Proposal: Electricity Animation

Since my new free energy thread got into electricity and wireless transmission briefly, I got to thinking it would be swell if we had an animation of both processes according to MM's theory. Cr6, Nevyn, Airman, or anyone, is that fairly easily doable?

What frequency range would be the photons in electricity? In wireless I think I read that they're usually 2.45 GHz, but older cordless phones were 900 MHz.

Would the photons of electricity be guided by free electrons in or around the conductor? If so, would the free electrons be magnetically aligned in order to guide the photons? If so, which photons align the electrons? Is electricity produced by photon pressure higher at one terminal than the other? If so, what produces the photon pressure?

In wireless transmission are photons guided by a primer signal, which develops a channel for trailing photons? How are signals of varying sound amplitude or varying light amplitude or color carried by the transmitted photons?

Have yous already made an animation or illustration of any of this?

These are excellent questions Lloyd.  

I don't recall Mathis mentioning many details about attenuation.
The physical world has several related phenomenon around attenuation that follows particular laws depending on the substances, photons - waves interfacing.  This area is ripe for several good explanations in terms of Mathis' Charge Field.
----

Light attenuation in water

Shortwave radiation emitted from the sun have wavelengths in the visible spectrum of light that range from 360 nm (violet) to 750 nm (red). When the sun’s radiation reaches the sea-surface, the shortwave radiation is attenuated by the water, and the intensity of light decreases exponentially with water depth. The intensity of light at depth can be calculated using the Beer-Lambert Law.

In clear open waters, visible light is absorbed at the longest wavelengths first. Thus, red, orange, and yellow wavelengths are absorbed at higher water depths, and blue and violet wavelengths reach the deepest in the water column. Because the blue and violet wavelengths are absorbed last compared to the other wavelengths, open ocean waters appear deep-blue to the eye.

In near-shore (coastal) waters, sea water contains more phytoplankton than the very clear central ocean waters. Chlorophyll-a pigments in the phytoplankton absorb light, and the plants themselves scatter light, making coastal waters less clear than open waters. Chlorophyll-a absorbs light most strongly in the shortest wavelengths (blue and violet) of the visible spectrum. In near-shore waters where there are high concentrations of phytoplankton, the green wavelength reaches the deepest in the water column and the color of water to an observer appears green-blue or green.

Wikipedia has the very basics on this but it is an area Mathis' hasn't fully covered. While the typical physics community has numerous laws and observations... gaps do appear at times to adequately explain details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation#Attenuation_coefficient
http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/ffast/index.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/xcom/index.cfm
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041624X14003357
Database:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Xcom/xcom2-t

The Pushing Force of Light  and why light cannot pull
http://milesmathis.com/pushlight.pdf

I think it is feasible to animate Miles ideas on electricity, using various papers as source material, but wireless transmission is not understood enough. No-one really knows what Tesla was doing and modern electrical engineers don't work the way he did. As a quick example, most people assume that Tesla was using AC but in the late stages of his career, he wasn't. He had moved on to pulsed current (PC). This type of current does not alternate like AC, but instead gives quick pulses of current with a very fast rise time and a fast but slower relax time. The current never goes below zero like it would for AC. In fact, Tesla had moved past current, really. He was doing things that caused effects before the current arrived. He was using such high voltages that the current would be a hindrance rather than a help. He would make his transmission lines of such a length that the voltage would bounce back before the current started. This is why he could do things with only 1 end of the conductor connected. He didn't want a closed path because he didn't want all that crap that comes with the current. Tesla was truly working with photons and not ions. The rest of us will catch up eventually.

With respect to the color of the ocean, I would read Miles paper on the color of the sky for some background information. He also has some other papers around this concept too.

TESLA WIRELESS MOTOR
Work from Electricity
Nevyn, or others, do you know if Tesla was apparently able to run motors wirelessly? Also, does electricity do work by producing magnetism via coils? I think Work = Force x Distance; right? Solenoids and electric motors both require coils; right? Are there other basic electrical items that do work, besides coils using magnetism? I did a search on Mathis' site and it appears that he has never used the word "coil" so far in his papers.

MM's Theory on Electricity
My previous post shows that I probably don't have a very accurate understanding of MM's ideas about electricity. Following are what seem to be some of his more relevant statements on the subject. Airman, Cr6 and I had discussed the "Battery Circuit" paper a couple years ago, but that didn't help my understanding very much.

Spin Current without Magnetic Material (more proof of my charge field)
http://milesmathis.com/current.pdf
... photons, not electrons, are the field particle of both electricity and magnetism.... the field — both electricity and magnetism — can be transmitted with no ions present. See, for instance, my paper on Maxwell's equations and his displacement field, where I separate the photon field from the ion field, showing not only that the photon field is primary, but that it can exist in space where no “fermionic matter” is present.

The Electromagnetic Field (and the Strong Force)
http://milesmathis.com/strong.html
... in my paper on Superposition, ... I show that stacked spins cause the wave motion of the particle [photon]. I also showed that the way the spins are stacked explains the mysteries of superposition.... Once we apply gyroscopic exclusion rules to the spins, we find that each spin must be outside the influence of inner spins. So that, for example, an axial spin of R around the radius must create an x-spin of 2R and a y-spin of 4R and a z-spin of 8R. The four spins can’t all be about equivalent axes, and no one has noticed this before me. These stacked spins cause the particle's linear motion to wobble, and this wobble is the primary wave. Secondary waves are then created by the relationships of each spin to the other. If we then propose that all spinning particles are emitting a charge field, and that the charge field is a real field of photons, we can create the electric and magnetic field quite easily, with straight-forward mechanics. The linear energy of the photon field is the foundational electric field and the angular energy of the photon field is the foundational magnetic field. I say "foundational" because the photon field cannot create electricity or magnetism without the presence of an ion field. The photons must drive electrons or positive ions in order to create the forces of electricity and magnetism. Normally, the photons cannot create macro-fields on their own (except in the case of gasses).

HOW a BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS
http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf
... It is thought that the circuit acts as a medium through which charge can pass, but Sefton has already shown that isn't really the case. Whatever is passing is passing both through the wires and through the space between them directly, so it would appear that charge photons don't require the wires to pass to from battery to bulb. The wires would only appear to be giving the photons a reason to go to the bulb. They are providing some link, but they are not providing the path. How are the wires doing that? Well, in the first instance, we should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path.
... If we think of charge as a density difference instead of abstract potential, we can clarify the mechanics here. The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field. The photons are much denser on one side of the battery than the other. Why? It could be any number of reasons, but a common reason in normal batteries is that chemical reactions separate large ions from small ones. In other words, if free protons are pushed to one side and free electrons to the other, the protons will be recycling far more photons. Larger bodies emit more.
... The photon density will be far higher on one side than the other, and by the rules of entropy or statistics, they will move from high density to low. We have a flow of energy. This creates the field inside the battery as well as the field just beyond it (there are no walls to the photon field). Now, if we extend wires to the bulb, we haven't provided the path to the bulb that the photons must take, since the photons need no path of that kind. They can travel directly if they like. What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission. The wires allow for an initial induction or matching of the present fields, so that photons leaving the battery can affect the photons in the bulb.
... In a nutshell, in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source. This priming is done via the E/M field [ions?] between the source and receiver. Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered. The problem is, in normal conditions, the field is not coherent in any way. It is scrambled, relative to source and receiver. Charge photons are rushing around in every direction. But by sending out a pre-signal, as it were, a path is created for the photons. A coherence in the field is created. When this field reaches the receiver, the E/M field surrounding the atoms there is also made coherent. This coherence can be a coherence of frequency or it can be a coherence of spin (magnetism), or both. This means that the charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source. Like charge couples most easily. Charge that is directionalized, frequency matched, and spin matched will maximize the coupling.
... the reason there is no wireless transmission between a battery and a bulb is that there is no pre-signal. The field hasn't been primed. The photons at the source don't match the photons at the receiver in any way, so there isn't any appreciable coupling. And this means that the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field. The wires supply the pre-signal. They mirror the function of the conductor in wireless. Some amount of photons pass through the wires, and they cohere the E/M field inside the bulb. This causes a sort of mutual induction, although most of the effect is going from battery to bulb (since most the photons are being recycled in the battery). And since the heaviest photon traffic is from battery to bulb, this traffic will cause the electrons in the wire to move toward the bulb, by direct bombardment. This is what has fooled everyone. They see that electron movement toward the bulb and mistake it for the mechanism. It isn't the mechanism, it is just a by-product.
- But why must we have two wires then? Why doesn't one wire work to prime the field? Because one wire doesn't allow for induction. Induction is caused by photon modulation of some sort, and you can't have this modulation without some appreciable width of influence. If you had a really wide wire and a perfectly directionalized connection, you could create the induction with one wire, since in that case you would be mirroring the wireless set-up. In wireless, the atmosphere works like a really wide single wire with a pre-existing field. But a normal copper wire is too small in cross section to allow the photons to arrive at the source with the proper information. You can send information through a single wire, but you can't prime the E/M field through a small single wire (under normal circumstances).
- To simplify the mechanism for this paper, think of the photons arriving at the bulb and speeding out of the wire. Following Huygens principle, we can imagine the photons fanning out, as from a point source. That fanning out ruins the ability of the photons to cohere the field inside the bulb. The local field can't read what the new photons are trying to tell them, since the fanning out is changing the information every moment. If the field is supposed to be modulated by frequency for instance, that fanning out is changing the frequency. Photons coming out near the edges of the wire — the ones fanning the most — will be shifted relative to the local field. The field inside the bulb doesn't know what to make of the new photons. Very little of the field inside the bulb will be modulated. Induction requires a resonance, and a fan can't create this resonance.
- But if we allow even two point sources to enter the bulb simultaneously, with some separation, the local field can read the information in the new photons. How? Because the two new fans will cross. One new influence won't create a pattern, two will. Remember that waves are basically very simple fixed patterns. It is these waves we are modulating in some fashion to create the induction. Well, a fan doesn't create a new pattern or wave that will stand. A Huygens fan just looks like a stirring to the local field. If anything, it will decohere or mix the field inside bulb, not modulate it. But two such fans create crossing points that make a consistent pattern. This pattern can be read as a wave by the local field, and the local field can therefore be influenced by it in a positive manner. The field in the bulb can therefore be made like the field in the battery, and we have induction.
... I have said that the wires simply provide the induction. But if that is so, then why does the induction cease when the wires are cut? According to my theory, shouldn't we have wireless transmission after the initial priming, even with a battery? No, of course not. In real wireless, do we continue to have transmission when the conductor is turned off? No. The reason for this is that the ambient field rushes back in in both cases, rescrambling the paths. The coherence has to be maintained or it will immediately be lost. We can imagine E/M fields that might maintain this coherence even after the wires were cut or the conductor turned off, but the Earth's atmosphere is not such a field. For one thing, I have shown that the Earth's field has heavy photon traffic straight up, everywhere on the surface of the planet, and this traffic is going to interfere with any photon motion that is not also straight up.
- In addition, it might seem that by my theory, both wires would be hot. Since photons are moving from battery to bulb in both wires, why don't we see electrons moving the same in both wires? Because, again, the two poles aren't the same, as a matter of photon density. We have a much larger density at one pole. That is what created the initial energy field in the battery. The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter. This means that the neutral wire is not really neutral, it is just relatively neutral. It is a lot “cooler” than the other wire, because very few photons need to move through it to create the induction. Therefore, we would expect some motion of electrons toward the bulb, but not much. This sharply contradicts current advice on the web, which states that the neutral or “return” wire completes the circuit, returns the charge, or whatnot. The neutral or return wire in a battery is not a ground, so nothing is returning and nothing is neutral. If electricity was returning to the battery, the wire would be hot in the other direction, right? And the same applies if it was a ground. The neutral wire could work as a ground in extreme circumstances, like if your battery exploded or had a big charge surge for some reason. But under normal circumstances, we would actually expect the electrons to be moving very slowly toward the bulb, which means we have neither a circuit nor a return nor a ground. The only reason you would find electrons moving back to the battery is if you are overloading your bulb. But in that case, the electron reversal would imply a photon reversal, and that would break the induction. Your light would go off.

Questions Re My Previous Post
_1.MM: the photon field cannot create electricity or magnetism without the presence of an ion field
_MM: we should read the wires [in a battery circuit] as an extension of the battery, not as a path
_LK: But the battery has high and low-density charge-photon emission, while the wires do not have such differential emission. Also, if wires don't carry current, why are electric and magnetic fields detected on the wires, but not away from them? And why does one get zapped if one short-circuits the wiring?

_2.MM: in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source. This priming is done via the E/M field [ions?] between the source and receiver. Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.
_MM: charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source
_LK: What are some examples of similar or coupled charge streams from batteries to loads? What are some known frequencies?

_3.MM: [Widening a wire results in] mirroring the wireless set-up
_MM: that fanning out is changing the frequency
_MM: two new fans will cross ... [and] create a pattern
_LK: Where are the photon fans for a light bulb or a motor? What are the frequencies for each?

_4.MM: the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field
_MM: The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter.
_LK: If the wires don't carry charge, which is photons, how can there be a hot wire with a denser charge stream?

LloydK wrote:Work from Electricity
Nevyn, or others, do you know if Tesla was apparently able to run motors wirelessly? Also, does electricity do work by producing magnetism via coils? I think Work = Force x Distance; right? Solenoids and electric motors both require coils; right? Are there other basic electrical items that do work, besides coils using magnetism? I did a search on Mathis' site and it appears that he has never used the word "coil" so far in his papers.

I don't believe he ever ran a motor wirelessly. Motors require too much power for that and he didn't reach a point where he could, that I know of. If his ideas could be realised, then I think he could do it. Most of his experiments were with light bulbs. Lighting is what he was initially working on but towards the end of his career he was thinking much bigger but we never got to see it, unfortunately. Maybe it was possible, maybe not. There is a story of a little oscillator that he made which he attached to the central column of his building and supposedly caused earthquake like trembles through New York. When the police arrived at his lab, he was smashing the device to stop it and calmly said to the police "You just missed a most exciting experiment!". I don't know how the oscillator was powered though. It may have been via the huge coils he had in his lab but I don't think that is ever mentioned in the story.

Yes, coils are a way to condense the magnetic field so that it becomes useful. Miles may not have used the term coil, but he may have talked about transformers which are just 2 coils close together such that the magnetic field of one causes a change in the other and he also may have used the term inductor. I know he has at least one paper on inductance so that would be a good place to start.

The 3 basic elements of electrical concepts are resistance, capacitance and inductance. Everything else follows from those 3. You could say they all do work, of some form or another. A resistor is not usually used for work, per se, but it does generate heat which could be called work in some circumstances. For example, I could use a resister to generate heat that heats up some mercury which actually moves something. A capacitor stores charge which can then be used for work. I can't really see any way to say that a capacitor actually does work though, unless you count the movement of charge or ions. Inductance is where the most obvious work is performed since we can use the magnetic properties to affect things, such as a solenoid or motor which are just a coil around a magnet (or a magnet around a coil).

LloydK wrote:
Questions Re My Previous Post
_1.MM: the photon field cannot create electricity or magnetism without the presence of an ion field
_MM: we should read the wires [in a battery circuit] as an extension of the battery, not as a path
_LK: But the battery has high and low-density charge-photon emission, while the wires do not have such differential emission. Also, if wires don't carry current, why are electric and magnetic fields detected on the wires, but not away from them? And why does one get zapped if one short-circuits the wiring?

The wires don't carry all of the photon current (there must be some to push the ions) but they do carry ion current and it is the ions that are creating those magnetic fields (via interaction with the ambient charge field).

LloydK wrote:_2.MM: in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source. This priming is done via the E/M field [ions?] between the source and receiver. Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.
_MM: charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source
_LK: What are some examples of similar or coupled charge streams from batteries to loads? What are some known frequencies?

There are no known frequencies, rather, you just need to make both devices match. The actual frequencies don't even need to be the same, just related. For example, I might run the transmitter at 100MHz but a receiver could work at 100MHz, 50MHz, 25MHz, etc. Of course, the best match is with both running at the same frequency so that will transmit the most power or signal or whatever you are transmitting but you can work with the harmonic frequencies as well.

LloydK wrote:
_3.MM: [Widening a wire results in] mirroring the wireless set-up
_MM: that fanning out is changing the frequency
_MM: two new fans will cross ... [and] create a pattern
_LK: Where are the photon fans for a light bulb or a motor? What are the frequencies for each?

The fans are the end points of the wires going into the bulb. This is where the photons lose their guide (the wires) and can now spread out in all directions. This is not a fan like Miles uses to describe Protons, which is more like a motor, in this case it is just a pattern.

LloydK wrote:
_4.MM: the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field
_MM: The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter.
_LK: If the wires don't carry charge, which is photons, how can there be a hot wire with a denser charge stream?

They do carry some charge, even photon charge, but what Miles is talking about here has more to do with the return wires, commonly called ground or neutral (in AC). If the current was actually working the way the mainstream say it is, that is, changing directions in AC or continuing on to return to the power source in DC, then the return wire would get hot, but it doesn't. This is even more important in AC where the neutral wire is said to sink current on the +ve half of the cycle and source current on the -ve half. That wire should get at least as hot as the live wire (sometimes called the hot wire but that would be confusing here since the term hot is used to signify the presence of voltage, not heat) since they are always carrying current one way or the other. This also applies in more safety conscious countries that use 3 wires for AC. With 3 wire AC, both wires are always supplying current one way or the other so they should both get hot, the third wire is a ground connection which is mainly for safety (it is a very solid ground connection that should take any stray current rather than that current running into a person touching the device if an internal live wire came loose and touched the chassis).

The hot wire has a denser charge stream because it is carrying the large ions (Protons) where as the neutral wire is carrying the small ions (Electrons). The larger ions emit more charge (from the ambient field, not the photon current) so that wire gets hotter.

TESLA WIRELESS MOTOR

Nevyn wrote:I don't believe he [Tesla] ever ran a motor wirelessly.

I think I read within the last year that he transmitted a signal in Colorado 26 miles or so and it turned on a bunch of lights and maybe 6 electric motors or something.

Nevyn, thanks for your answers. I think they're helping quite a bit, but I could use a few more answers yet. Hopefully, I'll eventually be able to visualize electricity clearly.

5.

LloydK wrote:_MM: in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source. This priming is done via the E/M field [ions?] between the source and receiver. Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.
_MM: charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source

Nevyn wrote:There are no known frequencies, rather, you just need to make both devices match.

Can you make a guess as to the frequencies? Would the photons be IR photons? What is the field in the receiver? Is that the charge stream from the ions in or around the wires? How does the E/M field between the source and the receiver prime the field in the receiver?

6.

LloydK wrote:_LK: Where are the photon fans for a light bulb or a motor?

Nevyn wrote:The fans are the end points of the wires going into the bulb. This is where the photons lose their guide (the wires) and can now spread out in all directions.

But it looks to me like the wire is continuous all the way through the bulb and just thins out at the filament, as per this diagram:
http://orig10.deviantart.net/0689/f/2013/041/c/8/light_bulb_diagram_by_thedevingreat-d5ujv45.png. So where in the diagram would the fans be? At the ends of the filament? If so, wouldn't the fans produce different wave patterns if the ends are moved closer together or farther apart? That would seem very implausible. I think it's important to locate the photon fans. Do you?

7.

LloydK wrote:_MM: the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field
_MM: The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter.
_LK: If the wires don't carry charge, which is photons, how can there be a hot wire with a denser charge stream?

*****>

Nevyn wrote:... The hot wire has a denser charge stream because it is carrying the large ions (Protons) where as the neutral wire is carrying the small ions (Electrons). The larger ions emit more charge (from the ambient field, not the photon current) so that wire gets hotter.

So there are free protons in the wire and in the air? I haven't heard of that. Have you?
*****<
If there were enough free protons around circuits to do anything, wouldn't the mainstream mention them? I think electrons in conductors only move a few millimeters per second. Free protons must move much slower. Would the protons in the ambient field that are emitting more charge to the receiver be coming from the conductor? Otherwise, how would there be more protons on one end of the filament than on the other? -- By the way, would protons emit larger photons on average than electrons do?

TESLA WIRELESS MOTOR
Nevyn, I found the article I had read before that says Tesla was able to power electric motors wirelessly. Besides powering 200 lightbulbs, he also powered one electric motor, whereas I had thought it said he powered six of them. Anyway, he did supposedly power an electric motor wirelessly. Here's the link and the relevant part of the article.

The Wireless Electricity Of Nikola Tesla
http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/wireless.htm
When Nikola Tesla discovered alternating current (AC) electricity, he had great difficulty convincing men of his time to believe in it. Thomas Edison was in favor of direct current (DC) electricity and opposed AC electricity strenuously. Tesla eventually sold his rights to his alternating current patents to George Westinghouse for $1,000,000. After paying off his investors, Tesla spent his remaining funds on his other inventions and culminated his efforts in a major breakthrough in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process.

Also, I hope you may have answers for my previous post.

LloydK wrote:

Nevyn wrote:I don't believe he [Tesla] ever ran a motor wirelessly.

I think I read within the last year that he transmitted a signal in Colorado 26 miles or so and it turned on a bunch of lights and maybe 6 electric motors or something.

I am unaware of that and it has been some time since I did any research on Tesla but I would like to point out, and this may just be your wording that I am arguing with, but there is a big difference between turning on a motor and running a motor. It would be pretty easy to use any signal to turn the motor on, since it is just used to close some type of switch (we would use transistors for that today but obviously Tesla didn't).

I just noticed your latest post as I was posting this one so I will leave in what I wrote before that and clarify here.

Obviously, he did actually run the motor. That is impressive. It may have been a small motor but in those times, small was pretty big compared to what we have today. And he did it over 26 miles. Motors were also less efficient than today so he must have transferred an appreciable amount of power. I have Tesla's Colorado Notes but I only made it about half way through. It is pretty hard reading, very technical and not written for a general audience. Maybe there is something in there about it. I would be interested to see that if it is.

LloydK wrote:
5.

LloydK wrote:_MM: in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source. This priming is done via the E/M field [ions?] between the source and receiver. Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.
_MM: charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source

Nevyn wrote:There are no known frequencies, rather, you just need to make both devices match.

Can you make a guess as to the frequencies? Would the photons be IR photons? What is the field in the receiver? Is that the charge stream from the ions in or around the wires? How does the E/M field between the source and the receiver prime the field in the receiver?

Using an old video from the Borderland Science guys, Eric P Dollard mostly who built a lot of Tesla technology, you would be talking frequencies in the kHz and above range. There would be some upper limit but I don't know what that would be. The frequencies are set by the coils you use. The transmitter is adjusted until it reaches its peak output which is the resonant frequency of that coil. Resonant frequency just means that it is running at a frequency where things happen easily, so there are minimal loses and it kind of seems to run itself, in a way (not really, it is still using power it just doesn't need as much to keep itself running). Essentially, you start at a low frequency and watch the power consumption of your device. As you increase frequency, it will draw more power. At some point, you increase the frequency and the power consumption goes down. Where you can get the highest frequency with the lowest power consumption is your resonant frequency.

An internal combustion engine has the same kind of idea. I'll use my own engine as an example since I know the figures for it. My engine (when it was standard) has a peak power output of 400Nm at 4000 rpm. The engine works (safely) from about 1000 rpm through to 6000 rpm but at 4000 rpm, it generates the most power. That means its resonant frequency is 4000 rpm (66.667Hz). The engine will hold that power output above that rev but it will be slowly dropping rather than building. Based on actually driving my car, I can tell you that it has 2 points where it increases power output. From 1000 rpm through to 2000 rpm, it runs well. At 2000, it seems to pick up a noticeable amount. I get a bit more acceleration. Then again at 4000 rpm, it really kicks in and those last 2000 revs go by so quick you don't have time to watch the tacho anymore. The gears in a car are (usually) selected so that when you change up a gear (after going to your max rev), it falls back to the peak power point so that you stay in the active rev range and get to top speed the quickest.

Resonant electrical systems work just the same. There are many frequencies that look like the resonant frequency but they are just harmonics of it. You may not even be able to reach the actual resonant frequency if the driver can't operate fast enough. The driver in this case is some oscillator that sets the frequency of operation. An oscillator is just a device that outputs a wave (sine, triangle, square, etc) between 2 values, they are easy to build with a couple of opamps but Tesla would have used a spark-gap to drive his devices and the spark-gap was driven by a small motor.

I guess the photons would be IR only because that is what most charge photons are. I don't think the size of the photons is all that important but it may cause subtleties.

The receiver is setup so that its coil matches the transmitter coil. It may not run at the same frequency but it will run at some even harmonic of it (so at 1, 1/2, 1/4, etc). This allows the field of the receiver to constructively interfere with the field of the transmitter and we can get information or even power out of it.

No, it is not the charge stream around the wires because we are talking about wireless transmission of power, so there are no wires. The fields are setup around the top of the coil which has a terminator on it. The terminator is usually a sphere of highly polished metal, electrically connected to one end of the coil (and the other end is connected to the driving device). It is a bit controversial as to how Tesla's ideas could work, some think the power is transmitted through the air and others think it is transmitted through the ground. I tend to believe the ground theory as Tesla talked about the resonant frequency of the Earth and how he could pump power into it which could be tapped at any point on the globe with a suitable receiver. However, he also had diagrams of flying machines that would use the power and there is no Earth connection for them. But those diagrams were his big ideas rather than things he had actually worked on and got working. Eric P Dollard did build a wireless transmitter and receiver and from what I can tell from the video, I would say it transferred through the ground.

When Tesla talked about coupling his devices, he was talking about matching resonant frequencies. If you use the power-through-ground theory, then the transmitter would pump power into the ground at some frequency. This frequency would be selected so that it could match (or harmonize with) the resonant frequency of the Earth, allowing the waves to bounce around inside of the Earth. The receiver is then setup at a harmonic of that frequency so that it can 'see' the waves in the Earth. When these waves travel into the receiver, it energizes it because it is basically built backwards from the transmitter. By backwards I mean that the coil used is wired in reverse.

There are many different coil patterns you can use but the wireless power transmission ones that I have seen are a spiral. The wire moves from the outside edge to the center of a circle. Most people are familiar with coils where the wire wraps around a cylinder. This one is totally different to those. The transmitter would connect its driver to the outside connection and the terminator to the inside connection but the receiver would connect its terminator to the outside and its load to the inside. Therefore they are wired in reverse to each other and this allows one to pump power in while the other takes it out.

While I am not exactly sure what they mean by 'priming the field', I think it is just the matching of frequencies in the case of wireless power. Miles talks about 'priming the field' inside a light bulb and this is where the 2 connections to the bulb setup fields inside of the bulb and if they are constructive, then we get light, otherwise we don't. He is providing a reason for the second wire which has traditionally been assumed to return the current.

LloydK wrote:
6.

LloydK wrote:_LK: Where are the photon fans for a light bulb or a motor?

Nevyn wrote:The fans are the end points of the wires going into the bulb. This is where the photons lose their guide (the wires) and can now spread out in all directions.

But it looks to me like the wire is continuous all the way through the bulb and just thins out at the filament, as per this diagram:
http://orig10.deviantart.net/0689/f/2013/041/c/8/light_bulb_diagram_by_thedevingreat-d5ujv45.png. So where in the diagram would the fans be? At the ends of the filament? If so, wouldn't the fans produce different wave patterns if the ends are moved closer together or farther apart? That would seem very implausible. I think it's important to locate the photon fans. Do you?

Yes, you are correct, the wires do connect to the filament (although Tesla used other things, not just a filament). However, inside of the bulb is a near-vacuum. This allows the photons to spread out while the ion current follows the wires. Actually, the bulb usually contains a rarefied gas (meaning some gas in a near-vacuum) and I would suggest that the gas is used to help 'prime the field' by providing something to form the pattern. Or maybe they just provide some coherence to the charge field in the bulb so that the incoming charge can prime it.

The filament is a very thin wire compared to the wires that deliver the current so the points where the wires connect to the filament could be the fan locations.

I don't think that the distance between the wires would make too much of a difference. The important thing is the wave patterns in the field and these will interfere no matter the distance (up to some limit where they are too far apart to interfere with each other). The distance will just determine exactly where the nodes end up (nodes are the points in the pattern that the 2 waves constructively interfere).

LloydK wrote:
7.

LloydK wrote:_MM: the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field
_MM: The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter.
_LK: If the wires don't carry charge, which is photons, how can there be a hot wire with a denser charge stream?

Nevyn wrote:... The hot wire has a denser charge stream because it is carrying the large ions (Protons) where as the neutral wire is carrying the small ions (Electrons). The larger ions emit more charge (from the ambient field, not the photon current) so that wire gets hotter.

So there are free protons in the wire and in the air? I haven't heard of that. Have you? If there were enough free protons around circuits to do anything, wouldn't the mainstream mention them? I think electrons in conductors only move a few millimeters per second. Free protons must move much slower. Would the protons in the ambient field that are emitting more charge to the receiver be coming from the conductor? Otherwise, how would there be more protons on one end of the filament than on the other? -- By the way, would protons emit larger photons on average than electrons do?

Well, there certainly could be free protons in the field or wire, but in this case, they are coming from the power source. A power source is a device that separates large ions from smaller ones. When we connect it to some circuit, each side sends out what it has because it suddenly has a path to even out the separation between them.

No, I don't see any reason for protons to emit larger photons than an electron. They both take whatever is in the ambient field and while they can add a spin to that charge (or take it away) they are not going to add more than 1 spin level as the charge is not in there long enough to gain more than 1. I may be convinced that a proton could add a spin to more photons than an electron would in the same amount of time, just because it has more energy and mass to do so but then again, it also has more volume so maybe it is the opposite. Maybe the electron imparts more spins because it is a smaller, more condensed space that the charge is flowing through.

Thanks, Nevyn. Do you have an idea then how to simulate electricity or make an animation?
*****>
PS, Nevyn said:

Yes, you are correct, the wires do connect to the filament (although Tesla used other things, not just a filament). However, inside of the bulb is a near-vacuum. This allows the photons to spread out while the ion current follows the wires. Actually, the bulb usually contains a rarefied gas (meaning some gas in a near-vacuum) and I would suggest that the gas is used to help 'prime the field' by providing something to form the pattern. Or maybe they just provide some coherence to the charge field in the bulb so that the incoming charge can prime it.
- The filament is a very thin wire compared to the wires that deliver the current so the points where the wires connect to the filament could be the fan locations.
- I don't think that the distance between the wires would make too much of a difference. The important thing is the wave patterns in the field and these will interfere no matter the distance (up to some limit where they are too far apart to interfere with each other). The distance will just determine exactly where the nodes end up (nodes are the points in the pattern that the 2 waves constructively interfere).
... Well, there certainly could be free protons in the field or wire, but in this case, they are coming from the power source. A power source is a device that separates large ions from smaller ones. When we connect it to some circuit, each side sends out what it has because it suddenly has a path to even out the separation between them.

*****<

LloydK wrote:_MM: in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source. This priming is done via the E/M field [ions?] between the source and receiver. Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.
_MM: charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source

Nevyn wrote:There are no known frequencies, rather, you just need to make both devices match.

LloydK wrote: Can you make a guess as to the frequencies? Would the photons be IR photons? What is the field in the receiver? Is that the charge stream from the ions in or around the wires? How does the E/M field between the source and the receiver prime the field in the receiver?

Lloyd, Thanks for inviting my input ( https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t212-tesla-friendly-electricity-videos-any-comments#1389 ). I think our other discussion parallels this one. I don't see any disagreements.

Nevyn, I've enjoyed reading your replies to Lloyd. I like your answer - "There are no known frequencies, rather, you just need to make both devices match". I could say that the ‘frequency’ is probably determined by the intended purpose. I would like to think a bit about your free ions in a hot lead explanation. Also, Tesla attempted to deliver power via Earth signals. He apparently succeeded. Did he light up all bulbs within 26 miles or was the specific target area selected? How was the target area arranged?

The larger discussion seems to be mostly about resonance, power transmission, or wires. In the same continuum, consider wireless communication. We can create a radio station at almost any frequency (local rules may apply!). The coil has been replaced with an oscillator and tuner. Many stations will occupy contiguous frequencies and locations in order to fill the local available RF bandwidth. Station frequency separations are roughly based on the human hearing range of 200-20kHz and a small additional margin. Antenna elements are designed for optimum performance across the RF frequency bands. Signal intelligence – a 20kHz (again, human hearing range) bandwidth signal of music, or communications - is used to vary, or modulate the carrier (station) frequency. The combined signal is transmitted into space.

I turn on my radio, tune it to my favorite station, and lean the bent aerial against the metal window frame. Using just a tuner, local oscillator, and wall power, my receiver automatically removes the station frequency, filling the air with sweet 20kHz music. I wonder at the many simultaneous communications going on around me, everyone is on their own electronic device, emf signals are everywhere. I said above that my receiver removed the radio frequency photons. They still exist when I turn my radio off – don’t they?

I’m beginning to think that tuning in a radio to a local radio source may well create a direct physical photon link – a charge channel - between the transmitter station and my radio. The photons must exist in my tuner/oscillator long enough to transfer the differential envelope into the signal range I can hear.
.

A1: Nevyn ... I would like to think a bit about your free ions in a hot lead explanation.

I thought that was a fairly plausible explanation offhand, but I haven't thought about it thoroughly. Electrons supposedly were measured to flow at just a few millimeters per second. Protons would surely move much slower. Right? However, perhaps the flow of protons from the battery along the wire would be too weak to measure and then too slow to measure, once protons spread out along the conductor. Would protons move along the surface of the wire inside the insulation? Is the direction of electron flow known? Do they flow toward the load, as per MM's model? Do batteries lose charge due to electrons and protons combining at the load? Does the proton flow make a detectable magnetic field? What about an electric field?

A2: ... consider wireless communication. ... The coil has been replaced with an oscillator and tuner.

L2: Is the coil more expensive to make? Does it use more conductor material? What's the disadvantage?

A3: ... I wonder at the many simultaneous communications going on around ... I’m beginning to think that tuning in a radio to a local radio source may well create a direct physical photon link – a charge channel - between the transmitter station and my radio. The photons must exist in my tuner/oscillator long enough to transfer the differential envelope into the signal range I can hear.

Any idea how voice patterns are carried by photons? Where did the conventional model of EM waves come from, with the E wave perpendicular to the M wave and 90 degrees out of phase? They normally call the EM wave a carrier wave, I think, with smaller waves on the EM wave. But it seems unlikely that there could be any kind of smaller waves on a waving or nonwaving photon. MM said ions are needed for the EM field to manifest, I think. How would Tesla's ions have been sent 26 miles to the wireless loads? Or did it likely send a beam along the ground where I think ions are more numerous?
*****>
PS, Airman said:

I’m beginning to think that tuning in a radio to a local radio source may well create a direct physical photon link – a charge channel - between the transmitter station and my radio. The photons must exist in my tuner/oscillator long enough to transfer the differential envelope into the signal range I can hear.

*****<

A1: Nevyn ... I would like to think a bit about your free ions in a hot lead explanation.

L1 thought that was a fairly plausible explanation offhand, but I haven't thought about it thoroughly. Electrons supposedly were measured to flow at just a few millimeters per second. Protons would surely move much slower. Right? However, perhaps the flow of protons from the battery along the wire would be too weak to measure and then too slow to measure, once protons spread out along the conductor. Would protons move along the surface of the wire inside the insulation? Is the direction of electron flow known? Do they flow toward the load, as per MM's model? Do batteries lose charge due to electrons and protons combining at the load? Does the proton flow make a detectable magnetic field? What about an electric field?

L1_A. Airman. I certainly don’t understand current well enough to model it. Sorry that doesn't stop me from speculating about it.

Start with atoms in the metal lattice of the conductor. With no current applied, all protons within the conductor continue to channel photons at rates due to the conductor’s ambient temperature as a function of the local charge field. This is an equilibrium where no net movement of electrons (or protons) occurs. The conductor is, to some extent, always resonant (or maybe a better word is integral), it is always receiving/reflecting energies from various outside sources even while just sitting there. The conductor will favor certain frequencies and voltages as determined by its size, geometry, and material composition. I suppose another definition of resonance is the maximum - absorbed/reflected - energy ratio. But it's two directional and I still don't understand it. The conductor itself could then serve as an antenna, receiving/reflecting emf patterns or noise most efficiently at those frequencies.

Apply a local voltage. If there’s no circuit, or a path to ground, there will be no current flow, so let’s allow the conductor to be part of a device or circuit designed for that current flow. The current acts like an incompressible fluid, we’re told there is a slow electron current. I cannot recite Miles right now. The conductor becomes hotter due to its internal resistance to current flow. [Note – The utility company performs periodic checks, including infrared monitoring. Any loose connections emit more heat than properly bond connections; loose connections must be corrected or they may fail catastrophically under high load or adverse weather conditions]. We know that the increased energy is felt throughout the conductor. The conductor is now a source of higher energy photons, conducting and radiating more photons than are present in the local charge field. It is emitting many more - as well as higher energy - photons. Since it is emitting more energy, it can be seen from farther away.

Most work is performed by the photons that push the electrons along the conductor, but there are also losses, some portion of photons are emitted out of the conductor. I believe the photon emission field drops off at a rate directly inverse to the distance from the conductor. Under some voltage/frequency/atmospheric conditions, air immediately adjacent to the conductor is ionized. As voltage or frequency is increased, the ionization radius may also increases. When ionized protons in the air move away from the conductor, they may recombine with their missing electrons. Over time, ionized air will cause chemical reactions deteriorating the conductor surface.

I’ve been a technician and field engineer. I’ve spent even more time working with electricians and linemen (while staying out of their way). If protons could move within conductors I would expect old high current connections would show much more metal migration or permanent bonding – yes there is some, but it’s usually attributed to contact by “unlike metals”. Also, if protons moved within the conductor I suspect infrared surveys would reveal such “impurities” as a greater heat signature over time. Otoh the industry knows the expected lifetimes and failure modes of their conductors, I don’t.

A2: ... consider wireless communication. ... The coil has been replaced with an oscillator and tuner.

L2: Is the coil more expensive to make? Does it use more conductor material? What's the disadvantage?

L2_A: A physical coil is generally resonant at a single frequency, or multiples of that frequency (the harmonics) - depending on the coil dimensions and materials. An oscillator and tuner allows one to create resonance at any RF frequency.

A3: ... I wonder at the many simultaneous communications going on around ... I’m beginning to think that tuning in a radio to a local radio source may well create a direct physical photon link – a charge channel - between the transmitter station and my radio. The photons must exist in my tuner/oscillator long enough to transfer the differential envelope into the signal range I can hear.

L3. Any idea how voice patterns are carried by photons? Where did the conventional model of EM waves come from, with the E wave perpendicular to the M wave and 90 degrees out of phase? They normally call the EM wave a carrier wave, I think, with smaller waves on the EM wave. But it seems unlikely that there could be any kind of smaller waves on a waving or nonwaving photon. MM said ions are needed for the EM field to manifest, I think. How would Tesla's ions have been sent 26 miles to the wireless loads? Or did it likely send a beam along the ground where I think ions are more numerous?

L3_A. Even though I’ve studied and worked with various communications equipment, modulation schemes, and radar, I can’t say I really understood any of it. As Miles has said, EM theory is based on an incorrect notion that space imposes a field effect similar to sound or water waves. EM waves are actually many spinning photons. In the past we’ve attributed sound to air. Perhaps sound, at the lowest level, is driven by photons. Photons can provide a high sampling rate of discreet energy packets that can register all the spectral characteristics of your voice. Those photons then mix with the local oscillator, ready for transmission.

I’ve used carrier and station frequencies interchangeably above. The wiki ELI the ICE man posting tells you everything you would need to know about phase angles and why. I suspect Tesla needed many power stations to develop his idea; but he wasn’t allowed to go that far. I’ll avoid any beam discussion for now.
.

*****>
Airman said:

Start with atoms in the metal lattice of the conductor. With no current applied, all protons within the conductor continue to channel photons at rates due to the conductor’s ambient temperature as a function of the local charge field. This is an equilibrium where no net movement of electrons (or protons) occurs. The conductor ... is always receiving/reflecting energies from various outside sources even while just sitting there. ... allow the conductor to be part of a device or circuit designed for ... current flow. ... The conductor becomes hotter due to its internal resistance to current flow. ... The conductor is now a source of higher energy photons, conducting and radiating more photons than are present in the local charge field. It is emitting many more - as well as higher energy - photons. ... Most work is performed by the photons that push the electrons along the conductor.... I believe the photon emission field drops off at a rate directly inverse to the distance from the conductor. Under some ... conditions, air immediately adjacent to the conductor is ionized.

*****<
Thanks, Airman. According to MM all neutral atoms and molecules emit or recycle very few photons externally, as the charge streams remain within the atoms or molecules, which is why they're neutral. So any non-ionized atoms within a metal lattice should not be emitting photons externally, apparently. MM says heat is IR photons. Do you think resistance and friction are IR photons? Friction is an opposing force. It seems that a large part of friction must be the mass of the opposing matter. For electrical resistance the opposing force must be the mass of the atoms in the conductor that interfere with movement of ions. Do you agree?

LOGO PROGRAM
I've been messing around with an online Logo program lately at http://www.logointerpreter.com , trying to see if I can find a way to simulate MM's photons. This one doesn't seem to have 3D capabilities, so it may be futile, but I'm trying it out anyway. So far I found that this program comes closest to what I want:

cs setx -250 ht for [i 1 500 1] [seth 90 fd 1 seth 90 + :i go "8 true]

The last part, go "8 true, displays an image of a monkey head, which I figure looks a little like a photon. The true part makes it rotate, I think. You may be able to enter that and other programs at http://www.logointerpreter.com/turtle-editor.php without having to register first. I'm not sure though. They make it easy to edit and run programs right away. They have a slow run and a "rocket" run, which goes very fast. The rocket runs most programs almost instantly. But if there's a repeat, it's a bit slower, because it does each repeat individually. Here's a flying witch program:

home rt 90 ht repeat 555 [setbgimg "Mountain2 go "14 false fd 7 wait 20].

The false makes the witch stay upright while flying past the mountain repeatedly. I want to see if there's a way to simulate stacked spins. It might require using more than one turtle, but this site doesn't seem to have more than one. But the repeat command might make the stacks possible anyway. Do any of you folks want to try it out and maybe find solutions for this?

Lloyd,

The Logo site seems nice. I tried:
cs setx -250 ht for [i 1 500 1] [seth 90 fd 1 seth 90+ go "8 true]
and got an error. In the center of the program, the “[“ character is highlighted, with message “Turtle says: Expected number”.
And Nevyn said R was ugly!

We, Nevyn, Cr6 and I, have just agreed (finally!) to give a Mathis R Script or two a go.  https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t148-creating-a-mathis-r-library#1387. "Monkey head photon"? Are you asking us to stop that and go with kid Logo instead? Maybe you can learn R too.

Make your case and quit being subversive, if you don't mind my saying.
.

Somehow, this forum likes to remove :i from the program. It's supposed to have that after 90+:
cs setx -250 ht for [i 1 500 1] [seth 90 fd 1 seth 90+ go "8 true].
It works fine with :i left in. I'll go up and try to fix my earlier copy of the program.

Cs means clear screen & go home; ht, hide turtle; fd, forward; seth, set heading (0-360); bk, back; lt, left turn; rt, right turn; pu, pen up; pd, pen down; st, show turtle; go "# true/false, gets an image from a list.

This version of Logo isn't the best, but it's pretty good for a free online site. I've seen a 3D version that seemed very sophisticated to me. I think it can be downloaded online, because I recall that I had it on my previous computer. I tried a little to learn the 3D, but only succeeded with 2D. I learned a little Fortran, Basic, Cobol & Pascal (and a wee bit of HTML) over the years, but I think Logo probably has the most logical and simple language. If you haven't tried it before, mess around with it a little and see what you think.

Interesting discussion.  Don't mean to derail the topic but I always pull out this Tesla article on Stubblefield's Earth Batteries.  This is the Charge Field moving through the Earth. They do work since there are many old patents on them. I think these are closer to what Mathis proposes. MIT was doing work with Tree/Root batteries based on this a few years back as well:

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/groundradio.html

StubbleField Cell

(Tesla is holding the scissors.)
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/stubblefield.html
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/stublefield1.html

The very first vocal radio broadcast was engaged by Nathan B. Stubblefield (1872). Mr. Stubblefield employed special "earth cells" and long iron rods to transmit strong vocal signals "with great clarity". These signals traversed a mile or more of ground, a coordinated conduction wireless system providing telephone service for a hardworking farm community. The Stubblefield Radio Method represents an essential technological mystery. His "earth cells" never wore out, never produced heat in their telephonic components, and provided "signal ready" power at any given instant of the day. Being neither activated or assisted by additional battery power, the system was fully operational around the clock.

Later critics attempted the reduction of the Stubblefield Radio System to mere "subsoil conduction" mode of transmission, but remain completely unable to reproduce the performance to this day. Mr. Stubblefield repeatedly stated confidence in the fact that his Radio System was performing an act of modulation, not a transmission of signal power. The preexisting "electrical waves in the earth", he firmly stated, were the real energy carriers for his Wireless Telephone Exchange. The special "earth cells" were connective terminals, not power antennas; a means by which direct connection with the geomantic energy stratum was obtained.

In an entirely different regime of exploration, a regime having nothing whatsoever to do with waveradio energies, Dr. Nikola Tesla directed the construction of a massive radiating structure on the northshore of Long Island. His previous years of experience taught him the secrets concerning radiant energy and its effective propagation through the air and space (1892 to 1900). Understanding the means by which radiant energy may be more effectively beamed down through the ground, Dr. Tesla established the magnificent Wardenclyffe Station (1901). Tesla intended Wardenclyffe to be the first of a series, stations for the subterranean beam transmission of radiant energy. Propagation of very large diameter radiant energy beams had been found more effective for given power purposes, when conducted through solid rock. Tesla found that the earth was transparent to these penetrating straightline beams, and planned the use of deeply imbedded ground terminals in order to direct and launch his special radiant energy.

Dr. Tesla took special pains to establish the extensive underground conducting system in order "to get a grip of the earth". This most complex construction operation, necessarily executed long before the great tower was erected, took place below the Power Broadcast Station. Tesla stated that this was the most difficult part of his construction operation at Wardenclyffe, the drilling of long iron pipes having first been driven down to more than 300 feet into the foundation rock. At a depth of 120 feet, Tesla excavated several radiating shafts, long hallways whose internal walls were covered with pitch and surrounded with iron pipeworks. These shafts extended outward at this horizontal depth for several hundred feet in all directions, a formidable ground projector. Beneath the central chambers of this Magnifying Transmitter, the deeply embedded terminals actually formed the primary beaming structure; a bizarre conception which was literally rediscovered in legal documents.

Fr. Josef Murgas (1906) produced a remarkable series of articulated monopole terminals. These coaxial coil monopoles were deeply drilled pipes, filled with mineral oil and activated by radioimpulses. With these designs, Fr. Murgas exchanged extremely powerful and static-free signals to great distances with very little applied power. The later proliferation of ground aerial designs included double grounded arches (Tesla, Collins, Ducretet, Musits, Pickard), underwater and underground coils (Jones), underground loops (Beakes), "bent-L" inversions (Appleby, Knoll), and underground channel-loops (Hanson). Of these buried ground systems, none were as prolific as those developed by James Harris Rogers (1913). Most properly categorized as buried dipoles, Rogers antennas rested across the subsurface horizon of the ground, and were relatively easy to establish.

.
Cr6, Perfect addition, Earth power.

I've read through your first Stubblefield link. Stubblefield's "was the only system in which natural energies were obtained, magnified, and entirely employed as the empowering source. All other inventors used "artificial" sources (batteries, alternators, dynamos)". Surprising, even Tesla was unable to determine how the Earth powered Stubblefield's devices.

Derail!" Where we're going, we don't need any rails"

Thank you Sir, I've got more reading to do.
.

No problem guys.  I always enjoyed reading and re-reading the Bendini links on Tesla-Stubblefield.

I think it would be interesting to put an Pyramid over an earth battery-Root battery, or an earth battery built into a pyramid, to see what it could do "free-energy" wise. Apparently the Egyptians put Copper plated "tops" on their pyramids. Don't know if it was for pulling out a collected earth charge?  I do think an earth battery, which Wardenclyffe was acting as on a massive scale (horizontally drilled lines),  using the same parameters could produce the "lit-up Tree effects" as Stubblefield did.  If I had a lot of free time and a wife that was cool with Free-energy experiments (fooling around without a clear purpose)... I might try it myself.  

Lloyd's mention of wave range of Hz-Photons in electricity is still in play -- what "spins" up to a charge-or electro-static electrical charge? Miles mentions this in various papers.

(Still think the Pyramids were ionizers for creating "rain" on demand by the temple priests. )

www.milesmathis.com/pyramid.html
www.icehouse.com/john1/earthbatt.html
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/great-pyramid-mystery.html

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn, I've enjoyed reading your replies to Lloyd. I like your answer - "There are no known frequencies, rather, you just need to make both devices match". I could say that the ‘frequency’ is probably determined by the intended purpose. I would like to think a bit about your free ions in a hot lead explanation. Also, Tesla attempted to deliver power via Earth signals. He apparently succeeded. Did he light up all bulbs within 26 miles or was the specific target area selected? How was the target area arranged?

To a certain extent, you are correct that the frequency may be chosen for the job at hand, if you have special requirements and nearly every project does have its own wants and needs. There are also practical limitations to be dealt with. A 20ft coil is not very practical for most applications, although they have been built before.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
The larger discussion seems to be mostly about resonance, power transmission, or wires. In the same continuum, consider wireless communication. We can create a radio station at almost any frequency (local rules may apply!). The coil has been replaced with an oscillator and tuner. Many stations will occupy contiguous frequencies and locations in order to fill the local available RF bandwidth. Station frequency separations are roughly based on the human hearing range of 200-20kHz and a small additional margin. Antenna elements are designed for optimum performance across the RF frequency bands. Signal intelligence – a 20kHz (again, human hearing range) bandwidth signal of music, or communications - is used to vary, or modulate the carrier (station) frequency. The combined signal is transmitted into space.

The coil hasn't really been replaced in a radio circuit, most of the circuits I have seen use one but it is usually a small inductor. The antenna runs down into an inductor that then runs into ground. The circuit connects to either side of the inductor in order to watch the voltage difference over it. That voltage, which will match the signal on the antenna, is fed into some circuit which could just be an amplifier but most modern radio circuits have some special circuitry for various purposes. As an example, the transmitter will usually emphasize the high frequencies so the receiver has to de-emphasize them. The inductor can be made variable so that you can tune the radio into a station. You can also use a variable capacitor (that connects across the inductor) to tune it.

But I have seen radio circuits that do not use any inductor. They probably work because we can build very fast transistors these days.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I turn on my radio, tune it to my favorite station, and lean the bent aerial against the metal window frame. Using just a tuner, local oscillator, and wall power, my receiver automatically removes the station frequency, filling the air with sweet 20kHz music. I wonder at the many simultaneous communications going on around me, everyone is on their own electronic device, emf signals are everywhere. I said above that my receiver removed the radio frequency photons. They still exist when I turn my radio off – don’t they?

The photons most certainly still exist but I don't think you can still call them part of the signal anymore. Once they strike the antenna, they bounce off and just become part of the ambient field.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I’m beginning to think that tuning in a radio to a local radio source may well create a direct physical photon link – a charge channel - between the transmitter station and my radio. The photons must exist in my tuner/oscillator long enough to transfer the differential envelope into the signal range I can hear.
.

There is no need for a direct physical link and evidence of that is radio transmission through space. It isn't really space but the distances involved. It takes time for that signal to reach the receivers on earth and a physical link would require the transmitter be on, and transmitting, for the entire duration which is not actually required (or very practical). The transmitter sends out a burst and then goes about its day. That burst of energy eventually reaches some receiver and is interpreted.

So in a way, there is a physical link, there always is, but the link is not necessarily at the same time in both transmitter and receiver. It is very much like throwing and catching a ball. The thrower (transmitter) can throw the ball (signal) and then forget about it, have a drink, watch a movie, take out the trash. The catcher (receiver) doesn't need to care about the thrower or the ball until the ball is coming straight at it and only in the final instant does the catcher need to think about it. In the case of a radio receiver, the antenna is always listening but the receiver may not be watching it (power is turned off).

LloydK wrote:

A1: Nevyn ... I would like to think a bit about your free ions in a hot lead explanation.

I thought that was a fairly plausible explanation offhand, but I haven't thought about it thoroughly. Electrons supposedly were measured to flow at just a few millimeters per second. Protons would surely move much slower. Right? However, perhaps the flow of protons from the battery along the wire would be too weak to measure and then too slow to measure, once protons spread out along the conductor. Would protons move along the surface of the wire inside the insulation? Is the direction of electron flow known? Do they flow toward the load, as per MM's model? Do batteries lose charge due to electrons and protons combining at the load? Does the proton flow make a detectable magnetic field? What about an electric field?

Maybe protons don't actually flow through the circuit. Photons certainly do (which I see as voltage) and electrons do (which I see as current) but maybe the protons stay in the power source but act as electron donors (or even generators but that's for another analysis). The live wire may get hotter because it is handling many more electrons than the neutral wire. I'm not sure, there is plenty of room for thought in this area.

With respect to flow on the surface of the wire, that is a known property of very high frequency current. It is called the skin effect because the current seems to flow through the skin of the wire rather than through the center of it. The higher the frequency the further from the center the current travels. However, that is all about photons rather than protons. Protons seem too big for any of this.

LloydK wrote:

A2: ... consider wireless communication. ... The coil has been replaced with an oscillator and tuner.

L2: Is the coil more expensive to make? Does it use more conductor material? What's the disadvantage?

As I said above, most radio circuits still make use of a coil as that is part of the tuner.

LloydK wrote:

A3: ... I wonder at the many simultaneous communications going on around ... I’m beginning to think that tuning in a radio to a local radio source may well create a direct physical photon link – a charge channel - between the transmitter station and my radio. The photons must exist in my tuner/oscillator long enough to transfer the differential envelope into the signal range I can hear.

Any idea how voice patterns are carried by photons? Where did the conventional model of EM waves come from, with the E wave perpendicular to the M wave and 90 degrees out of phase? They normally call the EM wave a carrier wave, I think, with smaller waves on the EM wave. But it seems unlikely that there could be any kind of smaller waves on a waving or nonwaving photon. MM said ions are needed for the EM field to manifest, I think. How would Tesla's ions have been sent 26 miles to the wireless loads? Or did it likely send a beam along the ground where I think ions are more numerous?

You have to be careful about how you think about these signals and the information they carry. A photon can transmit a signal in a few different ways.

1) It can strike something and you use that to transmit/receive 1 bit of information (it either hits, a 1, or it doesn't, a 0). We can't reliably measure accurately or fast enough for this (yet) so we usually send multiple bits, let's say 10, and if most of those are a 1, then we receive a 1, if most are 0, then it is interpreted as 0. This is called error checking. One of the reasons your internet keeps getting faster is because they can build more accurate and reliable receivers that don't need as many error checking bits as the previous generation. If the last generation required 100 bits to be sent just to make sure the receiver sees it as a particular value but the new generation can do it in 10, then we have a connection that is 10 times faster because we can transmit 10 bits in the same space it took to transfer 1 bit before.

2) It can use its spin to transmit a frequency and you can use that to transmit/receive 1 value in a pre-defined range (pre-defined because the spins are quantised rather than continuous with respect to frequency, ie. it can only be 1 particular spin at any given time and the set of possible spin frequencies is quantised). Error checking logic still applies.

However, a sound is not a 1 measurement phenomenon. Sound requires many different measurements over time and it is the relationship between measurements that matters. Your ear measures the density of the air, your brain takes those measurements and finds the frequency of density changes and interprets it as a sound. The key point is that it has to take many readings to figure out what the frequency is.

Radio transmission does the same thing. It can't encode a sound into a single photon so it uses many photons over time and encodes each with a different value. The actual value is a voltage (usually, you can do the same thing with current but it is a lot more complicated) so a given photon (or even this could be a series of photons) is encoded in such a way that it will be received as a certain voltage. This could be achieved through photon density, the more density the higher the voltage while +ve and -ve can be encoded as the spin direction, say clockwise is +ve and anti-clockwise if -ve.

Radio transmission/receiving does not require a carrier wave but most do these days. What this means is that there is some low frequency signal generated. This wave does not change and the transmitter and receiver must use the same frequency. This is the frequency that you tune into. That signal, like any other signal, is just a voltage wave. At some set rate the voltage varies between a maximum and a minimum value (we don't even need it to go -ve as you can just set the middle value as your reference and any value below that is considered -ve). We then take the actual signal to be sent and we add it to the carrier signal. At any given instant, each signal has a particular voltage and we just add them together to get a new voltage. Some example values might help a bit here.

Let's say we have a carrier wave that varies between 0 and 10, so it will look like this:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
|--------------------------------------------| = 1 cycle

This happens at some frequency, let's say 10Hz, so it takes 1/10 of a second for 1 cycle to be sent.

We then have our signal that we actually want to transmit, and this signal varies between 0 and 5  so it will have the series:

0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
|---------------------| 1 cycle

However, the signal must be at a higher frequency than the carrier wave. Let's say our signal is at 100Hz so that the series of values can be sent in 1/100 of a second for 1 cycle.

Signal:
0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 ...
+
Carrier:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
=
Transmitted:
0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 4 5 6 7 8 7 6 5 4 3 ...

The receiver receives the same signal that is transmitted (let's assume a perfect transference) and it already knows the carrier frequency so it just subtracts the carrier from the received signal.

Received:
0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 4 5 6 7 8 7 6 5 4 3 ...
-
Carrier:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
=
Signal:
0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 ...

That is FM (frequency modulation) in a nutshell.

It should be noted that the carrier wave will always be a nice sinusoidal form but the signal wave may not be. The transmitted wave is certainly not unless it happens to be sending no signal.

Lloyd, you are certainly correct that a single photon can not do such a thing. Signals are about a series of values, not a single value.

With respect to how Tesla transferred power, there is certainly no beam. This is not a directional transference of power. The energy is transferred into the earth and can be tapped into anywhere within a given radius of the transmitter. That radius is determined by the amount of power the signal is transmitted with. Or, if you prefer, it is transmitted into the air (or atmosphere or earth's charge field) with the same result.

My guess is that Tesla didn't bother sending ions because it is a waste of energy when you can just send photons instead. The photons will affect the ions in and around the receiver to produce the desired results.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Lloyd,

The Logo site seems nice. I tried:
cs setx -250 ht for [i 1 500 1] [seth 90 fd 1 seth 90+ go "8 true]
and got an error. In the center of the program, the “[“ character is highlighted, with message “Turtle says: Expected number”.
And Nevyn said R was ugly!

We, Nevyn, Cr6 and I, have just agreed (finally!) to give a Mathis R Script or two a go.  https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t148-creating-a-mathis-r-library#1387. "Monkey head photon"? Are you asking us to stop that and go with kid Logo instead? Maybe you can learn R too.

Make your case and quit being subversive, if you don't mind my saying.
.

I stand by my statement about R, but yes, Logo seems worse although I can actually read some of that even though I don't know anything about Logo. for [i 1 500 1] is creating a for loop starting at 1, counting up to 500 in increments of 1 and stored in a variable called i. Everything between the next [ and the corresponding ] is repeated in the loop. But I have no idea what the rest of it is doing.

To be honest, I am not convinced that either R or Logo will be all that useful. At least not for what I see as being required at the moment. I think an R library will be useful for doing actual work but not so much for teaching concepts. I don't know enough about Logo to say what it will or won't be good for but I keep thinking that custom programming is the way to go for the foreseeable future. But then again, I am biased since I am a programmer. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail! Seriously though, I have a freedom that no targeted system or language can compare to.

The reason I say that is because we need to focus on the concepts, not the math, although that is important too. I think it is really important to connect the math to the concepts and to show that the concepts come first. I am starting to see a lot of scientists making stupid claims that the math is everything. If the math requires some thing, then that thing must be real. Even little statements we have all heard before like 'Math is the language of Physics.'. Absolute non-sense, as Miles has shown time and time again, if you don't have the right framework under your math then your math may not show the correct relationships and if you are only looking at the math then you will never notice or see how to correct it. The concepts provide boundaries for the math, not the other way around.

Now, in saying that, I still think it is good for us to get a feel for what these types of tools can do for us and take advantage of them when feasible. I am also aware that you guys don't have the same skill set as me. I can build the tools I want, in the way I want, to show what I want. I do love being an Engineer. When I look at these tools, I see limitations but you guys see possibilities and I don't want to take anything away form that or discourage it in any way. I am interested to see what you guys can do with them which might give me ideas on how to show the concepts a bit better. I can also take the equations you use and put them into other languages where there is more freedom to show what the math is doing or the concepts behind it. Of course, I still have a lot to learn in R as well, so my view may change as I see ways to do things that I can't, or don't want to spend the time doing.

Nevyn said: I don't know enough about Logo to say what it will or won't be good for but I keep thinking that custom programming is the way to go for the foreseeable future.

Actually, I believe Logo is famous for custom programming (I'm a rank amateur, so my beliefs aren't necessarily very accurate). Each user can write procedures and then run them in a program etc. For example, I can define a procedure as: to mozy repeat random 999 forward random 5 left random 360 ... then I can say ... {do something and then} mozy {and do something else, then} mozy etc. Here I spelled out all of the commands, whereas earlier I used abbreviations; forward is fd; left is lt; etc. Procedures can include other procedures too. The potential with 3D seems amazing to me.

You guys have said a lot of interesting things. I'll try to comment later.

Nevyn wrote:I stand by my statement about R

No question about it Nevyn. It can be a mess to work with. There are a lot of APIs available with most of them supported. A lot of people program in Java, Python or Scala and then call R functions to do something would take a lot of boilerplate code to do natively. It can scale up pretty well. I'm personally working with SparkR to load data from a database and then run scripts on it.

All I can say is that a guy like you Nevyn should be working at one of these places with stock-options. This is the hot-spot right now: http://spark-summit.org/2016/job-board/

just joking... unless you are serious. Unfortunately, R doesn't have a baked in Physics package like Matlab, etc. It's definitely not OO so you'll need to use Java/Scala and then call R with this. The IDEs for Scala and R are pretty cryptic. The only thing is that "R" is getting picked up everywhere right now because it is Zero cost to install and yet it is scalable across a server cluster. It may not be suitable for your approach to solving problems. My two cents on the topic.

LongtimeAirman wrote: The larger discussion seems to be mostly about resonance, power transmission, or wires. In the same continuum, consider wireless communication. We can create a radio station at almost any frequency (local rules may apply!). The coil has been replaced with an oscillator and tuner. Many stations will occupy contiguous frequencies and locations in order to fill the local available RF bandwidth. Station frequency separations are roughly based on the human hearing range of 200-20kHz and a small additional margin. Antenna elements are designed for optimum performance across the RF frequency bands. Signal intelligence – a 20kHz (again, human hearing range) bandwidth signal of music, or communications - is used to vary, or modulate the carrier (station) frequency. The combined signal is transmitted into space.

Nevyn wrote: The coil hasn't really been replaced in a radio circuit, most of the circuits I have seen use one but it is usually a small inductor. The antenna runs down into an inductor that then runs into ground. The circuit connects to either side of the inductor in order to watch the voltage difference over it. That voltage, which will match the signal on the antenna, is fed into some circuit which could just be an amplifier but most modern radio circuits have some special circuitry for various purposes. As an example, the transmitter will usually emphasize the high frequencies so the receiver has to de-emphasize them. The inductor can be made variable so that you can tune the radio into a station. You can also use a variable capacitor (that connects across the inductor) to tune it.

But I have seen radio circuits that do not use any inductor. They probably work because we can build very fast transistors these days.
The coil has been replaced with an oscillator and tuner.

Airman answers: Correct, the coil is usually still there. The coil’s tuner allows us to physically move an electrical contact pick-up point – effectively changing the coil’s length.

Of course we can get rid of the coil, and just use straight conductors. They keep coming up in this discussion too. The straight conductor’s length usually corresponds to a quarter, half, or single wavelength of a resonant base frequency. A tuner for which may be, again, a sliding contact pick-up point. The wire can also see harmonics and all the higher frequencies present. Energizing (or giving the wire a higher voltage) such a wire may help maximize the performance of that frequency in that system and so help differentiate it from other interfering frequencies.

A big drawback of straight conductors is the fact that the conductor’s orientation greatly affects how it interacts with various signal sources and the local em environment; the straight conductor receives and reflects energy sources better when they are oriented perpendicular to the conductor’s long axis. A configuration of straight lengths becomes optimum for receiving distant em sources – think of all the old television aerials, some are still up.  Coils are far more convenient than large straight conductors, and omnidirectional too, I suppose.

I once thought one could simply roll up straight wire into a coil and still maintain the same resonant frequency. I’m sure coil manufacturers have mastered the subject without any over reliance on math.  Now that Miles has eliminated kinematic pi, is it possible to turn a length of conductor into a coil (of x loops) at the same resonant frequency?
...
LongtimeAirman wrote:
I’m beginning to think that tuning in a radio to a local radio source may well create a direct physical photon link – a charge channel - between the transmitter station and my radio. The photons must exist in my tuner/oscillator long enough to transfer the differential envelope into the signal range I can hear.

Nevyn wrote: There is no need for a direct physical link and evidence of that is radio transmission through space. It isn't really space but the distances involved. It takes time for that signal to reach the receivers on earth and a physical link would require the transmitter be on, and transmitting, for the entire duration which is not actually required (or very practical). The transmitter sends out a burst and then goes about its day. That burst of energy eventually reaches some receiver and is interpreted.

So in a way, there is a physical link, there always is, but the link is not necessarily at the same time in both transmitter and receiver. It is very much like throwing and catching a ball. The thrower (transmitter) can throw the ball (signal) and then forget about it, have a drink, watch a movie, take out the trash. The catcher (receiver) doesn't need to care about the thrower or the ball until the ball is coming straight at it and only in the final instant does the catcher need to think about it. In the case of a radio receiver, the antenna is always listening but the receiver may not be watching it (power is turned off).

Airman answers: A receiver should ‘listen’ only between transmissions. This is especially true with radar, as you don’t want to deliver very high output power back into very sensitive receivers. The antenna should be a passive device, resonating in response to a distant echo/reflection, or while in transmit mode. In receive mode, the antenna may be called neutral mater; in transmit mode the antenna is energized with high voltage and it is radiating – no longer neutral matter. While not transmitting, the station may be in receive mode.

The charge channel is a direct physical link, comprised of two emission sources and photons. As you point out, there are delays between emission from one charged object to reception by the other charged object – the photon’s time aloft between charged matter at light speed. By definition, any and all “physical contact” between large aggregates of charged matter consists of large numbers of independent charge channels, each of which includes these time delays. The only other direct physical contact I can think of is when the emission fields of protons cannot prevent contact between those protons - as I would expect in a stellar furnace.
.

Examples of Amplitude and Frequency modulation taken from Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation#/media/File:Amfm3-en-de.gif


AM, Amplitude Modulation. The transmitted signal strength is a function of signal amplitude.
FM, Frequency Modulation. The transmitted signal frequency varies as a function of signal amplitude.
.

When I read "direct physical link" I assumed a temporal connection as well, that's what I thought the "direct" part implied. The more I study Miles work the more the word "physical" loses a lot of its meaning. Not its true definition but in comparison to words like "electricity" or "magnetism". The word "physical" has been used to mean mechanical and the terms "electrical" or "magnetic" have been used to mean non-mechanical. But we all know better. Everything is mechanical. Everything is physical. It is just people that choose to see it or ignore it.

I was also thinking or a pure transmitter and receiver, not a mixed device like a CB radio which, strictly speaking, only ever works as one or the other at any given time. When I said that the antenna was always listening, I meant it is always receiving the photons or ions or whatever makes the signal.

Does radar use the same antenna for transmission and receiving? I would have thought that a special antenna design would be required for the high power transmission and a different design for the low power reception but I really don't know a lot about radar at that level. I guess you've worked on a lot of that type of stuff. You must have played with some pretty cool toys.

Hmm, neither of those signal images match my description but I have definitely seen it drawn the way I described it. AM has 1 wave which is changing in amplitude and FM has one wave that is changing in frequency. Thanks for showing me that I had incorrectly called what I described FM.

This is what I was describing:

Image seems to be unavailable now

LloydK wrote:

Nevyn said: I don't know enough about Logo to say what it will or won't be good for but I keep thinking that custom programming is the way to go for the foreseeable future.

Actually, I believe Logo is famous for custom programming (I'm a rank amateur, so my beliefs aren't necessarily very accurate). Each user can write procedures and then run them in a program etc. For example, I can define a procedure as: to mozy repeat random 999 forward random 5 left random 360 ... then I can say ... {do something and then} mozy {and do something else, then} mozy etc. Here I spelled out all of the commands, whereas earlier I used abbreviations; forward is fd; left is lt; etc. Procedures can include other procedures too. The potential with 3D seems amazing to me.

You guys have said a lot of interesting things. I'll try to comment later.

I can see that Logo is a language itself but it is still a targeted language. It has a definite goal it is trying to provide. With more general programming languages you have access to other things so if I wanted to load my data from a database, then I can do that easily. If I then want to load it from a web server, I can do that too. If I want to save it as an image or a spreadsheet or send it to a server, I can do that. If I want some fancy user interface control to handle some specific data, I can write that but if you are stuck behind someone else's language, you are at their mercy as to what they want to, or can, support.

Of course the up-side to a specific language is that it does most of what you want to do quickly and easily (at least, it should or you should look for another language). You can get up and running in a short amount of time. That's why I said that I was interested to see what others can do with these tools which can take me in two directions: I can try to do what they have done myself, or find a new way to do it; or I can see the power of the tool and dive deeper in. It generally comes down to thinking "I'm comfortable in what I already know and can get things working pretty quickly" verses "This all looks foreign to me and I can't see how to do basic things".

I did have a little bitch about R being ugly but there is a reason for that ugliness. Like Unix, the commands are designed to be used on a command line where you don't want long descriptive commands, you want quick and easy to type commands. This is the main reason Unix admins are paid so well. They know most of the commands and how to use them effectively. It let's you work quickly since it is a lot faster to type "rm" than it is to type "remove" but anyone with no knowledge of the commands can see "remove" and know, roughly, what it is going to do, no so much with "rm".

At the end of the day, what matters is that you can do what you want to do. I might do it a different way in a different tool or language but that doesn't really matter. Focus on the concepts you are trying to show and the tools don't really matter so much.

Nevyn said yesterday: Maybe protons don't actually flow through the circuit. Photons certainly do (which I see as voltage) and electrons do (which I see as current) but maybe the protons stay in the power source but act as electron donors (or even generators but that's for another analysis). The live wire may get hotter because it is handling many more electrons than the neutral wire. I'm not sure, there is plenty of room for thought in this area. ... Protons seem too big for any of this.

Well, MM's Battery Circuit paper said the wires of a battery act as extensions of the battery, and the battery has positive charge on one side and negative on the other. MM also said the photons spread out like fans at the light bulb and, because there are two of them, the photons are made coherent as a certain frequency or pattern. I guess it makes sense that the hot wire pushes many more electrons than does the neutral. But does that mean that the hot and neutral photon fans make the photon pattern for the bulb? If so, what sort of pattern do you think would be causing the glow of the filament? Would it be from IR photons? Or from friction of electron flow? Or is friction the same as IR photons?

Hey, folks, Success! I got an MM photon x-spin, similar to the one linked in one of MM's papers. Go to http://www.logointerpreter.com/turtle-editor.php
and enter these commands:

cs ht for [i 0 500 1]
[setx :i - 250 setpencolor "red seth :i
pu fd 44 pd arc 360 22 wait 111
setpencolor "white arc 360 22 pu bk 44]

Below the commands textbox on the left, there's a blue arrow, which runs the commands slowly, then there's a speed bar, then to the right of the speedbar is a rocket, which runs the commands fast. Click on the rocket.

I think I made the photon radius half of what it should be. I set it at 22, but I think it should be 44. The photon is a dark red circle, which leaves behind a pink trail. The next challenge is to add a y-spin. I don't know if 2D will handle that, but I'll try.

Here are the commands spelled out, which I haven't tried to run:
clearscreen hideturtle for [i 0 500 1]
[setx :i - 250 setpencolor "red setheading :i
penup forward 44 pendown arc 360 22 wait 111
setpencolor "white arc 360 22 penup back 44]

That's pretty good, Lloyd. I can see a photon spinning about the X axis while moving along the X axis (left to right of screen). Adding in a Y spin is going to be tricky. Two spins means 3 dimensions of movement. Good luck.

I changed the radius to 44 and I can see some elusive similarities with a cycloid... Anyone knows why? (Sorry if this is an obvious question)

Yes, it's a cycloid because the circle is formed first on top of the x-axis, then, while the lateral movement continues to the right, the angle is gradually changed clockwise till it finally forms under the x-axis at 180 degrees. Then it comes back up to the top, completing a cycle (and then some).

I just posted links and images from 3 other photon/atom models in the Images thread at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t215-images-of-photons-atoms-etc#1426 because they all have considerable similarities to MM's model, despite differences too. I think they're all worth checking out.

Ciaolo wrote:I changed the radius to 44 and I can see some elusive similarities with a cycloid... Anyone knows why? (Sorry if this is an obvious question)

I noticed that too and thought it was a problem and even had half a post typed out about it. Before I got too far into it, I thought I would check my SpinSim to see how it looked and it can have a similar effect, even though you can see in the other viewpoints that it is a nice clean spiral. I think your animation is a little different though since you are not working in 3D. You might need to rework your math.

Here is a link to SpinSim with just an X spin and a linear velocity in the X direction as well. I have set the velocity to 5%c to accentuate the problem. Look at the lower left viewpoint and as it starts to move off screen, you can see the same problem. However, in my case, that is a result of perspective because you are looking slightly sideways at it rather than direct on like in your animation. That's why the right side of my wave does not show the problem but the left side does.

Here is the full URL as you need to login to use links in a post: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/SpinSimulator/app.html?particle=cube&set1=on&set1_levels=f,t,f,f&set2=off&set3=off&velocity=5&rec=1&for=30000

I changed the script to use a particle of size 44 and it did look closer to what it should (there should be 1 edge of the particle that keeps a straight line across the page) but it also made it harder to see what was going on.

I can animate electricity and magnetism in Maya, but I can't post it for 7 days as I'm new here.

Google "Vimeo dragon face alpha charge" and you should find my videos. I've done a few on Mathisian theories, and will post new thread topics on some of them in a week.

Hi Jared. Those are rather interesting videos you posted. Looks like you all are making good progress with MM's theory. It should be exciting to see what yous come up with to animate or simulate a battery circuit or a wireless setup etc. Michael Vacaitis's initial paper on gyroscopic motion seems to hold the most promise for explaining how stacked spins can work, even though he seemed to discard his own theory later.

I can't post links yet but I just uploaded a new video on stacked spins, which should help illustrate frequency and wavelength. Again, just Google "Vimeo photon stacked spins" and pick Dragon Face, and my newest video will be first on the list.

I think I can demonstrate electricity and magnetism in a similar way. I'll approach electricity first, since it's easier to visualize throughput (for me) than it is to visualize magnetic "cogs" clicking between particles.

.
Hello Jared, Welcome. Nice videos. I hope we can discuss them.
.

I ran that latest one by Miles and he pointed out that my second spin is NOT orthogonal to the first. So I'm working on a new setup to make things work. I believe a particle is just far more likely to stack a spin at an orthogonal due to the already-spinning particle having a lot more tangential velocity along its magnetic axis, just as we see in the other, larger particles.

Is this part of why gyroscopes work the way they do? Not because of some weird spin magic, but because it's just far easier TO spin along that orthogonal than not?

Hi Jared and welcome to the forum. So nice of you to come bearing gifts, too. I'm really glad to see more promotion of Miles' work. I do have some questions and observations though.

https://vimeo.com/133918273

Can you tell me the coordinate system that is being used, please? That is, what directions are the X, Y and Z dimensions? The Axial and X spins seems to be rotating about the up dimension, which is usually called Y in 3D graphics systems.

The blue spheres seem to be placed correctly if the closest one to the particle is X, the one above the particle is Y and the one to the left is Z, but the rotations don't go around these axes. Instead, they create motion in the dimension of the axis that they are supposed to rotate around. When a particle rotates around an axis, let's say the X axis, then it has motion in the Y and Z dimensions but not in the X.

Why does the Axial spin cause a wobble? It shouldn't do that.

Have you implemented any rotational speed difference as the spins get larger? That is, it takes more time for the Y spin to make a complete revolution than it does the X spin. The Z spin rotates slower than the Y spin. This is caused by the circumference getting larger with each new spin level (because of the doubling radius). Every spin level has a tangential velocity of c but they have different distances to travel so the angle of rotation per unit time (or per frame) becomes smaller as the radius gets larger.

We can run through the math if you want, but the end result is that each added spin level rotates square root of 2 slower than the previous spin level. To put it another way, each spin level rotates 1/sqrt(2) times by the rate of its inner spin level.

Good luck improving your model. I look forward to seeing the results.

Thank you for your input, Nevyn! I do really need to adjust my model to account for these factors. Thanks for pointing out the increasing rotational times, I hadn't even thought of that. These errors on my part surely account for that "wobble" and other oddities.

I'm using Maya, which is very obnoxiously complex but of course very powerful. I normally just use it for art and for work (architectural design), so this is kind of a new area for me. Learning animation as well as the physics involved, so please bear with me and don't hesitate to point out these kinds of mistakes!

I'll have the revised video posted up when I can get to it.

No worries, Jared. I'm glad you took it as the constructive criticism it was intended to be.

Jared Magneson wrote:Thanks for pointing out the increasing rotational times, I hadn't even thought of that.

It took me a while to realise it too. Even once I knew that they should spin slower, I couldn't figure out the correct speed relationship but I eventually found it.

Jared Magneson wrote:These errors on my part surely account for that "wobble" and other oddities.

I'm not sure about that wobble and why it would happen, unless the particle is not positioned at 0, 0, 0 or the axis of rotation is not aligned with the center of the particle (which would be easier if it was positioned at 0, 0, 0). But you've got a good model and it shouldn't take much to fix these issues and make it even better.

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm using Maya, which is very obnoxiously complex but of course very powerful. I normally just use it for art and for work (architectural design), so this is kind of a new area for me. Learning animation as well as the physics involved, so please bear with me and don't hesitate to point out these kinds of mistakes!

I come from the other side. I can write the software but struggle with the art, and the words but that's another story. I recently tried to touch up some models in Blender and I managed to reduce the complexity of the model but I'd be lost trying to build something from scratch.

I come from a heavy 3D art/architecture background, been in it since 1998 and using Maya since 2004. If you get bored, Google my name and take a look at some of my artwork. Miles hates it likely (because it's CGI) but I don't let that bother me.

My model in that scene has become too unwieldy and complex to "fix", so I'll just start from scratch since it's not the geometry models that are bunk, but the animation and math. I just need to delete all the animation keys and start over.

I KNOW this can be scripted, this whole stacked spin model, but I lack the skills with MEL (Maya Embedded Language) or Python to do so currently. I'd love to make it work with a nice little UI panel, so you could flip the spin directions per stack to see how that would look with one click, or something.

I'll work on it and get back to you folks, and keep the critiques coming please.

Then you should have a look at my Stacked Spin Motion Simulator, because that is exactly what I have done. I wrote it many moons ago in Java3D and have recently ported it to the browser with ThreeJS and made some improvements. Not that you shouldn't build one yourself because there is so much to learn in doing so and you might see things differently to how I do and come up with something different.

That looks really cool, Nevyn, but to a layman it's going to be a complete mystery. Don't take that the wrong way. I'm totally with you on the mathematical accuracy here, it's not only important, if it's wrong then the visualization is wrong! My problem is tackling Maya to make things work properly, and your input is as relevant and appreciated as Miles' is on this one. The time difference on the stacking spins is something I'd have never thought of, sadly enough.

I was able to show and convince my younger brother earlier of several key points, which was a polemic feat. He tends to despise Mathis because he's a huge Elon Musk fan, out of hand. So being able to show him how/why the photon become an electron, etc., and have him nod his head like, "Damn, that's really clean bro. That makes sense." was a pretty big turning point. We've gone dozens of rounds on all these topics.

So my purpose here is to make videos which show the layman (or the haters) how it works, using the top shelf software that NASA, Pixar, and those other pansies are using. Almost everything we see from them CAME from Maya, including most of their fake "artist's interpretation" pics and headlines that they rarely state are actually just artist's interpretations.

It's going to be a long haul, but I'd really like to get to the point where I can show physically just what electricity and magnetism are, how they work, and why. From there it's going to be a pretty quick jump to diagramming, in motion, all the elements and molecule. Mathis has given us a groundwork, but he sucks at graphics (we're basically opposites, there) and I'm here to fill in that gap if possible.

Please keep telling me the animations are wrong until they are right. I need to be accurate, because otherwise it'd just be more propaganda and bullshit fudgery. Thanks for your input, Nevyn, and I look forward to more from you.

Jared Magneson wrote:That looks really cool, Nevyn, but to a layman it's going to be a complete mystery. Don't take that the wrong way. I'm totally with you on the mathematical accuracy here, it's not only important, if it's wrong then the visualization is wrong!

I couldn't agree more. How to make it accessible to the user is something I struggle with when building these apps. They require so much knowledge of Miles' work.

I focus on the accuracy because I use these apps as learning tools. I learn as I build because I have to understand each motion to model it correctly. I make them very flexible so I can test ideas. They are my laboratory, hence the name of my site.

Jared Magneson wrote:
So my purpose here is to make videos which show the layman (or the haters) how it works, using the top shelf software that NASA, Pixar, and those other pansies are using. Almost everything we see from them CAME from Maya, including most of their fake "artist's interpretation" pics and headlines that they rarely state are actually just artist's interpretations.

It's going to be a long haul, but I'd really like to get to the point where I can show physically just what electricity and magnetism are, how they work, and why. From there it's going to be a pretty quick jump to diagramming, in motion, all the elements and molecule. Mathis has given us a groundwork, but he sucks at graphics (we're basically opposites, there) and I'm here to fill in that gap if possible.

I think we're on the same page just coming at it from different angles. Your approach will be much more accessible and mine is there when they want to dig deeper. Animations are great for showing things and applications are great for experimenting with things. You have given me some ideas on setting up some sort of tutorials that go over the material my apps show. I've been thinking about how I want to expand my site and that was one area I had identified and now I have some more concrete ideas. Thanks.

Hi folks,
I uploaded an updated video to Vimeo, my username is user27281157, and I'll be able to post my links/pics/vids in a couple days so please bear with me and Google that or something for now.

Nevyn, I don't mean to beat you up for help on this one as it SHOULD be pretty straightforward. I have not implemented the time variance yet, but as you can see we still have that "wobble". So I attached spinning labels to each locus-of-spin, to track the motion a little better. It looks to me like all the spins are still going properly, so the wobble is a natural occurrence?

But that doesn't seem natural or possible, that wobble. In my math I'm using a post-infinity "loop" so that I tell that particular spin to start at a certain time, go 360° in __ seconds (3, in all cases here, though this will change once I run your math), and then continue that rotational speed forever after that.

Do you see the actual labels wobbling, or are they spinning correctly to you? Is the wobble an optical illusion since I only have one "spin-stick" pointing from our photon? Or is the wobble perhaps because the rotational times are wrong?