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

EFFECTS THAT OCCUR ARE MADE IN TIME INSTEAD OF SPACE! With

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.