Starting a new aspect to the Construction Blog page.
This post will be filled out over time, I'm thinking.
What do we know? A Tesla tower sparky lightning discharge is negative energy. There's a whole lot of electrical artificial lightning, at such a high frequency, and so many have touched the discharge by holding a conductive metal rod, and it just not hurt them.. just tingle a bit.
The collapse of an electromagnet is involved.
Capacitor plates might have to hold energy first for a collapsing electromagnet to reverse the energy "spin."
I don't think a meter could even detect negative amps. You could only tell thru a secondary system like a guy touching high volts but at tiny tiny amps and being blown across the room (which has happened). If system A discharges all its energy into system B, and theres more energy produced, then the negative pressure of A squeezes more energy into system B. But a meter would just go to zero amps (and high volts) in system A and show higher volts and amps in system B.
Could it be? Let's examine a bolt of lightning. It is electrostatic. It rarely has any kind of electromagnetic signature. It's usually pure electric with no magnet, or with magnetic spin simultaneous in opposite polarity, phased to a zero until polarized (given magnetic spin).
So the collapse of the magnet produces lightning, but also it is energy where the magnet can be brought back out by polarization. There's those two aspects involved.
Not only can negative energy be in DC, but also in AC. In fact to generate it, there are DC and AC ways. Tesla used AC.
There's also the di-electrostatic aspect of radiant negative energy (for example on the surface of Earth; DC), and then there's the magneto-electrostatic aspect of negative energy used to create the artificial lightning out of a Tesla transformer, or Tesla tower (in AC).
A DC Induction coil will, when rapidly pulsing, measure more accurately as AC current.
I think it makes more sense to look at it as static inertia, rather than as negative and positive energies.
An induction coil with extreme capacitor (see the general blog page) will generate the artificial lightning out of a Tesla tower just from using a battery, or several batteries, delivering a very powerful static energy, which can be employed Bedini style to regenerate the battery. Otherwise, the only negative energy generator I know about produces more energy than goes into it, so a self-regenerating system will have the power available to keep the drive system going.
But as far as negative energy goes, didn't Tesla say that it can't be metered?
Here's something that pertains to the OTC-X1:
If negative amps can't be measured, and doesn't have the same effect as Lenz, then rapid pulsing of the outer electromagnets shouldn't have any bearing on the direction of the rotating utron disk (it will still spin in one direction), and the di-electric plates will charge with energy inductively. Just the rapid pulsing of an electromagnet over plates, even if they're not connected to each other, will energize the plates with energy.
The collapse of an electromagnet does not reverse it's spin even as it reverses polarity. It still spins in the same direction, just switches polarity. That is to say the current in the wire is still spinning. However, when polarity reverses, it is a sure sign of magnetic spin reversal. So, this remains to be put to the test. A good test is to see if the collapse will induce spin in the utron di-electrostatic plates in the opposite direction. .... However, because it's dealing with a collapse (pull instead of a push), the disk COULD continue to be spinning in the same direction. If it does, then as polarity reverses but the disk spin stays the same, then it is DEFINITELY negative energy.
The magnetic spin:
A magnet is said to exist due to the polarization of electron spin; yet too, the proton spins must also be polarized. Protons are not hard-connected. Each element involves the connection between the electrons to fuse together, according to conventional understanding. Lattice arrangements and flower fractal arrangements also exist. However, it is effortlessly enough to say that electrons and protons, in fact moreso involving proton spin alignment is involved in the formation of a magnet.
I had assumed early on, that it was the quark spin involved however; 3 quarks make up a proton. Adding protons forms new elements. But at higher frequency states, there can be additional quarks to make up a single element. For example, a single proton is the element of hydrogen. Two protons is the element of helium, and on down the list. But now as particle accelerators are finding pentaquarks (5-quark combinations), then new elements can be formed at a higher frequency state.
Magnetic spin is the reason for Faraday's law. For example, here is an older picture I drew to illustrate. New information might make it outdated, but it is still relevant. I was examining string theory as evident in the very top right squigly image, but I have sense disregarded that.
It may seem silly, but ... mechanically it is correct. As the magnet moves across the coil, it sets the electricity into motion, then brings it back to rest. The magnetic field is in transverse, but the quantum spin of the magnet is in parallel.
I was saving this image for the book but .. ah well..
. . .
The point of all this however, is because I wanted to discuss the exotic energy connection of positive and negative energy, as to how it pertains to matter and antimatter.
Can a negative energy field reverse the quantum spin of matter so that it becomes anti-spinning matter?
Some say "yes, absolutely." But I am still examining that.
Let's look at the OTC-X1 di-electric spinning utron disk. An electromagnet pushes the disk in one way, due to magnetic spin. Reversing the polarity of the magnetic field will reverse the disk's spin, as well as the current polarity. However, when the polarity reverses in magnetic collapse, if the disk still spins in the same direction, then it can be said that some other kind of spin is involved, some sort of anti-quantum spin.
That means the spin would have to be coming from the quantum level -- the quarks. For example, an electron is one quark, considered to be a "lepton." But reversing that spin shows up as a positron, with a positive charge, the anti-particle of an electron.
The direction of charge is the direction of the particle's static inertia.
Seems to be all mapped out, pending test results. ... For a better understanding of static inertia, see the Updates and Design Improvements page article, "Di-electrostatic Vertical Core (Cones)" which examines asymmetrical di-electrostatic propulsion.
The reason why I say the Tesla tower lightning is negative energy, is because the output of the spark itself is sent to an electromagnet coil that actualizes the energy in the Tesla transformers, whereas the spark is obtained due to the collapse of the electromagnetic field. So the field generated in the actualizing coils should be a negative energy field. In my actualizing coil, I only wound the coil three times around the resonating coil, thicker than the gauge of wire that made the long Tesla resonating coil, but the results were very potent indeed!!
The OTC-X1 electromagnets can be used to directly receive the spark collapse only, also, to test for spin reversal in the rotating utron disk.
It seems like something is missing from the OTC-X1 design. But, it is another style of Tesla generator, with induced motion. Similar to John Bedini's engines which can either use a rotor or be made with non-moving parts. It seems more reasonable that the electromagnets should receive only energy from the spark; and yet, the collapsing electromagnets are a requirement FOR the spark. The di-electric plates definitely is the medium for transfer of the static energies, and the spark collapse inside the Central Accumulator is the mechanism for the transmission of the negative energy to the electromagnets.
Eventually this will all be worked out. I surmise however that the pulsing of the electromagnets is essential for the harnessing of static inertia. In fact, that is a logical deduction.
Note upon measurement of negative amps:
The old analogue amp meters like out of old automobiles with the swing needle, which are analogue will measure negative amps, I have been told. Digital meters won't work for measuring negative amps. In fact the amp meter in my old Chevy only measures negative amp draw ... It won't even twitch positive to show how many amps I have.
On digital multimeters, first of all you can't really measure but a small amp current, and also Solid state components came out to replace vacuum tubes and Tesla technology. Those circuits are only wired for positive energy. Diodes and transistors only harness one way.
You would have to redesign the circuitry so the components work right.
Those newer digital meters were built around the existence of positive amps but pos OR neg volts.
No one has known negative amps actually exist as such. Everyone always assumed the meter wasn't hooked up in the right polarity, that there is no such thing as negative amps. Digital amp meters are wired with computers and solid state electronics with diodes that block the negative polarity.
However digital voltmeters work to measure the electrostatic energies that an analogue electromagnet can't pick up.
The circuit logic we use does not have the "or" gate for negative polarity of amps like in an old analogue amp meter.
Negative energy is a lot different than positive. Negative energy won't dissipate over long areas. Transmission through power lines, negative energy is not a big fluffy field, but a thin energy, and the universe sees that it is moving, and it adds energy to it as it goes along (you could say it draws a quantum vacuum charge that keeps pumping up the volts and amps), so at the end of a transmission line using negative energy, there will be a lot more energy! The old telegraph wires used a copper plate in the ground (earth battery) to power the system. The start of the signal was for example 6 volts, but at the end of the wire, it was very high voltage. The telegraph operator had to touch only the plastic/rubber key, and NOT the metal conductive parts. Thank you master D.J. for this bit of info.
Positive energy along the power lines dissipate over distance. . . . . Negative energy is so small that it builds up and up, not dissipating but intensifying.
. . .
See the comments below regarding the collapsing magnetic field. The north pole on top of the utron disk and south pole below, is still north pole on top and south pole below, even in collapse.. however, there are some things to note.