>Waves can be contained by glass, metal, paper or anything tubular or
even a
>tubular magnetic field.
>Focussing is possible by increasing or decreasing the length of the
tube.
>Think of directional microphones.!.
Specifically though, Nick the answer would depend on whether you were
dealing with a longitudinal or a transverse wave. If you are dealing
with a longitudinal wave like Tesla often used, then it should be
possible to create narrow beams of electric waves using small dielectric
discs in the direction of wave motion. This technique is used to create
directed sound beams and it should work for this well.. I can send you a
drawing of such a device if you like.
>
>Ian.
>I have now digested all information on the Keely net and found Hans
Coler's
>Strohmzeuger identical to Hubbard coil and and anyone else mucking
around
>with resonance and magnetism.
In what way is it identical? The Stromezeuger uses flat plates
(capacitors?) and like the Magnetstromapparat has currents going through
a permanent magnet. On the other hand the Hubbard coil uses a concentric
arrangement of resonant coils, and possibly radium.
Also Bedini, Bearden and some other inventers
>all have come to the conclusion that vacuum is the key.
Easy to say, but what does it mean in practical terms?
To quote Bedini,
>You must shock vacuum into giving up the ever present energy. It is a
pity
>that Radio Vacuum tubes have gone out of fashion because there we have
>perfect instruments to play with. Will dig some up as the frequencies
are
>not very high.
>I will do some work on the dimensions and post them to you in due
course.
That would be interesting.
>
>What's wrong with the honourable Bedini ?
Nothing asides from the fact that it doesn't work :-)
or Joe's Cell?
Looks good so far..
The Joker is willing to
>lend you a bit of vacuum energy but don't use it for the wrong purpose
!
Nobody outside of us is going to stop us from misusing this energy, that
is our choice.
>This over unity is just a red herring in my book and a lot of time and
>effort spent on providing proof to satisfy the college professors
perhaps?
Nobody I know cares about that.
>Let them dream on and use what we have got and you have A HELL OF
>A LOT ALREADY there for the taking.
Well, Ren, I admire your enthusiasm, and it may well be that there is
something like the Joe Cell that works great, but the fact is that most
of the stuff out there does not work at all. And most of the things that
do appear to work, we do not have all the details of, like the
Stromezeuger, or the Moray device. They amount to modern myths rather
than technologies we can use.
I agree that the Coler devices provide some good clues but I and a
friend have attempted to replicate the Magnetstromapparat with very
little success, so has George Hathaway, and I think a few others.
>
>I do not want to sound flippant but if we do not see the humorous side
we
>will certainly go banana's
The most humorous thing about the free energy scene that I see is that
people talk a lot about creativity and new ideas but then they drag up
all the old stuff that has been worked over a hundred times like Newman
machines, N-machines, Bedini, Adams motors and other magnet motors,
mechanical perpetual motion, etc ad nauseam.
The fact is that if any of this stuff worked somebody would be powering
their house with it at the least.
I have come to the conclusion that "overunity" is damn hard to do. Not
impossible, but very difficult.
This makes it more, not less, interesting, for me at least.
In addition, I don't believe that attempts to organize people into large
groups will bring about progress in this area. People in large groups
always wait for someone else to do the hard work to make things happen,
it is the nature of any situation where responsibility is spread around
thinly. Small groups of two or three people, devoted to serious
experimentation, and constant rethinking based on experiment, CAN
progress, but progress is often slow and there are many wrong turns.
If you want to know some areas to study that I think could lead to
overunity then this would be my list:
Group 1:
EM theory on a foundational level, especially magnetism and its
relationship to spin/torsion fields.
Pyramid and form energies.
Orgone, especially connecting it to electromagnetism.
Time, especially Kozyrev, and interactions with EM.
Group 2:
Parametric amplification, noise, and nonlinear dynamics
Nonreciprocal systems like gyroscopes.
thermodynamics and the "arrow of time" problem.
Group 3
Plasma physics, especially the confilct between various versions of the
electrodynamic force law.
Charge clusters.
Cold fusion.
I see these as three distinct areas that have promise for development of
new energy sources.
Fred
>