#### Piero

##### .Science history
«  »Last edited by Matt Watts
Veyi instructive speech  of Trevor Osborne ( :edit: actually David Yurth)

https://youtu.be/dUv35CPi-mQ

#### Matt Watts

##### Re: .Science history
I'll be darn.  Think I may have just discovered the Y-Bias angle.  It's the angle between Real and Imaginary expressions of the Fibonacci sequence.

I saved it as a DXF file that I will import into Fusion 360, then measure the exact angle.  Stay tuned...
##### Re: .Science history
Hmmm...   I wonder what could be wrong here....?

I think my plot dimension are square:  X = 0 --> 50,  Y = -25 --> 25

Something's not right unless David was fibbing about the 54 to 56 degrees.  I clearly get 34.5 degrees.
##### Re: .Science history
Whoops...

90 - 34.53 =   (Drum roll please...)

55.47 degrees.
##### Re: .Science history
More and more certain David Yurth is correct.  Observe the symmetry in the Reals and asymmetry in the Imaginary.  One might call this the parity binding angle.

This Y-Bias angle is what brings the two together and our machines MUST use it to achieve our goals.

If you are curious, you can calculate floating point Fibonacci numbers:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FibonacciNumber.html

#### namirha

##### Re: .Science history
Quote from Matt Watts on April 2nd, 2018, 06:55 AM
Whoops...

90 - 34.53 =   (Drum roll please...)

55.47 degrees.
55.5

Quote from Matt Watts Today at 06:55 AM

6 3 9

#### namirha

##### Re: .Science history
Quote from Matt Watts on April 1st, 2018, 11:34 PM
I'll be darn.  Think I may have just discovered the Y-Bias angle.  It's the angle between Real and Imaginary expressions of the Fibonacci sequence.

I saved it as a DXF file that I will import into Fusion 360, then measure the exact angle.  Stay tuned...
ANGEL ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#Use_in_mathematics

GAOS2ORDER

sinUS

3000 steel balls fall through 12 levels of branching paths and always end up matching a bell curve distribution. Each ball has a 50/50 chance of following each branch such that the balls are distributed at the bottom by the mathematical binomial distribution. A wonderfully designed modern version of the Galton Box invented by Sir Francis Galton(1894) to demonstrate the Central Limit Theorem - showing how random processes gather around the mean. In addition the number of balls in each bin can be predicted by Pascal's triangle (printed on the face over the pegs). To my mind statistics seems closer to physics than pure math.

"be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:22) PHIve

Assumed normality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#Assumed_normality

Unit circle definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine#Unit_circle_definition

Orbital Mechanics
http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolate_spheroidal_coordinates

Athanasius Kircher - Physico-Mathematica, “Mundus Subterraneus”, 1665.

PHIve of GOD

Sapientia Aedificavit Sibi Domum is Latin for “Wisdom Has Built Her House.”
http://www.secretsinplainsight.com/trip-to-italy-and-france/

Rome Part 2 - Secrets in Plain Sight

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman 2017
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3128.msg49000#msg49000

Matt
Watts

MW < rrrirror > neWMan

MC2 > e

Wee Cee 2

nEwmAn

Æther

let's have a journey into the ReXxel , all sacred geometries in One

An instant powerful healing and alignment that rise your vibratory rate higher

all Platonic Solids, flower of life, tree of life
golden ratio and Solomon Seals, vector equilibrium, phi, zero point,

like you've never seen it.
An eye catching trip inside the main block of the Universe.
Explore the matter and the vacuum, and Light

The ReXxel is a new generation of sacred geometry in reliance with the grid and bridges,
as a portal to remember our original Perfection and to be in resonance with OurSelf
This animation is in pure fractal equation so far beyond premium 3D animations. Universe is fractal,
just light and mathematics powered by the infinite Intention of the Heart.

the eYe in the skY

the CROSS
http://luxoccultapress.tumblr.com/post/146076207547
X seal of solomon

Rudolf Steiner and the Founding of the New Mysteries
Sergei O. Prokofieff

Pyramids are so awesome

#### Matt Watts

##### Re: .Science history
One of his websites is still active, no content though:
http://novaiot.com/
Quote
Copyright 2017 Nova Institute of Technology
Have a bad feeling David has either gone underground or suffered some health problems.  We may be on our own from here on out.

Again, timing is everything.

##### Kohei Minato Motor
Now, lets put this Y-Bias angle to use as Mr. Kohei Minato has done.

http://www.japaninc.com/article.php?articleID=1302
Quote
Next we move to a unit with its motor connected to a generator. What we see is striking. The meters showed an input to the stator electromagnets of approximately 1.8 volts and 150mA input, and from the generator, 9.144 volts and 192mA output. 1.8 x 0.15 x 2 = 540mW input and 9.144 x 0.192 = 1.755W out.
That work for you?

Don't have the resources to build and tune such a motor?

Go to junkyard and find a late-model Toyota vehicle and pull the ventilation/blower motor out, hook it to a PMG and see if you can loop the bugger.  Or try eBay.

#### Apoc4lypse

##### Re: .Science history
Yes if someone builds a generator that can run a motor that will run faster than the generators required input speed to run that motor, you could then just link the motor back to the generator which would drive the generator faster and the motor faster looping back to spinning the generator even faster essentially putting the magnets involved inside both units in a state of slow demagnetization into electrical currents that could be tapped for energy which would in theory run until the magnets are no longer magnetized enough to run the devices or until the wires insulation's melt from it running too fast and shorting itself out.

I feel like the easiest way to accomplish this is by using a brush-less DC powered motor and a brush-less DC generator (which everywhere you go online claims DC current generation is impossible). I'm still a newb when it comes to understanding AC current though, so its probably possible with AC also.

#### Matt Watts

##### Y-Bias Flux Capacitor
Here it is...

The Y-Bias flux capacitor.  :-)

Optimal 54.75 degree tangential angle between conductors.  Insulate this puppy and pass a magnet by it--see what happens.

#### Apoc4lypse

##### Re: .Science history
Quote
The Y-Bias flux capacitor
Time to go back to the future?

I need to watch the videos in this thread still but I'm guessing this is a wire running through a coil that has a specific angle to the center wire conductor that somehow increases inductance?

#### Cycle

##### Re: .Science history
« Reply #15,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Piero on March 30th, 2018, 01:51 PM
Veyi instructive speech  of Trevor Osborne ( :edit: actually David Yurth)

https://youtu.be/dUv35CPi-mQ
Wow, this video was comical to watch. Honestly, I can't tell you how many times I guffawed out loud at the blatant half-truths, twisted timelines, conflations and outright untruths David Yurth told.

This video is a perfect example of why one should do one's own research lest one be led down the path to metaphysicalism. Just because something has been stated, that doesn't make it true. Question everything.

Any time someone mentions Descartes (as the video does in its opening paragraph), they're implying Descartes's Method of Cartesian Doubt, which are valid on their face, but generally are used by pseudoscience advocates to bolster their ideas... a form of co-opting the precursor to the scientific method and attempting to insinuate that the pseudoscientist is using the scientific method. They are not.

A plea to Descartes and his method of hyperbolic doubt is a plea to the fallibility of sensory input... in other words, the video is asking you to suspend what you know, suspend common sense, and just believe what you're being told. That's not a good start.

There is a reason we use the scientific method to mathematically model the universe... because it prevents veering off into the brambles of metaphysicalism and pseudoscience, as this video does.

The mere fact that we can mathematically model the universe (to ever-increasing levels of accuracy) shows that the universe cannot be "conscious", as Yurth is attempting to claim... consciousness implies free will, the universe simply doing whatever it wants to do... which could not be mathematically modeled.

At time 10:29, the patent he mentions isn't by Ted McGrath, it's by Terrence McGrath.

That patent has nothing to do with what the video is claiming... the words "torsion", "y-bias" nor even "bias" aren't mentioned even once in the patent. The patent is for a QFT 6D supersymmetric model of the atom, combining the Standard Model and General Relativity to provide information in real time and space on bonding, force interactions and atomic substructures within the atom (ie: it extends General Relativity to the atomic scale), in which the atom is quantized with discrete potentiated 4-D spaces that are the result of four-wave intersections.

Yurth is attempting to co-opt actual science and conflate it to his "torsion wave" and "y-bias" pseudoscience.
----------
At time 11:30, David Yurth states that the Standard Model provides no causal explanation for the manifestation of invariant mass. This is blatantly untrue. I've discussed same on this very forum. The origin of invariant mass is a product of the Higgs field setting up standing waves of energy, which are still 'pinging' back and forth off the Higgs field at the speed of light, but which are fixed to our frame of reference (the primary difference between matter and energy being the frame of reference). We've known for a long time that we can convert matter to energy, and the recent three-photon experiment shows we can also convert massless energy to invariant-mass matter. It merely requires figuring out how to establish the standing waves from energy, and we're figuring that out.
----------
At time 12:20, David Yurth states that the Standard Model provides no causal explanation for the manifestation of magnetism. Again, blatantly untrue. I've discussed same extensively on this very forum. I trust you can look that up for yourself. Further, he demonstrates his misunderstanding of magnetism by stating that {paraphrased} "only 6 elements of the Periodic Table exhibit magnetism". Again, untrue. All invariant-mass matter exhibits magnetism (usually diamagnetism, although certain atomic arrangements override the underlying diamagnetism with ferromagnetism), as I've discussed several times on this very forum. Magnetism is, after all, one of the underlying reasons that invariant-mass matter persists... without it, invariant-mass matter could not exist.
----------
At time 13:30, David Yurth states that Humphrey Maris "is splitting electrons", which he claims is something the Standard Model doesn't support... yes and no. Quantum Field Theory predicts this. Refer back to the above comment on the three-photon experiment, and the ramifications of invariant-mass matter being comprised thoroughly of energy in the form of standing waves... all they've done is split off some of the energy of which electrons are comprised, partially "deconstructing" the electron back into its energetic components. Maris and his team have written a paper which brings their results in complete accord with quantum theory.
----------
At time 13:55, David Yurth states that the Standard Model denies that what he calls "subquarks" can exist... again, blatantly untrue. They're called preons. They were conceived of in 1974, and have had no emperical substantation whatsoever to date (likely due to quark confinement), which is why they're not mentioned much in relation to the Standard Model. Fundamental building blocks of nature are indivisible bits of matter that are ungenerated and indestructible. Quarks are not truly indestructible, since some can decay into other quarks. Thus, on fundamental grounds, quarks are not themselves fundamental building blocks but must be composed of other, fundamental quantities, what are known as preons.

This goes back to QFT... nothing is really "fundamental" and "indivisible" except for a single quanta of energy. Quanta of energy combine into standing waves which make up invariant-mass matter.
----------
At time 14:30, David Yurth claims that Murray Gell-Mann was the "MIT resident senior physicist". Gell-Mann went to MIT as a student to earn a PhD in physics in 1951, then did his postdoctoral at the Institute for Advanced Study (in Princeton, NJ) in 1951, then was a visiting research professor at the University of Illinois (in Urbana–Champaign) from 1952 to 1953. He was a visiting associate professor at Columbia University and an associate professor at the University of Chicago in 1954–55 before moving to the California Institute of Technology, where he taught from 1955 until he retired in 1993 to work at his Santa Fe Institute, which he founded in 1984. He continues to work there to this day. David Yurth was corrected at time 16:05 by one of his audience members, who then hand-waved away the mistake without further questions about any of the other "facts" being promulgated. Notice the literal nail-biting by David Yurth upon being challenged.
----------
At time 14:39, he claims Murray Gell-Mann received a Nobel Prize in 1986 for his "verification of 3 kinds of quarks"... Gell-Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1969 "for his contributions and discoveries concerning the classification of elementary particles and their interactions".
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1969/index.html

Further (in reference to his time 13:55 and onward statements), there are several papers published by FermiLab staff concerning what David Yurth calls "subquarks", dating as far back as the 1970s. He's relying upon people being too lazy and/or uninformed to do their own research, I suppose.
----------
At time 17:03, David Yurth claims that Ilya Prigogine received a Nobel Prize "in the late 80s to early 90s" for his paper titled "Dissipative Structures"... in reality, Prigogine received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1977 "for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures". Prigogine discovered that importation and dissipation of energy into open chemical systems could reverse the maximization of entropy rule imposed by the second law of thermodynamics. David Yurth goes on to state that Prigogine couldn't answer how it was that at the same time that we see cosmological regions exhibiting annihilation, we also see the building of cosmological structure. This was David Yurth's way of arguing against cosmic expansion, and in so doing, he argues against self-organization at any level, and thus against the whole of reality (examples of self-organization can be found in crystallization, thermal convection of fluids, chemical oscillation, animal swarming, and artificial and biological neural networks). Except in his Nobel lecture, Prigogine explains how thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium can have drastically different behavior from systems close to equilibrium. Near equilibrium, the local equilibrium hypothesis applies and typical thermodynamic quantities such as free energy and entropy can be defined locally. One can assume linear relations between the generalized flux and forces of the system. After efforts to extend such results to systems far from equilibrium, it was found that they do not hold in this regime and opposite results were obtained. So David Yurth has used a study which shows exactly what David Yurth claims it doesn't show, and attempts to prove his point with it, either through disingenuity or simply not having read and understood the paper in question.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/
----------
At 18:25, David Yurth states that "Per Bak worked at Berkhaven {phonetically spelled from his pronunciation} National Laboratory until they expelled him for heresy"... Per Bak (working at Brookhaven National Laboratory) was the progenitor of the Bak–Tang–Wiesenfeld model for sand pile self-organization based upon the critical-state least-action principle. He was merely putting to mathematics the natural action of a pile of sand grains. In his book, he writes:
Quote
I joined a small group of condensed-matter theorists as a postdoctoral fellow in 1974-1976, coming from Denmark, where I had graduated from the Technical University.

After the first Brookhaven years, I returned to the University of Copenhagen. Among many other subjects, I became interested in the physics of simple systems with chaotic behavior.
So he began working on self-organizing chaotic behavior of simple systems after he left the temporary postdoctoral position at Brookhaven, and he was working on self-organizing chaotic behavior of simple systems at the University of Copenhagen before he went back to Brookhaven in a permanent position...
Quote
In 1983 I gladly accepted a permanent position in the group. Our group at Brookhaven is a shoestring operation compared with the large machine groups, with only two senior scientists, a couple of postdoctoral research associates, and a number of short- and long-term visitors.
Ah, so Per Bak wasn't "expelled for heresy" as David Yurth claims... in fact he was offered a permanent position at Brookhaven after having worked there prior, and in fact his work was accepted and rigorously studied by many scientists around the world (he is one of the world's most-cited physicists, after all, and self-organized criticality has become an established part of many scientific disciplines). In 1996, his excellent work earned him a professorship in theoretical physics at the Neils Bohr Institute in his home town of Copenhagen, which is why he left Brookhaven National Laboratory of his own accord.

But you'll note that in arguing for Bak's work, David Yurth is arguing against his claim that the universe could not have spontaneously self-organized (see Ilya Prigogine above). So he's contradicting himself.
----------
At time 27:25, David Yurth states that E. T. Whittaker wrote a paper in 1903 which is no longer available on the internet, insinuating that it's been erased from history for nefarious purposes.

Oh look, here it is:
https://londmathsoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1112/plms/s2-1.1.367
And here:

Proponents of "torsion waves" claim that Whittaker showed that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions. But this way of describing EM is not Lorentz covariant and doesn't even treat all the spatial dimensions the same. Further, it's difficult to incorporate these scalar fields into a Lagrangian (covariant or not). What Whittaker actually shows is that you can write the six total components in terms of derivatives of only two scalar fields. He only reformulated Maxwell's equations. It's the same as saying that the electrostatic field can be derived from a single scalar field, electric potential.
----------
At time 28:35, David Yurth states "within months after Whittaker published his paper in Physics Review, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Brownian movement".

Whittaker published his paper in 1903 in Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, not in Physics Review. The Physics Review journal was created in 1970 by Peter Adams.

Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect", not for Brownian motion.

In 1903, Einstein was still working at the Patent Office in Bern, and he had just begun the year prior to formulate his Special Theory of Relativity, which he would publish in 1905. His General Theory of Relativity would come along later, in 1916.
----------
As for Yurth's claim that if we could just increase frequency to "5 nanoseconds" (that translates to 200 MHz), we could drive energy flow without any electron flow, and his claim that no one knows this except himself... our computer CPUs operate at upwards of 4 GHz, which would be 0.25 nanoseconds... so according to him, there should be no electron flow in a CPU. No electron flow means no resistance... so throw away your CPU heatsink, you don't need it anymore.

V = v sin(w) t
where:  V is total voltage; v is maximum voltage; w = 2 pi f; f is frequency; t is time;

So:  V/v = sin(2 pi f)t  - AND -  2 pi f t = arcsin(V / v)

Therefore:  f = arcsin(V / v) / 6.284 t

That's the well-known relationship between voltage and frequency.

Of course, raising frequency increases the skin effect of conductors, decreasing their ampacity... so there's that.

And of course, high-frequency requires impedance matching to prevent reflected waves from back-propagating... so there's that, too.

And does it even need to be said that at high frequencies, the wave (because at these frequencies, conductors act more as wave guides rather than conductors) can couple with the air, propagating a signal and wasting energy?

I could go on throughout the entire video, showing that he heaps half-truth upon blatant falsehood upon conflated relationship upon twisted timeline upon out-of-context factoid like some pseudo-labcoated Gumpian character, but you get the idea.

If he can't even get basic facts correct, why should anyone expect his science to be any more correct?

Let's address his science for a bit (PDF attached by Matt Watts (http://open-source-energy.org/?action=dlattach;topic=3224.0;attach=17916)).

First, what happened to Donald Ayres as co-author, given that this paper is merely a rehash of his 2005 paper? It's bad form to remove contributing authors, it speaks toward some form of dishonesty and attempt at credit-stealing.

Second, in the opening paragraph, he states:
Quote
To be adequate, any universally applicable physical model must also accommodate the contemporaneous interaction between Descartes' 'physical stuff' and 'spirit stuff' with equal cogency and grace.
"Spirit stuff"? Metaphysicalism, therefore not science.

And in his last-page summation:
Quote
Consciousness is speciated and individuated in the same way, according to the same organizing principles, as Time, matter, light and all other aspects of Descartes' 'physical stuff' found in L4.
Oh really? Then why aren't all living things equally "conscious"? I think that I shall never see, a tree as conscious as little ol' me... is he implying that plants are "conscious"? Because he does imply at the end of this paper that the universe itself is conscious.

This entire paper is misappropriated science taken out of context for the express purpose of claiming that metaphysicalism can be tied into actual science.

You'll note that Yurth finds himself unable to get his papers peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals, nor even able to get them onto a pre-print server... he is instead forced to go to open-access servers for publication. That says something important that everyone should pay attention to... namely that his 'science' is so laughable that it doesn't even merit consideration for mainstream publication because peer-reviewing it would be a waste of time.

Yurth states:
Quote
Defenders of the model insist, and the standard model proclaims, that four primary field effects pre-dated the Big Bang event and caused the eventual outcome to dynamically evolve over some indefinite period of time to become the observable Cosmos."
Wrong. At the point of singularity, energy levels were so high that all fundamental forces were symmetrical. Only after cosmic expansion had begun, allowing the universe to cool via expansion and therefore energy levels to fall, did the fundamental forces symmetry break. I've discussed this at length on this forum.

He goes on to state:
Quote
Indeed, it is a dictum of the Big Bang model that the four primary a priori field effects which controlled its evolution are the only naturally occurring field effects that operate universally in the cosmos.
Simply untrue... we know of the Strong, Weak, EM (you'll note the electromagnetic fundamental force hasn't symmetry-broken as the other forces did, because universal energy level is not low enough for it to do so... although we can force it to symmetry-break by cooling... that's what superconductivity is, after all, merely the EM fundamental force symmetry-breaking) and gravity simply because we can measure them. That in no way precludes the existence of other fundamental forces. We simply haven't been able to detect them yet.

It should be said that time is now considered a fundamental force, and another potential fundamental force (dubbed the protophobic force) was detected in May 2016. This new and as-yet unproven force exclusively interacts between electrons and neutrons within a very small range, mediated by what are dubbed protophobic bosons, thus making it extremely difficult to detect. But it would explain most of the remaining anomalies.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803

Further, researchers are able to increase energy levels sufficiently to recombine the EM and the weak fundamental forces into the Electroweak force which prevailed in the earliest moments of the universe, lending empirical credence to the theory of symmetry breaking of the fundamental forces. Not to mention that we can force EM symmetry-breaking as mentioned above.

On page 2, he argues against the Principle of Locality (but what he's really arguing against is relativistic causality so he can claim his "torsion waves" travel at a billion times the speed of light), which states that for an action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the space between the points, such as a field, must mediate the action. What does he replace fields with? Magic?

He claims that the Standard Model cannot account for scalar non-local effects... except the Aharonov-Bohm Effect is a scalar non-local effect, and quantum mechanics easily explains it... or didn't he realize that quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, stochastic electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics extend General Relativity into the respective arenas of particle theory, field theory, electromagnetism and subatomic particle theory while taking into account all the phenomena he rails about?
Quote from Yakir Aharonov, Daniel Rohrlich, Quantum Paradoxes: Quantum Theory for the Perplexed (2005) p. 87.
Consider the scalar Aharonov-Bohm effect... the change in the electrons' interference pattern is a nonlocal effect of the electric field in the capacitor. This nonlocal effect is action at a distance! The electric field, acting at a distance on the electrons, yields a measurable effect (the change in the electrons' interference pattern). So quantum nonlocality does permit action at a distance. There is a constraint similar to the one we guessed. It is called (relativistic) causality. The principle of causality states that there is no way to send a message faster than light. We do not expect nonrelativistic quantum mechanics to obey this principle, because in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics there is no maximum speed. However... Nonlocal quantum correlations obey causality, because they are useless for sending messages. The Aharonov-Bohm effect, too, obeys causality: ...the change in the electrons' interference pattern - lies within the future light cone of the field. In each example we find that quantum nonlocality obeys causality.
So Yurth's entire premise has been shown to be fallacious... quantum mechanics et. al. does account for nonlocal effects, except that they must obey relativistic causality. In Yurth's universe, causality is broken, which begs the question:

If Yurth claims his "torsion waves" can violate causality, then why hasn't he used that to become the richest and most powerful person in history? Why hasn't he warned people of impending danger, either in the past or the future, given that "torsion waves" would allow him to communicate forward and backward through time? Why hasn't he looked forward in time to solve all scientific questions still remaining? If he could actually communicate through time via his "torsion waves", we'd see him publishing a plethora of papers on a wide variety of topics, each one rigorously proven via mathematics... yet we see only his "y-bias" and "torsion wave" papers, none of which are taken seriously by science... strange, that.

Yurth goes on to claim:
Quote
As a matter of practicality, the authors have opted to define Consciousness in terms which attempt to embrace both scientific and metaphysical conceits. For the purposes of this discussion, consciousness is defined as "...an underlying, primary field comprised of undifferentiated information which is characterized by infinite potential, operating in a manner which is self-referential in all-where/all-time at all scales.
So he's claiming that the universe itself is conscious. That's not woo-woo. Not at all. The universe is not conscious... it merely obeys rules (the same rules which we can so accurately mathematically model) which some attempt to anthropomorphize. If the universe were conscious, it would have free will, meaning it could act counter to those rules, meaning we could not mathematically model it.

You might want to do a bit more research on David Yurth...

The URL included in the description of the video you linked to:
davidgyurth.com

That's a dead site, by the way... no content. Pulled down some time after 21 Oct 2016. And doing a search for any content of that site (even Google-archived):
"* site:davidgyurth.com"
gives zero results. In one of his videos, he mentioned he was having "problems" (but didn't elaborate)... so they must have been pretty catastrophic problems to pull his site and cleanse it from the search engines.

The Wayback Machine gives results:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161021121453/http://davidgyurth.com:80/

https://savicorp.com/dynoplug/45-4x4-dynoplug-kit-d-2016white.html
That looks an awful lot like a combination of a Pulstar plug's electrical guts with Robert Krupa's Firestorm plug-tip setup, only recessed into the plug. Yeah, I've done quite a lot of research on spark plugs... Pulstar rocks, but you'd best have a good ignition coil and wires.

https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=davidgyurth.com
Centerville UT

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/894265/Inventor-gets-year-in-jail-for-scam.html
Quote
David Gordon Yurth, 56, could be out of jail within three months if he gets a job to help repay his victims. Yurth was sentenced to three zero- to 5-year prison terms to run consecutively, but those were suspended and he was given a year in jail.

He was sentenced Jan. 31 as part of a plea bargain for three counts of attempted securities fraud, all third-degree felonies. He originally had been charged with several more crimes, including racketeering and securities fraud. Yurth sold stock in P.V.I. Telecom Inc. in Salt Lake County.
That was back on 08 Feb 2002... so perhaps he was caught scamming again?

http://torsionfraud.narod.ru/akimov_shipov_torsion_field/Torsion_Fields_David_Yurth.htm
Quote
http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=skeptic;id=112;url=http%3A%2F%2Ftorsionfraud%2Enarod%2Eru%2F
Quote
Foreign enterprises are being swindled! - warns the Russian Academy of Sciences. A group of Russian swindlers are seeking investors for their pseudoscientific projects based on what they call "torsion field" and "torsion technologies". The pseudoscientists promise to quickly build "torsion flying saucers", "torsion communications", and "torsion weapons".

Chairman of the Commission Against Falsification of Scientific Research, RAS Academician, Dr. Edward P. Kruglyakov: "From time to time Akimov gets caught in fraud. For example, in 1996 he stated, "The first flying saucer will soon be tested at Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation ENERGIA. Its principle of propulsion is completely new - there is no use of a reactive force. If the tests are successful there is a real prospect of a conversion of all transportation, automobiles, trains, etc. to a new principle without the use of internal combustion engines" ("Chisty Mir [A Clean World Newspaper]", N4, 1996).

And here is a comment of V.P. Legostayev, the First Vice President and First Deputy Chief Designer of ENERGIA: "ENERGIA has not been working on, is not working on, and does not expect to be working on the development of 'flying saucers' based on a torsion field generator".

Why am I describing this adventure in so much detail? The problem is, although there is not a single supporter of A.E. Akimov in the Physics Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and although the Physics Section of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences has harshly condemned the activity of A.E. Akimov and his henchman G.I. Shipov in the Physical Sciences Branch of the RAS, the torsion fraud is seizing newer and newer bridgeheads. Under the supervision of Mr. Akimov several closed stock companies have been formed which in recent years have gathered a harvest not only inside the country but also in the international arena." (From Report made by Academician E.P.Kruglyakov at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences Meeting, May 27, 2003.)
Apparently the 'scientists' involved were faking their data to continue to get government funding... and were caught by several other scientists. They were fired and their labs closed.

He states that human consciousness can cause particle path to alter, then goes on to state that particle path can be traced... which is it? Either human consciousness can cause particle path to alter (metaphysicalism), or it can't (determinism)... every scientific study of the topic to date nulls the metaphysicalism hypothesis. The most recent empirical results confirm determinism (reference the newest double-slit experiment, discussed in my prior posts).

Trevor Osborne's response?
Quote
You need to understand the metaphysics of how this works, very simple in essence but paradoxically extremely complex too.
Oh, the red flags in that statement... first, he states that if people could only understand the convoluted metaphysics, they'd be set... but metaphysics is inherently not understandable... it's a hodge-podge mishmash of whatever 'sciencey-sounding' stuff its proponents want it to be, often contradicting itself (as we see here). Then he repeats the "simple but complex" meme seen in so many charlatanic hobby theories. Remember Ken Wheeler's "simplex but not simple" statements as his attempt at hand-waving away any challenges to his oddscience hobby theory, now thoroughly debunked?

You'll note that metaphysics has no basis in science... it's a throwback to the days of mysticism, a fallacious attempt at explaining the universe in a non-mathematical way because math equals work... you have to use your brain to do math, whereas with metaphysicalism, you just have to spout whatever intuitively "feels" right (while co-opting and conflating whatever real science you can get away with), no matter how pseudo-science or anti-science it actually is.

David G. Yurth is the principal inventor and co-founder of Nova Institute of Technology. In that capacity, he's stated the following on page 80 of the following PDF:
Quote
Zirconium, in its pristine state, is essentially transparent to neutron emissions. This means that the neutrons emitted by the encapsulated fuel rods pass through the zirconium unabated.

The reason the fuel rods have to be taken out of circulation and replaced with new ones is not because the fuel material gets used up, in the conventional sense. Instead, the transparency of the zirconium to neutron emissions eventually becomes hampered. This happens because the continuous bombardment of the zirconium by high-velocity neutrons atomically alters the crystalline structure of the fuel rods themselves. Eventually, instead of allowing the neutrons to pass unimpeded through the containment rod materials, the fuel rods themselves become very unstable and dangerous.
Ummm... no.

This should be his area of expertise. He's purportedly worked on a project which would remediate nuclear waste (as Director of Science and Technology for Nuclear Remediation Technologies, Inc.), and he wrote about nuclear processes in his latest book. Fortunately, nuclear physics just so happens to be my area of expertise.

The neutrons are not "emitted by the encapsulated fuel rods" (mainly because the fuel is not in the rods), they're emitted by the fuel modules surrounding the zirconium-clad control rods (zirconium clad to protect the control rod material from corrosion). The fuel modules are stationary, the control rods can be driven into or out of channels in the fuel modules. The control rods are designed to absorb thermal neutron flux and thus control the fission reaction. If what he said were true, then fast neutrons would be hitting the zirconium cladding from the inside, definitely leading to embrittlement in short order... but thermalized neutrons are hitting the control rods from the outside, reflected from the neutron-thermalizing light water and virgin polyethylene shielding surrounding the fuel modules. That's why they call them "thermal-neutron light-water moderated reactors", after all. Fast neutrons don't contribute to the fission process, only thermal neutrons do. And zirconium is nearly transparent to thermal neutrons.

The reason the fuel modules need to be replaced is due to the fact that the fuel can no longer sustain sufficient fission reactions to overcome the xenon poisoning (which builds up in all nuclear reactors over time, and which absorbs neutrons). Thus the reactor can no longer sustain criticality when xenon poisoning builds up if the fuel is depleted... in direct contradiction to what Yurth asserted.

The zirconium cladding on the control rods will not "become very unstable and dangerous" due to neutron embrittlement as he claims. Zirconium is unique as it's the only metal that is nearly transparent to thermal neutron flux... it has a very low cross-section of absorption of thermal neutrons. It will eventually undergo fast-neutron embrittlement, but it takes decades, long past the useful life of a reactor. I worked on the oldest (at the time) operating nuclear power plant in the world... in use for 35 years without refueling or control rod replacement. At the end, the fuel was so depleted that xenon poisoning caused the reactor to only sustain criticality for a very short time (slightly more than an hour) before it went sub-critical again, even with the control rods fully withdrawn... it was that depleted. We'd wrung just about every usable joule of heat out of the U-235 fuel. The reactor had no zirconium-cladding control rod neutron-embrittlement problems.

But zirconium is vulnerable to hydride embrittlement... usually a result of overheating the core and dissociating the water.

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/063/43063110.pdf
Quote
When hydrogen concentration exceeds the terminal solid solubility, the excess hydrogen precipitates as zirconium hydride (ZrH2) platelets or needles. Zirconium alloy components can fail by hydride cracking if they contain large flaws and are highly stressed. Zirconium alloys are susceptible to a mechanism for crack initiation and propagation termed delayed hydride cracking (DHC).
So the zirconium cladding on the control rods can develop micro-cracks as a result of hydride embrittlement, which propagate into larger cracks. This can cause the control rod to get stuck as it's raised or lowered. This means you lose control of the fission process because you lose control of the physical mechanism by which fission is controlled. This problem is largely mitigated by the 'skewed-divergent' arrangement of the control rods... even if one control rod sticks, you won't have any regions in the fuel modules which can sustain criticality once the rest of the control rods are driven in.

Yurth has conflated Bohr's Principle of Complementarity to metaphysicalism.

Bohr's Principle of Complementarity states that objects have certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously, such as:
Energy and duration
Entanglement and coherence
Position and momentum
Spin on different axes
Value of a field and its localized change in value
Wave and particle-related properties

The torsion tensor is a quantity in general relativity, and played a role in Einstein–Cartan theory (a flawed classical theory of gravity which has been overshadowed by other alternatives like the Brans–Dicke theory because torsion tensor adds no predictive benefit, while its equations are practically intractable. Since the Einstein–Cartan theory is purely classical, it also does not fully address the issue of quantum gravity, nor that of gravitoelectromagnetism. In the Einstein–Cartan theory, the Dirac equation becomes nonlinear and therefore the superposition principle used in usual quantization techniques would not work.).

Yurth attempts to extrapolate the Principle of Complementarity to also state that wherever we find local/linear effects, we must also find non-linear/nonlocal effects.

Thus the proponents of this conflation of scientific principles to metaphysicalism claim that "torsion waves" (a misapproriated scientific term, put to use for pseudoscientific claims) can move through space at a billion times the speed of light (a physical impossibility) meaning they propagate in the future and past (another physical impossibility) so tapping into them would facilitate retrocognition (seeing into the past, another physical impossibility) or precognition (seeing into the future, another physical impossibility). Causality would be irreparably broken.

How do they claim this happens?

Well, they claim their "torsion waves" can be transmitted through space similar to electromagnetic waves, but that they do not carry mass or energy... only information (yet another physical impossibility), and at speeds of up to a billion times the speed of light (yet another physical impossibility).

At the same time they claim that what mediates their "torsion waves" are neutrinos – which have mass and energy... and neutrinos have been proven to not exceed the speed of light.

"It's very simple in essence but paradoxically extremely complex too."... a hand-wavey way of saying "It's bunkum, but believe it in spite of your cognitive dissonance.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_(pseudoscience)
Quote
Despite the fact that several contradictions have been identified in the basic postulates of these theories (as have several statements that are considered nonsensical by reputable science), torsion field theory has been embraced by some as an explanation for claims of homeopathic cures, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, clairvoyance, ESP, and other paranormal phenomena. The harnessing of torsion fields has been claimed to make everything possible from miracle cure devices (including devices that cure alcohol addiction) to working perpetual motion machines, stargates, UFO propulsion analogs, and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
Why are they pushing "torsion wave" communication and "y-bias" (apparently a new term for "torsion waves") to explain the universe? Because they have a conspiracy theory that the governments of the world are only implementing 5G cellular service so they can "cook" every living thing on the planet. I kid you not.

Gary Vesperman is a fellow "torsion wave" proponent, and he edited Yurth's book.
Quote
But, yes, they are going to, in my opinion, commit the worst genocide this planet has ever known, not just people, but animals and plants. They are probably going to cause more destruction than a global war...
The proponents of "torsion wave" communication attempt to conflate it with scalar waves (postulated to exist), which is a conflation of a scalar field (which actually exists... ie: the Higgs field is a scalar field... which is why the Higgs boson has spin 0... scalar fields do not give rise to intrinsic angular momentum). This means "torsion waves" are bunkum.

Oh look, more hand-waving dismissal:
http://rexresearch.com/zamshatorsion/TFInterstellComm.pdf
Quote
According to A.Akimov and G.Shipov torsion field is generated by spin or rotation! Instead that, scalar waves are product of sum of two identical electromagnetic waves shifted to 180 degrees against each other! So we maybe are talking about different things!? But we will not argue about this here.
No, no... don't argue about the fact that "torsion wave" proponents, in their zealous quest to justify their belief in demonstrably falsified pseudoscience in the form of a laboratory funding scam, are now conflating "torsion waves" to scalar waves to scientifically-proven scalar fields (empirically proven for the first time on 04 July 2012 at LHC)... we don't want to make waves, do we?

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.147701 (debunked here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.01730.pdf... they weren't using "torsion waves", they merely made acoustically-driven and EM-driven active antennas and thus increased the EM footprint of the antennas, which I've discussed prior).

That's a whole boatload of pseudoscience, so I don't know if you should put much stock in what this guy (nor any of his acolytes) claims.

It's yet another example of a group of pseudoscience people co-opting science, changing definitions, twisting history, bashing actual science and attempting to make fantastical claims in hopes that those claims will carry the same credibility as an actual scientific theory or hypothesis.

Haven't we had enough of that already in Ken Wheeler's "there is only one particle, the mass particle, which can change from neutron-form to proton-form and back seemingly without cause, in the process changing size and invariant mass by several orders of magnitude... and oh, by the way, electrons don't exist, but I still use them in my hobby theory when it suits my purpose... and every scientist who ever existed was wrong! Only I am right! Buy my book or you're too simple to understand the simplex nature of the universe!" bunk?

I mean, really... pyramid power? torsion waves reading 'biophotons' from DNA to see a person's aura? universal consciousness? miracle cures? remote viewing? clairvoyance? consciousness affecting matter? the pineal gland using 'torsion waves' to open the "third eye" to allow inter-dimensional communication? telekinesis? energetic invariant-mass subluminal neutrinos carrying "only information but not energy or mass" a billion times faster than light? All of these are ascribed to the "torsion waves" pseudoscience crackpottery.

Scientifically-oriented scalar wave (electrogravitic) communication advocates inductively couple the EM field to the gravity field via the mass-to-charge ratio by changing the charged particle count. The ratio of electrostatic to gravitational forces between the charged particles is proportional to the product of their charge-to-mass ratios. This creates an extremely weak gravitational wave. You'd have to pump a lot of energy in just to get the slightest gravitational wave... the coupling coefficient is very weak between EM and gravity unless the charged particle is moving near the speed of light, which it won't be doing in an antenna. Besides which, the latest LIGO findings show gravitational waves travel at c. This means superluminal scalar wave communication is bunkum. What electrogravitic scalar wave communication is good for is extremely focused directional beams of gravitational waves that are undetectable to traditional radio equipment and can go through any Faradic shielding.

I'd recommend sticking to the confines of scientific reality. What we're attempting to do can be done (has been done) within those confines without going off into the brambles of metaphysicalism... and subscribing to that genre of pseudo-science fantasy will have a deleterious effect upon any working device we make and attempt to explain via that metaphysicalism.

When we arrive at a solution, we do want to be taken seriously, after all.
##### Re: .Science history
Quote from Apoc4lypse on April 4th, 2018, 03:50 AM
Yes if someone builds a generator that can run a motor that will run faster than the generators required input speed to run that motor, you could then just link the motor back to the generator which would drive the generator faster and the motor faster looping back to spinning the generator even faster essentially putting the magnets involved inside both units in a state of slow demagnetization into electrical currents that could be tapped for energy which would in theory run until the magnets are no longer magnetized enough to run the devices or until the wires insulation's melt from it running too fast and shorting itself out.

I feel like the easiest way to accomplish this is by using a brush-less DC powered motor and a brush-less DC generator (which everywhere you go online claims DC current generation is impossible). I'm still a newb when it comes to understanding AC current though, so its probably possible with AC also.
Actually, with sufficient magnetic hardness, the permanent magnets need not demagnetize. That's my QM take on how Russ's Newman replication works, by stealing electron orbital momentum (thereby reducing electron orbital radius), converting it to electricity, shunting that electricity away and thus giving the permanent magnet no other alternative than to regain electron orbital radius by extracting energy from the quantum vacuum.

The permanent magnet would only demagnetize if one attempted to extract too much electron orbital momentum in any given unit time such that the electrons couldn't extract enough energy from the quantum vacuum. There's also the magnetic hardness to take into consideration... using the permanent magnet in this manner creates an imbalance in the two flows of virtual photons of opposite helicity, and thus if that imbalance is too great, some magnetic domains could unpin and flip to minimize the magnet's internal energy. We can determine if this is happening if we see a widening or shifting of the Bloch Wall.

#### Matt Watts

##### Re: .Science history
Quote from Cycle on April 5th, 2018, 08:59 PM
I'd recommend sticking to the confines of scientific reality. What we're attempting to do can be done (has been done) within those confines ...
Cycle, maybe it would be helpful for you to make a list of the things that are within our reach to build and test.

Russ is about to embark on his third Newman motor design which I hope will reveal a few more potential avenues of exploration.  To me it still looks like everything that a garage builder can get his hands on is going to be a zero-sum game.  Any chance you can prove me wrong?

#### Apoc4lypse

##### Re: .Science history
Quote
To me it still looks like everything that a garage builder can get his hands on is going to be a zero-sum game.
That's not true...

#### Matt Watts

##### Re: .Science history
Quote from Apoc4lypse on April 6th, 2018, 02:30 AM
That's not true...
Okay.  Show me.

#### Apoc4lypse

##### Re: .Science history
I'll try lmao, no guarantees...

There's gotta be a way that someone missed or is just not public knowledge and I don't think it requires very special equipment with all the patents that exist or are under secrecy... there's stories of people making devices that work all over the place and some of them don't have special equipment, people like Newman and others. I mean hell Tesla supposedly did all this in like the early 1900's...

#### Cycle

##### Re: .Science history
« Reply #22,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Matt Watts on April 6th, 2018, 01:46 AM
Cycle, maybe it would be helpful for you to make a list of the things that are within our reach to build and test.

Russ is about to embark on his third Newman motor design which I hope will reveal a few more potential avenues of exploration.  To me it still looks like everything that a garage builder can get his hands on is going to be a zero-sum game.  Any chance you can prove me wrong?
Not wishing to limit the possible investigations and thus skip over potential solutions, but I believe the most within-reach is my derivation of  Searl's SEG.

I'm all out of aroundtoit right now. Eventually, though, I'll get aroundtoit. :)

#### Matt Watts

##### Re: .Science history
Just keep an eye open for some singularity, some material, some special angle, where the energy sustained in the quantum vacuum can be pulled over to the other side.  We're looking for a bridge.  Like most things there is a trick to it--a trick until someone shows you the answer.  An answer that would otherwise be difficult to find but easy to utilize once you know it.

Of course it may all be in vain if Harald Kautz Vella is correct or partially correct: