gravity waves found

[sucahyo]

i hope this helps...bruce has access to better equipment...maybe he will shed light...david...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCdI5z0UMpQ......thanks

That is hard to conclude. some scale show different measurement if you push them at different side. Can you try again with hanging bag?

[witsend]

If plasmas were inclined to antigravitational effects then it would be impossible to contain plasmas within our own gravity fields.

No. I mean things get attracted by HV negative mass but blown away / repelled by pointed one. First related to candle fire shrink with corona coil bellow them, second to candle fire blown by electrode tip. I don't have big metal ball so I can't test if candle fire will be drawn by HV negatively charged ball. Or is it because HV corona by loosely spaced wire wound produce magnetism?

Hello sucahyo. I can't understand this post in connection with your quote. But I'll tell you what. Mainstream have never actually been able to define 'fire'. Plenty to say about it's heat and how to measure that. But no explanation for the property of the 'flame' itself.

It's extraordinary when you think about it - but it's been with us for centuries and we still do not know what it is. I don't think it's generally thought of as plasma. But what I think you're proving there is that it's influenced by electromagnetic fields - and that's really interesting. The argument would be something like this. Plasmas can emit light. Fire emits light. Plasmas respond to electromagnetic fields. Fire responds to electromagnetic fields. Therefore 'fire' = plasma. I'm entirely satisfied that this argument would not wash. But frankly - I LOVE that argument. And I really do think that you're pointing to something very novel and very interesting here. As mentioned - I don't think anyone has assumed that 'fire' is a 'plasma'. It would be groundbreaking if you could explore this more thoroughly - perhaps?

What intrigues me about 'fire' or 'flame' is that it never results in changing the atomic matter of the material it burns. It simply changes the bound state of that material. Lots of flame - everywhere - everything can burn - but we're still left with the atoms that were burnt. Just that they've turned to ashes or to gases and they're no longer identifiable as the 'thing' which they were prior to burning. In my book it may very well be a kind of elementary 'plasma'. The early concepts of matter included Fire - with earth, air water and so on. Maybe they were onto something.

[witsend]

@Cat, Your post is somewhat 'snide'. Was that intended? And there's an implication that we posters are 'pretending' to authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do hope that you're not trying to give this general impression. I must say that until this last post I assumed you were admin. Now I've been obliged to rethink this. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Back to your tests and on the properties of that foil. I've got a customer care line number now that I'll be contacting later - when they open. I'll get back to on this when I know more about the specific properties of that foil. It's no good my doing a video on that phone in a glass number - because it does not ring. It's difficult to prove a 'failure'.

[witsend]

Guys - this is a variation of Dave's rig. Here's the thinking.

Dave's rig, albeit that it's arranged in a circle, is based on asymmetrical component parts. Is this required? Is there some relationship between the 'open' legs of his rig. All in an effort to find the actual relevant parts of the rig to the Lambright Effect.

The most symmetrical shape I could find was circular so kept that basic shape. The number of tubes used was required to sustain that symmetry. It takes precisely 6 tubes to completely encircle an inner tube - given tubes of the same circumference. It can't get more symmetrical than that.

BTW There's an interesting ratio here. The next 'level' is precisely 12. I did not have enough cuts to check if the next level was 24 but am reasonably sure that it is. I found this interesting. Perhaps it's a known 'ratio'? If there are any mathemeticians here I'd be glad of comment.

In any event. We applied charge as Dave recommended - first sparked negative and then positive. I did not have the confidence to see if it 'locked' so simply glued the pieces together. What I found was this. There was no evident magnetisation of the pieces. Iron filings DID NOT STICK to the surface of the pipes. Nor was there any evidence of the Lambright Glimmer. BUT. There was clear evidence of repulsion and attraction of materials - regardless of their magnetic properties - when held against the rig. Also - using a cheap compas - there was evidence of a distortion of the poles.

The thing here is that we now - unquestionably - have two layers magnetic fields. The outer being the converse of the inner. Therefore - in terms of the mass distribution - each segment in the outer half of the circle opposes each other and each section of the inner half of the circle opposing each other. But there's a reasonably exact balance in the mass relating to both the outer and the inner circle.

Because there was this evident 'pressure' I'm going to repeat the test. This time I'll clean off the plastic coating on the pipe - and apply the same spark to see if it'll get its own 'lock'. I'm hoping that by cleaning off that coating I'll also be able to better see the 'Lambright Glimmer'. Obviously - I'm also hoping to find that 'lock'. If I see the 'glimmer' then I think we can safely say that the shape of Dave's rig can be partially modified. If I don't get that lock - then we can conclude that the shape used by Dave is critical. Hopefully this will be finished today.

We've done other tests but I don't think they're appropriate to this thread.

[Cloxxki]

Hello sucahyo. I can't understand this post in connection with your quote. But I'll tell you what. Mainstream have never actually been able to define 'fire'. Plenty to say about it's heat and how to measure that. But no explanation for the property of the 'flame' itself.

It's extraordinary when you think about it - but it's been with us for centuries and we still do not know what it is. I don't think it's generally thought of as plasma. But what I think you're proving there is that it's influenced by electromagnetic fields - and that's really interesting. The argument would be something like this. Plasmas can emit light. Fire emits light. Plasmas respond to electromagnetic fields. Fire responds to electromagnetic fields. Therefore 'fire' = plasma. I'm entirely satisfied that this argument would not wash. But frankly - I LOVE that argument. And I really do think that you're pointing to something very novel and very interesting here. As mentioned - I don't think anyone has assumed that 'fire' is a 'plasma'. It would be groundbreaking if you could explore this more thoroughly - perhaps?

What intrigues me about 'fire' or 'flame' is that it never results in changing the atomic matter of the material it burns. It simply changes the bound state of that material. Lots of flame - everywhere - everything can burn - but we're still left with the atoms that were burnt. Just that they've turned to ashes or to gases and they're no longer identifiable as the 'thing' which they were prior to burning. In my book it may very well be a kind of elementary 'plasma'. The early concepts of matter included Fire - with earth, air water and so on. Maybe they were onto something.

Look up the BBC documentary Invisible Worlds, with Richard Hammond of Top Gear fame. With IR slomo footage, they record a fire before it enters the visual spectrum of detection. You'll see gasses spewing out of a material, and THEN combust. And some unique little bugs notice a forrest fire dozens of mine away with their IR sensors, and start walking up there for a good BBQ feast. Really uniquely good footage, I torrent downloaded it. Lots of other things we don't get to se with our own eyes, due to being outside our color range, is made visual.

[witsend]

Look up the BBC documentary Invisible World, with Richard Hammond of Top Gear fame. With IR slomo footage, they record a fire before it enters the visual spectrum of detection. You'll see gasses spewing out of a material, and THEN combust. And some unique little bugs notice a forrest fire dozens of mine away with their IR sensors, and start walking up there for a good BBQ feast. Really uniquely good footage, I torrent downloaded it. Lots of other things we don't get to se with our own eyes, due to being outside our color range, is made visual.

Hi Cloxxki. I thought we'd lost you. Glad to see you're still here. Can you give me a link. I'm a dinsour on the internet. Be much obliged.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Cloxxki]

BUT. There was clear evidence of repulsion and attraction of materials - regardless of their magnetic properties - when held against the rig. Also - using a cheap compas - there was evidence of a distortion of the poles.

The thing here is that we now - unquestionably - have two layers magnetic fields.

Wow, interesting approach!

Would you describe the attraction and repulsion to be stationary or inertial in nature? Would a sensitive scale, or angle measurement on a tethered object reveal it?

Howcome it is now certain that magnetic fields are layered as outer and inner? That went to quick for most of us, I dare venture.

If basic setups such as yours start proving to "work", this all-blah poster may be getting his hands dirty!

[Cloxxki]

Hi Cloxxki. I thought we'd lost you. Glad to see you're still here. Can you give me a link. I'm a dinsour on the internet. Be much obliged.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

After a single day of not coming up with redicously unfounded theories 'm being missed? Wow.

One needs to master torrent downloads first. BBC are quite particular about their intellectual property, so you won't find their wonderful world on Youtube much.
BBC - BBC One Programmes - Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds, Speed Limits, Hands on flying

[witsend]

After a single day of not coming up with redicously unfounded theories 'm being missed? Wow.

One needs to master torrent downloads first. BBC are quite particular about their intellectual property, so you won't find their wonderful world on Youtube much.
BBC - BBC One Programmes - Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds, Speed Limits, Hands on flying

LOL. Indeed. I was rather in need of some moral support some distance back in this saga. But all's good.

I've already tried that download - not quite there yet. I'll try it again later. Thanks for that.

[witsend]

Would you describe the attraction and repulsion to be stationary or inertial in nature? Would a sensitive scale, or angle measurement on a tethered object reveal it?

I'm not sure of the difference between stationary and inertial. The thing is this. Hold plastic, stones, string or sundry metals and there is a clear indication that the object is either pushed away or towards various positions of that rig. It's really, really subtle - as Bruce has mentioned. But it's unmistakable.

Howcome it is now certain that magnetic fields are layered as outer and inner? That went to quick for most of us, I dare venture.

Cloxxki - there is a tendency to generalise in attributing properties of magnetism. If it were an exact science then such comments would be welcome. But magnetic fields are absolutely up there with things that are not fully understood. If you apply a current to an inductive component then one can anticipate the resulting magnetic field. Dave does this. The result is a 'lock' which indicates that there is more attraction between those pieces than otherwise. Yet what is actually being locked are 'fields' that are the same polarities. Technically it should not be possible. Unless the path of the current is such that it reverses as it goes from the one to the other. It's my experience that one needs to do an actual analysis of the fields - within the limits of one's apparatus and understanding - obviously. Quoting from known authorities is absurd. No-one is that much of an authority. I think it was Stealth who suggested we try uneven numbers of segments. It was a really profound comment. I intend to try it - at some stage. While the number of segments are even then there can still be an argument for those fields to reverse - the one from the other. If there's a 'lock' with an uneven number - then that argument no longer holds.

To think in terms of the magnetic fields - one really needs to think quite deep. Nothing simple there - in my experience.

If basic setups such as yours start proving to "work", this all-blah poster may be getting his hands dirty!

An all-blah poster? I don't think that's a fair reflection of the facts. And it would be nice to see you experimenting here Cloxxki. Even if you manage disproof. Both are very valid in science. Surely?

I'm unfortunately hopelessly biased in favour of eccentric results. It may bring my objectivity to question. So it's always nice to confront the occassional objective remark made by the occassional objective poster. In fact real objectivity is most desirable but hopelessly elusive. LOL

[Adie123]

There was no evident magnetisation of the pieces. Iron filings DID NOT STICK to the surface of the pipes.

I sent dave a PM on youtube about something similar. This was before i joined these forums. I got no reply, so i assume he doesnt check his youtube PMs, but lets face it, youtube is a poor setup when it comes to PMing people, cos theres no visual aid to say youve received them.

ANYHOW, heres the main of that PM

quote - 'I have alot of tiny Neo magnets, split them into 2 vertical lines stuck (by their magnetismn) ontop of a metal tin. I then place a metal bar ontop of them, making a PMH. I get a screw and it doesnt get atracted in any form to anything of the PMH. Now if i turn one of the neo magnet lines around and try again, the screw gets attracted to any part of the PMH.'

This suggests that a PMH that has the correct alignment of magneticity (runs in full circle in one direction) running around it, uses all of its magneticity to hold itself and it doesnt spew out a magnetic field that can affect other objects. Where as if you have magneticity running against one another, then a magnetic field is generated outside of its structure and attracts other matter. This could be significant in some way for experimentation.

BUT. There was clear evidence of repulsion and attraction of materials - regardless of their magnetic properties - when held against the rig. Also - using a cheap compas - there was evidence of a distortion of the poles.

So does this mean that with a true PMH, the magnetic properties have been reversed. Now instead of magnetic/metal objects being attracted/repelled, we have non magnetic objects affected?.... It looks that way to me.

The thing here is that we now - unquestionably - have two layers magnetic fields. The outer being the converse of the inner. Therefore - in terms of the mass distribution - each segment in the outer half of the circle opposes each other and each section of the inner half of the circle opposing each other. But there's a reasonably exact balance in the mass relating to both the outer and the inner circle.

Can i suggest you dont dismiss unbalanced tubes. lets take your rig of the picture above. If the pipes outer side extruded alot further, could there be a huge inbalance that could get the Lambright Glimmer?.. or even some other anomaly.... Something similar to Daves setup but instead of the pipes being open ended, have them closed like your rig.

regards
Adie

p.s. about my gravity example i was doing. Im using 3DS Max and i tried several different method using the Reactor Physics, but got no satisfying results. I'll have to do true animation of what is needed to show you.

[witsend]

Hi Adie, I've just been thinking about your post. I'll need to give it some more thought. Good questions. Thanks.

Rosie

[Cloxxki]

There is an effect on weight or inertia in the field around the device, yet a weak one, next step is to learn concentrate, and focus is.
I'll again (3rd time now) refer to the 4-leaf setup Ed had. Seems to correspond with the 4 poles of a 24-section PMH. The leafs are opened to the inside, this could have a central focal point. A nice place to put the wine bottle coil? Glass is a carrying medium for the Lambright Glimmer, according to Dave himself. Could the bottle coil be part of the PMH magnetricity citcuit?

Some unrelative loose instinctive ideas based on witsend's 6-tube device.
If she'd cut a, say, 1-2mm vertical opening on each of the 6 most outer points, the device would come to respemble Dave's much closer. Any Lambright Glimmer might emenate from the opening. Said opening would need to be too large for the lock to close it, of course. But, the field might spark-gap there or do something else funky.
Another variation might be to open the inside wall of the tubes, to somewhat combine Ed's first and second PMH layers.

I still stand by my wondering whether an odd section number PHM would exhibit and Lambright effects at all. The answer to my question would be like getting one wrong answer in the first question of a multiple choice assignment exposed.

[witsend]

There is an effect on weight or inertia in the field around the device, yet a weak one, next step is to learn concentrate, and focus is.
I'll again (3rd time now) refer to the 4-leaf setup Ed had. Seems to correspond with the 4 poles of a 24-section PMH. The leafs are opened to the inside, this could have a central focal point. A nice place to put the wine bottle coil? Glass is a carrying medium for the Lambright Glimmer, according to Dave himself. Could the bottle coil be part of the PMH magnetricity citcuit?

Some unrelative loose instinctive ideas based on witsend's 6-tube device.
If she'd cut a, say, 1-2mm vertical opening on each of the 6 most outer points, the device would come to respemble Dave's much closer. Any Lambright Glimmer might emenate from the opening. Said opening would need to be too large for the lock to close it, of course. But, the field might spark-gap there or do something else funky.
Another variation might be to open the inside wall of the tubes, to somewhat combine Ed's first and second PMH layers.

I still stand by my wondering whether an odd section number PHM would exhibit and Lambright effects at all. The answer to my question would be like getting one wrong answer in the first question of a multiple choice assignment exposed.

Cloxxki. THIS IS JUST SO NICE. I take it you've duplicated Dave's rig? I'll definitely try opening one side of the rig. We've made another 6 cylinder number without the pipe coating. I use the term 'we' loosely. Truth is I was heavily reliant on the welcome assistance of someone who, unlike me knows how to do the necessary. In the unlikely event that he reads here - know that I'm grateful. LOL. Btw. I assumed this coating was an applied protection but have been told that it's just something that separates from the slag which helps to prevent rust. I'll post and results when I've finished here.

I still stand by my wondering whether an odd section number PHM would exhibit and Lambright effects at all. The answer to my question would be like getting one wrong answer in the first question of a multiple choice assignment exposed.

LOL. If I didn't already have a signature I'd use that last sentense of yours. Priceless.

[witsend]

Hi Adie - have finally had a bit more time here.

quote - 'I have alot of tiny Neo magnets, split them into 2 vertical lines stuck (by their magnetismn) ontop of a metal tin. I then place a metal bar ontop of them, making a PMH. I get a screw and it doesnt get atracted in any form to anything of the PMH. Now if i turn one of the neo magnet lines around and try again, the screw gets attracted to any part of the PMH.'

Is there a picture for this? I'd love to see it. I can't quite understand the apparatus.

This suggests that a PMH that has the correct alignment of magneticity (runs in full circle in one direction) running around it, uses all of its magneticity to hold itself and it doesnt spew out a magnetic field that can affect other objects. Where as if you have magneticity running against one another, then a magnetic field is generated outside of its structure and attracts other matter. This could be significant in some way for experimentation.

I agree. But again - I'd LOVE to see exactly those magnet alignments. It would be really interesting.

So does this mean that with a true PMH, the magnetic properties have been reversed. Now instead of magnetic/metal objects being attracted/repelled, we have non magnetic objects affected?.... It looks that way to me.

And again. LOL. Maybe a sketch - or something? I'm intrigued that it can attract in one alignment and do NOTHING in another.

Can i suggest you dont dismiss unbalanced tubes. lets take your rig of the picture above. If the pipes outer side extruded alot further, could there be a huge inbalance that could get the Lambright Glimmer?.. or even some other anomaly.... Something similar to Daves setup but instead of the pipes being open ended, have them closed like your rig.

You're right. Asymmetry would be the other side of the control. Not sure how asymmetrical it would need to be though. I'll think about it.

p.s. about my gravity example i was doing. Im using 3DS Max and i tried several different method using the Reactor Physics, but got no satisfying results. I'll have to do true animation of what is needed to show you.

Thanks for this. I would LOVE to see this it. We had another member who I thought was going to try and visually describe something like this. Also saw things in vortices and centrifugal forces - I think. Still waiting for that. He actually bought software to use. The difficulty is to describe with words what is much easier to understand in simple drawings. I'm going to try something here myself - one day. But I'll stick to my elementary drawing skills. I'm way to old to learn complicated software. In some rare instances I need to own up to limitations. LOL.