When a crystal of quartz is properly cut and mounted, it can be made to distort in an electric field by applying a voltage to an electrode near or on the crystal. This property is known as electrostriction or inverse piezoelectricity.

When the field is removed, the quartz generates an electric field as it returns to its previous shape, and this can generate a voltage.

This is why the invention probe “having a human generated power source” is so important, these active probes connected to the super capacitor make it possible to activate the crystal oscillation and electromagnet by applying a voltage to an electrode near or on the crystal.

Emitting voltage at a greater electromagnetic attractive force than that emitted by a transformer or other grid asset is what diverts the lightning away from the grid asset to the super capacitor.

An oscillator is an amplifier circuit, with feedback so that it oscillates, and a “frequency determining element” that keeps it oscillating at the desired frequency. A crystal can be made for a precise frequency, and it will drift very little if the temperature or stray capacitance changes. It is also very efficient and requires very little power to keep it oscillating. Crystals are usually made of quartz, and you pay for all the above features.

When you switch a crystal oscillator and electromagnet on it’s just an amplifier, you don’t get the desired frequency yet. The only thing that’s there is a low-level noise over a wide bandwidth. The oscillator will amplify that noise and pass it through the crystal, upon which it enters the oscillator again which amplifies it again and so on.

Shouldn’t that get you just very much noise? No, the crystal’s properties are such that it will pass only a very small amount of the noise, around its resonance frequency. All the rest will be attenuated. So in the end it’s only that resonance frequency which is left, and then we’re oscillating.

You can compare it with a trampoline. Imagine a bunch of kids jumping on it randomly. The trampoline doesn’t move much and the kids have to make a lot of effort to jump just 20cm up. But after some time they will start to synchronize and the trampoline will follow the jumping.

The kids will jump higher and higher with less effort. The trampoline will oscillate at its resonance frequency (about 1Hz) and it will be hard to jump faster or slower. That’s the frequencies that will be filtered out.

The kid jumping on the trampoline is the amplifier, she supplies the energy to keep the oscillation going.

Unlike a permanent magnet, the strength of an electromagnet can easily be changed by changing the amount of electric current that flows through it. The poles of an electromagnet can even be reversed by reversing the flow of electricity. An electromagnet works because an electric current produces a magnetic field.

What do a wrecking yard, a rock concert and your front door have in common? They each use electromagnets, devices that create a magnetic field through the application of electricity. Wrecking yards employ extremely powerful electromagnets to move heavy pieces of scrap metal or even entire cars from one place to another. Your favorite band uses electromagnets to amplify the sound coming out of its speakers. And when someone rings your doorbell, a tiny electromagnet pulls a metal clapper against a bell.

Mechanically, an electromagnet is pretty simple. It consists of a length of conductive wire, usually copper, wrapped around a piece of metal. Like Frankenstein’s monster, this seems like little more than a loose collection of parts until electricity comes into the picture. But you don’t have to wait for a storm to bring an electromagnet to life. A current is introduced, either from a battery or another source of electricity, and flows through the wire. This creates a magnetic field around the coiled wire, magnetizing the metal as if it were a permanent magnet. Electromagnets are useful because you can turn the magnet on and off by completing or interrupting the circuit, respectively.

edits from Fred’s inserts on June 20th- not reviewed by Sabra, just installed for now-

Executive Summary

Super Conducting Super Capacitor

Link to U.S. Patent No. 9,179,531

Colombia Patent Resolucion 974        Rwanda Patent No. RW 126/ARK

  1. African Patent No. 2011/09109

 

 

So far, patents have already issued in Australia, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Rwanda, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, The Netherlands, The UK, and the United States.  Patent applications are also currently pending in the following countries:  Argentina, Brazil, China, DR Congo, Hong Kong, India, Israel, S. Korea and Pakistan.

ALSO FROM FRED’S INSERTS OF JUNE 20TH- NOT REVIEWED JUST PARKED BY SABRA


Transformer companies know why transformers get his b6 lightning…streamers
emitted toward thunderclouds

We are simply doing this on purpose to an MCap that can mitigate and thus
harness the dissipated current…while simultaneously charging batteries.

Shipping can be all electric by inducing lightning from barges and ships to
charge batteries at sea by following the cloud to cloud lightning going on
10 hours each and every day at the equator. The reason there is no cloud to
ground lightning at sea is because there is no ground. The ships could be remote
controlled to go where lightning is to charge batteries…then the ship
itself could be plugged into the US electric Grid at its moorings.

Below is the US Patent Statute that prohibits the importation into the US of
batteries charged by a US Patented Method:

Definition

A form of secondary liability for direct infringement of a patent,
copyright, or trademark.  A means by which a person may be held liable for
infringement even though he or she did not actually engage in infringing
activities.

Overview

Patent:  Liability for contributory infringement of a patent is defined by
35 U.S.C. § 271(c):  “Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United
States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine,
manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or an apparatus for
use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the
invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for
use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity
of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a
contributory infringer.”

The threshold requirement for a claim of contributory infringement is the
existence of direct infringement.  See Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram
Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972).  There must also be a showing that the alleged
contributory infringer knew of the patent and that his or her actions would
lead to infringement of the patent.  See Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top
Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (1964).  In order to prevent the patentee from
extending his or her monopoly beyond the limits of the specific grant, the
allegedly infringing article or commodity must be unsuited for any
commercial noninfringing use.  See Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co.,
448 U.S. 176 (1980).  The sale of an article adapted to both an infringing
use and other lawful uses is not sufficient for a finding of contributory
infringement.

Copyright:  The Copyright Act does not expressly impose liability for
contributory infringement.  According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the
“absence of such express language in the copyright statute does not preclude
the imposition of liability for copyright infringements on certain parties
who have not themselves engaged in the infringing activity.

One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright
infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the
infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory
infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the
infringement.  See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster,
Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464
U.S. 417 (1984).

Trademark:  Although liability for contributory infringement is not
expressly imposed by the Lanham Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized
that “liability for trademark infringement can extend beyond those who
actually mislabel goods with the mark of another.”  See Inwood Laboratories,
Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982).

If a manufacturer or distributer intentionally induces another to infringe a
trademark, or if it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or
has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the manufacturer
or distributer is contributorially responsible for any harm done as a result
of the deceit. See Id.