Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

[med.3012]

Look

Mohamed,

I applaud your efforts in research for a free energy solution and your willingness to share that information with others.
But to post incorrect information that is misleading at best is no service to anyone.
Dr. Konstantin Meyl is incorrect in his definition of Scalar as it is a propagation constant and therefor not a wave. This is misleading anyone who follows him and will not lead you to the answer you seek.
If you wish to understand of what I am saying look at the work of Eric Dollard and his writing in this very forum. Also the writings of Charles Proteus Steinmetz. Also Oliver Heavyside and his equations. You will see there that this is not as you are lead to believe from Dr Mely.
And yes it does make a difference as a lie is not the truth. Even a half truth is misleading.
I wish you the best in your research.

Jeff

Thank you , i think it's better to return to the old name given by Tesla which is Radiant energy, in some interview Dr Meyl state the name scalar waves is wrong but they keep it to refer to free energy possibility or to Tesla work but unfortunately any new discoveries or science has a lots of enemy in other words a big scientific community is ignoring this science so they close a big door for new energetic possibility or even new kind of healing system because our body use radiant electricity to communicate so it's possible to send healing information ...!! , i used the same name to refer to Dr Meyl work since i found a very interesting common point between his work and Don Smith free energy invention , the key is three requirement

1) transmitting
2) receiving
3) storing


it appear this kind of energy treat the information the same way it treat the energy , this is why it's possible to kill cancer cell by sending only an information, and this lead us to think that the universe is full of information !!!

[tswift]

If you wish to understand of what I am saying look at the work of Eric Dollard and his writing in this very forum. Also the writings of Charles Proteus Steinmetz. Also Oliver Heavyside and his equations.

I agree. I have read most everything Dollard has written and I am in substantial agreement with him. I believe the "longitudinal magneto-dielectric" energy he refers to is exactly the same stuff I'm calling phase-conjugate electricity, and what Tesla called radiant energy. I hope that perhaps my term is a little more physically descriptive of what it actually is and does, but nature doesn't care what we call it. It only matters what it really is, and what can be verified and reproduced by experiment. There is a reason that those who have gone far in this field (starting with Tesla) have done their own experiments instead of just accepting others' theories, even if those were published in reputable college textbooks. The works of Steinmetz and Heaviside are now old enough to be out of copyright and are available in scanned book form from archive.org. I have read most of them and recommend them although they are math-heavy for the unprepared.

[med.3012]

There is a reason that those who have gone far in this field (starting with Tesla) have done their own experiments instead of just accepting others' theories,.

prof Meyl did an incredible work .. an example he was able to calculate particle using his vortex model , even in quantum mechanic this is not possible ..!! as you said nature don't care about the name we give the most important is to understand why this happen and how to control the phenomena for our benefit ..

[BroMikey]

prof Meyl did an incredible work .. an example
he was able to calculate particle using his vortex model , even in quantum mechanic this is not possible ..!!

Where is this math proof break through? I didn't see it in the video.
DO you have another website where DOC shows us all his calculations?

Simple algebra is not that hard guys unless you are part of the dumbed
down class of the 90's. Doc has to show, not just SAY.

Thanks MED

[med.3012]

Where is this math proof break through? I didn't see it in the video.
DO you have another website where DOC shows us all his calculations?

Simple algebra is not that hard guys unless you are part of the dumbed
down class of the 90's. Doc has to show, not just SAY.

Thanks MED

welcome Bro

there's a couple of videos i will post for you , about the calculation you have to buy his book since it's not available in PDF format,



https://youtu.be/9tplRbd-fso

https://youtu.be/9AFY3QItrRg

https://youtu.be/tKTkpC-DHZ8

https://youtu.be/xwIJ-URG_P8

https://youtu.be/F7SR4vF_pug

https://youtu.be/k3dCRmwfZss

https://youtu.be/bfcLjIlsLnQ

https://youtu.be/r1Abr8AnuZQ

https://youtu.be/V9zBn3BKd3Y

https://youtu.be/5e0-NzaGLHM



this is all what i have !!! take your time

[BroMikey]

welcome Bro

there's a couple of videos i will post for you , about the calculation you have to buy his book since it's not available in PDF format,

Well I don't want to ruin your busy day stating the obvious about DOC.
In the video he is selling circuits and now you tell me to get his answer I
must pay for his books?

You must know how this all sounds to the average person. How many
books do you think everyone here has purchased collectively over the
past 70 years with that very claim?

Until someone buys the book who can read the book and understand the
book and can teach what was said out of the book, this is a dead end
BS Story in my book.

I can't read those poorly written books anyway. But don't let me hold
you up you are so busy.

[med.3012]

Well I don't want to ruin your busy day stating the obvious about DOC.
In the video he is selling circuits and now you tell me to get his answer I
must pay for his books?

You must know how this all sounds to the average person. How many
books do you think everyone here has purchased collectively over the
past 70 years with that very claim?

Until someone buys the book who can read the book and understand the
book and can teach what was said out of the book, this is a dead end
BS Story in my book.

I can't read those poorly written books anyway. But don't let me hold
you up you are so busy.

from my position i can't confirm his work but there's other important information can be found in the previous videos, i just found something interesting related to this thread in my thinking his knowledge is true and so deep so i can imagine what he say about the ability of DNA to receive send and store information as there's a fundamental phenomena between nature and over unity device .. in scalar model information or power it's the same thing this is why Don Smith said the secondary and primary coil talk to each other ..

[ricards]

In the video he is selling circuits and now you tell me to get his answer I
must pay for his books?

If that is the case, then Its better to stick with Eric Dollard, and archive.org

yeah I agree that nature doesn't care what we call it, be we need to call it with something, a term that is somehow our brain understands.. If its hard to describe, use analogy to describe it... its an important part of "Communication"... we all have our own "Languange" or should I say "Way of Speaking"..
Meyl is saying something,
Tesla is saying something,
Eric Dollard is saying something too,
and a whole lot of people is saying something too..

since we are the one's saying it now we ought to describe them how we understood them. If we are just going to refer other people's work, read this read that.. chances are the communication will stop. and this thread will die again.

think of this.. If it wasn't because of Oliver Heaviside,C.P. Steinmetz,JJ Thompson, and all others, would we be able to at least understand a little about the work of J.C Maxwell? I wouldn't.. I have a copy of his books but It seems alien to me.. and stick to the books of others that is with the same "Language" as I.. they have said things in a different way.. a way some other people will understand like my self...

what I'm trying to say is, let us all agree that If we are to post Information, and we are to post link of others people's work, we should at least describe them in our own words. because its OUR WORK now and we are the one communicating. let us atleast take a minute and read our own post before we post it, and lets try to be constructive. because I believe that's the only way we are going to understand each other and be able to proceed to our goal, as I believe we all have ONE COMMON GOAL.

[BroMikey]

If that is the case, then Its better to stick with Eric Dollard, and archive.org


let us atleast take a minute and read our own post before we post it, and lets try to be constructive. because I believe that's the only way we are going to understand each other and be able to proceed to our goal, as I believe we all have ONE COMMON GOAL.

I agree, show me, like Eric does, that is the way, telling me is nice
but we need to SEE thru experimentation, a verification, if you will.

Mass-less current/ radiant / all natural energy everywhere that runs
thru our bodies without lag

[med.3012]

If that is the case, then Its better to stick with Eric Dollard, and archive.org

yeah I agree that nature doesn't care what we call it, be we need to call it with something, a term that is somehow our brain understands.. If its hard to describe, use analogy to describe it... its an important part of "Communication"... we all have our own "Languange" or should I say "Way of Speaking"..
Meyl is saying something,
Tesla is saying something,
Eric Dollard is saying something too,
and a whole lot of people is saying something too..

since we are the one's saying it now we ought to describe them how we understood them. If we are just going to refer other people's work, read this read that.. chances are the communication will stop. and this thread will die again.

think of this.. If it wasn't because of Oliver Heaviside,C.P. Steinmetz,JJ Thompson, and all others, would we be able to at least understand a little about the work of J.C Maxwell? I wouldn't.. I have a copy of his books but It seems alien to me.. and stick to the books of others that is with the same "Language" as I.. they have said things in a different way.. a way some other people will understand like my self...

what I'm trying to say is, let us all agree that If we are to post Information, and we are to post link of others people's work, we should at least describe them in our own words. because its OUR WORK now and we are the one communicating. let us atleast take a minute and read our own post before we post it, and lets try to be constructive. because I believe that's the only way we are going to understand each other and be able to proceed to our goal, as I believe we all have ONE COMMON GOAL.

Hello everyone !


if i post something from Meyl i just want to open a new door since his theory describe something very important ..it's about neutrino power , the formation of particle through vortex , and finally the energy from the earth, i am trying to achieve a high level of understanding about his work and relate this to what i will explain later,

i only take what i need from Meyl! because in some video he say over unity is nearly impossible because we need a source ! the empty space in his thoughts is still nothing , we need a particles .. he describe the presence of pair of electrons as electron has inside a positron and a positron has an electron inside , Smith describe something similar because electrons present as pair fill up the whole space , now it's obvious there's a special mechanism could help in particle formation through our OU device , i will explain later more with some drawing so the idea will be clear .

[ricards]

Hello everyone !


if i post something from Meyl i just want to open a new door since his theory describe something very important ..it's about neutrino power , the formation of particle through vortex , and finally the energy from the earth, i am trying to achieve a high level of understanding about his work and relate this to what i will explain later,

i only take what i need from Meyl! because in some video he say over unity is nearly impossible because we need a source ! the empty space in his thoughts is still nothing , we need a particles .. he describe the presence of pair of electrons as electron has inside a positron and a positron has an electron inside , Smith describe something similar because electrons present as pair fill up the whole space , now it's obvious there's a special mechanism could help in particle formation through our OU device , i will explain later more with some drawing so the idea will be clear .

Ok thats a lot better, I can relate to Positrons an antiparticle of Electron.. but I only know the name.. not the whole theory, Neutrino..
so from my point of view Meyl is somehow into describing things in a "Particle Physics" way.. quantum mechanics.. thats really high level for me..

you see, here's the thing, I'm not sure If I can explain this right I hope other guys can help.

Lets start with the work of Meyl. based from a summarized description you have provided, his work is somehow related to "Big Bang" "Finite Universe" "Standard Model of Gravity" based on a "Relativity" Einsteinian View of things.. but states that "OVERUNITY" is not possible because it needs a particle.. from this I assume he is into a Particle (Matter) to generate Energy thus "E=MC2(squared)" ..(please correct me If I'm wrong)

Eric's work is related to Tesla/C.P Steinmetz/JJ Thompson/Oliver Heaviside and a whole lots of people EXCEPT for EINSTEIN and his work.
These people work is based on an "AETHER MODEL", "ANTI-Big Bang" "Aether Related Model of Gravity" and of course "Anti-Relativity". where the "LAW of CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" is not correct. according to him he concluded based from the Other people's work and his experiments, that Electrical Energy CAN be "SYNTHESIZED" using its components parts.. thus "E not equal MC2(squared)". there is no matter to energy equivalency. he also taught how this whole Electrical Engineering came about, how this volts,amps,coulomb,henry etc. is derived from.. this is what I've learned from him so far..

by having stated these.. do you see now why people here are in opposition to meyl?... just by the theory of which energy is obtained.. just by the Model in which they describe things, its in complete opposition.
Meyl is somehow into "Standard Physics" which is known today.. but seeks for a particle (which could be the aether)...

[med.3012]

Ok thats a lot better, I can relate to Positrons an antiparticle of Electron.. but I only know the name.. not the whole theory, Neutrino..
so from my point of view Meyl is somehow into describing things in a "Particle Physics" way.. quantum mechanics.. thats really high level for me..

you see, here's the thing, I'm not sure If I can explain this right I hope other guys can help.

Lets start with the work of Meyl. based from a summarized description you have provided, his work is somehow related to "Big Bang" "Finite Universe" "Standard Model of Gravity" based on a "Relativity" Einsteinian View of things.. but states that "OVERUNITY" is not possible because it needs a particle.. from this I assume he is into a Particle (Matter) to generate Energy thus "E=MC2(squared)" ..(please correct me If I'm wrong)

Eric's work is related to Tesla/C.P Steinmetz/JJ Thompson/Oliver Heaviside and a whole lots of people EXCEPT for EINSTEIN and his work.
These people work is based on an "AETHER MODEL", "ANTI-Big Bang" "Aether Related Model of Gravity" and of course "Anti-Relativity". where the "LAW of CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" is not correct. according to him he concluded based from the Other people's work and his experiments, that Electrical Energy CAN be "SYNTHESIZED" using its components parts.. thus "E not equal MC2(squared)". there is no matter to energy equivalency. he also taught how this whole Electrical Engineering came about, how this volts,amps,coulomb,henry etc. is derived from.. this is what I've learned from him so far..

by having stated these.. do you see now why people here are in opposition to meyl?... just by the theory of which energy is obtained.. just by the Model in which they describe things, its in complete opposition.
Meyl is somehow into "Standard Physics" which is known today.. but seeks for a particle (which could be the aether)...

i agree with you, since a simple examination of Faraday’s law of induction show there's something more that Prof Meyl can't see ! a moving magnet create a changing magnetic field which induce electricity :




if i take a look we only have three components 1) magnet 2) coil to receive the induction 3) movement , here we have no particles but we still could generate electricity, if we attempt to divide the magnet North and south poles always occur in pairs. Attempts to separate them result in more pairs of poles. If we continue to split the magnet, we will eventually get down to an iron atom with a north pole and a south pole—these, too, cannot be separated :






if we change a magnet by a coil and we do the same thing i mean dividing the coil into small part ( imagine the magnetic field is stationary the case when we use DC current ) we have an electron act as a tiny magnet and this is known the electron could spin up or down so it has the behavior of small magnet but not precisely as the iron atom do ! if so the coil remain polarized magnetically even if you switch off the current but this is not the case.

the idea is instead of creating a changing magnetic field we only need to change the electron spin.. the above three requirement 1) magnet 2) coil to receive the induction 3) movement can be changed to 1) transmitting coil 2) receiving coil 3) storage
storage have to be in the middle between transmitting and receiving coil because it provide the floor for the electrons to relax .

[med.3012]

now let's move a further steps toward realizing the discussed requirement ,

transmitting / receiving / storage


the first two requirement is easy to accomplish through a resonating LC circuit ,



in the above system scalar energy portion can be found inside the capacitor , if we want to take the scalar energy to achieve a unity or a very high efficiency we need another coil connected in serial with this capacitor as a kind of conversation .. the problem in this case is you have to break the resonating LC circuit to achieve this !!!

[ricards]

the idea is instead of creating a changing magnetic field we only need to change the electron spin.. the above three requirement 1) magnet 2) coil to receive the induction 3) movement can be changed to 1) transmitting coil 2) receiving coil 3) storage
storage have to be in the middle between transmitting and receiving coil because it provide the floor for the electrons to relax .

Now that's a completely new theory now med, If we are not to create a changing magnetic field, there wont be "INDUCTION" anymore.. its like breaking Faraday's discovery now.. from magnets to electrons.. lets not jump too far too fast.. we should go back to where we left off.. tswift's radiant energy school... I really find it Interesting don't you think?...

[med.3012]

Now that's a completely new theory now med, If we are not to create a changing magnetic field, there wont be "INDUCTION" anymore.. its like breaking Faraday's discovery now.. from magnets to electrons.. lets not jump too far too fast.. we should go back to where we left off.. tswift's radiant energy school... I really find it Interesting don't you think?...

i am not against tswift's radiant energy school, i am reading all what he say , what i am going to show isn't new! maybe it's not well known but i just want to move to that point easily and slowly with some drawing to clear the idea so the system will be clear for understanding , there's some very easy experiments any novice person could do it , the law of Faraday can't explain Tesla scalar system or the electrostatic induction , the system i am describing is a kind of enhanced Tesla wireless transmitter .

if i am welcome to continue the idea i will do if no i will move to my thread ? ?

EDIT : the system enhance the idea of Tesla wireless transmitter but it's a local energy producer !