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

[Ted Ewert]

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

Hi Dave,
I'm with you there about spelling out the practical side of theory. I'm going to be doing some experiments over the next few weeks and will gladly share my results.
I'm still mentally digesting some new insights which have to be converted into reality, but based on what I have experienced so far I think some results are possible.

Cheers,

Ted

[Turion]

And once you HAVE spent all the money and have a patent in place, then the fun begins. You get to defend your patent IN COURT against every patent challenge by a major corporation that does not WANT your product on the market. Why do you think they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars buying up worthless patents and putting them on the shelves? It is so they have the foundation for patent challenges to anything actually useful that comes along. Do YOU have the money to defend challenge after challenge to any little part of your design that might be similar to someone else's? Unlikely. But THEY have the money to put you out of business. You MIGHT be one of the lucky ones that gets bought off. More likely you will be one driven into bankruptcy with law suits.

My wife works in intellectual property law, so I know a little about all of this and she and I have HAD conversations about whether to apply for patents or not.

Dave

[Ted Ewert]

Question to Theo: In your opinion, does the dielectric have a polarity, and if so, how is it polarized?

[TheoriaApophasis]

In your opinion, does the dielectric have a polarity, and if so, how is it polarized?

Dielectricity is definitionally the OPPOSITE of polarization.

its radial, centripetal, inertial, and counterspatial.


This is also the 100% premise of Maxwell, E. Dollard, Steinmetz, Dr. Oleg D., and Tesla.

[tachyon]

non-uniform(divergent) fields create polarization in dielectrics thus a net force, dielectrics are the ones who get polarized.

[TheoriaApophasis]

non-uniform(divergent) fields create polarization in dielectrics thus a net force, dielectrics are the ones who get polarized.

divergent = polarization
convergent = inertial, counterspatial / radial dielectricity (or gravity)

dielectricity is by definition not polarized, you're talking about TEM or AC electricity.

dielectrics in a binding system can be displaced into a radial disk, in the "shape" of an accretion plane.

the smaller the space = the MORE dielectric capacitance.

just the inverse to magnetism = more field = more space (polarized by definition).

Nope, dielectrics get TORQUED, not polarized. Big difference.

Fields dont seek polarization, ...imbalances in equilibrium due to moving fields, charges, or a prime mover moving a polarized field to created polarized electricity does.

Dielectrics ARE THAT which create resultantly polarization.

in creating a 'magnet', its electrified, increasing dielectric capacitance in the inter-atomic, and resultantly causing macro-magnetic preponderances.

A leads to B leads to C.

A increases B , which causes polarization (rather macro-magnetism) increase in C (magnetism).



Magnetism cannot, never has and never will exist ALONE, by itself. Dielectricity is a whole other matter.

Noone in the universe has EVER seen "just magnetism"

its attributional in the inter-atomic, or as found in TEM, or as a field attribution TO a dielectrically capacitant object.
or as magneto-dilectricity in the inter-atomic.

[wrtner]

The problem is that when the coils fire, nothing happens quickly.

There may be something wrong here, but don't forget that this should not be assumed to be a problem. A very slow running device can be subject to gearing if the power is sufficient to warrant it. Some Victorian stationary steam engines ran very slowly.

[tachyon]

there can be polarization in dielectrics from magnetism alone since it's a divergent field and depends on 1/r^3 (as well as from magnetism,gravity you name it), polarization depends on electron and bond configuration certain isomeres might be natural dielectrics if the polarization torque doesnt cancel between electronegative or electropositive atoms, what im talking about is induced polarization which is the same as polarization the force is towards the source of the field and doesnt depend on the polarity of the field so dielectricity is polarization. so in you answer everything IS a dielectric the only things not dielectrics are the atoms themselves although this has never been tested! and is a reason why I made a similar hypothesis since this way energy is conserved and some other phenomena are explained.

[Ted Ewert]

There may be something wrong here, but don't forget that this should not be assumed to be a problem. A very slow running device can be subject to gearing if the power is sufficient to warrant it. Some Victorian stationary steam engines ran very slowly.

I agree, it can be engineered. A large, heavy flywheel and proper geometry would be required, but it's definitely doable. As I mentioned earlier though, magnets do not act like you think they should in this type of switching arrangement. I have tried several different configurations with widely varying results. It can be quite confusing and frustrating at times.
I have developed a new type of switch recently which I have yet to try in a motor configuration. Spare time is my biggest hurdle, but if there is any interest here I could set up a quick test.

[Ted Ewert]

Dielectricity is definitionally the OPPOSITE of polarization.

its radial, centripetal, inertial, and counterspatial.


This is also the 100% premise of Maxwell, E. Dollard, Steinmetz, Dr. Oleg D., and Tesla.

So, any "polarization" would be geometric rather than plus and minus.
However, if there is a "flow" into or out of the magnet, the direction could also be considered polarized.

[tachyon]

any type of machine that has charge transfer through high voltage : super losses in em and ir

[tachyon]

theoriapofasis what is your opinion on maxwells displacement current?

[TheoriaApophasis]

polarization depends on electron and bond configuration .

What unicorns? There are no electrons, no such nonsense exists.

All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so-called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. ‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.

“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916

There is no such condition in nature as a negatively charge particle nor could there be. Charge and discharges are opposite conditions of a single subject, either protons or fields of movements and radiation of those same electrical fields. To claim that liquid in a jar (charged) is one thing, and pouring that liquid from the jar (discharge) is another liquid altogether, is nonsense, likewise compression and expansion are opposite conditions of a single subject. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions.

“To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” – W. Russell

Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” – E. Dollard

With the introduction of the so-called ‘electron’ by Thomson and the supposed debunking of the Ether theory, the golden age of electrical discovery ended. Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower was demolished. His work and that of other Ether researchers fell into disrepute. They were relentlessly attacked by mainstream science, something that continues to this day. As a result, the days of Ether-driven, electrical discovery petered-out, finally ending around 1930. As a direct and intentional result of the academic physics theory, the methodology behind the brilliant inventiveness of previous generations was all but wiped out and replaced by an unproductive particle physics. This, from the cult of quantum, a fraudulent collusion and academic hubris-based pseudo-conspiracy based in “deep thinking insanity” designed by mathematical physics.


“Maxwell’s discovery of a factor of proportionality between dielectricity and magnetism led to his theory of conjugate pair of inductions, dielectric and magnetic, in union, propagating at the velocity of light through the ‘Luminiferous Ether’. Hence, electro-magnetic waves in free space, unbounded by gross physical matter, mass free energy. This propagation is within the dielectric, or Etheric, medium itself. It is free of so-called “charge carriers” (electrons), a mass-less form of electricity. This concept had a very powerful impact upon the scientific and philosophical thoughts of Maxwell’s era. So here begins the notion of “wireless”, the transmission of electricity without wires or other guiding structures.” – E. Dollard
“There is no rest mass to an ‘electron’. It is given here the ‘electron’ is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.” – E. Dollard
“This gaseous Ether is the seat of electrical phenomena through the process of its polarization. This polarization gives rise to induction, which then gives rise to stored energy. Tesla gives a good presentation of his Ether ideas in his “Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency.” Mentioned previously, the Planck, Q, as the primary dimensional relation defining the “Polarized Ether”, this as an “Atom of Electricity”. It is however, from the views of J.J. Thomson, the Coulomb, psi, the total dielectric induction is the primary dimension defining the “Polarized Ether”. The lawyer like skill of today’s theoretical physicist (Pharisee) has erased this understanding from human memory, it is henceforth sealed by the Mystic Idol of Albert Einstein. If Einstein says no, then it is impossible. What a nice little package.” – E. Dollard

“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)

The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings

“Electrons as a separate, distinct entity…doesn’t really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a ‘field’.” - Dr. Steve Biller

“Here we will dispel the "electronics nerd" concept that a capacitor stores "electrons" in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this "charged" set of plates. This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil, withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the space bounded by the other uncharged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to another set of plates.” – E. Dollard

Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.

“The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by “cutting” lines of magnetic induction via a so-called electric conductor. This “cutting” is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot “cut” through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot.

Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day “do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos”. – E. Dollard
You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their “force lines” is the “flow of electrons”; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance. There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called ‘electrons’ are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not “electrons”, nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving ‘electrons’; the ‘electron’ is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; ‘electrons’ do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields.


The waveform of supposed “electron” flow is the same waveform produced when you slam on the brakes. It’s a harmonic sine wave and the sound of energy dissipation. Electricity flows in the space between the wires. This has always been known by electrical engineers. For example, if you short out a major electrical circuit you will see the cables violently repel each other as the electromagnetic force tries to escape from the boundaries in which they are contained between the so-called bounding conductors. The power is between the conductive wires, not in them, nor are there electrons ‘beads’ bumping or flowing thru the ‘conductor’.

so in you answer everything IS a dielectric

I said no such thing.

Everything is a FILED modality.

[TheoriaApophasis]

So, any "polarization" would be geometric rather than plus and minus.
However, if there is a "flow" into or out of the magnet, the direction could also be considered polarized.

geometric-polarized-spatial all are conceptually the same term in the 4 energy archetypes
(which by the way even Plato and Aristotle mention the 4 archetypes of energy!)



additive in + time (spatially , rather specifically the space IT is creating, but not 'into space') = TEM , magnetism , mass (but NOT its field, gravity)

but raised to the NEGATIVE (-time [meaning NO time, not reverse time]) grav, dielectricity = counterspace


vs. multiplicative in - space (counterspatial) such as dielectricity and gravity (dielectricity terminates into matter creation in 'galactic level' generators).....,.....same way electricity terminates and dumps into magnetism.

but raised to the POSITIVE = +space = polarized = magnetism, TEM



Gravity is the minds scr3w to grasp (but not that hard), .....since it is ADDITIVE in + space, vis–à–vis matter,..... but its field is multiplicative in - space ,.... is centripetal and counterspatial.

Of course what 'props up' matter is its nucleal spin which generates magnetism which 'fills the volume' of the inter-atomic.
a perfect (usually) equilibrium between what (matter) is spatially additive but its field is overwhelmingly -space, is dielectric, is gravity.


E. Dollard goes into this in great detail, see here:[/COLOR][/B]

Start at 1:12.00 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQuNvqbH6ac

[dmann]

3D Printed Wireless Motor - Mini AtmoMotor - YouTube

lasersaber has done some work with Jefiminko's static motor designs.
They are interesting. He has the stl files up on his site for this small motor if anyone here wants to replicate it on a 3d printer. He has run a larger one with atmospheric electricity.