copper, silver and gold as the same substance?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » copper, silver and gold as the same substance?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 05:00 am
does anyone have any russell-based thoughts or references, or even quotes from books, where he talks about copper, silver and gold being the same matter, but in different times of unfolding, and that they are actually octaves of eachother, so copper if it was C4, then silver would be C5 then gold C6. please do let me know.
i am working on a russell periodic chart of elements excel sheet, and trying to put together mendeleev periodic chart of elements information, and also i was instructed, after this is done, to apply the crookes platonic solids information, and thus find more information about the harmonic frequencies of the various elements.

any thoughts appreciated!
 
cubesphere
 
Reply Fri 11 May, 2007 07:03 pm
@esaruoho,
The Secret of light, Atomic Suicide, A new concept of the Universe Which is Basically a revision of The Secret of Light in which Russell shares insight into the One element Carbon in its different stages of birth maturity and death. Cubesphere
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Sun 28 Oct, 2007 01:29 pm
@cubesphere,
but does any of tihs get to the harmonics?
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2007 12:41 am
@cubesphere,
cubesphere wrote:
The Secret of light, Atomic Suicide, A new concept of the Universe Which is Basically a revision of The Secret of Light in which Russell shares insight into the One element Carbon in its different stages of birth maturity and death. Cubesphere



maybe this is related:
The chart organizes the elements in increasing order according to melting points and other characteristics until it reaches carbon.
Carbon, placed in the center of the fourth octave, is seen to be the balance point for the full chart and the point of perfect stability.
Elements up until carbon are, according to Russell, integrating or condensing until a maximum of pressure results in the formation of carbon.
Elements past carbon on the chart are expanding or disintegrating leading to the phenomenon of radioactivity.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 12:27 am
@esaruoho,
Hi, Esaruoho:

In lesson 44 of the Home Study Course, Russell speaks about Power Projection, Transmutation etc. but he is (maybe on purpose) very vague and nebulous. There is nothing there to sink your teeth into and you need to explore the question of transmutation from angles that touch Russell tangentially (just to keep on the right track) but not necessarily directly because he seems to think that one can simply wind a solenoid with precise number of turns and apply something that excites the coil and voila - the metal changes into another one.

Not so, my friend. As he explains in "The Universal One" on page 116, all efforts at transmutation are goverened by pressure, temperature, volume and power. Those are pregnant words and there is a lot of room here for interpretation and translation to put something into practice.

I would keep things simple - start with the geometry of the six opposing cones (vortices) that make up the cube wave field and apply the excitement either in the form of copper coil (cone) windings (and to do this the usual way a solenoid is wound would be terribly inefficient regardless of what Russell seems to propose) or by the use of SOUND. Sound is infinitely variable, can be turned into a standing wave, can be matched against its oppositely sexed mate (a necessity) and can be applied with a fair amount of power. Temperature would be a factor of compression (produced by the sound). What would be critical is the choice of sound generation (not a speaker but possibly a transducer), the choice of cone material, its geometry and a way to vary the impedance (sound volume and possibly its frequency) to achieve the desired result. A joystick would be practical.

And what would be or could be achieved? I would think in terms of anti-gravity devices, transmutation of metals or production of a lot of heat from nothing but a little sound in combination with the proper geometry of materials.
If in doubt, you might check into ancient Indian literary sources such as the Mahabharata where thousands of years ago, flying machines (Vimanas) invariably produced a lot of melodic sounds. It seems that they had an iron/mercury engine for propulsion and, according to Captain Bruce Cathie of New Zealand, this combination, excited with the proper (sound) harmonics and raised to a specific temperature, would produce a torrent of power (whirlwind).

Anyway, I hope I have given you some food for thought.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 09:10 am
@Lancelot phil,
Wave is a wave. You can do same things with EM, sound, fluid etc., just need the right "exciter". Why do you think coils are ineficcent? In my "experience" EM field/waves are much more easier to handle than sound. Sound is dependant of the medium (air, water), and it uses more energy.
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 09:41 am
@esaruoho,
i cant say i yet understand russell's wave. surely the answers are in that? Smile
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 02:39 pm
@mr4v0,
Hi, mr4v0 - and thanks for your reply!

Actually, I did not say that COILS are inefficient - I said that coils wound in a typically solenoidal manner (circumferencially around a rore) are inefficient.

This is advocated in Dr. Russell's home study course page 730, Fig. 34 and is represented as "Nature's way of winding her solenoids". Nor so!

Empirical discoveries are not always covered or supported by current theory. Herb Wachspress says (and he seems to be able to demonstrate what he is talking about by flying his 6-cone models around his living room - defying gravity)...

"1. Toroidal windings and cores provide translation in an axial magnetic field. Solenoidal windings and cores do not. They rotate. The coupling efficiency of a 4 inch diameter solenoidal coil in the geomagnetic field is one million of a percent. A toroidal coil can have 99.999 % or better. The demagnetization reduces that to around 90 %. This is all demonstratable.

2. There is a longitudinal magnetomechanical force and a transverse force. Both longitudinal and transverse forces are subcomponents of a force
that can point in any direction. Subcomponent force densities are proportional to the external magnetic flux density and the effective current density of the coil or core. This too is demonstratable.

3. Effective current density in toroidal cores and solenoidal cores varies with the inverse of the core thickness."

This all makes sense - and I agree with him.
If you are interested, I will steer you to Wachspress' web site. His gravity-defying flying prototype is a beautiful application of Russell's teachings although Wachspress never mentions Russell's name and maybe it was an empirical and independent discovery on Wachspress' part after all.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 01:57 am
@Lancelot phil,
Hi Lancelot,
yes, toroids are out of the picture here. Since their main purpose is to transfer energy from one (primary) winding to other (secondary etc.) windings on the same core with minimal loss. That's what they are designed for. Force in any direction in this geometry is a sign of bad core or windings and means there is a "leakage" in magnet flux. I take it for granted that we are talking about solenoids on this forum, sorry my mistake.

I would be very interested in seeing the site you are mentioning. Please post a link.

Thanks for your post!
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 07:22 am
@mr4v0,
Hi, mr4v0:

Thanks for your fine reply!

Herb Wachspress' original patent can be viewed here. [email protected] document view
You need to be aware that he started by winding his cones in the traditional solenoidal (like latitude on a globe) and thus consumed a lot of current. It threw him off for a long time. He later changed to torroidal (longitudinal) windings and discovered that this was a million times more effective.
Other patent info can be gleaned here: Longitudinal electromagnetic levitator - US Patent 5887018

For further information regarding Wachspress and his further experimentation with cones, vortices and anti-gravity look here:

http://www.auditac.com/
How Wachspress
415 364-3085


You need to have some patience to go through this site - and not everything is coherent - but there are many gems of information that would be useful for the serious investigator.

As basic background information regarding the 3- or 4-dimensional aspects of the vortex - the basic creative principle of Nature - you might be interested to read this: Basic energy unit

The main thrust of all this is the fact that Walter Russell's basic static cube wave field can be thought of as 6 bases of cones that thrust inward with their apices to all meet at the very center - at what Russell calls "corner reflectors" or "radar reflectors" because the generoactive effort of compression simply cannot go beyond that center point and MUST be reflected back to its origin. It is the illusionary formation of expansion rings from that very center - at 90 degrees from the creative thrust - that throws us off and we don't see the underlying causes - only the effects.

I think that it would be relatively easy to duplicate Wachspress' 'discoveries' with Russellian insight and to build a compact and very effective levitator - the perfect anti-gravity device.

Yet, this same geomatric configuration would also be useful to explore the conversion of substances - and I don't want to call that 'transmutaion' because Russell says that transmutation as we know it does not exist - because, in that static cube, the two cones at the poles would constitute the compressive effort, generating the necessary pressures toward each other and the surrounding four equatorial radiating cones would be the expansive effort - and you know that you cannot have one without the other.

I was thinking of using SOUND as the energy concentration medium for this exploitation and, instead of using speakers, I would use transducers - they move more air. Wachspress has some info on that on his web site.

Let me know your thoughts regarding this subject - and thanks for listening!

Lancelot.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 07:24 am
@mr4v0,
Hi, mr4v0:

Thanks for your fine reply!

Herb Wachspress' original patent can be viewed here. [email protected] document view
You need to be aware that he started by winding his cones in the traditional solenoidal (like latitude on a globe) and thus consumed a lot of current. It threw him off for a long time. He later changed to torroidal (longitudinal) windings and discovered that this was a million times more effective.
Other patent info can be gleaned here: Longitudinal electromagnetic levitator - US Patent 5887018

For further information regarding Wachspress and his further experimentation with cones, vortices and anti-gravity look here:

http://www.auditac.com/
How Wachspress
415 364-3085

You need to have some patience to go through this site - and not everything is coherent - but there are many gems of information that would be useful for the serious investigator.

As basic background information regarding the 3- or 4-dimensional aspects of the vortex - the basic creative principle of Nature - you might be interested to read this: Basic energy unit

The main thrust of all this is the fact that Walter Russell's basic static cube wave field can be thought of as 6 bases of cones that thrust inward with their apices to all meet at the very center - at what Russell calls "corner reflectors" or "radar reflectors" because the generoactive effort of compression simply cannot go beyond that center point and MUST be reflected back to its origin. It is the illusionary formation of expansion rings from that very center - at 90 degrees from the creative thrust - that throws us off and we don't see the underlying causes - only the effects.

I think that it would be relatively easy to duplicate Wachspress' 'discoveries' with Russellian insight and to build a compact and very effective levitator - the perfect anti-gravity device.

Yet, this same geomatric configuration would also be useful to explore the conversion of substances - and I don't want to call that 'transmutaion' because Russell says that transmutation as we know it does not exist - because, in that static cube, the two cones at the poles would constitute the compressive effort, generating the necessary pressures toward each other and the surrounding four equatorial radiating cones would be the expansive effort - and you know that you cannot have one without the other.

I was thinking of using SOUND as the energy concentration medium for this exploitation and, instead of using speakers, I would use transducers - they move more air. Wachspress has some info on that on his web site.

Let me know your thoughts regarding this subject - and thanks for listening!

Lancelot.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 01:57 pm
@Lancelot phil,
Hey Lancelot,
thanks for your wealth of information. I have found Wachpress' patent myself some days ago, thanks to you. I'd like to see the videos too, but it's not so importatnt, just curiosity. I have posted the patent on my country's electronics forum. Heh, we'll see if anyone has some usefull information or if they're willing to reproduce it.

Regarding the patent or his device, I think he is not aware of Dr.Russell's teachings. It's a big patent and I haven't quite finished studying it yet. I might even reproduce it in the future, can't promise anything though. So, I think he got his idea when he was trying (or thinking) how to stop or avoid the rotation of magnets in the magnetic field. Everyone knows that when you place 2 magnets together in their magnetic fields, they rotate trying to void each other (N pole turns to S and vice-versa). Well, what he has done is to fix two magnets (coils) in an arangement to give him, what he calls, a magnetic tripole (like N-S:S-N; any odd number configuration will do). This configuration produces no rotation when placed in external magnetic field, but it produces translation, according to his words. It seems logical. The 6-sided (cube-sphere) configuration that is also in his patent is just one of many possible solutions, he's not saying it's the only one working. According to the patent any configuration should produce force or motion in the direction of its axis. He proposes to start with just one tripole (one pair of N-S:S-N coils) and gradualy make it to 6 or more sided configurations. I'm thinking those magnets (coils) are like thrusters on a rocket. But it is imperative that the whole configuration is in an external magnetic field, such as bar magnet or coil or the celestial body... Since the Earth's field is very weak I don't know how much power one would need. I think this information is in his patent, but I haven't read that part yet. These are just my thoughts on the subject, and in no way a "working" explanation of the patent.

I will be getting back to you asI find out something more. I have also read the Basic Unit article, I can't say I fully comprehend, but I get the picture. Very useful!

Thank you for posting here!

Best regards.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 04:46 pm
@mr4v0,
Hi again:

Thanks for your enthusiastic reply!
What I'd like to emphasise here is the fact that Wachspress originally used solenoidal windings (like Russell proposed in his homestudy course) and later graduated to longitudinal (torroidal) windings. It seems to have made a world of difference as far as performance is concerned.

Wachspress' web site is simply awful but there are gems of information there. Apparently, he has pushed his idea far enough to want to interest investors or even NASA - and in one page he talked about fetching a few pounds of moon dust that sells for $1,000,000 a pound.

There is also a page where he uses transducers - for fun - but not with his anti-gravity device.

I have downloaded his entire site - just in case he makes certain pages disappear.

Keep looking - I'd like to follow this up a lot more!
Best regards,

Lancelot.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 03:50 am
@Lancelot phil,
Hi,
you got me a bit confused here, I noticed it in your previous post but I forgot to mention it. Are we talking about toriod as http://www.slmti.com/windings/windingpics/toroid.jpgand solenoids as such: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eceder/Hashmal_Anality/hashmal/solenoid.jpgWachpress is using, what I would term a solenoid. They are cone shaped, but he says they could be cilindrical nontheless. And I don't know if he is aware of the gradient in cone geometry, but he is mentioning that cone shaped coils have stronger field in the center. Why he is using cone shape I don't know, maybe it just feels better. Wink

Best regards.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 08:24 am
@mr4v0,
Hi, again:

Thanks for the further query.
You might remember that Wachspress' patents were written when he was still winding his cones as a (distorted) solenoid. Solenoids need not be cylindrical, after all. But later he found that when he wound his cones in a torroidal fashion, he increased the cone's performance way in excess of any expectations (a million times more - his words, not mine). If you imagine the cone being globular with the poles being the cone base and apex, respectively. You can wind that globular cone in a longitudinal (torroidal) or in a latitudinal (solenoidal) fashion. What I am saying is that the former is better and the latter has been found to be inefficient - at least for the contemplated application as an anti-gravity defive.
My idea was to discard all windings, to shape the cone inside so that sound can funnel into the system from at least two cones (from the large end toward the apices) and instead of using speakers I would explore Wachspress' transducers (in his web site).

All the best,

Lancelot.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 08:41 am
@Lancelot phil,
Ah, I couldn't find any further information about it on his site. Would you please be so kind and post a direct link to where he is talking about the toroids. It seems strange to me, but then again, who am I to judge...Wink

Thanks!

edited: field in a toriodal coil
http://web.ncf.ca/ch865/graphics/ToroidalCoil.jpeg

magnetic field in a solenoid:

http://web.ncf.ca/ch865/graphics/Solenoid.jpeg

As you can see toroidal setup doesn't let any field out. I think it's impossible to tell which side is which pole, since the field is closed in a loop; unlike the solenoidal field. I doubt he got better results... Frankly, I don't know, this is just what I've been taught in school.

Best regards.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 01:51 pm
@mr4v0,
To respond to your question, here is the most important link list of Wachspress' work. It concerns documentation that is no longer shown in his web site as links but is still present there.

http://www.auditac.com/levitators/UL/

See also... Magnetic Space Travel - http://www.auditac.com/levitators/MST.html
Free flying magnetic levitator - http://www.auditac.com/levitators/reviewltd.html
Patent - Patent Here
Aviation Week article - Aviation Article Here

That will enlighten you - my hat off to this innovative inventor - he seems to have accomplished a lot but is anyone listening to him?

Have fun! Please share your comments and opinions. Thanks!
Lancelot.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 02:41 pm
@Lancelot phil,
Cool, I'll check it out. Thank you for your help. This is an interesting solenoid I've just found out about (on my electronics forum). It's for generating huge magnetic fields. Maybe you find it interesting.
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/magnettechnology/research/magnetprojects/images/seriesconnectedhybrid-diagram03.jpg
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 06:13 pm
@mr4v0,
Wow - interesting! Thanks for sharing!

What's the associated story behind that one? Got any details?
Looks like the jogsaw pieces are coming together!

Lancelot.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Fri 14 Dec, 2007 03:49 am
@Lancelot phil,
This is from wiki:
A Bitter electromagnet or Bitter solenoid is a type of electromagnet made of metal plates and insulating spacers stacked in a helical configuration, rather than coils of wire. This design was created and built in 1933 by Francis Bitter. In his honor the plates are known as Bitter plates.
Bitter electromagnets are used to produce extremely strong magnetic fields (up to 60 teslas as of 2006). The stacked plate design is mechanically very sturdy, to withstand the outward pressure produced by Lorentz forces, which increase as the square of the magnetic field strength. Additionally, water circulates through holes in the plates as a coolant, as resistive heating also increases as the square of the magnetic field strength.
Despite the drawback of resistive heating, Bitter electromagnets are used where extremely strong fields are required because superconducting electromagnets cannot operate above the field strength at which the magnet materials cease to be superconducting (typically on the order of 10 teslas, due to flux creep, though theoretical limits are higher).




It's a huge solenoid for producing abnormal magnetic fields. It's made of metal sheets (instead of wires) and insulator sheets (every other is insulating). This produces such strong fields (depends on the amperage availble) it can explode, or be ripped apart by mag field. I was told in school that 1T field is strong field, and can/will cause electrolisys in organisms and sickness, I can't imagine what would 60T do.:eek:

greets
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » copper, silver and gold as the same substance?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/09/2020 at 05:40:31