Author Topic: Inertia Control through E/M means. Real Theory and Experiments.  (Read 7969 times)

Offline Ioannis

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Also, if the effect is real, it will be more spectacular when the device is suspended on a string, since there will not be the friction from the wheel.

Apart from this, I confess I did not understand anything to the paper, and I have no idea why the thing moves on the video.

Why it moves, as I mentioned it is not my discovery. You will find the link which explains the kinetic effects at the end of the video. My discovery is the Engineering Equations and the Inertia Control which leads to Anti-gravity.

The owner of the other web site has catch the real mechanism of the Warp Drive although he does not name it like this (he names it "Moving Standing Wave"). His concept does not predict actually Superluminal Velocities due to lack of the variable Inertial Mass. He explains the mechanism but he does not have:

i)Electromagnetic type Experiments.
ii)Engineering Equations.
iii)Inertia Control Equation.

His discoveries are based on the kinetic effects where he wrongly postulates according to my opinion that it is possible to control gravity with his theory. You could simulate it by creating an opposite acceleration to Earth with his findings.

His theory is also very straight to understand and very crucial to our discussion. I just did not want to mention it from the beginning but to be discovered by yourself.

Now you have plenty of material to study!

Good Luck!

Ioannis



Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1

I have stopped experimenting with this material and I am not going to use this kind of ferrite anymore 


If the experiment is not reproducible, then it's not science!

Offline Ioannis

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

I have stopped experimenting with this material and I am not going to use this kind of ferrite anymore 


If the experiment is not reproducible, then it's not science!


I think I was very clear! It was working until lately. I wanted to test it again when I took it from the Cellar (it was there for three years. Since 2009) and I try it, it worked on the floor too but then I heard a "crack" coming from the inner part of the ring. Outside you see nothing.

So I tried many times to recover it but it was impossible. When the ferrite goes defect, you hear only the noise without to be able to move. I investigate this issue and I found what probably is (the insulating layers inside the structure of the core where partially destroyed which results to different electromagnetic properties).

The ferrite ring is not for this application and it was working on the limit. These are the facts. Take it or leave it!

Regards

Ioannis

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Dude, your equations from the first post, please define all variables and their units.  I want to check your units but I can't even do that right now without the definitions. 

I can only assume right now that you have frequency in the denominator, which is a very obvious problem for your equation when you turn your power supply off and the denominator goes to zero. 

Don't ask me to read your paper or go to your links.  I'm not going to do it.  I'll watch a youtube video any day, but that is as far as it goes.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2013 06:15 PM by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline Ioannis

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Dude, your equations form the first post, please define all variables and their units.  I want to check your units but I can't even do that right now without the definitions.

I see nobody likes to read a complete paper. I would exactly the same. OK, I will help you (for the ferrite ring equation):



mi=Variable Mass (Kgr)
m=Rest Mass (Kgr)
I=Current (Amperes)
Rr=Radiation Resistance (Ohm)
v=Propagation Velocity of the E/M Waves (m/sec)
f=frequency (Hz)

I hope it helped!

Regards

Ioannis



Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1

I think I was very clear! It was working until lately. I wanted to test it again when I took it from the Cellar (it was there for three years. Since 2009) and I try it, it worked on the floor too but then I heard a "crack" coming from the inner part of the ring.


Then buy another one.

And, if you buy another one and cannot recreate the experiment, then according to the scientific method... your theory is wrong!

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2

I think I was very clear! It was working until lately. I wanted to test it again when I took it from the Cellar (it was there for three years. Since 2009) and I try it, it worked on the floor too but then I heard a "crack" coming from the inner part of the ring.


Then buy another one.

And, if you buy another one and cannot recreate the experiment, then according to the scientific method... your theory is wrong!

Yes. This experiment needs to be repeated in order to be proved. If you are now working on something else then you need to stop and go back to the first task and run a complete test program. That is the best feedback we can give you.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline Ioannis

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

I think I was very clear! It was working until lately. I wanted to test it again when I took it from the Cellar (it was there for three years. Since 2009) and I try it, it worked on the floor too but then I heard a "crack" coming from the inner part of the ring.


Then buy another one.

And, if you buy another one and cannot recreate the experiment, then according to the scientific method... your theory is wrong!

Come on antiquark! Are you out of serious arguments? I spent many hours with this material in the past. I do not need to spend more. I know what it works and what not. If you like, try it by yourself!

I am a serious person and I do not have time for nonsense. I registered to various forums but most of them are people who like to argue with pointless discussions without to be prepared or have spend the necessary time to confront such kind of subjects.

I am working seriously on these subjects the last 13 years. I read hundred of patents and Scientific Papers as also I was partially experimenting according to a very limited budget.

Please do not waste any more time on my thread since I will not answer on such kind of questions anymore without to understand or have read my work/experiment. It is very sad, since my theory is simple and straight which can be understood from a person with high school education. The only demand in advance is to have interest in Physics and to know at least the basic.

Best Regards and Good Luck!

Ioannis Xydous

Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

Electronic Engineer

Greece




Offline Ioannis

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Yes. This experiment needs to be repeated in order to be proved. If you are now working on something else then you need to stop and go back to the first task and run a complete test program. That is the best feedback we can give you.

This experiment was repeated tenths of time. You have it now on a video. You must have the will to understand and to spend time to study the theory. Otherwise, do not lose your time on this thread. It is useless!

For once more, I think I am on the wrong forum. As I wrote I will not answer anymore to such kind of claims. I explained myself and I was very clear!

Good Luck!

Ioannis

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Refuse to discuss your theory? Not really a trait of the true scientist.

Anyways, for your reference here's a diagram of the scientific method. Ignore it at your own risk!



From what you have described, you've failed to pass the "cyan" section of the diagram.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2013 07:33 PM by antiquark »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
The motion is caused by vibrating against the table.

Proof: hang it from a string and run the experiment again, the sideways motion will disappear.

Correct, there is no other explanation.   The OP's explanation is nothing but nonsense.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2013 07:36 PM by Jim »

Tags: