Lakhovsky thesis refuted! What will become of electroculture?
When working in electroculture, one thing is essential: the pursuit of truth. But you quickly reach the point where you have to contradict your role models. Lakhovsky and Eike Hensch, for example, claimed that the Lakhovsky coil and a horseshoe are something like an open resonant circuit. That wouldn't really matter, because both things work when used correctly, if there weren't the desire to improve things. And therein lies the problem: improvements are based on assumptions. If we assume a resonant circuit, then we could simply strengthen the Lakhovsky coil by adding more turns.
In this video, I explored the concept of an open resonant circuit. My goal was not to deeply analyze all possible factors such as geomantic conditions or form energy, although these could certainly play a role. However, this experiment primarily focused on the physical fundamentals.
Subtle and gross matter are inextricably linked. I classify the subtle as the quantum level, while the gross as the material level, as treated in classical physics. Both levels influence each other, and their interaction shapes our reality. A clear separation would be artificial, as this interlocking relationship forms the basis for many observable phenomena.
The central mechanism for induction lies in changing polarity. When the polarity changes from positive to negative, the surrounding matter receives an impulse. The faster this change occurs, the more strongly the particles in the matter react. The resulting friction at the microscopic level generates heat, and the resulting flow of electrons leads to magnetism.
A static polarity alone does not produce complete induction—it only provides "half" the effect. For actual induction, both sides—the constant alternation between positive and negative—are necessary.
In my experiment, the Earth's magnetic field was static and homogeneous. Without a dynamic component such as movement or a change in polarity, no induction can occur. Lakhovsky and Hensch seem to have overlooked this when explaining the possibilities of induction in a static magnetic field. For true induction, there must be movement—either due to the shape of the metal, its overall motion (for example, rotation), or a change in the magnetic field itself.
Lakhovsky's fallacy can be aptly compared to an electric motor. A motor without current remains passive, as does a metal object in Earth's static magnetic field. Only when movement or a dynamic interaction is present does an actual effect occur. The electric motor on the back of a car doesn't generate movement—it is the moving car that causes the movement. Likewise, induction requires changing polarity to become active.
Although geomantic conditions, such as a left-handed water vein, could influence the effect of the Lakhovsky coil, they played no role in this particular experiment. Here, the focus was primarily on the physical conditions, not on subtle influences.
The interaction between the subtle and the gross, as well as the constant change in polarity, are crucial for understanding induction. Without this dynamic process, induction remains incomplete. Pure static polarity is not sufficient to generate electron flow, heat, and magnetism. Perhaps we could further investigate these dynamic aspects in future experiments.
▬ Recommended pages ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
https://t.me/BFE_Energiekultur
▬ Even more videos ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
All videos from "BaumMentor": https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCidV...