Tesla's Zero Time Generator

[Einstein]

I think this is from about ten years ago when I did this. But the plot appears to be an acceleration curve. Took me a while to find it on my hard drive. I used the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate the values of the increasing radius of the weight as it moves away at right angles from its disconnect spot.

FileSnack | Easy file sharing

FileSnack | Easy file sharing

You mentioned aboce that the bucket appears to be decelerating, but the time value is on the wrong axis. The bucket is actually accelerating away from the centre point.

Between 1 and 2 seconds, the bucket travels approx. 0.1 units. (Seperation of 1 on the vertical axis, time, and 0.1 on the horizontal axis, length)
Between 2 and 3 seconds, the bucket travels approx 0.3 units.
Between 9 and 10 seconds, the bucket travels approx 0.75 units.

Because time is on your vertical axis, you have to invert the gradient to get the speed.



I decided to try and plot a couple of graphs in Mathematica to extend your work. In all of the graphs, time is on the horizontal axis.

The original plot: (Distances vs. time, gradient is speed)

Original plot extended to show how it the graph approaches a straight line:

If I did this right, it should show the derivative of the second graph, a.k.a the speed plot, gradient is the acceleration:

And finally, this shows the derivative of the above graph, so this is the acceleration graph:

So you're right, from the point of view of the centre of the circle, the object does seem to be accelerating away, which seems counter-intuitive, since there are no forces acting on it. I'm going to post these on a physics forum to try and get some more info in case I've missed anything blindingly obvious. (It feels like this is another "frame of reference" problem, but I can't quite get my head around it)

I might caution you to stay away from the physics forum. They don't like people that rock the boat. I tried to argue that Mass is a scalar over there. Since technically it's a ratio of two weights on a scale. The dimensionality divides out. Not according to those guys. Mass is a separate dimension altogether over there. Good luck.

 

[Einstein]

Orpheus Rex

I'm glad see you've taken an interest in the conversation.

I wasn't using Newtonian physics. I was using what I call observational physics. Its where I pick out observable facts that anyone can readily verify. And I believe I put forward a concept that I haven't seen or read about anywhere. Positive and negative weight. But you'll see no reference to anything like that in current day physics. It appears facts like those have been eliminated from the knowledge base we are taught from.

You see I'm not an advocate of theories. Just use the existing facts instead to understand reality.

Actually, it has been concieved that exotic matter, such as dark mater, might have negative mass. (Which I assume is what you actually mean. Mass * gravity = weight)

Such exotic matter would make things like the Alcubierre Drive possible.

No. Mass is not what I meant. Mass is a theory. Also F=MA is a theory. Observations show weight and acceleration are two separate phenomena.

If a machine could be developed that turns off an objects weight, think about how much energy would be needed to accelerate a weightless object. Not much. In fact if just half the weight of an average car could be nullified, think of all the fuel savings that could be had.

 

[Ayasano]

Observations show weight and acceleration are two separate phenomena.

Could you give me a link to that experiment?

 

[Einstein]

Observations show weight and acceleration are two separate phenomena.

Could you give me a link to that experiment?

There is no link. Just look at the facts instead.

An object in gravitational free-fall (acceleration) in the absence of air has no weight, i.e. weightless. Vector direction is downward.
An object sitting on the surface of the earth has weight but no measurable acceleration. Vector direction is downward.
An inertial acceleration has both weight and acceleration with opposing vector directions.

The acceleration vector changes direction between gravitational and inertial accelerations. That does make acceleration a separate phenomena altogether.

 

[Orpheus Rex]

Well, it is classical physics in the sense that it doesn't rely much on mathematical interpretation and instead focuses on what happens rather than what causes. I hope I worded that right...

 

[Einstein]

Well, it is classical physics in the sense that it doesn't rely much on mathematical interpretation and instead focuses on what happens rather than what causes. I hope I worded that right...

I have researched this. I believe Kepler used data gathering to formulate his equations which described motion of bodies in our solar system. So Kepler and I would be on the same page since facts were used to support the descriptions of phenomena.

But after this Newton came along and started using theories. At least he is historically portrayed that way. We have no way to know if history has been modified to create what Newton gets the credit for.

But you have seen my simple explanations just based on easy to comprehend facts. All those facts form jigsaw puzzle pieces. They can be assembled to form a clear and precise picture of how our reality works. So why all the misdirection with theories?

That is a good question. Honestly I see it like we are being controlled with a belief system. A belief system so powerful that almost all succumb to it. And if the beliefs turn out to be false? Boy, what a con job.

 

[Ayasano]

There is no link. Just look at the facts instead.

The facts as you portray them you mean? This is the problem with psuedoscience. If you're going to make wild claims you have to back them up with experimental data. All of real science comes down to explaining the world. You observe something and then you come up with a theory to explain it, and then you make more observations to see if your theory works.

I honestly had hopes that you were open-minded enough to see the truth, but alas, it seems that you're as closed-minded as every other kook, convinced they know better than a world full of real, credible scientists. This discussion has run it's course, so I'm going to refrain from making any more responses.

 

[Einstein]

It saddens me to see you go. I'm not the sort to insult someone over their beliefs. Just a problem solver with a different approach than others looking for answers.

 

[Einstein]

I have some updated material On Tesla's Zero Time Generator.

As to whether Tesla actually created this device? If he did, then the science of his day was comparable to the technology exhibited by ET's. This device has been erased from history. Only recently did it resurface. It wasn't available 5 years ago. It is reported that this device was used in the Philadelphia experiment.

Basically what this device is, is a mechanical oscillator. But it uses rotating weights, each weight being 90 degrees out of phase with any adjacent weight. So the weights rotating in the current configuration create a toroidal rotation pattern. I anticipated the device would oscillate and gyrate in a rotating pattern. But the additional rotation exhibited was not expected. It shouldn't be there. But who am I to argue with reality? The rotation is there. Something is present that is normally hidden.

There also was an additional initial observation present that I didn't understand. When I first turned on the device, it rotated counter clockwise. But when I mounted it on the stool, I had used a 6 inch metal disk underneath the device. So the contact area of the device was smaller. It rotated clockwise. The opposite of the initial observation.

So a couple of weeks pass by. I woke up with a very interesting idea. What if this device is exhibiting the presence of standing waves? Standing waves that cause rotation, either clockwise or counter clockwise. That would be new. So all morning long, on that day, I cut out wooden disks of varying diameters to test out my suspicion. Friday morning comes along, and I test out my idea. Bingo! I confirmed the presence of standing waves. But there also was an additional observation. On some of the wooden disks, the rotation direction changed, as I increased the speed of the device. And that indicates that while I am changing the speed (or frequency) of the device, that the standing waves are moving either inward or outward.

Those are the facts so far. But I like to connect the dots. I could call the phenomena "Standing Rotation Waves". What bothers me, is this information appears to be missing from our knowledge base. Yet Tesla reportedly built this device in 1920. This looks like a coverup of massive proportions. And I might add, this also looks like the gravity wave "A" talked about by Bob Lazar. But gravity wave "A" is supposedly modulated nuclear force. Is that what this device is doing? Maybe I should call it a Nuclear Force Modulator.

Here is a video I made showing two direction changes as I run the device through its RPM range.

I completed this about three weeks ago. And just recently decided to make a slight modification to the basic device. What I did was to change the rotation direction on one plane of a rotating weight pair. I did this by making two slightly longer rotation shafts, and then installing the bevel gears for each shaft 180 degrees out from their previous orientations. This causes the shafts to rotate in the opposite direction. I made the change to see if the alternating rotating directional changes in the third plane would all rotate in the same direction. Turns out my suspicion was right. So by creating opposing rotational directions with the rotating weight planes, I was able to induce a uniform rotation phenomena in the third plane.

After that test I came up with one more modification. I rotated the weights in one plane 180 degrees away from original positions. This resulted in a reversal of the rotational direction in the third plane.

With all this playing around I realize that this device is probably an excellent teaching tool on the behavior of the three force combination model I notice throughout nature. Also some interesting knowledge about waves that may not have been apparent before. For instance, it does parallel electromagnetic behavior in a circuit. A magnetic field would be analogous to the third plane of rotation in the device. The two opposing rotating weight states would represent the voltage and ground states in the EM circuit. Lining up the voltage in the direction of the ground state should cause an oscillating magnetic wave. That phenomena does occur when the circuit is disconnected. So there may be a way for a powered version, that has up till now gone unobserved. And perhaps some new clue as to a cause for parasitic oscillation in a transistor amplifier.

 

[bigdaveglasgow75]

what time zon eis this thing on???