-
watching this thread with much interest... nice work you guys.. one thing regarding terminology.. the word inertia is use in this thread to express what I would term momentum. the root of inertia being inert that of momentum/moment... I' m just sayin... best to all Ja -
DePalma reference?
Danny,Originally posted by Danny B View Post
Where is the reference in DePalma's work to the "20 times density" of the rotor?
I don't know that the Drude Electron Gas are electrons "completely detached". It seems that they are more like "jiggling" around in their own location and are definitely not "zipping" anywhere around the metal. The rate of movement is is a snails pace like you quote. They jump around from one atom to the next to the next and right behind them are electrons that do the same so no atom is really void of that electron very long before another one fills its spot. Of course this is just one model, but it is the model that makes the most sense to me. And it also does not have to mean that electron current is the real electricity but is just what kills the source dipole.
Centrifugal force is the dielectric medium (aether) being deflected outwards like the spiral art paintings and on their way out, they are imparting an electrostatic repulsion against the protons of the mass of the material of the spinning rotor and that is what the centrifugal force appears to be - it is what pushes on the mass of the material in the outwards direction. So I would think any electrons on the metal would most likely migrate towards the axis of the spinning rotor.Leave a comment:
-
I'm still trying to get my head around the Aspden effect. If the encountered mass acts like it has 20 times the mass of the rotor, it doesn't seem like it is elemental matter. It isn't Neutronium,,, to light. I believe that the electron is a likely candidate.
"As in the Drude model, valence electrons are assumed to be completely detached from their ions (forming an electron gas)"
Free electron model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the Drude model is correct, there are a lot of free electrons whizzing around in conductive metal. If they respond to centrifugal force, there would be a dense electron gas at the outermost surface of the rotating metal disc. This gas would be bound inside the disc because there aren't enough nuclei in the air for them to escape.
electromagnetism - Why do surfaces act like barriers for electrons? - Physics Stack Exchange Apparently, the Faraday disc has a charge differential proportional to the action of centrifugal force on the electrons. The electrons move very slowly but, the charge moves at c.
"When a DC voltage is applied the electrons will increase in speed proportional to the strength of the electric field. These speeds are on the order of millimeters per hour." Wiki
So, apparently the electron gas flows to the surface of the Faraday disc. More mass equals more amperage. The Winshurst is low mass and low amperage.
Is anybody going to tell me why Tesla had 60 tons of metal up on his tower?Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shylo View Post
Hi Shylo,
The way I am understanding it at the moment by what I can see (without building), is that by the way the middle transition plate is connected to everything -
1 - When the larger lower weights spin with respect to the centrifugal action, it wants to pull the upper weight forward (a twisting action on the transition plate) causing the center of gravity to move forward.
2 - Also when there is a load placed on the lower weights it will have the same effect where by the upper weight will be more forward as the lower weight is held back by the load, causing the center of gravity to move forward.
3 - The forward motion of the top input shaft wants to move the upper weight forward moving the center of gravity forward.
It seems that the forces acting on this machine are designed to always move the center of gravity forward, as best as I can see it at the moment at least.
neticaLast edited by Netica; 07-22-2014, 03:00 AM.Leave a comment:
-
the weights
Hi All, The upper weight throws the lower around, if I spin an upper weight always on an upward terjectury sp....it will always want to fall.Centrifugal force will always keep it the highest.
Connected to an offset plate, the lower shaft always moves in an orbit ,in realation to the upper. That it is always going to the point of gravity.Fallen
Also I put magnets on the lower weight and they seem to slide down and find their own location.
The heavier the weights ,takes more to get going,but once going , ?
The machine is complicated, but the weights are the key, I think.
artvLeave a comment:
-
Gravitational Torque Amplifier
Hi Danny, et al,Originally posted by Danny B View PostPeter has a vid that seems appropriate to the Skinner device.
Compare Milkovic to Constantinesco;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9e2y-5DMNc
I would like to bring a little more clarity to your references here. First of all, I have never used the term "shuttling inertia" so I don't know how that might be done. Second, the film showing me discussing the "mechanical amplifier" ideas was a side conversation at our 2013 conference, and was posted by the person who filmed it. This is not one of "my films".
Third, the ability of a machine to access an environmental input to raise the mechanical output with respect to the input provided by the USER is well established in science. That various people believe it or not is a reflection of their knowledge base and prior interest in these matters.
My specific references in the film concern the work by Jim Murray and his Gravitational Torque Amplifier which has demonstrated the effects I sited in actual bench tests. Here is a short clip where Jim discusses some of his work in this field.
Gravitational Torque Amplifier
There are other threads in this forum that discuss Jim Murray's work. I post this here simply to clarify the comments I made in the linked film and to rebut the sarcastic remarks of those less informed in this line of research.
Best regards,
PeterLeave a comment:
-
has anyone actually reproduced a machine that performs COP > 1.0?Leave a comment:
-
its been a long time to see that amount of stupidity in one video,
thank for video i feel smart nowLeave a comment:
-
shutteling inertia
Peter has a vid that seems appropriate to the Skinner device.
Compare Milkovic to Constantinesco;
Leave a comment:
-
lower impedance batteries, rotating mass and scale
With the SSG, the large battery banks are primarily because of the very low impedance. You want the resistance of the batteries to be as low as possible to offer as little resistance as possible to the discharge. Any resistance offers back-pressure and the resulting peak amperage impulse is lower. It becomes a totally different machine when using large lower impedance batteries compared to smaller batteries with higher impedance. That is why it is important to use big fat wires, etc...Originally posted by Danny B View Post
With a 12v 12ah garden battery on the back end receiving the comparator cap dumps, the peak impulse current is about 75 amps - just by putting a 12v 35ah deep cycle on the back end (perfectly matched for the 7 transistor SSG close to the c20 rate), the peak impulse current is about 85 amps - at the same cap voltage. So you're looking at roughly 1650 watt peak impulse to the output battery vs 1870 watts just by lowering the impedence of the back battery - that alone is about a 12% increase in impulse power.
If you put a small 12v 7ah gel cell on the back, you offer too much impedance and the machine can slow down because it is holding in too much back pressure - you'll see this if you're charging with spikes instead of cap dumps. That is because you're putting a potato in the tailpipe. Electricity is a pressurized gas and the SG is an oscillating gas pump - not an analogy, that literally is what the SG is.
--------------
When a rotor is spinning, in addition to the regular forces involved, we have the interaction with the aether - the rotor is deflecting the aether towards the perimeter creating a gradient between the center and edge. If you took that rotor while spinning and moved it in a direction as if it were a bicycle wheel, it can actually move with some of the inertia cancelled. It can accelerate faster than normal and go further with the same input energy - if the rotor is spinning.
If we have a rotor spinning so it is vertical axis and lift it in the direction of the axis - as if a round flying saucer was on the ground and it goes straight up in the air like this:
If it was spinning, inertia is partially cancelled and it can also get to speed quicker, etc.
This is identical to the spinning ball experiment of DePalma - this $50 experiment flushes relativity down the drain - as do countless other experiments.
Anyway, this is the identical action of a gyroscope if it is moved in line with the axis or 90 to the axis where the wheel is moving in the direction of its own flat plane.
Inertia is partially cancelled because since there is that gradient produced and less aether per mass is available towards the center of the object, then that which causes inertia is reduced for part of the mass. It isn't just deflected to the edge to where the same amount is there, there is a deflection off of the mass itself near the perimeter too - not all, but some.
Things change if we actually tilt the wheel, gyroscope or rotor - the densified aether (just because aether can become "denser" - that is not the same as aether being "incompressible) on the face of the rotor towards the perimeter is being pushed against offering resistance to that movement. Or at least, that is how we can directly physically experience that densified "something" that is moving independently of the rotor.
If we look at the saucer on the ground and it goes up, that deflected aether is going to push off the face equally all around around and under it creating a lower pressure zone above meaning it can move up with less resistance. If it was in the air and was spinning fast and came down, same thing - as it moves down, it deflects it around itself and on top of it meaning it can move down towards the ground at negative resistance since it is being pushed from the top. That is how DePalma's spinning ball goes up quicker and higher and comes down faster and further than the non spinning ball.
With the gyroscope tilting, not only are we pushing one edge of the flat face leading in one direction but simultaneously the opposite edge 180 degrees away is doing the same thing in the opposite direction. We no longer have a increase on one side and a decrease on the other side, we have a situation where where there is an equilibrium on both sides so there is no asymmetrical tendency and it tries to keep it from tilting. It is asymmetrical on each side of their own but together with two sides, it is symmetrical. When we feel that, that is not just the "forces", but we are pushing against densified aether at two opposing parts of the wheel on opposite faces. That is the simplest way for anyone to physically feel the reality of it.
When a build is too small, losses are greater in % and although the calculations are all proportionate, the way they perform in reality are not the same as bigger devices. You can have a small roller skate SG, but you don't see the tremendous results until you scale it up. With something mechanical, if we have a little BB compared to a bowling ball, they are following the same natural principles if they're rolled across the ground, but friction will be a higher % loss for the smaller one compared to the larger one - even if we put in the same input energy per unit of mass to get them rolling. Roll them both on a carpet and lets see how fair it is to show what the bb does and claim it represents what the bowling ball does.
There is just a threshold where mass has to at least be enough to be able to have some significant momentum - otherwise, it is not really a fair test to measure the small machines and compare that to the claims of a full size Skinner machine. Small machines are fine for working out mechanisms and learning how it operates, etc... but not for practical input vs output tests. They can only be compared to other machines of similar size and that is about it, if we want to stay honest about it.
If scale doesn't matter as some have claimed here that it is an excuse often used by some builders in this field, then we should be able to study gravitational attraction using two apples floating in a space station and they should perform the same as two stars but they don't. In principle, they will be pushed together like the two stars, but the effect is so feeble, it will not be measurable. The argument is no different for testing smaller prototype models compared to larger machines.Leave a comment:
-
Questions on mass
I'm not trying to cause thread drift but, this question of mass seems very important. Tesla, Colorado Springs appeared to be a spindly affair. When Tesla built at Wardenclyffe, he put 60 tons of mass at the top of the tower. The new Russian effort will only require 2 tons. For a single coil SSG, JB specified 10 golf cart batteries. Later, he didn't mention big banks but, he did say that big battery banks acted very differently than small banks. He has stayed away from mass. His ferris wheel didn't weigh much.
JB always promoted sharp gradients. Milosevic and Ramos have gradients. Skinner works with eccentricity of masses. If space confers inertia on moving mass, does it go up lineally or does it cube? when mass doubles.
Depalma, "something spinning of an ethereal nature coextensive with the machine rotor. That 'something' has an effective mass density 20 times that of the rotor, but it is something that can spin independently and take several minutes to decay,"
Hmmm, 20 times the mass of the rotor. So, what does the weight on the Tesla tower actually do? I believe that Sumaruck was using eccentric wheels;
Peter Sumaruck Agrees to Design a Mobile Genset for the U.S. Army | Zero Amp Technology
Skinner built his device fairly large. Maybe, the effect doesn't show much with a small scale.Leave a comment:
-
Low spped and heavy
Ron, thanks for the reminder. Aaron, thanks for the explanation. Aspden said that the effect would occur no matter which direction the motor revolved upon restart. This does indeed sound like a conditioning effect. The conditioning of space seems to be a short term effect if the pause can only be about 1 minute. Some time ago, I read a paper explaining that: if you take a mechanical watch that does not keep good time,, and put it in a drawer with watches that DO keep good time,,, it will self correct. Does space try to harmonize movement/inertia? Does space try to add energy to smooth out sharp gradients? Does our planetary gravity and/or magnetic fields try to harmonize electrical or mechanical gradients?
Why did John Bedini name one variant of his motors, the G field motor? ( gravity field)
Howard Johnson has what appears to be a VERY big Faraday disc;
It to, is a low speed device. Jim Watson built a very heavy, low speed device.Leave a comment:
-
Gravity, Inertia and Aether
Originally posted by Danny B View PostThese DePalma studies are very important. The "Aspden Effect" was known before Harold Aspden discussed this.Originally posted by i_ron View Post
Space has a memory effect where you entrain a certain pathway - can be done with mechanically moving wheels, electrical discharges, etc...
DePalma did a test with some swinging machines and after a while, they synchronized with each other because of this spacial entrainment. This kind of synchronization is completely different than the demonstration of multiple pendulums on a floating platform where they all synchronize.
Essentially, space itself is turning into a type of localized temporary electret but it doesn't last very long after the motion stops before everything is returned to equilibrium. I think if there as a gargantuan size rotor spinning at ridiculous speed, the effect would last a lot longer.
My particular gravitational model actually accounts for every result in DePalma's tests and simplifies the understanding of the "inertial properties of space". That was all developed before I ever read DePalma's work. It was confirmed to me by a very close associate of DePalma's.
When I said that the downward moving gravitational potential aether encounters a spinning mass, the movement of the mass will deflect some of that aether outward - thereby reducing the full gravitational push and increasing the centrifugal push.
This is exactly what is happening in the Faraday Dynamo:
As the disk is spun, regardless of its position to the downward push of the gravitational potential, the aether is deflected towards the perimeter of the wheel thereby causing a potential difference between its center (low potential) and perimeter (high potential). As that moving aetheric potential cuts through the magnetic "lines of flux", you get current.
If you take a piece of paper and spin it and drop paint on it, it will kick that paint outwards - that is exactly what the Faraday Dynamo is - all in compliance with fluid dynamic principles.
All inertia is imparted to an object by the aether it is moving through.
The faster an object goes, the more aetheric resistance it encounters per unit of time.
The faster an object moves, the more aetheric resistance it encounters per unit of time, which mimics high gravity. The more aether it encounters per unit of time, with a RATE OF CHANGE, there is a repulsion against the mass of the object, which resists its movement.
Inertia is an electrostatic type equivelant of back emf, which opposes the forward movement of mass through the aether when there is a rate of change.
That rate of change creates a potential difference throughout the mass itself. When the mass is moving at steady speed, there is no rate of change and therefore no more potential difference and therefore no inertia because there is no electrostatic "back emf" effect against the mass from the aether.
This is why all inertia is simply the effect of the aether - the positive source charge imparting an electrostatic type repulsion against the protons in the mass of the object so it comes from outside the object and is not an intrinsic property of mass itself.
As the Skinner machine's lower weight is up to speed, there is no inertia because it is at a constant speed (no rate of change) to induce the effect that is equivelant to back emf (inertia).
While up to speed, it certainly is entraining the aether in its own localized space. But I'm not so sure that it increases the amount of gravitational potential being deflected by the mass into centrifugal force at any given time.
However, with sharp gradients, things change. Although the lower weight is spinning at an almost constant speed, it still is asymmetrical. That does mean that it's position in any space during its travel is periodic so maybe it is acting as a disruptive gradient that pulls in more gravitational potential to deflect it to centrifugal more than normal. Maybe it is even creating a spiraling of the aether in that local area around the whole path of the lower weight and that introduces a whole other set of dynamics if anything like that was going on.
Leave a comment:
This forum is preserved as a permanent archive. The community continues at eMedia Press.
- If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Leave a comment: