Perpetual Motion Holder
Dave Nelson's Commentary on Leedskalnin
Tips for the Rocket People
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Decoding Ed's Writings
A Sound Magnetic Base
The first 3 videos of uncovering the secret of magnetism provide a clear demonstration of the dynamic equilibrium structure of a " magnet"
The dielectric counter space term is related to Eric Dollards exposition of Pre 20th century theory of aether Dynamics by Heaviside, Hertz and Tesla and Steinmetz using Gilbert's magnetic Philoophy . At the moment I do not use the Steinmetz mathematical term counter space , which really just means we use exponentials to quantify and codify the dynamic behaviours.
Physically I prefer a plasma that is spinning at variable frequencies. This variable continuum of spin in the plasma is what I replace the dielectric term with.
What radiates spaciometrically from this spinning plasma?
Firstly the spinning plasma aggregates into filaments. This is a fractal cause and effect situation . Spin in plasma undeniably form fractal regional boundaries which will be trochoidal / roulette in general. The simplest geometry will be spherical, but this will be the hardest to find generally.
Generally we only look for and study Spheroids ignoring the much more common 3d trochoidal forms.
The range of trochoidal forms range from spiral filaments to conic section forms like parabolas and hyperbolas finally the flat planar rotation identified here as the dielectric plane.
The spiralling into the centre from the dielectric plane is usually seen as ejecting from the centre as a filamentary Birkland current. However the second radiative phenomena is the wave deformations in these rotating regions. The regions themselves are dynamically stable, in equilibrium. What " moves" in both directions is a bulk deformation of these dynamically stable regions. The wave is perceived by our senses and sensors as frequency variations.
The frequency variations in these dynamic systems are detected characteristically local to a region of the fundamental primitive rotations. Since our eyes are only sensitive to a narrow frequency range we see or percieved spatial form differently depending on how much or how little frequency we can integrate or Aggregate into an image.
Filaments in a plasma bulb may seem to emanate from the centre and terminate on the glass, but this is an assumed current glow. It may very well represent a back filled deformation wave of a given frequency range.
The gyroscopic behaviour of the the plasma rotations does allow aggregation in a particular form that amplifies the spatial motion behaviour of regions. This aggregation he terms conjugation, another mathematical term which perhaps is only useful in a symmetry sense. Adjugate structures is probably the Bombelli structural term which is also appropriate to the demonstrated structure as a whole, in that technical sense conjugate would refer to only parts of the structure across the plane called the dielectric.
We do not need these terms unless we want to apply the quaternionic model of these structures in the classical sense of mathematical models. Even then it adds no explanatory content, being simply orienting codes for processing the mathematical model calculations.
If you believe as most do that mathematical models are the truth, then I suggest that you will not understand how the physical diffraction pattern is actually made, and what physically lies behind the set forth explanation.
The simplest description is trochoidal rotation in a fractally distributed plasma . This trochoidal rotation exists at many frequencies in a continuum.
Watch circuit scribe change your mind to the cosmic force of magnetic current and the plasma rotational frequency models discussed above
edited October 2014
The snapping of magnetic bubbles is a common sight to sun observers. What we are observing through the correct frequency filters are the radiation of a rotational frequency band through a structure of underlying rotating plasmas. As the frequency band moves out in a spherical structure, the underlying plasma carrying the signal is also ductile. The dissipating radiation and the shifting ductile structure combine to give the impression of an explosive event.
Indeed the equilibrium of the surrounding plasma environment is being adjusted dynamically, and that adjustment appears as a Coronal Mass ejection. But bring it down to a sop bubble: the bubble disintegrates into smaller bubbles of plasma, most of which remain close to each other, but some fly out in random directions spherically, moderated by environmental condition.
Everybody laughs at JJ Thomson's " sticky plumb pudding" model for the atomic substance or " atomic " aether. The new space age, Newtonian astronomical model based on the planetary system was much ' sexier"!
However the Thompson corpuscular model has much to recommend it over the Bohr Rutherford model, which requires a systematic error to be carried though in its interpretation, application and representation.
The Thompson corpuscular model is a plama model with bubble characteristics. It fits in well with observations because it is based on plasma observations not astronomical ones.
The mysterious foible layer, mentioned frequently in the plasma physics theory makes less sense in an electric description than it does in a magnetic current interpretation. Magnetic current inherently consists of a twisting double layer (eds twisting plasma substance), which ejects substance in opposite directions so that a north magnetic centre nd a south magnetic centre are formed in a crossing steel wire. The implication is that a magnetic current is " flowing" in the region between the fdouble layer, or a dielectric " field" exists in that "plane" or transmission line or capacitance region between the 2 regions .
Much of this confusing observation is due to the measuring instrument.
Also, subtly, the assumption of a current distorts the understanding. It is known that the diffusion rate of " particles" does not support light speed current transmission. What is going on is bulk wave deformation in the plasma substrate, a rotational bulk wave deformation. So " current" is a totally misleading concept. The wave transmission is best modelled by a sound wave analogy! What travels around a circuit is a type of " sound" wave, called an electromagnetic wave. It is a rotational wave deformation.
Thus we do not need the concept of an electric current. I refer you to Ivor Catt website and the Wakefirld experiment. What "flows" in every electronic and electric circuit is not a current . What changes in an electronic or electrical circuit is the frequency of a wave deformation that transmit in the surrounding medium to a circuit and is guided by the conductor/ inductor structure.
But we want a current to " flow" so we can use a contact model for energy coupling. However magnetic behaviours demonstrates ove and over a contact model is not capable of explaining the observed behaviour. Resonance and vibrational connectivity is the basic method of coupling provided we understand an intermediary medium capable of transmitting energy by wave deformation, and a rotational wave at that.
Magnetic current is fundamentally a 2 plasma structure , but Ed did not understand thst the swirling motion he observed was not a current, rather it was a swirling wave deformation of a fundamental plasma or variety of plasmas which are present everywhere. Cosmic force does not require 2 plasmas, it is necessary that there is at least 1, but in fact we may distinguish many varieties as plasma. The 2 fold behaviour of a magnet is in the 2 fold directional behaviour of waves and rotation.
The signs +\– always refer to rotation. What is needed is an appreciation of the trochoidal nature of rotation. +\– only ever indicate our relativistic view of rotation.
edited October 2014
One of Ed's mainlines was to keep his theory as simple and basic as possible (including
his tests) and that in order to keep the research in straight lines without inventing new names
to phenomena that are the results of the behavior of three elements : South and North individual
magnets and the neutral particle of matter.
When you introduce "Plasma" into the game, you actually open up a new chapter that deals
with sub-characteristics of the 3 basic elements. In Ed's view, adding new names of elementary
particles and elementary phenomena was to "complicate life" by the "naming game" which makes
one feels that now he understand that better. That is an ill-fate of our modern physics.
I have observed this phenomenon before without quite grasping its significance, so strong is the iconic identification of a spiral! Mhowever it is clear that in a dynamic unbounded system the vortex forms in a counter rotating environment. Thus not how as the vortex moves the atmosphere is " tossed" either side in front of the vortex. One part is thus in a position to be drawn into the main structure the other part is in a position to be blown away from the main structure.
As in the case of an aerofoil the air mass divides around the vortex, part travelling on by the vortex the other travelling on and eventually drawn into the vortex.
This deserves further study in relation to vortex shedding.
edited October 2014
Sometimes words I use confuse the hell out of others, for which I can only apologise.
In general words are poor substitutes for direct experience. Simple words are often the worst substitute. The reason is obvious. If I say north pole individual magnet I have said very little beyond the word magnet. If I say a spinning plasma I have said even less to most people , but a specific thing to all who have identified a plasma phenomenon.
Most of us have a bar magnet firmly engraved into our psyche! The reason is that that is a relatively simple form to apprehend. However you will allow that " nature" does not produce bar magnets. The nearest natural magnetic form is the Lodestone crystal. Such a rock crystal typically has many " poles" which begs the question of what does a pole actually refer to?
In this regard it is more helpful to look at modern images of the sun where we can visualise these individual north and south pole regions in sunspot descriptions. But now is that north region a magnet or a north / south pole Of a magnet?
Before we get drawn into that hair splitting Ed says, well it is not a magnet form that he understands it is the substance moving within the magnet form that he names as the magnet. Further he names that substance as of 2 sorts : individual north and individual south. If you look at any sunspot analytical image you can see regions identified in precisely this way, and where those substances mix together in certain other regions.
Eds language is precise but often quaint because he was Latvian. His grammatical structures therefore need anglicising sometimes, but not too much.
You are correct in understanding that I introduced the word plasma, not to interpret Ed, but to formulate my own take on the observable phenomena. It acts as a bridge between plasma research( not the whole of physics) and Eds experiments and demonstrations. Either I see an accord or a disagreement. If a disagreement I naturally favour Eds version. That is why I am a member of this particular forum.
In that regard your "3 basic elements" is your take on Eds exposition.
Is Ed always right? No ! But most of the time he is, and where he is " wrong" it is not a logical flaw but a limit of his experimental design. After all billions of dollars spent on the LHC ought to reveal some thing Ed could not observe with a battery and a copper wire and some fish wire, right? Lol!
You would think so, but I have only found a few very minor details, and those mainly exposited by Theoria Apophasis!
Eric Dollard provides a window into the thought world of Eds time and mostly Ed provides a simple direct summary of the ideas of those experimentalists who actually came up with the observations that found so called modern electromagnetism/ electrodynamics. You can't go far wrong with Eds ideas, unlike those of modern Electromagnetic theory. Ed, however is no Nikola Tesla and perhaps that at the end of this reply is the real point extending his ideas sensibly.
edited October 2014
So far no one found the Building Blocks of the perceived universe. Or to be exact all our modern
physics started approx. 300 years ago without them and since then chasing it's tail in circles like
a dog after it's tail. It is the greatest paradox of our age. But it yield lots of discoveries that
improving our life conditions and improved greatly our knowledge about the CHARACTERISTICS
of the universe, which means that if one day these building blocks will be found (if exists at all ?)
the whole physics should be rewritten based on these elements.
It seems that this was Ed's message.
I think Ed himself did not know much more than he wrote about..... but he explored a legitimate
path of exploration. He was crave for attention and took advantage of Americans looking for a
local heroes.... like in their movies and thirst for celebrities. He hide some things and by doing
so increases the curiosity around him, then came all the speculations about the Ancient Egyptian,
anti-gravity and lost knowledge that he hide.
So my point is to start with a few building blocks (of matter and energy) and try to explain with
them the world around us. It might sound a bit naive, but to me it sound safer than growing
physics worldwide for 300 years without the building blocks and the result is "Babylon Tower"
where at the end no one could understood another as a result of knowledge explosion which
invent new words and i-phones, plasma, etc. on a daily basis.
The LHC did not escaped that fate.....if they would not "found" the boson-higgs, do you really
thing anyone would fund them further ? and could they show their face in public after such
a failed attempt ? So a new name was born and now everyone understand what is the deep
meaning of Boson Higgs....... whether it exists or not.
By the way magnetic poles to my knowledge are nothing but GATES which occur due to two
streams of South and North pole magnets that enter a body faster that they can exit from, so they
get "locked" between the poles and keep circulating between them while producing attraction and
repulsion between the two poles. So the poles are virtual gates which poses the power of the
magnets passing into and out of them.
Have you watched the Imhotep videos?
edited October 2014
no, what is it about ?
Check out the thread started by Boxerlego! Hope you enjoy it. :–)
edited October 2014
Theoria Apophasis is a detailed YouTube site researching into magnetism and dielectric electrified devices.
This video may be more accessible as an introduction to his teachings.
One of the difficulties that Ken has is too much talk! Nevertheless he demonstrates what he is claiming. However he then buries his discoveries by too much talking/ rhetoric.
But I reiterate he has advanced the understanding of magnetism.
Dielectric is an old term for double layer, or double layer is the new term for dielectric. If you can remember any Electrostatics you will recall the charge model using+ and - in little circles or just on theire own. So called electrostatic induction was imagined as splitting the pluses and minuses into different regions of a material brought near to a " charged" inducer.
Di is the Latin prefix for to separate or separated. Thus the material now holds 2 electric charges iseparated to different regions it is therefore called a Dielectric.
Dielectric should have a counterpart called dimagnrtic. Notice DImagnetic. But a magnet is a polarised device already so the term is redundant, even though applicable , very much so, to the induction of iron, steel or iron filings with magnetism
Now instead of using dimagnetic the word paramagnetic is used. Para means "to come alongside", or "to be besides" . Rather than describing attributes of a magnet this simply describes a companion magnet.
Now diamagnetic describes a behaviour of a material toward magnetic induction. Such a material allows magnetism to pass right through. This is the meaning of "dia". Material that allows the magnetism to pass right through shows little or no normal magnet behaviours. However we know this is only apparent.
There should be a corresponding term for electric, that is diaelectric. Notice DIAelectric. However a material that allows an inducing "electrostatic" body to induce a charge separation as far as the material extends is called a conductor. The term was popularised by Faraday and Maxwell. Diaelectric however is useful to describe how the charge in a Leyden jar can dissipate along a material to give a shock many miles away!
We see how the naming conventions have become confused and confusing, preventing clear comparisons and promoting divisions of common and comparable behaviours.
The structure of the flow of the magnetic flux is well explained by Ken and agrees with Eds observations, when properly understood.
The insistence by Ken that the dielectric plane drives magnetism is a version of Amoères electric current loops. Thus it is an Electridynamics explanation. However Ed bases his explanation on magnetic currents conting of 2 fundamental substances or plasmas that twist past each other. What Ken shows is that these plasmas exit and enter in different locations of a magnetic device. What I see on the din is the closed loop structures and the migrating entrance " spots" for these plasmas. When they connect far from neutralising quietly they demonstrate highly energetic stabilisation pocesses( flaring and mass ejections).
Jehovajah I watched the Imhotap video...... nothing new there to me.
I'm interested in what you have to say, instead of sending me to a link.
At least that's the way I understand discussion should be conducted,
so I will forward to hear that.
I have read through Kenneth L Wherlers work and recommended several of his videos. However, I do feel that his personality is formed around several issues that he has not resolved to his satisfaction,
It is not uncommon for someone with unresolved issues to nevertheless be technically brilliant and correct. In this thread I am only endorsing his extensive and thorough research into magnetism, the dielectric and the aether concepts. Even so his adoption of certain popular explanations or diagrams like the primer fields, or the electromagnetic theory of wave propagation I do not agree with, so long as he leaves the electron / photon models intact.
I hardly think he would, so I will read these sections more carefully.
His prolixity is an unfortunate symptom of his autistic traits, and indeed I suffer with the same issue. Best to look at the pictures and diagrams before the words, I think.
We have known since Arago did his disc demonstration that a spinning copper disc in a magnetic flux( both plasmas flowing through it) of magnetic current will exhibit a potential difference between it's rim and it's centre. This has been confusingly called electric motive force.
Let us call it magneto motive force. Then we realise that the positive and negative charge separation may very well be the separation of 2 opposing plasma streams.
Now a simple experiment suggests itself. Using a brass or copper gyroscope establish electrodes on the spindle and the edge and spin it up.
Does it exhibit a charge potential difference in the earths magnetic streams alone? Does this vary with location?
Why is it that we are not told that the terminals of a battery have a detectable magnetic effect on a compass needle?