Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Eric Dollard Official Forum This forum is dedicated to the work of Eric P. Dollard. His Official homepage is http://ericpdollard.com

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #301  
Old 04-20-2012, 06:01 AM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
As a useless physicist I'll add my two cents

Superluminal ES plasma wave gives birth to RF signals in space, crab nebula, pulsars etc.. the interesting thing to note is that it's the collision of the ES longitudinal wave into the boundary of a EM wave or field, this transition gives rise to a variety of phenomena.

Dig deeper one will find research in the reverse process of EM to ES and plasma wave acceleration greater than C.

Eric has laid down the groundwork for a similar translation or rotation to ES waves in the dielectric.

But seeing has how I'm a useless physicist, just ignore the above and don't bother to look deeper into the why. I do wonder if Eric includes Farnsworth in that group. Now, relativists would be a better label.

I'd like to point out that FTL is a MASSIVE national security issue. There will be no published works or papers on it. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, research and development is not going to be taking place in public forums or universities.

move along, nothing to see, all is well with the assigned reference frame
__________________
 

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #302  
Old 04-20-2012, 06:59 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,955
power vs energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
Square waves make it easy since they are perfect easily mathematically dealt with pulses.

Each square represents 1 watt under the curve.

So whats different?

Its the same amount of power over different time frames, but the same power,

So what changed? Why cant anyone tell me if you all have all the answers?
You are STILL doing it! Same power over different times frames? NOT!

If you have 1 watt for 1 second, you have 1 watt second of WORK - that is ENERGY dissipated - 1 joule of energy dissipated.

The POWER is 1 WATT - notice there in NO time included in the POWER measurement.

If you take that 1 watt second or 1 joule of ENERGY and dissipate it over 1/2 a second (1 half the time), you have increased the POWER by 200% of original to 2 WATTS for 1/2 the time. 1 joule of energy dissipated divided by 0.5 seconds = 2 WATTS!

That is POWER AMPLIFICATION - the energy dissipated (1 joule) remained the SAME!

BUT - the results can be very different. Time compressed discharges can do things that slower ones cannot.

If you take a hammer and tap a window and for simple example - 1/10 of a joule of energy per tap (whatever) - you won't break the window. Do that 10 times in a row and you still will NOT break the window even though you discharged 1 joule into that window.

Now take all that energy dissipated (1 joule of energy) and discharge it in 1 strike on the window - the POWER is magnified 1000% for 1/10 the time so the ENERGY dissipated is the SAME but the POWER was increased 10 times. That one strike could turn the window to dust. You just increased the "watts" by 1000%!

Same energy dissipated but the time compressed one had much different results. So any argument that it is still the same amount of energy dissipated, even though you still incorrectly still use POWER,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
Its the same amount of power over different time frames, but the same power,
is short sighted and doesn't take into account effects of time compression that are not possible by dissipating energy over a longer period of time.

To be accurate, you should be saying: it is the same amount of energy dissipated over different time frames, but the same energy.

NOT POWER! POWER doesn't have the time in it. The time is divided out.

You take the POWER then multiply it by the time and THEN you will have the amount of energy dissipated.

-----------

I'm not sure who you think "overruled" Dave's post that simply quotes what you said you would do. If you're asked to leave then you would - asking you if you had the integrity to be a man of your word I think is very valid. You're the one who offered.

If you don't understand the difference between power and energy from the above example, which you absolutely did NOT know the difference before evidenced by your posts, then you have some other agenda it seems.

I gave you two very specific and very simple examples of increasing POWER by 200% and 1000%. If you do not get it by now, you really should show whether you have the integrity to be a man of your word or not and leave the thread as Dave was asking. You said you would and others have asked.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #303  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:38 PM
Nhopa Nhopa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 134
Star radial ground system.

As Eric pointed out, a good ground system is essential. Having built my system all I need now is a good ground. I drove I steel rod into the ground and measured the resistance between it and the AC neutral. First I got about 1,000 Ohms but after watering around the rod the reading went down to about 200 Ohms. Then I measured the resistance between the incoming water main and the AC neutral, I got readings between about 500 and 350 Ohms. My water main is in underground so why is the reading so high and so unstable? So I will put in a star radial system. The soil is kind of clayish so should work. The question is did anyone built this system yet? If yes, how long these ground rods should be. Also for the material can I use, say 1/2" steel pipe or 1/2" dia rebars? Can be solid or stranded the connecting #10 gage wire? And lastly, to what should I compare my resistance reading (i.e. the water main does not seems to be useful) and what would be considered an acceptable reading? I read in the Colorado Springs Notes that Tesla used the water main as reference and that he had problems getting the grounding system working properly. Thank you for the help.
__________________
 
  #304  
Old 04-20-2012, 04:14 PM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 414
Actually, in reference to FTL; there was some research that found it's way into the public domain. This research was done using non-linear optics and involved using a flash tube. The non-linear optics actually integrated the light pulse into a shorter duration, sharper peaked output pulse. The real kicker was that the output came out before the input pulse had ended. At least, that is my memory of what occurred.

There have been other anomalies found in non-linear media as well. Perhaps the Earth would create such a non-linear media giving rise to anomalous EM or ES phenomena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
As a useless physicist I'll add my two cents

Superluminal ES plasma wave gives birth to RF signals in space, crab nebula, pulsars etc.. the interesting thing to note is that it's the collision of the ES longitudinal wave into the boundary of a EM wave or field, this transition gives rise to a variety of phenomena.

Dig deeper one will find research in the reverse process of EM to ES and plasma wave acceleration greater than C.

Eric has laid down the groundwork for a similar translation or rotation to ES waves in the dielectric.

But seeing has how I'm a useless physicist, just ignore the above and don't bother to look deeper into the why. I do wonder if Eric includes Farnsworth in that group. Now, relativists would be a better label.

I'd like to point out that FTL is a MASSIVE national security issue. There will be no published works or papers on it. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, research and development is not going to be taking place in public forums or universities.

move along, nothing to see, all is well with the assigned reference frame
__________________
 
  #305  
Old 04-20-2012, 04:48 PM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 414
So the sum of the problem involves resistance added to reactance (at frequency). The problem measuring resistance comes into play whenever one chooses a random reference point like water mains or ac house ground.

I don't know what the true and correct reference for resistance would be. I am only a useless phycisist that devolved into a lowly chemist and then into an even lower evolution of generalist, but I do see a problem with using any reference other than actual measured values. I see no way of measuring only the resistance of such a system, but certainly the true resistance of the metal stem to stern is an unavoidable constant, hence the need for massive amounts of copper.

However, you can measure total impedance and try to reduce that into what you desire. Just my opinion.

Total impedance can be measured by use of transmission of measured true rms voltage and measured true rms current or true power. Once a known impedance is measured then you can try and work that down. Maybe I will see I am wrong when I wake up but that is my opinion at this point.

Hope that helps. As stated in my post last night, I think the stated goal of "one ohm or less impedance" is outside the reach of a mere mortal, but the fun is in the trying I suppose.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhopa View Post
As Eric pointed out, a good ground system is essential. Having built my system all I need now is a good ground. I drove I steel rod into the ground and measured the resistance between it and the AC neutral. First I got about 1,000 Ohms but after watering around the rod the reading went down to about 200 Ohms. Then I measured the resistance between the incoming water main and the AC neutral, I got readings between about 500 and 350 Ohms. My water main is in underground so why is the reading so high and so unstable? So I will put in a star radial system. The soil is kind of clayish so should work. The question is did anyone built this system yet? If yes, how long these ground rods should be. Also for the material can I use, say 1/2" steel pipe or 1/2" dia rebars? Can be solid or stranded the connecting #10 gage wire? And lastly, to what should I compare my resistance reading (i.e. the water main does not seems to be useful) and what would be considered an acceptable reading? I read in the Colorado Springs Notes that Tesla used the water main as reference and that he had problems getting the grounding system working properly. Thank you for the help.
__________________
 
  #306  
Old 04-20-2012, 05:07 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrionLightShip View Post
So the sum of the problem involves resistance added to reactance (at frequency). The problem measuring resistance comes into play whenever one chooses a random reference point like water mains or ac house ground.

I don't know what the true and correct reference for resistance would be. I am only a useless phycisist that devolved into a lowly chemist and then into an even lower evolution of generalist, but I do see a problem with using any reference other than actual measured values. I see no way of measuring only the resistance of such a system, but certainly the true resistance of the metal stem to stern is an unavoidable constant, hence the need for massive amounts of copper.

However, you can measure total impedance and try to reduce that into what you desire. Just my opinion.

Total impedance can be measured by use of transmission of measured true rms voltage and measured true rms current or true power. Once a known impedance is measured then you can try and work that down. Maybe I will see I am wrong when I wake up but that is my opinion at this point.

Hope that helps. As stated in my post last night, I think the stated goal of "one ohm or less impedance" is outside the reach of a mere mortal, but the fun is in the trying I suppose.
Bentonite, or kitty litter used as the fill media around the copper grounds then whetted to form an encasement will get at least a 1ohm impedance to ground. LOADS of work! a trench for each radial and then back fill of 2~3" of bentonite, lay ground rod, back fill over 2~3" again wet down then bury with top soil. for each and every radial and rod. quite the undertaking!

I've got a friend in the RF communications buisness, more money is spent on grounding and ground systems then the above ground antennae. massive amounts more!

cell towers are required to be less than 1ohm from what I recall, but who's got a couple hundred thousand laying around to build the ground system?
__________________
 
  #307  
Old 04-20-2012, 05:19 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrionLightShip View Post
Actually, in reference to FTL; there was some research that found it's way into the public domain. This research was done using non-linear optics and involved using a flash tube. The non-linear optics actually integrated the light pulse into a shorter duration, sharper peaked output pulse. The real kicker was that the output came out before the input pulse had ended. At least, that is my memory of what occurred.

There have been other anomalies found in non-linear media as well. Perhaps the Earth would create such a non-linear media giving rise to anomalous EM or ES phenomena.
I do recall that paper and the usual relative correction notes. There's always the 'can not violate' speed ticket handed out.

In any case I contend that a practical application of FTL and 'virtual' ground will be found in an ES wave plasma device, it negates the need of an earth ground and becomes a free space conduit. point to point would theoretically be instantaneous as distance over time is no longer a parameter.

particle accelerator research is in this vein, but you didn't hear that here. move along

Side note: I've looked into the fusor groups, sadly they'll never get anywhere as the bulk of the work is making things glow a 'pretty purple'. Everybody has to have a hobby and it's better than a 'brain cloud' -right Joe
__________________
 
  #308  
Old 04-20-2012, 06:33 PM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
I do recall that paper and the usual relative correction notes. There's always the 'can not violate' speed ticket handed out.

In any case I contend that a practical application of FTL and 'virtual' ground will be found in an ES wave plasma device, it negates the need of an earth ground and becomes a free space conduit. point to point would theoretically be instantaneous as distance over time is no longer a parameter.


particle accelerator research is in this vein, but you didn't hear that here. move along

Last time someone said they could communicate instantaneously they ended up at the bottom of a ravine under strange circumstances. It was a genius engineer that also happened to be in the rock group Iron Butterfly...careful.


Side note: I've looked into the fusor groups, sadly they'll never get anywhere as the bulk of the work is making things glow a 'pretty purple'.


Virtual cathode as substitute ground...that's interesting...something to think about for sure.


Everybody has to have a hobby and it's better than a 'brain cloud' -right Joe

Well there are worse things Joe could do other than throwing himself into a volcano and letting lord xenu catch his soul.

Bentonite, or kitty litter used as the fill media around the copper grounds then whetted to form an encasement will get at least a 1ohm impedance to ground. LOADS of work! a trench for each radial and then back fill of 2~3" of bentonite, lay ground rod, back fill over 2~3" again wet down then bury with top soil. for each and every radial and rod. quite the undertaking!

Bentonite, makes sense as some clays are very ionic in nature.

I've got a friend in the RF communications buisness, more money is spent on grounding and ground systems then the above ground antennae. massive amounts more!

cell towers are required to be less than 1ohm from what I recall, but who's got a couple hundred thousand laying around to build the ground system?

My point exactly.
ten letters
__________________
 
  #309  
Old 04-20-2012, 06:37 PM
Michael Kishline's Avatar
Michael Kishline Michael Kishline is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
Angry Thereth a Mouth in da Houth

I see "The Mouse" has weaseled back in house and has shown his true COLORS, not as a man of his word but a Mouse of his word. You come back in here sniffing for crumbs, chewing away at the wiring and going round and round leaving your $#!+ all over the house, being true to your nature and your Avatar. Dude... your word is all you got, if you blow that, you Ain't spit. How sad to be you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
kool, ok you are right I am wrong. Happy?
YES!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0
The math does not show any magnification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0
I have seen no math for a longitudinal wave, what does this wave look like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0
Old 04-06-2012, 08:12 PM I presume since he teaches at fairly prestigious universities in germany and has developed the math to put together a unified theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
Let me know when you submit your manuscript and theories to IJRRECE for peer review.
Why submit to the Classically Indoctrinated when those are the same NOOBS that trained you? Who the the hell are they? We are still here today burning Oil, Coal, Fuel Rods and spinning water wheels like a bunch of cavemen. They ignored the experiment and took the Math Path, lost in their endless patch work of equations for the last 150 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0
As far as I am concerned this subject is closed.
Can we get an Amen everybody!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kishline
Koko, I trust that you are a man of your word, as you are well spoken.

I officially and unequivocally accept your offer to no longer post at this thread, and as a man of your word, I hold you to your offer.

Warmest Regards Mike
I tried Mr. Nice the first time and I was supported by some, but I'm trying to learn here, so Mr. Nice Guy has left the room!

KokoBloJoe - You know, Eric gave you a pretty good B!tch Slapping and you never got the message, then Aaron embarrassed the hell out of you in front of everyone by defining for you Power, Energy and Time in appropriate context. Your one opportunity to walk away with your dignity dangling and you KokoBloJoed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0
See how the teacher teaches concepts then demonstrates that it is real.
Pride always precedeth the fall

Why don't you sit back with a big fat slice of humble pie and try to learn something from some absolutely brilliant people on this thread. I cannot tell you how much I learn from doing the reading, research references and EXPERIMENTS from those that I highly respect on this thread.

It's O.K. to ask honest and sincere questions, but clearly that's not your agenda. Wisdom is properly applied knowledge, but your shotgun approach and take no prisoners is not the frame of mind of a student... just a "know it all". Whether it be Chist, the sciences or the EXPERIMENT, I am always a student of anything I choose to follow, never the expert.

I humbly enter the conversation and assume I'm the least man on the "Totem Pole" until I hear other people open their mouth and prove otherwise. God gave some of us two eyes, two ears, a nose and mouth for input and two Orifices explicitly for output, lets learn to use them proportionately.


Aaron, you are one of the most patient and level headed Moderators I have ever met, so Kudos to you Sir.
Yet, I give my full support anytime you choose to exercise your right as Moderator to varmint control and eradicate the problem.


Thanks for everything

Mike
__________________
 
  #310  
Old 04-20-2012, 09:00 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
As a useless physicist I'll add my two cents

Superluminal ES plasma wave gives birth to RF signals in space, crab nebula, pulsars etc.. the interesting thing to note is that it's the collision of the ES longitudinal wave into the boundary of a EM wave or field, this transition gives rise to a variety of phenomena.

Dig deeper one will find research in the reverse process of EM to ES and plasma wave acceleration greater than C.

Eric has laid down the groundwork for a similar translation or rotation to ES waves in the dielectric.

But seeing has how I'm a useless physicist, just ignore the above and don't bother to look deeper into the why. I do wonder if Eric includes Farnsworth in that group. Now, relativists would be a better label.

I'd like to point out that FTL is a MASSIVE national security issue. There will be no published works or papers on it. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, research and development is not going to be taking place in public forums or universities.

move along, nothing to see, all is well with the assigned reference frame
I don't know about this plasma stuff. You know, a plasma is nothing but an ionized gas, whereby free electrons are supposedly available and thus can sustain a longitudinal wave.

However, as by the wave-duality principle, ALL "particles" including electrons ARE an electro-magnetic wave phenomenon. The idea that these would be capable of supporting any FTL phenomena simply seems ridiculous to me. I just don't buy it.

Just like when you look at the TT-Brown patents and similar ones, it's always explained as "ion movements" and the like.

IMHO, all the published material on "plasma waves", "ion current anti-gravity" and what not are essentially fairy tales being put forth in order to be able to patent and thus "protect" interesting devices, while at the same time keeping the actual working principles secret and sending any potential researcher on a trip into a place where they can't see the forest because of the trees right in front their noses.

And that has more to do with "international banking cabal security" than with "national security", IMHO.


IMHO, the bottomline is that no matter what technology and phenomenon you are talking about, everything physical that exists is a combination of just a few fundamental kinds of movements in the aether:

1. Steady-state flows (DC);
2. Contracting or expanding steady state flows aka gravity (Bernoulli/Venturi principle in the aether);
3. Longitudinal dielectric "pressure" waves;
4. Vortexes - "static"/"permanent" magnetism;
5. Electro-magnetic waves aka particles -> a propagating/moving, self-contained "looped" vortex.

It is that simple. The understanding of physics and the cosmos could be so greatly improved by just applying Occam's razor, cutting the crap and use some common sense.

Let's just quote the Master on the fundamentals:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Prepared Statement80st Birthday
Quote:
During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible. But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.

And as for published papers on FTL, I know of one. From 1834, for crying out loud:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Wheatstone Experiments To Measure The Velocity Of Electricity

Very cool how he managed to measure the rotation speed of his shaft:

Quote:
It was a point of essential importance to determine the angular velocity of the axle carrying the mirror. No confidence could be placed in the result obtained by calculating the train of wheels, as in such rapid motion many retarding causes might operate and render the calculation uncertain : it was necessary, therefore, to devise a means independent of these sources of error, and which should immediately indicate the ultimate velocity. Nothing appeared more likely to effect this purpose than to attach a small syren to the instrument, the plate of which should be carried round by the axle of the mirror. [...] The difficulty was at last overcome by employing the arm Q itself to produce the sound. A small slip of paper was held to it ; and as at every revolution a blow was given to the paper, its rapid recurrence gave rise to a sound the pitch of which varied with the velocity of the motion. When the machinery was put in motion with the maximum velocity I employed in my experiments, the sound G#4 was obtained, indicating 800 revolutions of the mirror in a second. I am not aware that anything can have interfered with the accuracy of this result ; the same sound was heard when different pieces of paper or card were used ; and on moderating the velocity, the sound descended through all the degrees of the scale below it, until distinct percussions were perceived.
That is just awesome!
  #311  
Old 04-20-2012, 09:10 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
more useless physics info...
quantum tunneling, dielectric barrier discharge and Planks constant.

All the above are known and verified in the lab, they also have a connection to interstellar phenomena.
__________________
 
  #312  
Old 04-20-2012, 09:23 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
more useless physics info...
quantum tunneling, dielectric barrier discharge and Planks constant.

All the above are known and verified in the lab, they also have a connection to interstellar phenomena.
Amen.

They are real phenomena, but in essence once again just wave phenomena in the aether and/or movements of the aether and/or movements of rotating aether vortex structures aka as particles.

With the exception of Plancks constant, or better, Plancks length:

Planck length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
The Planck length is about 10^−20 of the diameter of a proton, and thus is an extremely small length. Measurements of electron radius showed that it is smaller than 10^−20 m,[3] which is a value still 10^15 larger than Planck length.

[...]

The physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research. Because the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any currently possible measurement, there is currently no way of probing this length scale directly. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical.
Plancks length does suggest there is some kind of fundamental limit towards the infinitely small one cannot cross. And that gives us some clue about the nature of the aether, but I haven't figured out yet what it is.

Last edited by lamare; 04-20-2012 at 09:27 PM.
  #313  
Old 04-20-2012, 09:30 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
I don't know about this plasma stuff. You know, a plasma is nothing but an ionized gas, whereby free electrons are supposedly available and thus can sustain a longitudinal wave.

However, as by the wave-duality principle, ALL "particles" including electrons ARE an electro-magnetic wave phenomenon. The idea that these would be capable of supporting any FTL phenomena simply seems ridiculous to me. I just don't buy it.

Just like when you look at the TT-Brown patents and similar ones, it's always explained as "ion movements" and the like.
Plasma ES waves are longitudinal and the natural stable wave in plasma, it takes an instability or boundary transition to translate to an EM wave. Nothing new about the 3 states of plasma waves, it's the control and application of it that is highly classified. You'll find connected research in high atmosphere, lighting discharge, pulsars and particle accelerators that all touch on the ES longitudinal wave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
IMHO, all the published material on "plasma waves", "ion current anti-gravity" and what not are essentially fairy tales being put forth in order to be able to patent and thus "protect" interesting devices, while at the same time keeping the actual working principles secret and sending any potential researcher on a trip into a place where they can't see the forest because of the trees right in front their noses.

And that has more to do with "international banking cabal security" than with "national security", IMHO.
True enough, published papers are more about politics than anything else. You have to read between the lines.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
IMHO, the bottomline is that no matter what technology and phenomenon you are talking about, everything physical that exists is a combination of just a few fundamental kinds of movements in the aether:

1. Steady-state flows (DC);
2. Contracting or expanding steady state flows aka gravity (Bernoulli/Venturi principle in the aether);
3. Longitudinal dielectric "pressure" waves;
4. Vortexes - "static"/"permanent" magnetism;
5. Electro-magnetic waves aka particles -> a propagating/moving, self-contained "looped" vortex.

It is that simple. The understanding of physics and the cosmos could be so greatly improved by just applying Occam's razor, cutting the crap and use some common sense.

Let's just quote the Master on the fundamentals:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Prepared Statement80st Birthday



And as for published papers on FTL, I know of one. From 1834, for crying out loud:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Wheatstone Experiments To Measure The Velocity Of Electricity

Very cool how he managed to measure the rotation speed of his shaft:



That is just awesome!
Or the paper by Karl Pearlson 1899 on Hertzian waves.

Plasma is very interesting and has applications in much of the technology we use today. The manipulation of plasma is thru magnetic fields, the unstable wave form and high loss transition state.

I'm not an E.E. So I look at it very differently, I also struggle to put theory into applied design as the technology just doesn't exist for the bulk of what is needed to manipulate and understand plasma fields. The reason plasma physics is so nebulous is that the wave equations and many body problem emerge and how does one calculate such a large field of interactions without applying a 'smoothing'? current math and direction in this field took a left turn 100+yrs ago.
__________________
 
  #314  
Old 04-20-2012, 09:34 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
Plasma is very interesting and has applications in much of the technology we use today. The manipulation of plasma is thru magnetic fields, the unstable wave form and high loss transition state.

I'm not an E.E. So I look at it very differently, I also struggle to put theory into applied design as the technology just doesn't exist for the bulk of what is needed to manipulate and understand plasma fields. The reason plasma physics is so nebulous is that the wave equations and many body problem emerge and how does one calculate such a large field of interactions without applying a 'smoothing'? current math and direction in this field took a left turn 100+yrs ago.
Yes, plasma stuff is interesting, but the big question is:

Why go trough the trouble of creating a plasma so you can sustain non-faster-than-light longitudinal waves, when you can have FTL waves in the aether that already is right there all around us?
  #315  
Old 04-20-2012, 09:41 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
As seen by Einstein Physics, I give you the Planck.

All of the quantities that have "Planck" attached to their name can ultimately be understood from the concept of the "Planck mass." The Planck mass, roughly speaking, is the mass a point particle would need to have for its classical Schwarzschild radius (the size of its event horizon, if you like) to be the same size as its quantum-mechanical Compton wavelength (or the spread of its wave-function, if you like). That mass is 1019 GeV/c2, or about 10-8 kilograms.

Three of the fundamental constants of nature are: c – the speed of light; h – Plank’s constant; G – the universal gravitational constant. The various Plank values are determined by these constants. In particular, Plank’s length is given by (hG/c3)1/2, about 10-33 cm. Now, what is the significance of this?

There are two pillars of study in physics: Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. All matter is affected by these two pillars to some degree, but they typically can be considered as mutually exclusive. If a particular mass is of a size to be greatly affected by relativity, there usually is little quantum affects. Or, if a particular mass has large quantum affects, there usually is little relativistic affects.

For a given mass, the distance over which relativistic affects are dominant is called the Schwarzschild radius. If a mass is squeezed smaller than its Schwarzschild radius it becomes a Black Hole. The Schwarzschild radius is given by Gm/c2.

The distance over which quantum affects are dominant is called the Compton length. For a given mass, anything smaller than its Compton length is strongly quantum. The Compton length is given by h/mc.

If we compare the Schwarzschild radius and Compton length formulas, as the mass varies, the two lengths are inversely proportional to each other. This is why the two affects seem mutually exclusive.

The question becomes, “Is there a particular mass with the same Schwarzschild radius and Compton length?” The answer is yes. If we equate the two formulas and solve for m, we find that at a mass of (hc/G)1/2 (about 10-5 g) the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton length are equal. This mass is called the Plank mass. The length at which the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton length are equal is called the Plank length. At the Plank length, both relativistic and quantum affects are equally dominant.

Read thru the above again filtering out relativity....
__________________
 
  #316  
Old 04-20-2012, 10:12 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
Yes, plasma stuff is interesting, but the big question is:

Why go trough the trouble of creating a plasma so you can sustain non-faster-than-light longitudinal waves, when you can have FTL waves in the aether that already is right there all around us?
You don't create a stream of ionized gas as that is the EM field.

casimir effect, negative exotic material, FTL. This falls into quantum fluctuations, sound a bit similar to the aether?

The reason for suppression of the ionized gas is that is the boundary transition to EM waves and a loss of energy.
__________________
 
  #317  
Old 04-20-2012, 10:13 PM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
Understanding Plasma; The missing link?

I may very well be the worst person to give an opinion on this subject, but I believe Madhatter is on to something.

If we extrapolate the inferences in the references given by Madhatter or of the study of plasma in general, we start to see PHYSICAL evidence of what we are trying to replicate in the Tesla Transformer efforts, i.e. longitudinal waves that propagate at velocities faster than "light".

I STRONGLY feel there is a connection here, that could lead to the development of a system for the transmission of POWER, SIGNAL and whatever else we can come up with, WITHOUT the use of the EARTH as the ONE WIRE, plasma may very well be the GATEWAY to transmitting through the aether. Or at least, one method we could experiment with.

It should be pointed out THAT WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE AETHER, my earlier post on the subject was an attempt at pointing this out. Furthermore, Tesla, Mendeleev, Steinmetz, Maxwell and Heaviside ALL HAD THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION. Where do we start when we have a thousand different models of one concept?

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?" Oliver Heaviside

I don't feel we will get an empirical answer any time soon, as to the constitution of the inscrutable aether. BUT, as the above quote points out we don't need to know EXACTLY how the aether works to use it. With inferences and experiment we can get insight, with that we can derive conclusions based upon logic, from there we can attempt to develop technology that will help us use the aether for the needs of man.

Plasma research is on a parallel track into the aether and also into the work of Farnsworth and Tesla. While the concepts used in these modern studies are derived from "quantum physics", which I'm not a big fan of, there are certain principles that I find interesting, I don't think we should throw everything they say in the garbage can just yet.

I believe that if we integrate Mr. Dollard's work with SELECT concepts of the plasma research and a experimental model of the aether based upon counter space concepts and golden ratio geometry, we very well could start to develop a model that could give rise to the development of new devices in FTL communication and wireless power transfer that isn't limited by distance or the use of the earth or the ionosphere for transmission.

Garrett M
__________________
 

Last edited by garrettm4; 04-21-2012 at 05:19 AM.
  #318  
Old 04-20-2012, 11:26 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raui View Post
Kokomoj0,
The two time periods of this exchange, that is t1/t2, give us are power magnification ratio.

Raui

so what frequency will I get 1 million times "power" magnification?

I want my magnifier to output 1 million watts for every 1 watt input
It is suspicious that you claim to be qualified to debate the subjects in this thread but you don't even know what the difference is between ENERGY and POWER!

It has been defined for you multiple times and you claim to want a specific definition - um, what do you think the definition of POWER is? You obviously think that increasing power is the same as increasing total energy dissipated.

If you have x joules of potential in a cap and discharge it over 100 milliseconds, you will have so much power. But if you can discharge it over 1 millisecond, your power is magnified tremendously for that moment of time. The ENERGY is the same but the POWER could be in the megawatts for that shorter period of time.

This is so elementary, yet you point the finger at others as giving you 1/2 cocked explanations? Maybe you need to get real with yourself and realize that it is your comprehension that is lacking - not the explanations!

This really calls into question what your real motive is here because you are talking in circles.
Just dropped in to preserve this

Oh and it has nothing to do with the power or energy in and of itself, and everything to do with yours and many others use of the word "MAGNIFY" to describe it. If you believe you have a valid term by all means show me ANY engineering text that uses it in ANY formula. You can multiply, divide, add and subtract etc etc but not magnify, sorry.

That said again cite the engineering text that defines "Magnify" and its associated formula that you are defending here by trying to attach it to the power and energy formulas and I will concede that it is in fact a legitimate electrical term. Until then I hold that the USE OF THAT WORD "MAGNIFY" is nonsense, not the definitions for power and energy etc.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 04-21-2012 at 02:48 AM.
  #319  
Old 04-21-2012, 01:27 AM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
Let's just quote the Master on the fundamentals:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Prepared Statement80st Birthday
Since you posted this link here, I have to ask. How much of Tesla's work do we take too seriously? Did he embellish sometimes to attract investors? Did he sometimes simply draw wrong conclusions based on observation without knowing the required facts necessary to suss out the truth?

Here is an example quoted from that link>

There is one more discovery which I want to announce at this time, consisting of a new method and apparatus for the obtainment of vacua exceeding many times the highest heretofore realized. I think that as much as one-billionth of a micron can be attained.
What may be accomplished by means of such vacua is a matter of conjecture, but it is obvious that they will make possible the production of much more intense effects in electron tubes. My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large body carrying a surface charge and not an elementary unit. When such an electron leaves an electrode of extremely high potential and in very high vacuum, it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than the normal. This may astonish some of those who think that the particle has the same charge in the tube and outside of it in the air. A beautiful and instructive experiment has been contrived by me showing that such is not the case, for as soon as the particle gets out into the atmosphere it becomes a blazing star owing to the escape of the excess charge. The great quantity of electricity stored on the particle is responsible for the difficulties encountered in the operation of certain tubes and the rapid deterioration of the same.

Dollard, if I understand correctly believes electons don't exist??? That it is simply a phenomena of "lines of force" which early researchers seemed also to believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tesla is saying in a better vacuum more charge can be placed on the "large" surface of an electron which "leaks away" the excess charge when allowed (forced) into the atmosphere.

There have been many high vacuum electron beam devices made where electrons pass through a thin membrane or a plasma window. These electrons have been subjected to a large accelerating voltage and the only thing that occurs is the ionization of air which Tesla states is a "blazing star" All these many years later and no such surface charge has been evidenced by ES and Magnetic focusing and deflection. Clearly he was wrong. One of many times I believe.

Blasphemy! I think not.
__________________
 
  #320  
Old 04-21-2012, 02:03 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrionLightShip View Post
Since you posted this link here, I have to ask. How much of Tesla's work do we take too seriously? Did he embellish sometimes to attract investors? Did he sometimes simply draw wrong conclusions based on observation without knowing the required facts necessary to suss out the truth?

Here is an example quoted from that link>

There is one more discovery which I want to announce at this time, consisting of a new method and apparatus for the obtainment of vacua exceeding many times the highest heretofore realized. I think that as much as one-billionth of a micron can be attained.
What may be accomplished by means of such vacua is a matter of conjecture, but it is obvious that they will make possible the production of much more intense effects in electron tubes. My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large body carrying a surface charge and not an elementary unit. When such an electron leaves an electrode of extremely high potential and in very high vacuum, it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than the normal. This may astonish some of those who think that the particle has the same charge in the tube and outside of it in the air. A beautiful and instructive experiment has been contrived by me showing that such is not the case, for as soon as the particle gets out into the atmosphere it becomes a blazing star owing to the escape of the excess charge. The great quantity of electricity stored on the particle is responsible for the difficulties encountered in the operation of certain tubes and the rapid deterioration of the same.

Dollard, if I understand correctly believes electons don't exist??? That it is simply a phenomena of "lines of force" which early researchers seemed also to believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tesla is saying in a better vacuum more charge can be placed on the "large" surface of an electron which "leaks away" the excess charge when allowed (forced) into the atmosphere.

There have been many high vacuum electron beam devices made where electrons pass through a thin membrane or a plasma window. These electrons have been subjected to a large accelerating voltage and the only thing that occurs is the ionization of air which Tesla states is a "blazing star" All these many years later and no such surface charge has been evidenced by ES and Magnetic focusing and deflection. Clearly he was wrong. One of many times I believe.

Blasphemy! I think not.
Hello Orion,
I don't think Tesla lied about the things he found. He may have streched the truth a little but there aren't many people who are trying to sell something to investors, who knows. As for whether or not he was wrong with some things I'd have to say that there is a good chance that Tesla got at least one thing wrong, he is only human. I think it's important to note that Tesla has said that any phenomena he talks about that is above his signature is derived from experimentation. He mentions this in a meeting with his legal counsel; Nikola Tesla on His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to ... - Nikola Tesla - Google Books

As for Dollard and electrons, it is my understanding that he doesn't go so far as to say they don't exist but that they aren't the carriers of electricity, the lines of force are. An electron moving in a wire is a by-product of the lines of force in movement. Think of an invisible man in the snow. As he walks no one can see him but can see the footprints he leaves. In this case the footprints would be the electrons and the invisible man the lines of force. Dollard uses this analogy in the SFTS lecture and so I feel that this is a good representation of how he sees it.

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
  #321  
Old 04-21-2012, 02:16 AM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
Tesla, a Man of Great Insight

Orion,

Well, I partly agree, but not in the exact sentiment that you hold.

It should be pointed out that certain parts of Tesla's work are over a 100 years old and obviously he made the best conclusions that a man could in the HIGHLY mysterious and for the most part unexplored fields that he endeavored in.

If you were to look into the decay of radioactive matter, which was a big study during the ~1890s, you would find that well respected scholars and men of science couldn't even remotely agree on anything, other than the materials were emitting particles and were changing into different elements. The rate of decay was an often debated subject.

Tesla came to some amazing, yet seemingly crazy, insights into the actions of radioactive matter, which only until recently have been given a creditable third party explanation that parallels what Tesla said on the subject 80 years ago:

"When radioactivity was discovered, it was thought to be an entirely new manifest-action of energy limited to a few substances. I obtained sufficient evidence to convince me that such actions were general and in nature the same as those exhibited by my tubes. In these, minute corpuscles, regarding which we are sill in doubt, are shot from a highly electrified terminal against a target where they generate Rontgen or other rays by impact. Now, according to my theory, a radioactive body is simply a target which is continuously bombarded by infinitesimal bullets projected from all parts of the universe, and if this, then unknown, cosmic radiation could be wholly intercepted, radioactivity would cease.

I made some progress in solving the mystery until in 1899 I obtained mathematical and experimental proofs that the sun and other heavenly bodies similarly conditioned emit rays of great energy which consist of inconceivably small particles animated by velocities vastly exceeding that of light. So great is the penetrative power of these rays that they can traverse thousands of miles of solid matter with but slight diminution of velocity..." Nikola Tesla, "Dr. Tesla Writes of Various Phases of His Discovery", 1932, New York Times

Neutrinos are a particle which, according to who you listen to, are either faster than the speed of light or oh-so-very close to the so called terminal velocity c. They were found in a study, the link to which is given below, to be linked to the rate of radioactive decay. I think this is a little too close to be a coincidence, but that may very well be what this is. Interestingly, Gustave Le Bon, came to VERY similar conclusions on this exact subject, BOTH Tesla and Le Bon did their pioneering studies on the subject of radioactivity around the same time, 1890s.

Reference:
The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements, Aug. 23, 2010 issue of Stanford Report

Some Food for Thought,

Garrett M
__________________
 

Last edited by garrettm4; 04-28-2012 at 05:41 PM.
  #322  
Old 04-21-2012, 02:31 AM
Farmhand Farmhand is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,387
When I think of electrons and current I think of a speed boat and it's wake,
the boat being the current or flow of charge and the wake being the electron
jiggle or the result.

Maybe current we measure is like the wake of the boat, but the wake of the boat is
not the process by which the boat is moved, the wake of the boat is only the
consequence, however by measuring the wake, the "amount" of boat could be
determined. I think measured current is the same kinda thing, it is the result of
what happened not part of the process itself.

Even though the boat may be moving very fast the wake moves only a small
amount in progression. So it seems that maybe the electron movement is like
the wake of the boat.

Could it be that the measured current is only a result of the transfer of
charge and being easy to see and measure and fairly uniform in it's resulting
action we measure it as an indication of what happened ? Why not ?

Cheers
__________________
 
  #323  
Old 04-21-2012, 03:16 AM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
Orion,

Well, I partly agree, but not in the exact sentiment that you hold.

It should be pointed out that certain parts of Tesla's work are over a 100 years old and obviously he made the best conclusions that a man could in the HIGHLY mysterious and for the most part unexplored fields that he endeavored in.

I think our sentiment is exactly the same garret, you just put it into words better than I did. I think he did the best he could with the level of technology surrounding his world. I also believe Raui is correct, that he didn't exactly lie but did some embellishing, mostly in the form of a flourish of eloquent language.

Also, thank you Raui for clearing up my partly incorrect understanding of the Dollard interpretation. It does make sense on some level but given the double slit experimental results, I have to stick with the current electron theory and duality enigma.

ten letters
__________________
 
  #324  
Old 04-21-2012, 03:23 AM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 414
But, the thing that moves the boat to begin with is voltage differential. I have a lot more trouble visualizing the cause of voltage than I do understanding current. Don't tell anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmhand View Post
When I think of electrons and current I think of a speed boat and it's wake,
the boat being the current or flow of charge and the wake being the electron
jiggle or the result.

Maybe current we measure is like the wake of the boat, but the wake of the boat is
not the process by which the boat is moved, the wake of the boat is only the
consequence, however by measuring the wake, the "amount" of boat could be
determined. I think measured current is the same kinda thing, it is the result of
what happened not part of the process itself.

Even though the boat may be moving very fast the wake moves only a small
amount in progression. So it seems that maybe the electron movement is like
the wake of the boat.

Could it be that the measured current is only a result of the transfer of
charge and being easy to see and measure and fairly uniform in it's resulting
action we measure it as an indication of what happened ? Why not ?

Cheers
__________________
 
  #325  
Old 04-21-2012, 03:38 AM
jake's Avatar
jake jake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geometric_Algebra View Post
Extra coil calculations were based on the modified expressions I posted there. This extra coil design is using RG316 coax. I dissected a small length and determined the outer diameter to be 0.098 inches, silvered sheath diameter to be 0.074 inches with a copper mass per length of 0.139 grams/inch.

With the test setups described by Eric, meter readings dip down to practically nothing (maybe 2 uA quiescent) with the function generator zeroed out, or adjusted off of the center frequency by several 100 kHz. No, and I do not think there is anything specifically broadcasting at 990 kHz in the area. I will look into these aspects more later on.
If you don't mind sharing how did you come up with the modified extra coil expressions?
__________________
 
  #326  
Old 04-21-2012, 08:55 AM
Nhopa Nhopa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 134
Rg316, Rg316/u

According to data available on the internet, RG316 and RG316/U coaxial cables have for center conductor material "silver coated copper clad steel". Does this fact alters the intended operation of the coil?

The answers to my inquiry about the star radial grounding system indicates that perhaps non of you experimenters have built one yet. But according to Eric a good ground is a must. I am willing to be the first to try but need more support. Am I to understand that I must use copper rods? Although, I have not yet revealed my real name, but it is certainly not Rockefeller. Here in Eastern Europe the price of copper is getting pretty close to the price of gold. So are there any alternatives, for instance using galvanized steel? Also I need practical answers to my question about resistance reading. Thank you.
__________________
 
  #327  
Old 04-21-2012, 01:44 PM
jake's Avatar
jake jake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhopa View Post
According to data available on the internet, RG316 and RG316/U coaxial cables have for center conductor material "silver coated copper clad steel". Does this fact alters the intended operation of the coil?

The answers to my inquiry about the star radial grounding system indicates that perhaps non of you experimenters have built one yet. But according to Eric a good ground is a must. I am willing to be the first to try but need more support. Am I to understand that I must use copper rods? Although, I have not yet revealed my real name, but it is certainly not Rockefeller. Here in Eastern Europe the price of copper is getting pretty close to the price of gold. So are there any alternatives, for instance using galvanized steel? Also I need practical answers to my question about resistance reading. Thank you.
Copper tubing is a good alternative to rods if you have soil that will allow you to get these in without destroying them. I have had the same questions as well. The best I can make out is you need copper or better gold Large surface area is a must. But how much is good enough is anyones guess when working with experimental models. You might not need one at all or there may be an alternative. But since this is theoretical all bets are off.


It all depends on what is underneath you. If you live on top of a copper mine you might need 1 20' copper rod. If you live in west texas all the rods in the world will not help. Then you will need the 80 radials to one ground rod as far as I can tell.

I think I remember reading that Tesla used iron rods somewhere??? but he was working at a lower frequency so that may have worked for him.
__________________
 
  #328  
Old 04-21-2012, 01:57 PM
Nhopa Nhopa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 134
Betonite

Hi Jake:
Thank you for the response. My internet search turned up something interesting, using copper wire encased in Betonite. I will attempt to attach this info. I ask others too to review and comment. It seems as a relatively cheap alternative to a full blown star radial system.
Attachment 10823
__________________
 

Last edited by Nhopa; 06-16-2012 at 02:40 PM.
  #329  
Old 04-21-2012, 03:11 PM
Farmhand Farmhand is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,387
That bentonite stuff sounds good Nhopa, I'm using 6 foot galvanized steel
fencing pickets they are tri-star shaped, strong and have holes in them, one right
near the top. I drilled a hole in the ground with the tractor right over the septic
sump drain. I got down about 4 feet with the small post hole digger so then I
only had to drive the stake down 2 feet into the bottom of the hole. After I
drove the stake in I put some charcoal and ashes in the hole in a layer about 6
inches thick, then filled the hole mixing more charcoal and ashes with the dirt.

I've only done one so far to see how it would work, I measured the resistance to
the house ground as 520 ohms, but I think the house ground is not the best and
I measured it through an extension cord plugged into a socket. Still I will need
to put more stakes in because I live on a rocky hill. Even though there was a
gold and copper mine very close to here this hill has a lot of granite. I'm
hoping three to five stakes will get the resistance down.

Using copper pipe should be ok and if a hole is dug first maybe they'll go in.
The surface area of a steel fencing picket would be about three times that of
a 1/2 inch rod maybe. They're not cheap to buy though. Steel Posts and Steel Pickets By Rural Fencing Supplies

I guess I should measure the resistance between the house ground and the
water main, then between my ground and the water main, that'll tell me how
good it is.

Cheers
__________________
 

Last edited by Farmhand; 04-21-2012 at 03:15 PM.
  #330  
Old 04-21-2012, 03:39 PM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 414
modulated radioactivity

@garretm4

RE: Radioactivity

I suppose it is human nature to observe something and draw conclusions and call them facts and laws when in reality, there always seems to be more information or data around the corner over the next hill.

We have supposed radioactivity to be a constant predictable event and placed an average half-life when we really have no idea what causes spontaneous emission. Spontaneous emission of light photons was just as mysterious but I think the cause is now obvious. Oops, now I am making the same mistakes and assumptions!

I do not have the references but it was found that the casimir effect or casimir shielding prevents spontaneous decay of a radioactive element. I believe that spontaneous emission of a light photon would behave the same way.

Since radioactivity is affected by solar flares, then isn't it obvious that solar flares affect the aether which in turn interacts with our physical world and spontaneous emissions? It seems likely, since spontaneous emission can be prevented from occurring with casimir shielding.

Spontaneous emission is not so spontaneous after all. It has a causative agent which can be altered.

So it would seem that we always have one foot in that other realm that brings us a diverse range of phenomena. Infinite possibilities in a majestic existence!

Just a theory.
__________________
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers