Spiral Vortex Technology

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Spiral Vortex Technology

[youtube:3kmhzfsg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xeAEL9OFc[/youtube]3kmhzfsg]

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Interesting intro to Walter Russell's Physics and Book  ( he was a friend of Tesla -- Einstein tried hard to debunk Russell's work):

[youtube:22qof1uc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wn5DRII0RA[/youtube]22qof1uc]

[jai_mann]

Crazy you would bring up Russell. I got a pdf of his work a week or two ago and spent some time going through it. I'm not entirely sure about some of what he raised, but the bulk of it appears well founded, and is probably part of the tail end of the victorian era science, which was the tail end of honest, non-centralized/controlled science.

EDIT:
Walter_Russell-The_Universal_One-_Alchemy_Chemistry_.pdf
http://bit.ly/90AEyS

[Wimpy]

Crazy you would bring up Russell. I got a pdf of his work a week or two ago and spent some time going through it. I'm not entirely sure about some of what he raised, but the bulk of it appears well founded, and is probably part of the tail end of the victorian era science, which was the tail end of honest, non-centralized/controlled science.

EDIT:
Walter_Russell-The_Universal_One-_Alchemy_Chemistry_.pdf
http://bit.ly/90AEyS

Thanks jai-mann; downloaded!

[DieDaily]

I just read Walter Russell's book. It's very easy to venerate our forefather scientists, and I think it's often well deserved, as in the case of Tesla. But Russell's book is in no way really a book of science, and it doesn't contain any "theories" in the sense that we can ever use them for science. There are hundreds, thousands really, of untestable philosophical statements in the book, many of which are fascinating and thought provoking, some of which are patently absurd, almost all of which are essentially religious or spiritual. These philosophical meanderings, or poetry if you will, is about 90% of the book. The remaining 10% is fascinating charts and tables. These, while of no possible practical value whatsoever, are very interesing as visualizations. In short they are taxonomic, they are organizations of things, really cool neat organizations in many cases, but I found not one instance in which these visualizations offered a theory in the sense of one that could be used for doing science or for engineering technology. I found nothing that was scientifically apprehensible in terms of WHY or HOW the things which he is organizing into these charts actually work. His basic explanation, is God and Thought. Fair enough, I suppose, but in no way science or technology.

Sadly, there were often glaring errors and assertions that are just terribly ignorant and wrong. So many hundreds of them. For instance he states that lightning strikes downward due to gravity, and many, many such crazy things. Scores and scores of times his conjectures are due to ignorance of the actual scientific theories of his day. Again just one example from p. 128 where he used the fact that "Every Physicist knows...that light directed against a metallic plate will increase its positive charge", to argue a bunch of mumbling that makes no sense about the light itself having a property of charge or something convertible into charge. But in reality, the Photoelectric effect was known of by, to borrow his term, "Every Physicist" by the late 1800s. The light simply dislodges electrons from the surface (and not just of metals). So basic, a real no-brainer, even at the time. Again and again he confuses his model of things (which is a strictly taxonomy, no causation or first principles at all...ever) with the things themselves and process that govern them.

His notion that "all motion is spiral" is also patently wrong. Just like the absurd pseudo-mathematical tail-chasings of Tom Bearden in his goofy versions of aether theories completely fail to explain polarization. Think about Spiral motion cannot be polarized, nor can any pressure (scalar) waves in any fluid-like media, ever. When light passes through slits it polarizes along the direction of the slit, all other transverse components are wiped out. No theory that fails to account for this is worth anything. Tom Bearden gets hit with this all time and he just goes ape-aloo and starts hurling abuse at whoever dares to point it out! It's quite funny! Actual scientists, on the other hand, know that any theory is either wrong or at least incomplete ANY TIME an observed phenomenon contradicts it. That's why modern cosmology is so retarded...they keep stretching the theory to fit the facts that constantly didn't fit it. Cosmology needs to be almost completely reinvented.

But don't get mad at me, Tesla enthusiasts, I an no establishment mouthpiece. I definitely do think that there is an aether of sorts. Einstein went against the idea but it never really died and many better scientists than he held onto it firmly. The Michealson-Morley experiments did not really disprove it at all, nor were their results nearly as consistent and repeatable as establishment science would have us believe. I certainly don't believe there was a bing bang, and neither did Hubble, it was a sneaky Catholic invention and quickly became beloved of Rabbis too, as it "validated" their Torah! I do think the present Heaviside corruptions of Maxwell's equations are in fact missing their original vortical terms and that "scalar waves" are therefore a reality, and that near-field antenna effects basically prove this. I am confident that many aspects of the Electrical Universe and Photonic Matter models are indeed vastly superior to our present lousy state of dogma in cosmology and electrodynamics. Con-men like Tom Bearden who try and whore-out Faraday's and Tesla's brilliance for cash and fame as well as well-meaning fools like W. Russell who just don't know any better, don't help those of us who are serious about understanding and promoting these ideas. Even some of the more serious people like Meyl sometimes hurt us when they make claims that go well beyond what they have actually proven, although his work is often pretty good.

As a scientist I'm delighted that people are taking an interest in alternative science. But I'm appalled when I see things like Russell's book being lauded as in any way solid or scientific. I am always willing and eager to talk science with anyone. The nice thing about science is that I can be proved wrong on any point I make and then I would HAVE to change my position. But please guys, it's not a game of "gee, that sounds cool, it must be true"...you gotta know some science or interact with someone who does or else you're just playing at religion, or picking the coolest-seeming guru or fairy tale. I promise I'll take the time to help anyone here who has questions about science, particularly Mathematics or Physics. There really are some valid alternative theories even though nine out of ten are bogus. While no question is a stupid question, making decisions about what scientific theories are true and false without doing some actual science would be really, really, really stupid indeed.

[jai_mann]

You're either a jew or a highly attitude conditioned individual. Your attitude clearly expresses condescension. If you're a jew, then that's the be expected, but if you're a gentile, then it really makes you look bad. Either way, there's little to no productive value in communicating with you.

Don't bother us morons, we're too busy being moronic. :crazy:

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

You're either a jew or a highly attitude conditioned individual. Your attitude clearly expresses condescension. If you're a jew, then that's the be expected, but if you're a gentile, then it really makes you look bad. Either way, there's little to no productive value in communicating with you.

Don't bother us morons, we're too busy being moronic. :crazy:

Yep jai-mann, he sounds "Jewish" that's for sure.  I don't know if DieDay realizes it though.

Let's give him a list to debunk. Here's one making the rounds:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Q ... hanics.htm

Studying "how concepts" came to be in Science, and shared, is part of TIU.  I seriously think there are major flaws in most Cosmologies, hence, "concepts" are continually debunked, over thrown, or dismissed. As for Walter Russell, he made contributions for his time. Whether they are important in determining a modern Cosmology, I won't hold my breath for the expensive,  institutions of "Jewish" physics to figure it out -- there's too much money to be made and reputations to promote.

[DieDaily]

Ok, so then you guys are saying that the only way to be safe from the evil jew is to shun all scientific thought...whoah! Ok, then! As for the vortex machine, it's simple. It makes things go very very very fast and reach very very very high pressures at the extremities of the vortex and that makes damn near anything go smashy smashy. Hope that was a non-jewish enough explanation, whatever that is!

P.S. I'm gentile. And sorry for sounding condescending. I'll try to keep my posts much less technical if that would help to get through. Science-geeks like me like to talk about the things we've studied. Sometimes we misjudge others by thinking they're as interested in it as we are. It's always a bit of a shock to get called a witch, I guess. I hope you'll agree it's an honest mistake and keep the pitchforks and burning torches to a minimum!

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

I think you misunderstand. Explain what you want in the way you want, ratch-up the technical if you like. Use equations even. However, there has been enormous research conducted throughout the 20th century and funded by "gentiles",  and at the end of the road, many great discoveries get misappropriated by Jews. They always have a weird "hand" in things, or shaping ideas and beliefs, in areas where they shouldn't.  

Finally, if you are a gentile, then act like one and wise up. "Chuckle" at Walter Russell instead of getting suddenly "intense".

Anyway, FWIW, it seems like Russell went entirely "spiritual" in the late 1940s after meeting his second wife, a Christian Scientist.

[jai_mann]

Ok, so then you guys are saying that the only way to be safe from the evil jew is to shun all scientific thought...whoah!

You claim to promote science yet draw a blatant non sequitur to our responses. You're just reinforcing that you're either a jew or some one who is heavily conditioned. I still lean towards the former given the entirety of your verbal responses. The time consumed by being suckered in to "debating" a jew is a complete waste. The degree of attitude conditioning, which an individual expresses, is directly related to the amount of time that would be required to eliminate the conditioning. If the individual expresses the motivation for eliminating the conditioning, then it is less likely to be a waste of time if one helps that individual.

Rational thought is not some thing people with degrees have a monopoly on...but you can pretend, if it makes you feel better...

P.S. I'm gentile. And sorry for sounding condescending. I'll try to keep my posts much less technical if that would help to get through. Science-geeks like me like to talk about the things we've studied. Sometimes we misjudge others by thinking they're as interested in it as we are. It's always a bit of a shock to get called a witch, I guess. I hope you'll agree it's an honest mistake and keep the pitchforks and burning torches to a minimum!

Who you are will have to be determined based on your interactions since you can not be physically viewed. And you don't "sound" condescending. You ARE condescending. Your posts are entirely baited to get individuals into debates with you and there's nothing subtle about it.

Like I told the troll Inpho, who eventually got banned, be happy I'm not a mod or I would have banned you as of this post.  

Now that that's out of the way I can git bak to beeing moronic... :crazy:

[Wimpy]

Ok, so then you guys are saying that the only way to be safe from the evil jew is to shun all scientific thought...whoah! Ok, then! As for the vortex machine, it's simple. It makes things go very very very fast and reach very very very high pressures at the extremities of the vortex and that makes damn near anything go smashy smashy. Hope that was a non-jewish enough explanation, whatever that is!

P.S. I'm gentile. And sorry for sounding condescending. I'll try to keep my posts much less technical if that would help to get through. Science-geeks like me like to talk about the things we've studied. Sometimes we misjudge others by thinking they're as interested in it as we are. It's always a bit of a shock to get called a witch, I guess. I hope you'll agree it's an honest mistake and keep the pitchforks and burning torches to a minimum!

Your essentially correct in your assessment of the Vortex Machine when you describe what it does.  I've spent 30 years designing electro-mechanical systems which included all phases of the process: research, electrical and structural analysis, product fabrication, catalog product integration, installation, programming, testing and then final production.  In fact I have been directly involved with impeller designs and their fabrication that look very much like that shown in the video.  I have researched, selected, and programmed Variable Frequency Drives identical to the one shown in the video.  I have researched, selected and specified foot-mounted bearing identical to the ones shown in the video, as well as the electric motor.

I believe that  researchers and scientists often do themselves a disservice when they neglect to fully understand all aspects of their field of study, including the physical and practical application of this knowledge.  I have observed  this type of behavior through the years, where theoretical minded and 'book-smart' individuals entirely lack the experience gained from the  practical application of this knowledge.  They are, IMHO, missing the joy of the entire process.  

Not only do I understand this machine and the physics involved, I could build one from scratch and make it work.  I doubt that you could (I could be wrong   :think: )  and that's why I am so disappointed with your arrogance.  Not only is arrogance socially repugnant but, sadly, you  haven't even earned the odious distinction.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Not only do I understand this machine and the physics involved, I could build one from scratch and make it work. I doubt that you could (I could be wrong :think: ) and that's why I am so disappointed with your arrogance. Not only is arrogance socially repugnant but, sadly, you haven't even earned the odious distinction.

Speaking from the perspective of one who doesn't really know jack sh*t about science, I didn't pick up on the arrogance so much.  I notice that the three who did are from a more technical background.  That's kind of interesting. I wonder if I come off as arrogant sometimes.

I am willing to take DieDaily at his word, and also take the time time to say: Welcome to TIU!

We are actually very friendly here, and I am sure all of us would get along famously if we were having a chat in Ognir's basement.  It seems that everyone on this thread is a tad suspicious of the post-Maxwell, or should I say Einsteinian Universe.  The early departure of the aether model seems to have left a large, black hole in the grand scheme of things.  

When I first saw the video, I got interested and downloaded the books.  Then I read Die's post, and felt sad that I had wasted my time.  And it's not like he didn't READ the book. Die says that the book has problems and that he is willing to discuss them.  That's what I thought science is supposed to be:

One scientist does an experiment, and he says, "X is made of B."
Then another scientist looks at the results and spots an error.  The second scientist says to the first, "Hey, you stupid motherf*cker.  You totally *ssed this up."
And the first scientist will review his findings. Maybe he will agree with scientist 2, or maybe he will say, "Prove me wrong, you dumb son of a b*tch."
So then the second scientist will think of an experiment that will prove that scientist 1 was wrong. After doing so, scientist 2 will publish his findings in a scientific journal, and all the scientists will read it and say, "Scientist 2 totally pwned scientist 1.  Scientist 1 s*cks b*alls!"
That's what I always thought science was about. But I really don't know.

[Wimpy]

Speaking from the perspective of one who doesn't really know jack sh*t about science, I didn't pick up on the arrogance so much. I notice that the three who did are from a more technical background. That's kind of interesting. I wonder if I come off as arrogant sometimes.

Never sensed any arrogance from you Christopher; only great humor, admirable religious conviction and a brilliant ability with the written word.

I have given a previous "Bravo" to one of DieDaily's posts so I hope I'm not coming across as perhaps too capricious.  But, speaking of the Walter Russell book, it was written at the dawn of modern science.  It's easy to dissect and criticize his work now but back then it was truly a fine interwoven theory that seems, to me, ahead of it's time and even worth pondering much further.  In fact, portions of his theory of elements and his wave cycle have gotten me thinking quite a bit.  The other day I read where a new stable element has been isolated from gold with atomic weight 111: very rare but stable.  It would be interesting to see, when I pull up the book again, where this "new" surprise element shows up on Russell's wave chart.

I know that by pointing out my strengths I, too, come across as a putz (jewish vernacular ya know).  I believe my intent was to illustrate that he need not enter a new forum like a bull in a china shop but rather ease up a bit; he's not talking to naive children but peers.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Never sensed any arrogance from you Christopher; only great humor, admirable religious conviction and a brilliant ability with the written word.

[DieDaily]

Wimpy and Christopher Marlow, I'm really happy and turned-on by your responses, and they deserve the most careful consideration and respectful reply. I would start out by repeating from my first post in this thread that, while I liked Walter Russell's book as an uplifting spiritual manifesto, I couldn't abide by the notion that it was in any way scientific, let alone rational. It was outwardly "formal", and as I said it was "taxonomic", and even in this aspect I repeatedly said I enjoyed it, but I did react badly to the assertion by other posters that it was science. That plain and simply made me sad. The educational system today is in shambles and, while I rose above it, I just feel that it's a tragedy that most people these days don't know how to think about science, and I guess by that I mean that they just can't even conceive of what it is to think critically, to engage in systematic skepticism. They bleat that "the orthodoxy is fucked" (which it is) and so they then think that this makes them skeptical. It's just not true. Skepticism starts with self-skepticism and then builds. It's exactly the same as love for others starts with self-love, the latter being completely impossible in practice without the former. I guess I did probably make it sound like I thought they were disabled, and in a sense they are disabled, but my intention is not to wound and maybe I should have cushioned my words. Sorry again about the tone of my post if it was so offensive, I truly neither meant it to be that way purely for the sake of being offensive, nor expected the primitive response I got. It was a little surprising, even though I've been shot down for talking about thinking rigorously sometimes in the past.

When you take into account when Walter Russell was writing then it may seem that it ought to be overlooked/forgiven that he butchered the ideas of which speaks. Maybe we should applaud and embrace the fact that he ended up, basically, a Scientific Illuminist and a would-be New Age Prophet. But Wimpy is this apology that you make of his work entirely fair? Tesla and Faraday, Maxwell, Fermi, Galileo and Newton, and, really, countless others, thousands to be sure, were also equally tempted by their own prowess and unusual vision, to suck up into their own egos and wax senile like Russell did. Yet, somehow they resisted and instead produced continuously and almost exclusively hard-core, bad-ass, and uncompromising science and engineering. They keep me in awe to this day. They knew so much yet they had so little (compared to now) to go on. They were never guilty of writing the sort of puerile, mush-headed rubbish in Russell's book. (Again, Russell's book is not rubbish in terms of a New Age, Illuminist spiritual treatise, but it's about the farthest thing from Science one could imagine). It's no great feat to get sucked into your own model. It's a great feat to stay skeptical.

jai_man for instance, said "You don't sound condescending, you ARE condescending". But is this true? When I run into someone who's knowledge seems to be there, and I myself am less knowledgeable, I zone in on that person like crazy. If I meet a chess player who can whip my ass, I play and play him, if he will let me. This is science. If ever I found myself feeling angry and threatened by it, I would have to ask myself what the deal was. Science is not politics. It is real. It can be discussed. If jai_man felt so put off by my entirely debatable points, why did he avoid every single one? Why not go into point-by-point discussion? I cannot be held accountable for the dick-shrivel of those who will not actually talk about the points. I can not help them feel better about themselves. If they study hard (OR EXPERIMENT / BUILD) for hundreds or thousands of hours, then they will feel better in these sorts of discussions, but otherwise, they can't help but play the arrogance card "how dare you talk about something I don't understand". But have they ever soldered a single circuit? Have they so much as built a barn? Very, very doubtful, for if they had, they would not have experience such profound dick-shrivel. It is important, in discussion of science, to stick to the science. Otherwise there really is no hope for the dream of a common language of ideas. The great adversary in this is educational system. My candid discussions of the quackery in Russell's book were not designed to hurt, but I hope that once in a while they will jar and maybe spur someone out of their sleep. The sleepy notion that we can arrive at emotional conclusions about science is something I've never, ever seen work out well in the field, the lab or even in theoretical pursuits of truth.

Wimpy: in your reply including "I've spent 30 years designing electro-mechanical systems ..." I can see that you are obviously on top of these issues. It is with true excitement that I look forward to exchanging ideas with you. But if I may say: so where in my initial post did I make a single technical oversight? (Not saying I didn't, but WHERE?) I myself am involved in micro-turbine design. While I am not an engineer per se, I'm no fucking book-jockey, you can rest assured. One of my hobbies is designing EDF aircraft and they fly well, in addition to looking really cool. Some of the turbines I've designed I did in working 8:1 scale Styrofoam models. I vacuum bag my own wings after I design them as purpose-built airfoils and cut them with my own hand-made NiChrome wire bow. Also, my initial employment as a Physics researcher was in modelling fluid dynamics, flow through irregular media, not making up bullshit excuses for failed cosmological models based on apologetic computer models. I quickly abandoned the closed-form approach and developed cellular automaton-based methods which were very lab-like. I was chastised for spending money on aquaria and setting up physical experiments with solvents and dyes to test my model next to my workstation. In the end, while my work was entirely successful and occasionally somewhat ground-breaking, it was largely shunned because closed-form solutions and rigorous proofs were not required. It worked. But it was a huge threat to my colleagues because even 2nd year students were able to understand it. Therefore it could not be valid (they thought). I was told that "I lacked enough education to understand the nuances". They said "your approach is not robust". In one case I was forced to explain to one PhD why how my models could exhibit Lorentz invariance (for plasmas) WHICH IT DID, while at the same time, to a fluid mechanics guy, how it could still obey Stokes-Navier WHICH IT DID. Damned if I could get though to them. But, I asked a simple question: how then could I generate results that they were incapable of arriving at? To this day I am astounded at their single-minded resiliency. It was like they self-censored. I was like a witch, and they were scared. In truth, they felt that if their over-bred, ivory-tower theories were impotent in the face of my in-your-face, let's-get-simple-and-applied, these-really-work models they would have been quickly out of work. They were right about that one thing! You have no idea how common this is in academia (I could be wrong  :think:) but it is truly endemic. Since you know what the fuck you are talking about (hallelujah) then PLEASE bring it on. Not necessarily in conflict, not at all, but in rigor. Let's get down. Let's show the fluoride-addled ones what it is like to ponder and create with real knowledge, rigor, and a no-holds-barred approach that takes for granted that your counterpart isn't some hair-brained, femmy blow-hard that will cry out "Arrogance! Arrogance!" at the first sign of something interesting and contentious that requires he study up. By that I mean: test me. And pass my tests in turn if you can (I mean that with respect and with full confidence that there's a good chance that you can). Would this not make us warrior brothers? Or should we just call each other arrogant and duck the points that the other makes? Your call, but I sense that you are better than that and look toward something a lot more interesting.

Wimpy, also, you have no idea how comical a situation for it is for me that when I'm talking to the scientifically ignorant who fall for every Illuminist, alien, no-planes, exo-galactic, free-energy / alien-tech gimmick, I get called "arrogant", yet when I'm talking to the scientifically arrogant who can't see the forest for the trees of their orthodoxy I get called "ignorant". Well, I'm proud to be called ignorant by those ivory tower fools, and I guess I can't say I'm not too fucking likely to beat myself up for being called arrogant by their science-ignorant opposites/compliments. I don't take you to have made either error, at all. So lets talk some shit out and see what each other is made of. How can this not but be profitable for both of us? For starters, do you seriously think Russell's book is of scientific value? Do you seriously think that I don't think it's of ANY value, spiritually? Why the ambiguous tone? You too should cite something concrete if you're going to be that way. Insinuate? You were pretty fair, but you can do better, namely by being really specific if you have a problem, and spelling out unambiguously what it is that is the problem. This thread is not political, it's supposed to be about science. Let it all hang out, therefore, in clear terms.

Christopher Marlow: bless you. You said "I am willing to take DieDaily at his word, and also take the time time to say: Welcome to TIU! We are actually very friendly here, and I am sure all of us would get along famously if we were having a chat in Ognir's basement." Thank you so much! And, fuck ya, I'd love to get tanked at Ognir's pad, human-to-human, and I bet either we'd all get along just fine or we could resolve our hitches with a few back-yard wrestling matches (drunken wrestling is great and hilarious thing, I think the leaders of the world should resolve wars that way!). And yes, I figured that the ignorant the hate-the-scientist thing was not the norm here, just confined to a few insecure individuals, and I will not certainly judge the site as a whole prematurely based on their whining. For as long as I am allowed to post here I will comment from the heart about spiritual and moral idea and from the intellect about scientific ones. And from the grey area where the two blur, as they sometimes do. As I've said elsewhere, irrationality is useless and counterproductive in every case I can think of, but non-rationality is powerful tool for dealing with non-rational realms. Realitycheck said I could speak my mind here, unlike at ConCen where I was banned twice for opposite reasons one time to the next (once for being perceived as anti-Alex Jones by ctrl, once for being perceived as pro-Lenabese [anti-CIA] by some idiot named Nik). I can deal with being banned from here. In fact I can see that some people like pinoptamus may just ban me. So be it, if it happens, but I truly hope I will be allowed to speak my mind. There is no more pleasurable thing, relations with my wife notwithstanding.

The other day I read where a new stable element has been isolated from gold with atomic weight 111: very rare but stable. It would be interesting to see, when I pull up the book again, where this "new" surprise element shows up on Russell's wave chart.

Now THAT is science. Find that out, or formally request that I do, AND I WILL. I would not be surprised if it did. And if it did? Would so much as one careful word of what I initially said in my comment be affected? And if so, which one? (A: I think none...I admired his charts at length, AS TAXONOMY, but what I said was real and true as far as I know...witch-hunter BS notwithstanding).

As for the likes of jai_man who say "non sequitur". I laugh. Show me one non-sequitur in my posts. Man up. Whining does not a scientific point make...it just exposes your insecurity and fear. What do you fear? BE SPECIFIC.

[Wimpy]

I'm truly glad that you found your way back to TIU.  I felt that we either scared you off or your patience for the less technical had become intolerable.

New ideas and technical discussions are often featured on this site and they do appear to be quite welcome.  Often, the underlying theme of these ideas invariably draws in the topic of zionists and jews; very appropirate seeing the nature of this site and the contributing members.  With that said and looking back to the original post re: Walter Russell, the original intent was a reference to Tesla.  Tesla's ideas were, in large part, scuttled and co-opted and it was suggested that Russell's were too.  I was never introduced to Russell until reading that post and downloading his book.

When you take into account when Walter Russell was writing then it may seem that it ought to be overlooked/forgiven that he butchered the ideas of which speaks. Maybe we should applaud and embrace the fact that he ended up, basically, a Scientific Illuminist and a would-be New Age Prophet. But Wimpy is this apology that you make of his work entirely fair? Tesla and Faraday, Maxwell, Fermi, Galileo and Newton, and, really, countless others, thousands to be sure, were also equally tempted by their own prowess and unusual vision, to suck up into their own egos and wax senile like Russell did. Yet, somehow they resisted and instead produced continuously and almost exclusively hard-core, bad-ass, and uncompromising science and engineering. They keep me in awe to this day.

Russell was more mystical or, even, entirely mystical.  What I had noticed while reviewing his 'element wave chart' (the one showing 10 octaves) were the placement of known and unknown elements, according to their reactive properties, at similar "positions" of respective curves.  As an obvious example, the noble gases were placed at the neutral crossing point of each octave curve, while metals such as silver, gold, palladium and platinum (relatively non-reactive metals) were placed at very similar positions on their curves.  A very dream like and mystical based interpretation.  Hard science must be empirical and repeatable but it is often driven by very bizarre abstract thought obtained from dreams. Quantum leaps of thought have been known to originate from abstract dreams or hallucinogenic fevers,  Russell's ideas and thoughts appear to be of this origin.

The challenge for him and any other scientist who experiences thought as abstract vision, is translating it into empirical or mathematical expression.  Russell, I believe,  failed to accomplish this.  There appears to be some evidence that Newton also struggled with translating abstract thought into hard science.  Overall, he prevailed in regards to hard science but he also spent many years immersed in biblical mysticism and the biblical translation of actual time-lines for the book of revelations.

Wimpy: in your reply including "I've spent 30 years designing electro-mechanical systems ..." I can see that you are obviously on top of these issues. It is with true excitement that I look forward to exchanging ideas with you. But if I may say: so where in my initial post did I make a single technical oversight? (Not saying I didn't, but WHERE?) I myself am involved in micro-turbine design. While I am not an engineer per se, I'm no fucking book-jockey, you can rest assured. One of my hobbies is designing EDF aircraft and they fly well, in addition to looking really cool. Some of the turbines I've designed I did in working 8:1 scale Styrofoam models. I vacuum bag my own wings after I design them as purpose-built airfoils and cut them with my own hand-made NiChrome wire bow. Also, my initial employment as a Physics researcher was in modelling fluid dynamics, flow through irregular media, not making up bullshit excuses for failed cosmological models based on apologetic computer models. I quickly abandoned the closed-form approach and developed cellular automaton-based methods which were very lab-like. I was chastised for spending money on aquaria and setting up physical experiments with solvents and dyes to test my model next to my workstation. In the end, while my work was entirely successful and occasionally somewhat ground-breaking, it was largely shunned because closed-form solutions and rigorous proofs were not required. It worked. But it was a huge threat to my colleagues because even 2nd year students were able to understand it. Therefore it could not be valid (they thought). I was told that "I lacked enough education to understand the nuances". They said "your approach is not robust". In one case I was forced to explain to one PhD why how my models could exhibit Lorentz invariance (for plasmas) WHICH IT DID, while at the same time, to a fluid mechanics guy, how it could still obey Stokes-Navier WHICH IT DID. Damned if I could get though to them. But, I asked a simple question: how then could I generate results that they were incapable of arriving at? To this day I am astounded at their single-minded resiliency. It was like they self-censored. I was like a witch, and they were scared. In truth, they felt that if their over-bred, ivory-tower theories were impotent in the face of my in-your-face, let's-get-simple-and-applied, these-really-work models they would have been quickly out of work. They were right about that one thing! You have no idea how common this is in academia (I could be wrong :think:) but it is truly endemic.

Funny!  I've found the academic community quite intolerant to those introducing 'new' ideas based upon 'their' rules.  Hypocrisy rules and grant money flows.  A thinker and a doer; very nice indeed!

Wimpy, also, you have no idea how comical a situation for it is for me that when I'm talking to the scientifically ignorant who fall for every Illuminist, alien, no-planes, exo-galactic, free-energy / alien-tech gimmick, I get called "arrogant", yet when I'm talking to the scientifically arrogant who can't see the forest for the trees of their orthodoxy I get called "ignorant". Well, I'm proud to be called ignorant by those ivory tower fools, and I guess I can't say I'm not too fucking likely to beat myself up for being called arrogant by their science-ignorant opposites/compliments. I don't take you to have made either error, at all. So lets talk some shit out and see what each other is made of. How can this not but be profitable for both of us? For starters, do you seriously think Russell's book is of scientific value? Do you seriously think that I don't think it's of ANY value, spiritually? Why the ambiguous tone? You too should cite something concrete if you're going to be that way. Insinuate? You were pretty fair, but you can do better, namely by being really specific if you have a problem, and spelling out unambiguously what it is that is the problem. This thread is not political, it's supposed to be about science. Let it all hang out, therefore, in clear terms.

I highlighted your words which I found to be "arrogant". ""go very very very fast and reach very very very high pressures at the extremities of the vortex and that makes damn near anything go smashy smashy. Hope that was a non-jewish enough explanation, whatever that is!""   Maybe I could have used better word(s) like, cocky or defiant or even 'exaggerated facetiousness'.  Don't feed me some argument that this reflects acceptable scientific vernacular.  If you have the knowledge, which you do, then let it speaks for itself.  If you know it and it is truth then to hell with the possible arrogance accusations.

I am ignorant about many topics but I am willing and able to learn and educate myself beyond ignorance.  Most here are.  We appreciate a thoughtful exchange of ideas and, I think, we all learn something new regularly.  Obviously you have much knowledge to share, as do others here on this forum, but there is a hope that this knowledge stays somewhat on topic as to the purpose of this forum: "Anti-Zionist Think Tank".  We have all strayed on more than one occasion but it is the primary intent.

Welcome!, and I certainly look forward to your insights and contributions.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

FWIW, I just posted the Russell because it was a suggested site on Youtube next to the Windhexe machine vid. I clicked it and posted it.
That is what I'd really like to focus on with this thread.

Sorry for the rough start... often times on various forums... I have seen J-Tribers go out their way to basically disregard "goy" science and scientists. Russell obviously was an early 20th century researcher and did not develop a cosmology grounded in modern physics-- i.e., repeatable and predictable.
 
Welcome to TIU, DieDaily. --CSR

--------
Here's a related article on the effects of a Vortex.  Note Keeley is mentioned so no need to explain why Keeley is not laboratory ready.  

Vortex technology applicable to biosolids

ABSTRACT. This paper relates to a technology applicable to biosolids processing. High speed photography has revealed reverse vortices within the apparatus. Disruption caused by the action within vortices and reverse vortices, in a cyclonic air-stream, together with the shearing action of an impeller's blades may alter the chemical structure of water. It may dissociate water, and release : ozone; N2; hydroxide ions; hydrogen radicals; hydrogen peroxide; oxidised hydrogen protons; and various oxygen compounds (with high and low Rydberg states). Hydrogen and negatively charged oxygen molecules could have their molecular structures altered by breaking their covalent sigma bond. (It will also comminute material containing oxygen.) This technology has processed and treated sewage containing 21% dry solids. The powdered product contained up to 95% dry solid.

Keywords: Atomic, Cavitation, Dissociation, Electron, Implosion,

Quantum, Standing-wave, Torsion, Vacuum, Vortex.

 

Dr M W Youds Ph.D., B.A.TH (Hons). Inventor of a non-commercialised fireproof product made entirely from waste material. His research interests include Vortexian physics and theological quantum cosmology. He is the granted Patent holder of a device for altering the crystalline structure of gypsum, with 4 on-going applications for other technologies related to this paper. In his capacity as the science officer for Lodestone Technology, he is currently working on 3 research projects centred around the Coal Research Establishment (CRE) in Cheltenham - 'Brite-Euram' (comminution of quarry fines), ECSC (coal and steel), and ETSU (investigating the resulting energy savings from this technology). In a personal capacity, and as a Director of Helix Comminutions and Newco Sewage, he has travelled widely in his investigation of vortex technology. This paper outlines his Vortexian theory.

2 Youds

INTRODUCTION

The apparatus consists of a high speed motor attached to an impeller rotor suction fan which rotates horizontally or vertically, contained in a housing, attached to which is a conical section. The conical section is attached to an inlet. This inlet tube is parallel, in line with the fan axis, and can be mounted horizontally or vertically. With a potential 'solenoid' field, a 25.4 mm metal ring, preferably made of brass, is located at the inlet to the rotor. The vanes and the ring can make mechanical energy from the kinetic and thermal energy stored in liquids. A rotor will preferably have a diameter of 612 mm - requiring a motor in the order of 200Kw, with impeller speeds up to 7222 rpm. A cyclone further enhances the process and may be used for controlling flocculation and precipitation, together with the effect of providing the necessary back-pressure required for optimum configuration of the invention.

Configuration of Apparatus

A formula is used to determine the rotor's RPM and the length of the inlet tube - outlined later. All parts of the invention have relative dimensions to the other parts when the required standing wave is obtained, together with the following: fundamental frequencies; dominants; diatonics; harmonics; enharmonics; or sympathetic resonating isochronous wave vibrations thereof : 1 - 3 Hz; 7.24 to 10.17 Hz; 13 to 990 Hz; 27,618 Hz to 45,696 Hz.

For the processing of material to be realised, the resonant acoustics of the medium must be ascertained - i.e. its ultra-sonic frequency value and sonic frequency value. This is neither 'Acoustophoresis' nor 'Electrophoresis', nevertheless those skilled in the art of Acoustophoresis could also identify the necessary values (representative - no external source actually creates the frequencies and in their terms the 'sonic value' would only be a three digit 'division' of the first acoustic). Indeed, NASA patented [1] an invention in which, ' ...the second acoustic wave can be tuned to a frequency different from that of the first (acoustic wave), and to a different amplitude thereby producing a high resolution "shearing" of the liquid into its separate species'. [2]

If a wide range of frequencies and vibrations are created within the conduit, a hexagonal (assumed shape) lattice of superconductive vorticles, which can create 'Cooper Pairs' of electrons within 'Soliton' waves when the correct frequencies are input (explained later, in the formula), and non-superconductive powerful vortices are created in the air stream. This sets up pulses without and within a standing wave configuration within the system. Vorticles containing quasi single pole quantum singularities could therefore be created in the cyclonic air stream.

EMPIRICAL

High speed video photography, taken by the IMC group, from inside the conical section / rotor, has successfully recorded the existence of the reverse vortices, whose growth and stability will depend upon the interrupter's peaks' gradient velocity.

Dissociation, Empirical, Cavitation 3

Furthermore, after tests conducted at CRE, by IMC, the harmonic spectra data supplied by IMC proved that the apparatus generated ultrasonic frequencies.

The more energy that went into forming rock, the greater the comminution potential. However, the opposite is the case for dissociation. The greater the energy input to the sewage, the less the dissociation potential e.g. it is unlikely that many types of river-bed silt would dissociate adequately for commercial purposes and neither would heavily plasticised sewage. (The ideal sewage, known to date, would be centrifuged and transported without the aid of a screw-feed device.) Polymers, particularly in combination with other polymers, would also restrict the performance of the technology. The energy release from the electrons - outlined later - would be severely reduced because their spatial motion would be restricted by the polymer. This novel invention has processed and treated centrifuged sewage containing 21% dry solids, at a rate of between 3800 Kg and 4100 kg per hour. The powdered product was between 68% and 95% dry solid. (CRE have confirmed that cattle manure was pathogen free.)

Note: Conventional comminution energy costs are 5 times higher, by comparison, than this invention. When the apparatus, configurated according to my patent application, processed 25.4 mm lumps of rock at a rate of 18 tons per hour there was no significant wear on the steel rotor.


THEORY BEHIND THE PROCESSES

Cavitation

'When subject to intense sound waves, liquids can be stretched until they break and gas bubbles appear' [3]. During particle cavitation ionisation occurs, and certain electrons give up thousands of electron volts to produce heat. At this point, the apex of certain vortices are going faster, reducing frictional resistance, increasing the density, and reducing the temperature, therefore, the magnetic field strength will increase. An acoustic pressure amplifying oscillation and intensifying vibrational ultrasonic wave travelling through the ions produce an extremely large sound pressure level, increasing the temperature on a micro level by many thousands of degrees, but not more than 10 degrees overall. (This occurs in a 'boundary envelope', located in the 'boundary cylinder' - to be explained later.)

At this moment (of the 'critical frequency combination of pulsed wave intensity') of superposition between the 'sub-critical harmonic particles combination intensity' waves of phased and out of phase particles, either explosions and / or implosions [depending on the medium] take place together with an increase in heat. In this locality is situated a resonating two-dimensional (due to an ellipsoidal time harmonic function, relative to its dimension in space) convex complex pitch discharging 'corona' - hereafter referred to as the 'corona'. This is not sonoluminescence, although there are similarities (with Chemiluminescence also).

The 'corona', whose nearby electric field is a time harmonic solution of Laplace's equations in spherical co-ordinates which also interacts with a magnetic field, hermetically seals the high pressure sound level inside the 'boundary envelope'.

4 Youds

The 'corona' is situated at the apex of a leaning reverse vortex, whose convex base emanates from the interrupter. A vacuum is created between the concave part of the interrupter and the convex base of the vortex. The interrupter is another high frequency, high amplitude, resonating complex pitch generator. Whilst rotating at speed, the leaning reverse vortex creates a 'cylindrical boundary shape', with a resonating calibre base. The base calibre depends on the length 'C' of the 'cylinder', as the diameter of its base is exactly the length of the 'cylinder' divided by Pi. The resonating calibre also produces a complex feedback loop in the 'boundary layer' of the 'cylindrical shape', which assists in breaking down the anti-nucleation energy barrier. (The apex of a 'boundary envelope' is located inside the 'boundary cylinder'.) Therefore, a great deal of potential energy is obtained from the high volume resonating complex pitch of the frequencies (when the cavitation heterogeneous [due to dopants] nucleation bubble expands) at the precise moment the kinetic energy is being concentrated (when the cavitation bubble explodes).

Dissociation

Dissociation of water, due to an electron flow vibration - to form hydroxide ions; negative hydroxyl ions; hydrogen radicals; hydrogen peroxide; positive hydronium ions; oxidised hydrogen protons; various oxygen compounds; the elimination of bacteria; and the initiation of the formation of micro floc, can occur, amongst other processes, through electrolytic processes. The harmonic and enharmonic frequencies and ion-acoustic oscillating vibrations, enhanced by an instantaneous sweeper wave-form, occurring within the invention, could provide the same impetus as the electrical pulsating signal that occurs during those processes.

In the magnetic field, positively charged hydrogen is compressed during cavitation, which results in it also heating up. The magnetic field also compresses the hydrogen which will emit ionising radiation. The frequencies focus on the weak hydrogen bonds rather than the oxygen molecule. The word 'dissociation' does not adequately describe the chemical activity which changes the hydrogen and negatively charged oxygen molecules into other structures by breaking their covalent sigma bond.

In electrolysis, an electrical pulse signal must be generated in the form of a square wave and in an inverse relation to the conductivity of the water. When correctly configured, the invention becomes a high-order harmonic complex wave form generating synthesiser, wherein the conduction angle has been fixed to maximise the output of the desired harmonic [4]. Pulses also release iron cations from iron in the fabrication. Iron cations form compounds which polymerise - on exiting the impeller - and initiate the formation of floc in the form of micro-floc, and metal hydroxides are also formed as precipitates. The cations could also destroy cyanide. [5]

Preferably, it would be more advantageous to ensure that the sewage had a pH value of 8 to 10, together with traces of a proteolytic enzyme, which brings the hydroxide ion concentration to a level which provides the most economic contaminant removal. The increase in pH will reduce hydronium concentration, thereby increasing electrocatalytic ion or couple cations.

Vacuum, Implosion, Explosion 5


A non-dissipating travelling electrical impulse is also located around the 'boundary cylinder' due to the fact that we have a high speed rotor, creating a constantly changing magnetic field containing some adiabatic electrons that move parallel to the magnetic field and at right angles to the electrical field. At this point it is worth referring to Mills' U.S. Patent (utilising a new atomic theory) which refers to a nickel cathode (the interrupter is preferably made of a high content nickel alloy), one of the preferred embodiments in that Patent being to use 'an intermittent square-wave having an off-set voltage of approx.' 1.4 volts'... with an applied frequency. [6]

Vacuum

Anyone familiar with homopolar generators will accept that the invention's high speed rotor will emit an intensified voltage.[7] This voltage assists the process when its oscillation becomes synchronised with the input frequencies. The reverse vortex carries frequencies from the axis, and contains a concave based vortex standing columnar wave 'boundary envelope'. This base is just below the 'zone of vacuum polarisation' produced by a plasma's acoustic mode - located at the boundary layer of the two-dimensional 'corona', at a hyper-spacial intersection between non space-time and space-time. (This smaller 'envelope' has an apex angle equal to its angle of torsion vibration, from which a standing columnar wave is created.) Presumably this particular boundary layer has no additional fermionic quantum dimensions. The plasma may be produced by quantum vacuum radiation. (To suggest a 'black hole' is being generated would be a fanciful and ignorant remark, as it is more likely to generate 'stars' from the helium and hydrogen than a quantum chromodynamic holographic matrix. )

This particular vacuum in the invention, although relatively small, is important with regards to the electrical induction phenomenon and its place in quantum electrodynamics. [8] When the frequencies are acoustically oscillating the ions at the same time as the electrical charge from the rotor core axis and / or further pulses out of phase are introduced, an implosion takes place inside the vacuum. The ions at this point act like photons on the crystalline structure by increasing the electrons conductivity. The 'cylinder' also acts as a wave-guide containment field for the electro-magnetic waves, and as a gatherer of electrons in the transverse direction - a process which amplifies the sound in the 'boundary envelope'.

Implosion / Explosion

Rocks can be 'comminuted', when oxygen inside the rock fissures is temporarily dissociated - e.g. into two atomic fragments, one of these fragments having a low metastable Rydberg state and the other a high Rydberg state - which are ionised as a result of thermal collision. This is because an explosion will take place when the oxygen associates, causing a massive generation of energy at a micro level. In addition, as a result of any H2O in the fissures, the acoustic waves would travel faster than those in the rock, thereby sending a shock wave through the rock.

6 Youds

Although implosion occurs within certain material, not without (due to degeneracy pressure), -except for dissociation in the 'boundary envelope' vacuum- nevertheless it is again both fanciful, and incorrect to say that rocks implode or 'disintegrate' - empirically it has been seen that they do not. The explosions and / or implosions do not always cause the rock to completely break apart, rather they weaken the rock and makes it brittle. The rock will impact upon the interrupter and break up -not spontaneous disintegration- the larger pieces bounce back within a reverse vortex surrounding the cylinder. This vortex is centrifugal, and so the pieces first impact against other pieces -creating smaller pieces, which move towards the inner wall of the conical section, impact against each other, and finally grind against the wall, before moving between the vanes. At all times, the material is within a flow of vortices, not travelling back and forth across a single vortex. (Both cannot occur at the same time.)

Space Vortex Energy

We should take note of Paramahamsa Tewari's (Kaiga Atomic Power Project, Karwar, India) opening abstract from his paper 'Phenomenon of electric charge generation by space rotation': 'The medium of space (absolute vacuum without matter) is defined as an incompressible, zero-mass, nonviscous, continuous and mobile entity which, in its rotation at the limiting speed of light as a submicro vortex, creates electrons. The property of electric charge of electron and its electrostatic field can be shown to be the effect of rotation of space around the electron's centre. The mass property of electron is seen to be rising due to the creation of a spherical void (hole) at electron's centre where space rotates at the limiting speed of light'. [9]

Under the right conditions, the 'corona' may also 'contain' slowed-down high-energy neutrons, with nuclei that are gravitationally and inertially confined. Anti-matter may be nothing more than an 'echo' from an alternative phase-space dimension caused by: the negative entropy effect from the 'corona'; and / or the incumbent torsion field. All of the inherent processes are interactive and depend upon one another for successful treatment of the material. This novel combination of processes occurs without a chronology. (This Nexus to be known as the 'Youds Factor'.) Its 'Fluence' is therefore immeasurable. This cannot be underestimated, when one considers the simultaneous knock-on effect of the infinite spiralling of processes, and its potential on the nucleonic molecular mean squared velocity. No time elapses between either implosion and / or explosion, cavitation, or the ranges in temperature and pressure etc (except for the vacuum created implosion that occurs at the 'boundary layer' of the 'cylinder' hyper-spacial intersection between non space-time and space-time).

PHYSICISTS OF NOTE

In the 19th Century, John Keely claimed he was, '... able to draw vibratory energy directly from space by the aid of special resonating expedients' [10]. He stated that this energy, 'is duplex, or has two opposed conditions, like positive and negative states of electricity' [10].

Keely, Atomic, Formula 7

The name given to this 'space' has changed according to the individual scientist, e.g. 'scalar waves', 'tachyon energy', 'ether' or, 'negative-time-energy', according to Robert Adams [11]. (Adams went on to quote Nikola Tesla who said that sound waves travel at the speed of light in the ether, however, it is really particles of sound, rather than the speed of compression waves, which travel at the speed of light within vortices. These accelerating charged particles would produce vorticles, therefore the electron spin in the vorticles would give off 'Synchroton' radiation when spiralling into the magnetic field [12] - and because material is moving through the invention, the material itself produces vorticles. [13]) Furthermore, Keely went on to say, '... what we call electricity is but one of the triune currents, harmonic, enharmonic, and diatonic' [14]. Although nothing like the current invention, Keely's devices utilised frequencies to create electricity and to dissociate water and matter. Indeed, the Keely motor created a standing wave with two polarisation zones within a resonator with two opposing pressure zones. The water inside the motor was subjected to impulses which caused the water to expand and therefore the pressure was increased. Readers of Keely's work will notice that he often referred to low atomic ether produced during dissociation.

According to Dan A. Davidson, pressure is placed on the nucleus of an atom when sound pressure is placed on a mass that has had a standing wave generated within it. Furthermore he states that, 'The wavelength of sound - Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) rattles the nucleus', when the frequencies are on the order of the nuclear particles, 'based on the proton spin which produces a small magnetic moment', because 'the speed of sound is much slower than EM so a relatively low frequency doesn't travel very far before it has gone through a complete cycle and that distance is on the order of the proton spin resonance frequency. Thus, it is easy to see that sound can resonate with the atomic level in as far as frequency is concerned.' [15]

http://www.linux-host.org/energy/youlds.htm

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Related:

---------

The Creation of Musical Scales

from a mathematic and acoustic point of view, Part I,

by Thomas Váczy Hightower

    The focus will be on the acoustic laws behind the musical scales and how numbers and mathematic play a part in creating the intervals in the octave. Which factors have significance for creating a musical scale? Why is the division of the octave so basically common in different musical traditions, and what make them differ? Why is the ancient Greek Pythagorean scale basically identical with the old Chinese scale? What causes the modern Western musical scale, the Equal Temperament, to be so 'disharmonic' compared to the Eastern scales?

Music has often played an important part in shaping a culture. Some say that music is the hidden power in a culture. In ancient societies it was considered a serious public matter, a fundament for the culture. The musical scale itself and the right tuning of intervals can make all the difference as to how emotions and ideas are expressed. It also ensures that humans are in accord with earthly as well as celestial influence.

The more metaphysical aspects of music and sound and its influence at the level of consciousness and healing can be studied in my second part, The Musical Octave II, where I will mix different levels and categories into a larger picture.

In this thesis I will perform an analysis of four different musical traditions and their basic scales:

·         the ancient Chinese
·         the Indian musical tradition
·         the old Greek music
·         the following European musical scales.

By looking at the many tuning systems worldwide, one common factor is outstanding, the octave. The word derives from Latin and means 'eighth'. It is the 8th step in the diatonic scale consisting of 7 tones, containing 5 full tones and 2 semitones. The eighth tone in the diatonic scale, which is the most common in the world, completes the octave on a pitch that in frequency is the double of the fundamental tone.

This universal unit, that divides the realm of sound by the factor 2, can be subdivided in three basic ways:

1) By a geometric progression, with any number of equal intervals, such as the common Western mode, the Equal Temperament with 12 semitones, and other numbers.
A geometric progression is a sequence in which each term (after the first) is determined by multiplying the preceding term by a constant. This constant is called the common ratio of the arithmetic progression. The octave sequence is a geometric progression; so is the golden section.

2) By proportions with low number ratios, e.g. Just Intonation with its triads of major Thirds, or by other harmonic relations to the tonic (Modal music), e.g. Pentatonic or Septonic (e.g. Indian music).
Systems of proportions are used in Modal music, e.g. the harmonic mean and the arithmetical mean in the division of an octave.

3) By generating Fifths, e.g. Pythagorean Tuning or The Chinese Scale.
There are hybrids too, such as the Mean Tone Temperaments.
The habits of hearing

The reason there are so many different ways to divide the octave and display such a range of scales can be found in the fact that there are no formulae that can fit the octave perfectly. The different ratios expressed in numbers are prime inter-related, so a common divisor is not possible in an octave - unless some notes or keys are sound disharmonious.

Different musical traditions embrace this schism depending on what they consider best fit for their musical expression. The culture in which the musical scale has emerged is a profound reflection of that particular culture.

The Eastern music tradition considers the fine-tuned intervals of much more importance than the Western, which prefers first harmonious chords in any key. Consequently there are intervals which are perceived as consonant in the West, but considered dissonant in the East.

What it comes down to is habits. A musical scale is deeply ingrained. It shapes the way one hears tones in succession in a fixed pattern. There have to be at least three elements in defining a mode, just as three notes are needed to define a chord.

In the modulating cyclic systems, where every sound is mobile, it is necessary to repeat the 'body of harmony' (tonic, fifth or fourth and octave) in order to establish the meaning or mood of the note, but in the modal system one note alone, by changing its place, can produce the effect of a chord.
The modal frame, being fixed and firmly established in the memory of the listener, has no need to constantly repeat chords as in harmonic music, in order to express the numerical relationship.

That shape of ingrained intervals goes more or less out of tune, when changes of key or transposition moves the frequencies up or down. It is the way enharmonic notes arise. Increasing pitch by a half tone is not the same as decreasing by a half tone. They are two different notes.

Expressed graphically, the frequencies' ratios behave exponentially - in a non-linear curve - (which is displayed e.g. by the logarithmic spacing of the frets on the neck of the guitar), so a discrepancy is produced by moving the set frame up or down. This discrepancy is expressed in the different 'commas', such as the Pythagorean comma or the smaller Syntonic comma (the comma of Didymos).

The notion of harmony is different too. In the West the perception of harmony is 'vertical' - meaning as chords played at once. The Eastern tradition of harmony is 'horizontal'. Each tone is carefully played, and by attention over time adds up in the memory to harmonious chords.

Law of acoustics

Before we deal with the creations of musical scales, we have to dwell on the underlying foundation of scales, namely the physical laws of sounds.
Acoustics is a branch of physic that is complicated and extensive, so I have only chosen - in a brief form - those parts we need to look at in order to understand the invention of musical scales.

Sound wave

Sound is vibrations, but three conditions have to be in place, if a sound is to be heard:
1) The vibrating source for the sound – an oscillator.
2) A medium in which the sound can travel, such as air, water or soil.
3) A receiver for the sound, such as a functional ear or a microphone.

The sound wave is a chain reaction where the molecules of the medium, by elastic beats, push the other molecules in a longitudinal direction - quite like a long train getting a push from a locomotive.
It is a longitudinal displacement of pressure and depressor in a molecular medium such as air or water. Any sound is initiated by an oscillator, which can be a huge range of devices and instruments, each one having its own definite characteristic sound.

The sound waves should not be imagined as waves in water caused by e.g. a stone in a pond, though the picture appears to be alike.
Sound waves are longitudinal: pressure waves - back and forth.
Water waves are transverse: the main movements are up and down in a circular motion.
Please note that longitudinal pressure waves will reappear in the description below of logarithmic, standing pressure waves.

Calculations of sound ratios

Another feature in the realm of sound is the exponential factor, because sound, like many other physical events, behaves exponentially - not in straight lines.
There are two ways to calculate ratios of frequencies:
1) One can work with the ratios as they are, often pretty long numbers, and the calculation is a bit twisted, since in adding two sound ratios one has to multiply; to subtract you have to divide; and to divide a sound ratio you have to take the square root.
A common example is the Equal Temperament, where the octave has to be divided into12 equal parts. One semitone is the 12th root of 2, (21/12) . If you want to divide the whole tone, 9/8, you have to take the square root of 9/8, or (9/8)½ = 3/2*2½.

2) The other way, which makes the calculation more straightforward, is to convert the ratios into logarithmic unities such as cents or savarts. Logarithmic calculations make it easier to operate with pitch intervals or frequency ratios, since the size of a pitch interval is proportional not to the frequency ratio, but to the logarithm of the frequency ratio. This makes the calculation of ratios simpler, by a plain process of adding, subtracting or dividing.
Savarts, named after a French physicist, and cents are both logarithmic systems developed to make it easy to compare intervals on a linear scale instead of using fractals or frequency ratios (f2/f1).

A Savart is calculated as the logarithm (base 10) of the frequency ratio and, for convenience, multiplied by 1000. We then have an interval expressed in terms of a savart unit.

The interval of an octave in savarts is the logarithm of 2, which is 0.3010... expressed as 301 savarts.
Savarts have an advantage over the widely used American system, cents, since savarts is designed to fit any frequencies ratios (f2/f1), while cent by definition is based on one scale, the 12 semitones in the Equal Temperament.

Cent is also a logarithmic unit, which by definition is based on the tempered scale of 1200 cents/octave. A semitone is therefore 100 cents. This definition is a bit more complicated than the plain savart, since the exact relationship of frequencies to cents is expressed by this formula: 1200 * (f2/f1) / log 2 = 3986 * log10 (f2/f1).

E.g. the interval of the perfect fifth in cents is the log10 3/2 = 0.1761.. The fifth in cents is 3986 * 0.1761 = 702 cent.
Logarithmic intervals and frequency distributions

This portion is a bit of off the key with the musical scales. However, when (in 2007) I read about Cislenko's logarithmic intervals in the book Tools of Awareness, I felt immediately that here is new, first-class research about the basic concept of a scale. You have to go above the level of sound and reach up to the level of sizes of bodies.

In 1980, the Russian biologist Cislenko published what is probably one of the most important biological discoveries of the 20th century. The published work was Structure of Fauna and Flora with Regard to Body Size of Organisms (Lomonosov-University, Moscow).
His work documents that segments of increased species representation were repeated on the logarithmic line of body sizes in equal intervals (approx 0.5 units of the decadal logarithm).

The phenomenon is not explicable from a biological point of view.
Why should mature individuals of amphibians, reptile, fish, bird and mammals of different species find it similarly advantageous to have a body size in the range of 8 - 12 cm, 33 - 55 cm or 1,5 - 2,4 m?

Cislenko assumed that competition in the plant and animal kingdoms occurs not only for food, water or other resources, but also for the best body sizes. Each species tries to occupy the advantageous intervals on the logarithmic scale where mutual pressure of competition also gave rise to crash zones.
However, Cislenko, was not able to explain, why both the crash zones and the overpopulated intervals on the logarithmic line are always of the same length and occur in equal distance from each other. He was unable to figure out why only certain sizes would be advantageous for the survival of a species, and what these advantages actually were.

The logarithmic frequency distributions by Dr. Hartmut Mulier

Cislenko's work inspired the German scientist Dr. Hartmut Müller to search for other scale-invariant distributions in physics. The phenomenon of scaling is well known to high-energy physics.

Müller found similar frequency distributions along the logarithmic line of sizes, orbits, masses, and revolution periods of planets, moons and asteroids. Being a mathematician and physicist he did not fail to recognize the cause for this phenomenon in the existence of a standing pressure wave in the logarithmic space of the scales/measures.

Scale is what physics can measure. The result of a physical measurement is always a number with measuring unit – a physical quantity. Imagine that we have measured 12cm, 33cm and 90cm. Choosing 1 cm as the standard measure (etalon), we will get the number sequence 12 - 33 - 90 (without measurement unit, or as the physicist says: with unit 1). The distances between these numbers on the number line are 33 - 12 = 21 and 90 - 33 = 57.

If we were to choose another measuring unit, such as the etalon with 49,5cm, the number sequence would be 0,24 - 0,67 - 1,82. The distances between the numbers have changed into 0,67 - 0,24 = 0,42 and 1,82 - 0,667 = 1,16.
However, on the logarithmic line, the distance will not change, no matter what measuring unit we choose. It will always remain constant.
In our example, this distance amounts to one unit of the natural logarithm (with radix e = 2,71828...): ln 33 - ln 12 ≈ ln 90 - ln 33 ≈ ln 0,67 - ln 0,24 ≈ ln 1,82 - ln 0,67 ≈ 1. Physical values of measurement, therefore, own the remarkable feature of logarithmic invariance (scaling). So, in reality, any scale is a logarithm.

Any scale is a logarithm

It is very interesting that natural systems are not evenly distributed along the logarithmic line of the scales. There are 'attractive' sections which are occupied by a great number of completely different natural systems; and there are 'repulsive' sections that most natural systems will avoid.

Growing crystals, organisms or populations that reach the limits of such sections on the logarithmic line will either grow no more or will begin to disintegrate, or else will accelerate growth so as to overcome these sections as quickly as possible.
The Institute for Space-Energy-Research I.M. was able to prove the same phenomenon also in demographics (stochastic of world-wide urban populations), economy (stochastic of national product, imports and exports world-wide) and business economy (stochastic of sales volume of large industrial and middle-class enterprises, stochastic of world-wide stock exchange values).
The borders of 'attractive' and 'repulsive' segments on the logarithmic line of scales are easy to find because they recur regularly with a distance of 3 natural logarithmic units. This distance also defines the wavelength of the standing pressure wave: it is 6 units of the natural logarithm.

In fact, the world of scales is nothing else but the logarithmic line of numbers known to mathematics at least since the time of Napier (1600). What is new, however, is the fundamental recognition that the number line has a harmonic structure, which is itself the cause for the standing pressure wave.
Leonard Euler (1748 ) had already shown that irrational and transcendental numbers can be uniquely represented as continued fractions in which all elements (numerators and denominators) will be natural numbers.

Prime numbers

In 1928, Khintchine succeeded in providing the general proof about prime numbers. In the theory of numbers this means that all numbers can be constructed from natural numbers; the universal principle of construction being the continued fraction. All natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... in turn are constructed from prime numbers, these being natural numbers which cannot be further divided without remainder, such as 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 19, 23, 29, 31, ... (traditionally 1 is not classed as a prime number although it fulfils all criteria).

The distribution of prime numbers on the number line is so irregular that so far no formula has been found that would perfectly describe their distribution.
Dr. Muller found that the distribution of numbers is indeed very irregular - but only on the linear number line.
On the logarithmic number line, large gaps of prime numbers recur at regular intervals. Gauss (1795) had already noticed this.

The reason for this phenomenon is the existence of a standing density wave on the logarithmic number line. The node points of this density wave are acting as number attractors. This is where prime numbers will 'accumulate' and form composite numbers, i.e. non-primes, such as the 7 non-primes from 401 to 409.
Hence a 'prime number gap' will occur in this place. Precisely where non-primes (i.e. prime clusters) arise on the logarithmic number line, there it is that matter concentrates on the logarithmic line of measures. This is not magic; it is simply a consequence of the fact that scales are logarithms, i.e. 'just' numbers.

So the logarithmic line of scales is nothing else but the logarithmic number line. And because the standing pressure wave is a property of the logarithmic number line, it determines the frequency of distribution of matter on all physically calibrated logarithmic lines - the line of ratios of size, that of masses, of frequencies, of temperatures, velocities, etc.

Finding a node point on the logarithmic line is relatively easy, since the wavelength of the standing density wave on the logarithmic number line is known, and the calculation of all nodal points is done by a simple formula.
The distance between adjacent node points is 3 units of the natural logarithm.

The frequency ranges around 5 Hz, 101 Hz, 2032 Hz, 40,8 kHz, 820 kHz, 16,5 MHz, 330,6 MHz, etc. are predestined for energy transmission in finite media. This is also where the carrier frequencies for information transmission in logarithmic space are located.
Frequencies that occur near a note point are very common in nature, as well as in technological applications.

I wish to thank Dr. Willy de Maeyer for his help in the subject of this deeper scientific nature of scales. More similar kinds of mind-puzzling statements in sound and music can be found on my page The Sound of Silence.

Moving string

Plucked strings exhibit transverse waves in a back and forth movement, locally producing a pulse along the direction in which the wave itself travels, with a speed depending on the mass of the string and its material but usually lower than airwaves. (A good explanation is given by The University of New South Wales, Australia.)

The frequency of the string itself is the same as the frequency of the air waves. The wavelength is different due to the dissimilarity in speed.
The length of the vibrating part of the string is in inverse proportion to the frequencies. The period of oscillation = 1 / frequency. This is an important acoustic law that applies to any conversion of period into frequencies. If, for example, you divide an octave string by 2/3, the ratio of the sound will be 3/2 of an octave, a fifth.

Oscillators

To produce sounds, a vibrating body, an oscillator, is needed.
An oscillator can be any kind of a vibrating body from an atom to an astronomical object, but since we are here working with musical sounds, we are referring to oscillators such as musical instruments or the human voice box, that produce standing waves or periodic waves in a system of resonators that enhances and amplifies the tone and generates harmonics.

The heart and aorta form a special resonant system when breathing is ceased. Then the heartbeat seems to wait until the echo returns from the bifurcation (where the aorta forks out in the lower abdomen). Then the next heart beat sets in. In this synchronous way a resonant, standing wave of blood is established with a frequency of about seven times a second. This harmonious mode requires for its sustenance a minimum amount of energy, which is an intelligent response from the body. In deep meditation a similar mode is established. It is interesting to notice that this mode of 7 Hz is close to the Schumann resonance.

Standing waves

Standing waves are a kind of echo that moves back and forth, since the waves are reflected between two solid points, basically, a or fixed string. For wind instruments with an open end, the impedance (the resisters from the air) works in a similar manner. There are also closed pipes that resonate a bit differently.

When a fixed string is plucked, the potential energy is released in a transverse wave, that in a split second begins to initiate a division of the string into different moving parts, where some points are not moving. These stationary points are called nodes.

standing waves How many nodes the string is divided into when it vibrates depends on the material, the tension, and especially how and where it is plucked or bowed, etc. But here we try to get a general picture of the nature of standing waves in a plucked string.

When the potential energy is stopped at the fixed ends, the kinetic energy is at its maximum and continues in a 180° phase shift the opposite way. We thus have two waves with the same frequency and amplitude traveling in opposite directions. Where the two waves add together or superpose, movement is cancelled out and we have stationary nodes that occur a half wavelength apart and constitute the standing waves.

The repeating shifts between potential and kinetic energy in a moving string draws one's attention to a similar pattern we can observe in a pendulum and its simple harmonic motion.

The numbers of nodes, the non-moving points in a standing wave, is equal to the number of harmonics or partials created in the standing wave.

The same pattern can be observed with fine sand on a metal plate set in vibration by a bow. The standing waves automatically divide the length and width of the plate into an integral number of half wave-lengths. It is only then that a standing wave can be sustained. That pattern is the most energy-effective form nature can provide.
(A similar pattern is the rhythm entrainment, where random oscillations after a while begin to oscillate in unison).

Standing waves cannot exist unless they divide their medium into an integral number of half waves with their nodes. A standing wave having a fractional wavelength cannot be sustained.

The same standing waves pattern can be formed in a three-dimensional box. This pattern will look just like a highly enlarged crystal, if we assume that the aggregated particles or grains in the box fluid are analogous to the atoms in a crystal.
The key word in standing waves is order. In short, by using sound we have introduced order where previously there was none.

Harmonics

Any vibrating body that is set in a standing, resonant motion, produces harmonics. For musical sounds the harmonic series is usually expressed as an arithmetical proportion: 1,1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6...1:n.

The first and second harmonics are separated by an octave, frequency ratio 2:1, the 2nd and 3rd by a perfect fifth (3:2), the 3rd and 4th by a perfect fourth (4:3), and 4th and 5th by a major third (5:4), and the 5th and the 6th by a minor third (6:5), and so on.

A simple Harmonic motion is typified by the motion of a pendulum, which is sinusoidal in time and demonstrates a single resonant frequency.
The formula for The Harmonic Series is the sum, å 1/n = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 +1/6 +...diverges to infinity, when n goes from 1 to infinity.
Harmonics of the string

Since the Harmonic Series is so important in the construction of musical scales, another common way to express the harmonics is: the fundamental f, then 2f, 3f, 4f, 5f....nf harmonic. (More detail of the harmonics of the string.)

How Nature performed such a mathematical division, an arithmetic progression, is beyond my apprehension, but it is surely a mighty prominent and well-proven law. Intuitively I feel that the number 2, or its inversion ½, is the mega number. Remember the integer numbers of ½ waves (nodes) in the standing wave.

The harmonic series is special because any combination of its vibrations produces a periodic or repeated vibration at the fundamental frequency.

The Harmonic Scale

Since the harmonic series plays such an important part in music, it should be obvious to use the harmonic series as the notes in a scale. This is also valid since the harmonic series contains all the possible intervals used in music, although the order in which those intervals appear does not properly constitute a musical scale. The main difficulty is that all its intervals differ from one another and become smaller as the scale rises.

The problem with modulation is obvious since each interval is not alike. Further, the need for a fixed structure to establish a musical scale, a body of harmony established by the three prime intervals, cannot be fulfilled by using the harmonic series as a musical scale.
Nevertheless, the series of the first sixteen harmonics can be considered to form a mode that is interesting in comparison with the musical scales used throughout the history of music.

If we take C as a starting point, we first notice the appearance of the octave, C', 2/1, then the fifth, G, 3/2, then the third, E, 5/4, then the harmonic Bb 7/4 – lower than the usual Bb, and forming with upper C', the maximum tone 8/7.

After this appears the major second, D, 9/8, which forms with E a minor second, 10/9.

Then come the harmonics F#, 11/8, A-, 13/8, and finally, the seventh, B, 15/8.
The remaining eight of the first sixteen harmonics add no new notes, as they are at exact octave intervals from earlier harmonics in the series.
We have to understand the way the harmonic series display itself in a chain of octaves, where each new octave contains twice as many harmonics as the last octave.

By looking at the ratios, the denominator indicates the octave, the numerator states the number of harmonics in that octave. Considering only the first sixteen harmonics, we thus obtain a scale of eight tones formed of the following intervals:

Notes
C
D
E
F#
G
A-
Bb
B
C'

Ratios
1/1
9/8
5/4
11/8
3/2
13/8
7/4
15/8
2/1

Savarts
51
46
41
38
35   
32
30
28

Notice that each interval gets smaller as the pitch rises.

The Octave

Octave graf

This interval is the very most outstanding division of sound and music and is recognized in all musical traditions through time on the globe. The division of the octave has been made differently depending on musical tradition, but all over the world in all times the octave has been recognized as the basic unit that constitutes a beginning and an end.

'Octave' derives from Latin and means the 'eighth'. It is the 8th step in the diatonic scale consisting of 7 tones, 5 full tones and 2 semitones. The eighth tone in the diatonic scale, which is the most common in the world, completes the octave on a pitch that in frequency is the double of the fundamental tone.

Graphically, one could say that an octave expresses or represents a circle. Several octaves shape a spiral, where the same fundamental is above or below. The obvious mystery about octaves is that tones an octave apart sound similar, though the frequency is the double or the half.
They pertain, so to speak, to the same family; from the same root, unfolding in the spectrum of frequencies. They have the same Chroma. They always double up the frequencies in the ascending mode or halve them in the descending mode.
Again we see the basic, universal division of one into two, as we first mentioned in the paragraph about the standing waves. Just remember the awesome sight of the pregnant egg-cell dividing itself. The law of octaves belongs not only to the realm of sound, but can be observed as manifesting itself throughout Nature around, and in astronomy above.

The Fourth

The very harmonious Fourth is a kind of a puzzle, with its prime interval in the ratio of 4 : 3. It is not represented in the first 16 harmonics in the series, though the 3rd and 4th harmonics are separated by a Fourth. It has taken me some time to figure it out.
In order to understand the importance of the Fourth, we have to look at the previous prime interval, the Fifth, with the ratio of 3 : 2. The 2nd and 3rd harmonics are separated by a Fifth. These two intervals together constitute an octave. They are complementary intervals.
Furthermore, by going down by a Fourth into the octave below, one reaches the Fifth in the sub-octave, which has half the frequency. In other words: a descending Fifth, 2:3, divided by ½, equals 4:3, a Fourth.

In the musical language the Fifth is called the Dominant and the Fourth the Sub-dominant, which plays a very dominant role in music all over the world.
In all the musical scales that are obtained by the generating interval 3:2, the opposite movement – lowering by 4:3 – makes it possible to fit the generated intervals into one octave.

Music and mathematic

Music and Numbers  are often said to be as brother and sister, different but related. In addition, we have to take into consideration numerical representation, which plays an important role in Eastern music but is ignored in the Western tradition.

Composite sound

A musical sound or tone is a composite sound containing a multiple of overtones or harmonics. In musical practice the tone is not only dependent on its pitch and amplitude (loudness), but also on its specific numbers of harmonics (formats), which 'color' the tones so that each instrument or voice has its characteristic sound.

This has nothing to do with musical compositions aiming to 'paint' colors, or the blue notes in jazz music. 'Overtone' originates from the German Obertone, which refers to the various numbers of partials or harmonics that are produced by the strongest and lowest fundamental note, and fused into a compound or complex tone.

In his book On the Sensation of Tone from 1877, Herman von Helmholtz formulated the theory about the consonant and dissonant intervals based on the numbers of beats generated when two tones or a chord are played.

It was first about 100 years later that Promp was able to prove a more consistent theory, the Consonant Theory, which now is generally accepted.
Harmonics

In order to understand the composed tone, one has to turn to a French mathematician from the 19th Century, Jean-Baptiste Fouier, who in 1822 proved that any complex periodic curve – or in this case any tone – is composed of a set of sine curves that contain the fundamental sine frequency + another sine curve with double the frequency + a sine curve with triple the frequency, and so on.


A composed (periodic) tone contains a multiple of various frequencies in whole numbers, (integers – 2,3,4,5,6...25...) of the fundamental frequency.
They are named harmonics. Each voice or musical instrument produces its own characteristic set of harmonics, also called formats, that enable the ear to identify the sound because the ear and the brain perform a Fouier analysis of the sound. (Some wind instruments, for example, produce only odd harmonics).

Beats

When two tones (or chords) are played simultaneously, another important acoustic phenomenon takes place, called 'beats'. When the frequencies of two tones are close to each other, a periodical beat can clearly be heard, caused by the interference of the different waves, which alter the amplitude so an intensified rhythmic beating, floating tone is heard as a third tone.
There are other interference patterns besides beat frequencies, but this will do in this instance.

Harmonics

Some intervals or chords produce more beats in the higher harmonics than others, and those are picked up by the ear as unclean, muddy or unpleasant, and are labeled dissonant.

The intervals which make fewest beats are called consonant, such as an octave, the perfect fifth, the perfect fourth – the three prime intervals, or 'The body of Harmony' as described by Aristotle; the basis for the musical scale.

A general rule about sound ratios is that the simpler the ratios between sounds are, the more their relations are harmonious, while the more complicated the ratios are, the more dissonant are the sounds.

Pythagoras was the first in the West to formulat the law of musical pitches depending on numerical proportions. From this he based his underlying principle of 'harmonia' as a numerical system bound together by interlocking ratios of small numbers. This discovery probably led him to the idea of the Harmony of the Spheres.

His vision of 'The Music of the Spheres' aroused deep emotions in me. It alludes to the seven planets known at that time, and has puzzled generations since it was declared. Johannes Kepler dedicated most of his life to attempting to solve that notion.

The auditory system

The receiving part, the human ear, is equally important. The recent discoveries (The Consonant Theory) of the function of the basal membrane in Cochlea as a Fourier analyzer, and the role the critical band plays in the perception of rough or smooth sound, dissonance and consonance, gives a consistent theory for some of the hearing functions.

When the frequency ratios are narrowed down to such small intervals that our auditory system is not capable of differentiating, the harmonics become fused because of the critical band, a relatively new discovery, (around 1970-80 by Plomp a.o.) which refers to the overlapping amplitude envelopes on the basilar membrane in the Organ of Corti in the Cochlea.

Trained ears are able to detect the harmonics up to the 6th or 7th harmonics.

←Freqency response in the basilar membrane.

When the interval between two tones decreases, their amplitude envelopes overlap to an increasing extent. A rough, harsh tone will be heard, which anyone can hear when two notes with less than minor 3rd separation are played simultaneously. This is very shortly the key to understand the theory of dissonance and consonants, which is the foundation in the origin of scales.

Breakthrough in the science of hearing

Helmholtz beat theories was commonly accepted for about 100 years, before the Noble Prize winning Hungarian scientist Békésy in 1960 made a new breakthrough by his discovery of the role the basilar membrane plays in the hearing of pitch.

He derived by anatomical studies a relationship between distance along the basilar membrane and frequency of maximum response. A high frequency pure tone generates a wave that travels only a short distance along the basilar membrane before reaching its peak amplitude; the hair cells at the position of the peak are fired, and the brain receives signals from the corresponding nerve fibers. These fibers evoke a 'high frequency' sensation.
A low frequency tone generates a wave that travels most of the way to the helicotrema before rising to its peak amplitude and dying away. Signals from nerve fibers connected to this region of the basilar membrane evoke a 'low-frequency' sensation in the brain.
Other theories than the above 'place theory' have been brought forward, among them the 'temporal theories', i.e. emphasizing the use of the timing information in nerve signals.

←Vibratory patterns of the Basilar Membrane, (adapted from Békésy' experiments on hearing 1960)

Helmholtz dismissed

The modern Consonance Theory of Plomp extended the discoveries of Békésy with some new important findings, that gave whole new meanings to the concept of hearing. The beat theory of Helmholtz was finally dismissed in favor of the well experimented and proven Consonance Theory, in which the ears Discrimination Frequency and its Critical Bandwidth plays an important part.

The Critical Band

As the interval between two tones decreases, their amplitude envelopes on the basilar membrane overlap to an increasing extent. A significant number of hair cells will now be responding to both signals. When the separation is reduced, e.g. to a tone, the amplitude envelopes overlap almost completely, implying a strong interaction between the two sounds, which is heard as a harsh, rough sound: a dissonance. critical bandwidth


When two pure tones are so close in frequency that there is a large overlap in their amplitude envelopes, we say that their frequencies lie within one critical band. This concept has been of great importance in the development of modern theories of hearing and, one must add, gives a much better explanation for the ear's determination of consonant or dissonant intervals.
Placement Theory

Here we will not dwell upon the theories of fusion of pure tone components and other acoustic phenomena such as masking, except to state that the inner ear performs a partial frequency analysis of a complex musical tone, a Fouier analysis, sending to the brain a distinct signal recording the presence of each of the first seven or eight harmonic components; in addition the brain receives signals from the part of the basilar membrane activated by the unresolved upper harmonics.

Several experiments by different scientists suggest that the brain determines the pitch of a complex tone by searching for a harmonic pattern among the components separately resolved in the inner ear. If the deviation from a true harmonic series is too large, the brain gives up the attempt to find a single matching set of harmonics. Then the components are heard separately, rather than as a fused tone.

This explains the 'missing fundaments' in the harmonic spectrum of a bassoon playing E3, because the ear does not 'hear' the fundamental tone, but the harmonic.

This is a brief resumé of those factors in hearing that are closely related to perceiving an interval or chord. We will skip the many other acoustic phenomena, because here we will only try to give an account of the reasons why musical scales are created as they are.

Thomas Váczy Hightower, © 2002. (edited 2009)

[jai_mann]

You guys are wasting your productive time on die daily . You're allowing yourselves to be sucked in by flowing prose. What kind of individual pretends to be a paragon of rational thinking, yet resorts to base insults, aimed at ones manhood, in order to elicit emotions from the intended target? But it doesn't stop there. If I don't engage this jew, or mason, in a non-productive waste of time, I'm "afraid" and "insecure".

Beware of those who use flattery to gain your trust people. I didn't sleep a wink last night, unfortunately, but I can still see his text is littered with it.

For fuck's sake, isn't it THAT transparent? You don't need to have a scientific background to catch that stuff. Just digest what's written.

 

The time consumed by being suckered in to "debating" a jew is a complete waste.

Cut out all the bullshit and what remains?

[Wimpy]

Oh I agree Jai_mann.  I thought it would be a change for me not to come out blasting with my usual both barrels and try a reasonable approach.  Didn't accomplish anything and I suspect he/she will pop up again in a week with yet another jew based diversionary challenge.  I've been there before on different websites, not even related to anti-zionism/jewry, and I found that they'll just keep throwing specious crap and bait for an argument with no other purpose than to distract and send everyone off on a mindless tangent.

I remember once having a similar exchange where I would take the time and effort to clearly explain a concept and the response from the jewtards was "immediate" and entirely composed of quotes obtained from jewipedia.  Not one word was their own except for the demand for a response to this copied material.  My brother, who was involved in the exchange referred to their tactics as "googling while on methamphetamine".  That was years ago but it opened my eyes to the futility of having an intelligent discussion with jewtards.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Found this link on Historical Periodic Tables.

Pretty interesting the number of them besides Mendeleev's 2-D  adopted one, particularly the Spiral versions:

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/3 ... ?PT_id=148


Mendeleev had a Jewish Grandfather who converted to Orthodox Christianity.  
http://www.lycos.com/info/dmitri-mendel ... beria.html

Though Mendeleev was widely honored by scientific organizations all over Europe, including the Copley Medal from the Royal Society of London, he resigned from Saint Petersburg University on 17 August 1890.

In 1893, he was appointed Director of the Bureau of Weights and Measures. It was in this role that he was directed to formulate new state standards for the production of vodka. As a result of his work, in 1894 new standards for vodka were introduced into Russian law and all vodka had to be produced at 40% alcohol by volume.[6]

Mendeleev also investigated the composition of oil fields, and helped to found the first oil refinery in Russia.

In 1905, Mendeleev was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The following year the Nobel Committee for Chemistry recommended to the Swedish Academy to award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1906 to Mendeleev for his discovery of the periodic system. The Chemistry Section of the Swedish Academy supported this recommendation. The Academy was then supposed to approve the Committee choice as it has done in almost every case. Unexpectedly, at the full meeting of the Academy, a dissenting member of the Nobel Committee, Peter Klason, proposed the candidacy of Henri Moissan whom he favored. Svante Arrhenius, although not a member of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, had a great deal of influence in the Academy and also pressed for the rejection of Mendeleev, arguing that the periodic system was too old to acknowledge its discovery in 1906. According to the contemporaries, Arrhenius was motivated by the grudge he held against Mendeleev for his critique of Arrhenius's dissociation theory. After heated arguments, the majority of the Academy voted for Moissan. The attempts to nominate Mendeleev in 1907 were again frustrated by the absolute opposition of Arrhenius.[7]

In 1907, Mendeleev died at the age of 72 in Saint Petersburg from influenza. The crater Mendeleev on the Moon, as well as element number 101, the radioactive mendelevium, are named after him.

Other scientists had suggested in the 1860s that the elements display periodicity. John Newlands published his Law of Octaves in 1865. The lack of spaces for undiscovered elements and the placing of two elements in one box were criticized and his ideas were not accepted. Another was Lothar Meyer, who published a paper in 1864 describing 28 elements. Neither attempted to predict new elements. In 1863 there were 56 known elements with a new element being discovered at a rate of approximately one per year.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Found this interesting:
2008
Rafael Poza's Elements and the Magnetosphere

[jai_mann]

Fields are really quite beautiful. I made the Russell periodic table that you linked into my background. I believe his models are more accurate and superior to what we have today.