gravity waves found

[witsend]

prior to sparking


how it's hanging

Anyway. As a brief overview. Still no evidence of the Lambright Glimmer but am going to try sparking each cylinder first. What is evident is that it distorts the magnetic north off a cheap compas and there's evidence of that pull/push when one places objects near it.

EDIT : By the way - am not sure if there's a 'lock'. But it's holding together without a centre support so there may be something. I'll need to do a control to test this. I'm not prepared to dismantle this one until I've looked better to see that glimmer.

SECOND EDIT Guys, abject apologies. I discovered the thumbnail link allowed access to my entire photobucket. Is this right? Can someone confirm? I need to check it out. Meanwhile I've just used one of the three previously posted. Again. Apologies for deleting this.

[witsend]

Ok guys, it seems thumbnails not such a good way to go. Here's some more of those pictures.

This to show the ratios. I added a cylinder to the centre to show this. Be glad of comments.

After it's ;been fired up - and showing how it's been 'tied'.

[Harvey]

7 Circle Math

Choose any radius circle and call that radius r

To determine the diameter of each circle for six circles touching one would do well to do is understand what a chord is.

First, we know we are going to use 6 divisions all the way around, so this is 360° divided by 6 or 60°. So the diameter of each outer circle must be represent a 60° chord. Six of these straight lines make up the hexagon that represents our six outer circles.

Interestingly, the formula for a chord is r *(2 * Sin Θ / 2) where Θ is the chord angle. So, we have 60 / 2 = 30 and Sin(30) = 0.5 so all together we have r * (2 * 0.5) and that = r * 1. If we used this now, it would scribe a hexagon inside our center circle. But we are looking for the diameter of our outside circles.

Imagine our six circles all touching and the center of each of them is at some distance R from the common center point shared by all six of the circle centers. The magic number we are looking for is R = D where D is the diameter of each circle which is also the Chord where R is used in the above formula in place of r. But when we look at it, it is very simple because D = R * 1

So the only thing we need to determine is the ratio between R and r. If R is too great, then there will be a gap between our center circle and the outer circles, and if R is to little then the center circle will not fit in the middle. So what is the minimum R value that satisfies this? As it turns out, for six outer circles it is 2r exactly and this means that all seven circles are identical in diameter because D = 2r. The reason this is true is because 2*Sin(60°/2) = 1.

Lets see if this works for circles that have a 2.5 unit radius:

r = 2.5
R = 2r = 5
D = R*1 = 5

The distance between centers of any two of the seven circles touching is D and that is 5 units.

The angle between any two centers of touching circles is 60° (including the center circle)

The triangle formed for any two R sides and one D side is an equilateral triangle. Six Equilateral triangles form a hexagon.

This structure is robust because of the equilateral triangle. Any circle can become the center of a new group of seven in any orientation.

Now what would be the diameter ratios for 24 outside circles around one center circle? 360° / 24 = 15°. 2*Sin(15/2) = 0.26 and this is the factor to multiply by R. There is a relationship between our inside circle radius and R where R - (D/2) = r and D = R * 0.26. So, r = R - ((R * 0.26)/2)

So let's see if it works:
Let's say we have some pipe that is 2" in diameter (D)
How big do we need our center circle for 24 of those to fit nicely around it?

R = D / 0.26 = 2 / 0.26 = 7.69
r = R - (D/2) = 7.69 - (2/2) = 6.69

So what is the diameter ratios? 2:13.38 so the coefficient is 0.1495 Take your pipe, divide it by 0.1495 and you get the diameter of the inner circle.
Conversely, you can take the diameter of the inner circle and multiply it by the coefficient to get the diameter of each of the pipes.

What if you wanted to approximate this to see if it is close? One way would be to take the circumference of R and see if it comes close to the sum of D. In our example, R = 7.69, so C would be 2 Π 7.69 = 48.31. The sum of D is 24 * 2" = 48" So you know you are on the right track because they are very close. That extra 0.31 is because the circumference is curved and the chords are straight.

Now - how many 2" circles can you fit inside that big 13.38" center circle? Will they be nicely fitted? How does that relate to the 7 circles? What unique geometry occurs on the third layer from the center? Why?

[Harvey]

Hi all

Wow. I just spent the day reading this thread from page one. I finished after.. hmm 7 hours maybe. I watched all the relevant test videos and many other links too.

There was moments of excitement (the stone in the early videos really seemed to move lightly between just 2 fingers), and moments of disappointment (the recent weight test with a spring-scale from the 50's, because that 2 % difference is most propably caused by different weight distribution in the system, AND this experiment really wasn't proposed by anyone after all).

Those still shots/videos that show compressed U's on the right and almost O-shaped U's on the left side should definitely be debunked by shooting the rig from 45 degree angle, and moving in a circle around the rig. I assume that the big O's will stay on the left side, because of the videocam rendering each frame in an up-down direction (or down up). This makes things moving up/down to shrink/expand. The fact that the rings that are situated high and low seem to be equal in size also supports this.

Interestin phenomena is the Lambright glow, or LG, that has one positive "peer review". This is in my opinion maybe the best proof of this phenomena (besides David's marvellously genuine enthusiasm). What comes to believing peoples claims, I like to ask my self "Would I buy a used car from this man?". Yes, I would!

Keep up the good work, and focus on replications and DOCUMENTATION!!! (Besides theorisizing, of course!)

J

And thank you for taking the time to read through all the posted thoughts, data and various views on what is and what isn't. LOL, David said we would not be disappointed

I went out into my garage and got three 1" galvanized female couplings and did my best to get them to lock. They are old and oxidized, but just did not respond well to the coil. I even tried 3 parallel coils to boost the flux. No lock. There is definitely a relationship between the permeability changes (oxides and course surface) between elements and the flux path. So, I cheated I used 3 button magnets (N42) and created a flux path through the 3 pieces. They're stuck together real good now


It is a circular path, but using a make-shift magnetometer which is rather sensitive, I was able to determine that the cheat is counter productive. While the internal domains do align well with the fields, the vectors are wrong and the flux is not routed through the material walls as well as the PMH lock would provide. And, there seems to be quite a bit of flux leakage around the triple.

Nevertheless, I intend to keep them coupled this way for a few days and see if any photonic aberrations develop. If not, I think I am going to cut a slice in them and see if I can get a good PMH lock.

I also created a magnetic ring inside my Mock-Up to see how it would react with the circular flux - but it too has much flux leakage due to the straight magnets and curved structure, so the gaps between do leak. Those leaks proved to cause various attractions and repulsions at specific locations around the wheel.

I really want to see the LG. I really like those initials, they have special meaning to me as they are the initials of someone close to me and my TV set is an LG ( I like that brand) So great choice of letters. I think I like the term Glow better than Glimmer though, it has a much more dynamic sound to it. Glitter on a dress can glimmer just from the wind blowing on it, but for something to Glow, it really has to be active in some way. So whoever used that term, thanks I like it.

I would really like to hear what Ben has to say about all this - with a masters degree in physics I'm sure he can put some good perspective on what is going on here.

Cheers,

[Adie123]

Adie - your pictures are AMAZING. Very well done indeed. WOW - Really, really nice. I'm almost tempted to try and get some software and see if I can navigate around it with this arthritic brain of mine.

Thanks. 3DS Max is a cool program and is a handy tool in all factors of design and illustraion, not to mention gaming, advertising, film animation, among other things. There are many tutorials out there and its easy to get started on the basics.

Not sure where you're heading with your thesis. If the 'centrifugal force' is the result of space 'bending' then presumably there's actually something in that space to 'bend' in the first instance? Is this what you see as 'gravity'? If so, then I think we're on the same page. But it doesn't then quite explain the 'continual' spin or 'orbit'. I think the argument here is that if there's nothing in the vacuum then there's nothing to stop that momentum. But the fact that something has first positioned that path argues that there IS something in the vacuum.

Kind of, but not quite ... Imagine this aspect of a vacuum... A vacuum is some motion that pulls/sucks other matter. See vacuum image below.



The whole of space is a vacuum. Imagine that the above type of vacuum apparatus is everywhere and in all directions in space. Something moves (especially with large mass and alot of speed) and other mass/bodies get affected. There doesnt need to be atmosphere or other particles inbetween said objects for them to react with one another. This is my meaning on centrifugal force as it applies for gravity force.

Also another example. Plans for man to travel large distances in space in the future, plans/thoughts of making a craft that spins so persons on board can walk on the ship. They are within the centrifugal spin of the ship and will be thrown outwards from the ships center of spin, but on the outside of the ship will cause outside objects to be attracted to it.


regards
Adie

[spiralout]

Morning all,

Here are some pictures of my two setups,

This was my first attempt, constructed out of bare iron or black iron, as we call it here. No results, tho it led me to name the device "the sunflower generator" or SFG for ease.



This is my second SFG which proved to be what I hoped and feared it would , it's mounted on a simple bearing from a supermarket trolley wheel which I then welded to an improvised stand.



Next two pictures show the SFG with campus, showing north on the outside and the magnetic poles of the rig on the inside. when using one coil they always align themselves at 90 deg to the coil.





@jet,
Yes, you can definitely say that it grows over time. it also seems to vary in its intensity from time to time.

@Wit,
Glad I could put a smile on your face, some of your inspirational words gave me a big nudge toward publishing my results.

For all u people trying to replicate, I found that dim natural light allows for better viewing of the effect, moonlight seems to be the best.

Still getting my thought together, will post when I have something of value.

Cheers,

N.Madog.

[Agent.A]

@all

PEOPLE, do youself's and other's a HUGE favor,
when you are replicating, write down the numbers and sizes of your setups and everything related ( hight, width, length, diameter, whatever )
and post them with your pictures.

this is the very basic scientific method which makes finding links and relations in the data much easier, for you and all others involved.
you can make comparisons and see how your setups differs and why one works while other fails or gives different results.

oh, and keep up the good work,

[spiralout]

nahh, don't feel like it...

@Agent,

Here's the thing, I'm not a scientists. My personal belief is that scientific methods and reasoning have become an obstacle to our understanding of reality. We are drowning in a myriad of marginally significant details while failing to see the bigger picture. In other words, you can't understand the elephant by measuring how long his trunk is...

Besides, I'm quite lazy and doing a huge favor to myself would be more in the lines of ice-cream or a glass of good wine.

Cheers,

N.Madog

[witsend]

@Agent,

Here's the thing, I'm not a scientists. My personal belief is that scientific methods and reasoning have become an obstacle to our understanding of reality. We are drowning in a myriad of marginally significant details while failing to see the bigger picture. In other words, you can't understand the elephant by measuring how long his trunk is...

Besides, I'm quite lazy and doing a huge favor to myself would be more in the lines of ice-cream or a glass of good wine.

LOL. I sympathise with spiralout - but I'll try and oblige you Agent. I also think it's a good discipline. I started off with copious notes and have regressed. It's all to do with the fag of it. Clearly not your impeccable experimentalist. But unlike spiralout - I'll at least TRY and do better. LOL

BTW - My six circle number - it seems to work with all 'same' cylinder sizes regardless of what. Straws - loo rolls - name it. Start with any given outside diameter. Six identical diameters encircle the first. Twelve the second 24 the third (this last one not yet proved). But I think it would double up indefinitely. Maybe? Surely there's something here that speaks to a ratio of sorts? Our campuses are closed for the football season - can you believe it? But it's a good thing I suppose as it's done wonders for the moral of our country. But if they were open I'd be nagging a mathematician. It's teasing my mind. I sort of think that if we had evolved with 12 fingers we'd be more familiar with this. Or perhaps it well known. I just find it so intriguing. I've sort of been looking for correspondence to get numbers into my energy levels. Not that it will necessarily work. But hey. There seems to be some kind of correspondence.

EDIT - ALSO Spiralout - your pictures are GREAT. Can you tell us more about the Lambright effects - apart from the glimmer that is. Love the 'sunflower' analogy. And it's apt - on so many levels.

[witsend]

One needs to master torrent downloads first. BBC are quite particular about their intellectual property, so you won't find their wonderful world on Youtube much.
BBC - BBC One Programmes - Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds, Speed Limits, Hands on flying

Finally see the problem here. It's NOT AVAILABLE in our part of the world. Why not? Seems so selective somehow. I'm going to see if I can find an address and ask them for some more info. What a cheek! Why should it be available to some places and not to others?

[Agent.A]

@spiralout,

i have a friend who is a chef, when she cooks, she never measures the ingredients.
she just say's -> a little bit of this, a little bit of that, half a spoon of bla, three cups of other bla, put in the oven for 'approx' this much time, viola, bon appetit.
every time the result is delicious and im always amazed by her intuition and experience as to the right amount of each ingredient.

but, alternative science cant rely on intuition/experience alone.
we have to follow some basic guide lines, because, even though it is alternative, it is still science. ( ye ye, garage science, i know )

although you indeed cant understand what elephant is by measuring his trunk, you can have records of trunk sizes and and see how they relate,
for example, to sound that these 'elephants' are making.

by recorded data and comparison to others, errors, misconceptions and many faults can be avoided.
in alternative science, we can not discard the need for measurement by looking how current science made a mess.

as to your laziness, well, pour me a glass of wine too, i like the good life ...


@witsend

it is a good discipline indeed. makes seeing patterns and hidden stuff much easier.


cheer to all,

[thekubiaks]

Seems like we still have a ways to go before we can levitate 60,000 lb. blocks of rock ala Leedskalnin. Anyone detecting ANY change of mass???

[Adie123]

Got another model built and uploaded to youtube on centrifugal gravity. Below text is what ive placed in the description of the vid.

Centrifugal Vacuum

Here is my theoriesed illustration of gravity, which i believe to be mainly centrifugal force affecting the vacuum of space. The black and white spinner in the center represents the core of a mass. The green and blue is the space vacuum.

The core of a planet, star or other celestial body would be spinning much faster than in this demonstraton, but for this demo i wanted you to be able to see as it spins faster, it pulls in and twists the space vacuum more and more. Also it reaches out further the faster it goes.

Einsteins theory has been modelled to look like space curved around planets and stars etc, just like a ball sat on a piece of cloth and this curve keeps moving satellite in an orbit. Which is a wrong representation.

This centrifugal model of mine supports the ability of an object in orbit. All that is needed by the orbiting object is enough speed to counteract the pull of the centrifugal force of the star/planet and the speed of rotation around the main body is helped by the main body and its centrifugal spin which twists the space vacuum around.

So even if a new object came into orbit of a large spinning mass it will eventually be brought into line by that masses spin.

This is also, as i see it, how our own space craft have been able to slingshot around planets as they capture more speed to get further in less time. Discovery 1 and 2 for example.

This centrifugal force is 3D and not 2D as ive shown in the vid. The force will be like a squashed sphere. More coming from the equator of the mass, less at the poles, but still there will be pull in all directions of the mass.

[Harvey]

7 Circle Math

Choose any radius circle . . .

Doesn't matter what you use, drinking tube, toilet paper roll, Paper Towel roll or Concrete Column Form Tube - the math holds to all scales:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5690-gravity-waves-found-32.html#post101016

[spiralout]

@AgentA,

I understand and respect what you're saying, but I'm just not cut out for that, I'm more of a dreamer than a researcher. I will be as open as I possibly can about my findings and that will have to do. Salute for the good life...

@Witsend and all,

I haven't noticed weight changes that I can say were significant. However, I haven't tried it with massive objects like David did, the sphere of cast iron in one of the pictures was the largest. I'll try it out with some bigger rocks when I get the time.
something interesting happened when I was showing the SFG to one of my friends. We were both looking at the glimmer when a little stream of what looked like a more condensed vapor, maybe an inch long, just leaped out of one of the segments. we both saw it at the same time, but I have no idea why it happened, the rig wasn't even turning!
Another thing I can confirm is that this energy can be conducted/directed with glass. I have a big glass funnel, which by no prior planning fits very nicely inside the rig, and when I place it there, the "vapor" seems to follow its shape. Its hard to say if it flows along the outer surface or from within.

That's all I have so far, will get back when more is available.

Cheers,

N.Madog