'Free energy' thats been hiding under your noses from Faraday and Maxwell themselves

[TheoriaApophasis]

I am currently building a motor currently on some of these principles (without details) , thanks to Dollard but much thanks to the formulas of Dr. Oleg Jefimenko

Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields, 2nd edition: Oleg D. Jefimenko: 9780917406232: Amazon.com: Books




If you dont know who he was, he was no 'quack' or 'fringe' scientist------
Jefimenko received his B.A. at Lewis and Clark College (1952). He received his M. A. at the University of Oregon (1954). He received his Ph.D. at the University of Oregon (1956). Jefimenko has worked for the development of the theory of electromagnetic retardation and relativity. In 1956, he was awarded the Sigma Xi Prize. In 1971 and 1973, he won awards in the AAPT Apparatus Competition. Jefimenko has constructed and operated electrostatic generators run by atmospheric electricity.



As to FARADAY and MAXWELL, Jefimenko has causation formulas which have FAR FAR reaching implications for power production, but namely to quote him in his exhaustive research into Maxwell and Faraday:


Quotes from the book:

"Neither Maxwell equations nor their solutions indicate a causal existence between electrical and magnetic fields. ......Therefore we must....."

As formula 1.5.1 shows there can exist "sourceless" EM fields whereas formula V-28 shows such fields are impossible (as per Maxwell

Causation formulas show that mutual instant EM induction as a phenomena in which one fields 'creates' the other is impossible (formula 1.4.1 1.4.2)

Faraday NEVER even as much as suggested that induced currents were the result of charging magnetic fields, On the contrary he clearly associates the phenomena of EM induction with changing electrical currents.

Maxwell......considered EM induction as phenomena in which a EMF is induced in a circuit..but NOT as phenomena in which a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.....NO SUCH WRITING (of Maxwell on this) EXISTS.


He clearly states that the induced EMF is "measured BY , but not CAUSED BY the changing magnetic field". Just as Faraday , he made NO allusion to ANY causal link between magnetic and electric fields (as we conceive them).

"Thus according to Maxwell, the displacement current was not a changing electric field....as we interpret it today, but a displacement of electrical charges (inertial) residing inside the dielectric media"

(DOLLARD WOULD LOVE THAT QUOTE<<<<<<)

However.....the expression of "force exerted by a moving magnet" is actually a misnomer, since as we have proven (formulas 1st chapter) this force has no causal link with the magnetic field of the magnet. The phenomena of "induced electric force" or "induced current" by a moving magnet is simply the effect of the electric field caused by the collection translational motion of the (inter-atomic) currents participating in the circulation of magnetism



If you think Oleg is a "nut" after reading that, Id remind you 70% of his book is formulas for which NOT ONE person I have ever seen (and I have looked) has EVER refuted a single one of them.





Also as per Dr. Oleg:
These books have some amazing advanced thinking in the understanding of Maxwell and EM. One first thought is the consideration of causality. This is typically totally ignored in the EM community. Evidence of that is the fact that EM waves are widely held to be propagated by the E field creating the H field and the H field creating the E field as it goes along. Too bad it's just not true! Jefimenko points out that causality demands that that an event must be PRECEDED by it's cause! Simultaneous events CANNOT be "causal" of each other. Hence E and H fields of waves are created by the WAVE SOURCE not each other! Same things goes for the E field created by Faraday induction. It simply cannot be "caused" by the time-varying Magnetic Field. "Magnetic induction" is therefore a misnomer. Such induction is caused by the source CURRENT and NOT the magnetic field!



I found his math AFTER MY discovery of the correct electrical and geometry of light as NOT being purely EM but with a radial dielectric component. I finally had the math to back up what i knew from experiment must be true, that "transverse electromagnetism" CANNOT EXIST , PERIOD.

The very premise is like saying the earth and mars are revolving (self-inducing) each other around a radial ABSOLUTE-NOTHING. Its both illogical and impossible.

Also the radial dielectric proves Einstein was a demented fool for his "photoelectric effect", the Ev produced from short wavelength Light/Xray/Gamma has NOTHING to do with the EM components, rather the radial dielectric component OF light. Light / EM is exactly like a coaxial cable, the radial component is pulsed dielectricity of the outer EM fields.

(Oh, and who would know about this 'secret' nature of the geometry of Light/EM?) why the VERY PERSON who invented the COAXIAL CABLE. Oliver Heaviside. However he nowhere makes an allusion to knowing that Light/EM has a radial dielectric component anywhere in his works!






Jefimenko's equations are the solution of Maxwell's equations for an assigned distribution of electric charges and currents, under the assumption that there is no electromagnetic field other than the one produced by those charges and currents, that is no electromagnetic field coming from the infinite past.

Jefimenko notes, "... since each of these equations connects quantities simultaneous in time, none of these equations can represent a causal relation." The second feature is that the expression for E does not depend upon B and vice versa. Hence, it is impossible for E and B fields to be "creating" each other. Charge density and current density are creating them both.


Proving both my discovery of the nature of Light, and that causation (spacetime) has no meaning except as posterior to fields and field inductions. As meant, there "are no fields in SPACE", rather only "space as posterior and attributional to any and all fields".


However, wonderfully, I only found Olegs works AFTER my conclusions were formulated, as such it was incredibly satisfying to find extremely valid proof of my conclusions in this matter.





Electricity Everywhere

The earth's electrical field has been known for centruries. Lightning and St Elmo's fire are the most dramatic manifestations of atmospheric electricity. But the field doesn't exist just in the vicinity of these events; it's everywhere.

The earth is an electrical conductor. So is the ionosphere, the layer of ionized gas about 70 kilometers over our heads. The air between is a rather poor insulator. Some mechanisms not yet explained constantly pumps large quantitites of charged particles into the air. The charged particles cause the electrical field that Jefimenko saw demonstrated. Although it varies widely, strength of the field averages 120 volts per meter.

You can measure this voltage with an earth-field antenna -- a wire with a sharp point at the top to start a corona, or with a bit of radioactive materials that ionizes the air in its immediate vicinity. near the earth, voltage is proportional to altitude; on an average day you might measure 1200 volts with a 10-meter antennas.

Over that past few years, aided by graduate-student Henry Fischbach-Nazario, Jefimenko designed advanced corona motors. With David K. Walker, he experimented with electret motors. An electret is an insulator with a permanent electrostatic charge. It produces a permanent electrostatic charge in the surrounding space, just as a magnet produces a permanent magnetic field. And like a magnet, it can be used to build a motor.

Jefimenko chose the electrostatic motor for his project because the earth-field antennas develop extremely high-voltage low-current power -- and unlike the electromagnetic motor -- that's exactly what it needs.

[Ted Ewert]

After building many iterations of the MEG, I can confidently attest to the fact that " a varying magnetic field" alone does NOT induce current into a coil. I have switched magnetic flux from permanent magnets dozens of different ways through load coils with zero induced current.
The action of moving a magnet by a conductor does something unique to the symmetry of the associated fields which causes current to flow in the conductor.
Likewise, in a transformer, this same phenomenon is apparently evident.
I have surmised that the change of phase between the voltage and current, which naturally occurs in an inductor, may have a corollary in the phase of the B and H fields. Perhaps this also occurs as a magnet passes by a conductor.
I would be very interested in your theory as to what exactly causes induction. Modern EM theory offers absolutely no insight whatsoever.
I've read your paper, and if this was explained within you have my apology. I think in simple terms and have a hard time understanding your terminology.

Cheers,

Ted

[TheoriaApophasis]

The action of moving a magnet by a conductor does something unique to the symmetry of the associated fields which causes current to flow in the conductor.
Ted

Yes, if I wasnt 100% certain of this, I wouldnt be 'wasting time' building a wholly new type of motor if I wasn't sure of dielectric torque necessary for electrification.

I have 12 x 6 possibilities in its creation to test. I give myself a 80% chance of utter success. (always very critical, naturally).

As for a permanent magnet for example, under PERFECT condition of a "perfect" 'magnet', the ratio of dielectricity IN a "magnet" to its magnetism is 3.23606 dielectric to 1 magnetism. Im well into the 3rd edition in creation of the book on magnetism.

I have surmised that the change of phase between the voltage and current, which naturally occurs in an inductor, may have a corollary in the phase of the B and H fields.

Yes, this magneto-dielectric symmetry can easily be seen in a powerful magnet along the dielectric inertial plane, which our current idiot "science" calls the "Bloch wall" (see book above, "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism' explains all of this).

Dielectric torque in a 'conductor' (magnetic reflector) is a field boundary torque from field conjugations interacting, like touching a gryroscope in action which causes precession (= electrification). Conjugate radial and circular fields (obviously) are necessary for electrification.

Any polarized field (=spatial field) reciprocating against the dielectric barrier literally impinged space upon the counterspatial 'membrane' of the dielectric causing torque 'breaking' or dielectric 'friction' which translates into electrification. (this is of course, in simple).

In sweeping any magnet each FULL CYCLE has much more than merely "N and S" "poles" (which itself is just nonsense in actuality).

Each polarized 'end' has both a centrifugal and centripetal pressure torsion.
each quarter-turn has a dielectric plane .

So each FULL CYCLE turn of a magnet has 6 TOTAL field pressure fluctuations. NOT 2 as currently (and I assure you 100% in fact this is the case) conceived (which is just outright BS of the highest order).

spatial displacement of the "poles" from the dielectric inertial plane (something current idiot science doesnt know) can and will create MUCH more efficient generators.


LIKEWISE also, there are thence 10 FIELD BOUNDARY gradients IN EVERY FULL CYCLE OF MAGNETIC TURN
Yes, 10.


So, every 360 degrees of a single cycle of magnetic turn =
10 field boundary gradients
6 total pressure domain fluctuations
and 2 Ether-field modalities.


This is multiplicative Field incommensurability in a binding magneto-dielectric system of conjugate fields, i.e. the "magnet" (=dielectric electrified object).

In a crude analogy, this is how ONE magnet in a single revolution (out of many) is like 10 thugs beating the living Hades out of a 'dielectric' "conductor" wimp in creating electrification. This counterspatial dielectric torque necessitates electrification.



This principle of edge-centrifugal magnetic velocity is how George M. creates 1.5 TESLA and up to 3 TESLA permanent magnets, by stacking smaller and smaller magnets like a pyramid to FOCUS the magnetic centrifugal flux lines.

You can see his youtube video on this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtZUFhjquw

Modern EM theory offers absolutely no insight
whatsoever.

Absolutely true, the Cult of Quantum doesn't even know how the hell a "magnet" works. OR what it is.

Of course their "priests" explain it by "virtual photons" (=Unicorns) , i.e. nonsense and poppycock.

[Ted Ewert]

Could you enlighten me a bit on the properties of dielectricity as it relates to regular electricity? How are the two related?

[TheoriaApophasis]

Could you enlighten me a bit on the properties of dielectricity as it relates to regular electricity? How are the two related?

Dielectricity was the "tool" of Tesla

There are 2 'natural' principles of the universe dielectricity (electrostatics) and magnetism.

Dollard says it best:
The phenomena we call "electricity" is a dynamic, but artificial presentation
of the Natural World, and because of this, its behavior follows specific
rules. Understanding these specific behaviors is the key to engineering this
phenomena, but developing a common language with which to describe
these behaviors is the key to teaching others these engineering skills.

I would call dielectrcity a hunk of raw meet from a cow, ..........and electricity a processed burger full of MSG from McDonalds (processed, unnatural / fake)

The inter-atomic is a magneto-dielectric volume, as an example.

Dollard- Electricity is embodied in the aetheric state of matter, or "proto-matter." Electricity is aether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is aether in motion, dielectricity is aether under stress or strain. The motions and
strains of the aether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q.

Tesla "wow'd" the crowd by standing inside a volume of electrostatics.

doing the same with electricity would fry your arse.


Someone once said
"dielectricity is sugar from cane, and electricity is synthetic Sweet N' Low"



electricity and mass/gravity are the byproducts of Dielectricity and Magnetism.

[Ted Ewert]

Thanks for that explanation. "Ether under stress" makes a lot more sense.
Just as an aside, I have also noted during my experimentation that magnetic "flux" exhibits properties of mass when being directed along conductive pathways. This is while using a permanent magnet with an established pathway through steel, then altering that pathway through the use of steering coils.
I've constructed motors using this principal which have an increasing torque curve corresponding to decreasing RPM. This makes me seriously question Mr Flynn's claims concerning the efficiency of his motors, especially since most high quality replications I have studied failed to achieve anything close to his claims.

[TheoriaApophasis]

You would have to explain "exhibits properties of mass when being directed along conductive pathways" in MUCH greater detail for me to have a clear picture of the geometries you are trying to communicate.

This can imply one of many many diff things.




The REAL question people are not asking themselves is why "attractive" (voidance of dielectricity spatially) "ends" of two separate magnets, when they come together dont form straight field lines but rather DECREASING SPHERES


This is so so vital in understanding what is going on, but people are 100% oblivious.

[Ted Ewert]

Here's an example of a "switched magnet" motor I built.



A piece of U shaped steel goes through both stator coils and provides a shunt for the two magnets above the coils. The theory is that when the coils are fired they block the shunting path and direct the flux of the magnets out towards the rotor. If built properly, the flux of the coils adds with that of the magnets to propel or attract the rotor.
The problem is that when the coils fire, nothing happens quickly. In fact, for a significant fraction of a second nothing happens at all! Also, the two fluxes don't seem to "add well", even though the steel is not saturated. The rotor has to turn so slowly to gain any additional torque that it's on the verge of stalling. Even when I replaced the rotor magnets with steel it acted the same way.
This is just one example where I've noticed PM flux acting like it has momentum (mass?). It takes some time to get it turned around and going in another direction. It doesn't act like a coil, which creates a field right where you want it and as fast as the inductance will allow. There's something different between a coil and a permanent magnet, although they act quite similar.

[TheoriaApophasis]

The diagram is quasi-illuminative, however do you have a picture or video of the setup in motion?


Other than a spinning magnet in the creation of electrification in which one considers the "whole" 'magnet', all these new motor inventions both don't know and are not considering what I mentioned above:


10 field boundary gradients
6 total pressure domain fluctuations
and 2 conjugate fields (magnetism and dielectrcity).


The notion of a magnet as "having 2 poles" is entirely incorrect. New motor designs are trying to force magnets against their lowest seeking pressure gradients, which cannot be enjoined, nor is it possible.

All such motor are trying to "roll natures ball uphill".

[Ted Ewert]

The illustration was merely to show that flux from a permanent magnet does not behave the same as flux from a solenoid. This is only instructional for anyone trying to manipulate magnets.
Motors are well and good, and lots of fun to build. However, why build something that has to move when the real holy grail is a motionless electrical generator.
My real interest at the moment is to fully understand the mechanics of induction.
I'm thinking along the lines of geometrically displacing the dielectric field with respect to the magnetic field to see what the results are. Electricity is the result of some sort of imbalance. How to efficiently achieve and control that imbalance is the question.

[Turion]

You have a lot of folks on this forum who passively read along with whatever is posted. They are also builders who would take the time and spend the money to incorporate new design principals into the construction of new devices. If you would spend some time here to outline how these principles can be applied to the actual build of a device, you might be surprised by how many folks would be willing to contribute and post what they have done so that we can move toward a solution for all.

I myself have some ideas based on what you have shown so far, and am in the planning stages of a build. My problem is time. I have entirely too many projects "under construction" and until I have a clear "winner" it is hard to focus all my attention on just one build or one concept. So it is with others also.

Dave

[TheoriaApophasis]

The illustration was merely to show that flux from a permanent magnet does not behave the same as flux from a solenoid

Absolutely true, a magnetically induced object, hunk of steel, is the real "magnet", there is electrification in the process of its temorary induction.

The "magnet" we assume is a magnet , as said is 3.23606 dielectric to 1 magnetism (under perfect conditions and geometry).

However, why build something that has to move when the real holy grail is a motionless electrical generator.
My real interest at the moment is to fully understand the mechanics of induction.

I wished I could comment on that but for investigation into such creation myself.

I am well invested in materials into said creation.

I'm thinking along the lines of geometrically displacing the dielectric field with respect to the magnetic field to see what the results are. Electricity is the result of some sort of imbalance. How to efficiently achieve and control that imbalance is the question.

NO COMMENT (not that I dont want to comment)

[TheoriaApophasis]

. They are also builders who would take the time and spend the money to incorporate new design principals into the construction of new devices. If you would spend some time here to outline how these principles

Thankfully I have unlimited time and access to materials ( I was up to 7 AM last night building......)

I need at least 1-2 months to finish a design and possibly hire a patent lawyer... at which time I would love to talk about same.

Surely nobody incredibly invested in time into an invention goes about flapping their lips ........until DONE.

That's not selfish, its just realistic and practical.



Nothing is certain in life but death and taxes. I give myself about a 85% chance of success.

So so soooo many people in the past were so certain "This is going to work!" regarding their work, and of course it turns out a flop, as wall art.

Im being very critical, even more analytical, and want to avoid the endless common pitfalls of bad method, bad design, and a bad hypothesis leading to wasting time exploring dead ends which only serve in pissing away time and (mostly copper, LOL).

[s e t h]

and more importantly what if upon submitting a patent application the submission is sealed and the author threatened with a fine, jail time or death should said application somehow threaten 'national security' (profit/dominance).

appropriate measures should be put in place to counter anyone from 'sitting' on good information that we need.

releasing it into the wild seems safest

[Turion]

Ted,
You should take a look at some of the things we have done on the 3BGS thread. We have already shown that under some conditions we reverse the polarity in battery 3 and when this happen, immense power flows into the system. Seemingly endless peer, until the polarity reverses back or we reach a certain point, and then that flow shuts off. It does not ALWAYS happen. And somehow it is a different "kind" of reversal than just connecting the positive of a battery charger to the negative of the battery and letting it rip.

There is a lot to be explored in these areas and that's why I have devoted the last 8 years of my life to working with the 3BGS.

Dave