Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

BRS Recollections; part 1;

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    Oh what the hell is the difference anyways... might as well make this part 1; after all it is just setting in storage anyways. Maybe I can finish the rest
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 29, 2004
      Oh what the hell is the difference anyways...
      might as well make this part 1;
      after all it is just setting in storage anyways.
      Maybe I can finish the rest tommorrow.
      Y'all will have to wait for part 2 cuz that wuz the horse sense
      written down on paper, it aint been typed out yet, and it needs to be
      sent out as a mailing, so at least that parts almost done for,
      when I finish page 9 on the small paper they would give me to write
      on. This was originally a reply to a different list to those who
      misunderstand the high frequency issue, so eventually it gets done
      and sent as a reply... Guess I didnt polish things up and use the
      normal paragraph method.... So bear with me and just read...,
      spelling errors may be contained, so this is the unabridged version
      withouit corrections dude.

      Here is a great stumbling block concerning the use of high
      frequency. I too, until about 5 years ago; always considered rf to
      be quantified by the frequency of the instruments that record it.
      The normal instrument we use to detect rf would be the oscilloscope.
      Note in the above comment "RF signal of the proper frequency". This
      may turn out to be a misnomer. My rf research basically started from
      experimentation with high induction coils, (with 9 miles of 23 gauge
      wire, a 80 lb spool registering about 60 henry, these are "Newman"
      size coils) placed into 60 hz resonance, and using two of these
      resonating in opposite polarities, the q factor of each coil being
      about 15, this bipolar method of raising voltage by series resonance
      was used to create a 30 fold voltage rise betweeen the coils with
      respect to the wall voltage being inputed. Then these raised midpoint
      voltage potentials were attached to electrodes and brought very close
      together so that rapid arcing issued forth between those electrodes.
      Typically any time we have an arc, we have an rf phenomenon. So I
      began to wonder, what was the frequency of the rf I was obtaining?
      This I thought should be easy enough to determine, simply scope out
      the signals by placing an inductor in the vicinity of the coils, and
      find the frequency that was being emited. To do this I used a 14
      gauge 500 ft spool of wire that is sold in hardware stores, and I
      obtained an answer in the 180,000 hz range. Then I thought, my god,
      the electricity doenst have the "time period" to reach the end of the
      wire at the speed of light, because the arc interrupts the wavefront
      before the time period necessary for it to issue at 186,000 miles per
      sec. A simple division is necessary to find what that answer should
      be, for 1/2 cycle this should occur in 9/186,000 sec, or 4.83 * 10^-5
      sec, the reciprocal of which is 20,666, and if two of these time
      periods were necessary for a cycle, that should be some 10,333 hz.
      Indeed the method of using C to figure how long a signal takes to
      bounce back and forth is the basis of Tesla's quarter wave theory,
      (using 1/4 of the cycle at C to determine the secondaries resonant
      frequency, where length of wire/C gives the thought frequency of
      resonance) is now known to be somewhat invalid. This is because for
      tesla secondary coils of higher height /diameter ratios the signal
      actually bounces back and forth at a propagation speed 50% greater
      then what the value of C dictates. Thus to tune the primary coil to
      resonate to the secondaries natural resonant frequency, we choose a
      value of C to match the known primary L value using Thompson's
      resonance formula R(f) = 1/ [2 pi* sq rt{LC)] Now during this early
      time period, aropund 1998, just about every conclusion that I reached
      was later shown to be false, but at this time frame I considered that
      since the inductor was vibrating at a phenomenal speed, some 18 times
      faster then light, that indeed as Newman speculated at the time,
      electron movement in the coil could be trapped inside the coil, so
      that far more amp turns of magnetic field issue forth then would be
      considered by the amount of electron coulombs actually entering and
      exiting the coil. I also formed some wrong hypotheses concerning
      whether this kind of coil system was actually a scalar emmittor. In
      fact this system is the only one I know of that actually does what
      Tom Bearden talks about, it will phase lock rf signals into
      cancellation, but it does not do this everywhere around the coil
      system, only at certain points of space, notably which most of these
      spots occur along the equatorial plane between the coils placed
      together, and also the plane formed from the endings of the coils.
      Now I had not "tuned" these coils to specifically produce a scalar
      effect, and it was not until several years later that I encountered
      the overlooked fact, that indeed yes it was tuned to be that way, but
      that involves a paradox of massive proportions. But in the meantime I
      formed another theory to explain to myself "why" these scalar effects
      were being noted. And then I started calling this coil system, a
      Binary Resonant System, because the arc actually changes the action
      from one of series resonance to parallel resonance, and this can be
      seen by simply placing a short where the arc occurs, and looking at
      how the supply current, and current in the coil relate to each other.
      The "binary" term implying two simply has the connotation that this
      kind of system is merely a switching system that converts series
      resonance to parallel resonance. But as noted I still didnt quite
      have an explanation for "why" magnetic fields in opposition were
      occuring to make these scalar effects. I quickly realized that what
      I was dealing with was a form of a longitudinal wave emmitor. This
      is simple enough to make the analogy, when we find the spots in space
      where the rf signals cancel, and we have oriented the sensor coil so
      that the imagined flux of magnetic field occurs throughout the
      opening of the sensor coil, where the conventional thought is that it
      is the change in flux that occurs INSIDE the area of a loop that in
      turn induces emf on that loop: in this case when we find the area of
      rf cancellation, to "unlock" that rf phase cancellation, we merely
      turn the sensor coil "longways" so that now we have no imagined flux
      change inside the loops area,(hence the term longitudinal), and then
      the rf signal magically reappears! What we have actually done is
      to "polarize" the rf so that certain areas of space will recieve the
      signals oppositely to the normal method of magnetic induction. And
      here is where one of the first clues as to what was really going on
      became apparent. We can take the same inductor and put it in the
      areas of space near the two polar openings of the coil system, (where
      the other openings of the twin high induction coil bases of each
      coil face each other, for the real or imagined magnetic cancellation
      effect): this polar area of course is the area of maximum flux
      density change that exists outside of the twin system, and when we
      perform the same experiment, to turn the sensor coil sideways so that
      minimal flux change density for longitudinal reception occurs, what
      we find is that indeed the longitudinal signal has an entirely
      different non-linear curve shape then what does the conventional
      reception that appears sinusoidally, but not only this the
      longitudinal signal is stronger, and also it is NOT at the same
      identical frequency! We are accustomed to think that an rf
      emmittor "broadcasts" a specific frequency, but in this case if we
      keep that mindframe we must be puzzled and conclude that the
      longitudinal signal is being broadcast at a slightly different
      frequency then is the conventional. Of course these are only the
      hypotheses we form along the avenue of investigation to try and
      explain the effects we see, but this was the first instance to
      explain rf not in terms of a frequency broadcast, but in terms of a
      time flux density change broadcast. As it turns out, every single
      hypotheses as to what specific frequency is being broadcast turns out
      to be in error. And speaking of errors let me return to some errors
      made along the way here to find out the truth of the matter.
      Now because I was seeing scalar effects of magnetic cancellation, I
      sought an explanation for this, because as I tried to indicate, I did
      not specifically tune the coil system to act that way. Let me delve
      into this now. When we have two high induction coils apart in space,
      they will have a certain impedance, and in these case we can estimate
      the impedance as virtually the same quantity as the inductive
      reactance X(L). Z the impedance term is given by Z = sq rt[X(L)^2 +
      R^2] But because X(L)>>R, we can estimate Z as X(L). with only a
      fraction of % difference between those quantities. What resonance
      consists of is balancing X(L) with X(C), and because Z is synonomous
      with X(L), to resonate the coils we merely record the amperage that
      developes from the AC wall outlet when the coil is plugged into that
      wall outlet, and then we construct a series of capacitors that will
      have the proper rating of voltage protection for the resonant rise of
      voltage that will develope, and also we make each of these reactive
      amperage consumptions identical. Now what is done for the twin case,
      is that each of these coils are placed base to base. More impedance
      translates to more resonant rise of voltage, and when we put the two
      coils together we only have two options of how they are going to
      react in mutual inductance. Either the magnetic fields will be in
      unison, hence a higher impedance or they will be in opposition, hence
      a lower impedance then for the case of the impedance found for the
      coils in isolation. I tuned these coils for resonance specifically
      for the case of magnetic unison, so where was the magnetic
      cancellation effect coming into play? In fact the twin resonant
      system only worked to provide the resonant effects, IF BOTH SIDES
      WERE WORKING SYNCHRONIOUSLY, because they were tuned for the case
      where the impedance went up 8%, because the magnetic fields were in
      unison, and not opposition. If one side quit working, the other side
      then was mistuned because again, they were tuned for the impedance to
      appear as both units working together, to provide the highest
      possible resonant rise of voltage. It just didnt appear to me to make
      any sense to take the other route, because THEN the projected
      resonant rise of voltage would be LESS then what would be attained to
      for just the case of isolation. Again however I see that what was
      done here did not account for other special effects, much later
      gleaned from resonance matching with AC 480 hz alternator resonant
      tunings of inductive components. In fact I can say now, even though
      the theory indicates that if the coils were tuned for magnetic
      opposition instead of unity, that the resonant rise factor would be
      less: it would not surprise me a bit if it turned out that such a
      tuning would provide MORE resonant rise of voltage, then the case for
      the tuning made in magnetic unity. The "whys and wherefores" for
      that deduction shall shortly be brought to light, but I have never
      yet tuned the coils for magnetic opposition in mutual inductance, so
      this is a future project to be undertaken. Let me however give some
      preliminary reasons why I believe this to be so. Simply enough I
      believe it to be so from experimentation with alternator resonances,
      because in THAT case, when the coils were tuned for magnetic
      opposition, instead of unity, the resonant rise factor was greater,
      even though this flies against common sense. But we have overlooked
      one single fact: how does nature act to begin with? In nature we have
      a thing called Lenz law, in that the inductor that recieves its flux
      change from another inductor through space,(the air core transformer
      example), that inductor will always produce a magnetic field in
      opposition to the coil that causes that induction. Essentially the
      CORRECT tuning involving giving C values to both the primary and
      secondary of the air core transformer: should model what occurs in
      Lenz law, as then we are modeling the projected effect by what
      occurs naturally by nature. In fact by that method, we are tuning
      both coils to act as nature would have them act; and nature dictates
      that both coils will loose impedance in mutual induction, because one
      coils magnetic field will always oppose the other coils magnetic
      field, so that is why they should also be tuned that way, to model
      what happens by lenz law for the reactive case. When this is done,
      the resonant rise factor appears to be greater then what common sense
      would predict it to be, which is the tuning made for the example of
      having both coils make magnetic fields in unison. Having stated this
      let me return to the ideas formed many years ago, how did I come to
      the conclusion that scalar and longitudinal effects were made by the
      twin high induction coil systems resonated at 60 hz; even though the
      coils were tuned for magnetic unity, and what is this monstrous
      paradox I am talking about? Well as it turns out, once again the
      alternator resonance experiments at 480 hz bear this thought out. The
      theory that was formulated was this: THE MAGNETIC CANCELLATION
      additional information to be brought out, even this thesis begins to
      sound doubtful, but nevertheless lets describe this. A series
      resonance has its currents, (which are synonomous with the direction
      of the magnetic field around the inductor), closely in phase with the
      impressed voltage of the source. In fact we can look at the volume
      of magnetic field being released from an inductor as being a quantity
      that has inertia. We see this from DC effects also, where there is a
      time lag effect between when the full magnetic field comes out,
      compared to when the impressed voltage first started to act, and this
      is just the quality of what twe trerm inductance. In the AC analogy
      of inductive reactance, we see that this time lag effect provides the
      additional back emf to make the inductor appear as a far higher
      resistance value, where inductive reactance can be compared to AC
      resistance, and the time lag involved, where we say that the current
      is 90 degrees in time behind the impressed voltage for the ideal
      inductor,(because of this magnetic inertia): if this were actually
      true then 50% of the time the current in the inductor is actually
      going in the opposite direction to what the impressed emf would have
      its direction to be, and hence it is this "wrong direction" of
      current movement that appears as back emf that opposes the normal
      forward emf, with the net result that the AC resistance appears q
      times higher then what the actual DC resistance of the inductor
      consists of. Now in series resonance, we can make the analogy that
      the magnetic field has (apparently) lost all of its inertial
      qualities, and it instantly goes in the direction that the impressed
      voltage tells it to go, but this isnt quite true, the inertia must
      still be there, but the voltage rises to the necessary point to act
      as if it had no inertia, thus the effect of the resonant rise of
      voltage. So for this case we can say that the current is closely in
      phase with the voltage, and no time lag exists betwenn the cause and
      its effect. Now the next argument is a bit more controversial, but
      again its truth appears to be borne out of alternator resonance
      experimentation. In that experimentation it can be shown or suggested
      that the currents in a parallel resonance are not just 90 degrees out
      of phase with the impressed voltage, as happens in the ideal reactive
      inductor case, but they are actually almost 180 out of phase with the
      impressed voltage, hence the inductor appears with Q times more AC
      resistance then what occurs in just the reactive case. For the
      reactive case the currents are moving in the wrong direction as the
      impressed voltage would have it move 50% of the time period, but for
      the parallel resonance case, the currents are moving in the wrong
      direction almost 100% of the time that the voltage is acting! Thus
      we can say the current is almost 180 out of phase with the impressed
      voltage. Remember the current in the inductor is synonomous with the
      magnetic field it produces as a side effect, and the B quantity of a
      magnetic field is expressed in english units as amp-turns. Now what
      do we have in the BRS, the Binary Resonant System? It is a switch
      activated by an arc between opposing series resonant potentials,
      that instantly changes the circuit from one of series resonance,
      where the magnetic field is in harmony with the impressed voltage: to
      one of parallel resonance, where the magnetic field being 180 out of
      phase with its source of potential is suddenly asked to start
      reversing its direction of movement through space. The entire 40,000
      turns of the inductors, making the amount of amp turns of magnetic
      field in space, if it has to move through space to get to its new
      position; it collapses instantly to zero and reforms itself backwards
      to the opposite polarity to occupy the same space it had before this
      occured. The coils themselves that see this incredible amount of
      instantaneous flux change, (in our time) will send a terrific back
      voltage up the wiring of the source that powers it. And when using
      an ordinary plug outlet attached to the secondary of a 440
      transformer to power the BRS, the voltage rise that goes back up the
      system can be so terrific that it causes a white flash of an arc to
      appear across the distance of the plug terminals at its source.
      However these kind of terrific rf back emf explosions towards the
      source of voltage only occur in proportion to how high we allow the
      voltage to climb initially the bridge the arc gap that converts the
      action from one of series resonance to one of parallel resonance. By
      using a 440 transformer to power the BRS, the voltage buildup can be
      so high as to make the inital arc gap making the conversion to be the
      wide opening of 1.5 cm, using needles for the arc gap. In
      photographing these events with a VHS camera, and reviewing things
      1/60th of a second from frame to frame, we can find some very
      interesting things. BEFORE the white flash occurs, which looks in
      magnitude to be far greater then what the original 1.5 cm arc gap
      itself produces, we find that the camera has recorded precursor
      events, such as yellow sprite flashes, or blue lines and the camera
      will actually show split frames, or the time period BETWEEN when the
      camera forms its 1/60th of a second picture! It almost as if the rf
      burst has messed with time itself! And this even gets a bit spooky.
      These white flash rf backfires can happen anywhere along the line
      that powers it, and one time it accidentally went off very close to
      my thumb, where because of carelessness I had turned the system on
      with the arc bars being close together, but not close enough for the
      arc gap to fire, but nevertheless the backfire happened anyways. It
      was amazed that I wasnt electrocuted, and my thumb was okay, until
      several days later when I had an industrial accident, where a saw cut
      off about a third of my thumbnail.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.