What is Electric Current?

[Joit]

@Allcanadian
I do not think, you take that Energy for something else cost.
Figure, you would have a big Permanent Magnet, and you have the Device inside,
then would it affect the Big Magnet?
There was a Vid on youtube and here also, where it shows this swinging Magnets at the Schuman Frequency.
So probatly, you only need to create a weak Field with a big Coil around, where it can come into Resonance with.
And then the Problem with the x-rays would probatly solved too
Another Point i think about in this case, why does the Earth turn.

It must be enormous Forces, what keeps it turning. Its not like, because the Earth is a selfstanding Object.
Someone mentioned, or i did read lately, that our solar System turns around another System.
Thats why somehow 2012 seems importend for some, because we look into the Center from the other System at this time.
But i leave other Theories now out, what can happen then, even when some think, its a good thing, but some Peoples on Earth wanna supress this (spirit) Force(?)

And back to the Tpu, what i wonder about, that S. Marks (Yes, it was the same Document) said it is incredible simple, so seems, he did not build much in it, so they maybe did not do much. I am certain there, that you can improve the Device, in case, when someone would once know, how to make one properly

[Harvey]

So far, I think perhaps I am one of the few to provide real proof that energy can be extracted from the conservative fields. But this should not be necessary, as each day we observe the tides and know that they exist because of gravitational force being applied to move tons of water over a distance. Therefore the evidence should be overwhelming. I have been told that the Moon is trading its orbit of the earth for tidal energy, which is quite strange, because the Moon does not actually 'orbit' the earth per se. In reality, the Moon follows an oscillatory path around our Sun doing a dance with the Earth as the two share a common center of gravity about 4624 km from the Earths center. Together these two spin about that center as they revolve around the Sun, and this way the Moon never does change its speed of solar revolution relative to the Sun as it bobs toward and away from the Sun perpendicular to its orbit around the Sun. This will never decay unless the Solar mass drops enough which may never happen for reasons beyond the scope of this thread. Therefore, we have daily evidence that energy is extracted from the gravitational fields and it does do work. One may argue however, that this is a conservative action because the tides are put back where they came from and therefore the net action is zero. But that is like saying if I drive my car to the store and back that it took no energy. Lifting a pail of water up the hill and letting gravity pull it back down takes energy.

So what is the secret to getting energy out of a conservative field? It must be removed at a point where the field is separated into asymmetric (nonconservative) parts. This can be done by playing one conservative field against another in a nonlinear way and applying the converted energy to do work. For example, in that video above, we use gravity as one field and magnetism as the other and we convert the magnetic potential energy to gravitational potential energy. That extra potential can be applied to do work. It the case of the Magnetically Assisted Pendulum (MAP), the extra potential is about 10 times the energy needed to rotate the moving magnet 180° and this means the extra can be applied to do work. That extra is extremely small and can be easily consumed by bearing friction or the like. I believe a similar action occurs with our tides in an interplay between the three gravitational forces involved, Solar, Lunar and Terrestrial, with the extracted energy is applied to move the tides.

But can this same thing happen in electrodynamics? Is there any evidence of such a thing? Yes. The following two part video (10 min each) is rather deep on the math side, but the empirical portion cannot be argued.
YouTube - M.I.T.-Walter Lewin- Complete Breakdown of Intuition - Part1
YouTube - M.I.T.-Walter Lewin- Complete Breakdown of Intuition - Part2

While a magnetic field is generally a conservative field, we find that this is only true when it is static. The implications of this are huge, because a moving static field is no longer considered static relative to the observer of its motion. This means that a magnet, moving past a wire is not a conservative field with reference to that wire (especially if it never comes back ). This means that we can extract energy from that wire and put it to do work. But we knew that, because that is how alternators and generators work. However, this also means that two moving magnetic fields can be arranged so that a difference between them can be applied to do work.

Anywhere we create a differential between electric charges we have stored potential energy, and when we allow those charges to come together, that journey is electrical current.

[MrMagAmp]

I hope this will be the last post I write

Yes, maybe.

[sucahyo]

How do we proof that we sucessfully tap electricity from radiant? what are the sign?

[Harvey]

MrMagAmp,

I would like you to keep posting We may not always agree, but I think we all can learn from each other. Even if we don't learn something new, we can get a different perspective

It is like the long truck and the low bridge. The long truck gets stuck and all the engineers come out to see how to raise the bridge or cut off the top of the truck. But the little boy riding by on his bike asks "why don't you let the air out of the tires?" So, sometimes looking from a different angle makes a complex thing simple.

I have seen different things taught at different universities in the same country. And even in the same university sometimes they do not agree - each has their own idea. But they can all be right.

A man learns about the death of a woman. How did she die? A witness tells him - "it was bad, she was hit by a bus right next to me, she stepped off the curb in front of it" . Another witness said, "but, no, I saw her thrown through the windshield of a passenger car in an accident." And then a third witness stated "She was killed in an ambulance when it was hit by a big truck". The man wondered, "well what really did happen?" The woman's relative took the man aside and told him that they all said the truth. How could this be? Each seems to be so different, can they all be right?

The relative said:
"My mother after waiting for the light to turn green had stepped into the path of a bus and was thrown out into the intersection, a passerby put her in his car to rush her to the hospital but on the way he lost control and she was thrown through the windshield. The ambulance came, but she never made it to the hospital alive as it was hit by a truck on its way and turned over and she died at the scene."

So, even though each witness was sure they were correct, each only had a part of the story and the whole truth is the sum of the parts.

[boguslaw]

I know how somebody can check if power source is a dipole constantly pouring EM radiation. Get 9V new battery , put into vacuum and measure with super efficient magnetic field detector as open circuit.You should see continuous energy radiation and after long period battery will be flat again (keep in mind that it's in vacuum now !). Quite simple test if you have a good lab . Tom Bearden is right IMHO even if things are not so simple we have each time EM energy flowing from power source and guided by wires with flowing current inside.

Btw, in LC resonant circuit when you connect antenna that circuit should radiate EM wave.Why ? Because LC circuit is full of EM energy , at choosen frequency magnetic field is rotating changing into electric field and vice versa because it's like a coin with two sides.
But what would happen if you have antenna connected through circuit breaker and it cut connection exactly when antenna is full of elecitric field (that side of "EM coin"). Now we have a piece of wire disconnected on both ends and full of electric field which has to collapse and produce magnetic flux called radiant energy.

[Harvey]

Boguslaw,

You raise an interesting issue regarding an electric charge - does it radiate?

Consider the following: A monopole electric charge exists in the vacuum of deep space. A special instrument one light year away measures its precise location due to its field value. Suddenly, a force acts on the charge and causes it to move. How long will it take for the special instrument detect that it has moved?

Simulation: A round hollow ball is fitted with a connection and attached to a water hose. Holes are drilled all over the ball and it is suspended up in the air. The water is turned on in the hose and streams flow out of the ball from each hole. The ball is quickly moved to a new location. What do we observe in the streams? Now replace the streams with wooden dowels and move the ball. Which model describes an electric charge?

Another thought experiment:
Two charges are stuck together, a positive charge and a negative charge so that the field between them is confined and does not radiate anywhere but is completely shared between them. Suddenly we separate them to a great distance and they each radiate spherically. One light year a way an electric field instrument detects the two fields. How much time has passed between the separation and the detection?

If electric charges did not radiate, then there would be an instantaneous transmission of information regarding the charge movement and that information would be everywhere in the universe simultaneously. Because there is a delay, the charges must be radiating.

One theory suggests, that the ripple in that radiation caused by charge motion is what we observe as a magnetic wave and the theory suggests this as the reason why magnetic fields do not exist for electric particles that are stationary.

What do you think?

[Joit]

I agree with Harvey, that you continue to posting MrMagamp, its allways better, when someone helps to keep the Wheel turning.
I hope it was not about my last Answers, it was not my intention to offend or criticize you.
Maybe its allways, when i start thinking about our Science what we got, that i get some hyper in a way.

[MrMagAmp]

Sorry, I deleted the post by error. Here again the last post

For Harvey and all the guys who are reading this post.
I have also abandoned the research for "free energy" a lot of times, because I was very tired of reading uncomplete, or not fully (or clearly) explained information. But each time that I abandoned, a new idea came into my mind. So I decided to start again. I'm going to explain my conclusion, I see it really obvious (now), but maybe I'm confused. Who knows...
The school theory explains us there are 2 different electrical kinds of energy:
Alternating currennt and Direct Current. That's true, but only for the transverse part. For the longitudinal (also called radiant, or "scalar") there are 2 analogues:
Impulse Current and Oscillating Current. This hasn't been taught in schools. Because here is the key to amplify the energy. The other key is to understand what resistance is and what amperage is. I think this is extremely important to understand COP>1 systems. When you connect a battery to a device (light bulb, motor, etc...) you need to know that there are 2 phases:
1) Transient phase
2) Permanent phase
In the transient phase, you have pure potential (voltage) flowing in the wire. You have a wattless energy flowing throught it. This is a ampere-free, massless (without electrons, but with sub-electron particles) flowing in the wire for a very short time. In copper, this transient phase is 1.5 x 10^(-18) seconds. Too quick to capture with electronic components avaiable to the public.
After this transient phase, then comes the permanent phase. The PF(permanet phase) is the phase when the electrons start to flow in the wire. Just in that moment you're extracting power from the battery, instead of energy (pure voltage). In this moment there is a "reversal" of current as Tesla said and then you're killing the battery. Here the Ohm's law is valid, but in the transient phase the ohm's law is invalid, because when you have pure potential (voltage) flowing in the wire, then you have a superconductivity
at room temperature. I mean, when an ampere-free energy is flowing throught the wire, then the wire becomes superconductor at room temperature. When electrons start to flow in the wire (permanent phase), then you have a semiconductor wire. The ether is composed of semi-materialized particles. Really, the ether is a gaseous medium, composed of 2 chemical compounds. The problem is these 2 chemical compounds are massless (Virtual), because their atomic number is Z<1, it means they're
chemical elements lighter than hydrogen. For that reason they were classified as prehydrogen compounds.

So, can you get energy from the ether (quantum universe, spacetime, vacuum, etc...)?
The answer is: YES.
The second question is...
What kind of energy can I get from the ether?
A massless (virtual) form of energy. That means, you can get radiant energy.
Then, the radiant energy can be amplified because in a radiant energy system, there are not losses (Remember that the wire is superconductive at room temperature while carrying radiant energy).
How is possible that people are trying to get cop>1 in a system that wastes a big percentage of energy (electromagnetism)? That is a crazy idea!
When you want to fill a glass of water.. do you have a hole in the glass? or do you use a new glass, without holes?
The same thing happens with energy!.
Amperes must not to be viewed as the electron flow. Amperes must be view as the energy losses in form of heat. If you eliminate the amperage (losses), then the Ohm's law won't be valid, and you will have superconductivity at room temperature. Then, while using radiant energy, you can amplify it almost to the infinity. What is radiant energy and how can it be obtained?
Radiant energy means a kind of energy Radiated from the cosmos. As I have just said, this kind of energy is a massless (electron defficient) form of energy. There are particles flowing in the wire, but they aren't electrons, they are sub-electrons (smaller than electrons) particles.
This energy is pure potential, you can achieve superconductivity at room temperature, and the Ohm's law won't be valid for this case. While using this kind of energy, you will be able to amplify it (since it's pure voltage). Electromagnetism is a system of loses, at it's obvios that you won't be able to amplify it. In EM case, you will be looking for more and more "electron flow" (amperes). But you need to remember that amperage represents the system loses in form of heat. Amperes aren't really representing the
amount of electrons that travels in a wire. So, instead of looking for more amperes, try to look for ampere-free electrical energy. Maybe you will be surprised.

How to obtain radiant energy
Tesla clearly showed that there are 2 ways to obtain radiant energy:

1) From the ambient background (vacuum, spacetime, quantum universe, ether). This method was called inductive fractionation.

2) From the electromagnetic energy. Here, a capacitive fractionation is used.
Using the inductive fractionation, you're basically storing the magnetic collapse of an electromagnet, in a capacitor and then pulsing it.
When you open the circuit (you interrup the circuit), then the magnetic field collapses. In this inductive collapse, the electromagnet is not receiving energy directly from the battery, but a magnetic field still exists in the coil!
The energy from the inductive collapse, comes from the vacuum and it's radiant energy.

Using the capacitive fractionation, you're increasing the voltage and the frequency and you're eliminating the amperage by doing this technique.
P = V x I. So, if you increase too much the voltage you'll have
P = V x 0. This seems that is not valid to perform any usefull action with energy, but radiant energy is a wattless energy form. An ampere-free manifestation of electrical energy. So, P= V x O -----> Energy = Voltage.
Voltage = A coherent manifestation of the ether.
Then, if you try to amplify this radiant energy, you will be able to amplify the times you want, because this is ampere-free manifestation of electrical energy. It's obvious that you will be able to amplify the voltage, the times you want. But if you try to amplify the electromagnetic (voltage/energy and amperes/loses) you're trying to amplify the energy and the loses at the same time. That's insane.
So, the key is more based on, How to obtain radiant energy? I mean, How to transform electromagnetic energy to electrorradiant energy? How to eliminate the amperage? I have explained that in this post. Then, once you've electrorradiant energy, you wil be able to amplify it the times you want, because this is a ampere-free pure-potential energy manifestation. If AH = 0, then the electrical energy will be applicable to an unlimited number of cases.

1) What radiant energy is?
Radiant energy is an energy radiated from the cosmos. It has specific characteristics:
* Massless (virtual), pre-hydrogen, Z<1... electrical energy. It involves that is an electron-free ampere-free, pure-potential kind of energy.

* It's possible to obtain using the Fractionation methods described: capacitive and inductive

* Can be amplified almost unlimited times (since it's pure voltage)

* In electronic circuits, it manifests as an effect and it's the basic and essential key to understand all vacuum-energy devices.

* It's a transformation effect, rather than a tapping effect. Using electromagnetic energy is possible to manifest this effect.

* Remebers that Radiant Energy manifest as an EFFECT, that it's only present in the transient phase (that whiles for a limited, short, time). For that reason tesla used a lot the technique of Make-and-Break of the circuit.

* It only manifest in the same moment that the dipole is created, and it manifest only for a short, limited, period of time.

* The nature of this effect is implosive-constructive-cool-negative entropy rather than explosive-destructive-heating-positive entropy like in the electromagnetism.

This is my personal conclusion, I don't know how much right I could be. But at least, this point of view helps me to understand almost all free energy devices.

[boguslaw]

Boguslaw,

You raise an interesting issue regarding an electric charge - does it radiate?

Consider the following: A monopole electric charge exists in the vacuum of deep space. A special instrument one light year away measures its precise location due to its field value. Suddenly, a force acts on the charge and causes it to move. How long will it take for the special instrument detect that it has moved?

Simulation: A round hollow ball is fitted with a connection and attached to a water hose. Holes are drilled all over the ball and it is suspended up in the air. The water is turned on in the hose and streams flow out of the ball from each hole. The ball is quickly moved to a new location. What do we observe in the streams? Now replace the streams with wooden dowels and move the ball. Which model describes an electric charge?

Another thought experiment:
Two charges are stuck together, a positive charge and a negative charge so that the field between them is confined and does not radiate anywhere but is completely shared between them. Suddenly we separate them to a great distance and they each radiate spherically. One light year a way an electric field instrument detects the two fields. How much time has passed between the separation and the detection?

If electric charges did not radiate, then there would be an instantaneous transmission of information regarding the charge movement and that information would be everywhere in the universe simultaneously. Because there is a delay, the charges must be radiating.

One theory suggests, that the ripple in that radiation caused by charge motion is what we observe as a magnetic wave and the theory suggests this as the reason why magnetic fields do not exist for electric particles that are stationary.

What do you think?

I like the coin comparison. There is no magnetic field without electric and electric withou magnetic because it is two faces of the same coin.If you slide a coin laying on desktop there is always only one face visible.However is desktop is vibrating we could see the onther side sometimes when coin is jumping a little.

[Harvey]

If you place a magnetic field detector on an Electret, you will not find any magnetic field just as when you place an electric field detector on a magnet you do not find any electric field.

So we learn from this, that the Electrostatic and Magnetostatic fields are dependent on motion to exhibit the "other side of the coin".

At the atomic level, we know that moving magnetic fields exist inside the Electret and moving electric fields exist inside the magnet and that it is these that give rise to the static field externally.

For many years the two forces were treated separately until it was shown that they must exist together. It was then that a unification was made and it is treated now in quantum mechanics as a single electromagnetic force.

It is interesting that we can conceal the one part within the material while allowing the other to interact outside the material. Why is it possible to easily demonstrate a electric monopole but a magnetic monopole is nearly impossible to show?

[Joit]

Diode

MrMagamp, there is a Patent related to the TPU from Tesla,
found here. It are thin Wires with a bigger over it,
the Parts right upper side seems for me are bulbs, and lower right Spark gaps,
where it creates the Frequency or the interruptions.
The Theorie from this is, to catch all this little Spikes and combine them to a big one in the thick Wire. Maybe its something you wanna try, to capture Radiant Energy.
I was about to build it last Days, but got distracted from it, and now i play only with Coils.
The Circuit is still interresting, because the big Wires are tied at 180°.

Harvey, what is you Opinion at a Diode. Is it really like this, that it only forward Stuff into on direction like it is, or is it only wrong labeled.
The Parts inside seems like, they provide the function from it, but how are the really arranged.

I am still highly interested, to look more into the TPU, because he really did build it with less Parts. This Guy what did make him the LC Circuit maybe ony made that, but S Marks maybe did know, how to arrange it.
Its maybe not the Point to have a lot Energy flowing around in there,
but control the Magnet field right, to get enough Power out from the inductive Lamp wire.
Ottos Setup was anyhow too like, he had 3 Coils, where he did create a Vortex anyhow.
And maybe its not even a Vortex what you need, just hit the Field right at right Time and Space.
I put apart a Screen last time, and found the 3 deflection coils.
2 been more in a 45° and the 3rd was a big Circle at backside.
i can only guess, how this 2 Fields can stimulate the bigger 3rd Coil.

[Harvey]

Hi Joit,

I have studied that invention long ago, but it is not a generator, it is a transformer. Your assumption regarding the lamps is correct, but the spark gaps is not - well not precisely. Notice the text between lines 75 and 80 where I draw attention to the use of how the secondary windings can be configured. There we see that the series connections are represented as Arc-Lamps.

This particular invention has the ability to prevent eddy currents which makes it a very desirable transformer. The core, (A), was made of soft iron strips or wire that were electrically isolated from each other. Another advantage of this design was the multi-tap configuration. Something like these transformers.

While Steven Marks device seemed to have similarities to Tesla's step down transformer, the two devices operated on completely different principles. Stevens device used the inductive collapse of one winding to fire the next winding in succession. In other words, he took the output of one transformer and fed it into the input of the next and round robin back to the beginning this way in a resonant circle. He then used an excitation oscillator to start the action and keep it going. By operating around 6kHz he found a harmonic of the Schumann resonance that was able couple with it and draw some of it's energy - about 800W worth on the large ring. Did you notice that it had gyroscopic properties?
============================================
Regarding the Diode. Originally the diode was a vacuum tube device which would emit electrons from the cathode like a Crookes tube and allow current to flow to the Anode. Older tube TV's had these, and you could tell them from the metal cap on top that the HV wire would attach to. If you applied AC to one of these devices, it simply would not conduct in the opposite direction because the anode was constructed in such a way that it could not emit electrons very well, and the cathode was constructed such that it could not collect them very well. So current would only flow well in one direction through them. They only had two electrodes (di) and hence were named di-odes.

When semiconductor material research was a big deal, it was theorized and later proven, that doped material could create a region that was neither a conductor nor an insulator, but something in between. This region when attached to a conductor, would create a junction which we call the PN junction. If a charge is placed across that junction in the right direction, the region becomes polarized and bridges the barrier by moving atomic orbitals closer to the junction. When they are close enough, the region becomes conductive and current flows. But if the charge is placed in the opposite polarity, the region is polarized in the opposite direction and the orbitals move away from the barrier. This causes the region to become an insulator. Thus was born the Solid State Diode.

I think it is important to stress that charges can be any electrical item. They can be electrons, protons, positrons, cations, anions etc. A moving charge represents an electric current flow which we measure as amps. If amps flow through a resistor, then we have power dissipation. If amps flow through a capacitor or inductor, then we have apparent power transfer with little dissipation (if any). Wires can hold billions of moving electrons as they drift and it is the sum total of all of them in parallel that we call amps as they move.

Cheers!

[MrMagAmp]

Thanks Joit for the patent.
It really looks like the TPU. It seems like an circular tesla coil. It remembers me also to one of the Don Smith devices. The mechanism of these devices I think it's:

Source of electromagnetic energy (battery...)
Fractionation of electricity (to extract radiant energy)
1. Inductive: charging a cap from a collapsing magnetic field (Bedini...)
2. Capacitive: Pulsing high voltage for very short period of time (Hairpin, Gray...)

Amplification of radiant energy (radiant energy is pure voltage, zero current so there isn't any problem to get COP>1 because you don't need amperes). For example, instead of using the light bulb in the hairpin circuit, you can use a L1 and L2. The L2 will be N times the L1.

Radiant energy amplified to electromagnetic energy (conversion). Maybe a way could be pulsing radiant energy in a coil. I mean, if you pulse electromagnetic and you get radiant energy from the inductive collapse, then if you put radiant energy in a coil, will you get electromagnetic energy?

Result: COP > 1
I think the TPU works in a similar way I have described. The little circuit is a fractionator and fractionates the electricity. Then the coil is a Tesla Coil, but like a circle. Once the radiant energy is pulsed into the teslian coil, it's amplified. The only thing needed is to convert that radiant energy to electromagnetic energy. I will need to watch again all the videos of Steven Marks.

I know very little about electronics, but maybe with a good knowledge in electronics can do this very easily.

[Joit]

if you put radiant energy in a coil, will you get electromagnetic energy?

Mrmagamp Of course it will. i did do that once, and it even helps, when you place another Diode between this Coil,
you only need to try, in witch direction it will work better.
And another Point is, when this Coils will fire. i see sometimes, its better at a 45° or 90 ° from OT from the Wave. Whatever you can figure from it
At a 360° Rotor, you see better what i mean.

Did you notice that it had gyroscopic properties?

Harvey Yes i did, and all his Devices had, some even more stronger.
And I only find it kinda srange, that there is obviously some moving, and depends at the polarizing? Maybe this massless Parts from beginning are an Option, but do they moving trought Stuff? Or when you take them away from Material, it dissolve like a Galvanic Batterie?
Beside, i made once a Graphite Magnesium Batterie, and i had both Parts in a Salt solution, and when i did renew the solution to a new one with the same Ratio, it seems it worked not so good anymore.
As if the Parts, what depleted from the lower Potential been still there, but only as fluid still.

But there is something, what will be blocked on a surface,
or maybe its only same Poles, what build this Resistance?
I did think once, that there are neutral Parts, what has nothing on it, and first,
when something interact with them, they become Substance.
And, it is possible to polarize them. But anyhow its hard to get, what are this basic Stones from this Enviroment.
I still think about it, if start moving the Parts at an atomic level not do create a EM Wave, what influence the Neighbour.
But well, Static Electric like a glass surface and some Wool do still look different.