Tornado in a Can – forces behind the drying process

TORNADO IN A CAN – FORCES BEHIND THE DRYING PROCESS

By  veli pohjonen on  June 1st, 2006

Tornado in a Can – forces behind the drying process

In 1980s a Texan wheat farmer, named Frank Polifka, was following the annual tornados that rolled over his fields and home areas. By watching the torrent power of the nature he got an idea to tame the violent tornado forces for something usual, to work for him in his farm.

Polifka started a research and development work for the challenge. After 15 years of studies, building of prototypes and assembling of pilot installations, he asked for a patent (2002) for a new innovation. He gave it a business name Windhexe; as a nickname he called it as Tornado in a Can.

The patent rights were bought by another Group, GreenShift, which further tests and distributes the Tornado Generator under GS-Cleantech. In 2003 the patent (sub)rights were also obtained by a North-Swedish company Airginder. The following photos have been taken during a study tour into Airgrinder workshop in Skelleftea, on 1 March 2006.

Photos 1-3: Two Tornado Dryers in Airgrinder, Skelleftea, Sweden; version one to the right, version two in the middle and to the left.

What happens to the biomass in the Tornado Dryer? What are the forces behind the drying process?
The whirl of the artificial tornado is generated by an electric blower (middle photo right corner down). It accelerates the air into supersonic speed and blows it into the upper part of a cone-like cyclone that is upside down. Inside the cone the air starts to rotate at high angle velocity. At the same time the whole air mass starts moving downwards. At the bottom of the cone part of the moving air is redirected into the centre of the whirl. Opposite air mass movement, upwards the cone axel is created. Inner whirl has opposite rotating direction to the outer whirl. The typical double whirl of a tornado emerges.

The principle behind the Tornado Dryer is an application of the so called Hilsch Vortex Tube. The theory for the tube was invented by James Clerk Maxwell in 1800s. It is known in the literature of physics as Maxwell’s Demon.

In 1867, Maxwell proposed a thought experiment in which, (i) a wall separates two compartments filled with gas, (ii) a little demon sits by a tiny trapdoor in the wall, (iii) it looks at oncoming gas molecules, (iv) and depending on their speeds it opens or closes the trapdoor. Slow molecules are directed to the right, slow molecules to the left.

The object of the game is to eventually collect all the molecules faster than average on to the right side, and the slower ones on to the left side compartment. Since temperature in an enclosure is related to the average kinetic energy of the particles contained in it, the right side compartment should start to warm up and the left side chamber to cool down.
Maxwell thus postulated theoretically that a known volume or magnitude of air, at a known temperature, can be artificially divided into hot and cold parts.

For 50 years Maxwell’s Demon was considered to be just a game of thought, until a French student of physics George Ranque invented (1928) a practical application for it. He managed to build an air pump that with a help of T-shaped assembly of pipe could divide an air stream, originally at room temperature, into hot and cold air. George Ranque applied for a patent for his invention. He, however, did not manage to development it into successful commercial application. The invention was forgotten for another 15 years.

It became possible to commercialize George Ranque’s invention only when a strong theory behind the phenomenon was developed. This was done by a German physicist Rudolf Hilsch in 1945. Since then the invention has been called Hilsch tube, Rangue Vortex Tube, Ranque-Hilsch Tube or just Vortex Tube. It has led into commercial applications, like Exair.
Tornado Dryer, Tornado Generator or Airgrinder is an astonishing new application of the Hilsch Tube. Frank Polifka found the idea to bring a third component to the Vortex Tube (the other two are the cyclone chamber and the air). He threw the third component into the eye of the torrent whirl. This happens in natural tornados, too. In both cases the third particle crashes into pieces.

Besides crashing the fed material the artificial tornado revealed another phenomenon. The third particle also dries up. It happens without a substantial rise in the temperature which is the case with thermal driers.
As the whirl in the Tornado Dryer has a high angular velocity, about one million rounds per minute, strong forces affect the grinding. At its best, the grinded and dried material turns into solid fluid, and runs like sand in the hourglass (photos below).

Photos 4-6: Mr. Erik Backlund (Airgrinder AB) demonstrates biomasses that have been dried and ground with Tornado Generator; dryed and ground wood (phtos 4 and 5 to the left), dryed and ground bark (right).

http://veli.pohjonen.org/?p=381

Cr6,

Hi! I laughed when I saw your post.

Then, what a strange series of links.

“He gave it a business name Windhexe; as a nickname he called it as Tornado in a Can.”

1) ”Windhexe”, http://vortexdehydration.com/ internet site didn’t work “The domain vortexdehydration.com may be for sale. Click here for details.”

2) “Tornado in a Can.” http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tornado_in_a_Can “PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:  Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies”. A Working Site! Good! I must investigate Tornado in a Can, and the poor dear who got stuck inside.

3) “North-Swedish company Airginder”, results in “Länken som du angav fungerar inte, antingen är sidan borttagen eller flyttad. Om du klickade på en länk vänligen meddela ansvarig på den webbplatsen att länken är felaktig.” I think I said “No Thanks”.

4) “Inner whirl has ‘opposite rotating direction’ to the outer whirl”. http://images.nyteknik.se/uploaded/image/2006/9/26/airgrinder2.jpg. Displays: “The connection has timed out”, “The server at images.nyteknik.se is taking too long to respond”.

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon Maxwell's demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell to "show that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only a statistical certainty".[1]. I have no problem with a sorting "demon". As I hope to understand, only gravity remains constant(ish).

6) “George Ranque” (http://www.exair.com/vortextube/vt_theory.htm) yields, “Manufacturing Intelligent Compressed Air Products Since 1983”. One product offered - Reversible Drum Vacs - Are Now CE Compliant!

7) “Vortex Tube” > “wowla.com”, a blank site.

http://veli.pohjonen.org/?p=381 – TORNADO IN A CAN – FORCES BEHIND THE DRYING PROCESS, by veli pohjonen on June 1st, 2006. "In 1980s a Texan wheat farmer, named Frank Polifka, was following the annual tornados that rolled over his fields and home areas. By watching the torrent power of the nature he got an idea to tame the violent tornado forces for something usual, to work for him in his farm". Number 8 is replaced with a "cool smile"; I've tried to change it several times without success. I hope it's not bad.

Well. I didn’t click on all the links except what I reported here. Why are they so uncooperative?

I guess I should mention that I came to understand, yesterday/today that gravity, as in (expansion due to gravity), (spherical objects eject higher energy quanta at the equator strictly due to the angular momentum increase); Gravity alone is the ultimate source of energy in both the Standard Model and Miles’ Unified (Gravity and Charge) Field. It turns out that Einstein's cosmological constant is just a poorly defined anti-gravity substitute expression filling in for the Charge Field. See, “The Cosmological Constant is the Charge Field”, 111a. The Cosmological Constant IS the Charge Field. Compilation of evidence from my other papers. 6pp. http://milesmathis.com/cc.pdf.

I remember we briefly discussed this, (your signature block - On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.'') one discussion a few months ago (?). I saw the video. The inventor’s hand fills with glass, concrete and chicken dust. A terrible tornado device that sounds wonderful!

I’ve yet to see its design. I have no clue to how it works. My imagination leads with a Tesla “pump/compressor". I imagine two opposing, spinning conical sections somehow generate forces that pulverizes most everything they throw into the hopper. However, this is a great invention that deserves a close study.

Please share your thoughts.

Hey LTAM,

Sorry I think this site does "auto-link" reading when posting copied HTML. I think the original site was pretty old and contained a lot of antiquated dead "links". I've cleaned up the old links with a recent edit.

I was kind of thinking of this MM paper on Maxwell when relooking at this. I think this phenomenon of the "Windhexe" should be explained straight away in detail by most theories. It is purely "physical" but it is a bit of an anachronism of how it works to micronize and separate elements into neat particles. How does this work? Maxwell's demon is working here in the Windhexe.   I actually think we are at the beginning of how to really employ this "Windhexe".  Perhaps, there might be a system in the future that can take anything (beer bottle, plastic bottle, ceramic dish, door handle, etc.) --- feed it into the Windhexe and output dust that can be separated into the base elements?  I see a gold-mine in garbage dumps if something like this could be done. 

Mathis at least gives a few hooks to hang this on.
------------------


Maxwell's Lines of Force part 2
 
by Miles Mathis

In part 1, I showed that Maxwell's equations are unified field equations, like Newton's equation, Coulomb's equation, and the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian. The indication of this was the inclusion of e0, which I have shown really stands for gravity at the quantum level. Although it has been assigned to the permittivity of free space, the number actually stands for the strength of gravity of a baryon. If gravity is in Maxwell's equations, they are unified.

In part 2, we will continue to study Maxwell's exposition of his displacement field, which I showed was equivalent in most ways to my charge field.

In part 2 of his paper of 1861 entitled On Physical Lines of Force, Maxwell returns to the vortices he proposed in part 1. We will find he quickly makes a mess of the whole problem, which is why he very soon had to dump the whole idea. His failure has been a 15-decade tragedy, since the failure of a top theorist and mathematician like Maxwell convinced everyone the problem was either insoluble, or at least insoluble with any sort of spin mechanics. No one after Maxwell tried to finetune his solution, to make it actually work, although I will show it isn't that hard to do. This may be why physicists following Maxwell in the late 19th and 20th centuries were so afraid of being wrong. Feynman was still deathly afraid of publishing something that wasn't right in the 1980's (although I have shown he did so anyway). Maxwell's failure to explain electromagnetism mechanically in the 1860's basically scared physicists for seven generations, including Maxwell himself. Chastened by his failure, Maxwell all but swore off mechanical proposals and, like his colleagues, hid more and more in the math. And so he set a precedent that has stood to our own time. As a subfield of physics, mechanics took a steep fall in the 1860's, then took another steep fall in the 1920's, with the Copenhagen interpretation. Physics has never been the same since. Not only has it not recovered, but its fall has accelerated with each passing decade.

Before we look at how Maxwell failed, I would like to briefly revisit a point I made in the first part of this series. I touched on the fact that string theory is an obvious extension of Maxwell's proposal here, minus the failed spin mechanics. I don't know that anyone else has made that connection, so I want to circle it again. It seems to me that what the early string theorists did was borrow Maxwell's lines of force in this paper, rename the lines “strings,” and then jettison the vortices. But they kept the tension along the line, which became the tension on the string. String tension is the fundamental force in the string theory universe. This is important for at least two reasons: one, it shows that the string theorists were not as revolutionary as is claimed. They stole the idea straight from Maxwell. Two, it shows what poor readers they were, since they didn't have the intelligence to steal a good idea. I myself have borrowed an idea (dimensions of mass) from Maxwell, but I had the perspicacity to borrow a good idea, and to give him credit for it. String theorists have borrowed one of Maxwell's worst ideas, making it even worse in the translation. As I showed in part 1, Maxwell is proposing stress or tension on a line, which is impossible. You cannot create tension or stress in one-dimension. The line cannot respond to hydrostatic pressure around it, which makes any tension or stress along the line impossible to propose. But because their master Maxwell implied it could be done here, they just ran with it, never bothering to ask if it contained any logic. It doesn't. The string theorists' failure to question Maxwell has doomed all of string theory, since all of string theory balances on this false first postulate. If the string theorists are wrong about their strings and tensions, they are wrong about everything. They are wrong about everything.

We see Maxwell's first crash-and-burn on page 283 [just before eq. 27]. He sees that he needs all his vortices spinning the same way, so he is forced to propose a row of idle wheels in between each row of vortices. This is what I meant in part 1, when I said he was falling into the paradox of the plenum. He not only has vortices, he has them existing cog to cog. He is trying to create a pinwheel universe, and we see why he was later mocked for it. In this section, we see him proposing a universe not far different than the Aristotelian orrery universe, and I have to admit it does look a bit ridiculous. He spends dozens of pages of equations calculating the motions of these idle wheels, which is sad. I admire Maxwell for attempting a mechanical explanation, but I could wish he had done it better. Still, we all make mistakes, and the real tragedy is not Maxwell's error here, it is that the error hasn't been corrected in 150 years. Maxwell's greatest error here wasn't this limited mistake, it was giving up and letting others convince him to abandon mechanics.

Of course, the same sort of people that gave Maxwell a hard time for his attempt at mechanics are still around today, giving me a hard time. But they don't even bother to read my papers closely, to see what I am up to. They skim a few pages, just enough to discover I am trying to apply spin mechanics to the charge field, which is enough for a knee-jerk dismissal. Maxwell failed, so I must surely fail, too. Everyone from Kelvin to Bohr to Feynman has assured them of that, so they don't even need to study my solution. They have been taught that all mechanical solutions at the quantum level must fail. This is RULE 1 of the Copenhagen interpretation. All top physicists have been mocking mechanics for decades. Mocking mechanics is the go-to pose of contemporary physicists, and it is taught day-one in graduate school. Big math is cool, mechanics is uncool.

But although Maxwell made a mess of spin mechanics here, his mess can be cleaned up very quickly and easily, which makes it very difficult to explain why no one has done that cleaning in 150 years. Maxwell doesn't seem to realize that he doesn't need his vortices spinning one another. He can take the spin as given, and what he really needs to explain is why the jostling doesn't totally de-spin them. Even that isn't difficult. The jostling does de-spin them, which is why a magnetic field dissipates over very long distances (in some circumstances). But these are photons traveling c, and any field we are studying on Earth is fairly short. In crossing the field, there isn't enough jostling to de-spin the field to any measurable extent. Whatever spin the photons had at one end of the field, they will still have at the other end. So there is nothing to explain.

The same goes for the original spin. Maxwell doesn't understand why he can be given the spin, because he doesn't understand his field mechanics. He doesn't understand that any magnetic field he could be studying or proposing must have been created by charge passing through matter. It is the matter that sorts the spins, or makes them coherent. It is the coherence that explains the strength of the magnetic field. The matter doesn't have to spin the photons, since they are already spinning. It only has to sort the spins. Some matter does this well and some doesn't, but if Maxwell is giving himself a magnetic field, he is also giving himself some amount of matter capable of sorting the charge. So he is given the spin coherence. He doesn't need to have the photons spinning one another all along the path.

The same goes for the original spin. Matter doesn't spin photons, it only coheres the spin by channeling it. So where does the original spin come from? Simply from collisions. If you have no baryonic matter in an area, you would have no spin coherence and no magnetism, but you would have spin. Why? Edge hits. Any edge hit will cause spin. So we don't really have to explain spin, either. Notice that, given a lot of tiny spheres flying around randomly, it is much harder to explain lack of spin than spin. Say you were given a universe of spheres colliding randomly. Then you were told they were all not spinning. That would be the mystery, would it not? Spin is no mystery. Lack of spin would be the mystery to be explained. The only way you could explain lack of spin is if the spheres never collided. But the probability of that is zero. Therefore, spin is the default state. And the amount of spin we find is simply a function of the density of our spheres.

You will say, “No, in a random collision of spheres, the spins would sum to zero. There should be no spin.” No, that is only true globally. If we start with spheres not spinning, then let time pass, after any time the total spin is zero. That is true. But the total spin applies to the entire set, not to any subset. Therefore, in any space smaller than the entire space, the spins would not sum to zero. Therefore, spin is given.

This only leaves us with c. Why are photons going c? Doesn't that break the conservation of energy law? No, it doesn't, since energy is conserved in a system. A fundamental field isn't a system. To conserve energy, we only have to have the same total speed in our field at time x as we have at time y. We do not have to have zero speed. Again, the easy way to see this is to follow the previous logic. All photons at speed zero would actually be harder to explain than all photons at speed x. The only way to explain all photons at speed zero is to propose no motion and no collisions. Any motion in the field will eventually translate through the entire field via collisions, so velocity is the default state. Statistics tells us the same thing. There is only one way to have all photons at speed zero, and an infinite number of ways to have them not at speed zero. Therefore, the probability of speed zero approaches zero and the probability of speed x approaches 1. The actual speed is then determined by the density of the photons and the initial relative motion.

Now let us return to Maxwell's displacement field equation: D = e0E + P First, let us write that in terms of the Electrical Field E: E = (D – P)/e0 I have said many times before that the electromagnetic field depends on the charge field. The charge field is primary and fundamental, and the E/M field is only a result of it. I might have been asked how the two fields relate mathematically, and now we see how they do. Since I showed you that D is really my charge field and that e0 is really the gravity field at the quantum level, we can rewrite the equation this way:

E = (C – P)/g
 
To really make sense of this, we also have to re-define the variable P, which current theory gives to polarization density. What are they really trying to represent with that, as a matter of mechanics? To understand it, we should ask what the equation would lack without it, given my mechanics. What if we only had this equation:

E = C/g

That would represent for me that the Electrical field was equal to the Charge field divided by the local gravity field. What is missing there? The matter field. Given just those three variables, we don't know how much matter is present, or in what form. Since it is the matter that is making the charge field coherent as a matter of spin or focused as a matter of charge strength, we need to know that. Since we have no magnetic component here, we can ditch the spin coherence consideration in this particular equation, but we still need to know what matter is present to know how charge is coming out of the nucleus. In my nuclear papers, we have seen how different elements channel charge in different ways —at different densities. This is what the variable P is really telling us. They claim it is telling us the amount of charge separation, but that is wrong. We don't need charge separation, and they actually know that. They know that in quantum experiments, we can get high values for P without charge separation. Near the nucleus, we get channels of high charge densities without having free electrons nearby to create this naïve charge separation. They try to fudge this charge separation by telling us that the atom's own electrons create this charge separation, but since the measured charge channels extend beyond the proposed electron orbitals, this explanation doesn't wash. It especially doesn't wash now that I have shown there are no electron orbitals. The electrons are orbiting only in eddies around the proton poles, not around the nucleus as a whole, so the charge separation idea is blown. Polarization density is simply a density, and it has nothing to do with polarization in this way. We need the variable P in the above equation simply because we need to know what elements are present, and how they are channeling charge. This variable tells us that.

Therefore, we need to tweak the equation a bit more. Given my variable re-assignments, the minus sign no longer makes sense. In this equation, we now see that C must be the ambient charge field density, and P is the charge field density as it is emitted from the matter present. We then add them together to get the total charge density at a given point outside the nucleus. So the equation should be,

E = (CA + CN)/g

That is, ambient charge and nuclear charge. However, since you would have to leave the atmosphere of the Earth to get a good measurement of the ambient field, this equation is not of much use in that form. In Maxwell's time there would be no way to get a value for it. Now, we could get a value for it, but we don't. We don't choose to write the equation in that way or in that direction, because we haven't understood there IS an ambient field. Therefore, we would have to solve in the other direction, measuring E and then solving down for the two C terms.

However, I would like to point out that this equation now gives us a way to calculate the charge emitted by various elements and molecules. Up to now we could only measure the electrical field E, not the charge field C. We still can't measure the charge field directly, but with this new equation we can calculate it. Like this:

Ee0 – CA = CN

We can measure E directly, we know e0, and we can measure CA from satellites. You will say, “Won't we always be measuring E, even with satellites out in space?” Yes, strictly, that is true. To measure CA, we would have to measure the field with no ions in it, and if there are no ions, we have no way to measure. Our machines can only track ions, not photons. However, we can get around this by extrapolating. All you have to do is measure E near the surface of the Earth, then in the upper atmosphere, then in space near the Earth. You will find falling values of E, of course. You then calculate the limit of those values, which should be a value above zero. That value should be a good estimate of CA. Using the equation above, that will give you a value for CN. Just a suggestion. It may or may not be feasible, but I thought it was worth mentioning. I have no fear of making mistakes, I only fear giving up.

This new equation proves by itself that the charge field is not virtual and that charge is not mediated by virtual or messenger photons. Since we will obtain a real value above zero for both charges, the charge field must be real. Virtual fields do not give us real field values. We only needed virtual fields because we could not calculate real fields, but now we can.

Of course, it is not my new equation that proves this. Maxwell's displacement field was proof enough that the charge field was not virtual. His equation—without my updates—is a real field equation that yields real values, so it is hard to understand why physicists now think they can mediate the charge field with virtual photons. How can they bury the charge field under virtual gymnastics when their own master Maxwell has given them a real equation for the field? The only answer to that is that they have never recognized what this displacement field really is. Because Maxwell's vortex theory failed and was dumped, they have also dumped the mechanics of the displacement field. Since Maxwell couldn't provide a mechanics for it, they have kept it but made it non-mechanical.

You should find that very curious. Their reasoning apparently goes something like this: Maxwell showed us a field that works in the equations. It is clearly necessary. But he failed to show us the mechanics of this field. Therefore the field is non-mechanical. I hope you can see the illogic there. Maxwell's failure to show the mechanics was no indication that the field was non-mechanical. It was only indication that he couldn't figure it out. The logical thing to do would have been to continue to seek the correct mechanics. The reaction to Maxwell's failure was unscientific in itself. That unscientific reaction has persisted for 150 years now, to disastrous effects.

More than anything else I have uncovered, this explains the current confusion about the charge field. If we seek just one main reason that contemporary physics is so gloriously ignorant of the charge field, it is this. Maxwell's failure to explain the mechanics of the displacement field in 1861 buried field at that time, and it has been buried since. It was immediately pushed into the background, and has existed in the dark all these generations. Now, physicists don't even understand that the displacement field is linked to charge. For modern physicists, the displacement field is just a mathematical nicety, a minor feature of the Maxwell equations, one hardly worth talking about or teaching. In fact, because it is not understood, they have preferred to hide it. It is often not taught at all, and when it is taught it is taught in cloaking terms. If you ask any questions about it, you are “wayward.” As for the charge field, modern physicists don't believe in a charge field. They see no link between the displacement field and the charge field, so they have to bring in virtual photons to explain charge interaction at the quantum level.

And so my digging out of the displacement field is of paramount importance. I have proved that it is not only equivalent to the charge field, it is primary. The charge field sets the E/M field, by the equation above, so charge is the foundational field. The unified field is not composed of gravity and E/M. E/M is only result of charge, so the unified field is properly expressed as a composition of gravity and charge. This is why I have written my unified field equations as a unification of charge, not E/M. As we now see, the E/M field is already unified. Just consult the equation above:

E = C/g

That is already a unified field equation, and we can see the unification in the equation. The Electrical Field is Charge over Gravity. The ratio indicates the unification, you see.

http://www.milesmathis.com/updates/disp2.pdf

Cr6, Thanks, I've been looking at the Windhexe and Schauberger. This is good stuff.

As you probably found yourself, at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tornado_in_a_Can , in the Patents Section, the third link -
http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl?number=6971594
contained the complete patent and illustrations for the Windhexe. It's simpler than I imagined. 

I must direct you to http://free-energy.xf.cz/SCHAUBERGER/Living_Energies.pdf - for a Text written by Callum Coats, laying out, in great detail, the work of Victor Schauberger. Quite marvelous! Many vorticular diagrams - especially water. Apparently, implosive technology yields much greater energy outputs. Now I have to read it too!

I'm not ready to discuss it, but I agree the technology has many possibilities.

I'll certainly follow up with Miles - http://www.milesmathis.com/updates/disp2.pdf

Schauberger is definitely has it as well but with liquids.

Reading over this makes me really reconsider "friction" as we know it. It is a term used frequently but the actual application of it can yield unexpected energy. It is more difficult to describe using "mechanics" than at first appears. Mathis apparently ascribes the variable P field to it? How does friction actually tear apart condensed "matter" in a Windhexe? Why does it stop at 1 micron (0.00004 inch)?  Mathis' molecule papers give a hint.  He also at times mentions "Photon Friction".  This is something that could be fleshed out even more. How does the Charge Field create a measurable "friction" -- heat is often a result but not always. This goes back to those posts  at Thunderbolts on Static Electricity. Is the charge field "compressed" between molecules momentarily as they slide against one another or even near one another to affect E/M?


Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15057


Throw in a BenchTop Acoustic Reactor... and "sorting" the output from a Windhexe into base elements could be realized(?):

Benchtop Reactors

MMM Sonochemistry and liquid processing tanks

Wideband multifrequency systems for liquid processing, cleaning and sonochemistry: MMM technology (operated with Mastersonic power supplies)

http://www.mpi-ultrasonics.com/content/benchtop-reactors
http://www.mpi-ultrasonics.com/content/mmm-ultrasonics
Awesome docs here:

http://www.mastersonics.com/documents/mmm_applications/mmm_atomizing/





Below are papers where I found friction mentioned by Mathis.

----
Unified Field Theory


http://milesmathis.com/uft.html


A similar phenomenon is explained in much the same way. In the 1850’s J. H. Pratt showed that the Himalayas do not exert the expected gravitational pull. They do not deflect a plumbline. This result was so surprising that the scientific world has really never gotten over it. They have never explained it either, except by more desperate theorizing.
...
Now, it is true that by this assumption all objects are expanding, not just the Earth. So the Himalayas should be expanding in all directions, too. But of course it is easy to explain why objects on the Earth are not getting closer to each other due to this expansion. They are fixed to the Earth by roots (in the case of mountains or trees) or by friction (in the case of people and chairs and so on). And the distance between them is also expanding. The tree and I are expanding sideways, but the ground between us is, too. Since the rate of expansion is equal for all of us, there is no relative motion. The tree and I would get closer only if the ground between us was not expanding like we were.
 
You will say that the plumbline is not affected by either roots or friction. It is free to swing. Am I saying that the friction of the air keeps it from deflecting toward the mountains? No, logically there would be no deflection even in a vacuum. Gravity is no longer a pulling force, it is an apparent motion caused by expansion, so deflection of this sort is impossible. There is nothing to cause it, so it does not happen. It is that simple. The real motion of the mountains is up, like everything else on Earth. That motion does not cause any sideways deflection. The only thing that was wrong was our expectation that it would.
 
This plumbline experiment could not have been better prepared to test the given theory of gravity, and it could not have given clearer evidence against the given theory.
-------------------------
 126c.  The Strange Moon Enceladus

You will say, “Well, they are measuring right on the surface, so they are feeling the heat from the Sun's rays being reflected, like you would feel standing beside a swimming pool.” But that is illogical. You can't measure energy just passing by you like that. If you could, then space wouldn't be cold. Sunlight is passing through space, so by your argument, space should be warm. No, the heat has to be absorbed by something, and the Moon has no atmosphere. There is no absorption except in the actual crust, in the dirt and dust. And if that dirt and dust is reflecting, it isn't also absorbing. We need another mechanism to explain both the heat and brightness of the Moon, and, as with Enceladus, the explanation is magnetic interaction. Photon friction. As I have shown, this friction gives us a straightforward mechanical explanation of both the light and heat. And to get that friction, we have to have a very active charge field and fast motion through it.

encel.pdf

--------


 137a. THE CORIOLIS EFFECT DECONSTRUCTED


Another huge problem is encountered when we look at friction. The Coriolis curve can only be caused when the object making the curve has no friction. That is why "frictionless" or very low friction turntables are used when showing the effect at small scales. The reason we need no friction is that the curve is caused by the difference between an observer on the turntable moving with it (WITH friction), and an observed object moving without friction. The difference between no friction and friction causes the appearance of the curve. The observer spins and the observed object does not. Therefore, if the observer defines himself as motionless, he will see the object appear to curve. That is what the Coriolis motion is. But this means that whatever is claimed to be in Coriolis motion on the Earth should be frictionless or of very low friction. That isn't what we find. Water and air have lower friction than solids, but they are far from frictionless. We already know that both air and water are carried along to a large degree by the spin of the Earth, for if they weren't it would be quite obvious. The oceans would swamp all the Eastern shores, and the atmosphere would move to the west at a constant and high velocity. On the equator, the wind would always be blowing 1670 km/hr, which would be pretty hard to miss. It is true that friction isn't the only thing that prevents this, but it doesn't matter here. What matters is that the air and water are NOT moving like a frictionless ball moves south on a turntable. The air and water are moving with the Earth to a large degree, which means they are moving along with us spinning observers, which means we observers would not be expected to see much of a Coriolis effect. To the degree that the water and air spin with the Earth, the Coriolis effect is nullified. If the air is mostly moving along to the east with you, you cannot see it move to the west, can you?


http://milesmathis.com/corio.html

-----
Telsa on his massive Electrostatic Generators:

The knowledge of static electricity dates back to the earliest dawn of civilization but for ages it remained merely an interesting and mystifying phenomenon. Virtually nothing was done towards the development and useful application of the principle. The first distinct stimulus in this direction was given by the discoveries of Franklin and Leyden in the latter part of the 18th Century.
 
In 1777 Cavallo devised a cylindrical friction machine and from that time on there was a slow but steady evolution of friction and influence machines until the modern Wimshurst, Holtz, Toepler, and other types were produced. Among these machines the one invented by Wommelsdorf 30 years ago was, probably, the most effective. It yielded a current of six-tenths of a milli-ampere and in the present state of science it could be successfully employed for charging large aerial capacities and stepping up its terminal tension of 150,000 to many millions of volts.
 
Numerous attempts have also been made to generate static electricity by friction of fluids and solid particles but from the earliest records to this day the belt has proved to be the simplest and most convenient means for the purpose. Static electricity from this source gained in importance when evidences accumulated that it was capable of interfering seriously with operations and causing accidents in paper factories, flour mills, and similar establishments. In the early nineties my electrodeless vacuum tubes became extremely popular and were frequently lighted from belts and later Roentgen tubes were operated in the same manner. It is quite easy to improvise such a generator and obtain interesting results under favorable atmospheric conditions.

http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-article-possibilities-of-electro-static-generators

I'd like to try and reformulate these equations with Mathis. This is from the Tesla paper above.
--------------


Author’s note: Reference to page 134.
The required increment of density can be determined by a simple calculation. At the spraying points, due to their constant action, there can be no change in the value 1.8333 found before, but from there on the density will increase and at the very top of the charged area it may be 1.8333 + a. Since the law of variation is quite immaterial to this argument it may be assumed that the increment is proportionate to the distance from the spraying points, especially as this is most likely to be the case. Under such conditions, a transversal strip of the belt one centimeter long and at a distance X from the center of the sphere, will contain a charge q = 120(1.8333 + a (d – x) / (d – r)) e.s.u. Hence the repelling force exerted by the charge Q on the terminal will be F = ∫rd Q x 120(1.8333 + a (((d – x) / (d – r)) (dx / x2))). This integral can be readily solved by expanding and yields the value F = 2756352 + 1088367a dynes. The mechanical work at the normal belt speed of 3000 centimeters per second will, consequently, be equivalent to W = 0.8269056 + 0.3265101a kilowatt seconds and must be equal to the electrical work of the machine with an overflow current of 0.00022 ampere under a tension of 5,000,000 volts; namely, 1.1 kilowatt seconds for each terminal so that a = (1.1 – 0.8269056) / 0.3265101 = 0.8364 electro-static units.
With this excess density and distribution of the charge as set forth, the net power of both belts, expressed in electrical units, will be 2.2 kilowatts which is exactly the performance of the generator with the overflow current of 0.00022 ampere and terminal tension of 10,000,000 volts. It is evident that just as water finds its level so this balance is instantly established under all working conditions and is effected by a varying slip of the charge; that is to say, by reduction or increase of its translatory velocity according to the changes of the load.