72 Comments
Jun 13, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hey Guys, I made another script to generate the natural donut shapes in blender. I don't expect these will be as useful as the wire coil generator script. OpenSCAD doesn't support mesh deformations so I had to write it as a Blender script.

code: https://pastebin.com/F0Q4swpK (tested on blender 3.2 under linux, if you run into compatibility issues and want to use it let me know) (updated 2022-06-14 4:00:00 UTC to fix issue with squashing the second order torus along the wrong axis, and switching over to blender mesh deform from lattice deform, thanks Bob for spotting this, redownload if you got it before then)

video: https://youtu.be/Tv2LcJiED6U

Expand full comment
author

Can you check you are not pinching in the vertical axis - it should only pinch radially.

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Thanks Bob! You are right something isn't quite right with the pinch on the second order torus. I think I may have forgotten to constraint to the different axis. I will check and update the original script. Yeah you can cross publish if you think it will be of benefit to others. I will make a second video which is more concise in that case.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, I thought I saw the incorrect pinch. I am in the process of installing Blender now to test the script to confirm my visual sense, but you have said it may be a possibility.

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2022·edited Jun 13, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hey Bob, you have sharp eyes :)

I uploaded the fix, for the second order torus it was squashing the wrong way towards the origin. The stretch was along the correct axis too which made it hard to spot.

The only thing I changed was

bpy.ops.transform.resize(value=(0, 1, 0), orient_type='GLOBAL', orient_matrix=((1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), (0, 0, 1)), orient_matrix_type='GLOBAL', mirror=False, use_proportional_edit=False, proportional_edit_falloff='SMOOTH', proportional_size=1, use_proportional_connected=False, use_proportional_projected=False)

to

bpy.ops.transform.resize(value=(0, 0, 1), orient_type='GLOBAL', orient_matrix=((1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), (0, 0, 1)), orient_matrix_type='GLOBAL', mirror=False, use_proportional_edit=False, proportional_edit_falloff='SMOOTH', proportional_size=1, use_proportional_connected=False, use_proportional_projected=False)

I decided there isn't much point making a new video so you can just use the one I linked above as it's only a minor issue and it takes me like 30+ mins to record and upload another one

Expand full comment
author

is fix on same link?

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Yes

Expand full comment
author

Been doing 3D for a very long time. The wrong squishing is very obvious when I tried to rebuild the 48 48 tor I originally built.

Will test new script.

Expand full comment

Hey Bob, as I mentioned above "I did notice when I was playing with blender lattice deformations that it doesn't appear to perfectly respect the points of the deformation box." I did some more hunting and it seems the lattice deform modifier is non linear at the interfaces of the lattice. I will update the script to use the mesh deform modifier which is linear. This should have more well behaving/defined results. I'll reply to this comment once it's been updated. Until then hold off testing.

Expand full comment
author

Hi Peter, fantastic work on the last two parametric code bases.

I have one more to suggest, that will probably be more valuable than the previous 2, for core builders and repeatability.

That is a printable winding support, that is to say, you would type in your target tor level, T1 wire size, dimensions of T2 and if needed T3 and it would produce the T3 or T4 support bagel with spacers that people could print in 3D to support their coils with consistency. It would look a bit like a screw that is bent into a donut.

For high density tors, there might need to be a means to pinch the inner walls of the support frame. Cosmic Dave, for instance, is building his T2 and T3 coils on silicone tubing that will allow some post winding pinching when building a 4 tor.

Expand full comment
Jun 15, 2022·edited Jun 15, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hey Bob, I've actually made a winding support like this before for rodin coils albeit they are slightly different in design. I would be happy to attempt this perhaps even as part of the process of building my first coil. For me the primary issue with a a solid winding support is that it requires one to physically pass the wire through tight spaces. I think there is a place for these kinds of frames for the larger winding scales and would be happy to try and construct some (it's a relatively simple negative boolean operation). I think my approach would be to create a high level winding structure for the top most (largest) level winding first. Ideally it would be cut on one side (to avoid needing to feed stuff through the hole continually) and would be printed with semi flexible material so it could be glued shut when winding was done. so you would first wind it around nylon or ptfe, then you would wind that composite onto the 3d printed model for a 3 tor.

For a four level tor I would make a cut section for each loop which could then be glued together, this would allow one to wind each sub section without needing to pass the whole wire through the hole. Then finally you would glue all the sections together to create the 4 tor.

If this sounds reasonable to you I will make some parametric models over the next few days. (it may take until next week).

Expand full comment
author

Errr... Yes?

Expand full comment
Jun 22, 2022·edited Jun 22, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hey Bob, so I had a chance to build a script to generate winding props. I'm not quite sure they are what you had in mind, but I think they would be useful if I had a coil winding machine.

Below are the updated script and a video showing the functionality.

https://pastebin.com/du6QiMzM

https://youtu.be/9MXr_JaEwYE

I forgot to include this in the video, but when running this script I would suggest that people download the nightly build of openscad as it has some features that vastly improve performance. Then goto "Preferences -> Features" and enable "fast-csg" and "fast-csg-trust-corefinement" they vastly increased the speed it generates the models, and I used these features when making the video.

I'm considering building a coil winding machine using 3 stepper motors. It would only be useful for generating hollow coils as I wouldn't have any way to feed a substrate through to be the core of the coil. It also may take me afew months to actually build one (assuming I don't hit any issues). It would be really great if and when you visit cosmic dave you could help share additional details on how the machine works and provide any suggestions on how one might build one.

Also one other thing that occurred to me is it's difficult to vet changes to open source software to ensure they are 100% safe. I'm not really sure what the best solution is though. For example I required an updated version of the dotSCAD library with some bug fixes. I tried to verify they were all sound versus the last release and mention the corresponding hash in the source code "938507d", but going forward it's impossible to be certain. For that reason i will provide a link to the download for the hash version with the bug fix below. I assume people understand the risk of running software though at this point so it probably isn't worth mentioning.

https://github.com/JustinSDK/dotSCAD/archive/938507d02d647aa383a465c08b7fe7dd51a2e3a3.zip

Expand full comment
author

Hi Peter,

Absolute stunning work. Very good and thourough video, producing cleanable prints, fit for purpose. Well done!

My plan is, if possible, to see Cosmic Dave next week.

Thankyou.

Expand full comment
Jun 16, 2022·edited Jun 16, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hahaha, yeah sorry I dunno quite what I expected ;). I'll just try and make it and print it and actually wind one or at least part of one. If I can make something that seems to work I'll post it. No sense doing so until it's partially working maybe with some example video. This might take afew weeks to do the whole thing. I'll update here with any progress I may make. If anyone else wants to attempt this first also I'm totally happy to assist however I can. I don't have anything to wind the initial smallest level wire currently and doing it by hand looks like a chore so this might take a little while.

Expand full comment
author

Right you are and thank you!

Expand full comment
author

Awesome Peter! I will set up blender on mac and see if it runs. Am I ok to cross publish the video in the next update?

Expand full comment
Jun 11, 2022·edited Jun 11, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hey Bob, I tried pricing getting one of these made via SLS from https://i.facfox.com/insta3dp/.

1) A D-4D 4 level bagel made on a formlabs fuse 1 in nylon with a diameter of 16.5 cm will set one back $9 USD per unit, minimum order size of $40 USD and shipping is about $40 USD so one could order 4 for about $80.

2) The same sized D-4D bagel made with DMLS SS 316 will set one back $524 USD + shipping

3) The same sized D-4D bagel made with DMLS Aluminum will set one back $245 USD + shipping

*didn't actually order one so there's a chance they may say the model is difficult and requires extra cost*

I looked into printing it on my FDM 3d printer and I think that the 4 level bagel would be impossible because the support structure will actually be more rigid than the bagel itself, and the number of retractions will mean it's basically gauranteed there will be at least one or two places it isn't connected properly, so it would likely be broken when you try to remove supports. It might be possible with a regular resin SLS printer but I don't have one to try. Given the price to buy them in nylon is pretty cheap (except for the minimum order price and shipping) I would probably take that route if I was going to try plating it.

For the mean time I will try to print a 3 level bagel with my FDM for now. Honestly though I think building a coil winder like the other guys is the way to go. I have a feeling the low resistance is key to creating a sustained field. Even Keshe "nano coats" his coils to achieve alleged superconductivity with KOH or burning the outside with a torch to soot them (this might be worth trying with our coils too), I feel the thickness you would obtain via plating would probably be inferior to the low resistance of a solid copper wire.

Perhaps in time we could make a repository where we create a kind of instructable with all the 3d models and parts detailing how to build a coil winder so others without the mechanical expertise could try and build them. Then iteratively improve on it.

I was talking to my family afew days ago saying the fundamental issue with all these "scalar" fields is that you can't measure them with devices. Either the mechanical ones or the bioavailable ones. And here you are today with this update giving us some hope we may actually be able to measure them to do some real quantitative science.

I dunno why I didn't think of this, but I have a spectrum analyzer and a handful of these near field magnetic probes. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32966266773.html It says "9KHz-6GHz" in the title so this may not work for the 30hz we are driving them with, I'm not sure how they came to that frequency range. If they worked they may be a cheaper easier option for people who have scopes already and want to test immediately while people work out how to interface with the FGM3-PRO you mentioned above (https://magnetometer-kit.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FGM-fluxgate-magnetic-field-sensor-specifications-applications-guide.pdf) Although maybe the cheap aliexpress probes are a waste of money, as I don't see why you couldn't just use an inductor coil with a scope to measure the oscillating magnetic field, unless they are impedance matched to the oscilloscope or something.

I may be able to help make PCB's for interfacing with these sensors if someone else can help design the circuit :) I'm not good at analog electronics but I can help fabricate PCBs if someone can design something that they think would work. They have some details about a minimal circuit in the application guide datasheet I linked above.

Expand full comment
author

Great research, thanks for sharing.

I was thinking DMLS on aluminium might be an approach worth trying - but agree, wire winding is going to be cheaper and that is what the Russians actually did in their research.

It would be great if some one could help with the circuit to drive the FGM3-PRO - there is definitely the skills in the community. Let's see.

Expand full comment
Jun 12, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Peter and Bob, see my post above on Binder Jetting. I suggest you upload your trial STL file to Shapeways and price it in steel/bronze. That should be MUCH cheaper than the Facfox quotes.

Expand full comment
author

Hi William. I did consider this process, but I am mindful of avoiding Ferromagnetic materials in the core. Perhaps this steel/bronze combination is not Ferromagnetic though, so it should be ok.

Thanks for laying out for consideration with links.

Expand full comment
Jun 12, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Bob, thanks. The 'steel' in the Shapeways steel/bronze Binder Jet process IS stainless, which is considerably less magnetic than normal steel. And of course the bronze is non-ferrous. I did just test a couple Shapeways prints I have here in steel/bronze, with a very strong NdFeB magnet. This magnet attracts normal steel very strongly, but only weakly with the steel/bronze models. But weak is not the same as zero, so you're correct.

Unfortunately their laser sintered aluminum process requires extensive support structures. It's not self supporting like the nylon SLS or Binder Jet metals.

Expand full comment
author

Hmmm, There is no mention of a core in Zhvirblis or Nevessky's papers or seen in the Zhvirblis photo. Yet Nature appears to have Fe in the core. Only more testing of the right L/R permutations with the right kind of core and sense magnetometer will help us know the answer as to what is right and wrong.

Expand full comment

Hey William thanks for letting me know about this fabrication technique from shapeways.

I tried to use the same quad tor with 16.5 cm diameter with a wire size of 0.95mm, and it seems the max print volume for Binder Jetting is "Bounding Box Max 89 × 89 × 100 mm".

I realized that what I thought was actually a D-4D tor from my script wasn't exactly that, because the rad_p was actually the centerline for the torus not the total radius (I even put this in the comment so I don't know how I forgot).

Anyways even given my not quite D-4D torus with 0.95mm if I were to scale it down to fit the bounding box of 89mm the wire size would be near 0.6mm.

If it were a proper D-4D tor it should have 256mm diameter with 1mm wire diameter (1*4*4*4*4), and scaling that down to fit would give an even thiner wire size of 0.35mm.

Both these wire sizes are too small for this fabrication process it says in the material design guidelines that the thresholds are 1mm to 1.5mm for unsupported wires

https://static1.sw-cdn.net/files/cms/materials/comparison-guides/MaterialsDesignGuidelines_07212020.pdf

As such I don't think it's possible to produce a 4 level tor on these production nodes.

I honestly didn't look too deeply at the factfox production capabilities other than to confirm

I priced up a proper D-4D 3 level torus with 64mm diameter and 1mm wire diameter. (after remembering what rad_p actually was set at, I will update the script in the next few days to make this more clear)

The following prices came up

Facfox DMLS stainless 316L $29.34 USD + $1 shipping (must be because it's so light....) (min order of $40 exc shipping)

Facfox DMLS Aluminum $13.74 USD + $1 shipping (must be because it's so light....) (min order of $40 exc shipping)

Shapeways 316L $36.86 USD + $34.99 USD shipping

Shapeways Brass $38.46 USD + $34.99 USD shipping

Shapeways Copper $53.84 USD + $34.99 USD shipping

Shapeways Bronze $38.46 USD + $34.99 USD shipping

Shapeways Aluminum $41.54 USD + $34.99 USD shipping

Shapeways Steel $19.07 USD + $34.99 USD shipping

So the moral of the story seems to be that shipping is what makes the difference on small parts, and given my location facfox seems to be cheaper currently, although shapeways would probably be cheaper in the US.

And big parts like 4 level torus are going to be larger than the build volume for binder jet given the minimum wire thickness supported.

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2022·edited Sep 22, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hey Bob,

I found one bug with the original script where it wasn't properly calculating the radius of the smallest wire loop diameter.

I updated the original script with a comment at the top saying to use version 0103a. (I didn't feel comfortable updating the code directly as I wanted a record of the original incorrect version, I should have just put it on github ;))

```

* Please use version 0103a available at https://pastebin.com/h5c9Ahm9 it has some minor fixes.

* - Fix for level 0 torus radius was calculating incorrectly, also added correct examples for D-4D using the torus center line for rad_p properly.

```

If you could update the copy paste of the script above with the code from the 0103a link I'de appreciate it. It will ensure no one has an incorrect smallest radius set. Also I corrected the example torus' to be D-4D as I had computed the radius' in the example incorrectly so they weren't actually D-4D examples.

UPDATE: 0105f at https://pastebin.com/kbwK5EdL

* Version 0105f: Added a new triple torus winding prop with additional 3rd level grooves, also fixed second order dir on quad torus model which wasn't working properly, finally fixed skew on second level and third level windings which were not scewed in the direction of the second and third parent level windings.

The new winding prop looks like this https://postimg.cc/njjd2jrF it is supposed to be used in conjunction with a quad tor where the highest and second highest level both have tubes inside. So that it only has groves on the highest level to help you ensure the second level has the right number of third level windings in every turn. It is much easier to print and uses much less plastic too. I have printed it but not wound it yet I will update here if things don't work out well.

Expand full comment
author

Updated, link also

Expand full comment
author

Will do.

Remember, if you take the diameter of the ring loop (n-1 level), that is 1/4 of the diameter of the n-level tor.

I will update script.

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Thanks Bob. Yup the confusion is i defined the rad_p variables as the distance to the center line of the parent torus. The reason for this was to allow for people to tweak things slightly to oversize or undersize them but keep the actually diameter of the contained magnetic flux loop at a defined radius. I felt this was more useful a measurement to base the dimension off rather than the actual external diameter. This means if you want to define a proper D-4D setup using the external torus dimensions you need to do some simple math gymnastics like in my updated examples at the bottom. Hopefully people can follow.

```

rad_p = [2-0.5,8-2,32-8,128-32]

```

So basically the torus radii from the center line are 1.5mm (for the 4 mm diameter), 6mm (for the 16mm diameter), 24mm (for the 64mm diameter) and 96mm for the (256mm diameter). Hopefully I won't find any other issues.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, this is what I did when I build my model in Feb 2020.

I took the n-1 tor and move its centre to 3r of its r

Expand full comment

Yup! No need to reply to this, but I'm just throwing this out there. I think the length of the magnetic flux loop in conjunction with the driving frequency will both determine what other subtle biological effects they may have. I remember this is covered somewhat in Meyl's books where he attempts to show how embedding a frequency is a "scalar"(evo) EM packet makes it bio available. I've also seen related papers about 10 years ago talking about how homeopathic remedies were operating via being magnetic monopoles (they didn't classify them as psuedo and it was in a similar vein to the work by Luc Montagnier that I was spewing all over one of your earlier substack posts ;))

Expand full comment
Jun 12, 2022·edited Jun 12, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

My (new) article,

The Electromagnetic Phantom as The Topology of Time

https://baronarcanus.substack.com/p/the-electromagnetic-phantom-as-a?s=w

It attempts to explain the survival of the phantom not as resultant from closed-loop Poynting vectors, but rather an electrodynamically-induced time-loop or time-anomaly.

Hope you enjoy. This is only a stop-gap until Dollard gets ahold of this....

EDIT: Does anyone else get garbled/corrupted substack subscription emails? Mine all seem to arrive in the inbox very garbled...

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2022·edited Jun 13, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

This had some really interesting points in it. Thanks for sharing it. I will need to think about all this more but there's a certain elegance to parts of what you tie together. "This infers that the phantom (at least in some configurations, i believe LRLR?) either resolves or propagates from its surface inwards as time progresses, and is related to the topology of Tewari’s vacuum force and the force vectors for gravity as well." As for garbled substack I don't think I have that issue, but I never display images as they are externally linked and not bundled in the email itself so it's a little hard to tell what it would look like if I clicked display images.

Expand full comment

Thanks. I am sure there are still many inconsistencies & inaccuracies afoot. But that's why we're here listening to Bob, isn't it? He's one of the few/only academics who's open-minded enough to make progress yet empirical enough to have scientific merit.

Perhaps the process of resolving or propagating isn't surface to interior, but lies in the nesting, ie: 1,2,3,4 and perhaps the way we interface those nests is what determines the effect.

I haven't read all Tewari's books but i suspect the answers are within them.

And I suspect the most valuable/accurate thing i've said therein was referring to time. In my mind, that's the main attraction of the theory.

Expand full comment
founding
Jun 11, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Very exciting. Thanks. Feel like we’re very close to cracking the cosmic Bagel code.

Expand full comment
author

definitely +'ve developments.

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2023Liked by Bob Greenyer

Where is best to shoot the breeze over building bagels (I prefer a git repository for code and models) and where can I find out what we think they will be good for?

I can't seem to find a resonant frequency on a baby 8 hoop level 1 tor!!

Expand full comment
author

I can set you up online server access which you can post materials to and share links from publicly.

Expand full comment
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hey Guys,

Just a note, there appears to be a viable alternative to fluxgate magnetometers that may be pretty good. I have afew on order and will report back. A single 3 axis module costs anywhere from $20 to $40 and interfaces with either SPI, I2C, Serial, or Modbus depending on the version you get. They are all based on the RM3100 chipset which appears to operate in a similar way to a fluxgate magnetometer but using a variation and a patent design.

pni magneto inductive technology overview

https://www.pnicorp.com/download/pni-magneto-inductive-technology-overview/

chipset datasheet.

https://www.pnicorp.com/wp-content/uploads/RM3100-Sensor-Suite-User-Manual-R07-1.pdf

various units available on aliexpress

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003108125432.html ($40 modbus and serial)

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32788633914.html ($52 i2c and SPI)

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001698153630.html ($18.50 i2c and SPI)

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33027469995.html ($30 serial variation based on stm32)

With a 200 count cycle it sports a range of +/- 800uT and a noise floor of 15nT (you can get this down to 10nT with 400 count super-sampling but any higher super sampling will suffer from some noise source that can be removed by further super sampling). At a cycle count of 200 you can get 430 samples a second and at a cycle count of 400 I think you could get ~200 samples a second. This isn't bad as most of these coils are going to be driven at around 30-100 hz so your going to get at least 2-4 samples per cycle at at at least 15nT and you can trade off resolution for speed if you want to. I'm planning to build a small array to test with a coil to try and get some volumetric data. (when my coil is ready).

Expand full comment
author

Fantastic find Peter, please keep us updated on your build.

Expand full comment
Sep 8, 2022·edited Sep 8, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Hey Guys, so I have a bunch of the sensors. They appear very good. I can recommend them. If anyone wants specific sample data let me know. I am able to easily detect a 8mm by 3mm neodymium magnet rotating about 1 meter from the sensor sampling at 330 cycles per second with 100 cycle count averaging. One can also trade off precision for speed by going at up to 555 cycles per second on all 3 axis with 50 cycle count averaging. Also one can set the registers to undocumented values and get up to 2200 cycles per second on all 3 axis with 10 cycle count averaging. I suspect if one were to only poll a single axis one could probably push it slightly faster to ~4000 cycles per second with 1 axis 5 cycle count averaging (but I haven't tested it and this would be pushing the 1mhz SPI bus limit to near saturation for a single sensor). I ran some frequency analysis on the values coming out and with 2200 cycles per second I was able to easily resolve a 500 hz signal, going to less than 4 samples per cycle causes more obvious moire patterns in the obtained data. If one wanted to run 10 sensors at 500 cycles per second I believe it could be done using a single micro-controller. If one wanted more than 10 sensors I think you would either need multiple SPI bus' or multiple micro controllers. The cheapest price to obtain them appears to be around $17 on aliexpress. The only potential downsides of these I can see so far are 1) you are limited to less than 500hz magnetic signal frequency (even if you use undocumented register values) 2) I don't know if they are designed to handle large magnetic fields without damaging (one of my sensors I put next to a really big coil is giving quite afew bad readouts that I need to later post-filter) 3) they aren't going to detect "scalar"/mtor radiation by themselves.

Expand full comment
author

This is great news, Peter, I will include this in the next Bagel Update.

"Fractal Woman" (avatar on YouTube) is currently building a simulation model and will include this also.

I have some major updates related to this that I intend to make part of a presentation this weekend.

Expand full comment
Sep 8, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Awesome! I look forward to it. Follow whatever your intuition tells you to do first :)

Expand full comment
author

It is honestly mind boggling all the "mysteries" this solves in a REALLY TRIVIAL way.

Expand full comment

Research Proposals

How hard would it be to organize some tests in & around the phantom coil in operation, as well as the latent phantom itself, as follows:

-Check for temporal anomalies

--Both mechanical & electronic timing devices, please )

--Also, check for phase anomalies & disparity, electronically.

--Mechanical clock tests will need to be run in sets, turning the clock on the X,Y,Z axis, to run the test in all axial permutations, and then averaged to cancel-out any magnetic biases on the timing springs, etc...

-Check for changes in incandesence & spectrography responses.

-Check for changes in mass & gravity in & around the phantoms.

-Check for changes in blood in-vitro. ( Kali LOVES blood... )

-Check for changes in growth & consumption rates ( Mother & Devourer... )

-Check for changes in phantom itself in response to emotion & conscious attention:

--Changes in longevity of the phantom itself

--Changes in amplitude, frequency, phase, other electrical coefficients.

-Check for increased uncertainty ( She's also called chaos... )

-How hard is it to check for changes in Neutron decay?

Full article: https://baronarcanus.substack.com/p/the-electromagnetic-phantom-as-a?s=w

Expand full comment
author

Of the permutations of coils, 2 will produce phantoms. This is the first course of work.

Expand full comment
Jun 11, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

Any idea what might happen with Hg 199 torus core?

Expand full comment
author

Well, it would need to be supported!

Expand full comment

Inside a plastic torus? or if required perhaps a thin metal tube torus? Not all toruses, just the largest one - larger is easier to work with.

Expand full comment

A better process than laser sintering (metal or nylon), may be Binder Jetting in steel/bronze. Here is the page on Shapeways describing it. https://www.shapeways.com/3d-print-material-technology/binder-jetting

This may be capable of 'wire' sizes between 1 and 2 mm. See the minimum dimension specs listed. Binder Jetting produces objects that are 60% stainless steel and 40% bronze matrix material. The initial print is 'green' and somewhat fragile, until it is heated and the steel particles fuse with 40% internal space. The part is then infused with bronze to fill the remaining space.

https://www.shapeways.com/materials/steel

My understanding of DMLS is that it MAY require support struts, which would be difficult if not impossible.

https://www.shapeways.com/materials/aluminum

Expand full comment

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This might be a good option for third degree torus. The only limitation appears to be the build volume which maxes out at 89mmx89mmx110mm. Given a 1mm wire width you could fit a D-4D third degree torus in that with a 64mm diameter. I priced some of them in my reply to your other comment they all work out to between $30 and $40 + shipping which isn't too bad :) I do think for $40 it might be almost worth it to just wind the third degree coil by hand as it would *only* have like 1728 turns for a 12x12x12 :D I want to build a coil winding machine already hahaha :)

Expand full comment

I'm not sure about the cost benefit because I can post and publish in private and public via github pages, so I don't feel this is necessary but thank you.

Can we setup a free slack channel or two, not for a forum but just collaboration?

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2022·edited Jun 13, 2022

Hi Bob, I just built two 4-tors and have a question, should the ferrite cores in each level be connected, the main ring with the smaller core, with the smaller core, or each left separate to their respective level?

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

I just read in your comments above to avoid ferrite cores? I may have missed where that was discussed, I thought they were supposed to have that.

Expand full comment
author

We don't know, Zhvirblis and Nevessky do not mention them and in Zhvirblis photo, they are not apparent.

Personally I do not think it should be there as we are not trying to focus the fields, but allow them to self-organise.

When we find the right L/R combinations that produce one or other of the potential effects, then we can see if it is better or worse if there is a core or not.

Expand full comment
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 15, 2022

I've done a few tests now with a bifilar wound LL-RR 4-tor, and a RR-LL 4-tor with normal winding, both with ferrite cores (steel wire), and a brand new Tri-field meter, and found no EM phantoms. https://imgur.com/a/5TRJQc0

The configurations used were;

Inductive bifilar, 7-30Hz (24v, 150W)

Non-inductive bifilar (scalar) 7-30Hz

Powered with straight DC (24v, 15A supply)

Powered with direct wall voltage (115v, 15A, 50Hz)

Powered separately, then together.

I also tried powering them with a 15KV 30mA neon ballast transformer, with balanced output (0 and 180 phase), but got nothing. Tried one phase through one winding and the 180 phase through the other, to create a cancelling ("scalar") field, and also combining the windings, putting one phase in one side, and the opposite phase in the other (as used to power neon tubes), but nothing.

I will try two-phase power to the large one since it is double wound, but I doubt there will be any anomalies if it didn't work so far.

Expand full comment
author

These are beautiful and impressively made bagels. This is good data that you have shared, though it may be more due to the inability of the Tri-Field meter. Until we can get Fluxgate magnetometers on a range of coil configurations, we cannot know if these bagels, the bagel configurations or the sensors are the reason for discrepancy.

As said previously, I do not believe that Fe or ferromagnetic bearing core is needed and indeed may prevent formation of phantoms. Henk has seen no phantoms, but has recorded some strange behaviour with his Tri-field. Cosmic Dave reports phantoms with only the 1T having a core but no phantoms without. He has a different type of meter and we need to understand what type in case it works in a different way to the tri-field.

I am impressed you did bifilar windings, something that I considered, but one must replicate the claimants claim before extending it.

Expand full comment
Jun 15, 2022·edited Jun 15, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer

I agree, but figured with the bifilar winding you can still connect both ends together and run it as one winding, either way, I will remove the cores from the 2nd and 3rd level and try again. The meters are finicky, if you are holding it or moving it around while doing the measurement, it can give false readings.

Expand full comment
author

This is very true.

Bob

Expand full comment

Lovely work Phil, great to see...👍

Expand full comment
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022

I just had an intuition that I feel may be worth mentioning. (no idea if it's correct or not). What if the reason some people where noticing an increase/presence of the effect with the ferite core was because it was setting up a persistence to the magnetic field, which then was later opposed by the counter induced magnetic flux loop. I still have a very strong intuition that this is related to the "intersection" of two counter rotating magnetic flux loops torous. Some channeled materials from various sources have I believe said this (for example CA mentions it from 26 to 31 min in this video https://youtu.be/EWlBno92CFg?t=1560 regarding double merkeba). Perhaps the ferrous core in combination with AC is just a simple mechanism of facilitating this without needing multiple sets of counter wound coils (which would be difficult to do). The counter wound configuration is used by many scalar healing systems and also would I think in theory be similar to the counter rotating magnetic disks used by Searl etc. I think this may tie into the comment by Michael below about the natural equivalent phenomenon probably involving DC, and questioning why are we pursuing AC. Even the bell allegedly used pulsed DC, or at least the power plant that allegedly fed it was using DC, and the gauge of the wires lead several researchers to think it was DC cabling connected to the power plant. Anyways just some points for consideration. I would be on the lookout for evidence of colliding donuts :)

Expand full comment

I was wondering this morning: I expect Nature's EVO's are DC current, so why are we bothering with AC on these devices?

Expand full comment
author

Hi Michael,

In the conclusion of Ken Shoulder's book "EV-A Tale of Discovery", he notes that EVOs are "Oscillating monopoles"

Zhverblis says the test he saw used 30Hz AC, we are attempting replication, best not change anything we already know we know.

Expand full comment

the N-Torus/phantom topology clearly alternates... it just alternates inwards/concentrically, instead of linearly. Read my article below. ;-)

https://baronarcanus.substack.com/p/the-electromagnetic-phantom-as-a?s=w

(Bob I bet has a good academic, as opposed to electrodynamic, reckoning of this.)

Expand full comment