Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
--- On Wed, 5/25/11, Mark Iverson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Mark Iverson <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 8:34 PM John: Let me ask a few questions so I can better understand what you're proposing... What is your interpretation of the magnetic moment present in all elementary particles where electrical currents don't even come into play? Of course atoms can be affected by a magnetic field... this is the basis upon which NMR works!!! There is no electrical current in a permanent magnet, yet, they generate a magnetic field.. Found a spot here to make comment. A permanent magnet probably has by theory cohered axis of unpaired electron spins in one direction. Similarly the ferromagnetic field pole faces of a car alternator will have a collection of random directions of unpaired electron spins,(it is not magnetized); but during the process of macroscopic spin some of those random electron spins in 3D space will be tilted by application of gyroscopic principles, with the net result that many spins in one orientation will occur and the ferromagnetic material appears to be magnetized to a weaker degree then what can ordinarily achieved when the associated field windings are employed to make the second primary influence of obtaining a rotating electromagnet as the primary input of an alternator. In the following video a neon requiring over 500 volts for ignition is obtained from rotation of an unmagnetized field. http://youtu.be/FAc3jQziicc Video Records from 10/21/10; Again unbeknowst to me, at this point in time I was unaware that the 9 coil system providing 3 phases of resonant voltage rise, was in fact mistuned. I only discovered this later when attempting to film the reactance test. It is in this mistuned state that apparently because of the mutual induction wiring inherent in the 666 configuration, one of the three interphasal voltages will be literally in excess of 180 degrees phase angle difference in time, whereby the resultant voltage is greater then the summation of its component voltages which is certainly a paradox. Because of this imbalance, two of the phases will gain more resonant voltage rise seemingly at the expense of the remaining phase 2. Irregardless of the fact that the system is mistuned, these four videos investigate the addition of not only three high induction coil resonances to the three interphasal voltage rises, but also a fourth one connected in a one wire manner from the third resonance. The sequence can be properly termed a magnifier principle as it can be demonstrated that the free vibration established on the fourth coil in the unloaded state is greater than the source of its vibrations. When the neon is added as a load between the third and fourth reaction vibrations, where the fourth vibration is presumably made both by the loose magnetic coupling with the dual adjacent 70 lb larger coil of 68.5 H; which in turn has its water capacity enclosed in the core volume of the 60.5 H coil using a plexiglass capacity for its resonance. It is this reaction vibration connected by one wire means that then in turn is reduced below the source of its vibrations after powering the neon load between them. All of these effects are made from rotational magnetism alone where the field of the alternator is not yet enpowered. In the video the water capacity value used for the third vibration on the 68.5 H coil is diminished by raising its central electrode out of the dielectric but paradoxically its resonance is not disabled. The sequence of coil placements as interphasal loadings is covered in further videos. This video in itself seems to open a can of worms. I had noticed in the making of these alternator resonant circuits several peculiarities. For example identical values of measured capacity may be constructed, one a plexiglass flat plate capacity and the other the mentioned axial water capacity. Now when that required capacity is tested for resonance by adding a equally opposite inductive reactance,( the high induction coils) each C value gives different performance as q factor voltage rise. It was noticed that for induction ending circuits where the coil is used as an air core secondary that the flat plate capacity was inferior to the axial one, but if wafers of styrofoam were placed atop the capacity, this increased its performance. How can this be when that dielectric is not in the area between the plates? In the video Mr. Kitical is able to take the circuit out of resonance by sitting on the top plate of a plexiglass capacity, but when I go in there and start altering the C value by removing the rod of the cylindrical water capacity, no results are seen until the rod is entirely removed? Here are some repetitive component tests of this assembly of coils; http://youtu.be/ho-SUqBTrpk Video Records from 10/21/10: This video shows the fourth coil vibration used to show the flux capacitor principle being in excess of its source of vibration from the 3rd coil system that has its electric field's obtained from series resonance encased in the volume of the fourth extra coils magnetic field, where this MAGNIFICATION of the vibration is shown once the neon load is removed. The sequence of adding the interphasal resonances is shown. http://youtu.be/NvCbp4uOB3Q Single Phase Operation: Top coil is energized; remaining components removed and given shorted loops, making for two air core secondaries, where the third coil shares its induced currents with the fourth extra coil resonance, obtained by having its cylindrical capacity enclosed by the fourth coil itself that uses a flat plate capacity to resonate. http://youtu.be/NJ5H8G7kDFA Reconstruction of circuit to former state- shorted loops given line connections. Note the gain in extra fourth coil amperage,(thus voltage rise), when Mr. Kitical is removed from the plate capacity. Sincerely Harvey D Norris, Video Records from 10/21/10 . and other things (ferrous metals and other magnets) definitely are affected (i.e., have a force exerted upon them) by that mag-field. So I guess I'm at a loss to see how you can say that there is no such thing as a real physical magnetic field -- that's its only an illusion. -Mark From: John Berry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, you need to consider my answer if you want to understand this. You are assuming that a thing called a magnetic field really exists and this is the reason for your problem. Consider first how to interact with or detect magnetic fields, first take the Neutron, what reaction does it have to a magnetic field? As far as I am aware, essentially none. Ok so what else is matter made up of, ok Protons and electrons, so how do these particles with electrical potential react to a magnetic field? By default they don't! Ok, so if you are moving the charges relatively to the magnetic field then what happens? Well if cutting across the so called magnetic field they feel a force perpendicular to the magnetic field and in a direction based on their electrical sign. So in an EM wave we have electrons and protons feel a force at right angles to the so called magnetic component, in other words they feel the electric component. So what can be detected on the magnetic axis? NOTHING. Of course a magnet will align it's self to the magnetic axis, but why is this? Well if you consider an air core electromagnet turned off it shows no reaction to the magnetic field, now if you put DC through it, it will respond by aligning with the external magnetic field, however if we look at each element of this coil we find that the force is placed on moving electrons because they are cutting through the magnetic field, the force on the electrons is perpendicular to the magnetic field. Ok, so an electromagnet feeling any "magnetic" force is really just an illusion. And the same is true of ferrous materials where the magnetic field is again created by moving charges. Ok, so how come magnetic fields exist only to establish an electric component at 90 degrees? Well consider what makes magnetic fields is: moving charges, and what feels magnetic fields is: moving charges. And what they feel is perpendicular and dependent on the sign of the moving charge. So if we look at moving charges, can we understand how these forces can arise? Actually YES! If you look at every source of a magnetic field you can calculate the expected force by looking solely at how motion is distorting the electric field. Ok, so in a piece of wire the protons and electrons are in about the same number and their electric fields sum to zero outside the wire (the electric field from every particle in your body stretches out to infinity), then if you apply a time varying electric field to the wire the mobile electrons wiggle back and fourth. This movement effects their field in much the same way that wiggling a hose makes the stream bend. The protons aren't wiggling so you can now look at what would happen from having electric fields from the electrons in a wire bent as it carries out into space: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ This clearly shows how the electric component comes about. Ok, so how about a DC electromagnet with an air core? Well what happens when matter moves? Well since Einstein and before the answer is that contraction of length takes place. So if we have a wire and move the electrons but not the protons, what should happen to the electrons field? It should be squashed, so consider the spherical field around an electron, imagine now lots of electrons in a row like peals on a necklace, look at the vectors of force from that electric field. Look at how any field lines not perpendicular to this train of electrons is cancelled by the other electrons fields, now if you were to pancake these electric fields a bit less field at the sides would be wasted and cancelled between them, and more in the perpendicular direction. I hope you are able to visualize this, this would create an unmasked electric field of sorts, this electric field also should exist and has been experimentally measured to exist as the Hooper Motional E field and it should exist even if you look on magnetic fields as real. Now I can hear you asking how this creates any illusion of a magnetic field, well let's now look at another parallel section of wire carrying a current, now there are different ways to view this as it is very much multi choice, however the moving electrons in this other wire for arguments sake are moving in the same direction and they may not see those electrons as pancaked, instead they see the protons in the other wire as pancaking and attracting them toward the other wire. Meanwhile the protons in this wire are seeing the electrons in the other wire as pancaking and attracting them. This gives rise to the expected forces, only we have looked at the charges and the electric field only. So please consider when talking about magnetism, only moving electric fields/charges create it, and only moving charges can feel it as an electric field at 90 degrees and in a direction dependent of their sign. This is as far as I am aware considered conventional and accepted. John, an INTJ (I feel this post should be proof read, but I can't be bothered :) On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Mark Iverson <[email protected]> wrote: You're right Terry, I don't like your answer! And I don't think any of the other explanations answered the question adequately... >From my purely physical model, it would be a natural cause-effect relationship due to a polarizable vacuum... i.e., the electric and magnetic fields of mainstream physics are simply a result of the polarization of the local vacuum, and how particles respond to that polarization. With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic physics/QM, how come we can't explain WHY they're perpendicular! I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics. -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? You are not going to like my answer: "Because it is their nature." Yeah. Told you. It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way from there. I like this site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (click on the bubble to expand) but, there's always Wikipedia. Now Brian Greene would have me say "Because it is their nature in this universe." T
