Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Imhotep Leedskalnin Magnetic Current Series

edited September 2014 in Edward Leedskalnin
Due to recent discussion in another thread and upon request by Jehovajah. I will start the discussion here of the Imhotep Leedskalnin Magnetic Current Series. Here is a good presentation and narrated video dealing with Edward Leedskalnin research and Magnetic Current experiments.

Special Thanks goes to Imhotep for making the video series.

Imhotep Leedskalnin Magnetic Current Series Episode List:
Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Episode 4 Episode 5 Episode 6 Episode 7 Episode 8 Episode 9 Episode 10


  • Thanks for the links BL. I am waiting on #11 , but reviewing each of the videos has really clarified some of the points ed was making!

    It is a great series which I highly recommend so far.

    Imhoteps interpretations should make good discussion points!
  • edited September 2014
    This particular YouTube channel concentrates on reverse engineering Floyd sweets VTA. As a consequence they are forced to update Electromgnetic theory.

    Faradays law has always been suspect. It was more a mathmatical equation than a physical description. Changing flux is said to induce a current . However the concept of flux is erroneous . Ed explains flux or plasma as 2 opposing streams that enter into and exit the metal " frame" or core. As the core moves these 2 streams move with it. Thus any coil around such a core is cut by 2 moving streams axially as the magnet moves through or the coil moves axially along the core.

    If a core rotates in a coil or a coil rotates around a core. Then no emf is detectable .

    In this video it is clearly demonstrated that both streams must vary in the coil relative to each other to produce emf. It is the relative difference in stream strength as it changes that is called emf. As the core moves within the coil the south seeking plasma decreases st the initial coil end as the moth seeking plama increases. The faster this occurs the greater the emf between coil ends.

    Another failing is that in each demonstration that I have seen the natural cyclicity of the change is truncated! Typically only half the core moves within the coil. If the full core passes into and through and out the coil then the emf will peak and then die down. As the plasma streams out of the other end the concentration reaches a peak and then dies back. The incoming opposite plasma is still dissipating from its peak at the other end and so does not differentiate in the same way from the now receding opposite plasma stream centre. The curve is not sinusoidal but rather capacitive charge and discharge shape.

    Here is a theoretical exposition
  • The PMH, the Floyd Sweet VTA are fundamentally the identical principle. However Floyd does not have the simplicity of explanation of the principle as Ed does.

    The PMH shows the rotational plasmas around a copper wire leak preferentially into iron or steel where they then run in combination forming the steel into a magnet. By placing the keeper above the u shaped magnet the plasmas flow in a loop. This means that the keeper must become an induced magnet and thus adheres to the u shaped magnet.

    Amazingly these 2 plasma flows have been theoretically dismissed by electric magnet Franklinites enthusiasts! They also reinterpreted Ampères loops or circuits as electron loops rather than the more general plasma current loops. In doing so they left out the "anti electron" the plasma with the Opposite screw andt the opposite gyre!

    The screw of a plasma is the fundamental distinguisher not its spin or gyre. A magnetic current is made up of 2 plasmas with the same screw and gyre, but which are therefore indistinguishable when the screw is the same spaciometric translation. If the screw is now contra to the initial screw this does not mean it is a different substance, it just means a region is translating in a contra direction.

    Because the direction is contra the plasma splits into 2 where it was initially one. These 2 plasmas run in opposite directions in inductive materials, but in non inductive materials they recombine into one rotation. It is the contra dual crew that is identified as the magnetic current by Ed, and mis apprehended as the Electric current.

    Now there is a behaviour of plasma where the opposite gyres travel together with the same screw, that is in the same translational direction such plasma currents are called filaments. They are not magnetic currents! In a magnetic current the opposite gyre travels against the opposite gyre in an opposing screw translation. The consequence is " fireworks!"

    While the same gyre travelling in the same screw translation as another is indistinguishable, that combination is not stable, and if compressed together or superimposed will explosively separate, while magnetic current is explosive, the contra translation means that it fans out more than it spherically explodes. This spiral screw structure of fanned out plasma can behave like a gear , but generates terrific heat and radiation.. The case of the same gyre same screw translation explodes but with less heat . It can act as a springy space. The filamental structure may act as centres for tornadic vortices to form.

    These various states exist in a dynamic continuum in the fundamental plasmas and may be sufficient to explain observed behaviours of matter.
  • Theoria Apophasis YouTube channel has many interesting demonstrations. It may be hard to understand what he is saying because he tries too hard to explain, but if you start at the earlier videos like 1 to 8 you might see some behaviours to experiment with.

    In any case the demonstration of a model of electrification is useful

    The Cathode ray tube pattern shows how the plasma is displaced by the plasma dynamic around and through a magnetic space. Nothing appears to move and yet we know that the plasmas are in dynamic mode.. This is dynamic Equilibrium! . The magnetic space is a dynamic equilibrium plama fountain, like the fountains in Las Vegas! By shining a cathode plasma through the fountain we see the structure caused by diffraction. Diffraction is really not well understood as a plasma phenomenon because we start with mirrors and burning glasses! In the past polished surfaces and translucent materials shaped our understanding of plasma phnomena. Grimaldi named diffraction as another plasma phenomenon just begore he Died, No one has really sought simple models ever since, preferring to quantise it and write Mathematicl formulaes. This obscured the understanding of Plasma behaviours, in particular reflection and refraction.. Then Newton totally messed it up with his Optiks!

    Diffraction was worked on by Huygens in his wave front theory, but he was ignored until Young and Fresnel provided empirical and mathematical data, that old not be ignored. Still Feynmann misinterpreted Huygens conjecture and left it in obscurity.

    Plasma physics only really started ith Örsted and Ampère and Weber. Later Crookes and JJ Thompson Experimentally revealed the plasma substance. However prior yo this Faraday had invented the sphere of influence concot which Maxwell had mathematised into vortex lines of force. The plasma that underpins these phenomena of magnetism was not made visible until the Crookes tube, empirically, although of course we have always known of fire and nme just 2 plasma phenomena.

    Of course light is the most misunderstood plasma phenomenon, or rather continuum of phenomena. Consequently our definitions of plasmas are very inadequate. We try to separate plasma from electricity, from magnetism from light from radiation from heat and from sound.

    When I first encountered radiation as a concept it was in some science fantasy comic. Thus I was confused when I was taught in A level chemistry that Beta radiation was the electron, and alpha the the helium atom. Radiation was a substance, not named at the time as a plasma but a plasma nonetheless. Gamma radiation thus constituted the only recogniseable radiation I could relate to from my popular since expectations. But then X rays as high energy electrons came into view with gamma rays still left as a non particulate radition, a wave.

    Thus I deliberately invoke plasma as the fundamentally primitive material of space: whether Ether or Aether matters little . The material primitive of space is beyond our full description, and has in fact been considered immaterial or spiritual for millennia. However each technological advance pushes back the boundary between materiality and immateriality.

    Plasma in this dynamic form in equilibrium is not isolated to itself. Thus a magnetic pace is as shown n interaction between an environmental plasma dynamic and a local plasma dynmic. Our best models will thus be found in the study and principles of fluid mechanics, where the energy profile is not restricted to subsonic flow . This in effect is what the LHC is doing, but theorists are using an inadequate primitive , the particle model, to investigate and plan strategies.

    The model has oe advantage: we can screw money out of governments using it!
  • @Il_Pianista80 this is the thread I referred to
  • edited October 2019
    In Episode 3 , start from 2:10, why the North pole lifts more than the South pole?
    and why it shows that on level ground the magnets are in equal strength?
  • hello
    In Episode 3 , start from 2:10, why the North pole lifts more than the South pole?
    and why it shows that on level ground the magnets are in equal strength?

    Unfortunately I cannot answer your question properly, because I am blind.
    However this is an experiment which you can do in your location to test if it is true or not. Then I would suggest that you do it in another location which is far enough away so that the earths magnetic field strength is appreciably different.
    One of the sadly lacking part of your education on magnetic fields, especially around permanent magnets, is the dynamic nature of the field , One of the dynamic components being the strength of induction. All materials are magnetic but some are more dynamic in magnetic induction then others, and something more susceptible in magnetic induction and others.
    The other aspect is that you are not told of faradays final conclusion with regard to paramagnetism diamagnetism in materials

    Which confirms a magneto hydrate dynamic model of a magnetic field.
    There are two forms of plasma, which I connect to the individual magnetic poles in its description. Well they mix, they do not annihilate each other, so we can imagine the continual dynamic between the two resulting in observable behaviours such as such as expansion and contraction and force of a rotational nature.
Sign In or Register to comment.