My point being that a radio oscillator, a maser and a bar a magnet are essentially the same structure. The oscillation frequency is the major difference.

A bar magnet oscillates imperceptibly which indicates that it is either a low frequency or an ultra high frequency device ( my guess is the latter) .

A solenoid is a simple pumping circuit, the iron bar the medium and the output magnetic radiation at both ends.

Air or gases can be used as the Masing medium, and the output is still magnetic radiation.

A battery contains the source of magnetic currents that wave about as they spin around the bar guided by the wires. The waving stimulates the oscillation of magnetic currents which mase as a bar magnet type structure. However oscillating the input energy leads to magnetic pulsed outputs called radio waves and heat pulses.

The so called chemical reaction for the battery I replace by Volta's atmospheric explanation which I relate to a plasma physics that does not necessitate ions or electrons.

We can go on and derive literally an infinite number of new "laws of nature" with the magic trick invented by the alchemist Newton. Here is how it works. We introduce two new concepts: (1) rate of change of acceleration, and call it becceleration: B = dA/dt; and (2) super-force responsible for becceleration, and call it B-force. Then from the third law of Newton, i.e. from equality M1*A1 = M2*A2, we instantly derive a new law of nature: action of B-force equals its reaction,

M1*B1 = M2*B2.

Next, we introduce another couple of new concepts: (1) rate of change of becceleration, and call it cecceleration: C = dB/dt; and (2) super-super-force responsible for cecceleration, and call it C-force. Then from the law derived few lines above, i.e. from equality M1*B1 = M2*B2, we instantly derive another new law of nature: action of C-force equals its reaction,

M1*C1 = M2*C2.

Feel free to derive more new "laws of nature" by mere wave of Newton's magic wand!

Now, I implore you to listen over carefully to Boyd Bushman starting @ 16:00 and on for two or so minutes, where he bubbles confusedly about Newton's mathematics, expansions, and mysterious seven or more significant forces of nature:

A senior scientist from Lockheed Martin, Boyd Bushman, seems practicing – along with Sir Isaac Newton – voodoo here, rather than engaging in a development of meaningful and useful science.

The concept of a battery is fundamental to understanding magnetic current.

The movement of magnetic substances is called magnetic current by Ed, the dynamics are only guessed at by him based on Örsteds philosophical stance that magnetic substance flows into and out of a wire in a circuit with a battery in it.

A battery is not a chemical system as Galvano said, but an atmospheric one as Volta said!

This mechanical model for wave or deformation promulgation in and of and through space .

The researcher, and others like them sit within the standard model consciously or unconsciously because they do not want to do the paradigmatic shift work.

So here is the source of Kens Terminology for Uncovering the secrets of magnetism.

The explanation at 2.08.00 is very instructive!

2.14.00 the conic archetypes and why hyperbolic geometry or special relativity describes electrical phenomena. So why was Einstein wrong? Because his Physical interpretation was misleading, but his Maths covers the area well but is made ridiculously obscure!

Norman Wildbergers Universal hyperbolic geometry makes better sense of this.

The frequency is the fundamental phenomena, but it is actually distributed in space, not by motion but by Phase, where in the frequency the phenomena is being reified.

Now if I addition to phase you also have velocity then multiplication of the power exchange results. This is why a magnet moving generates a an EMF!

Steinmetz method is as Dollard describes because instead of writing in the differentia form that Helmholtz loved Steinmetz used the general solution form, that is a Fourier analytical form. Consequently he only had to set the various exponents of the exponentials , that is all he had to experimentally find , and work with.

Plug these versor operators into a Fourier transform and you get he wave forms.

Frequency can be varied by the motor speed or generator cycle speed, and phase in that cycle is explained by these versors. A multiphase stator smooth these changes out!

Thanks Barau for the efforts on clarifying acceleration due to gravity. As my simple understanding of it (the common explanation, not my opinion) is if you have two vehicles that accelerate from 0-100 Km/Hr in 16 seconds, when one of them is a car 1,500 Kg w/ a 60 HP engine and the other is a truck 5,000 Kg with a 250 HP (put aside all the other factors). This very rough example explained why they suppose to have the same acceleration.

In your explanations I did not see anything regarding the force require to accelerate each mass (feather / hammer), or maybe I missed it ? Can you try to explain in 3 - 4 sentences what is defected in your opinion in the current explanation of the the hammer / feather test ?

These simple toys demonstrate that we do not think outside the " educated" box even with what we have already found out.

The explanation in words are quite simple, but it is the demonstrations and toys which are profound. This particular one I like because it demonstrates a spherical or circular force rather than a torque only.

Of course it can be explained by a torque model, but that misses the point in my estimation. Circular or rather trochoidal motion is an endemic and natural part of the force concepts Newton developed in his Astrological principles. His later students were taught to replace this by lineal chord approximations, but they then decided yo do away with the force they were approximating!

This is again why Ampère is so important to physics and mechanics! He accepted that there was a rotating force that was not a torque and set out to uncover as much as he could about it's proportions.

Unfortunately this work is obscured by the symbolic representations in Elrctrodynamics! Newton himself kept it simple: reduce the circular force to a combination of 3 forces all instantaneous of impulsive in behaviour, the centripetal, the centrifugal and the tangential force impulses. The general fore description, according to Newton then becomes Trochoidal.

Why did he have such a difficulty with vortices? Because his model, bases on cylinders turning vertically in a resistive medium was experimentally allowed to come to a steady state so he could make measurements, thus he knowingly discarded the initial conditions and thereby threw out the baby with the bath water! His conclusion that a vortex is unable to generate a rotational force on a body carried within it is wrong and was wrong, but he could not see why!

Today the Coriolis force is acknowledged by fluid dynamics and other vortices are evident everywhere. However Claes Johnson is the only one I know who has dared to correct mistakes made by Helmholtz and Kelvin in establishing the kinematics of vortices. He understand why the equations of fluid motion are correctable to generate a very good approximation to the proportions measured around real aerofoils, and can explain why a bird, a bumble bee and a aerofoil actually " fly" !

There is a fundamental trochoidal force which when used in mathematical or astrological principles gives the correct proportions observed. Beyond that Mathmatics is useless in advancing our empirical knowledge, except perhaps to remind us that proportions are everywhere!

As my simple understanding of it (the common explanation, not my opinion) is if you have two vehicles that accelerate from 0-100 Km/Hr in 16 seconds, when one of them is a car 1,500 Kg w/ a 60 HP engine and the other is a truck 5,000 Kg with a 250 HP (put aside all the other factors). This very rough example explained why they suppose to have the same acceleration.

I failed to make sense of the above figures. I am not even sure that I understand correctly the statement of the problem you are looking at, could you clarify please.

In your explanations I did not see anything regarding the force require to accelerate each mass (feather / hammer), or maybe I missed it ?

In all my explanations I have assumed two laws, and both have to do with force: (a) second law of Newton F=ma, and (b) the law of universal gravitation. I am baffled how you could have missed that.

Can you try to explain in 3 - 4 sentences what is defected in your opinion in the current explanation of the the hammer / feather test ?

I would be happy to, as soon as you tell me what is "the current explanation of the the hammer / feather test".

What about Barau's cradle? What kind of wave does it employ to model energy transmission through the guiding line? Is it longitudinal "mechanical" wave of compression-rarefaction type, is it transverse "electromagnetic" wave of Maxwell, is it surface wave of Rayleigh, or is it ocean rolling wave? None of the above! This is a new type of wave, which I propose to call rock-n-roll wave; this term seems to reflect well the gist of the new concept for it has the right connotations.

In my response to randomind's skepticism, I have tried to defuse his argument against the feasibility of extension of my one-dimensional model for electric current to 2D and 3D:

But one can easily imagine a different, and a very simple arrangement of vortices that will work not only in 2D but also in 3D. See enclosed image.

Let us take a fresh look at this simple arrangement of vortices. One may argue that this arrangement – due to symmetry – is more like 2D model than 3D; so, the feasibility of rock-n-roll wave remains, at least in 3D, doubtful. As I have pointed out earlier, doubts in the viability of the model could also linger due to kinematical nature of my demonstration; indeed, kinematics concurrence does not imply automatically dynamics consistency.

Now I shall resort to mechanical analogy coupled with a natural observation to support my assertions that: (1) rock-n-roll wave can propagate in open space, furthermore, it doesn't even have to be a guided wave propagating along a wire; and (2) dynamical feasibility of rock-n-roll waves can be demonstrated experimentally.

In TRIZ (transliteration of Russian ТРИЗ – acronym for Теория Решения Изобретательских Задач, a.k.a. Theory of Inventive Problem Solving – developed by the Russian inventor Genrick Altshuller) there is a notion of ideal machine. What is ideal machine? Ideal machine is a machine that does not have to be invented to perform a particular function of interest. Then, where does one get a machine to perform the new task at hand? TRIZ suggests multiple techniques for doing just that, for example: (1) consult mother Nature – she might have already invented it for you; (2) find a machine that has been invented for an altogether different function, or for different operational conditions of the same function, that can perform your task just as good.

Let me give you an example of the second technique. With the arrival of space age, the fact that ballpoint pen is not working in upside down position became a practical problem. Thus, a space pen was invented by American industrialist and pen manufacturer Paul C. Fisher who patented the AG7 "anti-gravity" pen in 1965. But the "poor" Russian cosmonauts have been using pencil in space ever since Yuri Gagarin took off on April 12, 1961, which makes the ordinary pencil an ideal machine in this case.

Now, to solve my problem of demonstrating experimentally spatial and dynamical feasibility of rock-n-roll waves, I want to copy the concept of ideal machine in order to apply it to scientific experiments: ideal experiment is an experiment "performed" repeatedly and free of charge by Nature that can be used to prove, or support a theoretical conjecture.

Ken is always posing questions but this one he explains after a fashion"

You must remember that almost no one "understands" a trochoidal force. Rotation is misdescribed and mis apprehended in all mechanical Nd physical treatments I have researched personally, because they define Torque but think "Rotation"!

You actually have to go back to Örsted and Ampère to get a real perusal of trochoidal acceleration and force laws., and back to Volta to understand the application of the " atmospheric" model of influential regions as opposed to " fields" .

When Faraday conceived the field concept, he naturally and philosophically described Spheres of influence. The modern field concept is symbolic not geometric, as presented. It is formulaic in the precise sense of an association of symbols , juxtaposed or jumbled together . The physicist or philosopher is now expected to " extemporise" on such a symbolic aphorism!

The observed phenomena is trochoidal acceleration, and the model for that is not torque but complex Fourier analytical combinations as basis elements of a space- time or space-dynamic manifold.

Yeah.. i just started to dislike Ken and posted a comment there. He is talking just bullshit about this (as always).

1. The light is coming from LEDs and not from magnetism 2. This has been discovered by SirZerp in 2008 at least (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR-vy_Ue0raYCGMwtw4uqg) 3. He's presenting it there like if it was his own invention.

Yea, we are "First people on Earth to see the light from magnetism" since 2008. He's so arrogant, he didn't even give credits to SirZerp there. Just loads of bullshit over and over the same again.

You are Welcome Martin, and thanks for the link. As you may know arrogance is one of those human traits that rubs others up the wrong way and makes it more difficult for others to accept the arrogant persons point of view. Bull shit on the other hand contains many necessary and useful elements that can be recycled into a different and more acceptable form, like a rose for example.

I do try to put out a government health warning on Kens Videos , but that is because I find valuable nuggets in his pollulogia that others may know but fail to express . Admittedly , panning for gold is very hard , but for me it is a worthwhile effort.

The trochoidal pattern is found in or derivable from many natural systems in dynamic process. It is a fundamental pattern of dynamic stability or equilibrium. It necessitates a rotational dynamic.

I no longer need to be convinced that the term Static in electro and magneto statics is misleading. The volume within and surrounding a definite form is not static but dynamic in my opinion. Rubbed in a certain material that volume behaves like a " Electra " substance, transmuting the earths volume dynamic into observable motions between such materials . However certain materials concentrate and MASE that volume dynamic of the earth when we rub them or stroke them . These we call magnets.

We misdirect the attention to the Tribo electric phenomena and ignore the Tribo magnetic phenomena, or rather we obscure them in impenetrable terminology.

The reason why Ed is important to me, is not because he is some mystic, but because he cuts out the bullshit, reducing what was known in his time to the simple facts and understandings. Magnetic current is so old a concept that it appears brand new to the modern educated mind. How that current flows or remains in dynamic equilibrium was discussed y Örsted, and described as a trochoidal path. Of course this was " rejected" by his contemporaries who had no capacity to visualise it. Ken and SirZerp have found a way to visualise this dynamic behaviour, easily.

The point is: it is an ancient nd well known pattern always associated with the powers of the " gods", djinn or spirits. Today we call it energy or radiation ! No matter what we call it , it is how we use it that has dramatically altered our lives.

And yet, do not be deceived . The power of the sun which exhibits this power shows us we have no real comprehension of what it is!

## Comments

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-electronics/revolutionary-new-oscillator-amplifier-june-1955-radio-electronics.htm

My point being that a radio oscillator, a maser and a bar a magnet are essentially the same structure. The oscillation frequency is the major difference.

A bar magnet oscillates imperceptibly which indicates that it is either a low frequency or an ultra high frequency device ( my guess is the latter) .

A solenoid is a simple pumping circuit, the iron bar the medium and the output magnetic radiation at both ends.

Air or gases can be used as the Masing medium, and the output is still magnetic radiation.

A battery contains the source of magnetic currents that wave about as they spin around the bar guided by the wires. The waving stimulates the oscillation of magnetic currents which mase as a bar magnet type structure. However oscillating the input energy leads to magnetic pulsed outputs called radio waves and heat pulses.

The so called chemical reaction for the battery I replace by Volta's atmospheric explanation which I relate to a plasma physics that does not necessitate ions or electrons.

We can go on and

deriveliterally an infinite number of new "laws of nature" with the magic trick invented by the alchemist Newton. Here is how it works. We introduce two new concepts: (1) rate of change of acceleration, and call it: B = dA/dt; and (2) super-force responsible for becceleration, and call it B-force. Then from the third law of Newton, i.e. from equality M1*A1 = M2*A2, we instantlybeccelerationderivea new law of nature: action of B-force equals its reaction,M1*B1 = M2*B2.

Next, we introduce another couple of new concepts: (1) rate of change of becceleration, and call it

: C = dB/dt; and (2) super-super-force responsible for cecceleration, and call it C-force. Then from the law derived few lines above, i.e. from equality M1*B1 = M2*B2, we instantlyceccelerationderiveanother new law of nature: action of C-force equals its reaction,M1*C1 = M2*C2.

Feel free to derive more new "laws of nature" by mere wave of Newton's magic wand!

Now, I implore you to listen over carefully to Boyd Bushman starting @ 16:00 and on for two or so minutes, where he bubbles confusedly about Newton's mathematics, expansions, and mysterious seven or more significant forces of nature:

A senior scientist from Lockheed Martin, Boyd Bushman, seems practicing – along with Sir Isaac Newton – voodoo here, rather than engaging in a development of meaningful and useful science.

The movement of magnetic substances is called magnetic current by Ed, the dynamics are only guessed at by him based on Örsteds philosophical stance that magnetic substance flows into and out of a wire in a circuit with a battery in it.

A battery is not a chemical system as Galvano said, but an atmospheric one as Volta said!

The researcher, and others like them sit within the standard model consciously or unconsciously because they do not want to do the paradigmatic shift work.

The explanation at 2.08.00 is very instructive!

2.14.00 the conic archetypes and why hyperbolic geometry or special relativity describes electrical phenomena. So why was Einstein wrong? Because his Physical interpretation was misleading, but his Maths covers the area well but is made ridiculously obscure!

Norman Wildbergers Universal hyperbolic geometry makes better sense of this.

The frequency is the fundamental phenomena, but it is actually distributed in space, not by motion but by Phase, where in the frequency the phenomena is being reified.

Now if I addition to phase you also have velocity then multiplication of the power exchange results. This is why a magnet moving generates a an EMF!

Steinmetz method is as Dollard describes because instead of writing in the differentia form that Helmholtz loved Steinmetz used the general solution form, that is a Fourier analytical form. Consequently he only had to set the various exponents of the exponentials , that is all he had to experimentally find , and work with.

Plug these versor operators into a Fourier transform and you get he wave forms.

Frequency can be varied by the motor speed or generator cycle speed, and phase in that cycle is explained by these versors. A multiphase stator smooth these changes out!

As my simple understanding of it (the common explanation, not my opinion) is if

you have two vehicles that accelerate from 0-100 Km/Hr in 16 seconds, when one of

them is a car 1,500 Kg w/ a 60 HP engine and the other is a truck 5,000 Kg with a

250 HP (put aside all the other factors). This very rough example explained why they

suppose to have the same acceleration.

In your explanations I did not see anything regarding the force require to accelerate each

mass (feather / hammer), or maybe I missed it ? Can you try to explain in 3 - 4 sentences

what is defected in your opinion in the current explanation of the the hammer / feather test ?

The explanation in words are quite simple, but it is the demonstrations and toys which are profound. This particular one I like because it demonstrates a spherical or circular force rather than a torque only.

Of course it can be explained by a torque model, but that misses the point in my estimation. Circular or rather trochoidal motion is an endemic and natural part of the force concepts Newton developed in his Astrological principles. His later students were taught to replace this by lineal chord approximations, but they then decided yo do away with the force they were approximating!

This is again why Ampère is so important to physics and mechanics! He accepted that there was a rotating force that was not a torque and set out to uncover as much as he could about it's proportions.

Unfortunately this work is obscured by the symbolic representations in Elrctrodynamics! Newton himself kept it simple: reduce the circular force to a combination of 3 forces all instantaneous of impulsive in behaviour, the centripetal, the centrifugal and the tangential force impulses. The general fore description, according to Newton then becomes Trochoidal.

Why did he have such a difficulty with vortices? Because his model, bases on cylinders turning vertically in a resistive medium was experimentally allowed to come to a steady state so he could make measurements, thus he knowingly discarded the initial conditions and thereby threw out the baby with the bath water! His conclusion that a vortex is unable to generate a rotational force on a body carried within it is wrong and was wrong, but he could not see why!

Today the Coriolis force is acknowledged by fluid dynamics and other vortices are evident everywhere. However Claes Johnson is the only one I know who has dared to correct mistakes made by Helmholtz and Kelvin in establishing the kinematics of vortices. He understand why the equations of fluid motion are correctable to generate a very good approximation to the proportions measured around real aerofoils, and can explain why a bird, a bumble bee and a aerofoil actually " fly" !

There is a fundamental trochoidal force which when used in mathematical or astrological principles gives the correct proportions observed. Beyond that Mathmatics is useless in advancing our empirical knowledge, except perhaps to remind us that proportions are everywhere!

In

allmy explanations I have assumed two laws, and both have to do withforce: (a) second law of Newton F=ma, and (b) the law of universal gravitation. I am baffled how you could have missed that. I would be happy to, as soon as you tell me what is "the current explanation of the the hammer / feather test".Now I shall resort to mechanical analogy coupled with a natural observation to support my assertions that: (1) rock-n-roll wave

canpropagate in open space, furthermore, it doesn't even have to be aguidedwave propagating along a wire; and (2) dynamical feasibility of rock-n-roll waves can be demonstrated experimentally.In TRIZ (transliteration of Russian

ТРИЗ– acronym forТеория Решения Изобретательских Задач, a.k.a.Theory of Inventive Problem Solving– developed by the Russian inventor Genrick Altshuller) there is a notion ofideal machine. What is ideal machine? Ideal machine is a machine that does not have to be invented to perform a particular function of interest. Then, where does one get a machine to perform the new task at hand? TRIZ suggests multiple techniques for doing just that, for example: (1) consult mother Nature – she might have already invented it for you; (2) find a machine that has been invented for an altogether different function, or for different operational conditions of the same function, that can perform your task just as good.Let me give you an example of the second technique. With the arrival of space age, the fact that ballpoint pen is not working in upside down position became a practical problem. Thus, a space pen was invented by American industrialist and pen manufacturer Paul C. Fisher who patented the AG7 "anti-gravity" pen in 1965. But the "poor" Russian cosmonauts have been using pencil in space ever since Yuri Gagarin took off on April 12, 1961, which makes the ordinary pencil an ideal machine in this case.

Now, to solve my problem of demonstrating experimentally

spatialanddynamicalfeasibility of rock-n-roll waves, I want to copy the concept ofideal machinein order to apply it to scientific experiments:ideal experimentis an experiment "performed" repeatedly and free of charge by Nature that can be used to prove, or support a theoretical conjecture.The ideal experiment for my case is swimming fish:

You must remember that almost no one "understands" a trochoidal force. Rotation is misdescribed and mis apprehended in all mechanical Nd physical treatments I have researched personally, because they define Torque but think "Rotation"!

You actually have to go back to Örsted and Ampère to get a real perusal of trochoidal acceleration and force laws., and back to Volta to understand the application of the " atmospheric" model of influential regions as opposed to " fields" .

When Faraday conceived the field concept, he naturally and philosophically described Spheres of influence. The modern field concept is symbolic not geometric, as presented. It is formulaic in the precise sense of an association of symbols , juxtaposed or jumbled together . The physicist or philosopher is now expected to " extemporise" on such a symbolic aphorism!

The observed phenomena is trochoidal acceleration, and the model for that is not torque but complex Fourier analytical combinations as basis elements of a space- time or space-dynamic manifold.

He is talking just bullshit about this (as always).

1. The light is coming from LEDs and not from magnetism

2. This has been discovered by SirZerp in 2008 at least (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR-vy_Ue0raYCGMwtw4uqg)

3. He's presenting it there like if it was his own invention.

Yea, we are "

First people on Earth to see the light from magnetism" since 2008.He's so arrogant, he didn't even give credits to SirZerp there. Just loads of bullshit over and over the same again.

sorry...

You are Welcome Martin, and thanks for the link.

As you may know arrogance is one of those human traits that rubs others up the wrong way and makes it more difficult for others to accept the arrogant persons point of view. Bull shit on the other hand contains many necessary and useful elements that can be recycled into a different and more acceptable form, like a rose for example.

I do try to put out a government health warning on Kens Videos , but that is because I find valuable nuggets in his pollulogia that others may know but fail to express . Admittedly , panning for gold is very hard , but for me it is a worthwhile effort.

The trochoidal pattern is found in or derivable from many natural systems in dynamic process. It is a fundamental pattern of dynamic stability or equilibrium. It necessitates a rotational dynamic.

I no longer need to be convinced that the term Static in electro and magneto statics is misleading. The volume within and surrounding a definite form is not static but dynamic in my opinion. Rubbed in a certain material that volume behaves like a " Electra " substance, transmuting the earths volume dynamic into observable motions between such materials . However certain materials concentrate and MASE that volume dynamic of the earth when we rub them or stroke them . These we call magnets.

We misdirect the attention to the Tribo electric phenomena and ignore the Tribo magnetic phenomena, or rather we obscure them in impenetrable terminology.

The reason why Ed is important to me, is not because he is some mystic, but because he cuts out the bullshit, reducing what was known in his time to the simple facts and understandings. Magnetic current is so old a concept that it appears brand new to the modern educated mind. How that current flows or remains in dynamic equilibrium was discussed y Örsted, and described as a trochoidal path. Of course this was " rejected" by his contemporaries who had no capacity to visualise it. Ken and SirZerp have found a way to visualise this dynamic behaviour, easily.

The point is: it is an ancient nd well known pattern always associated with the powers of the " gods", djinn or spirits. Today we call it energy or radiation ! No matter what we call it , it is how we use it that has dramatically altered our lives.

And yet, do not be deceived . The power of the sun which exhibits this power shows us we have no real comprehension of what it is!