A homebuilt replica of Tesla's Zero Time Generator

[Einstein]

I finished this project in December. I originally built it because of the claimed rotation it was supposed to exhibit while in operation. I looked it over and concluded it should only oscillate or gyrate in a circular pattern. I was wrong. It does indeed rotate in the configuration posted on the internet diagrams I used.

The historical information on this device is sparse. The info I have on it says it was built by Tesla in 1920. It was reportedly used in the Philadelphia experiment. That was all I could find. Tesla never patented it. So I don’t know if he is the original inventor or not.

Let me just say that I believe this device should be the Holy Grail of physics. Toss out Newton and his silly Laws of Motion. Shit-can Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. In fact, chuck your physics book into the trash bin. This device is chock full of some very interesting facts about our reality. I’ve been experimenting with this device now for about two months. I keep coming up with new things to try. I don’t have it completely figured out yet. There seems to be an interaction with time that I am still puzzling over.

Basically all this device is, is a mechanical oscillator. It has two orthogonal planes of rotating weights. There is a resulting rotational force on the third plane which is orthogonal to both of the other planes of rotating weights. The rotational force on the third plane changes direction usually twice during the span of the RPM range of the device. I built the device so it should peak out its RPM at around 30Hz. Also experiments show the direction of rotation reverses above a certain radius. It’s like there are standing waves present on the third plane. Something is there that is being indirectly accessed by the oscillating weights on the other two orthogonal planes. Last week at a low RPM at the point just in between a directional change I measured the RPM with a photo tachometer. The speed measurement was 470 RPM. That calculates out to 7.8Hz. I would call that a Schumann resonance. I always associated that resonance with the theory that it was due to the resonant cavity of the earth and the ionosphere. Kind of strange that a mechanical oscillator would have that particular signature. Perhaps the theory is in error.

Anyway, most of the experiments are probably something that most would consider just plain boring. I looked at them as the real laws of motion. A three force interaction, with a net force occurring on each plane in 3-D space.

I have been altering the original configuration of the device by changing the phase relationships of the rotating weights. I also managed to change the rotational direction in one plane. Last week I came up with a configuration of interest.

Tesla's Zero Time Generator 4

Using a unique phase combination of the rotating weights results in a propulsion effect. One plane of the rotating weights causes a vertical up and down vibration. The second plane of rotating weights causes a horizontal vibration due to one of the rotating weights being 180 degrees out of phase. The two planes of oscillation combine to produce a propulsion effect across the surface of the table. I believe the coefficient of friction would be higher on a downward weight vibration cycle, thus nullifying any reverse movement. So motion only occurs in the upward weight vibration cycle. It’s like a weight rectifier. I was able to get more thrust by advancing the phase timing on the horizontal oscillator weights to around 20 degrees before TDC. This resulted in pushing the power thrust curve to a higher point in the RPM, giving a more stable propulsion effect at the cost of using more available power.

That is my analysis so far. Not really violating any laws as we know them so far. But it introduces the concept of nullifying weight through the use of a weight oscillator to achieve the observed motion. I believe this to be a blueprint for creating linear motion. It makes me wonder if there is an electromagnetic equivalent. Also the oscillating weight is of extreme interest to me. It’s like our science is completely ignoring this parallel behavior of weight to EM behavior.

Of course I see this oscillating weight also as an intriguing connection to the gravity wave A that Bob Lazar talked about. He called it accessing nuclear force. I see a similarity in mechanical force in that mechanical force is also a very short range force. Mechanical force never extends beyond the physical boundaries of a solid object.

And then another little comparison to EM phenomena is this device is basically a half wave rectifier. We have full wave electrical rectifiers. Maybe that’s the next step. To make a full wave weight rectifier that causes an object to have a net negative weight.

[JDT]

If you paid attention to history, you would realize that the real Einstein was someone’s puppet. And the real history is something we may never know.

Someone’s keeping track, don’t you worry about that.Your post reminded me of a dear friend of mine, Charlie Chaplain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA

But the story of democracy reminds me of a story, one of you are probably more familiar with it than I am.

Basically, the story goes: A Teacher praises democracy to his Student. The Teacher is killed due to democracy itself. The Student curses democracy.

There is a message behind this story. Can you find it? It is not democracy that is at fault, but Man.

Democracy always wins, with the proper triumvirate. The problem lately is that triumvirate seems to have struck its own chord; and with its light comes its shadow. There is always dusk before dawn; in due time.

[Robot]

I believe this to be a blueprint for creating linear motion. It makes me wonder if there is an electromagnetic equivalent. .

There is always and electrical equivalent to mechanical motion:http://multimechatronics.com/images/uploads/mech_n/Electrical_Mechanical_Analogy.pdf

[thomas_pendrake]

This resembles a pair of Dean Devices. Many things have been attributed to Tesla, most of the legit things belatedly. What does it do when in free-fall, or just on a frictionless surface. The Dean device appears to be a space drive when on a surface with friction. I would not be surprised if some effect attributable to General Relativity exists, but it would be so slight that it would be washed out by quantum considerations.

[Einstein]

I’m of the opinion that this device and the Dean Drive access the gravity A wave talked about by Bob Lazar. There has to be a physical connection in order for the wave to propagate.

[thomas_pendrake]

When a star falls into a black hole a gravitational wave is created that can be detected by a massive detector of several thousand kilograms mass maintained at nearly absolute zero Kelvin so close to the black hole that the gamma rays created by the event will sterilize any life operating the detector. You will not detect any gravitational radiation from your device, but there may well be some. As with the Dean device, any motion is due to friction between a surface and the device . Vibrating conveyors are similar. Consider a flat metal plate in a horizontal position (perhaps sitting on a table top. place a hockey puck on it. strike the plate on one edge with a hammer, causing it to very rapidly move a distance horizontally. the puck will not move. now slowly move the plate back to its original position. The puck will now be in a new position. Repeat, and the puck will again be in a new position. This is how a vibrating conveyor works. The Dean device also works the same way. If you are in free fall standing on a metal plate and hit it with a hammer in your hand, or just take the hammer and whack yourself on your head, you will go nowhere. Throw the hammer and you and the hammer will go in opposite directions.

By the way, go to the beach and you can see lovely gravity waves.

[thomas_pendrake]

Actually, I have looked a bit closer at the device shown above and it is not as sophisticated as the Dean device. I looked at the Wiki article about the Dean device ( I am familiar with it from the original Analog articles, and once had a copy of the patent). and noticed that the legit studies of the Dean device concluded that it is the most sophisticated “reactionless” device patented. It can be used to move loads in low friction circumstances.

I once had a neighbor who was trying to patent a perpetual motion device based on the classic wheel with moving weights that looks like it always has more weight on one side that the other. The problem, of course, is that the side with more weight has the weights closet to the axis, so that the torque is always the same. However, if the wheel is aligned just right, the Earth’s rotation will make it rotate, and it is possible to rob some power from the Earth. This would make it appear to be a perpetual motion machine. I have never done the calculations as to how much power a device could extract, and I suspect that it would be difficult to reduce friction enough for it to operate.

[thomas_pendrake]

Have you ever seen one of those clocks that runs off of a spinning pendulum? I have one, it was my grandfather’s.Of course, this is a purely mechanical device. The bottom spins clockwise, then stops spinning, and reverses its direction, ad infinitum. Purely mechanical, before Tesla even came along.

Why toss out history when there is a story to be learned from Newton, and Einstein, both Savants who knew a great deal? Tesla was of the same breed, his story was just robbed in exchange for his undying legacy. The world is not so fair, it seems.

There is also a mainspring and an escapement., and it has to be would. No perpetual motion..

[Einstein]

Thomas Pendrake

We aren’t taught fact based science. Everything is theory based. And I don’t agree with any of the theories. They all fall apart rapidly under close scrutiny.

Have you noticed there hasn’t been any gravity wave detection yet? Kind of looks like gravity waves don’t propagate through space. Of course it’s just a theory anyway.

The same with Black Holes. They used to be called Schwarzschild discontinuities. He came up with the concept. But it’s a theory. Based on another theory. Mass. Where is the proof for mass? Under direct observation gravitational weight or inertial weight can become zero. And acceleration can exist in the presence or absence of weight. Thus making it independent of weight. Which does kind of conflict with the equation F=MA.

So why are we being taught theories that are rapidly debunked by existing fact? That’s a good question. I would love to know the answer.

[thomas_pendrake]

If you look at the comments I made above, gravity waves are extremely weak (about 10 to the minus 30 times as strong as electromagnetic waves, although both bigger or smaller ratios can be given depending on how they are arrived at) you can see that there is good reason why we haven’t actually measured them yet, although there is an argument that they may have been observed in the background radiation of the universe.

Black holes were actually predicted by Newton, based on classical physics, although LaPlace was the first to actually predict that there were large objects that would be invisible because of the escape velocity exceeding that of light. What are the circumstances in which inertial mass becomes zero ( I don’t know what you mean by “inertial weight”).

Just what is accelerating in the absence of “weight”? Do you not know what the difference between weight and mass is? If you can define what is accelerating in the absence of mass, you will notice that there is no force. In order for acceleration to have any meaning, you must be able to measure something. What is it that you are measuring, and how are you measuring it.

You should know that most of the science we are taught is empirical, i.e., based on experimental evidence, The theories are models that predict the observed facts, and most experimental science is designed to verify or disprove existing theories.

Sometimes when we do experiments, we do not get expected results. Then we refine the theories. That is what science is all about.

[Einstein]

Thomas Pendrake

From your statements I can see that you have bought into your science education hook, line and sinker. Without questioning any of it. That would be okay to do that with a religion. But this is science. It isn’t supposed to be about beliefs. Yet that is the way it is being taught.

I have to disagree with your knowledge on Newton and Laplace having anything to do with Black Holes. This information didn’t used to exist. So if it exists now, it is a fabrication or alteration to the knowledge base we are taught from.

What are the circumstances in which inertial mass becomes zero ( I don’t know what you mean by “inertial weight”).

I was using the fact based observation. In an inertial acceleration, a body will develop weight with a vector direction opposed to its acceleration. When the inertial acceleration drops to zero, so does its inertial weight. Inertial weight is variable.

Just what is accelerating in the absence of “weight”?

Gravitational acceleration of a body in a vacuum is weightless.

Do you not know what the difference between weight and mass is?

Yes I do. Weight is something real in our universe. There appears to be three types of weight. Gravitational, centrifugal, and inertial. Mass is the fictional theory we are taught in school. Supposed to be a dimensionless quantity of matter.

If you can define what is accelerating in the absence of mass, you will notice that there is no force.

I never said there was an absence of mass. But I did say there was an absence of weight in a gravitational acceleration.Now if you start to take a closer look at these facts, it almost looks like someone doesn’t want us to know about weight. So naturally I decided to see what is being hidden from view. Gravitational weight is connected to the flow of time. The more gravitational weight you have, the slower time flows. This much we know to be fact. So does centrifugal weight make time flow faster? They do use a lot of centrifuges in processing radioactive elements. Makes me wonder if those centrifuges are actually breeder reactors that take advantage of time being sped up.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg on what you could do if you were using fact based science. What if you could modulate and an objects weight? It seems you would also be modulating the flow of time. Someone might actually build a time machine with information like that.

[thomas_pendrake]

The fact that Newton observed that it would be possible to have a mass large enough (and concentrated enough) to have an escape velocity equal to the velocity of light has been true since the time of Newton, and the fact that LaPlace predicted what we now call black holes has been true since the time of LaPlace. Perhaps YOU weren’t always aware of that, but I have been aware of that for about 50 years, and the texts have recorded it for longer than that..

The term “inertial weight” is not used by physicists. We talk of inertial mass. “Gravitational weight” is likewise not generally used, gravitational mass is. To very great degrees of accuracy we have not been able to measure any difference between the two, hence we have the General Theory of Relativity.The term "weight " normally refers to the force exerted on a mass by a gravitational field. A given mass will have a different weight in different gravitational fields, e.g. the surface of the Earth and the surface of the moon. A given mass will have a different weight at sea-level and In a U2 at maximum altitude. It is technologically possible to measure weight differences on the first and 100th floor of the Empire State Building.

Mass is not dimensionless, mass is mass, thoroughly mensurable.

In a centrifuge (assuming it is running) time slows (relative to the outside observer). Did you know that a clock in a satellite in orbit runs shower than one on the surface of the earth if in low orbit, but if the orbit is high enough, it will appear to be faster (not by a whole lot.).In both cases you need atomic clocks to be able to make the measurements, Or maybe just a good laser (measure red or blue shifts)

A breeder reactor usually captures neutrons emitted by some fusion reaction such as the decay of U235 to do something such as turn U238 into Plutonium. Centrifuges are used to extract select isotopes.

An astronaut in orbit experiences weightlessness. But if he throws a ball, he has to do work to throw the ball. and both the astronaut and the ball move in opposite directions in accordance with F=ma. Both the F and the a should have arrows written above them to indicate that they are vector quantities, but there are no vector signs in this font. As this is the Newtonian equation, we have to assume that the mass, the force, as well as the acceleration are within the realm of “everyday” quantities so that we do not have to allow for Einsteinian relativity.

Mass is a very well understood matter of everyday experience. Notice that the metric system generally measures mass (the gram), whereas the English system generally measures weight (pound) . However the metric system does have weight (dyne or Newton) and the English system does have mass (poundal).

And, In the years I spent in research, questioning was what I was getting paid to do. And , as a theoretician, questioning is what I do.Questioning is what Science is all about.

[Nicolas]

What is the medium that oscillates with EM waves? You may consider the principle of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass to be fiction, but that fiction predicts a great number of phenomena with incredible accuracy. Billions of dollars over almost a hundred years have been spent to perform a great many experiments to check this.The General Theory of Relativity has been verified countless times, and nothing has ever hinted at any failure of it, even though it has been the subject of a major part of scientific experimentation for the past hundred years. The orbit of Mercury cannot be predicted with Newtonian physics, but General Relativity predicts it with great precision. And both theories of Relativity apply with total accuracy to electromagnetic phenomena. Radio waves were known before Einstein published his work, and his work helped in the understanding of electromagnetic wave propagation. I suppose charge would be similar in electricity to mass in gravity, I have trouble understanding why you think enunciating a principle of equivalence in EM theory would make EM waves suddenly vanish. Could you explain this?

Sir, I think you got your answer right here:

Now who would have a motive for keeping us in the dark about this knowledge? My prime suspects are the ET’s.

[Einstein]

I disagree that you can do anything with fiction. So the fact that a theory does appear to work, apparently using fiction as its base, is a lie. What it appears to me is that facts were used to construct a model. Then some key facts were removed, and other key facts were replaced with fiction, thus turning it into a theory. So the math works. But no one can figure out why. The jokes on us. Who orchestrated this?

Our understanding of EM theory would become nonexistent if voltage, current, and resistance loads were suddenly stripped of their current status. The phenomena would be explained away as more fictitious pseudo forces that don’t really exist. And a one formula fits all would be substituted in its place. People experimenting with magnetic fields would be considered kooks and crackpots. Ridiculed and possibly murdered for their nonconformity. All because someone came along and created a principle of equivalence for the various electric and magnetic phenomena. We would have to recognize the existence of forces first, in order for wave phenomena to be understood.

I remember when I was taught physics, my instructor went to great lengths to try and explain away centrifugal force as a fictitious force. Showed us a plot on a graph of how an object moves away at constant velocity when the tie to the center of rotation was cut. He claimed there was no acceleration, so there was really no force. Years later it occurred to me that the object was traveling in a path at right angles to its force. So shouldn’t the acceleration be along the same path that the force was on? So I used the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the rate the object was moving away from its previous center of rotation. It turns out the rate the radius increases is an acceleration. So centrifugal force does have a weightless centrifugal acceleration. The exact opposite of gravitational force. That makes centrifugal force the anti-gravity force. That’s why I mentioned centrifuges may be speeding up time. If gravity slows down time, then anti-gravity should speed up time. Of course no one would suspect that, if they believed centrifugal force was fictitious.

[thomas_pendrake]

“centrifugal force” is the apparent reaction to centripetal force, whatever force is used to make an object move in a circular (or elliptical) path. When you put a weight on the end of a piece of string and swing it around your head, the force that you put on the string is called a centripetal force because it pulls the weight into its roughly circular string. Construct a sling-shot. release the weight (perhaps a pebble) and the weight moves in a straight line (except for the effect of gravity and air friction) at a tangent to the circular path. Your Physics instructor was telling you the truth.

The fact of the matter is that an ultra-centrifuge produces a slowing of time (crudely speaking). It can be measured, and has. I wonder what “fiction” you are referring to. Modern science, especially Physics, is Empirical. You appear to be caught up in some distorted Rationalism. Rationalism has been soundly rejected. Ever hear of Dr. Kurt Goedel?

The best example of fiction in pseudo science is probably the ridiculous lies of Bob Lazar. He claims academic credentials that are easily debunked. And the most obvious lie is in his claim that Ununpentium was used in his fictional warp drive. Ununpentium has several isotopes, one of which (299) has a half-life of less than one fifth of a second (the other isotopes have far shorter half-lives) His 28 gram chunk would be 27 grams of Ununtrium and 1 gram of Ununpentium in less than 1 second. In a minute it would have no detectable Ununpentium ( and very little Ununtrium).

The phenomena involved in EM are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of Empirical fact. Our theoretical understanding of these phenomena may evolve, and we may discover uses and processes that we don’t yet know, but what we publish in text-books will not change natural phenomena. Science is not a democratic process: opinion does not change the physical world.

At one time people studying EM phenomena were persecuted, perhaps burned at the stake. But the Empirical facts eventually led to such intellectual giants as Tesla, Hertz, Maxwell, and Einstein (to name a very few), and experimental fact led to such science as Relativity and modern EM theory (Relativity is part of modern science that makes modern lighting possible, as well as computers and smart phones).

Without modern science, we would be lucky to have candles for lighting, and would be cooking, at best, in open-hearth fire-places.

[Einstein]

I’m not exactly sure what you are demonstrating. I’m not going to try to reexamine each of your calculations but I would like you to explain how you are calculating your hypotenuse.A2+B2=C2B2 is the interval of time you are using? Then it is a constant rate of change?

and you calculate C2 based on what value of A2?

A is the radius of the circular path just as the string is cut. B is the distance traveled in one second intervals. With the passing of each second, a new right triangle is formed. The length of each new hypotenuse changes at a changing rate as an acceleration would do.

[Gpa]

I still don’t think you get to do that. Once you cut the string you have lost the centrifugal action and inertia takes over. Your string is cut, your radius is no longer a constant.

I’ll leave my thoughts at that.

Perhaps RainmanTime will feel up to discussing it with you, again.

[thomas_pendrake]

If you were swinging a rock around yourself, and you let go, you would be at the center of that circular motion. Since you are at the center of rotation, the rock would appear to be accelerating away from you. So that is all I did, was to calculate the rate at which the rock is moving away from the center of rotation. The Pythagorean Theorem can be used in this instance to accurately calculate the rate.

But the reason the rock stays in that circular path is because it is accelerating towards you. When the string is released, cut, or breaks. the rock ceases to accelerate, but moves IN A CONSTANT Velocity (except for air drag, etc.) tangental to the circular path. The string supplies the well documented centripetal force. The equal but opposaite reaction to that force is what you perceive as a centrifugal force. The rock does not appear to be accelerating away from you once you let go, since it (absent air drag) travels at a constant velocity. If it had a rocket motor that fired once it was released, then it would accelerate.

[thomas_pendrake]

I just wanted to show Thomas that there are facts about centrifugal force that are not shared in the classroom. I call them deleted facts. But you can’t say I can’t do it. Because the Pythagorean Theorem is a very useful mathematical tool.

I am sure that I have been in far more classrooms than you, especially in Math and Physics. Perhaps you have only been in very rudimentary classrooms, but the actual facts do get discussed.General Relativity is usually a class with 3rd year Graduate students in Physics and Math, it can be very difficult.As a young Physicist I was taught that only a handful of people actually understood the theory. I’m sure that, worldwide, the number of people capable of doing serious work on the subject is in two digits (less than 100). But the real basic fact, the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, was proven by Galileo Galilei (supposedly). In fact, most of the foundation for both theories of relativity comes from Galileo’s work in the late 16th/early 17th century.And the Pythagorean theorem is part of what is loosely referred to as Euclidean Geometry, which is a very accurate APPROXIMATION to the geometry of the everyday experience, but fails on both quantum and Astronomical scales. You can lay out a football field quite well using it, but it isn’t too useful for designing time travel machines.

[seivtcho]

Because it is a mechanical oscillator that can affect its own gravitational weight. If the gravitational force locally changes with the oscillator, then so should its connection to time. So time may oscillate locally too.The Tesla Zero Time Reference Generator has always been mentioned as a component part of the Philadelphia Experiment.

You may contact an university and do an experiment - just like the time dilation for the supersonic jets. Use two synchronized atomic clocks. Place one of them on the zero time generator, and the other place aside. Then turn on the generator, wait for an hour, and compare the clocks.