Body
Hi Norman,
I remember Ivor Catt mentioned that copper could actually have infinite high dielectric constant or relative permittivity.
https://wiki2.org/en/Permittivity https://wiki2.org/en/Permittivity
https://wiki2.org/en/Relative_permittivity https://wiki2.org/en/Relative_permittivity
I once measured the propagation speed of electromagnetic fields through a ferrite ring. This speed is quite slow compared to its speed in vacuum meaning the product of the permittivity and permeability is larger for ferrite than for vacuum. This is used in one of the equations that is forbidden by scientists but are very useful in engineering (Forrest Bishop discussing the Catt question formula 5 here: http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7395.pdf http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7395.pdf). W.J. Hooper did some measurements of the signal speed of charges through a copper wire in his motional electric field generator. The motional electric field can't be screened and may actually be what causes gravity according to W.B. Smith and W.J. Hooper. The motional electric field is caused by moving charges. The field strength E_motional is the vector product or cross product:
E_motional = B X v
where B is the magnetic field strength of the moving charges and v is the speed of the charges. For a high field strength of the motional electric field the vector product of the magnetic field strength and the electric field strength of the moving charges is necessary. Hooper found that in copper the charge carriers moved faster the colder the wire was. The speed is still very slow for the currents he was able to run through the zig zagging wire which was some 30A if I remember correct. The wire was cooled by dry ice.
Floyd Sweet may have made a much more powerful motional electric field by using ferrite magnets. The figures he uses in his document are the same ones used by Hooper. Sweet used the theory of Hooper. The Russian antigravity device or levitation device of Alexey Chekurov may use exactly that same motional electric field. Chekurov has the charges on the rotating metal discs. Their rotation while charged creates the normal magnetic field which is canceled by making the discs spin in opposite directions. But by using the not smooth surface discs the charges are better forced to follow the discs while spinning. This I guess gives a great motional electric field which is what lifts the device from the ground if Smith and Hooper are correct. The field may have to be shaped in some direction like diverged to or away from some point or points. Larry Wandell also shows the interaction of a permanent magnetic field lifting gold aluminum and wood. Actually I'm not sure the video with the wood sample is active anymore. Anyway Wandell charges the samples with a handheld Van de Graaff generator and then lifts the nonmagnetic samples with a permanent magnet. It only works with the samples charged: https://www.youtube.com/user/bluedoaify/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/bluedoaify/videos
BTW when reading the Bearden MEG patent it looks like they have forgotten the parasitic reverse diode in such devices due to being NP (or PN) semiconductors. The spikes going back to the battery goes through those parasitic diodes.
Regards
Ole
---In [email protected], <nwootan@...> wrote :
Ole, this is all so correct. I have lived and learned just enough to be dangerous. Lol When I first hand witness an anomalous event in electrical applications, my response is curiosity instead of writing it off as most folks do. A thought that has been popping up in my mind is the definition of reciprocal, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reciprocal https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reciprocal where in conventional theory we have copper or other metals as conductors where as in the opposite (negative energy) the dielectric is the conductor and the metals become the dielectric. Maybe we are looking in the wrong places for our solution. Just a thought. Bearden told me once to think opposite. BTW, Joel & I made a trip to Atlanta, GA in spring of 1995 to demonstrate our MRA device to the Procurement Officer of IBM Corp. and two of his EE engineering. They were blown away with what they saw and we were told that IBM had a blank check for our technology if we could successfully get a Patent. Dr. Bass, Hughes Aircraft was our Patent Attorney. On return trip back to Dallas we stopped at Tom Beardens place in Huntsville, AL and gave him a working MRA device at which time he totally explained his MEG device for which he was assembling a team to do the Patent. Bearden fully explained all that Floyd Sweet had divulged regarding the Negative Energy and the incompatibility in our frame of reference. Thoughts? Norm
On 11/27/2018 7:47 PM, onielsen@... mailto:onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
Hi Norman,
Sweet refers to Ivor Catt's theory instead of the conventional theory. Here is a searchable version of the 'Nothing is Something' document: http://jnaudin.free.fr/vta/ http://jnaudin.free.fr/vta/.
Electromagnetism I by Ivor Catt: http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm. There's no need for displacement current to explain electromagnetism. Just treat capacitors as transmission lines. Floyd sweet explains that every signal takes time to move between two separate points which prevents the instant propagation of displacement current. Ivor Catt describes capacitors as transmission lines (http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm). The signal enters the capacitor foils at a single point (or at two points) and must travel to the edges of the foils making capacitors rolled up or stacked transmission lines with the laws governing transmission lines. Catt is or was controversial when introducing a third theory of transmission lines. The theory describing what happens the most accurate way must be the best one no matter if the old theoreticians like Newton Maxwell or Einstein are treated like gods in scientific circles. Engineers may have personal experience of the phenomena happening when designing devices and thus use whatever theory that can explain the observations no matter what is written in old books. I think this is also why Tesla laughed at the theoreticians because he had his own experiences to draw from while the theoreticians made thought experiments that didn't fit the actual observations. We must learn and get wiser if we want to progress and this even if having to change or discard established theory. This is what the scientific method is about. Don't be religious about scientific theories (or even about gods). Go for truth.
Regards
Ole
---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <nwootan@...> mailto:nwootan@... wrote :
See attachments. Ole, Sweet & Bearden both admitted that they did not know how to capture and utilize the strange form of energy being produced.
On 11/27/2018 7:27 AM, onielsen@... mailto:onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
Hi Norman,
I like that. Go for how nature works even if not conventional. The natural laws written in books are made by humans. Science is about explaining them the right way even though some scientists don't do it that way unless specific paid to do it the intended way. According to transmission line theory the energy is running in the space between the wires. At least this holds for good conductors. Even good metallic conductors like silver have resistance which dissipates the energy. Superconductors don't have this problem but still have some max level where they can guide the energy. Where the fields meet the surface of the conductor the fields are mirrored. Thus the surface of the conductor has to be a perfect mirror of the fields to be superconductive.
T.J.J. See formulated it something like the forces at extremely small distances are extremely great. Or for fields at extremely thin wires the field intensity is extremely high which can ionize the air or dielectric to be able to move the energy. Plasma is also a very good conductor that can have even negative resistance characteristics from impact ionization. Thus it takes out energy from the molecules that are hit by charged particles making even more ions and charged particles.
I would like to see a replication of Floyd Sweets frosted wires. He knew about transmission line theory according to his document 'Nothing is Something' where he refers to Ivor Catt and W.J. Hooper. His device was also claimed to possess antigravity just like the device of Alexy Chekurov. A valid theory must be able to explain such phenomena.
Regards
Ole
---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <nwootan@...> mailto:nwootan@... wrote :
Ole, your quote,( a very penetrating magnetic field) is precisely what
is described as the Magneto-Electric effect which is totally inverse to
our conventional Electro-magnetic theory and practice. All of the
conventional electric theory goes out the window when dealing with a
totally inverted Magneto-Electric event. It all fits with our often
observed anomalies such as tremendous currents and voltages carried over
very small conductors doing fantastic damage in the event. This is not
your Dads Oldsmobile.
On 11/27/2018 4:15 AM, Norman Wootan nwootan@... mailto:nwootan@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
> a very penetrating magnetic field.