ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[MagnaMoRo]

Non-Ferrous metal objects fall slower than other objects.

Yep! No magnetic interaction adding to the gravitational.

Objects, which are spinning will fall faster than other objects.

Feel free to correct my logic if I am backwards on this but, I think you mean: Objects, which are spinning [at high rpm] will 'appear' to fall slower.

And weigh less on a scale! (I believe)

And I think I know why.

It is because the frame of reference of the atoms on the outer edge of the rotating-free-fall-object must travel further than the frame of reference of the atoms in the middle of the object during the same duration of time in relativity to the external accelerating reference frame. Thus causing a frame reference torsion distortion within the object.

MagnaMoRo

[bistander]

Magnetic induction

Hi Ufo,

Thanks for the reply.

A Magnetic Polarized Vortex Field will not cause an EMF by having a coil also static, wrapped around it..

From your use of the word *also* you imply that the magnetic field is static. That is what I think but it contradicts the quote from Ken which you used.

As for the rest of your post, thanks, but I still think that the voltage shown on the scope is due to magnetic induction. When you drop the iron cylinder onto the magnet you alter the magnetic flux cutting the coil. I do not have FEMM capability but have found an image of a cylindrical magnet on a steel plate. Notice how the lines of flux pass through the space where your coil would be. When the iron cylinder is placed on top of the magnet, these flux lines will move thereby inducing voltage in the coil.


Image from: neodymium magnet,magnet manufacturer,magnetic assemblies,buy magnets,flexible magnet Manufacturers & Suppliers - Great Magtech Electric Co., Ltd.http://www.greatmagtech.com

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Thanks for the reply.

From your use of the word *also* you imply that the magnetic field is static. That is what I think but it contradicts the quote from Ken which you used.

You are completely right, my bad.

What I meant is that the Magnet was not moving and so the coil...my set up on video... No, it will not generate currents if there is not a displacement of the dielectric field...for the reasons I explained previously.

As for the rest of your post, thanks, but I still think that the voltage shown on the scope is due to magnetic induction. When you drop the iron cylinder onto the magnet you alter the magnetic flux cutting the coil. I do not have FEMM capability but have found an image of a cylindrical magnet on a steel plate. Notice how the lines of flux pass through the space where your coil would be. When the iron cylinder is placed on top of the magnet, these flux lines will move thereby inducing voltage in the coil.


Image from: neodymium magnet,magnet manufacturer,magnetic assemblies,buy magnets,flexible magnet Manufacturers & Suppliers - Great Magtech Electric Co., Ltd.http://www.greatmagtech.com

Regards,

bi

Bistander,

I have done those tests without the iron plate. Anyone could try it, just magnet, coil then iron cylinder.

I could film this by securing that magnet to a piece of wood or plastic tomorrow...and you would watch same exact results.

I originally tested this with my hands...but there was not exactitude as if it moves a bit or not.

The attract force on this magnet to iron cylinder is huge, that is the reason why I did it with that piece of steel...so it could be firmly secured.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Bistander,

I have done those tests without the iron plate. Anyone could try it, just magnet, coil then iron cylinder.

I could film this by securing that magnet to a piece of wood or plastic tomorrow...and you would watch same exact results.

I originally tested this with my hands...but there was not exactitude as if it moves a bit or not.

The attract force on this magnet to iron cylinder is huge, that is the reason why I did it with that piece of steel...so it could be firmly secured.

Ufopolitics

Yes, I know. But the iron plate wasn't the point. The flux lines were. And placing iron on top of the magnet will alter those flux lines which cut through the coil. That is what causes the voltage spike when you drop it onto the magnet.

[Ufopolitics]

Really?

Hi Ufo,
[...]
As for the rest of your post, thanks, but I still think that the voltage shown on the scope is due to magnetic induction. When you drop the iron cylinder onto the magnet you alter the magnetic flux cutting the coil. I do not have FEMM capability but have found an image of a cylindrical magnet on a steel plate. Notice how the lines of flux pass through the space where your coil would be. When the iron cylinder is placed on top of the magnet, these flux lines will move thereby inducing voltage in the coil.

[IMG][/IMG]

Yes, I know. But the iron plate wasn't the point.

Really the plate was not the main reason you brought over in previous post?

The flux lines were. And placing iron on top of the magnet will alter those flux lines which cut through the coil. That is what causes the voltage spike when you drop it onto the magnet.

Then it have been such a wasted time and money by building Home and Industrial Generators for over 200 years where either the exciter fields move or the generating fields move while the other component stays static...much easier and cheaper would have been to build them with just iron rotors...yes, I know reluctance generators do that, and also the QEG...and the other guy in another forum...however, different than my demonstration, still using steel rotors, besides, none of them are a majority that has been built and sold commercially for over two centuries like the Two Part Generators.

I hope You noticed and compared the difference in output when I move the Coil over magnet...versus when I just dropped the piece of bare iron over the two static main components in Faraday induction.

The difference is huge.

Anyways, I know you will not change your mind...as you will not change mine either...I am so sure of whatever am writing here...just because I have the solid proof.

Ufopolitics

[Aaron]

falling and spinning

Yep! No magnetic interaction adding to the gravitational.



Feel free to correct my logic if I am backwards on this but, I think you mean: Objects, which are spinning [at high rpm] will 'appear' to fall slower.

And weigh less on a scale! (I believe)

And I think I know why.

It is because the frame of reference of the atoms on the outer edge of the rotating-free-fall-object must travel further than the frame of reference of the atoms in the middle of the object during the same duration of time in relativity to the external accelerating reference frame. Thus causing a frame reference torsion distortion within the object.

MagnaMoRo

When ferrous objects fall, the Earth's magnetic field induces counter currents that cause a repelling magnetic field that slow the decent. It's been known for years but it is almost never mentioned. It is very subtle but can be measured and has been in the lab using very small pieces falling in a very controlled environment to compare non-ferrous objects.

The spinning objects points to DePalma's experiments. He has his own explanation but what is consistent with the model I subscribe to is that mass displaces the aether and the aether rebounds back. So a falling object is moving along with the rebounding aether, the source of the gravitational push. It is moving at a slight angle but mostly downward.

When the ball is spinning, it is deflecting the aether 90 degrees which doesn't let the aether penetrate too much meaning as it rises, it deflects the aether that would normally cause a resistance to its rise so it goes up quicker.

When it falls, the leading edge (facing the ground) is deflecting the aether out of the way meaning there is less resistance and it can fall faster - instead of flowing with the river moving towards the ground, it is swimming faster in the same direction.

The experiments have already been proven in and out of a vacuum and this is just my explanation of why, which is seamless with the whole model.

[bistander]

Induced Voltage

Hi Ufo,

I hope You noticed and compared the difference in output when I move the Coil over magnet...versus when I just dropped the piece of bare iron over the two static main components in Faraday induction.

The difference is huge.

When you move the coil over the magnet by hand: 2.0 Volts.

When you drop the iron onto the magnet: 14.8 Volts.

Difference is approx 7 to 1 ratio.

What is the ratio of speed; moving coil by hand versus dropping iron cylinder? The faster the speed, the greater will be the induced voltage.

Anyways, I know you will not change your mind.

Please, you do not know my mind. You may think you do, but you do not. Evidence that I would in fact change my mind, or accept some new theory, is the fact that I am here looking. I search for evidence, such as you claim in the title of this thread. My questions to you are in hope that your answers will convince me that what you put forth as evidence is creditable. That has not happened yet. I see nothing in your experiment which cannot be explained with conventional theory.

I await the rest of your presentation (parts 2 & 3).

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,


When you move the coil over the magnet by hand: 2.0 Volts.

When you drop the iron onto the magnet: 14.8 Volts.

Difference is approx 7 to 1 ratio.

What is the ratio of speed; moving coil by hand versus dropping iron cylinder? The faster the speed, the greater will be the induced voltage.

Agree, so then what about if I make another coil, same spec's but with a heavier spool with non magnetic weights in order to be balanced identically to the iron cylinder...then drop both from the exact same measured distance in the two different arrangements?

Would that work for you as to at least open your mind towards the fact that the concepts we have so far from Faraday induction are based on the wrong Magnetic Model"?

Please, you do not know my mind. You may think you do, but you do not.

Of course I do...

And so anyone around here...all they have to do is visit your Post History...and spend sometime searching JUST for ONE Single post there -where at least ONCE-you accept there could be some "possibility" about ANY Free Energy Device, Magnetic Motor, etc..or whatever that goes beyond or brakes the limits established by Classic Physics...

That simple Bistander.

Evidence that I would in fact change my mind, or accept some new theory, is the fact that I am here looking. I search for evidence, such as you claim in the title of this thread.

I am sorry Bistander...but I don't believe you.

If You would be -FOR REAL- doing what you claim (underlined) above, You will be participating in all this projects, by seriously building, testing and showing, replicating and showing, objecting, but showing YOUR Counter-Proof, etc,etc...BUT Instead, you just enter to seat down in front of your PC to criticize, to deny, to set the doubt, to ask captious questions trying to set in the ridicule, or to prove "the guy don't know what he is talking about"...right?...and that extends to whoever is defending this fields of Free Energy...

While we, on this end are working very hard to present Visual evidence, construction, replications, images, some real testing where very easily could -AT LEAST- be granted The Benefit of the Doubt...but NOPE, you have never done that, in all your posts above, even that positive simple action of leaving it as just a "possibility" towards Renewable Energy Fields...

Yes, it is extremely simple to identify all of you guys...it is funny, because Citfta also writes exactly what you have written above...that you both are "looking" to find OU...PLEASE...allow me to ROFL...

My questions to you are in hope that your answers will convince me that what you put forth as evidence is creditable. That has not happened yet. I see nothing in your experiment which cannot be explained with conventional theory.

I await the rest of your presentation (parts 2 & 3).

bi

I WILL FOR SURE (F WORD) DO IT, However, not holding my breath... absolutely not any hopes, that a single positive comments or "approval" would come from you nor any one of the Conservative Tea Party Members...

You guys do NOT represent a majority...thanks GOD!!...As you are not THE WHOLE WORLD either.

Following that I couldn't care less if ANY of you do or don't open your mind.


Ufopolitics

[Ernst]

I am sorry Bistander...but I don't believe you.

If You would be -FOR REAL- doing what you claim (underlined) above, You will be participating in all this projects, by seriously building, testing and showing, replicating and showing, objecting, but showing YOUR Counter-Proof, etc,etc...BUT Instead, you just enter to seat down in front of your PC to criticize, to deny, to set the doubt, to ask captious questions trying to set in the ridicule, or to prove "the guy don't know what he is talking about"...right?...and that extends to whoever is defending this fields of Free Energy...

While we, on this end are working very hard to present Visual evidence, construction, replications, images, some real testing where very easily could -AT LEAST- be granted The Benefit of the Doubt...but NOPE, you have never done that, in all your posts above, even that positive simple action of leaving it as just a "possibility" towards Renewable Energy Fields...

Yes, it is extremely simple to identify all of you guys...it is funny, because Citfta also writes exactly what you have written above...that you both are "looking" to find OU...PLEASE...allow me to ROFL...

Please do take your time to ROFL.
This is the kind of comment that I sometimes also get, and in fact, since I haven't seen Citfta here, there may be a chance that you were actually referring to me.
I would like to explain something to all of you guys who have similar thoughts. I have been on this forum for a number of years now and I am seriously surprised by the lack of understanding of simple highschool physics here. What I have seen more than once is that since people fail to understand some phenomenon they dream up some other explanation which usually includes buzzwords like 'counterspace', 'quantum foam', 'zeropoint' etc.
When you ask the meaning of those words you can not even get a clear, uniform, non-self-contradictory explanation. Only look at what 'counterspace' brought up here.
Eric Dollard, although held in high esteem here, is one example. Ken is another. And also Aaron, I'm afraid. I have spend some time on Eric's work because at first glance it sure looks good, but the deeper you dig into it, the worse it gets. Ken's theories already make a ridiculous first impression, so I see no reason why I would waste my time reading through his 100+ pages of nonsense. But now someone claims he can provide proof in a few video's, I would surely like to see that. For two reasons:
1 - because it is not Ken himself doing the video. If it were Ken, I would a priori assume that watching the video would be a dull, even irritating waste of time and full of childish 'humour'.
2 - if there really is anything that can be said in favour of Ken's theory and it can be presented in 1, 2 or 3 experiments, I would be genuinely happy to see it. That could even be the point where I would change my opinion about Ken and his theories.
Now why am I not making Mo-Gen's à la Gerard Morin or Gans à la Keshe or .... (you fill in the blanks)? I guess that is because my understanding of the underlying principles in 'classical' terms is sufficient to explain what is shown (or claimed in Keshes case). There is absolutely no reason to replicate something like that because I do not see anything unusual. It is no more interesting than connecting a light to a battery and noting that it lights up! Would you replicate something like that?
It is a pity that most free energy claims are based on misunderstanding highschool physics. I sure wish it were different.
I recently saw a video of Jim Murray that I really liked. (there are some that actually do seem to understand what is happening) But then I read how people quote him, put words in his mouth and misinterpret what is shown AND TOLD in the video, .... it is sad.
I am a big fan of Tesla and his work. I know he has found a new source of energy among a few other really great discoveries. This man is truly amazing but here too you see thousands of misinterpretations and an equal number of people who just use his name to get attention for some ridiculous theory that they themselves have dreamt up.
I am replicating his work, because I can see and understand how it works and how valuable it is. And for exactly the same reason I am not replicating most other work.


Ernst.

[bistander]

Agree, so then what about if I make another coil, same spec's but with a heavier spool with non magnetic weights in order to be balanced identically to the iron cylinder...then drop both from the exact same measured distance in the two different arrangements?

No Ufo, that would not work. Dropping equal masses from the same height above the magnet where one is iron and the other is non magnetic will not result in equal speeds. The magnet will attract and accelerate the iron causing a higher speed than the non magnetic mass which depends on only gravity for acceleration.

Also, it is not only the velocity which would need to be matched, but also the flux field in which the coil resides. That would be very difficult to match because the experiment uses a very leaky magnetic circuit. A large portion, like half or more, is air. So the flux is circling back cutting through the coil and is not a constant B field. So it is not only the velocity of the iron piece altering the flux through the coil but also a redistribution of the flux density gradients causing a change of the total flux. In other words, both dΦ and dt change. E = -N * dΦ / dt.

Thanks anyway.

Agree
Of course I do...

And so anyone around here...all they have to do is visit your Post History...and spend sometime searching JUST for ONE Single post there -where at least ONCE-you accept there could be some "possibility" about ANY Free Energy Device, Magnetic Motor, etc..or whatever that goes beyond or brakes the limits established by Classic Physics...

That simple Bistander.

I am sorry Bistander...but I don't believe you.

If You would be -FOR REAL- doing what you claim (underlined) above, You will be participating in all this projects, by seriously building, testing and showing, replicating and showing, objecting, but showing YOUR Counter-Proof, etc,etc...BUT Instead, you just enter to seat down in front of your PC to criticize, to deny, to set the doubt, to ask captious questions trying to set in the ridicule, or to prove "the guy don't know what he is talking about"...right?...and that extends to whoever is defending this fields of Free Energy...

While we, on this end are working very hard to present Visual evidence, construction, replications, images, some real testing where very easily could -AT LEAST- be granted The Benefit of the Doubt...but NOPE, you have never done that, in all your posts above, even that positive simple action of leaving it as just a "possibility" towards Renewable Energy Fields...

Yes, it is extremely simple to identify all of you guys...it is funny, because Citfta also writes exactly what you have written above...that you both are "looking" to find OU...PLEASE...allow me to ROFL...

I WILL FOR SURE (F WORD) DO IT, However, not holding my breath... absolutely not any hopes, that a single positive comments or "approval" would come from you nor any one of the Conservative Tea Party Members...

You guys do NOT represent a majority...thanks GOD!!...As you are not THE WHOLE WORLD either.

Following that I couldn't care less if ANY of you do or don't open your mind.

Ufopolitics

You don't know me. And what you write about me is off base to say the least. I have a great deal of experience in electric machinery, power conversion and energy storage. A good deal of that was (or is) associated with renewable energy or energy conservation. I am willing to share what I know and help those who will listen.

bi

[bistander]

Ferrous?

When ferrous objects fall, the Earth's magnetic field induces counter currents that cause a repelling magnetic field that slow the decent. It's been known for years but it is almost never mentioned. It is very subtle but can be measured and has been in the lab using very small pieces falling in a very controlled environment to compare non-ferrous objects.

Hi Aaron,

This appears to contradict your earlier statement:

Non-Ferrous metal objects fall slower than other objects.

Ferrous or non-Ferrous? And could it be conducting metal which is slowed by induced eddy currents caused by motion in the magnetic field and those induced currents produce a magnetic field themselves which opposes the external field and motion in that field? In which case, it is due to the low resistivity and not the permeability of the material.

Regards,

bi

[Aaron]

results

Please do take your time to ROFL.
This is the kind of comment that I sometimes also get, and in fact, since I haven't seen Citfta here, there may be a chance that you were actually referring to me.
I would like to explain something to all of you guys who have similar thoughts. I have been on this forum for a number of years now and I am seriously surprised by the lack of understanding of simple highschool physics here. What I have seen more than once is that since people fail to understand some phenomenon they dream up some other explanation which usually includes buzzwords like 'counterspace', 'quantum foam', 'zeropoint' etc.
When you ask the meaning of those words you can not even get a clear, uniform, non-self-contradictory explanation. Only look at what 'counterspace' brought up here.
Eric Dollard, although held in high esteem here, is one example. Ken is another. And also Aaron, I'm afraid. I have spend some time on Eric's work because at first glance it sure looks good, but the deeper you dig into it, the worse it gets. Ken's theories already make a ridiculous first impression, so I see no reason why I would waste my time reading through his 100+ pages of nonsense. But now someone claims he can provide proof in a few video's, I would surely like to see that. For two reasons:
1 - because it is not Ken himself doing the video. If it were Ken, I would a priori assume that watching the video would be a dull, even irritating waste of time and full of childish 'humour'.
2 - if there really is anything that can be said in favour of Ken's theory and it can be presented in 1, 2 or 3 experiments, I would be genuinely happy to see it. That could even be the point where I would change my opinion about Ken and his theories.
Now why am I not making Mo-Gen's à la Gerard Morin or Gans à la Keshe or .... (you fill in the blanks)? I guess that is because my understanding of the underlying principles in 'classical' terms is sufficient to explain what is shown (or claimed in Keshes case). There is absolutely no reason to replicate something like that because I do not see anything unusual. It is no more interesting than connecting a light to a battery and noting that it lights up! Would you replicate something like that?
It is a pity that most free energy claims are based on misunderstanding highschool physics. I sure wish it were different.
I recently saw a video of Jim Murray that I really liked. (there are some that actually do seem to understand what is happening) But then I read how people quote him, put words in his mouth and misinterpret what is shown AND TOLD in the video, .... it is sad.
I am a big fan of Tesla and his work. I know he has found a new source of energy among a few other really great discoveries. This man is truly amazing but here too you see thousands of misinterpretations and an equal number of people who just use his name to get attention for some ridiculous theory that they themselves have dreamt up.
I am replicating his work, because I can see and understand how it works and how valuable it is. And for exactly the same reason I am not replicating most other work.


Ernst.

Why "I'm afraid" of those held in high esteem. You don't want to address me directly -that is fine - but the deeper you look the worst it gets? Conventional understandings that you mention cannot explain the results in his experiments and that is the point, he has experiments that defeat conventional experiments - are you personally doing the experiments on the bench yourself and if so, post your pics, videos, results because so far, we haven't seen anything you've done.

Also, Jim Murray's SERPS technology can light 1500 watts of bulbs on a gas generator and the generator sits there idling. The generator sees no load. You say you liked something he said, but do you really and do you understand what he is talking about? What words are being put in his mouth?

[Ufopolitics]

No Ufo, that would not work. Dropping equal masses from the same height above the magnet where one is iron and the other is non magnetic will not result in equal speeds.

I will start first by simply asking...:

Do you have any other testing suggestion(s) arrangements that will fit your Formulas and demands?

I will take my time and make them.

Also, it is not only the velocity which would need to be matched, but also the flux field in which the coil resides. That would be very difficult to match because the experiment uses a very leaky magnetic circuit. A large portion, like half or more, is air. So the flux is circling back cutting through the coil and is not a constant B field. So it is not only the velocity of the iron piece altering the flux through the coil but also a redistribution of the flux density gradients causing a change of the total flux. In other words, both dΦ and dt change. E = -N * dΦ / dt.

Thanks anyway.

bi

But isn't the bold text above you have written...what we are looking for to obtain an EMF?

Doesn't a "Varying Field [B](or varying flux from B, same thing) over Time" must exist for EMF to be produced?..remember it is dΦB/dt

Doesn't one of the first Faraday's Coil-Magnet induction experiments were based on a hollow coil and a round bar magnet?

Isn't that the prime model shown to kids learning magnetism?

Let's analyze the hollow Coil (weight matched to iron cylinder) dropping to the magnet cylinder from just the known induction parameters.

B Field will be constant here, and as Faraday's above mentioned experiment, coil will enter exactly into the magnetic field, (I could guide coil with a plastic clear tubing to enter clean) so what is moving over time here is(are) the conductor(s)...The Coil falling through different stages of field strength as it approaches the highest(peak)flux density at travel end...a loyal repetition of one of the two possibilities in Faraday-Maxwell Equations, where the lines of force will cut in a complete 360º all conductors ...so it should output a pretty nice one way signal-spike.

The magnet will attract and accelerate the iron causing a higher speed than the non magnetic mass which depends on only gravity for acceleration.

And you are completely right Bistander...but the difference in speed should not be that much though, since the fall distance/Time is short...and since the pull force in Case 1 (magnet to steel) is known in Lbs... isn't there a way to "compensate v" for the attraction forces like shortening distance and/or adding more weight to falling coil?

Ufopolitics

[Cornboy 555]

Hey Mr Mikey, you have a knack of hitting the nail on the head, so to speak.

Please keep up your vigilance, as many folks need it.

Warmest Regards Cornboy.

[Ernst]

You guys must be joking!
Some of my experiments: here.
My youtube channel: here
My blog: here.
I hope that satisfies your thirst, Aaron and Mikey (go ahead laugh yourself silly), and if not, I will soon show something that WILL change your opinion. I was hoping to be able to show you already, but my experiments were a few months delayed.

This is the video of Jim that I liked. Mostly because what he shows, but also because I can agree with his explanations.
I must admit I am (maybe too) careful to say that I appreciate his work in general, because my opinion is only based on this one video. I remember seeing an interview with, I thought it was, this same man, but in that interview he made many mistakes. I hope I remember it wrong and that this Jim really is a star in this community.

And lil' Mikey... you're so angry at government/big money/.... you name it. You take it out on everyone who can apply 'standard' physics. That is uncalled for. There are many things there, that just are true and useful and have proven themselves over the years. You can not design a car without standard physics, nor an airplane, nor a computer...
Your hatred blinds you and makes you follow anyone who says something else.
Is that intelligent behaviour? Learn to control those emotions and you can be much more successful. BTW. where are the videos from your experiments?
I am not saying that highschool physics is the holy grail, not at all. There are many things wrong there and even more so when you go to University. But that doesn't mean that you must avoid all you have ever learned.

Keshe is not 'in the same boat' as Aaron and Eric. Keshe has serious mental issues and I don't believe Aaron and Eric have.
I do not know Tesla, I wish I did. But I bet I have read more of his work than you (lil'bro) have and I have read it more often.

These men you sited are so far beyond your ridiculous high school philosophy that the average person can't grasp what they are talking about.....

I love that quote! (but I would say "cited")

Aaron, here's for you: Is there anything you would like to discuss with me in this thread?
If so, here I am. I was just assuming that it would be better for this thread not to. I have read your ideas about counterspace, and to me it makes no sense and does not fit in with theories that are here discussed. Ufopolitics already said he will get back on this topic at a later stage. And since he says he has 'full proof', I think I should wait for his views.


Ernst.