New Concepts for Magnetism and Plasma fields "The Primer Field" by David LaPoint

Vaughn

New Concepts for Magnetism and Plasma fields "The Primer Field" by David LaPoint
« on January 29th, 2013, 12:02 PM »Last edited on January 29th, 2013, 12:04 PM by Vaughn
I came across this video a week ago and found it very fascinating.

I didn't find anything about it on the forums and thought this would be mind explosive for everyone here to check out. I know Russ will ( O,O) !! when he sees this.

These videos were uploaded a month ago so this is still fairly new
The theories and experiments in this video are done by David LaPoint.

His Youtube channel davelapoint777

I'd like to note that everything in these videos are patent pending and copyright protected.

The International version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk

Short experiment clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyCwbkDzYK4

Share this with anyone you know who is interested in Plasma experiments



Gary S.

RE: New Concepts for Magnetism and Plasma fields "The Primer Field" by David LaPoint
« Reply #3, on January 30th, 2013, 07:18 AM »Last edited on January 30th, 2013, 07:22 AM by Gary S.
In light of how threatening and defensive he is about his device, it's no wonder no one wants to talk to him. It looks like he already has a huge case against GOD.

Patents are not worth the paper they are written on. Patents do NOT prevent ideas from being stolen; if they did, there would be no need for patent litigation. All a patent does for you is give you the right to spend (at least) five years of your life, and (at least) $100,000 of your profit, suing someone. But, a patent did NOT keep someone from "stealing" your idea.

Reference: The Case Against Patents - Don Lancaster

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf

(Yes, it's .pdf)

Copyrighting, on the other hand, is faster, cheaper and more powerful than a patent. BTW, "Patent Applied for" grants an idea the same protection as a full patent (5 years, I think), but much cheaper. One manufacturer explained to me why all the machines we made had "applied for" on the labels insteasd of "patented" - He said he has no intention of actually ever patenting it, and right before the "applied for" status expired, he would re-apply, giving it another period of "protection".

Once upon a time, there was an article in Popular Science about something called "Solar Muscle". It has two things you could make, only one each, and not for sale (he had a grant and was as paranoid as this guy).

What Solar Muscle consists of is "cold-drawn black plastic garbage bag". It seems that, when exposed to sunlight, it contracts; in shade it expands. Very simple. He had a basic motor and a solar tracking type thing which he showed how to make.

He then proceeds to "warn" people that they can not experiment with anything else involving "solar muscle". Well, now, this is where I have a problem. I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me what I can and can't do with a trash bag on my own property! Nope, not gonna happen.

You see, the basic discovery/concept is great, but his motor (and tracker) were poorly thought out; it was a simple matter to use the same basic concept to make something far better. The same goes for many inventions I have seen - good idea but not thought out well enough.

Now, for people like this to be so threateningly protective over BASIC principals, to the point of attempting to control ALL uses and experimentation, is like the inventor if the brick saying that all anyone can make from them is a Bar-B-Q pit and nothing else. BS!

In the longrun, all they do is make it harder for themselves, starting with making people not like them. It would be interesting to see what John Hutchison could/would do with this BASIC concept, if only someone wasn't such a tight-bleep about it. Doesn't look like he'll ever have a chance now.

G.






thesingularityeffect

RE: New Concepts for Magnetism and Plasma fields "The Primer Field" by David LaPoint
« Reply #8, on May 20th, 2013, 02:24 AM »Last edited on May 20th, 2013, 02:34 AM by thesingularityeffect
 Question: "I would still like to know what makes the bowl-shaped magnetic fields to start with. Is it just automatic whenever you have matter gathered together in space?"

Answer: The "bowls in space" are created in great turbulence within clouds of great density's of plasma. The movement of the particles that starts the structure formation is brought about through magnetic attraction. The "single points" or the start of a "wall" etc is caused through triangular compression. As the fields interact in this way, the structure becomes self forming somewhat.

Question: "In the first video, David mentioned up to six parts: Where are they? All I can find is two versions of the same long video, and the short one."
Answer: Fear of safety concerns for people attempting experiments before truly understanding the concepts was one of Davids primary concerns. Some amount of cynicism also played a part as he ran into people less than nice.

"Patents are not worth the paper they are written on. "
The copyrights are more closely simply related to a particular motor, and the magnetic bowls he has created.

More info?
thesingularityeffect


From David,

I am the guy who made the Primer Fields video. Sorry for the length of this post, but is has to be long in order to address the issues I am seeing in some of the comments here. I just have time to make this post here and then back to work on the next videos and a paper for submission that covers my research. I hope to have PF2 up by Feb. 1. I will not be able to respond to any questions or comments here. I may read them and then address them in my upcoming videos for all to see and learn from.

Regarding intrinsic magnetic fields. All matter has intrinsic magnetic fields to it. Research this. All I did was change the shape of the source of the intrinsic magnetic fields. My main focus of my work has NOT been astrophysics, but physics at the atomic and sub-atomic level. The particles of matter at the LHC are driven around the LHC by MAGNETIC FIELDS. They are able to do this because of the intrinsic magnetic fields in all matter. Think this through carefully. It is based on repeatably proven science fact and experiments. Magnetic fields are intrinsic to all matter structures and that is undeniable fact. Trying to prove where they come from would be like asking me to prove water is wet. Think this through.

They are there and I don't have to prove that as it is already accepted as fact. If you think that they can be electrically generated just on what we find in space, then I challenge you to prove it and not just say it. This is what true scientists do, they prove their statements. In six years of experiments I find zero evidence that these intrinsic magnetic fields are driven or generated by external electrical currents. I have run many many experiments without my magnetic emitters and I have seen zero evidence of this happening. If you go back and look at Birkleland's experiments you will notice that he had to put a source of a magnetic field into his sphere to find his Birkeland currents. No magnetic field no Birkeland currents. So the magnetic fields have to be there before any electricity is provided. Therefore the electricity did not form the magnetic fields and without magnetic fields you get no Birkeland currents.

The EUT is mostly correct and absolutely more correct than current mainstream AP. But there is no proof as to the source of the electricity. I am very aware of magneto hydrodynamics and in fact my theories use it, but you still have to prove that MHD is the real source and I see no evidence for that when it comes to externally powered stars etc. In fact if you carefully observe my experiments you will see the variance between my electrically driven plasma formation and the formations in space. They are NOT the same. They are similar in that the plasma reveals the shape of the fields. The steel ball experiments I show in the videos also do this WITHOUT electricity. I do this to show that electricity is NOT the driver of the formations we see in space, but in fact is produced by the formations we see in space. I have to be careful in how I present this evidence because I have working technology based on these theories and I have patents in the works. But in PF2 I will present the mechanism by which electricity is produced by the Sun. I DO NOT AGREE with the current mainstream view of the Sun as being internally fusion powered and I find that all evidence and hard data point directly away from this concept. So I do understand the EUT frustrations with the blindness in the mainstream. But I am not the mainstream. So do not try and say things against what I am saying until you can prove it. That is what I did. I kept my mouth closed until I had hard repeatable data.

But I do find that the Sun is fusion powered from the outside. Find the highest temperature and you have the place where fusion is greatest. Simple logic. Then as to the EUT, If the Sun were externally electrically powered we would not find these incredible temperature variances between the surface of the Sun and the corona-sphere. It would all be pretty much the same temperature. This is simple logic, backed by experiments. So in an externally powered Sun you have to explain the mechanism for the Solar interior being 5000K and the hottest areas in the corona-sphere being over 2 million K. IN fact you have to provide a mechanism for the interior of the Sun to be cooled as it is surrounded by the much hotter corona-sphere. That mechanism I cannot prove, but I do have a couple of ideas that I will expound on in my videos. Too much to discuss here.

My thinking that the Sun cannot be externally powered is also backed by experimental proof of little or no temperature variance in my experiments, which are indeed externally electrically driven. Therefore one must conclude that NASA et all is incorrect and the current EUT theory is incorrect based on repeatable experiments. Six years of experiments in fact.

But again I do agree with the concepts of the EUT more than I agree with BH, DM, and DE, which I find no reason to exist and in fact I find zero proof that any of them exist.

Furthermore. I am a plasma physicist as you can see. I know very well what a Z-pinch is. Please do not make comments that I don't realize I made a Z-pinch. To those who actually worked with Z-pinches a comment like that makes the whole EUT look really bad. What I made is not a Z-pinch at all. NOT AT ALL. Trying to say it does makes you look really really bad. Sorry, but it does. It makes those who really know how a Z-pinch really works pay no attention to anything else you say. I am sorry, but that is how these guys think.

It would be like me telling you the moon is really made of cheese and then wondering why you won't listen to me. So really research what you believe, for your own sake.

I hope to work with the EU folks in the future and I have been in communication with them. But for now I must stand alone. There are currently some EU statements that are not scientifically backed by proven facts and indeed go against scientific fact. Z-pinchs are one of those statements, as is the externally powered Sun and stars.

It is an electric universe and the electricity is generated around the stars. I can prove it. How do you generate electricity here on Earth. You move magnetic fields. This is what these intrinsic bowl shaped magnetic fields do, they cause magnetic fields to move very violently past each other, i.e. MHD, and guess what happens? You get electricity and the hottest points around the Sun are exactly where the greatest magnetic turbulence would take place. This in turn leads to fusion and the fusion provides the extra kick to keep it all going and generating electricity. So these theories account for where the electricity in the universe comes from and it all matches ALL the hard data. I really believe that endless clean power is near. Don't have it all worked out yet, but I do have tech that is based on these theories that is in over twelve countries right now. It works really well and it would not work if my theories were not correct. That technology has been the main focus of my research for the last six years. The AP stuff is just cool because it provides validation of my theories.

Please carefully considered what you type here. I have. I have patiently waited six years to go public with what I have. That is six years of 80 hours per week. Everything I say is backed by experiments and I have not had one mainstream physics or AP attack on any of my theories that I am aware of. All I have heard is their silence. In fact I have physicists who totally back all I say.

I know it is very frustrating to have the mainstream be so totally blind to some of the things the EUT calls for, but I am not mainstream and I am not your enemy. I am on your side more than I am on their side. I would suggest all of you take a step back and wait for the rest of my videos and my papers that I am working on as hard as I can. I only seek the truth and that is all. That is what every true scientist does. Just make sure you are seeking for the truth no matter where it leads, and not just trying to convince yourself that all you believe is true. That can be a very dangerous psychological trap that goes by the name of cognitive dissonance. This is the trap that I believe the mainstream has fallen into. I.E. our theories are correct and now we need patches to make our theories work.

My approach is to try and shoot down my own theories and prove them incorrect. This approach has worked really well for me and any mistakes or problems are revealed when I do this. If I cannot prove something, I will not say it as a fact. If I say I believe that means I think that this is correct, but I cannot yet prove it, therefore it could be wrong. I think all of us should be like that, even NASA, even you, even me.

I hope you all understand where I am coming from.

Cheers to all,

Dave

Matt Watts

RE: New Concepts for Magnetism and Plasma fields "The Primer Field" by David LaPoint
« Reply #9, on May 20th, 2013, 06:46 AM »
Welcome aboard and thank you for the post.

I'm afraid Dave is going to run into some major, major problems if he continues to push his theories and discoveries.  The powers that be are not interested in everyone having free energy--THEY already have THEIR free energy and that energy comes from us.  Anything they can do to keep the current paradigm in operation, THEY will do.  I hope Dave can continue his work.  I found those videos of his to be fascinating and well worth my time to watch and understand.  I hope he can continue his work, but I'm sure the pressure is mounting.

Tetryonics

RE: New Concepts for Magnetism and Plasma fields "The Primer Field" by David LaPoint
« Reply #10, on June 13th, 2013, 08:01 PM »
A really great video series. Can't wait for more.

Here is a Tetryonics add-on concerning these fields.

Primer fields and Tetryonic theory:

A number of points jump out regarding the intersection of Tetryonic & Primer field theories: The Primer field model of interactions, and their bowls in particular, only model the M-fields of the interactions taking place – a common problem with most experimentalists. If you look at their toroidal shaped fields and realize they are only models of M-fields you’ll notice that they match the equilateral m-fields of Tetryonics but fail to model the e-field energy that they are applying to them in order to achieve their results. That said they still remain an accurate model of the processes, albeit only half the picture.

1. Primer is experimentally based – Tetryonics is theory based.

2. Both can aid and expand on the work of each other and in fact this should be encouraged if possible.

3. There is a case of strong agreement between Tetryonic theory and the Primer field experimental results that we have seen in his videos, and that is what excited us.

4. We congratulated him in using EM discharges as this is where Tetryonic theory shows where our future advances lie in energy generation and resource creation.

5. Obviously his focus has been on practical results while Tetryonics has focused on developing and refining a theory that shows great promise in expanding on his work to date.

6. Tetryonic theory can greatly expand his understanding of the plasma physics of the discharges that he is working with presently, in turn enabling the rapid development of new experimental designs.

7. In fact, Tetryonic theory has many discharge designs that can be readily provided to further his experimental work on discharge plasmas etc. Leading inevitably to the GEM pinch designs that will be commencing work on in the coming months.

8. CAD modelling of equilateral E&M fields shows that the electrode designs he has found effective [and was utilising in the videos] are fully reflective of Tetryonic M field geometries, leaving scope to expand on his current theoretical modelling and suppositions through the inclusion of Tetryonic field theory.

9. Obviously there is scope to develop the E-field components of the fields as this is where Tesla found much application. This is where real physical forces can be easily created and real horsepower can be transmitted over great distances near-instantaneously, as Tesla noted...

10. It is only current science’s fixation on electrical oscillations & transverse waves that creates our current impediment to many new technologies that can be rapidly developed and made available to all.

11. We couldn’t agree more with his statement that practical outcomes are a necessary step – but equally, so is a solid understanding of the physics involved from a theoretical stand point.

12. From a mutual understanding of eachother’s work an even greater understanding could be developed. From our point of view, presently, there is much in common.

Sadly, Dave LaPoint is not interested in understanding Tetryoincs at this point. Like so many other researchers, he is too wrapped up in his own set of ideas and has his own set of goals he's trying to accomplish. No doubt he is a busy researcher with little time to consider others perspectives. Perhaps he will change his mind sometime down the line when he comes up for air, or comes across a stumbling block of sorts.

Some development of a theoretical understanding of the results and its application to current sciences was attempted in his videos but found only limited success as key pieces of theory were missing the equilateral geometries of Planck energies and the theoretical advances made possible by Tetryonic theory’s geometric approach to electrical energies and physics in general.

The original Tetryonics thread.
http://open-source-energy.org/?fid=45
Richard