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 > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #511  
Old 05-10-2016, 05:46 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,708
Where's Waldo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Thanks Al, perfect example!



There is no Monopole on both magnets...they still have their South Poles, no doubt about that...


But, hey, the question here is about that piece of iron sandwiched between both South Poles?


That piece of Iron only have a South Pole influenced from both sides...


The question(s) here is(are)...


Is that piece of Iron a Momentary South Monopole?

If the answer to above question was a "no"...Then could you tell Us where is the North Pole on that Iron Cube?
Hi Ufo,

On the iron cube, there will be North poles on the 2 square surfaces facing the the South poles of the 2 magnets. It does not matter that they are touching. Further, on the iron cube, the other 4 square surfaces become the South poles.

This is very much like the 4 pole rotor in a PMSM. See the diagram below. I added the Ns and Ss to the diagram. The member identified as the rotor would be your iron cube. In the case of the rotor, 2 additional magnets are put on to the core surface but my polarity indications would remain the same had they not been added. By adding them (using 4 magnets (N-S-N-S)), the leakage (unwanted flux paths) on the ends of the rotor is minimized therefore those end surfaces (unlike the cube example) would be polarity neutral.



You can apply Maxwell's 2nd equation on Gauss's Law for Magnetism and the definition of magnetic poles as: North = surface with flux direction outwards of the subject volume and South = surface with flux directed inwards to the subject volume.

Regards,

bi
Attached Images
File Type: png Four Pole Motor.png (260.0 KB, 84 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

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

  #512  
Old 05-10-2016, 07:07 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Can You prove it by experiment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

On the iron cube, there will be North poles on the 2 square surfaces facing the the South poles of the 2 magnets. It does not matter that they are touching. Further, on the iron cube, the other 4 square surfaces become the South poles.
Bistander,

Got you...But, can You prove it by experiment?

Because obviously the Magnetic Viewing Film "missed" or "failed to reveal" those two North Faces on Iron Cube facing the two South Faces on both magnets, otherwise there would be two thin light green lines right at those two gaps...

but they weren't there...

Now, remember that Magnetic Viewing Film captures the "changes of polarity" (note I did not used Dielectric Plane or else) on any magnet defined with that light green line...we already went through that part with Mr Ardizzone, the Chief Engineer at the Film Development place...remember?


Quote:
This is very much like the 4 pole rotor in a PMSM. See the diagram below. I added the Ns and Ss to the diagram. The member identified as the rotor would be your iron cube. In the case of the rotor, 2 additional magnets are put on to the core surface but my polarity indications would remain the same had they not been added. By adding them (using 4 magnets (N-S-N-S)), the leakage (unwanted flux paths) on the ends of the rotor is minimized therefore those end surfaces (unlike the cube example) would be polarity neutral.

Sorry, do not buy that example...The fact that there is or not an opposite pole at each iron rotor surface attached to magnets does not affect at all the functioning of the motor...so we fall into the same thing...prove it or it will fall into a Theory.

Quote:
You can apply Maxwell's 2nd equation on Gauss's Law for Magnetism and the definition of magnetic poles as: North = surface with flux direction outwards of the subject volume and South = surface with flux directed inwards to the subject volume.

Regards,

bi

You are returning to the same, never ending story...Ok, so South is an "Inward Flux Gate" only...then again...why two South Poles repel each others when both have flux going inwards?

Two Vacuum ends will repel each others?

Absolutely not, they will attract each others into a final connection/attachement.


Cheers


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 05-10-2016 at 07:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:33 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
"there aint no magnets"

Al
know what this so called slang im using is? its shortened very high level grammar speaking,

so you dont even add a thing to my comment. this topic being VORTEXES: is the best thign said in this waste of everybodys time.

and i wouldnt give you an explanation of what i said cause your too inbred. You didnt add to my statement which shows you dont know even understand what im saying or even capable of communication. which is why you harass everyoen with this ****ign topic. VORTEX the topic
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 05-11-2016, 02:35 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
how does a concept answer how a magnet works? you dont answer science questions with concepts, that belogns in religion
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 05-11-2016, 05:21 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
go play with a gun, loaded pointed in your mouth
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 05-11-2016, 03:05 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,708
Responding to Ufo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Bistander,

Got you...But, can You prove it by experiment?

Because obviously the Magnetic Viewing Film "missed" or "failed to reveal" those two North Faces on Iron Cube facing the two South Faces on both magnets, otherwise there would be two thin light green lines right at those two gaps...

but they weren't there...

Now, remember that Magnetic Viewing Film captures the "changes of polarity" (note I did not used Dielectric Plane or else) on any magnet defined with that light green line...we already went through that part with Mr Ardizzone, the Chief Engineer at the Film Development place...remember?
Hi Ufo,

We've been through this magnetic viewing film discussion before, see in this thread post #273 and a few pages prior to that. I still say your take is incorrect. Mr Ardizzone has given bad information which is contradictory to many other references which can be found on the subject. As this:

e-Magnets UK - Supplier of Neodymium Rare Earth Magnets

Quote:
The Magnetic Viewing Film is used to show where magnetic pole faces exist on permanent magnets and direct current (d.c.) electromagnetic devices.

Sometimes also known as Green Magnet Viewing Film, the Film changes colour as a result of interaction with the lines of magnetic field passing through the Magnetic Viewing Film. The Green Magnetic Viewing Film is a thin flexible sheet containing colloidal Nickel flakes suspended in oil as gelatinous microcapsules coated onto the plastic sheet. The nickel flakes, being ferromagnetic, align with the lines of magnetic flux (the magnetic field lines); they can rotate freely because of the gelatinous microcapsules.

When the magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the plane of the Magnetic Viewing Film, the flakes rotate to align with the field lines and make the Magnetic Viewing Film appear a darker green. This is shown if the Green Magnetic Viewing Film is put directly on the pole face of a permanent magnet (such as NdFeB, Ferrite, SmCo, Alnico). When the magnetic field lines are parallel to and also in the plane of the Magnetic Viewing Film, the flakes rotate to align with the field lines and make the Magnetic Viewing Film appear a lighter green. This is shown if the Green Magnetic Viewing Film is put directly on the pole face of a flexible magnet (such as flexible magnetic rubber where the sheet has multiple poles across its surface and the lighter lines show the transition from a North pole face to a South Pole face).

The Magnetic Viewing Film reacts almost instantly when place on a magnet surface. The darker regions therefore show a Pole face (it will be a North or a South; the Magnetic Viewing Film does not show which polarity you would need a Polarity checker to measure for a North or South pole). The lighter regions show where the magnetic lines are in the plane of the Green Magnetic Viewing Film and therefore allow an indication of the field patterns present.
And Wikipedia.

The viewing film only shows the effects of flux which impinges on it. Not below it. Not next to it. So it may indicate the poles below it but not necessarily.

I can't think of a method to prove it to you. That's why I mention Gauss's Law and the accepted definition of magnetic poles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Sorry, do not buy that example...The fact that there is or not an opposite pole at each iron rotor surface attached to magnets does not affect at all the functioning of the motor...so we fall into the same thing...prove it or it will fall into a Theory.
Here again, by title of this thread, you need to prove something, not me. I think the rotor example is excellent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
You are returning to the same, never ending story...Ok, so South is an "Inward Flux Gate" only...then again...why two South Poles repel each others when both have flux going inwards?

Two Vacuum ends will repel each others?

Absolutely not, they will attract each others into a final connection/attachement.
Been there; done this. See my post # 356. You continue to talk like magnetic flux flows or moves. When we refer to stationary magnet(s) and iron as we are here, it is a static magnetic field. There is no flow. Nothing is moving. No vacuum. Just the static field. Like a static gravitational field between two masses.

I never said anything about gates. The magnetic field impinges a surface. Again study Gauss. Think of the magnetic line of force in the flux field as a street. That street passes across the border between two countries. If there is no traffic on that street, there is no flow, but the street still crosses the border.

The arrow heads on diagrams of magnetic fields and lines of force do not represent direction of flow or travel. They assign polarity. Just as N and S. Like I was telling Al, we could just as well use B and C. Two N poles react exactly as two S poles. That street example above: Put a one-way sign on that street. If it never has any traffic, the sign is meaningless. In fact, the border is meaningless. Kind of like magnetic poles. It is the field that is of importance, not labels we stick on concepts.



Here is how magnetic fields and lines are used. There is no need for direction arrows and North & South.

Regards,

bi
Attached Images
File Type: png Four Pole Motor 2.png (896.0 KB, 69 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 05-12-2016, 12:09 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
Stick with the hat for improvement.

SHUT THE **** UP!
by the way you guys arent talking about magnets at all, your takling about vortex's. a concept, not science. change yoru subject or I will continue to come back to remind the entire forum what scam your trying to pull. This isnt scientific your discussing a vortex.

I guess since bromikey is a complete idiot and has been parroting your guys ideas, about anything, that my statement is correct and now your all wrong on everything you been saying? If thats the best you guys got to attack me, and cry wolf, then there isnt any discussion from your part and im right since nothing is there any evidence to prove me wrong.

right? i was gonna say that vortex and stupid tornado someone spammed at me idea, where is the other, you know that other spin below the tornado at? and wouldnt a vortex be, free energy? in your mind. since it self energizes itself. SO wouldnt the 2-liter tornado again im asking be a vortex then since you say quote tornado is vortex. right? whres the vortex? a tornado isnt an example of a vortex.

I can find that there is a spin on the top and on the bottom, but i have to turn it myself to make it start. this is dumb. there isnt a single vortex in the entire universe.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 05-12-2016, 12:19 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

We've been through this magnetic viewing film discussion before, see in this thread post #273 and a few pages prior to that. I still say your take is incorrect. Mr Ardizzone has given bad information which is contradictory to many other references which can be found on the subject. As this:

e-Magnets UK - Supplier of Neodymium Rare Earth Magnets

And Wikipedia.

The viewing film only shows the effects of flux which impinges on it. Not below it. Not next to it. So it may indicate the poles below it but not necessarily.

I can't think of a method to prove it to you. That's why I mention Gauss's Law and the accepted definition of magnetic poles.
Bistander,

Mr Ardizzone is wrong?...unbelievable!! that you get to such conclusion, just because his explanation does not "fit" yours!!

The burden of proof is always on the side of who is claiming whatever to demonstrate it as being correct.

If You claim that there are Two North Side Faces on that Iron Cube sandwiched between two Magnet Cubes South Poles...it is completely up to you to prove it.

Use your iron filings or use your FEMM software...they will not tell you absolutely nothing...but you could try.

The Fact is that Magnetic Viewing Film, denotes a VERY CLEAR LINE (which, by looking at different faces it clearly denotes a WHOLE PLANE) dividing EVERY SINGLE MAGNET OUT THERE.

[IMG][IMG][/IMG][/IMG]

And it happens that PLANE only divides Polarity on Magnetic Axis of Polarization, or perpendicular to Center Axis between Poles

[IMG][/IMG]

No matter how small or how irregular its shape would be.

[IMG][/IMG]

And even in the SPATIAL SEPARATION BETWEEN POLES IN AN EMPTY MOTOR STATOR??

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

So you are saying that ALL THOSE IMAGES ABOVE...are just "purely coincidence" according to "your search" ?

Come on Bistander, Give ME a Brake!!


Quote:
Here again, by title of this thread, you need to prove something, not me. I think the rotor example is excellent.
I have presented here several videos plus explanations and Diagrams, and Photos and CAD's... proving there are a lot of differences between "Conventional Thoery" and Theoria Apophasis (Ken Wheeler's)...However, every time I have presented here ANY proof, any videos, any Tests...You always come up with a "Counterpart"...

But, the problem is that your Counterpart to all my tests is always looking out there for other opinions and other examples where they fit what you are denying and bringing them here.

Anytime you make a Test or a Replication (as your own counterpart proof) it seems they do not "meet" same results as I have presented here. And always point to your favor.

A recent example was your testing with the Viewing Film and your two magnets...it did not show what I was claiming, however, in all my VERY Clear pictures I brought here, IT DID SHOW what I was demonstrating and claiming.

Then you left it like that...did not try another magnets...or other tests...so it died right there leaving the "Doubt"...as seating correct on your side that it "was not always rendering those results".

Recently, the Compass Test You did was, must of the time just the magnetized iron and compass...no field influence...a completely different replication from mine.

Again...You left it like that..

Quote:
Been there; done this. See my post # 356. You continue to talk like magnetic flux flows or moves. When we refer to stationary magnet(s) and iron as we are here, it is a static magnetic field. There is no flow. Nothing is moving. No vacuum. Just the static field. Like a static gravitational field between two masses.

I never said anything about gates. The magnetic field impinges a surface. Again study Gauss. Think of the magnetic line of force in the flux field as a street. That street passes across the border between two countries. If there is no traffic on that street, there is no flow, but the street still crosses the border.

The arrow heads on diagrams of magnetic fields and lines of force do not represent direction of flow or travel. They assign polarity. Just as N and S. Like I was telling Al, we could just as well use B and C. Two N poles react exactly as two S poles. That street example above: Put a one-way sign on that street. If it never has any traffic, the sign is meaningless. In fact, the border is meaningless. Kind of like magnetic poles. It is the field that is of importance, not labels we stick on concepts.



Here is how magnetic fields and lines are used. There is no need for direction arrows and North & South.

Regards,

bi
That is your opinion, I believe the same way many people out there...that Magnetic Fields ARE PURELY DYNAMIC.

That FEMM Diagram above shows absolutely no difference between Magnets and Laminated Iron Rotor, we can clearly see very straight and uninterrupted lines passing from one to the other. No color variation, no distorted lines between them.

What that means to you?

On a separate note, I will do bring here final and undeniable proof, however, I must finish first all the other pending tests which I believe are essential to finish the Vortex proof in a Magnetic Field.

Without that part, it would be very hard to understand what's going on in the final proof...I do not want that.

That is the way I have chosen this Thread would go.

The reason why I keep arguing with you is simple...you bring all the Classic Responses to all my previous tests and claims...so, we all have them here...as undeniable proof will shatter them in pieces in a near future.

I guarantee that!


Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 05-12-2016 at 01:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 05-12-2016, 12:47 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
vortex's.

your arguing something you cant see anything in, the middle, proves something you've made up but, you see nothing. so quit smoke screening your worthless concept thread. we hear about it but dont care. please put something worthwhile.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 05-12-2016, 02:38 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
says teh guy who talks about **** they cant even see, has arguements between each other on it. yo promote arguing, not conversations. besides being non-scientific. your topic is totally destructive. its vortexes you guys are discussing im only asking you to change the topic. take out the enlighten part cause that horse poop. talk magnets vortex all day long, your destroying not enlighten anything.

Name one thing you've shed any light on to prove me wrong
\
.. thats right cause you guys are talking about things you cant even see or see anything there, and your using quantu mechanics as a way to attack me with in the topic when i make any reply. like the dark matter reply. hahah

.............. and by the way, stfu too bromikey
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #521  
Old 05-12-2016, 04:16 AM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,708
Leaving it like that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post

Anytime you make a Test or a Replication (as your own counterpart proof) it seems they do not "meet" same results as I have presented here. And always point to your favor.

A recent example was your testing with the Viewing Film and your two magnets...it did not show what I was claiming, however, in all my VERY Clear pictures I brought here, IT DID SHOW what I was demonstrating and claiming.

Then you left it like that...did not try another magnets...or other tests...so it died right there leaving the "Doubt"...as seating correct on your side that it "was not always rendering those results".

Recently, the Compass Test You did was, must of the time just the magnetized iron and compass...no field influence...a completely different replication from mine.

Again...You left it like that..
Hi Ufo,

???? My magnetic viewing film tests? Post #376. Where did my results differ from yours?

And the Compass test? I think my test was superior to yours. You didn't even show that the iron piece was magnetized. And if anyone repeats that test exactly as you did it, yes, they will get your results because the magnet is so very much stronger than the induced pole on the iron.

But you have your way of doing things and your own way of viewing the world. I don't agree with a lot of what you post. When is goes against fact, I point that out usually using a reference or two. Several times I have conducted tests and posted about them. Many times I have done tests years ago and know the results.

In both cases, mag viewing film and compass, I did many more tests than what I posted. Especially with the viewing film. I had some of that stuff many years ago, from a trade show give-away, like on an oversized business card. Lost track of it. So I bought a couple of pieces from K & J along with some magnets. The viewing film behaves exactly as the descriptions which I have posted. Where I have cut it, I get greenish oil. The particles seem to be nickel flakes which orient to the field and reflect light. I cut narrow strips and small squares which I was able to pass thru magnetic fields both perpendicular and parallel. Only parallel field lines in the film turn it light, like the references have been saying.

And where are all the other replicators out there doing these simple verification tests?

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 05-12-2016, 04:24 AM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,708
FEMM question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
That FEMM Diagram above shows absolutely no difference between Magnets and Laminated Iron Rotor, we can clearly see very straight and uninterrupted lines passing from one to the other. No color variation, no distorted lines between them.

What that means to you?
Hi Ufo,

I take it to depict the PM segments as a source of a uniform magnetic field. What is your take?

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 05-12-2016, 05:54 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

???? My magnetic viewing film tests? Post #376. Where did my results differ from yours?
Bistander,

Your View Film test did not showed magnet's center lines approaching each others. As you also wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

A short while ago I replicated this using magnetic viewing film and bar magnets. The magnets were identical...However I could not get these center lines to move off of magnet mid-point no matter how close together I brought the magnets, even touching. In other words, I was unable to replicate lines 3 & 4 in your diagrams.
That means you never get a solid center line between two magnets like I did below?

[IMG][/IMG]

Are you saying I faked this pictures?!...Maybe I photoshop them all?

Maybe Ken Wheeler's pictures in his book...are also Photoshopped?

[IMG][/IMG]

Just because you could not obtain the same results?


Quote:
And the Compass test? I think my test was superior to yours. You didn't even show that the iron piece was magnetized. And if anyone repeats that test exactly as you did it, yes, they will get your results because the magnet is so very much stronger than the induced pole on the iron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

[...]BTW, I conducted tests with magnet, iron bar and compass. I was able to get different results than you did. I need to sort out some photos and will post later.
Simple...it is always a: "Ufo, I was not able to obtain your same results..."

The size of the Iron does not matter at all...as a matter of fact, a smaller piece of iron would get influenced much stronger than a bigger one.

Your tests were based (MOSTLY) on demonstrating that your magnetized iron, BY ITSELF, without any field influence did not retain the "Monopole Status".

You and I know very well that will never take place...and so many here...However, You proceed to "demonstrate it" with your pictures.

Then asking why does retentivity matter?

I never showed Iron by itself without the Magnetic Field on Video...then why did you do it?

Your "point" was very simple...to demonstrate the Monopole did not exist in your iron retaining magnetism by it self, no field present...wow!...what a discovery!

Quote:
But you have your way of doing things and your own way of viewing the world. I don't agree with a lot of what you post. When is goes against fact, I point that out usually using a reference or two. Several times I have conducted tests and posted about them. Many times I have done tests years ago and know the results.

Regards,

bi
Maybe I am not "poisoned" by the wrong theories, the wrong concepts...as I don't feel I have to be "Loyal" to something or someone.. Maybe because I am so sure ALL of this is fake, false...a Lie, a Scam.

Take care, and please, take it easy...the fall would be smoother and less painful if you do...


Believe Me.


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 05-12-2016 at 06:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 05-12-2016, 07:53 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
stupid ass mother ****er. i told you to shutup. I dont give a damn what you say. Shutup you stinking jew Ill never care what you say.

These guys are arguing whats inbetween a magnet poles, for pages and pages. I think i see a black holes guys hyuk. I see some dark matter and theyre making these vortexes. Can i join the conversation now? you guys use black hole scientists propoganda pushing ot further your agenda in this thread. holy **** its a piece of ****. Name it vortexes since you only speak about concepts and some mix up **** in your brain. Not anything scientific. i m not going to argue to not let you have your topic, but ****ign prove one thing that a vortex is real in the entire universe. yea..hahah and quit talking blaaaahhhhh about thiungs you cant see. lets talk about ghosts. but change the topic to, GHOSTS. if you rename it ill stop posting anything like this in it. you're really stupid bromikey. You insulted me when i was arguing with you over a point. Like ken did. ken and barbie
__________________
 

Last edited by ldrancer; 05-12-2016 at 08:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 05-12-2016, 08:05 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
Ken Wheeler.. has no theory. End of story. Stop pushing his cons.

there is no theory here, that is my point

Here let me make A Point. He has no theory. oh yea use science. how do you explain one object attracting the other with a .. concept? thats ridiculous. Tell me if you are going to prove ANYTHING how does one thing pull another thing to it? thats what magnets do? Use other objects to demostrate it or something we can visualize not the figments of your imagination. Something real that isnt debunkable by THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. ok? OK!?

more evidence this is all SSSHIIIT. ever seen 2 tornadoes? bounce into each other? like a little one and a small one? the little one when it goes into the other one does what? springs out like booiiingg. boiiing. Ok, it doesn't! turn into the big one does it now? so thats what a magnet does is attracts things, explain how a vortex then is goign to grab something else to it or push it away like a magnet does when you turn two same poles at each other.
__________________
 

Last edited by ldrancer; 05-12-2016 at 08:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 05-12-2016, 08:33 AM
ron48 ron48 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 41
UFO
Very interesting discussion between you and bistander I for one hardly comment so please keep up the good work gentlemen. Just ignore the other fool.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 05-12-2016, 09:07 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
yea dont respond to me just dont take your resposibility to answer your discrepancies. Go make your spam money since you cant answer questions. Im using only the largest ideas which contain no fear in them which you wont respond to cause YOU will be shown to be the fraud and you will stand alone. Yea ignore me you cant have a little thing like a thing that debunks you bother your mouths.

I was only talking to Ken Wheeler anyway
__________________
 

Last edited by ldrancer; 05-12-2016 at 09:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 05-12-2016, 09:15 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by bromikey View Post
the hat didn't work this will do the job. What a tard.







nobody is listening to your goofy comments

your english is real bad.



shutup godamn jew

nothing will get through to you you are so stupid.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 05-12-2016, 09:28 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron48 View Post
UFO
Very interesting discussion between you and bistander I for one hardly comment so please keep up the good work gentlemen. Just ignore the other fool.
I aint no fool you ****face

****ing disgusting ridiculous topic and you wont even answer your discrepancies.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 05-12-2016, 09:32 AM
ldrancer ldrancer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 302
the worst part about you guys you take money to keep your disgusting ideas. thats the worse part and you wont answer your discrepancies your subject inconsitency you dont have a theory to start with you use that wheeler guy who is a con artist he has no geniune intelligence i can tell he's fat and cant talk and is quickly agitated.

He is only trying to prove that a vortex is real but instead of him doing it to take the responsibility hes HANDLING you guys.

ENJOY YOUR SLAVERY HOMOS
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 05-12-2016, 09:38 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,174
Better let the big boys think it through.

Your horns are sticking out for sure.

You better go back and read the book.







__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 05-12-2016 at 08:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 05-12-2016, 12:21 PM
solitech's Avatar
solitech solitech is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7
End goal?

Hi UFO,

I apologize if I'm jumping ahead a bit or if your end goal is in a completely different direction; but based on what I've learned so far regarding magnetic vortex geometry and ether flows...are you eventually looking at developing a solid state method for power generation? I don't quite have a grasp on a good motor design as of yet, but it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to create a solid state generator with some creative coil design...
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 05-12-2016, 01:39 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,708
Another reply to Ufo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Bistander,

Your View Film test did not showed magnet's center lines approaching each others. As you also wrote:
That is incorrect. My test (post #246) did show the light lines approach each other as the distance between the magnets decreased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
That means you never get a solid center line between two magnets like I did below?

[IMG][/IMG]
That is correct. I did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Are you saying I faked this pictures?!...Maybe I photoshop them all?
No. I never said, or implied that. What we are doing here is far from rigorous scientific testing. These are simple demonstrations. So there are many variables which could affect the results. Since the light colored lines on the view film indicate parallel flux, I assume something in my magnets prevents this. Maybe it is that my magnets are not of equal strength. If so, why does that matter? Question for another day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Maybe Ken Wheeler's pictures in his book...are also Photoshopped?

[IMG][/IMG]
Odd how in Ken's frame 2, there is no light colored line in between the magnets as you claim always happens. And how the mid line in magnet A in that frame isn't straight as you claim it always is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post

BTW, I conducted tests with magnet, iron bar and compass. I was able to get different results than you did. I need to sort out some photos and will post later.
Simple...it is always a: "Ufo, I was not able to obtain your same results..."
Here once again you misquote me. "was able to get different" is not the same as "not able to obtain". Obviously I conducted the test differently. Better in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
The size of the Iron does not matter at all...as a matter of fact, a smaller piece of iron would get influenced much stronger than a bigger one.

Your tests were based (MOSTLY) on demonstrating that your magnetized iron, BY ITSELF, without any field influence did not retain the "Monopole Status".

You and I know very well that will never take place...and so many here...However, You proceed to "demonstrate it" with your pictures.

Then asking why does retentivity matter?

I never showed Iron by itself without the Magnetic Field on Video...then why did you do it?
I thought it was important to show that it was in fact actually ferromagnetic soft material. And by my count, I posted 7 test photos, 3 of which showed the magnet. Not the 90% without as you claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Your "point" was very simple...to demonstrate the Monopole did not exist in your iron retaining magnetism by it self, no field present...wow!...what a discovery!
Magnetic monopoles do not exist anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Maybe I am not "poisoned" by the wrong theories, the wrong concepts...as I don't feel I have to be "Loyal" to something or someone.. Maybe because I am so sure ALL of this is fake, false...a Lie, a Scam.
Hmmm. A 200 year scam in all countries of the world. And it works so well. When does a scam become a reality?

Cheers,

bi
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 05-12-2016 at 01:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 05-12-2016, 08:15 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post

Hmmm. A 200 year scam in all countries of the world.
Hello Bistander,

Yes, exactly that, a 200 "plus" year scam in all countries of the world...

Conducted by a "High Rank" or 'Hierarchy" Level or a "Cartel" -whatever you want to call it- from the world Scientific and Economic Society that has no borders, no frontiers...defending one single destiny...OIL.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Flaws in Classical EM Theory

1. Eliminates the Internal EM Inside the
Scalar Potential.

2. No Definition of Electrical Charge or
of Scalar Potential.

3. Equations Still Assume Material Ether
Per Maxwell (Unchanged).

4. Use of Force Fields in Vacuum is False
(and Known to be So).

5. Treats Charge q as Unitary Instead of
Coupled System q=(q)m(q).

6. Confuses Massless Potential Gradients
as Forces (See #3, #4).

7. Does Not Utilize Mass as a Component
of Force (See #23).

8. Erroneously Assumes EM Force Field as
Primary Causes.

9. Topology of EM Model Has Been Substantially
Reduced.

10. Does Not Include Quantum Potential or Action
at a Distance.

11. Does Not Include Superluminal Velocity of Inner
EM Components.

12. Does Not Utilize Extended Near-Field Coulomb
Gauge Effects.

13. Does Not Include EM Generatrix Mechanism
For Time Flow.

14. Does Not Unify Photon and Wave Aspects
(Requires 7-D Model).

15. Does Not Include Electron Spin and Precession
(See #19, #24).

16. Treats EM Energy As Existing in "Chunks,"
Instead of as Flow.

17. Confuses Energy and Energy Collection
(See #16).

18. Discards Half of Every EM Wave in Vacuum
(See #22).

19. Erroneously Uses Transverse Vacuum Wave;
It's Quasi-Longitudinal.

20. Arbitrarily Regauges Maxwell's Equations to
Eliminate Overunity Maxwellian Systems.

21. Omits Phase Conjugate Optics Effects
(Which are the Rule in Internal EM).

22. Does Not Include EM Cause of Newtonian
Reaction Force.

23. Erroneously Assumes Separate Force Acting
on Separate Mass.

24. Confuses Detected Electron Precession Waves
as Proving Transverse EM Waves in Vacuum
(Remnant of Old "EM Fluid" Concept).

25. Due to Error in String Wave, Omits the
Ubiquitous Antiwave.

26. Assumes Equilibrium; Not True Unless Include
Vacuum Interactions.

27. Higher Topology Required, to Model
Electromagnetic Reality.

28. Lorentz surface integration discards giant
Heaviside curled energy transport component.

29. Has nothing at all to say about form of
EM entities in massless space.

30. Eliminates the infolded general relativity using
EM-force as curve agent.

31. Does not include longitudinal EM wave phase
conjugate pairs as time domain oscillations.

32. Does not include EM mechanism that generates
time flow and flow rate.

33. Does not include time-excitation charging
and decay.

34. Does not include time-reversal zones.

[IMG][/IMG]



Quote:
And it works so well.
Do you really think so?

It works so well and we all are still bounded to the stinking and farting engines to run this entire planet?

It works well up to the point of not knowing the reality...Once you know it...then it is disappointing.


Quote:
When does a scam become a reality?

Cheers,

bi
Really wanna know?

Read the entire Article below...

DELIBERATE DISCARD

Is all there...


Have fun


Ufopolitics

Foot note: All Material Uploaded here is from the Tom Bearden Site
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 05-12-2016 at 08:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 05-12-2016, 08:42 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,708
Show me

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post

Do you really think so?

It works so well and we all are still bounded to the stinking and farting engines to run this entire planet?

It works well up to the point of not knowing the reality...Once you know it...then it is disappointing.
Hi Ufo,

We've been discussing electric machinery like motors and generators. These work extremely well. It has nothing to do with your stinking and farting engines.

If your reality is so great, use it to replace or improve those nasty engines. The electrics are doing just fine.

I hear a lot of noise about your scam theory but never see anything tangible. Show me.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 05-13-2016, 12:01 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Showing You...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

We've been discussing electric machinery
Bistander...We have not been discussing this matter in a deeper bases at all...just because I did not want to waste the time which I do not have...

Quote:
motors and generators. These work extremely well.
Extremely well??!!...Hell NO! Of course not, No they Do NOT!

ELECTRIC MOTORS WORK WELL?!!?

Well for what?

Can you replace a simple Weed Eater small, little farter one cylinder engine with absolutely ANY Electric Motor out there and obtain even equal (not to say superior) results?

No we can not, the best of the best electric battery operated weed eaters are a piece of crap. besides needing a super heavy pack of even lithium batteries...and they die before even starting the job!...and I am talking about a "State of the Art" EGO Weed Eater...that cost almost $300.00 USD

I Own one...and still need my ECHO Pulling string BS to start the farter...to finish the job!

That was just speaking of a simple tool, and small...not even getting into anything heavier.

What are electric motors good for?...A Cooling Fan?

Only the ones that require to get plug into a wall AC outlet works more or less ok.

Motors are OK?...and we only have a single Electric Car Manufacturer in the whole USA?, the TESLA...against all the huge corporations like FORD, GM, MOPAR, etc,etc?

Still...some States like North Carolina do not allow the TESLA In??!!

What is this? Fascism against the Electric Car?, funded by the OIL MAFIA CARTELS right in front of our noses?

And then we all allow this BS!!

The list is so huge I will never end...plus I do not have the time.

ELECTRIC GENERATORS WORK WELL??!!

Give me a F****ING brake!

Like I wrote before, the Day I see an Electric Motor Running an Electric Generator...EFFORTLESSLY...then you come back here and tell me they work well

Quote:
It has nothing to do with your stinking and farting engines.
When the Fukushima Atomic disaster...remember that?...They had the back up Diesel Electric Generators at the plant...and they could not get the pieces of **** Diesel Engines started!!...in order to cool down the reactors melting...The Entire Planet was at risk of an Atomic disaster just because a freaking piece of crap farting stinking diesel...was not able to start up!!

Does that means "Electric Generators works well?!!

Even any "Home Electric Generator" in the whole planet...requires a farting, stinking engine to spin it...we have not been able to survive the ridiculous Lenz Law up to now...

An we are all just doing fine, based on the ridiculous EM Model we have so far?

It only works Excellent and Perfectly well for the OIL Industry.


You could tell that bunch of crap to anyone else out there, except to Me, Myself or I!!!


Quote:
If your reality is so great, use it to replace or improve those nasty engines. The electrics are doing just fine.

I hear a lot of noise about your scam theory but never see anything tangible. Show me.

Regards,

bi
Before I do just that...I want you to convince yourself (as any other skeptic out there as well) WHY are we all where we are up to this point in time.

Where are the Flying ElectroMagnetic, AntiGravity Vehicles?!!

Where is the perfect electromagnetic ENGINE, not just a simple one axis rotary motor, good for a hair drier?

Where are the REAL COMPARABLE ELECTROMAGNETIC ENGINE to the Farting Engines running and stinking all over this planet??!!

And am writing "ENGINE" not just a simple crappy, rotary single shaft motor...A CLEVER BUILT Multiple Axis Engine with Pressurized Repulsion Chambers...Attraction Torque, Balanced Crankshafts with Weighted Balancers...Generators built in that will replace every single drop of energy spent with three or four times increase with just ONE STROKE...and send excess to a very small bank of tiny batteries...and state of the art cooling and lubrication systems..plus all the required sensors and PROM's computers processors to sync out everything?

That could be reproduced (scaled up) from a tiny...to a huge Engineered Machine...

That could propel a Boat, a Car or a Heavy BOEING 747?...and go as fast as a Turbine Propulsed Jet ?

Where are they?

No where...

Again, that day where all I wrote above exists, then you come back and re-write what you did above...otherwise you will be wasting your time.

Don't talk to me about Engines...I know about every single part on any one of them...referring to the farting stinking pieces of crap!!

Read those Articles above Bistander...they were written by a Retired Colonel from the US Army...and an Electric Engineer called Tom Bearden.

I know somewhere inside of you...you have an open mind...so, please, use it!


Cheers


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 05-13-2016 at 12:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #537  
Old 05-13-2016, 01:28 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by solitech View Post
Hi UFO,

I apologize if I'm jumping ahead a bit or if your end goal is in a completely different direction; but based on what I've learned so far regarding magnetic vortex geometry and ether flows...are you eventually looking at developing a solid state method for power generation? I don't quite have a grasp on a good motor design as of yet, but it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to create a solid state generator with some creative coil design...

Hello Solitech,

Did You read this Thread since its first pages?

I mean, I understand there is a lot of noisy posts...but read this post below from page 3...Your answer is there, but in advance it is a Yes...

ABOUT THIS THREAD


Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 05-13-2016 at 01:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 05-13-2016, 03:53 AM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,708
Dream on

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Read those Articles above Bistander...they were written by a Retired Colonel from the US Army...and an Electric Engineer called Tom Bearden.
Yes Ufo, you're a dreamer. But all that impossible stuff you describe isn't here now. Is it? Show me.

And I've seen articles about Tom Bearden here and there over the years. He has been easy for me to dismiss as a quack. And I haven't seen anything in the links you post to convince me otherwise. He's a lot of talk but non-existent with actual working machines or any proof. It isn't difficult to find articles not so friendly towards him like this: Thomas E. Bearden - RationalWiki You'll no doubt attribute that to conspiracy. I doubt it but really don't care. He's got nothing that is for real.

The science, engineering and industry of electric power has illuminated the world and facilitated the modern era. Yet all you can do is bad mouth it for not delivering your free lunch. Where would you be without it?

But just leave this talk and go back to your wonder device and proof of Ken's theory. Let's get back on topic. I'd like your take on a couple of mag view film photos I took today. I'll wait until this settles down.

Cheers,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 05-13-2016, 06:19 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Yes Ufo, you're a dreamer. But all that impossible stuff you describe isn't here now. Is it? Show me.

And I've seen articles about Tom Bearden here and there over the years. He has been easy for me to dismiss as a quack. And I haven't seen anything in the links you post to convince me otherwise. He's a lot of talk but non-existent with actual working machines or any proof. It isn't difficult to find articles not so friendly towards him like this: Thomas E. Bearden - RationalWiki You'll no doubt attribute that to conspiracy. I doubt it but really don't care. He's got nothing that is for real.

The science, engineering and industry of electric power has illuminated the world and facilitated the modern era. Yet all you can do is bad mouth it for not delivering your free lunch. Where would you be without it?

But just leave this talk and go back to your wonder device and proof of Ken's theory. Let's get back on topic. I'd like your take on a couple of mag view film photos I took today. I'll wait until this settles down.

Cheers,

bi

Bistander,

Some people give Us their thoughts, as they make them into Theories, Books, compilations of work, etc...then other People read them and make them a reality by maybe a very simple Application...trying to just verify it was correct...

Sometimes the Theorist's die and can't see their ideas become alive...lucky the ones who can see them come true.

Hardly there are the two kind of people in one being...very rare according to history...just a few.

But Yes, I am a Dreamer...and so said John Lennon...

Yes, let's this Dream be over for now and let's keep on the "Dream Machine"...

Show me those pic 's...whenever you have a chance...I got tons of Videos and CAD's for all to see still working on them...


Cheers


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci
Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 05-13-2016, 12:13 PM
machinealive's Avatar
machinealive machinealive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 494
Hello UFO
It's been a long time since I've read or posted anything on this forum. I was browsing the other day and read your thread here.
I think it is a really good thread. I think idrancer is the most ignorant, mouthpiece I've ever read. Says nothing, except insults, honestly, he hasn't said anything worth reading. I can't believe his ignorance.

I think bi is intelligent, but for some reason, he's feels the need to argue. I would just stop wasting your time and let him open his own thread, prove what he needs.

I think Kens theory is spot on for the most part. I really don't see a lot of difference from what Walter Russell has said.

Great visuals, keep up the good work.

Idrancer, do people a favour, and **** off yourself. Your an idiot.

Thanks.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
magnet, dielectric, output, conductors, tests, displacement, video, magnetism, fields, move, moving, ether, difference, measurement, part, polarization, testing, piece, field, opposite, contact, directions, attraction, middle, top

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 07:48 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