Sticky Space is the Lorentz Force

[Einstein]

Good News

Rainmantime gave me an excellent suggestion to further investigate the Sticky Space phenomena. He suggested I hook up an oscilloscope to the metal disc and watch for any voltage generation. Now I thought about it and came up with a configuration that would allow me to actually watch the voltage and current fluctuations within the disc. I decided to make a spiral coil and connected it to some thin wires
which I used to hang the disc from the ceiling. The thin wires I connected to a voltmeter. Initially I was seeing some voltage generation but the Sticky Space effect seemed to be absent. I thought it might be because I used copper wire. But I continued with the investigation. I connected the voltmeter leads to the current receptacles on the voltmeter. I used the minimum maximum function on the voltmeter to record minimum and maximum current readings. I was getting plus and minus 9 milliamps. Also I was getting a small amount of the Sticky Space effect on the amp setting. This got me thinking. I knew the thin wires I was using were adding resistance to the circuit. I checked and my resistance was around 5 ohms. This size coil probabaly only had about .2 of an ohm of resistance. So I put a shorting bar on the coil. Then I checked to see how strong the sticky space effect was with the shorting bar in place. It turns out that with the shorting bar in place the Sticky Space effect is very strong. This confirms that a strong electric current is being generated within the Sticky Space object. Without the shorting bar there is no Sticky Space effect. Using the spiral coil design, I have turned the Sticky Space effect into an electrical circuit that I can turn on and off. But what this means is that the Sticky Space effect is actually being caused by the Lorentz Force.

I made a couple of movie clips to show how the magnet works with the shorting bar and how the effect is absent without the shorting bar.


Spiral Coil with shorting bar

Spiral Coil without shorting bar

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Einstein,

Good to see you've made some progress in understanding this effect.

Using the spiral coil design, I have turned the Sticky Space effect into an electrical circuit that I can turn on and off. But what this means is that the Sticky Space effect is actually being caused by the Lorentz Force.

Glad to see how a quantified measurement quickly lead to an understanding of what is going on. Given that this is due to the Lorentz force, then perhaps you might also agree that the "space" is really not "sticky" in both directions. In other words, it was not really space "sticking" when you pulled the magnet backwards, but rather it was the momentum of the pendulum and the fact that your hand was pretty much matching the resonant frequency of the pendulum...right? It certainly seems like your latest video exhibits that this is true, as the forward motion of your hand shows the effect of the Lorentz force, yet the backward motion does not exhibit any "stickyness".

Any plans for acquiring any precision instruments for measuring position and/or velocity? I think they would be a good investment and could accelerate your investigations.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Given that this is due to the Lorentz force, then perhaps you might also agree that the "space" is really not "sticky" in both directions. In other words, it was not really space "sticking" when you pulled the magnet backwards, but rather it was the momentum of the pendulum and the fact that your hand was pretty much matching the resonant frequency of the pendulum...right?

Actually it is sticky in both directions but only when the applied force matches the attraction or repulsion effect. And that depends on whether I am pushing or pulling. So it's really a combination of applied mechanical force and a magnetic counter force that are in balance. Now I was paying attention and I did notice that my hand was matching the resonant frequency of the pendulum. So that contributes to the apparent freeze state in the horizontal orientation. I can pick an object up off the floor with enough initial acceleration. So I know attraction is present when I try and pull away. But I do have to get over a certain initial amount of acceleration to pick an object up off the floor. And when the acceleration stops the object is no longer held in position and falls away.

Any plans for acquiring any precision instruments for measuring position and/or velocity? I think they would be a good investment and could accelerate your investigations.

As the need arises I probably will aquire more equipment. Right now I have 4 voltmeters and two accelerometers. Also I have an analog scope and a PC oscilloscope. I can monitor several things at the same time. Right now the best indicator that I have that something is going on is the accelerometers. After changing over to the spiral coil design, the accelerometers started to measure acceleration. They aren't doing it accurately. But something is going on with the antigravity generator design. The accelerometer shows a negative gee field is present. But from a non specific direction. The amount of acceleration shown on the meters does not match calculated acceleration of the pendulum motion. So I am just using it as an indicator that a field and polarity of the field are present. Also I went ahead and made a second spiral coil to use with the antigravity phase generator. There is an anomally present at the 90 and 270 degree settings. At those particular phase angles the accelerometers measured a definite peak in field intensity. That was surprising because with the solenoid coil design, this anomally was not present. I'm still experimenting with coil orientations at the 90 and 270 degree phase angle settings. There is one other anomally so far with the coils. I have one coil hooked up backwards from the other coil to power. One coil has the ground at the center and the other coil has ground at the perimeter. When placing the pendulum between the coils, the pendulum is repelled by one coil and attracted to the other coil. Separately the coils repel the pendulum. That is where I am presently. I think this particular anomally is very interesting. I don't have a theory of operation just yet. So Newton's Laws of motion are still safe. But I kind of have a gut feeling on this one. All I have to do is analyze it correctly and a solution will present itself.

 

[RainmanTime]

Howdy Einstein,

Right now the best indicator that I have that something is going on is the accelerometers.

OK, but allow me to ask some questions, and maybe pass on some things I know about sensors being that I work in control systems (which use sensors). Are you aware of, and/or do you understand the concept of frequency response? And if so, are you aware that not only do physical objects possess natural frequency response, but that also any sensor that measures "reality" also has a specific frequency response? In other words, sensors do not "tell the truth" over all frequency ranges and over all gain/phase ranges. Any sensor has a specific, designed-to BANDWIDTH over which its outputs are valid. Similarly, the frequency response of a sensor (like an accelerometer) is "shaped" with respect to certain phase angles where they are intended to be used. This is called sensor tuning. Typically, accelerometers are designed to work at the 0 Deg and 180 Deg phases as their centerpoints (these two phases provide the sign of the acceleration + or -). Error due to phase lag usually increases as a measured phenomenon exceeds the designed-to bandwidth, which will cause negative phase margin for the sensor under these conditions.

What I am trying to relate is that any old sensor cannot necessarily be used to quantify any old dynamic situation. This is part of what I do in developing transfer functions for physical plants and physical sensors, and matching them in terms of their frequency response. If you do not pay attention to this, you could end up using a sensor to measure a phenomenon outside of its designed-to bandwidth, and it could give you bogus answers.

The accelerometer shows a negative gee field is present. But from a non specific direction. The amount of acceleration shown on the meters does not match calculated acceleration of the pendulum motion.

This is where math is valuable. In aerospace dynamics we can model the physical situation & its frequency response, and we can model the sensor and its frequency response. Modeling and simulation of these effects allow us to know when we are getting bogus readings from our sensors which can (and do) compromise the stability of the entire control system.

There is an anomally present at the 90 and 270 degree settings. At those particular phase angles the accelerometers measured a definite peak in field intensity. That was surprising because with the solenoid coil design, this anomally was not present. I'm still experimenting with coil orientations at the 90 and 270 degree phase angle settings.

As noted above, my own gut feel from experience in these matters would be to look at the frequency response of the sensor (its valid bandwidth) and see if you can determine if you are operating outside of the sensor's advertised range... mathematically modeling the transfer functions of the physical objects you are measuring and the transfer function of the sensor would help to uncover potential problems.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Are you aware of, and/or do you understand the concept of frequency response? And if so, are you aware that not only do physical objects possess natural frequency response, but that also any sensor that measures "reality" also has a specific frequency response?

This was one of the areas I had to address when first deciding how I wanted to use the sensor. Initially my investigation was with the tesla coil. I knew that the primary side was dumping a charge through the coil at around 130 hertz. In the design parameter sheet I got with my sensors, I could select a frequency responce range that I would be using the sensor for. I used the 500 hertz range in selecting the bandwidth for my sensors. The tradeoff was that there would be a little noise in the output. But I believe the noise level was under one milligee for the range I selected. I have checked the frequency with the voltmeter on the frequency setting. It does show around 263 hertz which is very close to where I calibrated the circuit to operate at. The sensor I am using is the AXDL203 accelerometer chip. When just taking static gravity readings, the output is rock steady and the readings do match the specified range I am supposed to get. I was very satisfied with the performance of this chip. I haven't even noticed any drift at all during operation. Drift was a problem I had with an older sensor I had. When assembling a second accelerometer I used DC panel displays. They work fine with DC but I found out afterwards that they don't perform too well with changing voltage signals. So I got a couple more good voltmeters. So part of my sensor reading problem is the DC voltmeter displays. But even with the Fluke meters, the measured output isn't quite what I calculate it to be. Of course I have to take into consideration that I am using the sensor in an application that is entirely experimental. Who would have ever guessed that the Lorentz force knocks on spacetime just like gravity and mechanical force does? Here is a pic of the sensor board I made. I encased it in epoxy to isolate it from any high voltage.

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Einstein,

So I got a couple more good voltmeters. So part of my sensor reading problem is the DC voltmeter displays. But even with the Fluke meters, the measured output isn't quite what I calculate it to be.

Nor will it ever be. I probably don't have to remind you that a voltmeter is also a measuring device, and as such it has a frequency response characteristic of its own. Not to mention errors in measuring time-varying signals. Unless you are happy just measuring gross, averaged effects with errors in the 2-3% range, a voltmeter is not what you want. For the kinds of dynamic experiments it seems you are performing, a high-bandwidth oscilloscope is the instrument of choice. Just my suggestion.

Of course I have to take into consideration that I am using the sensor in an application that is entirely experimental.

Indeed. And this is even more of an argument for performing a mathematical analysis, if for no other reason than to quantify all your measurement error tolerances. If you are dealing with minute phenomenon and developing theories based on them, it would be good to know if these observed phenomenon are larger than your error tolerances. If they are not, any theories you develop are likely tainted by your measurement errors.

Here is a pic of the sensor board I made. I encased it in epoxy to isolate it from any high voltage.

You do realize, I hope, that this modification you have made changes the inherent frequency response of the instrument itself. In point of fact, you have added a significant amount of mass-damping to the instrument which should be taken into account by revising the measurement errors and frequency response characteristics of the device.

Another benefit of mathematical analysis which I have yet to touch upon is the ability to use the mathematical model in simulation studies. In the aerospace industry, we have found that using mathematical simulation drastically accelerates our research and development capabilities. I think it could benefit your work as well, for developing simulations based on the Lorentz equations (and other phenomenon you are investigating) would give you an alternate laboratory that could allow you to perform "what if" experiments with greater speed and efficiency than you could get from your physical lab alone. Simulations are also quite effective in investigating non-linear effects, which I would hazard to guess is going to be the area where any significant "gravity shielding" effects might be found.

Something to consider!

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Lorentz force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

In physics, the Lorentz force is the force exerted on a charged particle in an electromagnetic field. The particle will experience an electric force qE and a magnetic force qv × B. Combined they give the Lorentz force equation


where E is the electric field, B is the magnetic field, q is the charge of the particle, v is its current velocity (expressed as a vector), and × is the cross product.

Thus an electron q will simply be accelerated in the same linear orientation as the E field, but that electron will spiral when travelling through the B field, due to the orientation of the cross product operator, by the right-hand rule.

The Lorentz force is a principle used in many devices such as a Mass spectrometer or even a Railgun.

[edit]
See also
Hendrik Lorentz
Electromagnetism
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force"|

http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm.jhtml?term=INDUCTION&_requestid=243835

Results found for: induction




induction


The process of generating an electric current in a circuit from the magnetic influence of an adjacent circuit as in a transformer or capacitor.

Electrical induction is also the principle behind the write head on magnetic disks and earlier read heads. To create (write) the bit, current is sent through a coil that creates a magnetic field which is discharged at the gap of the head onto the disk surface as it spins by. To read the bit, the magnetic field of the bit "induces" an electrical charge in the head as it passes by the gap. See inductor.



http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3735/15/10/034/

Air-core induction-coil magnetometer design
K -P Estola and J Malmivuo
Dept. of Electrical Engng., Tampere Univ. of Technol., Tampere, Finland
Print publication: Issue 10 (October 1982)

Abstract. This paper discusses the theory of optimising an induction-coil magnetometer and the realisation problem. The optimisation is based on a simple magnetic model of the source, an induction coil and a current-to-voltage converter. The electric models and characteristic equations needed for the optimisation procedure have been derived from prevailing theories. The equations have been modified for computer-aided design. This procedure maximises the signal-to-noise ratio of the magnetometer. The results have been verified by constructing and measuring the optimised magnetometer and its parameters. The theory has also been used to construct a differential magnetometer which improves the single-coil magnetometer performance considerably in magnetically noisy environments. Some magnetocardiographic (MCG) measurements have been carried out in the laboratory environment.


doi:10.1088/0022-3735/15/10/034



http://home.datacomm.ch/k.schraner/induction_coils.htm

(Spark-) Induction Coils
Induction coils fascinated me, from the very beginning of my interest in electricity. They're really ancient devices (like an "older brother" of Tesla coils) , invented and developed around 1850 by famous people from J.Henry to H.Ruhmkorff and others (see also Lyonel Baum's site ). Very widespread contemporary application is in automotive ignition coils, relevant to tesla coilers as power supplies for tiny TC's, but more so as HV elements in the recent development of triggered spark gaps. The analysis of induction coils reveals a close proximity to the one on Tesla coils. They're NOT just simpler than Tesla coils, at least at the beginners level (speak: lumped parameter models). The main differences are:
1.) Starting energy is stored as Li2/2, instead of CU 2/2 in TC's (at least in conventional "interrupter"-mode).
2.) The primary and secondary LCR circuits are NOT tuned to the same resonant frequency.
3.) The coupling coefficient k of induction coils is much higher (>0.9 etc.) than the one of TC's (0.1..0.2 typ.).
4.) Induction coils have an iron core vs. the "air core" of Tesla coils.

Relevant common properties of TC's and induction coils:

1.) Both should be treated as inductively coupled LCR circuits; not exclusively as "AC transformers".
2.) Certain coupling coefficients may be "magic" or "optimal", in order to generate high secondary voltage.
3.) The behavior can be accepted as dominantly linear, because of the open core of the induction coil. This
statement might be challenged, by those beeing able, to drive the open core to saturation ! .
(however: the iron loss of the induction coil must be considered for the damping behavior).

The really weak element of the old induction coils was the "interrupter", being it a Wagner-Hammer, a Mercury Turbine Interrupter or a Wehnelt Electrolytic Breaker. Modern power electronic devices offer an alternative: if designed and tested, based on a good simulation model of the induction coil itself, they will probably outperform the ancient interruptors, and, - may be -, get the induction coil again into consideration for certain applications, as was the case before, i.e. with the old X-ray machines.



http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v2/n8/abs/nn0899_767.html;jsessionid=7C61A15D1080A84C11150C6D30808F7A
Article


Nature Neuroscience 2, 767 - 771 (1999)
doi:10.1038/11245
Manifestation of scotomas created by transcranial magnetic stimulation of human visual cortex
Yukiyasu Kamitani & Shinsuke Shimojo
Computation and Neural Systems, California Institute of Technology, MC 139-74, Pasadena, California 91125, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Yukiyasu Kamitani [email protected]


Reduced visual performance under transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of human visual cortex demonstrates suppression whose spatial extent is not directly visible. We created an artificial scotoma (region missing from a visual pattern) to directly visualize the location, size and shape of the TMS-induced suppression by following a large-field, patterned, visual stimulus with a magnetic pulse. The scotoma shifted with coil position according to known topography of visual cortex. Visual suppression resulted in pattern-dependent distortion, and the scotoma was filled in with temporally adjacent stimuli, suggesting spatial and temporal completion mechanisms. Thus, perceptual measurements of TMS-induced suppression may provide information about cortical processing via neuronal connections and temporal interactions of neural signals.

 

[creedo299]

Rough note this thread.

The coil in suspension, is also considered an inductor, as this coil gather electrical force, or free electrons from the surrounding air.

The Lorentz force, must be visualized as a par field, which emanates as a repulsion factor, from unlike polarity, however the charge in this thread is not listed as a negative nor positive.

The last note on magnetic distortion, is actually an inversed reference to visualizing a distortion within a magnetic field at a distance.

If one looks at the center of the coil, after capturing the
http://hp.netscape.com/redir.adp?_dci_url=http%3a%2f%2fmoney%2enetscape%2ecnn%2ecom%2fdefault%2ejsp&_wps_s=bb%5flll1%5fu3%5f1

Then one comes to the conclusion that the rippling within the center of this coil, which is a distortion on your computers photo capture ability, as a photo-blowup entity.

This feature is a visual distortion within the center of the coil.

This is a non-pure lab experiment, as all meters carry a battery charge.

What is to say that no battery charge is coming down the test leads?

That would make the nature of this coil an electromagnet?

So what is the value of remote test lead, to where the test leads are tested to discern as to whether there is no current being applied by the meter itself.

I am sorry Einstein, I just wanted to make sure that you knew this.

The distortion itself, proves that there is a field being generated within the coil itself.

How many turns, at what radius?

What are the measured field strengths, please?

Very good.

Opps, money, correct > is http://communities.anomalies.net/images/Lorentz01.JPG

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Nor will it ever be. I probably don't have to remind you that a voltmeter is also a measuring device, and as such it has a frequency response characteristic of its own. Not to mention errors in measuring time-varying signals. Unless you are happy just measuring gross, averaged effects with errors in the 2-3% range, a voltmeter is not what you want. For the kinds of dynamic experiments it seems you are performing, a high-bandwidth oscilloscope is the instrument of choice. Just my suggestion.

You are right of course. I am basically just using them as indicators. I know the ouput is being averaged. With the Tesla Coil I was able to use an analog scope to see the pulses made by the accelerometer sensors. It is much different than the wave pattern of an oscillating coil or discharging capacitor. The output pattern was clearly a sharp spike with equal rise and decline times. The duration of the spike was 2 milliseconds. If I can trust the callibration of my analog scope, then those spikes were peaking at two tenths of a gee. I was really hoping to gather data using my PC oscilloscope. But even using a 50 foot extension cord from the sensor still would not work. My PC oscilloscope would not accept a signal from the sensor while the Tesla Coil was in operation. Of course now it might be a different story now that I am just using a 12 volt power supply.

You do realize, I hope, that this modification you have made changes the inherent frequency response of the instrument itself. In point of fact, you have added a significant amount of mass-damping to the instrument which should be taken into account by revising the measurement errors and frequency response characteristics of the device.

Now I wasn't aware of this at all. The only reason I did this was so that I could put the sensor inside a high voltage field without frying it. Remember the sensor never is subject to any mechanical forces at all. I have it rigidly mounted so that it is only capable of sensing a gravity type force.

Another benefit of mathematical analysis which I have yet to touch upon is the ability to use the mathematical model in simulation studies. In the aerospace industry, we have found that using mathematical simulation drastically accelerates our research and development capabilities. I think it could benefit your work as well, for developing simulations based on the Lorentz equations (and other phenomenon you are investigating) would give you an alternate laboratory that could allow you to perform "what if" experiments with greater speed and efficiency than you could get from your physical lab alone.

Right now it is becomming apparent that I will have to come up with a math model very soon. This morning while out on my morning 4 mile run it occurred to me that maybe I might be able to tie in the Lorentz transformations into the equations that describe the Lorentz force. It is apparent that a third reference frame with independant force characteristics does exist. Further experimentation with the spiral coils and the phase generator is revealing some very interesting combinations. This morning just using the spiral coils with the power on, I placed the two coils together and then held them in front of the accelerometer to see if the non directionality became directional up close. Yes, my output shot up to about a negative 30 milligees. Then I flipped the coils over to see if the sandwich combination produced an equal amount of acceleration from the other side. The output went to zero. Then I flipped one of the coils over in the sandwiched coil pack and retried placing the assembly in front of the sensor. This time I got an equal amount of acceleration on both sides, but one side was positive while the other side was negative. I stopped right there. I am still having a little trouble believing what it means. Actually right now the next experiment I want to do is to hang the sandwiched coilpack assembly from the ceiling and see if the assembly has the ability to accelerate in the horizontal direction. This is too much excitement for me to handle all in one day. I know the result could go either way. Tommorrow I'll go see.

Now I've been having some additional thoughts on this frequency responce angle you brought up. Actually I started having these thoughts a couple of weeks ago. I just thought it a bit odd that you brought it up too. Like maybe you were giving me a hint to see what I would do with it. Well, anyway it occurred to me that maybe the oscillations in space time that I am creating are frequency specific to the particular metals I am working with. That suggests that maybe there are other spacetime frequency oscillations that would affect other materials. Like with my Tesla Coil, the spacetime oscillations also affect wood. So there would be clues in the Tesla Coil as to how I might access these other spacetime oscillation frequencies. So I actually have an additional experimental direction to pursue.

 

[RainmanTime]

Creedo,

I must admit I very much enjoy these posts of yours much more than your non-linear "stories".

Very well done on the references in this post, Dan! This is the kind of work that is expected of you, and I am certain that OvrLrd would agree that our "handlers" are quite pleased by this. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

induction

The process of generating an electric current in a circuit from the magnetic influence of an adjacent circuit as in a transformer or capacitor.

Linear differential model of the effect being given as: L * (di/dt). A key mathematical relation that describes the dynamic reaction associated with electrical to magnetic transformation.

This paper discusses the theory of optimising an induction-coil magnetometer and the realisation problem. The optimisation is based on a simple magnetic model of the source, an induction coil and a current-to-voltage converter. The electric models and characteristic equations needed for the optimisation procedure have been derived from prevailing theories. The equations have been modified for computer-aided design. This procedure maximises the signal-to-noise ratio of the magnetometer.

Excellent citation of success in using modeling methods to achieve optimized performance.

Modern power electronic devices offer an alternative: if designed and tested, based on a good simulation model of the induction coil itself, they will probably outperform the ancient interruptors, and, - may be -, get the induction coil again into consideration for certain applications, as was the case before, i.e. with the old X-ray machines.

Another good one, Creeds. And yes, I certainly see the subtle implication you are making with these citations and the following...

Visual suppression resulted in pattern-dependent distortion, and the scotoma was filled in with temporally adjacent stimuli, suggesting spatial and temporal completion mechanisms. Thus, perceptual measurements of TMS-induced suppression may provide information about cortical processing via neuronal connections and temporal interactions of neural signals.

OK, Creeds, you seem to be pointing towards the ability to magnetically alter the spatial environment directly around our heads can and does result in distortions to our spatial and temporal perceptions. Am I correct? If so, you'll get no argument from me, and again I applaud your tying these concepts together.

In fact, what you are intimating would be another valid explanation for people seeing alleged UFOs that they report as having flown "faster than Mach 50". What they "saw" may have been subject to external magnetic fields that they were not aware of that were interfering with their visual cortex processing.

Do you wish to discuss these issues further, Creedo? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT

 

[Einstein]

creedo299

This is a non-pure lab experiment, as all meters carry a battery charge.

What is to say that no battery charge is coming down the test leads?

I see what you are saying. I was using the meter on the amp scale. The meter measures the voltage drop across a calibrated internal resistor. The internal resistor has a very low value so as to not affect the circuit being measured. The meter is connected to the circuit through 10 megaohms of resistance. So any induced effect from the meter itself is probably so small that it could be considered to be zero. But you are right, it actually isn't zero. Just very close to it.

That would make the nature of this coil an electromagnet?

Yes, but only when I put the shorting bar in place. You can see in the video where the coil moves that I have a bare wire attached to both legs of the coil. In the second video the shorting bar is removed. That creates an open circuit. If the current can't flow inside the coil then no magnetic field is prduced at all. It's the magnetic field produced within the coil that reacts to the moving magnet.

So what is the value of remote test lead, to where the test leads are tested to discern as to whether there is no current being applied by the meter itself.

Actually I wasn't using the meter at all when I came to the conclusion that this was being caused by the Lorentz force. It was my plan to use the meter but it turned out that the fine wires that were connected to the coil added to much resistance into the circuit. That was why I decided to add the shorting bar. As you can see in the first video, with the shorting bar in place, the Sticky Space effect is very pronounced. Thus confirming that this is indeed being caused by current flow within the coil.

The distortion itself, proves that there is a field being generated within the coil itself.

How many turns, at what radius?

What are the measured field strengths, please?

The coil has an inside radius of .75 inches and an outside radius of just over 3 inches. I believe it was 30 turns of #19 magnet wire that I used. The voltmeter showed I was running around one tenth of a volt and the actual current being generated within the coil would vary between 30 and 100 milliamps.

I am using a very strong neodymium magnet. I believe the field strength of the magnet is around one tesla. Actually you dont't need to use a coil of wire to get this Sticky Space effect. Initially I discovered that the strong magnet will cause this type of behavior to any conductive metal. I just used the coil of wire to actually confirm that there was indeed an electrical current being developed within it, thus causing the mysterious Sticky Space effect.

 

[Einstein]

RMT

OK, Creeds, you seem to be pointing towards the ability to magnetically alter the spatial environment directly around our heads can and does result in distortions to our spatial and temporal perceptions. Am I correct? If so, you'll get no argument from me, and again I applaud your tying these concepts together.

In fact, what you are intimating would be another valid explanation for people seeing alleged UFOs that they report as having flown "faster than Mach 50". What they "saw" may have been subject to external magnetic fields that they were not aware of that were interfering with their visual cortex processing.

LOL..... What a facsinating analysis....

 

[RainmanTime]

Greetings again Einstein:

Some inital thoughts just to make sure we are on the same wavelength: I think we are getting close to a common level of prose that we can both tolerate to share thoughts with each other.

I hope you realize that all of my responses to you are not intended to be derogatory or diminutive of your work or theories. I honestly only wish to contribute my thoughts and experiences that will help you along the way in your experiments and development. I think you "get" that, but I had to state this just to be sure. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I was really hoping to gather data using my PC oscilloscope. But even using a 50 foot extension cord from the sensor still would not work. My PC oscilloscope would not accept a signal from the sensor while the Tesla Coil was in operation. Of course now it might be a different story now that I am just using a 12 volt power supply.

Do you have any data on the max sample rate, and more importantly the maximum transport delay associated with your PC oscilloscope program? They are likely significant, as this is why we do not use PC O-scopes in my industry. I deal with flight control systems that must have latencies in the sub millisecond range, and this equates to quite high sampling rates. We only use the high-quality Tektronix digital oscilloscopes these days because they guarantee very low latencies and very high bandwidths. Yes, they are quite expensive, but that is for a reason... because they are accurate to extremely small resolutions and timeframes. They are a good investment if you can afford to buy one outright, and if not they are at least worth renting for short periods of time when you need to do accurate test measurements.

Now I wasn't aware of this at all. The only reason I did this was so that I could put the sensor inside a high voltage field without frying it. Remember the sensor never is subject to any mechanical forces at all. I have it rigidly mounted so that it is only capable of sensing a gravity type force.

I understand, and the reason why you did it is perfectly reasonable. But let me explain the situation in a slightly different way to get my point across. Even if you had done nothing to modify the mass of the sensor board, you would still have to account for the dynamic flexure (vibrational) modes of the body that you are installing it upon, in order to correct the sensor's frequency response to read "proper" linear acceleration.

This is because the sensor assembly in the "as you buy it" configuration is specifically tuned to read acceleration based on its specific board mass configuration. That sensor board mass configuration possesses a natural resonant frequency and phase that distort the accelerometer's readings, and so it must be compensated for in the sensor's frequency response. The manufacturer does this for the product he sells you. But when you install an accel sensor onto some other, larger mass object, you are now measuring the combined effect of the calibrated accel AND a flexible mass body to which it is attached. The sensor must be retuned if the resonant peaks of the larger "vehicle" are different from the resonant peaks of the sensor.

Now I've been having some additional thoughts on this frequency responce angle you brought up. Actually I started having these thoughts a couple of weeks ago. I just thought it a bit odd that you brought it up too. Like maybe you were giving me a hint to see what I would do with it.

Or here is an alternative possibility that I thought of: The time-synchronization of your mind and my mind thinking about these concepts at the same "local" time is an event that would eventually happen in any possible timeline. And if this is so, then our discussion right in the here and now is intended for us to exchange important information (which I equate to Energy).

Well, anyway it occurred to me that maybe the oscillations in space time that I am creating are frequency specific to the particular metals I am working with. That suggests that maybe there are other spacetime frequency oscillations that would affect other materials.

And indeed there are mathematical models of "Massive SpaceTime" for what you suggest here. The metals are mass, correct? Any specific conglomeration of Mass will have its own natural resonances with respect to SpaceTime. It is the body of knowledge relating to resonant frequencies of any given mass distribution (body). Differing masses have different resonant frequencies where they give off Energy instead of consuming Energy.

You are exploring how the dimension of Mass mechanicallly, electrically, and magnetically interacts with the combined dimensions of Space and Time....Spacetime. As far as I am concerned you are on the right track in experimenting with these dimensions and their interactions.

RMT

 

[creedo299]

http://www.oselectronics.com/ose_p96.htm

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/exclusive/wireless_transformer/

www.howstuffworks.com/radio-spectrum.htm

 

[creedo299]

Noncorrected schemiea:

Endogeria, enbarko, wanis wemnara.

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Do you have any data on the max sample rate, and more importantly the maximum transport delay associated with your PC oscilloscope program?

I believe the maximum sample rate is 5 GS/s. However I am not familiar with the other term you used. But it is my guess that any solid state device will not operate correctly with the Tesla Coil in operation. My analog scope appears to be tube based in operation. It is like the time base for electronic circuits is altered when the Tesla Coil is running. I have a voltage regulated power supply I built, that I just happened to have turned on one day while the Tesla Coil was running. The ouput display started rolling and would not stabilize until I turned the Tesla Coil off. So there is a background parameter that apparently we just take for granted that is being altered with the Tesla Coil on. But there is a very big advantage to using my PC oscilloscope. It will record all the data I gather. Something like that would make it very easy to share my results with others. But I don't know why it wont work. It works fine with the Tesla Coil off. The sensor sends actual gravity readings with the 50 foot cable. So I know it's not the cable or sensor. The PC scope works fine in the other room with the Tesla Coil on if I am just using it to test stuff on the bench. So something must be happening to the signal transmission to cause my computer program to lock up when I attempt to take a sample with the Tesla Coil on. I am running the sensor output through a buffer. So it could be the buffer circuitry I used that is causing the problem. Maybe I'll have to design a tube based buffer system to get reliable sensor readings.

 

[Einstein]

Creedo

Thanks for the links. But I haven't got a clue on what those words mean...

Noncorrected schemiea:

Endogeria, enbarko, wanis wemnara.

 

[creedo299]

Cap notes, Radial axial polarities around power lines, are radiant points, of field projections, which can faze a transistor radio, both in and out of signal due top amplitude.

A variable air gang capacitor, are a series of metered aluminum three quarter round plates, that interplay in proximity to one another, that when rotated through a radio receivers turn of the radio signal tuning process, imposes a dynamic, (probably interscailer via its nature), on each plate as they interpose to one another?

The free electron push factor, as exercised, in the coil push film, by poster Einstein, shows at length, the process of repulsion of coiled matter, in relation to an electric signal given off by that in j-peg suspended coil, in relationship to the electromagnetic bar mass, of the push factor held by the scientist.

*Note; if the factors, of Lorentz force, is realized as a repulsion force, then the questions of any up-scaled proposed utilization of this primary work,, if it involved larger structures, might have to bide with a collected stored pulse affair?

This is as at relatively larger sizes, the structures and metals, may only be able to sustain a push, at N or algebraically unknown factors.

So if metals were used an any hulled structure, say for example for a craned dolly to transport a work piece, as an industrial facility, then the larger application, might have to interphase either a very pure metal, or a metal of some substance, which would act as both a semiconductor, or a bleeding at set rate capacitor.

 

[Einstein]

Creedo

So if metals were used an any hulled structure, say for example for a craned dolly to transport a work piece, as an industrial facility, then the larger application, might have to interphase either a very pure metal, or a metal of some substance, which would act as both a semiconductor, or a bleeding at set rate capacitor.

Todays project is a little bit different. You see I believe that what I have so far could be interpreted as one side of a monopole magnet. Today I have an idea to see if I can get my gravity generator to produce the other half. It is a very simple modification. It will take about an hour and a half to do. So maybe later on tonight I will have the results.

 

[RainmanTime]

Einstein,

I believe the maximum sample rate is 5 GS/s. However I am not familiar with the other term you used.

Sample rate is definitely up there, so that's not a problem. Transport delay is the total error of any system that operates on a fixed time-quantization... like a digital microprocessor. It equates to the digital frame rate delay which is expressed as (1/z). It represents the total time delay inherent in the digitization/quantization. The error, if you will, with respect to what is happening in the continuous, analog world of "reality".

I have a voltage regulated power supply I built, that I just happened to have turned on one day while the Tesla Coil was running. The ouput display started rolling and would not stabilize until I turned the Tesla Coil off. So there is a background parameter that apparently we just take for granted that is being altered with the Tesla Coil on. But there is a very big advantage to using my PC oscilloscope. It will record all the data I gather. Something like that would make it very easy to share my results with others. But I don't know why it wont work. It works fine with the Tesla Coil off.

It is the dreaded EMI effect you are experiencing. Refresh my memory about the frequencies that your Tesla coil is switching at? NO matter the answer, your Tesla coil is certainly inducing an electromagnetic environment that your PC and o-scope hardware were never specified to work within.

Design for EMI compatibility is a definite, non-linear "black art". It takes a lot of time and effort to qualify a piece of computing hardware in a highly energetic EMI environment.

RMT