Edwin V. Gray - The Man Who Copied Tesla.

  • Speaking of Tesla, you will probably appreciate this Tesla related video, having to do with resonance. This guy is very clear headed and talented:


    I'm going to be looking more at the 'cold' electricity you mentioned, seems very interesting. Regarding the Tesla hairpin circuit, you may be interested in this video by ... "EVO labs."

    Take a peek at

  • Seems related to the condensed electron clusters discussed in a few experiments. I'm guessing if real it is absorbing ambient thermal energy from the immediate environment, and induces superconducting in the medium it travels through, thus why it is cold but I have little knowledge of this.

    Speaking of Tesla, you will probably appreciate this Tesla related video, having to do with resonance. This guy is very clear headed and talented:


    I'm going to be looking more at the 'cold' electricity you mentioned, seems very interesting. Regarding the Tesla hairpin circuit, you may be interested in this video by ... "EVO labs."

    Take a peek at

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/w…iscover-new-state-matter/


    Mainstream observation of pure electron clustering at room temperature.

  • For those who like equations:


    This is something from Evans that is quite useful and can also be used in higher dimensions. Positive and negative rotation currents symmetrically cancel and also the fields (when using the correct topology) . This finally leads to a "magneto static" solution for higher dimensional fields in SO(4). Of course Evans stays in 3D,t but this path is correct.

  • This is something from Evans that is quite useful and can also be used in higher dimensions. Positive and negative rotation currents symmetrically cancel and also the fields (when using the correct topology) . This finally leads to a "magneto static" solution for higher dimensional fields in SO(4). Of course Evans stays in 3D,t but this path is correct.

    A bit out of the thread subject but it would be interesting to now which kind of reasoning has lead to higher dimensional thinking. I would assume that adding torsion in Einstein's space-time world lead to Evans' ECE originally maybe just by curiosity - what happens if we add torsion there instead of only curvature? Now there is probably something similar behind SO(4)-thinking, e.g. is it easier to explain some real-world phenomena adding dimensions or is there some kind of mathematical proof that directly leads to higher dimensions ?

  • A bit out of the thread subject but it would be interesting to now which kind of reasoning has lead to higher dimensional thinking.


    From computation theory we know that there is no time or no continuous time arrow. In a distributed system (all reality is such) there exist only partial ordered events. Thus physics based on time is just approximative in respect to all quantities that integrate over time like energy. Obviously we live in 4D as GER shows but as already Einstein knew: GER is correct local only and thus the concept of time only works in close proximity. Mills 4D approach already works better than GER for cosmological calculations as it restricts GER to 2D what is enough to reproduce the claimed solved mysteries like the Mercury perihelion.

    The last step is to understand that there are no point particles and we need a higher order topology to reproduce the correct charge surface.

  • From computation theory we know that there is no time or no continuous time arrow. In a distributed system (all reality is such) there exist only partial ordered events. Thus physics based on time is just approximative in respect to all quantities that integrate over time like energy. Obviously we live in 4D as GER shows but as already Einstein knew: GER is correct local only and thus the concept of time only works in close proximity. Mills 4D approach already works better than GER for cosmological calculations as it restricts GER to 2D what is enough to reproduce the claimed solved mysteries like the Mercury perihelion.

    The last step is to understand that there are no point particles and we need a higher order topology to reproduce the correct charge surface.


    Agreed.
    No point charges, that means dimensions in the nucleus of the atom. Thus we need the structure of the nucleus in order to understand local differences.

    For a proposal for the structure of the nucleus I presented the Structured Atom Model on several occasions, hoping to inspire others to take a good look at it and in that process see the huge advantage such a model offers for understanding what we are dealing with here.

    (intro is a bit long, sorry for that)
    https://etherealmatters.org/atomizer/atom-viewer

  • Edo Very thought provoking theory! I have a major curiousity about some particular points. Firstly how does this match up with compounding experimental results, regardless of experimenter's theories, with exothermic products and input/output energies lower than expected for the particular nuclear reaction yet still dense? Transmutation spectrograph reports with relatively low input and <100keV average per reaction. I am not saying nuclear reactions aren't occuring I'm implying they may not be the actual novel source of excess energy. Again the key is in measuring of mass/energy changes and input/output power numbers per interaction in all positive hydrogen/metal/catalyst reactor systems before formulating a theory. I like that it appears like more than one element nucleus is inside a single atom and the proton/electron ultimately being the two fundamental particles. Molecules at lower electron orbits, involving H isotopes with themselves and compatible metals in precise conditions, would give similar if not more accurate experiment reflecting results. Thanks for sharing.