Tweet
Not channeling... wide band....
I'm not channeling ... at least I don't think I am... :-)
I'm more of a wide-band guy.
But here are some thoughts regarding a possible theory of operations.
Search for LOOP antenna. One interesting thing about them is they
respond MOSTLY to the magnetic component of an electro-magnetic
wave. Further, I have read that to make one, you want a pretty
THICK wire, or THICK "copper tube", because people have tried
various thicknesses and have found that around 14AWG or thicker,
you start to get a GAIN that is the best and flattens out beyond that.
As for Bashar's "in a sense .. capacitor ... transformer" comment,
I was thinking that transformers, unlike just a coil, are doing the job
of stepping up or down voltage (and current in the inverse direction
of voltage).
What if, and this relates to my speculation about the Hubbard Coil...
What if you could translate from HIGH-FREQUENCY to
LOWER-FREQUENCIES using a trick of geometry.
When studying transformers, it is true that the turn ratio of the
two interfacing coils is what you are mainly concerned with,
since most people will build transfomers with a "shared" geometry.
In other words both coils are would around the same AREA.
But, another degree of freedom you have which affects the
magnetic field is AREA. Two coils can be construction for
different areas. The both could have the same number of turns,
but the math predicts you still can get a voltage transforming
affect simply by changing the area each coil sees. For example,
one coil is lower in the cone than the other coil.
The other thought is that unlike RADIO, we really don't want
to be tuning for a single frequencies. We want to be wide-band
and BLEND all the frequencies of our device into a grand
symphony of power. So if we had several LOOPs ... and could
mix those frequencies into a UNIFIED oscillation, we could
heterodyne the waves.
The paper I found shows PROOF that there are TWO peaks,
in terms of GAIN, that you can achieve the best results.
One peak is a power-of-two RATIO of your frequencies.
This peak is a "negative" peak.
The other peak is the PHI ratio of frequencies.
Take a look at the Hubbard coil... boom... Phi Ratios.
So sacred geometry here would dictate that every construction
detail we consider that involves geometry should be looked at
to see if PHI ratios can play a role.
Tesla was explaining that not only do you care about the diameter
and length of your coil, but also you need to care about
the length of the wire itself -- in terms of the frequency.
So hence the geometry decisions can be the "macro" ones,
the big stuff your building, and also the "micro" ones, how
close things are (affecting capacitance), wiring crossing,
materials used, frequencies involved, etc.
So back to the CONE idea.
Let us suppose that the physics we are interested in here are
not just "resonance", but also heterodyne,
LINEAR response curve for your inductors up as HIGH frequency
as possible.
It occurs to me, from looking at Hendershot's work, that basket
weave coils and honeycomb coils afford coils that are
very NICE in terms of having minimal capacitance. Hence,
their response curve is off-the-charts. This IS what you want
for wide-band. Yet, we see this "resonator" thing that looks
like a capacitor -- and was reported to "be damaged by arc discharge".
So, it stands to reason that this is the "escape path" for the energy
in the oscillations. It is a "nearby" capacitance that is LARGER
than anything the coil has inside itself. AC currents can flow
to large capacitance surface EASILY. Be sure, as Tesla warned,
that you don't have SHARP pointed surfaces, unless you do want
ARCing. Tesla was all about getting RID of ARCing, because he reasoned
it was a waste of power. Rather, we want a nice oscillation with
"safe" nondestructive movement of power from coil to capacitor
and back again -- TANK CIRCUIT.
This argues that the Bashar Coil should have capacitance ... but NOT
in the coil itself ... but rather NEAR the coil. By NEAR, I mean pretty
darn close to the wires. To far away, and the capacitance is not
providing the path-of-least resistance out.
I believe it is true that the coil will oscillate in various ways.
There can be the oscillation associated with the diameter of the LOOP.
There can be the oscillation depending upon the "width" of the coil.
There can be the oscillation depending upon the length of wire.
If each of these were brought into PHI ratios of each other, intentionally,
the results might be better due to this heterodyne idea.
As far as the interface from coil to capacitor is concerned, it can be
"wireless". In other words, you want them NEAR .. but they have
no physical connection -- just a proximity connection.
So you just need this resonant cavity so to speak -- for Ghz frequencies.
It occurs to me that the wire-length (which will influence the number of
turns), can be selected such that the frequencies are much lower, but
a RATIO to the power of N down from the Ghz frequency.
For example, by dividing by PHI^18 or PHI^19 or PHI^20,
for example, you could get a much lower frequency to tell you
how many TURNS you need in your LOOP bundle of wires.
Again, though, this LOOP of wires you do not want to wrap in the
conventional solenoid way ... because capacitance is too high.
You want to select honeycomb or basket weave, or some other
winding style that is minimal capacitance.
So a plan is forming in my head for how to construct a cone shaped,
multi-LOOP antenna, out of coils wound in the honeycomb style,
each loop being a PHI ratio of the one above AND below.
This incorporates ideas from the Hendershot device, the Hubbard PHI
ratio coil, Lenz's Law, magnetic resonance, heterodyne,
etc.
In other words, one way to think outside the box is actually to
instead be thinking in terms of all the physical properties and
constraining rules of physics, and exploiting them to your advantage.
Unlike 1927, 1928, we have the web, we have great computers,
we have amazing materials, we have some brilliant people.
Reception of "ambient" power should absolutely be doable within
this decade -- if not already being released this year.
I'm not channeling ... at least I don't think I am... :-)
I'm more of a wide-band guy.
But here are some thoughts regarding a possible theory of operations.
Search for LOOP antenna. One interesting thing about them is they
respond MOSTLY to the magnetic component of an electro-magnetic
wave. Further, I have read that to make one, you want a pretty
THICK wire, or THICK "copper tube", because people have tried
various thicknesses and have found that around 14AWG or thicker,
you start to get a GAIN that is the best and flattens out beyond that.
As for Bashar's "in a sense .. capacitor ... transformer" comment,
I was thinking that transformers, unlike just a coil, are doing the job
of stepping up or down voltage (and current in the inverse direction
of voltage).
What if, and this relates to my speculation about the Hubbard Coil...
What if you could translate from HIGH-FREQUENCY to
LOWER-FREQUENCIES using a trick of geometry.
When studying transformers, it is true that the turn ratio of the
two interfacing coils is what you are mainly concerned with,
since most people will build transfomers with a "shared" geometry.
In other words both coils are would around the same AREA.
But, another degree of freedom you have which affects the
magnetic field is AREA. Two coils can be construction for
different areas. The both could have the same number of turns,
but the math predicts you still can get a voltage transforming
affect simply by changing the area each coil sees. For example,
one coil is lower in the cone than the other coil.
The other thought is that unlike RADIO, we really don't want
to be tuning for a single frequencies. We want to be wide-band
and BLEND all the frequencies of our device into a grand
symphony of power. So if we had several LOOPs ... and could
mix those frequencies into a UNIFIED oscillation, we could
heterodyne the waves.
The paper I found shows PROOF that there are TWO peaks,
in terms of GAIN, that you can achieve the best results.
One peak is a power-of-two RATIO of your frequencies.
This peak is a "negative" peak.
The other peak is the PHI ratio of frequencies.
Take a look at the Hubbard coil... boom... Phi Ratios.
So sacred geometry here would dictate that every construction
detail we consider that involves geometry should be looked at
to see if PHI ratios can play a role.
Tesla was explaining that not only do you care about the diameter
and length of your coil, but also you need to care about
the length of the wire itself -- in terms of the frequency.
So hence the geometry decisions can be the "macro" ones,
the big stuff your building, and also the "micro" ones, how
close things are (affecting capacitance), wiring crossing,
materials used, frequencies involved, etc.
So back to the CONE idea.
Let us suppose that the physics we are interested in here are
not just "resonance", but also heterodyne,
LINEAR response curve for your inductors up as HIGH frequency
as possible.
It occurs to me, from looking at Hendershot's work, that basket
weave coils and honeycomb coils afford coils that are
very NICE in terms of having minimal capacitance. Hence,
their response curve is off-the-charts. This IS what you want
for wide-band. Yet, we see this "resonator" thing that looks
like a capacitor -- and was reported to "be damaged by arc discharge".
So, it stands to reason that this is the "escape path" for the energy
in the oscillations. It is a "nearby" capacitance that is LARGER
than anything the coil has inside itself. AC currents can flow
to large capacitance surface EASILY. Be sure, as Tesla warned,
that you don't have SHARP pointed surfaces, unless you do want
ARCing. Tesla was all about getting RID of ARCing, because he reasoned
it was a waste of power. Rather, we want a nice oscillation with
"safe" nondestructive movement of power from coil to capacitor
and back again -- TANK CIRCUIT.
This argues that the Bashar Coil should have capacitance ... but NOT
in the coil itself ... but rather NEAR the coil. By NEAR, I mean pretty
darn close to the wires. To far away, and the capacitance is not
providing the path-of-least resistance out.
I believe it is true that the coil will oscillate in various ways.
There can be the oscillation associated with the diameter of the LOOP.
There can be the oscillation depending upon the "width" of the coil.
There can be the oscillation depending upon the length of wire.
If each of these were brought into PHI ratios of each other, intentionally,
the results might be better due to this heterodyne idea.
As far as the interface from coil to capacitor is concerned, it can be
"wireless". In other words, you want them NEAR .. but they have
no physical connection -- just a proximity connection.
So you just need this resonant cavity so to speak -- for Ghz frequencies.
It occurs to me that the wire-length (which will influence the number of
turns), can be selected such that the frequencies are much lower, but
a RATIO to the power of N down from the Ghz frequency.
For example, by dividing by PHI^18 or PHI^19 or PHI^20,
for example, you could get a much lower frequency to tell you
how many TURNS you need in your LOOP bundle of wires.
Again, though, this LOOP of wires you do not want to wrap in the
conventional solenoid way ... because capacitance is too high.
You want to select honeycomb or basket weave, or some other
winding style that is minimal capacitance.
So a plan is forming in my head for how to construct a cone shaped,
multi-LOOP antenna, out of coils wound in the honeycomb style,
each loop being a PHI ratio of the one above AND below.
This incorporates ideas from the Hendershot device, the Hubbard PHI
ratio coil, Lenz's Law, magnetic resonance, heterodyne,
etc.
In other words, one way to think outside the box is actually to
instead be thinking in terms of all the physical properties and
constraining rules of physics, and exploiting them to your advantage.
Unlike 1927, 1928, we have the web, we have great computers,
we have amazing materials, we have some brilliant people.
Reception of "ambient" power should absolutely be doable within
this decade -- if not already being released this year.
Comment