharge it through a 100K resistor then you wouldn't think it was so special, would you?

So I'm looking forward to seeing some tests related to Newman's claims.  For example, I see the relays that are emulating the commutator and give you faster switching off and higher voltage spike, so is that related to a Newman claim?  If it is, the please state the claim and if you found any evidence to back up the claim or not.  And I am patient and I fully understand this takes time.

SS

Look guys, in a nutshell, the "fire, open, short" cycles on the commutator drive the Newman pulse motor and make it spin.  Fine, and then you have the discussions about gyroscopic particles meshing in a complimentary or opposing way with other gyroscopic particles.  Then you have suggestions about making very brief connections to the coil "charge" it and allegedly you "get a magnetic field almost for free." And there is talk about RF emissions but so far no mechanism for generating the RF, or if the RF is "free" and represents extra energy.

Lots of discussion, but what about tests on the Newman motor where you specifically state the claim and the expected tangible results for the claim?   So you go ahead and actually do the tests and then report back honestly about whether the claim was verified on the bench or not.

It's seems pretty straightforward to me.  And the critical point is that you don't "have to believe" or be "open-minded such that you don't let your preconceived notions 'spoil' the testing."  You just read the claims in the book and in an unbiased manner you do the tests and then you report the results of your testing.  If you saw something special, then great.  If you saw something normal, then state that also.  And if you believe that you saw something special and others disagree, then test some more and keep an open mind about what others are saying.  You don't necessarily reach a consensus or a final conclusion on the first test.

SS

Onepower,

Quote

You don't honestly believe some other civilization somewhere else would somehow understand things the way you do... do you?

It's a good question and it's good food for thought.  It's perfectly plausible to believe that an alien civilization would understand things the way we do.  We know that the laws of physics apply throughout the Universe.  We also know that the elements listed in the periodic table are the same elements that other civilizations would have to work with.  So even if language and physiology are completely different between two civilizations, there is a lot in common to talk about.  An intelligent alien life form would have to understand what oxygen is and does even if they don't use oxygen for respiration like our mammalian warm-blooded bodies do.

There are implicit ways to convey information using known frequencies that have special properties that other intelligent alien civilizations would also recognize.  Say you take an educated guess that an alien civilization can see just like we can see.  Then you can transmit high-definition pictures to them by simply sending them a string of pixels where the total number of pixels is the product of two large prime numbers.  I think that was mentioned in the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan.

So even with radical differences, there might be more in common than you think.  "Might" being the key word.

SS

Matt,

Quote

This is somewhat of an iterative question.  At certain phases of research I may not care how something works, only that it does work.

Anybody that plays with pulse motors or coils in general should understand where the high-voltage spikes come from as part of a general understanding of how coils work.  And I know it can be a challenge and in many cases people work on the bench for years without understanding them.

Quote

This isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you can reproduce it.  For instance, I can make steam from water without having to know the intercut details involved in the process and yet use the steam to produce intended results.  However, if I wanted to improve the conversion rate of water to steam while minimizing energy input, then yes, I better brush-up on those details to a level beyond conventional science.  Knowing I can reduce the atmospheric pressure would be a very useful piece of information.

But it's much better to understand what steam fundamentally is and to visualize the jiggling molecules of hot water all together in a mosh pit vs. the molecules of water that "launch" and "join the steam frenzy."  Or like when you take a can of compressed air and blow out the inside of your PC and feel how cold the can gets in your hand.  At a certain point in your experimenting with this stuff you MUST understand why the can gets cold because if you don't then you will never progress past a certain point.

Quote

It's entirely possible Russ' JWN motor is teetering on the edge of scale and by him building a larger prototype the results he seeks would be blazingly obvious.

That's a classic hope but I can tell you from a normal perspective there is no rational reason for that to be the case.  Now, do the copper atoms become more amenable to "sublimating" into electrical energy (?) when the coil is larger?  If you believe that then you need to develop a test for that theory and then report back the results of your testing.

SS

Quote

Nobody knew why the current and energy consumption of a pulsing coil went down when it pushed away a magnet, something that you see in nearly every motor in the pulse motor build off.

SS

That's quite a leap of assumption that none the builders of pulse motor did not know this. Most builders probably did know.
This is not a particular glaring or obvious error. Followed by a long discourse on proving their knowledge.

Probably most of us did know the conventional explanation. We are looking in to the anomalies that are not given a good understandable conventional explanation. In general we are working where our knowledge and experience takes us.

 



     

Quote from Matt Watts on February 18th, 2018, 04:34 PM

For fun, I have to take a shot at this:

A field is a volume of space.  Period.  It's that simple.  Logically the word "field" and "volume" can be interchanged.

The word placed in front of the word "field" is the attribute of interest within the volume of space of interest.  The generic term "field" implies all attributes are considered.

A magnetic field is the magnetic attribute within the field of interest.

I'm not 100% certain, but pretty sure the magnetic field is the curl of spin within the field of interest, a lot of spin, scattered all throughout space and matter.  I would go so far as to say all volumes of space have spin, that's a given whether we focus specifically on that attribute or not.



See, we look at these words wrong and it screws up our logical ways of thinking.  We say an energized solenoid coil produces a magnetic field.  Wrong.   The magnetic attribute (curl of spin) is already defined within the field, the volume of space we are interested in.  All the solenoid coil does is alter the already existent magnetic attributes.

Now my question:

Is my answer above enough of a description to be useful in some way?

Yes,  its a start, 

Second qustion, 

Dose this feild have inertia?
If yes,  where dose it come from? 

Third question. 

 I see it has velocity according to your post,  so the qustion is,  what volicity is it? 

Forth question , 

If you have a verry long wire,  (800 feet)  and you put some current through it, 

Dose it produce a magnetic feild around it That has volicity and inertia?

If yes,  if that 800 foot of wire is now coiled up, and the same amount of current is applied:

Dose the magnetic feild have the same amount of volicity and inertia,  more volicity and inertia, or less volicity and inertia? 

If more,  where did that come from? 
If less, ... How come, 
If same...  Explain why. 

Simple qustions,  they should have simple answers... 

~Russ

Talisman,

Quote

That's quite a leap of assumption that none the builders of pulse motor did not know this. Most builders probably did know.
This is not a particular glaring or obvious error. Followed by a long discourse on proving their knowledge.

Probably most of us did know the conventional explanation. We are looking in to the anomalies that are not given a good understandable conventional explanation. In general we are working where our knowledge and experience takes us.

To me it looks like nobody knew it and it's a reasonable assumption.  I left the discussion open for a few days to see if people would try to bounce ideas off of each other and there was next to nothing discussed.  It wasn't a "long discourse to prove my knowledge," that just resentment showing.  It was some good solid information about the energy dynamics taking place in a pulse motor because that is what we are here for.  And like I said, this is directly applicable to a Newman motor.  How are you supposed to know if there are any energy anomalies if you don't understand the basic energy mechanisms at play in the first place?

If you want to go back to discussing all sorts of theories and abstractions about energy and quantum physics and the plasma universe by all means go ahead.  For me, I am interested in the motor and to see what testing and measurements are made on it to see how it ticks and to see if anything unusual is going on.

SS

SS, 
This entire thred we have been testing Newmans prencibles. 

Qustion,  you asked for somthing,  I spent the time. Giving it to you,  did you read it? 

Here ;

http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3128.msg48274#msg48274

Your and honist guy, yes or no?

~Russ

Russ,

No, I haven't read Newman's book.  It's long and it's horrible trying to read the pictures of an open book.  I am slowly going through your document for now.

Quote

This entire thred we have been testing Newmans prencibles.

Well, when you do a test why don't you state the principle that you are testing and what results you are hoping to get and compare that with your actual results?  It's just a question of writing out three or four sentences describing the principle.

The central test so far has been a special commutator timing and you have experimented with different dwell angles and checked the RPM.  What Newman principles are in play here and what are the expected results and how do you feel about the actual results?

From what I can see without reading the book, the fire cycle gives the rotor a push.  The blank cycle cases a plasma burn or possibly a burn and a ring-down.  Then if there is any energy left in the big coil after the plasma burn the shorting cycle then gives the rotor another push.  So if I am about right here, according to Newman what is supposed to happen here?  Are you seeing anything similar to what he is describing?

SS

The link I gave  you is not the book,  you asked for "the short version" so thsts what I gave you.  See the attachments on that post.

http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3128.msg48274#msg48274

~Russ

PS,  I'll be happy to answer your other qustions after you look over the data I provided . 

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 18th, 2018, 10:14 PM

No, I haven't read Newman's book.

Why not read the source documentation?

Quote from ~Russ on February 18th, 2018, 08:45 PM

Dose this feild have inertia?

Does the magnetic attribute within a volume of space have inertia?

Yes it does.

Quote from ~Russ on February 18th, 2018, 08:45 PM

If yes,  where dose it come from?

What did I say previously?  I stated that all volumes of space have spin.  Spin is the fundamental concept of inertia--things in motion tend to stay in motion.  The curl of spin (the magnetic field) is a derivation of spin itself.  So if spin retains inertia, guess what?  It's extremely likely any derivation of that particular attribute also consists or is directly related to the property of inertia.

Quote from ~Russ on February 18th, 2018, 08:45 PM

I see it has velocity according to your post,  so the qustion is,  what volicity is it?

Velocity implies a distance travelled over a period of time.  We can deduce an instantaneous velocity, however this is still sums or averages of very tiny slices of time.

In the case of spin, we only have a distance travelled if we assume we have some radius that would give us some circumference.  What if we have no radius, then what?  Where is the distance?  How would we then calculate a velocity?

No, velocity is not a factor here.  "V' is in reference to volume, the vector field.  The volume of interest would be any place where there is spin.  That's a big box and I wouldn't make too many attempts trying to think outside of it.

Quote from ~Russ on February 18th, 2018, 08:45 PM

If you have a verry long wire,  (800 feet)  and you put some current through it, 

Dose it produce a magnetic feild around it That has volicity and inertia?

Gotcha!  You fell right into the trap.  You assume this piece of wire produces a magnetic field.  It does not.  It alters the spin in such a way where the majority of the alteration can be seen by looking at the curl of spin.

I want you to keep in mind there are two other very important attributes within any particular volume of space.  There is the spin itself, the gradient of spin and the divergence of spin.  The curl of spin is what we have already touched on, making the three essential attributes, all derivations from spin.

Think of spin as infinitely long rotating threads having no radius.  The entire universe jam packed with these threads going every which-where, rotating at different rates, filling all voids.  A spin field.  An actual subatomic fabric that permeates all the universe.  These are Newman's gyroscopic particles or gyrotrons.  They are not points however, instead vectors.  And where these vectors intersect or collide is where the action happens--those are the points.  Think of them rubbing as they rotate and collide at different angles.

Quote from ~Russ on February 18th, 2018, 08:45 PM

If yes,  if that 800 foot of wire is now coiled up, and the same amount of current is applied:

By coiling up the wire and injecting a current source (also contained within your volume of interest), you have significantly altered the dynamics within that region of space.

Can I detail every single attribute you have changed and how it changed?  Probably not, but with an accurate 3D model showing what the curl of spin looks like before and after, I think you'd see enough to be convinced.

Quote from ~Russ on February 18th, 2018, 08:45 PM

Dose the magnetic feild have the same amount of volicity and inertia,  more volicity and inertia, or less volicity and inertia?

Let's just think about what we have done to the spin within that volume of interest.  Before the wire, coil and energy source was placed in that space, we had a fairly homogenous distribution of spin--no real pattern to speak of, call it white noise for all practical purposes.

We place all the components in that space and still things are fairly homogenous.  When we apply the current source, that's when things get altered significantly.  We don't have more or less total spin, but we do now have patterns forming.  The spin angles are no longer in a dormant, neutral, random position.  The electrical current has forced them to a new position.  What does this mean big picture wise?

It means this volume of space is actively engaging everything in the universe having spin axis vectors going through this volume of space.  That's a big deal.  Your coil isn't operating on an island, it's connected to the entire universe.  So do you suppose the universe is just going to let this coil do whatever it wants to?  Probably not.  The coil is only going to be allowed to do what the universe agrees to let it do--it's part of the same fabric.  And walking right in the door comes things like the speed of light, inertia, etc.

Quote from ~Russ on February 18th, 2018, 08:45 PM

Simple qustions,  they should have simple answers...

Simple enough yes, but the concepts are huge.

SS

Quote

To me it looks like nobody knew it and it's a reasonable assumption.  I left the discussion open for a few days to see if people would try to bounce ideas off of each other and there was next to nothing discussed.

"the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" more so when dealing with people. Not unlike the saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I prefer to question the rationality of concepts rather than people because reality was never dependent on people. As Socrates said "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people". Thus an idea or concept should be able to stand on it's own two feet and presented in such a way that it becomes self-evident to those involved and no one should need to be convinced of anything.

As you implied this is why experiment and the methods involved in experiment are so important. Which relates to the fact that what we think we are seeing as an observation is seldom if ever what is actually happening because tangible matter is only 1% matter and 99% EM fields. As if to say did the apple move?, well yes it did move however the apple is an aggregate of trillions of particle/fields in itself like a cloud thus we could never determine the infinite number of possible ways it moves within itself. In affect what we see is superficial at best because I could vaporize the apple with a plasma, contain it within a magnetic field, constrain it with electrostatic forces and shoot the supposed apple out into space as a particle beam. Which begs the question... what is an apple in reality and how many possible ways are there for it to move?.

Our perceived reality is a quagmire any way we look at it and I'm not even sure there is a right answer...there are only concepts and how we validate and apply them as individuals.

Onepower,

Actually I am going to say that it looks to me like it's pretty certain that nobody knew how to do the power analysis of the coil pulsing the neo magnet and that's just the way it is.  The absence of evidence sometimes really does mean there is evidence of absence.  That's nothing to be shy about, I can't discuss QED and I have no qualms about stating that.  Note we are here to talk about the energy dynamics of a pulse motor.

Yes, reality is subjective and we can't see the infrared or the ultraviolet.  But using our heads and eyes and ears and our instruments we can definitively state how a pulse motor operates and how it's performance measures up to the claims made about it.  There are no dancing angels on the head of a pin here, it's either going to work as claimed or not.

I organized a folder with some shorter and more manageable documents to read through and will take it from there.

SS

Matt,

Quote

You assume this piece of wire produces a magnetic field.  It does not.

In reality there is a magnetic field around an 800-foot length of straight wire.  We are talking tangible real stuff here, what you actually see at your macro level of existence.

In fact there is a law called the Biot-Savart Law that covers this very issue.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/Biosav.html

With the beauty of calculus you can calculate the magnetic field from an infinitely long current-carrying wire.  You slice the wire into tiny slices like slices of baloney and calculate the magnetic field produced by a single slice.  Then you integrate the contributions from all of the slices together to get the magnetic field at any point in space.  Ultimately you reduce the slice thickness until it is infinitely thin and add up an infinity of slices to get your answer.  And then the real magic is after all that work you get a simple formula as the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TFen0yaChc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G0SD2G6MOw

SS

SS

Quote

Actually I am going to say that it looks to me like it's pretty certain that nobody knew how to do the power analysis of the coil pulsing the neo magnet and that's just the way it is.

That's the wonderful thing about reality and you like everyone else can believe whatever you want however as we all know that does not make it any more true in reality. You seem to be jumping to conclusions before you have any real facts.

Quote

Yes, reality is subjective and we can't see the infrared or the ultraviolet.  But using our heads and eyes and ears and our instruments we can definitively state how a pulse motor operates and how it's performance measures up to the claims made about it.  There are no dancing angels on the head of a pin here, it's either going to work as claimed or not.

I would agree however a pulse motor is obviously not every pulse motor ever designed and built and when we assume they must all act the same we do no service to science. Calculations and theory can never replace real hands on experiments to prove something one way or another. Not to mention the fact that most of the greatest discoveries in science were made by accident while performing real experiments.

I find it a little strange that you seem to be trying very hard to convince everyone it cannot work before they have even finished the experiments and compiled the data... very unscientific in my opinion.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 20th, 2018, 06:50 AM

In reality there is a magnetic field around an 800-foot length of straight wire.  We are talking tangible real stuff here, what you actually see at your macro level of existence.

Squeeze, for as long as you continue to maintain the perspective of inside out instead of outside in, you'll never comprehend what I'm trying to describe.  It appears it is impossible for you to imagine the actions you take are governed by something external, that you exist in a tiny fragment of an infinite fabric.  You can't understand it, reason with it or control it, hence you turn inward.  I get it.  I know a lot of people that are in the same boat, people that never consider the speed of light is mutable or that energy can be borrowed, put to work and returned when finished.  It's okay Squeeze, it's not the end of the world.  It's just something you will have to accept and maybe some day learn from.  You and I think differently, that's fine.  I think the way I do because I feel it gives me an advantage, an advantage I didn't have when I use to think the same way as you.  I could be totally incorrect and that will be my problem, not yours.  In the meantime, you don't need to preach to me from your perspective.  I've been there and done that.  It all makes perfect sense, only it's a dead-end for where I want to go.

Matt

Well said and I believe it was SS who implied a spark gap is just like a resistor which simply dissipates energy. I mean it sounds reasonable enough on the surface doesn't it?. However a google search on "plasma discharge abnormalities" shows 18,400,000 results and many are peer reviewed papers written by the most intelligent people on the planet. Then we have "pulsed plasma abnormalities" at 29,900,000 hits and the list goes on and on.

So we have a choice... do we believe people who talk like the average electrician or do we believe millions of the most intelligent people on this planet who have devoted their life to science and finding real answers?.  I think the choice is obvious and as the old saying goes... it's hard to fly like an eagle when your surrounded by buzzards. Thus if we want to make real progress we should be listening to and learning from the best sources actually making real progress by performing cutting edge experiments. As another old saying goes... you can't change the future by living in the past.

Refine your google search to simply "Ken Shoulders", "Exotic Vacuum Objects", or "Charge Clusters".  Fun stuff.  Think about the dead-end Mr. Tesla would have run into if he would have used MOSFETs instead of spark gaps.  Why would Mr. Steinmetz even bother to write a book about transient phenomena?  Maybe it's a clue...