gravity waves found

[sucahyo]

do you have a link to garys stuff?....david

Gerry Vassilatos: Tesla's Radiant Energy Excerpts | MERLib.org

Tesla made a most startling discovery the same year, when placing a long single-turn copper helix near his magnetic disrupter. The coil, some two feet in length, did not behave as did solid copper pipes and other objects. The thin walled coil became ensheathed in an envelope of white sparks............

[david lambright]

rolling vs global

i am still trying to get the camera, i shot the video and stills with the same one. i do not remember the brand of camera but in earlier posts i tell make, model etc...you might go back and see what brand, "cheapy", i think is what it was?...kidding....to determine the kind of shutter....it most likely is what solrey and moasic dave say it is, artifacting?...but i did think it was strange when the photos showed this and when shooting a video, seeing the same effect in the viewfinder and the recorded image.....i would treasure glens offer to go live with pro and con and neutral...i would just request to have many people there also, the more eyes the better, i mean you guys bring your friends and family or whoever...i would do it with my #1, but you got to admit, it does look kindof hokey with 2 by 4s, out of round and unbalanced, but it does work, so i would...about the copper ring, im not saying take my word, more like to the builders who have replications and have seen the glimmer effect, the copper tube is an inexpensive experiment, with a way cool visual effect. it can be done easily also....when i raise the copper ring, a bubble or film is what the people who see it describe it as....like a funnel or vortex....i hope someone is trying this and will post their results...thanks....david

[Aromaz]

@David,

do not be so depressed by others people's bahaviour. You have what you have; you are your own best witness. Just ignore all the negative and go on.
Yes it is nice to have support group; the road gets lonely. But do not rely solely on them. The road of an inventor is a lonely one; and it will always remain a lonely one. Look back in history.

Ever had the thought that it might be the asymetric construction of your wheel that might contribute to the effects? Some sections different from the others.

Just go for it; Mohamed Ali style. Al of the best.

[david lambright]

scotty

Hi all.
This week at my work I noticed something very strange that reminded me of this thread.
By blind chance I found myself in a setting where I could more or less SEE THE AIR AS A GAS! Not like on a hot day, but like a real swirling gas.

I was in my workshop with the lights on and it was dark outside.
There is a window with vertical louvers on the North side and then the street further out.
The louvers were open about 1/3 and across the street to the N/E there was a truck with it's lights shining into my workshop, so that when I looked at the lights the louvers in front of me were about 1/3 overlapped.
The louvers are also dirty with wood dust.

Now I was standing about 3 feet behind the louvers and when I looked through at the truck lights across the street I could suddenly see a gasseous "substance" in the line of my vision.

I think somehow the louvers and the light from the truck acted in such a way that I could see this "substance" which I suppose was the air?
As soon as the truck moved the effect was gone
It was truly fascinating, and like a real gas swirling around in 3D.
I had to look in a certain spot but it lasted long enough for me to be captivated and try different angles of sight, but then the truck moved and it was gone.....back to invisibility!

I've seen the youtube vids showing how sneezing affects the air and what I saw was very similar but less refined.
It was after all, simply by sheer chance...but it was very cool to witness.

I'm wondering if I could replicate the conditions here at home?
Scotty.

schlieren is the method of photography used for the "sneeze"...the air is not being moved by the glimmer on my device....you are a replicator, the device is easy to build, and cheap too. the dimensions can be smaller or larger, the effects are still there....obviously you are interested in this, try it out for your self...david

[david lambright]

aromaz

@David,

do not be so depressed by others people's bahaviour. You have what you have; you are your own best witness. Just ignore all the negative and go on.
Yes it is nice to have support group; the road gets lonely. But do not rely solely on them. The road of an inventor is a lonely one; and it will always remain a lonely one. Look back in history.

Ever had the thought that it might be the asymetric construction of your wheel that might contribute to the effects? Some sections different from the others.

Just go for it; Mohamed Ali style. Al of the best.

i do not think it is the asymmetric construction because #2 has more symmetry and works great...also pix of other peoples working replications show good symmetry....like i said before, i hope that someone with a working device will try the copper ring....david

[david lambright]

solrey

Here ya go.

Harvey. The skew in all of the suspected rolling shutter artifact images is always in the same orientation within the frame regardless of the orientation of the frame in relation to Davids rig. Squished on the left side and elongated on the right side in every image.

Image of rotating fan blades taken with a global shutter, no skew.


Image of same fan taken with a rolling shutter. Squished on the left, elongated on the right. Much like Davids images.


Images came from here.

Compare with these two images of Davids rig taken from two different angles. The skew remains in the same orientation in relation to the frame, not the rig. Squished on the left, elongated on the right.



Here's the explanation from the digital imaging expert on TB forum:



Hope that's enough evidence for ya Harvey. All David has to do is what was suggested above, take a pic of any other rotating object, like a fan, with the same camera and put the issue to rest once and for all.

Even this latest copper ring experiment is the same tactic of "take my word for it" without any supporting measurements or experimental controls. Personal anecdotes is not scientific proof. If Davids rig were even weakly magnetized then that copper ring should respond accordingly and if that's the case there's nothing new or mysterious about that.

what kind of camera was used to take those pix?...if it is a video/still camera, does it do the same thing in video mode?...so if you took a video of the spinning fan,it will look just like the photo?..the stills and video of my device were taken with the same camera, a cheapy for sure....but about the copper ring, i am talking about the thin film/ bubble effect...glimmer.....david

[david lambright]

cloxxki

The test is simple, but can also only show one possible type of anomous effect that I see, a difference between the regular 9.81m/ss gravity, and whichever valid above or around the device. Gravity as it affects objects placed statically relative to the source (or horizon), being Earth.
Unless being brought in motion. And there may be deeper layers on which David's device works, making it hard to read them.

Just speculating, to indicate where the turth might go to. Perhaps the device can lighten an object, but only at the expense of another, connected object. To conserve energy. So, the rock feels lighter in David's hands at some stage, I'll accept that as fact. Who knows, his feet may feel heavier by the same amount, just less apparent when you feel anti-gravity messing with your hands. Or, the device itself becomes heavier. Stunning each way, but so much to learn and check before we declare it an energy source :-)

sorry, i did not mean it like that. what i meant was that it takes a certain amount of heat energy to distort the image...mirage....for heat to do what my rig does, would take a lot of energy...david

[solrey]

This video that Harvey linked shows the effect of a rolling shutter during the first few seconds as the camera is in motion while being carried to Davids rig. As the camera is moving the rolling shutter causes skewing/jerkiness in the image of the ground/grass. The elongated distortions of the spinning rig also stay on the left side of the frame, regardless of viewing angle, as opposed to the right side in other shots. That is probably a difference in direction of spin and/or direction in which the scan line moves up or down across the photosensing elements. Without knowing the model of the camera that could mean that it scans in one direction for still shots and in the other direction for moving video or that David spun the rig in different directions. Anyway, the first few seconds confirm the camera utilizes a rolling shutter and the distortions seen are what is expected to occur with that kind of camera.

David, those two images of the fan were taken with different cameras (check the associated link for the details). The undistorted one was taken with a global shutter which exposes all of the elements at once. The distorted one was taken with a rolling shutter which scans like a moving slit, exposing the elements sequentially along a thin line.
If the distortions being caused by the camera seem like being handed a lemon, why not make lemonade and share the videos and stills with the digital imaging crowd? They'd probably get a kick out of it and could probably verify that the distortions are an artifact of a rolling shutter.
Check out this video of an airplane propeller taken with a rolling shutter.
The link for the video came from a forum thread, here, about rolling shutters.
A rolling shutter video of a spinning coin. Wicked cool.

Aromaz. Criticism is not inherently negative. If given and received amicably it can be quite positive and beneficial. Even if I believed that David discovered something new and unusual, I would have the same opinion about the distortions not counting as evidence because of the use of a camera with a rolling shutter. Nor would I accept the videos where the Moire effect is apparent. Sometimes a critic can be ones best asset if the critiques are taken constructively and lead to improvements.

Sucahyo. Apples and oranges. Tesla powered his coils with tens of thousands of volts of pulsed/oscillating DC current. David "charged" his rig with a random pulse or two of a measly 9.6v in both directions.
I wanted to respond to a statement you made on another thread that caught my attention about ignition coils running on AC. The arcs and sparks thread I think. It was a few weeks ago so I hope I'm addressing the right person. Automotive ignition coils are DC, not AC. All automotive electric systems are DC. Alternating current is generated by the alternator internally, but the electricity supplied to the battery is converted to DC by a rectifier/diode circuit built into the alternator. Some vehicles like RV's also have AC inverters to run some of the appliances and fluorescent lights, but those also run off the DC main. Tesla invented the ignition coil for internal combustion engines, patented in 1898 I think, based on his original disruptive discharge coil.
Since you're a fan of Teslas work (and I'm a mechanic) I thought I'd help clear up some misconceptions you seem to have about ignition coils.

[solrey]

Sucahyo.

Yes it is just that. How about it's property. But is it matter or non matter? Is it part of things or not? Is it closer to light or closer to matter?

How many flame type are there?

Why flame can interact with magnet?

Why flame a very good high voltage conductor, better than air

However, with above point why flame being pushed away by pointy high voltage at the same time?


For me, flame is still mistery.

A flame is just a group of excited atoms and molecules in the gaseous state undergoing chemical reactions while emitting some electromagnetic radiation, mostly in the visible light band, and transferring kinetic energy/heat through collisions with surrounding atoms/molecules. A flame is most assuredly composed of matter. There are a certain percentage of atoms, usually <1%, that are stripped of an electron as the molecular bonds are broken during the chemical reactions. That results in some positive ions (cations), free electrons and even some negative ions (anions) in the flame at any given moment. Charged particles respond to electromagnetic fields and since a flame has some free charged particles in it, a flame responds to EM fields and is a conductor of electricity as well. A flame is sort of a transition phase between gas and plasma. It's basically just chemical reactions in a gas emitting heat and light.

No disrespect or anything, but...
I'm really kind of flabbergasted that some folks don't know this very basic stuff. Yet they're sure that Davids device really works?

[rave154]

solrey.....thank you for your CLARITY of thought

[david lambright]

flame...

a flame in zero G is spherical....at 1G flame convects away from gravity....levity?...so we can assume that flame, at zeroG, has no convection, or levity, but now at 1G, flame moves up away from axis...centrifugal gravity does not fit the planetary model...a centrifuge will create artificial gravity, a kind of reverse model of a planetary type gravitational system...so how does a chemical reaction if that is all it is, make convection or levity and remember the zero G sphere....what is the part made of that makes the flame go up?......it is not connected to heat....david

[Harvey]

a flame in zero G is spherical....at 1G flame convects away from gravity....levity?...so we can assume that flame, at zeroG, has no convection, or levity, but now at 1G, flame moves up away from axis...centrifugal gravity does not fit the planetary model...a centrifuge will create artificial gravity, a kind of reverse model of a planetary type gravitational system...so how does a chemical reaction if that is all it is, make convection or levity and remember the zero G sphere....what is the part made of that makes the flame go up?......it is not connected to heat....david

Convection is a gravitational reaction where a volume of gas with lower density is pushed up by surrounding gases of the same volume but greater density.

But Sucahyo draws attention to the reality that we have different forms of energy reactions that we call 'flame'. A typical wax candle flame may not even come close to becoming a plasma, but instead could be simply stated as superheated smoke, small carbon particles glowing due to the high excitation within the particles themselves. As thermal energy is exchanged with these particles and the air, they get swept into the convection and produce what we see as flames. Campfires, wild fires etc. exhibit similar behavior and generally produce soot. Even pure acetylene will do this if no extra oxygen is added.

But what of the flame from an alcohol candle or natural gas pilot light? These 'soot-less' flames tend to be different somehow. Burning blue rather than yellow when properly mixed with atmospheric oxygen. Carbon Monoxide also burns this way. So clearly there are differences.

A flame from a hydrogen torch is nearly invisible, producing a colorless flame.

And what of the flames that leap miles away from a star's surface, what is it made of?

As regards plasma - there does seem to be a connection between this and gravity that is not related to normal convection. I've posted a link to my demonstration of this elsewhere and I think most of you have seen it already anyway - but it certainly seems to defy the convection theory because the gases remain cool and the trajectory remains true regardless of agitation and repositioning of the gases. Perhaps there is a point where the mass in a plasma is converted to energy in a way we don't expect

[IndianaBoys]

Yet they're sure that Davids device really works?

What do you mean by "works"?

IndianaBoys

[david lambright]

flame...

convection does not happen without gravity...so a spherical flame at zero G radiates its heat 360 degrees, that is zero G, zero movement....if you move the flame, then inertia is artificial gravity, and the flame will look stretched...ive gotto show a friend my device.....david....yep he sees it too...

[solrey]

David.
It's about density. The atoms and molecules in a flame, or hot air, have more kinetic energy causing more space between atoms/molecules for a given volume. Therefore the hot gas in the flame is less dense, thus lighter, than the surrounding cooler volume of denser air, which is heavier per volume, which forces the hot air to rise like bubbles in water. The warmer air has more buoyancy. You're familiar with hot air balloons right?

If the combustion of atoms/molecules in the flame has sufficient velocity, like channeled through a nozzle, the flame tip points in whatever direction the nozzle is pointing. Rockets, a jet fighters afterburners, an oxy-acetylene torch are all examples of flame direction being dictated by velocity and direction of the expanding hot gas. At x distance from the nozzle the velocity then becomes low enough allowing the buoyancy of the hot air to rise.

Convection occurs in zero G, why wouldn't it? Convection is just the transport of kinetic energy/heat by the bulk motion of the gas. The motion can simply be a result of the expansion from heating.

Heat itself causes the fluid motion (via expansion and buoyancy force), while at the same time also causing heat to be transported by this bulk motion of the fluid. This process is called natural convection, or free convection. With natural convection, heat transport (and related transport of other substances in the fluid due to it) is generally more complicated.

Same with heat conduction. Gravity really isn't a factor.

In heat transfer, conduction (or heat conduction) is the transfer of thermal energy between neighboring molecules in a substance due to a temperature gradient. It always takes place from a region of higher temperature to a region of lower temperature, and acts to equalize the temperature differences. Conduction takes place in all forms of matter, viz. solids, liquids, gases and plasmas, but does not require any bulk motion of matter. In solids, it is due to the combination of vibrations of the molecules in a lattice and the energy transport by free electrons. In gases and liquids, conduction is due to the collisions and diffusion of the molecules during their random motion.

Heat can also be transferred by radiation and/or convection, and often more than one of these processes occurs in a given situation.

David said:

convection does not happen without gravity

Nonsense. Convective, conductive and radiative heat transfer all occur just fine with or without gravity.

"Artificial gravity" in a centrifuge is somewhat of a misnomer. It's just the resistance of the outer walls to the inertia of an objects centripetal acceleration that feels like a force pressing you against the wall.

Harvey. I think you might have convection confused with buoyancy? Anyhoo, the color of a flame is determined by the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation emitted which is a function of the particular properties of the atoms/molecules and their level of excitement/temperature. The steps through the different wavelengths is quantized and follows the classic temperature color chart. The "flames" that leap from the surface of stars is plasma, a highly ionized plasma at that so it's motion is determined more by electromagnetic forces than by gravity. Convection applies to plasma but with additional parameters involving the free charged particles. "Sootless" flames are just the result of few to no impurities in the combustion gases along with sufficient oxygen to produce efficient, mostly complete reaction of the hydrocarbons with oxygen. Those kind of combustion reactions, or redox reactions, just produce carbon dioxide and water.

What do you mean by "works"?

That was probably not the best way to phrase it. Happens sometimes when multitasking.
I meant actually doing something like causing a "glimmer" or change in apparent weight.