Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[Allcanadian]

@witsend
I'm not sure what we are supposed to post in this thread but I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed your posts, it is in the spirit of science by the likes of Tesla, Ampere, Weber and Faraday which I have come to respect so much. I believe Grassmann, Helmholtz and Maxwell have distorted the facts to fit a model which falls in line with Newtons laws which do not take the properties of "space" into full consideration and we have lost much understanding in the process. You cannot change the way nature works to fit a flawed model, nature is what it is and if the model does not fit in every instance then it must be replaced. This is very similar to the model I have been using for quite some time. Excellent post
Regards
AC

[Jbignes5]

I would say you are partially right.

As per my message to you I wanted to help you think this thru. Take this example for instance.
.................................................. ...............___________
........(n)..................|>................=>. ...........|s.............n|
__________________________________________________ _____
....(Aethric).........Aetheric.........Direction.. ..........Magnet
....(Charge)..........Particle.............of
......................or conductor.....attraction.......................... ................The charge and the particle are actually closer together normally. Sorry for the bad ansi graphics lol.

I suppose the charge (n) is the potential for the conductor or Aethric particle. The direction of travel is accelerated to beyond the speed of light and the particle impacts the magnets and in doing so the magnet being a super conductor of this charge passes it with zero friction. The particle then rebounds out from the magnets polar face and starts to slow down from the magnets attraction field. The particle does a u turn back across the s twords the north end being influenced by a north south orientation and propelling it to the north end. Since the particle is pyramidal in shape and the surrounding environment is much like a fliud at that level it glides thru it without hesitation. Once the magent attracts the particle back twords itself yet again it strikes the north pole and rejoins with the stream of energy that was passed thru the magnet grabbing the n charge again that is exiting the magnets north face. This repells the now north particle and accellerates it away and yet again over light speed.
This process is actually a two way magnetic diode action made from the formation of iron and the dopant they use like cobalt and the likes and formed under a very high polarizing magnetic field.
This magnetic diode action when cooled is made permanent by solidification of the material when cooled. This diode effect was puzzled upon for decades and formulations made on what they didn't understand. Only a very few people unlocked the sectrets of that action. Tesla being the first I believe to undestand the priciples behind it and really empiracally experiment with it.
Unfortunately few still even understand the fundamental science behind it like Tesla did. I maybe the few of exception. But I am no genious, Tesla was. I only took his views a step further and am trying to prove it right. The magnet was the secret. Even if you don't understand it for now there are others who are getting it. I have seen many many experiments that show higher then normal amplification when using magnets as a spark device. In fact Tesla used magnets to quench his spark gaps allowing for higher then normal frequencies without anything but two magnets with same fields facing each other. Some people think he was blowing out the spark quicker that way. But I suggest he made a true one way diode that allowed for pure unipulse fields to be made. Tesla knew that his switching was only as good as the amount of bemf from the spark could fudge the works and try to equalize the pulse effect. Sorta like making it less to manifest the radiant effect.
Some have gotten around this from using curious anamolies thru pulsing back to a battery. It is kinda the same process. Move the voltage before the current is moved and use the natural bemf to equalize afterwards. The Bedini effect uses the same priciple of a battery move the voltage before the ions can move. The problem with that is you deplete the batter of this energy and sqeeze the batteries internal components. Lead is dense, so there is plenty of action or depletability to the battery. When they attempt to deplete the batteries farther with other devices such as the Kromley device or whatever it is called the batteries took a long time before they renormalized or this energy took to replentish itself before you could use them on a normal charger.
These little particles can and will bunch thru the mutual attraction of the charges they ferry. When they do they form geometric spheres with the potentials of the tips are provided by the charges they have behind them.when the sphere is completed this I suspect are the electrons we speak of. The atoms are made up of particles of different materials both ranging anywhere in conductive and semi conductive nature. Not only are these atome made of a lot of these connectors they have way over a billion
different combinations. This allows for a varrying different amount of combinations for each base element loosely bunched in sub atomic particles. Now I know that actually this process is more complicated then I could ever estoll and I'll leave you there to soak this in and you individually descide what you believe. Do you believe someone who says it is mysterious process. Or listen to the one who give a valid expaination of logical thinking in this area.
Most of our mondern day electronics is based on what they thought 100 years ago after being highly revised to fit the electrical current they made manifest and could create a revenue stream from. They were telling the truth of what they wanted us to see and thats that. Otherwise Maxwells other theories would be present for which they are not or any notable person like Tesla who tried to drive our humanity to the next level. It's all about the control of the gold and control of the slave population they created from this system.
I applaud the free thinkers here like witsend and wish that you give my descriptions of how Tesla and now me see it. I am not forcing anything on anyone and wish that you give my explaination the curtousy of a read.

Thank you,
jbignes5

[Aaron]

@Jbignes

Jbignes,

This thread isn't to debate Rosemary's own view of how she sees the
physics of the circuit. She started it to document what her opinion is.

[Jbignes5]

Aaron I am sorry

I meant no offense and knew you would say something. Sorry Mary I didn't mean to intrude. My sincerest appology and No offense was meant. Apparently new revelations are not wanted. For that I am sorry.
in actuality my post was in response to message #30 in this thread that had a link to a video of a proposed theory of a magnet, not an arguement or debate about her circuit. It was also in relation to a private message to her about my own further theories of what a magnet is and how it works from the most basic components for clarification.
Make of it as you will but I thought I would reply to the #30 post and maybe help her to understand a way that makes sense to me and a few others. I just asked for the concideration of that post and only a concideration not an attack on her or what she has done with the circuit you mention. Obviously you took my post way out of context and maybe that was my poor writing skills that atributed to that misconception but I am hesitant to say it was what you are saying I am doin Aaron.
Like I said I appologize to Mary if I have overstepped my bounds and intruded into your quest to formulate a solid theory.

jbignes5

[EgmQC]

I meant no offense and knew you would say something. Sorry Mary I didn't mean to intrude. My sincerest appology and No offense was meant. Apparently new revelations are not wanted. For that I am sorry.
in actuality my post was in response to message #30 in this thread that had a link to a video of a proposed theory of a magnet, not an arguement or debate about her circuit. It was also in relation to a private message to her about my own further theories of what a magnet is and how it works from the most basic components for clarification.
Make of it as you will but I thought I would reply to the #30 post and maybe help her to understand a way that makes sense to me and a few others. I just asked for the concideration of that post and only a concideration not an attack on her or what she has done with the circuit you mention. Obviously you took my post way out of context and maybe that was my poor writing skills that atributed to that misconception but I am hesitant to say it was what you are saying I am doin Aaron.
Like I said I appologize to Mary if I have overstepped my bounds and intruded into your quest to formulate a solid theory.

jbignes5

Its a bit weird to try to understand every aspect of something that is not finished yet, Maybe better to let Rosemary finish and after that with the hole concept it will be easier to ask question.Its hard to question something when you only have half the picture to talk about.

Keep up the good work Rosemary.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[Aaron]

@jbignes

I meant no offense and knew you would say something. Sorry Mary I didn't mean to intrude. My sincerest appology and No offense was meant. Apparently new revelations are not wanted. For that I am sorry.

You apologize and then say "Apparently new revelations are not wanted."
You apologize and then insult me.

[sucahyo]

Using this reference might prevent your paper from being accepted.

I post this because I think this can further support the COP>17 document from a team that also succeed in generating energy greater than input. They also relies on process utilizing energy that exist in environment although with slightly different theory.

The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam.

Correa's agree that there are energy outside atom that they use in their aetherometry, however they indicate them as massfree:
What Is Dark Energy
I may use the wrong quote, because this is something beyond my understanding:

Our physicists only appear to do Einstein's bidding. In fact, they don't. For they have now been trained to accept - under the name of Quark Chromodynamics - the paradox that an electron does not have the mass-energy which it is supposed to have in accordance with E=mc2. With their super- accelerators and colliders, they've discovered that when large energies are pumped into the field of an electron or a proton, the mass-energy of the targets gives way to what are termed 'motes', which supposedly come in threesomes, each mote, in turn, releasing electrons and/or protons. It's a merry-go-round that puts squarely into question the very principle of conservation of mass. In other words, inside an electron, there are quarks, and inside these quarks, more electrons, and so on and so forth. It is, quite simply, a bad infinite regression. But what it's supposed to do is constitute the alleged experimental proof of the tripartite quark-ish structure of Matter.

...
As we recently wrote: "Since mass-energy can be formed out of the field superimposition of massfree energy (hence, the failure of neo-classical field theory to explain meson physics that led to QCD is also a failure to adequately account for 'field properties' as such, namely, for ambipolar radiation and secondary superimposition), and since kinetic energy is nothing but energy of motion appropriated from a field by a particle or body of Matter, it is little wonder that physicists are so entertained with studying the creation of hadrons and their motes from the collisions of leptons and baryons. They then confuse the materialization of the field energy, by way of a condensing interaction by particles of Matter (leptons, heavy leptons, mesons and baryons), with the energy constituents and the mass-energy structure of those particles of Matter. And so, the paradoxical belief is formed that particles of still greater mass than the electron mass, and still greater mass-energy than the electron mass-energy, exist, somehow, inside of that electron, inside of its mass-energy."

Abstracts - Experimental Aetherometry, Vol. 2A
AS2-13 (Re-)examination of the energy radiation output by Tesla coils, Part 1: Experimental determination of its dual nature. Abstract:

Tesla coils have now, for over a century, been objects of great wonder and also mystery. Tesla himself employed their principle in his famous patent for wireless power transmission. Yet, despite attempts by a few dedicated experimenters (R. Hull, the Corums) who have proposed new theoretical approaches to the operation of these devices, the coil has remained essentially miscomprehended, precisely because it superimposes two distinct oscillatory electric fields, one associated with massbound charge and the other with massfree charge. Moreover, the coil outputs neither electromagnetic radiation, nor an ion field. The basic demonstration of these stunning facts is carried out in these monographs, where aetherometric experimental and theoretical tools are employed to differentiate, on the basis of fundamental physical effects, the ambipolar massfree radiation of Tesla waves from the radiative effects of photons - whether ionizing, HFOT or LFOT photons - as well as from the monopolar electric field effects of ion fluxes or electrostatic charges. These reports establish, from basic scientific facts, the existence of a longitudinal, massfree, electric ambipolar form of energy radiation which is emitted from these coils, and provide the fundamental tools for aetherometric analysis of their operation. This leads the authors to a demonstration of the correct physical meaning of such basic functions as inductance and the characteristic frequency of the coil, laying the foundations for what will become the complete aetherometric analysis of Tesla coils carried out in companion papers AS-15 and AS2-16. The fundamental magnetic and electric frequency functions of the massfree and massbound currents are identified. And an exact aetherometric proof that the electric wavespeed of the ambipolar radiation known as Tesla waves is not bound by c and typically exceeds it, is provided.

...


Experimental re-examination of the basic physical properties of the Tesla coil does not confirm the commonly held notions that it radiates "electromagnetic field energy", or that its loosely termed "electrostatic radiation field" is in any way mediated by ions formed as a consequence of the ionizing properties of the said electromagnetic radiation. Formally, we demonstrate how the Tesla coil is neither a source of ionizing photons (since it fails to discharge a positively charged electroscope, inside - or outside - of its electric or 'electrostatic' field), nor a source of HFOT or LFOT photons, including thermal ones (since it fails to trigger photoelectric cells and its diathermic effect can be shown to be an indirect one). It is also not a source of either negative or positive ions, given that it can bipolarize a doped full wave divider. Yet, its 'electrostatic field' charges most metallic (ungrounded) surfaces positively. To explore further the nature of the Tesla waves, we tested the effect of the Tesla coil output both with a proportional chamber and with a simple plate antenna connected to a radiation ratemeter: whereas, like ionizing and HFOT photons, Tesla waves triggered the proportional chamber, unlike either, and unlike any other, type of "electromagnetic radiation", Tesla waves alone were capable of triggering the ratemeter via the plate antenna, even at substantial distances.

Taken together, these results suggest that there is a complex process of conversion of energy at work in these induction coils. The pulsed input to the primary coil induces in the space of the closely coupled secondary a conversion of the local aether energy into electric form. Aether wave energy is tapped by the capacito-inductive properties of the secondary coil to yield resonant, synchronized, superimposed, but distinct 'electric' (electrocapacitative) and 'magnetic' (magnetoinductive) waves. These wave functions properly constitute the massfree radiative field energy emitted by the coil, but they also induce or assemble, within the secondary, an alternate current of massbound charges, or electrons. In turn, this alternate current of electrons in the secondary couples its own 'magnetic' field to the electrocapacitative waves of the coil, to yield a proximal field effect which is responsible for drawing valence and conduction charge from metallic bodies. Beyond the limit of this proximal massbound field effect, the radiated (distal) field of what is known as 'Tesla waves' is composed solely of the 'electric' and 'magnetic' massfree waves radiated from the coil, and is only able to draw charges from the conduction band of metallic bodies. There are therefore quite distinct field effects of Tesla coils. Unfortunately, the proximal field energy has been confusedly assimilated to a "DC or electrostatic field", just as the distal field has been confusedly assimilated to an "AC electromagnetic field". But both fields possess "AC characteristics" and their real difference stems from the fact that one is both proximal and distal, and composed of primary massfree charges, while the other is only proximal, and the effect of the secondary flux of massbound charges. All happens as if the these coils synthesized two different kinds of electric fields, one proximal and massbound, and the other massfree and responsible for all distal effects. It is the massfree electric field that serves as the conduit for the massbound electric field, since only the former exists both proximally and distally, and thus all observable distal effects are due to it - such as the observed acceleration of leakage rates in electroscopes placed at greater distances from the coil. Conversely, it is the induced massbound charge field that is responsible for the observed spontaneous positive charging of the electroscope in the proximity of the coil, but since the radiated electric energy is not an ionizing one, nor does it consist of ion emission, the observed proximal monopolar (positive) charging of metal objects depends solely on the metallic nature of the targeted bodies, not upon any supposed "DC characteristic of an electrostatic field" output by the coil. In a parallel fashion, the primary massfree charge field is no less electrical than the proximal field - and thus fully undeserving of the epithet "electromagnetic".

We can only speak of production of photons or the presence of electromagnetic energy when the primary superimposition of the two synchronous wave functions of the massfree energy field is resolved, at the surface of the metallic bodies that it is emitted from or strikes, to yield the "characteristic electromagnetic" or photonic frequency of the coil in the form of damped waves. Light, and also heat, are therefore indirect effects of Tesla waves, mere secondary emissions from metallic bodies exposed to Tesla radiation. The true "electromagnetic AC component "must therefore be understood as the secondary mechanical result of resolving the superimposition of Tesla waves. From this vantage point, the so-called 'electrostatic' and 'electromagnetic' fields of the Tesla coil cannot be thought of in the traditional manner where the former is the result of the latter, as mediated by ionization, and where the latter alone constitutes the primary emission. There is neither an electrostatic DC field nor an AC electromagnetic field (let alone an ionizing one), and we demonstrate this fact experimentally; both electrostatic and photonic fields are secondary effects resulting from the interaction of metallic matter with resonant 'electric' and 'magnetic' waves, such that the superimposition of these waves is subsequently resolved either to charge that matter or to induce it to emit light and heat.

I have opinion about gravity, atom structure, atom vacuum, but I don't see it fit in this thread, and already post them on other thread. But I still don't read correa work on this subject yet, so I may change my opinion on them.

[witsend]

@witsend
I'm not sure what we are supposed to post in this thread but I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed your posts, it is in the spirit of science by the likes of Tesla, Ampere, Weber and Faraday which I have come to respect so much. I believe Grassmann, Helmholtz and Maxwell have distorted the facts to fit a model which falls in line with Newtons laws which do not take the properties of "space" into full consideration and we have lost much understanding in the process. You cannot change the way nature works to fit a flawed model, nature is what it is and if the model does not fit in every instance then it must be replaced. This is very similar to the model I have been using for quite some time. Excellent post
Regards
AC

Thanks AC. It's a rare thing in my life to get such positive encouragement. Just know. It's much appreciated. Possibly undeserved. I've just read over the posts and they're repetitive. And I see at least one point in my argument that has not been substantiated - but I'll attend to it. But you're kind. Really, really kind. And may I add - I sensed that you'd been along the path of these arguments. They're seductive - to put it mildly. But their conclusions blow me away. Look forward to getting there.

And just for the record - I would love questions - if I've brushed over anything that hasn't been explained. And I love comments - any kind - that add to our understandings. Feel free to post whatever. I really do appreciate the space that Aaron is affording and the tolerance of you all.


I just LOVE discussions about physics.

[witsend]

Jbigness5 - I have no problems with your need to post. Certainly I don't take offense. But if I have a comment it's that a competing theory really does need full discussion. Then that possibly should be the start of a new thread. But, by the same token, if there is a point at which these arguments conflict with your own then I would be glad to hear the argument. I'm trying to keep my arguments to something that can be materially substantiated - something that can be seen to correspond to known physics. Else we enter into a field of speculation that belongs to philosophy rather than physics. And while it's of interest - I'm not sure that our mainstream scientists will be inclined to get involved. That's my goal. I want something, ultimately, that scientists themselves can challenge. Else we're confusing disciplines. That leads us nowhere. But do feel free to argue. That's always a good thing.

[witsend]

Jbignes,

This thread isn't to debate Rosemary's own view of how she sees the
physics of the circuit. She started it to document what her opinion is.

Thanks for this Aaron. But, as mentioned, I'd be glad of counter argument. But you're right. Rather keep it to the arguments presented maybe? Else we're dealing with variables and variations that may very well drift off topic.

[witsend]

Its a bit weird to try to understand every aspect of something that is not finished yet, Maybe better to let Rosemary finish and after that with the hole concept it will be easier to ask question.Its hard to question something when you only have half the picture to talk about.

Keep up the good work Rosemary.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

Hi EgmQC. I might tell you I'm blown away. This, from you? I am so chuffed. Many thanks.

[witsend]

Using this reference might prevent your paper from being accepted.

I post this because I think this can further support the COP>17 document from a team that also succeed in generating energy greater than input. They also relies on process utilizing energy that exist in environment although with slightly different theory.

Correa's agree that there are energy outside atom that they use in their aetherometry, however they indicate them as massfree:
What Is Dark Energy
I may use the wrong quote, because this is something beyond my understanding:


Abstracts - Experimental Aetherometry, Vol. 2A
AS2-13 (Re-)examination of the energy radiation output by Tesla coils, Part 1: Experimental determination of its dual nature. Abstract:


I have opinion about gravity, atom structure, atom vacuum, but I don't see it fit in this thread, and already post them on other thread. But I still don't read correa work on this subject yet, so I may change my opinion on them.

Suchayo - you've honed in on much that I need to discuss. I'll deal with your post hereafter. Definitely needs answering. LOL. I rather thought you'd be the first to come up with counter argument. Not complaining though. But I'll have to answer this in bits and bits. Just bear with me.

[Aaron]

@Rosemary - @jbignes

Thanks for this Aaron. But, as mentioned, I'd be glad of counter argument. But you're right. Rather keep it to the arguments presented maybe? Else we're dealing with variables and variations that may very well drift off topic.

Rosemary,

Up to you but counter argument would be different from what we discussed.
If you just want a clean archive of your very specific perspective that is
one thing, if you want counter argument and other stuff, that is another.
Anyway, just define everything in your first post.

--------------------

@jbignes, I have nothing against, "new revelations" - I'm totally open to them.
Apologizing and then adding "Apparently new revelations are not wanted.
For that I am sorry." is condescending and implies something that isn't
true. I advised Rosemary to simply start a new thread where she can just
make a compilation of her own thesis and views on the circuit. You're
welcome to post your views in any thread you start or maybe your
disagreement with how she sees it is appropriate in the cop17 thread,
whatever. If she welcomes a disagreement here, which is different from
simply documenting/archiving what her viewpoint is, then that is between
you and her. I simply posted to you because your post was contrary to
the purpose of this thread as her and I discussed. If she wants something
different, then I'll delete my post to you and feel free to point out
your disagreement. In any case, I have only browsed your viewpoints
on the aether, etc... and am happy to see you are recognizing potential that
is in the environment.

[witsend]

Suchayo, here's the first reference.

as a reference.
Our physicists only appear to do Einstein's bidding. In fact, they don't. For they have now been trained to accept - under the name of Quark Chromodynamics - the paradox that an electron does not have the mass-energy which it is supposed to have in accordance with E=mc2. With their super- accelerators and colliders, they've discovered that when large energies are pumped into the field of an electron or a proton, the mass-energy of the targets gives way to what are termed 'motes', which supposedly come in threesomes, each mote, in turn, releasing electrons and/or protons. It's a merry-go-round that puts squarely into question the very principle of conservation of mass. In other words, inside an electron, there are quarks, and inside these quarks, more electrons, and so on and so forth. It is, quite simply, a bad infinite regression. But what it's supposed to do is constitute the alleged experimental proof of the tripartite quark-ish structure of Matter.

What's referenced here is confusing. Einstein was a classicist. As such he looked for overlying and underlying uniformity of principle and Law. Quantum physicists are not so 'hide bound'. They based their study on the single premise that it is forever impossible to discover all that can be known about the particle. It's known as the wave/particle duality. We know some things about a particle when it is a wave. We know other things about a particle when it's held in a relatively steady state. We cannot ever know all things about a particle in motion. And quantum physics was actually progressed on this basis. Scientists' varying disciplines either incline them to prefer to the quantum or the classical. Both are right. But both are partial theories.

The study of the subdivision of particles into other particles as a result of their impacts in particle accelerators? It may very well have resulted in the advance of science - but it has also resulted in reference to the 'particle zoo' which is almost a source of emabarrassment rather than otherwise, to many experimentalists and theorists alike. The truth is that there appears to be an infinite potential number of particles. The smallest of these they refer to as quarks. But - technically - the quark - like a tachyon - is still merely a theoretical possiblility. Murray Gell-Mann was the first to propose the existence of quarks - and that to satisfy some required symmetries and some observed effects. But please note. They are not proven. Personally I need them. But I'll get there.

All these particles either decay into the void or recombine into stable variants. And if this particle zoo is as broad as earth's varied life forms there's also the undeniable and corresponding truth that there are, in fact, only 3 known stable particles. That's the proton, the electron and the photon. There are strong arguments to possibly include the neutron - but it's life span is usually in the order of 10 to 18 minutes. That's it. The other three are stable - INTO INFINITY. That's pretty jolly amazing - in my book.

EDIT the rest of the arguments are around Tesla's work. I can't comment. I can only comment on my own model with any degree of certainty.

[witsend]

Rosemary,

Up to you but counter argument would be different from what we discussed.
If you just want a clean archive of your very specific perspective that is
one thing, if you want counter argument and other stuff, that is another.
Anyway, just define everything in your first post.

Hi Aaron,

You're right - I'd appreciate an archive. But I'm hoping this will serve. What was lost in continuity on the previous thread was the 'flaming' that took so much time. Much more valuable to me here is that what I'm writing is understood - or that the arguments are faulted. That really needs feedback. And I rather hope that'll bring some need for discussion. I love 'input' - and critical input is always a good thing. But also, like you say, better keep it on topic - else, God forbid, this thread will become interminable.

Thanks Ace.