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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-08-2014, 08:02 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Amazing simple experiment proving Dollard on dielectric capacitance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-k8qe0o9SU

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


The second video is to prove I was not holding the rod and breaking its fall.

Dont be too harsh on this $20 part demonstration video.



From the point of Dollards below, Im using 3 magnets (ring magnets) on a delron (plastic) hollow rod.

magnets are 100% free floating on the rod, and passed thru a copper tube ONLY HOLDING THE PLASTIC ROD....., I get resistance coming and going from the plastic rod (dielectric capacitance)


Also proving Dollards position (as if it needed any proving) that "insulators are conductors and conductors are really insulators".


Fascinating!
Promise the video (SEE LINKS ABOVE)


Im getting resistance off a PLASTIC ROD (insulator) thru a copper tube.

on the plastic rod are 100% free floating ring-magnets.



Investigating dielectric capacitance a bit further, consider an experiment of Ben Franklin, the father of the electro-static condenser. Here we will dispel the “electronics nerd” concept that a capacitor stores “electrons” in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this “charged” set of plates. This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil, withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the space bounded by the other un-charged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to another set of plates. This induction is contained by the boundaries of the 10-C oil. Well golly-gee Mr. Wizard, what happened to all those electrons, Isn’t oil an insulator?
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 04-08-2014 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

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

  #2  
Old 04-08-2014, 11:14 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
OK, videos posted above.

Sorry I should have had the camera aimed a bit higher.


So, 3 'rings' outside ring is copper, inside rings are the 3 magnets.....and inside the magnets is a rod/ring of teflon.


Any simple explanation other than Dollards about 2 dropping rings thru a "conductor" of copper?

one being the magnets, which we all know about .

but then also a "secondary eddy current" on the dielectric plastic rod inside that????
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-09-2014, 06:29 AM
Natusake Natusake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Ugh... Both of those videos are terrible. They don't really prove anything since it's hard to see what you're talking about from the terrible camera angle combined with the terrible experimental procedure. Here is a much better video on the subject:

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

This is a very well understood phenomena, and it doesn't prove "dielectric capacitance", this has nothing to do with capacitance. Obviously you don't understand what Eric is getting at when he is speaking of 'conductors confining electricity'. Dielectric capacitance is something completely different. The plastic rod isn't imparting any resistance, it would have been easy to find this out, just remove the magnets from the plastic rod and do the experiment again...

It is very easy to prove Eric's views on conductors and non-conductors, simply try to pass electromagnetism (some radio waves, for instance) through a conductor and a non-conductor. You will instantly notice that the conductor blocks the electromagnetic waves, while the non-conductor does not. This experiment is relatively easy to do.
__________________
 

Last edited by Natusake; 04-09-2014 at 07:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-09-2014, 09:22 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
Ugh... Both of those videos are terrible. They don't really prove anything since it's hard to see what you're talking about from the terrible camera angle combined with the terrible experimental procedure. Here is a much better video on the subject:

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

This is a very well understood phenomena, and it doesn't prove "dielectric capacitance", this has nothing to do with capacitance. Obviously you don't understand what Eric is getting at when he is speaking of 'conductors confining electricity'. Dielectric capacitance is something completely different. The plastic rod isn't imparting any resistance, it would have been easy to find this out, just remove the magnets from the plastic rod and do the experiment again...

.



Youve LOST your mind, the video you posted is about Lenz law eddy currents in copper and magnets.


Ill confess to the videos I made being hastily made, but they werent even ABOUT eddy currents in the copper/ magnets.

They were about the dielectric capacitance/induction of the PLASTIC

From your comments you either didnt even watch the vids or you didnt even read the first post.


You said---The plastic rod isn't imparting any resistance


I never said it was, please scrape the cheese out from between your ears please.


I was showing the teflon rod was acting as a dielectric induction mass from the actions of the copper and magnets.


You not only missed the point, but the mark, and the entire premise.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-09-2014, 09:27 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
Ugh... just remove the magnets from the plastic rod and do the experiment again....


Next time think for 2 seconds before you POST something.


Ive been playing with magnets and copper tubes (and aluminum) for almost 15 years now.

NEITHER video was about EITHER the magnets NOR the COPPER pipe.


Read the first post in this thread again, since you didnt read it the first time.

There is nobody here on this forum that hasnt played with magnets and copper tubes, and the videos sure as Hades had nothing to do with EITHER magnets nor the copper tubes

rather the conjunction of both AS acting upon the 'non-conductive' plastic rod in free fall in the middle of 1. the magnets and 2. the copper tube.
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 04-09-2014 at 09:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-09-2014, 01:26 PM
Natusake Natusake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
Youve LOST your mind, the video you posted is about Lenz law eddy currents in copper and magnets.


Ill confess to the videos I made being hastily made, but they werent even ABOUT eddy currents in the copper/ magnets.

They were about the dielectric capacitance/induction of the PLASTIC
Then what's with the magnets? What's with the copper? Wouldn't it have been better to show the effects with only a plastic rod? Obviously its hard to understand what you are talking about since the terms your using aren't even close to standard fair, what I saw in the video was a copper tube, and a plastic rod with magnets around it. Usually one associates that with eddy currents.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
You said---The plastic rod isn't imparting any resistance
I never said it was, please scrape the cheese out from between your ears please.
Okay, sorry, you said "I get resistance coming and going from the plastic rod" and "Im getting resistance off a PLASTIC ROD". Perhaps I made my statement wrong. I took it to mean that it fell slower and therefore it had resistance (to gravity). It's hard to glean much when the terms you are using are extremely vague.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
NEITHER video was about EITHER the magnets NOR the COPPER pipe. [/B]

Read the first post in this thread again, since you didnt read it the first time.
There is a huge disconnected between what you say and the video. I read the thread already and watched the video and largely took what you were doing from the video, since you don't really have an understanding of how to English.

If the video was not about either the magnets nor the copper pipe, then why not remove them from your experiment, then drop the plastic rod...?

Quote:
rather the conjunction of both AS acting upon the 'non-conductive' plastic rod in free fall in the middle of 1. the magnets and 2. the copper tube.
I beg to differ, since you seem to point out the very hard-to-see phenomena of the plastic rod falling -before- the magnets hit the top and slow it down. So it seems you are talking about the relation between a falling plastic rod and a still copper tube. Instead wouldn't it have been useful to remove the magnets altogether?

Really you don't understand how experimental process works and how to show your experimental work. Here is a much better way to show what you're trying to show so that silly people like me don't get confused:

First, get a better camera angle, put it so that the camera looks at the experiment from the side so we can see the rate at which the rod falls (and a piece of alternating black and white bar paper as a background would do wonders for this). Take a few different rods, a plastic rod, a plastic rod with magnets, a magnetic rod, and a rod that is neither dielectric nor magnetic. Drop these each multiple times and time how long it takes the rods to hit the floor. Compare the results. Also, don't hold the rod like you were doing in your first video, and don't catch the rod like you were doing in the second. You need to let the rod hit the ground to measure the time it takes to fall.

This would give us a much better understanding of what it going on then the that you showed which tells us virtually nothing.

Furthermore, it's hard to see what you are proving since it is ambiguous as to what you mean by "Eric's views on dielectric capacitance". This could mean anything from the dielectric field between a capacitor, to the dielectric field in electrostatics, to the dielectric field between the turns of a coil. A simple hypothesis 'if-then-because' statement would have been sufficient, although that is a bit over the top.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-09-2014, 05:07 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
Then what's with the magnets? What's with the copper? Wouldn't it have been better to show the effects with only a plastic rod?
How dumb is that statement. Pure insanity. NEED the copper and magnets to induce a charge /field IN the PLASTIC.

So, was I supposed to rub the plastic rod on my ass and induce a electrostatic charge?

ROFL !! The POINT, since you missed it 100% again, was the plastic rod "should" freefall thru the center but DOESNT .




Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
If the video was not about either the magnets nor the copper pipe, then why not remove them from your experiment, then drop the plastic rod...?


And what in Hades would that prove??? Look folks, Im dropping a plastic rod.

Surely you jest. either that was meant to be very funny or it was unintentionally a very very dumb statement




Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
Really you don't understand how experimental process works and how to show your experimental work. Here is a much better way to show what you're trying to show so that silly people like me don't get confused.

Really you dont even understand what the experiment was meant to show.
Of course I could have made the video a lot better and a better angle.


Since you have cheese between your ears, lets be clear, the entire POINT is about the teflon rod having retardation in drop THRU the center of the magnets which is also dropping THRU the copper tube.

get that yet? Its about the plastic rod.



1. The video was only to make a POINT, not be classy or professional.

The POINT was "do the experiment yourself", not impress you with the video.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-09-2014, 11:40 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Quote:
Of course I could have made the video a lot better and a better angle.
Then why don't you? This video is way below your true capabilities, I'm sure.

Quote:
1. The video was only to make a POINT, not be classy or professional.
But a video of this quality does not make a point.

Quote:
The POINT was "do the experiment yourself", not impress you with the video.
Nor does it inspire anyone.

Now listen, you're retired (at what age again?), you have plenty of money and time, you know all about magnets and stuff like that, then why bother making a sh*tty video?
Video's like this are not only an entire waste of your precious time, they also bring you down, among us ordinary folks and maybe even below that level.
If you want to prove/show something, just put a tiny little bit more of your gigantic cunning in it.

Good luck!

Ernst.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-09-2014, 11:49 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
Video's like this are not only an entire waste of your precious time, they also bring you down, among us ordinary folks and maybe even below that level.
If you want to prove/show something, just put a tiny little bit more of your gigantic cunning in it..

When you show something new and interesting, that IS the point. crummy video or not.


Im busy writing a partial Greek translation of Plotinus V.1 , and 100 other things.


I did prove and show something, you're only pissing about the video quality.

Suggest now that you know what is going on, you go test it yourself and make a "superior video" if you see fit.


There are those that do, and those that talk about those that do.



Id rather watch a crappy video in 240dpi making an interesting point than a 1080P video showing boring worthless garbage.


Speaking of HORRIBLE VIDEO / AUDIO, have you seen the 3 Main Eric P. Dollard videos on youtube?


Ive watched each video likely 10 times.

The videos and audio starring Eric P Dollard are HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE quality video and audio productions........

Doesnt bother me one bit.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
But a video of this quality does not make a point.

Thats as insane as saying "if you write a discovery / important fact on the back of a bubble gum wrapper, then it has no value"


I point to the insanely AWFUL video-quality of all of Eric Dollards youtube videos.

They stand on their CONTENT, not their production values.


As Dollard would say "go experiment"
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 04-09-2014 at 11:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-10-2014, 12:51 AM
Natusake Natusake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
How dumb is that statement. Pure insanity. NEED the copper and magnets to induce a charge /field IN the PLASTIC.

So, was I supposed to rub the plastic rod on my ass and induce a electrostatic charge?

ROFL !! The POINT, since you missed it 100% again, was the plastic rod "should" freefall thru the center but DOESNT .
And what in Hades would that prove??? Look folks, Im dropping a plastic rod.

Surely you jest. either that was meant to be very funny or it was unintentionally a very very dumb statement
Of course I was jesting, in response to your statements that the video was not about the magnets or the copper. My entire point by that ridiculous statement was to show that this is obviously not only about the plastic rod, but instead the plastic rod interacting between both the magnets and the copper.


Quote:
Since you have cheese between your ears, lets be clear, the entire POINT is about the teflon rod having retardation in drop THRU the center of the magnets which is also dropping THRU the copper tube.

get that yet? Its about the plastic rod.
Once again, you don't seem to understand what you're saying. First you say its about the magnets, the copper, and the plastic rod interacting, now you say its about the plastic rod, you're not being consistent here. Once again, you can show what you are talking about using the experimental method I mentioned.

Quote:
1. The video was only to make a POINT, not be classy or professional.

The POINT was "do the experiment yourself", not impress you with the video.
I'm not asking you to be professional or classy, I'm asking to to make a point in a way that you can actually make a point. I'd argue that one must be impressed by the video in order to do the experiment, otherwise they right it off as poppycock.

Quote:
When you show something new and interesting, that IS the point. crummy video or not. Im busy writing a partial Greek translation of Plotinus V.1 , and 100 other things. I did prove and show something, you're only pissing about the video quality. Suggest now that you know what is going on, you go test it yourself and make a "superior video" if you see fit. There are those that do, and those that talk about those that do. Id rather watch a crappy video in 240dpi making an interesting point than a 1080P video showing boring worthless garbage. Speaking of HORRIBLE VIDEO / AUDIO, have you seen the 3 Main Eric P. Dollard videos on youtube? Ive watched each video likely 10 times. The videos and audio starring Eric P Dollard are HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE quality video and audio productions........Doesnt bother me one bit.

Thats as insane as saying "if you write a discovery / important fact on the back of a bubble gum wrapper, then it has no value" I point to the insanely AWFUL video-quality of all of Eric Dollards youtube videos. They stand on their CONTENT, not their production values. As Dollard would say "go experiment"
Oh don't even compare this video to Eric Dollard's videos. Eric's videos have arguable worse video fidelity than yours, but they actually DO make a point. If Eric's video was like yours it would be akin to showing the entire experiment with Eric between the camera and what he's showing.

The thing here, is that even though Eric's videos are terrible quality, I can forgive them since they still actually said something important, and showed the experiment correctly, and allowed you to reproduce it. Yours, on the other hand, doesn't even allow us to get a good look at the falling plastic rod.

This forum has loads of people making videos with terrible quality, but they still actually show us 'something', whereas yours shows us nothing.

If you wanted to show that one can acquire an electrostatic charge through the movement of dissimilar materials (dielectric and conductor), then it would have been a lot easier to rub the plastic rod on the copper then detect the electric field using an electroscope. Of course, such easy experimental methods are certainly beyond one of your stature.

If you wanted to, as you said "Induce a charge/field in the plastic rod", then just do the above... Or, HECK, just find a different video on youtube since you can't seem to show it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh-CUEfdiic

Honestly you seem more like a spammer and a troll than someone who's actually interested here. Your extreme rudeness is a testament to this, but it really doesn't affect anyone since no one cares what you think about them.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-10-2014, 01:14 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
This forum has loads of people making videos with terrible quality, but they still actually show us 'something', whereas yours shows us nothing.

. Or, HECK, just find a different video on youtube since you can't seem to show it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh-CUEfdiic
.

You must be 10 years old, that video link you posted is:
Friction electrostatic generator


There is no friction on the plastic rod in freefall on my video.

Again, you have cheese tween' your ears.

There is no other video on youtube showing the freefall of a non-conductive plastic rod having retarded fall thru a set of magnets and the likewise copper tube.

I suspect you may have Asperger's Autism or likewise.


Now, run along little boy, and either do the experiment yourself or dont do it, or scrape cheese. I could care less.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
then it would have been a lot easier to rub the plastic rod on the copper then detect the electric field using an electroscope.

Thats not what is being shown in the video, son.

The point is using a RING magnet and causing dielectric induction (or exchange of capacitance IN the teflon rod likewise reflected and interacting with the magnets and copper tube)


Once again, your back to rubbing plastic rods on things.

The point was a SPECIFIC setup, showing a freefall THRU that specific setup.

Let me introduce you to the definition of clueless, its in your bathroom mirror.


Stop talking about rubbing plastic ON things, son.

The Demo, poor video or not, is about a freefall THRU a specific set of magnetic and conductive rings by a 'non-conductive' plastic rod.


You are either extremely unintelligent,.... or purposefully being a Troll, plain and simple.

take your pick of the two.


Additionally as an expert philosopher, youre engaging in pedantic sophistry and nonlinear logomachy for sake of obfuscation.


No, go rub your rod. No interest in you and your things rubbing against things.
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 04-10-2014 at 01:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 04-10-2014, 01:53 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Quote:
When you show something new and interesting, that IS the point. crummy video or not.
Agree! 100%
But my point is that nothing new and interesting IS shown in your video.
I would point you to the same eddy current videos as Natusake did. Because THAT is what I see in your videos. Nothing else.

Quote:
Im busy writing a partial Greek translation of Plotinus V.1 , and 100 other things.
I expected that much.

Quote:
I did prove and show something, you're only pissing about the video quality.
You may have proved it to yourself, but your video does not show anything new and/or interesting.
When I mention video quality, I do not refer to number of pixels or colours or what have you.
I am talking about how your amazing experiment is shown.

You are the man of 1000+ capabilities, you are towering high above us. I understand that you have little time to convince us of your theories and experiments even if we could ever grasp what they are about.
I'm sure your experiment shows something of extreme importance that we little folk with our tiny minds (if you could call it a mind at all) fail to see. In making a video like you just did, your efforts are wasted and now you have to spend even more time answering silly questions about it. Where is the logic in that?
Tell some of your butlers to do the video in a way it really shows what you intended to show. That way you can save yourself a lot of time (for use on more important affairs) and at the same time it gives your household something to do.

Quote:
Suggest now that you know what is going on, you go test it yourself and make a "superior video" if you see fit.
That is my whole point, and if I am correct, also Natusakes point. The video does not show anything that we did not already know. It is uninspiring, it has been a waste of your precious time.
Imagine this:
I make a video of myself washing my car and then I talk about electrostatic effects which you can not see in the video. And then I say, well, go ahead do the experiment yourself.
How many people, do you figure, will think "Oh wow, fascinating stuff, I am going to try that at once!"

Ernst
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-10-2014, 02:13 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
Agree! 100%
But my point is that nothing new and interesting IS shown in your video.
I would point you to the same eddy current videos as Natusake did. Because THAT is what I see in your videos. Nothing else.

New to youtube for certain. Unless you can find another demo (good or bad) about the retarded freefall of a plastic rod thru magnets which themselves are falling thru the copper.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
have little time to convince us of your theories and experiments even if we could ever grasp what they are about..

Not trying to convince anyone of anything, rather say do it yourself. If you can find another video like it, show it to me.

that being freefall of a rod thru ring magnets and copper tube.

You CAN however show the frog and strawberry levitation from fields of course.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
The video does not show anything that we did not already know.
I talk about electrostatic effects which you can not see in the video. And then I say, well, go ahead do the experiment yourself.
How many people, do you figure, will think "Oh wow, fascinating stuff, I am
Ernst

dielectric induction from a free falling object is NOT one Ive yet to see anywhere.

Please show me some. There might be one out there. Yet to see it.


How many people out there (not THIS board) even know that the premise of magnetism, or specifically instant action at a distance is a complete mystery.



The OP wasnt that there is anything NEW here, but a new way of looking at it.



Heres a quote from Dollard (see below).......something we ALL KNOW ALREADY......but he says it in such a different way, it makes people (well some) think differently about things we consider mundane.

It seems the spark of creative thought was drained outta you at some point.


What Tesla accomplished is…those transmission lines you see everywhere, that allows us to have a giant drive shaft that we can take rotary motion from a massive turbine plant and convey it thru an electromagnetic structure that operates with reflected waves and time frames etc. that works just like a drive shaft, bounces back and forth, twists, and rotates. But you can stand outside and look at those thick lines that go down any public street and in the space between those lines, the energy there is the energy of one railroad locomotive moving at 95% of the speed of light down the space between those wires, and there is NO evidence that anything at all is happening except the wires are slightly pushed apart and warm. So it’s a type of drive shaft that exists in another dimension. Then you put the synchronous machine on the other end (of that power line) and you couple out of that (electrical) drive shaft like a transmission and you have rotary force again. These things (rotary Tesla generators) are no more than stamped iron in patterns. By making this special arch form and its influences on the formative forces in the ether …Tesla’s invention is the most powerful arch form the human race has ever conceived.

- Eric Dollard
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-10-2014, 02:26 AM
Phat Phat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 8
Free energy experiment!

Found this video on you tube searching random related topics to electricity.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VDjMbb0Z3JY
I am new to the vast world of E.M. but this seems shocking to me.
✴check it out ✴
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-10-2014, 02:45 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat View Post
Found this video on you tube searching random related topics to electricity.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VDjMbb0Z3JY
I am new to the vast world of E.M. but this seems shocking to me.
✴check it out ✴

Great video.


Ive had a superconducing Yttrium barium copper oxide set since i was a teenager.

It never made any sense how this was a "superconductor"


until Dollard said such things are really superinsulators.


Since I have 4 liquid nitrogen dewers, and still had some liquid nitrogen left over from 4 days ago, i put my Styrofoam superconductor set on a micro scale and poured in the LN2 and waited for the Yt-barium Copper oxide disk to boil down to L2 temps and levitate the magnet.


used my tweezers to push down on the magnet without touching and the "superconductor" moved the mini scale a bit.

makes perfect sense, as usual, thanks to Dollard.


I never before thought of seeing a cooled "superconductor" as a super-insulator before. All logical.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-10-2014, 02:47 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
nothing free there

Hi Phat,

That is called polarization of the dielectric. When you charge the caps you use a little bit more energy than you get out at the first discharge. This extra energy polarizes the dielectric, which remains polarized for a while even after discharging the cap.
The polarized dielectric recharges the cap.

I have a 5600 Volt DC power supply, with bridge rectifier and 29 uF smoothing caps.
(no bleeder resistor)
After using this power supply I have to discharge the caps 4-5 times.

interesting and dangerous

Ernst.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-10-2014, 06:29 AM
Natusake Natusake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
You must be 10 years old, that video link you posted is:
Friction electrostatic generator


There is no friction on the plastic rod in freefall on my video.

Again, you have cheese tween' your ears.

There is no other video on youtube showing the freefall of a non-conductive plastic rod having retarded fall thru a set of magnets and the likewise copper tube.
There doesn't need to be friction for there to be separation of charges, this is well known. In fact, most Van De Graff generators work best when the belt does not touch the receiving metal spikes. Obviously you do not understand this phenomenon.

Quote:
Thats not what is being shown in the video, son.

The point is using a RING magnet and causing dielectric induction (or exchange of capacitance IN the teflon rod likewise reflected and interacting with the magnets and copper tube)
Once again, it's hard to figure out much from the video. But you do seem to put special attention on what the plastic rod is doing before the magnets hit the top.

Quote:
Stop talking about rubbing plastic ON things, son.
Once again, you should know that you do not need contact for the phenomenon to occur.

Quote:
The Demo, poor video or not, is about a freefall THRU a specific set of magnetic and conductive rings by a 'non-conductive' plastic rod.
There doesn't need to be freefall for it to work, just movement against the two objects. Since you put special attention to what the plastic rod was doing before it was subject to hitting the magnet I thought you were talking about the plastic rod interacting with only the copper tube. I suppose not, but this puts more evidence towards the fact that it is very unclear what you mean.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-10-2014, 12:55 PM
Phat Phat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 8
Question Inducing a dielectric field in an insulator.

What I got from this video, yea not great quality, but give people reason
to reproduce said experiment. I'm going to attempt to intensify the effect
being tested. Rather than type on my tech, and tell this guy he isn't doing things right, and blah blah. I'm going to attempt to show close up video of
my experiment.
Being fresh to the scene, I would like to clarify the actual theory behind the
test. If I'm not mistaken, my opine is that the copper tubing is in an electrostatic condition, and when the magnetic fields produced by the magnets, that are on the insulating rod, are introduced to this electrostatic condition in the copper tubing, it induces a dielectric field that not only reacts
with the copper tubing but extends into the counter space of the insulator rod.
Causing the effect that is hard to notice but very much there, that retards the falling of the rod through tubing. Explanation for the effect I would consider the explanation for resistance when applying current to a wire. The dieletric field is inside and propagated out from said material, giving the idea that to me looks like a cookie cutter that looks like this ✳ and pushing it through a cylinder of clay. The force applied to the cutter being the intensity of the field/current and the clay representing the median that this effect is occurring from. This to me describes why insulators are conductors and visa versa and I'm sure we all understand the genius behind that conceptual framework by Prof. Dollard.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-10-2014, 02:06 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Maybe you should finish that translation first?

Ernst.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-10-2014, 03:13 PM
Phat Phat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 8
Qwhat?

I'm not sure what you mean by finish the translation first. Or if that was even directed to me. Lol. I am sure there is plenty for me to learn. Hence the purpose of getting on this forum and tapping it out with others that have more experience in the field of study. Actually any suggestions or links of enlightenment?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-10-2014, 07:19 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
There doesn't need to be friction for there to be separation of charges, this is well known. In fact, most Van De Graff generators work best when the belt does not touch the receiving metal spikes. Obviously you do not understand this phenomenon.

Thanks for the bloody obvious, I have owned 2 Van De Graff generators, son.

If you want to say the rubber belt reactance on one is "in principle" LIKE the falling plastic rod, sobeit.


However its qualitatively and quantitatively very different.


I said you cant find another video of a FALLING 'non-conductive' "insulator" thru that structure , ..... and you cant.


Ergo, close your pie hole. Its highly conclusive you may be autistic, since you miss the mark at every turn. The only remaining alternative is one not worth mentioning.


Lux et veritas
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 04-10-2014 at 07:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 04-10-2014, 07:25 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat View Post
What I got from this video, yea not great quality, but give people reason
to reproduce said experiment. I'm going to attempt to intensify the effect
being tested. Rather than type on my tech, and tell this guy he isn't doing things right, and blah blah. I'm going to attempt to show close up video of
my experiment.
Being fresh to the scene, I would like to clarify the actual theory behind the
test. If I'm not mistaken, my opine is that the copper tubing is in an electrostatic condition, and when the magnetic fields produced by the magnets, that are on the insulating rod, are introduced to this electrostatic condition in the copper tubing, it induces a dielectric field that not only reacts
with the copper tubing but extends into the counter space of the insulator rod.
Causing the effect that is hard to notice but very much there, that retards the falling of the rod through tubing. Explanation for the effect I would consider the explanation for resistance when applying current to a wire. The dieletric field is inside and propagated out from said material, giving the idea that to me looks like a cookie cutter that looks like this ✳ and pushing it through a cylinder of clay. The force applied to the cutter being the intensity of the field/current and the clay representing the median that this effect is occurring from. This to me describes why insulators are conductors and visa versa and I'm sure we all understand the genius behind that conceptual framework by Prof. Dollard.
Thank you for intelligently, and rationally expressing by means of logical induction, what the principle is.

Your fellow board-kinsman Natusake should become your disciple and learn how deduction, induction, and retroductive thought processes work, or as meant the mechanics of rational thought.





Ernst
Maybe you should finish that translation first?



As for the Greek translation
, I can multitask, and translating ancient Greek philosophical shorthand is a mind burning chore. Always need a break.

Heres one I recently did..., like it?.

5.1.5 Πολὺς οὖν οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῇ ψυχῇ· τῇ δὲ ὑπάρχει ἐν τούτοις εἶναι συναφθείσῃ, εἰ <μὴ ἀποστατεῖν>ἐθέλοι. Πελάσασα οὖν αὐτῷ καὶ οἷον ἓν γενομένη ζῇ ἀεί. Τίς οὖν ὁ τοῦτον γεννήσας; Ὁ ἁπλοῦς καὶ ὁ πρὸ τοιούτου πλήθους, ὁ αἴτιος τοῦ καὶ εἶναι καὶ πολὺν εἶναι τοῦτον, ὁ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ποιῶν. Ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμὸς οὐ πρῶτος· καὶ γὰρ πρὸ δυάδος τὸ ἕν, δεύτερον δὲ δυὰς καὶ παρὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς γεγενημένη ἐκεῖνο ὁριστὴν ἔχει, αὕτη δὲ AORISTον παρ´ αὐτῆς· ὅταν δὲ ὁρισθῇ, ἀριθμὸς ἤδη· ἀριθμὸς δὲ ὡς οὐσία· ἀριθμὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ ψυχή. Οὐ γὰρ ὄγκοι τὰ πρῶτα οὐδὲ μεγέθη· τὰ γὰρ παχέα ταῦτα ὕστερα, ἃ ὄντα ἡ αἴσθησις οἴεται. Οὐδὲ ἐν σπέρμασι δὲ τὸ ὑγρὸν τὸ τίμιον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ὁρώμενον· τοῦτο δὲ ἀριθμὸς καὶ λόγος. Ὁ οὖν ἐκεῖ λεγόμενος ἀριθμὸς καὶ ἡ δυὰς λόγοι καὶ νοῦς· ἀλλὰ AORISTος μὲν ἡ δυὰς τῷ οἷον ὑποκειμένῳ λαμβανομένη, ὁ δὲ ἀριθμὸς ὁ ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς εἶδος ἕκαστος, οἷον μορφωθέντος τοῖς γενομένοις εἴδεσιν ἐν αὐτῷ· μορφοῦται δὲ ἄλλον μὲν τρόπον παρὰ τοῦ ἑνός, ἄλλον δὲ παρ´ αὐτοῦ, οἷον ὄψις ἡ κατ´ ἐνέργειαν· ἔστι γὰρ ἡ νόησις ὅρασις ὁρῶσα ἄμφω τε ἕν.

5.1.5 translation: For number is not primary, a first (in Greek metaphysics, 1 isn’t a number, but the principle), the One is prior to the dyad/number, but the dyad is conceived of as second but nonetheless having its being in the One, has the One as its marshal, but in and of itself is aoristos by nature, but when defined (in extension) then becomes number (the second 1 in the golden section which goes 1 1 2 3 5 8…etc.). Therefore what is called number here in the noetic world and the (aoristos) dyad is the logos and the nous; but the dyad is aoristos when it is given any definition, or ideated in any manner. (meaning you cannot pin down the indefinite without giving it shape or form or limiting it profanely in some manner).

5.3.11 Διὸ καὶ ὁ νοῦς οὗτος ὁ πολύς, ὅταν τὸ ἐπέκεινα ἐθέλῃ νοεῖ, ἓν μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο, ἀλλ´ ἐπιβάλλειν θέλων ὡς ἁπλῷ ἔξεισιν ἄλλο ἀεὶ λαμβάνων ἐν αὐτῷ πληθυνόμενον· ὥστε ὥρμησε μὲν ἐπ´ αὐτὸ οὐχ ὡς νοῦς, ἀλλ´ ὡς ὄψις οὔπω ἰδοῦσα, ἐξῆλθε δὲ ἔχουσα ὅπερ αὐτὴ ἐπλήθυνεν· ὥστε ἄλλου μὲν ἐπεθύμησεν AORISTως ἔχουσα ἐπ´ αὐτῇ φάντασμά τι,

5.3.11 translation: Therefore this multiform nous in (naturally) thinking itself is going beyond itself, beyond what is One, but in the most straightforward way it is inclined to think itself, constantly coming up with compounded things made so by itself in thinking itself therefore moved itself not as it is, that of sight, but in creations and known in seeing, came outwards in aoristos (to itself) which the sight had wrought in seeing, always apprehending things in seeing which are compounded, not of sight but (indefinite) things of seeing (forms, shapes, etc.).
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 04-10-2014 at 07:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-11-2014, 05:52 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Great story tellers, those ancient Greek!

I think it's the schizophrenic gardener, but there is going to be a twist somewhere, right?


Ernst.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-11-2014, 10:12 AM
Natusake Natusake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
Thanks for the bloody obvious, I have owned 2 Van De Graff generators, son.

If you want to say the rubber belt reactance on one is "in principle" LIKE the falling plastic rod, sobeit.


However its qualitatively and quantitatively very different.


I said you cant find another video of a FALLING 'non-conductive' "insulator" thru that structure , ..... and you cant.


Ergo, close your pie hole. Its highly conclusive you may be autistic, since you miss the mark at every turn. The only remaining alternative is one not worth mentioning.


Lux et veritas
Falling isn't that much different from any other movement. Whats the difference if this rod accelerates 9.8 meters per second upwards from a rocket than it accelerating 9.8 meters per second downward from gravity?

You love to put so much on the FALLING rod, but that it is falling isn't really too important, the phenomenon would be the same if you accelerated it in a different way.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-11-2014, 12:01 PM
Phat Phat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 8
Natusake, the falling is the easiest to reproduce the same velocity time again.
not to mention it shows that the dielectric lines of force are, even at this
small scale and intensity, is still enough to conquer gravity even for a slight moment. What would the point be trying several directions when the first and easiest to test with is quite clear and concise. Any other directions would just leave you with 2 external forces acting on the rod when we can narrow it down and let nature show us.

TheoriaApophasis, that takes time and dedications to translate ancient Greek. I'd say its a good job. Not as intuitive as I thought it could be, but hey they thought miles differently then we do. It reminds me of several ancient mathematics that avoided zero, because to them, you couldn't have nothing just as much as you couldn't have infinite. I was told its a scary thought to apply 0 in there math.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-11-2014, 07:14 PM
Natusake Natusake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat View Post
Natusake, the falling is the easiest to reproduce the same velocity time again.
not to mention it shows that the dielectric lines of force are, even at this
small scale and intensity, is still enough to conquer gravity even for a slight moment. What would the point be trying several directions when the first and easiest to test with is quite clear and concise. Any other directions would just leave you with 2 external forces acting on the rod when we can narrow it down and let nature show us.
Yeah, falling is the easiest method, I'm not bemoaning that method. I am saying that trying to section off dielectric induction between a phenomenon that is induced from the force of gravitation, and a phenomenon that isn't, is silly and unnecessary.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-11-2014, 09:35 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
trying to section off dielectric induction between a phenomenon that is induced from the force of gravitation.


Do what? LOL


induction is occurring in some fashion between passing thru the magnets/copper combo ON the plastic rod.


remove gravity from the picture here chum.

If I did the same in 0G in outer space and FORCE the rod "downwards" the same resistance would occur.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-12-2014, 09:57 AM
Natusake Natusake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
Do what? LOL


induction is occurring in some fashion between passing thru the magnets/copper combo ON the plastic rod.


remove gravity from the picture here chum.

If I did the same in 0G in outer space and FORCE the rod "downwards" the same resistance would occur.
Yes this is exactly what I'm saying. You were trying to point out that the rod is falling, but it really doesn't matter if it is falling or anything.
__________________
 

Last edited by Natusake; 04-12-2014 at 10:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-12-2014, 06:02 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
Yes this is exactly what I'm saying. You were trying to point out that the rod is falling, but it really doesn't matter if it is falling or anything.

Point,..... you missed it.



drop it via gravity, push the rod thru (course the magnets will also have to be dropping thru as well to produce the effect) in 0 gravity.

point is "X" induction on plastic in that configuration.


Move in with PHAT above, let him be your master, teach you.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-22-2014, 05:48 PM
microwatt microwatt is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 25
i have a question. have you ever considered making a tension rig out of springs? perhaps you could measure this force on the rod. We don't believe you when you say there is a reactive force. Need to see actual proof such as a spring being pulled.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:15 PM.


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