Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

gravity waves found

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some preliminary tests don't cost you anything.

    If you could listen very well to the input to your brain from handling objects in the proximity of the device, describe best you can in which way gravity or inertia seem affected, and if you descibe the size and location of the effect, a simple no-cost test can surely be devised to fit it.
    Your ingenuity and curiosy got you this far, now you're being challenged to go beyond your nature peak talents, and take it further. this forum can help.

    For instance, I'd be very curious to know whether for any area near the device, G (gravity's constant) is affected. This should be fairly easy to (priliminary, not scientifically) tested.
    I propose a simple ball bearing dropping device, which produces the same type of drop each and every time. A simple camera on a tripod can make nice recording. Add clear release and land sounds, and the audio track can get very precise confirmation of drop times.
    Should the effect somehow only exhibit itself laterally, one way would be to launch a ball bearing horizontally over the device (from east, west, south, north), device locked and open. Just record how far the bearing flies till it lands. All you need is a wooden or steel ramp to roll the bearing off, a free level floor, and some sand. The launching pad would rotate, and mounted to it a means to draw the distance rings for visual confirmation.
    Should the effect not exhibit itself in the /sē dimension, a device can be thought up to get the ball to describe a very specific acceleration and/or radial acceleration pattern. A bit of lego and scrap metal should do the trick.

    These almost primary school experiments should help you and the university to come up with more tailored tests, to descibed any anomaly most definately possible, at any budget.

    I urge you to not wait for a testing setup to be presented to you only for the device to be placed on. A rudimentary G measurement within the affected area you observe, should be fairly basic to set up and carry out. If you get any signifacant difference in drop speeds or flight reach between the locked device and open device, that's huge.

    I just realize that, magnetism being in some form available in the locked device, and compact non-metalic ball or weight would be welcome to be incorperated in any tests. Any material you've been able to get anomalous results from, is suspect for above proposed tests. On a small scale and low velocity though, even a tennis ball could prove sufficient for measurements.
    If only metalic objects should give unexpected results, then at least we are to learn something about the otherwise seemingly hidden magnetic properties, even if they should turn out to not be gravity-related.

    Please take an end of wood, mark it well for height. Say, a 2 meters long 2x4. A non-manual launch pad on top, which makes sound. Rolling the ball off in a controlled manner, narrow parabola, would do the trick. The camera can measure the drop time. Let's take it from there.

    But again, your observations should poin to the first and best way to get objective measurements of any anomaly present.

    Please try to put in words, specifically in which way you and others notice anything?
    With your iniatial gravity wave claim though, it's not strange to request a simple drop test I think. My claim is you can do at free of any cost.
    heck, use an existing cubboard to nudge a ball bearing off. You could make it land through the device itself if you consider that appropriate.
    Another thing I'd love to see measured, is the amount of kinetic energy accumulated, by direction the ball to level and then vertical up outside of reach, see if it reaches higher or lower, (un)locked.

    I could go on an on, but hope to inspire you to make simple measurement, until an objective anomaly is found.

    Good luck,
    J

    Comment


    • vortex tube

      i saw an ad for a vortex tube and clicked on it. i had not really heard about their properties before but it is a great demonstrator to show how temperature is able to be separated using centrifugal air spin. there obviously is a heavier and lighter aspect to temperature that can be centrifuged and separated to a good degree. google it. Eds device separates the energy in a PMH into two opposite ends, just like temperature/ centrifuge. now he had a differential to work with. in the same way temperature equalizes, magnetic current will flow till it is at a resting point. the generator at coral castle fully separates this energy, by weight. weight and inertia are able to interchange because they are the same thing. on one end of the scale is gravity pulling down, the other is pushing up away from gravity. the more spin=more created gravity, more gravity= more levity or anti grav produced. i believe that Ed brought the ends of his separated current back together and controlled the flow using a variable capacitor as to which way the current flowed. like Ed said the two currents ARE the same. if you think about a water level tube, if you push the tube down fast, water will flow through the tube till the level is equal, then no more flow. this is what Ed said, dividing, concentrating then running one against the other, or chasing its tail.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by david lambright View Post
        i saw an ad for a vortex tube and clicked on it. i had not really heard about their properties before but it is a great demonstrator to show how temperature is able to be separated using centrifugal air spin. there obviously is a heavier and lighter aspect to temperature that can be centrifuged and separated to a good degree. google it. Eds device separates the energy in a PMH into two opposite ends, just like temperature/ centrifuge. now he had a differential to work with. in the same way temperature equalizes, magnetic current will flow till it is at a resting point. the generator at coral castle fully separates this energy, by weight. weight and inertia are able to interchange because they are the same thing. on one end of the scale is gravity pulling down, the other is pushing up away from gravity. the more spin=more created gravity, more gravity= more levity or anti grav produced. i believe that Ed brought the ends of his separated current back together and controlled the flow using a variable capacitor as to which way the current flowed. like Ed said the two currents ARE the same. if you think about a water level tube, if you push the tube down fast, water will flow through the tube till the level is equal, then no more flow. this is what Ed said, dividing, concentrating then running one against the other, or chasing its tail.
        Which role would the PMH have in this? And where would it be placed relative to other components?

        As you are observing anomalies with an isolate PMH, as I remember also when spinning, I urge you to still move forward and do some on the most simple experiments, with metallic and non-metallic items.
        Very simple: a bouncing ball is dropped from 10ft above the device, and hits a ramp placed right above it, say 23š to the ground, to shoot out at 45š. Measure distance of landing. A steel ball won't bounce too well, hence above suggestions for a guiding track of sorts.
        Another: A ball on a pendulum. Release when level with fulcrum, most of it's vertical path right in the device's main work area. Mark how high it swing up, outside the device's reach. Test with, without device. And with and without lockout, and spin action each direction.

        If the effect it's more inertia than acceleration, try a static ball on like a tee. A cord is attached with dropping weight on other side. When tightened, the cord will yank the static weight right through the device's effective aera, horizontal trajecture. The dropping weight can only tighten the cord, as it will come to a rest just 1cm lower. KE in dropping weight is to be transered to the launched weight. the more stretch-free the cord, the better.

        I bet that I'd build some pretty reliable testing setups just from stuff present in your workshop.

        Thanks!!

        Comment


        • Hey,

          After reading thru almost every pages and comments, this is my opinion.
          Some background : I played with PMH too and I find it quite interesting.

          I don't know if the OP is just too excited about this or what, but IMHO there's nothing special there.

          If you guys are giving this any credibility at all, you're gullible as hell!

          There's nothing in these videos except compression artifacts, absolutely trivial optical illusion, video processing artifacts and noise etc..


          Nobody was able to confirm the supposed effects, there is no science in this, only thing I see is people "feeling" things, and yet, those same people say that science is wrong and shady. What is shady here is the simple fact that there's nothing measurable.



          >> all the methods you describe are needed to validate these findings. my problem is severe lack of funds.

          Comment


          • And let me point this out .. It's been what.. 2 years since the OP posted the first message?

            Ok.

            Why I didn't see a bigger device with bigger power source somewhere? Lack of funding?? :P

            If there's an effect there, wouldn't it show up MORE with a bigger device, harder metal, bigger metal mass, bigger battery, bigger dimensions?

            Shouldn't cost a lot to try....

            Comment


            • I'll give you some free ideas that should take about a couple of hours of testing and really it's so easy you should do it.

              1) Balance a beam on a post (form a T structure with some wood with a pivot on the middle of the Top bar on the T) .. Align your device under one side of the T (once the T has been balanced and it stay's horizontal) .. What happens?

              2) Your future video, take a laser pointer and point to where you actually see something, at the instant you see it. Your camera should be centered on what you see, not far off like all your other videos (no offence).

              3) Make a pendulum, again on a stand (it's important that you provide structure to your tests); swing the pendulum and put your device 1, under the pendulum, 2, on left side 3 on the other side. You should see some change in the frequency, the height of the bob or you will see nothing. A pendulum don't change in frequency, remember, it keeps time. So this is a good test because a pendulum is supposed to be constant. Again video tape this.

              4) Please, put your device on a table, with an ambiant lighting that is not directed directly on your setup. Don't put your device on the ground where you'll certainly feel cold drafts.

              5) Document every test and every event and every thing you do, in a book, with the Date and Time of event. This seem useless, but it's actualy a pretty good reference.

              6) Get a car battery, fully charged, upscale your models.

              7) If your device is creating light, no doubt it will show in the dark.

              8) Put a compass near your device at all time in every tests.

              9) Get an infrared Temperature sensor (hand gun thermometer on dealextreme, they are cheap and useful.. There is also a ton of useful cheap instruments there) .


              I understand that you might not have the background, so don't take this as an offence, I'm trying to help. But with the data I see, there's not much unless it's measured correctly.
              Last edited by DensoHax; 01-05-2012, 06:24 AM.

              Comment


              • I agree, more substatial measurement is needed than odd video effects.

                Your 1) suggestion is for sure cost free, but may more show anything, with with a real local gravity enhancer. We cannot decide beforehand how it works. We don't even really understand gravity itself, although some like to, while disagreeing.
                A variation though, would be to balance under a pivot, and winch that up quickly, to add inertia. It might pull to one side if the device has gravitic effects.

                Dave and replicators, please stop the theory and do a couple simple tests. Find a way to measure what you are "sensing"!

                Comment


                • But with the data I see, there's not much unless it's measured correctly.
                  Which can be a problem working on a limited budget.
                  I can see the effect now with his newer videos. Its his laser experiment that really interests me.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iotayodi View Post
                    Which can be a problem working on a limited budget.
                    I can see the effect now with his newer videos. Its his laser experiment that really interests me.
                    Can you post the link?

                    Comment


                    • Can you post the link?
                      "when i aim my laser at the device,from 10 feet away, i can feel a force pushing back !!"

                      http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ves-found.html

                      Comment


                      • I didn't find the video where he aims a laser at the machine, the link you give me is the first page of this thread.

                        Comment


                        • I didn't find the video where he aims a laser at the machine, the link you give me is the first page of this thread.
                          Thats where he made the statement. It was just a handheld consumer laser light,

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iotayodi View Post
                            Thats where he made the statement. It was just a handheld consumer laser light,
                            So there's no video of the laser.
                            What do you find interesting in the new videos?

                            Comment


                            • What do you find interesting in the new videos?
                              Just that I can see the distortion which I couldnt in his first ones.

                              Comment


                              • i am still skeptcial

                                but hundreds people have seen this in person and at least ten people have replicated these devices and have seen and felt the same things. this is new. this is real. the videos suck. seeing this in person would remove some of the skepticism. my next step is oregon state university's physics dept. if it is nothing they will show why, if it is what i say, well, we will see what they have to say about that too. thanks

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X