If john is right and this is the right path you should get trapped ions also in the field and these will be ionized protons.As we would strip particles entering the field of there electrons they could in the extreme omit radiation burst...
That's if we were pulling energy from the plasma....
How deep is the rabbit hole and how far down do you want to go.

Quote from sonnet on January 22nd, 2018, 03:38 PM

How deep is the rabbit hole and how far down do you want to go.

Until all the puzzle pieces fit together.

John needs to give us more proof of a Dark mode of plasma, because his hypothesis falls flatish if we don't have plasma all around us. i.e. its state is not meant to exist on the earths surface in natural form of ions and electrons.
I see the existence of glow discharge and arc's are obvious. but we have no plasma other than some arcing on the commutator, no plasma around the magnetic field of the coil. right...and we know all  the power doesn't come from the commutator sparks...
glow discharge and arc plasma modes are excited by charge into existence, where and what is sustaining the dark mode john..
Or do we have to accept it as a given.
and remember i'm on your side....don't be frustrated with me not accepting blindly..If I can you...then do so yourself with newman and russ's document which I hope you read...?

I believe you are going to tell me its the plasma from the sun?

off topic... anyone noticed the post not incrementing under each members avatar?? my pc I think..sorry

Oh yeah.  Ok on that reminder,  I would like critical feed back on my DOC from. John. 

Also.  Plasma.  I tent to agree with a lot of what john is saying from my conclusions before I read newmans book.  So I feel its a good direction to think in.  However the bench will guide us... 

Here was some of the tests today.  Theses are fundamental... 

BACK TO THE BASICS!!!

The bench will tell the truth..

It feels completely counter inductive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMi1KlvmJ4o

Data Here
~Russ

I made a small coil 9mm in diameter and 10mm long of number 46.5 awg magnet wire and passed it sideways over a magnet.
duplication of Russ's experiment. see scope shot.

Sonnet

Quote

I see the existence of glow discharge and arc's are obvious. but we have no plasma other than some arcing on the commutator, no plasma around the magnetic field of the coil. right...and we know all  the power doesn't come from the commutator sparks...

What we think we see is seldom true to reality hence the need for logic, reason and a little critical thinking. We should also understand our supposed objective thinking is always subjective in it's nature because we are people and we are inherently subjective and biased. Why do you think all those objective scientists with all the supposed facts cannot seem to agree on anything?. To err and disagree is human.

Quote

glow discharge and arc plasma modes are excited by charge into existence, where and what is sustaining the dark mode john..

Are you sure?, nature is dominated by unity diverging as equal and opposite conditions or duality only to converge as unity again in endless cycles. Therefore there is a range of possibilities... 1) The universe is empty and the plasma you think you see is created by excitation or 2) The universe is full of plasma and the supposed excitation you thought you were seeing was actually negation... (the absence or opposite of something actual or positive). Which begs the question how would you know?... well you wouldn't unless you thought about it.

If you saw an air bubble at the bottom of a lake...would you conclude the bubble is a lack of water or that the lake is a lack of air?.

Quote from Magneton on January 22nd, 2018, 09:58 PM

I made a small coil 9mm in diameter and 10mm long of number 46.5 awg magnet wire and passed it sideways over a magnet.
duplication of Russ's experiment. see scope shot.

nice scope shot even if we do need to stand on our heads to read it,,,, lol

Quote from onepower on January 22nd, 2018, 10:10 PM

If you saw an air bubble at the bottom of a lake...would you conclude the bubble is a lack of water or that the lake is a lack of air?.

if there is one thing i have learned over the last 4 years with QGR is that it all comes back to perspective.

perspective leads to understanding. and how much.

A long equation with symbols is meaning less to me... but to a math wiz it means the world...

same thing with Feynman diagrams... there worthless to most of the world, but to physics... there everything...

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ on November 10th, 2017, 01:48 PM

subject to change

charge , ( activate the alignment, dont let the current get through the circuit)
capture, ( The instant change and voltage spike, charge battery)
dump ( use the current to run the rotor, delay by shorting)

~Russ

Just a good reminder...

Funny how time can change your perspective   even when you already had the answers...

~Russ

Quote

Are you sure?, nature is dominated by unity diverging as equal and opposite conditions or duality only to converge as unity again in endless cycles.

Yes sure in what I asked, in nature no if we include the universe....
Here on Earth ionized air is totally record-able. That is if we are walking around in a sea of ionized air....Dark mode we would know about it.
I'm saying that any ionized air here on Earth surface were we are and for that matter the coil...has been created and is a localized area, not a sea of plasma.
The energy expended to create the plasma is more likely to be drawing its energy flow from the source. water doesn't run up hill scenario. So if the plasma is giving (i.e. from the source) of the energy then we have a limited supply....I agree the energy is transferred through the plasma.
but how does this work with newmans coil...?
I'm not proposing I'm right, I want to evoke thinking and a solution, I chose the name sonnet for a meaning.

Quote

Are you sure?, nature is dominated by unity diverging as equal and opposite conditions or duality only to converge as unity again in endless cycles. Therefore there is a range of possibilities... 1) The universe is empty and the plasma you think you see is created by excitation or 2) The universe is full of plasma and the supposed excitation you thought you were seeing was actually negation... (the absence or opposite of something actual or positive). Which begs the question how would you know?... well you wouldn't unless you thought about it.

Plasma exists everywhere in the universe were a high energy state exists. I'm seeing that in my minds eye...once that energy level has reduced I cant see it still existing unless created by something changing the potential and when it does that, the change is observable...
with Dark mode on earth surface I can measure that plasma is or is not there or at least the conditions for it, unless your saying plasma exists in less of a ionized mixture than we believe...

ok...at the risk of answering my own question....are you saying our coils magnetic field ionizes the air enough to allow Dark plasma to allow the flow of energy from the  universe...into our coil through the electrons in the magnetic field.

@russ
Freaky goings on when you left the room....
pendulum swing stops and restarts....lol tell me this is cam sync.

https://youtu.be/BMi1KlvmJ4o?t=4816
1 20:36

Quote from PeakPositive on January 22nd, 2018, 10:17 PM

nice scope shot even if we do need to stand on our heads to read it,,,, lol

oops  1AM messed with my head I guess
I turned it over on my computer but it still posts upside down.
I don't know how to fix it... lol

There is another problem with the old E=MC^2.

The Rochester University device creates negative mass.

That would be a -E and implies the negative speed of light.

Would the negative energy be a force (seems so).

Is the negative speed of light merely a vector direction or part of the energy matter manifest?

   

The

REPORT OF TESTS ON JOSEPH NEWMAN'S
DEVICE

National Bureau of Standards
National Engineering Laboratory

Will have to check if this report was peer reviewed.

It says:

Quote

4.6 Direction of Power Flow

The sign of the measured input power indicated that the battery pack was
supplying net power to the device or, equivalently, that the device was not
charging the battery pack. That is to say, power was flowing from the battery
to the device -under -test and not from the device -under -test to the battery..
To demonstrate that the signs were correct, a nominal 1-megohm resistor was
placed in parallel with the device -under -test and the appropriate commutator
brush was lifted so that no power was able to flow into the device. In this
configuration the power was clearly flowing from the battery to the resistor
and the measured polarity of the power flow was the same as it was when the
battery powered the device -under- test

The net power flow is given and these were not generally rechargeable.

But what about when the total power drawn and measured is more in a
feedback loop circuit than can be drawn without?

The reasonable answer is that power can flow both ways to some extent regardless of the sign 
nomenclature the report was overly preoccupied with.

A big oversight and the measured electrical output conclusion was not greater.

Regardless of the electrical measuring devices physical watts cannot be disproved!

keep is simple silly (KISS) or "DOHH"

understanding the patent application where it says "related by continuation"
Also I was wondering if anyone had copies of any of the below patent applications?

CONTINUATION APPLICATIONS
Continuation applications involve filing a patent application based on an earlier filed patent application wherein there is no new disclosure, but which may contain different claims. The most common situation where this occurs is when an applicant is having some difficulty in prosecuting the original claims because the examiner keeps rejecting them. Generally an applicant gets one chance to amend the original claims and if that is unsuccessful, the applicant must appeal the examiner’s rejection to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The board is a panel of three supervisory patent examiners who will take a fresh look at the case. For many practical and strategic reasons, one may want to avoid appealing the case to the board. This is where the continuation application finds its most prevalent use.

CONTINUATION-IN-PART APPLICATIONS
Continuation-in-Part applications are used in the situation mentioned previously where, after the original application is filed, a new improvement is conceived or developed. The CIP thus consists of the originally filed and claimed invention and the newly disclosed and claimed invention. The originally filed material carries a first-priority date but the newly disclosed material has a priority date that corresponds to the date of filing of the CIP. It is crucial to remember that a CIP can only be filed based on a pending application. That is, once the original application is issued, CIPs cannot be filed claiming the benefit of the originally filed patent application which has material into the issued patent.

The notion of copper atoms kind of sublimating into energy via E=Mc^2 is problematic.  I am no expert at this but I do know that in both nuclear fusion and nuclear fission after the reaction only a tiny tiny smidgen of mass is converted into energy.  The total mass before and after the nuclear reaction is almost the same and the number of protons, electrons and neutrons remains the same.  I am not sure about the other nuclear zoo particles.  You get EM radiation and high-energy neutrons and stuff like that which represent the energy output from the nuclear reaction.  This is completely different than the implicit suggestion that copper atoms somehow dissolve or sublimate into pure energy. (What form?)

Or perhaps there is a proposed nuclear reaction and the copper somehow disintegrates into other elements with a lower atomic number and EM radiation and/or high-energy neutrons?  I haven't looked it up but I somehow doubt it.  I read that there are two stable isotopes of the copper atom and when they say "stable" you are talking billions or trillions of years for the half-life.  Then there are artificially created radioactive isotopes of copper that last just a few microseconds.  I think there may have been one artificial isotope with a half-life of a few hours.

Quote

The notion of copper atoms kind of sublimating into energy via E=Mc^2 is problematic.

Absolutely SS... The mass of elementary particles will not breakdown.(we cant break them down)..the best you can hope to achieve is to take out the energy that binds them..
Your neutrons can be broken down into proton and electron and anti electron neutrino I think. and energy can be taken from the proton but the quarks will have a strong binding...
So your main loses are the energy levels but as the formula e=mc² tells us they are the same thing then if you are losing energy you are by definition losing mass.

But energy can be taken and I believe that the energy is transferred via the electron.
Those rabbit holes are springing up everywhere now. lol...find a answer to total annihilation and your be up there with the best of them SS.

Newman loved Einstine's equation E=Mc^2. It was an easy way for him to explain where his energy came from. Most people could not refute or argue with such a statement.  You can burn wood in an oxygen starved chamber and get big lumps of charcoal or you can burn it in a rocket stove and get almost nothing left. Maybe it just makes nickel from the copper. We don't yet know all the things that are possible.

SS will have a problem when thinking about loss of mass if he see's energy as something separate from mass.
They are the same thing in different states yet existing within each other.
bad example but i'll use it...
water = ice below 0^oC
so if we get rid of water will we have only ice left...
and to show that with energy

If we get rid of mass will we have just energy...
no you need both complete transformation makes no sense.
apologies if this just confuses you more...

Quote

The notion of copper atoms kind of sublimating into energy via E=Mc^2 is problematic.

William Alec has written articles on cupric pairs. His bike transformer uses this theory.

Here he expands on E=MC^2 and the idea of negative mass.

http://auroratek.us/SCIENCE.html

 

Here is the answer to making a genarator and a motor...

We need a loop to make a feild and alight the magent. (Make torque) 

But we want the magent to react only as a single wire pass... Not a loop (Induction in only one direction)

So simple...

After that is back to the deep thoughts of inertia.  And how that works with electricity and magnetisum. 


~Russ

PS.  If your confused...  Wensday video will explain it clearly.