 |
       |
|
|
|
|
| In court? Need assistance? Jurisdictionary |
 |
| Your Own Credit Repair Business |
|
Topic: John Keely's
Laws of Harmony Section: Law of Variation of Atomic Oscillation by Electricity Table of Contents to this Topic |
|
"The electric current destroys cohesion and chemical tension directly as square of current in amperes, inversely as the resistance in ohms, inversely as the chemical equivalent, and conversely as the coefficient of the difference between the freezing and volatilizing temperature of mass acted upon." Commentary October, 1987 This law tells us what we already know about electrical currents operating within a chemical substance such as a length of copper wire. I don't believe I've seen this phenomenon described in any other literature as a law though. A conductor "melts" or breakdown as we call it in the manner described above. The cohesion between atoms of a given atomic mass (chemical substance or alloy) is disrupted if there is too much amperage or too great a resistance and this breakdown is related to the chemical composition and temperature limits of the material. What is unique in Keely's approach is that this atomic breakdown of the substance can be calculated from a table of the mass' properties and that this calculated atomic structural breakdown is directly proportional to these same quantities. If tables were created according to the law given in the previous September, 1987 issue and calculations were run based on the above law we should be able to tell at a glance how differing elements and alloys would behave given any parameters of applied vibratory currents. This should apply to commonly used materials such as copper, aluminium, etc., but should also help in deciphering the resultant activities of so-called superconductive materials as well. In other words, if what Keely is describing is accurate, we should be able to accurately predict behavior of exotic blends of materials before they are incorporated into current carrying circuits. Not only that, once such tables were created one should be able to specify a current and its parameters and have a computer tailor design an alloy which would carry it and we would known how the material would react beforehand. The latter part of this law says that the cohesion breakdown occurs "as the coefficient of the difference between the freezing and volatizing temperature of mass acted upon." Temperature limits of ceramic materials is generally very broad. Take this law and The Law of Vibrating Atomic Substances discussed in the December, 1986 issue and perhaps we have an explanation for the phenomenon of superconductivity wherein resistance is caused by the expansion and twisting of the atomic structure (lattice structure?). This expansion and twisting we commonly call cohesion breakdown. In short, as the atomic mass expands and twists the crystalline structure is gradually disrupted until a point is reached where the material is "melted" or dissociated. As this expansion and twisting increases so too does the resistance, etc.. When the mass is "frozen" as is commonly done in superconductor research, the tendency to expand or twist is reduced thus allowing the transmission and inductance of the vibrating electrical current without interference (modulation). Modulation of the primary vibrating current , in this case electricity, causes the creation of secondary and tertiary frequencies - heat, light, etc.. The ability to expand or twist is directly related to the atomic structural parameters, i.e., density, crystalline configuration, etc.. But what governs the density, structure, etc? See Law of Oscillating Atomic Substances discussed in September, 1986 issue. Keely's Discoveries Vindicated? Some of you are familiar with my logo of the three circles enclosed tightly by another circle. It is reproduced below: (see triplets) This configuration was developed by John Keely circa 1880 and was his depiction of positive, negative and neutrally charged particles making up molecules and atoms. He maintained that all molecular, atomic particles has this configuration. In his completed chart (dated 1894 and reprinted in this journal in the December, 1985 and again in the January, 1986 issues) he showed the complex structure as he saw it derived from his researches. A recent book by Richard Feynman, titled QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, has a similar drawing on page 134. It is reproduced below: (see Feynman's Morphology) Feyman demonstrates that protons and neutrons are made up of three quarks of types d and u. Ratio of d to u determines polarity. Feyman is the foremost quantum physicist according to some sources. Most of his book describes current efforts to understand this complex and difficult field of quantum electrodynamics. It is a very good book, readable and entertaining. I would recommend this work for anyone interested in natural science (what makes things tick and why). Comparing Feyman's chart to Keely's we see that the black circle in Keely's chart corresponds to Feyman's proton. The grey circle applies to the neutron and the white would correspond to the electron if Feyman had included one. Thus the black is the negative charged "particle," the white is positive and the grey of course as the neutral charged "particle." Today the electron is considered having a negative charge, this is unfortunate. Since this charge state is actually a label placed by somebody years ago we must accept it as it is. However one should consider an electron as a particle of positive energy because it is ACTIVE. In other words, it has an expressive energy whereas the proton is in a receptive or negative state even though we call it positive. Common sense would reverse these polarities in conversation and application. Then again some orthodox quantum physicists maintain the position that if the physics makes sense then it is wrong! You can make up your own mind on what makes sense or not. The rest of the book is quite interesting but I will not go into it here. The most interesting thoughts come to mind when we think that Keely did this original and accurate research over 100 years ago and it has taken orthodox science all this time and money to only begin to see the same result. Small wonder then, that Keely wasn't understood by his "peers," he was ahead of them by more than a century. |
| See Also: |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
