Please don't move the post it is very relevant to your investigation as well as mine.
 Ask questions and I'll try to answer them for you.
 By the way I was looking into the newman motor myself but the amount of copper you need makes it a no go for people who can not afford such an endeavor.

I think Newman had the wrong approach which is why he failed miserably. You do not convince people their beliefs are misguided you show them with a device powering your house. Then you have another person build one to power their house and pretty soon you have proven the technology can be reproduced. This running around trying to convince other people something works is a lesson in stupidity in my opinion because seeing is believing.

This is where Newman failed and if he actually knew how it worked and understood it then he should have had no problem building any number of working devices to prove it conclusively. Look at Kapanadze... 100 KW in your face and nobody in that room had any doubts it did not work, that's how you do it.

Yeapers onepower.  He had it right, but brought it into the world wrong.  He needed to plant the seed and lead by example.  In ten years it would have grown on its own, when people were ready.  Nothing more powerful than a concept whose time has come.

Russ will deliver the goods and in the meantime I'll work on comprehending the concept, because I still believe the concept can be extremely optimized and scaled (up or down) in ways we can only imagine.  The method of conversion and the rate of conversion is all we need to understand.  From there the sky is the limit.

I say it is to easy to be the judge after the fact.When your living your life and inventing somthing that has never been done before and dedicating all your life  and income to that which could help all people.It may not be so clear what the right way to do it at the time it is happening. He made his decisions with the information that he had at that time in his life.Utimately his invention did get to the open source platform. Here we are with it ,lets take it to the next step as it is meant to be.

Matt

Quote

Yeapers onepower.  He had it right, but brought it into the world wrong.  He needed to plant the seed and lead by example.  In ten years it would have grown on its own, when people were ready.  Nothing more powerful than a concept whose time has come.

In my opinion you cannot get it right and then fail because these are contradictory terms. As well if he had the technology and he did get it right then why all the ridiculous and almost meaningless demonstrations?. I say if your going to demonstrate something then demonstrate it in a professional and transparent way which leaves no room for doubt. After watching the video's I would say Neman acted immature, confrontational, rude, confused and he couldn't even explain the working principal of his own device without ranting off on some tangent.

The fact is he failed, period, because nobody has or is using the technology we know of. Now our job is to pick up the pieces of what he could not finish and present it in an open and professional manner which has meaning. I'm just saying we can't continue to make the same mistakes and do the same things and then expect a different result. So we should understand why he failed and not repeat the same mistakes.

Personally I believe he did have something and then he dropped the ball big time.

He dropped nothing.  Watch the video I posted as a refresher. 

He HAD to get a patent or else the big boys don't play. 

He was neglected the patent...  After fighting for 6+ years and allmost all his money spent...  (And the judges own pick of a "special master" who clearly stated It works and still did not give the patent) 

He filed bankruptcy...  To save what he had left. 

If you,  or anyone went through what he did...  We would have a verry hard time not to fall..  He never really failed.  He was angary..  As you would too.  And that is a desaster in anyone's eyes...

Yet today..  We have what we need to get this done...  And we owe all of it to newmans doings... 

Let's quite judging and start working... 

~Russ

Russ

Quote

If you,  or anyone went through what he did...  We would have a verry hard time not to fall..  He never really failed.  He was angary..  As you would too.  And that is a desaster in anyone's eyes...
Yet today..  We have what we need to get this done...  And we owe all of it to newmans doings...

I would agree he had an uphill battle but we all do and what defines us is how we react to it. If I was in his shoes and the patent and investors failed I wouldn't do some absurd carnival road show I would build it and sell it. If the secret got out so what?.... I still win because that was the whole point wasn't it?. Hell I would be laughing my azz off if my technology went global because it would save me a lot of time and effort. So let's be perfectly clear that he didn't really need a patent and he didn't need investors... he wanted a big pay day.

Newman was talking about a minimum 100 million dollar investment and mansions and yacht's and all the BS that goes with it. So let's be honest that he was no saint in any sense of the word and for him it was ultimately all about money not helping people. The facts speak for themselves.

You can't say I want to help humanity because I love them and I'm a saint but if I don't get 100 million all of them can rot... that's BS.

Yeah yeah.

I know there was some thoughts there...  However he turned down endless checks becuse they wouldn't produce anything with it..  Insted they wanted to bury it... So yes.. I feel over all he was trying to make the right choice. He may or may not had some flaws.  We werent in his shoes.  And will never know..

So back to the same point I had before. Let's quite judging and get to work...

Look here. This is what I was trying to explain. 

A feild indeed has mass... 

https://youtu.be/2EkHB_WtKRQ

In the from of inertial mass...  Glad a physics guy  agrees...  By the way i have been watching his videos for a while now.  There good stuff...

So there you go. Some helpfull info we can apply to fields. There not "mass less". Anyone also see this to be true?

~Russ

Russ

Quote

I know there was some thoughts there...  However he turned down endless checks becuse they wouldn't produce anything with it..  Insted they wanted to bury it... So yes.. I feel over all he was trying to make the right choice. He may or may not had some flaws.  We werent in his shoes.  And will never know..

Sorry for the rant, I just thought we should understand the nature of the problems we face. It hard just building and even harder to get something working of value and apparently that's just the beginning.

Quote

So there you go. Some helpfull info we can apply to fields. There not "mass less". Anyone also see this to be true?

So far as we know all fields originate from what we call mass and if there were no mass then there would be no fields. In fact 99% of a mass is composed of fields with the remaining 1%  supposedly being the tangible mass or particle. As well so far as we know this mass carries it's field with it and all external forces never act directly on the mass itself but it's field.

So what does all this gibberish mean?, the mass is not a gateway to understanding or learning anything new... the field is. So when you understand what the field is and why it is you get everything you have been looking for. Mass is an illusion the field is real, it makes up 99% of everything.

If you want a good lesson in nature and the missing pieces google , "cymatics in water" or cymascope. You see the cymatic patterns in water emerge solely because of a change in density and it's all the same water. It just appears to be something else even though it isn't because of the changes in density and the relationship between these changes in density. It is not many different things it is many different conditions of one thing...fields.

http://www.cymascope.com/
https://www.secretenergy.com/illustrations/mathematics/cymatics/

As in the same era of Newman, Meyer had it right to patent the method of operation. Meyer does not make a claim of "more energy out than in." Obviously, Newman had to prove that claim, and then anger ensued.

Newman's contained anger could have not manifest if he would've known how to get a patent cleverly through, like Meyer did.

Quote

The fact is he failed, period, because nobody has or is using the technology we know of.

I wouldn't say that was entirely true. Sometimes these units were built by people who didn't understand what was happening, but could follow the plans enough to build a working unit....through learning and building they got to understand, but how would they explain it to others? That's the dilemma. Would others listen especially electronic wizards who thought they already knew everything. Sit back enjoy the ride....carry on Russ.

The obvious is that here is only one kind of mass and that is inertial mass.
The force of gravity is caused by inertial mass. If in relation to a planet
we have inertia at our desk and gravity due to the nearness of the mass
and acceleration of the earth.   

We should ask the question based on the mass.
The pound of feathers and the 10000 pounds of iron fell at the same rate.
The accelerative force of mass time acceleration should then by logic be equal to gravitational force on the objects if the above is true.
The force or energy quality the (sum of potential and kinetic) by logic of the mass of an object is unequal in our 10000 pound of iron and one
pound of feathers. This then could be reasoned by extension to be the mass energy density of an object.
They are unequal by mass energy density by this line of thinking the weight needs more force of energy to lift the iron object.
 

talisman

Quote

We should ask the question based on the mass.
The pound of feathers and the 10000 pounds of iron fell at the same rate.
The accelerative force of mass time acceleration should then by logic be equal to gravitational force on the objects if the above is true.

The mistake most people make is by judging everything from a simplistic and superficial point of view. They see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe despite the facts. The concept of Gravity is very easy... the pound of feathers and the 10000 pounds of iron fall at the same rate because they are made of exactly the same stuff which is supposedly Protons, Electrons and Neutrons. As well the fact that everything is made of exactly the same stuff and Gravity only acts on this stuff directly and not superficial objects dictates that there is literally no difference between feathers and iron other than our very much false perceptions and basic geometry.

It's like saying a car made of apples is different than a house made of apples when it's all made of exactly the same stuff... which is apples. The real question everyone needs to ask is why they always judge everything from such a superficial perspective seldom based on the actual reality of what they claim to want to understand.

The fact remains that we cannot claim to apply logic and reason based on superficial and subjective observations because there is no logic nor reason in it.

Quote

The fact remains that we cannot claim to apply logic and reason based on superficial and subjective observations because there is no logic nor reason in it.

What I find most often is false logic. If the observation is correct the logic will be correct.

The huge problem today is that people misapply logic. An Incorrect observation is a flat earth. It is correct by proportion for a few hundred yards given a margin of error. It is completely wrong for the planet taken as a whole. Yet we see the flat earth problem over and over in people that otherwise appear to act more or less normal and they are often actually given credit being expert.     

https://youtu.be/AmoKV4EQNuo

~Russ

 Something I found in my research today!

 https://physics.illinois.edu/news/article/24114

 I would read this twice to really see the important snippets here.
Holes that do not act like they are empty
Soft plasmon
Excited matter or field of excitation
Condensation of plasmon excitation field

 "Ever since the term ‘excitonium’ was coined in the 1960s by Halperin and Rice, physicists have sought to demonstrate its existence. Theorists have debated whether it would be an insulator, a perfect conductor, or a superfluid—with some convincing arguments on all sides. Since the 1970s, many experimentalists have published evidence of the existence of excitonium, but their findings weren’t definitive proof and could equally have been explained by a conventional structural phase transition.”

 "Rak recalls the moment, working in the Abbamonte laboratory, when she first understood the magnitude of these findings: “I remember Anshul being very excited about the results of our first measurements on TiSe2. We were standing at a whiteboard in the lab as he explained to me that we had just measured something that no one had seen before: a soft plasmon.”

 The fluidic nature is where we can find a gain. A focusing of that gain will net more. Learning how to concentrate or condensing this matter is the key.

 Some have inadvertently stumbled onto this but couldn't make the bridge to other areas. Who would have thought that water could be so powerful yet so subtle. Learn how to manipulate this new fluidic nature and you will need for very little.

 Plasma is a fluid. Can be electrically stimulated to condense and flow even through space. In lower densities it is considered an insulator as in the case of unexcited air but condensed becomes a superconductor capable of the fastest speeds know to nature while being stimulated or condensed from the surrounding density of plasma.

 It is the reason we see a spark. The initiator being a potential difference between two electrodes or pieces of matter. The condensing is simple but the subsequent release and harvesting has not been researched much due to the reasoning of what I can not see doesn't exist. Looking for the invisible allows us to see the swath of this invisible matter or the result of it's movement through space.

 The schlieren method might let us see this invisible density of matter better. Re-posted as a request to use this in your exploration as yet another proof of the existence of this matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tgOyU34D44&index=11&list=WL

An electron jumps the gap leaving a void.
Entropy says matter wants to reach inertia after a motion imbalance.
So the vacuum type void behind the moment of motion is at the energy transform.
It can be caused by an object in motion unbalancing inertia (in relation to some other object forms) of matter nearby.   

Well this form of plasma works with fields. In the particular example the field is of the spaces between the crystal. The Yellow areas are the condensed plasma that forms between matter. Plasma isn't the state of matter it is the state of the medium that matter floats in. Matter is only an anchor to this fluidic medium and a way to condense more plasma to be released back out.
 In condensed form this plasma acts like a super-fluid and superconductor as I stated earlier. With lower densities acting like a non conducting or dielectric medium. This is the reason we see sparks. Condense enough plasma between two points in space and it will conduct at some point causing a discharge between the two points.

 Although I doubt the shlieren method will show all of the events happening in this field it might show us enough to understand how to take advantage of this condensation of the medium of space or plasma in the field of space.

 Right now this is the best i can do to show a spark under the method I described.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR0okjbdQ-U

A medium or field in my view is matter it only has differing mass density energy characteristics

 Well we get into density as the resultant descriptor. The problem I see is this. How low can the density go and what is that density comprised of? Matter In my concept is but a density change in the medium. But what is this medium persay... It is all matter being solid and semi solid across this universe or is there something else. A duality of matter and the displaced reflection of that matter?
 I believe and have come to prove to myself that space is filled with a conductor that is very dynamic. It follows fluidic laws to traverse the distance between two pieces of gross matter and form a connection to one another. Now is the conductor matter based? I don't know that answer. Maybe it should be best to pose the question are scales of matter the real form of matter. Imagine how small those pieces of matter have to be to reside around a larger form of matter we call the atom... They are too small for us to see yet something seems to exert a force that allow the double layers to form that we call electron shells. How far down do these scales reach before we can just accept the fact that going to that scale is pointless?
 Right now it is my opinion that we only need to figure out what induction is and how to visualize it to look for advantages. Going any further would be pointless and unnecessary to look for a gain option.

 We have to use the right tools though and since we know that electrical stimulus in the free air allows the air to move. We can see this movement with the above method. Lets start using the new tools that are being discovered to really nail this down.

My first at day on the job...

Spool done... 

Need to glue it still though.

PS...  Mesure 2x cut1x...  This was the second pipe... 


~Russ

Very useful info...

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/ECE562/98lectures/l25.pdf

"Reluctance
, the reciprocal of permeance, is analogous to
resistance in an electrical circuit.  (Don’t push this analogy too far -
reluctance is an energy storage element, whereas resistance is a
dissipative element)  Reluctance and permeance can be defined
for the entire magnetic device as seen from the electrical
terminals, but it is most useful to define the reluctance of specific
elements/ regions within the device.  This enables the construction
of a reluctance model - a magnetic circuit diagram
- which sheds
considerable light on the performance of the device and how to
improve it.  From the reluctance model, using a duality process, a
magnetic device can be translated into its equivalent electrical
circuit, including parasitic
inductance’s."


also READ THE MMF SECTION...

and a lot more goods...
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3145.msg47664#msg47664

~Russ

"Current flows in the path(s) that result in
8
the lowest expenditure of energy. At low frequency, this is simply
accomplished by minimizing I2R losses only. At high frequency
however, current flow also occurs in path(s) that involve inductive
energy. Now energy transfer to and from the magnetic field
generated by the AC current flow, must also be minimized.
Conservation of both resistive and inductive components causes
high frequency current to flow nearer the surface of a large
diameter wire conductor, even though this may result in much
higher I2R losses. If there are several available paths, HF current
will take the path(s) that minimize inductive energy flow."

from # 26 in the link from the last post.

once again confirming my thinking ... i think... there talking about skin effect, but i see this as currents traveling down and out the capacitance in the coil...  at a type of self Series Resonance in the RF range.... (current extraction)

~Russ

The difference is impedance is to AC for what resistance is to DC.

It is a duality function of variables. 

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/impedance