Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[witsend]

I took a break here to try and update the videos. I managed to upload one but am having difficulties with the balance of them. Hopefully it'll be sorted during the course of the day. In any event - in as much as I'm not getting more questions then I presume I can press on.

Just a quick recap - I am now going to try and show how this 'magnetic field' potentially holds the 'shape' and 'structure' to pretty well account for all the forces as well as arguing that one only needs composites of these magnetic dipoles to form the constituent part of all particles.

[witsend]

You will recall my reference to that machine that throws stones. And as Suchayo pointed out that machine needs to be in a gravitational field - but also in a vacuum. Then provided the machine throws with a fixed strength, then the smaller and lighter the stone the further the 'throw' and the bigger and heavier the stone the shorter the 'throw'. In terms of this I proposed that if those stones are either too big or too small then they will be 'out of reach'. I described that point as a 'boundary constraint'. I need this boundary constraint to explain the 'interactive moment' of particles with the 'back ground' field. But before I get there I need to explain something about the 'composite nature' of stable particles.

In the first instance, I've referred to this as well, is the fact that there are only 3 stable particles. It's the proton, the electron and the photon. There is a fourth. It's the neutrino. But my own defiition of a neutrino is that it's simply a really small photon.

[sucahyo]

Apparently the heat in our sun is not even enough to account for the growth of a simple hydrogen atom into say a more complex iron atom let alone a radioactive number of plutonium or suchlike.

I see, you are talking about how atom gain weight/core.

I am no expert on Tesla. But Tesla was certainly the leader in his field and - indeed, in the way his insights pointed - is still very much so. Suchayo brought up the question of aether. I am a strong proponent. My model requires this aether to be everywhere and I consider it a shame that the question was somehow 'distanced' from mainstream focus when the Michelson-Morely experiments proved that consideration of aether was largely 'irrelevant'.

Another proponent of aether are Dr Harold Aspden:
"Accordingly, I knew that here was the clear evidence of the existence of a real aether in which electric charge is in a state of motion. Yes, I had then my answer as to how magnetic energy is stored and then recovered from the vacuum medium. The setting up of the field generates heat and disperses energy in space, but the persistence of the field acting on the omnipresent moving aether charge orientates the field reaction set up by the aether itself. Then, when the current is switched off, the aether becomes the primary field source and feeds its energy into the winding that provided that current. The aether cools a little as a result but overall, in coping with the problem of our inductive magnetization cycle, the aether keeps its energy balance."

You can download his book at ASPDEN PHYSICS WEB SITE

I also believe in aether. I believe that matter/atom is made from aether bubble. If aether is seen as sea of energy, matter is colllection of bubble in that sea.

[witsend]

Another proponent of aether are Dr Harold Aspden:
"Accordingly, I knew that here was the clear evidence of the existence of a real aether in which electric charge is in a state of motion. Yes, I had then my answer as to how magnetic energy is stored and then recovered from the vacuum medium. The setting up of the field generates heat and disperses energy in space, but the persistence of the field acting on the omnipresent moving aether charge orientates the field reaction set up by the aether itself. Then, when the current is switched off, the aether becomes the primary field source and feeds its energy into the winding that provided that current. The aether cools a little as a result but overall, in coping with the problem of our inductive magnetization cycle, the aether keeps its energy balance."

Not sure this is the same thing Suchayo. But it's close. The point is that Aspden is assuming that the aether field interacts with electric current flow. I'm saying that current flow is the flow of aether material. But this material is divorced from a greater 'aether' field. Same thing. But in a different format.

I also believe in aether. I believe that matter/atom is made from aether bubble. If aether is seen as sea of energy, matter is colllection of bubble in that sea.

I suppose then we share something of the same idea. But the difference is that the parts of the 'bubble' as you put it is what I see as being made up of yet more particulate dipolar particles in energy levels that hold some even bigger particles trapped inside those fields. And those bigger particles? They're also made up of magnetic dipoles - the same zipons - but in fixed arrangement.

[witsend]

I lost my previous post here. Anyway let me see if I can repeat it.

While I am saying that all is magnetism - it comes in varying forms. The biggest is the toroidal structure of the universe comprising really strong fields of strings of magnetic dipoles. The charge within that field is perfectly distributed. Then a break of those strings. This creates our nebulae. Then the systematic restructuring of those particles in the nebulae to form stable particles - which are closed systems. And then the structuring of the particles into the closed system of the atom. Then - more fields from the nebula breaking loose from that pile of disassociated magnetic dipoles - and forming further fields to bind the atoms into amalgams. Those amalgams can be as big as an entire star system and as small as the link between to two atoms to form a molecule.

In effect we get a smooth containing field holding magnetic dipoles in varying degrees of assemblage as they progress back to a state where they will again be a smooth field. I believe that the black hole in the centre of galaxies are able to restructure that gross assemblage of matter and like a great big loom is able to spin that matter back into a thread or string that eventually wraps and folds back into the back ground structure of containing smooth toroidal magnetic field. But before it manages this I suspect the galaxies need to be at some critical mass.

[sucahyo]

I suppose then we share something of the same idea. But the difference is that the parts of the 'bubble' as you put it is what I see as being made up of yet more particulate dipolar particles in energy levels that hold some even bigger particles trapped inside those fields. And those bigger particles? They're also made up of magnetic dipoles - the same zipons - but in fixed arrangement.

This is the description for the bubble:
"if we assume one bubble to be what corresponds to an atom on the seventh or highest of our planes and then suppose the law of multiplication to begin its operation. so that 49 bubbles shall form the atom of the next or sixth plane, 2,401 that of the fifth. and so once find that the number indicated for the physical atom (49^6)".
Single atom (hydrogen ion) assumed as made up from 13,841,287,201 bubble.

I think there has to be a point where the smallest small is convertible into aether.

[witsend]

This is the description for the bubble:
"if we assume one bubble to be what corresponds to an atom on the seventh or highest of our planes and then suppose the law of multiplication to begin its operation. so that 49 bubbles shall form the atom of the next or sixth plane, 2,401 that of the fifth. and so once find that the number indicated for the physical atom (49^6)".
Single atom (hydrogen ion) assumed as made up from 13,841,287,201 bubble.

I think there has to be a point where the smallest small is convertible into aether.

Hi again Suchayo. I cannot comment on this type of thinking. And I only need the magnetic dipole to be half the 'volume' of a photon. But I'll explain this. Truth is I know that there are many ideas about the 7 planes of existence. I personally have never seen any correspondence. But that's probably because I'm way too unimaginative. That's the point of this thesis. Not only is it really simple - but it only correspondends to known effects. I have no intention of varying from this criteria. You clever guys can find the correspondence to higher values. My own thinking is really prosaic. Once you get your mind around it - it's as simple as breathing. I suspect I still make it sound way more complicated than I should. I do hope though that the model is becoming clearer.

[witsend]

So. Let's see if I can press on. I find that the mornings are always the best time to write and I try and give this an hour or two of my time.

The rule - according to this model - is that magnetic fields orbit as strings and that renders the field neutral - simply because an orbit closes in on itself and thereby reverses its direction. This reversed direction gives the field two charges - forwards, then backwards, or off and then on. The sum of both is neutral. The sum of the charge of each magnetic dipole is neutral - being on and off, forwards and backwards, or, if you will, north and south. But the justification of the particle is always in one direction. That means that the particle has a charge - but the field is neutral. Charge is always determined by the direction a particle takes within a magnetic field. And this would then also apply to the particle making a field.

And just as a reminder. There are no particles that are known to form a 'field'. A field, by definition is 'smooth'. However, provided that the magnetic dipole makes up the constituent parts of a magnetic field, and provided that it has associated with it the properties of the magnetic field as a whole, then it would, indeed, exist in a field. That is the first radical departure of the particle from standard model related to particles.

[witsend]

We've covered the eventuality of what happens when we break an orbit. I've proposed that 'flame' is a consequence of just such a break. So are the 'nebulae' in space. But the broken string in a nebula is as vast as that universal string was first long. The break in the fields that hold atoms together? Those fields are infinitessimally small. And when they unravel they also become slow and hot and 'steady' and they grow in direct proportion to the rate at which they unravel the bound conditions from which they've emanated. That flame keeps growing while it can find places to go. And it's growth is at the expense of the binding of the atoms. Nothing, however, is taken from the atoms that they first bound. Just the atoms themselves are 'shaken' free, so to speak.

[witsend]

Now. The question is this. Apart from it's requirement to move as an orbiting field, what are the properties of a magnetic dipole that makes it different from other particles? The first requirement is that it needs to orbit. Something about an orbital relationship establishes the balance that is required for the magnetic dipole or zipon. So one could propose that they orbit in order to establish a balanced charge distribution. And they do this by 'swapping' places with each other in space. Move the one dipole and you move the whole string. And a series of such movements results in an entire displacement of that dipole until it returns to its first position when it would again be moved. And this cold, fast field effect is achieved provided only that more fields are associated with each orbiting string. Then they move at pace, so fast that we cannot see them. Nor can we shine light on them to see them. Light in fact moves straight through the field. It may bend. But it is never actually restricted.

[witsend]

So. Any particles that move away from a field would need to orbit. This means that there must be at least one other zipon or magnetic dipole that it can orbit. Which also means that the smallest theoretical congregation of magnetic monopoles must be two or greater, else it would not be able to establish that orbital relationship.

So. To prove this let us then assume what would happen if one dipole left the 'field' and then had no other particle or dipole to establish the orbit. Let us suppose it leaves the field with an 'on' or 'northerly' or positive charge. It will then, presumably, lose velocity and gain volume and would become apparent or visible in our measurable dimensions because it would then be within light speed and therefore detectable. We could see it as a light. Or we could trace its movement through a bubble chamber in a cyclotron of a particle accelerator. Getting bigger it would be 'out of touch' or 'out of range' or 'outside the boundary constraints' of the field. The field could no longer influence the particle.

But once it's reached this maximum 'growth' so to speak, in our dimensions, it would have expended the energy that first expelled it from the field. Then it would lose that volume and lose that 'heat' and then disappear or 'decay' from view. Then it would, again, be the same speed and size of the zipons in the field. Being again of 'like' size with the field the field could then interact with it and simply pull it back into one of its strings and it would simply 'slot' back and disappear from view.

Now it just so happens that there are many many particles that are known to do this. Their life span varies from fractions of a second to fractions of fractions of that fraction. Lickerty split does not describe the speed of these emanations. And they are only ever recorded because they leave a trace or 'hollow' in the vitreous material inside that bubble chamber. They've been a source of intense interest to classical physicists. I cannot begin to imagine the billions of pounds that have been spent on their study. But my claim is that any such study is largely irrelevant. All that happens is that a single dipole can be expelled from the field with in an almost infinite variety of strengths and directions or charges - slow down and grow big - and then speed up and grow small again. And then it would simply decay back into the field. These particles are broadly referred to as nuances.

[witsend]

There's also a problem - however when two particles leave the field at the same time. They could, theoretically, establish an orbital relationship. But here's the thing. They would also inevitably decay back when the energy of their first 'field expulsion' is expended. That means that the force of the field would exceed their ability to orbit each other. I'm afraid I've brushed over the symmetries that determined this. But - if required - I'll get back to this point. For now, just know that two particles - two magnetic dipoles - could not establish an orbital relationship if they were also of the same size.

[witsend]

To establish that orbital relationship two magnetic dipoles or zipons would have to be opposite to each other in polarity. In other words the north of the one would need to attach to the south of the other. They are both in a field. The field has only 1 charge or 1 justification. Let's call it a 'north'. The north of the one particle would then be repelled. The south of the other would be attracted to the field. The two particles would be 1 repelled the other attracted. The force of that repulsion would induce the one particle to grow and become bigger and slower. The force of the attraction would induce the other to decrease in volume and become faster. The one would thereby increase in size. The other would decrease in size. Both particles - that started off as the same size as the zipons in the field would now go out of the boundary constraints of the field. The one would be even smaller than the zipons in the field. The one would be bigger. But the two particles attract each other - their combined 'charge' is extant - notwithstanding. Therefore when the force of their expulsion is exhausted, the smaller will get correspondingly bigger and the bigger would get correspondingly slower and they'd move together - again. Then they would meet - again - when they are both the same size - velocity of the zipons in the field. Then they would 'swap lattices'. They would change places. At the same time the field would interact with both. The one would be attracted. The other would be repelled. The one particle would get bigger - the other would get smaller - and the same pattern would be repeated. In effect, the velocity of these two particles that are disassociated from the field - is determined when they interact with the field.

[sucahyo]

Thanks.

When the zipon can be seen, what it looks like?

Do the zipon mass follow this equation bellow?
Mt = M0 / sqrt (1 - (v/c)^2)

Do zipon volume change in proportion with mass?

[sucahyo]

Dr Harold Aspden at 1956 found that heat generated by iron core, especially if the core is thin, is much more than what predicted by established science:
1956b

In an extreme case one can show that magnetic domain inhomogeneities could account for a loss anomaly factor as high as 3 in thin sheet steel, but the research reported here revealed loss factors appreciably higher than 3. It followed that a time-lag effect enhancing the hysteresis loss could not be ruled out....

This aspect of the eddy-current anomaly can be far more important than the direct implications of the actual power loss. Indeed, one can begin to see scope for a new method of electrical power generation drawing on the ambient heat of our environment. This prospect gains strength from the discovery that eddy-current anomaly factors much higher than 3 were observed, particularly over the low flux density range where the maximum action attributable to the Nernst Effect will occur. The reason for this is that the domain magnetization is then equally shared by the two polarization directions, so that the augmenting EMFs induced will see flow paths of least resistance.

Anomaly means the value is much bigger than what predicted by Established theory.

And maximum effect can be observed if utilizing over a range above the knee of the application B-H curve, whatever that is...
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/arc.../N/N199612.PDF

Areas a and c are energy inputs from the magnetizing winding, whereas c and d are energy inputs that electrical engineers never consider, because that energy is supplied by the aether.

If you run the motor over the lower flux density range, which is normal, then you operate at an efficiency which can not exceed (a+b)/2a, which is 100%. On the other hand, if the motor operates over the higher range, the efficiency can reach up to (c+d)/2c, which is very much higher than 100%.

Consider some realistic figures by putting the knee in the curve at 15,000 gauss and assuming that the incremental B/H ratio is 1000 over the lower range but only 50 over the upper range. Operate the stator core of the motor up to a B value of 20,000H ranges from 15 to 115 over this upper range. Work out the area c as being (15_115)x5000/2 or 325,000 and the area d as being (15,000 + 20,000) x 100/2 or 1,750,000. You will then see the operation close to 319% efficiency is indicated.

I post this here because I think what Dr Aspden mention is applied to COP>17 heating too.