Body
Toby and all! I have a lot to say on this subject but would like for
Bert Pool to chime in here for we did an electrical propagation
experiment that proved to be very interesting! Back in the day of the
Bearden, TOD device, that we proved to be all wrong in the assumptions
of over-unity. At same time we engaged in the Fire Fly circuit which is
even more interesting (will delve into that later). Bearden had
challenged us to answer the question regarding switching off source
power before electrons could possible reach load! The point being that
if a battery (DC) supplied a pulse of energy into a conductor toward a
load, then if you disconnect source potential before any electrons could
possibly reach load then battery would loose no energy and stay charged.
Problem being is that bulb still light up with no input potential
connected. Gee Wiz! Now this experiment was totally based on the speed
of light (C). and not on drift velocities.
Message 4174 DATE/TIME: 01/10/94 11:14
From : BERT POOL -- RECEIVED --
To : BILL BEATY
Subject: Direction and speed of electrical curren
Folder : A, "Public Mail"
Bill, I really appreciate your feedback on the experiment on
transmitting pulses through wire. Discussion like this helps generate
new ideas and experiments. Your discussion definitely adds new
questions.
.
On your comment that a battery sends a compression wave OUT the
negative terminal and a rarefaction wave OUT the positive, at the
speed of light: If we place an LED twice as close to the positive
terminal as the negative; lets say this is 6000 ft from negative, 3000
ft from positive, and connect both terminals of the battery to the
wire, which wave will reach the LED first, the compression or the
rarefaction? Since BOTH waves are traveling at 'c', it is obvious that
the rarefaction wave from the positive pole will "pull" electrons
through the LED long before the compression wave can "push" them
through.
.
The LED should be lit by the rarefaction wave several microseconds
before the compression wave gets there. In fact, using this analogy,
the LED should light up TWICE - once when the rarefaction wave "pulls"
electrons through the LED and a second time when the compression wave
"pushes" more electrons through the LED. Normally these two events would
be so close together that the phenomenon would never be seen - unless
you were looking for it! (and believe me, I intend to look!).
.
Using your water hose analogy, if we take a long garden hose and at
the 2/3 length position place a "paddle" wheel to indicate air
movement and have one person blow on the long end (compression) and
another suck on the short end of the hose (rarefaction), the paddle
wheel should move twice. The rarefaction wave will reach the paddle
wheel first, moving it, and logically, a short time later the
compression wave will move the wheel again.
.
That is, of course, unless the rarefaction wave, upon passing the
paddle wheel, reaches the compression wave at the MIDDLE of the hose,
and cancels it. (Both waves are traveling at the same speed and so
should meet at the middle point of the hose. Compression and
rarefaction waves DO cancel, yes?). Since the paddle wheel was moved
by the rarefaction wave long before the compression wave could ever
have arrived, the short length of time measured for the wheel to move
could be wrongly (?) interpreted as showing that electric current
travels from positive to negative.
.
This scenario suggests that if we take two 5000 ft conductors and
place an LED at the far end (middle), and place another two LEDs, one
at each of the 2500 ft marks and connect a battery, a compression wave
will travel from the negative pole of the battery toward the
LED on the negative wire while a rarefaction wave travels from the
positive pole of the battery toward the LED on the positive wire.
Since both waves are traveling at the same speed, both of these LEDs
should light up AT THE SAME TIME, the negative LED when the
compression wave pushes electrons through it, and the positive LED
when the rarefaction wave pulls electrons through it! And a short
time later BOTH waves will reach the middle LED and light it up last.
.
So, looking at the garden hose and wire and using your classical
theory, I'm still not sure what will REALLY happen. We can put forth
at least two or three conflicting lighting hypothesis based on the
same theory.
.
Will the LED's pulse only once or will they pulse twice? Will there be
a sequential lighting, and if so, in what order? Or might some of the
LEDs light simultaneously? I had no idea at the outset that such a
simple experiment could be SO MUCH FUN! I am prepared to do this
experiment tomorrow, but I'm not about to actually do it until I get
more pre-experiment guesses from you and the other Keely Netters. I'd
have never thought about a rarefaction wave lighting up an LED before
a compression wave getting there - thanks.
.
By the way Bill, you are certainly invited to participate in
performing this experiment (hope you are local!).
.
The wire will not be on a spool when the experiment is conducted -
self inductance and capacitance would skew the measurements. I plan
on doing this out in the country in some deserted field where I can
unreel 10,000 feet of wire into large loops with as little self
capacitance and inductance as possible.
.
Anyone got a farm field with nearby power that we can use? (no Norm,
we don't want to do this experiment in the Arkansas outback!)
.
Please re-read all our messages on this, ruminate a while, and get
back with me later. >> Bert
.
p.s. - anyone else out there got any feedback on this simple
experiment? It may be simple, but there are some very important
electric foundation pillars being pushed and pulled around here!
.
p.p.s. Jerry, this discussion is starting to look like "file"
material, yes?
cc: Norman Wootan
Message 4764 DATE/TIME: 02/06/94
08:19
From : NORMAN WOOTAN -- PRIVATE -- -- RECEIVED --
To : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
Subject: TOD Circuit
Folder : Z, "Comments to the Sysop"
Jerry: Bert and I have spent a lot of time on this Tod circuit, in fact
we worked on it at Bert's place from 1.00PM Sat. till 10:00 PM and came
to a conclusion as to what is going on in the circuit. Bert is
printing out all the graph plots that we did of many different circuit
configurations, Collectors,loads and voltages VS freq's etc. Very
interesting, some configurations give gain ratios up to 100:1, others
give 50:1 and others give 25:1 output. However, remember what JOEL
said, "If you can't hook a plow to it and plant beans then it ain't
worth a sh--. Well the out put pulses or of such a nature that they
fake the MA or Micro-amp meter into believing that real power exist
when this thing cant even light a tennie-tiny LED. The secret is in
the wave form. When I flew for the military we had a Cessna A-37 twin
engine jet that we called a 6000 # dog whistle for it converted good
jet fuel into a high pitch noise. Well this circuit converts a decent
shaped current pulse into a funny shaped wave form that can't do any
work what-so-ever. We are going to write the whole thing up for you
with our graphs etc, to give Lee some feed back. Sorry, NO CIGAR this
time. I guess you should keep this to you self till Bert and I get the
final report assembled. Thanks: Norm
Message 4780 DATE/TIME: 02/07/94 13:42
From : BERT POOL
To : ALL
Subject: TOD experimental verification
Folder : A, "Public Mail"
Some notes on our experiments with the TOD device.
.
Both Norm Wootan and myself (Bert Pool) have each built a
prototype TOD device (see file TOD.ZIP). The device is very
straight forward in construction. The concept behind this
device, basically, is to charge an inductive "collector" with a
very short pulse (2 to 5 uSEC) and immediately capture the
resulting discharge spike, which theoretically might contain
additional available freed electrons from the copper or electrons
grabbed from the virtual energy flux to then be used in a load.
.
Together, we spent many hours collecting careful measurements
with an impressive array of precision meters and very good
oscilloscopes. Norm and I both have excellent backgrounds in
using 'scopes, and we know how they can lie - but we also know
that they can reveal hidden truths.
.
We carefully plotted the measured input current versus output
current for pulse width signals ranging from 2 uSECs to 60 uSECs,
at repetition rates from a low of 15 pps (pulses per second) to
slightly more than 8,000 pps. We used a variety of "collector"
coils, ranging from 400 ft of 12 gauge wire to 3300 feet of 22
gauge wire.
.
At 60 uSECs, 60 hertz, we even "measured" an apparent
input/output current gain of over 120 using precision Fluke 4
digit current meters. We both had doubts that any of our meters
could accurately measure currents of such short duration, and our
oscilloscopes showed us that our concern was well founded.
.
Although the input pulse in one test was 60 uSEC wide, the output
signal delivered to the load consisted of two very narrow pulses
corresponding precisely to the "rise" edge and "fall" edge of the
60 uSEC input signal. These two pulses had substantially smaller
peak-to-peak voltages than the input, and they were only
NANOSECONDS in width - very, very narrow pulses. This meant that
the power available to the load was infinitesimally small.
Whereas we could take any of the the 2 uSEC to 60 uSEC INPUT
pulses and cause a tiny 2.5 volt incandescent bulb to faintly
glow (our source battery voltage was 12.56 volts), the nanosecond
pulsed output current from the circuit output to the same bulb
produced absolutely no output, even at very high repetition
rates. If our current meters were telling the truth, that bulb
should have been several times brighter on the output side of the
circuit, vs the input side. It was not.
.
The digital meters used in our tests are designed to measure
CONTINUOUS DC current, NOT micosecond or nanosecond pulsed direct
current. The only equipment available to the general experimenter
which can accurately measure such fast events is a good
oscilloscope. Not one of our meters was able to accurately read
the current in either the input or output circuits because the
signals were so very short and the mark/space ratio so small.
.
.
Conclusions:
.
1) The TOD device fails to exhibit an output that is even near
UNITY operation, much less over-unity.
.
2) Existing current meters CANNOT accurately measure either input
or output current of these small pulses. DC current meters
are designed to measure continuous current, AC meters are
designed to measure sinusoidal waveforms - the TOD input and
output signals exhibit neither of these characteristics.
The inability of these meters to measure current pulses
reliably results in false current readings.
.
3) Careful oscillograph viewings of the input and output signals
do not support an over-unity claim .
.
Recommendations:
.
1) To prevent erroneous readings, researchers should be cautioned
against trying to measure pulsed signal currents with meters
designed for continuous current or for sinusoidal AC current.
.
2) In the future, any device which claims over-unity operation
should be able to operate a real-world load. It is suggested
that this load be a precision carbon resistor, and that the
load resistor be placed in a water-bath calorimeter and power
calculated from temperature rise in the load. (see 3 below),
not from voltage/current readings.
.
A precision carbon resistor is a very stable and exact load
whose operating characteristics stay constant, even under
variable current conditions. The resistor can have its wires
insulated, and then be placed in an exact volume of water in a
Dewar flask (thermos bottle). Thermocouples can be used to
measure the degree of heating of the water that is caused by
current being dissipated as heat within the load. This is a
very reliable, universally accepted method of measuring power
being delivered to a load. The resistor and water do not care
whether the power is AC, DC, or pulsed - the measurements will
reliably tell you how much useable power is being delivered to
the load. Period.
.
Incandescent lamps present a pretty good adhoc test load as
well - the filament, because of its thermal mass, will tend to
average the effects of short duration pulses, and the light
output can be measured and calibrated using optical sensors
such as photocells or phototransistors.
.
3) We do not want to throw a "wet blanket" on the zpe energy
scene. But we have to encourage experimenters to try and
standardize to a measurement method that is accurate and
reasonably easy (and cheap) to make. A calorimetric method
fits both of these requirements. We build new energy devices
every day ourselves, and we have found out the hard way just
how tricky accurate power measurements can be when using
meters and 'scopes. ESPECIALLY when working with micro or nano
second pulses!
.Here is the Propagation experiment & Fire Fly!
Message 4865 DATE/TIME: 02/11/94 01:26
From : BERT POOL -- RECEIVED --
To : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
Subject: Fire Fly 3
Folder : D, "Special Associates Area Alpha"
Jerry, my third attempt to load this. Please forward to other "D"
associates for me. Thanks - Bert
.
Don't you just hate to dial into Keely Net and find that the
board has been dead and no one's posted anything? Well, a
lot's been going on, and those of us who've been iced in here in
Dallas have put the unexpected days off to good use. Read and
enjoy. Better yet, you'd best warm up your soldering iron!
.
1) an unexpected interruption from Lee Trippett
.
A few days ago Lee Trippett sent us a diagram for a simple pulse
circuit which was supposed to dump a pulse of current into a coil
and then connect a load to the isolated coil (collector) to
extract any over-unity power, ala Tom Bearden - minus the
degenerate power conductor. Lee had gotten some incredible meter
readings which showed very high input-to-output power ratios. A
couple of us here in Dallas immediately stopped whatever
experiments we had in progress and built a couple of these
devices. Independent confirmation found the current readings
were erroneous due to the fact that the circuit had the
experimenter try to measure micro to nano second wide pulses with
current meters designed to measure steady-state d.c. Fast
oscilloscopes showed no real power gain. I dismissed the circuit
as an excellent but faulty try, and then I went back to my work.
.
2) nose to the grind wheel
.
As many of you who follow the postings on this net know, I
proposed an experiment several days ago and invited comments: if
you connect a battery to a very long wire for 1 uSEC then
disconnect it, and you have an LED which is 4 uSECs away (several
thousand feet of wire), will the LED light up? Don't be too
quick to answer, for by the time the voltage potential gets to
the LED, the BATTERY WILL HAVE BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM THE CIRCUIT
FOR OVER 3 MICROSECONDS! Can an LED light up even when there is
no longer a battery supplying potential in the circuit? That's
what I was trying to prove. What is nice is that it is a yes or
no problem. You either have light, or you don't. The purpose of
the experiment is to determine whether a conductor can be
potentialized and power withdrawn without running down the
battery.
.
3) The ghost of TOD returns
.
The lesson learned from Trippett's attempt to measure pulses with
d.c. meters was still very fresh in my mind. I needed to measure
current accurately in MY circuit, so I set up my meter in the
d.c. power supply lead to my circuit, not in any area where
pulses were involved. Just to make sure stray pulses from my
oscillator (NE-555, the same as Lee's) didn't get back to the
meter through the power buss, I added several 0.01 ufd spike
suppressor capacitors to the power leads on the chips, and threw
in an extra 1,000 ufd across the main buss to really filter the
d.c. back to the meter. I damn sure was not going to have any
a.c. crap screwing up my current measurements! My 'scope showed
the prettiest 11.65 volt pure d.c. input power anyone could ask
for.
.
4) Wiring my test experiment - LOTS of wire!
In my test I originally was going to use two 5,000 foot 18 gauge
wires to perform my LED test. Norman Wootan found several
thousand feet of RG-5x coaxial cable, which is much easier to
use. The circuit was very simple: a 555 oscillator provided
pulses adjustable from 1 uSEC to 20 uSEC wide at a repetition
rate from a few hundred to several thousand pulses per second.
The 555 puts out a negative going pulse, and I wanted positive
pulses, so I fed tha 555's output into a CMOS CD-4001 NOR gate
wired to act as an inverter to give me positive going pulses. The
CD-4001 chip is nice for this work, because it can supply current
directly to an LED without needing any current limiting
resistors. I checked the output of the 4001 and had very, very
nice 1 to 20 uSEC pulses. Total circuit d.c. current, with no
LED was 7.8 milliamps. Plugging in the LED directly to the 4001
output caused the current to rise to 8.5 milliamps, and the LED
glowed nicely. I removed the LED and connected the end of a
4,300 foot length of coax to the output of the 4001. My scope
showed an expected drop in pulse amplitude and an increase in
current to 9.5 milliamps. Expected, because I had measured the
capacitance of the coax and found that between the inner
conductor and the outer shielded jacket the coax measured out at
0.047 ufd. This capacitance attenuated my pulse some, and loaded
the circuit, but not to an untoward degree. I measured the
total circuit current - total current going into the 555, the
4001, and the coax - and with NO LED load yet. Current was 9.5
milliamps. I then connected the LED to the far end of the coax.
.
4) The moment of truth
I had a 35 mhz dual trace triggered scope connected to each end
of the coax. I saw the 4001 put a 1 uSEC pulse of d.c. on the
near-end of the coax. Three uSECs later the pulse reached the LED
at the other end of the coax. THE LED LIT UP. EVEN THOUGH YOU
COULD PLAINLY SEE ON THE SCOPE THAT THE DRIVING POTENTIAL HAD
BEEN REMOVED FROM THE COAX SEVERAL MICROSECONDS PREVIOUSLY.
EXPERIMENT COMPLETE!
.
Wasn't that exciting!? Well, maybe some of you aren't real
exciteable. I know I didn't pee in my pants. Heck, I didn't
even dribble. Until I looked at my current meter. You remember
that carefully filtered, isolated meter which was measuring the
total power to the complete circuit? I knew already that the LED
wanted to pull about 0.5 ma current to light up. My unloaded
circuit was pulling 9.5 ma. Connecting the LED should have driven
the current up to somewhere near 10 ma. Not even .01 of one ma
more current flowed into the circuit to light up the LED! So
where the hell was the power to light the LED coming from? It
sure as heck wasn't coming through my meter from the power
supply! I connected and disconnected the LED several times. My
meter was registering current accurate to .01 of 1/000 of one
ampere. It never moved. It never saw the LED load. OK, I admit
that maybe I dribbled a little then!
.
I called Norm. He went to Radio Shack and got all the required
parts. I guided him over the phone on how to connect everything.
Only he didn't have any coax! It was all on my bench. But he
did have several thousand feet of wire on a spool. What the
heck, Lee Trippitt had tried to use a coil - we decided to
substitute Norm's spool of wire for the coax. Norm got the same
results as I did with the coax! Quickly, I disconnected my coax
and connected a spool of 3,300 feet of 22 gauge hookup wire I had
left over from my TOD experiment. My LED glowed as brightly as
ever. I found pulse width and frequency COULD be changed to
force an increase in my current meter. I could set a wider pulse
and finally get a response from my current meter when I removed
and inserted the LED. However, OPTIMIZING the pulse caused the
current in the circuit to DROP when the LED was plugged in!
Neither Norm or I could explain what we were seeing. Norm hooked
a second LED across the first LED on his device. Now he had TWO
glowing LEDS. His meter didn't move a digit. How many LED's can
we parallel before we start to use power from the supply? We
don't know yet. But two for sure!
Continued in next message.....................
.
--------------------
NOTE: This message has been FORWARDED to Norman Wootan by
Bert Pool on 02/11/94 at 10:42
===============================================================================
Message 4866 DATE/TIME: 02/11/94 01:28
From : BERT POOL -- RECEIVED --
To : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
Subject: Fire Fly 3
Folder : D, "Special Associates Area Alpha"
Experiment continued.............
.
As as additional test, I placed the LED near a precision
photocell (which had a 2.2 ufd tantalum cap across it to filter
pulses into pure d.c.) and measured light output. The photcell
showed 0.303 volts. I then re-connected the LED through a
potentiometer to the d.c. power supply and set the pot so the
LED put out the same light as earlier driven by the coil.
I then disconnected/connected the LED and watched my power meter.
Yep, it moved 0.5 ma, just as Old Ampere would have expected. I
moved the LED back to the coil circuit. I connected/disconnected
the LED to the coil again. Nope, still NO additional current
flow, but THE LED LIT UP JUST AS BRIGHT! Ah Ha! Maybe the
secret was in the pulses! Maybe if I used pulses instead of pure
d.c. on the control pot test?! So I changed the pot connection
on the LED test driver from the d.c. buss to the 4001 pulsed
output and set the pot so the light output was the same as when
the LED was connected to the coil. When I unplugged the LED,
current dropped 0.5 ma. Ampere was happy. Volta was happy.
So, this test showed that it didn't make a damn bit of difference
whether the "control" test pot used d.c. or pulsed power! If I
connected the LED to continuous d.c. or pulsed d.c. I could see
the current to the circuit go UP when I connected the LED. But
NOT if I connected the SAME LED to the coil circuit! I had run
out of ideas. That LED was going to light up and pull no current
from my power supply whether I liked it or not.
.
5) You too can amaze your friends!
Jerry is putting the diagram on the net. Maybe five bucks worth
of parts. Less if you already built the TOD. A spool of wire. A
sensitive photocell is optional (heck, we'll let you borrow one
of ours if you want). There are no switching transistors
involved. Please build one of these and start with a narrow
pulse, about 400 to 600 hertz repetition rate. Slowly increase
pulse width until the LED glows. Make note of the current on
your current meter. Disconnect your LED. The current meter
SHOULD show a significant drop in power when you remove the load.
It won't. Plug the LED back in. It lights up. Current should go
up. It does not. Nifty, huh?
.
Norm thinks a resonance effect is taking place within the
coil/coax. I agree. Perhaps the coil or coax IS forming a tuned
circuit, and the LED is only an insignificant part of the circuit
current....BUT that LED is in SERIES with the coil! Open the LED
and you open the coil - end of tuned circuit - if the measured
current is due to a tuned circuit, opening the circuit should
stop the resonance and affect the current anyway. This is not
observed to happen. Build this critter and see if you can expand
the observed results.
.
P.S., Norm has been able to coax the LEDs to light with a TOTAL
circuit current of 2.5 ma! That's combined power to the LED's,
and both chips. I can't get below 7.5 ma. He's using a much
different coil than I. I'd be much interested in hearing what
results you get. >> Bert
-----
Toby! I have my own far out theories regarding electricity especially
from my work with Neutral Spike (EMP) which falls into the Super Light
arena which is Magneto Electric and not Electro magnetic. Total
opposites. Electro magnetic is pressure, explosive, outward propagation
(Centrifugal) vs Magneto Electric is Vacuum, Implosive (Centripetal).
We are dealing with the talked about cold electricity.Electro magnetic
theory is centered around the speed of light (C). Magneto Electric is
superluminal, instantaneous. See:
*WHAT IS SUPERLIGHT ?*
*By:Dr. John Mileweski***
*SuperLight is magnetic light; it is **magneto–electric radiation**. *
*Regular light is electric light or **electro–magnetic radiation**.
There is parity or symmetry the Universe, everything has an equal and
opposite mirror–image counterpart, the Ying and the Yang, right and
left, matter and anti matter, the electron and the positron. Why not
light? *
*Both science and metaphysics have honored this parity law in all things
except light. They are wrong. ** There is parity in light as well ! *
*I will now explain and give you more detail. *
*SuperLight is the unseen force in nature that has been ignored by
science but real to the mystics and metaphysicians for thousands of
years. It has been given different names by different cultures for
thousands of years. *
*A Nuous, Chi, Biomagnetic Energy, Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy,
Tesler's Free Earth Energy, Animal Magnetism, Space Energy, Vacuum
Energy, and Zero Point Energy, etc. Those who have subtle perception
know it is real. *
*SuperLight was identified scientifically over 100 years ago when James
Clerk Maxwell <http://www.hbci.com/%7Ewenonah/new/report.htm> solved his
famous wave equation. This occurred shortly after radio was invented by
Nikola Tesla <http://www.hbci.com/%7Ewenonah/new/tesla.htm>, and
theoretical physicists tried to find a mathematical model to explain
radio waves. When using positive numbers in Maxwell's Equations this
explains radio waves and also all forms of electro–magnetic radiation
such as light, radio, TV, microwaves, x–rays, etc. What his equation
also explains 100 years ago was SuperLight but because it was the
solution that comes from the use of negative numbers, **"this second
solution"**was ignored for over 100 years. Remember when you were taught
algebra and were told to ignore imaginary numbers (e.g. The square root
of –1) because they have no meaning in this world. Well, times have
changed and now we have a very valid second solution to Maxwell's
equation and it is SuperLight. *
*In the mid 70's a scientist, Dr. William Tiller, at Stanford University
took another look at Maxwell's equation and asked; "What does this
second solution explain when interpreted in our world."_{1} *
*To understand this second solution, we must first review what the first
or positive solution explains. The first solution is as follows: Radio
waves leave the antenna and radiate out into space from a point source
(the antenna) equally in all directions into space toward infinity
traveling at the speed of light. The wave is composed of a large
electrical component and a small magnetic component 90 degrees to the
electrical component. Thus named, electro–magnetic radiation. *
*The second solution describes a particle wave of just the opposite
structure. It explains that **from infinity traveling toward the point
source from all directions radiates SuperLight**. This new radiation is
composed of a large magnetic component and a small electrical component,
thus the name, magneto–electric radiation. When the equations are looked
at more closely, one finds that **"SuperLight" travels at the speed of
light squared !** 10^20 meters per second, or 10 billion times faster
than light <http://www.hbci.com/%7Ewenonah/new/gravity2.htm>. *
*It has a frequency 10 billion times higher, and has a corresponding,
shorter wavelength. It therefore has a higher energy density. *
*The question one asks immediately is, "if it is so powerful, how come
we do not feel it, or how come it is not detected scientifically?"
Well, the frequency is so high, its wave length so short, (4 x 10^–8
nano–meters, or 4 x 10^–17 meters), its velocity so fast, that it goes
through everything as though the substance was nearly completely
transparent (like glass). *
*We can say the higher frequency is completely penetrating like x–rays,
but even more so. More information, regarding the relative size, will be
given later. *
*WHERE DOES SUPERLIGHT COME FROM ?***
*It comes out of black holes !***
*First, I will describe how regular light is formed and then make the
analogy for SuperLight. *
*Regular electro–magnetic radiation or light is formed when electric
monopoles give off energy. The electron in orbit about our atoms is an
electric monopole — as it changes its' orbit it either gives off or
absorbs energy in the form of electro– magnetic radiation. Sunlight is
converted into electricity by this process in a solar cell. Just the
opposite occurs in optical diodes, which convert electricity into light. *
*So, electro magnetic radiation or visible light is produced when an
electron (an electric monopole) lowers its orbit and releases its energy
in the form of light. *
*Now, I believe a similar event occurs in the extremely dense and hot
matter found in black holes. It is theorized that black holes contain
magnetic monopoles and when these extremely dense, extremely small,
extremely energetic magnetic monopoles release energy by lowering their
orbit they radiate magneto–electric radiation, our SuperLight. So black
holes really are not so black. They are radiant beings of SuperLight. Of
course SuperLight escapes the strong gravitation forces of the black
holes because its velocity is the square of the velocity of light and it
therefore, can easily escape._{7} *
*The current scientific thinking is that in the center of every galaxy
in the universe is a black hole. There are billions and billions of
galaxies all around us, and they all are producing SuperLight. We are
literally bathed in a three-dimensional dynamic energy field, or an
"Ether" of SuperLight — a Dynamic Ether.
*
On 7/11/2018 5:07 PM, Toby Grotz wrote:
**
Hello all,
> Norm has provided some great information the last few days/weeks/year or so. I would like to share the attached and ask for your comments because it gets to the root of the issue - What is Electricity?
>
> We want to generate some but we don’t even know what it is. Perhaps understanding what is electricity could help with the design of the devices we work on.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Toby