Eric P. Dollard

[t-rex]

Recent Dr. Green

The extra coil raising the resonant frequency of the resonant transformer(Pri + Sec) is great. This is what I am looking for. This result means that the extra coil is exhibiting an inductive reactance, indicating its operation is a little beyond its quarter wave frequency. The shunt ring capacitor exists to tune this magnetic component out. Thereby derived is a condition of consonant resonance which both secondary and extra coils are in tune.

Also, do not use L.E.D. use small incandescent lamps like the #327, #44, or #42 number lamps. Use Ne2H lamps as the voltage probes, a neon wire lead lamp on the end of a stick. The coils need to be supplied with enough power to light a neon lamp along the coil. Also, the tiny incandescent lamp with an exploring coil is a good M.M.F. probe. With these the standing wave distribution can be studied on these coils.

In basic terms, if a transmission structure can support travelling and standing waves, a set of relations exist.

1) If the line is quarter wave resonant, the sending impedance is resistive, at the resonant frequency.

2) If the line is operated at a frequency of less than that of the quarter wave frequency, the sending end impedance is capacitive.

3) If the line is operated at a frequency higher than the quarter wave resonant frequency, the sending end of the line is inductive.

4) In order to establish a quarter wave resonance, this within an eighth wave up, or down, span of frequencies around this resonant frequency, two conditions must be met.

One is that the sending end impedance must be LESS than the characteristic impedance of the line.

Second is that the far end impedance must be greater than the characteristic impedance of the line. This is to say, the far end admittance must be less than the characteristic admittance of the line.

When a line is operated at an eighth wavelength it has the property of converting the far end impedance to a resistance equaling the magnitude of the far end impedance, this at the sending end of the line. Marconi used this in his flat top at KET Bolinas, and to a certain extent this may be happening in the Colorado Springs extra coil, but only if expressed in a luminal velocity base. Read Steinmetz, "Oscillations of the Compound Circuit", in "Impulses, Waves, and Discharges", very important info on the refraction and reflection of waves at the transition between two independent transmission structures (or coils).

73 DE N6KPH

P.S. Where did the C.R.I. go? Is that dead now?

[Nhopa]

Transfer

dr-Green:

Is it possible to transfer graphs or calculations direct from MS Excel into Imageshack?
Thanks.

[t-rex]

[madhatter]

[QUOTE=Michael Kishline;198955]

Off topic, so I'll make this short.

Yes, the Hubble Mirrors Optical Array by Perkin-Elmer are heated to a constant 15deg Celsius which is why it doesn't do Inferred.

Yes, the Optical Array is open to the vacuum of space with no optical obstruction of a clear enclosure for the highest resolution.

No, light does not only manifest as observable when in contact with a gaseous atmosphere, otherwise lights refraction, reflection and diffusion's from every molecule or atom resulting in enormous spectral flare would never travel very far and we would be living in a glowing radiant fog. Your own gel filled eye in the vitreous humor would become a solid white opacity like a large cataract.

Does light only manifest as observable when contacting an optical medium with a high-index of refraction? Is yet to be determined do to the fact, that which is observing will always have an optical medium prior to the receiving array.

Example: Cornea-Retina, Optical lens - CMOS array, Optical lens - film.

The only true test would be a geometric optical arrangement using no mediums of gas or solid before the receiving array, such as a pin hole camera as your lens, photographic paper, film or raw CMOS chip as your receiving array all open to the vacuum of space.

Yes, you can see the sun and stars from space with current mediums I just discussed. It's a matter of camera "f stop" and aperture settings, I can whiteout or blackout the back round of any visual arrangement using these basic settings.

Observe the Milky Way, the stars and our own Sun from space with correct camera settings.
Great video to put most of this confusion all to rest.
Yes, you can see the Sun and Stars from space! To the Contrary. - YouTube

Mike

This will forever debated. There is one problem with the video, the ISIS orbits within the thermoshpere, lots of UV radiation and ionization.

The heating of the mirror is reduce thermal stress and warping, in the thin atmosphere and even beyond the exosphere the temperature fluctuations due to EM radiation will cause constant flexing and warping of the mirror. I also wouldn't use it as way to determine the answer to the question of visible light.

There are many papers on ES to EM waves and the resultant visible light due to this converting energy, however most of the work is classified. While an atmosphere is not a requirement for light, it is a requirement for specific wavelengths of visible light.

what is overlooked in my opinion is the conjugate paring of EM waves and how that arises. ES waves are FTL, that's not even a debated point in physics, however there is a caveat that information within an ES wave can not violate relativity and thus an ES wave is hidden due to the converting to an EM and C velocity. And that's another classified area of research.

So lets say the waves emitted by the sun are ES, at any boundary transition they will convert to EM. So any inhomogeneous boundary of gas or radiation, or EM wave there occurs a convergence and transition state of the traveling ES wave. Interaction of the aluminum or gold nano layers on the transparent medium of the shuttle windows or helmets provide this boundary, the hubble mirror also has nano layers of metals to enhance UV reflection, this too will be a source field for the transition.

Bottom line, we can't truly measure this when the measurement effects the result so dramatically.

here's a hint, look into the exposure times for celestial bodies and stars.

[madhatter]

dr-Green:

Is it possible to transfer graphs or calculations direct from MS Excel into Imageshack?
Thanks.

Yes and no, you can print via, cutepdf and then upload the pdf. or do a prntscrn (print screen) and crop, edit upload the jpg file.

This site itself is highly restricted on fonts and format for some reason.

[Aaron]

light

This will forever debated.

From the original email I received from Tom Brown and other references I found on this subject, it isn't necessarily that an atmosphere is required but just something that can receive and re-emit the light. For practical purposes, it would most likely be the molecules in our atmosphere from our frame of reference.

Visible light (the light "wave" or whatever you want to call it) is not directly visible. We know this is so because the space between the sun and the other planets in our solar system is pitch black. The space between the stars is pitch black. That's the first clue. Only when it hits something is there evidence that it exists.

It seems that there is also no such thing as reflected light - possibly. Light is only absorbed and then re-emitted and this is technically different from a reflection. For practical purposes this is what a reflection is, but technically, it is a re-emission. And when we see this re-emission when the light "hits" something, that is what we see - it is at the surface of the re-emitter and not in the space between that and the eye. We see what light hits but we don't see the light itself "traveling".

So with regular glass, there isn't much "reflection". But if a camera lens is behind a glass with some material that allows the light to hit it and be re-emitted, that is what the camera would be picking up and not the direct light from the stars, etc...

Even right here on Earth, we can take a bright flashlight and go into the pitch black - turn it on and shine it on something - wall, tree, whatever. You can only see the light re-emitted (minus losses I suppose) from the surface of what you're shining it on. You cannot see the light between the object and the transmitter. Sometimes you can see the light but that isn't really the light itself traveling, that is hitting dust particles and other molecules in the air that is absorbing and re-emitting the light but the light itself is invisible without something to "bounce" off of.

If that was not the case, then all the space between the stars would be lit up and we probably wouldn't be able to tell where the actual stars are - even though the position of the stars we see are where they were many years ago.

Also, we would never have a dark night. If the light itself was directly visible, when we are on the dark side of the Earth, the sunlight is still passing right pass the Earth and our entire night sky in outer space would be lit up. It would be bright as day. We look up and it is black at night even though we're directly looking at plenty of "light waves" "leaving" the sun streaming right past the Earth, but they're all completely invisible to us.

So the question to clarify what is really being asked isn't if stars are visible from outer space, but is visible light directly visible? The answer is no - only when it hits a surface that re-emits the light can it be visible but the light between the transmitter and receiver are invisible.

For any light to be visible in space from space, only light that is hitting some kind of surface that is able to receive and re-emit the light can be seen whether it is some kind of filter or whatever. With the atmosphere for example, that was described as something the light wave can "percuss" off of. That might be the exact word Tom Brown used - that was several months back.

For more on light, there is something very interesting in the Borderlands materials - not sure how to reference it right now but it is about Goethe's color spectrum ideas that a prism doesn't split the light and that it is actually more circular in nature... If I can find the title to this work and the experiments that prove that a prism does not split light, I'll post it - very, very interesting. Newton was wrong and Goethe was right - so it seems.

[Nhopa]

Image transfer

Yes and no, you can print via, cutepdf and then upload the pdf. or do a prntscrn (print screen) and crop, edit upload the jpg file. This site itself is highly restricted on fonts and format for some reason.

Thank you madhatter: I have done PrtScr, scanning in, cropping and turning it into jpg files but it takes too much time and cumbersome. I was hoping that there was an easy direct method.

[madhatter]

Thank you madhatter: I have done PrtScr, scanning in, cropping and turning it into jpg files but it takes too much time and cumbersome. I was hoping that there was an easy direct method.

cutepdf is a virtual printer, it'll print your files to PDF. that's one option. If you have office 2010 there is a save as PDF without needing cutepdf, you can also link to a word doc. But in all honesty even with adobe CS there are multiple steps needed to get to what you want.

If the forum had less restrictions on format this wouldn't be needed. I'd live to be able add in LaTex format instead of constant attachments.

[dR-Green]

Thank you madhatter: I have done PrtScr, scanning in, cropping and turning it into jpg files but it takes too much time and cumbersome. I was hoping that there was an easy direct method.

Like madhatter suggested, I use print screen. However, you seem to actually be printing a hard copy? You can skip that step. After pressing print screen, go back to MS Paint and then go to Edit > paste. It will paste the screen capture into Paint, then you can crop it down to size. From there personally I save it as bmp then open it in Paint Shop Pro 8 to save a copy as jpg, because the MS Paint jpg conversion is pretty terrible.

[t-rex]

O' Say Can You See....

1) I here maintain the axiom that no primary light exists in free space. Instead it is primary induction, a process of a line of force. The particles of physics are only mere broken holdfasts of a torn loose end of a line of induction, the particle movement an action of stretching, or a contracting line of force, to which it is bound.

2) The basic dilemma is if there is no luminal light then what is it that occurs in the transmission space and transmission time that gives rise to the transmission process of energy from the sun being received on Earth in the form of luminal energy in Ergs? It is a phantom, and in a way so is so called mutual induction. Steinmetz gives his idea that "radiation pressure" and mutual magnetic repulsions are one in the same. So let us say that this process is called "Rays of Electric Induction." This sounds a little like "Cosmic Rays", but no distinctions are made here.

3) Here it can be inferred that the propagation constant one over c squared bears no relation to this induction. However the secondary electro-magnetic reactions are directly related to one over c squared and give rise to the false impression that "light" from the stars propagates in that manner, hence the 8 minute lag (hysteresis) from sun to earth. By this reasoning it can be postulated that the propagation constant for primary induction is Undefined.

This is to say, no time lag may exist in a primary propagation, it can only be instantaneous. Einstein is calling 911!!

Here is the relativity shattering concept that it does not take eons of time for "light" to reach us from distant stars and galactic formations. This not only aborts relativity but serves as an iconoclastic concept upon modern degenerate society as a whole! Remember that relativity, cubism, atonal music were all vanguards to social degeneration. Then the "Great Wars" came about to lay a fertile and cultivated ground for the queek society of the present age, Dot Communism.

4) With the knowledge available to us it would seem that the Tesla or Alexanderson systems serve as the only possible experimental demonstration of propagation not related to one over c squared. Hence the Crystal Radio Initiative. Who will be the first HAM radio operator to light a 100 watt lamp on the energy supplied by a local A.M. broadcast station? That would do it. The moonbounce idea seems to have taken a squat. But wave interference on the bench can also demonstrate super luminal velocity. I maintain that it is not a velocity at all, it is not the ratio of space(miles) to time(hour).

In counterspace the relation is counter-velocity. Here is not miles, but now is PER MILE, like loading coils on a phone line. Counter velocity then is in the dimensions of PER MILE x HOUR.

5) Finally everything here considered is based upon a double energy transient, magnetic interacting with dielectric in the dimension of time, that is to say, a WAVE. But what if it is a single energy transient, then there is no wave but only a uni-directional impulse, this indefinite in the dimension of time. This sounds like a "Ray of Induction".

6) As a side note: I was [resent when Tomb Brown undertook the investigation of the "No Stars In Space" story. I derived the impression from seeing it in action that it is a fact that no stars can be seen in free space, removed from the physical and electrical influence of bodies existing in space.

As for the government labs, that is its own epic tale, JPL, L. Livermore labs etc. Look up a Mr. Parsons who started Jet Propulsion Laboratories. No one in these institutions would ever let the public know that stars cannot be seen in space. The very foundations of science are based upon this notion.

But this is not to say that NASA or the USN would not move forward with a new understanding with an appropriate security classification. In either case it is a chapter from "Occult Science Dictatorship" by William Lyne. This is by far the best expression for the scenarios given here.

73 DE N6KPH

P.S. Viewing in space is through a diffraction process on the viewing window, then everything is visible . Also see "Cosmic Superimposition" by Wilhelm Reich.

[dR-Green]

P.S. Where did the C.R.I. go? Is that dead now?

It's not dead for me, I haven't really got started on that yet. The plan was to gather construction/design tips from things learned with the small coil before starting a big one for radio reception. I also need to move some of the setup out to the shed where the garden (earth) will be more accessible and I can set up the 17 ground rods star formation thing, I think the flat spiral is indicating about the maximum I can get out of the current situation and if that's anything to go by then lighting a 28V #327 bulb will be impossible with it.

Are there any particular specifications for an "exploring coil"? Did some more tests yesterday, including a quick test using an "Avramenko plug" with 4 LEDs in series as the load. There are two resonant frequency points, and the AV plug acts differently with each one around the secondary. I have graphs of both resonant frequency points with the extra coil connected anyway so I'll post those shortly.

[jake]

CRI lives... kind of.

cutepdf is a virtual printer, it'll print your files to PDF. that's one option. If you have office 2010 there is a save as PDF without needing cutepdf, you can also link to a word doc. But in all honesty even with adobe CS there are multiple steps needed to get to what you want.

If the forum had less restrictions on format this wouldn't be needed. I'd live to be able add in LaTex format instead of constant attachments.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post174237

Over on this thread they managed to post an .xls file as a .doc by changing the extention. This might work if you can keep the file size small enough.


And the CRI is still active over here. Just one problem.. but I'm working on it.

My first two attempts at soldering 4sqin of copper failed (primary capacitor to primary). Burnt flux and black copper just won't do. Then after a few hours of testing outside I discovered my ground connection was not soldered properly. It held together fine but when I heated to desolder there was no solder on the connecting strip. Ok two tiny specs of solder. Hardly a good connection.


But slow and steady lights the bulb.

Are there any clues that would let us know we have acheived a proper ground?

[madhatter]

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post174237

Over on this thread they managed to post an .xls file as a .doc by changing the extention. This might work if you can keep the file size small enough.


And the CRI is still active over here. Just one problem.. but I'm working on it.

My first two attempts at soldering 4sqin of copper failed (primary capacitor to primary). Burnt flux and black copper just won't do. Then after a few hours of testing outside I discovered my ground connection was not soldered properly. It held together fine but when I heated to desolder there was no solder on the connecting strip. Ok two tiny specs of solder. Hardly a good connection.


But slow and steady lights the bulb.

Are there any clues that would let us know we have acheived a proper ground?

Take a 6" copper rod and sink it in the ground, use a meter to measure the resistance between the rod and your ground connection.

[dR-Green]

This was the setup in the previous test, condenser rings capacitance measured at 11.8pF to tune the secondary to 3670 kc.



With the extra coil, the required capacitance is measured at 12.59pF. Set up as so:



Two resonant peaks found with the rings set at 12.59pF, 3670 kc reading 22.7mV, and 2344.2 kc reading 41.3mV.

(The previously mentioned "unreliable" test with the AV plug seemed to show the opposite in terms of light output vs measured voltage).

Assuming I calculated it right, taking 70.7% from post #706:

Magnification Factor @ 3670 kc = 90.20524
Magnification Factor @ 2344.2 kc = 110.44

3670 / 2344.2 = 1.565566

[jake]

Take a 6" copper rod and sink it in the ground, use a meter to measure the resistance between the rod and your ground connection.

Really? That seems to easy. So just like 12" away so the meter leads can reach?