1 Joule of Energy

[Jbignes5]

Actually I have an idea.

The problem is I tried to get the attention of the guys to help but you know they are busy on other things. I asked you or peters advice on the item I am working on and nothing came of it. Since then I have tried to get the forms cut by an engineer and I still haven't recieved an answer but I think he is really busy. He does water cutting of materials. Ok since you seem to be responding to this thread so much you look at it and tell me what you think...

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...baredesign.jpg
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...erence1012.png

I was thinking to implement this would be to bring back the old Radial design for the engine. The Neo's I am gonna start with 42's then go up to 52's. I havent had the time to test this design out yet so the validity of this design hasn't been proven. Since my lamination guy hasn't responded yet getting a prototype will take some time.
It is based off the Leedskalnin style perpetual holder which I found out came from a book in 1842 treatise by Daniel Davis jr. Titled Davis's Manual of Magnetism. Which was donated to the university of california in 1890's.
Now back to the design the radial motor design would have 4-6 of each unit in a circular arrangement. Let me see if my scanner will work and I'll try to scan in my drawing of the ideal arrangement.
Ok the scanner worked:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...apperMotor.jpg
In actuality it comes from Beardens diatribe on what happened to the nasa space boots. If you look at the picture of mine and the one on the webpage you can see that it is exactly what he pictured not including the one side hinge in his picture but the other lamination the "I" is at an angle like i see this working. This is made from manipulating the magnet fields to circulate the way you want with little input compared to the output of the magnets field. It should work and work well by looking at it but until I get a working prototype I will have no idea if it does work.
Since magnetic fields are easier to manipulate with this aparatus you don't have to figure out how to circumvent them like you would with gravity.

Just so you know I never really disagreed with your concept it was the example you gave that I disagreed with. Comparring gravity to electronics is not so easy since electronics has a direct opposite +, -. But gravity has no other component to oppose itself, at least from what we know today.

[Aaron]

bouncing ball

It is simple to do this experiment and see what type of loses would be incurred. There is much losses in the spring and air resistance. I don't think you can allow the readers to believe the apple will be lifted more than 20 cm in total.

It appears you have left out the fact that we have to INCLUDE the 20cm of lift we did because that IS work as well. It is absolutely misleading to leave out the real work that our initial input gave.

So the lift after we stopped inputting is 13.2cm add that to the 20cm of lift we gave and that is 33.2cm of total lift by our 1 joule of input. That is over 1.0 COP.

Here is a real example:

I lifted a rubberball (whatever it is made of) to 36 inches.
Here are the inches high that it bounced as close as I could see on the tape measure.

36 (my input)

27
19
14
10
7
5
3.5
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
a few bounces I couldn't really get so left them out.
That is 91 inches of total upward lift on the ball for
my initial input that could ONLY lift it 36 inches to begin with.
That is COP of WAY more than 1.0.

Even if you minus the 36 inches to begin with, that is 91-36=55
inches...that on its own NOT COUNTING our 36 inches lift is
MORE than the 36 inches!

The inches the ball bounced is a REAL example that I actually did right in my kitchen with a tape measure as a guide.

[Aaron]

do the test

Anyone can do the test and prove to themselves that what I have laid out is accurate and there is more work being done than can be accounted for by what we provided.

It is really simple. Get a 25 cent rubber ball from the little candy/toy machines in the front of many restaurants, etc... Lift it 36 inches and drop it. The weight is irrelevant. If the ball is even a half way decent ball, which mine was not, you will see that the accumulated inches in lift that you witness added to the 36 inches is WAY more than you paid for. Even if you don't count the work you put in, it will STILL be more inches in lift than 36 inches.

This is a simple fact of open systems that violate the erroneous concept of conservation of energy, thermodynamics and even the third law. 1st, 2nd and 3rd are violated by a simple bouncing ball.

The equal and opposite reaction dose NOT have to totally add to entropy. The opposite reaction is turned into MORE WORK as evidenced by the fact that it keeps bouncing.

[Jbignes5]

I don't think you really understand.

Anyone can do the test and prove to themselves that what I have laid out is accurate and there is more work being done than can be accounted for by what we provided.

It is really simple. Get a 25 cent rubber ball from the little candy/toy machines in the front of many restaurants, etc... Lift it 36 inches and drop it. The weight is irrelevant. If the ball is even a half way decent ball, which mine was not, you will see that the accumulated inches in lift that you witness added to the 36 inches is WAY more than you paid for. Even if you don't count the work you put in, it will STILL be more inches in lift than 36 inches.

This is a simple fact of open systems that violate the erroneous concept of conservation of energy, thermodynamics and even the third law. 1st, 2nd and 3rd are violated by a simple bouncing ball.

The equal and opposite reaction dose NOT have to totally add to entropy. The opposite reaction is turned into MORE WORK as evidenced by the fact that it keeps bouncing.

No it isn't, recycling the energy is not energy gained. It is still potential in the ball. if the material is of sufficient elastisity the impact take less and less away from the reserve. Why can't you understand the simple fact that the rebound is energy not fully used and is still in the tank. The first drop the potential rises to the distance of impact. It hits with a force equal to the mass and weight ratio and distance is the realized potential. When it bounces the mass because of its composition rebounds expending energy to go back up. It only has to fight one way (up). Thats why the ball doesn't return to start. You are not seeing the structure and materail composition as being anything in the computation. The ball rebounds with a certain amount of rebound based on composition, weather it has air in it also changes things a bit. The ball is a transducer to the impact. You can tell it is because if you slow down the process in stop motion technology you would see the transducing effect. It actually has a wave to it. This transducer stores up the energy in the form of compression and releases it upon termination of the
downward force left. This causes the ball to shoot up but with much less force. Thats why I said this example does no justice to your explanation of the electrical side. Unless you have found the holy grail in the mechanical world I would drop it.
Yes the physical world does appear to have simular basic laws as does the electrical but with a few twists one being that in the electrical world there is a wild card thrown in and that would be Magnetism or magnetic fields. This is the way we should be looking because it has an effect and side effects that don't conform to natural mechanics. In fact if magnetic fields permeate the subatomic area then we now have clues to where some of the weird happenings have been comming from.
And please don't tell me that gravity is not a constant because your apple made from alluminum changes the parameters. That effect is not antigravity. The gravity holds the same just as it would on an airplanes wing. Just because you are using an effect of the allumninum going thru the magnetic layer causing more drag like a parachute would, it doesn't change the value of gravity. Gravity has just as much constance as what I suspect is below electricity. We just haven't got the tools to measure it nor see it to date.
So no comment on my drawings for the new motor?

I just thought of another point using speed time and mass weight ratio. I suspect that as the ball goes up friction, gravity's effect on wieght and mass it seems to me that you are not correctly seeing all the parameters. As you agreed to movement doesn't mean an expenditure of energy only the resistances expend the energy. What if the starting jewel gained energy from the fall. The problem is this, How does one measure, harness and contain the process with gavity? I don't think it is possible at all. Thats why after 150 years of brilliant minds working for perpetual motion have not one credible example. Now on the other hand Electronics is proving that there is something out there that we have not seen or measured that might be the basis of why magnetism and electricity exists. I hold that electricity is actually a stabler by-product of this basic Aether/Radiant energy.
By all means if I lock a Leedskalnin perpetual motion holder in place isn't that work being performed as well? How much OU would that be? Or cop... Even a simple magnet sticking to the fridge is a violation by your terms of any laws out. They are tools by which the work is a natural occurance much like gravity. In space the ball would bounce forever if you could find a resonable warm area to do such an experiment without external forces of course. But as you and I know that isn't realistic now is it? Even the ball has losses since it isn't a perfect transducer.

[Aaron]

new thread

The problem is I tried to get the attention of the guys to help but you know they are busy on other things. I asked you or peters advice on the item I am working on and nothing came of it. Since then I have tried to get the forms cut by an engineer and I still haven't recieved an answer but I think he is really busy. He does water cutting of materials. Ok since you seem to be responding to this thread so much you look at it and tell me what you think...

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...baredesign.jpg
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...erence1012.png

I was thinking to implement this would be to bring back the old Radial design for the engine. The Neo's I am gonna start with 42's then go up to 52's. I havent had the time to test this design out yet so the validity of this design hasn't been proven. Since my lamination guy hasn't responded yet getting a prototype will take some time.
It is based off the Leedskalnin style perpetual holder which I found out came from a book in 1842 treatise by Daniel Davis jr. Titled Davis's Manual of Magnetism. Which was donated to the university of california in 1890's.
Now back to the design the radial motor design would have 4-6 of each unit in a circular arrangement. Let me see if my scanner will work and I'll try to scan in my drawing of the ideal arrangement.
Ok the scanner worked:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...apperMotor.jpg
In actuality it comes from Beardens diatribe on what happened to the nasa space boots. If you look at the picture of mine and the one on the webpage you can see that it is exactly what he pictured not including the one side hinge in his picture but the other lamination the "I" is at an angle like i see this working. This is made from manipulating the magnet fields to circulate the way you want with little input compared to the output of the magnets field. It should work and work well by looking at it but until I get a working prototype I will have no idea if it does work.
Since magnetic fields are easier to manipulate with this aparatus you don't have to figure out how to circumvent them like you would with gravity.

Just so you know I never really disagreed with your concept it was the example you gave that I disagreed with. Comparring gravity to electronics is not so easy since electronics has a direct opposite +, -. But gravity has no other component to oppose itself, at least from what we know today.

I would start a new thread on this idea. There are plenty of people here with more skill in motor design than me.

[Aaron]

gain in work

No it isn't recycling the energy is not energy gained.

You mention energy gained because you are still arguing efficiency in my opinion.

Recycling POTENTIAL to do more WORK can't be argued with as being a gain in WORK that goes above and beyond the joules we input. Plain and simple.

As I have said ...

Under 100% efficiency
Over 1.0 COP

It seems nobody knows the difference.

[ABCStore]

Aaron,

1. the ball (or the apple) ideally is doing the work...
... of transferring kinetic energy into potential and back. Nothing less, nothing more.
2. if you count the distance the ball goes up then count the distance it falls down as negative. This is, by the way, the same reason negative energy has been discarded for a very long time.

ABC

[Jbignes5]

Here is another example.

You mention energy gained because you are still arguing efficiency in my opinion.

Recycling POTENTIAL to do more WORK can't be argued with as being a gain in WORK that goes above and beyond the joules we input. Plain and simple.

As I have said ...

Under 100% efficiency
Over 1.0 COP

It seems nobody knows the difference.

The only reference that I can find about COP in all the net is only tightly coupled with heatpumps. Here is a note from Heat Pump

Here is the note:"Note: In calculating the coefficient of performance, or any other heat-engine related quantities, the temperatures must be the values in Kelvins."
So I guess that one area has been breached and copied to fit some mythical event in "insert non related area here" as well. It is a standard in heatpumps not anything else, it uses different calculations and scales the quantify it.
Maybe fluid dynamics and heating superconductors needed a better explaination then i get more heat out from inputed work. Takes work to do it. But so do amplifiers. In heatpumps the absolute value for COP is Kelvins not the standard Farienheight or celcious. I wonder why? There is a reason. And I suspect that some measurements don't translate well going from electrical or mechanical for that matter. There is a limiting statement in the note for a damn good reason and that is it doesn't translate well to other events. This is why I say it doesn't sound right using a term that is specific to the one event only and it has limitors as well.

[Aaron]

falling object

Aaron,

1. the ball (or the apple) ideally is doing the work...
... of transferring kinetic energy into potential and back. Nothing less, nothing more.
2. if you count the distance the ball goes up then count the distance it falls down as negative. This is, by the way, the same reason negative energy has been discarded for a very long time.

ABC

First, there no "transference of energy" because it doesn't change forms from one form to another. It dissipates at the point of resistance and if another object is affected by that, the object moved by another is simply establishing another potential difference where the potential enters locally and NEVER was transferred there by the instigating object in kinetic motion.

The downward falling action is the only time the falling object is in a situation of potential difference (never when resting on any shelf no matter how high). At the time DURING the fall, that is the only time potential is available to the apple or whatever.

On the way up, there is WORK measurable in joules of expended potential.

On the way down, it is simply more free environmental potential that nature is giving to us and the work that is produced from that potential on impact is further WORK measurable in joules.

Add all the work and it is more than is accounted for by the initial lift.

Subtracting potential on the downfall from work ALREADY done on the uplift is like saying the work never happened since there is potential available after the fact.

[Aaron]

cop

It is a standard in heatpumps not anything else

Exactly. Only a STANDARD in heatpump. This does NOT prohibit the concept from being applied to any system.

COP is very simple, total output in WORK compared to what WE pay for.

[ABCStore]

Ok.

You give $1 to a cashier. He gives you 50 cents back. You give it right back to him. He gives you a quarter back, which you return immediately.
By your logic, you've just paid $1.75

ABC

[Aaron]

inaccurate analogy

Ok.

You give $1 to a cashier. He gives you 50 cents back. You give it right back to him. He gives you a quarter back, which you return immediately.
By your logic, you've just paid $1.75

ABC

No, that is an analogy and has zero to do with anything I have ever talked about.

You erase WORK from the entire analogy and discuss only POTENTIAL. Work would be an actual transaction made and the potential to cause that transaction is the money.

If a transaction COST $1.00 you pay $1.00.

Then if the cashier gives you a mail in rebate of 50 cents and you send it in and get back 50 cents, you just performed $1.00 worth of work for the cost of 50 cents. That is COP of 2.0.

Total WORK $1.00 / Our actual net input of $0.50 = 2.0

The rebate is the inductive spike in a coil coming back at us. The rebate is the free potential in a falling object coming back at us.

[Jbignes5]

I beg to differ.

The only reason cop is defined in the heatpump business is to compare two units and how they work. It has nothing to do with effieciency or anything else for that matter. The COP of that system has only to do with the mechanical work of the compressor compared to the heat energy transfered. It is not a generic term to be thrown around and is very specific to heatpumps. That is why you are getting COP's of 2-25 and beyond. It is not designed to accurately tell anything but what it was designed to tell. That would be like taking Ohms law and applying it to water flow. Yes it could be done but it wasn't made with water flow dynamics in mind. And it wouldn't correctly have the same answer as a specific fluid dynamic equation for that given problem. talking about COP when doing electrical computations doesn't cut the mustard because for one simple fact: What do you use as the Kelvin standard that cop is designed to use. Also the first computational component is mechanical input to the compressor. Like I said before, It is specific in how the measurements that are to be used, in a specific standard, to computate the results. It was neither meant for electronics or anything else for that matter because it tells you it has to have specific parameters involved.
So now we know what you are trying to get at here. Inductive collapse is a strange cookie. Lets look at the whole process.

You pay for the potential to setup the charge in an inductor 1 joule. The inductors magnetic field collapses for free. Meaning that it doesn't comsume energy going down except for resistance. So it actually looses energy. The inctive bounce going negative has two effects. It is time compressed and higher in voltage from the transforming effect. So what you paid, 1 joule-resistance is the first swing.The first swing down consumes only resistive results. It goes negative now and starts it's work again taking away from the 1 joule you paid for in potential depleteing what it had stored by the work being done. Now it swings back in the opposite direction (Charge zeroing) for free minus the resists again once the indicator swings past zero everytime you must say that it has finished the cycle for that swing. Any time you introduce something to collect on that energy it modifies the whole equation and you need to check everything again because now you are introducing another element like collection coil or the likes that add further resistive forces on that.
Taking terms that are out of context and modifying them doesn't really tell you the real picture and that in my opinion is defeating the purpose of why we are here.
Thats why even if it did return a lot it doesn't really end up that way and usually you get a fluffy results. The only two ways that I see anything giving back way more then in is by using resonance, which will make the circuitry look like a near perfect conductor or by using magnets with little or no input. Take Bedini's motor for example. Yes it works but at a much slower rate and how it does what it does is still being debated and discussed. Some are not even sure it has anything to do with the cicuit but with the action of applying pulses to the battery causing a much different reaction in the battery.
I think what I am trying to say is that if you are gonna transfer terminology from one area that is not related that you at least follow the rules of using such terminology. And those rules are very specific from my quote. Kelvin has few alternative representatives, F and celcius. With electronics how many do we have to translate into? Only one. So we have no idea if it is correct in the conversion to represent the same comparative results. Giving a false impression of way more out then in. I have seen this done many many times. Using methods that are less accurate or does not fit into what it is doing giving the impression of more out then in. One example is someone using a bulb to a certain brightness. The problem I see there is that the bulb will react differently to different resonant situations. Giving the false impression it is using the same wattage. A that is not the correct way by the simple means that wattage changes as you change the frequency. Since the circuit is resonating it is bypassing the lamp and manifesting in the end circuit. Total energy used should be metered before the power supply. In between the wall and power supply to be exact. B an experiment showing a circuit bypassing the first lamp and manifesting in the second has been shown.That way you know all the variables like losses due to the power supply and cicuit after it. The results of resonance is still power transfered but almost effertlessly. In some cases there has been a unique signature of gain. But I think that is because they are resonating on the target frequency of this Aether/Radiant energy causing a rebounding of the surrounding energy much like a wave in a pond works. When the pebble hits the surface deformation of the surface follows the thrown object down so far then rebounds backup hard. Since magnetics works thru most materials but with different results like resistors act on voltage. It conducts in a wide range of conditions. Iron being the best "channel" being super high conductivity to magnetic fields lower resistance to the fields. The analagy of the pond can further be akin to watching a drum be beat by a drumstick in slow motion. When we strike the surface it rebounds but with resistance (the drum skin). Water being the best example of superconductivity of reaction to the drum being the most or of variable resistance. When the Aether is pinged with a certain resonance it can have powerful effects but the initial ping has to be of great force that the results can be seen and manifest proof. From reading Tesla's notes I can only wonder the kind of breezes and heatpockets and lighting effects he was seeing. But then again he was using such high power levels that it could have been the field reacting to his brains own frequency. Remember the experiments that he did with the exploding wires. The shock was soo powerful that he even tried to shield himself from the effects. Which was a peculiar stinging on his chest and arms and legs. Is what he saw from the effect of putting yourself in to such a high field of energy and thinking the effects were manifesting for real. Or were they real. No one really knows for sure because not one person could duplicate it to a larger extent because the government would be all over them. For the simple fact that they now know powerlines do for in a fact cause injuries the the people living near them. How many are related to the lines who knows but it has been shown to be not so good.
What would be better in my opinion would be to tap the already available magnets (superconductor) we have and use a safer less invasive power source.
Let me ask a question ok. Be honest. What would you think would happen if someone did come out with a device that was in every home on the world and we found out that the energy we were extracting is causing a sink hole of energy around our planet. I doubt we could use that much energy but hey if it is for free then why do we need to turn off the switch to the lights then. You know the general population of man doesn't care where it comes from if it is free it will be maxed out 100% of the time. Much like electronics even magnets have trasitory fields that are not perfect. Lets say we create an imperfect less dense spot around our world. Kinda like a dead zone. What kind of effects would manifest then? What kind of local effects do you think this mass drain on the energy that makes all things in nature possible get drained off. Even if you think it is impossible knowing what you know about electronics like how materials are never perfect and what would drop a charge on one end compared to the other doesn't necassarily mean the total is off. It just has a different anount of density at that end but the total is the same. If we pull a lot of a local piece of the pie the others compensate for it but we are still haing to wait for it to return. I'm afraid that you don't understand the entirety of the situation if you pull a lot from the one souce that keeps nature running including our biological self then we might cause more harm then good.

[Aaron]

cop

The concept of COP is very very simple.

OUR input compared to OUTPUT. Nothing more and nothing less.

COP doesn't apply to closed systems because our input is the ONLY input so the max it could ever be is COP 1.0 if it is 100% efficient so that is pointless.

It applies to OPEN systems, whether it is a heat pump or not. You can choose to ignore this fact. That is fine.

An open dissipative system is any system that is open to receive potential from an external source IN ADDITION TO the potential that we supply.

The system is a non-equilibrium system meaning that ENTROPY IS taking place. I never said there wasn't. But WHILE entropy is taking place, there is constantly an in-flow of environmental input, which can be gravity, wind, solar, water flow, etc...

So while there is entropy because nature is trying to equalize the system by dissipating all the potential, thru work, back into chaotic disorganized potential, it is having a tough time reaching equilibrium because of the environmental input.

The is the whole point of the concept of non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems and is evidently well-known in chemistry where 1 + 1 can equal 3.

It is possible that you are correct and the other classical viewpoint are correct and that Nobel Prize winning individuals are wrong, but I'm willing to place money on the Nobel Prize winner.

Study this if you're interested in the truth:

Chemistry 1977
Ilya Prigogine - Nobel Lecture
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...ne-lecture.pdf

The fact of the matter is that thermodynamics has been extended for MANY YEARS to include open dissipative systems that are recognized as an accepted scientific fact to be able to self-order, self-rotate, output MORE work than the operator has to input, which common sense tells us that it means there must be other potential coming from somewhere... where? The environmental input as I have said over and over.

If you have a battery give up 10 joules in potential but 15 joules in work were done, that is 1.5 COP for a fact and with an efficiency that would have a limit of 100% if there are no losses.

If you want to discount the concept of COP being able to be applied to other open non-equilibrium systems, then all we are stuck with is efficiency. If you want to discount environmental input as valid input, then you are rewriting physics with concepts that don't cut it.

Therefore, if a battery gives up 10 joules and 15 joules of work can be done, that would be 150% efficient meaning that there is a net loss in entropy in the universe, which violates not only classical physics but also non-equilibrium thermodynamics (non-classical).

The bottom line is that it is a fact there are systems all around us (most people are unable to recognize them) that are producing more work than it takes to run them - not just heat pumps.

It is a fact these systems have environmental input and can have input from us. That means that enviornmental input + our input is obviously the total potential supplied to the system.

It is a fact that the system will produce x amount of work.

Therefore, TOTAL OUTPUT WORK divided by TOTAL input (ours + external input) is what the efficiency of the system is. It doesn't matter if it is an open system or closed system, it will be 100% or less. BOTH adds to entropy of the system.

And therefore, there is work being done and the ratio of that work being done compared to what WE input.... well, if it isn't overwhelmingly obvious how that output can be more than what we put in, then I don't know what is.

COP is the EXACT ratio between output work and what we have to supply.

Heat pump, we put in electricity and environmental input is heat.
Pendulum, we put in one initial lift and environmental input is gravity.
The list is infinitely long.

If we plant a seed, water it, do a bit of maintenance, lets say that is 10 parts of potential we expended to get that system going. Nature takes over and does the rest and there is a tree with leaves and fruit and wood, etc... all that takes work to do and work is done by nature for free all the time. If nature put in 990 parts input (conservative compared to our 10 input), that is 1000 parts input into that system.

With losses against gravity, etc... lets say there is 500 parts of work that was done in actual tree growth.

500 work divided by 1000 parts input = 0.50 or 50% efficient. Not very efficient at all.

But 500 parts work were done by our initial 10 parts input, 500/10 = 50 COP. That is 5000% net gain in work that was done compared to our small little 10 parts input. 5000% net gain in work is COP of 50.0.

You can believe in science that isolated everything from everything else where nothing shakes hands anymore but it must be realized that any natural truth is reflected across the board in everything and it is obvious when they are apparent.

Believing that COP only can apply to heat pumps is indicative of a misunderstanding of the CONCEPT and I have laid out the concept in terms that anyone can understand.

So we can use another term and call it "Ratio of output work to input work" or roowtiw. So the ROOWTIW of the tree system is 50.00.

If a battery gives 10 joules and 15 joules is done, that is ROOWTIW 1.5.

It looks goofy, means the same thing but I think I'll prefer to just stick with COP since it is so much easier to type.

[Jbignes5]

I do agree that there needs to be a standard for equating output.

But you are taking an equation and changing the equation and saying it means the same. COP was designed with two important parameters. 1) mechanical work done by the compressor as the input not energy. 2) the heat output of moving a fluidic superconductor through the tubes to collect the heat measured in kelvins. Thats all cop was designed to do. It is a tool to measure the designs capability to work in that certain area so that one could compare two simular setups with minor adjustments in the heatpump world.
Now you have taken that out of context and applied it to everything you can think of and yes it is gonna look like everything in nature is doing way more work then it appears to be doing. All that energy is not free. It comes from a source. Even if the source isn't apparent it is still there paying for the "extra" work you are talking about.
Blurring the lines of nature and not looking at the fact that nature has it's own payment system to furnish what we deem free. The concept of yin and yang is an old one and I think if one looks deep enough you would find that there is no one way transfer in nature. If we are lookking at the basis of all energy and we only see one side of that flow, which is what I suspect that most are seeing, you miss the other side making up for it and thats the cost of that basic lowest level of energy(aether) as you call it. There is a cost as evident by the results of tesla's foray into the field. The results were the apparent maifestations while trying to observe what happens while doing the experiments. But like I said earlier that the manifestations might have been the results of a strange frequency field that bombarded Tesla causing hallusinations. How dangerous these events are needs to be examined since we know how dangerous a Fear cage is and it's effects on the human body. These effects are "Prolonged exposure to strong electromagnetic fields is thought to cause headaches, fatigue, dizziness, skin rashes, weakness, increased anxiety, decreased mental function, impaired vision, emotional imbalances, reduced melatonin levels, and magnification of the "fight or flight" reponse. At extremely high levels, electromagnetic fields can cause flickering of vision and disorientation. Of course, this applies to prolonged exposure to extremely high-level electromagnetic fields." which is exactly what tesla was doing. In fact at the levels he was experimenting, it would have to be taken into account that he was experiencing something in the biological area especially involving those high emf's he was sitting in for days on end.
These conditions are the basis of the power companies rules that they can not have thier equiptment to close to houses. Something is going on there so it bears further investigation into the fact that high emf produces strange effects on the body and mind. Is this the reasoin why there were so many wierd effects that Tesla was reporting, well maybe. Does it invalidate your experiments or your explanation of what you were talking about no. But it does show there is a cost to these kind of systems. How great that cost is, is exactly what needs to be examined.