Parallel-coil-turns apparently project magnetic lines radially or orthogonally

[Bo Atkinson]

Hello, once again dear people,

i wish to share some experiments which might be of interest here. I’m about to begin more searching online to see if any of my findings are already known and described before. This experiment had me locked into writing it for weeks. The finding blew my mind with what seems to be a new sort of electromagnetic field. Please ignore if i'm wrong

wavy ~^~

http://harmoniouspalette.com/RadialPoleCoilParamagneticOrDiamagnetic.html

[Axman]

Nice Good work Wavydome.

[Foxie Loxie]

Mindblowing!! One continues to puzzle over what exactly Tesla knew??? :confused:

[TargeT]

You'll find this fascinating, I sure did:

JauYH0omKIA


If you like poking around with electricity and magnets...

I have the electrical engine from a 2013 Zero FX (http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-fx/2013/specs.php) , produces something like 70 torque & 56 hp....

It's totally functional, of course the controllers are not included, just the motor itself, it's 3 a 3 or 4 phase motor I think(?) one of the more advanced ones; I had the engine on my bike replaced as warranty work but they didn't need to and did it anyway (since the tech had already flown down here. hahaha), they left the old unit with me.

[Hughe]

@wavydome

Are you suggesting the new configuration of coil creates uni-directional force such as thrust in 3D space around the coil?

[Bo Atkinson]

@wavydome

Are you suggesting the new configuration of coil creates uni-directional force such as thrust in 3D space around the coil?


so far just forcing compass needle, but it is mysterious...

need to make a simple but better regular coil winder... then fold regular coil into radial coil... find some CRT transformers to try hi voltage... then find good pulse generator too

[zen deik]

Sparky Sweet? Is that you?

[Trail]

May i suggest to ask this genius to look at your findings? https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom

q7ofh3rXAco

Dkhk6NZjHlQ

KooPsEE7E-Q

0BBAgEn5jPM

Q2OgZovex9k

Just some random picks of his videos, couldn't find his best vids.

Jus say'n.. this guy is a bit sarcastic about whats in the textbooks and definately goes against the status quo on his ideas of what magnetism actually is, and proves it too.

I think he's a genius.

He also seems like a guy who could help you get much much further.

~Trail.

[Bo Atkinson]

48491
My original experiment went through some corrections and it dropped out of my daily thoughts for years until these last few months, with a nice isolating winter in progress, where I mounted a more difficult hand made task for magnetic verification, of an isotropic field effect, (at very humble power levels, and nothing like hot rods). One friend pointed out it might relate to the so called monopole, but as an effect in my experiment, I suppose the other pole is simply confined to a common center.


Here it is:
http://harmoniouspalette.com/Tetra-isotropicCoilDevelopment.html


~Bo

[Ernie Nemeth]

"We need explanations, not descriptions..."

To date, modern science is all about descriptions. Explanations elude it.

That is what I have described in my writings as 'counting'. Science is busy counting, eliminating the things they observe to get to the things that they so far have not 'seen'. Each 'seen' thing is counted, named, and added to the sum of 'known' things, reducing the number of things yet 'unseen'. And really hard to see things, or things assumed yet to be seen but certainly 'there' to be 'seen', are called 'dark'.

Yet we all know that by counting linearly, one, two, three, and so on, one can never arrive at infinity: so long as you are counting, there will be more numbers to count.

Science is flawed in its intent in this regard. Observation does not lead to understanding, because as more observations are added, more sophisticated means are required to uncover even more observations.

Sophistication leads to confusion.

The universe is simple. Its 'laws' are simple. The complication of its iterations does not subtract from the original simplicity, any more than counting all the iterations and subtracting them from the whole will lead to only the simplicity. Science believes it will.

We cannot understand this simplicity because we are busy counting and naming 'things' this simplicity has rendered.

Counting is describing. We are masters at description and the invention of names. Technology is at best the sophisticated description of isolated observations made manifest.

Technology is akin to toys a child might invent in a sandbox, devoid of meaning and unconnected to reality.

We don't need toys.

We need explanations.

[Bo Atkinson]

"We need explanations, not descriptions..."



Thanks for your explanation, in its own light, while it is experience that people need, such as trials and errors, sowing and reaping, and experiences of experimenting, in order to discover those explanations, and more as personal experiences, and much less as dates and measurements which are forced on to schoolers.

Science trips a bit on its inevitable bits of dogmatism, where it could go back to focus on up-to-the-minute experiences, instead.

People generally see only what they already know, including at least glimpses of what was learnt in past lives, while the dogmatic wonder which ancestor endowed that vantage point of good inheritance.

The ancient idea that we still know nothing (really worth knowing), still applies, and if we know something we better keep it quiet, and garble away for fun instead.


¯\_( ͡• ͜ʖ ͡•)_/¯