It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

page: 15
46
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Actually, Bearden has gone into great detail about the physics involved. He quotes the work of Maxwell, Heaviside, Wheeler, Lee and Yang, Wu, the Aharanov-Bohm affect, etc etc.



Originally posted by dereks
a sign of a charlatan, appeal to authority.




No, it's an appeal to the already well accepted works of others that came before him which describe the physics of energy from the vacuum!




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

Oh, absolutely I see the difference! And I cannot argue with a word in that post. Bedini's motor may or may not work. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. If it does, I am quite sure that it is not because 'dark energy' is being pulled out of the 'ether' by the batteries.


I was simply making a generalized statement toward why over-unity is so quickly equated with 'snake oil'.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, absolutely I see the difference! And I cannot argue with a word in that post. Bedini's motor may or may not work. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. If it does, I am quite sure that it is not because 'dark energy' is being pulled out of the 'ether' by the batteries.



It's not.

It's all the energy in the air outside the circuits, which normally goes to waste because most people don't even realize that it's there.

Bearden says James Maxwell and Oliver Heaviside laid out the mathematical basis for it and it's there for anyone to see in their work, but that energy was later discarded by Lorentz, and Lorentz's work became the basis for all electrical engineering.

Trying to find a non-Bearden source to confirm this now.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster

It's all the energy in the air outside the circuits, which normally goes to waste because most people don't even realize that it's there.

Are you referring to radio wave energy?

Irregardless, understanding where the energy is coming from, even if it is not completely understood how, is an essential part of proving any device. Sadly, that is another area where too many people miss the mark.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Are you referring to radio wave energy?


No, they call it Radiant energy or negative energy.




Irregardless, understanding where the energy is coming from, even if it is not completely understood how, is an essential part of proving any device. Sadly, that is another area where too many people miss the mark.


Right. Well Bearden is the only one I've ever seen who attempts at a comprehensive explanation like that including the physics and mathematics. He constantly refers to the works of Maxwell and Heaviside, tells us which physics texts to go read. He says the potential for the energy from the vacuum is actually there in their original equations, before their work was bastardized by Lorentz.

It's interesting, you would expect to be able to find all their work online in digital form by now in some easy-to-find place....... but no. I can't yet find anything about the "Heaviside component" - that isn't written by Bearden. Hmmm........



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   


To understand EM energy flow around EM circuits, I strongly suggest one put aside the textbooks' interpretations until one checks the original applicable papers of Heaviside and of Poynting, who independently and essentially simultaneously discovered the flow of energy through space in the 1880s. The concept of the flow of energy through space was not present in physics until then. Also note that Maxwell was already dead, having passed on from stomach cancer in 1879. Several of my papers (e.g., Dark Matter or Dark Energy?, published in Journal of New Energy) give the appropriate references one should check.

First, there is an enormous energy flow (trillions of times greater than what you input to the shaft of a generator, and than the chemical energy in a battery) pouring out of the terminals of every generator or battery. The enormity of this energy flow is easily shown, and measurements can be made of actual collection of energy from it by intercepting charges placed in it. Particularly see John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992, Figure 12-60, a and b, p. 578. Kraus shows a good drawing of the huge energy flow filling all space around the two conductors of a transmission line, with almost all of that energy flow not intercepted by the circuit at all and thus not diverged into the circuit to power it, but just "wasted."

.....

Here is the straightforward way to deal with it. Simply separate the entire energy flow vector into two vector components: a very large component vector parallel to the conductor and a very small vertical component vector pointing vertically into the wire from outside. The combination (the sum vector) is the entire energy flow that is almost parallel to the wires but not quite (see quote from Heaviside). The parallel flow component vector is the Heaviside energy flow that completely misses the conductors and roars off into space and is lost. The tiny vertical flow component is the Poynting energy flow component that enters the circuit and powers it by potentializing the Drude electrons, and then being dissipated by the excited electrons in the circuit's loads and losses. This small vertical component is the tiny energy flow portion that Poynting assumed from the outset, and he never even considered the enormous parallel component.

The problem was that, if one estimated the magnitude of the sum vector energy flow or the Heaviside parallel component, the startling amount of energy pouring out of the terminals was so vast that it staggered the imagination. In the 1880s, if you tried to state that a "one watt nominal circuit" actually was pouring out trillions of joules per second, almost all of which missed the circuit entirely and roared off into space and was lost, you would have been tarred and feathered and drummed out of science as a total lunatic. Heaviside had not the slightest notion of what could possibly be furnishing such a mind-staggering energy flow! So Heaviside -- who did include that NONDIVERGED vast component in his theory (while Poynting completely omitted it), was extremely cautious and spoke only of the "angle" of the energy flow and the "angles" of the components. Here are his exact words:

"It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire... . Prof Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the convergence of energy into the wire." Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94.


jnaudin.free.fr...



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   


Energy Density of the Vacuum

The energy density of the vacuum potential is enormous, even mind-boggling. While scientists have estimated that energy by various means, a reasonable calculation is given by Wheeler and Misner in their Geometrodynamics. In that calculation, Wheeler and Misner apply the formalism of general relativity to the zero point energy of vacuum. The fabric of space appears as a turbulent virtual plasma consisting of particles whose size is on the order of Planck's length—some 10^(-33) cm. The energy density of the electric flux passing through each particle is enormous: It is 10^93 grams per cubic centimeter, expressed in mass units (i.e., the energy per cubic centimeter has been divided by c^2).

And that's just using the spatial energy density (the “decompressed” or ordinary energy). The energy density of the vacuum is appreciably greater than what physicists normally calculate, because they do not calculate the additional time-energy density portion of the vacuum stress. If we also allow for the time-energy (the “compressed” energy), we restore that c^2 division factor, producing on the order of 10^110 grams per cubic centimeter, or—in energy terms—on the order of 10^127 joules per cubic centimeter.

J. A. Wheeler and C. Misner, Geometrodynamics, Academic Press, New York, 1962.


www.cheniere.org...


[edit on 7-1-2010 by MajorDisaster]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The fact that I can make the analysis myself is why I picked upon the offer. I wouldn't put forward any device I had not personally verified. And with all due respect, I believe my analysis could be more rigorous than yours.



I don't doubt it would, I would start with simple objectives, perform measurements then write it up. I do have some very nice power analyzers though



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 




I thought you were referring to the unofficial dead scientists club. You know, when they're friends it hits close to home.



Jeane Manning. Been in touch the last year or so. Nice, but if she knew what really goes on...

So while the momentum picks up I am considering throwing in one of my chips. While mentioning all these experimenters, we forget the man who brought it together, already, just as you all intend to. And that is John Searl. While his generator produces an electrogravitic field, it also doubles as the fabled OU device. This has been proven again by independent researchers.

What I am saying is, what we have here is this is an attempt to reinvent the wheel. I already have it tucked neatly away for the last 15 years. And no one suspects me, they never would.

Once I had a friend in CID, he said he admired me for my ability to stay under the radar.


Of course there are some other boys trying to beat me, but they will never lick the heat problem. One example is Archer Enterprises.

Well anyways, there you have it.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
...we forget the man who brought it together, already, just as you all intend to. And that is John Searl. While his generator produces an electrogravitic field, it also doubles as the fabled OU device. This has been proven again by independent researchers.

I already have it tucked neatly away for the last 15 years. And no one suspects me, they never would.


This is from memory but weren't hidden pneumatic tubes etc discovered in Searl's lab?

Who are the 'CID' you mention? UK Police CID?

Are you saying you have a working OU device?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
This is from memory but weren't hidden pneumatic tubes etc discovered in Searl's lab?


I do not know about that, but I do know Searl was convicted of stealing electricity by bypassing his electricity meter, and someone found a son of Searl "who had seen disks being suspended from wires, so that they could be photographed, but who hadn't seen any demonstration of antigravity or free energy" en.wikipedia.org...
also
en.wikipedia.org...
looks like he is just another fraud

[edit on 8/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
This is from memory but weren't hidden pneumatic tubes etc discovered in Searl's lab?


You know, they say wires were used to hold up his models as they were photographed "in flight". But air? I dunno, perhaps you are confusing him with John Ernst Worrell Keely



Who are the 'CID' you mention? UK Police CID?


US Army Criminal Investigation Command. The Army thought I was nuts jabbering on about electromagnetic submarines until they got a news blurb about the Japanese developing stealth submarines with the same principles. The NCOs came to me later to admit I was right after all those years


So UK Police has CID too? Wouldn't surprise me, if that is the acronym.


Are you saying you have a working OU device?


No. What I am saying is I have notes. But I am stopping there. They could be mine or someone else's. I am sitting on it, not so much to protect them or hide it, but every time I brought them out into the light of day I was met with silence. Big and quiet.

So you know what? I say cuss you too and held them close to the vest for the last 15 years.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


You know when you start citing Wikipedia for people like him you are going to get a sanitized version. We have already touched on textbooks not teaching, and these articles are written by the one and same people.

I trust those who have gone before me to investigate John's work. In fact I trust Steve with my life, and I totally trusted Paul. You can't get better people.

So you are going to have to dig deeper than Wikipedia.:shk:



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
[perhaps you are confusing him with John Ernst Worrell Keely

Oops, yes I confused him with Keely



So UK Police has CID too? Wouldn't surprise me, if that is the acronym.

It the Criminal Investigation Department in the UK.



No. What I am saying is I have notes. But I am stopping there. They could be mine or someone else's. I am sitting on it, not so much to protect them or hide it, but every time I brought them out into the light of day I was met with silence.

Why not post your notes on ATS? What's the worst that could happen?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
I thought you were referring to the unofficial dead scientists club. You know, when they're friends it hits close to home.


???




Jeane Manning. Been in touch the last year or so. Nice, but if she knew what really goes on...


Yes, she is. What do you mean by that though?




What I am saying is, what we have here is this is an attempt to reinvent the wheel.


Oh yes I know


Just imagine it though. A world-renowned skeptics' site "discovering" Free Energy. If we can make this happen it'll sure make a big splash don't you think?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The problem is as in the case of Tom Bearden... That no energy is free. Ok we get that. It has to come from somewhere. And most of his Theories, Experiments, and Models work in a universe were there is a 4th density, Time. That is where this power comes from... not air or the air in a vacuum... but rather from the Time Density where there is an infinite power source. Einstein was almost on to the same thing. The problem is that Science wont yet except this. I don't find Time to be that difficult of a concept and his explanations are very thorough!~

BTW - no one has bashed Steorn for having a snow day today?

"You see they are hoaxing snow so they don't have to go through with today's tests!~ FAKES!~"

There I did it for everyone!~



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcubed
That is where this power comes from... not air or the air in a vacuum... but rather from the Time Density where there is an infinite power source.


Such abstract pronounciations are easy to make. There is also a Power of Mind (which is endless) and Eternal Wisdom of Universe that moves things around. And you can really lay it thick, that cr@p.


Einstein was almost on to the same thing.


He was not. He had a set of equations that could be reduced to classical mechanics in the limiting case, and also covered relativity. Charlatans don't have equations to speak of.


The problem is that Science wont yet except this.


Science abhors voodoo.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcubed
The problem is that Science wont yet except this.


I wouldn't say that.

There's nothing in the electrical engineering models used today to explain free energy - but as Bearden points out, it's right there in physics texts for anyone to see!

"What we have here is a failure to communicate!"



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Science abhors voodoo.


Maxwell, Heaviside, Lee and Yang, Wu, Wheeler, Feynman, Aharanov, Bohm - they are "voodoo"?

You would spit in the face of your own predecessors like that?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   




Einstein was almost on to the same thing.


He was not. He had a set of equations that could be reduced to classical mechanics in the limiting case, and also covered relativity. Charlatans don't have equations to speak of.


Have you never heard of the Unified Field Theory? Albert's work...

Have you researched O(3) Electrodynamics? Dr. Evans...

SU2 Electrodynamics? Dr. Barrett...

I find their models very interesting and can account for much of what quantum can't.

Their models are not just BS and are backed by many in the scientific community... Just like the THEORY that the Earth was round... Remember that one? Or the THEORY that the Sun was the center of our solar system... remember how those theories worked out. You seem do dismiss this as "voodoo" when much more has gone into the research than hair dolls and frog bones!~



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join