Magnetic Resonance - Discussion

  • Topic Is Sticky
  • 351 Views
  • Last Post 3 weeks ago
Chris posted this 4 weeks ago

My Friends,

Magnetic Resonance is a topic that warrants further discussion in my humble opinion!

We know, many before us, used the very same term:

  • Alfred Hubbard
  • Floyd Sweet
  • Don Smith
  • Akula0083 - Roman Karnaukhov

 

The Term: "Magnetic Resonance" has been linked to Electron Paramagnetic Resonance ( EPR ), or Electron Spin Resonance ( ESR ), however, perhaps the topic of Antenna Theory seems to be a definition that could be easier be fitted to this topic?

If you throw Alfred Hubbard paper: "Hubbard-Coil" into AI, and ask for the Definition of Magnetic Resonance, you will get:

What is “Magnetic Resonance” in the context of the Hubbard Coil / Hubbard Generator documents?

In these specific documents (the 1919–1920s newspaper reports, the Rex Research compilation, and especially the 1980s–1990s Technidyne / Joseph Cater–inspired replications), the term magnetic resonance does not mean the same thing as NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) or the everyday physics definition of resonance. Instead, it is a very specific, non-standard, and highly controversial concept used by Alfred Hubbard and later by Joseph Cater and his followers. Here is how it is defined and used throughout the documents:

Core definition of “Magnetic Resonance” in the Hubbard literature

Magnetic resonance is claimed to occur when:

  1. A central primary coil and multiple surrounding secondary coils are wound and dimensioned according to very precise geometric ratios (especially the Golden Section / \(\phi \approx 1.618\), and multiples of 146–149 mm lengths).
  2. An iron or steel core is inserted that is deliberately designed to saturate magnetically.
  3. The coil assembly is excited at one of its calculated “natural magnetic resonance frequencies” (typically in the low RF range: 5–22 kHz in the documents, or 2.8 GHz in one later theoretical note).
  4. At the exact resonance frequency, the iron core is said to enter a state where the magnetic domains “flip” or “resonate” in such a way that the Barkhausen effect or other microscopic magnetic discontinuities are synchronised, dramatically lowering the hysteresis losses and allowing the secondary coils to extract far more energy than is apparently supplied to the primary.

In short: Magnetic resonance = the condition in which a saturated ferromagnetic core, surrounded by properly proportioned coils, is driven at a frequency that causes coherent, amplified re-emission of magnetic energy into the secondary windings, resulting in a large coefficient of performance (COP > 1).

Key quotes from the documents that define it

  • Page 33 (the “Amplifying Transformer” page you photographed):
    “The natural magnetic resonance frequency: 2.8 GHz”
    Suggested lower-frequency harmonics: 5.340 Hz, 10.681 Hz, 21.362 Hz, etc.
    “The ideal ratio of the diameter of the center coil to the 8 smaller coils must be THE GOLDEN SECTION, i.e. the diameter of the small coils must be 30 mm.”
    → This is the classic Hubbard/Cater resonance geometry.
  • Technidyne letter, 26 Nov 1992 (p. 4):
    “A radical departure from normal transformer operation occurs, however, when sinusoidal D.C. pulses, at low voltage and high frequency are sent into the primary windings of the Hubbard transformer/generator unit. Tests have shown that uniform D.C. pulses directed into a coil will increase the voltage output over that of a conventional straight wire.”
  • Joseph Cater–influenced notes (1980s–90s):
    Repeated references to “magnetic inductive resonance” and “resonance of the iron itself,” claiming the iron core becomes a “pump” or “energy amplifier” when driven at the correct frequency and with the correct coil proportions.
  • 1991 notes (p. 9 in some copies):
    “Since the induced EMF in the coil is directly proportional to the frequency of the AC current, it is advantageous to use a higher frequency than the normal 60 cycle AC. Something on the order of 120 cycles or more is suggested.”

How the Hubbard group claimed it worked

  1. A low-power oscillator (originally a spark gap or later a solid-state pulsed DC oscillator) feeds the central primary coil.
  2. Eight (or sometimes more) secondary coils are wound around smaller cores or in air, arranged symmetrically around the primary.
  3. At the exact resonance frequency and with Golden-Section proportions, the collapsing magnetic field in the saturated iron core supposedly triggers a “non-linear” or “avalanche” release of energy that is picked up by the secondaries.
  4. Measured output power is claimed to be 3–100 times the input power, depending on tuning precision.

Modern scientific view

Mainstream physics regards these claims as physically impossible under known laws:

  • Energy amplification of this kind would violate conservation of energy.
  • No independently replicated measurement of over-unity performance has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
  • The effects that were observed (if real) are now attributed to measurement error, hidden batteries, or simple high-Q resonant transformers operating at normal efficiency.

Summary

In the Hubbard Coil documents, “magnetic resonance” is a fringe term meaning a supposed energy-amplifying state achieved in a multi-coil, iron-core transformer when it is dimensioned to Golden-Section ratios and driven at one of its calculated natural frequencies (usually kHz-range harmonics of a theoretical 2.8 GHz fundamental). It is presented as the central mechanism that allowed Hubbard’s 1919–1920 device to allegedly produce kilowatts from watts, and it is the same principle that Joseph Cater and later replicators tried to recreate in the 1980s–90s.

Today it is universally regarded by the scientific community as a misunderstood or mistaken interpretation of ordinary resonant transformer behaviour.

 

If you throw Floyd Sweets paper: "Magnetic Resonance" into AI, and ask for the Definition of Magnetic Resonance, you will get:

According to the 4-page document “Magnetic Resonance” by Floyd A. Sweet, Ph.D. (the one restored by hyiq.org), Magnetic Resonance is defined in the strict, conventional physics sense — not as a source of “free energy” or over-unity, but as the well-established quantum-mechanical phenomenon known today as Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) or Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR), and its nuclear counterpart Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR).

Here is exactly what Floyd Sweet says Magnetic Resonance is, using only the text and concepts that appear in this specific document:

Direct Definition from the Opening Paragraph (Page 1)

“Magnetic resonance is concerned with the interactions of some of the fields [magnetic moments of orbiting electrons, electron spin, and nuclear spin] with each other, and with at least two external magnetic fields applied to the atom.”

In other words:
Magnetic Resonance = the resonant absorption of electromagnetic energy by the magnetic moments (spins and orbits) of electrons or atomic nuclei when they are placed in a strong static magnetic field and then irradiated with a second, oscillating magnetic field at precisely the correct (resonant) radio-frequency.

Key Physical Mechanisms Described by Sweet

  1. Electron magnetic moments arise from:
    • Orbital motion around the nucleus → orbital magnetic moment
    • Intrinsic spin of the electron → spin magnetic moment (exactly 1 Bohr magneton, \(\mu_B\))
  2. Precession in an external magnetic field
    Just like a spinning top precesses in gravity, the electron’s magnetic moment vector precesses around the direction of an applied static magnetic field \(H\) at the Larmor precessional frequency.
  3. Energy level splitting (Zeeman effect)
    In a magnetic field, the two possible spin states of an electron (spin up or spin down, \(m_s = \pm \frac{1}{2}\)) split in energy by
    \(\Delta E = g \mu_B H = h f\)
    → Resonant frequency \(f = \frac{g \mu_B H}{h} \approx\) 2.80 MHz per gauss (for a free electron, \(g \approx 2\))

    This is stated explicitly on page 3:
    “The EPR of a free electron is 2.80 H MC [Megacycles]. Where H is in gauss.”
  4. Resonance condition
    When electromagnetic radiation of exactly this frequency (and correct polarization) is applied, electrons in the lower-energy state absorb a photon and flip to the higher-energy state. This is the essence of magnetic resonance absorption.
  5. Nuclear magnetic resonance works identically but with the much smaller nuclear magneton (mass of proton instead of electron), so nuclear resonant frequencies are in the kHz–MHz range instead of GHz.

Sweet’s Explicit Reference to Over-Unity Claims (Page 3)

Sweet directly references the “Jensen machine” (a claimed over-unity magnetic resonance device) and its stated “natural magnetic resonance frequency = 2.80 GHz”.

He then clarifies:

  • 2.80 GHz would only be correct for a free electron in an extremely strong field of ~1,000 gauss (since \(f = 2.80\) MHz/gauss × \(H\)).
  • In normal materials and fields, the actual electron paramagnetic resonance frequency is in the microwave region only for fields of several thousand gauss — not something casually achieved in a tabletop device.

Sweet’s Conclusion About High-Power “Resonant Machines”

In the final section ( “Dealing with Resonance at High Power Levels" ), Sweet explains why simple series LC resonant circuits connected to real, varying loads (such as power grids) cannot maintain stable high-power resonance:

  • Load impedance and power factor continually change.
  • Reflected impedance detunes the LC circuit.
  • Resonance is immediately lost and output collapses to near zero unless the driving frequency is continuously and perfectly adjusted — which he calls “a most challenging task.”

He recommends abandoning discrete capacitors, using the distributed capacitance of the coil itself, and doing any serious development at 60 Hz rather than high frequencies.

Summary – What Floyd Sweet Says Magnetic Resonance Actually Is

In this document, Floyd Sweet uses “Magnetic Resonance” in its correct, textbook physics meaning:

Magnetic Resonance is the resonant absorption and re-emission of electromagnetic energy by the magnetic moments of electrons (ESR/EPR) or atomic nuclei (NMR) when they precess in a static magnetic field and are irradiated at their exact Larmor frequency.

He is not describing it as a source of free or over-unity energy. In fact, he uses accepted physics to explain why the high-power, self-sustaining “magnetic resonance generators” being discussed in the free-energy community (including those citing 2.80 GHz) are physically problematic and will not stay in resonance under real-world loading.

 

And the same with Don Smiths Document: "Resonant Energy Systems" into AI, and ask for the Definition of Magnetic Resonance, you will get:

According to Donald L. Smith’s document Resonant Energy Systems (the 96-page PDF commonly circulated under that title), Magnetic Resonance is the central operating principle behind all of his claimed over-unity energy devices. Below is a precise, detailed explanation of what Don Smith means by “Magnetic Resonance,” using only concepts and phrasing that appear explicitly or are directly implied in the document itself.

Core Definition of Magnetic Resonance in the Document

Magnetic Resonance, in Don Smith’s system, is the deliberate matching of the natural resonant frequency of a primary coil/circuit with the natural resonant frequency of a secondary coil/circuit so that ambient magnetic/electromagnetic energy (which he claims is freely available everywhere) is captured, amplified, and converted into usable electrical power without depleting the source.

He repeatedly states (especially pages 14–18, 27–32, 44–48, and in his handwritten notes):

  • “Energy at resonance is free and unlimited.”
  • “Magnetic waves have no cost, they are ambient and infinite.”
  • “Resonance allows the capture of energy which is normally wasted and radiated back into space.”

Key Characteristics of Magnetic Resonance According to Don Smith

  1. Voltage × Amperage = Power, but at resonance they are separated and independently controllable
    Smith’s most frequently repeated claim:
    “In resonant systems, voltage and current (amperage) are 90° out of phase. This allows you to increase voltage in one circuit and harvest amperage in another without loading the source.”
    (See especially the “Bird on a Wire” analogy on pages 27–28 and the capacitor plate diagrams.)
  2. Two separate resonant LC circuits are required
    • A primary LC circuit (usually a high-voltage, low-current coil + capacitor) is driven at its exact natural resonant frequency (often 35.1 kHz in his devices or multiples of 60 Hz).
    • A secondary LC circuit (usually lower voltage, high current) is tuned to the exact same frequency.
    • When both circuits resonate at the same frequency, magnetic flux from the primary induces massive electron movement in the secondary without reactive power returning to the source.
  3. The role of the Earth and/or capacitor plates as an energy collector
    Smith claims the Earth itself and large metal plates act as one half of a giant dipole. The magnetic component of ambient electromagnetic waves passes freely through capacitor plates or the Earth without resistance. By placing capacitor plates at right angles to the magnetic flux (or grounding one side of the system), electrons are “pumped” or “spun” into motion, creating usable current.
  4. λ/4 (quarter-wave) resonance is critical
    Almost every device in the document uses coils or dipoles that are exactly 1/4 wavelength long at the operating frequency.
    Example: “Coil length = ¼ wavelength of the resonant frequency” (repeated on pages 15, 30, 45, 62, etc.).
    This creates a standing wave with maximum voltage at one end and maximum current at the other.
    In MathJax: \(\lambda/4\) (quarter-wave)
  5. Magnets (especially neodymium) are used to “bias” or “focus” the resonance
    Permanent magnets placed near or inside coils are said to align electron spin and increase energy capture. Smith claims this is analogous to doping a semiconductor.
  6. Energy multiplication occurs because of “electron spin resonance” and “ion resonance”
    Smith uses these terms frequently (pages 17, 31, 47, 68). He asserts that when electrons and ions are resonantly excited, each electron can produce many “daughter” electrons through avalanche or cascade effects, leading to apparent over-unity output.
  7. No violation of conservation of energy
    Smith insists he is not creating energy, but converting ambient, normally wasted magnetic/electromagnetic energy that already exists in the environment (from the Earth’s magnetic field, cosmic rays, Schumann resonances, etc.).

Most concise direct quotes from the document that define Magnetic Resonance:

  • “Resonance = Energy magnification with no additional input required.”
  • “At resonance, energy arrives as voltage in one place and departs as amperage in another.”
  • “Magnetic resonance is the pumping of electrons using ambient magnetic waves which cost nothing.”
  • “When two or more objects resonate at the same frequency, energy transfer becomes infinite in potential.”

Summary in Don Smith’s Own Words (paraphrased from multiple pages)

“Magnetic resonance is the matching of frequencies between two or more coils or circuits so that free ambient magnetic energy is captured in the primary, spun into massive electron movement, and harvested as usable power in the secondary — with the source never being depleted because voltage and current are separated by 90° and no power is reflected back.”

That is exactly what the document claims Magnetic Resonance is.

 

We have a Thread: The 2.8 GHz Quantum-Classical Resonance Bridge, that is trying to link 2.8GHz and Antenna Theory, which is also a topic others have also linked before me:

I believe the reference you're recalling is to Ruslan Kulabuhov's "BTG generator" (a claimed overunity device inspired by Tariel Kapanadze's designs). This isn't tied to Russian military Battalion Tactical Groups (the conventional meaning of BTG), but rather to experimental electronics where frequencies like 2.8 GHz play a role in Tesla coil or plasma-based power generation setups.

Let me break down the details from Russian forums and related sources (e.g., aboveunity.com, which aggregates VK.com and YouTube discussions from Russian experimenters, and cross-referenced with Russian posts on Rutracker and electronics subforums like cxem.net). These communities often dissect Kulabuhov's videos and schematics, debating replication attempts.

Background on Ruslan's BTG

  • What is it? Ruslan Kulabuhov (YouTube handle ~"TOP RUSLAN") is a Russian inventor known for building "Black Box" or "BTG" (sometimes called "Bedini-Tesla Generator" or just "Kapanadze-style BTG") devices. These are compact, claimed self-running generators producing 40W to 3kW output from minimal input, using high-voltage Tesla coils, neon transformers, and plasma/grounding arcs. Videos from 2018–2023 show demos with scopes measuring ~200V/10A output. Skeptics call it measurement error or hidden power; enthusiasts insist it's real overunity.
  • Connection to Russian forums: Discussions exploded on Russian sites like aboveunity.com (English/Russian mix), VK groups (e.g., "Бесплатная энергия" or free energy circles), and Rutracker torrents sharing his files. A 2020 thread titled "Ruslan's BTG 2kWt" has 100+ replies debating authenticity, with users like "alohalaoha" (Russian-English bilingual) translating audio from his videos.

The 2.8 GHz Link and Wire Length

Russian forum users (e.g., in aboveunity and cxem.net threads from 2020–2022) analyzed Ruslan's setups via spectrum analyzers and oscilloscopes from his videos. The key claim:

  • Frequency role: 2.8 GHz (precisely ~2.75–2.85 GHz in some replications) is the operating frequency of the device's "nanosecond pulse generator" or electronic Tesla coil driver. This creates ultra-short high-voltage pulses (10–50 ns duration) to excite the plasma arc or ground terminal, allegedly enabling energy extraction from the environment (e.g., radiant energy or zero-point claims). It's not the main power frequency (which is ~50/60 Hz) but a microwave-range control signal for efficiency.
    • Why 2.8 GHz? Forum consensus: It's tuned to the dielectric resonance of the wire/coil materials (copper or alloy) and the "earth ground" as a counterpoise. Users cite it matches common WiFi/ISM band edges but is fine-tuned for minimal input power (~5–10W) to sustain the arc.
  • Wire length specifics: The "magic" element is the length of the grounding wire or antenna-like extension from the BTG's output coil to a ground stake. Russian experimenters measured and calculated:
    • Quarter-wave length: For 2.8 GHz (wavelength λ = c/f = 3×10^8 m/s / 2.8×10^9 Hz ≈ 0.107 m or 10.7 cm), a quarter-wave is ~2.675 cm (1.05 inches). This is the optimal length for the wire acting as a monopole antenna or harmonic resonator, maximizing energy transfer to ground without reflection losses.
      • Calculation: λ/4 = (300 / 2800) / 4 ≈ 0.02675 m (accounting for velocity factor ~0.95 in wire, it's ~2.54 cm).
    • In Ruslan's 2kW demo (YouTube: "Ruslan BTG 20 September 2020"), the wire is visibly ~2.5–3 cm, soldered to the coil end and spiked into soil. Forum users replicated it with 24–26 AWG enameled copper wire, reporting "resonance lock" at that length—scope shows clean sine-like output without distortion.
    • Longer wires (e.g., 10–15 cm, half-wave) were tested but caused detuning; shorter ones (<2 cm) led to arcing failures. One VK post (translated): "Ruslan's secret is the 2.8 GHz pulse syncing exactly to quarter-wave ground wire—changes it by 1 mm, and output drops 50%."

Evidence from Forums

  • Aboveunity.com thread (2020–2023): 50+ pages on "Ruslan's negenerW BTG." Users share photos of disassembled units, with spectrum plots peaking at 2.8 GHz. A dispute section references Sergei Panov (another inventor) critiquing Ruslan's wire tuning as "too empirical—calculate λ/4 properly."
  • Cxem.net (Russian electronics forum): 2019–2021 threads on "Генератор Русlana BTG" discuss wire as a "virtual antenna" for RF grounding. One user: "2.8 GHz дает резонанс на длине 27 мм, как у Ruslan—проверил на наноимпульснике."
  • Skepticism: Not all agree—some call it RF noise artifact, not true overunity. No peer-reviewed confirmation, and Ruslan sold prototypes (e.g., 40W unit to "Americans" per 2022 leak).

If this isn't the exact topic you meant (e.g., if "Ruslan's BTG" refers to a military callsign or something else), jog my memory with more context! Otherwise, if you're building/replicating, start with a signal generator at 2.8 GHz and trim that wire iteratively—safety first, high voltage kills. What aspect intrigues you most?

 

 

Note: If you go through Ruslan's Videos, turn on Close Captions and translate if needed. Take note of the wire lengths and the Frequencies mentioned. Check for yourself, but you will find, a great deal of the Frequencies and Lengths are related to the 2.8GHz Frequency as a Sub-Harmonic of n of λ.

Lets move forward with a open mind and know what we have already achieved, its just the start! Note the link reference already!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • FringeIdeas
  • Drasko
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
ERTW posted this 4 weeks ago

. for some reason my post is not appearing correct. try again:

wanted to say there are different resonances and its probably could to understand the differences because they seem to show up in different ways in VTA (far as i can tell)

a) LC resonance (where impedance cancels out leaving only resistance) and current is in phase with voltage.

b) ferroresonance where core material is near saturation and behaving non-linear but interesting results in 180deg current flip (i.e. not the same as LC resonance). i think this is what MrPreva experiment shows

c) fundamental resonance, this is half-wave dipole antenna resonance. interestingly, the current also flips or is delated 180deg just like ferroresonance, and it can happen with or without a core. you can pick a frequency here, maybe you pick 2.8Ghz (see point d below)

d) magnetic resonance. what chris discusses above but seems its at 2.8Ghz frequency and related to nuclei of magnet. i think this is NOT demonstrated in MrPreva experiment (correct?).

 

 

  • Liked by
  • FringeIdeas
Chris posted this 3 weeks ago

My Friends,

We need to think on a higher level, when Floyd Sweet said:

Using a more rigorous wave mechanics approach, S2 is replaced by S(S + 1), etc, to give:

 

And knowing that Gabriel Kron, Floyd Sweets Mentor, wrote a textbook about solving the Schrödinger equation with Circuits:  Electric Circuit Models of the Schrödinger Equation.  G. Kron, Phys. Rev. 67, 39-43 (1945), and then came up with the "Network Analyzer", then we should learn more, should we not?

 

The following banter, to try and prove a point, you will not see on any other forum:

Is there a link between Wave Mechanics and Electron Spin Resonance?

The Response:

Yes — there is a deep and direct link between wave mechanics and Electron Spin Resonance (ESR).
In fact, ESR is one of the purest experimental demonstrations that electron spin is an intrinsically wave-mechanical phenomenon.
Let’s go through the connections step by step, from basic quantum mechanics to the explicit wave equations that govern ESR.

1. Spin is a Wave-Mechanical Degree of Freedom from the Start
Electron spin does not exist in classical mechanics. It emerges only when we solve the relativistic wave equation for the electron:

  • Klein-Gordon equation → no spin (scalar wave)
  • Dirac equation (1928) → 4-component spinor wavefunction $ \psi(x,t) = [\psi\uparrow, \psi\downarrow, \dots]^\top $

The Dirac equation is a genuine wave equation (first-order in space and time) whose solutions automatically contain:

  • positive and negative energy branches
  • a built-in magnetic moment $ \mu = –g \mu_B S / \hbar $ with $ g \approx 2 $
  • precession of the spin in a magnetic field exactly like a classical spinning top, but now as a wave packet

So spin is not “added on” — it is a direct consequence of relativistic wave mechanics.

2. Semiclassical Wave Picture of Spin Precession (the one used in every ESR textbook)
Even without solving the full Dirac equation, ordinary Pauli (non-relativistic) wave mechanics already predicts ESR perfectly.
The two-component wavefunction for a single electron is
$$ \psi(r,t) = \begin{pmatrix} \alpha(r,t) \\ \beta(r,t) \end{pmatrix} $$
where $ |\alpha|^2 + |\beta|^2 = 1 $ is the total probability density, and the expectation value of spin is
$$ \langle S \rangle = \frac{\hbar}{2} \left( |\alpha|^2 - |\beta|^2,\ 2 \operatorname{Re}(\alpha\beta^*),\ 2 \operatorname{Im}(\alpha\beta^*) \right) $$

In a static field $ B_0 = B_0 \hat{e}_z $ the time-dependent Pauli equation adds the Zeeman term:
$$ i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = \left[ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 + V + g \mu_B B_0 S_z \right] \psi $$

The spin part alone (ignoring spatial motion) gives the famous precession solution:
$ \alpha(t) = \alpha(0) e^{-i (g \mu_B B_0 / 2\hbar) t} $
$ \beta(t) = \beta(0) e^{+i (g \mu_B B_0 / 2\hbar) t} $
→ the relative phase between the two spinor components winds at the Larmor frequency $ \omega_L = g \mu_B B_0 / \hbar \approx 2.8 \times 10^{10} $ rad/s per tesla

This is pure wave mechanics: the spin degree of freedom is carried by the interference phase between the two complex amplitudes α and β — exactly like the phase difference between left- and right-circular light in optics.

3. Microwave Driving = Rabi Oscillations = Forced Wave Interference
When we add the oscillating B₁ field at frequency ω ≈ ω_L, the Hamiltonian gets a time-dependent term
$ H_1(t) = g \mu_B B_1 (S_x \cos \omega t + S_y \sin \omega t) $

In the rotating frame (rotating wave approximation) this becomes a simple 2×2 matrix, and the wavefunction evolves as
$ |\alpha(t)|^2 = \sin^2(\Omega t / 2) $
$ |\beta(t)|^2 = \cos^2(\Omega t / 2) $
where $ \Omega = g \mu_B B_1 / \hbar $ is the Rabi frequency.

Again — this is 100 % wave-mechanical coherent manipulation of the two-component spinor wavefunction. The electron is literally flipping back and forth between spin-up and spin-down states by wave interference, exactly like a Mach–Zehnder interferometer for photons.

4. Bloch Equations = Classical Limit of the Wave Picture
The famous phenomenological Bloch equations used by every ESR spectroscopist
$$ \frac{d\mathbf{M}}{dt} = \gamma \mathbf{M} \times \mathbf{B} - \text{relaxation terms} $$
are nothing but the expectation-value equations derived directly from the Liouville–von Neumann equation for the density matrix $ \rho = \langle \psi \psi^\dagger \rangle $ of the spinor wavefunction.
So even the “classical-looking” vector model of magnetisation precessing around B₀ is just the coarse-grained version of the underlying wave mechanics.

5. Direct Wave-Mechanical Phenomena Observed in Modern ESR

All of these are textbook quantum wave interference effects.

Summary
Electron Spin Resonance is not just “compatible” with wave mechanics — it is one of the cleanest, most direct manifestations of wave mechanics in nature:

  • Spin itself arises from the relativistic wave equation (Dirac).
  • Precession is the relative phase evolution of the two components of the spinor wavefunction.
  • Resonance absorption and Rabi flops are coherent wave interference between those two components.
  • Every pulsed ESR sequence is a spin version of optical interferometry.

So when Floyd Sweet, Don Smith, or the Russian experimenters talk about “magnetic resonance” and “electron spin resonance” at 2.8 GHz, they are (whether they realise it or not) invoking exactly this wave-mechanical phenomenon.
The tragedy in the over-unity community is that they then extrapolate the tiny wave-mechanical energy differences (tens of microwatts per ampere, as we calculated earlier) into kilowatts — a jump of 6–9 orders of magnitude that wave mechanics itself forbids.
But the fundamental link you asked for is absolutely real and profound:

Electron Spin Resonance = Wave Mechanics in action.

Does Antenna Theory use Wave Mechanics at its core? What’s the link?

Yes — antenna theory is 100 % built on wave mechanics, from beginning to end.
There is no classical “ray optics” or “circuit lump-element” approximation that survives once you push antennas beyond the crudest low-frequency limit. Every serious antenna calculation — radiation pattern, near-field, resonance, bandwidth, gain, polarization, and especially the quarter-wave resonance at 2.8 GHz we have been discussing — comes directly from solving Maxwell’s wave equations.
Let’s go through the chain, step by step, so you can see exactly how deep the link runs.

1. The Fundamental Starting Point: Maxwell’s Equations as Wave Equations
All of electromagnetism, including antennas, starts with the four Maxwell equations in differential form.
Taking the curl of Faraday’s and Ampère’s laws and inserting the constitutive relations immediately yields the vector wave equations for E and B:

$$ \nabla^2\mathbf{E} - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial (\nabla \times \mathbf{M})}{\partial t} + \dots \quad \text{(source terms)} $$ $$ \nabla^2\mathbf{B} - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{B}}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0 \nabla \times \mathbf{J} + \dots $$

These are exactly the same mathematical form as the quantum-mechanical wave equation for ψ — only the physical meaning of the field is different.
So an antenna is nothing but a device that launches or receives solutions to these classical wave equations.

2. The Most Important Exact Solutions = Antenna Modes

All of these are solved by expanding the current distribution J(r′,t) in sinusoidal or traveling-wave basis functions and then using Green’s function (the wave propagator) to compute the radiated fields — pure wave mechanics.

3. Resonance in Antennas = Standing Waves = Wave Interference
A quarter-wave monopole at 2.8 GHz is resonant because the forward and backward waves on the wire interfere constructively at the feedpoint after one round trip in exactly one RF cycle.
Mathematical condition for resonance:
$ k \cdot L = \frac{\pi}{2} + n\pi \quad (k = \frac{2\pi}{\lambda}) $
$ \rightarrow L = \frac{\lambda}{4},\ \frac{3\lambda}{4},\ \dots $

4. Near-Field vs Far-Field = Retarded Wave Solutions
The full solution for the fields from a current distribution is the Jefimenko or retarded-potential form:
$$ \mathbf{E}(r,t) \propto \int \left[ \frac{\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r}', t - |\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|/c)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|} + \dots \right] dV' $$

5. Direct Mathematical Isomorphism with Quantum Wave Mechanics

Antenna / EM Concept Quantum-Mechanical Analog Standing wave on λ/4 wire Particle in 1-D box with odd-symmetry states Radiation damping (Purcell effect) Spontaneous emission rate ∝ local density of states Antenna Q-factor Same formulas as cavity Q in quantum optics Phased array beam steering Matter-wave interference in neutron interferometry Surface plasmon polariton antennas Electron wavepackets on metal surfaces Rabi oscillation with B₁ field Same Bloch equations as spin-½ in NMR/ESR

6. The 2.8 GHz Quarter-Wave Monopole as a Wave-Mechanical Object
Take the ~2.7 cm wire in Ruslan’s/Kapanadze-style devices:

  • The current on the wire is literally $ I(z,t) = I_0 \sin(kz) \cos(\omega t) $ with $ k = 2\pi/\lambda \approx 58.6 $ rad/m
  • The charge density $ \rho(z,t) \propto \cos(kz) $ forms standing-wave nodes
  • The near-zone magnetic field right at the base is maximum and circularly polarized — exactly the B₁ field geometry needed to drive ESR transitions efficiently.

Conclusion
Antenna theory does not merely “use” wave mechanics — it is wave mechanics applied to macroscopic currents and charges instead of microscopic probability amplitudes.
There is no fundamental difference in the mathematics between an electron spinor wavefunction precessing at 2.8 GHz in a 0.1 T field (ESR) and the standing electromagnetic wave on a 2.68 cm copper wire at 2.8 GHz (antenna).
That is why the fringe community’s intuition that “2.8 GHz antenna resonance” and “2.8 GHz electron spin resonance” are linked is not completely crazy — they really are two manifestations of the exact same wave mechanics.

Is the Electron itself, or the elementary charge, or the Charge of, form due to, or related to Wave Mechanics?

Yes — absolutely and profoundly.
The elementary charge e, the very fact that electric charge comes in indivisible quanta of ±1.602176634 × 10⁻¹⁹ C, and the fact that the electron is a stable, point-like carrier of exactly that charge, are direct consequences of wave mechanics (more precisely, of relativistic quantum wave mechanics).

1. Non-relativistic Wave Mechanics (Schrödinger 1926) → Charge is still classical

  • The Schrödinger equation treats charge density as $ \rho(r,t) = e |\psi(r,t)|^2 $
  • Charge is conserved automatically, but nothing forces the total charge to come in integer multiples of e

2. Relativistic Wave Mechanics for Spin-½ Particles (Dirac 1928) → Charge quantization appears for free
The Dirac equation automatically delivers:

  • Locally conserved current $ j^\mu = e \bar{\psi} \gamma^\mu \psi $ from U(1) gauge symmetry
  • Only ±e, 0 as allowed charges for one-particle states

3. Quantization of the Dirac Field (QED) → e is protected
Creation operators produce only charge −e (electron) or +e (positron).

4. Why the electron does not radiate and collapse — a pure wave-mechanical effect
No classical trajectory → no classical radiation. The ground-state wave is stable.

5. Deeper Modern Understanding
Anomaly cancellation, monopole quantization, and confinement all arise from consistency conditions on the quantum wave equations.

Summary Table

Bottom line
The elementary charge e and the very existence of the stable electron are not classical facts we feed into wave mechanics.
They are predictions of relativistic wave mechanics.
Without the correct quantum wave equation (Dirac), we would have no fundamental reason for charge quantization, electron stability, or antimatter.
So yes: the elementary charge itself only exists because of wave mechanics.

 

Lets review the Dirac Equation:

The Dirac Equation at Its Most Fundamental Level

The Dirac equation (1928) is the simplest, fully Lorentz-covariant, local wave equation that describes a single particle with

  • spin exactly ½
  • charge exactly ±e (or any multiple of e/3 in the full Standard Model)
  • positive definite probability density
  • finite propagation speed ≤ c
  • no negative-norm or runaway solutions

In natural units (ℏ = c = 1) it reads:

$$ (i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m) \psi(x) = 0 $$

or explicitly:

$$ i \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t} = \big(-i \boldsymbol{\alpha}\cdot\nabla + \beta m\big) \psi $$

where α₁, α₂, α₃ and β are 4×4 matrices, and ψ(x) is a four-component complex wavefunction called a Dirac spinor.

 

What the Equation Actually Predicts (all of these were unexpected in 1928)

 

What exactly is the “wave” ψ(x)?

ψ(x) is not a classical field like E or B.
It is a probability amplitude wave in the single-particle Hilbert space, with four complex components because the Lorentz group demands it.

 

When |v| → c, large and small components become equal, and the wave becomes a left- or right-handed chiral Weyl spinor ( helicity ±½ ).
In the massless limit m → 0 the Dirac equation factorises into two independent Weyl equations: $$ \bar{\sigma}^\mu \partial_\mu \phi_L = 0 \quad (\text{left-handed}) \\ \sigma^\mu \partial_\mu \phi_R = 0 \quad (\text{right-handed}) → mathematically identical to circularly polarised light ( photon helicity ±1 ).

 

Modern Interpretation (after second quantisation)

After 1934 we promote ψ(x) → operator-valued spinor field that destroys an electron or creates a positron.
The quantised excitations of this single field are:

  • electrons ( charge −e, spin ½ )
  • positrons ( charge +e, spin ½ )

and nothing else — no fractional charges, no spin 0 or spin 1 from the same field.

 

Summary — The Deepest Possible Statement

The Dirac equation is the unique minimal wave equation that is

  • first-order in space and time
  • Lorentz covariant
  • local
  • has positive-definite conserved probability/current
  • carries half-integer spin

and therefore it forces the existence of

  • spin ½
  • g = 2
  • antimatter
  • quantised charge ±e
  • the stability of matter as we know it

In that sense, the Dirac wave ψ(x) is the most fundamental “thing” in nature we have ever written down: everything macroscopic — atoms, chemistry, copper wires, antennas, human brains — ultimately rides on the interference patterns of these four-component probability waves.

So when we talk about a 2.8 GHz electromagnetic wave on an antenna and a 2.8 GHz spin precession wave in ESR, we are watching two different irreducible representations of the Lorentz group ( spin 1 and spin ½ ) dancing to exactly the same relativistic wave mechanics that Dirac discovered in 1928.

That is the ultimate unification behind all of the topics we have been discussing.

 

Whats the link? How do Maxwell’s equations and the Schrödinger equation differ?

 

Here is the deep, precise, and honest connection between Maxwell’s equations and the Schrödinger equation — from superficial similarity all the way to the profound level where they become literally the same mathematics.

 

Level 1 – Superficial resemblance (what most textbooks show)

Both are linear wave equations of the general form

$$ (\nabla^2 - \frac{1}{v^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}) \phi = \text{sources} $$

 

They look similar, but one is real-valued, second-order in time, and relativistic; the other is complex-valued, first-order in time, and non-relativistic.
At this level the resemblance is only pedagogical.

 

Level 2 – Both are limits of the same relativistic wave mechanics

When quantum field theory is built correctly, both the photon and the electron come from quantising the same kind of object: a relativistic wave equation with spin.

 

So Maxwell’s equations are literally the relativistic wave equation for a massless spin-1 particle, while the Dirac equation is the relativistic wave equation for a massive spin-½ particle.
In modern language:
Maxwell’s equations = Dirac equation for spin 1, m = 0
That is not an analogy — it is an identity inside quantum field theory.

 

Level 3 – The exact mathematical mapping (advanced)

In vacuum, Coulomb gauge $ \nabla\cdot\mathbf{A}=0 $, the free Maxwell equations reduce to

$$ \nabla^2\mathbf{A} - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2\mathbf{A}}{\partial t^2} = 0 $$

Each component of $ \mathbf{A} $ obeys the massless Klein–Gordon equation.

The massless Weyl equation (left-handed fermion) is

$$ i\hbar \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t} = -i\hbar c \, \boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\nabla \, \psi $$

Fourier transform gives $ \omega = c|\mathbf{k}| $ — exactly the photon dispersion.

A circularly polarised classical EM plane wave is mathematically identical to a positive-helicity Weyl spinor (and opposite polarisation to negative-helicity).

 

Level 4 – Second quantisation makes them identical in structure

Free-field expansions in QFT:

Photon:

$$ A^\mu(x) = \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_{\lambda=\pm1} \left[ \epsilon^\mu_\lambda(k) \, a_{\mathbf{k}\lambda} e^{-ikx} + \text{h.c.}\right] $$

Electron (Dirac):

$$ \psi(x) = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_s \left[ u_s(p) b_{\mathbf{p}s} e^{-ipx} + v_s(p) d^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}s} e^{ipx} \right] $$

Creation/annihilation algebra is identical; only the Lorentz representation differs ( spin 1 vs spin ½ ).

 

Level 5 – The non-relativistic limit closes the circle

Take the Dirac equation in a weak EM field and expand to order $ 1/c^2 $. You recover:

  1. Pauli (Schrödinger + spin) equation
  2. Zeeman term with $ g\approx 2 $
  3. Spin–orbit coupling
  4. Classical radiation field from electron current correlations (Feynman’s favourite point)

Summary – The True Relationship

 

So when you see a 2.8 GHz electromagnetic standing wave on a quarter-wave antenna and a 2.8 GHz spin precession wave in an ESR experiment, you are not watching “similar” phenomena.

You are watching two different Lorentz representations ( spin 1 and spin ½ ) of the exact same underlying wave mechanics of the universe — one macroscopic and classical, one microscopic and quantum, but mathematically born from the same mother equation.

That is the deepest link that exists.

 

There you have it, we have a Scientific link to Antenna Theory and ESR, Electron Spin Resonance. Except for the typical biased, learned ignorance non-sense: "6–9 orders of magnitude..." piffle, we can now understand the link to Antenna Theory and these machines in regards to Magnetic Resonance.

Best Wishes,

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • FringeIdeas
  • Drasko
Chris posted this 3 weeks ago

My Friends,

I think it is fair to say we might have learned a bit there?

We still dont really have a link to Energy, and all links we investigate seem to turn up dead ends! However, if we investigate Antenna Theory a little more, asking the right questions:

Is the effect of Antenna Theory producing a Spin Wave, or Lamour Precession, What is the wave composed of specifically?

 

Antenna theory, at its core, describes the generation, propagation, and reception of electromagnetic (EM) waves. These waves are not spin waves (magnons) or manifestations of Larmor precession. Instead, antenna effects can indirectly couple to or excite such phenomena in specific materials under certain conditions, as seen in advanced research like magnonics or electron spin resonance (ESR) setups. I'll break this down clearly, based on established physics.

Does Antenna Theory Produce Spin Waves?

No, not directly. Spin waves (also called magnons) are collective excitations of electron spins in magnetic materials (e.g., ferromagnets like yttrium iron garnet or permalloy). They are quasi-particles representing waves of magnetization precession, propagating through spin-spin interactions rather than free-space EM fields.

  • Antenna theory produces EM waves, which are oscillations of electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields perpendicular to each other and to the direction of propagation.
  • However, antennas can excite or detect spin waves when EM waves from the antenna interact with magnetic materials. For example:
    • Inductive antennas (like microstrip lines or coplanar waveguides) can launch spin waves via the oscillating B-field coupling to the material's magnetization.
    • This is used in “propagating-spin-wave spectroscopy,” where antennas act as transducers to convert EM waves into spin waves (and vice versa) for applications like spintronic devices or microwave signal processing.
    • Research examples include V-shaped antennas emitting spin waves in permalloy films or nano-antennas using tripartite magnon-photon-phonon interactions for efficient conversion.
  • In fringe or speculative contexts (e.g., free-energy claims), some misinterpret this coupling as antennas “producing” spin waves, but that’s inaccurate — antennas generate EM waves that induce spin waves in suitable media.

Does Antenna Theory Produce Larmor Precession?

No, not directly. Larmor precession is the gyration of a magnetic moment (e.g., an electron’s spin) around an external static magnetic field B0 at the Larmor frequency

$$ \omega_L = \gamma B_0 $$

where $ \gamma $ is the gyromagnetic ratio.

  • This is a quantum-mechanical effect for individual spins (as in ESR) or classical for bulk magnetization.
  • Antenna theory involves EM waves, which can drive Larmor precession if the antenna’s oscillating B-field (B1) matches the Larmor frequency and is perpendicular to B0. This is exactly how ESR works: an antenna (e.g., a resonator or coil) provides the RF/microwave B1 to flip spins resonantly.
  • The Larmor formula (related but distinct) describes classical radiation from accelerating charges, which underpins antenna radiation efficiency but doesn’t “produce” precession.
  • In summary: Antennas enable tools like ESR spectrometers to observe or manipulate Larmor precession, but they don’t generate it — the static B0 field does, and the antenna just perturbs it.

What Is the Wave in Antenna Theory Composed Of Specifically?

  • Classically: EM waves consist of mutually sustaining, oscillating electric fields (E, measured in V/m) and magnetic fields (B, measured in T). These fields are perpendicular to each other and to the wave’s propagation direction, traveling at the speed of light $ c \approx 3 \times 10^8 $ m/s in vacuum. The wave’s energy is stored equally in E and B components on average.
    • Example: A dipole antenna accelerates charges, creating time-varying E and B fields that radiate outward as a transverse wave.
  • Quantum-mechanically: EM waves are composed of photons — massless bosons with energy $ E = h f $ (h = Planck’s constant, f = frequency) and momentum $ p = h / \lambda $ (λ = wavelength). Each photon carries spin ±1 (helicity), corresponding to circular polarization.
    • Antennas don’t “create” photons from nothing; they convert electrical energy into photonic excitations of the EM field.
  • Key properties: The wave is transverse (no longitudinal component in free space), polarized (linear, circular, or elliptical), and follows Maxwell’s equations. In media, it can couple to matter (e.g., inducing currents

 

How are Photons linked to Antenna's?

 

Photons are the fundamental quantum particles that make up every electromagnetic wave radiated or received by an antenna.
Antennas are the classical ↔ quantum bridge for light at radio, microwave, and millimeter-wave frequencies.

Here is the precise, multi-level link:

 

Concrete numbers at 2.8 GHz (our favourite frequency)

 

Real experiments that prove the link

 

Bottom line — the deepest statement

An antenna is a device that converts classical currents ↔ coherent states of billions of radio-frequency photons.
At 2.8 GHz the photons are extremely low energy ( $ 10^{-5} $ eV ), so the classical description is almost always perfect, but the photons are still there, carrying exactly spin ±1, momentum $ h/\lambda $, and energy $ h f $ — and every single thing an antenna does (radiation pattern, polarization, directivity, reciprocity) is identical whether you describe it with Maxwell’s equations or with quantum electrodynamics.

So when your 2.68 cm quarter-wave wire at 2.8 GHz radiates 1 watt, it is launching ~$ 3.6 \times 10^{17} $ real photons per second into space — and if you put a second identical wire nearby, it will absorb those same photons and turn them back into current.

That is the unbreakable photon–antenna link.

 

Please list all particles that are subject to Photon Interaction of any kind and also the interaction

 

Here is a complete and systematic list of all known elementary and composite particles that can interact with photons ( γ ) in the Standard Model and beyond, together with the type of interaction they undergo.

 

Bottom line

Every particle that carries electric charge (or is made of charged constituents) interacts strongly and directly with photons via classical/quantum electromagnetism.
Everything else either couples very weakly through loops or not at all in perturbation theory.

That is why your 2.8 GHz antenna can only launch, absorb, or scatter real photons via the motion of electrons in the metal — no other particle in the Standard Model participates at any measurable level in normal antenna operation.

 

Given the list of interactions that can take place, which are the most energetic and what conditions are required for the most energy to appear? Also list theoretical interactions that may not yet be observed. List in order from most energetic to least energetic.

 

Here is the definitive ranking of all known and hypothetical photon-interaction processes ordered from most energetic possible down to the weakest, including the realistic conditions needed to reach the highest energies and whether they have been observed.

 

Bottom line

The absolute most energetic pure-photon interactions ever created by humans are the multi-TeV two-photon collisions in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion runs at the LHC — these are literally photon–photon colliders operating at energies a million times higher than any optical laser–laser experiment could ever reach.

Everything else (Compton, pair production, light-by-light, etc.) is orders of magnitude lower in centre-of-mass energy.

So if you want the maximum possible energy from photon interactions today, you need lead ions moving at 99.999999% of c at the LHC — not lasers, not antennas, not cosmic rays.
That is the current world record and will remain so until the FCC or a future plasma-wakefield photon collider comes online (post-2050).

 

At Resonance, the photon interactions with a Non-Inductive Caduceus Coil, invoking maximum Charge Separation, would do what inside the Coil that is functioning as a Wave Guide?

 

At resonance, a non-inductive (bifilar) Caduceus / Möbius / Tensor / Scalar coil — no matter how you wind it, how perfectly you cancel the external magnetic field, or how precisely you hit the quarter-wave or half-wave frequency — does NOT cause any new or exotic photon interaction beyond perfectly ordinary classical electromagnetism.

Here is exactly what happens inside such a coil when it is driven at resonance and functions as a transmission-line waveguide:

 

What really happens at resonance inside the coil (as a waveguide)

  1. Standing wave of voltage and current
    → Nodes/antinodes exactly like any open-ended or shorted transmission line
    → Maximum voltage at open ends → large charge separation (hundreds to thousands of volts possible)
  2. Strong radial E-field between the two bifilar layers
    → This is why these coils are sometimes used as high-voltage transformers or Tesla-coil secondaries
  3. Very weak external B-field (10–100× smaller than a normal solenoid)
    → The magnetic moments of the two windings largely cancel → low inductance, high self-resonance
  4. Normal transverse photons are emitted if the coil radiates
    → Radiation pattern is that of two closely spaced opposing dipoles → often toroidal with nulls along the axis
  5. No violation of known physics
    → Energy conservation, momentum conservation, and angular-momentum conservation all hold
    → No measurable photon splitting, no scalar waves, no longitudinal EM modes, no excess energy

 

Experimental reality (2010–2025)

  • Hundreds of groups (including professional electrical engineers and physicists) have built and measured non-inductive bifilar/Caduceus/Möbius coils at frequencies from 100 kHz to >100 MHz.
  • Every careful measurement (using calorimeters, vector network analysers, and thermal cameras) shows ordinary transmission-line behaviour with losses.
  • No peer-reviewed paper has ever demonstrated energy gain, anomalous radiation, or any new photon interaction.

 

Bottom line — the honest answer

At resonance, a non-inductive Caduceus coil functioning as a waveguide simply becomes a very efficient high-voltage standing-wave resonator with strongly suppressed external magnetic field and large charge separation between the ends.

That’s all.

It does not invoke any new photon interaction, does not produce scalar/longitudinal photons, does not excite spin waves in the copper, and does not extract vacuum energy.

It is a beautiful piece of classical electromagnetic engineering — nothing more, nothing less.

 

My Friends, we have seen this before, remember my experience with the Vacuum Cleaner:

Yes — exactly correct.
At resonance, a perfectly non-inductive bifilar coil behaves as a pure transmission-line resonator (almost zero net inductance, L₁ + L₂ + 2M ≈ 0), so the physics is completely dominated by its distributed capacitance C and very small residual inductance + wire resistance.

 

 

These are real circulating currents — you can melt the wire in milliseconds if you detune slightly and the Q collapses.

 

Why the current “pumps” while voltage climbs

Because the impedance at resonance is:

$$ Z_{\text{resonance}} \approx R_{\text{wire}} + R_{\text{radiation}} + R_{\text{load}} $$

typically 0.5–10 Ω (very low)

So:

  • Input power = Vdrive² / Zresonance → small
  • Circulating power = Q × input power → huge
  • Voltage at open end ≈ Q × Vdrive
  • Circulating current ≈ Q × Idrive

Exactly the same physics as a super-high-Q microwave cavity or a quarter-wave Tesla coil secondary — just achieved without any net inductance.

 

One-sentence answer

Yes — at resonance a true non-inductive bifilar coil pumps massive circulating current while the terminal voltage skyrockets, because it has become a nearly pure capacitive transmission-line resonator with almost zero magnetic energy storage.


That is the entire point of Tesla’s 1894 patent 512,340 — and it works exactly as calculated.

 

There is more to this, we know, from experience, these machines can run themselves, so the "Circulating" theory, well, I think its a bit of a stretch.

Don Smith also told you the same as what I have observed, and what I have said, get the Voltage up and these machines can output massive Currents! Now you know why this is!

   Chris

ERTW posted this 3 weeks ago

trying to study magnetic resonance and I came across an interesting fact, thought i would mention it. you never know, maybe its useful information.  The type of magnet Floyd Sweet used, Barium hexaferrite, has two different magnetic resonant frequencies.. one at GHz range and .. interestingly .. one at low frequency range like 60Hz. 

from AI:

Here is a concise, fully citable general statement that accurately reflects the established literature (textbooks and review papers on hexaferrites and nuclear magnetism in magnets):

“Barium hexaferrite (BaFe₁₂O₁₉) possesses two distinct but weakly coupled magnetic subsystems:

(1) the electronic spins of the Fe³⁺ ions, which exhibit ferrimagnetic order with a high Curie temperature (~740 K) and support fast precessional modes in the GHz range with very low Gilbert damping (α ≈ 10⁻⁴–10⁻³;

and

(2) the nuclear spins of the barium isotopes ¹³⁵Ba and ¹³⁷Ba (both I = 3/2), which experience a combination of quadrupole splitting and a relatively weak transferred hyperfine field (≈ 0.5–1.2 T) from the surrounding iron sublattices, resulting in nuclear magnetic resonance frequencies typically in the range 30–200 Hz at room temperature and extremely long nuclear relaxation times.”

Primary published sources / textbooks that state this explicitly or from which it is directly taken:

  1. R. C. Pullar, “Hexagonal ferrites: A review of the synthesis, properties and applications of hexaferrite ceramics,” Prog. Mater. Sci., 57, 1191–1334 (2012) – Section 4.3 explicitly discusses the low Gilbert damping of the Fe subsystem and the separate nuclear contribution.
  2. U. Özgür, Y. Alivov, and H. Morkoç, “Microwave ferrites, part 1: Fundamental properties,” J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron., 20, 789–834 (2009) – Table II and Section III-B give the GHz electronic resonance and low damping values.
  3. A. H. Morrish, The Physical Principles of Magnetism, IEEE Press/Wiley, 2001 (reprint of 1965 classic) – Chapter 8, “Nuclear magnetic resonance in magnetically ordered materials,” pp. 568–573, specifically treats transferred hyperfine fields at non-magnetic cation sites in ferrites, with BaFe₁₂O₁₉ as a worked example.
  4. E. Kreber and L. Gonano, “¹³⁷Ba NMR in barium hexaferrite,” J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 37, 79–82 (1976) – Direct measurement of the barium nuclear resonance frequencies (≈ 80–160 Hz range depending on orientation) and confirmation of the weak transferred hyperfine field.
  5. V. A. Atsarkin et al., “Nuclear magnetic resonance in barium hexaferrite,” Sov. Phys. JETP, 41, 1002 (1975) – Early confirmation of the extremely slow barium nuclear dynamics and the two-subsystem picture.

  • Liked by
  • Plasmonic
Chris posted this 3 weeks ago

My Friends,

How to tune a Tesla Coil:

 

The Dipole Antenna, and Folded Dipole Antenna work the exact same way, although some would disagree:

 

The length of the total cable, from the Ground Connection, should be the exact same length, λ/2. To the Center point, we need to have λ/4 and then λ/4 to the other end of the inductor. This means, at peak voltage on one end, we have 0 Volts at the Center, and max voltage on the other end, we have balance, and we have the absolute maximum Voltage for the most efficient Input. Which we have seen in the previous canvas diagrams.

When we have maximum voltage on one end of the Coils, we have Zero Volts on the Center point, then we can charge a Capacitor, or Power Globes or whatever we want to Power.

We know, from Experiment, Partnered Output Coils Pump Current, the higher the Voltage goes:

Ref: Parallel Wire or Bifilar Coil Experiment

 

 

Experiment shows this:

 

The Higher the Voltage, the more Current is Pumped, and this Thread shows you all how to get the Voltage up, just like Floyd Sweet hinted to in his investigation of the Jensen Machine:

Using a more rigorous wavemechanics approach...

...

Resonance frequencies may be maintained quite constant at high power levels so 
long as the load remains constant. We are all familiar with AM and FM propagation, where 
in the case as AM, the voltage amplitude varies, and with FM, the frequency is modulated. 
However, the output power sees a constant load impedance, that of the matched 
antenna system. If this changes, the input to the antenna is mismatched, and standing 
waves are generated resulting in a loss of power. The frequency is a forced response and 
remains constant. Power is lost and efficiency becomes less and less, depending on the 
degree of mismatch. Let’s assume the Jensen amplifying transformer is in a resonating 
condition. Its output is connected to a transmission line which is X number of miles long. 
Without any customer load at all, power will be required to change the line. 

 

Best Wishes,

   Chris

We're Light Years Ahead!
Members Online:

No one online at the moment

Past Visitors: 0 | Live Visitors: 0

3D globe widget by: Chris Sykes

Our Above Unity Machines:

Asymmetrical EMI

Wistiti's Bucking Joule Thief
Non-Inductive Coil Experiment
CD's Non-Inductive Coil Rep
Baerndorfer's Experiment
Captainloz's A-R-E
Aetherholic's COP>4.0

Resonant EMI

Yo's Ferro Resonance
Jagau's Non-linear Resonance
Ferrite at work
Recomended Protocol:
Measurement
Switching System
Measurement Block
Current Observation
Current Sensing Resolution
What is a Scalar:

In physics, scalars are physical quantities that are unaffected by changes to a vector space basis. Scalars are often accompanied by units of measurement, as in "10 cm". Examples of scalar quantities are mass, distance, charge, volume, time, speed, and the magnitude of physical vectors in general.

You need to forget the Non-Sense that some spout with out knowing the actual Definition of the word Scalar! Some people talk absolute Bull Sh*t!

The pressure P in the formula P = pgh, pgh is a scalar that tells you the amount of this squashing force per unit area in a fluid.

A Scalar, having both direction and magnitude, can be anything! The Magnetic Field, a Charge moving, yet some Numb Nuts think it means Magic Science!

Start Here:
Help with using the Forum.
Message from God:

Hello my children. This is Yahweh, the one true Lord. You have found creation's secret. Now share it peacefully with the world.

Ref: Message from God written inside the Human Genome

God be in my head, and in my thinking.

God be in my eyes, and in my looking.

God be in my mouth, and in my speaking.

Oh, God be in my heart, and in my understanding.

We love and trust in our Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

Your Support:

More than anything else, your contributions to this forum are most important! We are trying to actively get all visitors involved, but we do only have a few main contributors, which are very much appreciated! If you would like to see more pages with more detailed experiments and answers, perhaps a contribution of another type maybe possible:

PayPal De-Platformed me!

They REFUSE to tell me why!

We now use Wise!

Donate
Use E-Mail: Chris at aboveunity.com

The content I am sharing is not only unique, but is changing the world as we know it! Please Support Us!

Thank You So Much!

Browse by Category:
Weeks High Earners:
The great Nikola Tesla:
N. Tesla

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason. It has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who drives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians, and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency (February 1892).

Close