Re: What is electricity - ?

The FireFly circuit is really simple to build to see a circuit that does 
not pull any power from supply to light a load!  See.






This FF-1 circuit is really interesting and cost about $10 to make you 
scratch your head!  I used a new spool of 12ga. THHN wire (on Spool) 500 
ft. as my coil and got the device to light 6 leds without increasing 
power draw from 12VDC gell cell battery.  This is the circuit Bert was 
referring to!  Mt current draw was 2.5ma @ 12VDC (pure).

On 7/13/2018 11:35 AM, Toby Grotz wrote:
> Wow all,  This is great stuff.
>
> Toby
>
>
> Toby Grotz
> 608-606-5370
> In the future,
> We will sit on our front porches with family, friends and neighbors,
> Singing and playing acoustic music,
> until the stars shine down upon us, undimmed by the fires of fossil fuels.
>
>> On Jul 11, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Norman Wootan <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Re: What is electricity - ?
>>
>> 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
>>
>

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: What is electricity - ?
Date: 	Sat, 14 Jul 2018 19:35:39 -0500
From: 	Norman Wootan <[email protected]>
To: 	Toby Grotz <[email protected]>
CC: 	Jon Gentry <[email protected]>, Bert Pool 
<[email protected]>, joel mcclain <[email protected]>, Mbking42 
<[email protected]>, Jeane Manning <[email protected]>, pre >> Phil 
Rembold <[email protected]>



The FireFly circuit is really simple to build to see a circuit that does 
not pull any power from supply to light a load!  See.






This FF-1 circuit is really interesting and cost about $10 to make you 
scratch your head!  I used a new spool of 12ga. THHN wire (on Spool) 500 
ft. as my coil and got the device to light 6 leds without increasing 
power draw from 12VDC gell cell battery.  This is the circuit Bert was 
referring to!  Mt current draw was 2.5ma @ 12VDC (pure).

On 7/13/2018 11:35 AM, Toby Grotz wrote:
> Wow all,  This is great stuff.
>
> Toby
>
>
> Toby Grotz
> 608-606-5370
> In the future,
> We will sit on our front porches with family, friends and neighbors,
> Singing and playing acoustic music,
> until the stars shine down upon us, undimmed by the fires of fossil fuels.
>
>> On Jul 11, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Norman Wootan <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Re: What is electricity - ?
>>
>> 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
>>
>