Crystallization method offers new option for carbon capture from ambient air
    Breakthrough Energy Funding

    Recently Ken posted a video in the comments section  with the following comment” Finally found a device that visually shows the magnetic vortex. Please watch this with an open mind .

    I felt the comments that followed from Simon and TK were worthy of a full post, as in my opinion videos like this do more damage than good. It is one thing to explore new ideas and boundaries and have an opinion. (I support freedom of speach) It is another to carry on with relentless, ignorant dribble. The only positive is it is a good video is we can use it to educate others with an informed critique.  I did not use the term peer review for good reason.

    This is in no way a criticism of Ken or others who bring these video’s and claims to our attention. Please keep doing so.




    Sorry, Ken, but that is a load of bollocks. I lasted around 5 minutes of watching before I got fed up with the wild explanations. What we call magnetism is an emergent effect from the forces between moving charged particles and that the changes in the electric field propagate at the speed of light. Because there is this connection, by changing the frame of reference we can “see” a field as either electrical-only, magnetic-only or a mixture of the two. The full maths for this is far too difficult to use (especially for me) so we approximate things to make them more amenable to calculations and to give us something we can more-easily visualise and make sense of. As you’ll know, having an imaginary number can be useful in dealing with real problems, and having an imaginary field is just as useful. Most of us have problems dealing with things where we can’t see an analogous effect in our daily life, so when we talk of “radio waves” we think of waves in water with a crest and a trough and “get the picture”. It won’t be a precise analogy but it’s near enough.

    I don’t know how he set this up or what he is in fact showing, but the explanation makes no sense at all. It’s probably an artefact from the way he’s set things up.

    If you want to see what happens when currents link up into a toroid, better to go look at what Clint Seward is doing with ball-lighting, the Focus Fusion plasmoids, or reverse field fusion. Maybe also Ken Shoulders’ EVs, though I don’t think anyone else has replicated those and thus confirmed the results. The effect itself exists, but if you try to force this idea onto a fundamental particle you’ll find that the angular momentum can’t be contained within the volume of the real particle and the particle is travelling faster than light. You thus can’t get a real particle doing it, and the momentum has to be carried in the wave-function that is several times larger (IIRC about 10 times) and maybe imaginary too.

    As Simon has said, that video (and most of the other ones by Ken Wheeler “theoria apophosis”) is a load of bollocks. He doesn’t even understand how the patterns he is showing are actually created by the apparatus he is using. Wheeler does camera and lens reviews that may be interesting and factual. His forays into magnetism, physics, and the rest are just the rantings of an uneducated and oversmartened ego. There is simply no “there” there in Wheeler’s system of thought. In addition, if you bother to read what he has written and his responses to comments, you can learn a lot about Mr. Wheeler and his hostile and juvenile approach to his critics. He “invented” and patented a posture chair for fat people many years ago when he worked for a furniture company and has made a lot of money on that patent. (I’m sitting in a cheap Chinese knock-off right now.) But he knows nothing about real science and has no idea how to conduct an actual experiment. His most famous (in my mind) gaffe is the “overunity bismuth sphere” which he claims produces and emits heat when in the presence of a magnetic field, without any relative motion… a claim made because he has no understanding of how his expensive FLIR thermal camera actually works to produce images, and evidently hasn’t even read (or chooses to ignore) the manufacturer’s advice on imaging items of differing thermal emissivity. The bismuth sphere claim is easily refuted by any of a number of methods, but of course Wheeler’s stance is “if your experiment refutes my claim, your experiment is wrong.” Look it up, you’ll be very amused.
    Most particularly… heh… he claims that electrons don’t exist… so he has extreme difficulty explaining how CRTs, electron microscopes, and etc. actually work. His claims are refuted constantly by the very devices he uses to make and publish the claims.


    Crystallization method offers new option for carbon capture from ambient air
    Breakthrough Energy Funding
    Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :